Tim Lehrbach wrote:
But, these have been the relevant questions for decades now. Athletics should have a direct part in the mission of the school and should be responsibly funded (yes, at a loss, but almost surely less so than today) if they are to be justified at all. Continue to have sports if and only if it supports the school's mission and the betterment of the student-athletes. This will not generate revenue, and you'll struggle mightily to compete with schools that can afford not only the best coaches and facilities but now also the best athletes, but that's the present situation for all but a handful of schools anyway. Those select few schools that can print money because their alumni/region love their football or basketball team can go right ahead and do so. Let's save the other institutions (and, usually, the state governments funding them in large part) from chasing dollars and glory they'll never attain by removing that last sliver of hope that they too can be Penn State or Alabama.
Perhaps the funneling of money into just the most marketable of schools will even increase the size of that pond, the market bearing a few more institutions to join the ranks of the elite. Take Oregon, which has been mentioned here multiple times. For all its forays into the big business of elite college sport, it is not a revenue-positive athletic department. It and a few others like it may actually fare better with further concentration of the top athletes and dollars -- as the have-nots are forced to quit flailing at relevance, we'll see some more winners and a lot fewer losers.
My thoughts are scattered here, but what I see ultimately shaking out is a retreat from the business of heavily marketed athletics for most schools, and perhaps even a hard bifurcation between those schools that can persist in it and those that do not, along the lines of the current NCAA divisions. It may be messy but I see all of this as a win for students, student-athletes, schools, and sport.
All of what you said could very well bear out. But the conundrum here is that 85 or 15 or 25 scholarships are still 85, 15, or 25 scholarships. And if schools decide to cut ties with athletics, that's still less young people that attend these universities for (relatively) free. Even worse, that's less young people that attend these universities that would not have had the chance to attend if not for athletics.
I'm certainly no fan of the NCAA and its practices but an argument it beats you over the head with is that some form "x number of athletes will get college degrees". And it's a compelling one. There have been studies to suggest that a few number of professionals can have an outsized impact on communities. I don't think lessening the number of these opportunities helps. The irony of this is that it may hurt the potential student-athletes it was designed to help.
To your point about some elites rising, that's a very valid one. But someone has to take the losses. Under you scenario...yes Oregon might rise. But how will even a well-run athletic department like Clemson ever compete with a UNC? They may just give it up...sure. But more likely, they will try to compete by upgrading facilities, benefits, etc. to unprecedented levels. This could lead to higher tuition at a time where tuition is already out of control or worse, with no oversight, them cutting other sports.
And it gets worse from the "elites". If a San Jose State had a big booster or a massive corporate sponsor and UTEP had nothing of the sort and is struggling to get by (I'm just throwing these schools out there), is UTEP going to field a football team that has no attendance revenue because no one wants to see their team get stomped out. Is that necessarily fair that a college team's value is based off how rich its constituents are? Are fans who are not financially well expected to indirectly pay athletes too in order to field a competitive team? Is that good for communities?
