Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="upstater, post: 3227162, member: 153"] Yes, indeed. I've said the same. The Academic side would then become responsible for the lost revenue, instead of the Athletics side. The UNC article also makes this crystal clear. For them, this means that suddenly the academic side has $17m less just as the athletic side's budget increases by $17m. From my point-of-view, this is actually almost preferable for administrators and presidents since they can further hide the true cost of athletics from their #1 customers, that being the paying parents of regular students. The sports media has it reversed IMO. They keep claiming that administrators are hiding sports revenue so they don't have to pay it to the athletes. In reality, administrators are much more afraid of being caught upcharging their true customers to the tune of $500-$1,000 a year in sports student fees. They'd rather hide the sports losses than show them. The problem with this particular issue, OOS vs. In-State, is that a change runs afoul of the corporate bean-counting that every other department in the university has already agreed to. I won't even get into the graduate school side which is even more mercenary and money driven. [/QUOTE]