Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="CL82, post: 5029332, member: 44"]
I think we did lose the plot of the conversation.

After  a poster suggested that we should cut football to "achieve solvency" I pointed out that men's in women's basketball lose money as well.   You then posted to say there is a difference between a sport losing a little money and a lot of money and I asked Where is the point of  between acceptable and unacceptable losses in your view.

Your reply was "$10-$15m [I]is what I imagine [/I]Ivy Leagues lose on sports. So, that's what you should be shooting for."  And I asked why should the Ivy League be the standard for us given that there are dramatic institutions between the endowment and sources of fund things for each institution.

So yeah we did get off-topic because the ivy league doesn't seem particularly relevant and you moved from a per sport analysis, I think, two an athletic department as a whole figure.

Again, if the notion is we can only support things that make a profit, then universities shouldn't offer athletics at all. Similarly states shouldn't subsidize universities at all because they're not making a profit on their own.  That doesn't make sense, does it? That's usually a good indication of a red herring argument.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

First name of men's bb coach