- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 30,552
- Reaction Score
- 52,773
No, you ignored what I wrote earlier.So, are you saying that somehow athletic directors have seen secretly snuck in the bank accounts and stolen tens of millions of dollars? Of course not.
Here is the unavoidable fact that you keep trying, and in my opinion failing, to dance around. The relevant decision makers of the universities have decided that funding athletics at the highest level is in the best interest of their universities. If it makes you feel better that those decision makers are the board, rather than presidents, so be it. It really doesn't matter one way or another to the analysis.
In the end, universities are "voting with their dollars" to continue to support athletics. You may find that to be an inconvenient truth, but it is an absolute and undeniable truth.
Does that help?
When Presidents don't fully reimburse the athletic deficits, ADs have gone around their backs to trustees and alumni, forcing the issue.
Let's only talk about UConn. There are budget cuts coming. The President is so upset she goes to the media. The academic side will certainly be degraded. She's making public stink about it. She's risking p...ing off the people who pay her. Why? Because she knows the deficit is an intenable burden.
You keep talking about the president who have decided funding sports is in the best interest of the university, yet you don't even notice UConn's president who publicly notes the school might not honor its Hartford sports contracts if the state cuts funding to the academic side.
This tells me the new President is actually very concerned with the athletic deficit and the academic deficit, and that she's not afraid to cause a ruckus when it comes to the damaging impact of one deficit on the other.