College sports should be privatized

If the NCAA becomes it"s on private league, it would be difficult to convince someone to play in a semi professional league, and go to school, diminishing the value of education among young athletes. Would this private league be only available to current college students, or anyone in the age group 18-22(23)? How would you divide up teams? By school? By draft? How could a college student in California be recruited to play on a team in Florida, and still be expected to go to school? This private league, having no affiliation with the school would have no restrictions on game times, because they have no interest in school schedules. It seems a private league would diminish the competition in the NCAA, causing it to become more of simple recreational league. This would have a direct effect on the quality of play in the major sports as there is no ground to refine athlete"s skills in college (unless you skip school all together) When it comes to a young adult earning a degree vs. playing a professional sport, a degree wins out every time. So throwing aside how a "Private "College" League" would work" Let us move on to the statistics provided: If there are 20 million student, and $795 million supported 222 D1 schools (there are 340 total D1 schools) Here is the math: 222 D1 schools supported / 340 Total D1 schools = 65% of schools as part of your numbers. 65% of 20 million students = 13 million students who would be charged to help support sports programs. Of the $795 million spent supporting sports from 222 D1 schools" paid for by 13 million students " That is just over $61 per student. So the article, based on the other statistics provided seems off. I would assume there are more fees included in that $1000 than solely athletic department funding. If the 13 million students paid an average of $1,000 towards athletics, it would be 13 billion dollars the athletic department is receiving from students! Your statistics from the University of Florid stated they had revenue of $46 million in basketball and football. Other sports losses, coaching, student aid, and recruiting are 44.4 million dollars in expenses. This means, in 2009-2010, the Florida athletic department profited 1.6 million dollars meaning it would not have needed any extra funding from the school. Now, most schools are not powerhouse cash cows like Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Texas. Athletic Departments do lose money. I did not dispute that. They are paying for exposure. When Appalachian State wants to play Michigan in a Non-Conference Football game, they have to pay Michigan to play them (even if App. State doesn"t play at home.) They need the exposure on a national television stage vs. a big name team. This exposure surely leads to enrollment. There is an article (link below) regarding LSU and how its sports program (most importantly football) gained so much exposure that is affected the school in an extremely positive manner. Here are some excerpts from that article: "there is the national exposure that comes with a successful football season. During this season, nearly all of LSU"s games were nationally televised, including the Southeastern Conference championship game and the national championship game. That means that week after week, people across the nation got a chance to see what LSU is about. It also means that the university"s promotional television spot aired repeatedly to a national audience. That is exposure that LSU could never have afforded to buy " especially in this era of budget cuts and diminished state support for public higher education." Now, there are no quantifiable statistics that show having an athletic department, or even a successful one, increases enrollment. But if you would look at it this scenario and tell me which of the 3 schools you would choose: For example: For arguments sake you want to be a doctor"a heart surgeon at that"and you do not play sports, nor are even an avid sports fan. You are like Randi-Lyn from Radford U, who occasionally may go to a game. School 1, 2 and 3 all have been accredited as the top 3 medical schools, with specialized departments for heart surgery training. They are ranked in no particular order. They are also listed equal distance from your home with the same moderate weather (as to not bias your opinion on other factors.) School 1: No athletic department. School 2: D1 athletic department with minimal exposure to the national stage in virtually every sport due to lack of winning. School 3: D1 athletic department that has won 3 football national championships, 2 basketball championships, and made it the Frozen Four for hockey twice. All in the last 10 years. Does some of my wording make me seem biased towards School 3? OF COURSE! You have seen that school listed in the local news headlines for their recent success in sports. If you flip past the sports channel on any day, you will most likely come across their name several times in one broadcast during their season. You see commercials on local TV channels for an individual schools or even the entire conference. This exposure in success in athletics (even if you lose, but you"re a powerhouse and your name is seen in headlines or local stations) puts the school right in the front of your mind. It is indirect advertising for their school within the sports they play. Without an athletic department, schools may be able to save the money they are pouring into it. However, they would lose the amount of advertising they have available to them through their sports programs. This would almost certainly decrease enrollment, therefore causing an even higher raise in tuition in order to make up for decreased enrollment. http://www.forbes.com...