AF/Navy game cancelled

Christcorp said:
As in most universities, it's usually football and basketball that subsidizes the rest of the college sports. The academies are no different. Except for a few areas, it's the football ticket sales, merchandise, tv contracts, bowl games, and some other sources, that not only pay for football, but also for most of the other IC sports. And that's even tougher for air force because the academy truly believes in supporting ALL of their cadets, so they have 27 intercollegiate sports. Most colleges don't come close to that many athletic teams.

Government shut down or not, this is actually one of the few times, where it's a fact, that stopping the football games, or basketball if it was that season, would actually cost the air force/military/federal government MORE money. The money lost by playing the game would have to be made up somewhere else. Or, the academies simply tell some of the non-revenue generating sports: "Too bad". We're cutting you.

So for all those who think the academy only cares about their football and basketball team; ahead of non-IC athletes; I challenge you to go out and find other colleges and universities that have 27 intercollegiate athletic teams. In a traditional college, unless you're making money or are nationally recognized and thus help in recruiting students to the school, most colleges drop athletic teams that just take up space. The academies go out of their way to ensure as many students can participate in the athletic sport that they like. Whether it makes money or not. That's what the football and basketball teams are for.
Click to expand...

I was a bit skeptical about CC's assertion regarding the number of IC teams that USAFA fields against other colleges, but I did a quick scan of schools across the nation and it is indeed true...USAFA fields many more teams than other top D1 schools in big conferences...with big football programs. It was pretty eye-opening, actually, to see that schools like Alabama and UCLA have at least 10 less teams playing D1 sports. As a parent of an IC (not a football player of basketball player) I have renewed respect for the way USAFA treats athletes and also for the big draw sports like football and basketball.

My DD is without coaching right now and luckily has a strong and disciplined team and leadership that keeps them going. That's what the institution expects of them, and they are stepping up and doing great.
 
melindayching said:
I was a bit skeptical about CC's assertion regarding the number of IC teams that USAFA fields against other colleges, but I did a quick scan of schools across the nation and it is indeed true...USAFA fields many more teams than other top D1 schools in big conferences...with big football programs. It was pretty eye-opening, actually, to see that schools like Alabama and UCLA have at least 10 less teams playing D1 sports. As a parent of an IC (not a football player of basketball player) I have renewed respect for the way USAFA treats athletes and also for the big draw sports like football and basketball.

My DD is without coaching right now and luckily has a strong and disciplined team and leadership that keeps them going. That's what the institution expects of them, and they are stepping up and doing great.
Click to expand...

Melinda, I think the Ice hockey team draws more paying fans than basketball at USAFA.
 
Christcorp said:
The academies go out of their way to ensure as many students can participate in the athletic sport that they like. Whether it makes money or not. That's what the football and basketball teams are for.
Click to expand...

CC,

This has come up before, and for what it's worth I agree with a lot of what your points... but not all.

1) Should the SA's promote competitive athletics? Abso-freaking-lutely. Soooo many benefits that it's not even worth discussing.

2) Do the SAs do an amazing job of supporting all sorts of "lesser" sports and activities? They sure as heck do, and they deserve HUGE props for that. Your's spot-on when you say most colleges wouldn't support the variety of activities/athletics the SAs do. (On a sidenote, on of the biggest surprises we found was just how welcoming AFA was to varied interests or all sorts.)

3) Does Football support these other activities/sports? Here is where we start to part ways. You are probably more in-the-know that just us parents will ever be, but I can't find anything that supports that claim. In fact, I can bore everyone and post more studies on how it appears to be a myth. For example, a 2012 study showing the top 100 most profitable Football and Basketball programs going to down to $2.5 million annually for #100; AFA did not make that list so safe to assume their net contribution is less than that amount overall to the athletics budget (ie <8% max of estimated contribution AFA spends to subsidize athletics).

4) Is D1 and all pros and cons that go with it necessary and worth it for SAs? Here is where we are on different paths altogether. I believe the (many) benefits of competitive sport can be had without the downsides of being in D1. And probably for less money (remember they already spend northwards of 27 million per year anyways to subsidize). And in the process they can avoid some of the less savory parts, real or imagined, that go with having to compete with big boy programs.

Celebrate the awesome... truly awesome... committment AFA and all of our SA's have made to promoting athletics and other activities. But let's be open to the idea it could be done in a way that is different from the current approach.
 
MedB said:
CC,

This has come up before, and for what it's worth I agree with a lot of what your points... but not all.

1) Should the SA's promote competitive athletics? Abso-freaking-lutely. Soooo many benefits that it's not even worth discussing.

2) Do the SAs do an amazing job of supporting all sorts of "lesser" sports and activities? They sure as heck do, and they deserve HUGE props for that. Your's spot-on when you say most colleges wouldn't support the variety of activities/athletics the SAs do. (On a sidenote, on of the biggest surprises we found was just how welcoming AFA was to varied interests or all sorts.)

3) Does Football support these other activities/sports? Here is where we start to part ways. You are probably more in-the-know that just us parents will ever be, but I can't find anything that supports that claim. In fact, I can bore everyone and post more studies on how it appears to be a myth. For example, a 2012 study showing the top 100 most profitable Football and Basketball programs going to down to $2.5 million annually for #100; AFA did not make that list so safe to assume their net contribution is less than that amount overall to the athletics budget (ie <8% max of estimated contribution AFA spends to subsidize athletics).

4) Is D1 and all pros and cons that go with it necessary and worth it for SAs? Here is where we are on different paths altogether. I believe the (many) benefits of competitive sport can be had without the downsides of being in D1. And probably for less money (remember they already spend northwards of 27 million per year anyways to subsidize). And in the process they can avoid some of the less savory parts, real or imagined, that go with having to compete with big boy programs.

Celebrate the awesome... truly awesome... committment AFA and all of our SA's have made to promoting athletics and other activities. But let's be open to the idea it could be done in a way that is different from the current approach.
Click to expand...

Agreed. :thumb:
 
Baseball needs love too!

Hey
They don't bring in any money per-say, but they look great in the uniforms.
John
 
And the fencing team, one of the few co-ed teams!

Competitive sports teams bring more than money to colleges (which is why we have D3). And, hardly anyone sits back 20 years later and remembers that great intramural game that went down in the legends of ultimate frisbee history.
 
fencersmother said:
And the fencing team, one of the few co-ed teams!

Competitive sports teams bring more than money to colleges (which is why we have D3). And, hardly anyone sits back 20 years later and remembers that great intramural game that went down in the legends of ultimate frisbee history.
Click to expand...

Wait! What do you mean? I have pictures of that frisbee game! It was my finest moment! :biggrin:
 
Sorry, Kinnem. I couldn't tell it from the "Annals of Extreme Curling" yearbook. My bad.
 
One thing that must also be remembered when looking at costs/benefits of D1 sports, especially football, is the indirect revenue impacts. While it is likely true that most D1 sports (including football) do not pay for themselves in direct revenues (ticket sales, television, merchandising), the universities are savy enough to realize that they generate substantial remunerative benefits elsewhere. Schools with successful sports programs generally have higher levels of alumni giving. Schools that also become well known through sports also tend to attract more applicants, as well. For example, Georgetown University was a fairly selective school in the 1970s. After their multiple Final Four appearances and an NCAA national basketball championship in the early 80s (the Patrick Ewing Era), they became a highly selective institution. And trust me, it wasn't because of their new faculty hires in their Government Department.
 
Civilian teachers and staff returned this week! Library,etc. are open for cadets! and finally all inter-collegiate contests are resumed. Apparently, no appropriated funds are involved. It makes you wonder why the disruptions occured in the first place, or why the change of heart?:thumb:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top