>Gerald Williams wrote:
>
>> I'll take that wager my friend,  Michigan also has this insane booster
>club  (called the victors club) which requires a minimum $10,000 to join and
>has tons of members. If we first exclude the money donated by these people
>to the football program, and the $10 Million dollars per year that the
football
>> program brings in through ticket sales, concessions, etc,  I'd say that
>out of the U-M budget, VERY, VERY little is routed to the football program
>that isn't paid for through the football boosters and football generated
money.
>>
>> I think I made a mistake bringing football up, perhaps we should all
>return  to the ice.
------------------------
-----------------------------
In a message dated 6/9/99 12:26:31 AM, [log in to unmask] writes
 
>Congratulations.  You've proved that if we exclude the money spent on the
>football program, it doesn't cost very much.  Wow.
 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
 
No, my point was that tax dollars (which is really the only thing that the
government should be attempting to control the spending of), do not support
the football program at many schools.  Many football programs are self
sustaining.  Given that it does not receive tax dollars for support, it
should be excluded from the scholarship counting on title IX.
 
I think a science example of this would be that the government has strictly
prohibited the use of 'tax' dollars on human cloning research.  That does not
preclude a university from spending funds procured from other means on that
type of research.  Thus my assertion that a non-tax funded football program
should be excluded from any men-vs.-women's equal spending (Title IX)
analysis.
 
That's all I'm really saying.
 
Jerry
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.