> >It would not take too much creativity.  At many schools merely dropping
> >football solves the problem.  A common misconception is that schools make
> >money on football.  With a couple of exceptions this is not the case.
>
> I would be interested in seeing some hard data to back up the statement, "
> At many schools merely dropping football solves the problem.  A common
> misconception is that schools make money on football."   Usually when this
> statement is made itis accompanied by some antadote that proves little if
> anything.
>
> If you examine that list with all of its shortcommings, there is only one
> real "football school" ..Colorado on the list.  There are two others Wake
> Forrest and Vandy that are weak sisters in their respective leagues.  I keep
> seeing the claim that football is a money loser but at most Big Ten, Big 12,
> SEC, ACC, and PAC 10  schools that is not the case.  I will grant you, it
> may be true for many of the smaller programs.  However, at many of the
> smaller schools virtually every sport is losing money.
 
Why must we go through this every time someone makes the claim that Arthur did?
 What he said is a fact.  FACT.  I don't have the data in front of me, but for
anyone willing to look it up, it is true.  All but about 5 football programs
lose money, period.   Now, if you want to say that every athletic program loses
money, and perhaps football LOSES LESS than the others, well, that I don't know
-- but football loses money.  That simple little comment IS a fact, like it or
not.
 
This isn't football bashing -- it's just a simple true statement.  Go on and
argue any other point that you want to argue -- but people should stop doubting
the "football loses money" statement.
 
It's as bad as trying to prove to Flyers fans that Bobby Nystrom was NOT
offsides.  You can show them every videotape in the world, but they still don't
believe it.
 
AW
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.