I'm not sure I agree with this.  Let me state up front that, as a big fan of college hockey, I would hate to see anyone else drop it.  But be that as it may, while sports do provide for the ability for some people to attend college and earn a college degree whereas otherwise they would not be eligible, if a sport is a net money loser, and you could maintain the same budgetary dollars to put towards general purpose scholarships, all you are doing is shifting around who has the opportunity.

Hockey, relatively speaking, [with exceptions, I am sure] seems to be a fairly pure enterprise with a good graduation record.  Can the same thing be said of football or squeakball?  I am not dissing anyone here, nor am I suggesting an athlete is any less deserving than a non-athlete in terms of scholarships - but I am suggesting that an athlete is not *more* deserving than a non-athlete.

Thus, I feel the broad statement that the elimination of any sport is a tragedy is too strong.  After all, its the education that should be the focus, not the opportunity to sharpen athletic skills.

Tom Rowe                            UWSP dept of Psych
====================================
Home of Division III National Champion Pointers
89, 90, 91 & 93 and National Runners-up 92 & 98
and probably never again in the final skate.
====================================

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 12:26 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Michigan Tech/elimination of football
>
>
> The elimination of any sport is a tragedy. Football provides athletic
> opportunity for over 80 athletes per school and it is a shame
> to lose that
> opportunity.
>