quote:
But more importantly, as you look at the gaping disparity between the investment in athletes and non-athletes, Big Ten athletics truly separate themselves by how they're funded: By and large, they don't force regular students and taxpayers to fund athletics.

Which is pointless. If a university cut taxpayer athletic subsidies by $100, and then raised other basic tuition costs by $100 (and also reduced the amount of athletic profit kicked back to the university by $100), what would be the net difference? Nada.

Are SEC public schools known for socking it (relative to the Big Ten's public schools) to their taxpayers with high overall university subsidies and to their students with high overall tuition rates? Hardly. So who's taxpayers and students are really getting the shaft?

quote:
They should be be paid, but it shouldn't be the financial priority.That should be holding publicly-funded schools with booming athletic departments in power conferences that have the means to be sustainable exclusively through non-tuition and non-tax dollars accountable for doing exactly that.

They should be expected to spend institutional funds and tuition dollars strictly on institutional and academic expenditures.

Pffft. Money is fungible. It makes no difference.

It's better PR to do it the LSU way, but economically speaking, it makes no difference.