Athletic subsidy for sherm

“Are we cool with that?” He asks as though “we” have a say in the multitude of decisions made by each student on the value proposition of the education and each school administrator on the value proposition of the athletic program.

He dropped Ball State from the MAC list (so are EMU and Buffalo). Probably due to space issues, but was BSU on high side, or low side for MAC?

Interesting and it's good to see this topic get at least a little exposure.  But I wonder about the figures.  The schools do a pretty good job of disguising the situation through misleadingly reporting their numbers, deliberately making it difficult to arrive at these figures.  Some credit to them for at least being embarrassed about it all.  But could Central's figure really be more than three times Kent's?  How?  Their expenditure figures have to be very similar, don't they?  I can't see the revenue being THAT much different.  I don't know.

Keep in mind the students don't have this money laying around to contribute...they generally have to borrow, or leave it to the taxpayers if they can't cover.  It's a flat-out shameful situation.

If I remember correctly, the subsidy comes out of the student services fee. In 2023, the fee for the year was $1412. In 2014, it was disclosed the athletic fee was $610. As of 2023, I suspect the athletic fee is probably in line with Kent State on this chart.

However, I agree with Sherm to be suspect of these figures. CMU's just doesn't make sense.


www.bsu.edu/admissions/tuition-and-fees
www.indystar.com/story/sports/college/2014/10/27/hidden-fees-subsidize-ball-state-athletics/17999263/

Also keep in mind that Ball State does not have a monopoly on post-secondary education and students are free to choose other options that are more within their budget or that prioritize spending student fees in different ways that better fit their priorities. 

No it's not. But that's irrelevant to this discussion, which is about student fees. When you choose to enroll at BSU, you pay the tuition and fees. You might not like the rock climbing wall, or the fancy bell tower, or the amphitheater, or the football program, but when you agree to pay the fees you don't get to earmark your portion of the fees to the expenses you like. 

That's utterly misguided.

If you run a private business, you can add any bells and whistles you like and charge your customers for them and tell them if they don't like it, they can go piss up a rope and take their business elsewhere.  You're risking going out of business, but that's your own concern.

On the other hand, state and federal taxpayers are subsidizing Ball State to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year.  The idea is that this is justified to provide a college education at an affordable level for Indiana students, even if they usually still have to borrow money to afford it.  To then add an extra one or two or three thousand dollar fee to the students' cost for something superfluous that brings zero benefit to the average student is completely contrary to the mission of the university.  Being able to name other luxuries does not make the athletic expenditure any more justifiable.

The downward sloping demand curve is a real thing in this size of a market.  There ARE prospective student who have chosen not to come to BSU because of the those extra thousands per year in tuition.  Their decision was close enough that it made a difference.

The more honest football fans on this board have more or less accepted the following stance:  "I enjoy BSU football and I want the students to keep on paying for it for my benefit"