Athletics is more of a cultural extension of the University and although the
fireworks each game costs almost the intake of ticket sales per year, no one
really wants to loose such a cultuaral ritual.  However, the question may not
be so much athletics as why athletics reaps the benefits from state and local
funding while many students are unable to attend the University due to a lack
of scholarships that pay all debts as athletic scholarships tend to offer.  As
a former student, equality always played into my opinion of athletics, why are
they given free access because they have athletic ability (including
non-mandatory class attendence).  Then it hit me - athletics is profitable to
all members of the community through betting (esp. UTK) so it is not just a
Unviersity financial debate.  Also, UTK is the football of Tennessee so few
really watch UTC.  I however, favor education over football and would stress
fewer sports scholarships and building nursing, theatre, engineering or
education scholarships.  Lets bring in a wider range of students, diversity,
with the same full scholarship, fees paid options.



>===== Original Message From Verbie Prevost <[log in to unmask]> =====
>I have been to enough budget meetings to have a "little learning"--and we
>all know the danger inherent in that.  The "cost" and "benefits" of
>football or any sport are not as easily identified as some of the comments
>on RAVEN would indicate.  Perhaps someone in budgeting with more knowledge
>than I have can further clarify, but I would indicate the following points
>to stir up the conversation:
>
>If we have 80 students on football scholarships, that means the per student
>subsidy of $5,773 from the state appropriations for each of these students
>comes to $461,840.  I doubt if many of those students will be here without
>those scholarships, and that money would be cut out of our budget.
>Furthermore, these students also pay technology fees, facility fees,
>student debt service fees out of those scholarships.  This obviously puts
>another chunk of money back into the budget.  They also pay for housing,
>purchase their meals here, and buy books (indirect benefits to budgeting).
>So that huge savings that we are led to believe would materialize by
>getting rid of football may not exist.  We can start thinking about other
>ramifications of a drop in enrollment of 80 students also. The argument
>could be made, of course, that we should take the football scholarship
>money and put it elsewhere to bring in the same number of students, but
>that probably would not be an easy task especially if it is designated
>funding.
>
>Verbie Prevost
>
>
>
>
>Verbie Lovorn Prevost
>Katharine Pryor Professor of English
>Director of English Graduate Studies
>University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
>615 McCallie Ave
>Chattanooga, TN  37403
>Phone: 423-755-4627
>Fax: 423-785-2282
>email: [log in to unmask]