I just love these last two comments.  They're tossed about so often in an effort to end the conversation.  The problem is that neither makes sense.  In the case of the former, many folks who didn't have children paid taxes for our education.  My mom once ran the numbers and if she and my father would have to live to about 125 to pay in taxes what it cost to send their three children to school.  I haven't used police services, fire services, children's services, etc, and hope I never have to but as a contributing member of society it is my responsibility to share in the cost of these services that exist to make our daily lives better.  The same can be said for K - 12 public education.  

As for the second statement, many people like where they work but have opinions on how the institution is spending it's resources.  As a tax supported public institution both those who work there and those who don't have every right to offer comment on the budgetary process.  

The childish saying that if you don't want to play by our rules then don't play is simply that - childish.  Again, let's don't frame this in black and white.  There is room for some level of athletic spending and some level of academic spending.

"Ohio University is a public university providing a broad range of educational programs and services. As an academic community, Ohio University holds the intellectual and personal growth of the individual to be a central purpose. Its programs are designed to broaden perspectives, enrich awareness, deepen understanding, establish disciplined habits of thought, prepare for meaningful careers, and thus, to help develop individuals who are informed, responsible, productive citizens."

This is the mission statement from '00-'01. If it's changed significantly, please post a revision. Notice that athletics are not mentioned and are therefore ancillary to the mission of the institution. 

This is hardly a love-it-or-leave-it scenario. The university is not merely a vocational feeder system, though that is certainly a worthwhile function. I'm sure there's a lot of progressivism fluff in the curriculum, but certain classes and disciplines teach research, reasoning and public speaking without leading to a hot internship or a useful network opportunity.

The faculty is not like the Bill Hader character in The Office. You know, all venal and turf-paranoid. It's just not like that. They're political animals, for sure, but it's a little more laid back.

Personally, I like there to be top-level sports in Athens. Maybe some proactive belt-tightening (does that exist in nature?) would help. Or just do it privately as seems to be the case.

Ohio69, two of your statements reveal the limitations of your position:

"Yet, athletics continues to remain."
This isn't about anything nearly as simple as whether athletics shall remain or not.  Many of the people critical of the athletics budget have no interest in something as ludicrous as abolishing athletics just as I trust even the budget's most ardent supporters aren't calling for eliminating all academic classes. 

"Why are you guys members of an college athletics fan site again?  Jeesh...."
Because people who support the university, its athletics programs, and see the value in numerous aspects of the student experience at OU (including athletics) can still have serious concerns over the nature and direction of athletics spending. 

Again, as some people have been harping admirably, this is not black and white and "love-it-or-leave" solutions are silly. 

I'm not sold on that belief Flomo.  I hear OU is doing quite well, all things considered.

"Fleeing the McDavis regime."  Seems a bit much. 

I don't think it's a stretch to project an enrollment drop of 1,500 to 2,000 students over a 10-year period if OU were to drop below other Ohio schools in terms of visibility of major outreach programs such as athletics.  It certainly would not allow us to continue to increase our enrollment.  Given the financial implications of a 2,000-student decline (empty dorm rooms, reduced meal fees, lower overall income from tuition), how happy would Dr. Vedder and his cronies be?  A lot of marginal academic programs (and faculty positions) would go by the wayside. Frankly, we'd end up having to boost tuition well above the general fee amount to deal with the shortfall. This doesn't even begin to consider the ramifications of reduced alumni engagement, significantly reduced donations, etc.

Hey, back to the taxes argument - believe me, I would love to be able to decide exactly where my tax dollars are spent, but that's not how a democratic republic works.  In for a penny, in for a pound.

Sometimes the answer can be simple. Several years ago when University of Houston lost I believe in the area of 700,000 on their bowl game their was howling from the academic side.  The president  proclaimed that she was going to raise tution 400.00 per student to cover the loses.  Her theory was for every student that left 3 would choose to atttend because the administration was  making a choice for big time athletics. Enrollment has continued to swell and Uof H just moved up from Tier 2 to Tier 1 in academics. Their  president is now considered one of the top 20  in the country and is  a huge vocal suporter of the sports programs.

Here's my brilliant and fast idea to save everyone money:

Repeal Title 9.

What exactly is gender welfare as it pertains to college sports?

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. We in no way spend beyond our means in athletics. We spend accordingly to our status as a member of the MAC. That is the level we have chosen. I've seen the numbers before and we are right in line with our peers in athletic spending. If we would start dramatically increasing the funding at the expense of academics and or raising student fees significantlly, then we have a debate.

OSU reaps the rewards of their athletic spending. Seriously, how many kids go there simply because of the football team? My wif'e's second cousin and his wife, both OU grads who live in Columbus, sent us a Christmas card this year both dressed in OSU garb, as was their baby and dog! At their wedding a few years ago, they played the OSU fight song and "hang on sloopy" Both OU grads. Sick but true.

Wow!  I figured that's what you were getting at.  I hope you're not an OU grad because, that my good man, is an attitude and belief that is an absolute embarrassment to an OU education.

Why does having a negative opinion of Title IX make him an embarrassment to an OU education?  This is merely a difference of opinion.  I am not anti-women, but I am not a huge fan of Title IX either. 

While the intent of Title IX may have been honorable,its implementation has had, what I hope, were unintended consequences.

Title IX compliance has forced a number of universities to cancel successful men's sports programs,Syracuse wrestling comes to mind,to make up for a lack of participation in women's sports.

I have no problem with assuring that  intercollegiate  women's sports are available, for those who want to participate,but  for  universities to be forced to  cancel men's sports programs,just because not enough women choose to participate in ICA isn't fair to anyone.

All of these arguments make the assumption that colleges have to offer sports.  They don't but the law, and in my opinion we should not even have to have such a law just like we shouldn't have to have civil rights laws and the like but we do because those in power, traditionally white men, have made rules that exclude way too many people for participating, says we do.

This discussion is headed in a political/philosophical direction and I don't want to see it railroaded.  My point is simply this - if we're going to offer one sport for guys we need to offer the same opportunity for girls.  Since none of ours come close to being self-supporting, we can take that argument off of the table.

My comment about embarrassment was not a personal attack just an expression of disappointment.