I, too, am skeptical on any short-term relationship between athletic success and applications. I just don't think its a big priority for kids looking at colleges to go to, in most cases. On the other hand, I do think that it is quite plausible that Athletic success helps lead to a closer tie to alumni, and thus to more alumni giving, as well as to more giving from non-alumni. That was why I looked at the relationship between schools with FBS football teams and endowment growth (which reflects giving).

 Do you have any comments on the facts that I posted in another thread that shows that schools with Athletic success are showing about 2% a year higher Endowment growth than schools that do not have FBS football teams? This was not based on Ohio itself, though Ohio was one of the schools with higher endowment growth as well as Athletic success. If Athletic success is boosting Ohio's endowment growth by 2% a year, that means it is leading to perhaps $10m in extra giving a year, a pretty substantial number, though not enough to offset the subsidies.

To me the endowment is the best overall reflection of the health of an institution. With a healthy endowment, a school can fund endowed faculty chairs, scholarships, building programs, etc, and without they are much more dependent on tuition, and on annual giving. Thus, to me, the 12% a year endowment growth Ohio has had in recent years assures that the well is not dry, and the future is bright.  If you want to argue that the growth is unrelated to Athletic success, fine, but with the endowment growing, it seems hard to argue that the situation for the University is grim. If Ohio can maintain double digit endowment growth for another 6-7 years, they will be approaching the 1B endowment  that would put them among the elite Universities in America.

I understand your point. There is absolutely no logical connection between sports as a business and learning (except if you are involved in the Sports Management program, or some similar degree track).  Its odd that College sports has evolved the way it has. Interestingly professional sports evolved the same way, starting with companies playing games between themselves, and then hiring "ringers". Ultimately the professional teams were spun off as separate entities, unrelated to the original businesses, which was only logical, since it was a fiction that the "Green Bay Packers" actually worked for the packing company, for example. That is probably what needs to happen to College level sports, too - the teams should be spun off as businesses.

That said, I'd go the other way from your suggestion entirely. I think Sports are a key part of the College experience. Rather than dropping all sports, I think participation in sports of some type should be required at all times by all students. I believe that a healthy body and a healthy mind are related. I'm not saying that everyone needs to be playing football, just that there should be a wide variety of spots available at the club and/or intermural level, and that all students should be required to participate in some type of sports, at some level that matches their individual ability. My high school did that, and I see no reason it can't be done at the college level, too.

There are some fine models for success at all levels that demonstrate that if you build it ("excellence, pride") they will come. Name another reason anyone would go to West Point, where, by the way, participation in competitive sport is expected? Stanford, huge endowment and a destination school for the good to great minds who also just happen to be gifted athletically. Lindenwood University has ten National Championships in a row. http://gardenandgun.com/article/straight-shooters-lindenw...
Tell me why else would anyone have heard of "Cornhuskers?"

At the end of the day I take great solace in knowing that Dr. Vedder can waste his time writing another dozen op-eds, and when I wake up tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, and in decades to come, that I'll have Bobcat football and basketball to look forward to.

I agree with some of that, but you can't simply remove sports from the equation and expect all other characteristics of a university to remain unchanged. You also can't say that because coaches earn more money, then our society values them over other things like health, education, etc. There's a disconnect with reality there.

So then the pertinent question is this: What total impact on the university does dropping sports create?

I've seen this graphic on Facebook, and I find it to be misleading, at best.  But I understand part of the overall argument.

In almost every instance of the basketball or football coach being the highest paid public employee, they are in charge of programs that are wildly successful, at least financially.  Those individuals salaries are hardly a detriment to their respective institutions overall budgets.  It is typically the smaller programs who are attempting to keep up in the arms race who are damaging budgets.

I was heard a very famous person say, when recounting a conversation he had had with his father about business - "show me your budget and I'll tell you what you value."

We may say we value something such as early childhood education but budget numbers don't lie.

You might want to read his article again.

That's the problem. One man's budget is probably a better measure of values than the macro-economic effect of a society's budget. In that personal budget, we are in direct control of that allocation of money, at least to a large degree. Not so with a society's budget. You and I have virtually no control over how the bulk of that money is spent, and yet you want to label us with having certain "values"?

Let me begin my list of wildly popular items for which I have NO value:
Miley Cyrus
Lady Gaga
Anthony Wiener
Candy Crush Saga
Angry Birds
The Macarana
The Beastie Boys
Adam Ant
The Dallas Cowboys
Dennis Rodman
Lane Kiffin
Wayne Newton
Tom Jones
Simon Cowell
All Reality Television
Marilyn Manson
The entire cast of Jersey Shore
Sportscaster cliches
Starbucks
The AMC Pacer
The Pontiac Aztek
Uggs
Crocs
Most Geico commercials

Can you quote the part of the article where he says that, please?

He sees exorbitant spending on college athletics as a mistake that's ultimately harmful to many universities. That is not at all the same thing as saying he's "against the concept of college athletics." Not even a little bit.