OUPride: You bring up some great points and I tend to agree with you on the main idea that something needs to be done about the students subsidizing athletics.  One thing that you should note, is that the students subsidizing Athletics is going towards Athletics Scholarships.  So in a sense the money you are talking about is going to making college more affordable for students.  Obviously these students get the money based on physical talent and not classroom talent, but still a point worth noting.  

One of the problems with your argument I have is that there are tons of examples at Ohio University where the money being invested into something simply isn't worth the return.  Is having a classics a world religions department worth the investment?  Or would that money be better spent by investing in student scholarships.  

Which bring me to what I think is the most important questions does taking that $25 million dollars and investing it in our COB or our English Program or our Merit Scholarship program do more for the overall goals of the university than investing it in College Athletics?  I think the $25 million dollar investment in Athletics gives us much more return than it would in certain areas.  Examples: Sports Management program and other affiliated programs that gain national recognition.  The money brought into the Athens community through OU events.  OU Athletics facilities are used for a wide range of events not only for the university but also for the region.  The argument about increased applications can be viewed many different ways, but I think the above points are universally agreed upon facts.

Overall, I agree that OU Athletics need to produce as much money as possible to offset the student subsidies.  This is why I continually argue against some of departments anti business practices.  However, I do think the $25 million is a good investment for the university when you consider all the ripple effects of that money and also the issues that would arise if that we did not invest that money.

He's only "against the concept of college athletics" if college athletics conceptually require out of proportion spending. In the case of OU his complaint is clear and well argued, and has nothing to do with the product on the court/field or athletics as a concept, but rather with the idea of athletic spending as an investment that hasn't yielded the promised returns.