And what? Claiming that colleges "allocate funding" to football is not true, period. That funding is only there because the football program brought it in to begin with. This fact has absolutely nothing to do with whether colleges should have sports teams. You are arguing a complete non sequitur.
You've mistakenly narrowed the scope of the topic. Your comment assumes that the reason allocating large amounts of funding to college sports is ridiculous because it's not profitable. That's not why. It's ridiculous because it shows where the college's priorities lie.
Saying, "Football brings in way more money than it costs," is the non-sequitur. That is irrelevant to why it's a problem. That's why I suggested a Division I Thot League. Would you agree it's an awful idea, even if it brings in more money than it costs? Or do you think it's a good allocation of college resources as long as it's financially self-supporting?
And what? Claiming that colleges "allocate funding" to football is not true, period. That funding is only there because the football program brought it in to begin with. This fact has absolutely nothing to do with whether colleges should have sports teams. You are arguing a complete non sequitur.
You've mistakenly narrowed the scope of the topic. Your comment assumes that the reason allocating large amounts of funding to college sports is ridiculous because it's not profitable. That's not why. It's ridiculous because it shows where the college's priorities lie.
Saying, "Football brings in way more money than it costs," is the non-sequitur. That is irrelevant to why it's a problem. That's why I suggested a Division I Thot League. Would you agree it's an awful idea, even if it brings in more money than it costs? Or do you think it's a good allocation of college resources as long as it's financially self-supporting?