You brought Football into the post complaining about high tuition, the fact that too much money was being spent on football. The coaches and the stadiums.Btw, no where am I saying tuition rates are high because so much money is spent on the football programs. Nowhere have I made that assertion. I am questioning whether this amount of a commitment to athletics is the way it should be, or the way it was intended.
You are complaining about "commitment" meaning $$ in this post as well??
If the School were to get rid of Football the would lose 110 million in annual revenue. You think that would help or hurt the School?
You think getting rid of the School's biggest cash cow (The Football) that is the answer to lowering tuition?