They need to clarify one very important fact in the debate they are not even close to correct in, and that’s the reason they are debating. In the article coming from Kennedy:
“...your job is to promote fairness in collegiate sports...”
No it is not! When you consider the reason for a college education is to train people for employment in the outside world, and that very few athletes ever get the opportunity to compete at the higher level, then is sports fullfilling the premise that it is a training for the future? This isn’t like computer sciences, teaching, construction, or the medical field which offers thousands of jobs annually.
Athletics as in game players is an effort to support the colleges with money earned by attendance and TV contracts to buy test tubes in the chem department and text books while supporting itself. It is big dollars and has very little to do with educating. There are degrees in the Phys ed side but they are in the scientific side of the business based on health and welfare or even organizing a recreational league and not a professional one. But those degrees are also expensive. The starting salary for NCAA President Charlie Baker is $2.8 million a year when the average annual salary for an American is $63,795. And just like congress, they vote their own raises each year.
So the misconception of what amatuer sports in college is remains the mystery of where it has gone and not what it does to get it there. Trangenderism is not a problem, it is a tool to hide the real graft. The art of misdirection.
wy69
From what I've read, very little if any TV money makes its way into a university's academic general fund. Other than a few top tier athletic departments, most departments need multiple sources of funding
On a secondary note, I could take some verbal abuse if I was making ~$3M a year.