[2006alum]

Imagine this thought experiment:  someone proposes that teenage & early adult males participate in activities that are exciting and (to them) entertaining.  The downside: the players will have a substantially heightened risk of death and premature aging, dementia, arthritis, and many other serious health complications.

Activities might include binge drinking, dangerous stunts, driving fast cars, using guns, adopting divisive colors, tattoos, clothes, or other symbols.

What would those males choose?

I'm not saying females might not make the same choices, but currently it seems fewer do.

The problem with this analogy is that universities are hardly in the business of pushing alcohol, firearms, etc. on their students. So whether adults make life choices that are at odds with their wellbeing is pretty totally unrelated to whether it's morally problematic for universities to put forward a sport that is essentially antithetical to their mission of developing their students' minds and enhancing their lifetime wellbeing.

Interesting.  Imagine this thought experiment:  someone proposes that a major university should recruit students to play a new sport that no one has yet heard of, but which promises to be quite exciting and entertaining.  The downside: the players will have a substantially heightened risk of brain degradation and premature aging, dementia, arthritis, and many other serious health complications.

What would such a university decide?

81, I'm totally with you, which is why I just can't get into football anymore. It's just too hard to justify at the college level. The problem is this: without football, the financial model for the rest of college sports completely falls apart. It's the golden goose that drives it all. (For an illustration of this, look no further than UConn, whose independence in football has dragged the entire AD down with it: UConn athletics posts $47.2 million deficit for 2021.)

I'm not saying that maintaining those sports justifies maintaining football, but if we started ex ante, and subtracted college football, the thought experiment also has to be: someone proposes a major university should recruit students to play extra-curricular activities that cost the university ~$80-100m a year while generating ~$10-20m in revenue. It detracts from their students' academics, produces a less academically qualified student body, distorts the college admissions process, produces numerous national recruiting scandals, and results in very few students going on to become professionals in those endeavors.

What would such a university decide?

[2006alum]

Imagine this thought experiment:  someone proposes that teenage & early adult males participate in activities that are exciting and (to them) entertaining.  The downside: the players will have a substantially heightened risk of death and premature aging, dementia, arthritis, and many other serious health complications.

Activities might include binge drinking, dangerous stunts, driving fast cars, using guns, adopting divisive colors, tattoos, clothes, or other symbols.

What would those males choose?

I'm not saying females might not make the same choices, but currently it seems fewer do.

The problem with this analogy is that universities are hardly in the business of pushing alcohol, firearms, etc. on their students. So whether adults make life choices that are at odds with their wellbeing is pretty totally unrelated to whether it's morally problematic for universities to put forward a sport that is essentially antithetical to their mission of developing their students' minds and enhancing their lifetime wellbeing.

Interesting.  Imagine this thought experiment:  someone proposes that a major university should recruit students to play a new sport that no one has yet heard of, but which promises to be quite exciting and entertaining.  The downside: the players will have a substantially heightened risk of brain degradation and premature aging, dementia, arthritis, and many other serious health complications.

What would such a university decide?

81, I'm totally with you, which is why I just can't get into football anymore. It's just too hard to justify at the college level. The problem is this: without football, the financial model for the rest of college sports completely falls apart. It's the golden goose that drives it all. (For an illustration of this, look no further than UConn, whose independence in football has dragged the entire AD down with it: UConn athletics posts $47.2 million deficit for 2021.)

I'm not saying that maintaining those sports justifies maintaining football, but if we started ex ante, and subtracted college football, the thought experiment also has to be: someone proposes a major university should recruit students to play extra-curricular activities that cost the university ~$80-100m a year while generating ~$10-20m in revenue. It detracts from their students' academics, produces a less academically qualified student body, distorts the college admissions process, produces numerous national recruiting scandals, and results in very few students going on to become professionals in those endeavors.

What would such a university decide?