College baseball, venture capital, and the long maybe(bcantrill.dtrace.org)
bcantrill.dtrace.org
College baseball, venture capital, and the long maybe
https://bcantrill.dtrace.org/2025/06/15/college-baseball-venture-capital-and-the-long-maybe/
131 comments
Keep going. This isn't unique to basically anything. Theres an analogy here for practically any case where there is scarcity and some manner of investment.
That said, I think this article is wins on providing me a window into the college athlete's world. It's a space that I feel like rarely shows up in popular media, is ripe for abuse and the stakes are definitely very high. Very interesting read for that.
That said, I think this article is wins on providing me a window into the college athlete's world. It's a space that I feel like rarely shows up in popular media, is ripe for abuse and the stakes are definitely very high. Very interesting read for that.
There are definitely "tournament" activities that are more winners take all than others. The stakes are probably actually higher to the degree consequences are stumbling down a dead-end path for years. I'm actually not convinced playing a sport in college while realizing you're not going to make it to the pros is such a terrible thing. Presumably they got something out of it. And lots of people play sports in college or do a multitude of other things that may--or may not--provide huge professional benefit.
I spoke to a guy once who made gun parts, rifle bits for specific military uses. Their industry is also describable with power laws but at a much slower pace. You toil away selling a handful of units to a narrow group of highly-regulated customers, sometimes for decades, until you get that call to demonstrate your products for someone big (ie the US army). If you win, the next order is for tens of thousands of units. You license/outsource your design for a hundred per unit and walk away with a steady income that will last generations.
yes, and my pet theory is that the power law for creative professions (and others like realtors) come from low barriers of entry.
I think it comes from modern mass media technology. If musician A is better than B there is little reason to listen to B, unless you live in 1600 and musician A works in the next town over.
Modern mass media cannot generally differentiate between A and B because there are zillions of indistinguishable musicians invading the attention of people with very different marketing capacities.
Aka perfect information is a myth
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_information
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_information
Nah, it existed when barrier to entry was much, much higher. What causes it is the fact that with recording and copying technology, creative work scales extremely well, especially with positive feedback effects of popularity and marketing. This is what creates the very small number of very high earners. If anything, the lower barriers to entry (especially with regards to being able to distribute your work) have flattened the curve a little bit, as the long tail of obscure artists is longer and thicker than ever (and the shape is the same: each obscure genre/subculture has a few artists doing very compared to the others, though it also flattens off once you're looking at artists who primarily make money from commission work, as that doesn't scale nearly as much).
There's probably some truth to that. You either have gatekeepers or a huge number of people just fail. (Even with gatekeepers a lot of people just fail anyway but but of people just don't get the opportunity to participate--which may or may not be efficient.)
A profoundly wise and great article.
My son is a big kid and is playing high school football. It was not on our radar, so we have begun to navigate these kinds of questions. Like - do you want to play at the next level? What do you even need to do if you would like to? But also the realization of how much money is made off of these kids and how cruel and unforgiving it can be.
My son is a big kid and is playing high school football. It was not on our radar, so we have begun to navigate these kinds of questions. Like - do you want to play at the next level? What do you even need to do if you would like to? But also the realization of how much money is made off of these kids and how cruel and unforgiving it can be.
Have you heard of CTE?
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2017/cte-former-nfl-players/
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2017/cte-former-nfl-players/
I've always suspected that to be true, even as a kid. I wonder about the soccer players "heading" the ball. No thanks.
IFAB doesn’t directly restrict heading, but permits each national FA to place their own restrictions at the grassroots level.
The US adopted restrictions 10 years ago. No heading at all for age 10 and under (indirect free kick to the opponent for violations). Under 13 years old coaches are required to keep track of heading and limit any individual player to fewer than 25 per week total between training and matches.
The English FA also has adopted rules limiting heading for youth. I image most of Europe has as well.
The US adopted restrictions 10 years ago. No heading at all for age 10 and under (indirect free kick to the opponent for violations). Under 13 years old coaches are required to keep track of heading and limit any individual player to fewer than 25 per week total between training and matches.
The English FA also has adopted rules limiting heading for youth. I image most of Europe has as well.
That's good progress. But I don't see any reason to believe that heading is dangerous for kids but safe for older people.
Older people are better-able to decide if the risk is acceptable. Personally I'd like to see heading limited to over-16s.
smoking's not more dangerous for kids either, that's not why there's age restrictions on cigarettes
The ball for soccer/association football is fairly pliable and headers are not that common. You also don't see players obviously dazed or knocked out after heading the ball. I have to think the damage from soccer headers, if any, is orders of magnitude below that of American Football.
I didn't spend much time researching but here is one article backing up my assertion: https://www.orthocarolina.com/blog/heading-the-ball-in-socce...
Edit: I am happy to see good research supported that headers can cause damage. However, please note that I am suggesting headers in Association Football are much less damaging compared with American Football, as a opposed to a complete avoidance of damage.
I didn't spend much time researching but here is one article backing up my assertion: https://www.orthocarolina.com/blog/heading-the-ball-in-socce...
Edit: I am happy to see good research supported that headers can cause damage. However, please note that I am suggesting headers in Association Football are much less damaging compared with American Football, as a opposed to a complete avoidance of damage.
Matters of health are probably the wrong ones to speculate on or try to speak authoritatively about when you "didn't spend much time researching" them. CTE can be a problem in soccer specifically because "Evidence indicates that repetitive concussive and subconcussive blows to the head cause CTE"[emphasis mine][1]. You don't need to be "dazed or knocked out" to cause damage. Suggesting otherwise is dangerous.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopat...
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopat...
The thresholds for brain damage keep getting revised downwards.
"60 Minutes" recently ran a segment where soldiers experiencing a lot of gunshot sounds get brain damage, too. The result is soldier training is now done with rounds that are much quieter.
P.S. as a kid, I was a miserable failure at baseball. The reason was I did not want to get smacked in the head with a hardball. I avoided the ball. That didn't please the coach at all.
"60 Minutes" recently ran a segment where soldiers experiencing a lot of gunshot sounds get brain damage, too. The result is soldier training is now done with rounds that are much quieter.
P.S. as a kid, I was a miserable failure at baseball. The reason was I did not want to get smacked in the head with a hardball. I avoided the ball. That didn't please the coach at all.
And here's one article saying the opposite:
https://magazine.columbia.edu/article/heading-soccer-ball-do...
https://magazine.columbia.edu/article/heading-soccer-ball-do...
I'm guessing this is actually looking at the wrong thing. If you've ever headed a ball in practice, you don't think it's dangerous to head the ball. If you do it right, it barely feels like anything.
But if you are trying to maneuver your head to a position where you can head the ball, you sometimes find the danger is actually other people's heads. If you've ever knocked heads with someone, you might suspect it is not healthy.
But if you are trying to maneuver your head to a position where you can head the ball, you sometimes find the danger is actually other people's heads. If you've ever knocked heads with someone, you might suspect it is not healthy.
> You also don't see players obviously dazed or knocked out after heading the ball.
That depends a lot on the relative speed, and some kids can kick the ball pretty damn hard. I had an incident where I headed the ball, and had no other memory formed for the rest of that day. I don't recall the rest of the match, the final score, or how I got home.
That depends a lot on the relative speed, and some kids can kick the ball pretty damn hard. I had an incident where I headed the ball, and had no other memory formed for the rest of that day. I don't recall the rest of the match, the final score, or how I got home.
There's plenty of recent news coverage linking soccer players and dementia. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/mar/16/footballers...
Even if headers themselves are safe for brains (and there is some evidence they're not), going for one puts you at increased risk for an unpadded, head-to-head collision with your opponent. That kind of thing we do know is bad for brain health.
Less damaging. But still damaging. Compare smoking a cigarette a day to a pack. Clearly less is more healthy, but still not healthy and probably should mostly be avoided all together.
The current guidance is no/limited heading for youth soccer players. [1]
Futsal, a small-sided variant of soccer, has way less heading because of the type of ball and how the game is played. It also teaches excellent technical skills, so it's great for kids who want to play regular soccer later on. [2] If as a society we continue the trend towards less and less acceptability of brain injury risk in sports, then futsal may well become the more-popular form of soccer.
1. https://usclubsoccer.org/headinjuries/
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futsal
Futsal, a small-sided variant of soccer, has way less heading because of the type of ball and how the game is played. It also teaches excellent technical skills, so it's great for kids who want to play regular soccer later on. [2] If as a society we continue the trend towards less and less acceptability of brain injury risk in sports, then futsal may well become the more-popular form of soccer.
1. https://usclubsoccer.org/headinjuries/
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futsal
My family, too. My oldest is hoping to cover at least some college costs as a middle distance runner and my riding 9th grade daughter is a starter on a top team in a top league and also wants to play collegiately.
We are clear with both of them that sports are not a career and they need skills and experience beyond competition to set them up for a comfortable life. The House deal makes it even harder for all athletes outside of basketball and football (excepting a very select few additional sports at specific schools, like LSU baseball or BYU track & field or UVA swimming, etc).
We are clear with both of them that sports are not a career and they need skills and experience beyond competition to set them up for a comfortable life. The House deal makes it even harder for all athletes outside of basketball and football (excepting a very select few additional sports at specific schools, like LSU baseball or BYU track & field or UVA swimming, etc).
A competitive athletic program is a huge time sink: practices, weight room, travel, meets, game day. That time spent elsewhere can go a long ways to covering college costs, such as taking extra classes and finishing a semester or quarter earlier or going to a school with a good coop program. Even a low-paying on-campus job can be competitive if the per hour rates are fairly compared.
But even lower-level sports and any number of other activities can be significant time sinks as well. Perhaps less so than being on a top-ranked varsity team but not necessarily insignificant.
Why anyone would think 18 year old adults should subsidize other adults, because earning what they are worth is “morally wrong”, is absurd to me.
We went through decades of travesty to get to the current NIL system because young kids were getting screwed. You don’t need it to be a career, but getting paid well for a few years after sacrificing your childhood is fair - fuck everyone else!
We went through decades of travesty to get to the current NIL system because young kids were getting screwed. You don’t need it to be a career, but getting paid well for a few years after sacrificing your childhood is fair - fuck everyone else!
My experience from having met top calibre musicians and athletes is that the work ethic, focus and growth mindset is often transferable.
If it helps, I did the math for different sports in different countries and the chance of a kid becoming a professional at a sport is about 1 in 10,000 - 20,000 (and that is counting like making 50k/year at a low division).
You probably want to encourage an interest/skill level that is good enough to get scholarship money to a good college, but not so good he wants to pursue it as an actual career. That is - just another box tick on the resume.
I grew up in a football obsessed town in a football obsesses county which frequently won the championships, etc.
Of all the kids in all the decades before/after me that played, 1 guy made it to the NFL and made ~$10M over 10 years. Amazing money, yes. But this was the kid who was practicing non-stop from a young age. He had nothing else. You'd see him & his dad running their own 1-1 football practice at the field in the off season.
Similarly there was another kid I was friend with who was smart, played football enough to get a scholarship, went to an Ivy and became a doctor. Probably better lifetime earnings than the NFL kid, and theres way more spots for doctors!
And in the 25 years since, all the 100s of kid who went through the program, no one has gone pro. For that 1 kid who went pro, I'm sure there were 100s who got in inadequate educational preparation for their adult life and football was a net negative in the end for them.
I grew up in a football obsessed town in a football obsesses county which frequently won the championships, etc.
Of all the kids in all the decades before/after me that played, 1 guy made it to the NFL and made ~$10M over 10 years. Amazing money, yes. But this was the kid who was practicing non-stop from a young age. He had nothing else. You'd see him & his dad running their own 1-1 football practice at the field in the off season.
Similarly there was another kid I was friend with who was smart, played football enough to get a scholarship, went to an Ivy and became a doctor. Probably better lifetime earnings than the NFL kid, and theres way more spots for doctors!
And in the 25 years since, all the 100s of kid who went through the program, no one has gone pro. For that 1 kid who went pro, I'm sure there were 100s who got in inadequate educational preparation for their adult life and football was a net negative in the end for them.
It’s not as cruel as it used to be with NIL.
> but for the revenue sports (football, basketball, hockey, baseball)
I think that list is two items too long.
I think that list is two items too long.
> I think that list is two items too long.
This was my thought as well, at least for college sports.
That said, based on the article, I imagine that the author is referring to the big revenue professional sports (“the IPO” outcome). Assuming that’s the case, these four are definitely the largest in the US by a lot.
This was my thought as well, at least for college sports.
That said, based on the article, I imagine that the author is referring to the big revenue professional sports (“the IPO” outcome). Assuming that’s the case, these four are definitely the largest in the US by a lot.
[deleted]
My understanding is the baseball program at my Uni is carried by a single rich donor. I used to have a view of the baseball field out my office window but it got evicted to build a computer science building which is almost done. The new field is off campus and beautiful and fan friendly. It had one small set of bleachers before but now they fill the parking lot and set up a shuttle bus to ferry people in from a nearby shopping center.
Most of our sports teams play teams that are a bus ride away, but the baseball season starts early when it is too cold to play or spectate in upstate NY so they spend a lot on airplane tickets to play teams down south.
Most of our sports teams play teams that are a bus ride away, but the baseball season starts early when it is too cold to play or spectate in upstate NY so they spend a lot on airplane tickets to play teams down south.
Let’s go red :)
Here are more details on this: https://augustafreepress.com/news/public-records-request-is-...
UVA baseball lost >$3 million in 2023 off of $1.7 million revenue. UVA football (a middling program) meanwhile is making a profit of over $20 million.
Baseball is nowhere close to football. I'd be surprised if college baseball was making more revenue than minor league baseball.
UVA baseball lost >$3 million in 2023 off of $1.7 million revenue. UVA football (a middling program) meanwhile is making a profit of over $20 million.
Baseball is nowhere close to football. I'd be surprised if college baseball was making more revenue than minor league baseball.
Adding the college men's basketball numbers, from [1]:
1. Duke University $45.1M
2. Syracuse University $34.2M
3. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill $32.0M
[1] https://www.2adays.com/blog/top-10-division-i-basketball-pro...
1. Duke University $45.1M
2. Syracuse University $34.2M
3. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill $32.0M
[1] https://www.2adays.com/blog/top-10-division-i-basketball-pro...
As far as I know US collegiate baseball may be bigger at some schools but is mostly a marginal spectator thing overall. Hockey is certainly very regional but, in my experience, is a fairly big thing in the North especially at schools with good teams. In fact, I went to a school where hockey almost certainly had larger paid crowds than basketball.
There are 4x as many teams in the NCAA Div I national championships for basketball than there are for hockey.
That being said, hockey is extremely popular at some schools; Gopher hockey is more popular (with both students and alumni) than Gopher basketball at the University of Minnesota.
That being said, hockey is extremely popular at some schools; Gopher hockey is more popular (with both students and alumni) than Gopher basketball at the University of Minnesota.
I always went to northern schools so my perception is probably skewed. Played intramurals in grad school with someone who went to Minnesota. I've just never gone anywhere that basketball was a particularly big deal (and was never into it myself). Hockey was the thing for my grad school crowds. But obviously college basketball is a big deal more broadly. Final four and all that.
Yeah I’m from MN so my perspective is skewed too.
6 of the 64 schools with Div I NCAA hockey teams are located in my state, and 5 of them are small state or private schools. Massachusetts has 10, New York has 11, Michigan has 7.
Over half of the Div I hockey teams are in the four states mentioned above.
6 of the 64 schools with Div I NCAA hockey teams are located in my state, and 5 of them are small state or private schools. Massachusetts has 10, New York has 11, Michigan has 7.
Over half of the Div I hockey teams are in the four states mentioned above.
Agreed. The tiny amount of revenue from college hockey and baseball is insignificant compared to the cost of opperation - especially with how far teams often need to travel now thanks to conference realignments.
I think it depends a lot on the school.
Hockey is very popular at some universities and probably makes at least some profit for the school. (I'm thinking University of Michigan as an example.)
Hockey is very popular at some universities and probably makes at least some profit for the school. (I'm thinking University of Michigan as an example.)
Yeah, less than half a dozen schools in the second two categories can consider them revenue sports. However they’re at least distinguished from all the other sports that truly don’t ever generate revenue.
College baseball and hockey are 'only' good for a couple million a year in the best cases, but it's still revenue.
The description of VC fundraising has a similar energy.
Not the first time i see such comparison being made, but it is the first time I see someone go into so much detail about it — great read.
A postscript on this piece: unsurprisingly, the piece has especially resonated with parents of NCAA athletes, and I have since heard from parents in a wide range of sports (lacrosse, soccer, gymnastics) saying that the piece reflected their own experiences. It also resonated with athletes themselves, and anyone who liked the piece should check out the discussion that we had about it with a former colleague of mine, Robert Bogart, who also happens to have been an NCAA champion swimmer.[0]
[0] https://oxide-and-friends.transistor.fm/episodes/diving-in-w...
[0] https://oxide-and-friends.transistor.fm/episodes/diving-in-w...
I was surprised at how much sense this made
The latest Oxide and Friends podcast episode is - as one may expect - a great pairing if you enjoyed reading this.
https://youtu.be/3z_TQxe9jx4
https://youtu.be/3z_TQxe9jx4
[deleted]
I’m not a college sport expert, but it seems like the most obvious difference is that it’s much more unlikely that skipping college will lead to a successful pro outcome.
I think the unsaid part is the downside of failing in the HS->College->Pro sports pipeline is worse than in the VC backed startup pipeline.
If your startup fails, you probably have technical skills to either try again (and again and again) or take a good paying SWE job somewhere else.
If you fail in the sports pipeline, you kind of have one shot (you can't play college ball at 25), you may end up with some non-transferable skills (throwing a ball) and may end without a good education to get a good job.
That is - the downside of your first startup failing is not working at McDonalds, but failing as a ball player can be.
If your startup fails, you probably have technical skills to either try again (and again and again) or take a good paying SWE job somewhere else.
If you fail in the sports pipeline, you kind of have one shot (you can't play college ball at 25), you may end up with some non-transferable skills (throwing a ball) and may end without a good education to get a good job.
That is - the downside of your first startup failing is not working at McDonalds, but failing as a ball player can be.
It depends on the sport. Baseball you can go straight into the minor leagues, golf you can go pro right away, tennis you can go pro right away. Football/basketball you have about zero chance to skip college now.
I’m not sure how or when, but it seems inevitable that college sports will be split off into club teams or some kind of minor leagues.
For the big sports like football, the college part seems barely relevant to the sport, it’s mostly just a logo and color scheme. The players don’t even go to most classes, it’s online, and there are full-time tutors assisting with every assignment. When they do have to physically attend class, someone drives them there on a golf cart, in order to minimize time spent on academic work. It’s not at all a normal college experience.
For the big sports like football, the college part seems barely relevant to the sport, it’s mostly just a logo and color scheme. The players don’t even go to most classes, it’s online, and there are full-time tutors assisting with every assignment. When they do have to physically attend class, someone drives them there on a golf cart, in order to minimize time spent on academic work. It’s not at all a normal college experience.
I don't really see this happening just because of how closely sports ties in with the identity of the schools. I don't see them ever giving that up. As a graduate of a school with a massive football program, I don't want them to.
It would also mean the death of most college sports in general and sports like rowing or field hockey might just cease to exist (at the level they're currently played) since they won't have sports like football and basketball paying for them.
I'm not sure it's important that all of the athletes have a "normal" college experience. Just that they leave school prepared to be productive members of society.
It would also mean the death of most college sports in general and sports like rowing or field hockey might just cease to exist (at the level they're currently played) since they won't have sports like football and basketball paying for them.
I'm not sure it's important that all of the athletes have a "normal" college experience. Just that they leave school prepared to be productive members of society.
Perhaps some sports would go away, but I don’t see that at universities in other countries. The level of competition and facilities are not nearly as nice as what D1 schools have, but places like Cambridge University have 75 sports clubs.
I do think it’s inevitable that what are functionally professional sports teams will split from their university namesakes. There’s nothing logically linking the two except that’s how it’s been. A factor that might accelerate the split is that it would expand the talent pool beyond players eligible for college admission.
I do think it’s inevitable that what are functionally professional sports teams will split from their university namesakes. There’s nothing logically linking the two except that’s how it’s been. A factor that might accelerate the split is that it would expand the talent pool beyond players eligible for college admission.
Most of those 75 sports clubs are a handful of people with a bag of equipment. Even the one sport that is regularly televised is nothing near any US counterparts in terms of organization or resources.
The problem in the US is that the sports are already glued to the academic institutions, and it would seem impossible for all of them to separate at once.
The evolution of sports in Europe has been very different. The professional teams in Europe are also talent development centres. Man U, Bayern, Barcelona, they all have junior teams that are run by the same organization. They keep in touch with local grassroots teams, and nothing is attached to an academic institution. If you're a serious football player in Europe, you don't go to Cambridge. It's already too late by the time you are thinking of applying to university, which regardless doesn't care at all about athletic performance.
The problem in the US is that the sports are already glued to the academic institutions, and it would seem impossible for all of them to separate at once.
The evolution of sports in Europe has been very different. The professional teams in Europe are also talent development centres. Man U, Bayern, Barcelona, they all have junior teams that are run by the same organization. They keep in touch with local grassroots teams, and nothing is attached to an academic institution. If you're a serious football player in Europe, you don't go to Cambridge. It's already too late by the time you are thinking of applying to university, which regardless doesn't care at all about athletic performance.
I’m also not sure how to get a meaningful number of teams to separate at once. Perhaps if rules were changed to allow college teams to play club/minor league teams? Sports only organizations might eventually have enough of an advantage that it creates a prisoner’s dilemma situation.
College football is arguably the second biggest sport in the entire US.
I mean I can completely understand the argument that it makes no sense but it is hard for an outsider to understand what something like Ohio State vs Michigan or Alabama vs Auburn in football means for those communities.
To say it is inevitable they split is just not understanding what these teams mean to the people and communities involved.
There is just something fun and additionally communal about the college sports team that isn't replicated by a professional team.
The biggest feature though is that it makes the teams temporary structures that are always changing because the kids graduate. That is something that would be really hard to replicate in a professional sports league. 3-4 years and then you are kicked out of the league. That doesn't work.
I mean I can completely understand the argument that it makes no sense but it is hard for an outsider to understand what something like Ohio State vs Michigan or Alabama vs Auburn in football means for those communities.
To say it is inevitable they split is just not understanding what these teams mean to the people and communities involved.
There is just something fun and additionally communal about the college sports team that isn't replicated by a professional team.
The biggest feature though is that it makes the teams temporary structures that are always changing because the kids graduate. That is something that would be really hard to replicate in a professional sports league. 3-4 years and then you are kicked out of the league. That doesn't work.
I see no reason why those hobbies should not have their participants fund them themselves. Or get some direct donations from alumni. Or raise funds somehow.
That's why I added the qualifier "at the level they're currently played" because right now those sports all get access to extremely high level facilities that simply wouldn't exist without cash cow sports like football.
What's the rationale for funding those niche sports?
Mostly if a university gets some extra no-strings-attached funding it will set up a new research lab or endow a new chair or build new buildings or perhaps just stick it in the bank or give all the senior administrators a raise.
They could get this windfall money by cutting funding to rowing, but they don't. Is it somehow advantageous to invest sports money back into sports?
I know there's a mandate through Title IX to fund women's sports, and sometimes they have to be pretty creative to find "sports" they can spend enough money on that engage the women students, but that doesn't explain what I'm asking about.
Mostly if a university gets some extra no-strings-attached funding it will set up a new research lab or endow a new chair or build new buildings or perhaps just stick it in the bank or give all the senior administrators a raise.
They could get this windfall money by cutting funding to rowing, but they don't. Is it somehow advantageous to invest sports money back into sports?
I know there's a mandate through Title IX to fund women's sports, and sometimes they have to be pretty creative to find "sports" they can spend enough money on that engage the women students, but that doesn't explain what I'm asking about.
> What's the rationale for funding those niche sports?
You've been capitalism-pilled. Sometimes it's worth funding things that "aren't worth funding". Not everything needs to return an easily measurable 10% YoY. Investing in the richness of experience for your population or student body or community is a good thing, even if it doesn't always pay itself back in an obvious way. Well-rounded people are happier, more resilient, and yes, more productive.
Don't blow the whole budget on underwater basket-weaving, but investing a bit in enrichment and supporting niches is an important part of life.
You've been capitalism-pilled. Sometimes it's worth funding things that "aren't worth funding". Not everything needs to return an easily measurable 10% YoY. Investing in the richness of experience for your population or student body or community is a good thing, even if it doesn't always pay itself back in an obvious way. Well-rounded people are happier, more resilient, and yes, more productive.
Don't blow the whole budget on underwater basket-weaving, but investing a bit in enrichment and supporting niches is an important part of life.
I’m not currently enrolled, but if my school sold the football team to a private investor, I’d take exactly the same action as I would if private equity bought the company I work at. That’s odious.
For whatever it's worth, baseball is actually headed in the opposite direction: the cut in the MLB draft to 20 rounds has made college baseball more important at the elite levels, not less. That, coupled with the fact that schools can't relocate/threaten to relocate (Rays, White Sox and especially my fellow A's fans know this pain!) makes being a college baseball fan easier.
That's perfectly sensible. While there are notable exceptions who have made it work, there aren't enough hours in the day to be an elite athlete and get a good education. Full contact sports add the danger of injury. If you want to put on a show pay the people in the show for their time and risk.
Nonsense. Many of the sports teams at NCAA D1 schools have average GPAs and graduation rates higher than the student body as a whole. There are plenty of hours in the day to do both, it's just that most college students are lazy and have terrible time management skills. Student athletes are forced to be more disciplined, and they also have dedicated academic advisors to help keep them on track.
In an age of influencers, I suppose we can't chuckle at the idea of a communications major anymore.
I thoroughly enjoyed this read
There is a great quote from Michael Lewis:
"If hedge funds could buy universities and then split them up so that the HF keeps the sports programs and they sell off the academic departments, they would most definitely do that"
"If hedge funds could buy universities and then split them up so that the HF keeps the sports programs and they sell off the academic departments, they would most definitely do that"
Universities are already doing this. Those with modestly large endowments are functionally private equity firms whose job is to generate enough cash flow to pay themselves, top admins, sports coaches and profs.
Academics, research, govt grants etc. are all means to that end.
https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2025/05/harvard-salaries-top...
Academics, research, govt grants etc. are all means to that end.
https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2025/05/harvard-salaries-top...
Sports programs don't always or even usually make a profit.
https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/2020/11/20/do-col...
https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/2020/11/20/do-col...
They don't return a net gain to the university, perhaps, but the people running them and advocating them are profiting nicely.
In my opinion, this is like complaining that the US Postal Service isn't profitable. It isn't a business, framing it in terms of profitability is missing the whole reason it exists. No one expects a middle school soccer team or a university's drama department to be profitable, but we still invest in those things because we as a society think it is valuable for students. College sports has value beyond the money people pay to watch it.
"College sports has value beyond the money people pay to watch it."
Debatable. Any college sports program could be dialed back to point where it isn't being subsidized by the primary mission of the university. American college sports is a global outlier. On that basis alone, I would bet that arguments for the value of college sports don't hold water.
Debatable. Any college sports program could be dialed back to point where it isn't being subsidized by the primary mission of the university. American college sports is a global outlier. On that basis alone, I would bet that arguments for the value of college sports don't hold water.
I'm sorry, it's not debatable. People who don't like sports tend to really struggle to actually consider the larger ecosystem that exists around sports and sports fandom. For example, there is a widely studied phenomenon that a successful sports team leads to increased applications, which in turn allows a school to be more selective and thereby increases the school's academic standing[1]. You can make all sorts of debates over how strong this impact is or whether it is a particularly efficient way to raise a school's standing, but there is clearly some value here being generated "beyond the money people pay to watch it."
[1] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2013/04/29/...
[1] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2013/04/29/...
Are selectivity and academic standing beneficial to society overall? Maybe we'd be better off more broadly supporting higher education rather than turning it into a weird competition based on non-academically-related marketing.
Maybe we'd be better off more broadly supporting trade schools. There are way too many people attending college who don't really belong there and are just going through the motions.
I actually do favor paying more attention to the public education system in general.
Don't get me wrong, I love Harvard, but at the same time, our hybrid of quasi public / private higher education reminds me a lot of our health care system, and I wonder if in a century, we'll look back on both as weird anachronisms.
Both of my kids attended public universities.
Don't get me wrong, I love Harvard, but at the same time, our hybrid of quasi public / private higher education reminds me a lot of our health care system, and I wonder if in a century, we'll look back on both as weird anachronisms.
Both of my kids attended public universities.
This is fundamentally a critique of capitalism. And if we are honestly opening this up to a discussion of the ways capitalism damages this country, I don't think higher education is either the best example or the one most urgently needing a fix.
"Capitalism" wouldn't have occurred to me here. I live in the shadow of a Big Ten university that's a government institution. And this will reveal my ignorance about sports, but I don't know of any private university that's at the championship level in football at the present time.
Disclosure: Notre Dame won the championship when I was in grad school there.
Disclosure: Notre Dame won the championship when I was in grad school there.
I was more remarking on your criticism of competition as an appropriate way to deal with scarcity and/or try to maximize societal benefit.
Although now that you mention the public/private distinction, the difference in that has been drastically reduced over the years as state appropriations have shrunk as a percentage of overall funding. You mentioned the Big Ten and "championship level in football", so let's look at Ohio State as an example since they won the last championship (and for what it is worth, they beat Notre Dame in the title game). They get only 10% of their revenue via state appropriations[1]. For sake of comparison, the OSU athletic department brought in a little over half that in revenue[2]. Meanwhile, 21% of the school's revenue comes from "tuition and fees", so offering an appealing product in the competitive market of higher education is incredibly important to their long term mission.
[1] - https://cga.ct.gov/2025/rpt/pdf/2025-R-0074.pdf
[2] - https://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-athletics/2024/01/...
Although now that you mention the public/private distinction, the difference in that has been drastically reduced over the years as state appropriations have shrunk as a percentage of overall funding. You mentioned the Big Ten and "championship level in football", so let's look at Ohio State as an example since they won the last championship (and for what it is worth, they beat Notre Dame in the title game). They get only 10% of their revenue via state appropriations[1]. For sake of comparison, the OSU athletic department brought in a little over half that in revenue[2]. Meanwhile, 21% of the school's revenue comes from "tuition and fees", so offering an appealing product in the competitive market of higher education is incredibly important to their long term mission.
[1] - https://cga.ct.gov/2025/rpt/pdf/2025-R-0074.pdf
[2] - https://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-athletics/2024/01/...
I’m a fellow Notre Dame alumnus, and would point you to our university competing in the College Football National Championship just five months ago.
Go Irish.
Go Irish.
It's always hilarious to see people who are ignorant about the basics of history and economics whining about the evils of capitalism — on a web forum run by capitalists no less. Free market capitalism has been the best thing ever for this country.
It's always hilarious to see people who are so defensive about capitalism that the mention of any flaw is received as a total and complete condemnation. It is noticeable that you didn't try to refute any specific point made, you are simply objecting to the idea of someone criticizing capitalism. I guess the one market that we can't trust is the marketplace of ideas.
And especially when the person didn't criticize capitalism.
Long live American exceptionalism. Our colleges are global outliers in many ways, and this is why we have the best higher education system in the world. Don't presume to know how to make systemic improvements: you're not smart enough to predict the impact of major changes.
You don't pay the director of a university's drama department millions of dollars per year. Successful football and basketball coaches get paid those kind of sums.
What specifically is the problem with that? Do you think a "director of a university's drama department" brings the same value to a university as "Successful football and basketball coaches"?
No, I think the director of the drama department brings more value.
And is this opinion supported by anything beyond a distaste for sports? Because it is objectively wrong at the extremes.[1]
[1] - https://www.al.com/news/2024/01/what-economic-impact-has-nic...
[1] - https://www.al.com/news/2024/01/what-economic-impact-has-nic...
Mainstream economics operates with a subjective idea of value. The previous poster can think whatever he wants about the drama vs sports, there's no objective right or wrong.
What does exist is an outcome about who gets paid.
What does exist is an outcome about who gets paid.
There seems to be a large segment of HN users with an irrational distaste for sports. I suspect it's because they lacked the work ethic and pain tolerance to ever become good at any sport. So they denigrate sports in general as a mental coping mechanism.
CMU for example, is known for the school of computer science, and the arts, especially drama, though some people might know it better for Andy Warhol having been an alum.
That's how an elite university should operate. Sport is fine. It's healthy. But warping the educational mission to feed the maw of an exploitative sports economy is something no university should be involved in.
What next? MMA as a college sport? It's a free country: beat each other's brains out. But to pretend that US college sports is anything but a grotesque distortion is disingenuous.
That's how an elite university should operate. Sport is fine. It's healthy. But warping the educational mission to feed the maw of an exploitative sports economy is something no university should be involved in.
What next? MMA as a college sport? It's a free country: beat each other's brains out. But to pretend that US college sports is anything but a grotesque distortion is disingenuous.
What's happened with Division-1 college revenue sports is that the word "students" has been mangled beyond recognition. Meanwhile the investment in the drama department is in perpetual decline.
The question in my mind is if society would be better off recognizing the athletes as "workers" instead of as "students."
To offer a bit of contrast, I attended a Division-3 college where the starting quarterback was a physics major, and the captain of the basketball team majored in chemistry. When a Divsion-1 football player majors in a substantive discipline, it makes the national news.
The question in my mind is if society would be better off recognizing the athletes as "workers" instead of as "students."
To offer a bit of contrast, I attended a Division-3 college where the starting quarterback was a physics major, and the captain of the basketball team majored in chemistry. When a Divsion-1 football player majors in a substantive discipline, it makes the national news.
Why should universities focus on drama? People can learn acting at their local community theater.
To be clear I'm not in favor of eliminating college drama departments. But it's rather silly and arbitrary to claim that drama is somehow more important than sports.
To be clear I'm not in favor of eliminating college drama departments. But it's rather silly and arbitrary to claim that drama is somehow more important than sports.
Even less reason for them to exist then.
Is there any evidence that universities with large endowments are paying coaches with them?
Money is fungible, doesn't really matter what source the money comes from other than optics.
Maybe but most endowments actually have "legally?" bound or otherwise contracted uses in universities. Thats why Harvard can't just tap it's endowment to fund research the current Admin has cut. So I'm doubting that endowments are being used in this way to pay coaches.
Sure, but if an endowment is paying for, say, the football coaching staff, then that leaves that much more money free in the general fund to pay for other things.
If the endowment is paying for something that otherwise wouldn't be paid for generally, that's a different story.
If the endowment is paying for something that otherwise wouldn't be paid for generally, that's a different story.
This isn't really fair I think. Academic money is actually not fungible - it can't be used to fund athletics, and vice versa. Just because both pots are relatively large doesn't mean that the money itself is fungible.
[deleted]
How is that the same thing?
How are college endowments similar to hedge funds?
For one, they put money into hedge funds as investors. And broadly, they're long on illiquid investments but have short term obligations for salaries, pensions etc. That's a hedge fund with a slightly different time horizon and intent.
Some of those short term obligations are covered thru grants, fed money. But when that dries up (eg, Harvard and Trump), you're squeezed.
For one, they put money into hedge funds as investors. And broadly, they're long on illiquid investments but have short term obligations for salaries, pensions etc. That's a hedge fund with a slightly different time horizon and intent.
Some of those short term obligations are covered thru grants, fed money. But when that dries up (eg, Harvard and Trump), you're squeezed.
Some universities with large endowments used to be referred to as hedge funds that happened to have professors. Now they happen to have pro sports teams too.
Honestly, even from a non-financial perspective, splitting them up just makes sense to me. It's baffling to me that we've come up with a system that essentially combines minor league sports teams with academic institutions of higher learning.
Except it's sort of a poor correlation. Without making a study of it the best US collegiate football programs at least tend to be large state universities--which, don't get me wrong, are often good schools if you want them to be for you--but tend not to be the schools that come up in discussions of large endowments and the like. Basketball is more of a mixed bag in that it can rely on one or two star players and hockey, as I wrote elsewhere, is very regional and relatively small schools in the North have very good teams from time to time.
The GP says it's baffling to combine sports teams with academic institutions, and you're saying it's not because those that do tend to have smaller endowments? Talk about a non sequitur
I do think that sports are part of the college/university experience which you are of course free to disagree with. There are, of course, smaller schools that have relatively minimal athletic programs. Without making a scientific study of it, I also don't think the biggest endowments really correlate to the biggest and most successful sports programs, especially in football.
As the person you originally responded to, I have to agree with the one who you're responding to now; I don't really understand at all what endowments have to do with any of this. My argument is that the goal of education isn't helped by being intrinsically tied to a large amateur sports league. If you're trying to argue that public schools require sports teams in order to succeed financially due to them not having endowments, I think you skipped a few logical steps that I'd disagree with before you got to the question of endowments, e.g. the premise that being profitable is a primary goal of public universities.
As for sports being part of the college experience, I don't disagree with you that they are right now, but I don't see why that would have to be the case, since it certainly didn't use to be the case historically and still isn't the case in many parts of the world. From my perspective, they're so far removed from the actual purpose of universities that they've essentially marginalized the actual point of them for many schools, and the idea that they're integral to the experience is a sign of how much they've failed at their actual goal.
As for sports being part of the college experience, I don't disagree with you that they are right now, but I don't see why that would have to be the case, since it certainly didn't use to be the case historically and still isn't the case in many parts of the world. From my perspective, they're so far removed from the actual purpose of universities that they've essentially marginalized the actual point of them for many schools, and the idea that they're integral to the experience is a sign of how much they've failed at their actual goal.
>As for sports being part of the college experience, I don't disagree with you that they are right now, but I don't see why that would have to be the case, since it certainly didn't use to be the case historically and still isn't the case in many parts of the world.
I think it tends to be in the Anglosphere at least. I won't really argue for the big college football etc. programs which has been an ongoing debate in the US for decades for Top 10 schools and related. James Michener wrote a book in the 70s or so. But athletic activities in various more or less organized forms are pretty established at many US schools and eliminating them would bring a pretty wide revolt (and not just talking about football).
I think it tends to be in the Anglosphere at least. I won't really argue for the big college football etc. programs which has been an ongoing debate in the US for decades for Top 10 schools and related. James Michener wrote a book in the 70s or so. But athletic activities in various more or less organized forms are pretty established at many US schools and eliminating them would bring a pretty wide revolt (and not just talking about football).
At Caltech when I attended, the football team was known to proudly lose every game.
You're not thinking things through. Splitting off sports from academics would wreck alumni fundraising for a lot of schools. For better or worse, when the team wins the alumni open their wallets. And the less lucrative sports would essentially disappear (especially for women).
I'm not sure how much sense this argument makes. Most of the big sports schools are public, and I'd argue the budgets for academics at public schools should come from the states they're in, not from donations. I don't think it's obvious that private universities are raising that much money from their sports programs, but I'm open to being convinced if you have sources indicating this isn't the case.
As an aside, I don't think telling people that they haven't thought of things sufficiently is a particularly effective way of convincing them. There are a lot of potential other reasons someone might not agree with your point of view, and it's a bit hypocritical to tell someone else they're "not thinking things through" when you haven't actually figured out the reasoning behind their opinions.
As an aside, I don't think telling people that they haven't thought of things sufficiently is a particularly effective way of convincing them. There are a lot of potential other reasons someone might not agree with your point of view, and it's a bit hypocritical to tell someone else they're "not thinking things through" when you haven't actually figured out the reasoning behind their opinions.
You're not thinking things through, or doing even the bare minimum research. Financial data on sports revenue for most colleges is out there for anyone who cares to look. It's not my job to convince you of anything, I'm simply telling you how it works.
This reads as if it were written by a LLM.
The author is Bryan Cantrill (bcantrill on HN), Sun (and Joyent) alumnus, kernel hacker, principal architect of dTrace, and a major contributor to ZFS. I doubt he uses LLMs to write his blogposts. Go watch any of his talks: he seems to have boundless energy. Seriously, if you've ever thought Musk came across as an Adderall tweaker, go watch some Bryan Cantrill. He's probably popping more Adderall (or Dexedrine, Vyvance, Ritalin?) than anyone else on HN.
Ha, thanks for making the most of a bad comment.
Thanks for the kind words (I think?), and you're right that I don't use LLMs to write. (I do use them to read near-final drafts -- the most substantive result in this case was the deletion of a paragraph.) As for the substance abuse allegations: sorry to be boring, but just coffee and Diet Coke, I'm afraid.
Sorry about my comment, it didn't add anything to the conversation.
You were probably downvoted because the comment doesn't add much value to the convo, but I agree, it was a bit difficult to read. But still interesting.. :)
When I was raising VC I related more to struggling artist than employed technologists. Being constantly rejected, needing to be seen as more gifted than the competition and the goddamn urgency to catch on fire yesterday were the same and we got along great even if we understood and cared nothing about each other's work.
People who are considering one of these paths have an opportunity to learn from folks who might not do what they do exactly, but have been in the same sort of system. To realise the relationships they're buying into, the price they'll need to pay for a shot at stardom and to think if it's really an experience they can afford.