[CTcard]

But then what about weddings or inflated rent-backs to other departments?

You wrote a lot here, and I cannot respond to everything - but a quick note on revenues.

It is interesting to some to note the revenue explicitly from intercollegiate athletics. That's fine with me - and I have an interest in the same.

I do not think that the intercollegiate athletics should be banned from using revenue that is not derived from intercollegiate athletics. The golf course is a fine example. I am happy enough that that revenue supports the athletics program.

As far as I can tell, I think it is a good idea for ucb to rent out their athletic facilities for weddings and anything else that brings in some revenue. As these are specifically athletic department facilities, it seems reasonable to me that income derived from them goes toward athletics.

The ASU case is much less clear - and to be sure there is not enough information in that article to really judge. I can see at least two issues that I might take issue with were I an ASU alum or an Arizona tax payer. The first is that there is no particular reason that any income from this development should go towards intercollegiate athletics. While the accounting is slightly different, it's still a choice to send money towards intercollegiate athletics rather than the general fund. There might also be some issues of a non-profit, government institution competing with for-profit private companies in the real estate/development markets. I presume that they have addressed the strictly legal issues, but it still seems a bit dodgy to me.

[CTcard]

But then what about weddings or inflated rent-backs to other departments?

You wrote a lot here, and I cannot respond to everything - but a quick note on revenues.

It is interesting to some to note the revenue explicitly from intercollegiate athletics. That's fine with me - and I have an interest in the same.

I do not think that the intercollegiate athletics should be banned from using revenue that is not derived from intercollegiate athletics. The golf course is a fine example. I am happy enough that that revenue supports the athletics program.

As far as I can tell, I think it is a good idea for ucb to rent out their athletic facilities for weddings and anything else that brings in some revenue. As these are specifically athletic department facilities, it seems reasonable to me that income derived from them goes toward athletics.

The ASU case is much less clear - and to be sure there is not enough information in that article to really judge. I can see at least two issues that I might take issue with were I an ASU alum or an Arizona tax payer. The first is that there is no particular reason that any income from this development should go towards intercollegiate athletics. While the accounting is slightly different, it's still a choice to send money towards intercollegiate athletics rather than the general fund. There might also be some issues of a non-profit, government institution competing with for-profit private companies in the real estate/development markets. I presume that they have addressed the strictly legal issues, but it still seems a bit dodgy to me.