Band, theater, sailing club, ROTC, academic pursuits requiring on campus facilities like laboratories, etc.

All of these are arguably part of the “educational mission” for the participants.

maybe the time-sensitivity of certain sports and their scheduled events and the ability/inability to move them, while other activities aren't as time-sensitive or seasonal, or have the same financial impact to a university.

also probably not much different from the back-end of the school year when college baseball teams in the playoffs practice and play for several weeks after spring commencements.

“Financial impact to a university”

Money is the only concern.

All the other activities are just as time sensitive and important to those who participate in them.

You make a great point about the band, and it’s about as close as you can come to being an athlete at a D-1 school. My daughter is in the band and my roommate at ND and many of our mutual friends were in the band. They didn’t come to ND because of the band, although the band was a huge part of their lives at ND (they also put a ton of time into it so this is not to downplay their commitment). Most D-1 varsity athletes choose a school based on their sport, and most of them have been recruited to play at their school (whether or not the athlete is on scholarship). It’s just a different level of commitment that a school generally makes to an athlete and therefore one that the school should ensure it delivers on.

I also think that athletes should be permitted to transfer without restriction if their school decides not to compete in a given year (assuming the school decides far enough in advance).

Arts program. She was supposed to stage manage a play this spring. She couldn’t. And her stage management and performance opportunities are nil if they aren’t on campus and staging performances. Other than the revenue issue, it’s no different. People choose schools for the on campus opportunities and the educational immersion. I’m fine if athletes want to transfer out if they don’t get to play games. Who cares? If the school is closed, there should be no school sponsored activities.

forward.

Pay kids a small amount, let them train, and if they pan out, they can go make money. They still get an education along the way.

The NFL would never go for it, as CFB is a free-to-them development league.

I doubt oxford and Cambridge pack in 5k fans for a rugby or soccer match, but Yale-Harvard gets 35k+ and they're not even important in the scheme of things.

Make pro leagues responsible for development, and pay the kids, and the NCAA goes away forever. And we're all better off. The ones who "don't come to play school" don't drag down the ones who do, they get the money they're valued at, and you can still go have club sports.

I'll get tarred and feathered for that opinion, but IDGAF.

I don’t know why colleges continue to feel obliged to be the NFL d-leagues

high level juniors: 16-20 y.o., some pan out and go into minor leagues or NHL right away, others spend a couple more years in college. Most college hockey freshmen on scholarship are 20yo, and so were the soccer players if I can recall, albeit to a lesser extent.

Also, most countries have rules about locality, as in you have to be within a certain distance of the club to be able to join. The academy generally covers up to 16 and then they have their U17, U18, ..., U21 clubs which have much less restriction on who can be on them.

For young kids it is 3-4 days a week during the fall - spring and every year or two the club will decide to keep the kids or drop them and add others.

High level juniors would be similar to the Ux teams - those are paid teams run by the big clubs.

Academies are for the younger kids.

That the NFL would never want to.

I’m sorry about your daughter and she may very well have been recruited by her school and promised certain things by the theater department. If so, and if the school can do it safely and in a financially responsible manner, then I feel the same way about her situation as I would a varsity athlete. It’s a fundamental part of her education that the school is choosing not to offer in spite of commitments in advance of her attending.

Sports are. They did give her non need-based financial aid in an effort to get her on campus, not unlike many schools do for many non athletes that they believe will enrich the culture on their campus in some way.

But I really don’t think any of that matters. Schools make a commitment to all of their students, not just the athletes. And all students make commitments to their schools, not just athletes.

If the situation fundamentally changes and the promise can not be delivered by either party, then they should have the option to sever that relationship without penalty or prevention of movement to another school or a professional organization.

But the argument that a school somehow owes more to their starting QB or the coxswain on their crew team than they do to the chemistry major who needs to participate in their labs on campus or a musician or performance artist that needs to hone and develop their skills as part of the ensemble on campus doesn’t hold water.

Online classes might work for the very basics. But it’s not like being there, and it isn’t a valid substitute for being at the University or college. Lawsuits are already being filed over this and i would expect a lot more if the Universities don’t figure this out soon.