College baseball, venture capital, and the long maybe
Revenue sports and how big they really are
- Multiple commenters dispute grouping football, basketball, hockey, and baseball together as “revenue sports” in college.
- Examples: one school’s baseball loses several million dollars on low revenue, while its middling football program clears >$20M profit.
- Men’s basketball at a few blue-blood programs generates tens of millions; outside that, revenue drops sharply.
- Hockey and baseball are highly regional. At some northern schools hockey outdraws basketball, but nationally both are niche; only a handful of schools can treat them as genuine revenue sports.
- Many programs (especially baseball) rely on rich donors and still run at a loss, with heavy travel costs due to climate and conference realignment.
Universities, endowments, and “hedge fund with a sports team”
- A quoted joke about hedge funds buying universities for their sports prompts debate whether universities already behave like PE/hedge funds.
- Some claim endowments primarily exist to feed administrators, coaches, and a financial complex; others counter that most endowment funds are legally restricted and can’t freely subsidize athletics.
- There is disagreement over whether “money is fungible” between academics and sports in practice.
- Data is cited showing most college sports programs are not profitable overall, even if particular teams are.
- One side argues profitability is the wrong metric (like the USPS or drama departments); college sports are part of education and community life.
- Others say big-time sports distort the educational mission and that calling athletes “students” in Division I revenue sports is often a fiction.
Should college and big-time sports be separated?
- Some see it as “inevitable” that major college sports become minor-league/club systems, given how tenuous the academic connection is for top programs.
- Pushback emphasizes identity and fundraising: big-time teams are core to school and community culture, drive alumni donations, and cross-subsidize non-revenue sports (including many women’s sports).
- Critics respond that niche sports and arts could be funded directly and that tying educational finance to sports success is perverse.
Health, exploitation, and life outcomes
- Parents of current athletes say the article captures the brutality of the college sports pipeline: huge money at the top, unforgiving odds, and limited fallback options.
- Commenters highlight CTE and brain injury risks, especially in football, but increasingly recognized in soccer (heading and head-on collisions). Youth rules now often restrict heading.
- Some argue NIL has reduced exploitation for top athletes; others say most athletes outside football/basketball still see little of the money.
- A recurring theme: the downside risk for athletes (single shot, injuries, weaker academics) is harsher than for failed startup founders, who usually retain transferable skills.
Power-law careers and VC analogy
- Several commenters extend the article’s VC/college-sports analogy to musicians, models, film directors, realtors, and niche defense manufacturers: low entry barriers, winner-take-most outcomes, and gatekeepers.
- One notes that for founders, a failed startup still leaves marketable experience, while failed athletes may end up with non-transferable skills and damaged bodies.
Reception and follow-ons
- Many found the piece unusually detailed and “profoundly wise,” especially parents and former NCAA athletes, who say it matches their experience.
- A few felt the writing style resembled LLM output, but others pointed to the author’s long history and clarified it was human-written.
- A companion podcast episode with a former NCAA champion swimmer is recommended for deeper discussion.