Letter to the Editor: Cutting some sports will mean more money for all students


Sometimes it’s rather obvious that if you’re playing intramural sports, resources are limited. This is a problem that affects many of us, yet what is being done about it?

It was this line of thinking that brought about a new idea. I’m sure it’s nothing original, at least regarding other universities, but in so far as SDSU is concerned, it probably is.

How many athletic programs on campus are unprofitable? I don’t know myself, but I’d venture a guess and say that there are probably a few.

Now, using that statement as a necessary assumption, what is the point of having too many unprofitable athletics programs? I don’t know the reasoning for it, but I have one simple example that could be used to argue against it.

Is it better to have money allocated so that, as an example, the SDSU women’s soccer team has 22 women playing soccer? Or is it better to have money allocated to build an intramural sports complex to allow students resources to continue living healthy active lives?

What I’m trying to say is cut both a men’s and a women’s athletic program that is unprofitable, and then use that money as leverage to build an intramural sports complex. Overall, it would likely provide more entertainment and student activity than, say, a women’s soccer team and a men’s tennis team. The real issue would be the money and how to use the funds to create the sports complex. Well, that would be easy. Just issue 10-year bonds and save the money gained from the program cuts to pay the interest and maturity value of the bonds.

By the way, I could design it for free.

Phillip KauffmanEconomics