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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
[1] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2013/04/29/...