Alumni say athletic department's actions are justified

In its Nov. 9 editorial, The Chronicle criticizes the athletic department for not focusing enough on "sustaining a top-notch portfolio of varsity athletic programs and serving the 90 percent of the student body who are not varsity student-athletes."

Among the examples of wrongdoing mentioned are the selling of the Florida State football game and the proposed changes to the seating policy in Cameron, which would "exchange loyal long-time ticket holders for big-money donors."

These examples display a basic ignorance of simple economics. The Chronicle fails to understand that the athletic department cannot support student athletes without funding-which must come from somewhere. Selling the football game raised several hundred thousand dollars, income that will support the programs that The Chronicle claims should be the focus of athletic department policy.

The seating arrangement in Cameron is an even more important decision. When the possibility of changing the ticket policy came up a few weeks ago, many complained.

But seats in Cameron represent the number one resource for the athletic department. How long can we let that revenue go untapped while over half of our non-revenue varsity athletes are not given scholarships due to lack of funding?

Should we tell the next recruit for women's lacrosse that she can't have a scholarship because we need to keep giving seats to alumni and fans for far less than the market value?

If so, we are subsidizing fans, not student-athletes. Is that what The Chronicle is arguing for?

No one is saying that students should have to pay for access to the recreational facilities or that student seats in Cameron should be moved. As former students and Iron Duke members since 1992, we support the revenue-generating policies of the athletic department.

Trinity '92