SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Although recent election coverage may suggest otherwise, research shows that people are more likely to use positive words than negative words on the whole in their communications. Behavioral scientists have extensively documented this phenomenon, known as language positivity bias (LPB), in a number of different languages. However, a new study conducted by researchers at USC Dornsife and the University of Michigan, suggests that our tendency to use positive language has been on the decline in the United States over the past 200 years.
While LPB is well-established, there has been little consensus on what mechanisms are responsible for the effect. Previous studies, which looked at language as static, have proposed that LPB is due to subjective moods, objective circumstances or social influences.
But in a study published on Nov. 21 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers took a new approach to measuring LPB by looking at the fluctuation of the ratio of positive words to negative words used over time in American English.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @06:14PM
Why should a fucking university run a professional level football team?
(Score: 1) by gmrath on Sunday November 27 2016, @12:51AM
Because for most colleges and universities it is a giant money maker, with income often dwarfing non-athletic sources of income; moneys which include TV and other broadcast-rights revenues, alumni "gifts", boosters that donate enough money that they can have coaches they fear are losing coaches fired, et cetera. It is very lucrative to have a nationally-recognized collegiate sports team. If you can successfully cover up negative aspects such as academic misconduct to make sure players are academically "eligible" and under-the-table payouts by boosters to players, that is. Colleges can also make a bundle on selling merchandise "monetizing" players. The players, of course get nothing but possibly a scholarship. Yes, much money to be made, even by second and third tier institutions. Surely your comment is just sarcasm?. . .
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday November 27 2016, @03:45AM
Because for most colleges and universities it is a giant money maker
Citation needed. [ncaa.org]
with income often dwarfing non-athletic sources of income; moneys which include TV and other broadcast-rights revenues, alumni "gifts", boosters that donate enough money that they can have coaches they fear are losing coaches fired, et cetera. It is very lucrative to have a nationally-recognized collegiate sports team.
These statements are completely unrelated to your first statement. Why? Because most schools do NOT use most of that athletics money in their "general fund" or move most of it toward education. Rather, athletic departments tend to be rather possessive of it, and for the past few decades we've had an "arms race" in top-tier universities which provides state-of-the-art training and playing facilities (some of which are better than pro football facilities), coaches and other staff that demand salaries of near-NFL level, etc.
And yes, while football may actually make money in more universities, the revenue they do have beyond football expenses tends to be used for other athletics programs. Bottom line is in the NCAA report above:
Only 24 FBS schools generated more revenue than they spent in 2014... Those 24 schools, at the median, generated about $6 million in net revenue... But those 24 schools are a minority. Many more schools saw their expenses exceed their revenue, requiring their colleges and universities to cover the shortfall. The median FBS school spent $14.7 million to help subsidize its athletics department in 2014.
In other words, according to the NCAA itself, ~20 schools actually make money, and that's been about the same number for several years. Meanwhile, ~100 schools lose money, with the median deficit from athletics being over double the average profit in those few profitable schools.
No -- sports are NOT a "giant money maker" for MOST colleges and universities, even many of the "big name" ones that draw the crowds of tens of thousands. They bring in a lot of money, but they generally spend it even faster.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @07:31PM
It was sarcasm a little bit, using negative language to comment.
Yes, I know it makes money, but we are talking about putative non-profit, academic institutions. Running semi-pro sports can have a corrupting influence, and is out of mission.