I don't disagree, but there really is a tradition there and in some instances a lore that transcends athletics. There can be a very positive side to University athletics, unfortunately the size of the money involved has tended to overshadow the positive aspects.
I don't think the tradition argument is very convincing (we've had many traditions which we eventually recognized were causing problems, and we were smart enough to get rid of most of those traditions). But if you really want to use that argument, then you'll need to justify the reason we aren't keeping the other traditions associated with school sports. Traditionally, no one was paid, either through scholarships or alumni "gifts," to play school sports. Traditionally, no one was charged to watch school sports. Traditionally, if a sporting practice or event interfered with an academic function, it was the sporting practice or event which was canceled. Traditionally, we did not have separate departments dedicated to "tutoring" student athletes. Traditionally, students athletes who performed poorly, or cheated, in school were either banned from sports or expulsed from school. So, why keep the strange tradition (playing school sports because English boarding school headmasters wanted to keep their students busy after school hours) but not keep the more sensible traditions associated with it?there really is a tradition there
Myself and most fans of collegiate sports would be happy to see the tradition of there being no money involved reinstated. No athletic scholarships? I'm not sure I agree with that. Fencing, tennis and most any other sport are skills that require discipline and education. We give scholarships to the top academic performers because it takes discipline and hard work to acquire their skills. Shades of grey. Either way you are rewarding someone for being among the best at something. -I have no problem with this. In fact, I'd say athletics tend to be far less subjective than academics and thus, more fair.