Myth of college athletics profitability

[rikki-tikka-tava]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/oct/16/college-sports-revenue-loss-making-programs-academics

Seems most college athletes are already being paid (for) by their classmates. As interested in how the NCAA spends/distributes $1.1 billon dollars in annual revenue - how much is returned to schools and just what the real bottom line is for DI Power 5 conference universities? So I found this:

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/finance/2017-18NCAAFin_NCAAFinancialStatement.pdf

Which shows that about 70% of the funds go back to schools, but even so most schools are running their athletic departments (ADs) at a loss.

This: http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ makes it clear (click on methodology link at end of article) that most schools showing a profit do so only because as mentioned in The Guardian article they list student fees and university support for their ADs as revenue and that without 'taxing' the students and non-NCAA institutional support almost all would be running in the red.

So why do student athletes need to be paid (more) for playing sports in college when their very presence at school is already being subsidized by everyone on campus? If IU students have their annual tuition hiked by $1000 annually per head as is the case at the nine Virginia schools cited in the article, that's a more or less $50,000,000 annual subsidy to the AD. Swell. Great case for students getting to select the athletic director rather than the board of regents, picking the mascots (Bison anyone?) and maybe even the playlist for the marching band during halftime...

Looking back to my campus days I can't remember anyone that paid much attention to sports apart from occasionally going to a BB or FB game. Just too much else going on for it to hold anyone in thrall which leads me to surmise that athletic programs are more for the benefit of alumni than the student body, the athletes themselves notwithstanding. Or so I imagine.

Time to meet the day. Have yourselves a good one.

 

[AutoCat]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/oct/16/college-sports-revenue-loss-making-programs-academics

Seems most college athletes are already being paid (for) by their classmates. As interested in how the NCAA spends/distributes $1.1 billon dollars in annual revenue - how much is returned to schools and just what the real bottom line is for DI Power 5 conference universities? So I found this:

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/finance/2017-18NCAAFin_NCAAFinancialStatement.pdf

Which shows that about 70% of the funds go back to schools, but even so most schools are running their athletic departments (ADs) at a loss.

This: http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ makes it clear (click on methodology link at end of article) that most schools showing a profit do so only because as mentioned in The Guardian article they list student fees and university support for their ADs as revenue and that without 'taxing' the students and non-NCAA institutional support almost all would be running in the red.

So why do student athletes need to be paid (more) for playing sports in college when their very presence at school is already being subsidized by everyone on campus? If IU students have their annual tuition hiked by $1000 annually per head as is the case at the nine Virginia schools cited in the article, that's a more or less $50,000,000 annual subsidy to the AD. Swell. Great case for students getting to select the athletic director rather than the board of regents, picking the mascots (Bison anyone?) and maybe even the playlist for the marching band during halftime...

Looking back to my campus days I can't remember anyone that paid much attention to sports apart from occasionally going to a BB or FB game. Just too much else going on for it to hold anyone in thrall which leads me to surmise that athletic programs are more for the benefit of alumni than the student body, the athletes themselves notwithstanding. Or so I imagine.

Time to meet the day. Have yourselves a good one.

Don't fall for the myth about most major college athletic departments "losing money". They're not.

Just look at the explosive growth in revenues and expenses for various athletic departments over the years. The purpose of an athletic department is not to have a profit margin - they are essentially a non-profit and as their revenues rise, the expenses will always rise to meet it. The extra money earned by athletic departments is being absorbed into higher coaching salaries, capital projects, and various administrative bloat. As revenues rise, expenses will always rise to consume it. They will find something to spend it on.

In short, they're cooking the books so they can cry poor. It's an accounting trick. This allows different schools to tax the student body in various ways, simply because they can (because they claim to be losing money), and also allow them to have another argument about why players could never possibly be paid.

There is no standardized accounting practices or structure for college athletic departments and they're all accounting things in different ways. Because of this, it's difficult to compare one school to another if you just look at their bottom line.

If they ever wanted to show a gaudy profit margin, they easily could. Don't fall for it.

Even if you don't believe anything I'm saying and you believe that athletic departments are drowning in the red, allowing the players to seek their own compensation from external sources and endorsements seems like a reasonable compromise for the player pay debate.

Here are some articles for further reading.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristi...-the-finances-of-college-sports/#2ce434ba366f

https://tmblr.co/ZLPrCxnnFE0O

 

[rikki-tikka-tava]

Don't fall for the myth about most major college athletic departments "losing money". They're not.

Just look at the explosive growth in revenues and expenses for various athletic departments over the years. The purpose of an athletic department is not to have a profit margin - they are essentially a non-profit and as their revenues rise, the expenses will always rise to meet it. The extra money earned by athletic departments is being absorbed into higher coaching salaries, capital projects, and various administrative bloat. As revenues rise, expenses will always rise to consume it. They will find something to spend it on.

In short, they're cooking the books so they can cry poor. It's an accounting trick. This allows different schools to tax the student body in various ways, simply because they can (because they claim to be losing money), and also allow them to have another argument about why players could never possibly be paid.

There is no standardized accounting practices or structure for college athletic departments and they're all accounting things in different ways. Because of this, it's difficult to compare one school to another if you just look at their bottom line.

If they ever wanted to show a gaudy profit margin, they easily could. Don't fall for it.

Even if you don't believe anything I'm saying and you believe that athletic departments are drowning in the red, allowing the players to seek their own compensation from external sources and endorsements seems like a reasonable compromise for the player pay debate.

Here are some articles for further reading.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristi...-the-finances-of-college-sports/#2ce434ba366f

https://tmblr.co/ZLPrCxnnFE0O

Doubtless some valid points but remains that showing a profit isn't the same as having one. Will read your links when I've more time (all praise the literati and blessed be those that link) but was mildly stunned that such a significant percentage of AD revenue comes from student body 'fees'.

 

[iubud]

College programs lucky enough to share in network TV money or football bowl money certainly can bring in more than they spend. Networks such as BTN give the conference teams a greater income from TV. P5 football programs go to the highest paying bowl games with revenue that is shared among the conference members. We heard last year how McRobbie used funds from the athletic program for non-athletic capital projects.

Teams that don't have TV networks or get money from bowl appearances lose out on many advantages They don't have fancy facilities or state of the art locker rooms without a rich donor donation. Their recruiting budgets are frugal. Their support staff is limited and they still can't pay their own expenses.

 

[minneman]

I don't doubt that most schools have a hard time with funding. The ones that don't are the Power 5 schools. These schools tend to have larger fan bases so they've historically been better off (donations, ticket and concession sales, bowl selection, etc) but now each conference has their own TV network which brings in even more money.

I don't have the numbers but I would guess that there is a correlation between the start of the networks and an increase in coaching salaries and/or increase in facility improvements. IU for sure has seen an explosion in both the last decade. As AutoCat points out, this is because they need to spend the money to remain "non-profit."

As far as the compensation for athletes goes, the talk has currently shifted from the school paying them to allowing them to earn money through name, likeness, and image (NLI) - i.e. endorsements. These would come from sources outside of the school. One good aspect of that would be that even athletes in sports which don't generate revenue for the schools could still fairly earn money. An example would be Lilly King, who could've cashed in after the 2016 Olympics but chose to remain NCAA eligible.

 

[darkhawk returns]

Are you referring only to large school AD's? Cause I can guarantee you Texas Southern's athletic department doesn't turn a profit without NCAA subsidies. IU's was actually "in the red" for a few years under Greenspan (mostly from coaches salaries for coaches who were no longer here and before B10 Network cash). Maybe they could have cooked the books to make it look like they were turning a profit, but they weren't. That said, these tiny schools barely even have athletic departments, because they don't have many supporters. Not too difficult to understand. Don't forget that successful football and basketball programs recruit students (if not for IU basketball, I might well have gone somewhere else). Not really sure of the point you are trying to make, but paying players would just make it even more difficult for small schools and even mid majors to justify keeping these sports (which would cost a lot of people a shot at a very low cost education). I'm sure paying these student athletes would help them, but at what cost to everyone else? Only the top 1-2% in these sports are good enough to play professionally at any level, anyway. Again, this isn't an NCAA issue, but a pro issue. Since around 70% of "profit" is returned to student athletes, in the form of scholorship, training, facilities, medical care, exposure, etc. There are a lot more athletes that need the extra exposure and coaching/training to make it to the pros than those who don't. Make a suitable minor league for the pros and the best prospects can go somewhere to get paid (as if they can't go to other countries and make money).

Don't fall for the myth about most major college athletic departments "losing money". They're not.

Just look at the explosive growth in revenues and expenses for various athletic departments over the years. The purpose of an athletic department is not to have a profit margin - they are essentially a non-profit and as their revenues rise, the expenses will always rise to meet it. The extra money earned by athletic departments is being absorbed into higher coaching salaries, capital projects, and various administrative bloat. As revenues rise, expenses will always rise to consume it. They will find something to spend it on.

In short, they're cooking the books so they can cry poor. It's an accounting trick. This allows different schools to tax the student body in various ways, simply because they can (because they claim to be losing money), and also allow them to have another argument about why players could never possibly be paid.

There is no standardized accounting practices or structure for college athletic departments and they're all accounting things in different ways. Because of this, it's difficult to compare one school to another if you just look at their bottom line.

If they ever wanted to show a gaudy profit margin, they easily could. Don't fall for it.

Even if you don't believe anything I'm saying and you believe that athletic departments are drowning in the red, allowing the players to seek their own compensation from external sources and endorsements seems like a reasonable compromise for the player pay debate.

Here are some articles for further reading.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristi...-the-finances-of-college-sports/#2ce434ba366f

https://tmblr.co/ZLPrCxnnFE0O

 

[darkhawk returns]

That approach may make sense in some sports, like swimming, where there aren't going to be extremely wealthy boosters looking to load up teams. Lily King could have certainly got a real sponsorship deal somewhere, but what about the rest of the team in a sport where there are things like partial scholorships, because most universities can't afford to give out full rides in those sports? Why would anyone choose to go to a small school where they won't make much vs a big school? I feel like this would just make it even more unlikely we see upsets. Sponsorships/likeness rights would completely depend on exposure/popularity. Just way too many issues these politicians trying to make a name for themselves ignore. Competitiveness is what makes the NCAA fun. Let's not harm 98% of the athletes in favor of 2% who will be making money off their talents soon (and could overseas or if we developed actual minor leagues).

I don't doubt that most schools have a hard time with funding. The ones that don't are the Power 5 schools. These schools tend to have larger fan bases so they've historically been better off (donations, ticket and concession sales, bowl selection, etc) but now each conference has their own TV network which brings in even more money.

I don't have the numbers but I would guess that there is a correlation between the start of the networks and an increase in coaching salaries and/or increase in facility improvements. IU for sure has seen an explosion in both the last decade. As AutoCat points out, this is because they need to spend the money to remain "non-profit."

As far as the compensation for athletes goes, the talk has currently shifted from the school paying them to allowing them to earn money through name, likeness, and image (NLI) - i.e. endorsements. These would come from sources outside of the school. One good aspect of that would be that even athletes in sports which don't generate revenue for the schools could still fairly earn money. An example would be Lilly King, who could've cashed in after the 2016 Olympics but chose to remain NCAA eligible.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/oct/16/college-sports-revenue-loss-making-programs-academics

Seems most college athletes are already being paid (for) by their classmates. As interested in how the NCAA spends/distributes $1.1 billon dollars in annual revenue - how much is returned to schools and just what the real bottom line is for DI Power 5 conference universities? So I found this:

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/finance/2017-18NCAAFin_NCAAFinancialStatement.pdf

Which shows that about 70% of the funds go back to schools, but even so most schools are running their athletic departments (ADs) at a loss.

This: http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ makes it clear (click on methodology link at end of article) that most schools showing a profit do so only because as mentioned in The Guardian article they list student fees and university support for their ADs as revenue and that without 'taxing' the students and non-NCAA institutional support almost all would be running in the red.

So why do student athletes need to be paid (more) for playing sports in college when their very presence at school is already being subsidized by everyone on campus? If IU students have their annual tuition hiked by $1000 annually per head as is the case at the nine Virginia schools cited in the article, that's a more or less $50,000,000 annual subsidy to the AD. Swell. Great case for students getting to select the athletic director rather than the board of regents, picking the mascots (Bison anyone?) and maybe even the playlist for the marching band during halftime...

Looking back to my campus days I can't remember anyone that paid much attention to sports apart from occasionally going to a BB or FB game. Just too much else going on for it to hold anyone in thrall which leads me to surmise that athletic programs are more for the benefit of alumni than the student body, the athletes themselves notwithstanding. Or so I imagine.

Time to meet the day. Have yourselves a good one.

What you are not taking into account, in terms of "what's in it for the school", is that student-athletes in the minor or 'olympic' sports as a whole, are generally among the most desirable students universities can get. They are the hardest working and highest achieving, and come from the best, most involved and wealthiest families. They also bring energy to campus.

As far as basketball & football go.....success in these sports brings an immense amount of publicity/attention to universities......how much has Butler benefited from their FFs or IU from their basketball NCs?.

 

[minneman]

That approach may make sense in some sports, like swimming, where there aren't going to be extremely wealthy boosters looking to load up teams. Lily King could have certainly got a real sponsorship deal somewhere, but what about the rest of the team in a sport where there are things like partial scholorships, because most universities can't afford to give out full rides in those sports? Why would anyone choose to go to a small school where they won't make much vs a big school? I feel like this would just make it even more unlikely we see upsets. Sponsorships/likeness rights would completely depend on exposure/popularity. Just way too many issues these politicians trying to make a name for themselves ignore. Competitiveness is what makes the NCAA fun. Let's not harm 98% of the athletes in favor of 2% who will be making money off their talents soon (and could overseas or if we developed actual minor leagues).

Even now how often does a player choose a small school over a P5 school? Rarely and for highly ranked players I'd say it's so rare that it's basically never. I don't think this would have a large of impact as far as that is concerned as you think. Players want the exposure they get at P5 schools as well as the better facilities and what is often thought of as better staff (coaching, strength coaching, trainers, medical support staff, etc).

And, yes, endorsements would depend on those things like exposure and popularity. Someone who saw as little PT as Priller but was a crowd favorite could make more than a starter. It's how the world works. Do you think that the players don't realize that's exactly how it is in the pros? They do. They understand. It's not a "fair" system in the sense that every player gets paid the same, it's fair in the sense that what they do can determine how much they can make. It could be argued that this would further prepare them for the pros, learning that they have to cultivate their image.

As far a scholarships, in particular partial scholarships, do you think they put the athletes in the same position? A kid from a wealthy family may get as much or more of a scholarship than one from a poor family. In basketball and football, they get the same scholarship regardless of the money the family has. Do the athletes resent that? Probably not but if they do they deal with it. The same would be true here.

 

[T.M.P.]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/oct/16/college-sports-revenue-loss-making-programs-academics

Seems most college athletes are already being paid (for) by their classmates. As interested in how the NCAA spends/distributes $1.1 billon dollars in annual revenue - how much is returned to schools and just what the real bottom line is for DI Power 5 conference universities? So I found this:

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/finance/2017-18NCAAFin_NCAAFinancialStatement.pdf

Which shows that about 70% of the funds go back to schools, but even so most schools are running their athletic departments (ADs) at a loss.

This: http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ makes it clear (click on methodology link at end of article) that most schools showing a profit do so only because as mentioned in The Guardian article they list student fees and university support for their ADs as revenue and that without 'taxing' the students and non-NCAA institutional support almost all would be running in the red.

So why do student athletes need to be paid (more) for playing sports in college when their very presence at school is already being subsidized by everyone on campus? If IU students have their annual tuition hiked by $1000 annually per head as is the case at the nine Virginia schools cited in the article, that's a more or less $50,000,000 annual subsidy to the AD. Swell. Great case for students getting to select the athletic director rather than the board of regents, picking the mascots (Bison anyone?) and maybe even the playlist for the marching band during halftime...

Looking back to my campus days I can't remember anyone that paid much attention to sports apart from occasionally going to a BB or FB game. Just too much else going on for it to hold anyone in thrall which leads me to surmise that athletic programs are more for the benefit of alumni than the student body, the athletes themselves notwithstanding. Or so I imagine.

Time to meet the day. Have yourselves a good one.

There's 350+ teams in the NCAA D-1. The bottom 250 teams are not in the same conversation and their totals should not be included. Same as paying players who are pro prospects. We're talking about 60+/- players per year out of 4600.

 

[rikki-tikka-tava]

College programs lucky enough to share in network TV money or football bowl money certainly can bring in more than they spend. Networks such as BTN give the conference teams a greater income from TV. P5 football programs go to the highest paying bowl games with revenue that is shared among the conference members. We heard last year how McRobbie used funds from the athletic program for non-athletic capital projects.

Teams that don't have TV networks or get money from bowl appearances lose out on many advantages They don't have fancy facilities or state of the art locker rooms without a rich donor donation. Their recruiting budgets are frugal. Their support staff is limited and they still can't pay their own expenses.

Even if they don't charge students $1000/head in extra tuition costs? Show me...

 

[AutoCat]

Here's another article that compares some financial figures for the Power 5 conferences, if anyone is interested.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/s...the-bills/?arc404=true&utm_term=.2b92e1f58590

 

[rikki-tikka-tava]

... student-athletes in the minor or 'olympic' sports as a whole, are generally among the most desirable students universities can get.

Says you. Perhaps the most desirable student-athletes, but students as a whole? Given the number of certifiably brilliant aspiring students in the world that don't compete in athletics I'm calling BS.

They are the hardest working and highest achieving, and come from the best, most involved and wealthiest families. They also bring energy to campus.

As far as basketball & football go.....success in these sports brings an immense amount of publicity/attention to universities......how much has Butler benefited from their FFs or IU from their basketball NCs?.

"...best, most involved, wealthiest? WTF does "best" mean? And why should anyone give two shakes for the "wealthiest" families sucking up scholarships from those that actually need them? This sounds like so much unsupported conventional 'wisdumb'.

 

[rikki-tikka-tava]

There's 350+ teams in the NCAA D-1. The bottom 250 teams are not in the same conversation and their totals should not be included.

Rather a plutocratic perspective wouldn't you say?

Same as paying players who are pro prospects. We're talking about 60+/- players per year out of 4600.

Understand who you're talking about but not what your position is on whether these few elite should be allowed to dictate ground rules for the NCAA as a whole...

 

[iubud]

Even if they don't charge students $1000/head in extra tuition costs? Show me...

$1,000 extra per student wouldn't be enough to bring back football or build their own stadium at UE. With 2,500 students it would allow them to travel a little better, and hire better coaches and improve some facilities.

 

[T.M.P.]

Rather a plutocratic perspective wouldn't you say?



Understand who you're talking about but not what your position is on whether these few elite should be allowed to dictate ground rules for the NCAA as a whole...

Yea. it is .. and of course not. There's no easy fix here. There's just too much money involved..

What the smaller schools need to do is just drop football (as should all HS) it's a drain on their resources (Plus it's a really dumb game played and coached by really dumb people and as a whole detrimental to education)..

 

[Cavanagh.6]

Yea. it is .. and of course not. There's no easy fix here. There's just too much money involved..

What the smaller schools need to do is just drop football (as should all HS) it's a drain on their resources (Plus it's a really dumb game played and coached by really dumb people and as a whole detrimental to education)..

Tom Crean might be the only person dumber than Coach Allen. Basketball has its fair share of idiot coaches. The NFL does employee a bunch of idiots, I do think that is changing and they will be all gone in a matter of years.

You have already seen a huge increase in young "offensive genius" and analytically minded coaches or in simpler terms, actual competent people. The Jeff Fisher's Rex Ryan's are never going to coach in the NFL again, and the 10 or so other morons will be gone sooner than later.

 

[fpeaugh]

Any school in a major conference has money coming out of their ears. No ifs ands or buts about it. Schools just have an incentive to show a loss rather than a profit. It’s hard to raise money from donors when they know you already have more money than you know what to do with.

 

[Al Bino]

Any school in a major conference has money coming out of their ears. No ifs ands or buts about it. Schools just have an incentive to show a loss rather than a profit. It’s hard to raise money from donors when they know you already have more money than you know what to do with.

Well the expert has spoken, case closed, lock the thread.

Of course others linked articles to back up their assertions. Didn't see any link in your profound post. Color me surprised.

 

[fpeaugh]

Well the expert has spoken, case closed, lock the thread.

Of course others linked articles to back up their assertions. Didn't see any link in your profound post. Color me surprised.

If I said the Earth isn’t flat you’d ask for “articles” proving it.

If I said 2+2=4 you’d need a link to a calculator to check it.

I suggest you spend less time on here and more time on your schoolwork.

 

[rikki-tikka-tava]

Any school in a major conference has money coming out of their ears. No ifs ands or buts about it. Schools just have an incentive to show a loss rather than a profit. It’s hard to raise money from donors when they know you already have more money than you know what to do with.

So the big donors know even less than you do. Didn't think that was humanly possible.

 

[rikki-tikka-tava]

$1,000 extra per student wouldn't be enough to bring back football or build their own stadium at UE. With 2,500 students it would allow them to travel a little better, and hire better coaches and improve some facilities.

??? Not the point. You claim inevitable profitability and still haven't offered anything to back it up. Sources cited say otherwise. And what makes you think tuition cost at UE doesn't already include a healthy add-on to support the AD. Willing to bet money it does...

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

If I said the Earth isn’t flat you’d ask for “articles” proving it.

If I said 2+2=4 you’d need a link to a calculator to check it.

I suggest you spend less time on here and more time on your schoolwork.

You make ridiculous assertions without any support for them all the time. Constantly. I want to know why you think anyone takes you seriously.

 

[Al Bino]

If I said the Earth isn’t flat you’d ask for “articles” proving it.

If I said 2+2=4 you’d need a link to a calculator to check it.

I suggest you spend less time on here and more time on your schoolwork.

Translated for you and those others less fortunate (if that is possible):

You CAN NOT back up your claims.

What a shock that you spew assertions and then try to be cute when asked to back them up.

 

[lndyResident16]

Translated for you and those others less fortunate (if that is possible):

You CAN NOT back up your claims.

What a shock that you spew assertions and then try to be cute when asked to back them up.

The original post isn’t really supported, either. A very empty thread all the way around.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

Says you. Perhaps the most desirable student-athletes, but students as a whole? Given the number of certifiably brilliant aspiring students in the world that don't compete in athletics I'm calling BS.



"...best, most involved, wealthiest? WTF does "best" mean? And why should anyone give two shakes for the "wealthiest" families sucking up scholarships from those that actually need them? This sounds like so much unsupported conventional 'wisdumb'.

There's a definite correlation between high achieving high school students and participation in HS athletics. Sorry Bernie, but that's a fact. I'm not claiming that sports participation always causes high achievement (although it does in many cases.....see many of our football recruits that came from difficult circumstances and got direction through participation in HS athletics), but rather that HA kids come from families that are interested and involved, and those type of families often get their kids in sports, and they do well there and in other areas. That's what I mean by 'best' families, Elizabeth. If it less offends your delicate sensibilities, I would say the same about participation in band/formal music training, student groups, and other such activities. That's not to say that there aren't brilliant kids that have zero interest in sports. But colleges are very interested in ECs, sports included.

As far as 'wealthy', you may not be interested in future alumni contributions Pete, but I can assure you from many college visits and scholarship events with my kids that colleges are......and the subject of the post was why such students are most desirable to colleges. The colleges are interested in $$, Beto, and they don't much care whether it comes from Chinese or Caucasian sources. Let me give you one example, Kamala. My daughter was awarded a significant scholarship to Hanover (she ended up going elsewhere) and was in a competition with maybe 70 other kids for one of their top scholarships. They had a luncheon for all of the candidates and their families. Now, Hanover's a very liberal place, but there was a very noticeable lack of the kind of diversity that I'm sure you'd favor in that group. That is, there were minority families, but not the right minorities for your liking. I didn't see anybody from the Hanover administration or facility complaining that all of the families appeared to come from less than impoverished situations.

 

[snarlcakes]

What the smaller schools need to do is just drop football (as should all HS) it's a drain on their resources (Plus it's a really dumb game played and coached by really dumb people and as a whole detrimental to education)..

Wuss

 

[rikki-tikka-tava]

There's a definite correlation between high achieving high school students and participation in HS athletics. Sorry Bernie, but that's a fact. I'm not claiming that sports participation always causes high achievement (although it does in many cases.....see many of our football recruits that came from difficult circumstances and got direction through participation in HS athletics), but rather that HA kids come from families that are interested and involved, and those type of families often get their kids in sports, and they do well there and in other areas. That's what I mean by 'best' families, Elizabeth. If it less offends your delicate sensibilities, I would say the same about participation in band/formal music training, student groups, and other such activities. That's not to say that there aren't brilliant kids that have zero interest in sports. But colleges are very interested in ECs, sports included.

As far as 'wealthy', you may not be interested in future alumni contributions Pete, but I can assure you from many college visits and scholarship events with my kids that colleges are......and the subject of the post was why such students are most desirable to colleges. The colleges are interested in $$, Beto, and they don't much care whether it comes from Chinese or Caucasian sources. Let me give you one example, Kamala. My daughter was awarded a significant scholarship to Hanover (she ended up going elsewhere) and was in a competition with maybe 70 other kids for one of their top scholarships. They had a luncheon for all of the candidates and their families. Now, Hanover's a very liberal place, but there was a very noticeable lack of the kind of diversity that I'm sure you'd favor in that group. That is, there were minority families, but not the right minorities for your liking. I didn't see anybody from the Hanover administration or facility complaining that all of the families appeared to come from less than impoverished situations.

And nary a source/citation to support any of it - just like Agent Orange.

 

[rikki-tikka-tava]

The original post isn’t really supported, either. A very empty thread all the way around.

So regale us with something of quality and substance lest anyone imagine you to be just another newbie meathead.

 

[lndyResident16]

So regale us with something of quality and substance lest anyone imagine you to be just another newbie meathead.

I think that’s up to you since you started the thread, right?

 

[Courtsensetwo]

So regale us with something of quality and substance lest anyone imagine you to be just another newbie meathead.

Ordy v 74

 

[rikki-tikka-tava]

I think that’s up to you since you started the thread, right?

You're the one offering naught but vacuous criticism. As of yet not apparent that you "think" at all.

 

[lndyResident16]

You're the one offering naught but vacuous criticism. As of yet not apparent that you "think" at all.

Nothing that you posted had any relevance or applicability to our program or any other BiG or Power 5 program. Wondered if there was any more to it than what you posted, which I assume there is not.

 

[rikki-tikka-tava]

Nothing that you posted had any relevance or applicability to our program or any other BiG or Power 5 program. Wondered if there was any more to it than what you posted, which I assume there is not.

Seriously? Likely that every student on Campus (save scholarship recipients) is annually shelling out on the order of $1000 in extra tuition fees to support athletics and that's without "relevance or applicability"? Judgments like that color you dense, obtuse or just plain dumb.

 

[lndyResident16]

Seriously? Likely that every student on Campus (save scholarship recipients) is annually shelling out on the order of $1000 in extra tuition fees to support athletics and that's without "relevance or applicability"? Judgments like that color you dense, obtuse or just plain dumb.

No, it’s not likely that every student on campus is annually shelling out on the order of $1,000 in extra tuition fees to support athletics. In fact, there’s no evidence that’s occurring. One of the articles you posted said that figure was found only in the 9 small Virginia schools they cited, and that their research didn’t find that anywhere else outside of Virginia. So yeah, since this isn’t an issue for IU or P5 schools, it’s not relevant or applicable. Saying otherwise is either dense, obtuse or just plain dumb.

 

[rikki-tikka-tava]

No, it’s not likely that every student on campus is annually shelling out on the order of $1,000 in extra tuition fees to support athletics. In fact, there’s no evidence that’s occurring. One of the articles you posted said that figure was found only in the 9 small Virginia schools they cited, and that their research didn’t find that anywhere else outside of Virginia. So yeah, since this isn’t an issue for IU or P5 schools, it’s not relevant or applicable. Saying otherwise is either dense, obtuse or just plain dumb.

Oh, it's you again. What is this - your fiftieth different screen name? Always a waste of time/space.

The article says "nine public schools" with no mention of anything regarding their size. You've zero evidence that IU and P5 schools aren't charging students extra in tuition to support athletics and indeed if you bothered to read the article cited (restricted to MD and VA schools) and the links embedded in same you'd have seen that P5 schools UVA ($657) and VT ($257) were/are both charging athletic fees, and also that:

"There were (only) 42 (out of 222) Division I athletics departments that reported receiving no student-fee money in 2009, but some of those schools say student-fee money is included in institutional funding provided to athletics programs."

Shows just how little you know. Again.

 

[lndyResident16]

Oh, it's you again. What is this - your fiftieth different screen name? Always a waste of time/space.

The article says "nine public schools" with no mention of anything regarding their size. You've zero evidence that IU and P5 schools aren't charging students extra in tuition to support athletics and indeed if you bothered to read the article cited (restricted to MD and VA schools) and the links embedded in same you'd have seen that P5 schools UVA ($657) and VT ($257) were/are both charging athletic fees, and also that:

"There were (only) 42 (out of 222) Division I athletics departments that reported receiving no student-fee money in 2009, but some of those schools say student-fee money is included in institutional funding provided to athletics programs."

Shows just how little you know. Again.

I was just checking to see if you had any support for your statement that it was likely every student on campus was shelling out $1,000 in athletic fees, since there was nothing to even suggest that was occurring outside of fewer than ten small schools in Virginia. You offered no proof and then wisely walked it back with much smaller examples, since you weren’t being accurate. Sorry if it embarrasses you but thanks for confirming that you unquestionably misstated it. Shows how very little you know. QED.

 

[rikki-tikka-tava]

Know that by any name, you'll always be a dipshit.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Oh, it's you again. What is this - your fiftieth different screen name? Always a waste of time/space.

Well beyond fifty.

 

[rikki-tikka-tava]

Well beyond fifty.

"Too bad for moose and squirrel".