PBP: The Other MLS Teams' Paraphernalia Thread: Now Legal in Two States

At the smaller schools, yes. At the "factories" not so much.

2012 Football Program Net Profit
Alabama - $45M
Ohio State - $24M
Oregon - $31M
Texa$$ - $78M

More in the link...

 

At smaller schools (D III and Ivys), there are no athletic scholarships. So the program is seen as part of the total education package. I didn't take Spanish in college--but that doesn't mean there should be a Spanish dept.

 

Ivy gives Athletic Scholarships bud. Even the holdouts of the Patriot League do now. Stick with something you know...German Soccer.

 

You know, I may be partly wrong here too. I made an assumption that most programs are like the two I am familiar with: Penn State and Ohio State--which are as I've noted--separate (for example the academic part of the university had to loan the money to athletics to pay the recent NCAA fine at Penn State). As I've known folks in both departments, I can assure you that they both are separate budgetwise from the athletic department. But here's an article that I think does shed light on this from the NY Times... It notes that a number of schools do give some of the surpluses to the academic side. One must also note licensing--t-shirts and the like. That raises a great deal for the universities that probably would not be as much without sports programs--and it's hard to say where that fits in budgetwise. I know I've had the toughest time trying to find a t-shirt for my other Alma Mater, which does not have much of an athletic program. And of coures, we should not forget the intramural programs most universities have as well as excercise facilities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/e...in-ncaa-favor-sports-over-academics.html?_r=0

 

While they are separate budget wise, when the dept doesn't make money, who foots the bill? While all schools are different in how the get the money, many times it comes from a general fund from the university.

Now if you want to say that sports are a method of advertising and marketing for the university, that's different. Since sports are a method of advertising the school, it's hard to say what the true value of sports are to a university.

Either way, the NCAA makes billions while not even guaranteeing scholarships or covering all medical bills. All while not even caring for many athletes' education, just simply keeping them eligible to make more $. I think most people would agree these items need fixed before any athlete get's a stipend.

 

No, they don't, bud.

http://www.ivyleaguesports.com/information/psa/index

 

It might behoove you to do just a *bit* of research on this...

That's wikipedia. But if you don't want to buy that, try the Ivy League official site.

http://www.ivyleaguesports.com/information/psa/index

 

I'm no fan of the NCAA. I think they should have a comprehesive medical plan for their student athletes (one of the things the Northwestern union guys were complaining about--their QB had to pay for his own MRI). Scholarships should be guarentteed all four years--as the Big 10 does. But I do still believe in the ideal of the student athlete. Though I may be naive or too idealistic in that.

 

And as I'm finding out with my oldest daughter pursuing soccer at DIII schools, there are "grants" available.

 

I like that the Ivy league schools are basically saying education first, athletics second. Now there is something I can get behind.

 

Outside of I don't believe scholarships should be given to atheltes, unless they deserve it academically, why should scholarships be guaranteed for all four years? Are academic scholarships guaranteed?

 

If there's one guy on any DIII campus who is an expert on all the varied and wonderful ways that financial assistance can be applied to a given student, it's the soccer coach.

 

I stand corrected. Not full blown athletic scholarships, but still offer academic assistance as needed for prospective players.
Im getting suspect of the Ivy Leagues and specifically Harvard with Tommy Amaker over the past few years. Too much success for an Ivy League school and already been busted on a cheating issue last year or two years ago.

 

They are if the student meets certain academic requirements. Shouldn't it be the same way with an athletic scholarship? As long as you are willing to play athletics and stay eligible, why shouldn't it be guaranteed?

 

Because guaranteed implies that they do not have any requirements to meet during the 4 years the scholarship.

 

I have a friend who is a retired professor from a D-3 school. He said that not only did they not give athletic scholarships, there was an informal rule that if a student wanted to play football or basketball, they would have to pay full tuition. The school is not an athletic powerhouse so they monetized athletics in the form of tuition. Places like OSU monetize athletics in the form of fundraising. A winning year always is better for fundraising than a losing season.

Many years ago I worked with a kid who was bright (a national merit scholar) and a part time starter at guard on a state championship football team. He was recruited by Harvard to play football. They didn't have athletic scholarships but made several financial aid offers with each one increasing. It's also worth noting that the Ivy league schools may not award academic scholarships to athletes but they certainly have them. My non-athletic dad won a full scholarship to Harvard back in the 40s. He decided to attend OSU instead, which people nowdays would find odd. More oddly, he ended up in the Varsity O.

 

Generally "guarenteed" in any circumstance comes with rules--those in this case being staying academically eligible for one--as the poster you quoted noted. Except Craftsman tools. Those guys will replace anything--no matter how you abuse it.

The problem is that a lot of SEC schools oversign and then run off players who get hurt or don't play as well as expected. Yet the player doesn't have the same freedom--they cannot transfer without restrictions (in football and basketball, anyway), for example. It is kind of hard for folks with a European background to understand our system of sports (and vice versa) and the emphasis on it in our school systems (where sport is seen as an integral part of a completly educated student)--and I'm not saying it's better at all. But it is different. Wasn't always as different, though--as Chariots of Fire demonstrated (rowing/sculling is another example).

I will say, though, that if we're going to be talking more about the NCAA etc., this is probably not the thread for it.

 

Other than Mount Union's football coach, that is.

 

What is hard to understand about it? I have an american wife who does not believe that sport needs to be an integral part of my sons education.

 

Exceptions are not the norm. Most Americans think otherwise. Not saying that's optimal or "best"--but it is the way it is. A lot of this in the US I expect comes from Roosevelt--T.R. to be precise--and the thought of a "sound mind in a sound body". Part of this is also because we do not specialize as fast as in other countries in education and that there are more paths to a college education.

But again, I'm not sure this is the proper thread for this discussion. Let's get back to talking about how TFC s*cks--as will the new Atlanta team.

 

Waaaa!!!!! Stupidface.

 

It was actually surprisingly quiet on the boards today so we just generated our own entertainment.

 

Can we go off in an tangent again today? The boards seem quiet again.

 

Alien invasion-not a matter of if but when..............Agree or disagree?