Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

University of Florida Eliminates Computer Science Department, Increases Athletic Budg


  • Please log in to reply
123 replies to this topic

#31 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 April 2012 - 07:01 PM

http://www.usatoday....ial-study_N.htm

It is a few years old, but your point is complete bullshit. It hasn't been proven time and time again. It has been proven time and time again that athletic departments are a money pit.



You don't understand how college athletics work do you?

•A little more than half of the I-A schools (67 of 119) made money on football or men's basketball (68) in fiscal 2006, based on revenues those programs generated.

^ These programs fund the money pits (rowing, diving, bowling, etc.). Athletic departments are in the red not because they can't be self sustainable but because TITLE IX requires that the ~ 100 scholarships that are offered just between the two money makers (Football, basketball) are balanced out on HUGE MONEY SUCKS called women's sports.

It's not enough to have these programs but the university must spend the same amount of money funding these programs. That is why college athletics aren't profitable at the smaller non BCS schools.

Edit: You can tell that study is dated because the term IA / IAA hasn't been used for almost a decade

#32 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 April 2012 - 07:02 PM

I forgot to mention that you will also need cisco certs if you want to go into networking and ms certs for sys admin. Good Luck and I hope you got some internships lined up!:lol:

edit: Don't forget to brush up on your AD too!:rofl:

Don't remind me dammit. Ugh.....

Damn cert classes are expensive too. A few grand for a course that lasts a week, Fuck me....
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#33 blindinglights

blindinglights

Posted 23 April 2012 - 07:09 PM

Colleges are (rather were I suppose) not designed to crank out athletes, they're places of education. Sports should be an afterthought, but they're not. It's why you get people making dumbass choices about where to go to school based on who has the best *____ team*. Never mind if they've got one of the best *_____ program* in the country, their football team kicks ass! Educational priority is so fucked up it's not even funny...

Hell, why not just create a university that specializes in nothing but cranking out the next star athletes, just drop the pretense of education all together. Let them study plays and strategy rather than math and history, they aren't interested in that stuff anyway.

Let me put it this way, there's a reason why many of these guys get athletic scholarships rather than academic scholarships. The school doesn't bring them there to learn, they bring them there to throw/catch/kick the ball. And why not, that's what we cheer people on for, not for making meaningful contributions to society.



While I think the ultimate point you're trying to make is valid (academics should be priority number one), your supreme anti-jock rage is coming out big time.

There's probably around 10,000 football players in Division I alone and less than 500 guys (across all three divisions) will go on to become professional football players each year. It's far more likely that a guy is playing football as a means to get a college education versus just wanting to learn "plays and strategy" and dream about going to the NFL.

Of course there are guys that are talented athletes and they get by thanks to irresponsible coaches despite not knowing how to multiply 2 by 2, but to generalize all football players in that category just makes you look like a bitter nerd.
2011 Completed Games
2012 Completed Games



Use Swag Bucks as your search engine, earn $10 to $15 in free Amazon credit per month. Find out how.


#34 camoor

camoor

    Jams on foot fires

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 April 2012 - 07:14 PM

It's simple. I was on scholarship at a Division 1 school that wasn't nearly as profitable as the University of Florida; in fact our athletic department was in the red each and every year.

Because of Title IX you have to present equal funding to both Men's and Women's sports.

So those 85 scholarhips that FBS football programs offer are the only reasons that sports like Women's bowling and lacrosse and diving and all the other money sucks exist.

So while the football program may make money it has to get redistributed to those programs and departments that do not.

Also there have been studies that have PROVEN that a successful football program has been responsible for boosting school enrollement and we aren't even talking about U Texas here... the schools of focus were FCS programs like Georgia Southern and Appalachain State.


Besides I don't understand what the big deal is. You've got 1,000's of colleges and universities in America. If they weren't profitable in some shape or form there wouldn't be so many. If you want to be a computer sicence major go to a school other the Florida.


1) I said proof, not some guy talking out of his ass

2) You didn't stay on point. "Sports boosting enrollment" =/= "Sports paying for academics"

3) You can still major in computer engineering (which for all intents and purposes can get you a tech job). The point is that they cut funding for research.

#35 camoor

camoor

    Jams on foot fires

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 April 2012 - 07:15 PM

http://www.usatoday....ial-study_N.htm

It is a few years old, but your point is complete bullshit. It hasn't been proven time and time again. It has been proven time and time again that athletic departments are a money pit.


This post is win.

#36 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 April 2012 - 07:20 PM

Don't remind me dammit. Ugh.....

Damn cert classes are expensive too. A few grand for a course that lasts a week, Fuck me....

No joke. The only brightsides are when work pays for it and that you're already familiar with a lot of the material. Or you could go the slower route and see if there's a cisco academy at the local community college. Not only is cheaper, but you also get discounted vouchers.

While I think the ultimate point you're trying to make is valid (academics should be priority number one), your supreme anti-jock rage is coming out big time.

There's probably around 10,000 football players in Division I alone and less than 500 guys (across all three divisions) will go on to become professional football players each year. It's far more likely that a guy is playing football as a means to get a college education versus just wanting to learn "plays and strategy" and dream about going to the NFL.

Of course there are guys that are talented athletes and they get by thanks to irresponsible coaches despite not knowing how to multiply 2 by 2, but to generalize all football players in that category just makes you look like a bitter nerd.

I hate to ride the "truth is in the middle" train, but you're absolutely correct in athletics being an important way for kids from underserved and under-resourced communities to get an education. It'd be nice if they could get around that because that creates it's own problem, but we don't exactly live in a utopian paradise of any stripe.

#37 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 April 2012 - 07:21 PM

1) I said proof, not some guy talking out of his ass

2) You didn't stay on point. "Sports boosting enrollment" =/= "Sports paying for academics"

3) You can still major in computer engineering (which for all intents and purposes can get you a tech job). The point is that they cut funding for research.


Talking out of my ass? How many other Division 1 scholarship athletes are on CAG? I can speak of experience that I'm sure few if any have.

His article is disgustingly old and doesn't go into the depth as why athletic departments run a defecit.

If schools only kept the money makers and sports that people followed or didn't suck in money you'd be left with Football, M&W Basketball, Men's Ice Hockey, and probably track and field.

The fact is that isn't legally possible due to Title IX. So you have money pits like women's hockey, lacrosse, swimming, diving, etc that bring in no money.

And WTF do you think boosted enrollment does? Derp... bring money back to the school!

#38 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 April 2012 - 07:23 PM

I'm bitter at an educational system, and society in general, that worships people for all the wrong reasons. It's funny that you think calling someone a nerd might be hurtful though. Lemme ask you this, would you rather have Bill Gates' money or Kobe's money? No, don't answer, not necessary.

But no, you're right, that's why those non-pro dreaming players all pick challenging and worthwhile majors. Not one picks something because it allows them more time to practice than some other mights, nah course not. They're playing ball and majoring in astrophysics.

But you're probably right that they're just playing so they could go to school. Of course they could have also studied harder and gotten academic scholarships, but hell, they can throw da ball, why study?
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#39 dmaul1114

dmaul1114

Posted 23 April 2012 - 07:28 PM

The problem is the majority of schools can't make money on football and men's basketball. Most of the major conference schools (SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 16 and Big East) can on one or both sports.

But most smaller schools no one really cares and they don't have the fanbase to make a profit even on Football and men's basketball.

For the BCS schools, the non-revenue sports are a major drag. There are a decent amount of BCS schools that make a profit on football or men's basketball, but have AD's in the red because of having to fund non-revenue sports. And Title IX is a big problem there as frankly no one cares about women's sports, and outside of a few top women's basketball programs like Tennessee, UCONN etc., pretty much every women's team loses lots of money. Same as the male teams in sports like soccer, track, swimming/diving etc.

If colleges are going to have sports, they need to change the rules to require athletic departments to at least break even. But with Title XI that will be hard since you have to have an equal number of men's and women's sports offered at equal funding levels. So schools really have to make a ton of money on football and/or men's basketball to cover that.

My solution that I've posted before is that football and men's basketball at the top level should be funded by the NFL and NBA respectively. They're using colleges as their minor leagues--unlike baseball which runs their own extensive minor league system. They should have to pony up.

For smaller schools, just scrap sports all together if it can't at least break even. Move to smaller club type programs that just play other schools within driving distance etc. to give students a chance to compete.

#40 dmaul1114

dmaul1114

Posted 23 April 2012 - 07:31 PM

But no, you're right, that's why those non-pro dreaming players all pick challenging and worthwhile majors. Not one picks something because it allows them more time to practice than some other mights, nah course not. They're playing ball and majoring in astrophysics.

But you're probably right that they're just playing so they could go to school. Of course they could have also studied harder and gotten academic scholarships, but hell, they can throw da ball, why study?


That's really only true of the major sports and big universities though.

One plus of sports is it does give scholarships to lots of kids who couldn't have afforded school otherwise.

At big time football and basketball schools, yeah a lot of the players in those sports are taking joke majors and not graduating anyway. But there are still back ups who have no pro delusions taking real majors on their scholarships.

And then all the sports like tennis, track, swimming etc. where hardly anyone has any pro delusions. And most every sport at smaller colleges that aren't getting any blue chip recruits with legit pro shots etc.

So it's not all a negative when you look at the bigger picture, having some athletic ability at least provides another outlet for poor kids to get to college. Mostly wasted at the top programs, but that's only a small part of the scholarship athlete picture.

#41 CaseyRyback

CaseyRyback

    Your New Nightmare!

  • Super Moderators

Posted 23 April 2012 - 07:32 PM

You don't understand how college athletics work do you?

•A little more than half of the I-A schools (67 of 119) made money on football or men's basketball (68) in fiscal 2006, based on revenues those programs generated.

^ These programs fund the money pits (rowing, diving, bowling, etc.). Athletic departments are in the red not because they can't be self sustainable but because TITLE IX requires that the ~ 100 scholarships that are offered just between the two money makers (Football, basketball) are balanced out on HUGE MONEY SUCKS called women's sports.

It's not enough to have these programs but the university must spend the same amount of money funding these programs. That is why college athletics aren't profitable at the smaller non BCS schools.

Edit: You can tell that study is dated because the term IA / IAA hasn't been used for almost a decade



I know how they work, but I guess you don't know how to read. Soodmeg clearly stated that Athletic departments fund nonathletic departments, and the article I linked to clearly showed that they didn't. It might be old, but that doesn't change that it is not a revenue producer and if it didn't work when times were good what makes you think it works after the recession? Also, ask UCONN how much of a priviledge it was to go to a BCS bowl that just ate their fucking lunch.

http://www.sportsbyb...huge-loss-29342

Posted Image


#42 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 April 2012 - 07:35 PM

No joke. The only brightsides are when work pays for it and that you're already familiar with a lot of the material. Or you could go the slower route and see if there's a cisco academy at the local community college. Not only is cheaper, but you also get discounted vouchers.


I hate to ride the "truth is in the middle" train, but you're absolutely correct in athletics being an important way for kids from underserved and under-resourced communities to get an education. It'd be nice if they could get around that because that creates it's own problem, but we don't exactly live in a utopian paradise of any stripe.

Yeah, It's obvious they mean for those with existing experience to ge the certs, but they're intentions and reality aren't exactly overlapping in the real world. You usually need the certs to get the job to get the experience, these companies that offer certs think it's the other way around.

I'll be completely honest, those kids would probably be better served learning a trade. College is hard for practically everyone. If you don't have a good foundation going in, it's going to be even harder. At least if they learned a trade they'd have a skill which would serve them to make a living. It isn't that I would deny anyone who wants to go, I think we need better access to education, it's just if they get accepted on an athletic scholarship, it's going to be a rude awakening when they get there, they'll probably either drop out because they can't handle the academics or they'll pick the easiest thing they can to try and stay in. Then even if they do graduate, how much better off will they really be?
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#43 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 April 2012 - 07:39 PM

That's really only true of the major sports and big universities though.

One plus of sports is it does give scholarships to lots of kids who couldn't have afforded school otherwise.

At big time football and basketball schools, yeah a lot of the players in those sports are taking joke majors and not graduating anyway. But there are still back ups who have no pro delusions taking real majors on their scholarships.

And then all the sports like tennis, track, swimming etc. where hardly anyone has any pro delusions. And most every sport at smaller colleges that aren't getting any blue chip recruits with legit pro shots etc.

So it's not all a negative when you look at the bigger picture, having some athletic ability at least provides another outlet for poor kids to get to college. Mostly wasted at the top programs, but that's only a small part of the scholarship athlete picture.

Like I replied to doh though, how many of those poor kids who get athletic scholarships really do that well? For the ones who actually care about academics, if they've got the drive to both play and do really well academically, they could probably gt an academic scholarship. If you can maintain a high GPA and still play football, you could probably do even better without the sports taking up your time, then you wouldn't need the athletic scholarship.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#44 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 April 2012 - 07:47 PM

I know how they work, but I guess you don't know how to read. Soodmeg clearly stated that Athletic departments fund nonathletic departments, and the article I linked to clearly showed that they didn't. It might be old, but that doesn't change that it is not a revenue producer and if it didn't work when times were good what makes you think it works after the recession? Also, ask UCONN how much of a priviledge it was to go to a BCS bowl that just ate their fucking lunch.

http://www.sportsbyb...huge-loss-29342

Wow, do you happen to know how that turned out for UCONN? That's an insane amount of money.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#45 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 April 2012 - 07:49 PM

Like I replied to doh though, how many of those poor kids who get athletic scholarships really do that well? For the ones who actually care about academics, if they've got the drive to both play and do really well academically, they could probably gt an academic scholarship. If you can maintain a high GPA and still play football, you could probably do even better without the sports taking up your time, then you wouldn't need the athletic scholarship.


I'm not going to spend all day researching this shit but colleges graduate athletes at a percentage that is equal to if not greater then the average student:

http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=2298735

The average for the 318 Division I colleges, including the Army, Navy and Air Force academies, was 76 percent. Other GSR averages included 69 percent for men, 86 percent for women, 82 percent for whites, 59 percent for blacks and 68 percent for Hispanics.

#46 dmaul1114

dmaul1114

Posted 23 April 2012 - 07:54 PM

Like I replied to doh though, how many of those poor kids who get athletic scholarships really do that well? For the ones who actually care about academics, if they've got the drive to both play and do really well academically, they could probably gt an academic scholarship. If you can maintain a high GPA and still play football, you could probably do even better without the sports taking up your time, then you wouldn't need the athletic scholarship.


More athletes in my classes do well than do poorly. Football players are a mixed bag (we've only had a football team for 2 year snow), but across other sports I've had lots of good students who play baseball or softball and so on. Some are from poor backgrounds, some aren't.

A lot of those from poor backgrounds probably didn't have the high school GPAs or test scores to get scholarships, so sports was their only way to afford to go. And they get access to tutors etc. to get them through when they probably wouldn't have gotten through without that extra help. Graduation rates for athletes tend to be above the university average--both from getting the extra help, and from having scholarships and not dropping out due to lack of funds, having to work full time etc. which is where we lose a lot of regular students.

And quite frankly, unless you're wanting to go beyond a bachelors you don't really have to do well. Employer's don't often ask for GPA or transcripts. So even if they just do the "C's get degrees" path, they've at least got that line on their resume so it doesn't get chucked in the trash since employers won't look at anyone without a degree. Just having the degree opens some doors, and that's a big benefit to anyone--i.e. unemployment rate for college grads has been roughly half that for people with only high school diplomas throughout this recession.

Edited by dmaul1114, 23 April 2012 - 08:18 PM.


#47 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 April 2012 - 08:10 PM

Yeah, I'm with dmaul on this one. I have a hard time hating on college sports anymore for his reasons. It's not without it's problems obviously.

I have to agree that the IT industry and HR depts have the whole cert thing messed up though.

#48 blindinglights

blindinglights

Posted 23 April 2012 - 08:14 PM

I'm bitter at an educational system, and society in general, that worships people for all the wrong reasons. It's funny that you think calling someone a nerd might be hurtful though. Lemme ask you this, would you rather have Bill Gates' money or Kobe's money? No, don't answer, not necessary.

But no, you're right, that's why those non-pro dreaming players all pick challenging and worthwhile majors. Not one picks something because it allows them more time to practice than some other mights, nah course not. They're playing ball and majoring in astrophysics.

But you're probably right that they're just playing so they could go to school. Of course they could have also studied harder and gotten academic scholarships, but hell, they can throw da ball, why study?



Who said I was being hurtful? Also, using the word nerd doesn't mean I believe being intelligent is a bad thing.

Ah I see, so unless they're majoring in something difficult they're worthless. Do you make fun of regular students who take on massive loans to get degrees in things you deem unworthy? Or do you just hold student athletes to a higher standard?

Because if you play a sport, you've obviously never studied in your life... Come on now.
2011 Completed Games
2012 Completed Games



Use Swag Bucks as your search engine, earn $10 to $15 in free Amazon credit per month. Find out how.


#49 Soodmeg

Soodmeg

Posted 23 April 2012 - 10:36 PM

So before I go off and try to site a bunch of stuff let me clarify myself. One I also was a college level athelete.

So to my first point that this is a rather pathetic "durr sports over school attempt." companies like university do not operate in one giant bubble of a budget but rather several murcia budgets. There is a budget for marketing a budget for accounting a budget of workers a budget for maintenance etc etc. so athletic department has very little to do with the computer budget and their department.

How many departments had an increase? Did nursing get a bump? Why are you not blaming America's need for nurses over IT professionals has the reason it got cut. There is just a shit ton of reasons why something like this could happen and to instantly draw a direct line to sport is embarrassingly pathetic.

Secondly when I said. On sports relate what I actually meant was things that are sports but are funded by the athletic department. ( I am on iphone so I am sorry for jut tosses out stuff hardto type a long post in a phone I shoul have been clearer) things like boosters dinner,cheat leading, color guard, marching band, chess, men's volleyball. All of these things exist because of football and basketball nd other vastly money making sports.

I am kinda confused at some f your points because it seems like some people think that sports are somehow suppose to prop up the entire school. Also a lot of the money from sports comes from donation of ex athletes. It's easier to get a stadium built when one of yor players makes it in the nfl.

I am sorry guys I would love to really get Ito the debate but I am currently building a NASCAR event outside all day so it's hard to get back to you.

So just retract my post again sorry.

#50 camoor

camoor

    Jams on foot fires

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 April 2012 - 12:02 AM

Talking out of my ass? How many other Division 1 scholarship athletes are on CAG? I can speak of experience that I'm sure few if any have.


Anecdotal

His article is disgustingly old and doesn't go into the depth as why athletic departments run a defecit.

If schools only kept the money makers and sports that people followed or didn't suck in money you'd be left with Football, M&W Basketball, Men's Ice Hockey, and probably track and field.

The fact is that isn't legally possible due to Title IX. So you have money pits like women's hockey, lacrosse, swimming, diving, etc that bring in no money.


More talking out of your ass.

And WTF do you think boosted enrollment does? Derp... bring money back to the school!


Top unis have a limited amount of spots, they typically fill those spots and turn down many applicants. So more student applicants =/= more profits.

#51 camoor

camoor

    Jams on foot fires

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 April 2012 - 12:05 AM

Yeah, I'm with dmaul on this one. I have a hard time hating on college sports anymore for his reasons. It's not without it's problems obviously.

I have to agree that the IT industry and HR depts have the whole cert thing messed up though.


Yeah I don't disagree either, it's just a funny headline to get people to pay attention.

I found it amusing that one of the articles I read quoted an Indian from an Indian university who was chastising the University of Florida. Come on this is America, do we really want to give up the ball that easy.

#52 dmaul1114

dmaul1114

Posted 24 April 2012 - 12:09 AM

Top unis have a limited amount of spots, they typically fill those spots and turn down many applicants. So more student applicants =/= more profits.


With state's slashing higher education budgets state schools have been upping enrollments to record numbers to help raise more money.

The catch is they also don't want to hurt themselves in the rankings--and a lot of rankings (i.e. US News) put a lot of weight on the average test scores and high school GPAs of the student body. So schools are hesitant to just dig deeper into the applicant pool and lower standards to up enrollment.

So any thing that can help up the overall number of applicants a school gets is a plus as a deeper pool makes it easier to bring in more students without dropping standards. And having big time sports is a help as lots of smart kids would still like to go to a school where they can party and enjoy sports etc. i.e. having a great basketball program makes Duke more appealing to many kids than some equally outstanding academic school with small time sports.

But again, the rub is most schools spend a lot of money on sports teams that no one cares about as people grow up fans of the big state university's, so it's just another thing that keeps those universities on top and makes it harder for other universities to rise up the rankings.


But even as a professor, I'm not the best to have an objective opinion on this stuff since I: 1) Don't care much about undergrads. 2) Grew up a big college football and basketball fan as my state doesn't have any pro teams.

#53 camoor

camoor

    Jams on foot fires

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 April 2012 - 12:59 AM

With state's slashing higher education budgets state schools have been upping enrollments to record numbers to help raise more money.

The catch is they also don't want to hurt themselves in the rankings--and a lot of rankings (i.e. US News) put a lot of weight on the average test scores and high school GPAs of the student body. So schools are hesitant to just dig deeper into the applicant pool and lower standards to up enrollment.

So any thing that can help up the overall number of applicants a school gets is a plus as a deeper pool makes it easier to bring in more students without dropping standards. And having big time sports is a help as lots of smart kids would still like to go to a school where they can party and enjoy sports etc. i.e. having a great basketball program makes Duke more appealing to many kids than some equally outstanding academic school with small time sports.

But again, the rub is most schools spend a lot of money on sports teams that no one cares about as people grow up fans of the big state university's, so it's just another thing that keeps those universities on top and makes it harder for other universities to rise up the rankings.


But even as a professor, I'm not the best to have an objective opinion on this stuff since I: 1) Don't care much about undergrads. 2) Grew up a big college football and basketball fan as my state doesn't have any pro teams.


If you're a big profitable program then I agree.

However for the smaller schools, I don't believe that spending millions necessarily gets more enrollments (or if it does that the negligible increase is worth it). My pet theory is that it's more about alumni money but when it comes to the small schools I'm also skeptical about that.

I think we are at least pretty close in opinion, I am taking beef with the college sports team fanboys.

#54 CaseyRyback

CaseyRyback

    Your New Nightmare!

  • Super Moderators

Posted 24 April 2012 - 01:50 AM

Wow, do you happen to know how that turned out for UCONN? That's an insane amount of money.


http://ctsportslaw.c...o-bcs-football/

That is what I found through google. They also lost their coach as they were flying back from the game, so they got screwed over financially and then they lost the coach that had built their program into a Big East contender.

Posted Image


#55 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 April 2012 - 02:01 AM

If you're a big profitable program then I agree.

However for the smaller schools, I don't believe that spending millions necessarily gets more enrollments (or if it does that the negligible increase is worth it). My pet theory is that it's more about alumni money but when it comes to the small schools I'm also skeptical about that.

I think we are at least pretty close in opinion, I am taking beef with the college sports team fanboys.



I can't even tell you how WRONG you are on this. It's not even worth debating.

Anyone here from NC or GA? It's has been PROVEN that the success of the Georgia Southern football (IAA/FCS National Champions 1985, 1986, 1989, 1990, 1999 and 2000) program and the Appalachian State University (FCS National Champions 2005, 2006 and 2007) program have dramatically increased the enrollement in those two programs.


Georgia Southern:

Georgia Southern's athletic teams are known as the Eagles and compete in NCAA Division I FCS as members of the Southern Conference. The Eagles compete in baseball, basketball, football, golf, tennis, volleyball, soccer, softball, swimming and diving, cross country and track and field.[41] The football team has won six NCAA Division I-AA national championships (1985, 1986, 1989, 1990, 1999 and 2000). The university's baseball team has participated in the College World Series twice (1973 and 1990).[12] The university has two different cheerleading squads, including an All-Girl Squad and the Coed Squad. There are twenty-two women that were chosen for the All-Girl squad and seven men and women consist of the Coed Squad.[42]
The university offers intramural teams for all varsity level sports, equestrian events, fencing, and judo.


AND


The past 10 years have represented the most significant period of growth in the University’s more than 100-year history. Not only has the University grown in enrollment, but it has also grown in physical size. With a Campus Master Plan in place, the University has continued to expand most recently with the addition of the 1,001-bed residence hall–Centennial Place. In addition, the University completely renovated and significantly expanded the Zach S. Henderson Library.[10] The institution also recently completed the construction of the Eugene M. Bishop Alumni Center that will serve as a gathering place for alumni and friends of the University.[11] The Center for Wildlife Education and the Botanical Garden have also been expanded. Today Georgia Southern has more than 20,000 students, more than 2,000 faculty and staff, and 117 programs of study at the bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral levels.


Appalachain State:

http://theapp.appsta...nt/view/2990/1/



University experiences 25 percent increase in freshman applications Posted ImagePosted ImageTuesday, 13 November 2007 by ANNE BAKER
Intern News Reporter

It’s never too early to plan for college.

This phrase seems to be more relevant each year as Appalachian State University sees a steady increase in applications.

As of last Friday, according to the admissions office, freshman applications for admittance to the university beginning fall 2008 totaled 8,218.

This is approximately a 25 percent increase in applications, as around 6,300 had been received last year at this time, Director of Admissions Paul N. Hiatt said.

Some people might attribute the growth rate with the win over the University of Michigan’s football team on Sept. 1, as well as the two consecutive national championships.

Sophomore elementary education major Megan A. Donovant said, “When someone asks you where you go to school and you tell them ASU, the first thing they usually say is that they know where the school is because we won a national championship in football. Without that, I don’t know if as many people would know about the university.”


However, other factors play a large role in the university’s application surge.


“Almost everyone is aware of the Michigan victory…athletics did bring a lot of focus to the university, but it also brought focus to all the other positive things that are happening here,” Hiatt said.


#56 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 April 2012 - 02:10 AM

http://ctsportslaw.c...o-bcs-football/

That is what I found through google. They also lost their coach as they were flying back from the game, so they got screwed over financially and then they lost the coach that had built their program into a Big East contender.



UConn's football program doesn't lose money. They got back doored into the Fiesta Bowl that year because they won a tie breaker (based on conference record) that put them in the Fiesta Bowl because they were the Big East champion which is a BCS conference based on it being a powerhouse conference ten years ago; in the years that Miami and Boston College were still part of the league and schools like Pitt and Syrcause were still a powerhouse.

That was a horrible game for them to be in because UConn doesn't draw well (Fans don't travel). Don't forget that UConn was just FCS/1AA as little as 15 years ago.

I think it might be the newest Division 1A / FBS program to ever reach a BCS bowl game.

Also, losing Edsall was not a factor. He coached UMaryland to a 10 LOSS season.

Edit: The only bad thing that came from losing Randy Edsall was hiring Paul Pasqualoni (former syracuse head coach). That was a really poor hiring and the only good thing Pasqualoni did was ride McNabb and D. Freeney to a top 10 ranking before imploding a once powerful Syracuse program.

In fact the hiring of Pasqualoni cost UConn more money then the fiesta bowl fiasco

http://www.upi.com/T...19171296005776/

#57 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 April 2012 - 02:22 AM

More education:

Sports save schools: Colleges are adding sports to boost revenue and increase enrollment

http://news.gaeatime...ollment-166876/

Yet dozens of schools across the country are making the same decision Pacific did — to add sports rather than reduce them — and have done so for years, The Associated Press learned by reaching out to all 95 of the multisport conferences in the NCAA’s Divisions I, II and III.
Overall, the AP found those colleges plan to add a total of 174 new teams and drop 59 over the next two years.
The reasons aren’t always economic — complying with rules that demand gender equality in sports and that require Division III schools to carry a minimum of 12 sports starting in 2010 also play a role. However, the economy keeps popping up as an important and often critical reason for the expansion, particularly in Divisions II and III, where athletes often don’t receive scholarships...

...“There is a perception out there from Division I that adding sports just consumes all the money,” said Adams State athletic director Larry Mortensen. “But at our level it’s just the opposite — generating sports adds revenue. It generates enrollment.”


Edit: Another good read

http://athleticbusin...=3841&zoneid=15

#58 rumblebear

rumblebear

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:45 AM

big deal. CS programs has one of the highest rate of attrition, so they probably had too few students to justify it. Besides, there's a saying that Computer Science is as hard as engineering, as useless as liberal arts. It's one of the worst field to go into as you'll be expected to work overtime and in the weekends with no extra pay, and is the easiest to be outsourced to India where they'll work for slave wages. The university is just doing their students a favor.

#59 camoor

camoor

    Jams on foot fires

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 April 2012 - 04:23 AM

big deal. CS programs has one of the highest rate of attrition, so they probably had too few students to justify it. Besides, there's a saying that Computer Science is as hard as engineering, as useless as liberal arts. It's one of the worst field to go into as you'll be expected to work overtime and in the weekends with no extra pay, and is the easiest to be outsourced to India where they'll work for slave wages. The university is just doing their students a favor.


Things are pretty bad in general. The blue collar job market sucks shit and there aren't many white-collar jobs left where you aren't expected to work overtime and in the weekends with no extra pay (IE salaried)

Doctors, lawyers, accountants, I don't think anyone has it particularly good anymore, it's only the top 1% that are living high on the hog.

If you know of a 9-to-5 white-collar job where you have total job security and you get paid for overtime let me know.

#60 Duo_Maxwell

Duo_Maxwell

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 April 2012 - 04:48 AM

http://www.usatoday....ial-study_N.htm

It is a few years old, but your point is complete bullshit. It hasn't been proven time and time again. It has been proven time and time again that athletic departments are a money pit.


19 college Division 1 programs made money according to that article. It's not true of every school but cut the point this is the University of Florida which brings us to...

http://money.cnn.com...rtune/index.htm

"In 2006 the school's athletic department took in $82.4 million in revenue - that's No.1 one in the SEC and No. 5 in the country." Yep, almost $83 mil...total money pit... and the dates match up too.

Now to be fair both articles use old figures and Florida has lust some its sports luster since then, but then again perhaps that's why they've chosen to invest more into athletics and get back some of that lost revenue.

And while agree that far too many schools throw too much money into athletics over academics some to the point of near academic ruin. I also agree that athletics do not fund the rest of the school's programs. In fact, pretty much all the revenue they make (if they do) goes right back into athletics or adminstrative salaries. My guess is that $83 million in revenue never left the athletic department's hands so to speak. However, I can also assure that in this instance, for the University of Florida, athletics are in fact not a money pit (well at least til they have some sanctions leveled against them thanks to Urban Meyer).