University of Florida Eliminates Computer Science Department, Increases Athletic Budg
- Thread starter 62t
- Start date
I'm not surprised, plenty of schools care more about their athletic programs. Just a few years ago a report surfaced that said some Florida State football players could only read at a second grade level. They should expand their communications department, always plenty of comm majors on the team.
Any idea of how much money the top 20 programs bring in every year? While this isn't a smart move there are still a thousand other colleges and universities with Computer Science departments so this only affects those already enrolled at the University of Florida.
The blame doesn't lie on the universities it lies with the NFL and NBA (stern and Goodell respectively).
They have made it so players can no longer go straight from highschool (NBA) and must wait until three years after highschool I believe to declare eligible for the NFL draft.
Combine that with the fact that I don't believe you can be academically ineligible until 3 semesters after enrolling you have created a problem where kids are going to school just to play football and don't attend a single class because they know they can go pro half way after their sophmore year.
This isn't a problem as much in sports that have legitimate semi pro (minor league) programs like Hockey and Baseball but in football and basketball where those leagues are virtually no existant or a joke the NCAA Division 1 or FBS programs become the minor leagues.
The blame doesn't lie on the universities it lies with the NFL and NBA (stern and Goodell respectively).
They have made it so players can no longer go straight from highschool (NBA) and must wait until three years after highschool I believe to declare eligible for the NFL draft.
Combine that with the fact that I don't believe you can be academically ineligible until 3 semesters after enrolling you have created a problem where kids are going to school just to play football and don't attend a single class because they know they can go pro half way after their sophmore year.
This isn't a problem as much in sports that have legitimate semi pro (minor league) programs like Hockey and Baseball but in football and basketball where those leagues are virtually no existant or a joke the NCAA Division 1 or FBS programs become the minor leagues.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
I read somewhere that they are just moving alot of the Computer Science program to the Computer Engineering dept?
It basically means that America's biggest party school is formally admitting that they are not focusing on Computer Science research. Forgive me if I file this under 'no big loss'.
It basically means that America's biggest party school is formally admitting that they are not focusing on Computer Science research. Forgive me if I file this under 'no big loss'.
blindinglights
CAGiversary!
Their football program is one of the major profitable ones, so the increased athletic budget is likely due to all the other sports that don't make money.
But it makes a better article to say "football over science" than placing the blame on those girls that want to play lacrosse on the university's dime without generating any revenue.
But it makes a better article to say "football over science" than placing the blame on those girls that want to play lacrosse on the university's dime without generating any revenue.
[quote name='blindinglights']Their football program is one of the major profitable ones, so the increased athletic budget is likely due to all the other sports that don't make money.
But it makes a better article to say "football over science" than placing the blame on those girls that want to play lacrosse on the university's dime without generating any revenue.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, they're one of the big schools with an profitable athletic department from making money on football (and probably men's basketball too). So increasing the athletic budget is probably just letting the Athletic department keep more of their profits rather than directly pulling money from somewhere else to give them.
The perennial top 25 or so football and men's basketball programs generally make profits, so athletics isn't a problem there. It's just a huge issue for the majority of schools that lose money on sports.
But it makes a better article to say "football over science" than placing the blame on those girls that want to play lacrosse on the university's dime without generating any revenue.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, they're one of the big schools with an profitable athletic department from making money on football (and probably men's basketball too). So increasing the athletic budget is probably just letting the Athletic department keep more of their profits rather than directly pulling money from somewhere else to give them.
The perennial top 25 or so football and men's basketball programs generally make profits, so athletics isn't a problem there. It's just a huge issue for the majority of schools that lose money on sports.
Soodmeg
CAGiversary!
This is a stupid article that reaches into the old "blame it on dumb football jocks" well. They should be embarrassed to have written this.
It has been proven time and time again that athletics mostly football and basketball are almost the sole reason many non athletic programs get funded. So let's stop that pathetic attempt to hude your anti jock persona. Instead of trying to draw that shock topic I wish they would have done their job and actually found out the reasoning behind the cut and are planning to replace it with anything else.
I hate how news in our era is simply strawmen articles half the time.
It has been proven time and time again that athletics mostly football and basketball are almost the sole reason many non athletic programs get funded. So let's stop that pathetic attempt to hude your anti jock persona. Instead of trying to draw that shock topic I wish they would have done their job and actually found out the reasoning behind the cut and are planning to replace it with anything else.
I hate how news in our era is simply strawmen articles half the time.
Soodmeg
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Clak']The point is still that an academic department is being cut while athletics are being given more funding. Surely you can see the issue there, kind of runs in the face of the institution of higher learning.[/QUOTE]
No the problem is that you can't see the issue. It's not that simplistic and to pretend so is a waste of time. If you really look into it all university should only have men's basketball and football. All other sports and sports related clubs should be cut in order to provide the constantly money draining events like band, cheer leading, lacross, swimming ect ect. They have to make sure those 2 sports continue to make money. It's not that hard to understand.
But it's eaiser to make sports over science strawmen then to really look into why they are cutting that department. Maybe they have found that not many student actually pick it has a major or that it wasn't tailored to be competitive in the modern era. Did they ask what they were going to do long term?
No the problem is that you can't see the issue. It's not that simplistic and to pretend so is a waste of time. If you really look into it all university should only have men's basketball and football. All other sports and sports related clubs should be cut in order to provide the constantly money draining events like band, cheer leading, lacross, swimming ect ect. They have to make sure those 2 sports continue to make money. It's not that hard to understand.
But it's eaiser to make sports over science strawmen then to really look into why they are cutting that department. Maybe they have found that not many student actually pick it has a major or that it wasn't tailored to be competitive in the modern era. Did they ask what they were going to do long term?
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Soodmeg']This is a stupid article that reaches into the old "blame it on dumb football jocks" well. They should be embarrassed to have written this.
It has been proven time and time again that athletics mostly football and basketball are almost the sole reason many non athletic programs get funded.[/QUOTE]
"It has been proven time and time again"
k
I'm very tempted to just call bullshit, but I'll give you an opportunity to cite this proof.
It has been proven time and time again that athletics mostly football and basketball are almost the sole reason many non athletic programs get funded.[/QUOTE]
"It has been proven time and time again"
kI'm very tempted to just call bullshit, but I'll give you an opportunity to cite this proof.
[quote name='Soodmeg']This is a stupid article that reaches into the old "blame it on dumb football jocks" well. They should be embarrassed to have written this.
It has been proven time and time again that athletics mostly football and basketball are almost the sole reason many non athletic programs get funded. So let's stop that pathetic attempt to hude your anti jock persona. Instead of trying to draw that shock topic I wish they would have done their job and actually found out the reasoning behind the cut and are planning to replace it with anything else.
I hate how news in our era is simply strawmen articles half the time.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Soodmeg']No the problem is that you can't see the issue. It's not that simplistic and to pretend so is a waste of time. If you really look into it all university should only have men's basketball and football. All other sports and sports related clubs should be cut in order to provide the constantly money draining events like band, cheer leading, lacross, swimming ect ect. They have to make sure those 2 sports continue to make money. It's not that hard to understand.
But it's eaiser to make sports over science strawmen then to really look into why they are cutting that department. Maybe they have found that not many student actually pick it has a major or that it wasn't tailored to be competitive in the modern era. Did they ask what they were going to do long term?[/QUOTE]
I think you're missing the forest for the trees. You're not the only one of course and I actually don't have a problem with these programs being profitable or the need to sustain or increase that profitablility. The problem is that the reason that they need to be profitable in the first place, which you hit on, is that those funds are needed to fund other programs. The flipside of that coin is that the even more overarching reason that those programs need more funding is because there have been huge cuts to education funding in general and that UF has had it's state funding cut by 30% over the last few years.
We're talking about Scott Walker here so even with the establishment of a polytech, there is no way in hell that it's going to be given the resources that it needs to be an equivalent alternative to the program that was eliminated.
Using the argument that no one takes those classes is actually a bit of a false equivalence when there are tons of classes that have low enrollment but are offered anyways.
It has been proven time and time again that athletics mostly football and basketball are almost the sole reason many non athletic programs get funded. So let's stop that pathetic attempt to hude your anti jock persona. Instead of trying to draw that shock topic I wish they would have done their job and actually found out the reasoning behind the cut and are planning to replace it with anything else.
I hate how news in our era is simply strawmen articles half the time.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Soodmeg']No the problem is that you can't see the issue. It's not that simplistic and to pretend so is a waste of time. If you really look into it all university should only have men's basketball and football. All other sports and sports related clubs should be cut in order to provide the constantly money draining events like band, cheer leading, lacross, swimming ect ect. They have to make sure those 2 sports continue to make money. It's not that hard to understand.
But it's eaiser to make sports over science strawmen then to really look into why they are cutting that department. Maybe they have found that not many student actually pick it has a major or that it wasn't tailored to be competitive in the modern era. Did they ask what they were going to do long term?[/QUOTE]
I think you're missing the forest for the trees. You're not the only one of course and I actually don't have a problem with these programs being profitable or the need to sustain or increase that profitablility. The problem is that the reason that they need to be profitable in the first place, which you hit on, is that those funds are needed to fund other programs. The flipside of that coin is that the even more overarching reason that those programs need more funding is because there have been huge cuts to education funding in general and that UF has had it's state funding cut by 30% over the last few years.
We're talking about Scott Walker here so even with the establishment of a polytech, there is no way in hell that it's going to be given the resources that it needs to be an equivalent alternative to the program that was eliminated.
Using the argument that no one takes those classes is actually a bit of a false equivalence when there are tons of classes that have low enrollment but are offered anyways.
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 
ed 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.
ed 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.
[quote name='Clak']Yeah I don't quite understand where he's going with that.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
[quote name='Clak']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 ed 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.[/QUOTE]
Do you think the University of Florida gets more national recognition based on the professionals it produces in the Computer Science Major or the professionals it has produced on the football field / basketball court?
National recognition (Sports) = Money = Redistributed amongst the campus.
ed 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.[/QUOTE]
Do you think the University of Florida gets more national recognition based on the professionals it produces in the Computer Science Major or the professionals it has produced on the football field / basketball court?
National recognition (Sports) = Money = Redistributed amongst the campus.
[quote name='Clak']
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.
[/QUOTE]
Those schools already exist; it's called the Big 10...
[quote name='GBAstar']
National recognition (Sports) = Money = Redistributed amongst the campus.[/QUOTE]
That's the point of this article though because clearly that isn't happening. All this money the football team brings in apparently is staying mostly in the football program or the athletics department.
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.
[/QUOTE]
Those schools already exist; it's called the Big 10...
[quote name='GBAstar']
National recognition (Sports) = Money = Redistributed amongst the campus.[/QUOTE]
That's the point of this article though because clearly that isn't happening. All this money the football team brings in apparently is staying mostly in the football program or the athletics department.
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Those schools already exist; it's called the Big 10...[/QUOTE]
What would you want those athletes to do?
The days of LeBron James and Kobe Bryant going straight from highschool to the NBA are OVER
You can't go straight from highschool anymore. Bob Knight was on record saying that David Stern destroyed College Basketball when he made that rule that you either have to play one year of College Basketball OR be 19 to declare eligible for the NBA draft.
That means you have a cess pool of "one and dones" that go to whatever school is going to give their family the most money in a backdoor deal and they never go to a single class because they can't be declared ineligible until three semesters of grades have come out and they will leave school for the NBA long before that happens.
[quote name='RedvsBlue']
That's the point of this article though because clearly that isn't happening. All this money the football team brings in apparently is staying mostly in the football program or the athletics department.[/QUOTE]
I doubt that is true at all. Because one program is cut doesn't mean that all the money that Univesity of Florida Football brought in stayed in house. I'm sure they kicked back millions. I'm sure they kicked back much more money to the general fund then the computer science program did.
What would you want those athletes to do?
The days of LeBron James and Kobe Bryant going straight from highschool to the NBA are OVER
You can't go straight from highschool anymore. Bob Knight was on record saying that David Stern destroyed College Basketball when he made that rule that you either have to play one year of College Basketball OR be 19 to declare eligible for the NBA draft.
That means you have a cess pool of "one and dones" that go to whatever school is going to give their family the most money in a backdoor deal and they never go to a single class because they can't be declared ineligible until three semesters of grades have come out and they will leave school for the NBA long before that happens.
[quote name='RedvsBlue']
That's the point of this article though because clearly that isn't happening. All this money the football team brings in apparently is staying mostly in the football program or the athletics department.[/QUOTE]
I doubt that is true at all. Because one program is cut doesn't mean that all the money that Univesity of Florida Football brought in stayed in house. I'm sure they kicked back millions. I'm sure they kicked back much more money to the general fund then the computer science program did.
[quote name='Clak']The point is still that an academic department is being cut while athletics are being given more funding. Surely you can see the issue there, kind of runs in the face of the institution of higher learning.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I do of course agree with that.
CS has been a terrible thing to major in for ages though as the market is so saturated. So that's probably a big part of why that one got cut, along with programming and IT management stuff not being as complicated in the past so a lot of people are just getting jobs with certifications and/or 2 year degrees rather than 4 year degrees. Or it could just be that there are a glut of CS programs in Florida and they were having problems getting enrollments up etc. Hard to say.
But yeah, I didn't mean to imply that it's ok to let the AD keep more money while academics get cut. But just to say that big time school ADs make money so it's not a case of tuition money, state funding etc. going to them like it is at most schools.
Oh, I do of course agree with that.
CS has been a terrible thing to major in for ages though as the market is so saturated. So that's probably a big part of why that one got cut, along with programming and IT management stuff not being as complicated in the past so a lot of people are just getting jobs with certifications and/or 2 year degrees rather than 4 year degrees. Or it could just be that there are a glut of CS programs in Florida and they were having problems getting enrollments up etc. Hard to say.
But yeah, I didn't mean to imply that it's ok to let the AD keep more money while academics get cut. But just to say that big time school ADs make money so it's not a case of tuition money, state funding etc. going to them like it is at most schools.
[quote name='RedvsBlue']
That's the point of this article though because clearly that isn't happening. All this money the football team brings in apparently is staying mostly in the football program or the athletics department.[/QUOTE]
Yes, most big school athletic departments are self sufficient--they pay for themselves and keep most of their profits to fund scholarships, facility upgrades etc.
Where universities gain from having big time sports is in student recruitment. It's a big draw to upping the number of applicants as a lot of people want to go to a school with big time D1 sports. I'll freely admit that was the biggest reason I went to WVU rather than one of the other universities in WV (couldn't afford to go out of state for undergrad).
But it's certainly not worth it for the majority of schools who's athletic departments lose money and thus have to be subsidized by other funding sources. But it is something that benefits the major state universities in recruiting students and makes it harder for smaller universities to up enrollment and admission standards.
That's the point of this article though because clearly that isn't happening. All this money the football team brings in apparently is staying mostly in the football program or the athletics department.[/QUOTE]
Yes, most big school athletic departments are self sufficient--they pay for themselves and keep most of their profits to fund scholarships, facility upgrades etc.
Where universities gain from having big time sports is in student recruitment. It's a big draw to upping the number of applicants as a lot of people want to go to a school with big time D1 sports. I'll freely admit that was the biggest reason I went to WVU rather than one of the other universities in WV (couldn't afford to go out of state for undergrad).
But it's certainly not worth it for the majority of schools who's athletic departments lose money and thus have to be subsidized by other funding sources. But it is something that benefits the major state universities in recruiting students and makes it harder for smaller universities to up enrollment and admission standards.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Oh, I do of course agree with that.
CS has been a terrible thing to major in for ages though as the market is so saturated. So that's probably a big part of why that one got cut, along with programming and IT management stuff not being as complicated in the past so a lot of people are just getting jobs with certifications and/or 2 year degrees rather than 4 year degrees. Or it could just be that there are a glut of CS programs in Florida and they were having problems getting enrollments up etc. Hard to say.
But yeah, I didn't mean to imply that it's ok to let the AD keep more money while academics get cut. But just to say that big time school ADs make money so it's not a case of tuition money, state funding etc. going to them like it is at most schools.[/QUOTE]ACtually there's a real shortage of more specialized training in IT, the simpler stuff is certainly easier to get into, but I wouldn't say there's an outright glut, just a lot of less experienced people and not enough entry levels jobs for them. In this market companies can ask for 2-3 years of experience for just entry level jobs, and that isn't even entry level any more at that point.
CS has been a terrible thing to major in for ages though as the market is so saturated. So that's probably a big part of why that one got cut, along with programming and IT management stuff not being as complicated in the past so a lot of people are just getting jobs with certifications and/or 2 year degrees rather than 4 year degrees. Or it could just be that there are a glut of CS programs in Florida and they were having problems getting enrollments up etc. Hard to say.
But yeah, I didn't mean to imply that it's ok to let the AD keep more money while academics get cut. But just to say that big time school ADs make money so it's not a case of tuition money, state funding etc. going to them like it is at most schools.[/QUOTE]ACtually there's a real shortage of more specialized training in IT, the simpler stuff is certainly easier to get into, but I wouldn't say there's an outright glut, just a lot of less experienced people and not enough entry levels jobs for them. In this market companies can ask for 2-3 years of experience for just entry level jobs, and that isn't even entry level any more at that point.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yes, most big school athletic departments are self sufficient--they pay for themselves and keep most of their profits to fund scholarships, facility upgrades etc.
Where universities gain from having big time sports is in student recruitment. It's a big draw to upping the number of applicants as a lot of people want to go to a school with big time D1 sports. I'll freely admit that was the biggest reason I went to WVU rather than one of the other universities in WV (couldn't afford to go out of state for undergrad).
But it's certainly not worth it for the majority of schools who's athletic departments lose money and thus have to be subsidized by other funding sources. But it is something that benefits the major state universities in recruiting students and makes it harder for smaller universities to up enrollment and admission standards.[/QUOTE]
And that's a quantity over quality issue, you get people going to those schools whose first priority was who had the best sports team. Don't forget the original expense for all of those athletic facilities either, stadiums don't build themselves, the state most likely had to pay to start them, even if they're self sufficient now, no telling how long it took for them to get there either.
It's all marketing really, it all comes back to putting butts in the seats.
Where universities gain from having big time sports is in student recruitment. It's a big draw to upping the number of applicants as a lot of people want to go to a school with big time D1 sports. I'll freely admit that was the biggest reason I went to WVU rather than one of the other universities in WV (couldn't afford to go out of state for undergrad).
But it's certainly not worth it for the majority of schools who's athletic departments lose money and thus have to be subsidized by other funding sources. But it is something that benefits the major state universities in recruiting students and makes it harder for smaller universities to up enrollment and admission standards.[/QUOTE]
And that's a quantity over quality issue, you get people going to those schools whose first priority was who had the best sports team. Don't forget the original expense for all of those athletic facilities either, stadiums don't build themselves, the state most likely had to pay to start them, even if they're self sufficient now, no telling how long it took for them to get there either.
It's all marketing really, it all comes back to putting butts in the seats.
panzerfaust
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
Maybe their CS department was terrible in the first place and had it coming? At least it saves kids from wasting money.
Their is a demand for CS majors, it's just those departments don't seem to be very enticing to undergraduates for some reason -- especially women.
Their is a demand for CS majors, it's just those departments don't seem to be very enticing to undergraduates for some reason -- especially women.
[quote name='Clak']ACtually there's a real shortage of more specialized training in IT, the simpler stuff is certainly easier to get into, but I wouldn't say there's an outright glut, just a lot of less experienced people and not enough entry levels jobs for them. In this market companies can ask for 2-3 years of experience for just entry level jobs, and that isn't even entry level any more at that point.[/QUOTE]
Preaching to the choir on that one. You need that and a CS degree just for a $15 an hour tier 1 help desk job.
Preaching to the choir on that one. You need that and a CS degree just for a $15 an hour tier 1 help desk job.
panzerfaust
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
D'aww you guys are scaring me
[quote name='panzerfaust']D'aww you guys are scaring me[/QUOTE]
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!
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!
- Feedback
- 131 (100%)
[quote name='Soodmeg']This is a stupid article that reaches into the old "blame it on dumb football jocks" well. They should be embarrassed to have written this.
It has been proven time and time again that athletics mostly football and basketball are almost the sole reason many non athletic programs get funded. So let's stop that pathetic attempt to hude your anti jock persona. Instead of trying to draw that shock topic I wish they would have done their job and actually found out the reasoning behind the cut and are planning to replace it with anything else.
I hate how news in our era is simply strawmen articles half the time.[/QUOTE]
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2008-05-16-financial-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.
It has been proven time and time again that athletics mostly football and basketball are almost the sole reason many non athletic programs get funded. So let's stop that pathetic attempt to hude your anti jock persona. Instead of trying to draw that shock topic I wish they would have done their job and actually found out the reasoning behind the cut and are planning to replace it with anything else.
I hate how news in our era is simply strawmen articles half the time.[/QUOTE]
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2008-05-16-financial-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.
[quote name='dohdough']Preaching to the choir on that one. You need that and a CS degree just for a $15 an hour tier 1 help desk job.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's complete BS. Read the description of some certs, especially MS ones. "This certificiation is designed for professionals with x amount of experience". When the reality is that they won't even talk to you unless you've already got it, so you can't gain experience first.
Yeah, it's complete BS. Read the description of some certs, especially MS ones. "This certificiation is designed for professionals with x amount of experience". When the reality is that they won't even talk to you unless you've already got it, so you can't gain experience first.
[quote name='CaseyRyback']http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2008-05-16-financial-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.[/QUOTE]
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
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.[/QUOTE]
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
[quote name='dohdough']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![/QUOTE]
Don't remind me dammit. Ugh.....
Damn cert classes are expensive too. A few grand for a course that lasts a week, me....
edit: Don't forget to brush up on your AD too!
[/QUOTE]Don't remind me dammit. Ugh.....
Damn cert classes are expensive too. A few grand for a course that lasts a week,
me....
blindinglights
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Clak']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 ed 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.[/QUOTE]
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.
ed 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.[/QUOTE]
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.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='GBAstar']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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.[/QUOTE]
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.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='CaseyRyback']http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2008-05-16-financial-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.[/QUOTE]
This post is win.
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.[/QUOTE]
This post is win.
[quote name='Clak']Don't remind me dammit. Ugh.....
Damn cert classes are expensive too. A few grand for a course that lasts a week, me....[/QUOTE]
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.
[quote name='blindinglights']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.[/QUOTE]
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.
Damn cert classes are expensive too. A few grand for a course that lasts a week,
me....[/QUOTE]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.
[quote name='blindinglights']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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[quote name='camoor']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.[/QUOTE]
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!
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.[/QUOTE]
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!
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?
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?
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.
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.
[quote name='Clak']
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?[/QUOTE]
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.
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?[/QUOTE]
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.
- Feedback
- 131 (100%)
[quote name='GBAstar']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[/QUOTE]
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 theiring lunch.
http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/uconn-begs-fans-to-buy-tix-facing-huge-loss-29342
•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[/QUOTE]
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
ing lunch. http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/uconn-begs-fans-to-buy-tix-facing-huge-loss-29342
[quote name='dohdough']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.[/QUOTE]
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?
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.[/QUOTE]
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?
[quote name='dmaul1114']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.[/QUOTE]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.
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.[/QUOTE]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.
[quote name='CaseyRyback']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 ing lunch.
http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/uconn-begs-fans-to-buy-tix-facing-huge-loss-29342[/QUOTE]
Wow, do you happen to know how that turned out for UCONN? That's an insane amount of money.
ing lunch. http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/uconn-begs-fans-to-buy-tix-facing-huge-loss-29342[/QUOTE]
Wow, do you happen to know how that turned out for UCONN? That's an insane amount of money.
[quote name='Clak']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.[/QUOTE]
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.go.com/ncaa/news/story?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.
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.go.com/ncaa/news/story?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.
[quote name='Clak']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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
blindinglights
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Clak']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?[/QUOTE]
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.
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?[/QUOTE]
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.
Soodmeg
CAGiversary!
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.
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.
bread's done