Should state supported schools offer scholarships to international student athletes?

CrispyChicken wrote:What athletic scholarship opportunities do U.S. students have at overseas universities? Seem to be somewhat of a trade imbalance, so to speak

Germany! Check out their educational system and the cheap tuition that they offer for international students. You can also do many programs in English.

Cor wrote:

HRE wrote:

Money for athletic scholarships does not come from money given to a university by the taxpayers. It comes either from revenue generated by the athletic department itself, ticket sales, parking and concessions at events, TV revenue, alumni and booster donations, etc..

What about non-Power 5 that lose millions on football and basketball. After paying for those sports with the money sources you listed, where does the money for their debt and non-revenue sports come from?

The money comes from the same places everywhere. Even at D2 state schools money for scholarships does not come from state funding. There may be tons of fees, when I was in grad school at UMass the fees I had to pay were about the same amount as my tuition.

HRE wrote:

HRE wrote:

Money for athletic scholarships does not come from money given to a university by the taxpayers. It comes either from revenue generated by the athletic department itself, ticket sales, parking and concessions at events, TV revenue, alumni and booster donations, etc..

The money comes from the same places everywhere. Even at D2 state schools money for scholarships does not come from state funding. There may be tons of fees, when I was in grad school at UMass the fees I had to pay were about the same amount as my tuition.

At non Power 5 schools it does not come from what is in bold above.

Most mid majors go far in the hole in those areas compared to expenditures for football & basketball. I read that the MAC averages $1.7 million losses in football and another $750k to $1.25 million if they make a bowl game.

Until NCAA coaches are told by the NCAA and/or their conference/athletic director/school's upper campus not to, then no.

This sounds rather harsh, but coaches at NCAA institutions aren't paid to develop domestic (much less in state) talent or put athletes on Olympic or world championship teams; their job is to place high in the conference and NCAA championships, and graduate student-athletes, while not breaking NCAA rules. That's what those coaches are judged on by their immediate bosses aka athletic director.

Cor wrote:

HRE wrote:

The money comes from the same places everywhere. Even at D2 state schools money for scholarships does not come from state funding. There may be tons of fees, when I was in grad school at UMass the fees I had to pay were about the same amount as my tuition.

At non Power 5 schools it does not come from what is in bold above.

Most mid majors go far in the hole in those areas compared to expenditures for football & basketball. I read that the MAC averages $1.7 million losses in football and another $750k to $1.25 million if they make a bowl game.

Of course the Group of Five schools and the independents get money from the sources you put into bold. They don't get as much as the Power Five schools do, but their games are on TV, the MAC has the mid week ESPN games, CBS Sports does loads of Group of Five games as does Fox Sports 1. Admission, parking, concessions, etc. are not free and they all have alumni and boosters. And many of them play an out of conference game or two at Power Five school where they usually get slaughtered in exchange for exposure and a big payday.

But yes, such places usually lose money on football. That has nothing to do with how they fund their athletic scholarships, those still are privately funded and it's still cheaper for taxpayers when the schools bring in students from out of state. There are also sports economists who say that overall the universities still benefit economically from revenue sports because the sports increase the size of the schools' applicant pools. When Appalachian State was still in 1-AA and went to Ann Arbor to beat then #2 Michigan the number of applicants they had for the following year went up massively, can't recall the numbers any more, but it was at least a three digit multiple.

American colleges attract the best talent from all over the world not just in sport but also in academics. Immigration and attracting the best talent is what makes America great. Competition causes Americans to work harder.

Maybe I'm just not making myself clear. If Akron University makes $6 million on the sources you listed such as concessions, tickets, etc. and the football team spends $8 million, how do they make up the $2 million deficit? And this is the case for most mid-major schools such as the MAC. The ole football claim that enrollment goes up etc. doesn't hold water for most of these mid-majors. Akron draws about 5000 "paid' fans per football game. A night of getting stomped by Eastern Michigan on Tuesday night TV is not drawing applications the following day. They had a game a few years ago that drew 200. People are not clamoring to enroll because they saw a MAC school playing on TV like they would in the very rare App-Mich situation. Now Power 5 TV revenue etc. does pay for themselves and a lion's share of the non-revenue sports. There are far fewer football teams breaking even than you think. They bring in some $ from the sources you listed but spend every penny + millions. Patrick Ewing's famous quote about needing higher salaries applies here: "Yes it's true we NBA players make a lot of money, but we spend a lot of money too."

HRE wrote:

Cor wrote:

What about non-Power 5 that lose millions on football and basketball. After paying for those sports with the money sources you listed, where does the money for their debt and non-revenue sports come from?

The money comes from the same places everywhere. Even at D2 state schools money for scholarships does not come from state funding. There may be tons of fees, when I was in grad school at UMass the fees I had to pay were about the same amount as my tuition.

This is the correct answer.

For most colleges the greatest part of athletic funding comes from student fees. As these fees are getting excessively large they tend to no longer itemize them to avoid blowback from the students. And as you say fees are becoming a very large part of the cost of attending college. By having fees on top of tuition colleges can get around any restrictions on tuition money.

You are making yourself clear. Yes, many schools spend more money on football than they take in and probably many do the same with basketball. And yes, they need to make up that shortfall somehow but state schools CANNOT do it by using money they get from their state and its taxpayers. They have to find other sources. That's all there is to it.

I would be curious what a full scholarship costs a university? I do not know? Assuming the following:

Tuition 17,000.00

Room 10,000.00

Meal plan 5,500.00

Books and fees 2,000.00

A full ride at this university would be valued at 34,500.00

But what does that actually cost the university?

Tuition - very little maybe 1K

Room - depends how demand student housing is - could be 3K to 10K in the scenario above

Meals -maybe they lose 3K - not taking away from anyone else

Books + Fees maybe 1K

I might be WAY OFF as I do not know but under my guess a 34,500.00 full ride may cost a university maybe 10K to 12k in real dollars

Like I said I am not sure?

HRE wrote:

You are making yourself clear. Yes, many schools spend more money on football than they take in and probably many do the same with basketball. And yes, they need to make up that shortfall somehow but state schools CANNOT do it by using money they get from their state and its taxpayers. They have to find other sources. That's all there is to it.

You have yet to tell me those "other" sources. That is all I am asking - I am curious. You stated sources that are dry for schools outside the Power 5 conferences. Others have stated student fees which makes sense. Could student tuition & fees be used for other purposes that otherwise use state taxes? I know that they can't in budget actuality but in theory?

No. The athletic department had to pay the university the full price.

Cor wrote:

HRE wrote:

You are making yourself clear. Yes, many schools spend more money on football than they take in and probably many do the same with basketball. And yes, they need to make up that shortfall somehow but state schools CANNOT do it by using money they get from their state and its taxpayers. They have to find other sources. That's all there is to it.

You have yet to tell me those "other" sources. That is all I am asking - I am curious. You stated sources that are dry for schools outside the Power 5 conferences. Others have stated student fees which makes sense. Could student tuition & fees be used for other purposes that otherwise use state taxes? I know that they can't in budget actuality but in theory?

I also said student activity fees. That's primarily what the "other" sources are. There is also a general university fund at most places and usually other fees beyond the activity fee. UMass had one, I can't recall the name, but it was a fee to give the university money to use when it wanted to. Honest.

I don't know the answer to your last question but I cannot really imagine how it could happen. Maybe someone else knows. The activity fee are used to fund parts of what you might call "the university experience., " not just athletics but the radio station, newspaper, speakers series, intramurals, etc. They could not use tax money to cover that.

CrispyChicken wrote:

I have perceived an increase in the number of international students participating on scholarship in NCAA sports, thus perhaps denying scholarship opportunities for U.S. citizens. In one recent press release with respect to a Women's T&F program at a state (i.e. taxpayer) supported school, perhaps half the recruits were from countries other than the U.S. Does international college recruiting dampen the motivation of U.S. high school athletes? Were the gender equity provisions of Title IX intended to benefit the entire world, or just U.S. residents?

Trick question. "State schools" shouldn't exist.

HRE wrote:

I also said student activity fees. That's primarily what the "other" sources are. There is also a general university fund at most places and usually other fees beyond the activity fee. UMass had one, I can't recall the name, but it was a fee to give the university money to use when it wanted to. Honest.

I don't know the answer to your last question but I cannot really imagine how it could happen. Maybe someone else knows. The activity fee are used to fund parts of what you might call "the university experience., " not just athletics but the radio station, newspaper, speakers series, intramurals, etc. They could not use tax money to cover that.

I glazed over your mention of student fees. Thanks for the insight.

I am so frustrated with the mid-majors pouring hopeless money into one sport forcing neglect of many other sport alternatives that I tend not to see the obvious things clearly.

Yeah, that's a whole 'nuther topic. Sort of in that vein, there's this:

Most schools lose money on athletics. Most P5 schools make money on football and basketball, but nearly every other school loses a lot of money on football and other sports.

I went to one of the largest, most powerful P5 athletic programs for college with a huge budget and football was the only men's sport that made money. Men's basketball even lost money until very recently (and will probably lose money again this year).

Perhaps apportioned based on the percentage of state and federal funding