I know that's just a random example but I'm pretty sure there's only one or two schools in the country that give scholarships for water polo and they produce most of the Olympians in the sport so they probably get good support from the alumni.
I know that's just a random example but I'm pretty sure there's only one or two schools in the country that give scholarships for water polo and they produce most of the Olympians in the sport so they probably get good support from the alumni.
This answers the water polo question...
4.5 scholarships for men and 8 for women. Limit set by NCAA. I think this could be the next lawsuit. Is it a restraint of trade?
Tocino wrote:
Bernie Sanders idea of free college. What happens to CC and track scholarships? people will run for a school cause they want to? will this hurt the overall performance of the US on the international competition level? Maybe the NCAA would have to pay the students?! discuss
Unless you run for one of the big schools, most running teams have very limited number of scholarships. My D1 XC team had exactly 1.5 scholarships for the entire XC men's team. Usually split among new recruits and the best runner. Pretty much $2000 for the top guy, $500 for 2 others. Not much. So there really wouldn't be much difference.
the more interesting question is how free public college would affect athletics public vs. private.
The ivies would be fine
but a second tier school like Syracuse...how is it going to get recruits when U Mich or SUNY Binghamton is free? A 25% scholarship to syracuse still leaves a huge bill.
maybe so many great students would go to the free public schools that it would be much easier to get into the privates so they would get the dumb, fast, rich kids.
I don't know...interesting problem.
I don't get a dime from my school and still run at every meet and go to every practice. It's the love for running
I'm pretty sure that Bernie would ban NCAA athletics.
agip wrote:
the more interesting question is how free public college would affect athletics public vs. private.
The ivies would be fine
but a second tier school like Syracuse...how is it going to get recruits when U Mich or SUNY Binghamton is free? A 25% scholarship to syracuse still leaves a huge bill.
maybe so many great students would go to the free public schools that it would be much easier to get into the privates so they would get the dumb, fast, rich kids.
I don't know...interesting problem.
I would like to know how much each university will get? For example, universities in my state range from $6k to $15k in state. The $15k is obviously a better school. When tuition becomes free, how much money goes to each?
Adding to the convo wrote:
agip wrote:the more interesting question is how free public college would affect athletics public vs. private.
The ivies would be fine
but a second tier school like Syracuse...how is it going to get recruits when U Mich or SUNY Binghamton is free? A 25% scholarship to syracuse still leaves a huge bill.
maybe so many great students would go to the free public schools that it would be much easier to get into the privates so they would get the dumb, fast, rich kids.
I don't know...interesting problem.
I would like to know how much each university will get? For example, universities in my state range from $6k to $15k in state. The $15k is obviously a better school. When tuition becomes free, how much money goes to each?
don't wake the socialists from their dreams!
SonOfRitz wrote:
Unless you run for one of the big schools, most running teams have very limited number of scholarships. My D1 XC team had exactly 1.5 scholarships for the entire XC men's team. Usually split among new recruits and the best runner. Pretty much $2000 for the top guy, $500 for 2 others. Not much. So there really wouldn't be much difference.
This. Very very few run for the money. I personally know several kids who were multi time state champions and ended up being D1 all americans who only got free books. They went on academic scholarships.
In fact, in D3, athletics, even football, makes money by recruiting kids who want to play college sports and can pay tuition.
Bet your life that SUNY schools have athletic scholarships. Just make sure whoever you're betting against puts up something good in return. Buffalo, Albany, and Stonybrook all have DI basketball and either 1-A or 1-AA football teams that are competitive in their conferences. That means scholarships.
The three main sources of athletic funding at state schools are revenues, donations and student fees. When I was in college, a D2 state school, coaches' salaries were paid from state and tuition money. But we technically didn't have paid coaches. They all were professors who were "compensated" for coaching with reduced teaching loads.(They could be really reduced loads but all our coaches taught. Team expenses, (travel and meal money, uniforms, officials' fees, etc.) were all paid for with money from student activity fees. No scholarships were given then in any sport.
In subsequent decades they've given scholarships in some sports but those cannot legally be funded by money received from the state. I believe that 100% of the money that goes to scholarships comes from donations, mostly from alumni. Obviously, football and basketball will get most of that money but over the past half century there have been hundreds or maybe thousands of us who did a non revenue sport at that school and quite a few of us donate regularly and specifically to our old sport(s.) Then there are general donations that will be used for various reasons.
I would bet that loads of women who once played softball at UC San Diego feel a pretty deep commitment to that program and donate more than you'd expect. Parents of women currently playing there may do the same. And there would also be some awareness among AD officials and general UC San Diego boosters that Title IX requires a minimum number of women's sports and who'll want money going to women's softball and will allocate some money to it. I do not know of a state where a school can use state money for scholarships of any kind but maybe someone here does.
agip wrote:
HRE wrote:I'm not a fan of the athletic scholarship either. But they're not financed by tax dollars. The money comes from athletic department revenue and contributions from alumni and fans. I am curious as to what state university doesn't give athletic scholarships though. I thought all of them at least gave some.
well actually I don't know for a fact that the state univ of NY doesn't have athletic scholarships. But if it does it has to be on a smaller scale than just about anywhere else.
I don't believe that tax dollars don't wind their way to athletic scholarships. I've heard that but it makes no sense. How, say, are softball scholarships at say UC san diego funded by athletic donations? many schools that offer scholarships have no revenue sports to speak of...I've yet to see an explanation of how taxpayers aren't covering the bill for that.
I'm sure at some big football schools the athletics department actually works at a profit. But that's just a few schools.
and even there, why should those profits go to pay for the water polo scholarships? Why shouldn't those profits be given back to the university/taxpayers?
Here is the list of highest paid public salary in each state. Look at how many of them are either football or college coaches.
This is tax money.
http://247wallst.com/special-report/2015/09/11/highest-paid-employee-in-each-state/2/Bernie was a good runner for his era. I wouldn't mind if he shut down the NCAA, which is heinous in many ways. But he might want to mandate more scholarships for track and xc.
I imagine the net result would be that private colleges would have to reduce their tuitions to stay competitive. So maybe Yale will have to dip into its $25 billion endowment. And its board members' firms might not get to collect as much in fees for managing that money. And maybe NYU and Columbia will have to stop buying up all the real estate in Manhattan.
Not sure of all the unintended consequences of tuition free public colleges, but it will be an interesting experiment. It's certainly better than state schools charging upwards of $40k a year.
letsrunfreecollege.com?
derp wrote:
I imagine the net result would be that private colleges would have to reduce their tuitions to stay competitive.
Ahhh. But human behavior is a little different when something costs them nothing.
"free" typically becomes, the worst on their preferences ladder and the more expensive the school actually preferred more only because it costs more.