I will vote for whoever promises to regulate these two businesses

2011-06-03 16:41:03

#1

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5825

https://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/ncaa_secondaryc.jpg

Those are two things that really need to die.

The first one, University of Phoenix, is the largest for profit school in the world and second largest overall. It charges people huge tuitions in order to get worthless degrees. Each year thousands of people sign up and fork over tens of thousands of dollars to this bullshit "school".

The NCAA

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is a semi-voluntary association of 1,281 institutions, conferences, organizations and individuals that organizes the athletic programs of many colleges and universities in the United States

Doesn't sound too bad right? No. A good chunk of the athletes who get those college sports scholarships never graduate, most of the rest end up with degrees that can't get them a job anywhere. By NCAA rules the athletes don't get a cut of the profits, it all goes to the school and the NCAA. Also, the rate of college sports funding is extreme compared to academic funding at most universities.

Now why should any of us care? Yeah, the UoP people are stupid and the NCAA is just providing entertainment right? No, our tax money funds this crap.

Almost all UoP money comes from federal government backed student loans. The vast majority of people who take loans to pay UoP end up not being able to pay them back, so the government ends up either holding the bag for them or people end up in massive amounts of debt to the federal government all the while restricting cash flow to people who need it to get a real education.

Remember the thread above about the Knight Commission report? It's not a big deal if it were just private universities but tax payer funded state universities fall into the NCAA crap hole also. The point of state universities was to provide cheap higher education to locals who otherwise may not get the opportunity. The state university system was not created in order to fund college sports teams or the NCAA. We are supposed to be using those schools to get a better educated workforce not sports entertainment.

u mad? Yes, I'm very mad. Both of these things are getting ignored while the government instead tries to stop me from smoking pot, or getting an abortion, or nailing a hooker. I'll vote for literally anyone who makes it a goal to butcher these business's like a serial killer with a homeless man.

2011-06-03 16:46:25

#2

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

higher education funding is, generally, a tragic affair across the board. sadly mainstream politics and populist opinion all too often dictates or determines the academic running of single institutions and the educational establishment as a whole. one of the biggest shames, in my opinion, is the shift in attitude and approach to higher-education, pushed along and encouraged by (western) governments, which has effected a turn in university education from humanistic and liberal principles of academia to job-vocational training academies. nowadays almost everything has to be accountable to a future salary or a career-plan; knowledge for the sake of knowledge has been made to look terribly old-fashioned and misguided (of course, it isn't). it seems that your above examples are just an absurd extenuation of these circumstances.

Last edited by Uzique (2011-06-03 16:47:29)

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-06-03 16:48:33

#3

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5499|foggy bottom

every person Ive met who had a "degree" from UoP was a moron.

Tu Stultus Es

2011-06-03 16:57:53

#4

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5942|College Park, MD

how is it the NCAA's fault that their athletes are too stupid to major in anything with good job prospects?

e: I do agree about the disparity in funding for NCAA sports vs academics. Outside of our big programs, most other academics don't get much funding here.

Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2011-06-03 16:59:00)

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2011-06-03 16:58:43

#5

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6737

Hurricane2k9 wrote:
how is it the NCAA's fault that their athletes are too stupid to major in anything with good job prospects?

going pro

2011-06-03 17:00:07

#6

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5942|College Park, MD

burnzz wrote:
Hurricane2k9 wrote:
how is it the NCAA's fault that their athletes are too stupid to major in anything with good job prospects?
going pro

uh what?

2011-06-03 17:01:34

#7

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6737

they think they*re going pro, so they take underwater basket weaving. they are that dumb, because they listen to athletic supporters.

2011-06-03 17:05:22

#8

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5942|College Park, MD

meh, do a research (noob) and one can easily find how many NCAA players end up going pro... if they can't do that they shouldn't be in college

2011-06-03 17:26:05

#9

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6777|Long Island, New York

Big sports teams help draw in money for these state universities and help create better education for non-athletes. UCLA, Penn State, Maryland... all have great sports teams and are around $25K a year for tuition and room and board for in-state students. Not bad all things considered. So I don't really see the issue for funding sports teams when the school has a proven track record of sports success and is known as being a big sports school. Do you really think Penn State's education would be nearly as good if the Nittany Lions were a DIII team through their entire existence?

Meanwhile if a college like SUNY Albany had a really successful sports team, their campus wouldn't look like total shit.

Last edited by Poseidon (2011-06-03 17:31:01)

2011-06-03 17:26:55

#10

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5499|foggy bottom

same here

Tu Stultus Es

2011-06-03 17:31:39

#11

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

Poseidon wrote:
Big sports teams help draw in money for these state universities and help create better education for non-athletes. UCLA, Penn State, Maryland... all have great sports teams and are around $25K a year for tuition and room and board for in-state students. Not bad all things considered. So I don't really see the issue for funding sports teams when the school has a proven track record of sports success and is known as being a big sports school. Do you really think Penn State's education would be nearly as good if the Nittany Lions were a DIII team through their entire existence?

Meanwhile if a college like SUNY Albany had a really successful sports team, their campus wouldn't look like total shit.

that argument would almost make sense except you could just give more money (even taxpayer money, may i suggest) to academia and universities directly for the exact same purposes... and cut out the cost and expense of sports teams.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-06-03 17:34:01

#12

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5499|foggy bottom

they have been drastically taking away from state school's budgets these last few years

Last edited by eleven bravo (2011-06-03 17:34:12)

Tu Stultus Es

2011-06-03 17:37:18

#13

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6777|Long Island, New York

Uzique wrote:
Poseidon wrote:
Big sports teams help draw in money for these state universities and help create better education for non-athletes. UCLA, Penn State, Maryland... all have great sports teams and are around $25K a year for tuition and room and board for in-state students. Not bad all things considered. So I don't really see the issue for funding sports teams when the school has a proven track record of sports success and is known as being a big sports school. Do you really think Penn State's education would be nearly as good if the Nittany Lions were a DIII team through their entire existence?

Meanwhile if a college like SUNY Albany had a really successful sports team, their campus wouldn't look like total shit.
that argument would almost make sense except you could just give more money (even taxpayer money, may i suggest) to academia and universities directly for the exact same purposes... and cut out the cost and expense of sports teams.

Big sports teams help draw a lot of funding, though. From merchandising, from TV contracts, from ticket sales for non-students, and then from students from out of state. You see a lot less out of state kids at a state school with subpar/DII/DIII/DIV sports teams than you do at a big sports school like Penn State, as I've been using as an example. They pay higher costs since they're not a resident in the state of Pennsylvania. Hell, I won't deny having a good sports team/a sense of "school spirit" was a very small part of why I'm going to UMiami.

If you cut all sports from Penn State and only gave that money to academia, you'd see a dramatic dropoff in enrollment and revenue.

2011-06-03 17:48:11

#14

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6872|949

I don't think you can accurately make a positive correlation as far as revenue gained from collegiate sports improving academics at their schools. When a school gets a windfall as a result of revenue from sports they don't often go and build a better science lab with this funding, they put it right back into their moneymaker - collegiate sports.

2011-06-03 17:50:28

#15

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5825

The link in the OP was cool.

"The myth of the business model – that football and men’s basketball cover their own expenses and fully support non-revenue sports – is put to rest by an NCAA study finding that 94 [of the then 119 FBS] institutions ran a deficit for the 2007-08 school year, averaging losses of $9.9 million."

2011-06-03 17:52:16

#16

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

oops, guess not then, eh, poseidon. looks like it probably is better to just - shock! horror! - fund universities best by funding academia.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-06-03 17:52:50

#17

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7012|PNW

I wish I'd stop getting e-mail from the UoP.

2011-06-03 17:53:09

#18

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6737

like Royal Halloway, amirite?

2011-06-03 17:56:11

#19

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

a better analogy would be trying to justify oxbridge's mis-funding and poor strategy by arguing that the promotion given to their rowing teams somehow encourages academic excellence in philosophy and builds new science labs. it doesn't.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-06-03 17:57:30

#20

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6737

i don't care if NFL don't play, i got PAC-12 football on my AM radio this fall.

2011-06-03 18:07:57

#21

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6777|Long Island, New York

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I don't think you can accurately make a positive correlation as far as revenue gained from collegiate sports improving academics at their schools. When a school gets a windfall as a result of revenue from sports they don't often go and build a better science lab with this funding, they put it right back into their moneymaker - collegiate sports.

Like GS said, funding for public universities is dropping off rapidly. The difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition costs is nearly double in some schools. These schools are attractive to out of state people because of the sports teams, partially if not a very good amount. For most people I talked to going to out of state state schools, it was at least a big part. It creates a sense of school pride which a lot of prospective students want. In that, the school gains more money than it would without big sports teams.

Not to mention having big sports teams, I would imagine, leads to a hell of a lot more alumni donating to the school.

Macbeth wrote:
The link in the OP was cool.
"The myth of the business model – that football and men’s basketball cover their own expenses and fully support non-revenue sports – is put to rest by an NCAA study finding that 94 [of the then 119 FBS] institutions ran a deficit for the 2007-08 school year, averaging losses of $9.9 million."

Okay, fair enough on that... but what does that have to do with the fact that without sports, major state schools would be less attractive to out of state students and thus less money for the school for academia? Again, a state school like SUNY Albany - shitty sports teams, relies almost entirely on state funding, almost entirely in-state students, and an education not nearly as good as one found at Penn State.

Penn State has 36% out of state students. That's around 14,000 out of state undergrads paying $12K more than in-state students. I'm no math wiz, but I believe that's 168 million dollars extra for the school coming from an influx of out of state students. Then you have SUNY Albany with it's crappy sports teams and 94% in-state students.

Last edited by Poseidon (2011-06-03 18:08:57)

2011-06-03 18:21:46

#22

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5825

I don't know anyone who picked a school in part because of it's sports team. Everyone I know decided on cost, distance, education value, degree field etc. Sports team? School spirit? What are we 12?

Last edited by Macbeth (2011-06-03 18:27:13)

2011-06-03 18:29:29

#23

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5942|College Park, MD

Nah, I know what Poseidon means. All the universities I applied to had a strong sense of spirit and community (VA Tech being the biggest one I'd say). It's nice to feel like a part of something.

Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2011-06-03 18:29:52)

2011-06-03 18:42:29

#24

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

i could give a shit how my school does in the sports leagues. my future employers won't favour me because my alma mater had a neat mascot.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-06-03 19:17:29

#25

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6872|949

Poseidon wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I don't think you can accurately make a positive correlation as far as revenue gained from collegiate sports improving academics at their schools. When a school gets a windfall as a result of revenue from sports they don't often go and build a better science lab with this funding, they put it right back into their moneymaker - collegiate sports.
Like GS said, funding for public universities is dropping off rapidly. The difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition costs is nearly double in some schools. These schools are attractive to out of state people because of the sports teams, partially if not a very good amount. For most people I talked to going to out of state state schools, it was at least a big part. It creates a sense of school pride which a lot of prospective students want. In that, the school gains more money than it would without big sports teams.

but none of that has any relevence to the strength of the school's athletic programs increasing the prestige of the academics.

BF2S Forums I will vote for whoever promises to regulate these two businesses

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

burnzz wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Board footer