Show me the money--Players turning pro

[Osorojo]

Re: Show me the money--Players turning pro

Nearly every college? How many are private colleges. Wonder how much public funding Harvard receives?

Heck you can't even make that argument about some Public schools.


What color is the sky in your world.

Even the most heavily endowed private universities are not above taking money from the government (public money), and more than a little government financial support is offered to and accepted by private schools. Both industry and government give financial support to endowed schools in hopes of attracting intelligent and well-educated graduates into their ranks. Until I got to the ad hominem responses I was surprised so many posters on this site seem to be ignorant of this fact.

There is a tiny chance that developing more and better athletes and entertainers will make our nation stronger and more financially competetive. This remote possibility is not sufficient cause for institutions of higher education to misrepresent payments to athletes as "scholarships" [scholar?], or to subordinate academics to athletics in the recruiting of "students".

Many colleges and universities do a wonderful job of prioritizing academics and athletics. Schools in the Ivy League are generally good examples of this. Many schools do a lousy job of keeping athletics in perspective. They know who they are, and so do we; the college rules stretchers and benders, purveyors of gut courses, phony majors, high-paying, no-show jobs, and other miserable scams. Fans of such programs deny such abuses exist or attempt to trivialize the importance of these abuses. No surprises here; many fans of college teams tend to respond like primitive tribesmen, not rational citizens.

As to sky color in my world? Usually black at night, red at sunset, pink at dawn, gray when it rains, white when it snows, occasionally blue, and too many in-between shades to list. I'll bet when you posed this question you were thinking the sky in your world is BLUE, and that's that. Be honest, that was what you were thinking, wasn't it? You might profitably expand your view of reality concerning college athletic programs as well as sky colors.

[ts8801]

Re: Show me the money--Players turning pro

I'll go slowly:

Junior hockey programs do not recruit unwilling, untalented hockey players, pay their expenses, and provide them with courses in higher education with the hope an educational program will help recruits graduate into skilled professional hockey players.

Why in blazes should colleges recruit unwilling, untalented students, pay their expenses, and provide them with hockey programs in the hopes a hockey program will help them become scholars and graduates?

Please note: Junior hockey programs waste their own money when they make foolish decisions; nearly every college receives substantial public funding, so guess whose money they waste when they make foolish decisions?

Just how ARE things in la-la land?

Even the most heavily endowed private universities are not above taking money from the government (public money), and more than a little government financial support is offered to and accepted by private schools. Both industry and government give financial support to endowed schools in hopes of attracting intelligent and well-educated graduates into their ranks. Until I got to the ad hominem responses I was surprised so many posters on this site seem to be ignorant of this fact.

There is a tiny chance that developing more and better athletes and entertainers will make our nation stronger and more financially competetive. This remote possibility is not sufficient cause for institutions of higher education to misrepresent payments to athletes as "scholarships" [scholar?], or to subordinate academics to athletics in the recruiting of "students".

Many colleges and universities do a wonderful job of prioritizing academics and athletics. Schools in the Ivy League are generally good examples of this. Many schools do a lousy job of keeping athletics in perspective. They know who they are, and so do we; the college rules stretchers and benders, purveyors of gut courses, phony majors, high-paying, no-show jobs, and other miserable scams. Fans of such programs deny such abuses exist or attempt to trivialize the importance of these abuses. No surprises here; many fans of college teams tend to respond like primitive tribesmen, not rational citizens.

As to sky color in my world? Usually black at night, red at sunset, pink at dawn, gray when it rains, white when it snows, occasionally blue, and too many in-between shades to list. I'll bet when you posed this question you were thinking the sky in your world is BLUE, and that's that. Be honest, that was what you were thinking, wasn't it? You might profitably expand your view of reality concerning college athletic programs as well as sky colors.

How many D1 programs don't turn a profit? I would assume most of those programs take in make a profit which is then used to fund other sports programs. Also here's a fun fact for you, a school can not use the government funding for athletics unless it was specifically stipulated in the bill like ones used to build or upgrade stadiums.

[leswp1]

Re: Show me the money--Players turning pro

I'll go slowly:

Junior hockey programs do not recruit unwilling, untalented hockey players, pay their expenses, and provide them with courses in higher education with the hope an educational program will help recruits graduate into skilled professional hockey players.

Why in blazes should colleges recruit unwilling, untalented students, pay their expenses, and provide them with hockey programs in the hopes a hockey program will help them become scholars and graduates?

Please note: Junior hockey programs waste their own money when they make foolish decisions; nearly every college receives substantial public funding, so guess whose money they waste when they make foolish decisions?

Just how ARE things in la-la land?

What a cynical view. Can't speak for any of the other programs but the guys on the team I root for are not eligible unless their academics are in good standing~ coach rule.(not an Ivy school). We lose recruits because they can't get in. The grad rate is pretty decent. Probably better than the avg population of the school.

Also I saw Ben Smith signed- no linky- it was in the paper.

[Osorojo]

Re: Show me the money--Players turning pro

What a cynical view. Can't speak for any of the other programs but the guys on the team I root for are not eligible unless their academics are in good standing~ coach rule.(not an Ivy school). We lose recruits because they can't get in. The grad rate is pretty decent. Probably better than the avg population of the school.

Also I saw Ben Smith signed- no linky- it was in the paper.

How so cynical? The primary mission of junior hockey programs is to develop professional hockey players. Junior hockey does not recruit indifferent, untalented hockey players nor offer recruits college courses. Those are facts, and facts are neither cynical nor benevolent.

Applying precisely the same logic to colleges and universities: The primary mission of colleges and universities is to develop educated graduates. (fact)
No valid arguement has appeared to suggest colleges and universities should compromise their academic goal by permitting athletic potential and performance to supercede academic potential and performance. This conclusion seems much more realistic than cynical. We don't always like the truth, but it's suicidal to deny it.

[jcarter7669]

Re: Show me the money--Players turning pro

Even the most heavily endowed private universities are not above taking money from the government (public money), and more than a little government financial support is offered to and accepted by private schools.

I don't suppose you have any evidence for this statement?

[LynahFan]

Re: Show me the money--Players turning pro

I don't suppose you have any evidence for this statement?

Are you kidding? How about: the fact that schools have to abide by Title IX in sports is an indicator that they receive government funding. Title IX (in its entirety) reads, "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

All D-1 hockey schools have to abide by Title IX; therefore, all D-1 hockey schools receive Federal funding. QED.

If you had a truly private university that did not accept federal government funding, you could field 10 football teams and nothing else.

[jcarter7669]

Re: Show me the money--Players turning pro

Are you kidding? How about: the fact that schools have to abide by Title IX in sports is an indicator that they receive government funding. Title IX (in its entirety) reads, "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

All D-1 hockey schools have to abide by Title IX; therefore, all D-1 hockey schools receive Federal funding. QED.

If you had a truly private university that did not accept federal government funding, you could field 10 football teams and nothing else.

That's absurd. What that says is if a school accepts a student who took out a federal back student loan then they have to abide by that rule. A loan is not receiving public funds, nor is a grant. The money is given to the student not the school, and is in the case of a loan paid back with a net of ZERO public monies going to any school public or private.

Again, is their evidence that a private school receives funding from the public, and I will specify for clarity, directly?

[LynahFan]

Re: Show me the money--Players turning pro

That's absurd. What that says is if a school accepts a student who took out a federal back student loan then they have to abide by that rule. A loan is not receiving public funds, nor is a grant. The money is given to the student not the school, and is in the case of a loan paid back with a net of ZERO public monies going to any school public or private.

Again, is their evidence that a private school receives funding from the public, and I will specify for clarity, directly?

As far as I know, Title IX does not apply just because individual students have federal loans - its applicability means that the school itself DOES directly receive federal funding.

Edit: here's where NSF's research funding goes. Loads of private schools on those lists...

[BUT09]

Re: Show me the money--Players turning pro

That's absurd. What that says is if a school accepts a student who took out a federal back student loan then they have to abide by that rule. A loan is not receiving public funds, nor is a grant. The money is given to the student not the school, and is in the case of a loan paid back with a net of ZERO public monies going to any school public or private.

Again, is their evidence that a private school receives funding from the public, and I will specify for clarity, directly?

When I got my Financial Aid package, it included a Stafford Loan, which is a federal loan - but it was given to the school to award, and given directly to the school. I never saw the money. I think that counts as the school receiving funding, even if it is just specifically for loans.

[jcarter7669]

Re: Show me the money--Players turning pro

As far as I know, Title IX does not apply just because individual students have federal loans - its applicability means that the school itself DOES directly receive federal funding.

Edit: here's where NSF's research funding goes. Loads of private schools on those lists...

NSF funding goes to investigator's that submit grants. Not to Universities.

Keep trying.

[jcarter7669]

Re: Show me the money--Players turning pro

When I got my Financial Aid package, it included a Stafford Loan, which is a federal loan - but it was given to the school to award, and given directly to the school. I never saw the money. I think that counts as the school receiving funding, even if it is just specifically for loans.

For your tuition, that you will payback???

Technically you could demand the money to which BU would cut you a check and send you a bill.

How can you not see the difference between a school receiving public funds and a student using federal backed loans (note, the federal gov't doesnt give out loans until next year. Stafford is a loan program not a loan)??

[LynahFan]

Re: Show me the money--Players turning pro

NSF funding goes to investigator's that submit grants. Not to Universities.

Keep trying.

Universities also apply directly for funding, so your statement is flat wrong. Try actually reading the link I sent - table A-9 specifically addresses money that goes directly to a school and is then passed down to "subrecipients," who are individual professors, etc.

I suppose your next argument will be that if a physics department applies for a grant, that doesn't count either, since the physics department is not "the university."

I'm done slicing that onion.

[jcarter7669]

Re: Show me the money--Players turning pro

Universities also apply directly for funding, so your statement is flat wrong. Try actually reading the link I sent - table A-9 specifically addresses money that goes directly to a school and is then passed down to "subrecipients," who are individual professors, etc.

I suppose your next argument will be that if a physics department applies for a grant, that doesn't count either, since the physics department is not "the university."

I'm done slicing that onion.

There is no table A-9 and you clearly do not understand how funding works. I used to think Cornell was a good school but I now have determined that all 5 of the Cornell students I know are unbelievably ignorant.

Do you think NSF is going to write a check for 500K to an individual person to dole out over the course of the grant? No they send it to the school, and give the researcher a budget account to draw from.

And the physics dept writing a grant? Whisky-tango-foxtrot is wrong with you? Of course the Physics Dept. doesn't write a grant. The chair may write a grant for his own research, heck sometimes collaborations between PI's occur, but grants are given out to individual researchers. To say otherwise is just ignorant.

Here' s a hint on one way you can tell .....

Go to this site http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/

Then look under Awardee information. See the part where is says "principal investigator" That's there because a PI writes the freaking grant for their research.

[LynahFan]

Re: Show me the money--Players turning pro

There is no table A-9 and you clearly do not understand how funding works. I used to think Cornell was a good school but I now have determined that all 5 of the Cornell students I know are unbelievably ignorant.

Do you think NSF is going to write a check for 500K to an individual person to dole out over the course of the grant? No they send it to the school, and give the researcher a budget account to draw from.

And the physics dept writing a grant? Whisky-tango-foxtrot is wrong with you? Of course the Physics Dept. doesn't write a grant. The chair may write a grant for his own research, heck sometimes collaborations between PI's occur, but grants are given out to individual researchers. To say otherwise is just ignorant.

Here' s a hint on one way you can tell .....

Go to this site http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/

Then look under Awardee information. See the part where is says "principal investigator" That's there because a PI writes the freaking grant for their research.

Wait, so now I'm confused. The money DOES goes to the department to dole out, but this doesn't count in your mind as federal funding of the university because an individual filled out the actual form? Perhaps you should write a grant to study how an abstract concept like a "department" could fill out a form on the web. I'd also love to hear your theories on why the indirect costs (which go to pay for the school's facilities and administrative costs) associated with a PI's proposal do not constitute federal funding of the school.

As for table A-9, here's a small hint: when a table or figure number in a technical document starts with a letter, that's usually an indication that it's in the section of the document titled with that letter, which would be Appendix A in this case. Since I'm guessing you still won't find it, the answer is that over $16B in NSF funding went directly to private universities for them to pass on to subrecipients.

[JB]

Re: Show me the money--Players turning pro

Again, is their evidence that a private school receives funding from the public, and I will specify for clarity, directly?

I don't have the exact specifics of how Private Schools receive funding that the government counts toward title IX. I am fairly sure the government considers research grants part of that formula, as the Professor uses the schools facilities amongst other things.

What I do know is if the school receives zero federal dollars they are not bound to the rules of title IX. The issue is there are few if any Universities that meet that requirement because the Feds (and the courts) consider their research dollars to count in the title IX rules.

I am not going to argue if it is right, just that it is!