<p>"It is not only the kids but think about the situation where a university shell out $5 Millions as bonus to hire a Football coach but pay a $200K to a Nobel Laurate."</p>
<p>If the Nobel Laureate was an economics professor, I bet s/he could easily explain why. It makes sense to recruit athletes for major revenue sports at schools like Duke and Stanford; they make their schools millions. And they provide a very unique atmosphere that many enjoy. That being said, no one gives a crap about stuff like crew, etc. Especially considering such sports bring almost no revenue, have little fan interest (mommy and daddy don't count), and seemingly only provide further (unfair?) advantage to an already priviledged sector (inner city kids ain't playing crew). Yes, I did overgeneralize, but I think the point stands.</p>
<p>Since the ivy league competes against each other primarily anyway, I don't think anyone would notice if the entire league stopped recruiting and just took awesome students, some of which probably played high school sports and would fill out spots on the sports teams.</p>
<p>The one bad point would be if an olympic athlete were actually an awesome student as well, that person might feel like they had to turn down an ivy because the coaching environment/facilities weren't top-flight enough.</p>
<p>Thanks Bessie ... I was aware of, and think referenced, coaches being allowed to watch and respond to communications. I am surprised that verbal scholarship offers are allowed by the rules of the NCAA before the time frame that written offers can be delivered. I didn't say I was surprised verbal scholarship offers are made ... I'm surprised they are within NCAA guidelines ... which is why I was surprised the kid went public with the verbal offer. Thanks for the new info.</p>
<p>Affle, I don't think you should be too worried about getting into Pton with your stats. Basically, I agree with POIH in that a 2400 SAT I scholar>1960 SAT I soccer player. However, it generally does not come down to that because Princeton (or at least other top schools) will generally accept both students (assuming they are up to snuff in other areas) I do believe though, if we have a 2250 run of the mill Ivy applicant he or she is less than the 1960 SAT I soccer player.</p>
<p>I admit, I didn't read the whole thread, but I like the POIH's idea of decoupling
sports and education.</p>
<p>First of all college sports is a business. However, for the truly world class Div 1 athletes, it is the lowest playing job they will get in their careers. Basically,
they are there to entertain rich kids for 4 years before they can get a real job in the big leagues. Why not let them go earn real money and they can pay for their own college education later in life, when they have time for it?</p>
<p>For Div 3 athletes, they would be just as well served by sports clubs that serve all colleges in an area.</p>
<p>Peoplen seem to think colleges are there to serve the kids ard forget they have become big business. Sports bring in big money and they are here to stay.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, for the truly world class Div 1 athletes, it is the lowest playing job they will get in their careers. Basically,
they are there to entertain rich kids for 4 years before they can get a real job in the big leagues. Why not let them go earn real money and they can pay for their own college education later in life, when they have time for it?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>unbeknownst to you, not all DI athletes will go pro. In fact, a ridiculously minuscule amount do.</p>
<p>Karl Marks :"If the Nobel Laureate was an economics professor, I bet s/he could easily explain why. It makes sense to recruit athletes for major revenue sports at schools like Duke and Stanford; they make their schools millions. "</p>
<p>The maximum revenues comes from research
Sources of Funds for FY 2006-2007
33% sponsored research
18% endowment income
4% other investment income </p>
<p>Disguised professional sports are only a drain on the university resources.</p>
<p>The real problem is that people don't think for themselves but rely on others to do the thinking. So they accept what media tells them. So proponents of sports will tell that Stanford sports makes tons of money for the university that allows Stanford to provide a world class research then they will believe that but in reality the Stanford sports is only a drain to its resources.</p>
<p>The point is to not kill university sports but at least acknowledge that the present state of sports based admission is a problem and should be fixed. You don't want to cut the branches that provides the revenues to the university. You need student who will work on research in the laboratories and not player to play in the $50 million stadium.</p>
<p>Do you think they're stupid over at Stanford and the ivies? They have moved to cut sports that are not profitable. The survivors are for many reasons hard to discern from a balance sheet.</p>
<p>UCgradmary: The point was that paying a $5 mil bonus to a coach that doesn't even bring noticeable revenue over a Noble Laureate that work on research that is the back bone of the university bringing in the maximum revenue is not a wise decision.
I provided the finances only because 'karl' said that sports are the biggest revenue getter for the Universities.
Please take the blindfold off your eyes and try to see what actually bring the real dollars to unversities and give acknowledgement to those professors and not the football coaches.</p>
<p>Stanford need to encourage students that can bring more research to Stanford and not football player.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, nobel laureates bring absolutely "zero" amount of entertainment value or "fun" to a college campus. Students' entire lives revolve around the campus for 4 years, its not just a terrarium for brain cells! Don't forget that having fun is an extremely important component to a happy, fulfilled life. I have been to many college football tailgate parties and basketball games, and despite what you may think about them, they are fun, fun, fun! (Doing chem homework is not fun).</p>
<p>Bay: Areyou trying to say that without this semi professional university sports there are no entertainment value or fun to a college campus?
I thought amateur sports can brings enough fun and entertainment value to university.</p>
<p>If that is true then you will bring the Hollywood to Stanford University as amateur theater won't provide any entertainment value to you.</p>
<p>Where are you getting this idea that college sports are "disguised professional sports,' or "semi-professional?" They ARE amateur sports! There are very few college sports that even have a professional component, and of those that do, very few college athletes end up in the pros.</p>
<p>Bay:Grow up!! Have you ever seen a Stanford Football player not being recruited under the sport quota? Stanford only recruits athletes under a special admission process which even bypass the Early Admission and you get a confirmation in September itself and solely on the basis of your athletic performances. </p>
<p>If that is not a professional sports then what it is?</p>
<p>If a university takes in a student based on the academic and that student represents the university sports team then it is amateur but if the recruitment to the university on the basis of athletic ability and a scholarship is made to pay for that athletic ability then it is disguised professional sports. </p>
<p>There have been so many cases of University alumni paying the prospect athletes or their families for them to join. What you call it?</p>
<p>Sheesh! You don't have to insult me POIH (although I'm flattered that you see me as so young! I'm probably older than you...)</p>
<p>I don't personally know any Stanford football recruits, but I know of 3 athletic recruits in 3 other sports. Every one of them was a 4.0 or higher student at our local hs. My understanding (from heresay) is that 3.8 is the minimum for Stanford's recruited athletes.</p>
<p>These are not "professional" athletes. Like every other applicant, I'm sure Stanford looks for the best athletes with the highest academic credentials they can find.</p>
<p>I dont know why people complain about this?</p>
<p>Sports are a part of a university, part of the university environment and atmosphere, part of what builds school spirit and community, and part of the college experience. </p>
<p>Achievement in athletics is often undervalued here because most CCers lack it. For many kids, the sports route is the only way into a good school because they may or may not be that strong or smart academically, or may be unable to pay.</p>
<p>The sports are good for the school, good for the students, and good for the community because it increases the chances that the high school athletes who might be going nowhere and have a high chance of becoming criminals will be college educated and have more opportunities.</p>