<p>The football coach brings in more money than a Nobel prize. Football at a bigtime school brings in anywhere from $30 Million to $50 Million. Nobel Prize is only $1.5 million.</p>
<p>sports players work extremely hard at what they do if they are in the area of being recruited. that said, i think they are just as deserving to get into top schools for their athletic endeavors.</p>
<p>barrons, you are completely wrong.</p>
<p>Nobel Prize money goes to the scientist alone.
The professors bring in millions of dollars of grant money every year for research. A significant percentage of this money goes to general funds of the university.</p>
<p>Football programs tend to lose money for the university (even the big ones.) The only reasons why they are valuable financially is that alumni donate when the school wins and also because it boosts applications and thus selectivity.</p>
<p>Colleges want the best people. I don't think it takes more skill to be good at academics than at sports and vice versa. Both require enormous amounts of commitment and a certain level of talent/intelligence.</p>
<p>Some do some don't. Few bring in $50 Million in a lifetime let alone a year. Profits from football fund the other sports which is about the same as the overhead on grants helping the rest of the school.</p>
<p>The big programs do not lose money. Florida, OSU, Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn St., etc make many millions from football.</p>
<p>POIH, maybe your child should take up a sport?
Maybe then you would not criticize our children who have devoted countless hours to their sport and their studies but did get a bit of an admissions bump from the coach of their sport to gain admissioin to their school of choice</p>
<p>As has been stated countless times on this board, colleges admit kids for many, many reasons some of which have nothing to do with grades and/or SAT scores...Frankly, I would think a school full of 2400/4.0, Math club participants would be pretty boring----</p>
<p>that is why there are DIII and DI(division) schools, some schools 4 academics, some aren't as much. people with athletic talent, who may not be so bright.. need to have a place after highschool to continue with their talent and still get an education, so if sports don't work out then they can fall back on education. admission for athletics is ok. cause there is admission for merit at other schools. and the biggest controversy of all anyway. is admission 4 need based students, where they get scholarships for need alone. no merit no talent. no nothing.</p>
<p>"The football coach brings in more money than a Nobel prize. Football at a bigtime school brings in anywhere from $30 Million to $50 Million. Nobel Prize is only $1.5 million."</p>
<p>This what it brings down to the institute of higher learning are becoming feeder schools to NFL.</p>
<p>You cannot talk sense to people who weigh Nobel prize with its prize money.</p>
<p>Have a life and leran something before opening mouths. Same goes for losobos1.</p>
<p>It's loslobos71.</p>
<p>So what if they're becoming 'feeder schools to the NFL'? (Not that I agree). So I guess you're against a school succeeding financially? Sports generally do nothing but help a school. Not to mention if an athlete makes it big it could increase applications and interest. You havent given a single good reason to justify your ridiculous assertions.</p>
<p>"This what it brings down to the institute of higher learning are becoming feeder schools to NFL."</p>
<p>POIH, you are grossly overexaggerating the effects of athletic admits. I don't find it surprising that you've ignored T26E4's post. Listen, you came on here looking for answers, but have already made up your mind and is looking for cheerleaders. We gave you our answers - No, most of us aren't against athletic admits. You've recently begun answering to posts that you liked, and you want everyone to be your cheerleader. I won't do it.</p>
<p>POIH,
Do you know anything about sports? Do you or your daughter know any students who are playing college sports? Based on your posts, I suspect that you don't and that you hold these students in disdain. I understand the academic perspective that you are raising, but I think you completely underrate the talents that these students have (and that is true for Divisions I, II, and III). Many students are capable of achieving a 4.0 GPA in high school or a high SAT score. Very few can achieve athletically like many of the male and female students who play college sports. These students are talented, although perhaps not in an area that you value. But your value system is not the same for all of us. </p>
<p>I will give you one perspective as an employer-I love college athletes as potential employees. They know how to compete. They frequently have extensive experience in team sports and know instinctively the value of teams in the workplace. They are usually highly disciplined in their personal habits and they have long histories of working hard to achieve goals. They are used to working under pressure. They are very goal oriented. Employers love students who demonstrate these skills. Let me assure you that these students compare very, very well with the student who spent four years studying achieving a high GPA, but developed few personal skills or an ability to communicate and/or work effectively with others.</p>
<p>IMO POIH sounds like a strict parent I would hate to have as a parent</p>
<p>I think this attitude is taking us from the leadership position in the following areas:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Cutting edge research/technology: If you look around institutes of Higher learning all post docs positions are filled by International students because Stanford is more interested in spending money on a new Football stadium than paying for post doc positions.</p></li>
<li><p>Cutting edge sports persons: Since the sports are big factor in elite college addmissions there are lot of students who take up sports to just get into the colleges and never play again. This results in US loosing leadership positions at the Olympics Medal Tally. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>Wake up fellow Americans before it is too late. Our overpaying baskeball players loose to lowly Greece in international champioships.</p>
<p>We think the value of Nobel prize is worth $1.5 Mil so why waste 50 years doing research when we can make more money taking steroids and shooting hoops.</p>
<p>You don't realize now but the day when you won't be able to command such level of luxury which has come becuase of Scientists/Reseacher/Engineers/Doctors and not Athelets.</p>
<p>The only DI recruit I know is going to Brown. She's a national merit finalist. With great SAT scores and plenty of accomplishments.</p>
<p>But she's also an amazing rower. Does that mean she doesn't deserve to go?</p>
<p>Being an incredible athlete is hard. And, truthfully, the best athletes don't even go to the 'best' colleges. Kids would much rather play football for UMich than for Harvard. UMich's program is just better.</p>
<p>These athletes are't 'taking' anyone's spots. Each class is going to have a certain proportion of athletes and legacies and development cases. That's just how it is.</p>
<p>It's in the Ivy Pact that each school can recruit up to 35 boys for football each year. That's just how it is.</p>
<p>When a Stanford graduate open "Google" and "Yahoo", they not only make themselves rich but also make thousands of employees and millions of investers rich.</p>
<p>When a Simpson or Kobey Bryant become rich What they do is anyone guess.</p>
<p>Op I think you really underestimate talent in professional sports. It's not like anyone can inject some steroids and then become a superstar overnight. Current salaries in basketball and other sports are demonstrated by capitalism - if the athletes for the most part were not worth their salaries, no team would pay them such huge figures. </p>
<p>Get your head out of the sand and realize academics aren't everything. It isn't strange that Nobel Prize = 1.5 Mil and Basketball Players = 7-8 mil/yr. That's just the market value. For instance, nobody would be willing to buy a jersey with a Nobel Prize Winner's name on it for $50. Or pay hundreds of dollars for Nobel Prize Winner's brand sneakers. The athletes names' on products alone can sometimes carry value. </p>
<p>Top schools for the most part are not a meritocracy and for the foreseeable future they will continue not to be one, no matter how many people on CC think they're "perfect institutions of higher learning."</p>
<p>Institute like Stanford were formed to enhance talents to produce Google/Yahoo/Intel and not a BasketBall or Football player.</p>
<p>Open sports academies to do that so that we don't loose medals at Olympics because people should take up sports if they love and not to get into an elite school of their choice.</p>
<p>"Get your head out of the sand and realize academics aren't everything. It isn't strange that Nobel Prize = 1.5 Mil and Basketball Players = 7-8 mil/yr. That's just the market value. For instance, nobody would be willing to buy a jersey with a Nobel Prize Winner's name on it for $50.
"</p>
<p>The Nobel prize winner's research may provide a cure for cancer or Aids. The 7-8 Mil sports player at best can cause one.</p>
<p>Actually, Stanford is one of the biggest sports schools around. It's common to say that a Stanford student is either a genius or a future olympian.</p>
<p>I have had a pretty long life and know more about colleges and sports than most people on this board and certainly way more than you. Athletics are a small but important part of the university life in this country. Even at a big sports school only about 800 out of 25,000 or so students are athletes and many of them are just as good or better students than many non athletes. You might want to read up on the recent first round NFL draft choice from my school and a top student. Joe Thomas.</p>