<p>B&P, while I am not sure what you meant with the NCLB reference (did all schools meet NCLB) I do not think that many kids would get a full ride on MERIT at all the schools listed. For instance, MIT only offers need-based aid. </p>
<p>A technicality that typically escapes people reporting such news in the newspapers. While it does not diminishes at all the incredible academic success of gaining admission to such schools, the mentions of full ride at schools that are part of the Ivy League and at similarly prestigious schools are often misleading.</p>
<p>All of the UCs have horrible finaid for OOS kids (and not even good for instate for that matter), so it’s unlikely that someone from your HS got a full ride (or any merit money) from Cal-Berkeley.</p>
<p>The matter of salaries for coaches has been discussed before on CC. There are valid criticism on the pro and con sides of the issue. But the most substantive point is, the big revenue sports, i.e. football and mens’ basketball, fund everything else. And Title IX mandates have made athletic department revenue all the more important, because most college students are women (if I’m not mistaken) and the schools have to provide athletic opportunities for women, and rightfully so. Unfortunately, at this time womens’ sports aren’t big money generators. Although you folks who’ve never attended a women’s college basketball game don’t know what you’re missing, IMO.</p>
<p>The issue of revenue is what drives colleges sports today. It’s why there are virtually no more ‘independents’ at the major college level. Penn State saw the writing on the wall a few years ago, forgoing its independent status in sports to become a member of the Big 10. Why? Because major conference members share post-season revenues [gasp, socialism!] and non-revenue sports require, guess what, revenue. It’s why the Southeast Conference and the Atlantic Coast Conference expanded.</p>
<p>As for the particulars of John Calipari, and even John Calhoun at Connecticut; sure, they are overpaid when you compare them to other workers who are technically state employees. But other state employees typically are not asked to represent the university and the state itself. That cat is out of the bag, long long ago. And as others have noted, in places like Lexington KY, Tuscaloosa AL, Tallahassee FL and Norman OK the coach will have an inordinate amount of influence in the college community, to the occasional detrimerit of the college’s academic mission. Every so often you’ll get a distinguished coach for whom actual education is a priority; a John Wooden, a Dean Smith, a Kay Yow or an Eddie Robinson. But more likely than not, you get a John Calipari or a Rick Neuheisel. And you have to pay him or her, if they win and keep winning.</p>
<p>I don’t think you can blame John Calipari for being John Calipari any more than you can blame the scorpion in the fable for being a scorpion. It’s his nature. If a university’s Board of Trustees (or whatever it has) and President and Athletic Director want a coach-educator, I’m sure that there are plenty of candidates.</p>
<p>By the way, ask former UCLA All-American Bill Walton what Coach John Wooden said when young Walton said that he would neither cut his shaggy long locks and when Walton insisted that cutting a class or two was no big deal. And this was during the counter-culture years of the early 1970s! I can’t imagine today’s highly compensated ‘win at all costs’ coaches [or athletic directors, for that matter] responding the way Coach Wooden did.</p>
<p>kayf - I am a former Div. 1 scholarship athlete and competed at a high level. I agree with everything you say. </p>
<p>It was my means to go to school. </p>
<p>I was fortunate in that my high school grades and scores were in the top 25% of the entering class. I was a real student. </p>
<p>Even so, my first job was athletics and unfortunately I never really was able to focus on academics - as a scholarship athlete, the first priority is on academics. It closes off social development too. Training twice a day takes intense dedication and one could never get too far into the university and away from the athletic department’s demands. I am fortunate to be able to go to the school I went to for “free” - but I have significant regrets at not being able to devote the right kind of dedication to studies. </p>
<p>But these are all minor complaints for me. I went to class and did reasonably well, and went on to do well at top ranked grad school. I can only imagine what happens to the raft of athletes admitted with less than a 1000 on their SAT’s (old SAT’s) and get there by the skin of their teeth 2.2 high school GPA’s. They can’t do college level work at even modestly competitive schools (peruse the Internet for materials on the Rutgers 1000 -a very interesting group that explained what an academic farce so many D1 programs are), and are really in a state of servitude to the athletic department. </p>
<p>I am not sure complaining makes any sense, though. There isn’t a Div. 1 university president that would want to dismantle the system. And some couldn’t even if they wanted to. Can you imagine what kind of financial support the University of Kentucky would receive from the state legislature if the president of the school said we want to de-emphasize basketball and football? Well, heck, it wouldn’t happen because he would be fired the next day. But no one in his or her right mind would do it. Even an intellectual progressive like Donna Shahala has to be a shill for the University of Miami football team - a team that admits the most marginal of students (if you can call them that) - as the price of keeping her job.</p>
<p>Actually Donna S has a very good understanding of the importance of big-time athletics to many schools. She was responsible for turning Wisconsin from a third-rate athletic program to one of the richest and most successful in the US.</p>
<p>Lake Washington says: As for the particulars of John Calipari, and even John Calhoun at Connecticut; sure, they are overpaid when you compare them to other workers who are technically state employees. But other state employees typically are not asked to represent the university and the state itself."</p>
<p>Surely you recognize the that governor is asked to represent the Commonwealth - he makes $124,000 and returned 10% of it last year. The president of the university who clearly represents the university and the whole Commonwealth is also getting a base salary less than the coach. While yes, a good portion of the athletics money comes from outside contracts, the university will be providing a base salary of $400,000 a year even though there has been a freeze on salaries for staff and faculty and tuition has risen dramatically in recent years which is a real burden in a poor state.</p>
<p>ok everyone that put uk down for this season what do you have to say now. coach cal was a great pick for uk and he will continue to bring our program up</p>
<p>Winning programs bring $$ in to the surrounding communities as well. Home FB and BBall games bring alumni who dine, stay and play. Lots of folks benefit from the labors of the successful D1 program.</p>
<p>Bcrebels, the point is not to demean UK. The point is that there’s too much money being invested in coaches (see the objections from other college presidents and ADs who complained that U of K, like U of Washington with Rich Neuheisel 10 years ago, raised the salary bar too high for coaches) and generally the overal system of big school athletics is highly suspect, if not outright corrupt. We feel a bit better when decent people find on-field success AND graduate athletes AND enhance the university’s profile; People like Frank Beamer at Va Tech as well as the former head football coach at Kansas State come to mind. For every one of them, you have two or three Caliparis.</p>
<p>I had an econ teacher once show us why it is completely justified that big name athletes and coaches make more money than say, a doctor or a teacher. The argument is based on cost per use. Millions of people watch UK basketball, making the average cost per season like 2 bucks a person. A teacher might touch 20 kids in a classroom and make 40,000 a year, making their cost per person 2,000/yr. The teacher is making more money per interaction. A university president might make a half a million a year on a campus of 10,000 kids. So he makes 50 bucks a student. The economics of salaries makes a lot more sense when you really understand how economics actually works.</p>