<p>That's very insightful.</p>
<p>Must be a tough year for you, Sammy: all those millions $$$ down the drain, and nothing to show for it.</p>
<p>Byerly what the hell are you talking about in this thread????? its not like stanford is forking over millions of dollars to football players, they are giving some of the most academically succesful football players in the country free tuition, why is this a problem to you?</p>
<p>He has to attack your school because he's jealous. <em>shrug</em></p>
<p>Lol i wish it was my school ) : im trying to get in SCEA but i think i got about as much chance as nader in 2000</p>
<p>I was just browsing forum and noticed this guy being a punk for no reason</p>
<p>About 5% of each class at Stanford are admitted as subsidized "student athletes". In addition, a large fraction of the class - not athletes - are admitted SCEA, and, last year, 152 "likely letters" were sent to non-athletes - generally top scholars or desirable URMs.</p>
<p>And while the recruited athletes are given "free tuition" or a partial ride, the well-heeled Stanford trails Princeton, Harvard and even Yale in the per capita need-based aid it dispenses.</p>
<p>Byerly,</p>
<p>Football is the only Stanford sport that isn't doing well so far this year. M/w swimming are ranked #2 and #6, respectively; w/m cross-country are ranked #1/#4. W volleyball is ranked #3. I think their tennis teams are gonna be ranked pretty high with the women's team having a good chance to 4-PEAT! It's ridiculous for you to say "$$$ going down the drain". </p>
<p>
[quote]
And while the recruited athletes are given "free tuition" or a partial ride, the well-heeled Stanford trails Princeton, Harvard and even Yale in the per capita need-based aid it dispenses
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You need to show us the numbers (with links/source cited please!). Even if Stanford does trail like you said, it proves nothing. All 4 schools are committed to meet 100% of the demonstrated needs. It's not Stanford's problem if Stanford's students demonstrate less needs (a little wealthier on average) than HYP's students.</p>
<p>Its easier to outspend the "opposition" in the minor sports where most of the big time jock schools don't even bother to field teams - or don't subsidize them to the extent Stanford does. You won't find a salaried women's volleyball team at many of the factory schools! </p>
<p>You get what you pay for (except - in Stanford's case - where football is concerned.)</p>
<p>I heard that kind of comment usually from sore losers and jealous type. Stanford has pretty good basketball and baseball teams. Many "factory schools", as you called them, have big basketball, baseball, tennis, and swimming programs. Looks like you need to be more knowledgeable about college sports (and watch some too instead of "researching" online) before making baseless comments.</p>
<p>Well, Sammy, my boy, I "researched" the Cal-Washington game in person last week, and am looking forward to the season-closing clash with the highly-paid Stanford gridsters!</p>
<p>Again Byerly,</p>
<p>Define how Stanford "pays" it's athletes. If it's simply by giving out athletic scholarships, then all D-IA football programs do so. Each D-IA program has 85 full athletic scholarships to dish out, and all have to be used due to the competitive nature of D-IA football. I guess you can say that Stanford athletes "get the most money," but that's ONLY because Stanford's tuition is probably among the highest out of all the D-IA schools.</p>
<p>Of course it "pays" them. </p>
<p>Let one of these "scholar-athletes" quit the team voluntarily and his or "athletic scholarship" will be pulled in a New York minute!</p>
<p>When you receive a benefit for services performed that counts as "pay" in my book.</p>
<p>I guess you help Cal/Wash "pay" their athletes by buying one of their tickets. ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let one of these "scholar-athletes" quit the team voluntarily and his or "athletic scholarship" will be pulled in a New York minute!
[/quote]
I believe that happens at every D-IA football program. Naturally one loses his football scholarship when he quits the team, which hasn't happened recently in any D-IA football program. Besides, why would anyone quit the team? He was recruited to play the game he loves at the collegiate level, which is a tremendous honor.</p>
<p>Exactly. When any employee quits his job, he usually realizes his employer will stop paying him. This is why many employees who would like to quit nevertheless keep on plugging, no matter how depressing the job may be! This is true whether they work for McDonalds or the Stanford football team.</p>
<p>Byerly, </p>
<p>Did you go to Cal or Wash St? Even you keep cheerleading Harvard, it's not clear if you actually went there for undergrad or grad school or neither; you do seem to work for their admission office otherwise I don't see how you get all those admission numbers. I am just curious why you keep targeting Stanford on this when it's just one of the many div-1A schools that "pay" athletes.</p>
<p>According to different sources, Stanford athletics is one of the few programs that's entirely self-funded by the athletics endowment and has nothing to do with funds for need-based scholarships. Stanford meets 100% of students' deomonstrated needs and nobody has criticized them because there's no reason to. So what do you do? You reinvent an excuse by accusing (implying) Stanford of not meeting 100% of the demonstrated needs while "paying" their athletes. Not sure if you are trying to delude others or just yourself.</p>
<p>YOU are the target, Sammy, my boy; sometime ago it became clear that you had an overly-high opinion of yourself, and were totally unwilling to admit that your alma mater might benefit from a little priority readjustment. </p>
<p>IMHO, you are the one attempting to "delude others, or just yourself" - to borrow a phrase. ;)</p>
<p>One of the greatest evils going is the so-called "self-funded" athletic department - where the jocks and boosters have to answer to no one but themselves in spending the big bucks. Nothing to be proud of, Sammy. Kudos to Vanderbilt, for example, which the wings of the jock-ocracy last year, bringing the athletic budget back in-house.</p>
<p>At the other extreme, we have schools such as Stanford - joined recently by Oklahoma State and its troubling agreement to cede control of its athletics program to alumnus T. Boone Pickins. <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2286820%5B/url%5D">http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2286820</a></p>
<p>Byerly, your post was almost completely non-responsive to Sam Lee's post. You have to realize that nobody will take you seriously if you don't even bother to engage in any kind of dialogue with anyone. </p>
<p>Correct me if I'm wrong here - but Stanford meets 100% of a student's need. Football players are also students. If a football player plays for two years, then decides to quit, wouldn't he still get 100% of his need met by the need-based aid?</p>
<p>And unless you can cite some examples of football players crying themselves to sleep every night because they can't quit football, that is a totally nonsense argument. You are simply making things up with no support whatsoever.</p>
<p>Since you have asked me to "correct you if (you're) wrong" I will endeavor to do so.</p>
<p>(1) Every school decides for itself what constitutes "100% of need" the number can var widely from one place to another; and</p>
<p>(2) Athletic scholarships are not, of course, "need-based" and are almost always in excess of what need-based aid would be for the same person;</p>
<p>(3) On occasion, "athletic scholarship" schools will strive to spread the money to as many individuals as possible by "laying off" the maximum portion possible of the package as possible to the general scholarship funds; so</p>
<p>(4) No .. "he wouldn't get 100% of his need met by the need-based aid" (which assumes, in most cases, a substantial parental contribution and a contribution from the student's own earnings) and most or all of the aid would just be cut off if he quit his sport.</p>
<p>(5) This is why, at "athletic scholarship" schools, it is widely acknowledged that the coach "owns" you, and why certain non-starting team members are forced to hang in there - as scout team or "hamburger squad" members, even when they might rather do something more constructive with their lives: they can't afford to.</p>
<p>A single sample check reveals a pattern that I truly believe is quite general: On the Stanford football team, 37 of 104 on the roster are seniors, whereas at Dartmouth, only 15 of 108 on the roster are seniors. 5 of 21 Field Hockey players at Stanford are seniors, whereas only 1 of 18 field hockey players at Dartmouth are seniors.</p>
<p>Why? Because at the Ivies, the varsity players are free to quit without hurting their scholarship status, whereas at Stanford (for example) it's "no play = no pay."</p>
<p>I do believe this pattern is typical, allowing for year to year, team to team, variations. I picked Dartmouth because, like Stanford (although in Ivy terms) its football team is truly mediocre, while its field hockey team is middle of the road. Players quit, where they do, because (a) the team is bad and losing is no fun, or (b) they are displaced by younger, more talented underclassmen, and sitting on the bench is no fun.</p>
<p>There is a limit as to how much research I could do to answer your question, but I am familiar enough with these issues to state confidently that, based on the evidence, there would be more attrition on Stanford rosters were it not for the hook of the athletic scholarship indenturing the kids to the team. </p>
<p>Understand - I don't single out Stanford here ... the same thing is likely to be true at any school filling its rosters via "athletic scholarships."</p>