Ducks look good; Stanford lays an egg.

<p>Exactly - ALL D-IA football programs do this. The Ivy League is in D-IAA, which exercises different policies concerning athletic aid, which is commendable to some extent. Call it what you want Byerly, but the truth is that the competitive nature of D-IA football warrants such behavior and that comparing D-IA football with D-IAA football is really akin to comparing apples and oranges. Essentially, yes, I agree with you, but the nature of D-IA football is different from that of D-IAA.</p>

<p>Byerly,</p>

<p>Now that we get your point across, it's time for you to go to other boards to continue your little crusade. You just started "1 win away from the Rose Bowl" on Cal's forum: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=254320%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=254320&lt;/a>. You may say at least that's a winning team but this is a program that actually had academic scandal not that long ago. Not that I am that annal about their past but I thought a person like you would be the first to pick on that OVER AND OVER. Time for you to give your little lecture over there instead.</p>

<p>I also suggest you to express your view in the general forum or parent cafe (though it doesn't look like you are a paraent) so more peole would know about your noble ideas. Keep talking about that only (as far as I know) on Stanford's board just makes people wonder if you are trolling.</p>

<p>Hate to contradict you yet again, Sammy, but there are also Div 1AA teams who pay their players. Just because "the other guys are doing it too" doesn't make it right - especially for a school with academic pretentions. </p>

<p>Given your stubborn denial on this point, its pretty clear that THIS is the important place to make the case.</p>

<p>LOL! You are too funny.</p>

<p>Both you guys are just too funny. One of my son's classmates was recently recruited by Stanford and Cal to play football. Guess which one he chose?</p>

<p>I don't know. Are you happy with his "salary" (as Byerly puts it) now?</p>

<p>Money isn't everything, Sammy .... sometimes being part of a winning team can be rewarding too!</p>

<p>Actually, IMHO, I think schools are underpaying student athletes. A successful team in Basketball or Football can earn millions of dollars for a school through increased alumni donations and merchandise sales. Of course, one could argue that they are collecting their wages through a low-cost/high-quality education. Still, I believe that paying student athletes enough to go see a movie every six months is just fitting, especially when considering the revenue they earn the school. I'm no athlete, but I do know that if there were no student athletes, revenues for the school will decrease along with the financial aid distributed to regular students.</p>

<p>Considering the 603.6 million dollars donated to Stanford in 2005, I think they are doing something right.
<a href="http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/116230%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/116230&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>And, just for you Byerly, Harvard's donation rate, by comparison, is decreasing. Of course this is probably has more to due with Larry Summer's Borat-esque remarks about women than with Harvard athletics.
<a href="http://www.boston.com/news/globe/education/articles/2005/11/06/drop_in_harvard_alumni_donations_spurs_questions/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.boston.com/news/globe/education/articles/2005/11/06/drop_in_harvard_alumni_donations_spurs_questions/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Harvard's total donations last year were the 2nd highest ever, and they are either 1st 2nd or 3rd every year. Indeed, there were more individual donations last year, by more alumni, than in any year ever.</p>

<p>That said, I do believe that some "student athletes" - particularly basketball players - are grossly underpaid. (It must be noted that despite their relatively low wages, these scholars can occasionally be seen driving some pretty fancy cars, showing off some pretty expensive stereo equipment, and sporting some pretty flashy, diamond-encrusted grills. So the wages - acknowledged or otherwise - seem high enough to afford more than "a movie every 6 months!" </p>

<p>I caution you, however, that only a minor fraction of Division 1 football or basketball teams "make money" - no matter what accounting tricks are used (ie, not counting the multi-million $$ cost of stadiums, arenas, etc. as an expense of the program.)</p>

<p>Those highly paid student athletes comprise only a small fraction of the entire student athlete body. The athletes I am referring to often come from low income families and need financial aid. They are not super stars; they simply comprise the rest of the team. With school and year round practice for their sport of choice, they often don't have the time or energy to work at a job. They live in university housing, eating university food. I believe they should be allowed a small allowance so they can afford things like a movie every six months.</p>

<p>I should state that I also believe that the athletes who earn far more deserve the extra money also. They are highly bankable and therefore highly paid.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Money isn't everything, Sammy .... sometimes being part of a winning team can be rewarding too!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Other than football, most teams are not only winning but also championship caliber at Stanford. :)</p>

<p>All that big spending is more likely to pay off in minor sports where the major "opposition" either doesn't compete or hires fewer people at lower salaries! :)</p>

<p>Tennis/swimming/baseball/basketball are NOT minor sports. Pretty much every "factory" school has them. The reason Stanford does well in those is that many of the best swimmers/tennis players also do well in schools and Stanford is able to take many of them. </p>

<p>By the way, Harvard is the one that's good at the real "minor" ones like sailing and rowing...lol!</p>

<p>Harvard teams have an excellent overall winning percentage against Division 1 opposition - including teams that use salaried players.</p>

<p>Indeed, Harvard fields Division 1 teams in more sports - 41 - than any other college or university in the United States of America. And just to think: all the players are unpaid amateurs!</p>

<p>Excellent winning percentage? Hmmm...when was the last time Harvard's bb went to the big dance? Don't recall it finished anywhere close to top-20 in swimming lately. Never heard of its baseball. I guess your definition of "excellent" is different.</p>

<p>Well, of course in the MAJOR American sport - football - it outranks Stanford ... again, without relying on salaried players!</p>

<p><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt06.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt06.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>17th nationally in soccer at the moment (Cal is 11th, Stanford unranked) higher than any other amateur team.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cstv.com/sports/m-soccer/division_i1.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cstv.com/sports/m-soccer/division_i1.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I think the overall winning percentage for the 41 Division I varsity teams was .641 last year.</p>

<p>In fencing, Harvard ranked 4th nationally this year, with the salaried Stanford squad trailing in 7th!</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cstv.com/sports/c-fenc/all1.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cstv.com/sports/c-fenc/all1.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>In Hockey, (the 2nd biggest Ivy sport) both the Harvard men's and women's teams rank high nationally this year - #16 for the men, #6 for the women.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.uscho.com/rankings/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.uscho.com/rankings/&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p>

<p>Byerly,</p>

<p>Instead of being responsive to what I said about its swimming, basketball, and baseball, you pretended not to see it and switched to truly "minor" sports like hockey and fencing. Lots of schools don't even care to have hockey teams. Anyway, it seems to me when other people make valid points, you have the habbit of being non-responsive to them and switching to others immediately. That's pretty cheap and lame. </p>

<p>By the way, not all teams at Stanford are salaried. Rowing and fencing are examples. Seems like you don't know what you are talking about sometime. Please do a better research next time! </p>

<p>Speaking of soccer, this is probably the only year Harvard is ranked higher than Stanford. For the past six years, Stanford team went pretty far three times at the NCAA tourney (quarter-final, semi-final, and final). Harvard qualified for post-season only once and they lost the first match (must have been a very valuable experience though since it's so rare for them).</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/champs_listing1.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/champs_listing1.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Harvard
Total NCAA Team Championships: 10
men's championships: 7
women's championships: 2
coed championships: 1
Breakdown by Sport:
coed fencing: 1
men's golf: 6
men's ice hockey: 1
women's lacrosse: 1
women's rowing: 1
major sport: ZERO</p>

<p>Stanford
Total NCAA Team Championships: 92
men's championships: 57
women's championships: 35
coed championships: 0
Breakdown by Sport:
men's baseball: 2
men's basketball: 1
women's basketball: 2
men's cross country: 4
women's cross country: 3
men's golf: 7
men's gymnastics: 3
men's swimming & diving: 8
women's swimming & diving: 8
men's tennis: 17
women's tennis: 15
men's outdoor track & field: 4
men's volleyball: 1
women's volleyball: 6
men's water polo: 10
women's water polo: 1</p>

<p>I think I am done with this "debate". ;)</p>

<p>70-3 USC over Furd.</p>