<p>zfox001,</p>
<p>Division III schools are not allowed to give scholarship money for sports. However, many of the athletes get academic scholarships even though they don't really have the stats for a scholarship. It is a way to bypass the system.</p>
<p>I got news for you.. the system is screwed up if you need to study to take a college admissions test. Isn't a college admissions test supposed to show your knowledge that you should have learned in high school?!?!</p>
<p>On last check, there were 19 schools who actually MADE money through their athletic departments.</p>
<p>And one last thing, very FEW scholarships are full-ride athletic scholarships. NCAA FBS teams are the only ones I know of that are REQUIRED to give full scholarships...</p>
<p>First of all only established FBS teams actually make money. Schools like Ball State that are ranked, but not high up end up losing money on their football program. Also many schools keep atheltics afloat through private donations. Oklahoma St and U or Oregon are two examples. Esp. with UofO Phil Knight has donated almost $500 mil towards athletics. That really helps the program.</p>
<p>I think people on this board are jealous of athletes. I wish I had the talent to play sports at D1 school. I don't but I accept that those people can attend whatever college they choose. Sports not only bring revenue from boosters and add campaigns but they also raise applications. Alot people apply to schools because they grew up watching their favorite college team. Until less people in the world like sports don't expect the culture to change.</p>
<p>I think many colleges and unis are struggling with "recruiting" athletes w/o having to lower their academic standards. The SEC schools for example have far less athletes graduate than other conferences and of course, have many national championships. I like to hope that schools are not lowering their academic standards for athletes and that the number 1 priority should be an education.</p>
<p>I hope this doesn't surprise people. That reporter should've done an investigation into whether these universities are doing enough to prepare these students for a career outside of sports, something which most of them will end up having to do.</p>
<p>Ugh I can see too many variables that might be totally screwed. I can't help but think whoever set this up was looking to find a correlation. However its not that unbelievable. If you are towards the elite end you need to practice more than study. That should be a given...But high school athletes getting <em>220</em> pts lower? Idk, something isn't right.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh to the people who are bringing up musicians, no offense, but you're not bringing in money to the school.
[/quote]
What is the average SAT score at Julliard?</p>
<p>Who knows if average is the proper way to analyze the data. It is easily skewed by outliers, I wonder if there was a median SAT score which could be used for comparison. They should really do a better statistical analysis to display their findings.</p>
<p>If schools and sports were separated both would profit. I mean it's ok to have divIII sports, but divI sports are unprofitable to the schools and the atheletes cannot go pro immediately.</p>
<p>How are D1 sports unprofitable for schools? Tell that to the Ohio State University. Also, athletes can't go pro immediately because they want their players/students to be educated and mature, so that they can hopefully prevent a future Pacman, Plaxico, or Starbury from entering their league.</p>
<p>i have a problem with the people who are saying that they played a sport, had straight A's, and scored 2400s. why yes, it's possible, you can be good at alot of things at once, but the people who are saying this are most likely not D1 bound athletes. to get to that caliber, it takes more than just showing up to every practice and game. it takes year round training. to many of you, good grades and good SATs are your ticket to a better life, a good career, and what not. for these athletes, sports are there only way out, so they must dedicate their lives to get to that point, even if their academics end up suffering because of it.</p>
<p>in my opinion, any college community is supposed to be a reflection of the real world. in any group in the real world, there is going to be a diverse group of people who have different strengths and weaknesses. the athletes just happen to have a different strength</p>
<p>To say that sports and colleges should be separated is really ludicrous. I was just accepted in Villanova. Had not grown up watching college sports, it's doubtful that I would even have applied to a school like this because I simply would not know of it, especially when it's not on USNWR's main list. Not only does it bring in applications like this, but the two main sports also raise school morale.</p>
<p>Expected, I would say. Difficult to find top level athletes.</p>
<p>No ****. I would like to do a study on the female atheletes. Lets do a study about cheerleaders and basketball players, I bet the results would be about the same for chicks.</p>
<p>DP</p>
<p>I don't think there is anything surprising in this. All schools have to look outside their strong academic core to fill their special requirements (football, basketball or other). DW worked in the Office of Inst Research at a major U. Her supervisor pulled an SAT dataset and let the whole office guess what group it represented. The usual suspects were mentioned (sports). It turns out the worst entrance scores in the school were for male ballet dancers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think it's myth that colleges actually benefit, economically, from basketball and football teams. Of course, there are exceptions like Davidson's recent basketball success or Gonzaga becoming a household college due solely to their good basketball team or the Flutie effect for BC in the mid 80's. But I believe most football teams actually cost more money than they generate. I don't feel like looking up stats, but maybe someone else could.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>FAIL. Football is a cash cow for major universities (ie Division 1A schools). Revenue from football helps support a wide range of academic and athletic programs that don't make money .</p>
<p>BTW, here are the profits made from football in the year 2006, by some Division 1A football programs:</p>
<p>Georgia
$44.1 million
Florida
$32.4 million
Ohio State
$28.5 million
LSU
$25.2 million
Oklahoma
$20.0 million
Arizona State
$10.3 million
West Virginia
$10.2 million
Missouri
$7.9 million
Oregon
$6.2 million
Boston College
$1.4 million
Kansas
$1.3 million
Texas
$42.5 million
Michigan
$37.6 million
Florida
$32.4 million
Alabama
$27.7 million
Penn State
$26.5 million
Nebraska
$11.3 million
USC
$10.6 million
Oklahoma State
$8.8 million
Tulsa
$10,000</p>
<p>Source: Mobile</a> Breaking Oklahoma News | NewsOK.com</p>
<p>Tennessee used to be up there too until we started sucking.</p>
<p>Kiffin is going to make things awesome again!</p>
<p>This topic has been raised in 2 other recent threads, but I will repeat what I said before. No one is being hurt in the current practice. We are talking about maybe 40 - 45 athletes per class in football and basketball, out of entering freshman classes of what, 5,000 - 7,000 in some cases. These highly-talented athletes get a shot at a good education, and even without the diploma they get valuable life experience they will never find anywhere else. The university, student body, alumni and community benefit tremendously from the compromise of 300 SAT points. I find it hard to get worked up over this issue, and it sounds like most others feel the same way.</p>