A New Wrinkle/Opinion on O'Bannon Case and a Surprising Revelation

[Bostondevil]

OK - I was unaware until recently that some schools charge extra fees from their non-scholarship students to support their athletic teams (Florida International being one of them). I do not think that an athlete who has his schooling paid for in part by his fellow students and, if he goes to a public institution, the taxpayers of that state, deserve all of the profits from the use of his or her image. I think students that are footing the bill for athletes should file their own class action suit. O'Bannon's image would be worth far less if it didnt' have UCLA on the front. For the most part, the jerseys sold by the schools aren't really sold because of the player, it's the intersection of player AND team. (We could compare sales of Curry Liberty jerseys with Curry Duke jerseys - just for fun.) The schools matter. And the regular kids who graduate from those schools with large debts should be getting some of the action.

I've been rethinking the whole college athletics thing recently now that I am actually writing tuition checks. If college athletes want to be paid for their services, and I kinda think some form of that is coming, then they should not receive scholarship money. The first thing that should come out of their paycheck is tuition.

The surprising revelation? I'm writing tuition checks to Duke for my son, currently a sophomore. He posts here! I suppose that part isn't all that surprising but he did let me know his posting name recently - that kinda is surprising.

Is this too public policy?

[sagegrouse]

OK - I was unaware until recently that some schools charge extra fees from their non-scholarship students to support their athletic teams (Florida International being one of them). I do not think that an athlete who has his schooling paid for in part by his fellow students and, if he goes to a public institution, the taxpayers of that state, deserve all of the profits from the use of his or her image.

Is this too public policy?

Fine topic, as far as I am concerned. But I was under the impression that all things labeled, "Student Activity Fees," included money for athletics, which go to pay for student tickets. I thought the practice was quite common and included almost every university. There may be another interpretation for the fees, such as paying for IM programs and athletic facilities used by students.

Someone on the Board doubtless knows the details of the situation at Duke.

sagegrouse

[sue71, esq]

I won't speak to any specific university, but having worked at several, "Student Activity Fee" is a generic term where the monies are used for various things, and not all going to one organization. Often it's split, with some going to subsidize student tickets, recreational services & facilities, student activities (such as student clubs/organizations), etc. It also goes toward (forgive me but I'm blanking on the term here) student concert board -type organizations, where a band is brought in for a concert once a semester, and things along those lines.

Every school is different in what it's called and how it's split up, but Sage was on the right track with his thoughts.

[sue71, esq]

One more thing- believe me when I say that arguments over the fees are monumental. A school may decide they need a new rec facility, but to ask for a $30 or even $15 increase in student fees to help cover costs can erupt in a war. The number of student tickets allotted for (most often) football or men's basketball depends largely in how much subsidy there is from the fees. (Yes, percentage of the venue also plays into it, as do many other factors, but $$$ talks especially when those seats could go to big donors). Your student group wants to have a function? Where does that money come from... it's allocated by university organizations, often student governments or student activity boards. Where do they get their money? Student fees.

There's more, but I don't want to bore anyone with it... feel free to PM me if you'd like.

[Jarhead]

OK - I was unaware until recently that some schools charge extra fees from their non-scholarship students to support their athletic teams (Florida International being one of them). I do not think that an athlete who has his schooling paid for in part by his fellow students and, if he goes to a public institution, the taxpayers of that state, deserve all of the profits from the use of his or her image. I think students that are footing the bill for athletes should file their own class action suit. O'Bannon's image would be worth far less if it didnt' have UCLA on the front. For the most part, the jerseys sold by the schools aren't really sold because of the player, it's the intersection of player AND team. (We could compare sales of Curry Liberty jerseys with Curry Duke jerseys - just for fun.) The schools matter. And the regular kids who graduate from those schools with large debts should be getting some of the action.

I've been rethinking the whole college athletics thing recently now that I am actually writing tuition checks. If college athletes want to be paid for their services, and I kinda think some form of that is coming, then they should not receive scholarship money. The first thing that should come out of their paycheck is tuition.

The surprising revelation? I'm writing tuition checks to Duke for my son, currently a sophomore. He posts here! I suppose that part isn't all that surprising but he did let me know his posting name recently - that kinda is surprising. Is this too public policy?

Your post confuses me somewhat. I cannot tell for sure what side you are taking on this issue. I think I understand, and at the same time I wonder why your post needs to be in a separate thread. It is right in the middle of a topic in another thread (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?31923-Disagree-with-Coach-Cutcliffe) that is still pretty active in the EK forum. I'll leave that to the moderators though.

Can you please explain how tuition from non athletes paid for any of the tuition scholarships granted to student athletes. As far as I know, Duke athletic scholarship funds come from endowed scholarships, restricted donations from alumni and friends of the University, and earnings of DUAA. I have heard that Coach K is among those creating endowed athletic scholarships at Duke.

By the way, regarding your "Surprising Revelation" the list of DBR forum posters has included two of my sons. I gotcha there.

[77devil]

By the way, regarding your "Surprising Revelation" the list of DBR forum posters has included two of my sons. I gotcha there.

And my son and daughter-I suspect there are more than a few of these revelations that are not surprising at all.

[Bostondevil]

It was the Wall Street Journal's Grid of Shame. Perhaps I misinterpreted what they said. I'll admit I didn't research it any further, but what I thought they said was that Florida International funded their athletics on the backs of non-scholarship students - $18 million of their $25 million in revenue. Here's the link. Am I wrong?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324324404579041092507233498.html

But my main point is that if we're going to pay athletes, they shouldn't get scholarships too. And if we're going to start holding money in trust for them based on jersey sales, again, gotta pay the school back first. If they are employees then they shouldn't be taking classroom space from kids who are there to study. If they are students who expect to be paid, well, all right, but then we shouldn't be paying them on top of paying for them, tuition comes out of what we pay them.

[Jarhead]

It was the Wall Street Journal's Grid of Shame. Perhaps I misinterpreted what they said. I'll admit I didn't research it any further, but what I thought they said was that Florida International funded their athletics on the backs of non-scholarship students - $18 million of their $25 million in revenue. Here's the link. Am I wrong?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324324404579041092507233498.html

But my main point is that if we're going to pay athletes, they shouldn't get scholarships too. And if we're going to start holding money in trust for them based on jersey sales, again, gotta pay the school back first. If they are employees then they shouldn't be taking classroom space from kids who are there to study. If they are students who expect to be paid, well, all right, but then we shouldn't be paying them on top of paying for them, tuition comes out of what we pay them.

The WSJ link is not about paying athletes. Its about a comparison of College football teams on the basis of their APR (academic progress rate, perhaps) and their on field performance. The measurements seem arbitrary and subjective. Credibility seems lacking, but placement of the teams in the chart does ring true in some cases. Think of it as akin to preseason football polls, but if you think it supports your line of thought then maybe you should go back and examine it again.

[cf-62]

It was the Wall Street Journal's Grid of Shame. Perhaps I misinterpreted what they said. I'll admit I didn't research it any further, but what I thought they said was that Florida International funded their athletics on the backs of non-scholarship students - $18 million of their $25 million in revenue. Here's the link. Am I wrong?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324324404579041092507233498.html

But my main point is that if we're going to pay athletes, they shouldn't get scholarships too. And if we're going to start holding money in trust for them based on jersey sales, again, gotta pay the school back first. If they are employees then they shouldn't be taking classroom space from kids who are there to study. If they are students who expect to be paid, well, all right, but then we shouldn't be paying them on top of paying for them, tuition comes out of what we pay them.

You're missing the bigger picture BD.

"If they get paid, then they shouldn't get scholarships."

A) They do get paid - in the form of scholarships.

"If they're employees, then they shouldn't take up classroom space"

B) If they're employees, it's not intercollegiate sports anymore

But let me truly blow your mind. In the current world of athletic scholarships, a certain set of schools (Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, etc.) provide an extremely more valuable scholarship (talking about money only, not the intrinsic value of a degree from a Top 10 school). If the rules of amateurism are eliminated, and basketball & football players are paid a share of revenue, but have to pay their tuition themselves, the world flips on its head. From a financial perspective, you would be a fool to choose one of these schools instead of a UCLA or Texas. I mean, even if you lived in the bay, there's NO FREAKING WAY you choose Stanford over Cal. You'll pocket ~$100K to $200K extra cash during your time on campus.

If the pundits get what they want (the redefinition of amateurism, and revenue sharing with the kids - "the schools are already paying them under the table anyway, so let's legalize it"), no private school will be able to maintain a legitimate athletic program. (That may be okay - a different debate for a different time), Duke athletics as we know it would cease to exist within 5 years (goal of national championships across the board).

The requests of the kids doing the APU thing are reasonable - full cost scholarships, small cost-of-college stipend, 4-yr scholarship guarantees, and full medical coverage for injuries. But simply "giving in" because every day, another school is implicated in Pay for Play, is ridiculous.

Finally, a word about the "free market" value of these players. There are superstars that emerge (i.e., Johnny Football), but to say that the PLAYERS created the industry is a serious misnomer. IF that were true, there would be an alternative league for 18-22 year olds that has nothing to do with colleges, and we would see that league on TV. It's not a question of "nobody can pay for it." There's ALWAYS money for legitimate markets. The truth is that the TV contracts -- and the revenues -- are tied to COLLEGES, not players.

[sue71, esq]

It was the Wall Street Journal's Grid of Shame. Perhaps I misinterpreted what they said. I'll admit I didn't research it any further, but what I thought they said was that Florida International funded their athletics on the backs of non-scholarship students - $18 million of their $25 million in revenue. Here's the link. Am I wrong?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324324404579041092507233498.html

But my main point is that if we're going to pay athletes, they shouldn't get scholarships too. And if we're going to start holding money in trust for them based on jersey sales, again, gotta pay the school back first. If they are employees then they shouldn't be taking classroom space from kids who are there to study. If they are students who expect to be paid, well, all right, but then we shouldn't be paying them on top of paying for them, tuition comes out of what we pay them.

That seems wrong on many levels, but let's look at numbers. What are your son's student fees? Looking at FIU, they claim 50k students in the fall of 2012 (http://fiu.edu/about-us/rankings-facts/index.html), so let's use that number. Their fees (http://finance.fiu.edu/controller/UG_Calculator.htm) (per student per credit hour per semester) are as follows:

Athletic Fee $8.49
Women Title IX $.30
Athletic Football $7.31

Athletic Fee $10.00 (no idea why there's a second athletic fee, but there is but it's per semester)

Assuming all 50k students pay these fees, that's $16.10/credit hour x 12* credit hours x 50k students x 2 semesters = $19,320,000/year + $1,000,000/year for the second athletic fee (50k stu x $10/semester x 2 semesters) for a grand total of $20,320,000. I guess $18 million can easily be taken out of there to subsidize athletics, so I guess I'm wrong, but it seems seriously out of whack to me.

Per student, per credit hour, it's a small amount (at most 7% of a given student's tuition), so it may not even be noticed.

But I can assure you athletics had to battle to get these fees approved. When I was at one school, they wanted to build a new rec center. Everything had been approved and contracted and was about a year away from demolition on the old to build the new... but that pesky student fee increase was holding things up because the student orgs didn't approve it or wanted less than was being requested by rec sports. Ugh bureaucracy.

And to the point that scholarships are endowed... yes, this is true that *some* scholarships are endowed at many schools, but for the most part (unless you're Stanford where all athletic schollys are endowed), that's why athletic fundraising exists at universities.


* I guessed at an average of 12 credit hours per student, since the 50k isn't specified as full time or part time, nor a grad to ug ratio.

[Bostondevil]

That seems wrong on many levels, but let's look at numbers. What are your son's student fees? Looking at FIU, they claim 50k students in the fall of 2012 (http://fiu.edu/about-us/rankings-facts/index.html), so let's use that number. Their fees (http://finance.fiu.edu/controller/UG_Calculator.htm) (per student per credit hour per semester) are as follows:

Athletic Fee $8.49
Women Title IX $.30
Athletic Football $7.31

Athletic Fee $10.00 (no idea why there's a second athletic fee, but there is but it's per semester)

Assuming all 50k students pay these fees, that's $16.10/credit hour x 12* credit hours x 50k students x 2 semesters = $19,320,000/year + $1,000,000/year for the second athletic fee (50k stu x $10/semester x 2 semesters) for a grand total of $20,320,000. I guess $18 million can easily be taken out of there to subsidize athletics, so I guess I'm wrong, but it seems seriously out of whack to me.

Per student, per credit hour, it's a small amount (at most 7% of a given student's tuition), so it may not even be noticed.

But I can assure you athletics had to battle to get these fees approved. When I was at one school, they wanted to build a new rec center. Everything had been approved and contracted and was about a year away from demolition on the old to build the new... but that pesky student fee increase was holding things up because the student orgs didn't approve it or wanted less than was being requested by rec sports. Ugh bureaucracy.

And to the point that scholarships are endowed... yes, this is true that *some* scholarships are endowed at many schools, but for the most part (unless you're Stanford where all athletic schollys are endowed), that's why athletic fundraising exists at universities.


* I guessed at an average of 12 credit hours per student, since the 50k isn't specified as full time or part time, nor a grad to ug ratio.

Thanks, Sue. I feel better about that part of it now. It doesn't seem quite so unreasonable.

Still - and it's taken me this long in my life to get here - but the moral mess that is college athletics has started to bother me. I'm not entirely sure what I would like to see happen. But the system is broken in many more ways than in how we compensate players in the revenue generating sports. The majority of merit based scholarship money goes to athletes (all athletes, not just those in revenue generating sports). Should it? I mean really, should it? Playing sports at the varsity level is basically a full time job. They do not have as much time to devote to studies. I'm still going to watch Duke Basketball and cheer for the team and I'll be very sorry to see it go away. I'm a hypocrite. I think there is too much money given to too many people who aren't in college to study, or at least that isn't their primary focus. But as to Ed O'Bannon, the case to me just isn't that simple. Does he own his image? Yes. Does UCLA own his jersey? I kinda think yes. I would support a ruling stating that university should use jersey sales for scholarships or to keep student fees as low as possible.

[Jarhead]

Thanks, Sue. I feel better about that part of it now. It doesn't seem quite so unreasonable.

Still - and it's taken me this long in my life to get here - but the moral mess that is college athletics has started to bother me. I'm not entirely sure what I would like to see happen. But the system is broken in many more ways than in how we compensate players in the revenue generating sports. The majority of merit based scholarship money goes to athletes (all athletes, not just those in revenue generating sports). Should it? I mean really, should it? Playing sports at the varsity level is basically a full time job. They do not have as much time to devote to studies. I'm still going to watch Duke Basketball and cheer for the team and I'll be very sorry to see it go away. I'm a hypocrite. I think there is too much money given to too many people who aren't in college to study, or at least that isn't their primary focus. But as to Ed O'Bannon, the case to me just isn't that simple. Does he own his image? Yes. Does UCLA own his jersey? I kinda think yes. I would support a ruling stating that university should use jersey sales for scholarships or to keep student fees as low as possible.

You have totally lost me. Did you really mean to say that merit based scholarship money goes mostly to athletes? Where did you find that bit of information? I'd like to see it myself. Can you provide any kind of link that substantiates these claims? You sure missed on the grid of shame thing.

[JNort]

Ok so I went to school and my school was paid for with scholarship money just like athletes are. However I still had to pay a car payment, insurance, and gas which is not much different than most athletes. The difference between me and the athletes is I did not have practice and team meetings that took up my days so I could get an on campus job that paid minimum wage at 20 hours a week to cover what I had to pay plus extra spending money for dates and having fun with friends when weekends rolled around. Just pay all athletes minimum wage for time spent in practice,working out and at team meetings. That way they do not get special treatment compared to the other students and they now have the money they need plus spending money.

I think most people don't realize the money for a college kid is actually a very big problem because lots of you (public in general) could receive money from your parents or maybe you did not have to pay for your own vehicle or cell phone at 18. I on the other hand could not get financial help from my family because they just could not afford to help and many of these guys are the same way. Paying minimum wage should make it easier to cover all the sports as well and not just the big ones and also would have the benefit of guys being more dedicated to practice and obeying team rules because they will be getting paid by the time spent working with the team.

[-jk]

I've posted this before, so if you've heard me, sorry.

Any effort to tease meaningful analysis from any reported numbers is doomed.

Schools report what they want to report. Their athletic programs have a lot of overlap between varsity, club/IM, and PE.

How does Duke report on the golf course? Is it a team facility and costs go against the team? A hotel facility that generates income? Do greens fees from the hotel go to the team? Does the team pay a fee to use the course? Duke has a lot of latitude in how this one small item gets reported. There are a lot of "small items".

Does the hospital claim expenses for the track as a sports medicine facility? How about sports medicine as a department? Athletics or hospital? Similar examples abound, and different schools report numbers to suit their needs, too. (Does anyone really think Louisville earns more than Kentucky in hoops? Even with the Yum!? Really?)

Activity fees, too. Where do they get recorded on the balance sheet? Pretty much every "varsity" facility has alternative uses, with a very few counter-examples (K center; sports dorms). You can trust a school's mission and leadership. Or not. But all of them have finances way too commingled to get anything from their reports.

And yes, schools have financial issues. About the only number that might be clean is the payout for a conference tv package. Otherwise, it's all slight of hand, smoke and mirrors, or whichever simile for "um, vague" you want to come up with. And that's an old story...

-jk

[Jarhead]

I've posted this before, so if you've heard me, sorry.

Any effort to tease meaningful analysis from any reported numbers is doomed.

Schools report what they want to report. Their athletic programs have a lot of overlap between varsity, club/IM, and PE.

How does Duke report on the golf course? Is it a team facility and costs go against the team? A hotel facility that generates income? Do greens fees from the hotel go to the team? Does the team pay a fee to use the course? Duke has a lot of latitude in how this one small item gets reported. There are a lot of "small items".

Does the hospital claim expenses for the track as a sports medicine facility? How about sports medicine as a department? Athletics or hospital? Similar examples abound, and different schools report numbers to suit their needs, too. (Does anyone really think Louisville earns more than Kentucky in hoops? Even with the Yum!? Really?)

Activity fees, too. Where do they get recorded on the balance sheet? Pretty much every "varsity" facility has alternative uses, with a very few counter-examples (K center; sports dorms). You can trust a school's mission and leadership. Or not. But all of them have finances way too commingled to get anything from their reports.

And yes, schools have financial issues. About the only number that might be clean is the payout for a conference tv package. Otherwise, it's all slight of hand, smoke and mirrors, or whichever simile for "um, vague" you want to come up with. And that's an old story...

-jk

Even so, non-profit educational institutions have Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (http://www.nonprofitaccountingbasics.org/accounting-bookkeeping/generally-accepted-accounting-principles) that must be observed. Anything else is cooking the books.

[Jarhead]

Ok so I went to school and my school was paid for with scholarship money just like athletes are. However I still had to pay a car payment, insurance, and gas which is not much different than most athletes. The difference between me and the athletes is I did not have practice and team meetings that took up my days so I could get an on campus job that paid minimum wage at 20 hours a week to cover what I had to pay plus extra spending money for dates and having fun with friends when weekends rolled around. Just pay all athletes minimum wage for time spent in practice,working out and at team meetings. That way they do not get special treatment compared to the other students and they now have the money they need plus spending money.

I think most people don't realize the money for a college kid is actually a very big problem because lots of you (public in general) could receive money from your parents or maybe you did not have to pay for your own vehicle or cell phone at 18. I on the other hand could not get financial help from my family because they just could not afford to help and many of these guys are the same way. Paying minimum wage should make it easier to cover all the sports as well and not just the big ones and also would have the benefit of guys being more dedicated to practice and obeying team rules because they will be getting paid by the time spent working with the team.

In general, I agree with your concept, but I don't believe that it is the responsibility of the university to cover the costs of automobiles, digital devices, and entertainment for athletes or students on financial aide. On the other hand, I believe that a stipend for personal expenses is appropriate. In following the media discussions, I see that a crowd of folks are calling for salaries for athletes. I have made my own conclusions, and I see it this way. Full scholarships, athletic or otherwise, should cover the following costs of attending college: tuition and student fees, room and board, books and required educational supplies, and travel expenses home during recesses and certain holidays. Medical expenses with some limitations would be nice, too, but that's it. Luxuries such as automobiles, mobile digital devices, and partying should be totally the student's responsibility.

[cf-62]

Thanks, Sue. I feel better about that part of it now. It doesn't seem quite so unreasonable.

Still - and it's taken me this long in my life to get here - but the moral mess that is college athletics has started to bother me. I'm not entirely sure what I would like to see happen. But the system is broken in many more ways than in how we compensate players in the revenue generating sports. The majority of merit based scholarship money goes to athletes (all athletes, not just those in revenue generating sports). Should it? I mean really, should it? Playing sports at the varsity level is basically a full time job. They do not have as much time to devote to studies. I'm still going to watch Duke Basketball and cheer for the team and I'll be very sorry to see it go away. I'm a hypocrite. I think there is too much money given to too many people who aren't in college to study, or at least that isn't their primary focus. But as to Ed O'Bannon, the case to me just isn't that simple. Does he own his image? Yes. Does UCLA own his jersey? I kinda think yes. I would support a ruling stating that university should use jersey sales for scholarships or to keep student fees as low as possible.

As jh mentioned, the accounting of fee usage in athletics administration and facilities isn't black and white. When WE were in school (including you, BD), non-varsity athletics was administered separately from DUAA. Think back to those days - Card gym, IM fields, IM building. THAT was the non-varsity athlete's world. But now, everything athletics is administered by DUAA -- IM, physical education, varisty sports, facilities, etc. There have been many MANY positiives out of this arrangement, including the roller hockey rink over on East, dedicated women's practice fields, SERIOUS upgrades in non-varsity athlete facilities, and an abundance of free group classes. That $20 seems a lot less egregious when you think about the fact that the kids get free access to a premium gym, complete with free group classes.

You have pointed out an important item to understand - that varsity athletes have a lot of demands after classes - but so do musicians, student government, etc. What they DO get that others do not is help through tutors. I'm not talking like UNC tutors. They truly do the work, but they get serious help.

Is it hard? Yep! I could quote Tom Hanks: "It's the Hard that makes it great!" Even better, there's a story from one of Pitino's books (Success is a Choice) about an assistant coach talking about putting in some extra tape hours: "Man, I'm tired," he lamented. "Good!" said Pitino. "You work hard. You SHOULD be tired." The kids are brought in NOT just to perform on the field, but to represent our university (all the time).

My brother once wrote an op-ed for the Raleigh N&O when he was the captain of his high school soccer team. The topic was how scholastic sports helps makes students better, not worse. Just to GET the work done, they have to be more disciplined, and must be more organized and focused. That goes to extremes in college.

That doesn't mean they're all angels, and that there aren't those that focus primarily on their sport and ignore academics. But these aren't simply hired guns. Many football players end up in medical school. Our own basketball program has a spate of MBA and JD holders. I've been "fortunate enough" (not sure it's the right sentiment) to have had surgery from a fellow alum who played Football at Duke.

Playing devil's advocate to my own post, there's more evidence that Duke may be more isolated in the way athletics are run than previously thought. The UNC scandal has shaken that core. If it wasn't just Davis, then the Carolina Way isn't just a tainted way of doing things the right way (some of the time). It's truly a myth, and we're left wondering that if UNC is doing this, can we possibly believe that any team in the SEC ISN'T just flat-out running semi-professional programs?

Like the annual debate around rules for declaring about the NBA, it's difficult for Blue Devil fans to buy into some of the arguments out there because we know how WE do things. But reform isn't about the kids that go to Duke (or Stanford, etc.), trade their skills as an athlete to pay their tuition, and get a $200K degree for free. Reform is about the marginal athletes brought into a program and then not given the one thing they need - a focus on studies - because their coach wants to guarantee success.

Ultimately, I still disagree with the O'Bannon position (and the extension to the football players getting revenue sharing). These college students CHOOSE TO PLAY their sport - in exchange for a scholarship. If they want to market themselves, then they can not go to college. If they don't think their scholarship is worth their time, then they need to either change the schools they're looking at (if it's about what the degree might mean) or - again - not go to college (if they don't value having A degree, period).

[Bostondevil]

You have totally lost me. Did you really mean to say that merit based scholarship money goes mostly to athletes? Where did you find that bit of information? I'd like to see it myself. Can you provide any kind of link that substantiates these claims? You sure missed on the grid of shame thing.

It's true at Duke.

http://dukefinancialaid.duke.edu/undergraduate/stats/index.html

I said merit, not need based. Athletic scholarships count as merit in my book. I said the majority of merit based scholarships go to athletes.

[Bostondevil]

I've posted this before, so if you've heard me, sorry.

Any effort to tease meaningful analysis from any reported numbers is doomed.

Schools report what they want to report. Their athletic programs have a lot of overlap between varsity, club/IM, and PE.

How does Duke report on the golf course? Is it a team facility and costs go against the team? A hotel facility that generates income? Do greens fees from the hotel go to the team? Does the team pay a fee to use the course? Duke has a lot of latitude in how this one small item gets reported. There are a lot of "small items".

Does the hospital claim expenses for the track as a sports medicine facility? How about sports medicine as a department? Athletics or hospital? Similar examples abound, and different schools report numbers to suit their needs, too. (Does anyone really think Louisville earns more than Kentucky in hoops? Even with the Yum!? Really?)

Activity fees, too. Where do they get recorded on the balance sheet? Pretty much every "varsity" facility has alternative uses, with a very few counter-examples (K center; sports dorms). You can trust a school's mission and leadership. Or not. But all of them have finances way too commingled to get anything from their reports.

And yes, schools have financial issues. About the only number that might be clean is the payout for a conference tv package. Otherwise, it's all slight of hand, smoke and mirrors, or whichever simile for "um, vague" you want to come up with. And that's an old story...

-jk

Yeah, Ok. The WSJ article did say that 18 million out of 25 million in athletic revenues at Florida International came from student fees. You and Sue have both made me feel better about that bit of information.

[Bostondevil]

Playing devil's advocate to my own post, there's more evidence that Duke may be more isolated in the way athletics are run than previously thought. The UNC scandal has shaken that core. If it wasn't just Davis, then the Carolina Way isn't just a tainted way of doing things the right way (some of the time). It's truly a myth, and we're left wondering that if UNC is doing this, can we possibly believe that any team in the SEC ISN'T just flat-out running semi-professional programs?



Are you aware of the recent cheating scandal at Harvard?

I'm kinda making two arguments and I realize I haven't really firmed up what I believe about a lot of it.

One other point you brought up, a lot of football players go to medical school? I'd really like to see the statistics on that. It may have been true when we were in school, I doubt it's true anymore. The only football player I know currently in college who wants to go to medical school ultimately had to give up his football scholarship so he could concentrate on his studies. He even chose a D-1A school because he knew it would be hard to manage both. He had too many practices to be able to go to the lab sections of his science classes. Something had to go, he let football go because he knows his career won't be in the NFL. Smart kid. From a timewise perspective, it is harder to major in a science. I'm not insulting anybody's intelligence nor am I saying that one major is worth more than another, but it's harder to major in a science. Athletes no longer have the time to do it.

[Jarhead]

It's true at Duke.

http://dukefinancialaid.duke.edu/undergraduate/stats/index.html

I said merit, not need based. Athletic scholarships count as merit in my book. I said the majority of merit based scholarships go to athletes.

Again you misinterpreted the info in your link. It clearly shows three types of student aid: merit, athletic, and need. For an easy breakdown go back look at the charts. The first of the charts breaks it down this way:

Total Enrolled Undergrads: 6,813

Total Aid Recipients: 3,469

% of Total Aid Recipients
Merit Aid Students: 6.1%
Athletic Aid Students: 7.3%
Need-based Grant Aid Students: 86.6%

% of Total Enrolled Undergrads
Merit Aid Students: 3.1%
Athletic Aid Students: 3.7%
Need-based Grant Aid Students: 44.1%

In no way does this data intermingle merit aid and athletic aid. Furthermore, the fact that 86% of all aid is need based is astonishing to me. However this information makes me think the whole debate we are involved in is a sham. A large segment of students pay their own way; almost half it looks like. The rest get financial aid with 86.6% of the aid being need based. Merit and athletic aid is a very small of percentage of the whole picture.

Looking at all of this together my position is that all of the recipients of aid get all of the aid required, but no more than that. The NCAA would be involved in that a lot of the needs are taboo under their rules, but that should be easy to fix. Here's what I said in a earlier post in this thread:

Full scholarships, athletic or otherwise, should cover the following costs of attending college: tuition and student fees, room and board, books and required educational supplies, and travel expenses home during recesses and certain holidays. Medical expenses with some limitations would be nice, too, but that's it. Luxuries such as automobiles, mobile digital devices, and partying should be totally the student's responsibility. That is, of course, still open for discussion. Before I close, take a good look at all of the charts linked by Bostondevil:

http://dukefinancialaid.duke.edu/undergraduate/stats/index.html

[JNort]

In general, I agree with your concept, but I don't believe that it is the responsibility of the university to cover the costs of automobiles, digital devices, and entertainment for athletes or students on financial aide. On the other hand, I believe that a stipend for personal expenses is appropriate. In following the media discussions, I see that a crowd of folks are calling for salaries for athletes. I have made my own conclusions, and I see it this way. Full scholarships, athletic or otherwise, should cover the following costs of attending college: tuition and student fees, room and board, books and required educational supplies, and travel expenses home during recesses and certain holidays. Medical expenses with some limitations would be nice, too, but that's it. Luxuries such as automobiles, mobile digital devices, and partying should be totally the student's responsibility.

So athletes should not be given the same opportunities as other students? Im not saying pay them because they are on the football team or soccer team or what have you nor am I saying to include extra money in the scholarship. Just pay these kids for doing a job (Minimum wage!) just like many others on campus are doing. If they do not want to pay minimum wage then they need to shorten down on all sporting activities so that players who need money can get a job after praactice like they could in high school.

[Lid]

In no way does this data intermingle merit aid and athletic aid.

No, the chart doesn't intermingle it, but Bostondevil said she considers athletic scholarships to be merit-based in a merit/need duality. I think a strong argument can be made for that approach, and she stated that assumption clearly.



Furthermore, the fact that 86% of all aid is need based is astonishing to me. ... Merit and athletic aid is a very small of percentage of the whole picture.

Unless I'm misinterpreting (which is entirely possible), these charts are showing the number of students receiving each type of aid, not the dollar amount of the aid. That's a big difference -- if the average need-based aid is $2K and the average athletic- or merit-based aid is $30K (I'm making those numbers up), then it becomes clear why the charts use number of students instead. It may sound better to have 86% of students receiving need-based aid than to have 25% of your aid dollars (again, made-up number) going to need-based aid.

(Also, apologies to Bostondevil if I incorrectly remembered your gender from previous posts!)

[DU82]

So athletes should not be given the same opportunities as other students? Im not saying pay them because they are on the football team or soccer team or what have you nor am I saying to include extra money in the scholarship. Just pay these kids for doing a job (Minimum wage!) just like many others on campus are doing. If they do not want to pay minimum wage then they need to shorten down on all sporting activities so that players who need money can get a job after praactice like they could in high school.

I cannot say that basketball and football players are included, but other scholarship athletes are allowed to have jobs on campus during the semester. My nephew's D1 baseball players work basketball games (arena assistance including gates, set-up, clean-up, etc.) While not all are on full-scholarship, the do receive partials. (Unlike most other sports, which are full scholarships, Baseball has, I believe, 13.75 scholarships to divide among the players on the team in roughly 1/4 shares.) They must be paid no more than what other students in similar roles get. IIRC, the OK State issue with football "jobs" was that it was during the off-season, and they were being paid more than the going rate. (This according to the SI stories; not debating if the allegations are true at this time.)

I believe I understand that your point is that practice takes up too much time for many players to get "after school" jobs (and whether their sport IS a job), but wanted to point out that they are able to get one if they choose.

[JNort]

I cannot say that basketball and football players are included, but other scholarship athletes are allowed to have jobs on campus during the semester. My nephew's D1 baseball players work basketball games (arena assistance including gates, set-up, clean-up, etc.) While not all are on full-scholarship, the do receive partials. (Unlike most other sports, which are full scholarships, Baseball has, I believe, 13.75 scholarships to divide among the players on the team in roughly 1/4 shares.) They must be paid no more than what other students in similar roles get. IIRC, the OK State issue with football "jobs" was that it was during the off-season, and they were being paid more than the going rate. (This according to the SI stories; not debating if the allegations are true at this time.)

I believe I understand that your point is that practice takes up too much time for many players to get "after school" jobs (and whether their sport IS a job), but wanted to point out that they are able to get one if they choose.

Football in particular has long practice hours or multiple practices a day to go with time spent in the weight room and meetings. It's fine if the sport allows time for having a job but I used to work with the football team and many of them would not be done with practice till 6 or 7 and still had homework for classes plus studying, many still had to go eat supper and shower while still be expected to get up at 6am. Not much time for a reasonable job unless you don't need sleep.

[sagegrouse]

Again you misinterpreted the info in your link. It clearly shows three types of student aid: merit, athletic, and need. For an easy breakdown go back look at the charts. The first of the charts breaks it down this way:


In no way does this data intermingle merit aid and athletic aid. Furthermore, the fact that 86% of all aid is need based is astonishing to me. However this information makes me think the whole debate we are involved in is a sham. A large segment of students pay their own way; almost half it looks like. The rest get financial aid with 86.6% of the aid being need based. Merit and athletic aid is a very small of percentage of the whole picture.

Looking at all of this together my position is that all of the recipients of aid get all of the aid required, but no more than that. The NCAA would be involved in that a lot of the needs are taboo under their rules, but that should be easy to fix. Here's what I said in a earlier post in this thread:
That is, of course, still open for discussion. Before I close, take a good look at all of the charts linked by Bostondevil:

http://dukefinancialaid.duke.edu/undergraduate/stats/index.html

Good points, all. Let me add a different twist, which has really affected the Ivy League. If all athletes, somehow, got admitted to Duke, some would receive close to a free ride on economics alone. Harvard is not asking students with family income below (I believe) $60 thousand to pay any part of tuition, which -- of course -- makes the Crimson pretty competitive in the market for athletes.

sagegrouse

[cf-62]

Are you aware of the recent cheating scandal at Harvard?

I'm kinda making two arguments and I realize I haven't really firmed up what I believe about a lot of it.

One other point you brought up, a lot of football players go to medical school? I'd really like to see the statistics on that. It may have been true when we were in school, I doubt it's true anymore. The only football player I know currently in college who wants to go to medical school ultimately had to give up his football scholarship so he could concentrate on his studies. He even chose a D-1A school because he knew it would be hard to manage both. He had too many practices to be able to go to the lab sections of his science classes. Something had to go, he let football go because he knows his career won't be in the NFL. Smart kid. From a timewise perspective, it is harder to major in a science. I'm not insulting anybody's intelligence nor am I saying that one major is worth more than another, but it's harder to major in a science. Athletes no longer have the time to do it.

The Harvard cheating scandal is NOT an athletics scandal. It is a student cheating scandal that INCLUDED the captains of the basketball team, but nobody that I've ever met believes for 1 microsecond that the cheating was a sports issue.

Re: doctors. 90% of my interaction with doctors is with orthopedic surgeons (and other sports med individuals). A GREAT MANY of them were DI football players. My anecdotal data is going to be extremely skewed by my really bad knees.

[Jarhead]

Good points, all. Let me add a different twist, which has really affected the Ivy League. If all athletes, somehow, got admitted to Duke, some would receive close to a free ride on economics alone. Harvard is not asking students with family income below (I believe) $60 thousand to pay any part of tuition, which -- of course -- makes the Crimson pretty competitive in the market for athletes.

sagegrouse

Thanks for that, sage. Let me see if I can clarify my position. What I am saying is that all full scholarships including athletic should provide for all of the costs of earning a degree. If there are partial scholarships involved some adjustments would be required, of course. I like the Harvard model, and would like to see it copied by other institutions, but even that would not provide for all costs. Other than that, their is the student loan which I think is some kind of punishment.

[Bostondevil]

No, the chart doesn't intermingle it, but Bostondevil said she considers athletic scholarships to be merit-based in a merit/need duality. I think a strong argument can be made for that approach, and she stated that assumption clearly.



Unless I'm misinterpreting (which is entirely possible), these charts are showing the number of students receiving each type of aid, not the dollar amount of the aid. That's a big difference -- if the average need-based aid is $2K and the average athletic- or merit-based aid is $30K (I'm making those numbers up), then it becomes clear why the charts use number of students instead. It may sound better to have 86% of students receiving need-based aid than to have 25% of your aid dollars (again, made-up number) going to need-based aid.

(Also, apologies to Bostondevil if I incorrectly remembered your gender from previous posts!)

Nope - you're right, I'm a she-devil. And thanks - I was making the merit/need duality. To me, athletic scholarships are merit based. You don't get them because you can't afford to pay, you get them because you'll help the crew team win Head of the Charles. (Also, I suspect you are right Lid, if you look at the number of students with a full-ride, athletes are probably the dominant group.)

[Bostondevil]

The Harvard cheating scandal is NOT an athletics scandal. It is a student cheating scandal that INCLUDED the captains of the basketball team, but nobody that I've ever met believes for 1 microsecond that the cheating was a sports issue.

Re: doctors. 90% of my interaction with doctors is with orthopedic surgeons (and other sports med individuals). A GREAT MANY of them were DI football players. My anecdotal data is going to be extremely skewed by my really bad knees.

Was the Harvard cheating scandal only an athletic scandal? No. Part of the scandal, if you ask me, is that there is an open book, open note, you don't have to attend class to pass Introduction to Congress course at Harvard in the first place. But why? Why does it even exist? Is it an accident that so many athletes take that class? (We've never met but I do think the scandal is - partially - a sports issue, so, there's one.)

Also, cf-62, I think the inability of scholarship athletes to seriously consider going to medical school is a recent thing, last decade or so. If you're still being treated by former D1 football players in 20 years, let me know. They could still go, they're just going to have to take all their science courses after they've used up their eligibility.

[sagegrouse]

Also, cf-62, I think the inability of scholarship athletes to seriously consider going to medical school is a recent thing, last decade or so. If you're still being treated by former D1 football players in 20 years, let me know. They could still go, they're just going to have to take all their science courses after they've used up their eligibility.

Is football practice in the afternoon? I thought there was a recent innovation at a bunch of schools, including Duke, to move it to the early morning and leave the rest of the day (after ten AM) open.

Which is not to say that the time pressures on athletes is not still very tough, but that lab time (is it still 2-5) doesn't conflict with practice.

I really should come back to campus sometime.

sagegrouse

[Bostondevil]

Is football practice in the afternoon? I thought there was a recent innovation at a bunch of schools, including Duke, to move it to the early morning and leave the rest of the day (after ten AM) open.

Which is not to say that the time pressures on athletes is not still very tough, but that lab time (is it still 2-5) doesn't conflict with practice.

I really should come back to campus sometime.

sagegrouse

I'll admit I don't have statistics to back up my argument. I have only anecdotal evidence. I did ask an Ivy League physics professor recently how many athletes he usually has in his upper level physics class (for physics majors). None. Not a one. Hasn't had a single athlete in the class for a decade and I'm not just talking football, no varsity athletes in any sport. Now - are there no athletes capable of a physics major or is the time just too much to ask? I suspect it's the time factor. I could be wrong.

[AncientPsychicT]

I cannot say that basketball and football players are included, but other scholarship athletes are allowed to have jobs on campus during the semester. My nephew's D1 baseball players work basketball games (arena assistance including gates, set-up, clean-up, etc.) While not all are on full-scholarship, the do receive partials. (Unlike most other sports, which are full scholarships, Baseball has, I believe, 13.75 scholarships to divide among the players on the team in roughly 1/4 shares.) They must be paid no more than what other students in similar roles get. IIRC, the OK State issue with football "jobs" was that it was during the off-season, and they were being paid more than the going rate. (This according to the SI stories; not debating if the allegations are true at this time.)

I believe I understand that your point is that practice takes up too much time for many players to get "after school" jobs (and whether their sport IS a job), but wanted to point out that they are able to get one if they choose.

I can. Blair Holliday, who is still on scholarship and of whom I like to think as still on the team, and I worked simultaneous shifts as intramural flag football officials last night.

[Bostondevil]

I can. Blair Holliday, who is still on scholarship and of whom I like to think as still on the team, and I worked simultaneous shifts as intramural flag football officials last night.

Awesome!

[cf-62]

I'll admit I don't have statistics to back up my argument. I have only anecdotal evidence. I did ask an Ivy League physics professor recently how many athletes he usually has in his upper level physics class (for physics majors). None. Not a one. Hasn't had a single athlete in the class for a decade and I'm not just talking football, no varsity athletes in any sport. Now - are there no athletes capable of a physics major or is the time just too much to ask? I suspect it's the time factor. I could be wrong.

Wow, talk about extremes.

I'm not discounting your friend's answer, but you're talking about comparing "basket weaving" to physics. Now if you had told me he was a Chem professor, I'd buy more into it. You're right about the time commitment making it tough to maintain a difficult major, but Wall Street doesn't hire dummies, either - and there are plenty of varsity athletes that end up on Wall Street.

I think you're ignoring a critical point - ANY student is going to make their major and class selection based on more than answering the question "can I do it?" They have to take other things into consideration.

I'm going to cite personal experience. I transferred into EE at Duke sophomore year. I had ignored some of the "engineering track" classes freshman year, so I knew I would have to be able to put together an intense technical schedule. It was an extremely stressful 3 years, but (given what I was able to do with my technical career) worth it. HOWEVER, if you had told me at 18 what the next three years were going to be like, I would have passed on the Engineering degree and stayed with my original Trinity plan.

Varsity Athletes have more counseling and "tribal advice" than the rest of us had, so they tend to have better information about these things. Thus, they're going to select a major and course that is conducive to their time - and focus - requirements, while providing them the basis for their next step, whether that is law school, business school, med school, or a job on wall street (or a job as a coach for some).

[Bostondevil]

Wow, talk about extremes.

I'm not discounting your friend's answer, but you're talking about comparing "basket weaving" to physics. Now if you had told me he was a Chem professor, I'd buy more into it. You're right about the time commitment making it tough to maintain a difficult major, but Wall Street doesn't hire dummies, either - and there are plenty of varsity athletes that end up on Wall Street.

I think you're ignoring a critical point - ANY student is going to make their major and class selection based on more than answering the question "can I do it?" They have to take other things into consideration.

I'm going to cite personal experience. I transferred into EE at Duke sophomore year. I had ignored some of the "engineering track" classes freshman year, so I knew I would have to be able to put together an intense technical schedule. It was an extremely stressful 3 years, but (given what I was able to do with my technical career) worth it. HOWEVER, if you had told me at 18 what the next three years were going to be like, I would have passed on the Engineering degree and stayed with my original Trinity plan.

Varsity Athletes have more counseling and "tribal advice" than the rest of us had, so they tend to have better information about these things. Thus, they're going to select a major and course that is conducive to their time - and focus - requirements, while providing them the basis for their next step, whether that is law school, business school, med school, or a job on wall street (or a job as a coach for some).

Not sure I understand what you mean about extremes. But the rest of your post kinda proves my point. Varsity athletes get tutoring and guidance and help setting up their careers and get to graduate with no student loan debt? Bully for them. I said back in this thread somewhere that I view college athletics as a moral morass. I'll still cheer for Duke teams but the system isn't fair to a lot more than the O'Bannons of the world.

Wall Street doesn't hire dummies? I beg to differ. (I will concede that they don't actively try to hire dummies.)

[Bostondevil]

One other thing, I like to think that every Duke student could major in any course of study the university has to offer. Even for those on athletic scholarships, "can I do it?" (apart from time constraints) should not be part of the equation for a Duke student. I don't think every major is for every student nor do I think every student would do equally well in all majors, of course not, but every Duke student should be able to cobble together a degree in any subject. For the record, I do think that every athlete at Duke could manage to graduate with a degree in a science. I think it's time that prevents them from doing so. But yeah, I've got a problem with giving those students the majority of our merit based financial aid. Ability to pay? A Duke degree costs upwards of $250,000 now. No student can pay that.

[cf-62]

One other thing, I like to think that every Duke student could major in any course of study the university has to offer. Even for those on athletic scholarships, "can I do it?" (apart from time constraints) should not be part of the equation for a Duke student. I don't think every major is for every student nor do I think every student would do equally well in all majors, of course not, but every Duke student should be able to cobble together a degree in any subject. For the record, I do think that every athlete at Duke could manage to graduate with a degree in a science. I think it's time that prevents them from doing so. But yeah, I've got a problem with giving those students the majority of our merit based financial aid. Ability to pay? A Duke degree costs upwards of $250,000 now. No student can pay that.

I think you're mostly right, but BD you're way off if you think every student can do any major at Duke. There are lots of extremely smart people that neither want to -- NOR CAN -- do the math heavy lifting in Engineering, Math, Physics, or Chemistry.

[Bostondevil]

I think you're mostly right, but BD you're way off if you think every student can do any major at Duke. There are lots of extremely smart people that neither want to -- NOR CAN -- do the math heavy lifting in Engineering, Math, Physics, or Chemistry.

Don't burst my bubble. Let me keep my illusions that all Duke athletes are smart enough to cut it in the (science/math/engineering) classroom, they just don't have time. Because if you convince me otherwise, the fact that we give those students more money to attend school than the ones that have the goods academically, well, where does Duke (or Stanford or Harvard) get off calling itself a top school? Are they universities or sports complexes? Math heavy lifting - I don't think mathematics gets beyond what any extremely smart person should be able to do until after linear algebra. I'm not saying get an A, I'm saying pass, scraping by with a D is enough. And yeah, I'm not saying everybody should have to do it, but they should be able to, just like they should all be able to write a coherent scholarly paper. (I would entertain arguments that first year calculus is enough, maybe. ;-) )

[sagegrouse]

One other thing, I like to think that every Duke student could major in any course of study the university has to offer. Even for those on athletic scholarships, "can I do it?" (apart from time constraints) should not be part of the equation for a Duke student. I don't think every major is for every student nor do I think every student would do equally well in all majors, of course not, but every Duke student should be able to cobble together a degree in any subject. For the record, I do think that every athlete at Duke could manage to graduate with a degree in a science. I think it's time that prevents them from doing so. But yeah, I've got a problem with giving those students the majority of our merit based financial aid. Ability to pay? A Duke degree costs upwards of $250,000 now. No student can pay that.

I hear you and agree with your sentiment, but I assure you, I would have flunked out as a music major.

sagegrouse

[Bostondevil]

I hear you and agree with your sentiment, but I assure you, I would have flunked out as a music major.

sagegrouse

;) I don't believe you. I think you could have found a way.

[cf-62]

Don't burst my bubble. Let me keep my illusions that all Duke athletes are smart enough to cut it in the (science/math/engineering) classroom, they just don't have time. Because if you convince me otherwise, the fact that we give those students more money to attend school than the ones that have the goods academically, well, where does Duke (or Stanford or Harvard) get off calling itself a top school? Are they universities or sports complexes? Math heavy lifting - I don't think mathematics gets beyond what any extremely smart person should be able to do until after linear algebra. I'm not saying get an A, I'm saying pass, scraping by with a D is enough. And yeah, I'm not saying everybody should have to do it, but they should be able to, just like they should all be able to write a coherent scholarly paper. (I would entertain arguments that first year calculus is enough, maybe. ;-) )

You misunderstand me, BD. I'm saying that at least half the student body (non-athletes) any given year CANNOT do the work towards a science major - period.

[Duvall]

You misunderstand me, BD. I'm saying that at least half the student body (non-athletes) any given year CANNOT do the work towards a science major - period.

That's an absurd claim.

[cf-62]

That's an absurd claim.

No more absurd than claiming that every Duke student could earn any major. That's ridiculous.

[greybeard]

It was the Wall Street Journal's Grid of Shame. Perhaps I misinterpreted what they said. I'll admit I didn't research it any further, but what I thought they said was that Florida International funded their athletics on the backs of non-scholarship students - $18 million of their $25 million in revenue. Here's the link. Am I wrong?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324324404579041092507233498.html

But my main point is that if we're going to pay athletes, they shouldn't get scholarships too. And if we're going to start holding money in trust for them based on jersey sales, again, gotta pay the school back first. If they are employees then they shouldn't be taking classroom space from kids who are there to study. If they are students who expect to be paid, well, all right, but then we shouldn't be paying them on top of paying for them, tuition comes out of what we pay them.

"We" should be paying them what the market will bear. Many players, even those who get eligible grades through the end of the season do get something from the university. Scholarship money gives the Universities something of value--the ability to have some nexus between the players they field and the University for whom they play.

The bigger question is who pays the medical bills and insurance costs, short and long term, for the earners. The earners are all those who permit a school to field a well practiced and competitive (multiple players competing for positions). This question is huge is was highlighted by Roger's explanation for why the players took such a small settlement--the difficulty in proving when the problems pro retirees suffer from occurred, high school, college, and the pros.

I happen to think that there ware ways that even now without testing, imaging, could tell actuarially, but the NFL is going to have a hard time defending on such grounds given the revelations about the wide=spread and de facto mandatory use of anti inflammatories and pain killers week in and week out in the pros.

Be that as it may, the revenues from these sports should be required to foot the bill for these so-called revenue sports and we shall see how much revenue is in the end produced. Maybe the costs would force businessmen, er, educators, to look out for the welfare of the young people who play for them to keep astronomical health, rehabilitation, lost earning, and life assistance costs down to leave the universities in the black, if that were possible. Now, guys like Sabin discard star recruits who blow out knees like oranges at Walmart that have begun to rot. Like Walmart, they get away with trating players/employees like oranges because, well, they can.

[Bostondevil]

No more absurd than claiming that every Duke student could earn any major. That's ridiculous.

Sigh. Really? Perhaps it is an absurd claim, but it shouldn't be.

[Jarhead]

I hear you and agree with your sentiment, but I assure you, I would have flunked out as a music major.

sagegrouse

Sage, I am having problems with Bostondevil's insistence on lumping athletic scholarships with merit scholarships. To me, merit scholarships are those that are awarded on the basis of academic qualifications. They can vary in amount, and may have time limits and academic performance requirements. Athletic scholarships may also vary in amounts, but they are awarded only to athletes who participate in designated varsity sports. They also may have limitations from the NCAA, or Title 9 requirements. I have no idea if Title 9 applies to other scholarships.

I expect that the source of the funds for athletic scholarships come mostly from revenues earned by DUAA, or donated restricted gifts. Merit scholarship funds consist mostly of gifts from myriad sources and include the well known Angier B Duke Memorial (http://today.duke.edu/2013/05/abduke2013) scholarships. These two financial aid categories are not based on the financial status of the student. The rest of the financial aid given to 86.6% of the students receiving financial aid is need based provided by the university. Some rules were mosified around 2008 and were included in link Bostondevil gave us at the beginning of this thread. It said this:


Results of Duke's Financial Aid Initiative (2008)

As part of our ongoing commitment to make high-quality undergraduate education more affordable, Duke announced in December 2007 a series of enhancements to its need-based undergraduate financial aid program that took effect in the 2008-09 academic year. These enhancements include:

• eliminating the parental contribution for families with institutionally determined incomes less than $60,000
• eliminating loans for families with institutionally determined incomes less than $40,000;
• reducing loans for students from families with incomes up to $100,000; and
• capping loans for eligible families with incomes above $100,000.

That's pretty interesting, and seems to equal the generosity of Harvard mentioned earlier in this thread. This need based aid is real, and has been going on for years. Sometime ago a young man in high school worked as a bag boy at my favorite golf club down here. His dad was my barber, and one day he showed me the admissions documentation he got from Duke. The lad had been admitted to Duke, and the documents showed about $35,000 charged for his freshman year, but the amount to be paid was around $3,500. He went through his 4 years in pre-law, worked mostly in the Bryant Center. What he couldn't pay, his dad paid. He went to law school at Ole Miss, and is working at his profession in Memphis after several years in Mississippi. I am proud of my alma mater for that.

Maybe I'm rambling but I wanted to get that in. Another on I want to get in is Dave Harding, #74, on Duke's football team. He was featured on Coach Cut's TV show last Sunday, and is now a grad student in Public Policy. He spends a lot of time volunteering around town with kids. He was also among the group of guys from the team that spent the summer in Africa digging wells in remote villages. That's another thing that makes me proud of my University.

The system that Duke and a bunch of other colleges follow seems to work, and it doesn't include salaries for its athletes. The only change that may be necessary would to make sure that athletes are cared for in the same way that the need based students are cared for. No more, no less. Coach Cut would agree with that, I am sure. I'm pretty sure that a lot of his players would fit into the need based category, but are they getting the same benefits? I am not sure. Are the need based non-athletes provided tutoring when needed? I don't know, but I got it, free, my freshman year. The WWII GI Bill covered my $500 tuition, student fees, and books and supplies. They gave me an allowance of $75 per month to cover other expenses. I don't know who paid for my tutor. By the way, Duke was one of the few institutions that did not raise its tuition when WWII price controls were abolished at the end of the war. They waited until all of the GIs were no longer in school. At that time the VA had a tuition maximum of $500.

[Duvall]

No more absurd than claiming that every Duke student could earn any major. That's ridiculous.

Making a strong claim about every member of a population of more than 6000 is inherently absurd. But you seem to be dramatically overestimating the difficulty of getting passing grades in a dozen or so undergraduate courses.

[AncientPsychicT]

I'll admit I don't have statistics to back up my argument. I have only anecdotal evidence. I did ask an Ivy League physics professor recently how many athletes he usually has in his upper level physics class (for physics majors). None. Not a one. Hasn't had a single athlete in the class for a decade and I'm not just talking football, no varsity athletes in any sport. Now - are there no athletes capable of a physics major or is the time just too much to ask? I suspect it's the time factor. I could be wrong.

FYI, #97, Rowland Pettit, (http://www.goduke.com/SportSelect.dbml?SPSID=25941&SPID=2027&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=4200&Q_SEASON=2012) is in my Modern Physics (Physics 264) class. This class is high enough in the physics curriculum that the only people who take it are physics majors/minors. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

[cf-62]

Making a strong claim about every member of a population of more than 6000 is inherently absurd. But you seem to be dramatically overestimating the difficulty of getting passing grades in a dozen or so undergraduate courses.

You're right - the reality is probably not as high as my claim. I used hyperbole to get a point across.

It's not a statement about students' ability to succeed, or about their intelligence. But the Blue Devil highway is littered with Honor students that couldn't get higher than a C in MATH 32 or PHY 51. Those students CAN NOT complete a science major. And don't throw the "it's just 12 classes, and they only have to pass them" garbage. The 12 classes are stacked on each other.

Understand, I am NOT claiming that science majors are smarter, or better at anything other than their ability to grasp and use mathematical concepts easier and quicker than their counterparts. Many of them (as BD has pointed out) have trouble putting 5 coherent sentences together in a paper - and the thought of writing a 10 page or 20 page these would make them break out in a cold sweat.

There ARE differences between student bodies as a whole. The statistics bear that out. It's about collective levels of success. Our classmates who are also athletes certainly fit within that achievement level. I'm talking about continuation and graduation rates. The LAST time I looked, which has been a while, Duke had a 97% continuation to Sophomore year, and a 92% graduation rate within 5 years of matriculation. Compare that to a 60% graduation rate 9 miles down the road, and 50% graduation rate down in Raleigh.

[Bostondevil]

Sage, I am having problems with Bostondevil's insistence on lumping athletic scholarships with merit scholarships.

I'm not! ;)

Sadly, Duke's generosity doesn't come close to Harvard's. It has to do with endowment size, but parental income has to be over something like $300,000 for a student to pay the "full ride" at Harvard. They calculate tuition based on a sliding scale of parental income.

As I said before, at a grand total of $250,000, no student can work their way through Duke any more. All students mush either receive financial aid or have parents who can foot the bill or be exceptionally good athletes. Financial aid packages also do not take into consideration anything but parental income and how much the parents have saved (parents are actually penalized a little bit for saving too much because they have more ability to pay). Things that don't rate in calculating who needs financial aid - number of siblings, serious medical conditions in the family, willingness to pay (if mom and dad are divorced and one of them isn't willing to pony up? Too bad.) And seriously, if your parents make $80,000 a year, you don't qualify for financial aid but you sure can't afford to go to Duke. Unless you're really good at a sport. Merit based awards go to students regardless of demonstrated financial need. So do athletic scholarships. I don't see a difference. Who cares that the money that funds them comes from different piles. Athletes show up on campus with sports as their primary duty. Other merit scholarship recipients show up with academics as their primary duty. Which group, really, should a top university want to attract to campus?

[Bostondevil]

FYI, #97, Rowland Pettit, (http://www.goduke.com/SportSelect.dbml?SPSID=25941&SPID=2027&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=4200&Q_SEASON=2012) is in my Modern Physics (Physics 264) class. This class is high enough in the physics curriculum that the only people who take it are physics majors/minors. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Again - AncientPsychicT - awesome! Also proving that Duke > Ivy League! ;)

Oh wait, he's a freshman and it's not lacrosse season. I'll bet you that he doesn't stay a physics major/minor.

[snowdenscold]

Understand, I am NOT claiming that science majors are smarter, or better at anything other than their ability to grasp and use mathematical concepts easier and quicker than their counterparts. Many of them (as BD has pointed out) have trouble putting 5 coherent sentences together in a paper - and the thought of writing a 10 page or 20 page these would make them break out in a cold sweat.


Hey, I resemble that remark!


Actually, I'm probably much better at the latter now than I was back in college, where any paper longer than 3 pages scared me to death at the time.


And like someone said above, it's the fact that all these math courses build on one another. Sure you can struggle through one or two and get a C or a D, but it's not like you can then hit the reset button and start fresh next semester - you actually need to use and implement previous courses for the next.

[Bostondevil]

You're right - the reality is probably not as high as my claim. I used hyperbole to get a point across.

It's not a statement about students' ability to succeed, or about their intelligence. But the Blue Devil highway is littered with Honor students that couldn't get higher than a C in MATH 32 or PHY 51. Those students CAN NOT complete a science major. And don't throw the "it's just 12 classes, and they only have to pass them" garbage. The 12 classes are stacked on each other.

Understand, I am NOT claiming that science majors are smarter, or better at anything other than their ability to grasp and use mathematical concepts easier and quicker than their counterparts. Many of them (as BD has pointed out) have trouble putting 5 coherent sentences together in a paper - and the thought of writing a 10 page or 20 page these would make them break out in a cold sweat.

There ARE differences between student bodies as a whole. The statistics bear that out. It's about collective levels of success. Our classmates who are also athletes certainly fit within that achievement level. I'm talking about continuation and graduation rates. The LAST time I looked, which has been a while, Duke had a 97% continuation to Sophomore year, and a 92% graduation rate within 5 years of matriculation. Compare that to a 60% graduation rate 9 miles down the road, and 50% graduation rate down in Raleigh.

OK - you win not every student at Duke can pass math. Every science major has to take at least one class where they write papers though - so every student at Duke does have to write well enough to pass that class. I double majored in math and computer science and I'm a published author and I play multiple musical instruments. I can't draw for expletive though so I would have struggled mightily if I'd majored in art. I do kinda have the attitude that if I can do it, so can you, but perhaps that isn't true. Still, I want to look at the majors of the athletes, if there is a comparable mix of majors, then I concede your point that they fit within that achievement level. If, as I suspect, the sciences and mathematics are way under-represented in the majors of our athletes, I do not concede your point.

[missfinch]

Again - AncientPsychicT - awesome! Also proving that Duke > Ivy League! ;)

Oh wait, he's a freshman and it's not lacrosse season. I'll bet you that he doesn't stay a physics major/minor.

Sophomore- was in my son's pledge class last year.

[Bostondevil]

Sophomore- was in my son's pledge class last year.

Oops, yes, the goduke website has last year's roster. So back to awesome! Duke still > Ivy League!

Hey AncientPsychic - do you know missfinch's son too?

[cf-62]

I do kinda have the attitude that if I can do it, so can you, but perhaps that isn't true.

It's NOT true, BD. To be honest, I didn't meet a single Poli Sci or English major in school (or since) that could do anything besides the high school level calculus classes, for which they mostly received C's or D's (a few B's, a few F's).

I personally know 3 people that transferred from EGR to Trinity because the math/science was overwhelming. AFAIK, I was the only member of my class to transfer INTO engineering (out of my Math / CPS double major).

That's great that you fall into the rarified air of mathemtician that likes to write. I know the feeling. But 90% end up on the one side or the other.

[sagegrouse]

It's NOT true, BD. To be honest, I didn't meet a single Poli Sci or English major in school (or since) that could do anything besides the high school level calculus classes, for which they mostly received C's or D's (a few B's, a few F's).

I personally know 3 people that transferred from EGR to Trinity because the math/science was overwhelming. AFAIK, I was the only member of my class to transfer INTO engineering (out of my Math / CPS double major).

That's great that you fall into the rarified air of mathemtician that likes to write. I know the feeling. But 90% end up on the one side or the other.

Uhhh,.... the social sciences at the PhD level are very mathematical. Almost all of these folks were undergrad majors in the social sciences.

Of course, your statement could still be true.

sagegrouse

[cspan37421]

Just my $0.02 -

I'm not sure when the above respective posters attended Duke, but today's Duke students are incredibly strong across the board. I would suspect that there are many more liberal arts majors there today who could do a science or math major just fine (if it was their passion) than there were in years past. And many engineers who have as much a facility with words as their A&S counterparts. So I don't agree with the "five sentences" conjecture either. Not among today's students.

A very imperfect measure, esp. since IIRC SAT math doesn't include calculus:

Class of 2017 - SAT V/M, Trinity, middle 50%: 690-780/700-790
Class of 2017 - SAT V/M, Pratt, middle 50%: 700-780/750-800

However, the admissions office looks at HS curriculum, grades, etc., and it's expected that any successful applicants (perhaps outside of recruited athletes) take the most challenging courseload offered, and that's going to include calculus even if you're intending to major in English or history. Duke's applicant pool is an embarrassment of riches these days, and they can get their cake and eat it too with respect to engineers who can write and liberal arts majors who can do math and science.

[Bostondevil]

Just my $0.02 -

I'm not sure when the above respective posters attended Duke, but today's Duke students are incredibly strong across the board. I would suspect that there are many more liberal arts majors there today who could do a science or math major just fine (if it was their passion) than there were in years past. And many engineers who have as much a facility with words as their A&S counterparts. So I don't agree with the "five sentences" conjecture either. Not among today's students.

A very imperfect measure, esp. since IIRC SAT math doesn't include calculus:

Class of 2017 - SAT V/M, Trinity, middle 50%: 690-780/700-790
Class of 2017 - SAT V/M, Pratt, middle 50%: 700-780/750-800

However, the admissions office looks at HS curriculum, grades, etc., and it's expected that any successful applicants (perhaps outside of recruited athletes) take the most challenging courseload offered, and that's going to include calculus even if you're intending to major in English or history. Duke's applicant pool is an embarrassment of riches these days, and they can get their cake and eat it too with respect to engineers who can write and liberal arts majors who can do math and science.


Yeah, I hope this is true. I think it should be. Duke gets over 30,000 applications a year. With that big a pool, they should only be taking the techies who can write and the fuzzies who can calculate. It's a liberal arts school.

[77devil]

so every student at Duke does have to write well enough to pass that class.

As a slight aside, passing the class and writing well, obviously, are wholly different standards. I use to regularly interview MBA's from the top 5-10 schools and more often than not their writing was appalling. I saw no appreciable difference between engineering/science and social science/humanities majors although my sample was skewed heavily to the former.