How many non-revenue full scholarships students were there at Iowa Central? And thank you for your service regardless of our disagreements.
Akron cutting some sports
- Thread starter BigJCy
- Start date
How many non-revenue full scholarships students were there at Iowa Central? And thank you for your service regardless of our disagreements.
Well, if a guy has a scholarship and after 4 years is a 4th stringer, he's an outlier for scholarship players and simply put was not the best use of a scholarship. But I think you are asking the wrong question. With the money to provide tuition, room and board, travel, coaches and staff salaries to support that golfer you could've provided full tuition to lots of great students that maybe wouldn't have the means to go to ISU or decide to go elsewhere.
And you said you bet that the non-revenue athletes do better in school than revenue than average students. Considering the former comes at huge cost to the university, and the latter pays tens of thousands to the university that's not too fair of a comparison.
I understand to meet conference mins there have to be a couple mens' non-revenue sports, and Title IX drives the need for womens' non-revenue sports. But spending money on non-revenue sports has a tremendous opportunity cost, assuming you have a responsible administration and AD.
It will be interesting to see if any of the conferences reduce the requirements for # of mens sports that have to be offered to open the door to cut them along with some women's non-revenue sports to save money.
Every student-athlete is "revenue positive" for the university. They all have to pay tuition, fees, etc. It's just a question of where that money comes from. As a result, some might not be "revenue positive" for athletics, which is an important distinction that many are missing.
In the non-revenue sports, there are many more walk-ons paying their own way than there are scholarships that are being paid for by athletics/NCC.
thank u. I’m not sure how it works now to be honest. I was a half ride . However, we used to be only able to have a certain number of out of state players on the team. The coach could give so many partial scholarships per year back then. The better you are the more money. My first year I didn’t get much of a scholarship . I played well enough to get more money my second year. Not sure how it works now though.
Having played a minor sport at ISU, it was a major part of my college experience. The members of the team are still friends today. We all feel like an integral part of the Cyclone family, even though the sport (men's tennis) has been eliminated. From the 8 members playing on the team my senior year, we have two medical doctors, a partner at one of the large accounting firms, a realtor, a college professor at Texas A&M, and an owner of an engineering firm and a lawyer. All have made significant contributions back to the university. If the only reason for sports is to make money and win national titles, we have really lost our way.
I checked ESPN and it says 22k out of 30k capacity and that is a.... lie.
Here’s a pic I snapped a few minutes before kick off
And that photo is showing the Akron side where their season ticket holders sit! Most of us were on the near side which was general admission.
Sounds exactly like how I would imagine a bunch of country club tennis dudes to end up
The nearside concessions were definitely not prepared for that amount of visitors for sure.
And I don't think they've ever had a visiting fan rent a parking lot for tailgating! That was fun. Dr. Golemo even sent over the band.
If you are one of the doctors I would love to talk to someone with a tennis background about a massive case of lateral tendonitis I developed this Spring.
It would be nice to talk to someone that has some expertise in tennis and medicine. I am getting some pieces from my club guys and some from my doc and it would be nice to put it all together. Particularly my racquet set-up.
Not really looking for free medical advice, but it would be nice to talk to someone who knows what the hell I'm talking about.
If you aren't, then I guess it was wishful thinking.
To your first point, I get that, but that only applies under the assumption that AD revenue is never diverted to non-athletic expenditures (academic scholarships, etc.), or general university funds are never diverted to AD expenditures. I don't believe there is anything legally requiring this sort of silo approach.
As for the second point, I know that is certainly one of the benefits of both revenue and non-revenue sports. It's a little tough to capture the net value of it, as you would need to know if how many of those students would come to ISU if the sport did not exist or was a club sport.
But simply put, if the total operating expense of a sport, including coaches, staff, travel, insurance, scholarships and room and board are equal to or less than the net "profit" (not the correct term) of having a walk-on at ISU (tuition and fees less the cost to house and educate a student), then that sport is a financial positive for the University.
However, I am highly skeptical that is the case for most or any non-revenue sports. If it were the case, cutting or operating the minimum required for non-revenue sports would not be the standard method of operation. If those sports truly are financially positive for the university overall, but are still being cut because they are negative for one unit (the athletic department), then the AD and president of that university are incompetent idiots and should immediately be fired.
Since I don't believe JP to be an incompetent idiot, I'm going to assume that the non-revenue sports being operated at a minimal level means they are financial losers for the university overall despite the additional walk-ons.
That does not mean they do not provide benefit. I'm simply saying the value of non-revenue sports is much less than diverting those funds to things like tuition reductions, academic scholarships or scholarships for financial need, increased teaching/research infrastructure, etc.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
Someone sticky this post, and maybe give it a frame. This is really good and important for this whole sports talk thing.
Here is a long post from a friend that was on the Akron Cross Country team and graduated several years ago.
"Men's cross country lives under the umbrella of the track team. (Head Track) Coach Mitchell has one budget, one staff roster, and one set of scholarships for all of men's track & field and cross country. How he allocates money, staff, and scholarships for cross country runners (who are also track runners) is up to him. That begs the question: how much money was allocated specifically for men's cross country in 2019? $6,500. Almost all of that was travel expenses. That doesn't take into account the scholarship allocation to anyone who ran cross country, nor does it take into account (Men's Cross Country Head Coach) LaBadie's salary. However, those are moot points because the costs associated with those things can be directly attributed to the track budget as a whole and not as separate and necessary to having a men's cross country team. In fact, if all of the scholarships attributed to cross country runners were cut and a coaching position were eliminated, that still wouldn't require the men's cross country program to be cut. Coaching duties can be reallocated and scholarships can be spread out. That means that the men's cross country program alone literally costs $6,500.
I alluded before to the fact that the university would actually be losing money by cutting men's cross country. While this is a semi-theoretical statement, I think you'll see that the facts bear out this assertion. Here's why:
The projected roster for the 2020 cross country team includes 12 men and total scholarship allocation of 1.15. That means that 10.85 (12-1.15) of those guys are paying tuition to the university. In state tuition currently stands at $11,500. 10.85 x $11,500 = $124, 775, PER YEAR. Now, that doesn't account for the fact that surely some of the guys have academic scholarships of varying amounts, but I highly doubt that subtracting the academic scholarship total would get you under $6,500, the aforementioned cost of having cross country. So right there the university is making money on men's cross country. Without the sport they are surely going to lose some of the current guys to transfer and there are kids who won't come to Akron if men's cross country doesn't exist.
The other way the university benefits financially from men's cross country is through graduation. Men's cross country runners are not an academic liability. We go to class. We do well in those classes. And we graduate on time. The compensation structure for public universities in the state of Ohio has recently changed such that the state awards them money for their in-state graduates in the amount of $11,000. Let's say that ten of the twelve guys on the projected roster are in state guys; that means that over the next 5 years the university will earn another $110,000."
"Men's cross country lives under the umbrella of the track team. (Head Track) Coach Mitchell has one budget, one staff roster, and one set of scholarships for all of men's track & field and cross country. How he allocates money, staff, and scholarships for cross country runners (who are also track runners) is up to him. That begs the question: how much money was allocated specifically for men's cross country in 2019? $6,500. Almost all of that was travel expenses. That doesn't take into account the scholarship allocation to anyone who ran cross country, nor does it take into account (Men's Cross Country Head Coach) LaBadie's salary. However, those are moot points because the costs associated with those things can be directly attributed to the track budget as a whole and not as separate and necessary to having a men's cross country team. In fact, if all of the scholarships attributed to cross country runners were cut and a coaching position were eliminated, that still wouldn't require the men's cross country program to be cut. Coaching duties can be reallocated and scholarships can be spread out. That means that the men's cross country program alone literally costs $6,500.
I alluded before to the fact that the university would actually be losing money by cutting men's cross country. While this is a semi-theoretical statement, I think you'll see that the facts bear out this assertion. Here's why:
The projected roster for the 2020 cross country team includes 12 men and total scholarship allocation of 1.15. That means that 10.85 (12-1.15) of those guys are paying tuition to the university. In state tuition currently stands at $11,500. 10.85 x $11,500 = $124, 775, PER YEAR. Now, that doesn't account for the fact that surely some of the guys have academic scholarships of varying amounts, but I highly doubt that subtracting the academic scholarship total would get you under $6,500, the aforementioned cost of having cross country. So right there the university is making money on men's cross country. Without the sport they are surely going to lose some of the current guys to transfer and there are kids who won't come to Akron if men's cross country doesn't exist.
The other way the university benefits financially from men's cross country is through graduation. Men's cross country runners are not an academic liability. We go to class. We do well in those classes. And we graduate on time. The compensation structure for public universities in the state of Ohio has recently changed such that the state awards them money for their in-state graduates in the amount of $11,000. Let's say that ten of the twelve guys on the projected roster are in state guys; that means that over the next 5 years the university will earn another $110,000."
