Good article on scholarships for non-revenue sports
- Thread starter JoeWildcat
- Start date
I am fully aware of the NCAA scholarship limits for non-revenue sports. My daughter was a diver at NU and used up her college fund for that honor instead of attending UVA where in state costs would have been about 25% of NU's. She eventually had to borrow money for law school
My son wisely turned down Duke and Princeton to play lacrosse at UVA. My wife and I agreed to pay for his uncovered expenses at UVA, as we had for my daughter. Even though he will eventually be in the Lacrosse Hall of Fame, he never received more than a 1/3 scholarship. He on the other hand used his $200K college fund for a down payment on a house in Wilmette/Kenilworth whereas my daughter is still paying back Uncle Sam
Do I think revenue sports scholarship recipients need a stipend-NO
My son wisely turned down Duke and Princeton to play lacrosse at UVA. My wife and I agreed to pay for his uncovered expenses at UVA, as we had for my daughter. Even though he will eventually be in the Lacrosse Hall of Fame, he never received more than a 1/3 scholarship. He on the other hand used his $200K college fund for a down payment on a house in Wilmette/Kenilworth whereas my daughter is still paying back Uncle Sam
Do I think revenue sports scholarship recipients need a stipend-NO
It's been this way forever. I was fortunate to get a 50% ride to a D-1 school in non-revenue Olympic sport. I was ecstatic to get that. I was recruited by a grand total of 3 schools. Most schools "offers" were a spot on the team and financial considerations after you prove yourself. Just the way it is for men's sports not named football or basketball. I am no hall of famer, but I did start all four years, and was selected for NCAA championships for two years. I had teammates that did the same or better. None of them had a full ride. However, the women's team was fully funded and sent no one to the NCAA's. So I feel the frustration to some point.
Having said all that, I have zero issue with the full rides given to football and basketball players. There are called revenue sports for a reason. These sports provide financing for the "minor" sports. The TV deals being inked aren't made without these sports. If I wanted a full ride, I should have somehow been a star football or basketball player. I wasn't close.
I went to school with revenue full ride players that had wardrobes off the Target discount rack and had little money to take out a date. I sure there a plenty of players like this today that fill up 80,000 seat stadiums and earn coaches multi million dollar contracts.
Do I think revenue sports scholarship recipients need a stipend- Absolutely
They already reduced the number of scholarships years ago. The move you suggest would just hurt women's sports not increase the pot for other sports.
That would be a death sentence for private schools. Not a big deal for an in-state player to pay their own way at Bama or OSU, but not many players can pay full fare at Stanford or NU.
Or perhaps the non revenue men's sports that have like 3 scholarships would have more to share. My understanding of title 9 is that there needs to be equal men's and women's scholarships, so if football has 85, then you need 85womens scholarships before you can to one to one men to women
I do think the cap is strange for football relative to the rest of sports. If an NFL roster is 53 (or, what, 65 with practice squads), doesn't one of those seem an appropriate number? Especially in comparison to baseball, where your big league roster is 25 (or 40, if you like) and your 11.7 scholarship cap isn't enough to make it through a game.
It seems that there should be some ability for a school to prioritize - why shouldn't Vandy get 20 baseball scholarships, at the expense of some football scholarships, if that's how they choose to allocate?
Of course, raise the baseball cap to 20, and every state school will go up to 20. Then, they'll still claim they're losing money and can't afford to pay athletes at all. (But they'll build some sweet in-locker video systems.) (I was going to say DVD players, then realized I'm about 15 years late.)
Football makes mega money. Sports that don't make money should get no money A sport should be able to support itself and it's scholarships. Men's football and basketball make over 20 million combined. After paying for the other sports, NU breaks even. Two sports make over 20 million, the others lose over twenty million.
Last edited:
If that is the case then only football and Men's basketball would exist. Revenues for all other sports fall far short of covering their costs.
One can question the value of intercollegiate athletics in the mission of a University to educate. But if there is value in athletics, they are a cost to be born by tuition just as faculty salaries. If athletics were simply an economic decision then you are correct, all funding should be self-generated and would result in shutting down almost all of them. And Universities would see a nice little bump in their overall revenue streams as football and basketball do not consume all of the revenue they generate.
Not everything is an economic decision. I hope that we continue to strive to fund non-revenue sports as well as possible and to use football and basketball revenue to do so.
I hope people making more money than I because I made a bad economic choice to serve my country have to send me a check every month so we all make the same. This would be just as rediculous
Meh.
I don't know how you're going to look at a girl playing volleyball or tennis and say "Oh sorry, you made a bad economic choice by a) being a girl and b) playing volleyball or tennis. You don't get the opportunity to play in college. Sucks to suck."
Very easily. She can get in a club or a league. What about the men not talented enough to play at that level. Should we make a scrub league and fund that so they can live the dream too?
The difference being that the women are at the top of their game, while the men in your hypothetical aren't.
Thankfully, the Supreme Court decided a long time ago that your line of thinking is not constitutional.
Hopefully we get a new Supreme Court under Trump and all this liberal crap gets fixed
I'm aware. If you think that's a good thing, then ok.
This isn't the Rant Board, though...you might find a more captive audience over there.
Really surprised that you love the draft dodger currently sitting in the White House
