You'll either have to believe me or not about people on this board calling athletic scholarships worthless. I'm not going to dig through months and months of posts to do your homework for you. CatManTrue and willycat were two offenders; you can ask them.
I watched amateur athletics because they were amateurs, students playing to earn their degrees. Now that they are hired guns playing for cash, that appeal is gone. I already have a favorite pro team.
I will help you, and you don't have to search. An athletic scholarship to a FB/MBB player
is worthless, particularly at a state school but also at NU, to a different (not lesser) extent.
My reasoning and assumptions:
- Let's start with a typical, Midwestern state school, and let's say the cost of attending is 30k a year. Choices: a) break your body and end up with CTE, working year-round, often over holidays, away from family, and you have about a 5% chance of getting an NFL tryout. Make no mistake, with summer practices, training, etc, these are full-time jobs. OR: b) get a job at like Home Depot on nights, weekends and summer, make around the same amount of money and don't kill yourself for dear ole alma mater.
- But what about the kids that couldn't get into the school but for athletics? WHAT? People cheat and let in non-students just to play football? /s If so, why are they there except for our (paid) entertainment?
-But -even with the Home Depot job, I cannot keep up with expenses, it's still too much! OK, go to a local school and live at home. or go to Juco for 2 years and transfer.
- But - NU is way more expensive! Except, it's not. Unless the aid policies have changed radically since I was part of the Alumni Recruiting group, NU remains need-blind when admitting student. So, let's say a poor kid is in the lowest percentile of ability to get into NU (low grades, scores, extra-curricular, lesser-known high school.) Last person on the wait-list to get in. They get aid based on need, not ability. So, I am going to go with the assumption that this poor family's EFC (expected family contribution) is similar to the cost of going to a state school - i.e., it's NOT the 70k scholarship that Fitz purports it to be, it's a 35k scholarship if you take away the aid that the kid would have gotten anyway. Also, if you can't afford it, go somewhere else?
But - there are exceptions - certain kids can't go to juco or live at home. Certain EFC's are just too much, more than the Home Depot job pays. And so on. Fine, make exceptions for the 10% of exceptions.
But - they pay for non-revenue athletes! Why? Why do revenue athletes have to have these tin cans tied to their tails? That's even more burden on them. Further, why favor hundreds of revenue and non-revenue athletes over non-athletes, in terms of cost of attendance?
I'm an economist, not a scientist. This type of economic model doesn't exist anywhere else except horse racing. The value adders' compensation is structurally restricted to a faux-value scholarship, whereas fatcats (not phatcat) make millions.
My proposal would be to abolish the
worthless athletic scholarship, which skews the economics. Develop a pay structure for the athletes, NIL or otherwise, and let admissions/financial aid figure out the rest, like any other student. It isn't as if non-scholarship schools such as D3 don't have coaches that favor athletes for admissions. A school can do that if they want, although some here would say that NU would never, ever (ever) do this, particularly for Bball.