If the democrats win in November and taxpayers are required to pick up the tab for everyone's public university tuition, how will it affect NCAA sports. From what I have read about the proposal it puts tremendous pressure of schools to cut cost. Would it cause a further split between public and private schools? Your thoughts?

Personally I don't see how the gov't could mandate such a thing and come up with funds to do so. It would simply hurt public universities (not private schools who wouldn't be subject to this). There would be so much political resistance.

(07-31-2016 08:36 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  If the democrats win in November and taxpayers are required to pick up the tab for everyone's public university tuition, how will it affect NCAA sports. From what I have read about the proposal it puts tremendous pressure of schools to cut cost. Would it cause a further split between public and private schools? Your thoughts?

Take this crap to the spin room.

(07-31-2016 09:35 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 08:36 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  If the democrats win in November and taxpayers are required to pick up the tab for everyone's public university tuition, how will it affect NCAA sports. From what I have read about the proposal it puts tremendous pressure of schools to cut cost. Would it cause a further split between public and private schools? Your thoughts?

Take this crap to the spin room.

Legitimate question. Looking for a serious discussion. Spin room is not the place to have it.

I don't see how it would be relevant or have any impact on realignment/expansion.


That said:

**POLITICS WARNING**

those with enough money to pay for their children to attend public college should not get free public college.

(07-31-2016 09:12 AM)f1do Wrote:  Personally I don't see how the gov't could mandate such a thing and come up with funds to do so. It would simply hurt public universities (not private schools who wouldn't be subject to this). There would be so much political resistance.

The schools would not set a tuition and the government pay it.

The government would set a tuition and the schools would be required to accept it.

You could expect to see a whole lot of things change about our higher ed system in that case. And conference realignment would probably be the least of them.

The money that boosters donate is principally used for tuition. If tuition goes away, that money could then be used for other items - salaries, facilities, tacky balloon sculptures, etc. That would be a significant increase for public schools. Private schools seem to be competing now, but this could be a 30-50% budget increase for public schools.

It would be an issue. Without advocating for any political policy or candidate, my view would be as follows

1) Its unlikely that this will happen after this election. For better or worse, the GOP is likely to retain the House. They'll oppose free or capped tuition.
2) If it did happen, its entirely possible that the caps are set at current spending levels. What that would do would allow schools to continue to spend as they have, but prevent additional costs.
3) Remember that some of the highest subsidy schools tend to be the cheapest schools to begin with. Its possible that a school like Troy or WMU might end up with MORE money as a result of this. Especially if the cap is on a by student, rather than on a by institution basis. There are wide disparities in public schools funding from their legislatures.

(07-31-2016 10:06 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  The money that boosters donate is principally used for tuition. If tuition goes away, that money could then be used for other items - salaries, facilities, tacky balloon sculptures, etc. That would be a significant increase for public schools. Private schools seem to be competing now, but this could be a 30-50% budget increase for public schools.

I suspect you won't see a lot of balloon sculptures. I suspect you won't see 30-50 percent budget increases.

I suspect you will see a lot of Federal spending controls.

There will be less rock climbing walls, free wifi, and fraternity houses and more cattle chutes.

(07-31-2016 08:36 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  If the democrats win in November and taxpayers are required to pick up the tab for everyone's public university tuition, how will it affect NCAA sports. From what I have read about the proposal it puts tremendous pressure of schools to cut cost. Would it cause a further split between public and private schools? Your thoughts?

I asked this question months ago and got nothing but crickets.

My thoughts

1) The plan will probably be to cover tuition, and probably only tuition no fees.

2) Since the burden will be lowered on the student, I can see fees going up with the assumption that students won't mind.

Now if the government does take over the entire payment like they do for the GI Bill, I can very easily imagine a cap on how much they will pay above tuition. Maybe even caps on tuition. (You can get an $100k MBA on the GI Bill as long as it is from a public school...)

But isn't the plan been only for 2 years of community college?

(07-31-2016 10:27 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 10:06 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  The money that boosters donate is principally used for tuition. If tuition goes away, that money could then be used for other items - salaries, facilities, tacky balloon sculptures, etc. That would be a significant increase for public schools. Private schools seem to be competing now, but this could be a 30-50% budget increase for public schools.

I suspect you won't see a lot of balloon sculptures. I suspect you won't see 30-50 percent budget increases.

I suspect you will see a lot of Federal spending controls.

There will be less rock climbing walls, free wifi, and fraternity houses and more cattle chutes.

It's not a true budget increase. If you take away the tuition expense, it is an effective budget increase.

(07-31-2016 09:46 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I don't see how it would be relevant or have any impact on realignment/expansion.


That said:

**POLITICS WARNING**

those with enough money to pay for their children to attend public college should not get free public college.

And they should pay for other kids' college. Am I right?

Athletic departments would shed the cost of scholarships so that would lower expenses considerably. Presumably the NCAA would maintain roster size limitations for the various sports.

(07-31-2016 10:45 AM)GhentFan Wrote:  But isn't the plan been only for 2 years of community college?

That's been mentioned. But it still moves a lot of dollars away from 4 year institutions and NCAA athletics.

Quote:To avoid signing a federal blank check that rises each year, Clinton's platform talks about getting buy-in from colleges and states to rein in costs. The Department of Education might use accreditation or eligibility for federal financial aid as carrots or sticks to encourage states to keep tuition low.

But within Clinton's higher-ed proposals, there is a less dramatic, cheaper and more targeted alternative to free four-year tuition for all, and that's free community college.

Around half of America's college graduates spend some time at our public two-year colleges.

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/07/2...ld-it-work

I don't think it hurts the P5's, their TV and gate pays the bills. But it might be devastating for a lot of G5's.

The state of California had free tuition for state residents from 1960 through 1982.
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/28/scienc...ation.html

Athletics programs for public universities like UCLA and UC-Berkeley didn't "crater" during that time period. For example, UCLA won numerous national championships during the period, but the Bruins also had a coach named John Wooden. Both Cal and UCLA won several conference championships in multiple sports and were competitive at a national level.

Perhaps the bigger question is how should free tuition be structured so that problems experienced toward the end of the free tuition period don't occur or are at least minimized. At least we have a possible case study source determining what worked and what could be done better.

Other states might have had similar benefits. My tuition at two Texas universities was not free, but it was less than $100.00 per semester for a full course load at both universities (Texas A&M and Lamar). Tuition was not a big component in the education costs back in "the good old days". (We still used slide rules back then. Calculators were just starting to appear on the market for degree #2 so it has been a few years since then. Even the simplest computer programs required a stack of punch cards. )

It would affect athletics because if college is "free" then most states are going on o start shutting down a LOT of their smaller, regional schools in favor of their one or two flagship/land grants.

Some might be able to convert to private schools but most will be SOL.

Meanwhile the privates big and small will thrive since if you don't have the grades or political connections for the few "free" slots at public school, they are your only alternative and now cost 4x what they used to

Terrible idea all around.

Actually, the taxpayers are still paying money. Where do the schools get their research funds? From government who collect taxes from it. What it is is that we are paying taxes and buying education. I say if you pay taxes which includes sales taxes and all that? Than you do not have to pay more money which means free education. That is why Big 12 and these other P5 conferences should invite schools in their region for expansion no matter what type of school like Boise State to the PAC 12 for all sports.

(07-31-2016 09:45 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 09:35 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 08:36 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  If the democrats win in November and taxpayers are required to pick up the tab for everyone's public university tuition, how will it affect NCAA sports. From what I have read about the proposal it puts tremendous pressure of schools to cut cost. Would it cause a further split between public and private schools? Your thoughts?

Take this crap to the spin room.

Legitimate question. Looking for a serious discussion. Spin room is not the place to have it.

This forum is absolutely not the place to have it.

(07-31-2016 04:12 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  It would affect athletics because if college is "free" then most states are going on o start shutting down a LOT of their smaller, regional schools in favor of their one or two flagship/land grants.

Some might be able to convert to private schools but most will be SOL.

Might smaller, regional schools (lots of G5's) become public community colleges? Will community colleges be on every corner like high schools?

This might be why the P5's want to break away. There's only so much TV money. I don't think taxpayers will fund athletic budgets like we see today for very long.