(03-26-2020 07:04 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  The links I posted were of schools touting their new football programs and why they were doing it.

The "money loser" links you posted considered only athletic revenue, not the whole picture including tuition revenue.

First, I rebutted those links, and second, your "whole picture" is a mirage, or at least you haven't been able to provide tangible evidence that it is reality. The NCAA considers only athletic revenue for the very sound reason that no other revenues can be proven to be attributable to athletics. The NCAA of course is an athletic organization, so its bias would be to present the athletic numbers in the most favorable possible light - but even it knows it can't make up fantasy revenue out of thin air.

So unlike you, the NCAA can't just baselessly assert that tuition revenue from someone on a D3 football team is athletics revenue, even though they don't know whether football is why the student came there or not. The NCAA is actually accountable, at least in a public sense, so it has to be able to document its claims.

And FWIW, "johnintx" used your logic and estimated that at a D2 school maybe 50 football players were paying $20k a year in fees out of pocket to be on the team, adding $1 million to the coffers of that school. But the NCAA D2 numbers show these schools running an average deficit of $4m or so, not even close to covering that amount. So even running fantasy numbers ...

(03-27-2020 08:15 AM)bullet Wrote:  Division III isn’t for everyone the schools are heavily concentrated in the Midwest and Northeast in mid Atlantic. Some
California but not many in the Rocky Mountains great plains or south

D3 has a total of 2 schools in the Mountain Time Zone. One in Denver and one in Colorado Springs with both being members of the Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference. There are none in NV, OK, KS, NE, and the Dakotas.

(03-26-2020 06:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-26-2020 06:40 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  

(03-26-2020 06:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Also, psychologically, it is naive to think that anyone plays football just for the love of the game. Dreams of Glory are always a big motivating factor. Those dreams die hard, and typically don't die until .... you are a senior in high school and nobody from a university that is any kind of springboard to greater glory comes calling.

This guy actually thinks some kids are choosing to spend $30,000 a year to be the third-string LT on a D3 school?

My uncle chose an Ivy-league school because he could play football there.

He could have had free tuition at most schools based on his grades. Instead he chose to pay full tuition at an Ivy, mostly because he would be able to play football there.

And this was in the late 80s, before the age of grade school travel leagues and snowplow parents.

speaking as an Ohioan, where you can throw a rock pretty much anywhere in the state and hit a small liberal arts college, there are loads of students who end up at small private schools with D2, D3, or NAIA athletics that took on more debt than they needed to to get a generic education at school who let them keep playing sports rather than attend a cheaper, state option. Maybe this is just a northeastern and Midwestern phenomenon because of the over saturation of options.

(03-27-2020 10:27 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  speaking as an Ohioan, where you can throw a rock pretty much anywhere in the state and hit a small liberal arts college, there are loads of students who end up at small private schools with D2, D3, or NAIA athletics that took on more debt than they needed to to get a generic education at school who let them keep playing sports rather than attend a cheaper, state option. Maybe this is just a northeastern and Midwestern phenomenon because of the over saturation of options.

No, it's everywhere. But the northeast is saturated for sure. Not sure what you mean by "generic" but it seems most graduates are satisfied with their education, and even with the escalated costs of attendance, multiple studies show that college is a good investment in their futures. Particularly if they choose a major that's in demand.

(03-27-2020 09:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-26-2020 07:02 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  

(03-26-2020 06:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-26-2020 06:40 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  

(03-26-2020 06:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Also, psychologically, it is naive to think that anyone plays football just for the love of the game. Dreams of Glory are always a big motivating factor. Those dreams die hard, and typically don't die until .... you are a senior in high school and nobody from a university that is any kind of springboard to greater glory comes calling.

This guy actually thinks some kids are choosing to spend $30,000 a year to be the third-string LT on a D3 school?

Nice. You get to the point where you are losing the debate so you narrow the context. This isn't about 3rd string players at D3 schools. Certainly there are those, and yes, maybe they did do that their freshman and sophomore years, but that's not the point. The point is that at D2, NAIA and D3 schools, athletes choose the school they attend based on where they can continue to play.

There's no narrowing of 'context', it's just a succinct and accurate portrayal of your argument. You are basically saying that dozens and dozens of kids are willing to pay tens of thousands in tuition to be sunk on the depth chart of a D2/D3/NAIA football roster.

Which, btw, you have provided zero evidence for. You just keep making unfounded assertions.

I guess if I was in your shoes I might do the same - nah, I wouldn't.

Imagine your argument here from the other side, Quo. Since these 3rd stringers exist, they're on the team for a reason.

So you really think they decided to go to Southwestern Presbylutheran College of Armadillo-bothering, and THEN decided, hey, they have a football team I can walk on to and maybe get some CTE from practice reps? You think that's more likely?

(03-26-2020 10:19 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-26-2020 08:33 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(03-25-2020 11:35 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(03-25-2020 11:24 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Would Tulsa merge with OU or OSU? Become a satellite campus?

The University of Tulsa is a private school. It currently has a $1.2 billion endowment. They are having a lot of financial issues outside of the endowment, so I'm not sure how that will be impacted. They're not shutting down tomorrow, but they're not doing well, either.

They have run a deficit seven years in a row, and have had a significant decrease in their credit rating. They are looking at another $14-20 million in budget cuts or revenue increases in the next three years.

https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/ed...31821.html

OSU currently has a campus in Tulsa. OU currently has a medical branch there. It's too early to speculate on what would happen to the TU campus if they were to close.

I'm sure this has been discussed before at Tulsa and similar schools, but why not just increase enrollment? I guess with high tuition there probably isn't huge demand to go there, but even admitting just a few hundred more students means millions in dollars. I know they need dorm beds, but in the short term that can be accomplished by encouraging upperclassmen to live off campus.

Tulsa has tried to increase enrollment without much success. It is a whole lot more expensive to attend than the state schools, so the locals do not attend. That is why they have many International students, plus out of state kids.

That is also one of the reasons they have always had attendance issues. Not only is their enrollment limited, but the students graduate and leave the area or country and never return.

Have they? A quick google search shows their acceptance rate is 39%, seems like they could increase enrollment easy enough

(03-25-2020 01:34 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-25-2020 01:03 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-25-2020 12:39 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  WWII resulted in a lot of schools putting a hold on football and/or other sports due to the emergency nature of the crisis at hand. A lot of programs came back when the war was over but others remained permanently shut down.

Do any of you see Corona virus killing off sports at small schools?

It’s far easier for the administration to let a global pandemic be the scapegoat for an unpopular expenditure cutting measure.

In the case of D3 sports are actually a money maker at least on the men’s side because it provides a pull for men to attend the school. It’s where men’s Volleyball has seen all their growth and why men’s Water Polo is sponsoring a D3 nationals program.

The d-3 school in my town added e-sports, men's lacrosse, and women's lacrosse as part of their response to a major drop in enrollment over the past decade.

This year they're adding men's volleyball, women's soccer, and women's bowling. They're also expanding their e-sports program from 2 teams to 6 teams.

All sports are e-sports now

My D-III alma mater was completely a commuter school until recently. I assume not having dorms saves $$$

(03-27-2020 03:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-27-2020 09:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-26-2020 07:02 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  

(03-26-2020 06:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-26-2020 06:40 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  

This guy actually thinks some kids are choosing to spend $30,000 a year to be the third-string LT on a D3 school?

Nice. You get to the point where you are losing the debate so you narrow the context. This isn't about 3rd string players at D3 schools. Certainly there are those, and yes, maybe they did do that their freshman and sophomore years, but that's not the point. The point is that at D2, NAIA and D3 schools, athletes choose the school they attend based on where they can continue to play.

There's no narrowing of 'context', it's just a succinct and accurate portrayal of your argument. You are basically saying that dozens and dozens of kids are willing to pay tens of thousands in tuition to be sunk on the depth chart of a D2/D3/NAIA football roster.

Which, btw, you have provided zero evidence for. You just keep making unfounded assertions.

I guess if I was in your shoes I might do the same - nah, I wouldn't.

Imagine your argument here from the other side, Quo. Since these 3rd stringers exist, they're on the team for a reason.

So you really think they decided to go to Southwestern Presbylutheran College of Armadillo-bothering, and THEN decided, hey, they have a football team I can walk on to and maybe get some CTE from practice reps? You think that's more likely?

I've already evaluated it from the other side: Yes, what seems obvious is that kids decide to go to Southwestern Lutheran Bible College for whatever academic and/or social reason, and because football is there, they play.

Makes infinitely more sense to me than that they decided to spend $30,000 *in order to* be the 70th guy on a D3 roster. That makes zero sense to me.

D3 MacMurray closed yesterday. One of the very first twitter replies was from a mom who said she was sad because her and her son loved the school when visiting for football and put it top of their list but chose a different program. That mom/son chose college based on where the kid could play D3 football and then whittled from there.

(03-28-2020 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-27-2020 03:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-27-2020 09:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-26-2020 07:02 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  

(03-26-2020 06:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This guy actually thinks some kids are choosing to spend $30,000 a year to be the third-string LT on a D3 school?

Nice. You get to the point where you are losing the debate so you narrow the context. This isn't about 3rd string players at D3 schools. Certainly there are those, and yes, maybe they did do that their freshman and sophomore years, but that's not the point. The point is that at D2, NAIA and D3 schools, athletes choose the school they attend based on where they can continue to play.

There's no narrowing of 'context', it's just a succinct and accurate portrayal of your argument. You are basically saying that dozens and dozens of kids are willing to pay tens of thousands in tuition to be sunk on the depth chart of a D2/D3/NAIA football roster.

Which, btw, you have provided zero evidence for. You just keep making unfounded assertions.

I guess if I was in your shoes I might do the same - nah, I wouldn't.

Imagine your argument here from the other side, Quo. Since these 3rd stringers exist, they're on the team for a reason.

So you really think they decided to go to Southwestern Presbylutheran College of Armadillo-bothering, and THEN decided, hey, they have a football team I can walk on to and maybe get some CTE from practice reps? You think that's more likely?

I've already evaluated it from the other side: Yes, what seems obvious is that kids decide to go to Southwestern Lutheran Bible College for whatever academic and/or social reason, and because football is there, they play.

Makes infinitely more sense to me than that they decided to spend $30,000 *in order to* be the 70th guy on a D3 roster. That makes zero sense to me.

They're spending the $30,000 a year either way. They're not going to NOT go to college. And they're not getting a scholarship, so they gotta pay. (That's the psychology). Football is a big part of the psychology, of the identity of football players.

(03-28-2020 11:57 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-28-2020 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-27-2020 03:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-27-2020 09:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-26-2020 07:02 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  Nice. You get to the point where you are losing the debate so you narrow the context. This isn't about 3rd string players at D3 schools. Certainly there are those, and yes, maybe they did do that their freshman and sophomore years, but that's not the point. The point is that at D2, NAIA and D3 schools, athletes choose the school they attend based on where they can continue to play.

There's no narrowing of 'context', it's just a succinct and accurate portrayal of your argument. You are basically saying that dozens and dozens of kids are willing to pay tens of thousands in tuition to be sunk on the depth chart of a D2/D3/NAIA football roster.

Which, btw, you have provided zero evidence for. You just keep making unfounded assertions.

I guess if I was in your shoes I might do the same - nah, I wouldn't.

Imagine your argument here from the other side, Quo. Since these 3rd stringers exist, they're on the team for a reason.

So you really think they decided to go to Southwestern Presbylutheran College of Armadillo-bothering, and THEN decided, hey, they have a football team I can walk on to and maybe get some CTE from practice reps? You think that's more likely?

I've already evaluated it from the other side: Yes, what seems obvious is that kids decide to go to Southwestern Lutheran Bible College for whatever academic and/or social reason, and because football is there, they play.

Makes infinitely more sense to me than that they decided to spend $30,000 *in order to* be the 70th guy on a D3 roster. That makes zero sense to me.

They're spending the $30,000 a year either way. They're not going to NOT go to college. And they're not getting a scholarship, so they gotta pay. (That's the psychology). Football is a big part of the psychology, of the identity of football players.

I don't think anyone is just randomly spending $30,000 for a year of college. They spend that amount for a reason, as there are always cheaper alternatives. And while we can go in circles around this, I'm not going to accept, without proof, that anyone is dumb enough to pay $30,000 a year for the purpose of being the 70th guy on a D2 or lower roster. That just beggars belief to me.

(03-26-2020 01:58 PM)AZcats Wrote:  teamvsn and johnbragg make some very good points. I chose to attend Arkansas Tech to play football way back in our NAIA days. I visited only one other school. What helped me decide on ATU was that I knew people there (not just from high school but my neighborhood too), I formed a quick bond with our head coach (my grandparents lived next door to coach), and it was less than 1.5 hours from Little Rock. Looking back and knowing what I know about myself now I made the perfect choice because I would have failed miserably at a large D1 school without a doubt.

Did you know DaveySt there?
Wait did DaveySt even go there???

(03-28-2020 12:22 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-26-2020 01:58 PM)AZcats Wrote:  teamvsn and johnbragg make some very good points. I chose to attend Arkansas Tech to play football way back in our NAIA days. I visited only one other school. What helped me decide on ATU was that I knew people there (not just from high school but my neighborhood too), I formed a quick bond with our head coach (my grandparents lived next door to coach), and it was less than 1.5 hours from Little Rock. Looking back and knowing what I know about myself now I made the perfect choice because I would have failed miserably at a large D1 school without a doubt.

Did you know DaveySt there?
Wait did DaveySt even go there???

Yes, he’s their most famous alum.

(03-28-2020 12:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2020 11:57 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-28-2020 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-27-2020 03:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-27-2020 09:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  There's no narrowing of 'context', it's just a succinct and accurate portrayal of your argument. You are basically saying that dozens and dozens of kids are willing to pay tens of thousands in tuition to be sunk on the depth chart of a D2/D3/NAIA football roster.

Which, btw, you have provided zero evidence for. You just keep making unfounded assertions.

I guess if I was in your shoes I might do the same - nah, I wouldn't.

Imagine your argument here from the other side, Quo. Since these 3rd stringers exist, they're on the team for a reason.

So you really think they decided to go to Southwestern Presbylutheran College of Armadillo-bothering, and THEN decided, hey, they have a football team I can walk on to and maybe get some CTE from practice reps? You think that's more likely?

I've already evaluated it from the other side: Yes, what seems obvious is that kids decide to go to Southwestern Lutheran Bible College for whatever academic and/or social reason, and because football is there, they play.

Makes infinitely more sense to me than that they decided to spend $30,000 *in order to* be the 70th guy on a D3 roster. That makes zero sense to me.

They're spending the $30,000 a year either way. They're not going to NOT go to college. And they're not getting a scholarship, so they gotta pay. (That's the psychology). Football is a big part of the psychology, of the identity of football players.

I don't think anyone is just randomly spending $30,000 for a year of college. They spend that amount for a reason, as there are always cheaper alternatives. And while we can go in circles around this, I'm not going to accept, without proof, that anyone is dumb enough to pay $30,000 a year for the purpose of being the 70th guy on a D2 or lower roster. That just beggars belief to me.

Sorry Quo, but I’ll give you several examples:
My brother, D3 Coe College (for track)
Cousin 1, D2 Waldorf college (football)
Cousin 2, Loras College D2 (Football)
Friend, Loras College D2 (track)
It’s a thing in the Midwest and NE. Maybe not where your from.

Quo Vadis is in deep denial or too proud to admit he's wrong. Just let it go everybody....

(03-28-2020 12:35 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Sorry Quo, but I’ll give you several examples:
My brother, D3 Coe College (for track)
Cousin 1, D2 Waldorf college (football)
Cousin 2, Loras College D2 (Football)
Friend, Loras College D2 (track)
It’s a thing in the Midwest and NE. Maybe not where your from.

Currently Waldorf is NAIA and Loras is D3 but no record of either being in NCAA D2.

(03-27-2020 04:11 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  Have they? A quick google search shows their acceptance rate is 39%, seems like they could increase enrollment easy enough

Tulsa accepts 39% but only 21% of the 39% actually go there. Admissions yield (those who actually go there) is the unseen number on college admissions.

Harvard's yield is 82%, the nation's best. If you're admitted to Harvard, chances are you're going there unless Stanford or maybe Yale is calling.

By contrast, the yield at St. John's is 11%, meaning that for every 10 kids accepted there, one shows up.

(03-28-2020 05:02 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(03-27-2020 04:11 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  Have they? A quick google search shows their acceptance rate is 39%, seems like they could increase enrollment easy enough

Tulsa accepts 39% but only 21% of the 39% actually go there. Admissions yield (those who actually go there) is the unseen number on college admissions.

Harvard's yield is 82%, the nation's best. If you're admitted to Harvard, chances are you're going there unless Stanford or maybe Yale is calling.

By contrast, the yield at St. John's is 11%, meaning that for every 10 kids accepted there, one shows up.

Sure, but my point was if Tulsa needed to grow they could accept more people. The yield would probably go down a bit, but if they accepted 200 more people they could enroll 30 more students. I think 20% is a little below average for yield, but not horrible.