(07-18-2013 11:53 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 11:26 AM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 09:45 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 09:17 AM)jnewyouth Wrote:  The difference is that For-Profit colleges and universities will actually earn money off of the backs of their players and give it to investors while non-profit universities must invest it back in the university. Allowing these colleges and universities into D-I will make all the difference in court when players sue for payment. We are seeing the beginning of the end of amateur college sports with this.

When most athletic departments are sucking money from the school, and I suspect GCU would be no exception, they're not really giving anything to investors.

GCU, like pretty much all for-profit universities, spends more on sales and marketing than they do on actually teaching the students. And what better marketing for a for-profit than playing in Division I?

It's a big marketing edge over other for-profit colleges with massive online enrollment. Others will probably follow suit.

I suppose the question is whether the membership of the NCAA wants to permit for-profit schools to enhance their appeal by having D-I sports. If you don't care whether for-profit schools do that, then there's no reason to object to them being NCAA members as long as they follow the same rules every other NCAA member follows.

Yup, it's all about enrollment. Get admits up, give money to investors. That's their "charter."

There's a component to this that isn't getting much talk, and that's accreditation and transfer-ability, as in...community colleges and JC's are getting roughed up for questionable standards...it will be open season on the for-profits unless they get entirely shielded by the government...which they won't.

Gotta love higher ed...oh, it's petty.