(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.

(07-18-2013 04:03 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  I would think they would need to demonstrate that the for-profits have some competitive advantage.

There is an on-going debate here in North Carolina about private high schools competing with public high schools. The issue is that the private schools are smaller but have larger athletic budgets. A private might be comparable to a 1A or 2A school in size but have an athletic budget comparable to a 4A or 4AA school (the largest divisions). Private schools can recruit and offer scholarships. Public schools can not.

I don't think the competitive advantage of private money is what concerns people. Especially not in college sports which has a rich history of successful rich private schools with crap-tons of money.

The concern is more that for-profit universities are just marketing scams which hard-sell the poorly educated to take out massive government loans so they can finance crap degrees.

Once the student finishes with their crap degree, the for-profit uni already got paid in full and doesn't have to worry about all the loans that the student has to pay back.

(07-18-2013 04:51 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 04:03 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  I would think they would need to demonstrate that the for-profits have some competitive advantage.

There is an on-going debate here in North Carolina about private high schools competing with public high schools. The issue is that the private schools are smaller but have larger athletic budgets. A private might be comparable to a 1A or 2A school in size but have an athletic budget comparable to a 4A or 4AA school (the largest divisions). Private schools can recruit and offer scholarships. Public schools can not.

I don't think the competitive advantage of private money is what concerns people. Especially not in college sports which has a rich history of successful rich private schools with crap-tons of money.

The concern is more that for-profit universities are just marketing scams which hard-sell the poorly educated to take out massive government loans so they can finance crap degrees.

Once the student finishes with their crap degree, the for-profit uni already got paid in full and doesn't have to worry about all the loans that the student has to pay back.

And that is concern JUST for for-profit on-lines?

There's nothing wrong with "profit"...I'm sick of it being demonized.

If grand Canyon can compete, good for them. Anyone who thinks that the Dukes, Wakes, Baylors, Miamis, Notre Dame and Stanfords of college athletics are not "for profit" in reality needs to have their head examined.

(07-17-2013 09:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i dont think they should be d1 if they are for profit

i dont want any more "for profit" mentality in d1 athletics

When a school is non-profit (not-for-profit) that doesn't mean it is "non-revenue" (see Ohio State, Texas, Florida). I don't think this is an issue.

(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.

Wait, Athletic Departments invest back into their respective universities? That must explain why the highest paid federal employees are athletic coaches (Army, Navy, Air Force), and the highest paid state employees are athletic coaches (see any state). I guess those forced student athletic fees can be returned.

(07-18-2013 05:07 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  And that is concern JUST for for-profit on-lines?

Nope, any crap school who employs the same tactics as the for-profits would get put under the microscope. If you can find a story like this:

http://www.propublica.org/article/recrui...m-efforts-

about ASU or USC, there would be a ton of concern about those schools as well.

(07-18-2013 05:27 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 05:07 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  And that is concern JUST for for-profit on-lines?

Nope, any crap school who employs the same tactics as the for-profits would get put under the microscope. If you can find a story like this:

http://www.propublica.org/article/recrui...m-efforts-

about ASU or USC, there would be a ton of concern about those schools as well.

ASU just doesn't want a well financed midmajor program in the Valley of the Sun. Don't thinks it's about anything other than that really. At least from the Pac12's angle.

As others have said this was never an issue before. Academy of Arts in Frisco is for profit too, they're in the PacWest. I'm sure there are others too. Why would it be an issue at D1 but not D2?

(07-18-2013 05:27 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 05:07 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  And that is concern JUST for for-profit on-lines?

Nope, any crap school who employs the same tactics as the for-profits would get put under the microscope. If you can find a story like this:

http://www.propublica.org/article/recrui...m-efforts-

about ASU or USC, there would be a ton of concern about those schools as well.

Non-profit universities are taking billions of dollars from millions of students who have no chance of getting a job in their field of study, but I guess that's okay.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nati...54473426/1

(07-18-2013 05:27 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 05:07 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  And that is concern JUST for for-profit on-lines?

Nope, any crap school who employs the same tactics as the for-profits would get put under the microscope. If you can find a story like this:

http://www.propublica.org/article/recrui...m-efforts-

about ASU or USC, there would be a ton of concern about those schools as well.

Grand Canyon has relatively low loan default rates, according to recently released government data and was not named in a recent Government Accountability Office report that found fraudulent recruiting practices at 15 other for-profit colleges.

(07-18-2013 06:15 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Grand Canyon has relatively low loan default rates, according to recently released government data and was not named in a recent Government Accountability Office report that found fraudulent recruiting practices at 15 other for-profit colleges.

GCU was sued by the federal government in 2010 for violating recruiting practices and ended up settling for 5.2mil. I think actually being sued by the government is probably just as bad as showing up in a GAO report, yes?

My brother works for a MAC school that shall remain nameless at a major university in Japan. He teaches ESL, and the focus of that for Japanese college students is to preps students to pass the TESOL exam so they can enroll in American universities. The ulterior goal of this program is to get Japanese students enrolled in the schools on campus TESOL program so they can make money. My brother is constantly frustrated that the University is always focused on that rather than getting the kids to learn English and pass the TESOL based on the coursework in Japan.

My point is not that what the MAC school is doing is immoral, although I don't really agree with what they are doing. But that the non profit schools are motivated financially just like the for profits.

It is definitely a legitimate concern about for profits getting federal and state dollars, and them functioning as degree factories rather than offering quality education. I share in those concerns. But I think traditional non profit programs are just as reliant on a flawed bloated system as the for profits, and just as abusive of it.

(07-18-2013 06:44 PM)CPslograd Wrote:  My brother works for a MAC school that shall remain nameless at a major university in Japan. He teaches ESL, and the focus of that for Japanese college students is to preps students to pass the TESOL exam so they can enroll in American universities. The ulterior goal of this program is to get Japanese students enrolled in the schools on campus TESOL program so they can make money. My brother is constantly frustrated that the University is always focused on that rather than getting the kids to learn English and pass the TESOL based on the coursework in Japan.

My point is not that what the MAC school is doing is immoral, although I don't really agree with what they are doing. But that the non profit schools are motivated financially just like the for profits.

It is definitely a legitimate concern about for profits getting federal and state dollars, and them functioning as degree factories rather than offering quality education. I share in those concerns. But I think traditional non profit programs are just as reliant on a flawed bloated system as the for profits, and just as abusive of it.

Is GCU accredited? If so, what's the issue?

I'm against for profit education. I think that it's a scam to get money out of the federal government and screw over low income people in the process. That said, in my opinion, they should either be allowed to compete at every level, or not allowed to compete at any level. Since they are already competing at some levels, I think that the concept of for profit institutions competing in the NCAA is a foregone conclusion. They're already grandfathered in and should be allowed to compete at the DI level. I support Grand Canyon University (I never thought that I would say that).

Being a Pac fan, it kills me to say this, but I think that this is just a shameless move by the Pac to try to keep their western monopoly alive. They know that the population of this country is shifting westward, and as long as they keep western schools from elevating their status, the Pac will have a HUGE advantage over the other conferences in the long term. The last thing that they Pac needs is another BSU creating a viable alternative to the Pac and diffusing western talent.

The cartel is upset.

GCU is probably a decade away from playing football in any form. If anything I'd expect them to go the Pioneer League route first-San Diego would probably help them out just to have one less conference game on the other side of the country.

Unless if the Big Sky is allowed to move to FBS, the only other conference GCU will ever be in would be the WCC. If Idaho stays FBS and leaves the Big Sky, there might be an opening for GCU there, but >= 126 scholarships will be a big nut for the 'Lopes to swallow.

GCU's response to ASU and the Pac12.

http://arizonasports.com/118/1649537/GCU...is-unhappy

(07-18-2013 04:03 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  I would think they would need to demonstrate that the for-profits have some competitive advantage.

There is an on-going debate here in North Carolina about private high schools competing with public high schools. The issue is that the private schools are smaller but have larger athletic budgets. A private might be comparable to a 1A or 2A school in size but have an athletic budget comparable to a 4A or 4AA school (the largest divisions). Private schools can recruit and offer scholarships. Public schools can not.

Off-topic, but as a graduate of one of those schools being targeted by some malcontents from the NCHSAA, I say the folks in NC need to get over it. Public and private schools compete against each other in 46 states. It should not be a big deal. The state I've lived in since leaving college, Virginia, is even more outside the norm. It is the only state (maybe Maryland) that has a specific state law prohibiting private schools from the VHSL. Pretty backwards I say.

(07-19-2013 07:29 AM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 04:03 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  I would think they would need to demonstrate that the for-profits have some competitive advantage.

There is an on-going debate here in North Carolina about private high schools competing with public high schools. The issue is that the private schools are smaller but have larger athletic budgets. A private might be comparable to a 1A or 2A school in size but have an athletic budget comparable to a 4A or 4AA school (the largest divisions). Private schools can recruit and offer scholarships. Public schools can not.

Off-topic, but as a graduate of one of those schools being targeted by some malcontents from the NCHSAA, I say the folks in NC need to get over it. Public and private schools compete against each other in 46 states. It should not be a big deal. The state I've lived in since leaving college, Virginia, is even more outside the norm. It is the only state (maybe Maryland) that has a specific state law prohibiting private schools from the VHSL. Pretty backwards I say.

FWIW, in Arkansas the rules require that privates play up one classification from what their enrollment would indicate. There are some exceptions. My daughter's high school was allowed to play at its natural level but they graduate like 30 kids and other than a state title in baseball normally is pretty average competitively.

Shiloh Christian for one two year classification cycle played up two classifications because the schools they were supposed to play refused to schedule them. If I remember right there was a school in the area that wanted permission to play down because they were in the higher classification by only a few kids and had been terrible at the lower level. Think the AAA basically let Shiloh take their place.

(07-18-2013 05:54 PM)krup Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 05:27 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 05:07 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  And that is concern JUST for for-profit on-lines?

Nope, any crap school who employs the same tactics as the for-profits would get put under the microscope. If you can find a story like this:

http://www.propublica.org/article/recrui...m-efforts-

about ASU or USC, there would be a ton of concern about those schools as well.

Non-profit universities are taking billions of dollars from millions of students who have no chance of getting a job in their field of study, but I guess that's okay.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nati...54473426/1

You attend college to get a good education; that's the first, primary function of any educational system. I can think of many schools -such as William and Mary, UVA and Davidson- who place tremendous importance on the basic undergrad "general" education.

If you happen to become employed in your field of study, that's icing on the cake. If you want to improve those chances of getting a job in your field, go to grad school.

Regarding your closing statement: what proof do you have to back this up? I'm not being a smart-alec... I just really want to know.