Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Pac-12 protest targets for-profit Grand Canyon's move to Division I
Author Message
dbackjon Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,007
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 655
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #1
Pac-12 protest targets for-profit Grand Canyon's move to Division I
Pac-12 CEOs have sent a letter to the NCAA questioning the admittance of for-profit schools to Division I, league commissioner Larry Scott told CBSSports.com.

The move seems to target Phoenix-based Division II Grand Canyon University, which would be the first such school admitted to Division I, the NCAA's highest level of membership. The school began transition to D-I on June 1. Grand Canyon will join the WAC in basketball next season and be eligible for the NCAA tournament in 2017-18.

Grand Canyon is a private, Christian-based institution of about 8,500 full-time undergrad students. Division I encompasses more than 340 members. That includes the 125 schools that play FBS (Division I-A) football. The NCAA itself and D-I are not-for-profit, tax-exempt entities.


http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...division-i
07-17-2013 06:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #2
RE: Pac-12 protest targets for-profit Grand Canyon's move to Division I
What's your take on it, dbackjon? GCU athletics are much more direct competition for your school than they are for ASU or UA. Do you think D-I should be open to online for-profit schools? What about U of Phoenix or Ashford?
07-17-2013 07:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
john01992 Offline
Former ESPNer still in recovery mode

Posts: 16,277
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: John0 out!!!!
Location: The Worst P5 Program
Post: #3
RE: Pac-12 protest targets for-profit Grand Canyon's move to Division I
i dont think they should be d1 if they are for profit

i dont want any more "for profit" mentality in d1 athletics
07-17-2013 09:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
john01992 Offline
Former ESPNer still in recovery mode

Posts: 16,277
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: John0 out!!!!
Location: The Worst P5 Program
Post: #4
RE: Pac-12 protest targets for-profit Grand Canyon's move to Division I
i find it interesting that

1. asu is the biggest opponent of this. i wonder if this is because of its for profit status or wether schools dont like having other in state d1 schools

2. im surprised the pac is willing to go so far for asu, if they really mean business they could refuse to play the wac in any sport or rally the mwc for a boycott of gc as well
07-17-2013 09:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,720
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1773
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #5
RE: Pac-12 protest targets for-profit Grand Canyon's move to Division I
I'm not a fan of for-profit educational institutions in general - people end up paying really high private tuition with heavy indebtedness when they'd get better instruction and more transferable credits at their local community college for a fraction of the cost.

However, it's a bit disingenuous for anyone in college football to be disturbed in this instance when they gladly play their national championship game and will have an annual CFP bowl in a for-profit college sponsored stadium (University of Phoenix Stadium).
07-17-2013 10:03 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Pac-12 protest targets for-profit Grand Canyon's move to Division I
(07-17-2013 10:03 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I'm not a fan of for-profit educational institutions in general - people end up paying really high private tuition with heavy indebtedness when they'd get better instruction and more transferable credits at their local community college for a fraction of the cost.

However, it's a bit disingenuous for anyone in college football to be disturbed in this instance when they gladly play their national championship game and will have an annual CFP bowl in a for-profit college sponsored stadium (University of Phoenix Stadium).

Good point. In any event, its pretty ridiculous to complain about them being in Division I, but not about them being in the NCAA in the first place. What difference does it make if they are in Division I, II or III? Either you include them or you don't.
07-17-2013 11:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Pac-12 protest targets for-profit Grand Canyon's move to Division I
(07-17-2013 10:03 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I'm not a fan of for-profit educational institutions in general - people end up paying really high private tuition with heavy indebtedness when they'd get better instruction and more transferable credits at their local community college for a fraction of the cost.

However, it's a bit disingenuous for anyone in college football to be disturbed in this instance when they gladly play their national championship game and will have an annual CFP bowl in a for-profit college sponsored stadium (University of Phoenix Stadium).

It's a thorny issue because the lines are getting fuzzier all the time. A number of schools who are good standing Division I members (even FBS members) offer some online and off-site degree programs in partnership with for-profit companies.

My alma mater is currently exploring a private/public partnership to add a medical school. Arkansas has moved from 48th in physicians per capita to 49th but the state government lacks the funds (or more accurately political will) to increase medical school capacity.

The existing medical school (UAMS) is based in Little Rock and wanted to add a campus in Fayetteville. The only way they got it approved was 1) It could only teach 3rd and 4th year medical and pharmacy students (never caught the justification), nursing classes were limited to Masters and PhD programs (to protect the nursing school at UA Fayetteville) and could offer associates and bachelors in radiologic imaging. 2) The facilities had to be privately funded.

With no political backing to expand the number of physicians offering a program in a private/public partnership to avoid most opposition is the only real option. Right now the preliminary study indicates tuition will be higher than UAMS but lower than private medical schools because using Arkansas State's facilities lowers overhead significantly and several rural hospitals have indicated they would offer scholarships to reduce tuition to the level of UAMS for students indicating an interest in rural health and loan forgiveness programs for grads who will take rural jobs.

We've got a doozy of a state. One of UAMS rural health clinics was closed and moved to another town 30 miles away because local doctors complained to their legislators that the clinics were "stealing" their patients even though they won't see anyone with private insurance or income above a fraction of the poverty line. 01-wingedeagle

Given that environment I have a hard time expressing a blanket opposition to for-profit schools even though University of Phoenix gave a masters degree to my local mayor who makes Honey Boo Boo sound educated (and hired her to teach, no connection to the city ending the practice of capping the benefit for freshmen and sophomore classes at the level the nearby public juco charges and junior, senior, and masters level classes at the cost charged by nearby Arkansas-Little Rock 05-mafia )
07-17-2013 11:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jdgaucho Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,271
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 108
I Root For: UCSB
Location: Big West Land
Post: #8
RE: Pac-12 protest targets for-profit Grand Canyon's move to Division I
If Grand Canyon can remain in good academic standing I have no problem with it. The Pac folks need to put a sock in it
07-18-2013 12:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MWC Tex Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,850
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 179
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
Post: #9
RE: Pac-12 protest targets for-profit Grand Canyon's move to Division I
Yeah,the PAC schools are techically 'not-for profit' for IRS rules but they still run themselves as business. At least GCU being a for-profit entity actually has to pay property and income taxes to the state and federal government where the 'non-profit' entities do not. So actually GCU helps their community more by paying property taxes and help subsidzed ASU and UA with the taxes GCU pays to the state and federal governments.
(This post was last modified: 07-18-2013 08:57 AM by MWC Tex.)
07-18-2013 08:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CommuterBob Offline
Head Tailgater
*

Posts: 5,840
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 173
I Root For: UCF, Ohio State
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Pac-12 protest targets for-profit Grand Canyon's move to Division I
(07-17-2013 10:03 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I'm not a fan of for-profit educational institutions in general - people end up paying really high private tuition with heavy indebtedness when they'd get better instruction and more transferable credits at their local community college for a fraction of the cost.

However, it's a bit disingenuous for anyone in college football to be disturbed in this instance when they gladly play their national championship game and will have an annual CFP bowl in a for-profit college sponsored stadium (University of Phoenix Stadium).

And many other stadiums (including some schools' own home stadums) are sponsored by for-profit corporations, and virtually every school is sponsored by dozens if not hundreds of for-profit corporations. What's your point?
(This post was last modified: 07-18-2013 09:22 AM by CommuterBob.)
07-18-2013 09:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
monarchman Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,639
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 18
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Pac-12 protest targets for-profit Grand Canyon's move to Division I
Frontline did a documentary on for-profit schools and Grand Canyon is the main focus of its coverage.

http://video.pbs.org/video/1485280975/

Essentially, the NCAA should not admit any school that with for profit status to participate in any of its divisions or activities.
07-18-2013 09:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


jnewyouth Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 493
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 18
I Root For: Bearcats
Location:
Post: #12
RE: Pac-12 protest targets for-profit Grand Canyon's move to Division I
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.
07-18-2013 09:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,720
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1773
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #13
RE: Pac-12 protest targets for-profit Grand Canyon's move to Division I
(07-18-2013 09:03 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  
(07-17-2013 10:03 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I'm not a fan of for-profit educational institutions in general - people end up paying really high private tuition with heavy indebtedness when they'd get better instruction and more transferable credits at their local community college for a fraction of the cost.

However, it's a bit disingenuous for anyone in college football to be disturbed in this instance when they gladly play their national championship game and will have an annual CFP bowl in a for-profit college sponsored stadium (University of Phoenix Stadium).

And many other stadiums (including some schools' own home stadums) are sponsored by for-profit corporations, and virtually every school is sponsored by dozens if not hundreds of for-profit corporations. What's your point?

I have no issue with stadiums being sponsored at all. If schools want to take money from those sources, then more power to them. Just don't be hypocritical about it. I have an issue with colleges complaining about for-profit institution status on the one hand while simultaneously holding their biggest events (CFP national championship game, Fiesta Bowl, NCAA Final Four) in a venue sponsored by one on the other other hand. That's where the hypocrisy lies. If the Pac-12 has that much of a problem with being associated with for-profit institutions, then don't take money from them indirectly (and also directly giving nationwide exposure to them on TV that is worth tens of millions of dollars in advertising) by awarding them the highest profile events in college sports.
07-18-2013 09:30 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dbackjon Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,007
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 655
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Pac-12 protest targets for-profit Grand Canyon's move to Division I
(07-17-2013 07:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  What's your take on it, dbackjon? GCU athletics are much more direct competition for your school than they are for ASU or UA. Do you think D-I should be open to online for-profit schools? What about U of Phoenix or Ashford?

In some ways yes, much more competition for recruits at the NAU level. From ASU's perspective, I guess they are worried about media coverage/attendance, especially since GCU hired a popular ex-Sun as coach.


GCU started as a "regular college" still has dorms, campus, etc. I have long assumed it would be a matter of time before they went DI. Still only the 4th DI program in Arizona.

as for the for-profit status - not that concerned.
07-18-2013 09:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CommuterBob Offline
Head Tailgater
*

Posts: 5,840
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 173
I Root For: UCF, Ohio State
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Pac-12 protest targets for-profit Grand Canyon's move to Division I
(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.
07-18-2013 09:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TomThumb Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 687
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 18
I Root For: stuff
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Pac-12 protest targets for-profit Grand Canyon's move to Division I
(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?
07-18-2013 11:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


dbackjon Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,007
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 655
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Pac-12 protest targets for-profit Grand Canyon's move to Division I
(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?

As opposed to say, Liberty, that using the profits off of its 50K online students to fund athletics and the rest of the university?
07-18-2013 11:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TomThumb Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 687
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 18
I Root For: stuff
Location:
Post: #18
RE: Pac-12 protest targets for-profit Grand Canyon's move to Division I
(07-18-2013 11:27 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  
(07-18-2013 11:26 AM)TomThumb Wrote:  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?

As opposed to say, Liberty, that using the profits off of its 50K online students to fund athletics and the rest of the university?

Athletics and the rest of the university or funneling money to Wall Street investors? The former sounds better to me than the later.
07-18-2013 11:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #19
RE: Pac-12 protest targets for-profit Grand Canyon's move to Division I
(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.
07-18-2013 11:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wolfman Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,459
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 181
I Root For: The Cartel
Location: Raleigh, NC
Post: #20
RE: Pac-12 protest targets for-profit Grand Canyon's move to Division I
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.
07-18-2013 04:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.