I figured this would turn hopelessly political.

The end result, the death of 90% of college football teams. They are just too expensive and if they aren't completely covered by outside funding, or very close to it, then the schools will have to cut them loose. In an age where state funding to schools is down I would expect there to be great political pressure to shut just about everybody, even some P5 programs. There isn't a single team in the G5 that would ultimately survive.

(08-30-2015 05:40 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I figured this would turn hopelessly political.

The end result, the death of 90% of college football teams. They are just too expensive and if they aren't completely covered by outside funding, or very close to it, then the schools will have to cut them loose. In an age where state funding to schools is down I would expect there to be great political pressure to shut just about everybody, even some P5 programs. There isn't a single team in the G5 that would ultimately survive.

They wouldn't disappear. But they would change. After all, Oxford, which exists within a system like the one being proposed, has athletic teams. They would just morph back into athletic competitions between true student athletes.

(08-30-2015 05:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 05:40 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I figured this would turn hopelessly political.

The end result, the death of 90% of college football teams. They are just too expensive and if they aren't completely covered by outside funding, or very close to it, then the schools will have to cut them loose. In an age where state funding to schools is down I would expect there to be great political pressure to shut just about everybody, even some P5 programs. There isn't a single team in the G5 that would ultimately survive.

They wouldn't disappear. But they would change. After all, Oxford has athletic teams. They would just morph back into athletic competitions between true student athletes.

True

But, that in itself, is death for what people see as college football. A return to the late 19th century is what you would get.

The sad thing is schools across the country are going to saddled with expensive stadiums and such to maintain. Hell, that alone could mean school closures for some of the more leveraged schools.

The athletic programs out there have grown to such an extent they aren't even capable of being cut out without killing the host.

(08-30-2015 05:15 PM)msu_bears Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 05:09 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 04:58 PM)msu_bears Wrote:  back on topic..

I could see this helping bring back football to smaller schools as they wouldn't have to add a ton of girls scholarships to offset the new football scholarships. They could just add some cheaper to play sports that girls play using existing facilities and would just need to hire some coaches.

I think it is a way out there dream. I just looked up his robin hood tax to pay for it. Unlikely to happen. If existing entitlement spending was not so massive there might be a way to fund some sort of federal stipend.

entitlement spending? you mean the military industrial complex and corporate welfare? Unfair tax cuts and loopholes for the rich? Agreed, if we cut those entitlements we could afford so much more in terms of what the government should actually be spending money on like education and healthcare...

No Military no country. Corporations employ people, they pay taxes, so do employees. Rich? What is wrong with that? You know every politician or person who agrees with your thoughts hires the best accountants to find those loopholes. K-12 is already free. Healthcare? do you mean Health Insurance? I am all for a flat income tax as long as it is lower. And that means you make 10K a year you have the same rate as someone who makes
100K of 500K. NO loopholes right?

If the politicans are sucessful in making a college education free. Then the colleges water down the courses for students not qualified for college. Then most all students get a college degreee. Who will drive the trucks and taxis, stock the shelves at Walmart and flip the burgers at McDonald's?

Answer: College graduates. So where is the benefit?

It could be done:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch...on/273801/

The problem isn't "socialism," it would be keeping universities from pocketing the federal money, spending twice as much on bloated administrations and admin salaries, and keeping tuition just as high and still climbing. Here at UAB our bumbling, incompetent piece of **** Ray Watts makes more than twice what Obama does. Is President of UAB twice as hard as President of the US? Would it be that hard to find some wino living in the dumpster behind Tire Engineers who'd do a better job than Ray?

The money is already there. College does not have to cost what it does; it really doesn't have to cost students anything at all. But how are you going to claw the cash out of the greedy grasp of admins making $853,000 a year for a part-time job? Students have already proven they'll indenture themselves for life to pay the going rate, and debt-holders have leveraged exemptions to bankruptcy and even garnishment of Social Security for student loan debt. It's a powerful racket with many, many snouts in the trough, where well-paid college admins have hooked up with the equivalent of better-dressed payday lenders to shake down entire generations of Americans in a massive ring of theft of both cash and dreams.

(08-30-2015 05:52 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  If the Liberal politicians are sucessful in making a college education free. Then the colleges water down the courses for students not qualified for college. Then most all students get a college degreee. Who will drive the trucks and taxis, stock the shelves at Walmart and flip the burgers at McDonald's?

Answer: College graduates. So where us the benefit?

When I was a kid in Ireland my older sister took the 'leaving cert.' and I distinctly remember the scores placed you somewhere on the scale from aeronautical engineering and advanced mathematics to, and I'm not making this up, sandwich making and work farming.

To answer the original question: it would force honest accounting of athletic costs and profits, and reveal that college football makes way more money than the poor-mouthing colleges and NCAA claim. With honest, business-world accounting, most FBS programs make money, not just the top dozen or so. The big ones are enormous cash machines.

See this piece for more:

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/co...nting-scam

Longer term effect? It would threaten the tax exemption of big-time college football, which would unravel the whole ungodly enterprise.

(08-30-2015 06:05 PM)58-56 Wrote:  To answer the original question: it would force honest accounting of athletic costs and profits, and reveal that college football makes way more money than the poor-mouthing colleges and NCAA claim. With honest, business-world accounting, most FBS programs make money, not just the top dozen or so. The big ones are enormous cash machines.

See this piece for more:

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/co...nting-scam

Longer term effect? It would threaten the tax exemption of big-time college football, which would unravel the whole ungodly enterprise.

The best that can happen is gov's like Christie and Walker can be replaced and university funds can be brought back up to where they should be.

(08-30-2015 03:31 PM)msu_bears Wrote:  Bernie Sanders (who I think will be the next president) is proposing to make tuition to public colleges free.

As a large chunk of many athletic budgets are scholarships, what will happen to that money as scholarships would no longer be needed? With reduced budgets, more schools could claim that they aren't losing money on athletics anymore. I could see schools using this as an excuse to move from FCS to FBS for example as they won't have the added scholarship costs and I'm sure there could be some other ripple effects that effect conference membership.

Yeah, Bernie has as much chance of getting elected president as my dog. I could be wrong, though.

(08-30-2015 05:54 PM)58-56 Wrote:  It could be done:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch...on/273801/

The problem isn't "socialism," it would be keeping universities from pocketing the federal money, spending twice as much on bloated administrations and admin salaries, and keeping tuition just as high and still climbing. Here at UAB our bumbling, incompetent piece of **** Ray Watts makes more than twice what Obama does. Is President of UAB twice as hard as President of the US? Would it be that hard to find some wino living in the dumpster behind Tire Engineers who'd do a better job than Ray?

The money is already there. College does not have to cost what it does; it really doesn't have to cost students anything at all. But how are you going to claw the cash out of the greedy grasp of admins making $853,000 a year for a part-time job? Students have already proven they'll indenture themselves for life to pay the going rate, and debt-holders have leveraged exemptions to bankruptcy and even garnishment of Social Security for student loan debt. It's a powerful racket with many, many snouts in the trough, where well-paid college admins have hooked up with the equivalent of better-dressed payday lenders to shake down entire generations of Americans in a massive ring of theft of both cash and dreams.

Yup. Giving university administrators more federal money with no oversight is not going to make higher education better.

What they ought to do to bring the costs down is to stop giving federal guarantees for student loans. Once that trough of money is unavailable to schools, and students and families choose only schools that they can truly afford to pay for, then the cost will drop.

(08-30-2015 06:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Yup. Giving university administrators more federal money with no oversight is not going to make higher education better.

What they ought to do to bring the costs down is to stop giving federal guarantees for student loans. Once that trough of money is unavailable to schools, and students and families choose only schools that they can truly afford to pay for, then the cost will drop.

as someone from a lower middle class family that took out federal loans to get a degree and now have a successful career because of it, I can't believe anybody would support this ridiculous idea of letting public schools become unreachable for the poor. This is more rich get richer, fyck the poor republican mentality.

No matter how rich I become, I will always remember my poor roots and despise the entire republican party that looks down on my childhood for using things like food stamps and federal money for college. I am suppose to feel bad that I used "entitlements" growing up? F that, these programs are needed so that every kid has the same opportunity to health and education that I received and anybody that wants to hold the poor down is either evil or disconnected from reality. Grades/test scores should get you into college, not your parents income...

(08-30-2015 07:35 PM)msu_bears Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 06:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Yup. Giving university administrators more federal money with no oversight is not going to make higher education better.

What they ought to do to bring the costs down is to stop giving federal guarantees for student loans. Once that trough of money is unavailable to schools, and students and families choose only schools that they can truly afford to pay for, then the cost will drop.

as someone from a lower middle class family that took out federal loans to get a degree and now have a successful career because of it, I can't believe anybody would support this ridiculous idea of letting public schools become unreachable for the poor. This is more rich get richer, fyck the poor republican mentality.

No matter how rich I become, I will always remember my poor roots and despise the entire republican party that looks down on my childhood for using things like food stamps and federal money for college. I am suppose to feel bad that I used "entitlements" growing up? F that, these programs are needed so that every kid has the same opportunity to health and education that I received and anybody that wants to hold the poor down is either evil or disconnected from reality. Grades/test scores should get you into college, not your parents income...

That isn't what he said, or even hinted at.

This is what bernie would bring

http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_2_havana.html

(08-30-2015 06:17 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 03:31 PM)msu_bears Wrote:  Bernie Sanders (who I think will be the next president) is proposing to make tuition to public colleges free.

As a large chunk of many athletic budgets are scholarships, what will happen to that money as scholarships would no longer be needed? With reduced budgets, more schools could claim that they aren't losing money on athletics anymore. I could see schools using this as an excuse to move from FCS to FBS for example as they won't have the added scholarship costs and I'm sure there could be some other ripple effects that effect conference membership.

Yeah, Bernie has as much chance of getting elected president as my dog. I could be wrong, though.

Bernie has equal chance to Donald

(08-30-2015 07:35 PM)msu_bears Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 06:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Yup. Giving university administrators more federal money with no oversight is not going to make higher education better.

What they ought to do to bring the costs down is to stop giving federal guarantees for student loans. Once that trough of money is unavailable to schools, and students and families choose only schools that they can truly afford to pay for, then the cost will drop.

as someone from a lower middle class family that took out federal loans to get a degree and now have a successful career because of it, I can't believe anybody would support this ridiculous idea of letting public schools become unreachable for the poor. This is more rich get richer, fyck the poor republican mentality.

No matter how rich I become, I will always remember my poor roots and despise the entire republican party that looks down on my childhood for using things like food stamps and federal money for college. I am suppose to feel bad that I used "entitlements" growing up? F that, these programs are needed so that every kid has the same opportunity to health and education that I received and anybody that wants to hold the poor down is either evil or disconnected from reality. Grades/test scores should get you into college, not your parents income...

Dam you a Sith Lord? Lots of hate and group think. Next time take this to the spin room. Also, don't use "I" so much, makes you look selfish.

(08-30-2015 06:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 05:54 PM)58-56 Wrote:  It could be done:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch...on/273801/

The problem isn't "socialism," it would be keeping universities from pocketing the federal money, spending twice as much on bloated administrations and admin salaries, and keeping tuition just as high and still climbing. Here at UAB our bumbling, incompetent piece of **** Ray Watts makes more than twice what Obama does. Is President of UAB twice as hard as President of the US? Would it be that hard to find some wino living in the dumpster behind Tire Engineers who'd do a better job than Ray?

The money is already there. College does not have to cost what it does; it really doesn't have to cost students anything at all. But how are you going to claw the cash out of the greedy grasp of admins making $853,000 a year for a part-time job? Students have already proven they'll indenture themselves for life to pay the going rate, and debt-holders have leveraged exemptions to bankruptcy and even garnishment of Social Security for student loan debt. It's a powerful racket with many, many snouts in the trough, where well-paid college admins have hooked up with the equivalent of better-dressed payday lenders to shake down entire generations of Americans in a massive ring of theft of both cash and dreams.

Yup. Giving university administrators more federal money with no oversight is not going to make higher education better.

What they ought to do to bring the costs down is to stop giving federal guarantees for student loans. Once that trough of money is unavailable to schools, and students and families choose only schools that they can truly afford to pay for, then the cost will drop.

(08-30-2015 06:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 05:54 PM)58-56 Wrote:  It could be done:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch...on/273801/

The problem isn't "socialism," it would be keeping universities from pocketing the federal money, spending twice as much on bloated administrations and admin salaries, and keeping tuition just as high and still climbing. Here at UAB our bumbling, incompetent piece of **** Ray Watts makes more than twice what Obama does. Is President of UAB twice as hard as President of the US? Would it be that hard to find some wino living in the dumpster behind Tire Engineers who'd do a better job than Ray?

The money is already there. College does not have to cost what it does; it really doesn't have to cost students anything at all. But how are you going to claw the cash out of the greedy grasp of admins making $853,000 a year for a part-time job? Students have already proven they'll indenture themselves for life to pay the going rate, and debt-holders have leveraged exemptions to bankruptcy and even garnishment of Social Security for student loan debt. It's a powerful racket with many, many snouts in the trough, where well-paid college admins have hooked up with the equivalent of better-dressed payday lenders to shake down entire generations of Americans in a massive ring of theft of both cash and dreams.

Yup. Giving university administrators more federal money with no oversight is not going to make higher education better.

What they ought to do to bring the costs down is to stop giving federal guarantees for student loans. Once that trough of money is unavailable to schools, and students and families choose only schools that they can truly afford to pay for, then the cost will drop.

I agree with the first part but without some replacement funding source we cut out a lot of kids who fall between dire need and toward the low reaches of upper middle class.

Spending controls aren't that hard if there is a big purchaser who can force prices. Many states (mine included) fell for the gruff of using lottery money to fund scholarships. What happens if you give every 2.5 and better high school GPA $1000 a semester? It becomes easier to raise prices $500 to $1000 a semester.

What happens if you instead based on a matrix of financial need and academic ability don't make scholarships X dollars but make them a percentage but fix how much is received prices will iron out.

If a school charges $4k and the reimbursement rate is $3800 and a student receives 50% the school receives $1900 and cannot collect more than $1900 from anyone receiving aid prices will work out.

The loans need to remain available. In the long run the more educated the populace the better.

What we need is some level of accountability. As it stands the federal loans are nothing but a veiled grant using kids as a form of collateral.

I'm for linking eligibility for funds to the school, not the kids. There simply is no way to link it to the kids without defeating much of the purpose of the program. I see it for what it is, a subsidy. It should remain so.

All schools should have a cap on the amount of federal loan dollars they can accept without strings. After that point, it should be linked to default rates and certain other metrics. There should also be strict limitations on how federal loan money being used for tuition can be spent.

Today, the education game is one that has taken America for enough money to make Wall Street green with envy. It's downright criminal.

An interesting fact, in 2011-2012 the national average for tuition growth was 8.3%, in just that year.

They'll continue to steal vast sums of money if there are no strings.

But, that's all more of a Spin Room sort of play.

Yes, Bernie has a shot. That is why the power people are greenlighting Biden to run. They know he will draw support away from Bernie. Yes, Trump has a shot and we could end up seeing a Trump vs Sanders race. I am actually hoping for it as nothing would please me more than to see the both of them discard their political parties and run a completely Independent Presidential Race. Of course that isn't likely to happen but both the Republican and Democratic Parties need to die.

That being said, it always amuses me to see the "freedom activists" claiming that individuals make the best choices for themselves. Of course, the government often does even worse because our best and brightest do not run things. Our best and brightest often hamstring the government in fact.

Far too many people go to school and get worthless degrees. We have actually reached a period where a lot of people without degrees are living better than people with degrees because of the debt incurred and the inability to pay it off.

Either we fix that problem or nature fixes it. The natural way is more often than not the more painful way. But hey, keep pointing at boogeymen and saying they cant take away your rights! A country full of children.