Why You Are Not A D1 Athlete

[Unregistered]

Part that's interesting to me is why it bugs some people here so much that other people have different goals/expectations- that you have to want to play D1 if you play club; that you have to want to play pro (or at least D1) if you play DAP. Yeah, I get that some people are just saying that playing D3 (or not at all in college) was always the target once they found out that Mia wasn't good enough to play at a higher level (and they bug me too), but why is it so hard to believe that others might have been more focused on other things all along?

[Unregistered]

Part that's interesting to me is why it bugs some people here so much that other people have different goals/expectations- that you have to want to play D1 if you play club; that you have to want to play pro (or at least D1) if you play DAP. Yeah, I get that some people are just saying that playing D3 (or not at all in college) was always the target once they found out that Mia wasn't good enough to play at a higher level (and they bug me too), but why is it so hard to believe that others might have been more focused on other things all along?

t's all about being paid to play, because otherwise there is someone who simply cannot make sense of not recouping some of the money spent on soccer over the years plus the prep school expenses. If you're not getting paid to play, then there is someone who believes regional state schools are for you and he insists that you shouldn't be paying for club soccer either.

[Unregistered]

I agree that it isn't intentional - and not just soccer but college athletics in general. With the exception of the big name football and basketball teams that rake in absurd amounts of money, most sports programs run at significant fiscal losses. Schools feel they have to offer athletics to attract the types of students they want, keep alumni happy etc. Call it an unintended consequence of recruiting - sometimes it's just not a good fit, or the coach isn't a good judge of who will fit in their program

To limit the losses, the school wants more of the athletes to pay their fair share. The best way to do that is for the student athlete to quit/get cut and then pay full price. Except for the star players that play all 4 years, the talent of a drop out is similar to the talent of a new recruit. So team performance and W/L doesn't suffer. And the cycle continues.

[Unregistered]

Always comes back to the question why then is everyone so invested in spending such huge sums now on their children's youth sports if they don't really care where it is leading. Anyone consider that the sort of attitude posted above might be part of the reason a coach like the one in the article feels the way they do. Starts in the car ride home. If the parent sends the message that the sport is secondary to other objectives then you can bet the kid will display that on the field.

There never seems to be an answer to the why, just that they have the means to do it and so they should be allowed to do what they want. The point that is escaping them is when they send that message to their kids they are effectively setting a threshold that limits both their kid's performance and their kid's potential success and when that becomes pervasive enough it also diminishes the quality of the whole environment. It is analogous to putting a kid into an ultra expensive prep school and then accepting B's and C's from them because you personally don't expect them to get into an Ivy League school. If a lot of families start accepting that level of work then it becomes the defacto "normal" which then undercuts and waters down the competitiveness of the whole environment.

[Unregistered]

There never seems to be an answer to the why, just that they have the means to do it and so they should be allowed to do what they want. The point that is escaping them is when they send that message to their kids they are effectively setting a threshold that limits both their kid's performance and their kid's potential success and when that becomes pervasive enough it also diminishes the quality of the whole environment. It is analogous to putting a kid into an ultra expensive prep school and then accepting B's and C's from them because you personally don't expect them to get into an Ivy League school. If a lot of families start accepting that level of work then it becomes the defacto "normal" which then undercuts and waters down the competitiveness of the whole environment.

Brilliant analysis, BTNT. A few leaps in your logic I see. Not a single sentence made any sense. I bet you've got some answers for other world problems as well.

[Unregistered]

I agree that it isn't intentional - and not just soccer but college athletics in general. With the exception of the big name football and basketball teams that rake in absurd amounts of money, most sports programs run at significant fiscal losses. Schools feel they have to offer athletics to attract the types of students they want, keep alumni happy etc. Call it an unintended consequence of recruiting - sometimes it's just not a good fit, or the coach isn't a good judge of who will fit in their program

You do realize of course that most D1 athletic programs are usually non-profit entities that are actually separate and distinct from the school itself and that even though they are designed to break even fairly large sums of money typically pass through them back to the schools, not the other way around like you assume. If a school is losing actual money (as opposed to paper losses) on it's athletic program then that is more a matter of incompetence at the leadership level than a reality of the business of collegiate sports.

[Unregistered]

There never seems to be an answer to the why, just that they have the means to do it and so they should be allowed to do what they want. The point that is escaping them is when they send that message to their kids they are effectively setting a threshold that limits both their kid's performance and their kid's potential success and when that becomes pervasive enough it also diminishes the quality of the whole environment. It is analogous to putting a kid into an ultra expensive prep school and then accepting B's and C's from them because you personally don't expect them to get into an Ivy League school. If a lot of families start accepting that level of work then it becomes the defacto "normal" which then undercuts and waters down the competitiveness of the whole environment.

Or, more briefly, an explanation for MCLA.

[Unregistered]

You do realize of course that most D1 athletic programs are usually non-profit entities that are actually separate and distinct from the school itself and that even though they are designed to break even fairly large sums of money typically pass through them back to the schools, not the other way around like you assume. If a school is losing actual money (as opposed to paper losses) on it's athletic program then that is more a matter of incompetence at the leadership level than a reality of the business of collegiate sports.

You do realize that is not what the poster said. I love saying it like that, its quite condescending. Poster mentioned that small individual sports might lose money, but mentioned nothing about the entire athletic program.

[Unregistered]

You do realize that is not what the poster said. I love saying it like that, its quite condescending. Poster mentioned that small individual sports might lose money, but mentioned nothing about the entire athletic program.

lol I'm the OP and yes that's what I meant. Come on - girls field hockey is making money for a school?

[Unregistered]

lol I'm the OP and yes that's what I meant. Come on - girls field hockey is making money for a school?

Are there schools where boys or girls soccer makes money for the schools? I would bet they make the money, if at all, on donations. With the exception of the big football and basketball programs, I would think that most college sports lose money and even football and basketball could not be bringing in huge amounts of money on ticket sales. Colleges spend money on things that never bring in money because they are integral to their missions and because they have donors that support them.

[Unregistered]

lol I'm the OP and yes that's what I meant. Come on - girls field hockey is making money for a school?

It is the totality of the athletic department revenue that is important, not the individual sports. Even small D1 schools have major money flowing through their athletic department because of their basketball and football programs and since they are generally non profits they have to spend it which is why the big time sport schools generally all support a lot of sports.

Consider this. BC Alumni Stadium holds 44,500. Tickets range between $15-35. That means that their revenue per home game is roughly over a million dollars. Multiply that by 6. Then add in the TV and merchandising. I'm sure you get the picture. Now consider that the actual cost of one 85 football scholarships isn't anywhere near the $65,000+ that the average smoes pay. The actual cost is probably less than $20 grand. They bring in close to 7 mil and probably spend 3.5 after all is said and done. Since the athletic department is a non profit they have to spend that other 3.5 million. Now consider that a big time college like Michigan's stadium holds 109,901 and that in places like that their tickets are almost family heirlooms. Places like that the toilet seats are made with gold because they have so much money floating around and need to spend it all and you actually think they are worrying about making money "churning" scholarship athletes? D1 aint D3 and contrary to what a couple of the pinheads around here think, D1 sports, even field hockey, are parts of business enterprise at most colleges that spin off a heck of a lot of revenue.

[Unregistered]

It is the totality of the athletic department revenue that is important, not the individual sports. Even small D1 schools have major money flowing through their athletic department because of their basketball and football programs and since they are generally non profits they have to spend it which is why the big time sport schools generally all support a lot of sports.

Consider this. BC Alumni Stadium holds 44,500. Tickets range between $15-35. That means that their revenue per home game is roughly over a million dollars. Multiply that by 6. Then add in the TV and merchandising. I'm sure you get the picture. Now consider that the actual cost of one 85 football scholarships isn't anywhere near the $65,000+ that the average smoes pay. The actual cost is probably less than $20 grand. They bring in close to 7 mil and probably spend 3.5 after all is said and done. Since the athletic department is a non profit they have to spend that other 3.5 million. Now consider that a big time college like Michigan's stadium holds 109,901 and that in places like that their tickets are almost family heirlooms. Places like that the toilet seats are made with gold because they have so much money floating around and need to spend it all and you actually think they are worrying about making money "churning" scholarship athletes? D1 aint D3 and contrary to what a couple of the pinheads around here think, D1 sports, even field hockey, are parts of business enterprise at most colleges that spin off a heck of a lot of revenue.

Well, congratulations. A lot there for you to feel big about.

[Unregistered]

It is the totality of the athletic department revenue that is important, not the individual sports. Even small D1 schools have major money flowing through their athletic department because of their basketball and football programs and since they are generally non profits they have to spend it which is why the big time sport schools generally all support a lot of sports.

Consider this. BC Alumni Stadium holds 44,500. Tickets range between $15-35. That means that their revenue per home game is roughly over a million dollars. Multiply that by 6. Then add in the TV and merchandising. I'm sure you get the picture. Now consider that the actual cost of one 85 football scholarships isn't anywhere near the $65,000+ that the average smoes pay. The actual cost is probably less than $20 grand. They bring in close to 7 mil and probably spend 3.5 after all is said and done. Since the athletic department is a non profit they have to spend that other 3.5 million. Now consider that a big time college like Michigan's stadium holds 109,901 and that in places like that their tickets are almost family heirlooms. Places like that the toilet seats are made with gold because they have so much money floating around and need to spend it all and you actually think they are worrying about making money "churning" scholarship athletes? D1 aint D3 and contrary to what a couple of the pinheads around here think, D1 sports, even field hockey, are parts of business enterprise at most colleges that spin off a heck of a lot of revenue.

You obviously haven't talked to any football or basketball coaches. Ask them how they feel about using the funds they generate to pay for other sports.

[Unregistered]

It is the totality of the athletic department revenue that is important, not the individual sports. Even small D1 schools have major money flowing through their athletic department because of their basketball and football programs and since they are generally non profits they have to spend it which is why the big time sport schools generally all support a lot of sports.

Consider this. BC Alumni Stadium holds 44,500. Tickets range between $15-35. That means that their revenue per home game is roughly over a million dollars. Multiply that by 6. Then add in the TV and merchandising. I'm sure you get the picture. Now consider that the actual cost of one 85 football scholarships isn't anywhere near the $65,000+ that the average smoes pay. The actual cost is probably less than $20 grand. They bring in close to 7 mil and probably spend 3.5 after all is said and done. Since the athletic department is a non profit they have to spend that other 3.5 million. Now consider that a big time college like Michigan's stadium holds 109,901 and that in places like that their tickets are almost family heirlooms. Places like that the toilet seats are made with gold because they have so much money floating around and need to spend it all and you actually think they are worrying about making money "churning" scholarship athletes? D1 aint D3 and contrary to what a couple of the pinheads around here think, D1 sports, even field hockey, are parts of business enterprise at most colleges that spin off a heck of a lot of revenue.

Do you realize that with the thousands of college and universities out there not all operate like BC?

[Unregistered]

You obviously haven't talked to any football or basketball coaches. Ask them how they feel about using the funds they generate to pay for other sports.

or to pay for the women's programs in general