Money; who's got it?

[bigG]

Say what you want winning is important, then comes money, or at least at the same time.  An occasional kid will pick UW because of the academic programs, but most D1 schools are good.

Say what you want but academics are what is important; then come sports. An occasional kid will pick Iowa, because of the wrestling; but most D1 schools are good.

See what I'm saying?

Most kids go to school for school. A cultish sport like wrestling might attract some nice student-athletes. Woo-hoo. Drop in the bucket for a bigger school; who can get many more walk on dreamers in football and basketball. Winning is much more important in those sports. More important, yet, to most students, is the school. I don't know many blue chip students picking a school based on a sport.

How does MIT do it?! LOL!

[lizard king]

Yes, the students are picking the school mostly for academics, duh, however, if you are a blue chip recruit in almost any sport you are concerned about how that sport performs, probably ahead of academics.  You bank on the fact that all of them will give you a good degree in communications or what ever your choice is.  Yes a few, very few, wrestlers are able to handle the grind of wrestling and being a biology major and then the school they pick may depend on both academics and winning.  If school A is giving me 80% paid and school B is giving me 10% paid I bet many, if not most will go with the money, or which school is good in their sport, academics will be third, they are all good.  Are academics important, yes, of course, but I do not believe for athletes deciding which team to go to, academics are the most important.  If you have the chance to wrestle for Penn St. or WI, which are you choosing?  Are you going to check into see which rec degree program has the best success first?

[Harris]

I went to Madison when they sucked in football and basketball.  I remember watching Don Morton's practices in football and it was total chaos, no one listening, no one hustling, the coaches seemed disorganized and it showed on the field.  I remember the first day I saw Barry Alvarez practice - organized, high intensity, high pace, coaches in players faces.  You could tell on day one Barry would be successful.  I also remember Steve Yoder in basketball.  Absolute horrible teams.  Stu Jackson comes in and takes them to the NIT and then the NCAA's in his first 2 years.  Then you look at guys like Dick Bennett and Bo Ryan who were even more successful with what some would call average blue collar players.  What changed in a matter of a few years in both of these instances?

You can say all you want about academics and facilities and rankings but these teams were in the same facilities, with a lot of the same players and the academics were good all along.  The thing that changed was the UW brought in a coach who immediately changed the culture, practices, toughness, hustle, desire, recruiting, high school relationships, etc....................

I am a huge Barry Davis fan and have supported him on the boards over the years but I also realize there comes a time when you need to move on. 

[npope]

Disclaimer: Absolutely no facts to support my contentions that follow.

A lot of athletes of major sports, e.g., basketball and football, choose a school almost solely based on the strength of the respective sports program. Athletes in sports lacking professional career tracks are more likely to factor in the academic virtues of their respective school choice. That said, some of the athletes in these "minor" sports will choose a school based solely on their respective sports program without much, if any, regard to the quality of academics that might be associated with a degree from that institution.

And therein lies the problem - some athletes go to school solely for the purpose of engaging in athletics without concern for academics. Yes, it is ultimately the athlete's problem, but it reflects poorly on an institution that professes to hold the athlete's education as its center piece (see mission statement). It is blatant hypocrisy on the institution's part to allow (and even support the encouragement of) student athletes to enroll in school with little consideration as to the education that is a prerequisite for participation in athletics. That hypocrisy weakens the credibility of the institution that allows for it to occur.

But in today's world, all too often, the public looks past that hypocrisy, often ignoring it, so long as the athletic team wins on the field/court/mat. The school pays no price for its hypocrisy. To me, that is the most disappointing aspect of collegiate sports in higher education.

[lizard king]

It is very tough and nearly impossible for most to excel in a D1 sport, and school, and have a great social life.  You really have to pick two of the three, and in fact if you want to actually excel, you probably can only do that in one of the three.  (there are exceptions of course.)

[bigG]

Disclaimer: Absolutely no facts to support my contentions that follow.

A lot of athletes of major sports, e.g., basketball and football, choose a school almost solely based on the strength of the respective sports program. Athletes in sports lacking professional career tracks are more likely to factor in the academic virtues of their respective school choice. That said, some of the athletes in these "minor" sports will choose a school based solely on their respective sports program without much, if any, regard to the quality of academics that might be associated with a degree from that institution.

And therein lies the problem - some athletes go to school solely for the purpose of engaging in athletics without concern for academics. Yes, it is ultimately the athlete's problem, but it reflects poorly on an institution that professes to hold the athlete's education as its center piece (see mission statement). It is blatant hypocrisy on the institution's part to allow (and even support the encouragement of) student athletes to enroll in school with little consideration as to the education that is a prerequisite for participation in athletics. That hypocrisy weakens the credibility of the institution that allows for it to occur.

But in today's world, all too often, the public looks past that hypocrisy, often ignoring it, so long as the athletic team wins on the field/court/mat. The school pays no price for its hypocrisy. To me, that is the most disappointing aspect of collegiate sports in higher education.

+1 Great post.

"not believe for athletes deciding which team to go to, academics are the most important."

Those athletes are not the ones I'd want to represent my school. I think for many great Big10 wrestlers it is about academics balanced with the sport.

I wouldn't trade Alabama's/Clemson's football team for ours any day of the week. I want our teams to lead through legitimacy. PSU seems to have the rare balance and incredible coaching. They have a one-of-a-kind coach. You see the mighty Iowa getting closer and closer to mediocrity. MN didn't exactly kick tail last year, either.

I prefer athletes that can excel in the classroom and on the field. Fortunately in wrestling we don't have many of the "I just wanna go pro" types. Double fortunately, our footballers are more legitimate than that. Makes me proud of our biggest school.

PSU or WI?

If I'm a super blue chip high school wrestler who wants the best team/coach, PSU. If I'm just a nationally ranked wrestler but blue chip student, I'll choose the school that's best for my intended major. C Medbery, perfect example. Why wouldn't he go to PSU?

[MNbadger]

7th at the NCAA Championships and their team GPA is one of the highest with most of them being in difficult majors (one example being Kroells in Aerospace Engineering if my memory serves me).  I was at the last senior day and one after the other honorees were in tough majors.

Disclaimer: Absolutely no facts to support my contentions that follow.

A lot of athletes of major sports, e.g., basketball and football, choose a school almost solely based on the strength of the respective sports program. Athletes in sports lacking professional career tracks are more likely to factor in the academic virtues of their respective school choice. That said, some of the athletes in these "minor" sports will choose a school based solely on their respective sports program without much, if any, regard to the quality of academics that might be associated with a degree from that institution.

And therein lies the problem - some athletes go to school solely for the purpose of engaging in athletics without concern for academics. Yes, it is ultimately the athlete's problem, but it reflects poorly on an institution that professes to hold the athlete's education as its center piece (see mission statement). It is blatant hypocrisy on the institution's part to allow (and even support the encouragement of) student athletes to enroll in school with little consideration as to the education that is a prerequisite for participation in athletics. That hypocrisy weakens the credibility of the institution that allows for it to occur.

But in today's world, all too often, the public looks past that hypocrisy, often ignoring it, so long as the athletic team wins on the field/court/mat. The school pays no price for its hypocrisy. To me, that is the most disappointing aspect of collegiate sports in higher education.

+1 Great post.

"not believe for athletes deciding which team to go to, academics are the most important."

Those athletes are not the ones I'd want to represent my school. I think for many great Big10 wrestlers it is about academics balanced with the sport.

I wouldn't trade Alabama's/Clemson's football team for ours any day of the week. I want our teams to lead through legitimacy. PSU seems to have the rare balance and incredible coaching. They have a one-of-a-kind coach. You see the mighty Iowa getting closer and closer to mediocrity. MN didn't exactly kick tail last year, either.

I prefer athletes that can excel in the classroom and on the field. Fortunately in wrestling we don't have many of the "I just wanna go pro" types. Double fortunately, our footballers are more legitimate than that. Makes me proud of our biggest school.

PSU or WI?

If I'm a super blue chip high school wrestler who wants the best team/coach, PSU. If I'm just a nationally ranked wrestler but blue chip student, I'll choose the school that's best for my intended major. C Medbery, perfect example. Why wouldn't he go to PSU?

[lizard king]

Yes, many wrestlers at the college level are hard working dedicated kids and do well in school.  What is a hard major?  What is the best school for your major?   There are some exceptions but for the most part you can get your undergrad at any university and it will be great.  Grad school is a different situation.  Most big 10 schools will be comparable to employers.   So, with that in mind how do you decide where to go?  Money, teams record, coaches you relate to, maybe always wanted to be a badger, gopher.....

[bigG]

They're not all the same, and the athlete just picks which one is the best wrestling, fencing, whatever school, IMO. Apparently not all athletes pick the school that's best at their sport.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Jantzen

Maybe you remember this guy. Why didn't he pick Iowa or MN, or even Cornell?

The better students tend to gravitate to the better school. If they are excellent students and athletes, they have to find that balance. The best athletes who are maybe lesser students have to focus on the sport.

Grad school is different; but a BS ain't just bs. Some school are just better BSers.

If a BS was just a BS, then why would so many students elect to go to schools that cost more? Jesus? Maybe sometimes; but students try to find the place where they feel they can excel academically.

Beloit college costs $46,596 per year compared to UW Oshkosh at around $8k. Why go Beloit? What magic could they have to make that difference? Perhaps they are great at something that Oshkosh is only good at, like in sports.

Just befuddles me that you can say this or that school is amazing at sports (or even one sport), but all the Big 10s are the same BAs and BSs. Perhaps for a select few athletes who see themselves as athletes first.

[bigG]

NCAA Championships and their team GPA is one of the highest with most of them being in difficult majors (one example being Kroells in Aerospace Engineering if my memory serves me).  I was at the last senior day and one after the other honorees were in tough majors.

Disclaimer: Absolutely no facts to support my contentions that follow.

A lot of athletes of major sports, e.g., basketball and football, choose a school almost solely based on the strength of the respective sports program. Athletes in sports lacking professional career tracks are more likely to factor in the academic virtues of their respective school choice. That said, some of the athletes in these "minor" sports will choose a school based solely on their respective sports program without much, if any, regard to the quality of academics that might be associated with a degree from that institution.

And therein lies the problem - some athletes go to school solely for the purpose of engaging in athletics without concern for academics. Yes, it is ultimately the athlete's problem, but it reflects poorly on an institution that professes to hold the athlete's education as its center piece (see mission statement). It is blatant hypocrisy on the institution's part to allow (and even support the encouragement of) student athletes to enroll in school with little consideration as to the education that is a prerequisite for participation in athletics. That hypocrisy weakens the credibility of the institution that allows for it to occur.

But in today's world, all too often, the public looks past that hypocrisy, often ignoring it, so long as the athletic team wins on the field/court/mat. The school pays no price for its hypocrisy. To me, that is the most disappointing aspect of collegiate sports in higher education.

+1 Great post.

"not believe for athletes deciding which team to go to, academics are the most important."

Those athletes are not the ones I'd want to represent my school. I think for many great Big10 wrestlers it is about academics balanced with the sport.

I wouldn't trade Alabama's/Clemson's football team for ours any day of the week. I want our teams to lead through legitimacy. PSU seems to have the rare balance and incredible coaching. They have a one-of-a-kind coach. You see the mighty Iowa getting closer and closer to mediocrity. MN didn't exactly kick tail last year, either.

I prefer athletes that can excel in the classroom and on the field. Fortunately in wrestling we don't have many of the "I just wanna go pro" types. Double fortunately, our footballers are more legitimate than that. Makes me proud of our biggest school.

PSU or WI?

If I'm a super blue chip high school wrestler who wants the best team/coach, PSU. If I'm just a nationally ranked wrestler but blue chip student, I'll choose the school that's best for my intended major. C Medbery, perfect example. Why wouldn't he go to PSU?

Gophers had a great year academically. On the mat, though, dropped a few spots. Kroells is sharp as a tack.

Pinning down majors as "tough" or not is a bit subjective. Art would be the toughest major for me.

[lizard king]

Very good points.... I don't know why kids pick the schools they do?   I have worked with many, many kids over the years and very few will tell you, I am looking at school A, B, and C but my research is showing me that school B is the best for biology majors based on ........

Many kids will go to Madison because they are good students and they are told WI is great and they have always wanted to go there for some reason.  But that same kid, if really pursued by the Purdue coaches to play a sport, may change their mind and still receive a top notch Biology degree.  Then if in fact they want to go to med school after, the entrance exams will decide if they get in and not the undergrad school of choice.

I also think you underestimate the number of athletes that maybe wouldn't even go to school if they were not going to try and play? Should academics be first, yes, but lot's of things should be true and it's darn hard to excel at both.

[bigG]

I'll just say this. To me, when I tour, it seems like the little things stick with kids. Firstly, they have to be able to see themselves there. If it's a geeky science kids, I try to be sure and pass the labs and that of their intended major so they can picture themselves in the labs, classes.

The other thing to be sure to do is walk the place on your own. I'll tell kids just to wander for .5 hour and we'll meet back at ground zero. Most colleges want to really show off their state of the art ______ facility. They often neglect to show you where they teach teachers to teach. If I'm there with a kid interested in teaching, I owe them that snapshot. Tours tend to highlight the ooo-aaahh,priddy stuff; not the daily dealio.


Ya gotta eat there. Especially with boys, food means something. So often when I deal with drama, I deal with girls whose lives are assuredly coming to and and because Shawna is trying to steal her boyfriend. That boyfreind, despite this girl's worries, is not thinking about Shawna at all, but thinking about what we're having for lunch. Gotta eat there.

Don't trust a tour. Take the tour and enjoy. Take the lone walk and learn what it all really looks like. Then make the appointment for the program shadow. You sit in their classes, and get to know one or two people who go there for your major. Now, I have someone I can at least say "hi" to.

It really used to bug me when I'd be all pumped about a kid going here or there, only to hear about how they thought it would be very different. I get that much much less now that I take some long drives. Worth every minute, though.

"I also think you underestimate the number of athletes that maybe wouldn't even go to school if they were not going to try and play? Should academics be first, yes, but lot's of things should be true and it's darn hard to excel at both."

True that. Even our sholarshipless D3 schools give young adults those opportunities along with top-notch education. I sure don't want to beat this horse to death. I would love UW to land a Cael.I also think Barry's time is coming to an end and we should look/plan ahead. But it's nice to see kids in it for academics and athletics; whichever order is most important to the kid. Just bugs me that there are some not at all in for the academics and they sometimes get the full rides. I teach enough poor kids to make that churn my gut.

It is hard to excel at both; but growth and character ain't free. We're pretty fortunate in the MN/WI area to have some of the best of the best and some of the most accessible great schools anywhere. I've personally capitalized from reciprocity, as I'm a Badger who went to Winona for my masters and loved it. may our two states continue to put the yung'uns first.

[padre]

They're not all the same, and the athlete just picks which one is the best wrestling, fencing, whatever school, IMO. Apparently not all athletes pick the school that's best at their sport.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Jantzen

Maybe you remember this guy. Why didn't he pick Iowa or MN, or even Cornell?

The better students tend to gravitate to the better school. If they are excellent students and athletes, they have to find that balance. The best athletes who are maybe lesser students have to focus on the sport.

Grad school is different; but a BS ain't just bs. Some school are just better BSers.

If a BS was just a BS, then why would so many students elect to go to schools that cost more? Jesus? Maybe sometimes; but students try to find the place where they feel they can excel academically.

Beloit college costs $46,596 per year compared to UW Oshkosh at around $8k. Why go Beloit? What magic could they have to make that difference? Perhaps they are great at something that Oshkosh is only good at, like in sports.

Just befuddles me that you can say this or that school is amazing at sports (or even one sport), but all the Big 10s are the same BAs and BSs. Perhaps for a select few athletes who see themselves as athletes first.

I call ridiculous....

Please explain the Beloit to Oshkosh thing?  You are majorly off base.

I have a son at Oshkosh and another at Madison.  The cost is actually very similar.

I don't know if Beloit is like Concordia or Ripon or whatever but their sticker tags are double what any student pays there.  Cost for any of these ends up about the same as state schools. Major difference is they basically promise you to get out in 4 years.

[bigG]

They're not all the same, and the athlete just picks which one is the best wrestling, fencing, whatever school, IMO. Apparently not all athletes pick the school that's best at their sport.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Jantzen

Maybe you remember this guy. Why didn't he pick Iowa or MN, or even Cornell?

The better students tend to gravitate to the better school. If they are excellent students and athletes, they have to find that balance. The best athletes who are maybe lesser students have to focus on the sport.

Grad school is different; but a BS ain't just bs. Some school are just better BSers.

If a BS was just a BS, then why would so many students elect to go to schools that cost more? Jesus? Maybe sometimes; but students try to find the place where they feel they can excel academically.

Beloit college costs $46,596 per year compared to UW Oshkosh at around $8k. Why go Beloit? What magic could they have to make that difference? Perhaps they are great at something that Oshkosh is only good at, like in sports.

Just befuddles me that you can say this or that school is amazing at sports (or even one sport), but all the Big 10s are the same BAs and BSs. Perhaps for a select few athletes who see themselves as athletes first.

I call ridiculous....

Please explain the Beloit to Oshkosh thing?  You are majorly off base.

I have a son at Oshkosh and another at Madison.  The cost is actually very similar.

I don't know if Beloit is like Concordia or Ripon or whatever but their sticker tags are double what any student pays there.  Cost for any of these ends up about the same as state schools. Major difference is they basically promise you to get out in 4 years.

That and they give scholarships more liberally to the better students (perhaps why many choose those schools). Madtown is $2500 more than Oshkosh in tuition. Obviously, Madison will cost more in living expenses, too. Both public schools, though. Viterbo is the big one (private) by me; and you're right, few pay the sticker price. My point was why would a great wrestler pick Harvard over all others? Maybe the academics. I'll use little ole Viterbo in LaCRosse. They have sports but aren't any dominating force. Still, my kid can go and get $10,000 nipped off the price tag ($26,000 last time I checked) if they deal with a coach. Then a couple more scholarship can get them down to maybe $12,000/year. Compared to $8,000 across town at UW-L (who has much better sports). Viterbo, though, does an absolute bang up job en getting educators, business leaders and nurses ready for the real world. I've had my own student teachers from there, and they were ready to go.

MSOE makes the 4 year promise. Many others do to. If you play your cards right and start a major as a frosh, you can get out in 4 in public universities, too. Many kids change direction, though, and it doesn't matter what school they're in, they'll need another semester or year. Prospective teachers are also likely to spend a little more time because getting reading licensure makes them much more employable.

I don't know what's bs about that.

Still, there are kids going to Beloit, Ripon, Norberts, Carroll, etc. Beloit is actually excellent in language and some other things. I was hoping someone might chime in with that.

You say I'm off base, then compare two public Unis. Point being, even with a $20k scholarship at Beloit you're still paying double Oshkosh. Most don't get that $20k, either. So if double is "about the same" then I'm calling bs on your post. So there. JK, man. It's all good fodder. Cornell does a very good job helping with their private costs , especially for wrestlers. Thus, we see a great team year in and year out. Having a super coach sure doesn't hurt.

Ripon's at $36,000. Last time I checked, half that would be $18,000. Madison is $10,500ish right?
Madison is the priciest UW school. Rightfully so. So, if an $8k difference is about the same to you, go private. Most rural families don't have the $8k sittin' around. Still, I have many kids going to Viterbo and other nice private schools. Some are the perfect fit. Just gotta know what you're getting into.

[bigoil]

 If you have good scores you can pay the same at St Norbert's as you do it at a UW school, yet sticker is more than 4X for tuition.