givetallugot
New member
I've been trying to formulate an argument basically saying that giving male cross country recruits scholarships can bring in money for the university and program. Let me know if my argument makes sense. Are there any flaws or holes in my argument?
Okay, here are some things to assume. Let's say that the program can give out 2.5 scholarships for men's cross country. The NCAA allows men's XC programs without track to give out 5 scholarships, but we're just going to do 2.5 in this scenario because it is more realistic.
Okay, another big assumption I'm going off of is to say that our program can only give out 25% scholarship packages to cover tuition, room and board. If our program can only give out 25% rides, then that means our program can give out 10 scholarships for 25%.
Okay, so here is my argument. By being able to give out scholarships, the program (and university) can bring in 10 XC recruits who probably would have gone to another institution if they hadn't received the scholarship. These student-athletes are still paying 75% of the bill. They are paying more money to the university than the university is giving back to them. This means that the university is making more money since more students are coming to the university. Part of the university's profit (let's say 3%) goes towards funding the athletic department. So, in conclusion, if cross country scholarships are given out, then it brings in more money to the university, which in turn brings in more money to the athletic department. So, it would make sense for the athletic department to hand out scholarships (at least 25% rides) for cross country runners.
Now I know that you still have to factor in how much it costs the athletic department for each student-athlete to compete (aside from scholarships). You still have to factor in travel expenses (only 4 away meets for XC), hotel expenses (only 2 meets), and apparrel (2 pairs of shoes and 2 shirts). Also consider that the student-athletes are also participating in program fundraisers. I still think that when it is all said and done, that the student-athletes on scholarship are bringing in more money than they are receiving from the university/athletic department.
Does this make sense? Are there flaws in the argument? It seems simple enough to me. I'm thinking about proposing this argument to our AD once I graduate. The only counter to my argument that I can think of is that there is a possibility that the same recruit the program was thinking about offering athletic aid to would come without any aid at all, paying 100% of the bill instead of 75%.
Okay, here are some things to assume. Let's say that the program can give out 2.5 scholarships for men's cross country. The NCAA allows men's XC programs without track to give out 5 scholarships, but we're just going to do 2.5 in this scenario because it is more realistic.
Okay, another big assumption I'm going off of is to say that our program can only give out 25% scholarship packages to cover tuition, room and board. If our program can only give out 25% rides, then that means our program can give out 10 scholarships for 25%.
Okay, so here is my argument. By being able to give out scholarships, the program (and university) can bring in 10 XC recruits who probably would have gone to another institution if they hadn't received the scholarship. These student-athletes are still paying 75% of the bill. They are paying more money to the university than the university is giving back to them. This means that the university is making more money since more students are coming to the university. Part of the university's profit (let's say 3%) goes towards funding the athletic department. So, in conclusion, if cross country scholarships are given out, then it brings in more money to the university, which in turn brings in more money to the athletic department. So, it would make sense for the athletic department to hand out scholarships (at least 25% rides) for cross country runners.
Now I know that you still have to factor in how much it costs the athletic department for each student-athlete to compete (aside from scholarships). You still have to factor in travel expenses (only 4 away meets for XC), hotel expenses (only 2 meets), and apparrel (2 pairs of shoes and 2 shirts). Also consider that the student-athletes are also participating in program fundraisers. I still think that when it is all said and done, that the student-athletes on scholarship are bringing in more money than they are receiving from the university/athletic department.
Does this make sense? Are there flaws in the argument? It seems simple enough to me. I'm thinking about proposing this argument to our AD once I graduate. The only counter to my argument that I can think of is that there is a possibility that the same recruit the program was thinking about offering athletic aid to would come without any aid at all, paying 100% of the bill instead of 75%.
Last edited: