The process of 99% citizens getting college scholarships under Title 9 Federal education funding started as OPPORTUNITY. The athletes getting those scholarships met the ACADEMIC standards of college---they were college-ready so went on to be successful with whatever college degree they earned.
THIS WAS THE LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE GOAL OF THESE ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS.
What happened during CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA? Universities were made CORPORATIONS so they wanted athletes who were WINNERS---THE BEST ATHLETE ----and ignored all the academic requirements. Did this help our low-income and working class families with children who were academically better than that SUPER-STAR athlete?
NO, IT HARMED THE 99% OF FAMILIES HAVING CHILDREN WITH REAL ACADEMIC ABILITY ---ESPECIALLY OUR BLACK AND BROWN CITIZENS FIGHTING FOR COLLEGE OPPORTUNITY.
This is when college athletics became a K-CAREER APPRENTICESHIP making children work hard to develop ONE SKILL and no one shouts loudest against all this then our low-income families.
THIS IS RIGHT WING GLOBAL WALL STREET POLICY KILLING WHAT WAS A REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE POLICY IN SPORTS AND ATHLETICS.
How is Title IX applied to athletics?
Athletics programs are considered educational programs and activities. There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics:
Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play;
Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and
Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; (c) travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes.
You will notice as well most of our college athletes not college ready are pushed into GREEKS and FREEMASON groups BEFORE AND DURING COLLEGE. These groups are looking for those people with STAR-POWER because the global 1% controlling GREEKS and FREEMASONS profit from these associations. The K-career apprenticeship for our athletic STARS starts in low-income communities by the same YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS we shout today are those 5% TO THE 1% PLAYERS.
THIS IS WHAT CORRUPTED A GOOD LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE HIGHER EDUCATION PATHWAY FOR LOW-INCOME FAMILIES.
Here we are in 2014 saying the same thing left social progressives were saying in CLINTON ERA 1990s. WE KNOW WHY THEY FAIL ACADEMICALLY.
It's those pesky local 5% to the 1% wanting only to identify SUPER ATHLETES so they can later profit from them.
Why Student Athletes Continue To Fail
Zócalo Public Square
Apr 20, 2015
IdeasZócalo Public Square is a magazine of ideas from Arizona State University Knowledge Enterprise.
Seventy-four college underclassmen have been declared eligible for the NFL’s upcoming draft, but Ohio State’s quarterback Cardale Jones won’t be among them. A few days after winning the national championship game in January, Jones shocked fans and football analysts by saying he wasn’t ready to go pro, that it was important for him to graduate from college first. What made the announcement all the more surprising, beyond the fact that Jones may never again be as desirable an NFL prospect as he is the year he won a national championship, was that his previous claim to fame was a notorious tweet posted two years ago in which he complained about the “college” part of being a college football player. He wrote that he’d gone to Ohio State to play football, not “to play school,” and that classes were pointless.
Jones now regrets and disavows that tweet. Earlier this month, he was tweeting that nothing is more important than education, under the hashtag “StudentBeforeAthlete.” It’s hard to know how sincere his attitude adjustment has been, or how sincere his initial dismissal of academics was. What is clear is that Jones and his conversion represent a messaging coup for his university and for the NCAA, which has maintained for decades that its primary goal is to help scholar-athletes receive an education that would prepare them for life beyond sports.
Despite the NCAA’s insistence that it is concerned about student athletes’ academic growth, it often feels as though “student” plays second fiddle to “athlete.” Indeed, on a typical day, a visitor to the NCAA homepage will be overwhelmed by the articles (and videos) about athletics but will not find a single article (or video) about the academic achievements of the athletes.
This also seems to hold true for many of the NCAA’s member schools. The University of North Carolina and Syracuse are just two of the most recent universities to be under the spotlight for academic scandals involving student athletes. UNC offered a “no show” class for student athletes (where students received grades for phantom classes that they didn’t attend), and Syracuse allowed academically ineligible athletes to compete. And while these cases are the ones currently grabbing headlines, they are hardly unique; The Chronicle of Higher Education is reporting that 20 additional schools are being investigated for academic fraud.
And what about the student athletes themselves? Student-athletes tend to take easier classes and get lower grades than non-athletes. This is not only true for schools from power conferences in big-money sports, it has been observed in Division III liberal arts colleges and Ivy League schools, neither of which even offer athletic scholarships.
It’s tempting to believe that student athletes care only about their sport, and not about their schoolwork, as many popular commentators have suggested – and as Ohio State’s Jones once tweeted -- except that in the dozen years that I’ve been teaching in university settings, that hasn’t been my experience at all. I’ve taught hundreds of Division 1 student athletes at several different schools, and they have been among the hardest working students I’ve encountered. The student athletes I’ve worked with have viewed their sport as a complement to, not a replacement for, their studies.
My observations were hardly unique. One of my students, Josh Levine, ran a youth hockey clinic and was upset by the widespread perception that the students he worked with did not care about school. After several conversations about the issue, we decided that the only way to find out the truth was to run a study. And so we did, surveying 147 student athletes (including some still in high school) involved in various team sports from football and basketball to lacrosse and golf about how much both they and their teammates cared about sports and academics."
Here’s what we found: When student athletes were asked how much they care about athletics, they rated their interest a healthy 8.5 on average, on a scale of 1 to 10. But when asked the value they place on academics, the result was higher than 9 on average. If anything, the average student athlete cares more about his studies than his sport. #StudentBeforeAthlete indeed.
So why do they underperform in their classes?
One possible and intriguing reason suggested by our study is that student athletes don’t think their teammates take academics as seriously as they do. When asked to assess how much their teammates cared about athletics, the athletes were close, guessing 8.8. However, when asked to evaluate how much their teammates cared about academics, those same athletes guessed only 7.8 – far below the 9+ average.
Why is this important? Because when an athlete thinks that the rest of the team doesn’t care about academics, that athlete tries to fit in by pretending not to care either. In a perverse form of peer pressure, Cardale Jones’s tweet about classes being worthless may be what student athletes tell each other in an effort to fit in, based on the mistaken belief that if they care about academics, they are in an uncool minority.
All of this creates a distressing and self-perpetuating cycle. Tight-knit student athletes will seek ways of fitting into a culture that they perceive as neglecting academics (by defaulting into majors of dubious merit and spending less time doing homework), knowing that their habits are observed by teammates. When their teammates observe those habits, it reaffirms the (false) conviction that caring about academics is an unfortunate aberration, best suppressed.
One of my co-authors on this project, Sara Etchison, has described this process particularly well: “There are student athletes who want to excel in the classroom, but think their teammates would judge them for it, so they study a little less, or take an easier major. And it turns out, that’s how virtually everyone on the team feels, but there’s never an opportunity to realize, 'Oh wait, all of us really care about what’s happening on the academic side.’”
This is a phenomenon that psychologists call “pluralistic ignorance” – when private preferences differ from perceptions of group norms. It leads people to engage in public behaviors that align more with the perceived norms than with their true preferences. The tragedy is that the norms are false – in reality, everybody would be happier if they just behaved in line with their true preferences.
Pluralistic ignorance has also been shown to underlie the phenomenon of binge-drinking on campuses. A study conducted at Princeton University revealed that a majority of students who drink excessively did so not because they wanted to, but because they felt that was what their friends wanted to do. Once they all had a more accurate assessment of what the group norm was, the amount of alcohol consumed declined.
This suggests that helping student athletes do better in the classroom may be as simple as letting them know that their teammates care as much about academics as they do. Many of them care deeply about the education they are receiving, and should care, because financial success in professional sports will elude the vast majority of them.
As the NCAA and the media focus more attention on athletes’ academic performance, one of the best ways to improve the education of student athletes is to give them license to pursue their academic goals by making it clear that their teammates, and society as a whole, support them in their academic endeavors. For this to happen, we will need many more stars like Cardale Jones speaking out about the importance of education, instead of tweeting about the pointlessness of going to class.
The southern colleges and universities have always been corporate----those in north and west WERE left social progressive---then of course global IVY LEAGUES were always corporate. So, our public universities being social progressive created athletic programs suited for low-income students wanting scholarships to simply be good athletes ---NOT SUPERSTARS. We can see today which of these universities played these Federal title 9 funds for profit----and those simply using them to provide OPPORTUNITY.
When US citizens see decade after decade the same universities heading to college playoffs-----our BOWL GAMES are famous for sending teams that are far from the best team----this was the corruption of what was a strong, public and community embraced tradition turned corrupt and degraded in quality and talent.
These few decades we are told our ATHLETIC TEAMS AND THEIR REVENUE are not part of the revenue of academic campus----meanwhile college games covered by TV brings more revenue to university athletics again not part of academic campus revenue----where does that revenue go? It is a training ground for PROFESSIONAL SPORTS TEAMS all subsidized with our taxpayer money geared towards pathway to a profession for low-income. Our 99% say----we don't want to be just ENTERTAINERS---well the problem starts with those 5 % global Wall Street players in our towns and US cities.
Jan 1 2015, 2:42 pm ET
Playoffs Are a Revenue Bonanza for College Football
College football's new national championship playoffs could give a bog boost to the sport's ability to rake in revenues. Kevin C. Cox / Getty Images
In establishing a national championship playoff, college football's power players did more than take a step to allay long-standing concerns about competitive fairness. They crafted a system with an extended window for marketing and advertising interest, boosting the sport's ability to rake in revenue, experts told CNBC.
"It will be a wildly successful commercial entity, in part because it will be perceived as a better product than the BCS system that preceded it," Randy Grant, a Linfield College economics professor who studies college sports, said in an email.
Four schools — Alabama, Florida State, Oregon and Ohio State — will compete for the national championship in the first-ever College Football Playoff, which starts with two semifinal games on New Year's Day, followed by a championship game on Jan. 12. Since 1998, college football's Bowl Championship Series (BCS) has sent only the two highest-ranked teams to the national championship game, while other elite teams were knocked from championship contention to lesser bowls.
The playoff system effectively draws championship interest to three games instead of one. Playoff broadcaster ESPN and major college athletic conferences will likely enjoy a windfall that could potentially find a spot among America's most lucrative sports playoffs, experts said.
"The 12 days and three games opens the marketing window and increases the payout for ESPN's 'sports holiday,'" Vanderbilt University sports economist John Vrooman said via email.
Better than the BCS? More lucrative, at least
Years of furor over the BCS system's perceived unfairness prompted its dismantling in favor of a playoff. The College Football Playoff doesn't eliminate existing BCS bowls, and it retains some aspects of the previous system, such as sponsored naming rights.
In its inaugural year, the playoff will feature semifinalists in the Rose Bowl Game presented by Northwestern Mutual and the Allstate Sugar Bowl. Early indicators suggest that ESPN and athletic conferences will take in more cash than under the BCS, since the winners of those contests face off again about two weeks later.
"The new system should provide a boost," Grant said. "With the four-team playoff, there are now two more games that take on added significance."
ESPN's estimated $610 million annual commitment ($7.3 billion over 12 years) to secure broadcast rights reflects its confidence in the playoff's commercial allure. The rate more than triples the annual fee the network paid for the last four years of the BCS, according to Vrooman.
We have read these few decades of global corporate sports leagues funding BOOT CAMPS in our inner city looking only for that SUPER-STAR having youth focused just on that one skill----this process has been decried by parents and communities but it was that 5% global Wall Street Clinton/Bush/Obama neo-liberal player creating this BOOT CAMP structure locally. It was NEVER a good policy especially as a health and fitness strategy-----these were purely maximized corporate profit machines using Federal funding for higher education to recruit the BEST OF THE BEST athlete for professional game.
As we said----we still had plenty of US public universities ---liberal arts and humanities using those Federal athletic scholarships as they were meant -----to get academically qualified students black, white, and brown into a DEGREE PROGRAM.
What is replacing this pathway to higher education for low-income students? CODING BOOT CAMPS.
Why does all have to be BOOT CAMPS?
This is when REAL public interest physical fitness and leisure play was corrupted to GLADIATOR COLISEUM ENTERTAINMENT.
The universities creating this GLADIATOR pipeline were those COLLEGE BOWL/PLAYOFF corporate universities. Today global Wall Street doesn't even hide global corporate university campuses are NOT PUBLIC PATHWAYS TO HIGHER EDUCATION---they are K-apprenticeship training for one job only.
When Exercise and Health are Not Synonymous: Are boot camp classes bad for you?
Posted at 12:03 am by Charlotte, on January 16, 2012
Our “boot camp” class on Saturday! Yes, my interpretation of boot camp was to wear a frilly pink tennis skirt with a top that made Gym Buddy Jeni ask, “Are those feathers?!” Also, Lindsey (to my right) pointed out that she and I look more like jolly pirates than soldiers. I love us.
Boot camps, the real U.S. military kind, frighten me. My first boyfriend was a boy with more piercings than appendages, who liked to punch brick walls until his fists bled, and ran with the cross country team as his warm up for daily double-digit runs. I tell you this not to brag about the fact that I know what it’s like to kiss someone who could spit with his mouth closed but to show you that whatever he was, he was not a wuss. And yet when he enlisted in the army straight out of high school and went away for basic training, he came back to me a broken man. We broke up not long after and I credit the military for some of that. He was different. Harder in some ways, more vulnerable in others, but not at all the person I remembered.
I figured he’d been gone for a few months running around with a backpack, doing push-ups in the mud and getting yelled at. But he quickly disillusioned me and I’ve never forgotten what he said next: “The army doesn’t care about push-ups. The whole goal of boot camp is to break you down so they can build you back up into the soldier they want you to be.” What does that mean? He continued, “They want you to be in as much pain as possible. Physically they make you run until you puke. But even worse is the mental stuff. They make you watch videos of real people getting blown up so that you won’t lose it if you see it happen in real life.” And with that he refused to tell me anything else.
I was reminded of this when I came across this post “The Problem With Boot Camp Training” by Michael Allen Smith. Smith, like my ex, is an alum of the U.S. military and because of his experience with doing the real deal he makes some very good points about why boot camp fitness classes – the fastest growing type of fitness class in 2011 – are a bad idea. He writes, “Basic Training was never about turning lumpy out of shape middle aged people into warriors. […] the function of Basic Training is not about designing optimal athletes or getting lean. It is about building soldiers willing to kill or be killed in defense of their country.”
This functional misunderstanding of the purpose of boot camp is the reason why boot camp training is a problem, Smith contends. He points out that thanks to the military’s rigorous pre-screening standards “soldiers are ALREADY LEAN AND HEALTHY before they ever started Basic Training. And it wasn’t Basic Training that made them lean and athletic. For most soldiers it was youth. (emphasis his).” He adds that people who fail basic training are simply removed from the program. Personal trainers who teach boot camp style classes are not getting a select group of the athletic young and neither can they fail people (unless they want to lose money). “Training an overweight woman in her 30s that just had a baby as if she were an 18 year old infantryman doesn’t make sense to me,” he concludes.
Then Smith adds one last thing that surprised me. “Something I’ve noticed about the type of person attracted to Boot Camp style training is they often have some self loathing issues. They hate their body. They feel their past failures with other programs were their fault. And as a way to undo their past sins, they will pay some personal trainer to put their body through grueling military style workouts as a form of punishment.” As a girl who just did a boot camp style workout on Saturday and loved it (thanks Turbo Jennie!) and who, admittedly, has struggled for most of my life with “self-loathing issues” I had to sit with this one for a while.
He may have a point. But I also think he’s missing some pieces. A big one, for example, is the fact that many (most?) boot camp classes really have nothing to do with military style training anymore. The trend may have started with drill sergeants and push-ups but these days “boot camp” is simply an umbrella term for anything, well, hardcore. At my Y alone, we have high-intensity interval style boot camp (what I did on Saturday), strongman boot camp that involves tire flipping and heavy ropes, circuit training boot camp that incorporates weights and cardio and the regular boot camp class that encompasses everything from sprints to basketball drills to using kettlebells in the pool (yes, seriously, you can use kettlebells in the pool!). On TV I’ve seen wedding boot camps, bikini boot camps and boot camps for kids.
But in the end, I agree with his point that we don’t need to kill ourselves with crazy intense workouts to be healthy. In fact the research has repeatedly shown that moderate consistent exercise increases health in every measure but too much or too intense exercise, as described in this recent study of marathoners, weakens us and makes us more likely to get sick. And of course I have learned this myself with my struggles with overexercising.
A recent, powerful, comment from Tanya last week on one of my old over-exercising posts highlights the unique impact this has on women in particular:
“After two years of fighting my body to perform, I started noticing problems. Unusual tiredness, head aches, brain fog, confusion and memory loss. I couldn’t put on weight and I also couldn’t lose it either; severe acne that would leave scars and the most frightening for me was when my periods completely stopped.
I went to the Dr. and asked for tests to be done. I had fought so hard and for so long that FSH (hormone responsible for egg release from the ovaries) had failed. My estrogen and testosterone levels had bottomed out, and I also had high prolactin levels due to an underactive thyroid. Like you, I had never had an underactive thyroid until exercising. [Charlotte’s note: One of the worst effects of my compulsive over exercising was discovering after gaining 10 pounds in one month that I had suppressed my own thyroid.] So for me to see the test results, I was flabbergasted. To top it off we also found tumours sitting on the pituitary gland, which had been aggravated further by the exercise regime I had given myself.
Since then, I am still finding more problems. Early onset bone loss and to this day my period has not returned. It has been two months since I have been to the Gym (which is VERY unusual for me) and I feel very uncomfortable. One month ago I started to notice the scales elevating in weight – But I know within myself now that my body would not be able to cope with the added stress now or in the near future.
I’m now getting ready to receive treatment to get the HPA axis of hormones back into order. BUT I can’t do that without rest, proper nutrition and very “light” physical exertion (casual walking). I’ve been told anymore than that could cause a spiral back to where I started again.
There is a difference… Do you exercise to live, or do you live to exercise? Without our health, exercise means nothing.”
Am I saying that all exercise is bad? Of course not. Exercise is fantastic for you and I love it. And I still love boot camp classes. All I’m saying is that it doesn’t have to be hardcore or make you sore to be a workout. You don’t have to push 100% all of the time. This is something I’m still learning myself. As I was writing this post, I got a text from my friend Tyler (of garage gym fame) that I think sums all of this up perfectly. He is recovering from a bout with mononucleosis and was able to do a whole workout today for the first time in months. A hardcore fitness fanatic like me, he has had to reevaluate. He writes, “My mindset has changed. I believed I was entitled to health because I tried to live healthy. And now I’m beginning to understand that these judgments of myself and expectations of how I want it to be are what lead to my misery, not the malady itself. Today all I am is grateful.”
What do you think of boot camp style classes – do you think Smith is right about the self-loathing thing? Anyone else have the mentality that if you’re not sweat soaked and completely spent then it wasn’t a “workout”? Anyone have a first boyfriend story to share??
The definition of MERIT from any student having academic qualifications to that being only those able to PAY FOR COLLEGE is right wing----as 99% of US citizens fall into poverty not able to afford a REAL 4 year university degree---we all will be found to have no MERIT. Who have the money? That global 1% and their 2% enriched by lying, cheating, and stealing----mostly having NO TALENT.
Baltimore has been a ROBIN HOOD economy especially regarding K-COLLEGE-----robbing Federal education funds to create corporate wealth and power for a 1% has been the standard.
We can bet those same corporate universities seeing profit from corrupted athletics scholarships will now see profit from coding and programming all of which will have 99% of students impoverished in low-income employment---or unemployed====just as with the emphasis on GLADIATOR SPORTS ATHLETES.
Global IVY LEAGUES which never had great sports teams are now getting all that athletic funding once going to our PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES for low-income athletes. No, global IVY LEAGUEs do not enroll the best of academics or athletes----they enroll students from global 1% and their 2% who can afford to pay that tuition. What we are seeing is the extension of what used to be athletic scholarships for US citizens now extended to global students of families with global corporate connections.
Without coincidence these SUPER-STARS are almost always tied to freemasons/GREEKS. Why was the pipeline for poor black inner city often that pathway to professional sports? Because global sports corporations owned primarily by rich white citizens were able to corrupt the Federal education funding system by buying that 5% to the 1% local Wall Street players. That did not have to happen----that 5% chose to corrupt this system.
Merit scholarships steal from low-income students
By Harold O. Levy
Updated 8:39 AM ET, Wed April 20, 2016
Is college worth the cost?
- Levy says more colleges are devoting money to scholarships that reward those who already can afford to pay, reducing assistance for needy students
- Taking scarce financial aid dollars from low-income students to give to students who don't need it amounts to Robin Hood in reverse, he says
(CNN)There's a growing competition among colleges and universities to enroll students who can foot the bill for their education with little or no financial aid from the schools. But paradoxically, the colleges are attempting to attract these highly sought-after students by giving them financial aid -- even when the students can pay their bills without it.
The result? Less scholarship funding is available for low-income students who are then unable to attend because they can't afford an expensive college education without a big aid package.
Harold O. Levy
More and more colleges are setting aside financial assistance for what are known as "merit scholarships." U.S. News and World Report found that in the 2014-15 academic year, the 100 colleges and universities giving the highest percentages of students merit aid provided the assistance to between 28 and 68% of students, not counting athletic scholarships.Merit assistance has nothing to do with financial need. It rewards students with scholarships for a variety of accomplishments, such as getting a high GPA, receiving high scores on standardized tests and earning a high class rank.
High school students with achievements like these are certainly worthy of recognition, and their accomplishments can help them compete for admission to college. But taking scarce financial aid dollars from low-income students to give to students who don't need it amounts to Robin Hood in reverse -- robbing from the poor to give to the rich.
It's easy to see why colleges have such a strong attraction to students with wealthy parents. The schools have to make enough money to pay their faculty members, other employees and cover all their operating costs. Wealthy students provide the funds needed to keep colleges in business without depleting their endowments.
College Leaders Speak on 2016 Election Issues 04:10
Merit scholarships are usually smaller than need-based aid packages given to students from poor families. So it makes financial sense for a college to give a wealthy or near-wealthy student a $4,000 merit scholarship in his or her first year to get the student's family to spend far more each year on the student's education. This is no different than a car dealer giving a customer a $4,000 rebate in order to sell a $40,000 car, or a supermarket cutting the price of milk as a loss-leader to lure customers to buy additional items.
Because wealthier students don't depend on merit aid to stay in school, colleges tend to give the most merit aid to students in the freshman year, cutting the aid in subsequent years once a student is safely on campus and reluctant to transfer. This comes as an unpleasant surprise to many students.
When a college diverts scarce financial aid dollars from the poor to the rich as merit aid, low-income students suffer -- increasing the enormous gap in attendance that already exists between income groups at America's top colleges and universities.
CEO pays college tuition for his employees' children 04:47
The Jack Kent Cooke Foundation, where I am executive director, reported in a study released earlier this year that at our nation's most selective colleges, a mere 3% of students come from families with the lowest 25% of incomes. In contrast, 72% of students come from families with the highest 25% of incomes. This means that for every low-income student at the elite schools there are 24 wealthy students.
This huge and disturbing gap is not what you would expect in a nation that calls itself the Land of Opportunity. But the gap does not have to exist. It can be narrowed, and some colleges and universities are leading the way to show just how it can be done.
To shine a spotlight on colleges that are admitting and graduating more high-achieving students from low-income families, the Cooke Foundation created the $1 million Cooke Prize for Equity in Educational Excellence last year. Vassar College in New York State was our first recipient.
For millennials, Sanders is a grandpa who gets them
Vassar has increased the number of its low-income students by 11% since 2008 -- more than any other college ranked "most competitive" by "Barron's Profiles of American Colleges." Roughly 23% of Vassar's freshmen are now eligible to receive a federal Pell grant that benefits low-income students.
The Cooke Foundation recently announced that five colleges are finalists for the Cooke Prize this year because they have also done an outstanding job of increasing economic diversity on their campuses. They are: Amherst College in Massachusetts; Davidson College in North Carolina; Pomona College in California; Rice University in Texas; and Stanford University in California. The prize will be awarded later this spring.
Other colleges should learn from these schools and replicate successful programs to open their doors to more students with big brains and small wallets. Unless this happens, a cash ceiling will continue to limit the upward mobility of some extraordinarily brilliant young people born into struggling families. The time to shatter this ceiling is long past.
What happened to our strong K-12 physical education and the public facilities built to encourage health and fitness? During CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA defunding of all that was public sent those funds to build that global corporate campus facility feeding GLADIATOR SPORTS to global professional sports teams. When I moved to Baltimore and saw absolutely no infrastructure for public sports----but our private schools had excellent athletic fields for all kinds of sports----we see to where FEDERAL TITLE 9 funds went.
This was not in all regions of US----below we see Washington State with a district FILLED with public athletic fields. Baby boomers never moved to a new community without all kinds of public athletic facilities for their children. CLINTON era killed urban centers----killed rural centers----the first to get the ax from REDIRECTED FEDERAL FUNDING FOR TITLE 9------our public athletic fields and programs.
GLOBAL WALL STREET 1% SAID----WE DON'T NEED SPORTS FOR FUN----WE ONLY NEED TO TRAIN THOSE GLADIATOR SPORTS FIGURES.
“The public investment in school facilities and the general welfare of the community provide strong justification for the use of school buildings and grounds by community groups for cultural, civic, and recreational purposes,” according to the Snohomish School District’s policy.
'With 15 school districts in the county, there are at least 50 tracks, 35 tennis courts and more than 150 practice fields for baseball, softball, soccer and football'.
As we shout----what was REAL social progressive sports and education policies in north and west became global Wall Street Clinton/Obama neo-liberal these few decades. Creating extreme wealth extreme poverty by moving global 1% and their 2% into US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE created a new dynamic of what communities looked like----they became rich ----they had the athletic facilities ----now the 99% of WE THE PEOPLE are being pushed out of our own communities told instead working 15-18 hours a day will not leave time for LEISURE SPORTS------we will stay fit simply working.
OF COURSE WHEN 99% OF CITIZENS ARE 'LEFT BEHIND---AS IN OUR US CITIES----THINGS GET VANDALIZED.
The Seattle region is becoming SAN FRAN so average US middle-class communities are now going global 1% and their 2%----now we are needing to LOCK UP PUBLIC FACILITIES because 99 % of US citizens are not allowed to participate in common K-university athletics and leisure sports.
This is how 99% of sovereign citizens become TERRORISTS-----as 99% of US citizens are pushed out from participating in anything that was commonly inclusive of them -----the anger grows-------our US cities have been experiencing this these few decades.
Schools are locking up tracks and play fields to keep out vandals
- Sat Feb 28th, 2015 9:49pm
By Kari Bray Herald Writer
EVERETT — The track at Cascade High School in Everett is part of Judy Sasges’ routine.
She jogs there at least three times a week, more in the summer, and sets a steady pace for three and half miles. She’s been doing it for 15 years.
“I came when it was the dirt track,” she said. “I use this track all the time and I support every school issue that comes on the ballot.”
On a sunny Monday evening, she did her laps while a group of teens tossed a football around in the middle of the bright red oval.
It’s easy to get onto the track and turf at the Cascade campus, Sasges said. She hopes that never changes.
“I would be so disappointed if the track was ever closed,” she said.
Less than five miles away, Everett High School’s Lincoln Field is locked tight when it’s not being used by students or sport teams. It’s been that way — a tall chainlink fence with padlocks on the gates — for months.
About a year ago, trash and vandalism caused the district to start keeping everyone out after school is done for the day, said Ysella Perez, the district’s community services supervisor. Graffiti was painted on walls, soccer goals were dented and unusable for games, and people brought in dogs they didn’t clean up after. Someone even set fire to a patch of the turf field.
“It would be wonderful if the field could be left unlocked for neighborhood use,” Perez said. “But the damage is very costly to maintain the facility to be a safe environment for the students.”
When bond measures go before voters, seeking millions of dollars to build or update athletic complexes, districts often sell voters on new features that can be used by everyone.
School districts around Snohomish County have a responsibility to protect tracks, tennis courts and practice fields from vandalism, graffiti or filth. However, locking out the problems also means locking out responsible users, many of whom pay taxes that build and maintain the campuses and equipment.
State law does not outline when districts can or cannot lock portions of their campuses, said Nathan Olson, a spokesman with the state Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
“It’s left up to each district to determine that,” he said.
Across the county, written policies for public use of school space and equipment contain the same phrase, or some variation of it: the district believes “that public schools are owned and operated by and for the community” or are “public property.” It’s in the first sentence of policies for the Marysville, Edmonds, Stanwood, Arlington and Lakewood school districts.
“The public investment in school facilities and the general welfare of the community provide strong justification for the use of school buildings and grounds by community groups for cultural, civic, and recreational purposes,” according to the Snohomish School District’s policy.
Others are more cautious in their wording. The Granite Falls, Lake Stevens, Mukilteo, Darrington and Northshore school districts specifically state that their grounds are “primarily for public school purposes,” educational programs or specifically for children and youth in the district.
With 15 school districts in the county, there are at least 50 tracks, 35 tennis courts and more than 150 practice fields for baseball, softball, soccer and football.
At least a dozen of the tracks are locked after school hours and outside of sporting events, as are at least nine of the tennis courts, according to district officials.
Most of the playing fields remain open for public use via pedestrian gates, though the parking lots often are locked at night.
The county’s school districts have similar policies for groups using their athletic areas. People can reserve a field or court through the districts’ websites or at their offices. Rental fees and insurance requirements vary.
Outside of student use and reservations, schools differ on how they manage their sport courts.
Smaller districts, such as Lakewood, Granite Falls and Darrington, leave outdoor areas open to the community unless the campus itself is locked, usually late at night after custodians leave. Larger districts, including Everett, Mukilteo and Marysville, close things selectively, barring access to artificial turf while leaving grass fields open.
“There’s a certain amount of need to lock facilities to prevent vandalism,” Everett schools spokeswoman Mary Waggoner said. “The areas that we lock are the artificial fields. Pretty much our other fields are open for public use aside from when someone’s renting it.”
Marysville’s largest athletic complex, Quil Ceda Stadium, is gated and locked. However, the fields and courts at elementary and middle schools remain open for walk-in use, spokeswoman Jodi Runyon said.
“We obviously want to be very cognizant of security and access,” she said. “I think every school district has some issues with vandalism and destruction of outdoor facilities.”
Those issues are fresh in the minds of Snohomish School District officials.
In February, the dugouts at the Glacier Peak High School softball fields were torched. The arsonist, still at large, did an estimated $30,000 to $40,000 in damage.
It’s still the district’s practice to leave fields and courts unlocked, spokeswoman Kristin Foley said.
In Index, a grassy field outside the two-room elementary school was torn up by a four-wheeler a few years ago and, more recently, someone with a baseball bat destroyed a dog waste bag dispenser. There are no fences around the field, so it’s always open, spokeswoman Tracy Hale said.
That’s not the case in Stanwood, where the high school stadium and tennis courts are locked when not being used by students or sport teams.
“(Vandalism) was the driving factor to start locking the track and stadium tennis courts,” athletic director Tom Wilfong said.
The stadium’s press box was broken into and vandals damaged the locker rooms, track and equipment stored nearby. “The tennis courts were being used as a skateboard park and the courts and nets were being damaged,” Wilfong said.
At Monroe schools, the high school stadium is locked at 5 p.m. Other fields or courts get shut when there are specific problems, spokeswoman Rosemary O’Neil said. Usually, vandals hit areas that can’t be seen from the street, she said. When they hit one of the school’s athletic fields, officials lock it temporarily. “It’s not our preference to do that, but at some point the actions of a few change things for everyone,” she said.
There hasn’t been much destruction on campuses in Mukilteo, Arlington, Lake Stevens, Lakewood or Darrington, officials say. However, they know it could happen.
“If the desire to provide for our community leads to damage to our facilities or equipment, we would have to consider locking them,” Darrington superintendent Dave Holmer said. “Right now we just expect people to use common sense and respect our facility because it plays such an important role in our community.”
In Lakewood, the schools are the center of the community, facilities supervisor Devlin Piplic said. Like Darrington, the campus is open as much as possible, usually until about 10:30 p.m. each night.
The Lake Stevens School District keeps the tracks at Cavelero Mid-High and Lake Stevens High School locked, though people can purchase a $30 annual pass for the high school track.
The school district updated its policy last year and tried to strike a balance between protecting outdoor features and allowing people to use them, spokeswoman Jayme Taylor said. The pass lets them keep track of who is using the high school track in case of destruction, and provides some money for maintenance.
“We certainly aren’t in a money-making goal for that, we just want to have usable facilities,” Taylor said.
Most of the athletic areas stay open, she said. People use them nearly every day.
Gabriel Jarillo brings his children to the busy blue-and-green tennis courts at Lake Stevens High School at least twice a week, depending on the weather. Though Diego, 7, and Josie, 9, would be hard-pressed to get themselves over a tennis net that’s not much shorter than they are, they each can send the ball sailing over it with a confident crack of the racket. They’ve been practicing with their dad for two years. It’s a favorite family pastime on sunny winter days. In the summer, the place is packed.
Jarillo is grateful to have access to tennis courts near his home in Lake Stevens, but he doesn’t take it for granted. Vandalism or destruction could spark changes in district rules. At this point, though, it only seems fair to let people use the courts, tracks and fields, he said.
“We pay taxes for it, and we don’t cause any damage,” Jarillo said. “I understand in places where they have damage. It’s very sad for the community, but when there’s damage, they have to lock it down.”
'In simplest terms, this was a Nixonian strategy—an attempt by Obama to bathe himself in college football's populist glow. But railing against the Bowl Championship Series is particularly astute. It's the equivalent of calling for rock bands in the cafeteria in a student council election: Your constituents will love you for it',
Of course Obama came to office complete with a brother-in-law who was that college sports coach-----and yes, he PLAYED TO HIS CONSTITUENTS because Obama is team GLOBAL WALL STREET AND GLOBAL WALL STREET IVY LEAGUE universities---those very colleges skewing these COMPUTERIZED PLAYOFF schedules.
How was Obama to fix this? First, all he had to do was to ENFORCED FEDERAL TITLE 9 FUNDING requirements----what did Obama do? DISMANTLED AND DEFUNDED the entire Federal higher education pathway. That fixes it----99% of citizens tracked into K-apprenticeship only career with pretend community college----and only global IVY LEAGUES having a functional athletic program once had by all our US public universities. When public universities go corporate so too do the public athletic facilities----ergo Baltimore's sports deserts.
So, Obama did indeed FIX the corruption of COLLEGE BOWL PLAYOFFS----he eliminated all US public universities wanting to challenge those same top whatever-----and made global IVY LEAGUES---public/private and only COLLEGE SPORTS GAME IN TOWN.
Tackling the Tough Issues
Why is Barack Obama obsessed with reforming college football?
By Josh Levin
Barack Obama has revealed his first major policy initiative: college football reform. In Obama's first televised interview since winning the presidency, he explained what's wrong with the current system, in which computers help determine the two teams that play for the national championship. "I think any sensible person would say that if you've got a bunch of teams who play throughout the season, and many of them have one loss or two losses—there's no clear decisive winner—that we should be creating a playoff system," Obama said. "I don't know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on this. So, I'm gonna throw my weight around a little bit. I think it's the right thing to do."
Josh Levin Josh Levin is Slate’s editorial director.
In simplest terms, this was a Nixonian strategy—an attempt by Obama to bathe himself in college football's populist glow. But railing against the Bowl Championship Series is particularly astute. It's the equivalent of calling for rock bands in the cafeteria in a student council election: Your constituents will love you for it, even if they understand it's highly unlikely you'll be able to deliver. But even so, Obama's play-calling carries some risks.
The BCS is entrenched and buttressed by big-money interests—the nation's football powerhouses—and they have the pull to keep things the way they are. On Sunday, Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany seemed to equate Obama with a sports-radio crank, saying it was "that time of year" for malcontents to start complaining. And given that ESPN just signed a new deal to televise BCS games through 2014, Obama may have to wait till his second term to change the system. Perhaps he'd be better served by focusing on a less thorny issue, like passing universal health care.
Delany was right about one thing: The call to abolish college football's bowl system is an annual rite of autumn, akin to Washington's perennial denunciations of lobbying. If Social Security is the third rail of American politics, then lobbying reform is the chenille throw—the squeezably soft issue that every politician wants to get his hands on. Ever since Standard Oil was accused of buying U.S. senators in the 19th century, and probably before, Washington pols have orated about the evils of corporate largesse. Whenever a bill imprinted with the words transparency and accountability and honest leadership comes up for a vote in Congress, it passes by an overwhelming margin. And yet, despite all of this transparency and accountability and honest leadership, corporate interests remain embedded in Washington. (It's no accident that I just channeled Ralph Nader. The enemy of corporate America also—surprise, surprise--hates the BCS, arguing that "bowl games are private businesses that should have no right … to prevent college football from a fair method of determining a national champion.")
In lobbying and college football, the forces of the status quo have been adept at pushing through tough-sounding new rules that don't fundamentally change the system. After the Jack Abramoff fiasco, Congress banned sit-down dinners between lobbyists and legislators. The easy workaround: fancy receptions where only hors d'oeuvres are served. Similarly, each year's BCS controversy generates a set of new provisions that supposedly fix everything. In 1998-99, Kansas State got left out of the BCS bowls despite ranking third in the standings; college football poobahs added a rule that the third-ranking team gets an automatic berth. In 2000-01, one-loss Miami missed the title game even though it beat one-loss Florida State, one of the teams selected; the next season, the BCS added a "quality win bonus" to give more weight to big victories. *
It's worth remembering that the BCS itself wasn't created as an equitable way to determine college football's national champion. Rather, it was designed as a candy coating to make the same old scheme—with its massive payouts to the major football conferences—go down easier. In the old system, certain conferences were affiliated with certain bowl games (the Big Ten and Pac-10 with the Rose Bowl, the SEC with the Sugar Bowl), making a No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchup difficult to broker. The new system pulls the nation's top two teams out of this bowl-conference coupling, ensuring that a national championship game can take place, but leaves the sport's basic structure intact—the bowl games all still exist, and the Rose Bowl, for one, still gets the Big Ten and Pac-10 champs unless they're pulled away for the BCS title game.
College football's new paint job didn't fool everyone. In 2003, Tulane President Scott Cowen got scores of smaller football schools, as well as Sen. Orrin Hatch, to back his plan to abolish the BCS, arguing that it was stacked unfairly against the sport's lower-tier teams. Far too smart to allow the cash cow to get butchered, the lords of college football bought the little guys off, guaranteeing that non-major-conference schools with high-enough rankings would get automatic passage to a BCS game. In 2006-07, the BCS added a fifth game, further placating the small schools while guaranteeing yet more revenues.
If Obama is serious about his playoff proposal, he needs to start working over America's leading football institutions: the athletic conferences and the presidents of universities with powerhouse football programs. This will prove about as easy as getting the U.N. Security Council to authorize an invasion. For the university presidents, the best argument in favor of the BCS is that everybody's already getting rich—why mess with a good thing? The presidents of the Big Ten and Pac-10 are particularly obstinate, unwilling to do anything that would threaten the conferences' traditional tie-in with the Rose Bowl. (A proposal for a "plus one" game after the bowl season was scuttled on this account.)
But Obama will not be without powerful allies. Surrogates like USC coach Pete Carroll ("I think it stinks"), the University of Florida's Urban Meyer ("You've got to blow it up"), and University of Georgia President Michael Adams ("The current system has lost public confidence and simply does not work") would be happy to stump for the president-elect, giving needed political cover to a guy who attended Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard.
While success on the football field might burnish Obama's reputation as a problem-solver, he should be careful what he wishes for. A presidentially brokered playoff scheme is sure to have unintended consequences. No matter the particulars of Obama's plan (his 60 Minutes proposal: "Eight teams. That would be three rounds, to determine a national champion"), it is guaranteed to generate aggrieved parties. There will always be a ninth team, and a 10th.
So maybe it makes better political sense for Obama to leave college football alone and find some other way to launch his New Deal for sports. How about moving up the starting times of playoff baseball games so that kids can stay up and watch? That's another proposal that everybody in the country can get behind—well, except for those 50 million or so people in the Pacific Time Zone. Does Obama really want to be responsible for losing California for the Democrats for a generation?
Correction, Nov. 18, 2008: This article originally and incorrectly stated that Florida State missed the BCS title game in 2000-01 despite beating Miami. It was Miami that missed the title game despite beating Florida State. ( Return to the corrected sentence.)
Oh, look---there is University of Maryland----no campus is MOVING FORWARD to being that global corporate campus IVY LEAGUE as is RUTGERS---than our UM College Park.
What colleges are known as the PARTY COLLEGES----having a huge GREEK AND FREEMASON presence? All those below-----I was speaking to an IOWA couple this weekend who were proud U of IOWA was top PARTY SCHOOL----after PENN STATE.
This structure was deliberate---global 1% know how to corrupt what was a strong public university academic system----these sports teams were simply the foot in the door.
If we notice which of these once strong PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES are now in US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES MOVING FORWARD as fast as possible-----it is those-----MINNESOTA/WISCONSIN/OHIO are all now ANCHORS FOR US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE development.
Big Ten Council of Presidents and Chancellors
The Council of Presidents and Chancellors (COP/C) holds ultimate authority and responsibility for Big Ten Conference governance. All policy is decided at the COP/C level, including the conference office annual budget and all other financial matters.
Other responsibilities of the COP/C include, but are not limited to, hiring and determining duties of the Big Ten Commissioner, enforcing conference rules, agreements, appendices and bylaws, amending or repealing bylaws and admitting new institutions into membership.
The COP/C Executive Committee conducts the regular business of the COP/C between its two annual meetings and provides direction to the commissioner in the conduct of the day-to-day operations of the conference.
The COP/C has roots that date back to early 1952. In May of that year, it was determined that the conference commissioner be employed by the 10 conference presidents, and that the commissioner shall report to that group on the enforcement of conference rules and regulations. The group, then known as the Council of Ten, was re-named the Council of Presidents and Chancellors with the inclusion of Penn State University in June of 1990.
Current COP/C members are listed below.
- Robert J. Jones, Chancellor, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
- Michael McRobbie, President, Indiana University
- Bruce Harreld, President, University of Iowa
- Wallace D. Loh, President, University of Maryland
- Mark S. Schlissel, President, University of Michigan
- Lou Anna K. Simon, President, Michigan State University
- Eric Kaler, President, University of Minnesota
- Ronnie Green, Chancellor, University of Nebraska
- Morton Schapiro, President, Northwestern University
- Michael V. Drake, President, Ohio State University
- Eric J. Barron, President, Penn State University
- Mitch Daniels, President, Purdue University
- Robert Barchi, President, Rutgers University
- Rebecca M. Blank, Chancellor, University of Wisconsin
The controversy at University of Maryland over that Chancellor making changes many Maryland citizens thought an attack on a strong UM Terp basketball team with an added emphasis on FOOTBALL is all tied to being that global IVY LEAGUE corporate campus and the revenue generated by football vs basketball----global media coverage----
CHANCELLOR LOH was appointed to make UM College Park that global corporate campus with SPORTS TEAMS which recruit globally -----GLADIATORS NOW COMING FROM AROUND THE WORLD----instead of across the US.....ergo, no need for low-income inner city SPORTS BOOT CAMPS.
Maryland accepts Big Ten invite
Nov 20, 2012
- Brett McMurphy
- Dana O'Neil
The University of Maryland's Board of Regents voted Monday to accept an invitation to join the Big Ten and begin competition in the conference in the 2014-15 academic year.
Meanwhile, Big East Conference sources told ESPN that Rutgers will be announced as the 14th member of the Big Ten on Tuesday. Rutgers' Board of Governors passed a vote Monday authorizing athletic director Tim Pernetti to accept the Big Ten's invitation, the New York Daily New reports.
"Today is a watershed moment for the University of Maryland," said university president Wallace D. Loh in a release. "Membership in the Big Ten Conference is in the strategic interest of the University of Maryland."
Loh added it would "ensure the financial vitality of Maryland Athletics for decades to come," and offer opportunities to boost the "education, research, and innovation" of the university.
Once Maryland's board voted and faxed a letter of application to the Big Ten on Monday, the conference's council of presidents unanimously approved the Terrapins' admission, a source said. Maryland, along with seven others, was a charter member of the Atlantic Coast Conference in 1953.
"Our best wishes are extended to all of the people associated with the University of Maryland. Since our inception, they have been an outstanding member of our conference and we are sorry to see them exit,"
ACC commissioner John Swofford said in a statement. "For the past 60 years the Atlantic Coast Conference has exhibited leadership in academics and athletics. This is our foundation and we look forward to building on it as we move forward."
Sources at Maryland believe the Terps will be able to negotiate the current $50 million exit fee from the ACC to a lower amount. The additions of Maryland and Rutgers would spur the Big Ten, then, toward negotiations on a new media-rights deal when its first-tier rights expire in 2017.
"It's pretty obvious to us that the paradigm has shifted, and it's not your father's Big Ten. It's probably not your father's ACC," said Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany. "I think that what the paradigm shift is that other conferences had, we had chosen not to. We explored the collaboration (with the Pac-12). It couldn't be executed. The Pac-12 couldn't do what they thought they could do. And at that juncture, we thought we should seriously think about contiguous states, AAU (Association of American Universities, which concentrates on research) institutions and to determine whether or not that was plausible. We found out that it was, and we moved from there."
The stepped-up negotiations between Maryland and the Big Ten, and the conference's scheduled vote on the Terrapins' membership, were reported by ESPN over the weekend.
"The question is what's the future" of the ACC, Maryland regent Patricia Florestano told ESPN.com on Monday. "We've got to look to the future." Asked if the future of Maryland athletics is brighter in the Big Ten than in the ACC, Florestano said, "we perceived it that way."
One stumbling block for Maryland was thought to be a financial one. Its athletic department has recently dropped sports programs because of budget concerns, and the ACC recently raised its exit fee to the aforementioned $50 million.
Maryland and Florida State were the only two of the ACC's 12 schools that voted against a $50 million exit fee but lost the vote. Loh was quoted in The Washington Post on Sept. 13 as saying he was against the hike from $20 million to $50 million on "legal and philosophical" grounds.
Under Armour founder and Maryland uber-booster Kevin Plank will not be contributing to the ACC buyout fund, sources tell ESPN. Plank, who started his company during his time as a walk-on with the Terrapins football team, has emerged as the school's biggest booster, and his filing with the Security and Exchange Commission to sell approximately $65 million worth of stock triggered a rumor that it would be earmarked for Maryland. But Plank, who is worth $1.35 billion according to Forbes, is not using the money to support his alma mater.
A source told ESPN that the Big Ten has been itchy about further expansion since Notre Dame made its official move to the ACC two months ago in all sports but football. The source said the Big Ten can justify Maryland and then Rutgers because they are in contiguous states to the Big Ten footprint.
Rutgers' impending move to the Big Ten has drawn concern from officials at Navy, which is set to join the Big East as a football-only member in 2015.
"We've said since day one what is important to the Naval Academy is stability. If Rutgers is leaving, as has been widely reported, that would give reason for pause and cause for reevaluation," Navy AD Chet Gladchuk said. "And I say reevaluation, not reconsideration, because conference affiliation is critical to the future of Navy football. What a conference can deliver in terms of television, scheduling and bowl affiliations is very important."
When Maryland and Rutgers join, they will move into the Leaders Division occupied by Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Purdue and Indiana, Loh told the board of regents. Illinois then would shift from the Leaders to the Legends Division. However, Delany said no decisions on divisions have been made, according to a source.
The addition of the two East Coast schools also would dramatically stretch the Big Ten's shadow. With Maryland holding down the Beltway, Rutgers, in New Brunswick, N.J., offering up the New York market and Penn State's strong eastern ties, the league has a solid anchor in the mid-Atlantic states.
Big Ten member Michigan likes the expanded footprint.
"We have an enormous number of fans and alums in the Baltimore/Washington area," said Michigan AD Dave Brandon. "Our clubs down there are huge and heretofore it was rare that we would ever have an opportunity for our teams to go down there and connect with those fans and supporters. Now the fact that we can go down into that area, (means) a greater presence from a recruiting perspective, connecting with more of our fans and alums."
Maryland becomes only the second school to leave the ACC. South Carolina was the other, leaving in 1971 to become an independent. The Gamecocks are now members of the SEC.
Even though Maryland's basketball program will leave behind rich traditional ACC rivalries with NC State, Duke and North Carolina, coach Mark Turgeon is on board with the move to the Big Ten come 2014-15.
"It doesn't change a thing," Turgeon said by phone Monday. "We're going from one great league to another. I don't see a dramatic change. We're still trying to recruit the best players we can at the highest possible level. We're just going to be in a different league in a couple of years."
In the past few years, the nation's top five conferences -- SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC -- have added 10 members, unleashing a coast-to-coast domino effect on college programs.
With the move of Maryland and pending move by Rutgers, the ACC and Big East are expected to seek replacement teams. Connecticut and Louisville are the most likely candidates to join the ACC, sources said, though school officials said that they had not heard from the ACC as of Sunday night. Syracuse (to the ACC), Pittsburgh (ACC) and West Virginia (Big 12) have negotiated early withdrawals from the Big East in the past year.
An ACC official told ESPN Monday afternoon the league has not contacted or approached any schools about replacing Maryland. Any decision the league's presidents make on future membership will be a "deliberate and strategic assessment of what's best for the conference."
However, the ACC official said the league has been contacted by numerous schools inquiring about joining the league.
Tying our college sports which used to be the foundation of all our community public sports and facilities to EXCESSIVE DRINKING AND DRUGS----was deliberate. This one public policy turned what was a REAL social progressive policy of strong public education ---strong public health and fitness structure on its HEAD.
All of these public universities are now tied to being those ANCHORS for US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zone global corporate campus development----ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE NO JOBS EXCEPT FOR GLOBAL 1% AND THEIR 2%.
These Are the Top 10 Ranked Party Schools in America
Olivia B. Waxman
Aug 03, 2015
Princeton Review announced the top 10 party schools in America on Monday, one of more than 60 rankings in the 2016 version of its The Best 380 Colleges guide.
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign leads this year's list. Some online reviews give the school an A+ for party scene, touting "Tuesday wine nights," while the area has been known for letting anyone age 19 and older in bars.
Here is the full list:
1. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
2. University of Iowa
3. University of Wisconsin-Madison
4. Bucknell University
5. Syracuse University
6. University of California-Santa Barbara
7. West Virginia University
8. University of Georgia
9. Tulane University
10. Colgate University
West Virginia University, the University of Iowa, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Syracuse are no strangers to this list, while Tulane graduates might be relieved to see the school is also ranked in the top 10 of Princeton Review's newest list, "Students Most Engaged in Community Service."
For centuries building a sports facility meant a community baseball field-----a community tennis court-----a community public pool----all tax revenue went to building sports facilities needed by citizens and promoted local teams and public health and fitness. It was Clinton era 1990s that a super-sized PROFESSIONAL SPORTS STADIUM became the focus----what was a smaller public stadium needed PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS to build SUPER-DOMES-----for WORLD GLADIATORS.
These few decades of public subsidized profits for professional sports teams came with low ticket price with the decaying public community sports fields. Today with US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----there is no need to pretend to include the 99%-----all profits come from global sports media stations and MOVING FORWARD bringing that global 1% and their 2% can pay higher and higher and higher prices to watch global GLADIATOR ATHLETES. This is what we hear from our Baltimore citizens as ticket prices climb---and it has just started. The idea of COLISEUM SPORTING EVENTS started in DARK AGES as brutal conditions for peasants and slaves required occasional ENTERTAINMENT OF MASSES. This return to the DARK AGES brutality will lead to gladiator viewing on MEDIA ONLY.
So, while UNDERARMOUR underwrites and gets contracts for sports uniforms they are building that global corporate campus and global resort designed to bring global 1% and their 2% to Baltimore for a temporary executive job or conference----then our global corporate health systems Johns Hopkins and UMMS with their global health tourism bringing in global 1% and their 2% for our quality health care and recruiting global 1% and their 2% foreign students------will be those global citizens taking in a live sports game. No need for SUPER-DOMES in future-----global sports media brings in plenty of revenue.
09/10/2015 10:51 am ET
Taxpayers Have Spent A ‘Staggering’ Amount Of Money On NFL Stadiums
The 16 NFL stadiums that will host NFL games this weekend have cost taxpayers nearly $3 billion, a new analysis found.
By Travis Waldron
Jamie Squire via Getty Images
When the NFL season kicks off Thursday night in New England, football fans will file into a stadium built with $72 million in taxpayer money. Compared to fans in other NFL cities, residents of Foxboro, Massachusetts, can thank their team for giving them a bargain.
Taxpayers have spent nearly $3 billion on the 16 stadiums that will host NFL games during the season’s opening weekend, according to figures in a new analysis from the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, a Washington, D.C-based conservative nonprofit group.
All told, 29 of the NFL’s 31 stadiums have received public funds for construction or renovation. In the last two decades, the analysis found, taxpayers across the country have spent nearly $7 billion on stadiums for a league that surpassed $10 billion in revenue last season.
“Unfortunately, beneath all of the glitz and glamour, these venues are nothing more than monuments to corporate welfare and taxpayer handouts,” David Williams, president of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, said in a press release. “These stadiums have been built on the backs of taxpayers who had no or little say in the matter and in many cases have benefitted little or not at all.”
The report provides a team-by-team breakdown of the “staggering” costs: $444 million to the Dallas Cowboys; more than $600 million for the Indianapolis Colts; and $424 million for the Cincinnati Bengals, in a city that later had to sell a public hospital to close budget holes.
Due in part to the size of its stadiums, no league relies more heavily on public subsidies than the NFL. Taxpayers contributed an average of $262 million to each NFL stadium built between 1990 and 2010, urban planner Judith Grant Long found in 2013, about $60 million more than the average MLB stadium received.
There is no complete accounting for the costs of stadiums to taxpayers, but the $7 billion figure is an accurate ballpark estimate, multiple stadium experts told The Huffington Post.
In fact, it may be too kind, said Rick Eckstein, a Villanova professor who co-authored a book on stadium financing. The TPA analysis relies largely on news reports, but those often miss other “subtle” costs that fall to taxpayers, like property and sales tax exemptions, the loss of stadium-related revenue to teams, and other forms of indirect support, he said.
The public sector is underwriting most of the risk, while most of the benefits that accrue, accrue to the teams. Robert Baade
The new report links the subsidization of new stadiums to higher poverty rates and lower median incomes in their home cities, and it found that most NFL cities fared worse by both measures after paying for a new stadium.
That link is likely not as direct as the report hints, said Robert Baade, one of the first economists to study the effects of publicly financed stadiums on cities. It’s impossible to determine a venue’s impact on wages or poverty without complex modeling, he said.
There is, however, a “strong consensus” among economists that publicly financed stadiums are not worth their price, and the benefits stadiums bring do not align with their costs. Baade pointed to some of his earliest research, which found that cities that pursued what he called a “sports development strategy” indeed performed worse on a host of economic measures than similarly sized cities that did not build new stadiums to keep or lure pro teams.
If the benefits aren’t flowing to cities, they are instead going primarily to NFL owners. A 2012 Bloomberg analysis found that since 2000, new stadiums had helped double team values across pro sports, and Baade noted that while it appears NFL teams are now putting more of their own money in than they used to, they are doing so primarily out of revenue streams — luxury boxes, personal seat licenses and other in-stadium revenues — that either wouldn’t exist without a new stadium or are larger because of it.
“The public sector is underwriting most of the risk,” Baade said, “while most of the benefits that accrue, accrue to the teams.”
The imagined allure of an NFL franchise, though, means cities will keep spending, no matter what the research or opponents say. The NFL season will kick off while three cities — Oakland, San Diego, and St. Louis — are scrambling to assuage their current teams amid threats all three might leave for Los Angeles, and St. Louis and San Diego have already offered hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money to build new stadiums.
So as fans continue to pour into newer, more lavish facilities built to maximize revenues for owners and teams, that $7 billion figure will only continue to grow — long after the NFL season begins Thursday night.