Fully funded vs not fully funded

[IUPbigINDIANS]

Re: Fully funded vs not fully funded

Another thing I did not know is that the service academies are very highly regarded universities in many majors.
Also they don't take screw-ups regardless of their GPA. Academy appointees have their act together.

Look up the required academics to get in to the service academies. Insane. The procedure to get in to Annapolis is insane.

[IUP CRIMSON HAWKS]

Re: Fully funded vs not fully funded

Another thing I did not know is that the service academies are very highly regarded universities in many majors.
Also they don't take screw-ups regardless of their GPA. Academy appointees have their act together.

Generally speaking, yes. But like all other places it also had a seamy underside to it as well. For instance, when I spent time there they were under the leadership of a superintendent named Admiral Charles Larson (look him up---IMPRESSIVE record).

I believe it was around 1993-1994 or so that Admiral Larson was brought back on board as superintendent there after the academy suffered from a rash of problems that threatened the very fabric of the place. Cheating, drugs, sexual assaults, etc. were plaguing the institution. They had their problems there as well. Don't be fooled by the glossy veneer.

But the majority of the midshipman were beyond incredible young men and women!

Also agree on the fab academics. Many terrific engineering programs offered there.

One thing is that I don't think the average person realizes the utter danger that these grads of these places face. I recall taking a cyber tour of a few of the classes alumni pages that I knew people in about a decade or so after their graduation and was appalled at how many of them had been killed in training flights and the like. It is a dangerous business!

Remember former Navy QB Alton Grizzard? He was killed a year or two after graduating there (though it was not in the line of duty).

-

[PSAC76]

Re: Fully funded vs not fully funded

I think in most cases, "fully funded" is a term used when a D2 school has 10 equivalencies. I do not think the designation of public or private matters when it comes to the equivalencies, as far as being "fully funded".

[boatcapt]

Re: Fully funded vs not fully funded

I think in most cases, "fully funded" is a term used when a D2 school has 10 equivalencies. I do not think the designation of public or private matters when it comes to the equivalencies, as far as being "fully funded".

There doesn't seem to be any hard and fast definition of what "fully funded" means. We talk about scholarship equivalencies but those are just numbers on a page. Scholarships are funded by dollars and players cost different amounts based on were they are from (in-state, out of state, etc). In WLU's case, 10 scholly equivalencies for in-state players would be $76,800/yr while if they chose to recruit all out of state players, it would cost them $156,200/yr. I'd say a team can legitimately say they are "fully funded" if they have enough money in their basketball scholly account to pay for 10 in-state tuitions.

[PSAC76]

Re: Fully funded vs not fully funded

That is probably a good assessment. I do not know all of the details, but that was what I understood things to be

[BuffaloChip]

Re: Fully funded vs not fully funded

But in the case of highly talented students with good test scores (oh, and who can also shoot and rebound), coaches can get a "freebie." CJ Hester, Evan French, Alex Falk, and other players like that have, I believe, qualified for the university's Scholars program. I don't know the specifics, but it's highly possible that guys like these received darn near a full ride as STUDENTS using the university's academic scholarships, so the basketball team wouldn't have to use one of their 10 scholarships (or at least not much of one--maybe just chipping in for room and board, thereby spreading a single scholarship among a variety of talented academic students) on guys like that. So, if you recruit smart kids who can also play ball--which WLU does seem to do with some regularity--your 3 "non-scholarship" players on the roster aren't necessarily walk-ons; they're guys with academic money. Imagine if you can get an Alex Falk with academic money (based on his test scores), and then STILL have 10 more scholly's to spend. That's pretty smart allocation if you can pull it off.

And none of this takes into the account the two years of FREE Dan Monteroso (given that both of his parents are employees of the university and can cash in a tuition benefit, as I understand it). Obviously, Dante Lombardi works the same way at IUP I imagine.

In theory, you're supposition that academically talented students receive academic scholarship money, thus freeing up athletic scholarship money for another player, sounds reasonable. But, that changes from school to school.

For example (one of dozens back then), several years ago, at West Texas A&M, we had a student, Tyler Cooper, son of the BB HC at WT. He was a 4.0 student majoring in pre-med and biology. 4.0 for 4 years. I remember his dad, Rick Cooper, telling me of his experience at the time getting academic money. He was told by the admission/scholarship people; "He's an athlete, just give him an athletic scholarship. Why would we waste money that could go to another student when Tyler's getting an athletic scholarship?" That was the mindset then of administrators. (A couple months ago, Tyler Cooper opened his own practice in Orthopedic Surgery in Amarillo, after ten years of med school, internship, residency, and fellowship training). I think it's much better today at WT because of the pro-athletics Presidents and leadership we've had since then. Today, if a kid can qualify for academic aid, that is looked to first. In fact our coaches seek out top students so that the available athletic scholarship dollars are stretched. But, the point is, that can change from school to school, from administrator to administrator. WT could be getting 30 or 40 additional scholarships for it's athletic programs via student/athletes receiving academic money, where maybe the same thing isn't happening at another conference school.

[Horror Child]

Re: Fully funded vs not fully funded

In theory, you're supposition that academically talented students receive academic scholarship money, thus freeing up athletic scholarship money for another player, sounds reasonable. But, that changes from school to school.

For example (one of dozens back then), several years ago, at West Texas A&M, we had a student, Tyler Cooper, son of the BB HC at WT. He was a 4.0 student majoring in pre-med and biology. 4.0 for 4 years. I remember his dad, Rick Cooper, telling me of his experience at the time getting academic money. He was told by the admission/scholarship people; "He's an athlete, just give him an athletic scholarship. Why would we waste money that could go to another student when Tyler's getting an athletic scholarship?" That was the mindset then of administrators. (A couple months ago, Tyler Cooper opened his own practice in Orthopedic Surgery in Amarillo, after ten years of med school, internship, residency, and fellowship training). I think it's much better today at WT because of the pro-athletics Presidents and leadership we've had since then. Today, if a kid can qualify for academic aid, that is looked to first. In fact our coaches seek out top students so that the available athletic scholarship dollars are stretched. But, the point is, that can change from school to school, from administrator to administrator. WT could be getting 30 or 40 additional scholarships for it's athletic programs via student/athletes receiving academic money, where maybe the same thing isn't happening at another conference school.

That goes to other forms of aid as well. Why would a school with enrollment growth give free room and board to an athlete when there's a non-athlete willing to pay full boat? As opposed to other schools with declining enrollment that can give an athlete free room and board (athletic aid) to get that student-athlete enrolled and paying tuition.