Where would you spend 8 million?
- Thread starter oldboiler52
- Start date
Maybe the federal government will give some additional money to the states for education. It might not cover everything or maybe they won’t. You could be spot on. I’m certainly not in favor of paying millions to players to field a team.
I thought they would get a few bucks to help out with college expenses. Never realized some would become multi millionaires in college. I’m with you that giving to St. Jude’s is a better option than paying college athletes with my donation.
All the BIG schools get a lot of money for research. I doubt that changes. Purdue athletics has been self supporting and the NIL doesn't get money from the feds. K-12 gets maybe (at least years ago somewhere around 8% from the fed). As I understand only about 25% of the fed money from the DOE gets to students in k-12. I have no personal understanding if accurate or not, but I do know that money given to k-12 schools has increased as the graph below shows, with the NAEP pretty much straight lined. The NAEP is the National Assessment for Educational Progress. As I recall from decades ago it tests students in grade 4,8 and 12. This goes on every year in different states since states do not take it yearly, but all states take it every so often (maybe every 4 years?) Essentially, it just proves that all the money thrown to education in k-12 does not reflect in more learning. Now could it if money was sent to schools differently? Perhap, but nothing to date shows that more money increases learning.
Last thing I'll say because I don't want the thread to get derailed, but yeah, my point wasn't really about how it would affect athletics spending so much as agreeing with Wole that university budgets and K-12 budgets are in for a huge shortfall due to federal cuts. I used to live in NC and I think something like 20% of their state public education budget comes from the feds. In other states, it's somewhat less.
In terms of affecting athletics, it might lead some people to donate to support scholarships or other educational aspects of the university instead of subsidizing the athletic program.
The cost of EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD has gone up like that in 40 years..All the BIG schools get a lot of money for research. I doubt that changes. Purdue athletics has been self supporting and the NIL doesn't get money from the feds. K-12 gets maybe (at least years ago somewhere around 8% from the fed). As I understand only about 25% of the fed money from the DOE gets to students in k-12. I have no personal understanding if accurate or not, but I do know that money given to k-12 schools has increased as the graph below shows, with the NAEP pretty much straight lined. The NAEP is the National Assessment for Educational Progress. As I recall from decades ago it tests students in grade 4,8 and 12. This goes on every year in different states since states do not take it yearly, but all states take it every so often (maybe every 4 years?) Essentially, it just proves that all the money thrown to education in k-12 does not reflect in more learning. Now could it if money was sent to schools differently? Perhap, but nothing to date shows that more money increases learning.
The decline learning comes from HOME and the lack of attention from PARENTS in their childs education. Plenty of research that shows that is the root cause if you care to look for/at it.
But a whole lot easier to blame union teachers and the DOE......
The complete failure of charter schools to do EVEN AS WELL just shows how moronic this whole discussion really is.
Last edited:
It was well known that college costs went up much higher than inflation. The graph of k-12 is government data and it has went up more than inflation. No question part of the lack in learning stems from home and general lack of interest. A three legged stool will be stable on any solid floor and likewise a (1) committed teacher that is effective, (2) a student that wants to learn and (3) a home that encourages academic achievement all lead towards a higher success rate. Course when you talk success, that word can take on different meanings with each difference possibly a different variable. Just graduating is tied closest with a two parent home. Effective education is not driven by science and much closer to faith as shown by the various fads the last 100 years. As in any job or profession there are good and not so good people in each field. It appears the NEA has less interest in academics than the old AFL-CIO when Albert Shanker was president.
When the USA takes their best or top 10% (Which are generally interested students and parents) the USA has not done as well as most the countries in the TIMMS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) years ago when I followed it. I assume the USA is well behind still, but I don't know that for certain. My son-in-law said his high school math in Germany was harder than his college math and he has a doctorate in biological statistics. Strong academic goals are rarely found in schools because there are egalitarianism goals embedded in much pedagogy. What makes strong academic learning difficult is that all the parties involved cannot agree on what is important, particularly as a child centered school pedagogy is moved above the primary grades. Until there is an agreement on what is important for a school to do, true success will continue to be fleeting for many. I have many teachers in my family and extended family and so I have a little background most don't...and in my own experiences principals and Supts rarely are able to discern "studies or surveys" , but rather read the narrative that is offered. It is what it is and has been for some time (shoot I was one of those look say readers of Tom and Jane 60+ years ago). All that said, I'm fully aware there are some outstanding teachers that work well past the 5 or 6 hours prep they have in the evenings...and in many cases make less money per day than many other occupations.
Agreed, he was 6th man of the year in the league last year, think he would have helped a little. I do understand why Painter initially wouldn’t commit to him, when Catchings left if Gillis was still there guessing Coach would have wanted him back, not sure though, maybe with Heide and Colvin around he felt obligated to give them their shot.
I'll never understand this argument considering it's pretty clear to me he's better than Berg and I'd say better than Furst.
He didn't have a scholarship to give. We were over until Catching left. One year or 4 years for Gicarri seems simple enough.
Smith is gonna cost north of $3 million. And that is the number with a Purdue hometown discount. Kentucky, Kansas, and Louisville are already sniffing around.
Is Furst or Berg playing 25 minutes?
We aren't playing nothing but teams with two great bigs man. Plenty of minutes have involved teams with one big on the floor. Plenty of minutes for Gillis to be successful. Having another 3 pt shooter wouldn't have hurt some of those games where teams absolutely ignored Furst on the perimeter.
Do you think Duke would be playing Furst or Berg meaningful minutes? Would they even want them? They wanted Gillis and he's playing meaningful minutes on the number one team in the country. Seems to me that guy just might be value added.
We have been down this path haha.
Typically, painter plays the guys who complement his best players. Gillis is 6’6 and not the best rebounder, nor can guard an athletic wing or a larger big man (thinking Danny wolf). I don’t think he’d complement TKR that well, but lets say he did. We may be a little better on offense but I think we’d be exposed worse than now on defense.
Furst can defend 1-5, or at least for a possession on a switch. I don’t think Gillis was quick enough to do that. Furst may not be as quick as needed, but he has the length. Berg plays 5 mins a game. So yeah he’d be better than him.
Gillis got open shots and rebounds due to a lot of the space edey took up/attention he commanded.
At Duke, he is playing the least amount of mins in his career (15) and since that is happening, all of his numbers are down except FT%, but he’s attempted 20 less than any other year. I guess his steals are at a career high tho (17).
This is also the least amount of points he’s scored since freshman year and he’s had 4 more games and 20 more shot attempts.
I agree and think Purdue will find a way to retain him.
The (maybe happy) problem is that when one player is good enough to warrant this payday, it takes up so much of the NIL budget and there is a risk of losing supporting cast players like Colvin, Heide, Cox, and Harris. Those are guys that may never see the NBA and would have a chance at a $500k-$1million payday on many teams.
Yep. I think we will retain them too. They may leave after next year, but they have a shot to play for a NC, play with two top 5 players in the country. If they play well enough, they can get themselves paid even more.
The not happy problem is we don’t have many football players worth paying, so the $20 million rev share has to go somewhere…
Maybe - maybe not.
It's a crazy system, but a player like Heide has a chance to have the next two years of his life be by far the biggest earning years of his entire life. A guy like that loves Painter, but does he love him enough to pass up an extra 200-300k per year when a knee injury could end it at any time?
I'm guessing every player on this team has an insurance policy in case they get hurt and can't play again. I'd hope they're that intelligent.
We have plenty of $$ to pay them all. Better you spend your time worrying about your roster for next year.
Good point. A lot of Sports journalists aren't real keen on DeVries future, some predicting he'll be gone before the end of his contract. But when that's all you can get........................
The jury is out on every coach until he rises and falls on performance.
So a guy like painter is a guaranteed great choice for Purdue, and Devries is a yet to be seen for Indiana.
But I haven’t seen “a lot of sports journalists who aren’t keen on Devries’ future“. Can you link me some of these sports journalists or name one?
Just one will do, since there are apparently a lot.
Cam has said he loves playing with the best player in the country and he gets to do that next year, one last time. While getting paid and competing for an NC.
Painter plays the guys that give the best chance at winning not just the ones that compliment his best players. You're making that up bc you think somehow Gillis only has value with Edey.
He's playing 15 minutes on the top team in the country man. How you downplay that is beyond me.
Furst is no better at defending anything other than bigs than Gillis is. He's not quicker than Gillis. You can use that argument for Heide, it doesn't work at all for Furst. Gillis is a way better shooter and scorer than Furst. So if the trade is not having Furst guard 1-5 for a possession or two or having a guy who can shoot and score better than Furst, I'll take that trade.
In the tournament, Furst is avg 2 pts and 3 rebs a game. Gillis is 5 pts and 4.5 rebs a game. Gillis played 18 mins a game. Furst 10.
Over the season, the two are fairly close with Gillis scoring more and actually shooting threes and Furst only having one more reb a game in similar minutes played.
So yeah, I am not buying the idea that Gillis is so much worse than Furst on rebs and defense (because the numbers say he isn't) that he couldn't help this team with his ability. I also believe Painter would know how and when to use him in a way that maximizes his ability.
