College Sports documentary

[Mr. Wonderful]

Just saw a damn good show titled simply College Sports, narrated by Sam Rockwell. It was based on an article written by Taylor Branch. It's a scathing examination of the farce that is the NCAA and amateurism in general. It contains interviews and commentary from dozens of the major characters in this comedy, including Sonny Vacaro, Mary Willingham, the AD of Iowa St., the Chancellor from Nebraska, and many others. Look for it. Watch it.

 

[uconnell]

What TV station? ESPN? Probably not.

 

[upstater]

That Taylor Branch article was a farce in itself. Its basic premise was totally off.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

That Taylor Branch article was a farce in itself. Its basic premise was totally off.

Considering the scope of the article, dismissing it in toto as a farce makes me wonder if you have ulterior motives. Having read your comments and objections to compensating college athletes, I'm positive I'm on the right track here.

 

[upstater]

Considering the scope of the article, dismissing it in toto as a farce makes me wonder if you have ulterior motives. Having read your comments and objections to compensating college athletes, I'm positive I'm on the right track here.

When you're talking money, shouldn't you look at finances? He didn't even delve into the budgets. That's a fail from step 1. And cut it out with this motives thing. Just discuss it on the merits.

 

[Fishy]

The Branch article was written about three years ago and was littered with huge holes in its assertions - no offense to anyone who is just now stumbling onto it, but that was ground that was well-covered years ago.

 

[upstater]

Here's what bugs me: all the people talking about free labor, capitalism, market forces etc. never really want to talk about the money involved or the market demand for sub-NBA level bball.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

Do you think EA Sports should be allowed to profit off of Ed O'Bannon's likeness without having to compensate him?

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

The Branch article was written about three years ago and was littered with huge holes in its assertions - no offense to anyone who is just now stumbling onto it, but that was ground that was well-covered years ago.

I'll be my own judge on that thank you.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

Here's what bugs me: all the people talking about free labor, capitalism, market forces etc. never really want to talk about the money involved or the market demand for sub-NBA level bball.

As the documentary points out, the specifics of athletic budgets are mostly irrelevant. Expenses are more a reflection of priorities and fiscal responsibility, and not income limitations like the party line states.

Do you think EA Sports should profit on Ed O'Bannon's likeness without compensating him?

 

[upstater]

As the documentary points out, the specifics of athletic budgets are mostly irrelevant. Expenses are more a reflection of priorities and fiscal responsibility, and not income limitations like the party line states.

Do you think EA Sports should profit on Ed O'Bannon's likeness without compensating him?

I can't disagree with you more on the fiscal responsibility part. You are actually saying that schools should not build the facilities required? The training? etc. This is the bread and butter of football, you can't have one without the other.

The documentary is so wrong to say the specifics are irrelevant. They basically failed with the first major point here. Most of these budgets are $55-60 million. You have $15-20 million budgets in the Ivy. So, baseline, there's a $40 million bump by going all in P5. And probably less than that when you realize the P5 carry more sports and have Title 9 regs to fulfill. This means you're likely looking at a difference of $30m in going all in.

So, is this money being squandered? The minimum required for these conferences is increased training, up to date facilities, tutors, travel. At best, you see the money waste when it comes to coach's pay, but even if you wiped that out completely you still have huge deficits.

The EA thing is totally irrelevant because it's chicken feed. The figure I saw was $10 million in college bball sponsorship over the decade+ of the game and $30m for football. Divided by 1000 bball teams and 13 players per team and 10+ years, you're talking $30 per player.

 

[whaler11]

As the documentary points out, the specifics of athletic budgets are mostly irrelevant. Expenses are more a reflection of priorities and fiscal responsibility, and not income limitations like the party line states.

Do you think EA Sports should profit on Ed O'Bannon's likeness without compensating him?

Ding ding ding ding. The budgets look terrible because the people controlling the money compensate themselves and each other.

The idea that you can't train a football team without a Shenkman level facility is ridiculous. That you have to spend so much on travel? Nobody made anyone join leagues spread all over the country. Need so much academic support? Recruit players who can handle the work and you need less.

Ohio State needs a dozen people working on sports information? Texas needs an athletic director for only women's sports? I'm sure there is a great reason why South Florida sends their cheerleaders to the women's Big East basketball tourney.

Upstater will forever ignore the donations that arrive earmarked to the University because of athletics and athletic success. It's pure coincidence that Texas A&M for example has had record giving since they joined the SEC and Manziel won the Heisman.

Schools 'lose' money on athletics because they choose to.

 

[upstater]

Ding ding ding ding. The budgets look terrible because the people controlling the money compensate themselves and each other.

The idea that you can't train a football team without a Shenkman level facility is ridiculous. That you have to spend so much on travel? Nobody made anyone join leagues spread all over the country. Need so much academic support? Recruit players who can handle the work and you need less.

Ohio State needs a dozen people working on sports information? Texas needs an athletic director for only women's sports? I'm sure there is a great reason why South Florida sends their cheerleaders to the women's Big East basketball tourney.

Upstater will forever ignore the donations that arrive earmarked to the University because of athletics and athletic success. It's pure coincidence that Texas A&M for example has had record giving since they joined the SEC and Manziel won the Heisman.

Schools 'lose' money on athletics because they choose to.

Donations are part of AD revenue! How can you get that wrong? The vast majority of the money at Texas A&M for instance goes to the 12th Man Foundation, which is athletics revenue! The next biggest chunk was research money. They counted research money as donations in that press release, that's how backwards Texas is. Do you really believe they got research grants because of Johnny Manziel? Preposterous.

And, if you have no facilities, top training or tutors, you're not going to get top players or coaches, and you'll lose a lot, and that will make you Rutgers and drain even more.

It's not only that the donations are counted as athletics revenue, but many people don't even know what they are contributing to. For instance, when polled, 45% of the contributors to the Longhorn Foundation weren't even aware that their money was not going to the academic side of the university.

By the way, U. Buffalo broke all its records with over $40 million in donations last year. Yep, over $400 million in funds donated for research. That Idaho Potato Bowl has been a godsend for the university!!!

 

[whaler11]

Donations are part of AD revenue! How can you get that wrong? The vast majority of the money at Texas A&M for instance goes to the 12th Man Foundation, which is athletics revenue! The next biggest chunk was research money. They counted research money as donations in that press release, that's how backwards Texas is. Do you really believe they got research grants because of Johnny Manziel? Preposterous.

And, if you have no facilities, top training or tutors, you're not going to get top players or coaches, and you'll lose a lot, and that will make you Rutgers and drain even more.

It's not only that the donations are counted as athletics revenue, but many people don't even know what they are contributing to. For instance, when polled, 45% of the contributors to the Longhorn Foundation weren't even aware that their money was not going to the academic side of the university.

By the way, U. Buffalo broke all its records with over $40 million in donations last year. Yep, over $400 million in funds donated for research. That Idaho Potato Bowl has been a godsend for the
university!!!

Obviously I'm not talking about MAC level programs. Half of them should quit tomorrow.

Your argument for major programs is that between TV money, athletic donations, licencing and ticket sales - the schools don't generate enough revenue to not lose money on sports.

Obviously that is idiotic and only happens by choice. For example the UConn baseball team could play an entire schedule without getting on a plane...

It's a narrative propped up by people like you who want people to believe it's a revenue problem and not a spending problem.

Either it's nonsense or all the people running the schools are idiots -because for every Boston U who drops football - 10 more start programs.

 

[upstater]

Obviously I'm not talking about MAC level programs. Half of them should quit tomorrow.

Your argument for major programs is that between TV money, athletic donations, licencing and ticket sales - the schools don't generate enough revenue to not lose money on sports.

Obviously that is idiotic and only happens by choice. For example the UConn baseball team could play an entire schedule without getting on a plane...

It's a narrative propped up by people like you who want people to believe it's a revenue problem and not a spending problem.

Either it's nonsense or all the people running the schools are idiots -because for every Boston U who drops football - 10 more start programs.

The people running schools are not demanding sports. The politicians, alumni and boosters are. The people running universities are just saying, Yeah, let me do my job (i.e. earn $500k) and you can have your money sucking sports. And, these same administrators know that if they broach the subject of having sports pay for themselves, they are out on their ear. We've seen that before too. We've seen a Pres. at UNC swear off investigating a huge scandal and retire instead, because he knows it's a political show through and through.

You can cut expenditures easily in the P5. Pay your coach $500k, don't build facilities, travel by bus or train, fire trainers and tutors. You are right, you can certainly do this. What happens to your revenue base, if you do this?

If training football players for the NFL were so easy, or even lucrative, the NFL would have done it already! They do it in soccer, they do it in hockey, even AAA baseball. Why not football? Because the revenues for football--and the lack of market appeal under the NFL level--do not call for it. At the end of the day, that's all you need to know. No markets, too much money required.

 

[whaler11]

The people running schools are not demanding sports. The politicians, alumni and boosters are. The people running universities are just saying, Yeah, let me do my job (i.e. earn $500k) and you can have your money sucking sports. And, these same administrators know that if they broach the subject of having sports pay for themselves, they are out on their ear. We've seen that before too. We've seen a Pres. at UNC swear off investigating a huge scandal and retire instead, because he knows it's a political show through and through.

You can cut expenditures easily in the P5. Pay your coach $500k, don't build facilities, travel by bus or train, fire trainers and tutors. You are right, you can certainly do this. What happens to your revenue base, if you do this?

If training football players for the NFL were so easy, or even lucrative, the NFL would have done it already! They do it in soccer, they do it in hockey, even AAA baseball. Why not football? Because the revenues for football--and the lack of market appeal under the NFL level--do not call for it. At the end of the day, that's all you need to know. No markets, too much money required.

So the people running the schools are worthless administrators who cash their checks and aren't willing to fight for what's best for the school if it puts their payday at risk.

Thanks for confirming the obvious.

 

[billybud]

Alabama says different....

“Nick Saban’s the best financial investment this university has ever made,” he said. “We have made an investment that’s been returned many fold.”

"Alabama’s athletic department’s revenue has increased by 112% since Saban was hired, and last year returned $4 million to the school in the form of academic scholarships, according to 60 Minutes."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2013/12/16/is-nick-saban-worth-7-million-per-year-absolutely/

 

[upstater]

So the people running the schools are worthless administrators who cash their checks and aren't willing to fight for what's best for the school if it puts their payday at risk.

Thanks for confirming the obvious.

Yes, I've been saying that for awhile, no? These schools are the state's possession. They don't belong to Herbst or Hogan or anyone like that. Some of the them actually do have the chutzpah to resign after giving the politicos a piece of their mind. Others, like Elsa Benitez, are fired when they act reasonably. The Pres. of Virginia actually had some powers behind her and got her job back. Put it this way: the smartest thing U Buffalo could do is end football and out its money into hockey. Heck, a local billionaire recently offered them a new ice arena for free. But the UB AD is from down south (ACC country) and he doesn't want to commit career suicide by being the AD who does the smart and right thing for U Buffalo.

 

[upstater]

Alabama says different....

“Nick Saban’s the best financial investment this university has ever made,” he said. “We have made an investment that’s been returned many fold.”

"Alabama’s athletic department’s revenue has increased by 112% since Saban was hired, and last year returned $4 million to the school in the form of academic scholarships, according to 60 Minutes."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2013/12/16/is-nick-saban-worth-7-million-per-year-absolutely/

And you have been fooled.

We've been through this before. If U. Texas and U. Michigan aren't doing it (as of 2012) then neither is Alabama.

 

[whaler11]

Yes, I've been saying that for awhile, no? These schools are the state's possession. They don't belong to Herbst or Hogan or anyone like that. Some of the them actually do have the chutzpah to resign after giving the politicos a piece of their mind. Others, like Elsa Benitez, are fired when they act reasonably. The Pres. of Virginia actually had some powers behind her and got her job back. Put it this way: the smartest thing U Buffalo could do is end football and out its money into hockey. Heck, a local billionaire recently offered them a new ice arena for free. But the UB AD is from down south (ACC country) and he doesn't want to commit career suicide by being the AD who does the smart and right thing for U Buffalo.

I can save Buffalo some money tonight. Stop running ads nonstop on WFAN. The savings create themselves.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

I can't disagree with you more on the fiscal responsibility part. You are actually saying that schools should not build the facilities required? The training? etc. This is the bread and butter of football, you can't have one without the other.

The documentary is so wrong to say the specifics are irrelevant. They basically failed with the first major point here. Most of these budgets are $55-60 million. You have $15-20 million budgets in the Ivy. So, baseline, there's a $40 million bump by going all in P5. And probably less than that when you realize the P5 carry more sports and have Title 9 regs to fulfill. This means you're likely looking at a difference of $30m in going all in.

So, is this money being squandered? The minimum required for these conferences is increased training, up to date facilities, tutors, travel. At best, you see the money waste when it comes to coach's pay, but even if you wiped that out completely you still have huge deficits.

The EA thing is totally irrelevant because it's chicken feed. The figure I saw was $10 million in college bball sponsorship over the decade+ of the game and $30m for football. Divided by 1000 bball teams and 13 players per team and 10+ years, you're talking $30 per player.

It only takes $500000 to compensate all of the contracted revenue athletes. That's less than 1% of the average athletic budget of a P5 school.

You did not directly address my question about EASports, but by mentioning monetary redress, you acknowledge EASports acted outside the bounds of legality/ethics. This is an important line that must be drawn. The NCAA has historically had nothing in the way of checks or balances of any kind, and let's hope more are on the way.

The NCAA's reason for existence is to negotiate for and sanction the distribution of revenue. Their second purpose for living is making sure the base labor pool, the athletes, get none of it. That to me seems a conflict of interest - the regulation of both of those things simultaneously.

 

[upstater]

It only takes $500000 to compensate all of the contracted revenue athletes. That's less than 1% of the average athletic budget of a P5 school.

You did not directly address my question about EASports, but by mentioning monetary redress, you acknowledge EASports acted outside the bounds of legality/ethics. This is an important line that must be drawn. The NCAA has historically had nothing in the way of checks or balances of any kind, and let's hope more are on the way.

The NCAA's reason for existence is to negotiate for and sanction the distribution of revenue. Their second purpose for living is making sure the base labor pool, the athletes, get none of it. That to me seems a conflict of interest - the regulation of both of those things simultaneously.

How did you get rid of Title IX so quickly?

I disagree about the NCAA's reason for existence. I've already disagreed with your other points. Athletes get room & board, training, scholarship, etc. You say they get nothing. In point of fact, schools are in the red providing athletes what athletes already get.

People keep talking about market demand, but the market doesn't seem interested in sub-pro level sports or else there would be that level on offer, as there is in other sports. The college product is below the level of minor leagues in a variety of other sports.

 

[IMind]

People keep talking about market demand, but the market doesn't seem interested in sub-pro level sports or else there would be that level on offer, as there is in other sports. The college product is below the level of minor leagues in a variety of other sports.

I disagree slightly with the premise that there is no demand for minor leagues in football and basketball. College basketball and football ARE the minor league demand. Minor league football and basketball never gain traction specifically because college football and basketball are so strong. They starve out the talent pool for minor league sports. In other countries where they don't have their minor leagues tied to higher education they survive quite well (Football in Canada and basketball in Europe for example.)

I honestly think the NFL (and the NBA less so since the advent of the NBDL) do a tremendous disservice to both higher education and their talent pool by essentially absolving themselves of the responsibility of developing their own talent and paying players. It's absurdly crazy to me that the premiere sports league in this country pays next to nothing to develop it's talent pool when compared to what the MLB and NHL pay.

The NFL is as much to blame for the insanity of the current system as the NCAA.

 

[upstater]

I disagree slightly with the premise that there is no demand for minor leagues in football and basketball. College basketball and football ARE the minor league demand. Minor league football and basketball never gain traction specifically because college football and basketball are so strong. They starve out the talent pool for minor league sports. In other countries where they don't have their minor leagues tied to higher education they survive quite well (Football in Canada and basketball in Europe for example.)

I honestly think the NFL (and the NBA less so since the advent of the NBDL) do a tremendous disservice to both higher education and their talent pool by essentially absolving themselves of the responsibility of developing their own talent and paying players. It's absurdly crazy to me that the premiere sports league in this country pays next to nothing to develop it's talent pool when compared to what the MLB and NHL pay.

The NFL is as much to blame for the insanity of the current system as the NCAA.

The level of play in the NBDL is so much higher than it is in the NCAA, yet they don't get TV coverage and fans.

It's like this in many college sports with pro minor leagues. The level at the colleges is below the level of the minor leagues. Hockey, soccer, etc. And yet you see college hockey on NBCSN or NESN and Fox Regionals. I never see minor league hockey.