Litigation to force paying of players?

[CL82]

What about UConnis case? Does UConn 2000 and all that happened afterward occur if without the popularity and success of the men's and woman's BB teams?

 

[Penfield]

What about UConn case? Does UConn 2000 and all that happened afterward occur if without the popularity and success of the men's and woman's BB teams?

No.

But there are other schools that are very popular in certain sports and are not climbing the ranks. Example - Kentucky.

We have a special set of circumstates that is for sure.

 

[bmayuc]

I've disagreed with this point of view for a very long time now.
Colleges are slashing programs and raising tuition. The very ground of universities is being radically rearranged as we speak. The fundraising people speak of is counted as athletic department donations (look at the budgets, contributions in the tens of millions are counted as revenue). Many schools that played this game with sports have failed. Andrew Zimbalist, a researcher on this issue, thinks the marketing aspect is wildly overblown. His research shows that in less than 10% of the moves to pump up athletics has there been any residual benefit for the universities. Mostly, he sees them as losing ground because of the outlay. There are more schools rising into the top 100 rankings WITHOUT D1 football than those without. As schools like Rutgers and Syracuse drop drastically in the rankings, schools like Boston U. rise.

How valuable is 20000 adult alumni coming together for 6 home gamez? 7500 for 20 mens games and 20 womens games? How much fundraising, continuity, culture does that build. How many kids get to play collefe athletics? How many kids go to UConn games and grow to love the university (me). Alot of things go into athletics programs that arent strictly dollars and cents. My point being, if you have a 50 million athletics budget that comes even close to even ( or in our case operates at a gain, its like printing free money and press.

sent from my Galaxy Note 2 using tapatalk

 

[upstater]

How valuable is 20000 adult alumni coming together for 6 home gamez? 7500 for 20 mens games and 20 womens games? How much fundraising, continuity, culture does that build. How many kids get to play collefe athletics? How many kids go to UConn games and grow to love the university (me). Alot of things go into athletics programs that arent strictly dollars and cents. My point being, if you have a 50 million athletics budget that comes even close to even ( or in our case operates at a gain, its like printing free money and press.

sent from my Galaxy Note 2 using tapatalk

It doesn't ever operate at a gain. That's the point. Could the money be better spent elsewhere?

I trust the studies that look at the question and come up with an unequivocal yes.

Again, my post already addressed fundraising and contributions. These are indeed equivalent to alumni "love" as you put it. The schools outside D1 football do as well or better than the schools inside.

Also, this is solely about football, since D1 basketball does not cost anywhere near as much, and there are 400 schools that participate in the latter.

 

[upstater]

What about UConnis case? Does UConn 2000 and all that happened afterward occur if without the popularity and success of the men's and woman's BB teams?

UConn and BC may be very rare cases. The question is, does the lightbulb go on at the state house eventually? UConn was funded at the very bottom nationally until UConn 2000. Having watched school athletics over the decades, I'd say that yes UConn sports built enthusiasm. The same sort of thing doesn't happen elsewhere however. Conn. had a chronically underfunded higher education system. You have to wonder whether it would have ever funded it more. Remember, in the 1970s, the SUNYs all ramped up education and programs, rather than sports, and now they are landing a good amount of research funds, they joined the AAU, and the students are just as good as UConn students, all with little to no investment in athletics until recently--and that recent investment is a big mistake.

 

[storrsroars]

Here's an interesting article on the future of youth baseball that pits the USSSA (semi-pro/BCS) vs. Little League (amateur-"ish"/NCAA) with the conclusion that paying 9-year-olds to play is our inevitable future.

The parallels are similar to the projected college football schism. Schools may have to eventually decide if they're football factories of educational institutions and align themselves accordingly.

Hockey is already stupid expensive for parents. And we've seen the growth in influence of the AAU (the crooked one, not the academic one) in hoops.

Could be in the near future there really won't be any "student-athletes".

 

[huskymedic]

Here's an interesting article on the future of youth baseball that pits the USSSA (semi-pro/BCS) vs. Little League (amateur-"ish"/NCAA) with the conclusion that paying 9-year-olds to play is our inevitable future.

The parallels are similar to the projected college football schism. Schools may have to eventually decide if they're football factories of educational institutions and align themselves accordingly.

Hockey is already stupid expensive for parents. And we've seen the growth in influence of the AAU (the crooked one, not the academic one) in hoops.

Could be in the near future there really won't be any "student-athletes".

This is going on in all youth sports now-a-days. Travel hockey, soccer, basketball, baseball, lacrosse... Multi-sport stars are becoming fewer and fewer due to specialization and expected year round commitment.

 

[upstater]

This is going on in all youth sports now-a-days. Travel hockey, soccer, basketball, baseball, lacrosse... Multi-sport stars are becoming fewer and fewer due to specialization and expected year round commitment.

This is very true. Out of frustration with my daughter's youth soccer club (total mayhem), we drove 20 minutes further out to a US Soccer Academy team that is subsidized/sponsored by the New England Revolution (MLS). In just a few sessions, my daughter learned more than she had in months. They also have funding to train poorer kids, mainly from the city. They hardly ever scrimmage, it's just straight drills for an hour and a half. My daughter actually prefers this over the chaos of scrimmaging at her former club. But the thing is, she has to stay with that house league club until she's 9, because the youth academies don't have travel teams until the age of 9 (which isn't a bad thing). For now, she can only train with the US Soccer affiliated team.

 

[HuskyHawk]

What about UConnis case? Does UConn 2000 and all that happened afterward occur if without the popularity and success of the men's and woman's BB teams?

UConn's situation, and potentially, UMass' situation, are different. New England publics were historically underfunded compared with peer institutions in other parts of the country. Tuitions were higher, and facilities worse. I always assumed that this was because no New England public is the top school in its state, and in most cases, they aren't close or are behind several schools. UMass has it worst, and can't crack the top 10 in MA. UConn basketball encouraged the state to take a different approach, and we've seen the results.

 

[huskypantz]

God no.

You don't want that? So you want schools with the most money to lure players in with higher annual subsidies? Isn't that just the rich getting richer? Paying players should not impact how attractive a school is to a potential recruit, it should be a nonissue.

 

[whaler11]

And, so, then how would schools fund college athletics?

Gee I don't know. How are there hundreds of DIII programs? College athletics only lose money because they invent ways to spend the revenue. Maybe if the offensive line coach wasn't making 550k and the athletic director 1.1 million and there weren't facilities that were worth tens of millions of dollars. Maybe if Ohio State didn't have an athletic staff larger than the White House. Maybe if teams traveled reasonable distances to play games and South Florida didn't bring 25 band geeks and 15 cheerleaders to perform in an empty arena 1,200 miles from Tampa for a women's basketball tourney.

There may be a few ways to trim some costs....

 

[upstater]

Gee I don't know. How are there hundreds of DIII programs? College athletics only lose money because they invent ways to spend the revenue. Maybe if the offensive line coach wasn't making 550k and the athletic director 1.1 million and there weren't facilities that were worth tens of millions of dollars. Maybe if Ohio State didn't have an athletic staff larger than the White House. Maybe if teams traveled reasonable distances to play games and South Florida didn't bring 25 band geeks and 15 cheerleaders to perform in an empty arena 1,200 miles from Tampa for a women's basketball tourney.

There may be a few ways to trim some costs....

What in the world is your argument? That schools drop down to the D3 level? OK, UConn first. Has there ever been a thread on the football board bemoaning assistant coach pay? Answer that.

 

[whaler11]

What in the world is your argument? That schools drop down to the D3 level? OK, UConn first. Has there ever been a thread on the football board bemoaning assistant coach pay? Answer that.

My argument is that athletic departments 'lose' money only because they choose to. Certainly college sports can be played without spending so much money thousands of schools do it.

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/42924176/

 

[upstater]

My argument is that athletic departments 'lose' money only because they choose to. Certainly college sports can be played without spending so much money thousands of schools do it.

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/42924176/

OK then. Let's spend less money. Who goes first?

Let's ask Ollie to take a paycut. Stop building the basketball facility. Get rid of the new compliance officers and tutors. Schedule only lower teams that will travel to Storrs. This will save a ton of money.

 

[whaler11]

OK then. Let's spend less money. Who goes first?

Let's ask Ollie to take a paycut. Stop building the basketball facility. Get rid of the new compliance officers and tutors. Schedule only lower teams that will travel to Storrs. This will save a ton of money.

You keep talking about the financial pressures. Seems the students who pay the tuition and the administrators who own the finances could certainly impact change if they saw fit. Based on your gloom and doom a lot must be close.

There are plenty of cuts to make long before you get to Kevin Ollie's salary.

Just having the government remove the ridiculous non-profit status would go a long way.

 

[upstater]

You keep talking about the financial pressures. Seems the students who pay the tuition and the administrators who own the finances could certainly impact change if they saw fit.

Just having the government remove the ridiculous non-profit status would go a long way.

Remove the non-profit status from a public school? I have no idea how you think that would help anything. Let me say again: NO PROFITS.

The last administrator who tried to get football to pay its way (Elsa Benitez at Tex A&M) was summarily fired. Politicians, boosters, BOTs and alumni make damn certain that anyone who messes with a sports sacred cow ride a rail out of town,=. That much is evident. Rarely is there enough push back against the state pols (as we saw at UVa when the Pres. got the shaft, but UVa. is a strange bird--not every student body takes pride in academics).

 

[whaler11]

Remove the non-profit status from a public school? I have no idea how you think that would help anything. Let me say again: NO PROFITS.

The last administrator who tried to get football to pay its way (Elsa Benitez at Tex A&M) was summarily fired. Politicians, boosters, BOTs and alumni make damn certain that anyone who messes with a sports sacred cow ride a rail out of town,=. That much is evident. Rarely is there enough push back against the state pols (as we saw at UVa when the Pres. got the shaft, but UVa. is a strange bird--not every student body takes pride in academics).

You seem to ignore that the only reason there are no profits is because the schools have chosen to run their athletic departments in that fashion. Texas could easily throw off tens of millions to the school if they chose to do so.

I don't blame students for not caring about athlete academics. They don't impact the school at large. Nobody really gives a damn that UNC was holding imaginary classes.

The students should care that they leave school with additional financial burdens because schools like South Florida deem it necessary to send their cheerleaders to Hartford for a women's basketball tournament. They should care that they can't get required classes they need while the baseball team is spending 10 days in Florida.

Nobody needs a fleet of SID's. Nobody needs a staff of midlevel managers who provide no value. Nobody needs to pay an FCS school a million dollars to take a beatdown.

 

[upstater]

You seem to ignore that the only reason there are no profits is because the schools have chosen to run their athletic departments in that fashion. Texas could easily throw off tens of millions to the school if they chose to do so.

I don't blame students for not caring about athlete academics. They don't impact the school at large. Nobody really gives a damn that UNC was holding imaginary classes.

The students should care that they leave school with additional financial burdens because schools like South Florida deem it necessary to send their cheerleaders to Hartford for a women's basketball tournament. They should care that they can't get required classes they need while the baseball team is spending 10 days in Florida.

Nobody needs a fleet of SID's. Nobody needs a staff of midlevel managers who provide no value. Nobody needs to pay an FCS school a million dollars to take a beatdown.

I've already answered most of these questions up top. Students do care, and they do know, since many college newspapers keep apprised of this sort of thing. But students are not bosses. Politicians, BOTs, boosters and to a degree alumni are bosses.

Notre Dame would be in the B1G right now were it not for these groups.

 

[whaler11]

I've already answered most of these questions up top. Students do care, and they do know, since many college newspapers keep apprised of this sort of thing. But students are not bosses. Politicians, BOTs, boosters and to a degree alumni are bosses.

Notre Dame would be in the B1G right now were it not for these groups.

Oh students aren't bosses, interesting I didn't realize. They are however the customers and they really hold the power if they chose to use it.

 

[upstater]

Oh students aren't bosses, interesting I didn't realize. They are however the customers and they really hold the power if they chose to use it.

You think students are bosses? Really? The reason governments subsidize education is that they believe education is for the common good, that investing in the young will lead to benefits in the future. Otherwise governments wouldn't invest in education, nor would anyone bother with it. If students were bosses they would all get As!

 

[whaler11]

You think students are bosses? Really? The reason governments subsidize education is that they believe education is for the common good, that investing in the young will lead to benefits in the future. Otherwise governments wouldn't invest in education, nor would anyone bother with it. If students were bosses they would all get As!

They are the customers and since they are the ones paying the tuition they can influence how it is spent. If they cared enough to organize themselves they could certainly influence how their money gets spent.

The people who drink Coke aren't the 'bosses' but they sure made New Coke go away pretty quickly didn't they.

You may have been on campuses too long to realize this - but without students willing to pay to attend most schools cease to exist.

 

[upstater]

They are the customers and since they are the ones paying the tuition they can influence how it is spent. If they cared enough to organize themselves they could certainly influence how their money gets spent.

The people who drink Coke aren't the 'bosses' but they sure made New Coke go away pretty quickly didn't they.

You may have been on campuses too long to realize this - but without students willing to pay to attend most schools cease to exist.

Tuition is 1/4 of cost per student. The bosses have bosses. Not the students.

 

[huskymedic]

Interesting read... http://www.athleticscholarships.net...ten-is-afraid-of-the-sec-and-deregulation.htm

"In that future, the Big Ten is philosophically closer to Division III or the Ivy League than it is to the SEC. To catch-up to the SEC, it would need to disband teams wholesale. A whole conference closing up teams in the way Maryland and Cal originally did over the last few years is a very tough sell. Then again, so is dropping between one and three levels of football and basketball competition. The real question would be just how much the Big Ten values competing against like-minded schools."

 

[WhereistheDove?]

I've disagreed with this point of view for a very long time now.
Colleges are slashing programs and raising tuition. The very ground of universities is being radically rearranged as we speak. The fundraising people speak of is counted as athletic department donations (look at the budgets, contributions in the tens of millions are counted as revenue).

This isn't entirely true. Sure, donations made specifically to the athletic department are counted as athletic revenue, I'm sure there are also a lot of alumni giving donations to the school that are indirectly due to the athletics department. Schools need to foster some sort of lasting school pride for that. God knows 99% of the time I'm thinking about or seeing UConn is through the football/basketball teams.

 

[upstater]

This isn't entirely true. Sure, donations made specifically to the athletic department are counted as athletic revenue, I'm sure there are also a lot of alumni giving donations to the school that are indirectly due to the athletics department. Schools need to foster some sort of lasting school pride for that. God knows 99% of the time I'm thinking about or seeing UConn is through the football/basketball teams.

For sure, you're correct about that. On the other hand, when they surveyed donors to the Longhorn Foundation, 65% of them were unaware that they were not contributing to the academic side. If you've ever been to these shakedown soirees, a lot of time you have an administrator literally having checks stuffed into his coat pocket by people. Another part of the donations, by the way, is in capital campaigns for facilities. Schools say the money was raised privately. But the money raised is counted as contribution revenue while the school itself bonds out the construction of facilities. Neat sleight of hand. In the Daily Texan, one of economists down there broke down all components of the athletic budget. It was very revealing.

Almost all my contact with my undergraduate school is non-athletics related--travel groups, shows, events, lectures, etc.