Litigation to force paying of players?

[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.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

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.

That seems pretty specific to UT. I know the UConn foundation is not a solely athletic fundraising department. To your last point, I'm sure many different people have different reasons for having connections to their alma mater, but athletics is a big one for a lot of people. And at least in UConn's case, it is a big draw for students. Myself and a bunch of my college friends all got into significantly better academic schools and were drawn here by the athletics program. Again, it's not that way for everyone, but for a pretty sizeable number.

 

[upstater]

That seems pretty specific to UT. I know the UConn foundation is not a solely athletic fundraising department. To your last point, I'm sure many different people have different reasons for having connections to their alma mater, but athletics is a big one for a lot of people. And at least in UConn's case, it is a big draw for students. Myself and a bunch of my college friends all got into significantly better academic schools and were drawn here by the athletics program. Again, it's not that way for everyone, but for a pretty sizeable number.

I do agree that people decide on schools in such a fashion. My contention is that very few schools improve academic standing due to athletics. UConn is simply one of the lucky ones. The vast vast majority do not, as the rankings show. I think you'll find that the students who did attend the institutions you turned down for UConn are very attached to their universities, as attached as UConn fans. Many of these schools without athletic programs have alums who yearly contribute a good amount to the endowment. If you were the CEO of a school without athletics, you would think long and hard about whether to go bigtime into them

 

[WhereistheDove?]

I do agree that people decide on schools in such a fashion. My contention is that very few schools improve academic standing due to athletics. UConn is simply one of the lucky ones. The vast vast majority do not, as the rankings show. I think you'll find that the students who did attend the institutions you turned down for UConn are very attached to their universities, as attached as UConn fans. Many of these schools without athletic programs have alums who yearly contribute a good amount to the endowment. If you were the CEO of a school without athletics, you would think long and hard about whether to go bigtime into them

I'm not sure we're disagreeing on this. I have never contended that every school or even most improve academically. I have never said schools without good athletics don't get donations, etc. Schools need to foster that alumni relationship somehow and for a school like UConn without great academics or a lot of tradition, having a good athletics program fills a big chunk of that need.

 

[upstater]

I'm not sure we're disagreeing on this. I have never contended that every school or even most improve academically. I have never said schools without good athletics don't get donations, etc. Schools need to foster that alumni relationship somehow and for a school like UConn without great academics or a lot of tradition, having a good athletics program fills a big chunk of that need.

My response was to stuff earlier in the thread. That's why I initially mentioned donations to the other poster.

 

[Jarhead_1775]

Update article:
http://m.si.com/2595135/uscs-haden-ed-obannon-case-could-cause-seismic-ncaa-change/

 

[SubbaBub]

If you look at Soccer, and what Barcelona does, it is brilliant really. They run a school as part of their youth program, and recruit kids from around the world. They can manage and ensure a healthy study/sports balance that our colleges struggle with.

You may have solved it. Allow pro sports teams to sponsor college athletic programs. The Giants find prospects, sign them to a development contract and pay UConn to school them.

Your level of competition depends on the level of your "payroll"

No sponsorships, you are in an amateur division. Scholarships only. Break the rules and you are shut down.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[upstater]

You may have solved it. Allow pro sports teams to sponsor college athletic programs. The Giants find prospects, sign them to a development contract and pay UConn to school them.

Your level of competition depends on the level of your "payroll"

No sponsorships, you are in an amateur division. Scholarships only. Break the rules and you are shut down.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

I know there are already a bunch of non-students in D1, but in soccer you have a lot of Messi's, kids who effectively stop taking classes and ditch their education at 15.