- Joined
- Sep 19, 2018
- Messages
- 7,780
- Reaction Score
- 30,095
Not if the student-athletes are no longer student-athletes which is where this is ultimately heading.Title IX says hello.
Not if the student-athletes are no longer student-athletes which is where this is ultimately heading.Title IX says hello.
As to the women's issue, my guess is that's why the B1G and SEC have made it about "revenue" sharing. Separation of sources allows the sharing of revenue to be focused on those competing in the sport from which it was generated.I don’t think that we make enough profits to have any to share with the our 600+ athletes. We aren’t required to spend $20M. That’s just the cap.
The big schools have upwards of 1000+ athletes. They won’t be able to get away with paying only football and basketball. They will get on by the women in the courts if they try. A cap of $20 million will result in peanuts for 1000 athletes. I don’t see how them paying $33k on top of NIL is going to kill us based on the fact that we are clearly competing with the big boys on NIL.
Change happens. In the end, we’ll probably survive just like we always do.
BE schools don’t have football so they won’t be paying $20 million. It will be closer to $10 million.UConn going to one bowl game in 8 years and winning the NCAA Tournament The last two years has zero bearing on what is coming in the future of college athletics. You are conflating results of on field competition with legal litigation and future financial requirements. They are two completely separate things- Everyone has been talking for multiple years now about the new financial realities that will be required in order to compete at the highest level. That is now coming to light.
You claim that the Big East teams will all pay this money. $20M added costs annually is going to be an increase of anywhere from 40-60% of these schools’ existing budgets. You can’t just pull that out of a hat and good luck essentially taxing students through added fees who are taking out loans to pay for college so that the schools can eventually try to pay that money directly to their classmates. Surely that would go over great.
“Revenue sharing isn’t going to happen” - absolutely no idea how you can read anything in the article linked and come to that conclusion. The entire article is about how that is expected to happen.
”Schools will be forced to pay players directly within 5 years”. So…….. sharing the revenue they generate with the players then. And how do you think it will go when schools bringing in $100M+ annually are paying athletes directly on top of collective compensation and other NIL opportunities?
This is a massive problem for the university. They have no money. Zero. Pretending like adding more liabilities to UConn’s balance sheet without increasing revenues somehow isn’t an issue for us is laughable. And if you somehow think the state legislature is going to randomly vote to allot $20M annually to UConn’s athletic department to do this while we have been asked to cut our overall budget over the last 3 years, then you’re even dumber than I thought.
If it's a paper deficit, then why are they degrading the educational mission? That makes no sense.Anyone who knows me in person knows I am ruthless with money. I’m better with money than 99% on the board.
You are like the boy who cries wolf. Every change in college athletics you hide under the covers thinking UConn is done. Yet we just won two more basketball titles, made a bowl game in 2022, and outbid Kentucky for a couple huge recruits. Broke schools don’t outbid SEC schools.
I’m well aware of our on paper deficit.
This revenue sharing thing isn’t going to happen. Schools will be forced to pay players directly within 5 years.
The value of the scholarships has to be equal though. If you get a half scholarship, it doesn't count as a full one for Title IX purposes.Not all scholarships are full rides though, plenty (almost all) of our non-revenue athletes pay some amount of tuition to go to school at UConn
Sure, but if there are 20 players on the women’s hockey team each getting $35-40K/year in tuition and room and board compensated for them then the school is spending $800,000 to field that team which only brings in $25,000 in your scenario. So, they’re losing the University $775K/year and now the players think they need a share in the $25K of revenue the university recoups? It’s total nonsense. It’s the exact equivalent of a company that generates $1 billion in revenue having their 20,000 employees come to them and say “we want our split of the $1 billion of revenue”. The answer is also the same: Get lost!As to the women's issue, my guess is that's why the B1G and SEC have made it about "revenue" sharing. Separation of sources allows the sharing of revenue to be focused on those competing in the sport from which it was generated.
For example, if there's only $10,000 in annual ticket sales and $15,000 in revenue from selling jerseys and hats for women's hockey, they'll get a percentage of that revenue, not the $60,000,000 from football.
Basketball is a great spectator sport and very important at UConn but simply doesn't generate top money. UConn screwed up years ago when they were in the AAC, a decent football conference, and kept hiring the inept football HCs that created the post OBE UConn football collapse. Drop football and UConn looks like a huge Gtown/Seton Hall/PC. No thanks.Nope, we would just drop football and other sports and basketball would still be a Big East powerhouse. We are full steam ahead for a legendary 3peat and the women are winning a title next year too.
Football was dead once we couldn't get into the ACC a long time ago. It is just on life support now.Basketball is a great spectator sport and very important at UConn but simply doesn't generate top money. UConn screwed up years ago when they were in the AAC, a decent football conference, and kept hiring the inept football HCs that created the post OBE UConn football collapse. Drop football and UConn looks like a huge Gtown/Seton Hall/PC. No thanks.
The SEC, B1G and NIL is ruining amateur college sports. Not only do the athletes get a free education but ridiculous money for NIL. Take the cost of education out of the NIL - they are earning an income so they should be paying for a product/service - like the rest of us. Receiving student loans on top of that and who pays for that when idiots decide its a good thing to forgive the balances?
Work/study programs - are they still around?
The folks in charge of the NCAA, the university presidents and decision makers are all a reflection of the philosophies that are chewing up everything in this country.
Simply dropping sports besides basketball is not the answer. Baseball, soccer, field hockey, polo, ice hockey, track and field and yes, even football have experienced success at UConn and have been full of 4 year dedicated student athletes.
State income tax $10/year surcharge for each of the state’s 2 million taxpayers.
Sounds simple and easy. $10 here $10 there - yeah we don't pay enough in this state. It's not the amount, it's the principle. Once a tax like this is shoveled at the people the bigger the shovel becomes for those in the state legislature.
It could have survived in the AAC if there was adequate leadership in the coaching ranks. Not saying at all that UConn should have remained in the AAC but being competitive in football has paid dividends to some of the AAC schools.Football was dead once we couldn't get into the ACC a long time ago. It is just on life support now.
That would seem to be an inevitable eventuality based on logic. Of course, logic gets tricky when this much money is involved.It will soon come to a head whether athletic programs exist to augment the educational experience of university students, or whether they exist to make money.
Good luck with that.
AAC was just a horrible fit culturally and geographically for UConn. I'm just glad we saved our basketball program. Sorry, I know you are a big football supporter.It could have survived in the AAC if there was adequate leadership in the coaching ranks. Not saying at all that UConn should have remained in the AAC but being competitive in football has paid dividends to some of the AAC schools.
That's just the cost of doing business. Also, regarding your example, wouldn't that just be the employees asking for a salary?Sure, but if there are 20 players on the women’s hockey team each getting $35-40K/year in tuition and room and board compensated for them then the school is spending $800,000 to field that team which only brings in $25,000 in your scenario. So, they’re losing the University $775K/year and now the players think they need a share in the $25K of revenue the university recoups? It’s total nonsense. It’s the exact equivalent of a company that generates $1 billion in revenue having their 20,000 employees come to them and say “we want our split of the $1 billion of revenue”. The answer is also the same: Get lost!
I think that is a very realistic possibility for hundreds of schoolsSo schools would be paying students who lose money for the schools. None of this makes any sense. At this point get rid of all non-revenue sports.
No, that’s exactly my point. These players “salaries” for non revenue sports are the $40K or more they get in education and living expenses. They don’t get to “share” the revenue because there is no profit, it’s negative. The business example I used is exactly the same. The employees make a salary, that doesn’t mean they get a share of the company revenue. And a company making $1 billion in revenue might have more than $1 billion in expenses the same year meaning they lose money. Revenue is only looking at the $$ coming in. If the players want a cut of the net profit then I’m fine with that. Just realize that profit is negative for every sport other than basketball in UConn’s case.That's just the cost of doing business. Also, regarding your example, wouldn't that just be the employees asking for a salary?
And yet everything I'm reading in the Chronicle of Education says that, in this coming era of low #s in student demographics (compounded by both post 2008 low birth rates and the high cost of attendance) colleges need to leverage sports in order to have viable classes at all.I think that is a very realistic possibility for hundreds of schools
this was part of the argument UHart made in its downgrade. They were going to add sports when joining D3 in an effort to attract more tuition-paying students.They need sports to draw students, but they can't afford to compete. NET RESULT: the vast majority go D2 or D3.
For football I think that makes the most sense. Just cut the 20-30 biggest brands loose and let them go do their own thing. We'll see how well their exclusive little league does competing with an actual professional one and we'll see how alumni interest holds up once teams used to going 10-2, 11-1 every year since forever are now more routinely .500 teams because there are no more Fleener States and South Central Louisiana States to beat up on.I really don't feel like I am ignored, nor do I take it personally that my post about making it pro is ignored, but I am wondering if people are purposely ignoring the topic of professionalizing the sport because they would lose interest in it if it were professionalized. Why not make the revenue programs self-contained professional entities using the university's brand?
And maybe that's not a bad thing. Does the world really need say Bowdoin men's and women's cross country teams?I think that is a very realistic possibility for hundreds of schools
Perhaps the world doesn’t but the students who enjoy competing at that level do.And maybe that's not a bad thing. Does the world really need say Bowdoin men's and women's cross country teams?
Large-endowment, private D3 schools are the least troubled here imo. No athletic scholarships so many kids are paying to play, huge alumni engagement/donation generator, lower operating costs, no question about inappropriate public funding. Should CCSU or SCSU cross country exist? That's a harder questionAnd maybe that's not a bad thing. Does the world really need say Bowdoin men's and women's cross country teams?