The Real Battle | Page 2 | The Boneyard

The Real Battle

Status
Not open for further replies.
Great thread and some good insights. Thank you. A couple of points/questions

The BTN is going to need content and while football drives the bus, the other content could develop into an untapped nice little side business. IMO, there isn't any a reason an agressively marketed conference network couldn't make money by creating demand for it's olympic sports. Basketball, obviously, but what about baseball, softball, soccer, swimming...there are a dozen niche markets that the B1G can develop that, even if they are revenue neutral, generate interest in the conference. I'm involved in travel fastpitch softball and myself and many others have noticed that ESPN has begun showing a lot of SEC games. Those games are seen all over the country and because of that how many girls dream of playing for Bama or LSU or one of the other SEC powerhouses. I watched FP on the BTN as well and isn't there a tangible benefit to marketing those games so thousands of girls dream of playing for a B1G team? The same with soccer, etc. Maybe there isn't big $$$ but you can sell the conference brand which benefits the future because you can raise the level of athletics and the inteelectual pool and who knows, maybe you can make some nice side money when people decide they want to watch other sports. I thought the hidden value to the ESPN/ACC deal could be realized if they partnered to make the ACC more desirable for the best student athletes to attend an ACC school. "I grew up watching (ACC/B1G, etc) sport X so when it was time to choose a college I chose ACC/B1G school."

Secondly, and I'm not a lawyer, but I can't see how they can ever pay college players in the big revenue sports. If they pay one group doesn't Title IX dictate that ALL players have to be paid? And, if schools break away won't they get hammered with antitrust suits? It just seems to me that moving on either of those issues (or both) would be like opening up Pandora's box. The downside of doing so would far outweigh the slim chances of successful implementation of either pay for play or breaking away from the NCAA or both.
 
Interesting that you would bring up what you did about the Olympic sports.....especially softball. If there is some way we could talk offline I would like to fill you in on some information that I think would interest you. Let me know how to get in touch if you are interested.

As for paying college athletes.....I think, and am told, that would be the natural progression if the super conferences broke away. A couple of attorneys on the west coast have also been quite vocal about organizing players since they are responsible for generating the lions share of revenue that large athletic departments generate. In return for generating millions of dollars for their school they only receive tuition, fees and room/board paid. This was probably a good bargain more than a few decades ago when college athletics was not the big business it is today. My fear is that conference realignment and all the talk of media rights money is just reinforcing the feeling among some college athletes that they are being used by their school. At some point you are going to see some people come forth and try to unionize the college players and yes.....that will open up pandora's box. Then college athletics as we know it will be ruined. As much as there should be some worry about that, football at all levels need to be concerned about lawsuits associated with concussions. A ton of lawsuits have already been filed at the NFL level. Don't think for one moment that current and former college players will someday begin filing suits against conferences and schools knowing that these defendants have deep pockets from all the media rights money they receive.

As for antitrust suits, they are very expensive to defend. The schools that are left out of the super conferences that spent millions on facilities and their overall athletic program in order to compete in Division I will have a very good case. Don't even mention Title IX........the thought of that and all the pain that would bring would make you scream. Title IX was needed back when it was first implemented but it has now long outlived its usefulness in its present form. It now is needlessly killing off numerous sports each year at schools around the nation.
 
Title IX ... and gender equity ... is an unspoken issue in all this realignment.

Sports are getting cut. Often, at Rutgers & Maryland, by poor fiscal discipline that forces some of the marginal non-revenue to get tossed. But, the idea that this conference realignment IMPACTS women's programs all over the country as the disparity becomes $20+m to the low single digits in the overall FBS hasn't been discussed. The opportunity for women is impacted.

We are witnessing the Titanic tipping vertical here. The results are going to be massive as some level.
 
mavblues said:
I posted this several days ago - if you're going to add UConn, forget BC. It makes more sense to add Syracuse.
Expand ...
I know hockey ain't football and football drives the bus, but I think hockey does take some consideration here. I'm guessing that it's going to be third fiddle in the B1G pecking order. Right now B1G hockey stands at 6 team. I believe there are 3 BCS schools that play hockey not currently in the B1G. If you brought in UConn and BC together, you have an 8 team hockey conference. You have essentially shut out every other conference from New England and control the lion's share of the tristate/NYC.
 
fcclaw613 said:
Interesting that you would bring up what you did about the Olympic sports.....especially softball. If there is some way we could talk offline I would like to fill you in on some information that I think would interest you. Let me know how to get in touch if you are interested.

As for paying college athletes.....I think, and am told, that would be the natural progression if the super conferences broke away. A couple of attorneys on the west coast have also been quite vocal about organizing players since they are responsible for generating the lions share of revenue that large athletic departments generate. In return for generating millions of dollars for their school they only receive tuition, fees and room/board paid. This was probably a good bargain more than a few decades ago when college athletics was not the big business it is today. My fear is that conference realignment and all the talk of media rights money is just reinforcing the feeling among some college athletes that they are being used by their school. At some point you are going to see some people come forth and try to unionize the college players and yes.....that will open up pandora's box. Then college athletics as we know it will be ruined. As much as there should be some worry about that, football at all levels need to be concerned about lawsuits associated with concussions. A ton of lawsuits have already been filed at the NFL level. Don't think for one moment that current and former college players will someday begin filing suits against conferences and schools knowing that these defendants have deep pockets from all the media rights money they receive.

As for antitrust suits, they are very expensive to defend. The schools that are left out of the super conferences that spent millions on facilities and their overall athletic program in order to compete in Division I will have a very good case. Don't even mention Title IX........the thought of that and all the pain that would bring would make you scream. Title IX was needed back when it was first implemented but it has now long outlived its usefulness in its present form. It now is needlessly killing off numerous sports each year at schools around the nation.
Expand ...

I don't buy this for 1 second.

First, revenue is not profit. Lots of revenue. No profit. The schools would really open up their books in such a lawsuit and show you how badly they are bleeding.

Second, colleges exist by exploiting labor. It's part of the way they operate--to keep tuition down. 70% of those who teach classes on the average campus are working for below minimum wage ($2k per class per semester which is worse than $12k R&B that the athletes receive).
 
.-.
Lol yes, UConn's looking a bit closer than normal, but shhhh, it helps us.
 
I understand your argument but most of the larger Division I athletic departments at state supported schools operate without or very little state provided taxpayer support. Your argument would hold very true for Division III as well as a most Division II schools, but major Division I is a different animal when it comes to how they financially operate. The majority of Division I schools have been forced to, in part, make up financial shortfalls by increasing "student activity fees". It is not uncommon for the majority of this sometimes $250 or more annual "activity fee" to be sent to the athletic department. This is not money provided by the state to the "non profit" institution. These funds are coming directly from students, paid to the school and then dispersed to the athletic department which can be shown is operating with a high degree of independence from the "non profit" institution. I think it would be difficult to argue that the University of Alabama athletic department is a "non profit" when they have almost complete control over their own finances and pay Nick Saben $5.5 million a year, far more than the president of the university......or any other employee of the state for that matter. On the other end of the ledger the large schools that generate tremendous revenue (Ohio State) funnel a portion of their "profit" back to the school. In some sense this can be seen a wonderful thing.....but then again it is also seen as a "payoff" to leave the athletic department alone and respect its independence. Remember Gordon Gee, the president at Ohio State? In answering a question about the possibility that he might fire Jim Tressel after finding out the violations committed in the football program he said "I am hoping the coach does not dismiss me". Yes, it was a glib remark but it spoke a great deal of truth as well. It is all outlined in this ESPN article: http://espn.go.com/college-football...don-gee-recent-football-scandal-espn-magazine More than a few large schools are terrified of the athletic department and treat them in many respects as not part of the university. Best example is Penn State and the fear of Joe Paterno the administration held for decades. Thus, in my opinion, it would not be difficult to legally argue that athletic departments at many large state institutions operate as independent "for profit" entities and thus would be subject to antitrust action.

As for the unionization of college athletes you may want to take a look at a 2011 article that outlines the possibilities and how the NLRB might view the situation. You can find the article here http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefoo...ould-open-door-to-a-union-and-a-strike-072411 Note as well that it speaks to the problems this would present for Title IX. I would have agreed with you if this were early 2008, but the present administration has been extremely proactive when it comes to supporting existing unions and the creation of new ones. That is what would scare me. You have seen how many times Richard Trumka has been in the White House. He should have his own personal bedroom there. I can imagine supporters of a college player's union saying "well they just want their fair share". That line seems to have worked earlier this month.

Finally, another article in the New York Times lays out the arguments on both antitrust action as well as the move to pay athletes. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/opinion/nocera-the-college-sports-cartel.html?_r=0 If you sit back and look at things objectively you have to agree that tremendous rights fees associated with schools and conferences are pushing college athletics into areas that are fraught with issues that may look great in the short term......but would be devastating in the long term if not thought through.
 
fcclaw my name/handle is not actually CYLB

CYLB is an abbreviation of Catch You Later Boneyard. This was said after probably the wildest flameout in Boneyard history by a poster called SouthTampaBill. Important to note here, SouthTampaBill is possibly one of the worst Boneyard members of all time, or at least one of the most psychotic.
 
uc1974 said:
UConn and PSU have been moved closer to NYC than they actually are but I get the point.
Expand ...

Cuse is moved closer as well. PSU is actually very close. The reason they built it there is that it was the dead center of the state.
 
.-.
fcclaw613 said:
I understand your argument but most of the larger Division I athletic departments at state supported schools operate without or very little state provided taxpayer support. Your argument would hold very true for Division III as well as a most Division II schools, but major Division I is a different animal when it comes to how they financially operate. The majority of Division I schools have been forced to, in part, make up financial shortfalls by increasing "student activity fees". It is not uncommon for the majority of this sometimes $250 or more annual "activity fee" to be sent to the athletic department. This is not money provided by the state to the "non profit" institution. These funds are coming directly from students, paid to the school and then dispersed to the athletic department which can be shown is operating with a high degree of independence from the "non profit" institution. I think it would be difficult to argue that the University of Alabama athletic department is a "non profit" when they have almost complete control over their own finances and pay Nick Saben $5.5 million a year, far more than the president of the university......or any other employee of the state for that matter. On the other end of the ledger the large schools that generate tremendous revenue (Ohio State) funnel a portion of their "profit" back to the school. In some sense this can be seen a wonderful thing.....but then again it is also seen as a "payoff" to leave the athletic department alone and respect its independence. Remember Gordon Gee, the president at Ohio State? In answering a question about the possibility that he might fire Jim Tressel after finding out the violations committed in the football program he said "I am hoping the coach does not dismiss me". Yes, it was a glib remark but it spoke a great deal of truth as well. It is all outlined in this ESPN article: http://espn.go.com/college-football...don-gee-recent-football-scandal-espn-magazine More than a few large schools are terrified of the athletic department and treat them in many respects as not part of the university. Best example is Penn State and the fear of Joe Paterno the administration held for decades. Thus, in my opinion, it would not be difficult to legally argue that athletic departments at many large state institutions operate as independent "for profit" entities and thus would be subject to antitrust action.

As for the unionization of college athletes you may want to take a look at a 2011 article that outlines the possibilities and how the NLRB might view the situation. You can find the article here http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefoo...ould-open-door-to-a-union-and-a-strike-072411 Note as well that it speaks to the problems this would present for Title IX. I would have agreed with you if this were early 2008, but the present administration has been extremely proactive when it comes to supporting existing unions and the creation of new ones. That is what would scare me. You have seen how many times Richard Trumka has been in the White House. He should have his own personal bedroom there. I can imagine supporters of a college player's union saying "well they just want their fair share". That line seems to have worked earlier this month.

Finally, another article in the New York Times lays out the arguments on both antitrust action as well as the move to pay athletes. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/opinion/nocera-the-college-sports-cartel.html?_r=0 If you sit back and look at things objectively you have to agree that tremendous rights fees associated with schools and conferences are pushing college athletics into areas that are fraught with issues that may look great in the short term......but would be devastating in the long term if not thought through.
Expand ...

1. I've been through this before on this board countless times, jsut last week in fact and showed multiple links showing how D1 schools are all bleeding. Just as a case in point, I picked Texas and Michigan, and I showed...

a. All university branding/royalty fees are dumped into AD coffers
b. Cost per student subsidy born by the academic side
c. Both Texas and Michigan have debt service on stadium buildouts paid by the academic side. Both schools owe over $225m+. Debt service from AD to the academic side? $2m a year.
d. Private contributions toward building of these facilities were all dumped into AD coffers as revenue.
e. Fundraising arms of the AD rarely disclose that the money goes to athletics. This refers to Texas in particular, since a survey of donors revealed that 40% were not aware they weren't contributing to the academic side.

Even if you ignore 80% of this, pay attention to C. That's where the big money sink is.

2. Since universities exploit labor everywhere, which is treated as apprenticeship labor, are you saying the unions and Trumka also have interest in the exploitation of part-time faculty making below the minimum wage (they actually make less than the athletes and bring a lot more money into the school)? Or are they only interested in fairness for athletes, not other workers? Would the administration create a new class of worker that would skyrocket the cost of tuition, especially when Biden is on record as saying the cost of tuition is so high because of faculty pay? I sincerely doubt they would ever make such distinctions.

Besides, would such labor law apply also to unpaid internships at law offices all over America. These are for-profit entities. Maybe that should be illegal as well.
 
Husky Fan.......gotcha! Thanks for the heads up. That mistake will not be repeated. Apologies.
 
Great points all Upstater!

I would be in total agreement with all points you made relating to athletic department finances in relation to those of the academic side of the school if it were ten years ago.

Oddly, just watching "Forbes on Fox" and this issue was being discussed. One of the contributers said that there is a movement, do not know how strong, to make major college athletic departments "for profit" subsidiaries of "non profit" institutions because of the amount of money they are generating. Obviously, the level of concern about what we are seeing with the major schools and conferences has grown as all of this realignment continues to unfold. As I noted above, college athletics are being pushed into uncharted territory where issues, in large part tied to all the money being bantied about, will change the whole face of collegiate athletics. As you are well aware, large sums of money change all the dynamics. This is why it is inevitable that at some point different entitites which strongly adovocate for many of these issues, some totally insane, will show up at the door wanting a seat at the table. We see it all the time elsewhere throughout society. In my opinion, that will, in part, be the genesis for the antitrust suits and possible intrusion by labor unions and the NLRB. A good labor or antitust attorney could make a good argument that would survive summary judgement in this area.

Being a former adjunct faculty member myself I agree with you on the disparity of pay between the fulltime academics and us "underlings". That though sadly is but a faculty lounge issue at most institutions. Major college athletics, especially football and basketball, are highly visible and generate an inordinate amount of attention from the public. The squeakly wheel gets the grease, especially when there is so much money at stake. If they do find a way to pay the players, which I think is impossible without blowing up the current collegiate athletic system, that it would not cause tuitions to rise. They would not be paid as if they were in the NFL or NBA. If they played that well that is where they would be playing. The athletic department would just raise ticket prices, institute PSL's or find some other way to pass it on the fan. It is my understanding that the rise in tuition and fees is tied to how easy it has been the past two decades to obtain student loans and other financial aid. With the increase in the availability of low interest student loans the institutions felt they had a license to increase their tuition and fees as they would not suffer declining enrollment.

Anyway, you made great points. Your post really made me stop and give thought to what I had written. Thanks
 
fcclaw has made up for his low post count with word volume. In terms of total words posted, he is probably close to the all time median with just 18 posts.
 
.-.
Sorry, shall I stop? Let me know. I enjoy the well thought through comments regardless of viewpoint.
 
Waylon is just jealous of the fact that someone with actual work experience is posting information that he finds on google searches and claims as his own.
 
fcclaw613 said:
Great points all Upstater!

I would be in total agreement with all points you made relating to athletic department finances in relation to those of the academic side of the school if it were ten years ago.

Oddly, just watching "Forbes on Fox" and this issue was being discussed. One of the contributers said that there is a movement, do not know how strong, to make major college athletic departments "for profit" subsidiaries of "non profit" institutions because of the amount of money they are generating. Obviously, the level of concern about what we are seeing with the major schools and conferences has grown as all of this realignment continues to unfold. As I noted above, college athletics are being pushed into uncharted territory where issues, in large part tied to all the money being bantied about, will change the whole face of collegiate athletics. As you are well aware, large sums of money change all the dynamics. This is why it is inevitable that at some point different entitites which strongly adovocate for many of these issues, some totally insane, will show up at the door wanting a seat at the table. We see it all the time elsewhere throughout society. In my opinion, that will, in part, be the genesis for the antitrust suits and possible intrusion by labor unions and the NLRB. A good labor or antitust attorney could make a good argument that would survive summary judgement in this area.

Being a former adjunct faculty member myself I agree with you on the disparity of pay between the fulltime academics and us "underlings". That though sadly is but a faculty lounge issue at most institutions. Major college athletics, especially football and basketball, are highly visible and generate an inordinate amount of attention from the public. The squeakly wheel gets the grease, especially when there is so much money at stake. If they do find a way to pay the players, which I think is impossible without blowing up the current collegiate athletic system, that it would not cause tuitions to rise. They would not be paid as if they were in the NFL or NBA. If they played that well that is where they would be playing. The athletic department would just raise ticket prices, institute PSL's or find some other way to pass it on the fan. It is my understanding that the rise in tuition and fees is tied to how easy it has been the past two decades to obtain student loans and other financial aid. With the increase in the availability of low interest student loans the institutions felt they had a license to increase their tuition and fees as they would not suffer declining enrollment.

Anyway, you made great points. Your post really made me stop and give thought to what I had written. Thanks
Expand ...

Great post. Because of AD financing, I have been very open to agents fronting money to players. I don't see why not, ethically. It would end college athletics as we know it, but other than that, there doesn't seem to be a good logical basis to prevent it.
 
fcclaw613 said:
Sorry, shall I stop? Let me know. I enjoy the well thought through comments regardless of viewpoint.
Expand ...

No, don't stop. I think we are all just a little surprised that posts of that length don't come with a paragraph or two pertaining to Naval battleships... (that is an "inside" BY joke on one of our most famous posters....we all still love you, Carl!)...
 
.-.
Funster......get in touch sometime on e-mail.....my nicname at Yahoo. I will tell you what we are doing with olympic sports.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,305
Messages
4,562,314
Members
10,457
Latest member
caw2


Top Bottom