Van Pelt Rant RE: Maryland Student Section

[billybud]

Maybe there are more middle class ball players at UConn...but down south, many of the athletes are from single parent homes, raised by a mom trying to raise her kids at below the poverty level income.

They come from the dangerous areas of Miami, the poverty stricken towns "on the muck" along the Glades, the hard scrabble country towns of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi.

I went to school in the way back on the GI Bill and a job in the college bookstore. I remember not having money...but I was far, far better off then these kids.

The young athletes get a free education, but they have no money for shoes, clothes, haircuts, going out on a weekend date, a car, gas, going home for the holidays....for being a normal student. Sure, they can eat free at the training table, but going out with the crowd for wings and a beer...or a hamburger costs money.

I can see why they get tempted to take money from an agent, sell memorabilia, etc.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Maybe there are more middle class ball players at UConn...but down south, many of the athletes are from single parent homes, raised by a mom trying to raise her kids at below the poverty level income.

They come from the dangerous areas of Miami, the poverty stricken towns "on the muck" along the Glades, the hard scrabble country towns of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi.

I went to school in the way back on the GI Bill and a job in the college bookstore. I remember not having money...but I was far, far better off then these kids.

The young athletes get a free education, but they have no money for shoes, clothes, haircuts, going out on a weekend date, a car, gas, going home for the holidays....for being a normal student. Sure, they can eat free at the training table, but going out with the crowd for wings and a beer...or a hamburger costs money.

I can see why they get tempted to take money from an agent, sell memorabilia, etc.

Well,I think you hit the nail on the head here. My biggest issue with stipends, is how you regulate what's happening. I can guarantee you that the first place I would have been if I had cash money to spend in college, was at the bar, with a pitcher of beer and plate of wings/pizza, whatever.

If stipends are going out, they need to be dispersed in a way that makes sense. ID cards, are already in place, that are scanned for meals and things like that. Keep it in house money like a disney card or something. THey can only spend money at places that accept the uconn id card......

Or do you cut a check to each student for the entire amount of their scholarship and give them the responsibility of paying all of their tuition, room, board, meal, book expenses on their own?

just giving a different perspective.

It's not as easy at sounds, if you don't want to open up a can of worms. Wait till the first player spends his stipend money in singles at a strip joint and social media photos get out.

 

[whaler11]

They can make $100 at ted's. They are allowed to work during the summer. All the TAs and scholarship kids on campus sign contracts forbidding them from working during the school year.

I just can't understand why people keep shouting capitalism and they don't bother looking at the bottom line. You want to pay people when the department they are a part of is a money loser. Makes no sense. Hruby's arguments totally ignored Title 9.

Because the bottom line is a joke. It's a money loser on paper because the revenues are often realized elsewhere.

Look at the donations to Texas A&M the year before Johnny Football and then look at them after.

They were $300 million higher over any other 12 month period.... I'm sure that's a coincidence for joining the SEC and having a heisman trophy winner.

The schools choose to enrich the coaches and administrators, which is fine - but let's not pretend the money isn't available - the schools just choose to waste it.

Hell something as simple as conferences realigning to geographic sense would save enough money to cover any plan that has been proposed.

 

[upstater]

Because the bottom line is a joke. It's a money loser on paper because the revenues are often realized elsewhere.

Look at the donations to Texas A&M the year before Johnny Football and then look at them after.

They were $300 million higher over any other 12 month period.... I'm sure that's a coincidence for joining the SEC and having a heisman trophy winner.

The schools choose to enrich the coaches and administrators, which is fine - but let's not pretend the money isn't available - the schools just choose to waste it.

Hell something as simple as conferences realigning to geographic sense would save enough money to cover any plan that has been proposed.

Link for $300 million? I'd love to see that.

We totally disagree on revenues. The expenditures are hidden. Ever see an AD pay for new facilities or a new stadium? Hasn't happened yet. People forget about what it takes to construct these things, and no donors did NOT pay for new stadiums/renovations at Michigan, texas and even Rutgers. It only happened at Oklahoma St., and even that was not without huge controversy because all the money was lost by T. Boone before he reimbursed them, and the school ended up shuttering research projects because of that.

If this were run as a business, of course you would take building costs into account.

45% of the donors to the Longhorn Foundation thought they were contributing to the overall university--they were absolutely unaware they were giving money to football only. Then you look at royalties: 100% of licensing revenues go to the AD. Seems odd, no?

 

[upstater]

Maybe there are more middle class ball players at UConn...but down south, many of the athletes are from single parent homes, raised by a mom trying to raise her kids at below the poverty level income.

They come from the dangerous areas of Miami, the poverty stricken towns "on the muck" along the Glades, the hard scrabble country towns of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi.

I went to school in the way back on the GI Bill and a job in the college bookstore. I remember not having money...but I was far, far better off then these kids.

The young athletes get a free education, but they have no money for shoes, clothes, haircuts, going out on a weekend date, a car, gas, going home for the holidays....for being a normal student. Sure, they can eat free at the training table, but going out with the crowd for wings and a beer...or a hamburger costs money.

I can see why they get tempted to take money from an agent, sell memorabilia, etc.

This all makes sense. But if they are that poor, there is more financial aid available to them. Remember, Pell Grants cover the total cost of education, not only the tuition and room &board.

One thing people aren't taking into account in all this is that the schools--in order to maintain the emphasis that these are students--are planning to pay a stipend equal to the amount of extra costs. But that amount is fixed and reported on the school website, as required by the DOE. In other words, schools are required to tell students what the extra costs will be. Well, these fees at almost all schools are right now in the $2500 range. if that level gets raised for athletes--so that athletes receive more money--it needs to be raised for ALL students as per the DOE regulations.

These are not simply businesses. They are programs within a larger institution that's bound by employee relations, labor laws, DOE regulations, and a bunch of other informal and formal accreditation issues.

By the way, what prevents these kids from taking a summer job like the vast majority of other students? 30 hours a week over 4 months = a clear $4k.

 

[whaler11]

http://www.businessinsider.com/char...texas-am-past-texas-as-top-money-maker-2013-9

 

[upstater]

I hear what you are saying, but let's just say we are talking $5K/kid. If you did it for the full 85 that is $425K/year. Double it if you need to make up for Title IX somewhere. The math alone says that this wouldn't kill the program. Or any real program. To say that we shouldn't pay athletes is one thing. To say that the universities can't afford a stipend, one that is 25% of the head coach's salary is silly.

And the reality is that many of these kids do scrape by. And that's why violations happen. When P told the kids two weeks before his first game they needed jackets and ties, where were these kids supposed to get the money to accomplish that? Telling them they can go to a thrift shop is nice in theory, but football player size clothing isn't always readily available.

You would be shocked what the school doesn't pay for. Even some things the players wear on the field. You need tape, fine - they have a warehouse full of tape. You want an ankle brace? Go to 's and buy one. Get poked in the eye? We will get you special contacts so you can play. When you walk off the field we will take them from you and hold them. If you can't see to go to class? Go buy some glasses. You are poor? Tough |>¥!

I'm not in favor of paying kids "real money" and I understand the slippery slope argument. But how does giving a player a modest stipend do anything but make life easier for the average athlete? I would argue that the guys with their hands out will always have their hands out. Most of the kids are just looking to get by and enjoy college life a little on top of football.

I don't want to come down hard on you, but I think I addressed all this. First, it's not just football and the complementary scholarships for women that would get money, but every scholarship athlete. It's probably an outlay of a couple million. The problem is the context of that extra money within the institution at a time of cutbacks. How do these schools look an average student in the face when they are taking $1k in student fees every year from each student, many of whom work full-time, students who will also be paying interest on that $1k (yes, whaler it goes to the head coach's pocket) for 20 years? And now you're going to ask for another $100-150 more to pay their fellow students? Talking to these kids is interesting, because a lot of them who work live on Ramen noodles. This is not a big problem for, say, Michigan, where many of the students are wealthy. But for most big state schools in D1 (that charge about $7-8k in tuition), it's a problem. Most of their students are working class. They work themselves. Beyond that, there are a ton of other implications which I addressed in an earlier post, like complying with DOE regulations about extra costs, and any raise for athletes needs to be an across the board charge for all students.

About medical help for athletes injured in agame, of course that's preposterous and yes I was unaware.

 

[whaler11]

http://m.theeagle.com/news/local/article_82266d1a-11c0-543b-b75a-4c3613357abe.html?mode=jqm

 

[whaler11]

I don't want to come down hard on you, but I think I addressed all this. First, it's not just football and the complementary scholarships for women that would get money, but every scholarship athlete. It's probably an outlay of a couple million. The problem is the context of that extra money within the institution at a time of cutbacks. How do these schools look an average student in the face when they are taking $1k in student fees every year from each student, many of whom work full-time, students who will also be paying interest on that $1k (yes, whaler it goes to the head coach's pocket) for 20 years? And now you're going to ask for another $100-150 more to pay their fellow students? Talking to these kids is interesting, because a lot of them who work live on Ramen noodles. This is not a big problem for, say, Michigan, where many of the students are wealthy. But for most big state schools in D1 (that charge about $7-8k in tuition), it's a problem. Most of their students are working class. They work themselves. Beyond that, there are a ton of other implications which I addressed in an earlier post, like complying with DOE regulations about extra costs, and any raise for athletes needs to be an across the board charge for all students.

About medical help for athletes injured in agame, of course that's preposterous and yes I was unaware.

Well one would think the correct remedy for the students being charged huge fees wouldn't be monetizing other students to make admins and coaches wealthy but rather spend the huge amounts of revenue in more sensible ways.... but you are entrenched in your dogma and can't comprehend alternatives.

 

[upstater]

http://www.businessinsider.com/char...texas-am-past-texas-as-top-money-maker-2013-9

Thanks for the link. If you follow to the Chronicle of HE article, you'll see that these donations were largely estate commitments well before Manziel and the SEC. About $250m were for Kyle Field. And while the university reported all these donations in a single year, they were collected over many years (Kyle Field money) and not collected yet. In fact, the real amount reported is only 30% of the headline number because the total is pledges.

About 95 percent of the gifts are donor restricted, he said, including $31-million toward a new engineering complex and $20-million for the George P. and Cynthia Woods Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy. About $97.5-million was in the form of private gifts for research, and gifts from the annual-fund drive totaled $7.6-million, just over 1 percent of the total. Estate bequests totaled $205-million. The largest share of the money, $350.9-million, came from the Texas A&M Foundation, with about a third of that sum represented by 40 gifts that exceeded $1-million each.

When you look at the paragraph above, you have to realize that the amounts listed are garnered over many many years. It doesn't happen all of a sudden after a great football season, especially the estate stuff and the donor restricted money. That's 500m right there.

Don't get me wrong. $250m for a stadium in private money is unbelievable. Texas and Michigan couldn't do that. The schools took out $250m loans. But, A&M is an outlier. Not many schools fire Presidents for disagreements with their athletic directors. That's what kind of place A&M is. I have no doubt that football runs things there. haven't I said that repeatedly in the past?

 

[upstater]

Well one would think the correct remedy for the students being charged huge fees wouldn't be monetizing other students to make admins and coaches wealthy but rather spend the huge amounts of revenue in more sensible ways.... but you are entrenched in your dogma and can't comprehend alternatives.

The amount of money lost is hidden, and it dwarfs the average college coach's salary--so what are you arguing? That the coach's salary should be offset by the stipends?

OK, let's start with UConn. Instead of paying a coach $2m next year, UConn should pay him $500k!

That's called unilateral disarmament.

Is it realistic?

I'm trying to be realistic.

 

[whaler11]

The amount of money lost is hidden, and it dwarfs the average college coach's salary--so what are you arguing? That the coach's salary should be offset by the stipends?

OK, let's start with UConn. Instead of paying a coach $2m next year, UConn should pay him $500k!

That's called unilateral disarmament.

Is it realistic?

I'm trying to be realistic.

Obviously it would take reform across the board - but if all these schools are losing as much money as you claim why wouldn't they be interested - instead they do the opposite and spend more.

If it's all such a terrible proposition why are schools joining FCS and FBS. Why are there seemingly a dozen schools joining D-1 basketball a year? Incarnate Word? Albeline Christian?

Sure you can say that sports lose money if you look at interest payments... but that ignores how donations to the school are directly tied to sports.

The reality is that real reform would require people to stop pretending college sports isn't a business. If I were a student paying huge fees I'd be a lot more upset about the golf team, tennis team and the rest of the non-revenue sports. The football and basketball team members generate revenue well beyond what their scholarships are worth. At a handful of schools, hockey and women's basketball do the same. Volleyball, tennis, track.. those teams offer scholarships and have coaches whom make decent money why?

 

[CTMike]

I'm in favor of these "full cost of attendance" type scholarships being floated. Beyond that is not necessary. At the same time, if a player wants to enter in to some marketing agreement whether it be an endorsement or use of his likeness, he should be free to do so.

 

[ZooCougar]

Before we start paying players, let's just get to the point where full scholarships cover the full cost of enrollment.

 

[upstater]

Obviously it would take reform across the board - but if all these schools are losing as much money as you claim why wouldn't they be interested - instead they do the opposite and spend more.

If it's all such a terrible proposition why are schools joining FCS and FBS. Why are there seemingly a dozen schools joining D-1 basketball a year? Incarnate Word? Albeline Christian?

Sure you can say that sports lose money if you look at interest payments... but that ignores how donations to the school are directly tied to sports.

The reality is that real reform would require people to stop pretending college sports isn't a business. If I were a student paying huge fees I'd be a lot more upset about the golf team, tennis team and the rest of the non-revenue sports. The football and basketball team members generate revenue well beyond what their scholarships are worth. At a handful of schools, hockey and women's basketball do the same. Volleyball, tennis, track.. those teams offer scholarships and have coaches whom make decent money why?

You're asking Presidents to buck politicos on the Boards, as well as alumni and boosters.

When you're making $60 million, of course you can cut costs, especially given the outrageous growth in budgets. But it's the equivalent of giving up competition at the highest levels. So, don't pay for the coach, establish a top $$ amount, and funnel the proceeds to the players.

 

[billybud]

"A Des Moines Register analysis shows that needy athletes in the Big Ten, Big 12 and Southeastern conferences alone received financial benefits beyond scholarships of nearly $5 million, with individual grants sometimes exceeding $5,000 during the 2010-11 school year."

A pretty good read:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/spor...yers-collecting-millions-in-grants/50170388/1

 

[upstater]

"A Des Moines Register analysis shows that needy athletes in the Big Ten, Big 12 and Southeastern conferences alone received financial benefits beyond scholarships of nearly $5 million, with individual grants sometimes exceeding $5,000 during the 2010-11 school year."

A pretty good read:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/spor...yers-collecting-millions-in-grants/50170388/1

I always assumed this happens because financial aid covers all costs.

That's the thing. I'm assuming here that athletes from poor families do not apply for financial aid. This is why some don't receive the extra money.

In other words, this whole discussion would be moot if only these athletes applied for financial aid (i.e. filled out a FAFSA).

 

[whaler11]

You're asking Presidents to buck politicos on the Boards, as well as alumni and boosters.

When you're making $60 million, of course you can cut costs, especially given the outrageous growth in budgets. But it's the equivalent of giving up competition at the highest levels. So, don't pay for the coach, establish a top amount, and funnel the proceeds to the players.

There is so much fat that could be cut before you paid football and basketball coaches less it's a joke.

Unless you really think schools need an entire staff of sports information directors - they paid Mike Enright $127k to just do football and rowing. Do schools need to fly their cheerleaders to women's conference basketball tournaments? Maybe instead of paying huge paychecks to FCS schools for football games they could schedule a home and home with a legitimate local opponent? Maybe UConn paying a golf coach and having a golf team enriches the University in some way I'm not seeing?

Your argument is this is the status quo and no matter how flawed it is - change is hard so just ignore everything silly about it.

 

[upstater]

There is so much fat that could be cut before you paid football and basketball coaches less it's a joke.

Unless you really think schools need an entire staff of sports information directors - they paid Mike Enright $127k to just do football and rowing. Do schools need to fly their cheerleaders to women's conference basketball tournaments? Maybe instead of paying huge paychecks to FCS schools for football games they could schedule a home and home with a legitimate local opponent? Maybe UConn paying a golf coach and having a golf team enriches the University in some way I'm not seeing?

Your argument is this is the status quo and no matter how flawed it is - change is hard so just ignore everything silly about it.

You make a lot of claims you can't back up--it should be obvious to anyone but you I'm not in favor of the status quo and haven't been forever. In fact, your solution--which is to up expenditures--puts programs MORE in the hole. Not less. A real solution would be to get rid of sports and scholarships and coaches salaries. Many schools have done so. The SEC is notorious for hosting football and a few other sports. But whatever happens, whether schools choose to lose a little money on golf or whatever, the bottom line is: they lose money.

When you look at the athletic budgets of D1-AA schools before they ramped up football and after, it's pretty clear that football expenditures are sky-high. You can see it at the budget breakdowns at USAToday.

Again, don't improve facilities, don't pay football coaches, and I'm sure you can cut the fat. Don't hire marketing and PR people either.

 

[whaler11]

You make a lot of claims you can't back up--it should be obvious to anyone but you I'm not in favor of the status quo and haven't been forever. In fact, your solution--which is to up expenditures--puts programs MORE in the hole. Not less. A real solution would be to get rid of sports and scholarships and coaches salaries. Many schools have done so. The SEC is notorious for hosting football and a few other sports. But whatever happens, whether schools choose to lose a little money on golf or whatever, the bottom line is: they lose money.

When you look at the athletic budgets of D1-AA schools before they ramped up football and after, it's pretty clear that football expenditures are sky-high. You can see it at the budget breakdowns at USAToday.

Again, don't improve facilities, don't pay football coaches, and I'm sure you can cut the fat. Don't hire marketing and PR people either.

LOL. I could find the money to give the players across all sports $2,500 a year within 8 hours of walking into an athletic department by just immediately eliminating things that are worthless.

If you think UConn needs to spend $500,000 a year for 3 SIDs there is literally no discussion to have.

You aren't pushing the status quo? Any change anyone suggests you go back to the nonsensical argument that they are losing money.

I have a friend who makes about $200k a year, has 2 kids, isn't married and literally does not have a cent to his name. Not a cent of savings, nothing in a retirement account. Has back taxes and tons of credit card debt.

You would argue with me that he has a revenue problem, not an expense problem.

 

[upstater]

LOL. I could find the money to give the players across all sports $2,500 a year within 8 hours of walking into an athletic department by just immediately eliminating things that are worthless.

If you think UConn needs to spend $500,000 a year for 3 SIDs there is literally no discussion to have.

You aren't pushing the status quo? Any change anyone suggests you go back to the nonsensical argument that they are losing money.

I have a friend who makes about $200k a year, has 2 kids, isn't married and literally does not have a cent to his name. Not a cent of savings, nothing in a retirement accounts. Has back taxes and tons of credit card debt.

You would argue with me that he has a revenue problem, not an expense problem.

I laugh at this board that rails against the lack of staff inside the UConn athletic department. If only they didn't need $20 million a year in direct support from the academic side. So fire those 3 SIDs, and then come up with $18.5 million in further cuts.

 

[J187Money]

I don't want to come down hard on you, but I think I addressed all this. First, it's not just football and the complementary scholarships for women that would get money, but every scholarship athlete. It's probably an outlay of a couple million. The problem is the context of that extra money within the institution at a time of cutbacks. How do these schools look an average student in the face when they are taking $1k in student fees every year from each student, many of whom work full-time, students who will also be paying interest on that $1k (yes, whaler it goes to the head coach's pocket) for 20 years? And now you're going to ask for another $100-150 more to pay their fellow students? Talking to these kids is interesting, because a lot of them who work live on Ramen noodles. This is not a big problem for, say, Michigan, where many of the students are wealthy. But for most big state schools in D1 (that charge about $7-8k in tuition), it's a problem. Most of their students are working class. They work themselves. Beyond that, there are a ton of other implications which I addressed in an earlier post, like complying with DOE regulations about extra costs, and any raise for athletes needs to be an across the board charge for all students.

About medical help for athletes injured in agame, of course that's preposterous and yes I was unaware.

I guess my point is - and I'll grant that if you have to do it for everyone that it will be ~$2 million. But it isn't "this" $2 million that makes this a losing proposition for the schools. The problems are that the programs lose money anyway, and sports is some sort of a loss leader for the school. I agree with all of what you say re: the economics of this, but this won't be the straw that breaks the camel's back. If it is, that is because the back was broken already.

 

[upstater]

I guess my point is - and I'll grant that if you have to do it for everyone that it will be ~$2 million. But it isn't "this" $2 million that makes this a losing proposition for the schools. The problems are that the programs lose money anyway, and sports is some sort of a loss leader for the school. I agree with all of what you say re: the economics of this, but this won't be the straw that breaks the camel's back. If it is, that is because the back was broken already.

I understand $2 million isn't make or break. I also know I'm making these points within the context of a university. In the last several years, it's been one year after another of tens of millions of cuts. Academics are suffering. After 5 years of this, the answer academics have come up with is this: it's time to lower our standards. In that context, $2 million is a head scratcher.

 

[whaler11]

I laugh at this board that rails against the lack of staff inside the UConn athletic department. If only they didn't need $20 million a year in direct support from the academic side. So fire those 3 SIDs, and then come up with $18.5 million in further cuts.

Well you'd still need 19.5 million in theory, let me know if I get to count the millions upon millions donated to the school outside of the athletic fund that wouldn't exist without sports though.

I'd eliminate almost everything I could outside of Title IX requirements - so don't worry I could get there without it.

 

[upstater]

Well you'd still need 19.5 million in theory, let me know if I get to count the millions upon millions donated to the school outside of the athletic fund that wouldn't exist without sports though.

I'd eliminate almost everything I could outside of Title IX requirements - so don't worry I could get there without it.

They are INSIDE the athletic fund. Look at the athletic budget. Donations are INSIDE. They don't go to the academic side. Even at Texas you have 45% of respondents unaware what they are contributing to. Donations are listed as AD revenue.