Van Pelt Rant RE: Maryland Student Section

[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.

 

[whaler11]

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.

I know that some donations go directly to athletic funds. I also know that some that end up at the school as non-athletic donations wouldn't exist if not for sports.

 

[Carl Spackler]

YOu know, I like to talk a lot smack. Not afraid to admit it. I try to be able to back it up, when I can.

One thing I can not do, is try to make some kind of numbers argument like gets thrown around here, without references. Unless somebody around here has actually access to the books at UCONN, these numbers are meaningless without some kind of reference.

With regard to the issue of stipends, it's pretty clear, that issuing stipends, in whatever form - will involve another line item on the "expense" side of a budget. Adding such an expense, by necessity, requires finding a source on the other side called "income".

The bottom line, is that the university has every outward appearance of growth, there is a dangerous kind of bubble, because tuition for students has skyrocketed, and that's an issue that has incredibly significant both short term and long term affects, but that's a different story - we're talking about adding a line item to the athletic deaprtemnt budget.

All this talk about where money comes from, on the "income" side, and where it si going on the "expense" side? It's really meaningless unless you can reference it.

I don't need to reference the following though, because it is common knowledge fact - the only thing missing that I'll write is the actually numbers because I don't feel like researching the existing BIg East contract and the terms of the new AAC contract. SUffice to say, that it is significantly less we'll be getting in television revenue by more than a million, and less than 10 million on the "income" side of the budget, and we have money coming in from "exit fees" for a number of years.

The athletic department, has taken a significant hit in television broadcasting revenue for sports, with the new contract. Now - the story is that the money incoming from conference exit fees will balance that out for the duration of the next contract - which means that if we aren't being completely snowed by the information out there, the university of Connecticut athletic department, if so desired, will be able to continue to operate for the immediate future with essentially the same income/expense budget that they've had for the recent past without a hiccup. That's what the story is. Now - if you add stipends? you need to find an additional source of income, from somewhere.

The university athletic department budget will change in the future, of course, when the exit fee money stream dries up. There needs to be a plan in place for that, when it happens, because it's not an IF - it's a when. You'd hope that such things have been long discussed already, and strategies are in place, working with the assumption that if we're going to be in this athletic conference, our next televsision revenue contract in several years will not be much different than we have now, so either things will need to be cut, or additional revenue sources need to be found to offset the loss.

IF for whatever reason we hit the jackpot that Rutgers and Maryland got, things would be great, and stipends wouldn't be an issue at all, because we are no where near as in dire straits financially that both Maryland and Rutgers were, and there is no reason to think that we will ever get there - unless management is a complete clusterduck and sends our athletic budgets and by extension the overall university budget into budget hell.

The key factor in it all - is the tuition and fees though for all students. It's a risky thing that has been done for the future, by jacking up tuition and fees as much as it has been recently. If the student body numbers and quality of student starts going in the wrong directions, that is a problem that will affect everything.

The real difference moving forward, is the change in the television contract revenue for the athletic department.

 

[J187Money]

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.

Technically, nothing. But most of them are in Storrs over the summer, where nobody is, and where there are no jobs other than for year-rounders. They also can't go home and get jobs, because they aren't home enough. Also - those types of jobs are hard to find because of general economic conditions - they are held by adults that typically wouldn't take those jobs. AND, they are encouraged to take less classes during the season and take more over the summer to keep them academically eligible. Lots of things that are the reality of your college athlete (especially fb/bb) get in the way.

 

[upstater]

All this talk about where money comes from, on the "income" side, and where it si going on the "expense" side? It's really meaningless unless you can reference it.

We constantly reference it. The basics can be found at the following sources:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/spor...ollege-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx

Beyond those 3 sources, you can look through the school's budget available online. I've never looked at UConn's. I just looked through several of the AAU school budgets recently for a report I made. I focused on Michigan in particular because they are a big revenue generator. If you dig into the budgets in particular, you'll see how money gets allocated.

The big thing for me is that all these people calling for market forces to be respected seem to glibly ignore the bottom line (profitability), the value of sports (intrinsically tied to the schools as institutions, otherwise the value is limited as minor league sports), the space of these programs within institutions with a basic mission other than sports (so people like Hruby ignore Title IX, and DOE regulations which require a total cost breakdown above and beyond tuition for ALL students, as well as formal and informal labor practices within universities in which student and apprenticeship labor is always discounted), and most of all, the training these athletes receive that would not otherwise be available (ignoring of course, the value of a free education, which has increasingly become a farce).

I would call for several reforms:

1. Institute stricter eligibility requirements for incoming students (which allows you to completely eliminate the APR and GSR farce).
2. Shorten the seasons and amount of games so that athletes can actually receive an education
3. Do not require athletes to take a full load of courses in season.
4. Allow athletes to take money from agents and boosters and the like, sources external to the [unprofitable] athletic programs.

 

[ZooCougar]

Holy crap. If our best players lost a step over the summer because they were waiting tables at Crapplebees then people here would have an aneuryism.

When I was in college I had a variety of work study jobs that paid very little but was enough to help make ends meet and have a little left over. I was basically performing a service for the school in the mailroom, or working in a a academic dept filing stuff.

Why don't they pay players the same way? It seems totally reasonable to me.

 

[upstater]

Technically, nothing. But most of them are in Storrs over the summer, where nobody is, and where there are no jobs other than for year-rounders. They also can't go home and get jobs, because they aren't home enough. Also - those types of jobs are hard to find because of general economic conditions - they are held by adults that typically wouldn't take those jobs. AND, they are encouraged to take less classes during the season and take more over the summer to keep them academically eligible. Lots of things that are the reality of your college athlete (especially fb/bb) get in the way.

I really don't buy this given the amounts of students who are working half-time to full-time. At my AAU school, it's over 60%. Retail $8 an hour summer jobs are available.

Excellent point about summer sessions however. And yet, students take those as well. Work and summer class (which run 3-4 hours a day).

 

[upstater]

Holy crap. If our best players lost a step over the summer because they were waiting tables at Crapplebees then people here would have an aneuryism.

When I was in college I had a variety of work study jobs that paid very little but was enough to help make ends meet and have a little left over. I was basically performing a service for the school in the mailroom, or working in a a academic dept filing stuff.

Why don't they pay players the same way? It seems totally reasonable to me.

There is nothing against that. But that's federal work-study. You have to file for financial aid. And, once you file for financial aid, you're automatically eligible for a $5k+ Pell grant, which means you probably won't work because you're getting the money for free.

For most students, a Pell Grant offsets scholarship money (i.e. the school reduces your scholarship a like amount) but there is nothing that forces a school to do this. A school could simply give a student a full tuition and room & board break, and then give them the Pell Grant in cash (and yes, students do crazy things with that money).

 

[ZooCougar]

There is nothing against that. But that's federal work-study. You have to file for financial aid. And, once you file for financial aid, you're automatically eligible for a $5k+ Pell grant, which means you probably won't work because you're getting the money for free.

For most students, a Pell Grant offsets scholarship money (i.e. the school reduces your scholarship a like amount) but there is nothing that forces a school to do this. A school could simply give a student a full tuition and room & board break, and then give them the Pell Grant in cash (and yes, students do crazy things with that money).

I think student athletes that are on scholarship should be compensated the same way any other student would be that performs a service for the school.

Between classes, travel, practice, off season conditioning etc. they simply don't have the time to work in between classes like other students do.

This is all prefectly reasonable.

Giving a 250lb kid 15 bucks after a game to go buy food is a joke.

 

[Carl Spackler]

We constantly reference it. The basics can be found at the following sources:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/spor...ollege-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx

Beyond those 3 sources, you can look through the school's budget available online. I've never looked at UConn's. I just looked through several of the AAU school budgets recently for a report I made. I focused on Michigan in particular because they are a big revenue generator. If you dig into the budgets in particular, you'll see how money gets allocated.

The big thing for me is that all these people calling for market forces to be respected seem to glibly ignore the bottom line (profitability), the value of sports (intrinsically tied to the schools as institutions, otherwise the value is limited as minor league sports), the space of these programs within institutions with a basic mission other than sports (so people like Hruby ignore Title IX, and DOE regulations which require a total cost breakdown above and beyond tuition for ALL students, as well as formal and informal labor practices within universities in which student and apprenticeship labor is always discounted), and most of all, the training these athletes receive that would not otherwise be available (ignoring of course, the value of a free education, which has increasingly become a farce).

I would call for several reforms:

1. Institute stricter eligibility requirements for incoming students (which allows you to completely eliminate the APR and GSR farce).
2. Shorten the seasons and amount of games so that athletes can actually receive an education
3. Do not require athletes to take a full load of courses in season.
4. Allow athletes to take money from agents and boosters and the like, sources external to the [unprofitable] athletic programs.

I think that you give every scholarship athlete a debit card with $2500 on it, and let them use it as they see fit during the course of semester and give the limits on cash withdrawals. You'll be able to track what they're doing with it.

If after one semester, 75% of the money is going to junk food on weekends - then I think you can reduce the amount of money on the debit card next semester by quite a bit.

 

[whaler11]

I think that you give every scholarship athlete a debit card with $2500 on it, and let them use it as they see fit during the course of semester and give the limits on cash withdrawals. You'll be able to track what they're doing with it.

If after one semester, 75% of the money is going to junk food on weekends - then I think you can reduce the amount of money on the debit card next semester by quite a bit.

So you support the money but only on items you see fit?

Will I need to track the interns I hire to make sure none of their money ends up in g-strings?

 

[J187Money]

I really don't buy this given the amounts of students who are working half-time to full-time. At my AAU school, it's over 60%. Retail $8 an hour summer jobs are available.

Excellent point about summer sessions however. And yet, students take those as well. Work and summer class (which run 3-4 hours a day).

Have you been in Storrs over the summer? Ghost town. So maybe you can get a job in East Hartford at the mall. IF you have a car. But if you are poor you don't have a car. So you sit in the dorm, eat meal plan, and work out and take your summer classes.

 

[J187Money]

I really don't buy this given the amounts of students who are working half-time to full-time. At my AAU school, it's over 60%. Retail $8 an hour summer jobs are available.

Excellent point about summer sessions however. And yet, students take those as well. Work and summer class (which run 3-4 hours a day).

And yes - the 60% that are working are working year round. I was an RA, I worked at Paul's Pizza, I worked in the Buckley mail room. All while going to school. BUT - I never had to tell my boss - sorry, I can't work for the next 4 months, put hold the job and then I'll be back, unless we go to a bowl, then I won't be back till January. Then I have to quit in the spring again, but hire me back in the summer (when you have no business). Why any business would put up with that in a poor economy when you have people begging for jobs? I'll hire someone that can work 12 months out of the year, or at least doesn't need every other semester off. When I was home from UCONN, I worked in restaurants, but I worked during EVERY break, and probably 2-3 weekends a semester just to ensure that I had a job in the summer or over winter break. It just isn't that simple for college athletes. Yes, some can do it, and some do. But people way oversimplify this.

 

[upstater]

And yes - the 60% that are working are working year round. I was an RA, I worked at Paul's Pizza, I worked in the Buckley mail room. All while going to school. BUT - I never had to tell my boss - sorry, I can't work for the next 4 months, put hold the job and then I'll be back, unless we go to a bowl, then I won't be back till January. Then I have to quit in the spring again, but hire me back in the summer (when you have no business). Why any business would put up with that in a poor economy when you have people begging for jobs? I'll hire someone that can work 12 months out of the year, or at least doesn't need every other semester off. When I was home from UCONN, I worked in restaurants, but I worked during EVERY break, and probably 2-3 weekends a semester just to ensure that I had a job in the summer or over winter break. It just isn't that simple for college athletes. Yes, some can do it, and some do. But people way oversimplify this.

I don't know about Storrs, so it's a problem there. What's nearby? Willimantic?

Summer jobs are not so rare, unless really there are none in Storrs. But they do exist elsewhere.

 

[ZooCougar]

And yes - the 60% that are working are working year round. I was an RA, I worked at Paul's Pizza, I worked in the Buckley mail room. All while going to school. BUT - I never had to tell my boss - sorry, I can't work for the next 4 months, put hold the job and then I'll be back, unless we go to a bowl, then I won't be back till January. Then I have to quit in the spring again, but hire me back in the summer (when you have no business). Why any business would put up with that in a poor economy when you have people begging for jobs? I'll hire someone that can work 12 months out of the year, or at least doesn't need every other semester off. When I was home from UCONN, I worked in restaurants, but I worked during EVERY break, and probably 2-3 weekends a semester just to ensure that I had a job in the summer or over winter break. It just isn't that simple for college athletes. Yes, some can do it, and some do. But people way oversimplify this.

We should implement a system where wealthy boosters match our players up with summer jobs

 

[upstater]

We should implement a system where wealthy boosters match our players up with summer jobs

That doesn't already happen?