OT: It's time to pay college athletes.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by ripvanrando

It is time that non-athletes to stop subsidizing sports, not the time to pay college athletes. Why should a working mom or anyone else attending school be forced to pay $1400 activities fees, much of which goes to the sports programs....?



https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...rams-academics

Yes, I definitely think that excessive student fees to subsidize athletics are a bad thing that schools should avoid. It is also a plausible outcome that if the athletes themselves are the ones profiting from the sport, rather than coaches and administrators, those coaches and administrators would be less inclined to set up rules that allow them to capture revenue from the general student body.

Right now, the problem isn't just that the athletes are being exploited, but it's also that coaches and administrators are capturing excess rent as part of that exploitation. That's why the latter group fights so hard to stop the athlete from being paid, and that's why it's important for everyone that these markets be efficient.

[ripvanrando]

Originally Posted by prototoast

Yes, I definitely think that excessive student fees to subsidize athletics are a bad thing that schools should avoid. It is also a plausible outcome that if the athletes themselves are the ones profiting from the sport, rather than coaches and administrators, those coaches and administrators would be less inclined to set up rules that allow them to capture revenue from the general student body.

Right now, the problem isn't just that the athletes are being exploited, but it's also that coaches and administrators are capturing excess rent as part of that exploitation. That's why the latter group fights so hard to stop the athlete from being paid, and that's why it's important for everyone that these markets be efficient.

I agree. That is why I wrote this earlier in the thread, "It seems there is a cabal of conspiracy and collusion where the coaches and admins make millions and are probably in bed with overseeing organizations. Probably some sort of antitrust issue."

Sports as a whole are losing money at University. Paying athletes does not solve the problem of foisting these extraordinary expenses onto the academic body.

[peanutgallery]

If you go to Dabo's church, it's a little bump in pay

The tv contract and other marketing endeavors are conveniently not included. The income is far more than $85 million. Fuzzy accounting, that might be just the gate income. That's a really low number

Originally Posted by ripvanrando

Who pays? They already lose money (over 30 million per year) that ostensibly is taken from the academic students in one way or another.

Clemson's athletic programs cost the school $122 million against revenue of $85 million.

The male coaches make a mint.....millions.....while the average female coach is in the $200K range.

https://clemsontigers.com/wp-content...ADA-Survey.pdf

[XXtwindad]

Lots of thought provoking responses here. Good stuff.

[ripvanrando]

Originally Posted by peanutgallery

If you go to Dabo's church, it's a little bump in pay

The tv contract and other marketing endeavors are conveniently not included. The income is far more than $85 million. Fuzzy accounting, that might be just the gate income. That's a really low number

It is the complete reporting to NCAA and it includes media per the report, this is what it says.....

Your total revenues must cover your total expenses.
Enter all revenues attributable to intercollegiate athletic activities. This includes revenues from appearance guarantees
and options, an athletic conference, tournament or bowl games, concessions, contributions from alumni and others,
institutional support, program advertising and sales, radio and television, royalties, signage and other sponsorships,
sport camps, state or other government support, student activity fees, ticket and luxury box sales, and any other
revenues attributable to intercollegiate athletic activities.

Almost every newspaper article that I can find or any report that I can find shows athletic programs costing more than they earn, and some of the losses at many schools are born by academic students.

[72gmc]

“If this was the real world, the NCAA would be out of business. The only thing tethering it to any kind of logical business model is March Madness. Just don't deny the athletes their share while the association is taking in $1 billion per year.”

I don’t often agree with Dennis Dodd, and this statement if his has been obvious for a long time, but I’m glad it is being said, again.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by ripvanrando

I agree. That is why I wrote this earlier in the thread, "It seems there is a cabal of conspiracy and collusion where the coaches and admins make millions and are probably in bed with overseeing organizations. Probably some sort of antitrust issue."

Sports as a whole are losing money at University. Paying athletes does not solve the problem of foisting these extraordinary expenses onto the academic body.

As I see it, there are 3 levels to the issue of sports losing money.

1) there is a baseline level of expenditure on sports, think something like a DIII cross country team, creates opportunities for students, and has a budget comparable to what university might spend on other extracurriculars such as music or theater. This might show up as a "loss" but strikes me as appropriate expenditure of university funds.

2) there are some sports that can generate revenue in excess of their costs. This is particularly true in basketball where teams are small and so costs are (relatively) low. If a basketball team can regularly sell out an arena or sell TV rights, I don't see why that excess revenue shouldn't go to players, coaches, and administrators who make that happen.

3) many teams/sports have costs that are well above a baseline, and well in excess of the revenue they bring in. This is often true of football where costs can get out of hand pretty quickly (large teams, large coaching staffs, lots of travel), but it's also true for a lot of non-revenue sports at large football schools.

I think you and I both agree that #3 should be cut. I just think there's still room for schools to lose money on #1, and for schools to make money and pay players on #2.

[vespasianus]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

I think you probably could make that argument, however, if that is your goal, why only do it for kids that can play sports? University is for education, if they could keep sports small it would be fine but when they dominate the students experience, heck, when they dominate the schools budget, the priorities are upside down.

They do. But many of those kids may not get into a Duke if not for their athletics.

[ripvanrando]

Originally Posted by prototoast

As I see it, there are 3 levels to the issue of sports losing money.

1) there is a baseline level of expenditure on sports, think something like a DIII cross country team, creates opportunities for students, and has a budget comparable to what university might spend on other extracurriculars such as music or theater. This might show up as a "loss" but strikes me as appropriate expenditure of university funds.

2) there are some sports that can generate revenue in excess of their costs. This is particularly true in basketball where teams are small and so costs are (relatively) low. If a basketball team can regularly sell out an arena or sell TV rights, I don't see why that excess revenue shouldn't go to players, coaches, and administrators who make that happen.

3) many teams/sports have costs that are well above a baseline, and well in excess of the revenue they bring in. This is often true of football where costs can get out of hand pretty quickly (large teams, large coaching staffs, lots of travel), but it's also true for a lot of non-revenue sports at large football schools.

I think you and I both agree that #3 should be cut. I just think there's still room for schools to lose money on #1, and for schools to make money and pay players on #2.

On #1, I played two D3 sports. I suspect Alum donations covered much of the costs. The players also covered much of the costs. The complexity and costs are probably on par with music, theater, etc. as you wrote. No scholarships. Just students playing sports.

On #2, few schools generate enough revenue to pay overall expenses of the athletic program. Take U. Conn where the female basketball team wins the championship but runs at a loss compared to the male basketball team with revenues exceeding the cost. Shouldn't the boys team's excess revenue stream simply go to support the other sports programs, rather than pay the male basketball players? That is how I see it. Also, there is this bucket of revenue that is usually quite large that is not broken down. Some of those funds come from academic students, some from donors, etc.

On #3, it isn't many but the vast majority of teams that operate at a loss. Few are profitable; yet, coaches earn 7 figure salaries (on the boys teams). Yes, they should be cut. Not fair to make academic students pay for that.

[bicycletricycle]

Originally Posted by vespasianus

They do. But many of those kids may not get into a Duke if not for their athletics.

Take the money you dump into sports, use it to educate whatever group of people you want to.

[peanutgallery]

Creative accounting, they all poor mouth. Part of the game

Originally Posted by ripvanrando

It is the complete reporting to NCAA and it includes media per the report, this is what it says.....



Almost every newspaper article that I can find or any report that I can find shows athletic programs costing more than they earn, and some of the losses at many schools are born by academic students.

[ojingoh]

Addendum: https://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...-likeness/amp/

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by ojingoh

Addendum: https://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...-likeness/amp/

Wow. The floodgates have opened. Never heard of the Cavinder sisters. Evidently, they play hoop at Fresno State. Or something to that effect 😉

Edit: Ya know, I was initially a little blown away by the crass commercialism in the link posted above. I don't get "Tick Toc." But the athletes don't need my suburban dad ass to "get them." They can't monetize me. But they can certainly monetize their thousands of followers.

I can rail against the defiling of the sacred college "myth": a leafy place to study Proust, expose yourself to other ideas and cultures, form friendships and get laid. That's how it worked for me (Except for Proust. Never really got into him) And, certainly, that's the idealized image that administrators and coaches are hawking. But the athletes have a different take: you can have your sepia-infused pipe dream. Cuz we're getting paid.

[XXtwindad]

Interesting read in the NYT. The floodgates have definitely opened. At least for a select few. And perhaps to the detriment of many other college athletes.

But still...why shouldn't those athletes monetize their "brands?" Blame the system. Not the athletes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/m...t-athlete.html

That changed on July 1, 2021. Following a Supreme Court decision against the N.C.A.A., the organization ended nearly all its restrictions on what athletes could earn from the use of their names, images and likenesses, an amorphous category that has become known as NIL. Overnight, those athletes could make deals with companies and endorse their products. They could even accept money from boosters — usually longtime donors, or local businessmen with ties to a university — in transactions that previously would have led to severe sanctions against their teams. Around the country, administrators were astonished by the abrupt reversal. “It’s not a hole in the dike,” is how Vince Ille, a senior associate athletic director under Cunningham, describes the N.C.A.A.’s change of course. “It’s the obliteration of the entire dam.”

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

Interesting read in the NYT. The floodgates have definitely opened. At least for a select few. And perhaps to the detriment of many other college athletes.

But still...why shouldn't those athletes monetize their "brands?" Blame the system. Not the athletes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/m...t-athlete.html

That changed on July 1, 2021. Following a Supreme Court decision against the N.C.A.A., the organization ended nearly all its restrictions on what athletes could earn from the use of their names, images and likenesses, an amorphous category that has become known as NIL. Overnight, those athletes could make deals with companies and endorse their products. They could even accept money from boosters — usually longtime donors, or local businessmen with ties to a university — in transactions that previously would have led to severe sanctions against their teams. Around the country, administrators were astonished by the abrupt reversal. “It’s not a hole in the dike,” is how Vince Ille, a senior associate athletic director under Cunningham, describes the N.C.A.A.’s change of course. “It’s the obliteration of the entire dam.”

Just like with other structures, the NCAA "student athlete" structure will slowly rot away from the inside until it "suddenly" collapses.