collapse

* Stud of Colorado Game

Tyler Kolek

21 points, 5 rebounds,
11 assists, 1 steal,
40 minutes

2023-24 Season SoG Tally
Kolek11
Ighodaro6
Jones, K.6
Mitchell2
Jones, S.1
Joplin1

'22-23
'21-22 * '20-21 * '19-20
'18-19 * '17-18 * '16-17
'15-16 * '14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

* Big East Standings

* Recent Posts

Dallas bars tonite by Dr. Blackheart
[Today at 03:40:45 PM]


2024 NCAA Tournament Thread by NickelDimer
[Today at 03:31:19 PM]


2024 Coaching Carousel by avid1010
[Today at 03:29:22 PM]


2024 Transfer Portal by Pakuni
[Today at 03:28:48 PM]


10 years after “Done Deal” … It’s Happening! by The Sultan of Semantics
[Today at 03:24:51 PM]


Where is Marquette? by Uncle Rico
[Today at 03:05:12 PM]


Sweet 16 presser by tower912
[Today at 02:40:05 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!

* Next up: NC State

Marquette
81
Marquette vs

NC State

Date/Time: Mar 29, 2024, 6:09 pm
TV: CBS
Schedule for 2023-24
Colorado
77

Author Topic: Bravo for Wilson  (Read 14210 times)

Newsdreams

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9564
  • Goal - Win BE
Re: Bravo for Wilson
« Reply #25 on: October 18, 2016, 12:13:35 PM »
Payroll taxes, IRS are they going to have accountants? With the amount of money being talked about think it'll turn to a nightmare with Uncle Sam
Goal is National Championship

WarriorInNYC

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 618
Re: Bravo for Wilson
« Reply #26 on: October 18, 2016, 12:14:35 PM »
1. Aren't scholarships and other costs already factored into the expenses that left you with the $300 million net? 

2. Your figures assume that ALL scholarship athletes will be paid, which is not being proposed here.

1.  Scholarships and other costs are already factored into the expenses that gives the $300m net.  Isn't this additional salary on top of that?  Or would athletes not be receiving scholarships, room and board, clothing, etc.

2.  My figures for the calculation here is that ALL MENS BASKETBALL and FOOTBALL scholarship athletes are paid and that every scholarship is used (not likely, I agree), and that all salaries are at minimum 25k (also not likely).  The additional cost per school would be $2.5m.

The scenario of $2k per athlete in the other thread was assuming all scholarship athletes across all sports were paid.

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: Bravo for Wilson
« Reply #27 on: October 18, 2016, 12:15:30 PM »
Payroll taxes, IRS are they going to have accountants? With the amount of money being talked about think it'll turn to a nightmare with Uncle Sam

Which is exactly why it's not going to be more than total cost of attendance unless something from the outside influences it. 

WarriorInNYC

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 618
Re: Bravo for Wilson
« Reply #28 on: October 18, 2016, 12:19:55 PM »
Payroll taxes, IRS are they going to have accountants? With the amount of money being talked about think it'll turn to a nightmare with Uncle Sam

Thats actually a good point.  The minimum salary of 25k/athlete would actually cost each school about 27k/athlete (again, minimum salary).  If each school uses all mens bball and football scholarships and pays them all the MINIMUM of 25k, it would cost each school an additional $2,637,425 on top of scholarships and other costs.

If this was extrapolated across all public universities, this would result in a $310m loss.

Again, take this analysis FWIW.

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9876
Re: Bravo for Wilson
« Reply #29 on: October 18, 2016, 12:33:54 PM »
Payroll taxes, IRS are they going to have accountants? With the amount of money being talked about think it'll turn to a nightmare with Uncle Sam

Are you suggesting adding a maximum 98 people (85 football, 13 basketball) to the payroll is going to lead to an accounting nightmare and terrible burden for universities that already employ thousands of people?
The University of Texas system employs nearly 20,000 faculty alone, not to mention thousands more administrative and support personnel. But 85 athletes are going to be the straw that broke the camel's back?

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9876
Re: Bravo for Wilson
« Reply #30 on: October 18, 2016, 12:41:27 PM »
1.  Scholarships and other costs are already factored into the expenses that gives the $300m net.  Isn't this additional salary on top of that?  Or would athletes not be receiving scholarships, room and board, clothing, etc.

2.  My figures for the calculation here is that ALL MENS BASKETBALL and FOOTBALL scholarship athletes are paid and that every scholarship is used (not likely, I agree), and that all salaries are at minimum 25k (also not likely).  The additional cost per school would be $2.5m.

The scenario of $2k per athlete in the other thread was assuming all scholarship athletes across all sports were paid.

I'd like to see you numbers again, because they don't seem to add up.
That said, the simple solution to this is require athletic departments to rid themselves of bureaucratic bloat and unnecessary expenses.
Between 2004 and 2014, annual revenues for Power 5 schools rose from $2.7 billion to $4.5 billion. You're telling me they can't each find $2.5 million in their budget for the players largely responsible for producing those revenues?


Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5969
Re: Bravo for Wilson
« Reply #31 on: October 18, 2016, 12:43:07 PM »
That's really the only true stumbling block (other than the institutions' unwillingness to share anymore of the kitty with athletes). It would have to be litigated.
Some pretty smart people (Bilas, Jeff Kessler) argue it's a bit of a red herring, given that Title IX only addresses opportunity, not compensation.

Bilas is a moron.  He's certainly got the acumen when it comes to basketball, but he should stick to that.  Title IX is much more extensive that simply "opportunity," and in fact, does appear to - at the very least, implicitly - address compensation:

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

I'm sure Bilas can bastardize the language any way he wants to spin his tune, but the litigation (which I agree would be inevitable) is likely to boil down to and center around the "spirit" of Title IX, and I don't see how - especially in today's society - anyone could argue that female athletes not receiving the same stipend/compensation as the men isn't discriminatory.
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

Newsdreams

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9564
  • Goal - Win BE
Re: Bravo for Wilson
« Reply #32 on: October 18, 2016, 12:51:24 PM »
Are you suggesting adding a maximum 98 people (85 football, 13 basketball) to the payroll is going to lead to an accounting nightmare and terrible burden for universities that already employ thousands of people?
The University of Texas system employs nearly 20,000 faculty alone, not to mention thousands more administrative and support personnel. But 85 athletes are going to be the straw that broke the camel's back?
No, the students. People here talking 100k etc. 18 year olds don't know enough about taxes,investments etc given that amount of money. Plus you get social Security payments most will not even know what to do.
Goal is National Championship

WarriorInNYC

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 618
Re: Bravo for Wilson
« Reply #33 on: October 18, 2016, 12:56:30 PM »
I'd like to see you numbers again, because they don't seem to add up.
That said, the simple solution to this is require athletic departments to rid themselves of bureaucratic bloat and unnecessary expenses.
Between 2004 and 2014, annual revenues for Power 5 schools rose from $2.7 billion to $4.5 billion. You're telling me they can't each find $2.5 million in their budget for the players largely responsible for producing those revenues?

I'd be happy to share the quick spreadsheet I made if there is an easy way to do that.  But I basically used the following table from the NCAA on the public schools:

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances
http://sports.usatoday.com/2016/04/14/methodology-for-ncaa-athletic-department-revenue-database/

I just copied/pasted that table into excel and summed at the bottom.  The math to apply the salary minimums to mens bball and football is quite simple.  But do remember, that is the minimum.  You also quoted maximums of 650k for bball and $3m for football.  I would imagine the Power 5 conferences to be shelling out quite a lot more dough if that is the case.

I'd be curious as to what examples of bureaucratic bloat and unnecessary expenses are for college athletics that universities are supposedly able to just easily get rid of.

So you quoted the Power 5 schools, yes, those schools should be ale to afford an additional $2.5m, though as I pointed out above, I'm guessing the number it would actually cost them would be a multiple of that.  For schools outside the Power 5 and outside a small handful of programs, this would be a huge cost to burden and I would guess they would cut back on athletes they provide this to. 

On that note, would those programs still be able to provide scholarships to athletes?  Or would each scholarship also require a minimum "salary"?  I would guess that these schools would effectively have no shot at any quality recruits, even within their own state.

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9876
Re: Bravo for Wilson
« Reply #34 on: October 18, 2016, 12:59:01 PM »
Bilas is a moron.  He's certainly got the acumen when it comes to basketball, but he should stick to that.  Title IX is much more extensive that simply "opportunity," and in fact, does appear to - at the very least, implicitly - address compensation:

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

I'm sure Bilas can bastardize the language any way he wants to spin his tune, but the litigation (which I agree would be inevitable) is likely to boil down to and center around the "spirit" of Title IX, and I don't see how - especially in today's society - anyone could argue that female athletes not receiving the same stipend/compensation as the men isn't discriminatory.

I wouldn't be so sure.
Courts already have ruled that paying male coaches in revenue-producing sports more than their female counterparts is not a violation (see Stanley vs USC).
It's not an apples-to-apples case, but clearly both the courts and NCAA are willing to make a distinction when it comes to compensation and Title IX implications in revenue-producing sports and non-revenue producing sports.
None of us know how a court would rule, and smart people on both sides disagree, but it's far from a settled matter that Title IX would prevent paying football and men's basketball players.

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
Re: Bravo for Wilson
« Reply #35 on: October 18, 2016, 01:13:48 PM »
I've linked it earlier, but the NYT sports business reporter's proposal is to set a cap with a minimum salary of $25K, but no maximum. The cap - about $650K for basketball and $3 million for football - would be easily affordable for the great majority of Division I programs and allow them each to decide how to allocate their resources as they see fit.

That is patently false.  Most Universities are losing money on basketball and football and it is not because of bloated bureaucracies.  It is because the sports are expensive.  They are actually doctoring the books with creative accounting to make the expenses and losses seem lower than they actually are, for fear of students/public outcry at the losses and use of tax payer/student tuition to fund athletics.

Universities right now often have salary freezes on faculty and staff, because of losses, in many times losses incurred by athletics.  You are asking the Universities to further cut education dollars to pay athletes, who if they want to be professional can go to Europe or the D-league (or for football Arena and others). 

Lets look at this in perspective.  I'm a science professor that is arguably in the top 10 in the world in my field.  I generate $3M a year in revenue, and a minimum of $500k-1M in profit (from the research side).  I make less than $100k and have salary freezes due to budget constraints.  What you propose is that either I should continue to have a salary freeze or students should have to increase tuition, in order to pay athletes that generate a net loss for the University (sizable net loss). 

By your accounting, I should get a 50/50 revenue split, so around $1.5M in salary; even if we look at profit (not revenue) and allow a 50/50 split; I should get $250-500k depending on the year. 

Why don't I complain about my salary and post signs about broke professor; because this is my choice.  I could go and work in industry or as a consultant tomorrow and get paid the $250-500k.  But that comes with sacrifices I don't want to make.  People like Nigel want all the benefits of being an athlete and the financial compensation of being in the private sector.  That is not how the world works.  Like me, they can choose:  Academics and their compensation; or go play professionally overseas or in the D-league or equivalent and get private sector compensation.  They should not have both. 

You like to pretend that there is this magic pool of money being hidden away from the athletes that can be used for compensation.  Let me tell you, as a person that sees these budgets, it does not exist.  Athletics is a major drain on University finances at the vast majority of D1 institutions.  They accept those losses as needed expenses for advertisement.  It is shown time and again that the biggest benefit of athletics is not revenue from athletics, but revenue of tuition and donation aided by exposure.  Such studies show that it doesn't even matter if you win; at most institutions just fielding a team generates tuition and donations.  In that case, value over replacement is near $0.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2016, 01:15:24 PM by forgetful »

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9876
Re: Bravo for Wilson
« Reply #36 on: October 18, 2016, 01:15:55 PM »
I'd be happy to share the quick spreadsheet I made if there is an easy way to do that.  But I basically used the following table from the NCAA on the public schools:

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances
http://sports.usatoday.com/2016/04/14/methodology-for-ncaa-athletic-department-revenue-database/

I just copied/pasted that table into excel and summed at the bottom.  The math to apply the salary minimums to mens bball and football is quite simple.  But do remember, that is the minimum.  You also quoted maximums of 650k for bball and $3m for football.  I would imagine the Power 5 conferences to be shelling out quite a lot more dough if that is the case.

I'd be curious as to what examples of bureaucratic bloat and unnecessary expenses are for college athletics that universities are supposedly able to just easily get rid of.

So you quoted the Power 5 schools, yes, those schools should be ale to afford an additional $2.5m, though as I pointed out above, I'm guessing the number it would actually cost them would be a multiple of that.  For schools outside the Power 5 and outside a small handful of programs, this would be a huge cost to burden and I would guess they would cut back on athletes they provide this to. 

On that note, would those programs still be able to provide scholarships to athletes?  Or would each scholarship also require a minimum "salary"?  I would guess that these schools would effectively have no shot at any quality recruits, even within their own state.

Thanks for sharing. I'll take a look and respond.

WarriorInNYC

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 618
Re: Bravo for Wilson
« Reply #37 on: October 18, 2016, 01:25:52 PM »
Thanks for sharing. I'll take a look and respond.

Definitely.  And I understand the quick analysis I've done isn't perfect and is using quite a few assumptions, and there may even be more relevant data out there that I haven't found. 

But I do think the numbers tell a bit of a story of what the implications could be.

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9876
Re: Bravo for Wilson
« Reply #38 on: October 18, 2016, 01:41:05 PM »
That is patently false.  Most Universities are losing money on basketball and football and it is not because of bloated bureaucracies.  It is because the sports are expensive.  They are actually doctoring the books with creative accounting to make the expenses and losses seem lower than they actually are, for fear of students/public outcry at the losses and use of tax payer/student tuition to fund athletics.

This is patently false.
Do tell, why have college athletics become literally billions of dollars more expensive over the past decade?
It's not because playing sports is expensive. It's not because of the scholarships. It's not because the costs of footballs and basketballs are soaring. It's not because schools are paying more for uniforms.

It's because the size of athletic department staffs, and those workers' salaries, are growing exponentially.
http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2015/12/31/Colleges/College-Spending.aspx?

It's because schools are spending hundreds of millions in a facilities arms race.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/for-college-athletic-departments-building-the-best-is-never-ending-task/2015/12/21/e8384dd4-a558-11e5-9c4e-be37f66848bb_story.html

It's because head coaching salaries have gone up more than 75 percent just since 2007.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/college/college-football/fbs-college-football-coaches-salaries-are-perks-are-soaring-newsday-special-report-1.9461669

It's because assistant coaches salaries are up 52 percent over the last five years.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865619020/In-college-football-assistant-coach-salaries-on-the-rise.html?pg=all

It's because schools are literally spending millions on things like painting fields and walls.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2015/12/29/graphics-branding-college-football-millions-advent/78039496/

It's because they're paying strength coaches salaries in the mid six figures.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/14459410/these-highly-paid-strength-conditioning-coaches-carry-plenty-weight-college-football

It's because football teams participate in bowl games that don't come close to covering their costs.
http://time.com/money/4170907/students-are-biggest-losers-in-college-bowl-games/

I'm sympathetic to your position as a professor, and agree that some schools are struggling. I am no way advocating education cuts to pay athletes.
Rather, I'm advocating a redistribution of existing athletic revenues away from the administrators and the coaches and the facilities and other unnecessary spending and to the athletes.

Quote
  Such studies show that it doesn't even matter if you win; at most institutions just fielding a team generates tuition and donations.  In that case, value over replacement is near $0.

So, if winning doesn't matter, why spend yourself broke in an attempt to win?
« Last Edit: October 18, 2016, 02:08:12 PM by Pakuni »

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
Re: Bravo for Wilson
« Reply #39 on: October 18, 2016, 02:31:38 PM »
This is patently false.
Do tell, why have college athletics become literally billions of dollars more expensive over the past decade?
It's not because playing sports is expensive. It's not because of the scholarships. It's not because the costs of footballs and basketballs are soaring. It's not because schools are paying more for uniforms.

It's because the size of athletic department staffs, and those workers' salaries, are growing exponentially.
http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2015/12/31/Colleges/College-Spending.aspx?

It's because schools are spending billions in a facilities arms race.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/for-college-athletic-departments-building-the-best-is-never-ending-task/2015/12/21/e8384dd4-a558-11e5-9c4e-be37f66848bb_story.html

It's because head coaching salaries have gone up more than 75 percent just since 2007.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/college/college-football/fbs-college-football-coaches-salaries-are-perks-are-soaring-newsday-special-report-1.9461669

It's because assistant coaches salaries are up 52 percent over the last five years.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865619020/In-college-football-assistant-coach-salaries-on-the-rise.html?pg=all

It's because schools are literally spending millions on things like painting fields and walls.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2015/12/29/graphics-branding-college-football-millions-advent/78039496/

It's because they're paying strength coaches salaries in the mid six figures.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/14459410/these-highly-paid-strength-conditioning-coaches-carry-plenty-weight-college-football

It's because football teams participate in bowl games that don't come close to covering their costs.
http://time.com/money/4170907/students-are-biggest-losers-in-college-bowl-games/

I'm sympathetic to your position as a professor, and agree that some schools are struggling. I am no way advocating education cuts to pay athletes.
Rather, I'm advocating a redistribution of existing athletic revenues away from the administrators and the coaches and the facilities and other unnecessary spending and to the athletes.

So, if winning doesn't matter, why spend yourself broke in an attempt to win?

My University just had one of the big three consulting firms come through the University to find solutions to ongoing budget issues.  There number 1 issue leading to budget problems was athletics and loses incurred there.

They went through that budget and couldn't find any justifiable position cuts compared to the market.  The budget went untouched.  The consensus was that although the athletics budget was the number one budget problem, the budget was being used efficiently and was essentially the minimum necessary to maintain a sustainable program.  Athletics has grown considerably, the challenges of recruiting in the internet era, the challenges of keeping athletes, who are not prepared for college, eligible have grown exponentially. 

Add to that the fact that salaries are being controlled by a few minority institutions (generating profits) and you have what we have today.  What is definitely true, is that any increase in costs due to paying players, will not come with cuts to the athletic program (except for maybe getting rid of non-revenue programs entirely), it will come from cutting education expenses or increasing tuition.

One thing to remember, is that those facility costs are usually coming from donations.  Universities solicit funds from donors, who often then give to athletics instead of academics.  It is not coming from traditional revenue streams. 

If you would do a 50/50 split, you would see reported revenue plummet, because apparel not containing a sport, would now be classified as University revenue, not football revenue.  Donations would be classified as University revenue, not football revenue.  All that would be left are ticket sales (after removing student fees that are counted as athletics revenue), concessions and TV deals.  All University supplements (currently counted as revenue) would also be removed.

My guess, revenue would drop 30-50% or more from changes in accounting. 

Galway Eagle

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 10461
Re: Bravo for Wilson
« Reply #40 on: October 18, 2016, 02:43:09 PM »
Pakuni I feel one thing you are undervaluing is that the University provides a certain advertising platform for these athletes that directly correlates to their value. An Anthony Davis or someone similar is a phenomenal player who obviously is worth a ton out of High School. However he's worth more at Kentucky than at Grambling because Kentucky gives him national advertising, and a chance to develop his skills in a way that can prepare him for the NBA. That's advertising and training. That form of advertising and conditioning costs money and since they don't have any it's a trade for services rendered.
Maigh Eo for Sam

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9876
Re: Bravo for Wilson
« Reply #41 on: October 18, 2016, 03:16:49 PM »
Pakuni I feel one thing you are undervaluing is that the University provides a certain advertising platform for these athletes that directly correlates to their value. An Anthony Davis or someone similar is a phenomenal player who obviously is worth a ton out of High School. However he's worth more at Kentucky than at Grambling because Kentucky gives him national advertising, and a chance to develop his skills in a way that can prepare him for the NBA. That's advertising and training. That form of advertising and conditioning costs money and since they don't have any it's a trade for services rendered.

I may be misunderstanding what you mean by advertising platform, but if I'm not, then I think you're overvaluing it.
The majority of MLB and NHL players do just fine without the platform (one could say all do just fine, given how little attention NCAA hockey and baseball receive). The same for professional golfers, tennis players, soccer players, etc.
And, of course, one could note how guys like LeBron, Kobe, Garnett, Dwight Howard, etc., managed OK without the NCAA platform.

WarriorFan

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1629
Re: Bravo for Wilson
« Reply #42 on: October 18, 2016, 05:27:51 PM »
Value of a Marquette Education (per year):  $50,237

Average starting annual salary for class of 2015:  $50,651

It's fair.

Nice work Duane for recognizing this.

"The meaning of life isn't gnashing our bicuspids over what comes after death but tasting the tiny moments that come before it."

brandx

  • Guest
Re: Bravo for Wilson
« Reply #43 on: October 18, 2016, 06:56:40 PM »
How is this different in any other industry. Average CEO makes 300 times the average worker. So what if NCAA makes money, No one is forcing them to play. Hey Nigel, if you don't like it move to Europe and play professionally. Free education, free room and board, free meal plans, amazing tutors, networking opportunities, facilities, coaching, etc. My goodness, UW probably spends $500K per player...minimum.

Actually, if they want to get a chance for the NBA, they almost have to go to college. Europe really isn't an option. They have little interest in HS kids from the US coming over to play.

There was a reason Mudiay played in Zhina.

MUSF

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1470
Re: Bravo for Wilson
« Reply #44 on: October 18, 2016, 08:37:01 PM »
Most Universities are losing money on basketball and football and it is not because of bloated bureaucracies.  It is because the sports are expensive.

This is patently false. It is because most universities allow athletic departments spend every dime they make and even charge student fees to offset overspending. 

You definitely have the "poor me" narrative down that most administrations and the NCAA are selling.  Too bad it's just not true.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/sports/wp/2015/11/23/running-up-the-bills/

The Lens

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4916
Re: Bravo for Wilson
« Reply #45 on: October 18, 2016, 08:53:06 PM »
The sad part for Hayes is if he was paid on merit, the Badgers long snapper would make more.  Football drives everything. 

That being said, I do think he has a point.  The game has changed.  Al McGuire quit coaching at 47 to go make some real money.  He would be making 5 million now.   Coaches salaries are through the roof.  Coaching staffs have grown five fold.  Athletic departments are mini businesses.  Now true, athletes lifestyle is better.  Better facilities, better travel, better gear.  But some sort of cash package should not be out of the question. 
The Teal Train has left the station and Lens is day drinking in the bar car.    ---- Dr. Blackheart

History is so valuable if you have the humility to learn from it.    ---- Shaka Smart

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5969
Re: Bravo for Wilson
« Reply #46 on: October 18, 2016, 09:28:07 PM »
I wouldn't be so sure.
Courts already have ruled that paying male coaches in revenue-producing sports more than their female counterparts is not a violation (see Stanley vs USC).
It's not an apples-to-apples case, but clearly both the courts and NCAA are willing to make a distinction when it comes to compensation and Title IX implications in revenue-producing sports and non-revenue producing sports.
None of us know how a court would rule, and smart people on both sides disagree, but it's far from a settled matter that Title IX would prevent paying football and men's basketball players.

Student athletes are still going to be students.  A stipend won't make them paid employees of the university.  But your comparison is indeed apples to apples, apples to horse apples, that is.
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

real chili 83

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8654
Re: Bravo for Wilson
« Reply #47 on: October 18, 2016, 09:30:09 PM »
The sad part for Hayes is if he was paid on merit, the Badgers long snapper would make more.  Football drives everything. 

That being said, I do think he has a point.  The game has changed.  Al McGuire quit coaching at 47 to go make some real money.  He would be making 5 million now.   Coaches salaries are through the roof.  Coaching staffs have grown five fold.  Athletic departments are mini businesses.  Now true, athletes lifestyle is better.  Better facilities, better travel, better gear.  But some sort of cash package should not be out of the question.

Anyone know what Al's ending salary was?

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
Re: Bravo for Wilson
« Reply #48 on: October 18, 2016, 09:52:05 PM »
This is patently false. It is because most universities allow athletic departments spend every dime they make and even charge student fees to offset overspending. 

You definitely have the "poor me" narrative down that most administrations and the NCAA are selling.  Too bad it's just not true.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/sports/wp/2015/11/23/running-up-the-bills/

The annual increase in budget and revenue from 2004-2014 is 5%.  Given that the largest expenses for athletic departments is travel, salary and benefits (all increasing at an average rate exceeding 5%), the increases are not unreasonable.  They have been able to maintain an equivalent revenue increase (often exploiting increased donations and/or student fees) to make it appear as if the budgets balance. 

Articles like the one from the Washington Post really create a false narrative by not diving into the specifics and by being wholly unaware of academic budgets.

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
Re: Bravo for Wilson
« Reply #49 on: October 18, 2016, 09:58:27 PM »
For those arguing for salary's for college athletes.  Let's look at basketball.

Few college players are good enough to make the D-league.  The D-league average salary is $20-25k and housing.  That is less than what is being provided college athletes.

So tell me this.  Why should a college athlete get paid more than higher quality athletes in the D-league?  Seems like the going market rate for them is less than they are being provided. 

Some may argue, well then why is the NCAA making so much money if they don't have value?  The answer is simple, what differentiates college basketball (less able basketball players) from the D-league (more qualified players).  The difference is association with Universities.  It is the University that draws in eyeballs, for a pride in my University, the athletes names etc., are arbitrary. 

In that vein, if you provide salary for NCAA athletes, what about lawsuits from D-league and other professional players that say they are being discriminated against based on age from playing in the professional NCAA leagues?