Gameday

[Pakuni]

Sorry 82 but I mostly agree with Chicos on this one. We love to point at the Alabamas and Michigans of the world and say "see they are rich." But they make up the elite 1%. Unless you are going to make different rules for different programs, you have to factor in how the 99% would be impacted by proposed changes. Pretty much all D2 and D3 programs are charity cases. Most athletic departments outside the P5 are in the red. If you treat all schools like you treat the P5 you will end up taking away thousands of opportunities from student-athletes at smaller programs.

I love Bilas but he purposefully puts blinders on and ignores everyone but the star football and men's basketball players at D1 P5/6 schools. Yes, those stars are underpaid for their services. But everyone else is fairly or overpaid for their services. If you truly paid the stars what they are worth, that money would have to come from somewhere, and all the other players would suffer as a result.

So, in essence, you guys are in favor of asystem in which the success of wealthy entities (i.e. Alabama, Michigan) and the labor of elite individuals (top DI players) subsidize the poor and less talented?

Philosophical question ... why do schools that are unable to compete, both on the field and financially, have to field DI programs? If they cannot be self-sustaining, why should others (other programs, non-athlete students, etc.) prop them up? Why not let the programs that can't cut it simply go away?

If your answer is "because if gives kids a chance to attend college," couldn't a school just as easily direct that funding to financial aid for deserving students, where it would go much farther without the additional costs of running a sports program, i.e. staff, equipment, travel, etc.? And, let's be honest, outside the two big revenue-producing sports, most athletic scholarships aren't going to needy kids. They're going to kids whose parents could afford the huge costs of travel soccer and hockey, golf and tennis tutors, and so on.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

So, in essence, you guys are in favor of asystem in which the success of wealthy entities (i.e. Alabama, Michigan) and the labor of elite individuals (top DI players) subsidize the poor and less talented?

Yes. Though I am in favor of exploring new ways to allow the elites to profit from outside entities.

Philosophical question ... why do schools that are unable to compete, both on the field and financially, have to field DI programs? If they cannot be self-sustaining, why should others (other programs, non-athlete students, etc.) prop them up? Why not let the programs that can't cut it simply go away?

If your answer is "because if gives kids a chance to attend college," couldn't a school just as easily direct that funding to financial aid for deserving students, where it would go much farther without the additional costs of running a sports program, i.e. staff, equipment, travel, etc.? And, let's be honest, outside the two big revenue-producing sports, most athletic scholarships aren't going to needy kids. They're going to kids whose parents could afford the huge costs of travel soccer and hockey, golf and tennis tutors, and so on.

I think college athletics is a worthwhile investment to the collegiate experience of a student. I don't want only the very wealthy or very talented to get the experience of playing for or cheering on their school in a sporting event. I think there are reasonable limits, not every school should have every varsity program and schools shouldn't have bloated athletic budgets that are not proportional to the needs of their students, etc. But I am in favor of most schools having some level of a varsity athletics program.

[MU82]

Yes. Though I am in favor of exploring new ways to allow the elites to profit from outside entities.

I think college athletics is a worthwhile investment to the collegiate experience of a student. I don't want only the very wealthy or very talented to get the experience of playing for or cheering on their school in a sporting event. I think there are reasonable limits, not every school should have every varsity program and schools shouldn't have bloated athletic budgets that are not proportional to the needs of their students, etc. But I am in favor of most schools having some level of a varsity athletics program.

I hear ya, TAMU. But ...

My daughter went to a D3 school. They had varsity programs in a couple dozen sports (she played for one, and was a student trainer for another). Students were encouraged to both play for and cheer on the school's athletic teams.

Pretty much every school at every level offers intercollegiate sports as "a worthwhile investment to the collegiate experience of a student," just like her school did and continues to do. They do so without busting the budget.

Hundreds of thousands of kids go to those schools every year and benefit from this experience (if they choose to) without kowtowing to the hypocrisy of big-time college athletics.

Admission: I am glad I attended a school with a big-time basketball program, and obviously I love cheering on our Warriors to this day. However, if all schools competed as in the D3 model, I would have found other ways to show school spirit when I was there, and I would have no less of a complete life now.

An aside: My daughter's freshman year, the men's basketball team at her school was the last undefeated hoops team at any level in the entire country (I think they got to 31-0 before losing in the national quarterfinals) and received national pub because of it. I went to several of the games, and the gym was packed with students cheering mightily. Admission was free, the atmosphere was electric. Somehow that all took place without a $5 million-per-year coach, a bunch of high-6-figure assistants, a multizillion-dollar recruiting budget, private jet, luxurious locker room, jock-sniffing boosters and athlete-students only pretending to care about academics.

If you're gonna run college sports as if they were pro sports, pay the competitors who make it possible. If you just want the "collegiate sports experience" for students, stop running things like the pros.

[Cheeks]

Sorry 82 but I mostly agree with Chicos on this one. We love to point at the Alabamas and Michigans of the world and say "see they are rich." But they make up the elite 1%. Unless you are going to make different rules for different programs, you have to factor in how the 99% would be impacted by proposed changes. Pretty much all D2 and D3 programs are charity cases. Most athletic departments outside the P5 are in the red. If you treat all schools like you treat the P5 you will end up taking away thousands of opportunities from student-athletes at smaller programs.

I love Bilas but he purposefully puts blinders on and ignores everyone but the star football and men's basketball players at D1 P5/6 schools. Yes, those stars are underpaid for their services. But everyone else is fairly or overpaid for their services. If you truly paid the stars what they are worth, that money would have to come from somewhere, and all the other players would suffer as a result.

I am sorry for the abuse you will now take.  And yes, you and I think the same on this matter.  I saw it first hand for 6 years.  I see it now with the arrangements we have had with Pac 12, Oklahoma, Georgia Tech, NCAA, Stanford, San Diego State and 15+ other NCAA institutions.  People love to shape the argument about the 1%, and by doing so they are going to kill opportunities for hundreds of thousands of kids, more than half women and a huge chunk that are minorities if this thinking continues to go down the path some want it to go.

The pie isn’t endless, the dollars are not forever, and as long as we as a society find value in offering other sports opportunities for women and men that don’t make money, this is the situation we are in for better or worse.

[Cheeks]

So, in essence, you guys are in favor of asystem in which the success of wealthy entities (i.e. Alabama, Michigan) and the labor of elite individuals (top DI players) subsidize the poor and less talented?

Philosophical question ... why do schools that are unable to compete, both on the field and financially, have to field DI programs? If they cannot be self-sustaining, why should others (other programs, non-athlete students, etc.) prop them up? Why not let the programs that can't cut it simply go away?

If your answer is "because if gives kids a chance to attend college," couldn't a school just as easily direct that funding to financial aid for deserving students, where it would go much farther without the additional costs of running a sports program, i.e. staff, equipment, travel, etc.? And, let's be honest, outside the two big revenue-producing sports, most athletic scholarships aren't going to needy kids. They're going to kids whose parents could afford the huge costs of travel soccer and hockey, golf and tennis tutors, and so on.

Even this is skewed in how you portray it.  Alabama women’s soccer isn’t making money, nor is Michigan volleyball or Swimming....add every other non revenue sport even to those schools that do turn a profit and they only turn a profit because of football and men’s basketball.

But in a nutshell, yes and HELL yes....that’s what I support.  Maybe it is because I have worked day to day with non revenue athletes for a portion of my career, maybe it is because in my current role I have two D1 female minority employees that ran track....their experiences are heart warming and it made them better people, better organized, better employees (team work), and amazing drive.  I value their athletic experiences greatly as part of their overall essence of who they are as people. 

I don’t want those opportunities taken away.  The financial aid argument you state, if I am hearing you or undestanding you correctly, takes away what sport is all about.  Whether as an individual or team member, the ability to represent their school and achieve personal and school goals is gone.  I want young people to have that opportunity and if that means the 1% of the 1% are slightly and TEMPORARILY not getting fair value, well then that’s what it means.

For most of the future pros, they will get theirs.  Also, there are kids that were not destined for pro sports when they started college (Chris Crawford), but the schools and coaching made them get there....that is value added to the student athlete.  We seem to over focus on the guy that is ready day one. The Rarest of the rare.  We seldom concentrate on the guy that will never play a single minute after graduation, or is developed BECAUSE he or she went to school.

Give me a model that doesn’t lose opportunities for these student athletes at ALL levels, that also provides a platform for the elite and is legally compliant That is different than the current model and I’m all ears. I haven’t seen it.  It almost always means removal of opportunities for student athletes to benefit the very few.

[Pakuni]

I am sorry for the abuse you will now take.  And yes, you and I think the same on this matter.  I saw it first hand for 6 years.  I see it now with the arrangements we have had with Pac 12, Oklahoma, Georgia Tech, NCAA, Stanford, San Diego State and 15+ other NCAA institutions.  People love to shape the argument about the 1%, and by doing so they are going to kill opportunities for hundreds of thousands of kids, more than half women and a huge chunk that are minorities if this thinking continues to go down the path some want it to go.

UConn football lost $13 million in 2017. How many deserving students could get full rides with that kind of money? I'd venture to guess way more than the 85 on the football team.
And, as I pointed out earlier, the great majority of recipients of athletic scholarships aren't underprivileged kids who coulnd't go to college otherwise. So, it's really only a relatively few - and mostly in the revenue producing/higher profile sports - who would lose opportunities without athletic scholarships. And those losses could easily would be outweighed by rededicating wasted money to academic and need-based aid.

I'm all for college sports and think schools that can do so in a self-sustaining way, or at least with reasonable losses, absolutely should.

[Pakuni]

I don’t want those opportunities taken away.  The financial aid argument you state, if I am hearing you or undestanding you correctly, takes away what sport is all about.  Whether as an individual or team member, the ability to represent their school and achieve personal and school goals is gone.

UConn (and ultimately the state's taxpayers) and its nonathlete students subsidized its athletic department to the tune of $38.5 million in 2017.
Is that a reasonable price to pay for giving a couple hundred kids the chance to achieve personal goals and represent the school?
And it's not just UConn. Nonathletes at dozens of schools spend hundreds of millions every year so a select few of their peers can "achieve their personal goals" in sports nobody cares about. You justify this how?

Again, I'm all for self-sustaining athletic departments, and even those that get by with a small loss. But taking large sums of money from other students and taxpayers so little Susie and Johnny can play field hockey and golf is inherently dumb and unfair.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

82, I don't think "every school should play at the D3 level" is an appropriate solution. Again, that's sacrificing the 99% because the 1% are underpaid. I'd rather explore "how do we make the pie bigger" so we can pay the 1% more than "let's blow up the pie" so no one gets to eat pie.

I have no idea how the apparel money to coaches that you mentioned works. I would love it if outside entities got to pay student-athletes for wearing their gear. Or just letting players go pro straight out of high school so no one is being underpaid. Those make more sense to me then slashing athletic budgets and giving them to a handful of basketball and football players.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

UConn (and ultimately the state's taxpayers) and its nonathlete students subsidized its athletic department to the tune of $38.5 million in 2017.
Is that a reasonable price to pay for giving a couple hundred kids the chance to achieve personal goals and represent the school?
And it's not just UConn. Nonathletes at dozens of schools spend hundreds of millions every year so a select few of their peers can "achieve their personal goals" in sports nobody cares about. You justify this how?

Again, I'm all for self-sustaining athletic departments, and even those that get by with a small loss. But taking large sums of money from other students and taxpayers so little Susie and Johnny can play field hockey and golf is inherently dumb and unfair.

UConn is the most glaring example. But, if it results in a P5 offer like they think it will, then all of that subsidizing will pay long term benefits. If it doesn't, the market will eventually self correct and force UConn to drop football.

[Pakuni]

UConn is the most glaring example. But, if it results in a P5 offer like they think it will, then all of that subsidizing will pay long term benefits.

Perhaps the most glaring example, but far from the only. Over five years, Georgia State nonathletes subsidized the athletic department to the tune of $90 million. And that's a school without P5 aspirations.
Colorado State's athletic department was subsidized through more than $15 million from the university and another $5.8 million from students in 2017.
As for UConn and its P5 dreams, would it be fair to say that the longer that athletic department runs the way it has, the more diminished those dreams become? And given its location and football program, I already can't imagine UConn is high on the list for any P5 conference.

[Cheeks]

UConn football lost $13 million in 2017. How many deserving students could get full rides with that kind of money? I'd venture to guess way more than the 85 on the football team.
And, as I pointed out earlier, the great majority of recipients of athletic scholarships aren't underprivileged kids who coulnd't go to college otherwise. So, it's really only a relatively few - and mostly in the revenue producing/higher profile sports - who would lose opportunities without athletic scholarships. And those losses could easily would be outweighed by rededicating wasted money to academic and need-based aid.

I'm all for college sports and think schools that can do so in a self-sustaining way, or at least with reasonable losses, absolutely should.

Yup, again going after the extreme case.  Acknowledged and you can find the extremes all day and all night long.  Stipulated. 

You know I can come back with a number of my own examples how states and state schools spend money to do the same thing....right?  One's man's outrage of college sports is another man's outrage at studying cow fart impacts or courses like "What if Harry Potter was Real?", "Lady Gaga and the Sociology of Fame".  Look, all kinds of things are subject to value and investment, some things in society are improper....I can easily make an argument we should never put one dime toward anything that is entertainment / sports based.  Same can be said of a number of things in life.

[Cheeks]

UConn (and ultimately the state's taxpayers) and its nonathlete students subsidized its athletic department to the tune of $38.5 million in 2017.
Is that a reasonable price to pay for giving a couple hundred kids the chance to achieve personal goals and represent the school?
And it's not just UConn. Nonathletes at dozens of schools spend hundreds of millions every year so a select few of their peers can "achieve their personal goals" in sports nobody cares about. You justify this how?

Again, I'm all for self-sustaining athletic departments, and even those that get by with a small loss. But taking large sums of money from other students and taxpayers so little Susie and Johnny can play field hockey and golf is inherently dumb and unfair.

It may be dumb and unfair, so are a lot of things.  What if a bunch of people said they don't want to subsidize poor people, or anyone under a 3.75 high school GPA?  What if there are large swaths of people that say any "______ studies" program should be cut as they are "dumb and unfair" and those dollars should be spent on more important (who gets to decide) academic pursuits?   Hopefully you see that your argument on this is no different if we substitute athletics for something else that others find dumb and unfair.

The one thing athletics does do is build brand, give alumni and perspective students something to rally around in larger numbers. Whether it is a soccer game, lacrosse, football, hockey, etc.  Sure, some sports have almost no attendance.....can't the same be said about many other programs subsidized by the school / taxpayer?  Yup.

[Pakuni]

It may be dumb and unfair, so are a lot of things.

Can't top that that justification.

[Cheeks]

Perhaps the most glaring example, but far from the only. Over five years, Georgia State nonathletes subsidized the athletic department to the tune of $90 million. And that's a school without P5 aspirations.
Colorado State's athletic department was subsidized through more than $15 million from the university and another $5.8 million from students in 2017.
As for UConn and its P5 dreams, would it be fair to say that the longer that athletic department runs the way it has, the more diminished those dreams become? And given its location and football program, I already can't imagine UConn is high on the list for any P5 conference.

What if a tiny school in Indiana didn't invest in football, would Notre Dame be an internationally know institution?  How about a small, urban school in Milwaukee?  One in Spokane, WA?  How about a small campus in Durham, NC?   A number of these programs were subsidized at one point, some still are by students / university.....did they pay off for the schools?  Was it a smart move to solidify the school's future?  How about some state schools....Boise State, wonder how much that blue football field cost and how many people thought it was ridiculous at one point.  Texas A&M, a punch line for many years, has leveraged athletics into raising its level of prestige in part due to athletics and is now a great institution....not the sole reason, but in part one of the reasons. 

Yes, a lot of schools are trying to capture that lightning in the bottle, and will fail.  UCONN is an example, others do it too.  Yup.  It happens. But there have been enough that did capture it, that is the allure.  Grand Canyon Valley is trying it.  UCSD, totally against athletics for years, is now trying to up their game and within 15 years become a player on the west coast to raise their visibility by going D1.  It may not work....but it may.

[Herman Cain]

UConn (and ultimately the state's taxpayers) and its nonathlete students subsidized its athletic department to the tune of $38.5 million in 2017.
Is that a reasonable price to pay for giving a couple hundred kids the chance to achieve personal goals and represent the school?
And it's not just UConn. Nonathletes at dozens of schools spend hundreds of millions every year so a select few of their peers can "achieve their personal goals" in sports nobody cares about. You justify this how?

Again, I'm all for self-sustaining athletic departments, and even those that get by with a small loss. But taking large sums of money from other students and taxpayers so little Susie and Johnny can play field hockey and golf is inherently dumb and unfair.

The non revenue “ Olympic Sports” as some schools refer to them are not very expensive in the greater scheme of things and have a proven track record of developing alumni who are successful in a broad range of endeavors and end up giving back to the schools. 

The big money loser for most schools is BCS level football. I think it is widely recognized U Conn went down an unwise path to pursue that dream of football success. Unfortunately for them there is no one willing to pull the plug on the program and thus they continue to bleed red ink.

I think The sustainable college athletic model is one like the Big East where football is at the individual schools choice and is primarily non scholarship FCS. All the Big East schools are doing very well with their non basketball sports and in general school spirit and alumni enthusiasm is at very high levels.

[MU82]

82, I don't think "every school should play at the D3 level" is an appropriate solution. Again, that's sacrificing the 99% because the 1% are underpaid. I'd rather explore "how do we make the pie bigger" so we can pay the 1% more than "let's blow up the pie" so no one gets to eat pie.

I have no idea how the apparel money to coaches that you mentioned works. I would love it if outside entities got to pay student-athletes for wearing their gear. Or just letting players go pro straight out of high school so no one is being underpaid. Those make more sense to me then slashing athletic budgets and giving them to a handful of basketball and football players.

I wasn't suggesting that every school play at the D3 level. I was just saying that these bazillion-dollar sports enterprises stuffed inside what are supposed to be institutes of higher learning are not the only way to provide what you call "a worthwhile investment to the collegiate experience of a student."

And I don't know how it would work to shift shoe money to athlete-students. I don't have the answers. I'm just trying to brainstorm a little, because I do not think the current set-up is equitable.

Whenever I think of issues like these, I almost always choose to err on the side of supporting the athlete-students, without whom college sports could not exist.

As usual, TAMU, I appreciate the tone of your posts. Even when I don't agree entirely, I usually learn something from you.