https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39047353/ncaa-proposes-rule-let-schools-athletes-enter-nil-deals
I've been hearing about this idea for a while, but now that it's coming straight from the source (NCAA Prez Charlie Baker), it seems like a plan like this might have some legs. NIL has clearly changed the playing field for major college athletics, but it has opened a lot of doors that this move might be able to solve.
Let's be honest, the BTD collective has been great for MU's recruiting efforts and supporting some local causes, but we all know what it really is doing: paying the players to play. This new plan would remove the perverse incentives and just bring everything back out into the open. Plus it would make it easier for governing bodies (namely the NCAA) to monitor and make rules that promote some level of competitive fairness between similar institutions. I can't imagine that anyone (other than the QBs themselves) wants to continue to see the college QB carousel every offseason due to the $1-$2M NIL deals being thrown at transfers.
Additionally, Title IX will force NIL to also benefit female athletics. It's great that MU's NIL collective has sponsored our women's basketball players, but there is no legal reason why NIL collectives have to do so. If, however, it's the athletic departments paying players, then they will be required to compensate women equally by Title IX regulations.
Sure Pay the players. Remove the scholarships and make them pay sticker price.
They're already Recieving what amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars for a game that essentially amounts to a marketing channel while the students being marketed to are being told at 18 to sign up to take on insane loans to a school thats increasing its Cost of attendance at an insane rate while entry and mid level salaries aren't going up. No, screw paying the players on top of their scholarships.
This part:
The top schools, which according to the letter are more impacted "by collectives, the Transfer Portal and NIL," would be allowed to create their own set of rules to help police those areas of the market for college athletes in unique ways.
Yeah, that sounds like it will work. I want Bill Self to head this committee.
Quote from: Galway Eagle on December 05, 2023, 11:35:49 AM
Sure Pay the players. Remove the scholarships and make them pay sticker price.
They're already Recieving what amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars for a game that essentially amounts to a marketing channel while the students being marketed to are being told at 18 to sign up to take on insane loans to a school thats increasing its Cost of attendance at an insane rate while entry and mid level salaries aren't going up. No, screw paying the players on top of their scholarships.
Lol.
Quote from: Galway Eagle on December 05, 2023, 11:35:49 AM
Sure Pay the players. Remove the scholarships and make them pay sticker price.
They're already Recieving what amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars for a game that essentially amounts to a marketing channel while the students being marketed to are being told at 18 to sign up to take on insane loans to a school thats increasing its Cost of attendance at an insane rate while entry and mid level salaries aren't going up. No, screw paying the players on top of their scholarships.
Any time someone says this I know their argument isn't serious. "What amounts to" isn't something you can spend, isn't something you can use to feed your family, isn't something you can pay rent with.
Are costs of attendance at a ridiculous level? Yes. Is the student loan process broken? Yes. Should that be piled on top of the student athletes who are already essentially working a full time job in addition to full time class? No. These are two separate issues and conflating them is just silly.
Quote from: Galway Eagle on December 05, 2023, 11:35:49 AM
Sure Pay the players. Remove the scholarships and make them pay sticker price.
They're already Recieving what amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars for a game that essentially amounts to a marketing channel while the students being marketed to are being told at 18 to sign up to take on insane loans to a school thats increasing its Cost of attendance at an insane rate while entry and mid level salaries aren't going up. No, screw paying the players on top of their scholarships.
Silliness.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 05, 2023, 11:53:02 AM
Any time someone says this I know their argument isn't serious. "What amounts to" isn't something you can spend, isn't something you can use to feed your family, isn't something you can pay rent with.
Are costs of attendance at a ridiculous level? Yes. Is the student loan process broken? Yes. Should that be piled on top of the student athletes who are already essentially working a full time job in addition to full time class? No. These are two separate issues and conflating them is just silly.
Do all these kids get into these top tier schools if they aren't good at a sport? No. Duke alone turns down an insane amount of valedictorians every year and yet you get guys with less than stellar GPAs in the programs, from less than stellar schools. Value of priority admission? I'd say fairly high.
It is something you can pay rent with as housing is included. You're right it's not something you can feed your family with. What it though is the money your average student is paying well into their middle aged years for attending insanely bloated cost of universities right now. Isn't something you can spend? no but not having loans or rent again frees up expenses so you can spend. Having basic needs and no debt and connections is payment in the future funds that it'll set aside.
Full time job? Does that devalue the cost? If I go back to get an MBA do I get a different cost structure because I to am a full time employee? Do students working 3 jobs to make ends meet who are the same age as these athletes get a break because they're full time employees?
Quote from: lawdog77 on December 05, 2023, 11:42:22 AM
This part:
The top schools, which according to the letter are more impacted "by collectives, the Transfer Portal and NIL," would be allowed to create their own set of rules to help police those areas of the market for college athletes in unique ways.
Yeah, that sounds like it will work. I want Bill Self to head this committee.
Dog, it can't be one guy. He'd need a committee, say Calipari, Miller, Pearl and Pitino.
This seems like a pretty clear olive branch from the NCAA to the SEC and Big 10: "Don't break away and we'll let your football programs do whatever they want and you can set the rules of the game." If it helps prevent football from ruining all of college sports (as opposed to just itself), then I'm all for it.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 05, 2023, 11:53:02 AM
Any time someone says this I know their argument isn't serious. "What amounts to" isn't something you can spend, isn't something you can use to feed your family, isn't something you can pay rent with.
Are costs of attendance at a ridiculous level? Yes. Is the student loan process broken? Yes. Should that be piled on top of the student athletes who are already essentially working a full time job in addition to full time class? No. These are two separate issues and conflating them is just silly.
You can make your point without going to the same level of ridiculousness. I know someone isn't serious when they base their argument on the premise that a meaningful number of student athletes live in abject poverty (can't pay rent or feed themselves).
Let's say that employees and sometimes children of employees are given free tuition and leave it at that.
Quote from: WhiteTrash on December 05, 2023, 12:57:13 PM
You can make your point without going to the same level of ridiculousness. I know someone isn't serious when they base their argument on the premise that a meaningful number of student athletes live in abject poverty (can't pay rent or feed themselves).
Let's say that employees and sometimes children of employees are given free tuition and leave it at that.
The sham of amateurism and its proponents clinging to the cost of an education is quite humorous to me
Quote from: Uncle Rico on December 05, 2023, 01:00:11 PM
The sham of amateurism and its proponents clinging to the cost of an education is quite humorous to me
Is anyone clinging to the idea or concept of amateurism any more?
I assume you are not discounting the value of a college degree?
Make the players employees already.
Stop the sham of student athletes.
Quote from: Galway Eagle on December 05, 2023, 11:35:49 AM
Sure Pay the players. Remove the scholarships and make them pay sticker price.
They're already Recieving what amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars for a game that essentially amounts to a marketing channel while the students being marketed to are being told at 18 to sign up to take on insane loans to a school thats increasing its Cost of attendance at an insane rate while entry and mid level salaries aren't going up. No, screw paying the players on top of their scholarships.
Eh. The marketplace says a scholarship isn't enough compensation. I'm not sure why it bothers you that others can earn $$ off of their talents.
Quote from: SaveOD238 on December 05, 2023, 11:10:53 AM
Additionally, Title IX will force NIL to also benefit female athletics. It's great that MU's NIL collective has sponsored our women's basketball players, but there is no legal reason why NIL collectives have to do so. If, however, it's the athletic departments paying players, then they will be required to compensate women equally by Title IX regulations.
It absolutely does not. Title IX only applies to educational institutions. NIL is independent of any school and can act as they wish.
Quote from: DFW HOYA on December 05, 2023, 01:26:59 PM
It absolutely does not. Title IX only applies to educational institutions. NIL is independent of any school and can act as they wish.
I'm not sure if the new proposal would prohibit collectives from also paying players, but I think the point is that the schools themselves would have to pay male and female students equally to the extent they are making payments directly.
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on December 05, 2023, 01:17:09 PM
Eh. The marketplace says a scholarship isn't enough compensation. I'm not sure why it bothers you that others can earn $$ off of their talents.
True for a small number of college athletes.
Not true for the vast majority.
Quote from: #UnleashSean on December 05, 2023, 01:08:30 PM
Make the players employees already.
Stop the sham of student athletes.
Yes! And fire them if they don't play to perceived potential or there is a different player you want to bring in tomorrow! #FreeMarket
Quote from: WhiteTrash on December 05, 2023, 01:37:22 PM
True for a small number of college athletes.
Not true for the vast majority.
Yep. And your point?
I think we should also make sure that anyone who receives any type of scholarship is not able to make any money that goes into their bank account.
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on December 05, 2023, 01:44:26 PM
Yep. And your point?
Just clarifying. And I agree whether it is scholarships or NIL or pay checks, it's not really our business what two private parties agree to. Nobody is being forced to do anything.
Quote from: WhiteTrash on December 05, 2023, 02:02:09 PM
Just clarifying. And I agree weather it is scholarships or NIL or pay checks, it's not really our business what two private parties agree to. Nobody is being forced to do anything.
*whether
Quote from: WhiteTrash on December 05, 2023, 01:37:22 PM
True for a small number of college athletes.
Not true for the vast majority.
Which is exactly the point of the new tier. The schools where the athletes are able to earn higher compensation get a different set of rules from Div 2, Div 3, and the lower tiers of Div 1
Quote from: SaveOD238 on December 05, 2023, 02:44:28 PM
Which is exactly the point of the new tier. The schools where the athletes are able to earn higher compensation get a different set of rules from Div 2, Div 3, and the lower tiers of Div 1
Yep.
Quote from: SaveOD238 on December 05, 2023, 02:44:28 PM
Which is exactly the point of the new tier. The schools where the athletes are able to earn higher compensation get a different set of rules from Div 2, Div 3, and the lower tiers of Div 1
Wonder what these new "rules" will be, and why D2 etc cant use the same rules.
I have no problem with paying players.
But how many damn subdivisions of college athletics do we need?
Quote from: Coleman on December 05, 2023, 03:51:58 PM
I have no problem with paying players.
But how many damn subdivisions of college athletics do we need?
Probably more. There's way too many D1 athletics programs.
Is it possible that this new division would be formed for football only?
Quote from: Jay Bee on December 05, 2023, 01:41:56 PM
Yes! And fire them if they don't play to perceived potential or there is a different player you want to bring in tomorrow! #FreeMarket
This isn't currently happening???
Not a massive fan of Pitino, but he is not wrong: https://twitter.com/RealPitino/status/1732127831784862089
Quote from: Jay Bee on December 05, 2023, 01:41:56 PM
Yes! And fire them if they don't play to perceived potential or there is a different player you want to bring in tomorrow! #FreeMarket
I sent a email to Broeker to write up the PIPs after that Madison stinker.
Quote from: Galway Eagle on December 05, 2023, 12:04:30 PM
Do all these kids get into these top tier schools if they aren't good at a sport? No. Duke alone turns down an insane amount of valedictorians every year and yet you get guys with less than stellar GPAs in the programs, from less than stellar schools. Value of priority admission? I'd say fairly high.
It is something you can pay rent with as housing is included. You're right it's not something you can feed your family with. What it though is the money your average student is paying well into their middle aged years for attending insanely bloated cost of universities right now. Isn't something you can spend? no but not having loans or rent again frees up expenses so you can spend. Having basic needs and no debt and connections is payment in the future funds that it'll set aside.
Full time job? Does that devalue the cost? If I go back to get an MBA do I get a different cost structure because I to am a full time employee? Do students working 3 jobs to make ends meet who are the same age as these athletes get a break because they're full time employees?
All false equivalencies. Anyone that wants to get the benefits of NIL can do so, athlete or otherwise. If you want to make money off your Instagram account, if you want to be in ads, if you want to be a spokesman or sell merch, you are free to do so. It's actually even easier for non-SAs to do so. Not sure why you're so butthurt that they can do what other students have been able to do since forever.
Quote from: SaveOD238 on December 05, 2023, 11:10:53 AM
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39047353/ncaa-proposes-rule-let-schools-athletes-enter-nil-deals
I've been hearing about this idea for a while, but now that it's coming straight from the source (NCAA Prez Charlie Baker), it seems like a plan like this might have some legs. NIL has clearly changed the playing field for major college athletics, but it has opened a lot of doors that this move might be able to solve.
Let's be honest, the BTD collective has been great for MU's recruiting efforts and supporting some local causes, but we all know what it really is doing: paying the players to play. This new plan would remove the perverse incentives and just bring everything back out into the open. Plus it would make it easier for governing bodies (namely the NCAA) to monitor and make rules that promote some level of competitive fairness between similar institutions. I can't imagine that anyone (other than the QBs themselves) wants to continue to see the college QB carousel every offseason due to the $1-$2M NIL deals being thrown at transfers.
Additionally, Title IX will force NIL to also benefit female athletics. It's great that MU's NIL collective has sponsored our women's basketball players, but there is no legal reason why NIL collectives have to do so. If, however, it's the athletic departments paying players, then they will be required to compensate women equally by Title IX regulations.
Given Shaka's very public statements regarding how he wants NIL reserved for retention, at best all we can say is that NIL hasn't hurt MU's recruiting. Then again, every player getting significant minutes was signed before NIL rules were in place, so we probably can't even go that far yet.
If pro-sports had to create a cap to prevent Billionaires from buying championships each year, why can't there be a CAP for each university. With rules on percentage ranges for each sport Male and Female. How you budget the money is the University's prerogative. Plus is would be the school's decision to spend the entire amount each year or not. If you go over the cap...you lose scholarships? Something needs to be done to make it equal. Otherwise college sports in small markets will be toast. A few alumni can help the cause, but really big market areas will rule in my opinion.
Quote from: westcoastwarrior on December 05, 2023, 06:39:07 PM
If pro-sports had to create a cap to prevent Billionaires from buying championships each year, why can't there be a CAP for each university. With rules on percentage ranges for each sport Male and Female. How you budget the money is the University's prerogative. Plus is would be the school's decision to spend the entire amount each year or not. If you go over the cap...you lose scholarships? Something needs to be done to make it equal. Otherwise college sports in small markets will be toast. A few alumni can help the cause, but really big market areas will rule in my opinion.
The salary cap will come. The false narrative is that MU is competing with KU and Wisconsin and DePaul when in fact there are partners. If the NFL adopted the NCAA model, GB and KC would be toast. The NFL and every other sports league has a salary cap and collective bargaining. It will come very soon to the NCAA. College sports IS pro sports.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 05, 2023, 05:56:17 PM
All false equivalencies. Anyone that wants to get the benefits of NIL can do so, athlete or otherwise. If you want to make money off your Instagram account, if you want to be in ads, if you want to be a spokesman or sell merch, you are free to do so. It's actually even easier for non-SAs to do so. Not sure why you're so butthurt that they can do what other students have been able to do since forever.
1) I've never once been against NIL, I'm against putting them on direct payroll.
2) butthurt? Weren't you one of the people pointing out that that's a homophobic term? If I'm mislabeling you my bad but all the same something to ponder might be why you choose to use homophobic insults in the future.
3) you said it's false equivalency. It's not, you can say "it doesn't pay rent" when it literally does and then say "False equivalency!" You can't say it doesn't give you spending money and then when it's pointed out that they'll have freed up funds for spending post graduating due to no loans, unlike the vast majority of students, claim that's a "false equivalency" housing is housing, having room in your budget for spending or other things is just that. Lastly, I'd say we would agree that having access to a premier program's platform for NIL is a major factor for any successful NIL monetization. So it's not a false equivalency to say that getting into these schools to maximize profit is already an extremely payment in itself.
Why do you care if they're on the payroll? It doesn't impact you at all.
Quote from: Galway Eagle on December 05, 2023, 07:48:49 PM
1) I've never once been against NIL, I'm against putting them on direct payroll.
2) butthurt? Weren't you one of the people pointing out that that's a homophobic term? If I'm mislabeling you my bad but all the same something to ponder might be why you choose to use homophobic insults in the future.
3) you said it's false equivalency. It's not, you can say "it doesn't pay rent" when it literally does and then say "False equivalency!" You can't say it doesn't give you spending money and then when it's pointed out that they'll have freed up funds for spending post graduating due to no loans, unlike the vast majority of students, claim that's a "false equivalency" housing is housing, having room in your budget for spending or other things is just that. Lastly, I'd say we would agree that having access to a premier program's platform for NIL is a major factor for any successful NIL monetization. So it's not a false equivalency to say that getting into these schools to maximize profit is already an extremely payment in itself.
2) Never used the term before on Scoop, but fair point.
3) "Housing is Housing" is simply ridiculous, and I'm not talking about just their individual rent but their ability to support a family (which I made apparent in my first post). Does a dorm room allow them to provide housing for their parents, spouses, or children? And freed up funds post graduation? Are you joking? It's a lot of privilege to assume these individuals and their families have zero financial needs while they are in school. False equivalency is exactly what you're providing. And while getting in helps, it's no guarantee. Simply making a roster or earning a scholarship is no guarantee, especially when we're talking about 360+ programs (just at the D1 basketball level).
Ultimately, the market will determine value, but I'm not a fan of starting off with limiting that value because of scholarships.
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on December 05, 2023, 08:24:28 PM
Why do you care if they're on the payroll? It doesn't impact you at all.
Is tuition rising at a rate not matching entry and mid level salaries? Yes.
Are operating costs at universities rising? Yes.
Is basketball the primary marketing channel for the university? Yes.
I'd like the money brought in from our primary marketing channel to actually be used to ensure that the university keeps costs remotely affordable for students. The people who become famous due to the Marquette brand can earn as much as they are able with NIL, good on them. But Marquette has more than upheld its due obligation in giving them a large marketing platform, full tuition, housing, food, clothing, stipend, tutoring (another expense your average college student has they don't), etc that covers a crap ton of money that other students will be paying back for the better part of 20 years.
Yeah that's really not how it works. It's not a zero sum game. The costs of higher education are almost entirely determined by what students are willing to pay.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 05, 2023, 08:36:21 PM
2) Never used the term before on Scoop, but fair point.
3) "Housing is Housing" is simply ridiculous, and I'm not talking about just their individual rent but their ability to support a family (which I made apparent in my first post). Does a dorm room allow them to provide housing for their parents, spouses, or children? And freed up funds post graduation? Are you joking? It's a lot of privilege to assume these individuals and their families have zero financial needs while they are in school. False equivalency is exactly what you're providing. And while getting in helps, it's no guarantee. Simply making a roster or earning a scholarship is no guarantee, especially when we're talking about 360+ programs (just at the D1 basketball level).
Ultimately, the market will determine value, but I'm not a fan of starting off with limiting that value because of scholarships.
Why are we talking about ability to support a family? Is MU's tuition set up so your average 18yr parent can afford it? No. So why should we care about the ability to support a family for an 18yr old who can dribble? As far as parents go same thing, the school isn't running a charity here. I'm reminded of that every time I see money disappear each month.
What family doesn't have financial needs? Name another company in the private or public sector that offers all these benefits included in the scholarship and then also adds parental care, spouse care, and children care, most I've seen is a stipend for childcare.
Again I'm in favor of NIL and a fair market value. Don't want them being directly paid by the university.
We do all know that pretty much all paid employees of pretty much all colleges get free tuition for themselves and their family members right? Should we take that away since they're getting paid by the school?
The solutions you're looking for aren't going to addressed through student athlete compensation though. If you want systemic change, that requires political will and action. That's why I'm calling these false equivalencies. Because the problems you point out are unrelated to the issue being discussed.
Quote from: wadesworld on December 05, 2023, 08:55:14 PM
We do all know that pretty much all paid employees of pretty much all colleges get free tuition for themselves and their family members right? Should we take that away since they're getting paid by the school?
Employees of Jesuit schools are also entitled to tuition reimbursement for their kids that enroll at 26 of the 27 Jesuit schools.
https://www.fordham.edu/undergraduate-financial-aid/types-of-financial-aid/faculty-and-staff-children-exchange-fachex-program/
Quote from: wadesworld on December 05, 2023, 08:55:14 PM
We do all know that pretty much all paid employees of pretty much all colleges get free tuition for themselves and their family members right? Should we take that away since they're getting paid by the school?
That's a Marquette thing. Not a very common practice. Most offer discounted tuition.
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on December 05, 2023, 08:24:28 PM
Why do you care if they're on the payroll? It doesn't impact you at all.
I think putting players directly on the payroll will have far reaching consequences that will likely result in lost opportunities for 1000s of student athletes.
But as I understand it, this proposal doesn't "put athletes directly on the payroll". It essentially allows schools to become more directly involved in NIL...which they already are.
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on December 05, 2023, 08:49:09 PM
Yeah that's really not how it works. It's not a zero sum game. The costs of higher education are almost entirely determined by what students are willing to pay.
My daughter was accepted to every 4 year school she applied to. Like some students she was not sure what she wanted to do or major in. So she decided to go to our local community college for 2 years which at the time cost us 3000, not the 10k for the state school or 16k for the private schools she was accepted at. We paid only 2 years of full tuition for her BA/BS degree.
As it turned out an an adjunct professor at the community college helped my daughter find a job right after graduation working for the same company she was working at. You don't have to pay through the nose for a good/quality education.
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on December 05, 2023, 11:58:10 PM
I think putting players directly on the payroll will have far reaching consequences that will likely result in lost opportunities for 1000s of student athletes.
But as I understand it, this proposal doesn't "put athletes directly on the payroll". It essentially allows schools to become more directly involved in NIL...which they already are.
Exactly, all other non-revenue sport scholarships may just vanish. Even scholarships for mid and low major D1 basketball may disappear.
We are only a step away from players simply being direct-paid employees of the schools and not being students at all. Has been that way at some schools for quite a while, but now it will likely become standard operating procedure. Schools just recruit and hire players who do not even enroll in classes. It may sound silly but it will happen in the near future.
Quote from: Galway Eagle on December 05, 2023, 07:48:49 PM
1) I've never once been against NIL, I'm against putting them on direct payroll.
2) butthurt? Weren't you one of the people pointing out that that's a homophobic term? If I'm mislabeling you my bad but all the same something to ponder might be why you choose to use homophobic insults in the future.
3) you said it's false equivalency. It's not, you can say "it doesn't pay rent" when it literally does and then say "False equivalency!" You can't say it doesn't give you spending money and then when it's pointed out that they'll have freed up funds for spending post graduating due to no loans, unlike the vast majority of students, claim that's a "false equivalency" housing is housing, having room in your budget for spending or other things is just that. Lastly, I'd say we would agree that having access to a premier program's platform for NIL is a major factor for any successful NIL monetization. So it's not a false equivalency to say that getting into these schools to maximize profit is already an extremely payment in itself.
Lots of students are on universities' direct payrolls. Kids who get full ride academic scholarships often get stipends or work study jobs that come with income. I'm not sure why athletes can't have the same benefits many regular students are entitled to?
In grad school I got a full tuition scholarship that came with a $20k a year stipend (this was 15 years ago, I'm sure its more now). Why can't athletes, who bring in millions for the university, get the same opportunity?
Quote from: rgoode57 on December 06, 2023, 08:48:07 AM
We are only a step away from players simply being direct-paid employees of the schools and not being students at all. Has been that way at some schools for quite a while, but now it will likely become standard operating procedure. Schools just recruit and hire players who do not even enroll in classes. It may sound silly but it will happen in the near future.
Again, lots of students are already employees of schools. You can also still be a student. It is not mutually exclusive. Have you ever heard of a TA?
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on December 05, 2023, 11:53:54 PM
That's a Marquette thing. Not a very common practice. Most offer discounted tuition.
Anecdotal but I got a job offer from Tulane and they offered it as well, after you had worked there for 5 years (I turned down the job).
Quote from: Coleman on December 06, 2023, 09:04:20 AM
Again, lots of students are already employees of schools. You can also still be a student. It is not mutually exclusive. Have you ever heard of a TA?
Chili threw slop at the SAGA wagon train line decades ago.
Quote from: Coleman on December 06, 2023, 09:01:59 AM
Lots of students are on universities' direct payrolls. Kids who get full ride academic scholarships often get stipends or work study jobs that come with income. I'm not sure why athletes can't have the same benefits many regular students are entitled to?
In grad school I got a full tuition scholarship that came with a $20k a year stipend. Why can't athletes, who bring in millions for the university, get the same opportunity?
SAs becoming employees will mean hundreds of schools shuttering their athletics programs all together and more shuttering specific programs. SAs becoming employees is a lose lose proposition, neither side as a whole benefits. Fortunately, i think this is why it won't happen.
There were inequities in the system. I think NIL for the most part addresses those inequities. Tweak NIL to help with competetive balance, sure. But if you bend the system too much, it will break and everyone will suffer, SAs more than universities
Quote from: muwarrior69 on December 06, 2023, 07:43:27 AM
My daughter was accepted to every 4 year school she applied to. Like some students she was not sure what she wanted to do or major in. So she decided to go to our local community college for 2 years which at the time cost us 3000, not the 10k for the state school or 16k for the private schools she was accepted at. We paid only 2 years of full tuition for her BA/BS degree.
As it turned out an an adjunct professor at the community college helped my daughter find a job right after graduation working for the same company she was working at. You don't have to pay through the nose for a good/quality education.
I'm not exactly sure what this means relative to my comment, but yes, your daughter seems to have made a sound choice.
Quote from: Coleman on December 06, 2023, 09:06:50 AM
Anecdotal but I got a job offer from Tulane and they offered it as well, after you had worked there for 5 years (I turned down the job).
I think it is way more common than TAMU realizes. Honestly it usually benefits the school. People will work for less than the going rate to have access to the educational benefits, they usually still pay for room and board, and the marginal cost of adding them to a classroom and accessing other tuition-backed services is pretty small.
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on December 06, 2023, 09:44:13 AM
I think it is way more common than TAMU realizes. Honestly it usually benefits the school. People will work for less than the going rate to have access to the educational benefits, they usually still pay for room and board, and the marginal cost of adding them to a classroom and accessing other tuition-backed services is pretty small.
Probably more linked to smaller schools? I know I had the opportunity when looking at colleges (because my mother worked at the local university), but chose to spend the big bucks on MU anyway.
https://cic.edu/networks/tuition-exchange-program/
Quote from: rocky_warrior on December 06, 2023, 10:40:44 AM
Probably more linked to smaller schools? I know I had the opportunity when looking at colleges (because my mother worked at the local university), but chose to spend the big bucks on MU anyway.
https://cic.edu/networks/tuition-exchange-program/
A tuition exchange is a little different, but it's a similar concept. Exchange programs may be limited to a certain type or number of students (depending on the school).
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on December 06, 2023, 10:45:21 AM
A tuition exchange is a little different, but it's a similar concept. Exchange programs may be limited to a certain type or number of students (depending on the school).
Right, I guess my point in that, was that I had an opportunity to free tuition at her university for sure, and potentially at a bunch of others too. Supporting your more widespread "free tuition" claim, and not just limited to Marquette or small number of schools.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on December 06, 2023, 10:53:34 AM
Right, I guess my point in that, was that I had an opportunity to free tuition at her university for sure, and potentially at a bunch of others too. Supporting your more widespread "free tuition" claim, and not just limited to Marquette or small number of schools.
Gotcha. I have worked at five institutions (3 private, 2 public), only one of which did not offer dependents either free or heavily discounted tuition. And that one was only because it was prevented from doing so by state law.
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on December 06, 2023, 10:57:23 AM
Gotcha. I have worked at five institutions (3 private, 2 public), only one of which did not offer dependents either free or heavily discounted tuition. And that one was only because it was prevented from doing so by state law.
Yeah I could see this being more common at private schools than state schools, for sure.
Make the football and men's basketball players employees. Those players should unionize. Institute a salary cap. All other sports should become club sports. That gets title 9 out of the equation.
Quote from: Boozemon Barro on December 06, 2023, 11:26:07 AM
Make the football and men's basketball players employees. Those players should unionize. Institute a salary cap. All other sports should become club sports. That gets title 9 out of the equation.
Title IX applies to club sports
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on December 06, 2023, 11:30:37 AM
Title IX applies to club sports
Ok. Whatever drop in the bucket the universities spend on club sports can be equalized between men and women.
Oh and there are sport minimum requirements to be an NCAA D1 institution.
And not only that, but my guess is that Marquette actually makes money on many non-revenue sports. For instance, men's golf is limited to 4.5 athletic scholarships. There are 11 people on the roster. So that means 6.5 are paying some sort of tuition when you account for academic scholarships too. I doubt the cost of running a golf team is all that much, so they are likely making some profit there.
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on December 06, 2023, 11:42:56 AM
Oh and there are sport minimum requirements to be an NCAA D1 institution.
And not only that, but my guess is that Marquette actually makes money on many non-revenue sports. For instance, men's golf is limited to 4.5 athletic scholarships. There are 11 people on the roster. So that means 6.5 are paying some sort of tuition when you account for academic scholarships too. I doubt the cost of running a golf team is all that much, so they are likely making some profit there.
You're wrong. First you need to apply the per student overhead cost to those students. Whatever margin is left over is easily wiped out by coaching salaries, equipment, travel, and course fees. There's a 0.00% chance Marquette or any other university is making money on D1 golf.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 06, 2023, 09:08:03 AM
Chili threw slop at the SAGA wagon train line decades ago.
that's what inspired the young man to become the smokin aficionado he is today
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on December 06, 2023, 11:42:56 AM
Oh and there are sport minimum requirements to be an NCAA D1 institution.
And not only that, but my guess is that Marquette actually makes money on many non-revenue sports. For instance, men's golf is limited to 4.5 athletic scholarships. There are 11 people on the roster. So that means 6.5 are paying some sort of tuition when you account for academic scholarships too. I doubt the cost of running a golf team is all that much, so they are likely making some profit there.
I'd take that bet. 6.5 are paying, 4.5 are part of the expense, so that leaves a net of 2. Say at 50K a year, that means MU made 100K. There's a lot more than 100K in expenses for the golf team.
Here's a blurb about the Top teams: All lost money
inancial data is available on all ten programs, except for Pepperdine. The highest revenue program was Oklahoma State at $566,536. The lowest revenue program was Arkansas at $46,205. The program with the highest expenses was Oklahoma State at $1,833,820. The program with the lowest expenses was North Carolina at $653,757. All programs lost money - Oklahoma State lost the most at $1,267,200.
Quote from: Boozemon Barro on December 06, 2023, 11:59:24 AM
You're wrong. First you need to apply the per student overhead cost to those students. Whatever margin is left over is easily wiped out by coaching salaries, equipment, travel, and course fees. There's a 0.00% chance Marquette or any other university is making money on D1 golf.
Quote from: lawdog77 on December 06, 2023, 12:01:56 PM
I'd take that bet. 6.5 are paying, 4.5 are part of the expense, so that leaves a net of 2. Say at 50K a year, that means MU made 100K. There's a lot more than 100K in expenses for the golf team.
Here's a blurb about the Top teams: All lost money
inancial data is available on all ten programs, except for Pepperdine. The highest revenue program was Oklahoma State at $566,536. The lowest revenue program was Arkansas at $46,205. The program with the highest expenses was Oklahoma State at $1,833,820. The program with the lowest expenses was North Carolina at $653,757. All programs lost money - Oklahoma State lost the most at $1,267,200.
OK...I will lose that bet. Thanks for the information, although I am skeptical that Marquette is spending close to that amount.
But now let's do track and field. There are 86 athletes on the men's and women's roster. 86 x $35,000 = $3,010,000. 30.6 scholarships x $35,000 = $1,071,000. That's a different of nearly $2 million. And even though that's a three season sport if you include cross country, there is no way that the costs exceed $2 million.
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on December 06, 2023, 12:16:09 PM
OK...I will lose that bet. Thanks for the information.
But now let's do track and field. There are 86 athletes on the men's and women's roster. 86 x $35,000 = $3,010,000. 30.6 scholarships x $35,000 = $1,071,000. That's a different of nearly $2 million. And even though that's a three season sport if you include cross country, there is no way that the costs exceed $2 million.
You're talking about gross margin. Apply the overhead costs of the university on a per student basis and they're for sure operating at a loss. The university isn't making 100% profit from a non athlete paying full tuition. That is where your logic is failing.
Quote from: Boozemon Barro on December 06, 2023, 12:25:07 PM
You're talking about gross margin. Apply the overhead costs of the university on a per student basis and they're for sure operating at a loss. The university isn't making 100% profit from a non athlete paying full tuition. That is where your logic is failing.
If that's how you want to view it, then you can be right. Congrats.
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on December 06, 2023, 12:16:09 PM
OK...I will lose that bet. Thanks for the information, although I am skeptical that Marquette is spending close to that amount.
But now let's do track and field. There are 86 athletes on the men's and women's roster. 86 x $35,000 = $3,010,000. 30.6 scholarships x $35,000 = $1,071,000. That's a different of nearly $2 million. And even though that's a three season sport if you include cross country, there is no way that the costs exceed $2 million.
This is not MU, but track and field operates at a massive loss around the country: https://www.thesportsexaminer.com/lane-one-study-shows-u-s-colleges-spent-almost-1-billion-on-track-with-more-than-25000-athletes-on-scholarship/
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on December 06, 2023, 12:28:02 PM
If that's how you want to view it, then you can be right. Congrats.
Ok. You can view it where all university employees and any other operating expenses are free and then you can be right.
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on December 06, 2023, 09:39:09 AM
I'm not exactly sure what this means relative to my comment, but yes, your daughter seems to have made a sound choice.
You said the cost of a higher education is determined by what the student is willing to pay. Even with all the financial assistance the cost of an equivalent Marquette Education can be found for a lot less elsewhere.
Quote from: Boozemon Barro on December 06, 2023, 12:30:25 PM
Ok. You can view it where all university employees and any other operating expenses are free and then you can be right.
::)
Quote from: MUbiz on December 06, 2023, 12:30:21 PM
This is not MU, but track and field operates at a massive loss around the country: https://www.thesportsexaminer.com/lane-one-study-shows-u-s-colleges-spent-almost-1-billion-on-track-with-more-than-25000-athletes-on-scholarship/
From the article: "In NCAA Division I – all sections combined – the schools collected $443.78 in revenue and lost a collective $164.10 million. Almost all of that was with the big schools in the Football Bowl Subdivision, which had a combined loss of $165.16 million. Ouch!"
Again, I don't think Marquette is spending $2 million on its CCTF programs.
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on December 06, 2023, 12:16:09 PM
OK...I will lose that bet. Thanks for the information, although I am skeptical that Marquette is spending close to that amount.
But now let's do track and field. There are 86 athletes on the men's and women's roster. 86 x $35,000 = $3,010,000. 30.6 scholarships x $35,000 = $1,071,000. That's a different of nearly $2 million. And even though that's a three season sport if you include cross country, there is no way that the costs exceed $2 million.
You are assuming those 50 non schol athletes are at MU solely based on their ability to walk on to the T&F team. that is not the case.
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on December 06, 2023, 12:42:13 PM
::)
You're rolling your eyes at me? Your argument is financially illiterate.
Quote from: lawdog77 on December 06, 2023, 12:55:49 PM
You are assuming those 50 non schol athletes are at MU solely based on their ability to walk on to the T&F team. that is not the case.
You are correct that I am making that assumption.
Quote from: Boozemon Barro on December 06, 2023, 12:56:26 PM
You're rolling your eyes at me? Your argument is financially illiterate.
Not when you are looking at the marginal cost of adding students. The overhead is there regardless.
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on December 06, 2023, 01:00:08 PM
You are correct that I am making that assumption.
You would be wrong. Just because MU allows a 3rd string pole vaulter to be allowed on the roster does not mean the Athletic Department gets to add their tuition room and board costs to the Athletic Department's bottom line.
Many Marquette students pick MU for the academics, then decide to try out for track and field.
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on December 06, 2023, 01:01:04 PM
Not when you are looking at the marginal cost of adding students. The overhead is there regardless.
Then why are you leaving the overhead out of your calculation? You can't include the full tuition as revenue and leave out the per student overhead costs of the university if you're trying to determine profitability. It's not like without track and field the university wouldn't be able to replace those 84 spots with non-athletes.
Quote from: Boozemon Barro on December 06, 2023, 01:15:28 PM
Then why are you leaving the overhead out of your calculation? You can't include the full tuition as revenue and leave out the per student overhead costs of the university if you're trying to determine profitability. It's not like without track and field the university wouldn't be able to replace those 84 spots with non-athletes.
The assumption in your last sentence is where you are wrong. Oftentimes athletes are only going to choose a place based on if they have athletic opportunities. They aren't taking a "spot" that the University would otherwise give to someone else.
Quote from: lawdog77 on December 06, 2023, 01:04:03 PM
You would be wrong. Just because MU allows a 3rd string pole vaulter to be allowed on the roster does not mean the Athletic Department gets to add their tuition room and board costs to the Athletic Department's bottom line.
Many Marquette students pick MU for the academics, then decide to try out for track and field.
That doesn't mirror my experience at all.
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on December 06, 2023, 02:49:48 PM
The assumption in your last sentence is where you are wrong. Oftentimes athletes are only going to choose a place based on if they have athletic opportunities. They aren't taking a "spot" that the University would otherwise give to someone else.
That makes zero sense. If the university has capacity to house and educate the athletes, they would have the capacity to house and educate non-athletes in their place should the program be shut down. Why wouldn't they? Do buildings and professors just manifest out of thin air if a track and field program exists? Would they
then disappear into the ether if the track and field program goes away?
Quote from: Boozemon Barro on December 06, 2023, 03:00:21 PM
That makes zero sense. If the university has capacity to house and educate the athletes, they would have the capacity to house and educate non-athletes in their place should the program be shut down. Why wouldn't they? Do buildings and professors just manifest out of thin air if a track and field program exists? Would they
then disappear into the ether if the track and field program goes away?
I would guess that if Marquette dropped its CCTF program, it would cause an decrease in enrollment similar to the roster size of the CCTF program if everything else could be normalized.
You don't seem to understand that in today's operating environment, hardly any but the elite universities are anywhere near full capacity. Marquette certainly isn't. The abillity to continue competing in a sport, AND getting a Marquette education, is why the majority of these students are choosing to come here.
Would SOME choose to come to MU anyway? Sure. But if a similar school offered them a spot on their athletic team and Marquette didn't, they would likely choose to attend the other school.
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on December 06, 2023, 02:49:48 PM
That doesn't mirror my experience at all.
D-1 schools handle this differently than D2, d3 etc. D1 schools do not count walkon tuition as revenue to the athletics programs.
Quote from: lawdog77 on December 06, 2023, 03:27:44 PM
D-1 schools handle this differently than D2, d3 etc. D1 schools do not count walkon tuition as revenue to the athletics programs.
I've worked at D1 schools. I'm not talking about my D3 experiences.
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on December 06, 2023, 03:33:14 PM
I've worked at D1 schools. I'm not talking about my D3 experiences.
I know University of Oregon for one does not. Their 2022 records show revenue for track and field of 295K with expenses of 2.1M. For 2022 LSU shows revenue for track and field of 37K with expenditures of 5M.
You are honestly the first person I have heard state that non revenue sports for D1 are moneymakers to the university.
Quote from: lawdog77 on December 06, 2023, 04:05:12 PM
I know University of Oregon for one does not. Their 2022 records show revenue for track and field of 295K with expenses of 2.1M. For 2022 LSU shows revenue for track and field of 37K with expenditures of 5M.
You are honestly the first person I have heard state that non revenue sports for D1 are moneymakers to the university.
I'm not picking a side here, but when they show "revenue for track and field" are they talking about the tuition and fees paid to the university by the athletes? Or are they just talking about gate receipts, media rights, etc.?
Quote from: lawdog77 on December 06, 2023, 04:05:12 PM
I know University of Oregon for one does not. Their 2022 records show revenue for track and field of 295K with expenses of 2.1M. For 2022 LSU shows revenue for track and field of 37K with expenditures of 5M.
You are honestly the first person I have heard state that non revenue sports for D1 are moneymakers to the university.
Years ago cracked sidewalks posted the revenue numbers and found we actually made a slight amount of money on women's basketball. If we're making money with those crowds I'd imagine places like Wisconsin or Nebraska make money on Volleyball and that Minnesota or North Dakota probably make money on Hockey.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on December 06, 2023, 04:11:07 PM
I'm not picking a side here, but when they show "revenue for track and field" are they talking about the tuition and fees paid to the university by the athletes? Or are they just talking about gate receipts, media rights, etc.?
From my experience D1 schools dont count it as revenue, as these are gen pop students.
Quote from: Galway Eagle on December 06, 2023, 04:28:34 PM
Years ago cracked sidewalks posted the revenue numbers and found we actually made a slight amount of money on women's basketball. If we're making money with those crowds I'd imagine places like Wisconsin or Nebraska make money on Volleyball and that Minnesota or North Dakota probably make money on Hockey.
From google:
The women's volleyball program at UW - Madison made $2,042,717 in revenue and spent $6,269,641 in expenses.
Quote from: lawdog77 on December 06, 2023, 04:32:43 PM
From google:
The women's volleyball program at UW - Madison made $2,042,717 in revenue and spent $6,269,641 in expenses.
I suppose I to could have googled this before guessing based on big crowds.
Quote from: Galway Eagle on December 06, 2023, 04:42:52 PM
I suppose I to could have googled this before guessing based on big crowds.
Hinestly, a lot of it is creative accounting.
Quote from: lawdog77 on December 06, 2023, 04:47:28 PM
Hinestly, a lot of it is creative accounting.
Nebraska turns a profit in volleyball
https://omaha.com/sports/huskers/volleyball/how-much-money-did-nebraska-make-off-the-memorial-stadium-volleyball-match/article_5284b43f-92b5-52ee-b819-614da8aeada2.html#:~:text=Based%20on%20data%20from%20Fiscal,conferences%20to%20turn%20a%20profit.
Quote from: Galway Eagle on December 06, 2023, 04:52:31 PM
Nebraska turns a profit in volleyball
https://omaha.com/sports/huskers/volleyball/how-much-money-did-nebraska-make-off-the-memorial-stadium-volleyball-match/article_5284b43f-92b5-52ee-b819-614da8aeada2.html#:~:text=Based%20on%20data%20from%20Fiscal,conferences%20to%20turn%20a%20profit.
This line stood out:
Based on data from Fiscal Year 2022, Nebraska volleyball was the lone women's program at a public institution in the Power 6 conferences to turn a profit.
A few more "details" about the NCAA plan
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39056505/ncaa-rule-changes-nil-paying-athletes-title-ix-charlie-baker-faq (https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39056505/ncaa-rule-changes-nil-paying-athletes-title-ix-charlie-baker-faq)
Caitlin Clark gets an estimated $1M for NIL.
She could return to Iowa for a fifth season ... and unless she's really tired of playing college ball, why wouldn't she?
For a top men's player, leaving is a no-brainer. Lottery picks make more than they can get in NIL, plus they get the clock ticking on the really big dough that'll come with their second contract.
For a top women's player with a big NIL deal, she can't make anywhere near that in the WNBA. Maybe if she also plays overseas she can, but it's got to be appealing to stay in school, get a paid-for degree (or two or three) and make big NIL bucks.
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on December 06, 2023, 02:49:48 PM
The assumption in your last sentence is where you are wrong. Oftentimes athletes are only going to choose a place based on if they have athletic opportunities. They aren't taking a "spot" that the University would otherwise give to someone else.
The ability to play on a D1 Athletics is a huge draw for students at school like MU. Great way to recruit tuition paying families. Also over the years , many of the students end up as large alumni donors. At the large state schools Athletics draws non resident paying students in large numbers.
Going down to the D2 and D3 levels Athletics is an even bigger inducement. That is why those schools are constantly adding programs . All the University Presidents I know view Athletics as on one of their centerpieces of student recruitment .
Quote from: lawdog77 on December 06, 2023, 04:32:43 PM
From google:
The women's volleyball program at UW - Madison made $2,042,717 in revenue and spent $6,269,641 in expenses.
tough way to run a biness. you can only write off these losses for a few years before you need to show some positive revenue, eyn'a?
Quote from: rocket surgeon on December 08, 2023, 06:03:22 AM
tough way to run a biness. you can only write off these losses for a few years before you need to show some positive revenue, eyn'a?
It's a good thing not everything is a business