Well that was a waste

[79Warrior]

California has admitted to $1.3T, as in trillion, in debt. (many estimates put it at 2x that when local governments and special agencies are included). Pensions alone are underfunded by $1T .

Anyone who has visited the state can also verify the numerous reports of how far behind the state is in maintaining it's infrastructure. Any annual surplus the state has is a result of underfunding needed projects to the detriment of its citizens.

But I guess it is easier to spew ignorant misinformation that it is to do even a cursory search.

Anyway, any tax revenues from student athletes would be  spit in the ocean and I also doubt it is the state's motivation. But please don't paint California as financially sound state. That is horribly untrue.

Just curious, is there such a thing as a financially sound state? Also, how much debt does the Federal government have? The whole country is in debt.

[Cheeks]

Just curious, is there such a thing as a financially sound state? Also, how much debt does the Federal government have? The whole country is in debt.

Every state has debt.  The debt to asset ratios, however, are telling.

New Jersey and Illinois have debt to asset ratios greater than 275%. 

Idaho is at 17%.  Alaska at 14%.

[Cheeks]

Politics. As usual.

Yep.

I agree with Sultan, but it wouldn't bother me in the least if a "normal student" profits off his or her likeness. One thing for sure, if that student DOES profit, he or she will not be ruled ineligible for the debate team or the school choir or student media or the dance troupe.

I responded to Pakuni bringing up Newsome....you said nothing when he did....as usual.

Question for all of you that was brought up on the Dan Patrick show.  Should all or most students be paid that go to college?  After all, aren't colleges all "profiting" from every student?  This notion that colleges profit from student athletes...well they profit on chemistry, history, nursing students, too. 

[Cheeks]

California has a $21B, as in billion, budget surplus.  But I guess it is easier to spew ignorant misinformation that it is to do even a cursory search.

LOL.  It amazes me how many stupid people don't understand a budget surplus vs debt.  A surplus is a function of a budget in a given fiscal year.  The debt is running ledger of all this budget surpluses and deficits over the years.  And oh, by the way, the hide the salami done to not include pension liabilities is wonderfully transparent for the public. 

[The Sultan]

I responded to Pakuni bringing up Newsome....you said nothing when he did....as usual.

Question for all of you that was brought up on the Dan Patrick show.  Should all or most students be paid that go to college?  After all, aren't colleges all "profiting" from every student?  This notion that colleges profit from student athletes...well they profit on chemistry, history, nursing students, too. 

That's not what profiting on likeness means. (And I think you know that.) 

[Cheeks]

Not really

Yes, really.  It was akin to you have to pass it to know what is in it.  That he's just trying to force the hand and they will figure it out or we figure it out for them...what could possibly go wrong.

[Cheeks]

You don't understand the difference between a deficit and debt??  Jesus Crist on a trailer hitch.  Your ignorance is breathtaking.
[/quotes]


And you did understand the difference?  LOL

[Pakuni]

I responded to Pakuni bringing up Newsome....you said nothing when he did....as usual.

I never mentioned Newsome.
You continue to be the only one to make this an issue of partisan politics.

[Pakuni]

LOL.  It amazes me how many stupid people don't understand a budget surplus vs debt.  A surplus is a function of a budget in a given fiscal year.  The debt is running ledger of all this budget surpluses and deficits over the years.  And oh, by the way, the hide the salami done to not include pension liabilities is wonderfully transparent for the public.

You call people stupid and then offer this explanation for public debt?
Hoo boy...

[dgies9156]

Just curious, is there such a thing as a financially sound state? Also, how much debt does the Federal government have? The whole country is in debt.

Yes.

Florida is financially sound. No state income taxes. The economy is growing. The population is expanding. The alligators are under control.

Is it heaven? No. But pretty darn close from October to May.

[Jay Bee]

The grad transfer rule has been a resounding success and repealing it would just be the lords stepping on the throats of the serfs. The serfs with actual degrees.

Otherwise, so much wrong in here, as usual. TAMU pounded down most of your garbage nicely. I won't pile on.

It's a shame and awful. Repeal now!

[MU82]

I responded to Pakuni bringing up Newsome....you said nothing when he did....as usual.

Hey hoopy, please provide proof that Pak brought up "Newsome." The post in which you mentioned "Newsome," at 2:02:51 yesterday, you clearly brought up the Cali governor without responding to anybody.

I will gladly apologize if I'm wrong.

Edit: Oh, and his name is spelled Newsom. You'd think that somebody who claims to know everything about everything would know how to spell his own governor's name.

[rocket surgeon]

You don't understand the difference between a deficit and debt??  Jesus Crist on a trailer hitch.  Your ignorance is breathtaking.

  my whole point is Ca is beyond BROKE and your $21 billion with a "b" is horse hockey compared to their "reportedly $1.3 trillion(might even be more) with a "T" debt.   mentioning $21 b dollar surplus is not only laughable, but as good as... gone before i even hit "post" here...btw, hows their choo-choo train doing einstein?  running a surplus there too?

[MU82]

It's a shame and awful. Repeal now!

You're allowed to be wrong, BJ.

The rule benefits intelligent athletes who work hard to attain their degrees. Those are the exact kind of student-athletes who should be rewarded. As several other Scoopers have illustrated with evidence, the rule hurts no programs long-term while actually benefiting many of the small programs that some Scoopers erroneously claim it "decimates."

[brewcity77]

I responded to Pakuni bringing up Newsome....you said nothing when he did....as usual.

Question for all of you that was brought up on the Dan Patrick show.  Should all or most students be paid that go to college?  After all, aren't colleges all "profiting" from every student?  This notion that colleges profit from student athletes...well they profit on chemistry, history, nursing students, too.

Shocking, another disingenuous goalpost move. If chemistry, history, or nursing students want to profit off their name and likeness, nothing is stopping them.

[79Warrior]

  my whole point is Ca is beyond BROKE and your $21 billion with a "b" is horse hockey compared to their "reportedly $1.3 trillion(might even be more) with a "T" debt.   mentioning $21 b dollar surplus is not only laughable, but as good as... gone before i even hit "post" here...btw, hows their choo-choo train doing einstein?  running a surplus there too?

How do the feds stack up? Fair to say beyond broke? The Whole frigging free world is beyond broke.

[MU82]

Good editorial on the NCAA by the Charlotte Observer: https://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article235703607.html?

Salient points the writer makes:

++ In most states you can get sued for making money off someone's likeness, but the NCAA has been doing so for decades under the guise of keeping their athletes "amateurs."

++ The NCAA is readying to fight the law in court, but its case is not strong. Should enough states pass NIL bills, the NCAA will have to bow to the reality that the college sports landscape has profoundly changed.

++ What would change look like in North Carolina? It would be good for larger and wealthier schools that have more deep-pocketed boosters willing to "pay" an elite athlete for his or her likeness. In other words, it would be much the same as the landscape now.

++ As for the athletes? If pro sports is any indication, about 10% of the athletes will earn 90% of the individual licensing, sports economist Andy Schwarz tells the editorial board. Schwarz says there also will be a strong group licensing component — think trading cards and video games — where money is earned by all athletes in revenue producing sports.

++ At least some of that money has to this point gone straight to conferences, athletic departments and lush coaching contracts, so you can begin to understand why those same college officials are frowning at change.

++ Some, including NCAA president Mark Emmert, have suggested doomsday is nigh for college sports, just as they did when Title IX was supposedly was going to bleed athletic departments to death by demanding equal opportunities to women.

[forgetful]

Good editorial on the NCAA by the Charlotte Observer: https://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article235703607.html?

Salient points the writer makes:

++ In most states you can get sued for making money off someone's likeness, but the NCAA has been doing so for decades under the guise of keeping their athletes "amateurs."

++ Some, including NCAA president Mark Emmert, have suggested doomsday is nigh for college sports, just as they did when Title IX was supposedly was going to bleed athletic departments to death by demanding equal opportunities to women.

The first point is false or at best misleading. All states allow a person to assign profits for their likeness to another entity for compensation as a part of a contract. That contract is the scholarship agreement.

The second point is also misleading. The vast majority of athletic departments are losing a fortune, even with creative accounting to hide how bad it is. That is resulting in funds being syphoned away from education nationwide. Honestly, although I like college basketball a ton, this may be a sign that colleges shouldn't be involved in athletics at all.

[Pakuni]

The second point is also misleading. The vast majority of athletic departments are losing a fortune, even with creative accounting to hide how bad it is. That is resulting in funds being syphoned away from education nationwide. Honestly, although I like college basketball a ton, this may be a sign that colleges shouldn't be involved in athletics at all.

Could you define "vast majority" and "losing a fortune?"

Because according to USA Today's annual review of athletic department finances, that's definitely not the case. Of the 230 ADs reviewed, 81 posted operating losses, or roughly a third. And the vast majority of those 81 were small losses relative to total budget (i.e. expenditures within 5-10 percent of revenues ... not what most would consider a "fortune" in relative terms).

Your question about whether all these schools should be running D1 athletic programs is a good one. But unless you have numbers that contradict those of USA Today, I don't agree that a vast majority are losing a fortune.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

[The Sultan]

Could you define "vast majority" and "losing a fortune?"

Because according to USA Today's annual review of athletic department finances, that's definitely not the case. Of the 230 ADs reviewed, 81 posted operating losses, or roughly a third. And the vast majority of those 81 were small losses relative to total budget (i.e. expenditures within 5-10 percent of revenues ... not what most would consider a "fortune" in relative terms).

Your question about whether all these schools should be running D1 athletic programs is a good one. But unless you have numbers that contradict those of USA Today, I don't agree that a vast majority are losing a fortune.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Not only that, but athletics should be viewed more like a marketing expense.  I don't think most athletic departments are operating at a break-even point, nor should they expected to be.  But if you eliminate athletics alltogether, the consequences would likely be worse.

[Uncle Rico]

Could you define "vast majority" and "losing a fortune?"

Because according to USA Today's annual review of athletic department finances, that's definitely not the case. Of the 230 ADs reviewed, 81 posted operating losses, or roughly a third. And the vast majority of those 81 were small losses relative to total budget (i.e. expenditures within 5-10 percent of revenues ... not what most would consider a "fortune" in relative terms).

Your question about whether all these schools should be running D1 athletic programs is a good one. But unless you have numbers that contradict those of USA Today, I don't agree that a vast majority are losing a fortune.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

The University of Wisconsin athletic department requested a budget of $159 million for 2019-20.  They pay their defensive and offensive coordinators in football $966,000 and $775,000 respectively.  They've doubled the salaries of their men's hockey coach and women's basketball coach from their predecessors, two coaches who were fired.

The University received $44 million in TV revenue, $41 million in gift funds and $52 million in ticket sales.  According to a study published last month in the State Journal, UW sports were worth $610 million to the state economy.

aMaTeURisM

[Cheeks]

That's not what profiting on likeness means. (And I think you know that.)

Nor are schools profiting from these kids in many cases since so many are running a deficit.  Should only the handful of programs that are actually profitable be required to participate, or can you guys stop with the BS "college are profiting off kids" ridiculous line.

And someone please tell me why on earth it matters one iota what Jim Delany makes or a coach?  They have responsibilities far greater than most on this board and certainly more than any student athlete.  It's like the pay envy nonsense some here have about CEO's.  The commissioner of the BIG TEN is a huge job, yes that person will be paid as such.  That person is also an employee,  a student athlete is not an employee.

[Cheeks]

I never mentioned Newsome.
You continue to be the only one to make this an issue of partisan politics.

LOL.

I'm sorry, you aren't Pakuni here talking about the California Governor?  Classic

https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=59014.msg1159177#msg1159177

[Cheeks]

Hey hoopy, please provide proof that Pak brought up "Newsome." The post in which you mentioned "Newsome," at 2:02:51 yesterday, you clearly brought up the Cali governor without responding to anybody.

I will gladly apologize if I'm wrong.

Edit: Oh, and his name is spelled Newsom. You'd think that somebody who claims to know everything about everything would know how to spell his own governor's name.

Sorry that autocorrect does that.

Start apologizing

https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=59014.msg1159177#msg1159177

[Cheeks]

Shocking, another disingenuous goalpost move. If chemistry, history, or nursing students want to profit off their name and likeness, nothing is stopping them.

If those students want to perform in front of 17k students, get free education, room, board, travel, etc...where do they go...is there an office on campus for them to get the benefits student athletes do?