Well that was a waste

[mu03eng]

I submit to you that if college engineering teams competed in building robots that they would be given the same supplies, tools and rule to compete with. Companies like Google would not be allowed to tip the scales in favor of Stanford by paying its team members or giving other benefits. If Google did, other engineering schools would rightfully call foul since it would not be a true competition. And if engineering teams relied on revenues from the competitions, the robot building events and teams would go away because no one is going to watch Stanford win every time.

Boy, thanks for proving my point because you clearly have never participated in the BAE team or the solar race team, etc. There are certainly rules about the cars, etc but each team fundraisers their own money and can build whatever they can pay for. Hell, Google sponsors Carnegie Mellon's Engineer School Autonomous Car for the Autonomous Car challenge.

As to the rest of your post, why do people assume there is all this money sitting around with boosters just waiting to fly into the market. There may be some but who cares? The market, universities, and the students will adjust.....this just isn't some seismic change for college sports that people make it out to be.

[forgetful]

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/

Because if you look at the actual data (in that article) only 22 schools of the 230 actually make a profit or break even. The rest are subsidized by University funds that could and should go to educational purposes, but instead go towards athletics. The reason, the athletic departments operate with large losses.

The NCAA allows the schools to count allocation of university funds as revenue, because if they didn't, you would have more uproar from taxpayers, and students, complaining about paying for athletics, when they don't care about it. Schools saying they are breaking even are counting this revenue.

Even several of those 22 schools do not actually make a profit. All apparel, drinks, equipment etc., that are donated to the university is counted as positive revenue, even though it is not increasing income, there are no corresponding expenses for these items so it appears as if positive cash flow is generated, when it is not.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I asked you a question, and you dodged it...wouldn't expect any less from you...why should college athletes be able to make money of any kind(other than a job etc), while in college??

I mean, why shouldn't they?  We live in a free society where people have a right to make a living doing whatever is legal for them to do.  Why should student athletes be limited?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

"the opportunities that we have for the great many shouldn’t be sacrificed at the altar of the one percent.”

Yeah that wouldn't happen.

[Uncle Rico]

Jim Delany dire predictions of the past:

“The bowl system is dead”, he warned as he fought against a football playoff

“You look at college basketball, and I would say there’s probably one must-see game during the regular season, Duke-North Carolina”, he said trying to say the college football regular season would be diluted by a playoff

“...It has been my longstanding belief that The Big Ten’s schools would forgo the revenues in those circumstances and instead take steps to downsize the scope, breadth and activity of their athletic programs,” Delany wrote. “Several alternatives to a ‘pay for play’ model exist, such as the Division III model, which does not offer any athletics-based grants-in-aid, and, among others, a need-based financial model. These alternatives would, in my view, be more consistent with The Big Ten’s philosophy that the educational and lifetime economic benefits associated with a university education are the appropriate quid pro quo for its student-athletes.” Jim Delany threat after the O’Bannion trial

Chicken Little nonsense

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

College athletics were doomed once before.  The language sounds familiar

https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2019-10-02/college-athletics-reform-ncaa-doomsday-title-ix

Man some of those responses are so Chicosian.

[muguru]

I mean, why shouldn't they?  We live in a free society where people have a right to make a living doing whatever is legal for them to do.  Why should student athletes be limited?

Because the college sports system was built on it being Amateur. It should remain that way. Now people can say "that's a sham, it hasn't been amateur for decades". For a vast majority of the NCAA member institutions that play by the rules that they agreed to play by, it is amateurism. Does it need cleaning up?? 100%. But allowing students to profit off their likeness is only going to muddy the waters even more. I promise you that whatever the NCAA agrees to as a compromise, they will implement rules regarding it(and with good reason). Guess what's going to happen?? You guessed it, eventually those rules will be broken as well.

This WILL assuredly lead to paying college players directly. Is that what any of us really want?? I sure don't.

But to answer your question more directly...sure they can legally make money off their likenesses, go right ahead, not a single person is stopping you...EXCEPT the NCAA will make you ineligible. I don't see the problem with that, that seems more than reasonable to me. It has always been that way.

If making money is so important to these college kids then give up playing sports altogether and be a normal college student and get a job, or if you're good enough, skip college and go overseas, or directly to the G league. I really don't see where the issue is..these kids are CHOOSING to go to college, and by doing so, agree to play by the rules of the NCAA. If they don't like that, then don't go to college, or choose not to play sports. It's really that simple if you ask me.

[Uncle Rico]

Because the college sports system was built on it being Amateur. It should remain that way. Now people can say "that's a sham, it hasn't been amateur for decades". For a vast majority of the NCAA member institutions that play by the rules that they agreed to play by, it is amateurism. Does it need cleaning up?? 100%. But allowing students to profit off their likeness is only going to muddy the waters even more. I promise you that whatever the NCAA agrees to as a compromise, they will implement rules regarding it(and with good reason). Guess what's going to happen?? You guessed it, eventually those rules will be broken as well.

This WILL assuredly lead to paying college players directly. Is that what any of us really want?? I sure don't.

But to answer your question more directly...sure they can legally make money off their likenesses, go right ahead, not a single person is stopping you...EXCEPT the NCAA will make you ineligible. I don't see the problem with that, that seems more than reasonable to me. It has always been that way.

If making money is so important to these college kids then give up playing sports altogether and be a normal college student and get a job, or if you're good enough, skip college and go overseas, or directly to the G league. I really don't see where the issue is..these kids are CHOOSING to go to college, and by doing so, agree to play by the rules of the NCAA. If they don't like that, then do go to college, or choose not to play sports. It's really that simple if you ask me.

Football players can’t go “overseas”, or join a “g-league”. 

And there are other athletes in non-revenue sports that can and will be able to profit off their likeness.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Because the college sports system was built on it being Amateur. It should remain that way.

Why? Amateurism is dumb.  "You should work hard at something but are not allowed to make money at it even if you could," is a really strange, anti-American concept IMO.

This WILL assuredly lead to paying college players directly. Is that what any of us really want?? I sure don't.

It wouldn't bother me and have no idea why it would bother anyone else.

But to answer your question more directly...sure they can legally make money off their likenesses, go right ahead, not a single person is stopping you...EXCEPT the NCAA will make you ineligible.

You asked me why and I answered it.  I think the NCAA's rules are foolish.

[Cheeks]

At every university, the scholarship drama student, school newspaper editor, ballet dancer and trombonist also get benefits the rest of the student body don't. They also aren't "employees." All of those people can profit off their own likenesses.

College athletes work harder than most "employees" anywhere. And major universities make untold riches on their backs. But yes, so far, they have been judged not to be "employees" by the courts. I'm glad you so respect everything that every court rules. I look forward to your full-throated defense of abortion rights; it's political, but that never stops you.

Meanwhile, the California deal is now a law, which of course trumps the courts (unless there is a lawsuit and courts rule otherwise). Soon many more -- probably dozens more -- states will adopt this law, too, and the NCAA will either capitulate or go out of business. And then all of this will have just been good, clean, Scoopian fun. Deal with it!

That's correct, different folks get different benefits.  Welcome to the world.  Why are we forcing conformity?   College athletes work harder...that is your opinion.  They may work harder at their craft in those 20 hours a week, but they may also not be taking the course load or course difficult.  I'm not going to pretend to say someone is working harder than the physics student, the nursing student with their clinicals, the PT student, or any other.  I do know that the world has different benefits for all kinds of people, and student athletes get some of the absolute best.

[muguru]

Football players can’t go “overseas”, or join a “g-league”. 

And there are other athletes in non-revenue sports that can and will be able to profit off their likeness.

Look, I haven't once said they shouldn't be able to profit off their likeness. My main issue is, you all want them to be able to do that AND still be eligible for competition. I don't agree with that. Why should they be able to?? Not a single college athlete doesn't know the rules, right?? And they agreed to those rules when they decided to play college athletics. Why should they get their cake and eat it to?? Shouldn't they have rules they should have to follow just like anyone else in the world??

You can choose to break rules, that's up to each individual, but there are also consequences for those actions.

My employer(just like a vast majority of everyone's employers), expects me to stay 40 hours a week(unless vacation etc). Doesn't mean I have to, I can choose to only work 30 hours a week if I want to, but I can promise you if I do that, I wouldn't have a job very long, I know that, none of us would. We all agree to that. It's one of the rules our employers have for us, that we MUST follow, even though there isn't a state law that says I have to stay 40 hours a week. But should I be able to work say 30 hours a week and still expect to keep my job or get paid the same wage??
Absolutely not.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Look, I haven't once said they shouldn't be able to profit off their likeness. My main issue is, you all want them to be able to do that AND still be eligible for competition. I don't agree with that. Why should they be able to?? Not a single college athlete doesn't know the rules, right?? And they agreed to those rules when they decided to play college athletics. Why should they get their cake and eat it to?? Shouldn't they have rules they should have to follow just like anyone else in the world??

The whole point of this debate is that the rules should be changed.  No one is arguing that the student athletes should be able to break rules without consequence.  You haven't figured that out? 

[Cheeks]

Yeah that wouldn't happen.

Of course it will.  The real world example I give because I lived it.  Company spends $500K with athletic department as a sponsor, those dollars used to fund multiple scholarships and several staff members that SERVE to help the student athletes.  Company takes that budget and says we are giving directly to a few players instead.  Now those scholarships and staffing in jeopardy.  The company's sponsorship budget remained static, but the beneficiary of one or a few students now helps to harm multiple people on scholarship as a result.

Real world....of course, ignored.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Of course it will.  The real world example I give because I lived it.  Company spends $500K with athletic department as a sponsor, those dollars used to fund multiple scholarships and several staff members that SERVE to help the student athletes.  Company takes that budget and says we are giving directly to a few players instead.  Now those scholarships and staffing in jeopardy.  The company's sponsorship budget remained static, but the beneficiary of one or a few students now helps to harm multiple people on scholarship as a result.

Real world....of course, ignored.

Real world....ignored.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2019-10-02/college-athletics-reform-ncaa-doomsday-title-ix

[muguru]

Why? Amateurism is dumb.  "You should work hard at something but are not allowed to make money at it even if you could," is a really strange, anti-American concept IMO.


It wouldn't bother me and have no idea why it would bother anyone else.


You asked me why and I answered it.  I think the NCAA's rules are foolish.

Then IF it gets to that point, don't you also need trade deadlines, salary caps, roster limits, free agency etc. All of those are part of "pro" sports. This shouldn't be any different.


Do you think your employer's rules are foolish?? I mean your an administrator...and unless you work for a university that isn't under the NCAA branch, you agree to follow them. Isn't that incredibly hypocritical?? You think the rules are foolish, yet you're an administrator perhaps for a school under the NCAA branch. Obviously the rules can't be that foolish if you choose to be employed there.

[WhiteTrash]

Boy, thanks for proving my point because you clearly have never participated in the BAE team or the solar race team, etc. There are certainly rules about the cars, etc but each team fundraisers their own money and can build whatever they can pay for. Hell, Google sponsors Carnegie Mellon's Engineer School Autonomous Car for the Autonomous Car challenge.

As to the rest of your post, why do people assume there is all this money sitting around with boosters just waiting to fly into the market. There may be some but who cares? The market, universities, and the students will adjust.....this just isn't some seismic change for college sports that people make it out to be.

I'm not that smart so can you explain how I proved your point? The competitions you described don't sound like they are meant to be true equal competitions but 'competitions' to advance research and technology and promote innovation. That would be equivalent to allowing Stanford to "innovate" with the help of Google to have a football that flies twice as far that Stanford uses when it kicks field goal attempts. Not very fair in my estimation.

As for the additional money argument, you maybe right. My gut and guys like Gene Smith (who would stand to benefit the most) say otherwise. While payments of an illegal nature are currently going on, my observations have been that when something is made legal it happens on a much larger scale (marijuana in Colorado and alcohol consumption after prohibition ended). I admit I don't have a good comparison to money in college sports.

FWIW, I don't think major college sports can exist as an amatuer endevore. Any additional attempts to blend pro and college sports is crazy and will lead to more corruption. College sports can't get partially pregnant with professional payments.

Time to make a clean brake; put in place a pro model, let the players make the money they are entitled to, split the teams from the schools so the IRS does not take down the universities, enact revenue sharing and salary caps. I don't know how any player advocate can argue with this.

[muguru]

The whole point of this debate is that the rules should be changed.  No one is arguing that the student athletes should be able to break rules without consequence.  You haven't figured that out?

Of course I have figured that out...but that's what I don't get...why should it be?? Should there just be no rules for anyone to follow ever for anything?? What's so wrong with being a college athlete, getting compensated(that would make them all happy) but NOT being eligible for at least post season? It's a compromise. Why should they get both??

Do you think your employer's rules are dumb?? Go tell them to change theirs once and see where that gets you.

[Cheeks]

You do realize that Student athletes aren't allowed to monetize their Youtube channels, correct? That would be profiting off their likeness. Students can monetize their Youtube channels. Are you arguing that because student-athletes get benefit A (room, board, etc) that students do not that the student athletes should not have access to benefit B(say monetizing a Youtube stream)? Student Athletes deliver tremendous value to a university so why should they have less access in some regards then regular students?

That is false. Demonstrably false.  What they cannot do is monetize as a student athlete and bring that into effort. For the same reason a fireman in Milwaukee cannot wear his uniform and monetize off it without permission, there are rules.  But the fireman can monetize without being known as a fireman, the same way a student athlete not wearing a uniform and not representing their association as a student athlete can.

[Cheeks]

https://twitter.com/theonion/status/1179791994517893122?s=21

This whole thing is like an Onion piece, appropriate you linked it....it's about the seriousness for which lawmakers and others have put thought behind what they are doing.  Very appropriate.

[Uncle Rico]

Of course I have figured that out...but that's what I don't get...why should it be?? Should there just be no rules for anyone to follow ever for anything?? What's so wrong with being a college athlete, getting compensated(that would make them all happy) but NOT being eligible for at least post season? It's a compromise. Why should they get both??

Do you think your employer's rules are dumb?? Go tell them to change theirs once and see where that gets you.

You can negotiate with your employer.  College athletes can’t

[Pakuni]

Because if you look at the actual data (in that article) only 22 schools of the 230 actually make a profit or break even. The rest are subsidized by University funds that could and should go to educational purposes, but instead go towards athletics. The reason, the athletic departments operate with large losses.

To reach your conclusion you, like Cheeks, are cherrypicking which revenues you deem valid and which are not.

And you're not being entirely accurate in describing the university allocation as "things that could and should go to educational purposes."
Much of that money comes in the form of student fees that are imposed specifically to support athletics.  A very good argument can be made as to whether or not students should be charged fees to support the athletic department, but it's obviously wrong to state that that money would otherwise be going to "educational purposes."
That university allocation also includes indirect support, like use of HR and IT staff, accounting, utilities and building maintenance.

[Cheeks]

So because a court ruled that something that looks, sounds, and walks like a duck is in fact a chicken it means we get devalue the chicken's contribution to value generation?

UHm, yes....we are a nation of laws, not of men.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Then IF it gets to that point, don't you also need trade deadlines, salary caps, roster limits, free agency etc. All of those are part of "pro" sports. This shouldn't be any different.

LOL, why?  Why would all of that need to be in place?

Do you think your employer's rules are foolish?? I mean your an administrator...and unless you work for a university that isn't under the NCAA branch, you agree to follow them. Isn't that incredibly hypocritical?? You think the rules are foolish, yet you're an administrator perhaps for a school under the NCAA branch. Obviously the rules can't be that foolish if you choose to be employed there.

I work for an institution that is an NCAA member.  What that has to do with my opinion on NCAA amateurism rules I have no idea.  Are you saying that anyone who works for an NCAA school MUST agree with what the NCAA does 100%?  Very strange.  But I guess this is the same type of logic as the "America: Love it or Leave It!!" folks.

[79Warrior]

Of course it will.  The real world example I give because I lived it.  Company spends $500K with athletic department as a sponsor, those dollars used to fund multiple scholarships and several staff members that SERVE to help the student athletes.  Company takes that budget and says we are giving directly to a few players instead.  Now those scholarships and staffing in jeopardy.  The company's sponsorship budget remained static, but the beneficiary of one or a few students now helps to harm multiple people on scholarship as a result.

Real world....of course, ignored.

Change is coming. Better get used to it. The train has left the station.

[Cheeks]

Jim Delany dire predictions of the past:

“The bowl system is dead”, he warned as he fought against a football playoff

“You look at college basketball, and I would say there’s probably one must-see game during the regular season, Duke-North Carolina”, he said trying to say the college football regular season would be diluted by a playoff

“...It has been my longstanding belief that The Big Ten’s schools would forgo the revenues in those circumstances and instead take steps to downsize the scope, breadth and activity of their athletic programs,” Delany wrote. “Several alternatives to a ‘pay for play’ model exist, such as the Division III model, which does not offer any athletics-based grants-in-aid, and, among others, a need-based financial model. These alternatives would, in my view, be more consistent with The Big Ten’s philosophy that the educational and lifetime economic benefits associated with a university education are the appropriate quid pro quo for its student-athletes.” Jim Delany threat after the O’Bannion trial

Chicken Little nonsense

LOL.  The bowl system is dead.  It's a farce now.  To suggest otherwise is a joke.   Etc, etc
I noticed you didn't list the 1000's of things he said there were right.....as usual.