$EC football...

[upstater]

Then how do you explain LSU giving between $4-5 million per year to the school's general fund? Not every school keeps the money in the AD..

I look at 4 factors to determine this, the 4th being the biggest.

1. The cost-per-student subsidy above the price of tuition for each player isn't reimbursed from the AD to the academic side. At most state universities this is 2.5x tuition. At the big schools with international reps, like Michigan, it's 4x tuition.

2. All branding and royalties for sweatshirts, hats, and the like, are considered AD revenues. Now, say about 10% of those would be sold regardless, simply because NYU and Boston U and schools like that also sell gear without bigtime football or basketball. LSU gets 37.5m a year in royalties for branding.

3. They did a study down at U. Texas that showed 40%+ of the contributors to the Longhorn Foundation were entirely unaware that they were contributing to athletics and not academics. This is counted as athletics revenue. Now, imagine that a portion of that 40% would have preferred to give to academics.

All these are fine, in a way. It's not a big deal to lose a million here or there. BUT...

4. Here's the big whammy: the buildout for facilities is paid out by the university side, because only the university side can issue bonds. I looked at U. Texas (the academic side owes $250m+ on facilities), U. Michigan ($240m), Nebraska ($105m), etc. We know about the Rutgers clusterfrig ($110m+) but there are a lot of schools just like it, Purdue for instance ($70m).

4a. This is how the accounting works. Say boosters or private donors pay for a small portion of the facilities/stadium. Well, the money comes to the school, then you have the school bonding out the building of the stadium. BUT, the contributions are reported as athletic revenue and added to the AD budget over a period of years. For instance, PSU recently reported that it had a huge increase in donations to athletics for last year. It was immediately pointed out that this included the Pegula hockey money. Now, who is going to finance the construction of the hockey arena? The university. But the Pegula money will be counted as athletic department revenue for years to come.

Look at these articles on Michigan:

http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews/2007/09/um_professors_urge_reconsidera.html

Here you have concerns that the academic side won't be able to handle the debt on Crisler Arena and the refurbishing of Michigan Stadium.

http://www.annarbor.com/news/u-m-bo...illion-second-phase-of-crisler-arena-renovat/

In this article, the total cost is $52m for Crisler and $226m for Mich. Stadium. Two years later, it shows the total academic debt here (http://annarborchronicle.com/wp-con...FY2013-Budget-Presentation-6-21-final-v.2.pdf) as $240 million. So, we can assume that some amount of principal paid plus donations brought down the tab from $278 to $240. Let's say it's $35 raised from private sources (all listed, again, as AD revenue).

Then look at this: http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/06-11/2011-06-X-13.pdf

This is the ADs budget. The AD services the debt on facilities with $2.2 million a year in payments.

What a deal!! I bet the Boneyard could scrap together $2.2 million a year if someone were willing to lend us $240 million. Let's face it, the AD services a very small portion of those bonds while the rest is debt serviced by the university.

The problem as raised by the professor in the first article is that stadiums are so expensive that a school reaches its credit limit very quickly (i.e. it doesn't want to go over its threshold and lose its bond rating, it needs to keep the top tier). One can make an argument that as long as the cash is flowing schools should build out stadiums, but if there is ever a downtrend (which there surely will be in the future) then there will be a credit crunch. We've seen this at Oklahoma St. 2 years ago when T. Boone Pickens gave $180m for the football stadium. Pickens insisted, as part of the donation, that the money be kept in his hedge fund. The school then bonded out the building of the stadium. Pickens' hedge fund went bankrupt, and all the money was lost. To his credit, he promised to donate the exact amount again (but the money wasn't to come for a few years). In the meantime, researchers at Okie St. won big gov't grants that required new labs and facilities that the school was unable to build because they had maxed out their credit building the stadium. The grants were lost.

The ADs are in a big arms race, and the schools are racking up huge amounts of debt trying to keep up.

 

[Santini35]

People are also missing an important aspect of this conversation. Even if we assume that players shouldn't be paid, they are forbidden for getting market value for their goods. So if you wanna sell that autograph, that's it, you're not an amateur. You can't get an endorsement deal. You can't use your connections to get a good job. You are essentially forced into a certain standard of living by the NCAA.

It's one thing to say, okay, these kids get scholarships and that's enough of a salary for them. I get that. But telling a kid he can't sell his autograph because it defies the point of amateurism when the school can make millions off of him? Or telling him he can't get a deal with Under Armor when the school can?

I think there are more shades of gray here than people are willing to admit, honestly. I'm not necessarily on the "let's pay them" bandwagon, but I do think there are some compelling points to be made, especially considering the vast gap between those who make the programs profitable and those who actually profit.

But who gets to decide what fair market value for that autograph, endorsement deal, job etc is?

Is it $10 for an 8x10 signed photo or $10 thousand?

If we're going to hang on to those last few shreds of belief that this is supposed to be a game played on a equal field, which with every $80 million dollar deal for "champions bowls" we're already moving away from, you can't have players getting money for those things. Then it becomes an all out bidding war by boosters etc who will pay well beyond "fair market value" just to get players to the schools they cheer for. At that point you might as well close up shop and make it a professional league.

 

[SubbaBub]

I haven't heard anyone mention the labor laws of the USA that would apply to every paid athlete. SS/FICA/OT and oh yeah, collective bargaining wouldn't be pursued at all.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[upstater]

People are also missing an important aspect of this conversation. Even if we assume that players shouldn't be paid, they are forbidden for getting market value for their goods. So if you wanna sell that autograph, that's it, you're not an amateur. You can't get an endorsement deal. You can't use your connections to get a good job. You are essentially forced into a certain standard of living by the NCAA.

It's one thing to say, okay, these kids get scholarships and that's enough of a salary for them. I get that. But telling a kid he can't sell his autograph because it defies the point of amateurism when the school can make millions off of him? Or telling him he can't get a deal with Under Armor when the school can?

I think there are more shades of gray here than people are willing to admit, honestly. I'm not necessarily on the "let's pay them" bandwagon, but I do think there are some compelling points to be made, especially considering the vast gap between those who make the programs profitable and those who actually profit.

One, in principle, I agree that the amateur status thing is not entirely relevant here and that players should cut what deals they like, what money they like. But, this will surely allow boosters and agents to get around NCAA rules which prohibit bidding for players, and again, the whole enterprise will be destroyed by it. But, if that's what they want, then, well, let it happen. There is no ethical concern here for me.

Two, I disagree with your point about marketing to the extent that the juice is all with the schools and not with the players. I think fan and alumni identify much more with the schools and not the players. Years ago, when the players were not anywhere near as gifted as they are now, nor as big, nor as strong, fans at the big schools were still packing stadiums. I really wonder if the top college stars all decided to, say, head to the CFL or create another USFL, would fans show up? If you allow cutting deal with, say, Under Armour, are you giving a natural advantage to Maryland? Or, is that money that goes to the star cut out from the ADs budget, thereby giving them less money to field a team?

Third, almost every university I have been a part of requires those on scholarship and stipend to sign a form forbidding them from working or receiving money for the job they are performing at the school. If you are there for football, you can't get money for it. This is part of the apprenticeship mentality that has nothing to do with the concept of amateur athletics. It's about the fact that you are already accepting a form of money to study, play sports, teach, do research, etc. The school feels as though it is already paying you for that and that therefore all your efforts should be go toward filling the responsibilities of your scholarship. I don't think schools enforce this against regular students on full scholarship, but it is enforced against teaching assistants. If you change the rules for sports, you may have to change them for teaching assistants as well. And it's true that assistants feel as exploited as athletes often. But the fact of the matter is, universities exploit labor. This is part of the cost structure. If TAs and adjuncts were paid more than $2k-$3k a class, then tuition would rise.

 

[upstater]

Absolutely, but I was just showing upstater that his statement that "No" school's AD gives back is not true.

Read my response below.

 

[Marty Jackson]

Couldn't disagree more.

Every school loses money.

Why? Because the money stays with the AD.

No school makes money when you look at athletics as a whole and not just football.

Even Texas loses money. Michigan too.

These kids would be lucky to play in the NBDL for peanuts were it not for college baskebtall. Who wants to watch Sioux City play Peoria?

Football would be even worse. It would be semi-pro with players moonlighting as UPS packers.

University of TX reported a $25M profit for athletics... How do you figure they lose money?

 

[Carl Spackler]

In 2011/2012 academic year, the UConn athletic department had approx $10.75 million budgeted for athletic scholarships.

I think to solve all the problems, it would be pretty simple actually, and I already wrote about it. Make all that money, on a yearly basis, liquid, cash equivalent available to the students. The unfortunate thing, is that most institutions, wouldn't be able to do it, because they don't have enough cash flow to do it. I wouldn't go as far as I wrote before, about making student's responsible for actually paying the bills, and cashing out the funds, but I would definitely want to see the clear paper trail. The athletic scholarship budget is X amount ($10.75 mill in 2011/2012 for UConn)

Open Johnny B. Goode's athletic scholarship file, and right there, deposit Johnny's share of that $10.75 mill) (approx $125k deposited into X account on Y date for the academic year), and just like anybody's bank statements, ...... Z amount coming out on this day for tuition expenses. A, B, C amounts coming out for books/room and board fees, student fees, etc. etc....on so/so date.

To my knowledge, this is not how scholarship funding is accounted for in university settings. THat $10.75 mill, in UConn's case, to my knowledge(which may be totally wrong) is basically treated as a line item that is transfered and manipulated around in budgets and accounting, but is not liquid to actual cash asset.

IF schools were to do it thithe way I describe, it would be easy to work a stipend into it, and retain amateur status as much as it is now in theory, it would simply be another line item, in the amount of money that initially got deposited in each player's spending account, each year.


Unless an athletic department, and a university in general, is really sucking wind with management, finances, academic grants and funding, tuition, admissions, and athletic department revenue, you're not going to know if the university is really hurting financially......because it's all just accounting gymnastics anyway - and how the higher ups decide they want things to look for the agencies that they need to report financial things like that to, within the rules for reporting.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

In 2011/2012 academic year, the UConn athletic department had approx $10.75 million budgeted for athletic scholarships.

I think to solve all the problems, it would be pretty simple actually, and I already wrote about it. Make all that money, on a yearly basis, liquid, cash equivalent available to the students. The unfortunate thing, is that most institutions, wouldn't be able to do it, because they don't have enough cash flow to do it. I wouldn't go as far as I wrote before, about making student's responsible for actually paying the bills, and cashing out the funds, but I would definitely want to see the clear paper trail. The athletic scholarship budget is X amount ($10.75 mill in 2011/2012 for UConn)

Open Johnny B. Goode's athletic scholarship file, and right there, deposit Johnny's share of that $10.75 mill) (approx $125k deposited into X account on Y date for the academic year), and just like anybody's bank statements, ...... Z amount coming out on this day for tuition expenses. A, B, C amounts coming out for books/room and board fees, student fees, etc. etc....on so/so date.

To my knowledge, this is not how scholarship funding is accounted for in university settings. THat $10.75 mill, in UConn's case, to my knowledge(which may be totally wrong) is basically treated as a line item that is transfered and manipulated around in budgets and accounting, but is not liquid to actual cash asset.

IF schools were to do it thithe way I describe, it would be easy to work a stipend into it, and retain amateur status as much as it is now in theory, it would simply be another line item, in the amount of money that initially got deposited in each player's spending account, each year.


Unless an athletic department, and a university in general, is really sucking wind with management, finances, academic grants and funding, tuition, admissions, and athletic department revenue, you're not going to know if the university is really hurting financially......because it's all just accounting gymnastics anyway - and how the higher ups decide they want things to look for the agencies that they need to report financial things like that to, within the rules for reporting.

So you want to hand over a 6 figure check to an 18 year old kid and expect him to do the right and responsible thing with it?

Half of us here on the BY would've spent a good portion of that dough on hookers and booze. I wasn't above that at 18-19 years old.

 

[Carl Spackler]

So you want to hand over a 6 figure check to an 18 year old kid and expect him to do the right and responsible thing with it?

Half of us here on the BY would've spent a good portion of that dough on hookers and booze. I wasn't above that at 18-19 years old.

Exactly, what my argument was before the last time this came up, and I was against stipends. I knew plenty of players that would ahve cashed a stipend check on teh way to the bar, and i know plenty that would now too.

So you want to give players spending money? Either keep track of how and where they spend it, which is goign to cost a hell of a lot more than the face value of what you're giving them.....or give it all to them, and put a lein on their parent's house.

 

[phillionaire]

Why do they need to be paid? They're getting a free education, free meals, free swag from athletic department, and free housing.

 

[upstater]

University of TX reported a $25M profit for athletics... How do you figure they lose money?

They report huge profits, but not $25m.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/coll...ollege-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1

2007: $5m
2008: $7m
2009: $10m
2010: $13m
2011: $16m

They are the most profitable.

But, as I said in the earlier post, this doesn't include cost-per-student subsidy, royalties for academic side, contributions, and most of all, they have $250 million + in debt serviced by the university.

David Hillis at U. Texas did a study of the economics of the athletics program and concluded they were being subsidized. This isn't to say they shouldn't be. I only stated this in response to the idea that big $$$ is being made by these programs.

 

[ZooCougar]

If Texas had earned 24.9999999 million instead of 25 Million, Pennstater would have made a correction. Pennstater says nobody makes a profit, yet there are schools who clearly do. Pennstater chooses to quibble over meaningless details instead of progressing the conversation...

If you pay players then basically only the current profitable schools would be able to compete in that league. We would end up with really bad pro football, and viewership would collapse and we would end up right back at square one.

It's better to continue the illusion of amateurism.

What would be best is if we actually took amateurism more seriously. Even amateurs get a humane stipend.

 

[upstater]

If Texas had earned 24.9999999 million instead of 25 Million, Pennstater would have made a correction. Pennstater says nobody makes a profit, yet there are schools who clearly do. Pennstater chooses to quibble over meaningless details instead of progressing the conversation...

If you pay players then basically only the current profitable schools would be able to compete in that league. We would end up with really bad pro football, and viewership would collapse and we would end up right back at square one.

It's better to continue the illusion of amateurism.

What would be best is if we actually took amateurism more seriously. Even amateurs get a humane stipend.

Nothing substantive here in your post. Nothing at all. But that's to be expected coming from you.
I provided links. Whereas you've got nada.

 

[ZooCougar]

Nothing substantive here in your post. Nothing at all. But that's to be expected coming from you.
I provided links. Whereas you've got nada.

You're actually accusing someone else of not putting substance in their post? You quibbling hypocrite.

 

[upstater]

You're actually accusing someone else of not putting substance in their post? You quibbling hypocrite.

Yes, I am. I provided links. You provided nothing.

 

[ZooCougar]

Yes, I am. I provided links. You provided nothing.

I don't need links to point out that you are quibbling. Just hit the refresh button you idiot!

 

[upstater]

I don't need links to point out that you are quibbling. Just hit the refresh button you idiot!

What am I quibbling over? Tell me enlightened one.

And calm down, really. No need to get angry.

 

[ZooCougar]

What am I quibbling over? Tell me enlightened one.

And calm down, really. No need to get angry.

Read up.

 

[upstater]

Read up.

In other words, you've got nothing.

 

[ZooCougar]

In other words, you've got nothing.

No, it means you should read up.

 

[upstater]

No, it means you should read up.

$250 million is quibbling, eh? As usual, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

 

[ZooCougar]

$250 million is quibbling, eh? As usual, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Still quibbling.. It wasn't 250 million. It was maybe six million. You're completely full of crap.

 

[upstater]

Still quibbling.. It wasn't 250 million. It was maybe six million. You're completely full of crap.

You haven't read the links. As I thought, you're low on info.

 

[ZooCougar]

You haven't read the links. As I thought, you're low on info.

Quibble.

 

[upstater]

Quibble.

Michigan: $240 million
Texas: $250 million