| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
hyperetic
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5361
Location: Fayetteville
Back to top |
 Posted: 04/08/14 10:14 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
I really don't get this stuff about "The NCAA is making billions of dollars."
What do people think the NCAA is? There's no shareholders or venture capitalists getting rich. The money goes to run the 89 championships, 87 of which lose money. It goes to run the compliance and qualification and other programs. And the rest gets distributed back to schools.
And at the school level, almost all of them are losing piles of money on athletic programs. Schools like Maryland and Temple have been slashing entire sports because they can't afford to keep operating the teams. Maryland left a conference it helped to found because it was drowning in red ink and thought the change would help cover the losses.
Where the heck do people think the money is supposed to come from to support field hockey, and softball and swimming and track and lacrosse and soccer and yes, women's basketball?
So we're just supposed to tell the tens of thousands of athletes to go screw themselves because instead of having your sport, we're going to pay a pile of money to a very tiny handful of football players and one-year-wonder men's basketball players? Yeah, that's a great idea. |
They say they do. See my previous post with the NCAA own report on its financial dealings along with an article that breaks down their revenue from CBB.
Last edited by hyperetic on 04/08/14 10:19 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/14 10:19 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| hyperetic wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
I really don't get this stuff about "The NCAA is making billions of dollars."
What do people think the NCAA is? There's no shareholders or venture capitalists getting rich. The money goes to run the 89 championships, 87 of which lose money. It goes to run the compliance and qualification and other programs. And the rest gets distributed back to schools.
And at the school level, almost all of them are losing piles of money on athletic programs. Schools like Maryland and Temple have been slashing entire sports because they can't afford to keep operating the teams. Maryland left a conference it helped to found because it was drowning in red ink and thought the change would help cover the losses.
Where the heck do people think the money is supposed to come from to support field hockey, and softball and swimming and track and lacrosse and soccer and yes, women's basketball?
So we're just supposed to tell the tens of thousands of athletes to go screw themselves because instead of having your sport, we're going to pay a pile of money to a very tiny handful of football players and one-year-wonder men's basketball players? Yeah, that's a great idea. |
They say they do. See my previous post with the NCAA own report on its financial dealings along with an article that breaks down their revenue from CBB. |
There is a difference between REVENUE and PROFIT.
The NCAA makes nearly a billion in REVENUE from the men's basketball tournament. And that is its primary source of revenue. Which is completely meaningless if you ignore where the money goes, which is my point. The NCAA doesn't make profit. It uses part of it to run sports, and it distributes the rest back to the member schools. That's it. So if you want to complain about something, complain about the schools. Except that almost all of them are losing their ass on their athletic programs. So now, before you start throwing money around, tell us where it's going to come from, and what else is going to get slashed to free up money for your plan.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/14 10:24 am ::: |
Reply |
|
There's a really simple fix here, but it's completely outside the control of the NCAA or the colleges and entirely within the control of the NFL/NFLPA and the NBA/NBAPA.
The owners and the unions are the one who put rules in place refusing to allow people to become professionals without going to college first. Get rid of those rules, and those who are good enough to get paid, can go get paid, and those who aren't, or who want an education, can go get a free education.
Works just fine for baseball and hockey right now. Works great for golf and tennis. Works just fine everywhere where the pro unions don't block it.
There is absolutely no reason in the world to ruin college sports because an extremely tiny share of college athletes want to make a bunch of money. You want to make money, go pro.
Schools ought to be able to give scholarships that actually cover the costs of going to school, but that ought to be it.
|
|
stever
Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Posts: 6918
Location: https://womensbasketballdaily.net
Back to top |
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/14 10:57 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Art, I have disagreed with you a bunch on here about various things, but you and I are clearly on the same page when it comes to this. Thank you for the posts above.
I agree 100%.
|
|
miller40
Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1334
Back to top |
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11150
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/14 11:19 am ::: |
Reply |
|
As always, the devil is in the details ...
If indeed colleges lose money on athletics in the broadest possible sense, then why do intelligent people keep funding athletic programs?
I think the evidence is that a successful athletic program generates income outside the athletic department in sufficient amounts to offset those losses. Increases in alumni interest/donations and student applications could easily balance those deficits.
It could be that all revenue is precisely the same as the expenses, but my guess is that most big-time colleges make money off of athletics, and that money is made through the labor of the athletes.
And let's not confuse the cost of the scholarship to the school with the tuition. Adding 500 athletes to a campus of 30,000 costs a university very little, since all the services supplied would still be in place with or without those 500. Even on a smaller campus, the staff and facilities are there, and a few extra students does not require the addition of new buildings.
You can look at an athlete as getting $100,000 worth of tuition, or you can look at as a school paying $5,000 in marginal costs. If the former, the athletes do just fine; if the latter, the schools are getting the major benefit in that one-to-one transaction.
Athletes in football and men's basketball deserve more than they're getting because their labor is not fairly rewarded. Without an in-depth look at the books and accounting practices of universities, any other questions are hard to answer.
So why not have a union that has the power to look at those expenses and bargain with universities? In the long run, that would be more fair to everyone, even if it came out that all the union did was negotiate better treatment for athletes.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16359
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/14 11:33 am ::: Re: UConn basketball's dirty secret |
Reply |
|
| miller40 wrote: |
Since when are Kentucky players staying until graduation? |
If you read the story, it's not about just graduating. It is also about leaving the university (transferring or leaving higher education) in good academic standing. It would suggest that the one-and-done players at Kentucky are actually going to class and succeeding in the year they are there.
On the face of it, I find that hard to believe as well. Regardless, that UConn number is so bad it should be an embarrassment for anyone associated with that university.
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/14 11:57 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| So I'm guessing we have officially transitioned from "playing for the love of the game" to this being "a job" and "labor"...
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/14 12:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
I think the evidence is that a successful athletic program generates income outside the athletic department in sufficient amounts to offset those losses. Increases in alumni interest/donations and student applications could easily balance those deficits.
|
What evidence?
And even if we assume your "guess" is correct, what is your universe of " most big-time colleges [that] make money off of athletics"? 10? 20? 50? 100? What are all the others supposed to do?
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8228
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/14 2:15 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Shabazz Napier made a "Hungry Huskies" speech upon winning the NC last night.
http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/04/08/sports/shabazz-napier-hungry-huskies-video-interview/
Which brings me back to the specific topic: Do full scholarship athletes get enough money to eat? The rules are quite specific that financial aid can include 21 meals per week or an equivalent monetary allowance.
Does that leave enough money for student-athletes to go drinking, fix their Mustangs, buy a lot of clothes, fly their parents to every game? Maybe not. But is that the purpose of educational financial aid?
I worked 10 hours a week at $2.00 per hour as an undergraduate. That was enough to feed me for a week and buy Camels. I didn't have a car until I was 22 and still have shirts from that era. I got along just fine, and participated in basketball too without an athletic scholarship.
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/14 2:53 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| I'm too lazy to see who said it (probably Art) but I'm with the faction that says if you want to earn money, go pro. If you want to get an education, be grateful that your talent and effort is making that possible for you. The starving student athlete is a figment of somebody's imagination. I don't buy it.
|
|
lola528
Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 218
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/14 2:57 pm ::: Re: Do college players go to bed starving for lack of money? |
Reply |
|
| hyperetic wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| ChicagoAnnie wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
I don't see why this would be a gender-specific issue, so what do we make of UConn guard Shabazz Napier's claim about full scholarship basketball athletes "starving":
"We do have hungry nights that we don't have enough money to get food and sometimes money is needed . . . ."
http://ctmirror.org/uconns-napier-on-altheletes-unionizing/
Tears or jeers?
I wonder how students with no scholarships at all manage to eat. |
but non-athletes are allowed to work for extra money while in school. Depending on the scholarship most athletes cannot. |
Not so, Annie. Student-athletes are allowed to earn income from legitimate on- or off-campus jobs without the earnings counting against the cost attendance limit. NCAA Bylaw 15.2.7. |
To the limit of $2000 over their total scholarship. If their car needs a new engine, they need non-sport related transportation, they want to help a family member or friend in need, various other personal expenses, etc. it doesn't go very far. Not to mention along with a full load of classes, two-a-day practices, weight room training, study hall to try to add a part-time job to it?
This "full cost of attendance" thing looks promising: http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6765762/full-cost-attendance-student-athletes-gaining-traction |
"If their car needs a new engine?" "If they want to help a family member or friend in need?" Are you kidding me? What family asks their college student relative for financial help?? Same with "friends." And this just in: college students who live on/very near campus do not need cars (with all their accompanying costs). Most college students (the non-rich-kids) rely on their own two legs and/or public transportion. The "student athlete" who feels he/she has to have a car (fancy or otherwise), who feels he/she has to live off campus in a "nice apartment', who feels he/she "has to have money to give friends, etc." is carrying that "I'm an important athlete so I'm entitled" business too far. They get the necessities in their athletic scholarship package: all their tuition/books/housing/food. the rest is "wants," not needs. They can take out a small student loan yearly to handle that stuff--easy to pay back when they graduate or (mostly in the case of some of the men's BB/Football players) go pro, and are earning $$. IMO, any athlete who claims to be "starving" is stuck in entitlement and not really taking care of business.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11150
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/14 3:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
I think the evidence is that a successful athletic program generates income outside the athletic department in sufficient amounts to offset those losses. Increases in alumni interest/donations and student applications could easily balance those deficits.
|
What evidence?
And even if we assume your "guess" is correct, what is your universe of " most big-time colleges [that] make money off of athletics"? 10? 20? 50? 100? What are all the others supposed to do? |
The evidence is that colleges keep spending money on athletics ... if it was a money-losing effort, given all the bad publicity that comes with it, why would they continue?
I would argue that, given the above logic, almost all schools feel that athletics benefits the school enough to offset any losses -- or again, why would they have athletics at all?
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/14 3:22 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
I think the evidence is that a successful athletic program generates income outside the athletic department in sufficient amounts to offset those losses. Increases in alumni interest/donations and student applications could easily balance those deficits.
|
What evidence?
And even if we assume your "guess" is correct, what is your universe of " most big-time colleges [that] make money off of athletics"? 10? 20? 50? 100? What are all the others supposed to do? |
The evidence is that colleges keep spending money on athletics ... if it was a money-losing effort, given all the bad publicity that comes with it, why would they continue?
I would argue that, given the above logic, almost all schools feel that athletics benefits the school enough to offset any losses -- or again, why would they have athletics at all? |
Why do high schools and middle schools and even elementary schools have sports teams? It's certainly not to make money.
Why do colleges have glee clubs and choruses and marching bands and orchestras? Why do they sponsor intramural sports?
They do it because it's tradition, it's part of the fabric of the school, it's demanded by alumni and donors and politicians. They do it for prestige, to attract students, and they do it because they've always done it. And they do it because their competition does it.
But I'd like to see some evidence that more than a very very small handful of schools make money overall on their athletic programs. I'd like to see some proof that there is this huge pot of profits sitting around to be distributed to the athletes.
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16359
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/14 3:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
But I'd like to see some evidence that more than a very very small handful of schools make money overall on their athletic programs. I'd like to see some proof that there is this huge pot of profits sitting around to be distributed to the athletes. |
There was a list in some publication not to long ago - I want to say it was either USA Today or the Chronicle of Higher Education. Of public institutions and private schools that report the data, there were seven with institutions with athletic departments that neither take money from the rest of the university nor run a debt. I can't remember all, but the group included LSU, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Purdue and Texas.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/14 4:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I think the question of net profitability is a bit of a red herring to the issue at hand. The question here (besides whether they are going to bed hungry, which is obviously hyperbole since full scholarships include the full meal plan) is whether or not these students are actually generating money for the school based upon their "work".
Thus it is about gross profits. If I am running a business, and my workers generated $5 billion in revenue, but I spend $6 billion, that's on me not upon the workers themselves. It's not like they are no longer employees just because the numbers end up in the red. Their work-product still generated billions.
Take Johnny Manziel. According to Texas A&M, his Heisman run generated the equivalent of $37 million dollars for the university. Yet he was the target of an investigation because he might have made a few hundred dollars from signing a crapload of signatures.
Or Joel Bauman, the University of Minnesota wrestler who lost his eligibility because he sold a rap song on iTunes under his own name. According to the NCAA, because he is an athlete, he doesn't even own his own name or independent work product.
Yeah, these athlete-students who put in a full time job worth of hours for their school (or else lose their scholarship) on top of attending classes, may not be going to bed hungry--but that doesn't mean they aren't being treated as some form of an indentured servant.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/14 5:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| Thus it is about gross profits. If I am running a business, and my workers generated $5 billion in revenue, but I spend $6 billion, that's on me not upon the workers themselves. It's not like they are no longer employees just because the numbers end up in the red. Their work-product still generated billions. |
I think this is a bit oversimplified. On a certain level, the amount of gross revenue generated is irrelevant. (I remember from Microeconomics 101 the point that you should stop being in business if revenues don't cover fixed costs, for instance.) Net revenue tells you if you're paying too much to people in the aggregate. Neither, however, tells you what you should pay individual workers.
In many environments, the most productive workers don't get meaningfully more than the least productive workers (although, of course, the least productive workers are at most risk for getting fired). In others, like Wall Street, the most productive workers get stunningly more money than the least productive workers. In others, like pro sports, some people get grossly overpaid relative to their value and others are grossly underpaid. (This is particularly true in football, where a lot of linemen seem to be underpaid relative to their value to their teams.)
I look at these kinds of discussions with a certain queasiness. The truth is that most sports programs do lose money, and exist because the colleges and universities think they bring non-monetary value of one sort or another. Anything that raises the cost of offering sports will create incentives to cut the sports that have the least revenue return, particularly the Olympic sports, but also could have an impact on WCBB. So, while I agree that athletes are subject to a fair number of unreasonable restriction, many of the proposed solutions leave me wondering what they would do to the sport I care about most.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/14 6:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
Take Johnny Manziel. According to Texas A&M, his Heisman run generated the equivalent of $37 million dollars for the university. Yet he was the target of an investigation because he might have made a few hundred dollars from signing a crapload of signatures. |
aTm MADE Johnny Football. He was a relatively unheralded recruit who wasn't expected to play. aTm trained him, built a gameplan around him, gave him the opportunity to play on their team, on their TV network. Three years ago he was nobody, they made him famous, they promoted him, and now he's going to get very rich thanks to them. He could have quit anytime he didn't like the rules. He didn't because it was extremely beneficial to him to remain there. I don't feel the least bit sorry for him.
There are rules in every league, there are rules in every job. Don't like the rules? Quit. It's your choice.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66922
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/14 6:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| There are rules in every league, there are rules in every job. Don't like the rules? Quit. It's your choice. |
The problem being that the NCAA is a cartel. The football factories have conspired to fix compensation in their industry in clear violation of several dozen anti-trust laws. The NCAA, unlike many professional sports leagues, does not have an anti-trust exemption.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/14 6:53 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| I think this is a bit oversimplified. On a certain level, the amount of gross revenue generated is irrelevant. (I remember from Microeconomics 101 the point that you should stop being in business if revenues don't cover fixed costs, for instance.) Net revenue tells you if you're paying too much to people in the aggregate. Neither, however, tells you what you should pay individual workers. |
This is what I mean about a red herring. The argument is whether or not players are employees, not how much they should or should not get paid. Amounts and benefits and all of that can be worked out at the negotiating table. The argument from me and others is that students should have a right to sit at that table instead of having to simply accept whatever it is the NCAA decides. And the shear amount of revenue created by their work product makes it clear they are employees of the school.
Perhaps compensation comes from 5 year guaranteed scholarships which are not dependent upon continued participation in the sport (ie: I don't lose my scholarship if I get injured). Or perhaps it is a stipend of some amount since their time commitments preclude other jobs, or perhaps it's allowing the students to profit from their own name. Or maybe lifetime medical coverage for any sport related issue. Whatever it is, because they are de facto employees not just some people participating in an extra-curricular activity, they should have the right to have some say in the matter.
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| There are rules in every league, there are rules in every job. Don't like the rules? Quit. It's your choice. |
Would you say the same thing to someone working in a sweatshop? If you don't like it, quit? Just because people have a choice doesn't give employers the right to exploit their workers carte blanche. The NCAA has set up a bunch of extra-legal conditions without having any need to collectively bargain with the athlete-students. Could you imagine a company like Apple claiming that they own their employee's names and images and that those employees were not allowed to use them for their own gain? If it wouldn't fly at Apple, why should it fly in the NCAA?
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11150
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/14 6:58 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| As we go through this, it seems more and more reasonable that college athletes should have a union ... but that doesn't mean they have to be compensated. They should, however, have a voice in the rules that bind their behavior.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16359
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/14 7:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| As we go through this, it seems more and more reasonable that college athletes should have a union ... but that doesn't mean they have to be compensated. They should, however, have a voice in the rules that bind their behavior. |
That makes total sense to me. There are some things (guaranteed scholarships, for one) that could make a big difference to a lot of players.
As a grad research assistant and teacher, I was in a union. That is a pretty comparable situation where you are both a student and an employee whose compensation is largely in the form of tuition.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/14 7:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| As we go through this, it seems more and more reasonable that college athletes should have a union ... but that doesn't mean they have to be compensated. They should, however, have a voice in the rules that bind their behavior. |
Exactly.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/14 8:07 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| There are rules in every league, there are rules in every job. Don't like the rules? Quit. It's your choice. |
The problem being that the NCAA is a cartel. The football factories have conspired to fix compensation in their industry in clear violation of several dozen anti-trust laws. The NCAA, unlike many professional sports leagues, does not have an anti-trust exemption. |
Except that's not the law.
I suggest reading the Supreme Court's Oklahoma and Tarkanian decisions.
|
|
|
|
