NIL op ed

[FriendlySpartan]

Nearly all businesses have functional areas that make money and others that don't. I work in IT, generally considered to be a budgetary sucking hole by most organizations. My company somehow seems to get by with not all areas being revenue generators.

Fundamental difference though is that the IT dept supports the parts of the company that makes money. The swimming team doesn’t support the football/basketball teams. They only cost money and if those costs continue to go up they will be cut.

Michigan State just cut their diving team due to costs to renovate the pool that is specific to the diving team. That’s a big ten school with a massive endowment, media contract, and billionaire donors. If those athletes become employees and costs skyrocket more non revenue sports will be cancelled especially in the non P2 conferences.

 

[BooneCy]

You could perceivably see a reduction in the number of football teams across the country. Not only is it a revenue generator, but make every player, including walk-ons employees, with medical and all the other costs, it might not be worth it.

Now, if the reality is that you do what is right at the expense of a reduction in the number of teams and sports, then make them employees.

The real question isn’t will it hurt college athletics, it’s are you ok with college athletics looking different?

 

[Mr Janny]

Fundamental difference though is that the IT dept supports the parts of the company that makes money. The swimming team doesn’t support the football/basketball teams. They only cost money and if those costs continue to go up they will be cut.

Michigan State just cut their diving team due to costs to renovate the pool that is specific to the diving team. That’s a big ten school with a massive endowment, media contract, and billionaire donors. If those athletes become employees and costs skyrocket more non revenue sports will be cancelled especially in the non P2 conferences.

Certainly those entities may have to choose which programs make sense to have and which don't. Again, those kinds of decisions are not unique to colleges and universities. The mechanic shop in my neighborhood stopped doing small engine repair, because the ROI wasn't good enough. The local grocery store closed their deli counter because it wasn't making enough money to offset the cost of doing business. And while those scenarios may be unfortunate, they don't "ruin the grocery/mechanic industry" and suggesting that they do would be laughable. Yet here we are saying that a university cutting a diving program because it's not cost effective to treat participants as employees, will "destroy college athletics".

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Certainly those entities may have to choose which programs make sense to have and which don't. Again, those kinds of decisions are not unique to colleges and universities. The mechanic shop in my neighborhood stopped doing small engine repair, because the ROI wasn't good enough. The local grocery store closed their deli counter because it wasn't making enough money to offset the cost of doing business. And while those scenarios may be unfortunate, they don't "ruin the grocery/mechanic industry" and suggesting that they do would be laughable. Yet here we are saying that a university cutting a diving program because it's not cost effective to treat participants as employees, will "destroy college athletics".

It destroyed collegiate diving at the school so for those athletes their college athletic experience was destroyed. Many more sports would follow if they become employees. Football and basketball would be fine. But many Olympic sports would be cut. So if you look at college athletics outside of football and basketball then yeah college athletics would be destroyed.

 

[NWICY]

I give up and don't care where it goes. Turn them all into employees and drop every program that doesn't turn a profit

If it stays the way it is thats fine to students in the minor sports that actually want to participate in sports and choose a college based on the education they receive.

If that means ISU has to drop out of sports because 2 teams can't survive on between 30-40 million I'm good with it. If it comes to covering a bottom line there are only 2 sports at ISU survive FB & MBB.

 

[Mr Janny]

It destroyed collegiate diving at the school so for those athletes their college athletic experience was destroyed. Many more sports would follow if they become employees. Football and basketball would be fine. But many Olympic sports would be cut. So if you look at college athletics outside of football and basketball then yeah college athletics would be destroyed.

If you cut RC Cola the soda industry would be destroyed...(if you look at the soda industry outside of Coke and Pepsi)

 

[Tre4ISU]

But the obstacles that you are describing are not different for any other business that has employees, and yet plenty of businesses thrive, even in the area of sports entertainment. Why should college athletics be exempted from the rules that the rest of the country has to follow?

Good point. They shouldn't. Get rid of the programs that cost the Universities money.

 

[Tre4ISU]

I actually think the money part is sitting in a pretty good spot right now. The guys/gals that pay the bills are getting theirs and the people that don't are getting scholarship money. I'd warn those revenue losing athletes not to get to carried away in trying to be classified as an employee because they will then be paying full tuition just like the rest of us. I would changed some transfer rules to slow down tampering and things like that but that's not really relevant to this particular discussion.

I do think college athletics, in terms of raw number and participation would be destroyed eventually but I don't really care about that either. This country spends waaaay to much public money on sports.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

If you cut RC Cola the soda industry would be destroyed...(if you look at the soda industry outside of Coke and Pepsi)

Look college football and basketball are never going away because they make money and are marketing tools. Most people out there think of “college athletics” as more than just football and men’s basketball.

 

[cycloneG]

Look college football and basketball are never going away because they make money and are marketing tools. Most people out there think of “college athletics” as more than just football and men’s basketball.

Do they? I would think they only really care about the sports they watch which are those two sports by a large margin.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Do they? I would think they only really care about the sports they watch which are those two sports by a large margin.

Considering this board has had multiple posts about wrestling and women’s basketball and even talking about starting a baseball team, yeah I think people do.

 

[cycloneG]

Considering this board has had multiple posts about wrestling and women’s basketball and even talking about starting a baseball team, yeah I think people do.

But the majority of the sports posts are on the football and men's basketball forum. A mod could probably provide numbers but those two forums have the most sports activity.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

But the majority of the sports posts are on the football and men's basketball forum. A mod could probably provide numbers but those two forums have the most sports activity.

For sure but then don’t say college athletics, just say football and basketball. They make the money but are only a very small faction of scholarship athletes out there.

 

[cycloneG]

For sure but then don’t say college athletics, just say football and basketball. They make the money but are only a very small faction of scholarship athletes out there.

Found the numbers!

 

[BryceC]

Right now you have to have 14 programs to be in the NCAA's. I think they'd have some sort of minimum going forward.

I believe that most small programs will shut down entirely if they are subject to those requirements.

I think they'd just switch to a DIII type model.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Right now you have to have 14 programs to be in the NCAA's. I think they'd have some sort of minimum going forward.



I think they'd just switch to a DIII type model.

Going from one model to another one could be really difficult. They would undoubtedly have more expensive facilities than DIII would warrant, and debt to match.

 

[PSYclone22]

I will always be in favor of healthcare access however that will increase costs to a staffing degree that many universities simply won’t be able to afford.

That's just untrue. If Michigan State paid Tucker and Izzo a combined $3M less they could afford plenty more health care for the athletes.

 

[cycloneG]

Analysis: Who is winning in the high-revenue world of college sports?

The U.S. hyper-commercialized system of college sports, which does not exist anywhere else in the world, is in a period of overarching transition and deep financial crisis.

www.pbs.org

"The highest-grossing college athletes reap only a very small share of the revenues they generate during their college careers. Of the $15.8 billion in revenues that went to the NCAA’s Division I athletics enterprise in 2019, only $2.9 billion — 18.2 percent — was returned to athletes in the form of athletics scholarships and 1 percent spent on medical treatment and insurance protections.

In contrast, 35 percent was spent on administrative and coach compensation and 18 percent on lavish facilities. And, what goes to college athletes is distributed among men’s and women’s teams in many other Division I sports — such as track, lacrosse, field hockey, swimming, and wrestling — that do not generate the same revenues as football or men’s basketball.

A recent player-level analysis finds that the existing restrictions on paying college athletes effectively transfers resources away from students who are more likely to be black and more likely to come from poor neighborhoods towards students who are more likely to be white and come from higher-income neighborhoods."

 

[FriendlySpartan]

That's just untrue. If Michigan State paid Tucker and Izzo a combined $3M less they could afford plenty more health care for the athletes.

1. I don’t think you really understand how much being on the hook for athletes healthcare would cost if they were employees.

2. That goes counterintuitive to everything else people are posting on here. Why would they pay the revenue drivers less to make up for the costs for non revenue sports. They would just cut the non revenue sports.

 

[Cyclonepride]

1. I don’t think you really understand how much being on the hook for athletes healthcare would cost if they were employees.

2. That goes counterintuitive to everything else people are posting on here. Why would they pay the revenue drivers less to make up for the costs for non revenue sports. They would just cut the non revenue sports.

The moment they move in the direction of better care or compensation of athletes, the same exact group that is now saying these athletes are exploited would be screaming employees! and use these things to hook college programs into that designation. That's half the reason that the NCAA was dragging their feet in the first place.