Athletic Dept deficits

[Nor'MidWester]

The incentive to reign in spending is simple, when the amount you spend is millions more than what you have brought in then the system is not sustainable. We have schools taking 10s of millions a year to keep funding athletic programs from the university, money that could be used for other things.
Some thought NIL was reign in spending, which never occurred, that $20 million is going to be spread so thin to keep everyone happy that those in the major sports that produced money are not going to agree to it.

Maybe congress will step in and help, but we need to get these players under a contract, cut down the transfers and pull back spending.

Doesn't really seem to be stopping the deficits from growing. If the blue bloods are taking out loans and continuing to spend more and more then what's going to stop them? Obviously we need some legislation.

 

[1SEIACLONE]

Doesn't really seem to be stopping the deficits from growing. If the blue bloods are taking out loans and continuing to spend more and more then what's going to stop them? Obviously we need some legislation.

It's not the blue bloods hurting its schools that do not have the resources to continue the game the way its played. The Ohio States, Michigans, Texas and others of the world have plenty of money coming in. The same cannot be said for almost every school in the B12 and the ACC. Schools in the B10 are starting to feel the pinch, when that happening with their media contract its a warning sign for everyone. Iowa is make a lot of money and it spending it as fast as it comes in, they have little in resource, which we saw during Covid. If things continue without their media income increases they could very well be in trouble in the next five years.

 

[AuH2O]

The State of Iowa could afford it, just raise the tax on legalized gambling to bring in the revenue. It's not money that stop it. Its the fact that all three schools would be getting it, if all the money went to Iowa, it would pass in a few days, but sharing state money with ISU and UNI is not part of the plan. There is a very pro Iowa bias in the state house, and anyone that does not see that has their head in the sand. There are many at the state house that would be fine to see both ISU and UNI moved down in athletics leaving only the squawks as the main program in the state, much like they have in Wisconsin and Minnesota. One major program, getting almost all the resources and donations of the state.

Except the state of Iowa can’t afford it. There’s nothing that says you can’t tax legalized gambling then say, pay for schools or other things. It’s not like there’s some “department of sports” in which all revenues and expenses have to remain.

In the end Iowa as a state is on a terrible fiscal trajectory. That’s undeniable. Finding a revenue source like gambling taxes should be pursued. Offsetting that with a new expense of closing NIL revenue sharing while continuing down the current fiscal trajectory seems like a bad idea.

 

[Mr.G.Spot]

Maybe some states can afford it, and/or their people are dumb enough that they want good college sports teams over services for their state.

But Iowa's state GDP has been dog **** and is going to be a disaster yet again this year. We've been screaming through the old surplus, and there's not really a logical reason to believe any of that is changing anytime soon.

As much as I love ISU athletics, it's not responsible for probably most states, sure as hell not the state of Iowa, to be spending a bunch of public dollars to cover athletic department shortfalls.

I have to disagree with that. I do not have an independent study or white paper on this topic, but the impact of athletics for UNI, iowa, and Iowa State is much better than the support that they (government) give which I think is zero. I do believe it is time for the state to kick in via a sin tax, gambling tax, etc. to support these aspects of the day-to-day life of Iowans. The easy way is to say you philosophically don't agree with it. I get that. However, it's a losing proposition because the majority of states are going to support actions in this arena to survive and thrive in the future.

Are we going to support these cultural activities that drive significant tax and hospitality revenue or fold up or tent because "it's not right for a state to support college athletics."

 

[FriendlySpartan]

It's not the blue bloods hurting its schools that do not have the resources to continue the game the way its played. The Ohio States, Michigans, Texas and others of the world have plenty of money coming in. The same cannot be said for almost every school in the B12 and the ACC. Schools in the B10 are starting to feel the pinch, when that happening with their media contract its a warning sign for everyone. Iowa is make a lot of money and it spending it as fast as it comes in, they have little in resource, which we saw during Covid. If things continue without their media income increases they could very well be in trouble in the next five years.

Each school has their own responsibility to get their budget in check. No one is forcing them to pay coaches insane salaries or build new facilities with debt constantly.

For schools without the large donor bases this is a problem of their own making. If no one tells the AD to reign things in then they will keep spending. Just like any budget though it’s on the individual university to do what’s right for them.

The 20mil that is paid out to NIL is covered by every P4 teams media deal.

 

[AuH2O]

I have to disagree with that. I do not have an independent study or white paper on this topic, but the impact of athletics for UNI, iowa, and Iowa State is much better than the support that they (government) give which I think is zero. I do believe it is time for the state to kick in via a sin tax, gambling tax, etc. to support these aspects of the day-to-day life of Iowans. The easy way is to say you philosophically don't agree with it. I get that. However, it's a losing proposition because the majority of states are going to support actions in this arena to survive and thrive in the future.

Are we going to support these cultural activities that drive significant tax and hospitality revenue or fold up or tent because "it's not right for a state to support college athletics."

Hey, I’m all for a gambling tax. And if someone wants to actually put forth a budget that doesn’t exceed receipts by $1.2B this year that includes funding NIL, I’m all ears. And if someone wants to also provide any reasonable plan to get our state’s year over GDP growth out of the basement I would be all ears too.

I would like the state of Iowa to be in a position to fund this. But it seems irresponsible to do given Iowa’s bleeding of the surplus, anemic growth, and Argentina and Brazil poised to take market share from Iowa ag markets that are critical to the state.

Just seems like a nice to have when we aren’t in a strong financial position right now.

How about a gambling tax to help close the budget gap first, then we can see about funding NIL.

 

[BCClone]

Each school has their own responsibility to get their budget in check. No one is forcing them to pay coaches insane salaries or build new facilities with debt constantly.

For schools without the large donor bases this is a problem of their own making. If no one tells the AD to reign things in then they will keep spending. Just like any budget though it’s on the individual university to do what’s right for them.

The 20mil that is paid out to NIL is covered by every P4 teams media deal.

So teams outside the P2 should pay the players just shy of 70% of their media money? Seems a little steep.

 

[Trice]

Hey, I’m all for a gambling tax. And if someone wants to actually put forth a budget that doesn’t exceed receipts by $1.2B this year that includes funding NIL, I’m all ears. And if someone wants to also provide any reasonable plan to get our state’s year over GDP growth out of the basement I would be all ears too.

I would like the state of Iowa to be in a position to fund this. But it seems irresponsible to do given Iowa’s bleeding of the surplus, anemic growth, and Argentina and Brazil poised to take market share from Iowa ag markets that are critical to the state.

Just seems like a nice to have when we aren’t in a strong financial position right now.

How about a gambling tax to help close the budget gap first, then we can see about funding NIL.

I just laugh when I hear W&B talk about this on the pod, seemingly unaware of what the state has done to itself fiscally. We're a year or two away from having problems that make (arguably) underfunded college athletic departments look like a hangnail on a patient whose body is riddled with tumors.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

So teams outside the P2 should pay the players just shy of 70% of their media money? Seems a little steep.

Don’t have to pay the full amount or even better pick a sport to be competitive in. There is a reason so few programs have championships in football and basketball or even just a final four/playoff appearance. Most schools unless you have a ton of donor money aren’t going to be good at both. Duke doesn’t care about being good at football they put their funds into basketball. LSU doesn’t care about being good at men’s basketball, so they pay 3 football coaches. Same for notre dame.

Every school has choices and no one is forcing them to spend money because as long as the AD doesn’t get pushback they will continue to spend

 

[BCClone]

Don’t have to pay the full amount or even better pick a sport to be competitive in. There is a reason so few programs have championships in football and basketball or even just a final four/playoff appearance. Most schools unless you have a ton of donor money aren’t going to be good at both. Duke doesn’t care about being good at football they put their funds into basketball. LSU doesn’t care about being good at men’s basketball, so they pay 3 football coaches. Same for notre dame.

Every school has choices and no one is forcing them to spend money because as long as the AD doesn’t get pushback they will continue to spend

Easier to say when your media money is 30-40MM more.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Easier to say when your media money is 30-40MM more.

Even if it is it doesn’t stop a Rutgers or Maryland from overspending or Arizona misplacing 300 million building a new stadium they don’t need

 

[JayV]

Hey, I’m all for a gambling tax.

How about a gambling tax to help close the budget gap first, then we can see about funding NIL.

How about the lottery? It probably can't cover everything, but if the Iowa Lottery gives away $300,000,000 in prizes plus $100,000,000 for funding state initiatives, (both approximate numbers), could $30,000,000 of that go to the Iowa State, UNI, and Iowa? $10,000,000 each for athletic department budgets.

Does the lottery sell less tickets if they give away $270,000,000 in prizes instead of $300,000,000?

Then add taxes to sports gambling, and have some additional.

 

[aeroclone]

Each school has their own responsibility to get their budget in check. No one is forcing them to pay coaches insane salaries or build new facilities with debt constantly.

For schools without the large donor bases this is a problem of their own making. If no one tells the AD to reign things in then they will keep spending. Just like any budget though it’s on the individual university to do what’s right for them.

The 20mil that is paid out to NIL is covered by every P4 teams media deal.

If you leave it to the individual schools, nothing will change until it is too late. It will be a slow death by a thousand cuts. I see it as similar to the case of public funds for stadiums. We can all sit around and agree that the return on investment just isn't there, or that the tax burden falls on those least able to pay, but the problem is as long as there is one single city out there willing to ignore that and cut the check, your city ponies up to keep the team. You are forced into that choice.

Same for these athletic budgets. If there are 10 or 15 schools rolling in the cash and ready to spend with no limits, the 50-60 that don't have that and would prefer to reign it in can only make that individual choice by simultaneously admitting that they really won't make an effort to compete on the field at the top level. And nobody is willing to do that. It is hard to sell tickets and seek donations if you can't sell a vision of hope. The whole thing collapses.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

If you leave it to the individual schools, nothing will change until it is too late. It will be a slow death by a thousand cuts. I see it as similar to the case of public funds for stadiums. We can all sit around and agree that the return on investment just isn't there, or that the tax burden falls on those least able to pay, but the problem is as long as there is one single city out there willing to ignore that and cut the check, your city ponies up to keep the team. You are forced into that choice.

Same for these athletic budgets. If there are 10 or 15 schools rolling in the cash and ready to spend with no limits, the 50-60 that don't have that and would prefer to reign it in can only make that individual choice by simultaneously admitting that they really won't make an effort to compete on the field at the top level. And nobody is willing to do that. It is hard to sell tickets and seek donations if you can't sell a vision of hope. The whole thing collapses.

Totally agree and exactly my point. The problem is those schools were most likely never really competing in the first place, they just like to pretend they were. Indiana’s recent success in football doesn’t help this but also they basically shifted basketball donors over to football with the switch in success.

As you said, as long as those programs keep lying to themselves they will keep spending money they don’t have pursing success that they never really achieved

 

[cytor]

There is already a lot of states that have passed legislation to help with schools. Sadly the state of Iowa is very slow to respond. Like it or not, states are going to have to assist... unless congress steps in and institutes some kind of a spending limit/cap. The current state of college athletics is not sustainable, Yes, even the Hoks will run dry... albeit slower than ISU and UNI, but they will start feeling it soon enough.

 

[psycln11]

Except the state of Iowa can’t afford it. There’s nothing that says you can’t tax legalized gambling then say, pay for schools or other things. It’s not like there’s some “department of sports” in which all revenues and expenses have to remain.

In the end Iowa as a state is on a terrible fiscal trajectory. That’s undeniable. Finding a revenue source like gambling taxes should be pursued. Offsetting that with a new expense of closing NIL revenue sharing while continuing down the current fiscal trajectory seems like a bad idea.

So glad we're using our tax dollars to fund private education!!

 

[t.m.]

My kids have 1 more year at ISU, after that, I would guess my desire to care about college sports will go way down. It's a constant arms race, that 90% of the schools have no shot at winning.

Let's say the State of Iowa figures out how to give ISU another $5mil, do you think the big donors around the country are going to be like "that's nice, it's good to have some more competition with our school." No, it will be Cody Campbell, or Mark Cuban, etc. etc. etc. giving their schools another $10.

 

[Mr.G.Spot]

Hey, I’m all for a gambling tax. And if someone wants to actually put forth a budget that doesn’t exceed receipts by $1.2B this year that includes funding NIL, I’m all ears. And if someone wants to also provide any reasonable plan to get our state’s year over GDP growth out of the basement I would be all ears too.

I would like the state of Iowa to be in a position to fund this. But it seems irresponsible to do given Iowa’s bleeding of the surplus, anemic growth, and Argentina and Brazil poised to take market share from Iowa ag markets that are critical to the state.

Just seems like a nice to have when we aren’t in a strong financial position right now.

How about a gambling tax to help close the budget gap first, then we can see about funding NIL.

Sure, but u bring up different, but related topics then I did.

There is a simple way to fund the NIL for uni, iowa, and iowa state.

It is a stand alone decision. You are muddling it up with other topics, imo. If you stay on that path, then nothing will get done.

Let's fund it with a sin tax and be done with it.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

There is already a lot of states that have passed legislation to help with schools. Sadly the state of Iowa is very slow to respond. Like it or not, states are going to have to assist... unless congress steps in and institutes some kind of a spending limit/cap. The current state of college athletics is not sustainable, Yes, even the Hoks will run dry... albeit slower than ISU and UNI, but they will start feeling it soon enough.

The schools all have a cap already, how you convince any court to allow independent caps on outside spend is going to be very hard if not impossible

 

[AuH2O]

Sure, but u bring up different, but related topics then I did.

There is a simple way to fund the NIL for uni, iowa, and iowa state.

It is a stand alone decision. You are muddling it up with other topics, imo. If you stay on that path, then nothing will get done.

Let's fund it with a sin tax and be done with it.

It’s all the state budget. You’re raising a source of revenue that’s available, which I agree should be done. If there’s proof that investing state money in filling the revenue sharing for college athletes makes some multiplier in economic growth then go for it.

I’m not conflating two topics. The state is bleeding money. You want the state to add a new expense. You have a source of new revenue to do that.

Our state is in a terrible financial state. We don’t have the luxury to turn down reasonable sources of revenue as long as it doesn’t damage growth, so we are on the same page on the gambling tax.

I’m just not convinced that adding a new expense without having some data that suggests that investment is going to deliver additional future revenue.