Possible news: NCAA split and Pac12 players strike
- Thread starter cyman05
- Start date
When someone brings up using the colleges endowment as a source for funds for athletics. You should immediately disregard everything they say until they educate themselves on what is an endowment and how those funds get appropriated.
https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Understanding-Endowments-White-Paper.pdf
Also, if you want to change the rules on how endowment funds are used. Athletics should be really **ckin low on the priority lists. I'd rather see lower tuition, addressing maintenance backlogs for exisiting properties, heavier investments into research. Using those funds to pay athletes is dumb..
Plain and simple. 99% of all college athletes aren't worth a cent individually. Sports media and talking heads only like to reference the Zion's of the world. When we should let them play professionally first. At the end of the day. Professional leagues are using college athletics as a training ground for these 1% athletes who will end up driving the ship
https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Understanding-Endowments-White-Paper.pdf
Also, if you want to change the rules on how endowment funds are used. Athletics should be really **ckin low on the priority lists. I'd rather see lower tuition, addressing maintenance backlogs for exisiting properties, heavier investments into research. Using those funds to pay athletes is dumb..
Plain and simple. 99% of all college athletes aren't worth a cent individually. Sports media and talking heads only like to reference the Zion's of the world. When we should let them play professionally first. At the end of the day. Professional leagues are using college athletics as a training ground for these 1% athletes who will end up driving the ship
It’s a terrific idea. It’s like someone in mid-management asking for 3X pay raises when the company is on the eve of bankruptcy.
What about athletes in non-revenue sports? You suggest football and basketball players should be compensated more since they bring in more revenue than they receive in tuition, board, stipends, tutors, food, facilities, etc. Tennis players and golfers cost the athletic department more than they create in revenue. So, do you think they shouldn't be given scholarships, and maybe even have to pay extra to play their sport? Either we're going for the all-in capitalist free-market approach, or we're not.
Imagine this scenario --
All the football players coming out of high school with serious ambitions and a serious chance of a lucrative NFL career enter into private football academies run by the NFL teams and/or a development league. How about we call that the XFL.
All the basketball players coming out of high school or prep school on the same tier (so roughly high-4* and 5* recruits) would go the same route. They are drafted directly by NBA teams and put into their D-League system, brought right to the NBA (for the rare few who are ready), and the remainder who draw interest but not enough to land an NBA contract right away can go to Europe or Australia. They make good money in the meantime, and hopefully play themselves back to the United States at some future date.
Would losing that tier of guys decrease the valuation of Alabama football, Kentucky basketball, or our collective interest in Iowa State sports?
Not one bit.
We are not in it for the players -- we are in it for the laundry that happens to have our alma mater's name on it. Is it absurd we just want the jersey? Probably, but that is the way of the system. I would rather the professional leagues and colleges collectively step up and give the guys who have that Zion value another avenue to monetizing themselves early outside of the NCAA system, and those who remain as college players are kind of understood as the "next tier down" but genuinely interested in being student-athletes.
Last edited:
I have said this before, but there are plenty of universities out there that are basically large tax-free hedge funds with a small educational and athletics apparatus attached to them so they can notionally be a "nonprofit organization" on tax forms.
A couple of large religious organizations are running the same racket really, only their justification for nonprofit is a slightly different one than the above.
Yale could use an international airport.
(The newest large-scale international airport that I can think of in the United States is Denver International Airport, which was like $5 billion. So they can afford it.)
What, you don't think they want to spend that on some athletes....? Shocking.
What incentive does a school have to lower tuition? None of the big schools are hurting.
Continue to jack up the price and kids will fork it over
Heres a good article on it from the San Diego Tribune. Pretty much sums up what the majority or people have said. Most college athletes dont have the leverage. Those that do can use it like Daishen Nix heading to the G league.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...-12-demands-boycott-pay-players-title-ix-ncaa
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...-12-demands-boycott-pay-players-title-ix-ncaa
As long as there is easy access to student loan debt. The cost of higher education will rise
It's either the dawning of a new, and better era in college sports, or this is the death rattle of the golden goose.
I see coffin nails...
My somewhat more realistic solution: Take the $1.3B annual TV deal from the NCAA tournament and spread that across all 460,000 student athletes. That gives approximately $2,800 per student athlete per year in the NCAA. Add to that any future contract deals for video games or other likeness. Maybe phase this in over time to let conferences deal with the loss of revenue? But the point is that you provide a stipend to all athletes based on the revenue from the NCAA and not the ticket sales and conference TV deals that vary significantly from school to school.
Wasn't it decided by several schools to provide a 2k stipend in the future? Wouldn't that be about the same? Your proposal would hurt the UNIs of the world more than the ISUs because they would have to come up with the money to attend the tourney if they make it, since the conference or school would not receive any revenue to assist them with. I remember them bailing on a BB tourney several years ago because their payout was not enough for them to travel and the budget would not support it.
I see a bunch of entitled college kids who have been watching a little too much TV.
Meanwhile I see a bunch greedy TV execs and college administrators who are exploiting the labor of young men for their own personal benefit.
Yes, sports like golf, tennis, gymnastics, wrestling, etc. all cost the athletics departments more money than they bring in. And if given the opportunity, I wholeheartedly believe there are administrators who would happily cut those sports if they were allowed to. But in order to be eligible as a D1, the school must have 14 scholarship sports: 7 mens and 7 womens, or 6 mens and 8 womens. Of those at least 2 of them must be team sports for each gender.
The main reason schools hold on to sports like swimming and cross country is to maintain their status as D1, and ensure they can keep bringing in the money from football and basketball. The athletes in these sports bring value to the schools, even if that value isn't from direct revenue. As such they should still be compensated.
Devil's advocate: So why do they sign the LOI's if they're being exploited? For 98% of student athletes, they're getting more benefit than they're bringing in TV and gate revenue. For the other 2%, they're getting exploited by the collective bargaining agreements in the NBA and NFL, not the NCAA.
