Texas A&M tops in revenue at almost $200 mil
- Thread starter Tornado man
- Start date
I guess it doesn't have to mean dropping scholarships, but those corporate sponsors that used to sponsor the athletic department will now sponsor the athletes themselves. Seems something needs to be cut to deal with that.
And can every student really benefit from their likeness? If you are a grad student working under a grant and develop some new money making opportunity. Who owns that patent, you, the school, or the funder of the grant?
But again, how will these students benefit the corporate sponsors? Are you proposing putting advertising patches on their uniforms?
For schools like Iowa and Iowa State?
The revenue generated from television deals, ticket sales, and donations. The taxpayers in this state don't shoulder the cost of the college athletic programs at the D1 public schools.
I merely asked if the AD is self sufficient and not relying on tax payer money nor the university general fund, then what is there to ***** about? I get your point and agree if a school (like UNI or U of Houston) who are subsidized are spending way outside their means.
Okay, I guess I need to spell it out. Where does the money for 'television deals, ticket sales and donations' come from? Your ******* pockets you idiots. The same people that ***** about paying a few more bucks in taxes to cover better schools, teachers, health care, etc... are the same people that are paying to watch college sports on TV, buy tickets, donate.
I personally don't have a problem with athletic budgets increasing so long as the money coming from there are not tax payers or the school itself. What I would like to know is what is the ROI on having an athletics program to the school? Does the university see a lot of donors to the athletics department donating to educational ones as well? If the AD were to be gone tomorrow, would there be a decrease or increase in educational donations as a result of reallocation of money?
Except the large tax writeoffs people get for donating to athletic departments since it's a non-profit.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,170
- 29,455
- 113
I don't understand why would something need to be cut?
All students other than scholarship athletes are allowed to profit from their own likeness. Your patent argument doesn't really apply because a patent is not the same thing as your likeness, but just for argument's sake, depending on the state and the university, a student very well might own a patent that they developed at a university.
As far as the students benefiting their corporate sponsors, there are tons of ways, a local car dealership might want to hire a few football players to be in their tv/radio commercials. A restaurant might do the same. A sporting goods store might want to have a few basketball players on site for a promotion, etc.
All of those things are currently options for every other student besides a scholarship athlete.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,170
- 29,455
- 113
I don't necessarily have a problem with it either, other than the garishness of it, I suppose. I'd also be fine with a mandate that all athletic departments must be self sufficient, and take zero money from a general fund. Have it run on a 4 year average or something. And if you are in the red, you're ineligible for any post season play, in any sport, until you get it figured out.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
I'd recommend something preventing an increase in student fees to that end, too.
Someone's posted good things before showing how the increases in student fees for athletics corresponds exactly to the general fund money no longer used that way.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,170
- 29,455
- 113
that works for me. If an athletic department is truly self sufficient, it shouldn't need student fees either.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
Agreed. I don't think it's accurate right now to call them self-sufficient, since the student fees are the excuse we're using to make that claim.
I totally get you B, but the bad actors aren't necessarily ISU and Iowa fans but rather the legislators. Al's right, to answer your question fully this will go to the cave. I, for one, would prefer that more of my tax dollars go to the universities (in an equitable manner, no more subsidizing Western Suburbs hawk dooshers).
Speleunking light on...
Student fees could certainly be its own topic...students do get a return on their fees...subsidized tickets to the popular sports and free attendance at most Olympic sports. There is no opting out...it is mandatory...a student can't opt out if they don't want to attend. The fees also cover intramurals and access to exercise venues, use of the Union and facilities, etc. At ISU, this fee rises to $331.95 per semester (12 or more credit hours). To me it isn't too bad a deal...but it is a mandatory fee that a student has to pay.
If you start to pay athletes, doesn't that open up ever other benefit they get up to being taxed at a high rate. Their scholarship, their shoes, their clothes, their books, their meals and so on.
There are ways to pay players of teams that make the school money, with out cutting into the current revenue stream. The money really should be put in an account for each student and when they graduate they can get the money.
There are ways to pay players of teams that make the school money, with out cutting into the current revenue stream. The money really should be put in an account for each student and when they graduate they can get the money.
Just to confuse things, how many of the student athletes are on partial scholarships?
