hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,201
|
Post by hoya9797 on Mar 25, 2019 12:19:47 GMT -5
You can have all that and pay the players, too.
|
|
iowa80
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,399
|
Post by iowa80 on Mar 25, 2019 12:22:18 GMT -5
You can have all that and pay the players, too. So G'town costs what to attend?
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,741
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Mar 25, 2019 12:27:52 GMT -5
You can have all that and pay the players, too. So G'town costs what to attend? Freshmen cost of education, 2018-19: Tuition & Fees $54,544 Average Housing & Meal Expense $15,850 Books, Travel & Personal Expenses $3,926 Total Estimated Cost of Attendance $74,320 Upperclassmen cost of education, 2018-19: Tuition & Fees $54,440 Average Housing & Meal Expense $16,418 Books, Travel & Personal Expenses $3,932 Total Estimated Cost of Attendance $74,790
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 25, 2019 13:53:26 GMT -5
So basically every college player who stays 4 years gets nearly $300,000 in value from their scholarship, plus whatever value is conferred by getting a Georgetown degree. It may not be the same thing as getting paid to play basketball, but the idea that these kids are getting nothing is ridiculous.
I realize some schools have lower tuition, but I would bet that 95% (if not more) of college basketball players on an open professional market would get paid well under $75,000 a year. I mean, look at the G league, at least until recently, and our roster almost always has guys who wouldn't even sniff the G league.
The other big point is people accuse universities of earning "billions" when it's simply untrue. Thirteen scholarships at the rates above ends up being about $1 million a year. Add on Ewing's likely $3 million a year salary. Add on the salaries of the staff. Add the travel expenses, which sometimes include chartered aircraft. Add in recruiting expenses. Add in Capital One rent. Add in other assorted expenses.
The latest revenue figure I could find was $17,702,377 for the basketball program (this is from Business Insider, which said a 3 year average of our revenues was about $13 million, so I am unsure why the number they list is higher, I see no obvious reason why our revenue would have spiked the last year or so). So is Georgetown basketball making a profit? Almost certainly, but I am pretty certain a decent portion of that is covered by expenses (and I saw an "expenses" figure that was $2.5 million but that cannot possibly be true since Ewing's salary alone would likely be near that amount), so while there is likely a handsome profit, it's not at the level often discussed (and certainly not at level of football schools like Texas).
I would also add that people often ignore the value the university brings simply by its existence. We are all (mostly?) fans of Georgetown because we are alumni or long time fans of the basketball program. We like guys like Akinjo, etc. largely because they are Georgetown players. If they were playing for Duke or Kentucky or Villanova we likely wouldn't care at all. So the universities bring a ton of value via their bases of support. This is partly why college basketball is so big and the G league isn't.
And keep in my Georgetown is a top 25 revenue team. So for most universities, it's not even close.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,741
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Mar 25, 2019 13:58:42 GMT -5
The latest revenue figure I could find was $17,702,377 for the basketball program. So is Georgetown basketball making a profit? Almost certainly, but I am pretty certain a decent portion of that is covered by expenses (and I saw an "expenses" figure that was $2.5 million but that cannot possibly be true since Ewing's salary alone would likely be near that amount). And keep in my Georgetown is a top 25 revenue team. So for most universities, it's not even close. So is Georgetown basketball making a profit? Not even close. $17M was the expenses, not the revenue.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,201
|
Post by hoya9797 on Mar 25, 2019 14:48:50 GMT -5
The schools would pay what they can afford. Some will be able to pay more than others and some players will get a lot more than others. This is how a business works. Why should Ewing get $3M per year? Maybe he should get less and they can distribute that to the players. The idea that the players can not be paid from the revenues the schools collect is just not true.
|
|
|
Post by vamosalaplaya on Mar 25, 2019 15:12:37 GMT -5
I have yet to see a coherent overview of the "pay the players" scenario that accounts for Title IX and the economics of minor mens sports as well. If you fund a mens sport you have to fund the women's sports equally. So you can't just pay or give stipends to mens basketball and football players. Also, those two revenue sports subsidize all the other sports, non-revenue mens sports and women's - so not only are you sucking potential subsidy revenue away from the non-revenue sports by paying players in hoops and football you would be adding to their expenses through payments to players.
The analysis may be out there and I'd love to see it.
I will say if there is one particular group that makes out like gangbusters from all this it's the coaches. The universities get marketing and exposure which is valuable; the coaches make ridiculous amounts of money. If you could somehow start paying stipends to hoops and football players - without having do the same for all the other athletes which I would think would bring the entire athletics system to a halt - if you did just football and basketball, you would see coaches for those sports making less, which would be just fine.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,741
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Mar 25, 2019 15:21:06 GMT -5
I will say if there is one particular group that makes out like gangbusters from all this it's the coaches. The universities get marketing and exposure which is valuable; the coaches make ridiculous amounts of money. If you could somehow start paying stipends to hoops and football players - without having do the same for all the other athletes which I would think would bring the entire athletics system to a halt - if you did just football and basketball, you would see coaches for those sports making less, which would be just fine. Pro athletes make more and so do the coaches. Joe Maddon makes $6M a year, Sean Payton $8M, and Gregg Popovich $10M. Put another way, Jimbo Fisher isn't taking a pay cut. www.al.com/sports/2018/08/jimbo_fishers_75_million_contr.html
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 25, 2019 15:28:51 GMT -5
So basically every college player who stays 4 years gets nearly $300,000 in value from their scholarship, plus whatever value is conferred by getting a Georgetown degree. It may not be the same thing as getting paid to play basketball, but the idea that these kids are getting nothing is ridiculous. I realize some schools have lower tuition, but I would bet that 95% (if not more) of college basketball players on an open professional market would get paid well under $75,000 a year. I mean, look at the G league, at least until recently, and our roster almost always has guys who wouldn't even sniff the G league. The other big point is people accuse universities of earning "billions" when it's simply untrue. Thirteen scholarships at the rates above ends up being about $1 million a year. Add on Ewing's likely $3 million a year salary. Add on the salaries of the staff. Add the travel expenses, which sometimes include chartered aircraft. Add in recruiting expenses. Add in Capital One rent. Add in other assorted expenses. The latest revenue figure I could find was $17,702,377 for the basketball program (this is from Business Insider, which said a 3 year average of our revenues was about $13 million, so I am unsure why the number they list is higher, I see no obvious reason why our revenue would have spiked the last year or so). So is Georgetown basketball making a profit? Almost certainly, but I am pretty certain a decent portion of that is covered by expenses (and I saw an "expenses" figure that was $2.5 million but that cannot possibly be true since Ewing's salary alone would likely be near that amount), so while there is likely a handsome profit, it's not at the level often discussed (and certainly not at level of football schools like Texas). I would also add that people often ignore the value the university brings simply by its existence. We are all (mostly?) fans of Georgetown because we are alumni or long time fans of the basketball program. We like guys like Akinjo, etc. largely because they are Georgetown players. If they were playing for Duke or Kentucky or Villanova we likely wouldn't care at all. So the universities bring a ton of value via their bases of support. This is partly why college basketball is so big and the G league isn't. And keep in my Georgetown is a top 25 revenue team. So for most universities, it's not even close. The idea that athletic talent precludes you from having academic talent is ridiculous. Maybe start there and check some of your biases. Where did I say that athletic talent precludes a player from having academic talent? In fact, I specifically said that student-athletes garner value out of their degrees (which are earned academically, not athletically). I also said "the idea that the kids are getting nothing is ridiculous" - meaning they are getting an education and a degree for free. I am not sure where you are coming from, but your point makes absolutely no sense. On Galen Alexander, I am glad he's joining the team, and I hope he can make some meaningful contributions next year. He's a rare JUCO who was recruited by Division I high major teams, and we are fortunate to pick somebody up with that level of talent this late in the game.
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,328
|
Post by SDHoya on Mar 25, 2019 15:33:10 GMT -5
So basically every college player who stays 4 years gets nearly $300,000 in value from their scholarship, plus whatever value is conferred by getting a Georgetown degree. It may not be the same thing as getting paid to play basketball, but the idea that these kids are getting nothing is ridiculous. I realize some schools have lower tuition, but I would bet that 95% (if not more) of college basketball players on an open professional market would get paid well under $75,000 a year. I mean, look at the G league, at least until recently, and our roster almost always has guys who wouldn't even sniff the G league. The other big point is people accuse universities of earning "billions" when it's simply untrue. Thirteen scholarships at the rates above ends up being about $1 million a year. Add on Ewing's likely $3 million a year salary. Add on the salaries of the staff. Add the travel expenses, which sometimes include chartered aircraft. Add in recruiting expenses. Add in Capital One rent. Add in other assorted expenses. The latest revenue figure I could find was $17,702,377 for the basketball program (this is from Business Insider, which said a 3 year average of our revenues was about $13 million, so I am unsure why the number they list is higher, I see no obvious reason why our revenue would have spiked the last year or so). So is Georgetown basketball making a profit? Almost certainly, but I am pretty certain a decent portion of that is covered by expenses (and I saw an "expenses" figure that was $2.5 million but that cannot possibly be true since Ewing's salary alone would likely be near that amount), so while there is likely a handsome profit, it's not at the level often discussed (and certainly not at level of football schools like Texas). I would also add that people often ignore the value the university brings simply by its existence. We are all (mostly?) fans of Georgetown because we are alumni or long time fans of the basketball program. We like guys like Akinjo, etc. largely because they are Georgetown players. If they were playing for Duke or Kentucky or Villanova we likely wouldn't care at all. So the universities bring a ton of value via their bases of support. This is partly why college basketball is so big and the G league isn't. And keep in my Georgetown is a top 25 revenue team. So for most universities, it's not even close. The idea that athletic talent precludes you from having academic talent is ridiculous. Maybe start there and check some of your biases. Where does 2003 make that claim? The issue with big time college athletics is not that athletes are unpaid (or at least uncompensated)--it is that some of those players are UNDERVALUED by the current system. $75k a year (x4 years) in the form of education, housing, living expenses, and training is a pretty sweet deal for 90-95% of college athletes. For the remaining ones who have the talent to be paid many times that in the NBA/NFL/other pro or minor league sport, they should not be prohibited from receiving the full market value for their services--but there is no reason why colleges need to be the ones to provide those opportunities (so long as the other institutions do not arbitrarily close their doors).
|
|
|
Post by hoyas big supporter on Mar 25, 2019 15:38:19 GMT -5
The idea that athletic talent precludes you from having academic talent is ridiculous. Maybe start there and check some of your biases. Where did I say that athletic talent precludes a player from having academic talent? In fact, I specifically said that student-athletes garner value out of their degrees (which are earned academically, not athletically). I also said "the idea that the kids are getting nothing is ridiculous" - meaning they are getting an education and a degree. I am not sure where you are coming from, but your point makes absolutely no sense. Yeah I was actually trying to edit it. I actually misread a part, but alas. My apologies. Anywho, that’s why I also said it might be time to check you (unconscious) biases. You may not have intended to imply what I perceived, but to suggest that tuition payment is “fair” compensation for what the athletes brin to these schools is to miss the forest or the trees. It totally ignores opportunity cost, etc. I guess that’s your overall opinion, but I would argue that there it differs from school to school and so while it might be fair to be compensated that much at a smaller school, maybe at Duke or UK tuition coverage isn’t enoughand being punished for selling an autograph isn’t fair so you have to make the rules just for everyone in the system. In your example, it reads to me like you’re saying the system is fair because the players gets to get a college education. I think there are some assumptions built-in to a statement like that. And not to mention these are for-profit institutions were talking about. I don’t know about you, but I’m way past the point in pretending like they’re academic utopias.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,875
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 25, 2019 15:56:13 GMT -5
I have yet to see a coherent overview of the "pay the players" scenario that accounts for Title IX and the economics of minor mens sports as well. If you fund a mens sport you have to fund the women's sports equally. So you can't just pay or give stipends to mens basketball and football players. Also, those two revenue sports subsidize all the other sports, non-revenue mens sports and women's - so not only are you sucking potential subsidy revenue away from the non-revenue sports by paying players in hoops and football you would be adding to their expenses through payments to players. The analysis may be out there and I'd love to see it. I will say if there is one particular group that makes out like gangbusters from all this it's the coaches. The universities get marketing and exposure which is valuable; the coaches make ridiculous amounts of money. If you could somehow start paying stipends to hoops and football players - without having do the same for all the other athletes which I would think would bring the entire athletics system to a halt - if you did just football and basketball, you would see coaches for those sports making less, which would be just fine. sportsgeekonomics.tumblr.com/post/13848508656/myth-6-we-cant-pay-them-or-else-wed-violatesportsgeekonomics.tumblr.com/post/13848472352/myth-5-we-cant-pay-them-or-else-well-have-to
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 25, 2019 16:04:52 GMT -5
I don't think the system is fair, but I also don't think it can necessarily be fair. The system was originally designed for student athletes, but football and basketball have basically boomed and become quasi-professional sports. No doubt, guys like Zion Williamson are vastly underpaid to play at Duke. And there are a handful of guys who would probably also get compensated very nicely in a free-market system. For those guys academics are a sideshow anyway, since they are there for one year and then they move on (which makes sense, obviously).
Is free tuition "fair compensation" for playing basketball? No, in the sense that it has nothing to do with basketball. Yes, in the sense that you're giving guys an entirely free education, which is something a lot of non-athletes would kill for (including me, someone who still has student debt many years later, even despite getting aid). For guys who otherwise would get paid very little for basketball, I think it's probably more than sufficient. Of course, there's some apples/oranges going on here, and each case would be different depending on how much you'd get paid for basketball, etc.
I am no expert on non-profit law, but the university files a Form 990, so while they make plenty of money, I am pretty sure they are a non-profit university. While it's not an "academic utopia," it's easy to forget that the basketball program is a very small aspect of a huge academic institution. It might pain some to say it, but Georgetown University could end the basketball program tomorrow, and aside from very angry alumni (including me!) the university at large would be just fine in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by augustusfinknottle on Mar 25, 2019 16:14:55 GMT -5
Freshmen Ineligible: "Oh no, Zion, you won't be facing North Carolina. The Frosh are playing a team from Pope AFB at 5:00".
|
|
|
Post by hoyas big supporter on Mar 25, 2019 16:15:33 GMT -5
I don't think the system is fair, but I also don't think it can necessarily be fair. The system was originally designed for student athletes, but football and basketball have basically boomed and become quasi-professional sports. No doubt, guys like Zion Williamson are vastly underpaid to play at Duke. And there are a handful of guys who would probably also get compensated very nicely in a free-market system. For those guys academics are a sideshow anyway, since they are there for one year and then they move on (which makes sense, obviously). Is free tuition "fair compensation" for playing basketball? No, in the sense that it has nothing to do with basketball. Yes, in the sense that you're giving guys an entirely free education, which is something a lot of non-athletes would kill for (including me, someone who still has student debt many years later, even despite getting aid). For guys who otherwise would get paid very little for basketball, I think it's probably more than sufficient. Of course, there's some apples/oranges going on here, and each case would be different depending on how much you'd get paid for basketball, etc. I am no expert on non-profit law, but the university files a Form 990, so while they make plenty of money, I am pretty sure they are a non-profit university. While it's not an "academic utopia," it's easy to forget that the basketball program is a very small aspect of a huge academic institution. It might pain some to say it, but Georgetown University could end the basketball program tomorrow, and aside from very angry alumni (including me!) the university at large would be just fine in the long run. I agree. Except for that last part, most of higher education in this country is profit-motivated and while I’m sure they do a lot to develop their students, a lot of time/energy is focused on simply maintaining the foothold of the business. Again, probably an imperfect and unjust system, but I think there is something more to it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2019 16:25:25 GMT -5
On the revenue side. Aren't college teams, and the NCAA as a whole, missing out on a lot of different ways to increase revenue by pretending it isn't a business?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 25, 2019 16:41:48 GMT -5
The thread has veered off topic. Additional coverage on Galen Alexander can be posted in the recruiting sub-forum.
|
|