|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 31, 2021 14:22:40 GMT -5
The revenue that schools like Georgetown get not only pay for the cost of basketball, but also all the other sports programs they have that bring in no or very little revenue. So, it's not just costs of the team. And, they need to pay for women's sports too. In a fictional world where basketball (and football) programs could keep all the money they bring in, I would agree with you that there would be a lot of money to go around. But, that's not how it works in reality. No you can't do it like that. That wouldn't be fair to the programs that bring in the money such as the basketball program/team. You think the volleyball team should be on par with the basketball team in regards to how we access cost and revenue? No, we shouldn't. You have to comply with federal law, which requires equitable treatment of women in terms of school-based athletics. Period. That means lots of things, but at its most basic it means that women must be offered scholarships in proportion to their participation in each university's athletic program and must be given equivalent access to training, recruiting, locker rooms, etc. To be sure, that has nothing at all to do directly with revenue...but it has everything to do with expenses. That's why schools with big-time football programs give out lots of scholarships in women's sports like crew or lacrosse or soccer or hockey, etc. They have to. And that's why the revenues are relevant. Schools use their net profits in football (and men's basketball) to pay for the women's sports' expenses. If some of that instead goes to students, the money for the women's sports has to come from somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 31, 2021 14:24:36 GMT -5
The revenue that schools like Georgetown get not only pay for the cost of basketball, but also all the other sports programs they have that bring in no or very little revenue. So, it's not just costs of the team. And, they need to pay for women's sports too. In a fictional world where basketball (and football) programs could keep all the money they bring in, I would agree with you that there would be a lot of money to go around. But, that's not how it works in reality. How do LM, D2, and DIII schools pay for these sports? DIII? It's simple. There's no scholarship expense at all...and overall expenses are way, way lower. There's no revenue either! None of the DIII schools are breaking even on any athletic program.
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,351
|
Post by calhoya on Mar 31, 2021 14:29:04 GMT -5
Universities are already in the pay system for college sports. The universities get paid a ton off the student athlete and yet, they give the student athlete no compensation! Anybody that says the student gets a degree or an education should know that the student athlete is getting way underpaid if the degree/education should be the compensation. Most kids don't even get their degree and even if they did achieve getting their degree, they are still waaaaay underpaid. There are 357 Division I programs, and at 13 scholarships a piece, that's 4,641 athletes in men's basketball alone. How much do you think they should be paid? A few years ago, schools got back about $600 million in revenue from the NCAA tournament. Obviously, programs have a lot of costs, let's say you're left with $300 million. Split equally among the athletes, that's $64,641.24 a player, and that ignores the fact that much of the $600 million that goes back to schools goes to non-revenue sports and women's sports, so the actual amount leftover from the $600 million is probably way less than I am projecting. As I see it, you need to do one of a few things if you're going to pay players: (1) Give all Division I basketball players a stipend/flat rate. This simply is not going to be a lot of money, for the reasons described above. (2) Allow a free market, which would basically turn it into professionals sports. The very top/rich programs would get all the good players, mid majors would be eviscerated, and a few guys would get a lot of money and everyone else (most of the 4,641 or so athletes) would get almost nothing. Schools like Texas would happily dole out money for recruits, but Georgetown would never do that, and a lot of other programs would not either. (3) Some hybrid of the above, such as giving a stipend, but letting guys make individual deals, etc. No matter how it's done, it's an extremely difficult problem to deal with, and very difficult to "solve" in any meaningful way. But, I think a lot of people who say players are underpaid think there is more money than there is. EDIT: I found an NCAA report, and 84% of men's basketball players graduate. And, I think it's silly to say scholarships should count for nothing. No, it's not compensation, but it sure is value. It is up to the player to decide if he or she is going to use that. As far as "most kids don't even get their degree," there should be NCAA stats on that. I would be shocked, however, if a majority do not get their degree. Sure, 5 stars and NBA-bound guys don't but that's a tiny minority of the player pool. I think it has to be a hybrid with a stipend. I think that the stipend should be for all athletes, regardless of whether they are on scholarship. I had 3 college athletes in 3 different sports--soccer, basketball and track. All got their degrees in 4 years, as did almost all of their teammates. Each kid had the same demands on their time and each received some scholarship assistance ranging from a full ride (basketball) to a partial ride (soccer and Track). All three worked at part-time jobs at their schools to help earn spending monies. I could not honestly say that any one of them had a less demanding or time-consuming schedule due to their sport than the others or that anyone was entitled to better treatment than the others with respect to needing spending monies. However, though my basketball player was not a star, clearly the basketball program brought more fans and more attention to the schools, compared to soccer and track programs. No problem at all with the star basketball players and football players being allowed to benefit from their success in addition to a stipend. If soccer or track athletes ever rise to that level I would feel the same.
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,326
Member is Online
|
Post by SDHoya on Mar 31, 2021 14:32:15 GMT -5
The revenue that schools like Georgetown get not only pay for the cost of basketball, but also all the other sports programs they have that bring in no or very little revenue. So, it's not just costs of the team. And, they need to pay for women's sports too. In a fictional world where basketball (and football) programs could keep all the money they bring in, I would agree with you that there would be a lot of money to go around. But, that's not how it works in reality. How do LM, D2, and DIII schools pay for these sports? DIII is entirely non-scholarship I believe, and DII is mostly non-scholarship. For schools in DI that want to have competitive programs in sports other than football or men's basketball, generally they will have higher expenses. Here is a list of the current DI champions. List of Current NCAA DI Champions With the exception of a few super obscure sports (fencing, bowling), the champions come almost entirely from Power 5 football schools.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2021 14:35:42 GMT -5
How do LM, D2, and DIII schools pay for these sports? DIII? It's simple. There's no scholarship expense at all...and overall expenses are way, way lower. There's no revenue either! None of the DIII schools are breaking even on any athletic program. There's only a few sports that offer full scholarships at HM schools. There are head count sports and equivalency sports. When it comes to equivalency sports some get partial, some get none at all and the majority of those sports aren't turning a profit. So the argument is a kid playing in a revenue sport should pay for the schools decision to fund a non revenue sport?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2021 14:37:34 GMT -5
How do LM, D2, and DIII schools pay for these sports? DIII is entirely non-scholarship I believe, and DII is mostly non-scholarship. For schools in DI that want to have competitive programs in sports other than football or men's basketball, generally they will have higher expenses. Here is a list of the current DI champions. List of Current NCAA DI Champions With the exception of a few super obscure sports (fencing, bowling), the champions come almost entirely from Power 5 football schools. That's exactly my point. Those schools come out of pocket to fund those teams. There's absolutely no reason why a kid playing in a revenue sport should be responsible for a school's decision to fund non revenue sports.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2021 14:42:55 GMT -5
No you can't do it like that. That wouldn't be fair to the programs that bring in the money such as the basketball program/team. You think the volleyball team should be on par with the basketball team in regards to how we access cost and revenue? No, we shouldn't. You have to comply with federal law, which requires equitable treatment of women in terms of school-based athletics. Period. That means lots of things, but at its most basic it means that women must be offered scholarships in proportion to their participation in each university's athletic program and must be given equivalent access to training, recruiting, locker rooms, etc. To be sure, that has nothing at all to do directly with revenue...but it has everything to do with expenses. That's why schools with big-time football programs give out lots of scholarships in women's sports like crew or lacrosse or soccer or hockey, etc. They have to. And that's why the revenues are relevant. Schools use their net profits in football (and men's basketball) to pay for the women's sports' expenses. If some of that instead goes to students, the money for the women's sports has to come from somewhere else. No but if we are talking about players getting paid, they would have to adjust that system. It's very obvious that they would have to adjust the sharing of expenses because revenue follows expenses. Since most of the sports programs don't bring in enough revenue and you're talking about paying the guys that do bring in the majority of the revenue, you will have to adjust the system to compensate the players.
|
|
hoyasaxa2003
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,816
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 31, 2021 14:56:34 GMT -5
The revenue that schools like Georgetown get not only pay for the cost of basketball, but also all the other sports programs they have that bring in no or very little revenue. So, it's not just costs of the team. And, they need to pay for women's sports too. In a fictional world where basketball (and football) programs could keep all the money they bring in, I would agree with you that there would be a lot of money to go around. But, that's not how it works in reality. No you can't do it like that. That wouldn't be fair to the programs that bring in the money such as the basketball program/team. You think the volleyball team should be on par with the basketball team in regards to how we access cost and revenue? No, we shouldn't. Others know more about college athletics and finances, and they should feel free to chime in if I am wrong. You may not like it, but universities have been subsidizing non-revenue sports off the backs of basketball and football for decades now. So, I don't think you can say, "No, you can't do it like that," when I am 99% sure that's how it already works. Good luck telling universities they cannot fund field hockey, lacross, soccer, baseball, rowing, etc. because they don't want to share money outside basketball and football. It doesn't work that way.
|
|
hoyasaxa2003
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,816
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 31, 2021 15:01:27 GMT -5
You have to comply with federal law, which requires equitable treatment of women in terms of school-based athletics. Period. That means lots of things, but at its most basic it means that women must be offered scholarships in proportion to their participation in each university's athletic program and must be given equivalent access to training, recruiting, locker rooms, etc. To be sure, that has nothing at all to do directly with revenue...but it has everything to do with expenses. That's why schools with big-time football programs give out lots of scholarships in women's sports like crew or lacrosse or soccer or hockey, etc. They have to. And that's why the revenues are relevant. Schools use their net profits in football (and men's basketball) to pay for the women's sports' expenses. If some of that instead goes to students, the money for the women's sports has to come from somewhere else. No but if we are talking about players getting paid, they would have to adjust that system. It's very obvious that they would have to adjust the sharing of expenses because revenue follows expenses. Since most of the sports programs don't bring in enough revenue and you're talking about paying the guys that do bring in the majority of the revenue, you will have to adjust the system to compensate the players. What I think is lost here is that a school like Georgetown isn't going to simply (a) reallocate basketball money to basketball, and (b) use "other" money to fund non-revenue sports. They'll just eliminate a whole bunch of non-revenue sports. As it is, Georgetown has way more Division I sports teams than most universities. Now, as someone who cares about Georgetown from an institutional perspective, I think eliminating a whole bunch of other sports is not a good solution. As as others have said, funding women's sports is a legal requirement, so it's not as simple as saying that you just need to raise money elsewhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2021 15:04:51 GMT -5
No but if we are talking about players getting paid, they would have to adjust that system. It's very obvious that they would have to adjust the sharing of expenses because revenue follows expenses. Since most of the sports programs don't bring in enough revenue and you're talking about paying the guys that do bring in the majority of the revenue, you will have to adjust the system to compensate the players. What I think is lost here is that a school like Georgetown isn't going to simply (a) reallocate basketball money to basketball, and (b) use "other" money to fund non-revenue sports. They'll just eliminate a whole bunch of non-revenue sports. As it is, Georgetown has way more Division I sports teams than most universities. Now, as someone who cares about Georgetown from an institutional perspective, I think eliminating a whole bunch of other sports is not a good solution. As as others have said, funding women's sports is a legal requirement, so it's not as simple as saying that you just need to raise money elsewhere. I am definitely not in favor of getting rid of programs, especially the women's sports teams. There's got to be a better way because to me, the system is not equitable where it comes down to what the universities receive from the major sport's student athlete vs what they give.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2021 15:19:22 GMT -5
No but if we are talking about players getting paid, they would have to adjust that system. It's very obvious that they would have to adjust the sharing of expenses because revenue follows expenses. Since most of the sports programs don't bring in enough revenue and you're talking about paying the guys that do bring in the majority of the revenue, you will have to adjust the system to compensate the players. What I think is lost here is that a school like Georgetown isn't going to simply (a) reallocate basketball money to basketball, and (b) use "other" money to fund non-revenue sports. They'll just eliminate a whole bunch of non-revenue sports. As it is, Georgetown has way more Division I sports teams than most universities. Now, as someone who cares about Georgetown from an institutional perspective, I think eliminating a whole bunch of other sports is not a good solution. As as others have said, funding women's sports is a legal requirement, so it's not as simple as saying that you just need to raise money elsewhere. Again, so the argument is a kid playing in a revenue sport should pay for the schools decision to fund a non revenue sport? I get that's the way it's always been but is that a fair system? Arguments like these are why the NCAA really struggled to explain their positions in court today. It doesn't make sense.
|
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,641
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on Mar 31, 2021 19:45:00 GMT -5
Every coach now runs the risk of losing all his starting players every season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2021 19:49:29 GMT -5
Every coach now runs the risk of losing all his starting players every season. So very true and so very sad.
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,326
Member is Online
|
Post by SDHoya on Mar 31, 2021 20:42:08 GMT -5
What I think is lost here is that a school like Georgetown isn't going to simply (a) reallocate basketball money to basketball, and (b) use "other" money to fund non-revenue sports. They'll just eliminate a whole bunch of non-revenue sports. As it is, Georgetown has way more Division I sports teams than most universities. Now, as someone who cares about Georgetown from an institutional perspective, I think eliminating a whole bunch of other sports is not a good solution. As as others have said, funding women's sports is a legal requirement, so it's not as simple as saying that you just need to raise money elsewhere. Again, so the argument is a kid playing in a revenue sport should pay for the schools decision to fund a non revenue sport? I get that's the way it's always been but is that a fair system? Arguments like these are why the NCAA really struggled to explain their positions in court today. It doesn't make sense. Universities (as well as really any company or organization) have some divisions that are revenue generating and some that aren't. For example, masters programs tend to be big money makers for universities, and are used to pay for lots of other expenses. In any event, its not that basketball players are "paying" for the swim team--the basketball program is. And its also false to say that DI athletes are not "compensated" for playing. Cost of attendance at Georgetown is now, what $70,000 a year? I think most 18 year olds would be ecstatic to be making that much. The problem really is that some players are not able to negotiate their fair market value. But, aside from an elite few each year, most players' FMV would likely be well below $70k (certainly if compared to salaries in minor league sports). So the question really becomes, does the NCAA turn to akin to a total free market system, thus fully professionalizing the top teams in football and mens basketball (and likely sending all other programs to DII)? Or do they use a salary cap (or really increase the salary cap from just cost of attendance, to costs of attendance plus $X)? Unless the salary cap increase is substantial, its unlikely to really change the scenario. And if it is substantial, then we get back to a situation where the top programs essentially become a separate pro-league. And if its a pro-league, why should it matter if the kid is a student or not? At that point, instead of Kentucky being a way-station for one and dones, maybe it goes after G-League players who aren't able to break into the NBA?
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Mar 31, 2021 21:34:11 GMT -5
Not going to add much because YaBoy said everything I would say. I think schools paying athletes is a tough sell. NIL is an easy answer that allows the market to determine what a player is worth and in my opinion that’s how it should be.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 31, 2021 21:58:04 GMT -5
Again, so the argument is a kid playing in a revenue sport should pay for the schools decision to fund a non revenue sport? I get that's the way it's always been but is that a fair system? Arguments like these are why the NCAA really struggled to explain their positions in court today. It doesn't make sense. Universities (as well as really any company or organization) have some divisions that are revenue generating and some that aren't. For example, masters programs tend to be big money makers for universities, and are used to pay for lots of other expenses. In any event, its not that basketball players are "paying" for the swim team--the basketball program is. And its also false to say that DI athletes are not "compensated" for playing. Cost of attendance at Georgetown is now, what $70,000 a year? I think most 18 year olds would be ecstatic to be making that much. The problem really is that some players are not able to negotiate their fair market value. But, aside from an elite few each year, most players' FMV would likely be well below $70k (certainly if compared to salaries in minor league sports). So the question really becomes, does the NCAA turn to akin to a total free market system, thus fully professionalizing the top teams in football and mens basketball (and likely sending all other programs to DII)? Or do they use a salary cap (or really increase the salary cap from just cost of attendance, to costs of attendance plus $X)? Unless the salary cap increase is substantial, its unlikely to really change the scenario. And if it is substantial, then we get back to a situation where the top programs essentially become a separate pro-league. And if its a pro-league, why should it matter if the kid is a student or not? At that point, instead of Kentucky being a way-station for one and dones, maybe it goes after G-League players who aren't able to break into the NBA? These are all hard questions. If lets say the elite schools breakoff to form a sort of Premier League with there own TV contract and go pro. Then the question becomes why should they only be able to keep the players for only 1 or 2 years. Why not be able to keep them for 10-20 years. If it's a pro league then there's no reason to surrender your top players to the NBA. Then you may as well merge these programs as expansion teams into the NBA otherwise they will be in competition with the NBA for players. But even if 20 or so of the elite schools break off, at least for basketball the allure really is the 68 team tournament so I think the rest of the schools would actually still be fine. Everything is pretty much unknown. Could be killing the goose that lays the Golden Egg. Seems like Justice Beyer is very hesitant of destroying the model we currently have and taking the love out of the game. (He actually seems like an actual fan of basketball and the NCAA's)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2021 8:14:39 GMT -5
Again, so the argument is a kid playing in a revenue sport should pay for the schools decision to fund a non revenue sport? I get that's the way it's always been but is that a fair system? Arguments like these are why the NCAA really struggled to explain their positions in court today. It doesn't make sense. Universities (as well as really any company or organization) have some divisions that are revenue generating and some that aren't. For example, masters programs tend to be big money makers for universities, and are used to pay for lots of other expenses. In any event, its not that basketball players are "paying" for the swim team--the basketball program is. And its also false to say that DI athletes are not "compensated" for playing. Cost of attendance at Georgetown is now, what $70,000 a year? I think most 18 year olds would be ecstatic to be making that much. The problem really is that some players are not able to negotiate their fair market value. But, aside from an elite few each year, most players' FMV would likely be well below $70k (certainly if compared to salaries in minor league sports). So the question really becomes, does the NCAA turn to akin to a total free market system, thus fully professionalizing the top teams in football and mens basketball (and likely sending all other programs to DII)? Or do they use a salary cap (or really increase the salary cap from just cost of attendance, to costs of attendance plus $X)? Unless the salary cap increase is substantial, its unlikely to really change the scenario. And if it is substantial, then we get back to a situation where the top programs essentially become a separate pro-league. And if its a pro-league, why should it matter if the kid is a student or not? At that point, instead of Kentucky being a way-station for one and dones, maybe it goes after G-League players who aren't able to break into the NBA? You're missing the point. The point is if a school wanted to fund those sports they could, and they could use some money from "basketball program" or football program to do so. It's not like they couldn't still turn s profit. They just wouldn't get ALL of the profit. It's a threat and not based in reality because plenty of schools who generate no income off their sports programs still manage to participate in multiple sports. I don't know a single "company or organization" that uses that system as a justification to give a person no money. Now I understand you're using Georgetown's high cost of tuition and saying that's their compensation but the reality is 1) That's their sticker price and not what Georgetown actually spends to educate a kid and 2) That's NOT the education the majority of these kids receive. A kid that plays Alabama football is worth a ton of money to that school and is not getting a 70,000 a year education. So it's quite unfair to use what Georgetown's costs as a standard bearer when that's not close to the norm.
|
|
jwp91
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,998
|
Post by jwp91 on Apr 1, 2021 8:52:29 GMT -5
There is a reason the star of the accounting office in the Fortune 100 doesn't get incentive trips to Cancun every year. Just saying.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,859
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Apr 1, 2021 9:20:05 GMT -5
There is a reason the star of the accounting office in the Fortune 100 doesn't get incentive trips to Cancun every year. Just saying. Is it because no one is willing to pay that fortune 100 company hundreds of millions to watch their star accountant work?
|
|
jwp91
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,998
|
Post by jwp91 on Apr 1, 2021 10:20:52 GMT -5
There is a reason the star of the accounting office in the Fortune 100 doesn't get incentive trips to Cancun every year. Just saying. Is it because no one is willing to pay that fortune 100 company hundreds of millions to watch their star accountant work? Maybe my point is unclear. The sales guys get the incentive trips not the accountants. Applied to an athletic department, the money sports get the spoils and not the non-revenue sports.
|
|