Spurrier: Pay players '$3,500 to $4,000' a year

[Senser81]

I don't think it will, but I know plenty of universities have Athletic Departments already in the red, so making them throw even more money at it isn't going to help anything. In fact, it may reduce the number of teams willing to field D1 sports teams.

Again, thats a tangential argument. Its like saying Michael Jordan and Bill Wennington combined for 57 points against the Knicks, when Jordan had 55 and Wennington had 2. Is it the football/basketball players' responsibility and/or fault that they have to not only fund their own sports, but also the other 18 non-revenue producing sports on campus?

As I said before, do away with the NCAA completely. Let economics dictate what happens. No more illogical guidelines and rules.

And again, even donations for sports is minuscule in comparison to the overall academic budget that is brought in. In 2010-11, Texas made about 150 million dollars through sports. On the other hand, they have a total income of about 2.1 billion for JUST academics, without sports included at all. This is an oddity as Texas actually makes money in athletics, but if you think any school believes athletics are the cash cow, you are sadly mistaken.

I never claimed that a school believes athletics to be a cash cow. I don't know of a school that uses athletics to make money...usually its a marketing tool to advertise the University and, to a lesser degree, appeal to the alumni who may contribute millions of dollars in donations to areas other than athletics.

 

[Len B]

I don't think it will, but I know plenty of universities have Athletic Departments already in the red, so making them throw even more money at it isn't going to help anything. In fact, it may reduce the number of teams willing to field D1 sports teams.

And again, even donations for sports is minuscule in comparison to the overall academic budget that is brought in. In 2010-11, Texas made about 150 million dollars through sports. On the other hand, they have a total income of about 2.1 billion for JUST academics, without sports included at all. This is an oddity as Texas actually makes money in athletics, but if you think any school believes athletics are the cash cow, you are sadly mistaken.

Very few collegiate sports programs are in the green. It's a common misconception.

 

[Senser81]

That said, if the athletes get $3,000-$4,000 shouldn't all students in academic programs who promote high GPA also be getting $3,000-$4,000? They are the ones raising the quality of the program of the school, allowing the school to charge a higher rate. If all the students got C's and D's, the school would not be as attractive. They are working just as much, by studying and working on essays/exams/etc, and represent a much larger portion of the university.

Don't most schools offer academic scholarships? I know my school offered scholarships to the best high school students, trying to raise the quality of the program of the school. I think this does happen, just not on such a systematic scale as athletics.

 

[JeremyHight]

BTW, for anyone saying how football and athletics are a huge cash cow, here is a report put out about budgets dealing with Athletic Departments making money.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/2010RevExp.pdf

* Only 22 out of 119 FBS schools turned a profit in athletics, with the median amount being a 9.4 million dollar loss.
* The average student athlete in FBS cost the school about $72,000 per year.
* Schools without football in the FBS on average had less losses than those that did.
* Schools without football altogether had the least amount of losses on average.

 

[Berowsk]

Each player should get the flat fee of 2000 + a small percentage of the average of all school's profit in said sport (let's say .5% for clarity sake). So a sport that makes more, say football, the players of the sport would get paid more than a sport such as softball or field hockey. For example, let's say the average of all FBS football program profits is $400,000 (yes, I know, unrealistic). A football player would earn $2000 on top of the $2000 already earned. If the average Women's softball team program profits $100,000, the softball player would earn $500 on top of the $2000 already earned.

This would take away any Title IX arguments and since it'd be the average of all programs, any monetary performance advantages for bigger programs. Also, it would make sense at a school like mine, where all the profits come from IU's basketball programs. I couldn't fathom our school giving our shitty ass football players as much as our basketball players.

Edit: Just read this post after I posted:

BTW, for anyone saying how football and athletics are a huge cash cow, here is a report put out about budgets dealing with Athletic Departments making money.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/2010RevExp.pdf

* Only 22 out of 119 FBS schools turned a profit in athletics, with the median amount being a 9.4 million dollar loss.
* The average student athlete in FBS cost the school about $72,000 per year.
* Schools without football in the FBS on average had less losses than those that did.
* Schools without football altogether had the least amount of losses on average.

Didn't realize there was hardly any profit. But this should avoid Title IX still with the programs making profit giving their players money and the sports that don't have a universal profit paying their players zilch.

 

[Senser81]

BTW, for anyone saying how football and athletics are a huge cash cow, here is a report put out about budgets dealing with Athletic Departments making money.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/2010RevExp.pdf

* Only 22 out of 119 FBS schools turned a profit in athletics, with the median amount being a 9.4 million dollar loss.
* The average student athlete in FBS cost the school about $72,000 per year.
* Schools without football in the FBS on average had less losses than those that did.
* Schools without football altogether had the least amount of losses on average.

Wow, that looks terrible. All the more reason to eliminate those huge "administrative" expenses of maintaining a 20-sport athletic department and instead pare it down to men's basketball and football. The report is pretty worthless, as are the findings. Reminds me of how Bud Adams of the Oilers would claim that the Houston Oilers were costing him $20 million a year, and then when the auditors look at the books they see he has his entire family on the team payroll making $1 million each, and he pays himself $20 million in salary every year.


* Only 22 out of 119 FBS schools turned a profit in athletics, with the median amount being a 9.4 million dollar loss.

A tangential issue. Football and men's bball have to support huge athletic departments. What are the expenses that are SOLELY attributable to these sports? What is the revenue? Thats all that really matters.

* The average student athlete in FBS cost the school about $72,000 per year.
What does "average student athlete in FBS" mean? Only a football player? Or is that any athlete at an institution with Division I football? And how is the "cost" calculated? Is it based on expenses SOLELY attributable to football, or to athletics in general?

* Schools without football in the FBS on average had less losses than those that did.
Of course they had less losses...they didn't have to support the 6-8 women's sports to "offset" the football program.


* Schools without football altogether had the least amount of losses on average.
Of course they had less losses...see above. They are operating on such a smaller scale. My lemonade stand had less losses than JcPenney this last quarter...so should people stop investing JcPenney and start investing in my lemonade stand?

 

[ralaw]

* Schools without football altogether had the least amount of losses on average.
Of course they had less losses...see above. They are operating on such a smaller scale. My lemonade stand had less losses than JcPenney this last quarter...so should people stop investing JcPenney and start investing in my lemonade stand?

If your lemonade taste like Chick-Fil-A's, yes.

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

Very few collegiate sports programs are in the green. It's a common misconception.

I think you mean "in the black". So you didnt take business , economics , OR sociology...is Digital Forum Management now an accredited course ? :gooby:

BTW, for anyone saying how football and athletics are a huge cash cow, here is a report put out about budgets dealing with Athletic Departments making money.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/2010RevExp.pdf

* Only 22 out of 119 FBS schools turned a profit in athletics, with the median amount being a 9.4 million dollar loss.
* The average student athlete in FBS cost the school about $72,000 per year.
* Schools without football in the FBS on average had less losses than those that did.
* Schools without football altogether had the least amount of losses on average.

So are they going out of business ?
Im pretty sure having a bowl qualifying team is helping alumni be a little more generous than if the they were fielding the no.34th ranked ladies cricket team.

I see nothing wrong with a small stipend and at the very least what was suggested before on allowing players to get sponsored by local business etc.

 

[Len B]

I think you mean "in the black". So you didnt take business , economics , OR sociology...is Digital Forum Management now an accredited course ? :gooby:

And I'm sure you took a course on trolling semantics. Round of applause for your hard work. :dd:

 

[Senser81]

And I'm sure you took a course on trolling semantics. Round of applause for your hard work. :dd:

He did, but he didn't take it through his college. He took the online correspondence course that I offer to fellow VSNers for $19.95 per session.

 

[FirstTimer]

Schools should pay athletes in the revenue-producing sports of football and men's basketball. Its only fair. .

Sounds nice, but no way legally it ever happens with TitleIX out there

 

[Senser81]

Sounds nice, but no way legally it ever happens with TitleIX out there

Pay the cheerleaders, too.

 

[jms493]

Too much red tape.....if they pay them then aren't they employees of the school? Do they pay taxes on this money? I just dont see how this would ever happen. Get rid of the NCAA and let it be free market? Really? Professional College Football?

 

[NAHSTE]

Too much red tape.....if they pay them then aren't they employees of the school? Do they pay taxes on this money? I just dont see how this would ever happen. Get rid of the NCAA and let it be free market? Really? Professional College Football?

They already are.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Something tells me if you were working 80 hours a week for the university's biggest cash cow, you would feel entitled to some compensation as well. Last I checked, you can't eat tuition or use it to score babes.

Oh please.

If it's such hard "work", quit, and pay your own way through school.

Or, stfu, and take the free ride.

Again, the focus should not be on the .01% of athletes who are headed for the NFL, most of which are using the universities as much as the schools are using them. It cuts both ways.