NCAA, conferences: Scholarships would be cut if players are paid
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...n/25170025
The NCAA and the conferences said most Division I athletic departments operate with deficits and face serious financial constraints that would result in cutting scholarships if there's unlimited payments to players. As an example, the NCAA and conferences cite UAB dropping football last December, “determining that the program was too expensive to be sustainable.” Not mentioned in the filing was the politics associated with the UAB decision and what might happen to UAB's revenue without football assuming it's kicked out of Conference USA.
Bring on the lawsuit. I know a couple of people who will make GREAT sworn witnesses!
Oh yeah. I'd love to see some people sworn in and testify to the finances of UAB Football.
I can name a few people that I would love to see under oath on a witness stand.
There are a few people I'd love to get testimony from.
Just wanted to feel like one of the gang.
It might even be more fun to get a good discovery process going.
Just proves the cluelessness of the NCAA.
NCAA has already lost that argument. Question is wheither CSS will try to use same expense reporting of athletic scholarships the NCAA likes to use to cover its rear end. The doughnut shop analogy Andy Schwarz used pretty much shots the NCAA method down.
(05-01-2015 01:55 PM)KevMo4UAB Wrote: [ -> ]Just proves the cluelessness of the NCAA.
The NCAA is not clueless. It simply has a limited agenda centered around maintaining as long as possible the "plantation culture" of the present day university athletic world. It wants to keep all money in the hands of the athletic administrators , coaches and university Presidents.
As it is now, every penny in the present system flows from the athletic boosters to the Athletic administration and on to the school's treasury without any going in cash to the athletes who make it all possible. All means for these athletes to derive any funds for their own use have been outlawed by NCAA regulations to "protect" their amateur status.
The NCAA simply wants to keep it all the same way it has always been done.
Also, for this all to take hold, NCAA institutions may have to open their books to outside scrutiny. NONE of them want that. Tons of missing and unaccounted-for monies...Not to mention the fallacy of their accounting that would be further exposed.
(05-01-2015 02:48 PM)blzrclub80 Wrote: [ -> ]NCAA has already lost that argument. Question is wheither CSS will try to use same expense reporting of athletic scholarships the NCAA likes to use to cover its rear end. The doughnut shop analogy Andy Schwarz used pretty much shots the NCAA method down.
I think CSS is well aware of the OSKR report and their methodology.
(05-01-2015 02:57 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]The NCAA is not clueless. It simply has a limited agenda centered around maintaining as long as possible the "plantation culture" of the present day university athletic world.
If the college athletics business is compared to a plantation, let's at least reflect on the fact that it's a plantation where nobody has to stay for one minute longer than they want to. It's a plantation where people voluntarily show up and voluntarily remain until they want to leave (which can be on a moment's notice), and where people basically
Must leave after 5 years. At which point, a lucky few of those people will then be paid incredible sums of money in exchange for exhibiting the skills they honed while on the plantation.
(05-01-2015 04:39 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2015 02:48 PM)blzrclub80 Wrote: [ -> ]NCAA has already lost that argument. Question is wheither CSS will try to use same expense reporting of athletic scholarships the NCAA likes to use to cover its rear end. The doughnut shop analogy Andy Schwarz used pretty much shots the NCAA method down.
I think CSS is well aware of the OSKR report and their methodology.
Yep, but that doesn't mean they buy OSKR's methodology, or even if they do it doesn't mean they will use it. The NCAA and all of its members have been using their cost accounting system for years and it has served them well so they aren't about to abandon it without a fight. Remember Watts is paying the bill and that CSS's future business depends on NCAA members that all use that cost accounting system. So if I were the sort of person who would make a wager ......
I think CSS is playing it straight. We'll see soon.
(05-02-2015 09:48 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote: [ -> ]I think CSS is playing it straight. We'll see soon.
I really hope you're right, but I have my doubts. OSKR says that UAB football makes money and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. I preparing myself for a CSS report that will say it is losing money, that there is a donut hole of some size that won't be filled unless something changes.
What I am hoping is that we can not only fill that donut hole, but that we can also build the facilities which the football program will need to be successful. If that is the case, unless Watts wants to paint himself as the evilest villain in the history of college sports, the program will not only come back, but it will comeback infinitely stronger.
And yea, I know that Watts is fully capable of just about anything in the service of his evil masters. Maybe that is their plan, to keep Watts in place to totally destroy UAB so they can build it back according to their blueprint.
Cajun, I think any straight accounting is going to say that the athletic department runs something of a deficit. I don't doubt it. Nationwide, most of them do. There are several questions that come along with that. What is the exposure worth to UAB in terms of attracting students and name recognition? What is it worth in terms of the loyalty to the school that athletic events build in the undergrads, and how does that further translate into later donations by alums? To what degree are the alumni, boosters, and fans willing to help financially with that? How much can and should UAB contribute to help build a successful program?
And then of course there are the biggest questions of all - Will Watts allow us to build a functional athletic department or will he kill it out of hand (again)? Will the BoT allow us to build a functioning athletic department, or will they step in to try to smother the baby in the crib (again)?
I'm much more worried about the last two than I am CSS.
A couple of things...
When the shutdown announcement was made word was leaked that the the city of Birmingham and others(Football Foundation/boosters?) had been having (fruitful?) discussions about a joint-use stadium. It this is true, I see no reason this could not move forward toward a more concrete reality. I know the "multi-purpose facility" is a goal for Birmingham, but in the short term, I think most would agree that a 30-40K stadium is necessary not only for UAB but for Birmingham. I would also suspect that said proposal involved property near UAB(within walking distance?). There was talk some years ago about property near UAB being proposed as a WalMart site and then as a remote parking lot for UAB. While not be best possible solution, it would probably be acceptable to most if this meant a guarantee of FBS football returning to the Southside.
The question arises as to which "set of books"/accounting philosophy CSS will use. The Watts numbers cannot be trusted in any respect. And the NCAA-reported numbers are biased toward the NCAA agenda. I have no doubt that CSS knows of and understands the OSKR economics position as it pertains to college athletics and also that their report will be widely scrutinized by university presidents, ADs, and BOTs, as well as, the NCAA, national media, and those on both sides of any NCAA-focused litigation. It's not too much of a stretch to say that their report could be one of the most important and influential of modern times given the current state of college athletics. This report could make or break CSS and similar organizations - do you give an unbiased report or a report based on who hires you. I'm sure they will keep this in mind and hope to deliver a report that can stand up to said scrutiny. In any event, I suspect OSKR will be paying close attention as their reputation is on the line, as well.
Thirdly, Watts and the Carr report indicated the "goal" was to establish guidelines that would make UAB successful in competing for championships in CUSA. Watts further indicated in creating the Athletics Task Force that their focus was to be based on typical CUSA athletics. If that is indeed the case UAB was already in that position as we were/are in the middle of CUSA in most categories in terms of budget, subsidies, etc.
Finally, we all know Watts cannot be trusted to keep his or tell the truth. He has not yet admitted he has erred in any way and I suspect he will continue this no matter what the CSS report says. So, we should expect to have to go above and beyond whatever CSS sets as a minimum "goal" or expectation or as necessary.
By now, I give no credence to anything that Watts says. He has lied repeatedly to all comers.
His decisions and actions tell us everything we need to know.
CSS is in a pickle, because the have personal financial advantage for future studies to show net-positive and net-negative revenue for programs depending on who funds the study, and the UAB study has competing interests with widely-different interests in the outcome. The best outcome for CSS themselves is that they find a revenue-neutral UAB Football program. It lets the interested parties both claim victory and continue to fight it out.
Sadly, I think the CSS findings will fall within the margin of error for revenue-neutral, and it is because of the reasons I outlined.
(05-02-2015 10:28 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote: [ -> ]Cajun, I think any straight accounting is going to say that the athletic department runs something of a deficit. I don't doubt it. Nationwide, most of them do. There are several questions that come along with that. What is the exposure worth to UAB in terms of attracting students and name recognition? What is it worth in terms of the loyalty to the school that athletic events build in the undergrads, and how does that further translate into later donations by alums? To what degree are the alumni, boosters, and fans willing to help financially with that? How much can and should UAB contribute to help build a successful program?
And then of course there are the biggest questions of all - Will Watts allow us to build a functional athletic department or will he kill it out of hand (again)? Will the BoT allow us to build a functioning athletic department, or will they step in to try to smother the baby in the crib (again)?
I'm much more worried about the last two than I am CSS.
Well said.