(05-21-2015 09:00 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 07:47 AM)MemTigerFan Wrote:  

(05-20-2015 09:31 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  First, I think we have some time before this is resolved --- I suspect his thing is going to the Supreme Court.

Second, check out just how many states whose Highest Paid public employee is a sports coach. I mean how does Calipari get paid 8 million? Answer - don't pay the help and all that extra money has to go somewhere.

Third, don't be deluded, this ain't the beginning of end of college sports as we know it IMO. That may be bad or good --- but there will be something worked out - after it all. Why would big time players, big time programs, and big time money want to even risk the destruction of big time, big money, college sports? Just my opinion -- trolls.

the school/state doesn't pay all that money. They pay very little. So not paying the coaches ridiculous salaries (which should change anyway) would not free up any state money to pay the students.

I donlt think it matters how much the state pays --- it's the money that's out there that matters and drives these salaries. The fact that all of that TV money, booster money, gate money, bowl money can't go to the players doesn't mean that the desire to influence the game in order to get some of those millions goes away. So when I say 'that money has to go somewhere' - it expresses itself in big coaches salaries and gold plated lockers. Everybody is making a boat-load of money--the schools, the coaches, the TV networks--except for the players themselves --

take away the schools (except for a handful of maybe 10-15 teams) and you are right. But the schools don't make money hand over fist, all but a select few operate in the red on the athletics side.

Which is why it does matter what the state(school) pays. As a whole they can't afford to turn players into employees (nor ethically should they be employees). Nor would most student athletes want to go this route if they were actually explained what all it would mean and how much it would cost them.

(05-21-2015 09:16 AM)MemTigerFan Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 09:00 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 07:47 AM)MemTigerFan Wrote:  

(05-20-2015 09:31 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  First, I think we have some time before this is resolved --- I suspect his thing is going to the Supreme Court.

Second, check out just how many states whose Highest Paid public employee is a sports coach. I mean how does Calipari get paid 8 million? Answer - don't pay the help and all that extra money has to go somewhere.

Third, don't be deluded, this ain't the beginning of end of college sports as we know it IMO. That may be bad or good --- but there will be something worked out - after it all. Why would big time players, big time programs, and big time money want to even risk the destruction of big time, big money, college sports? Just my opinion -- trolls.

the school/state doesn't pay all that money. They pay very little. So not paying the coaches ridiculous salaries (which should change anyway) would not free up any state money to pay the students.

I donlt think it matters how much the state pays --- it's the money that's out there that matters and drives these salaries. The fact that all of that TV money, booster money, gate money, bowl money can't go to the players doesn't mean that the desire to influence the game in order to get some of those millions goes away. So when I say 'that money has to go somewhere' - it expresses itself in big coaches salaries and gold plated lockers. Everybody is making a boat-load of money--the schools, the coaches, the TV networks--except for the players themselves --

take away the schools (except for a handful of maybe 10-15 teams) and you are right. But the schools don't make money hand over fist, all but a select few operate in the red on the athletics side.

Which is why it does matter what the state(school) pays. As a whole they can't afford to turn players into employees (nor ethically should they be employees). Nor would most student athletes want to go this route if they were actually explained what all it would mean and how much it would cost them.

Don't know man --- I have a hard time believing that schools are really losing money and investing / paying coaches millions in facilities and salaries order to do it. I'm sure the majority of student athletes in this country are not in revenue producing sports --- and I mean 'for real' - not just on the books. And two sports, football and basketball, at a small portion of schools are generating profits --- on the books. But at the same time I do wonder what we're really looking at post-UAB. Take a look at UAB's situation --- where costs of tuition where one of the big money items in running their football program. After a revisit by an auditing firm those "costs" where reduced to near zero --- why? Because none of those athletes were taking the place of real money paying students --- they were merely filling another open seat in a classroom. There are lots of ways to declare your program 'in the red' without really being there. I suggest looking at UAB's football situation, which will now be re-determined June 1 in light of this, for other examples of abusing numbers. All that not withstanding -- reason tells you that if all of those schools were really losing all that money more schools than just UAB would have shut down their program. So I'm suspicious ---

on the books, they lose money. From a cash flow perspective, they do not.

(05-20-2015 01:20 PM)fsquid Wrote:  If US colleges want to get into the entertainment business (which they are now), then time to pay up. Also, any scholarship money that goes to room and board is supposed to be taxable. But, I'm assuming the IRS is so understaffed they haven't thought of that.

+1

(05-21-2015 10:56 AM)fsquid Wrote:  on the books, they lose money. From a cash flow perspective, they do not.

exactly.

Athletics are almost like a loss leader in sales. The specific item loses money, but the store makes more due to the item being in existence (many people don't buy just that one thing). Same thing with sports. Most programs basically do lose money, BUT that is acceptable to schools due to the other money that actually comes in because of it. Billions of dollars are donated to universities because of sports teams, which in turn build new facilities (sports related and classroom related). I'm not saying schools only get donations due to sports, far from it, but they do get a very large due to it, not to mention the boosts they can get from former players who happen to make it big.

(05-20-2015 11:51 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  I have to respect ND for that statement.

So do I. College athletes should absolutely be considered students first. I am fully aware that we have drifted away from that ideal to a certain degree, but that should always be the goal.

(05-21-2015 04:33 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(05-20-2015 11:51 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  I have to respect ND for that statement.

So do I. College athletes should absolutely be considered students first. I am fully aware that we have drifted away from that ideal to a certain degree, but that should always be the goal.

The Ivy League schools are examples. I can certainly see where some elite academic schools, like Notre Dame and maybe Tulane, might see themselves drifting more toward acting like Kentucky basketball or Alabama football and away from their core mission --- and making a change.

I can't, they have a NBC deal

(05-22-2015 05:55 AM)fsquid Wrote:  I can't, they have a NBC deal

Yup. ND can't play aggrieved party here. They've been making millions on that NBC deal on the backs of their "student athletes." If they feel so strongly about this, give up that NBC contract.

ND fighting the good fight?

I'll believe it when I see it. But if they do I wil have respect for them drawing a line in the sand.