http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7c3808e77...on-debated

This thing is being discussed in more circles as the lawsuits mount up. I don't think this would have any effect on the NLRB issue, which appears to be a separate matter but also a potential game-changer.

I think it is unlikely to happen unless the schools want to dramatically curb spending and cap student fees.

Most schools are state institutions. The more they make the less government has to fund them. End of story. There will be no antitrust legislation that stops a cash cow to any element of the government.

(05-21-2015 10:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Most schools are state institutions. The more they make the less government has to fund them. End of story. There will be no antitrust legislation that stops a cash cow to any element of the government.

There are only 11 schools taking less than $1.5 million in subsidy. Only 23 taking less than $3 million, 43 taking less than $5 million.

All but 13 of the 43 taking less than $5 million could pour $10 million or more over to academics if they did not have to spend massive dollars in the name of staying competitive.

A $70 million hard cap would see 42 schools pouring over between $3 million and $76 million a year. Come to me seeking anti-trust exemption, you better be offering something, promising to pour $40 million a year over to academics would gain my attention.

I think it's going to happen---but it's going cost them a seat at the table. If they want the anti-trust exemption they will have to submit to some level of regulation and accept some loss of control.

(05-21-2015 11:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  A $70 million hard cap ...

... means you have to convince Texas politicians to support a federal law (and you know how much they love the federal government there) that would force the Longhorns to spend less than half of what they spent last year. And you have to convince them that it's a great idea to give schools with 30 sports the same budget limit as schools with 16. Good luck.

(05-22-2015 12:46 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 11:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  A $70 million hard cap ...

... means you have to convince Texas politicians to support a federal law (and you know how much they love the federal government there) that would force the Longhorns to spend less than half of what they spent last year. And you have to convince them that it's a great idea to give schools with 30 sports the same budget limit as schools with 16. Good luck.

Number of course just used for illustrative purposes but if Texas doesn't want any cap, Texas can stay at status quo without anti-trust protection.

I've always felt that if the Feds get involved the poison pill of nightmares would be a soft cap where you lose Fed dollars on a one for one basis for athletic spending in excess of the number chosen. The second worst would be losing tax deductibility for donations, sponsorships, and advertising expenses if the school exceeds the soft cap.

I am a pragmatist. If you lie down with Congress you are going to get fleas. If schools want anti-trust exemption it is unlikely it happens without giving something or several somethings up. A likely place to look is spending. America at-large isn't super crazy about college athletics (ratings would indicate maybe a third have very much interest) and doing something about spending is going to win votes, especially if couched in terms of providing "new" money for academics.

(05-22-2015 06:20 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 12:46 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 11:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  A $70 million hard cap ...

... means you have to convince Texas politicians to support a federal law (and you know how much they love the federal government there) that would force the Longhorns to spend less than half of what they spent last year. And you have to convince them that it's a great idea to give schools with 30 sports the same budget limit as schools with 16. Good luck.

Number of course just used for illustrative purposes but if Texas doesn't want any cap, Texas can stay at status quo without anti-trust protection.

I've always felt that if the Feds get involved the poison pill of nightmares would be a soft cap where you lose Fed dollars on a one for one basis for athletic spending in excess of the number chosen. The second worst would be losing tax deductibility for donations, sponsorships, and advertising expenses if the school exceeds the soft cap.

I am a pragmatist. If you lie down with Congress you are going to get fleas. If schools want anti-trust exemption it is unlikely it happens without giving something or several somethings up. A likely place to look is spending. America at-large isn't super crazy about college athletics (ratings would indicate maybe a third have very much interest) and doing something about spending is going to win votes, especially if couched in terms of providing "new" money for academics.

Maybe they should just go after subsidies for athletics. I don't have a problem with low-revenue or no-revenue programs using university money to fund athletics, but there are programs with $100 million budgets getting $10 million subsidies, and programs with budgets over $50 million getting half their money from subsidies. If these programs are going to generate revenue but not pay their athletes, then the students and the school shouldn't be paying the athletic department.

You could draw a line at somewhere around $35 million (a bit more for schools with more sports, and somewhat less for schools that don't have football) and say, if your athletics budget is below this line, you can subsidize it with student fees/university funds/government money, and if your athletics budget is above this line, no subsidies whatsoever. If you want to spend more, go for it, as long as you're generating every penny of it from ticket sales, TV, licensing, donations, whatever ... anything but subsidies. Leave the student fees and university funds to finance academics.

(05-22-2015 11:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 06:20 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 12:46 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 11:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  A $70 million hard cap ...

... means you have to convince Texas politicians to support a federal law (and you know how much they love the federal government there) that would force the Longhorns to spend less than half of what they spent last year. And you have to convince them that it's a great idea to give schools with 30 sports the same budget limit as schools with 16. Good luck.

Number of course just used for illustrative purposes but if Texas doesn't want any cap, Texas can stay at status quo without anti-trust protection.

I've always felt that if the Feds get involved the poison pill of nightmares would be a soft cap where you lose Fed dollars on a one for one basis for athletic spending in excess of the number chosen. The second worst would be losing tax deductibility for donations, sponsorships, and advertising expenses if the school exceeds the soft cap.

I am a pragmatist. If you lie down with Congress you are going to get fleas. If schools want anti-trust exemption it is unlikely it happens without giving something or several somethings up. A likely place to look is spending. America at-large isn't super crazy about college athletics (ratings would indicate maybe a third have very much interest) and doing something about spending is going to win votes, especially if couched in terms of providing "new" money for academics.

Maybe they should just go after subsidies for athletics. I don't have a problem with low-revenue or no-revenue programs using university money to fund athletics, but there are programs with $100 million budgets getting $10 million subsidies, and programs with budgets over $50 million getting half their money from subsidies. If these programs are going to generate revenue but not pay their athletes, then the students and the school shouldn't be paying the athletic department.

You could draw a line at somewhere around $35 million (a bit more for schools with more sports, and somewhat less for schools that don't have football) and say, if your athletics budget is below this line, you can subsidize it with student fees/university funds/government money, and if your athletics budget is above this line, no subsidies whatsoever. If you want to spend more, go for it, as long as you're generating every penny of it from ticket sales, TV, licensing, donations, whatever ... anything but subsidies. Leave the student fees and university funds to finance academics.

I counted like 18 schools last night in FBS who require a greater subsidy than UAB.

I could support the $35 million test as long as there is some sort of subsidy cap. Say if you spend more than $15 million on athletics, no more than 75% can be from university or student generated money. If you hit $20 million cap becomes 60% at $25 million no more than 50%.

Every school has been subsidized at some point. UArk for a number of years was able to run in the black before the SEC became such an expensive address and people asked why the remaining schools couldn't run independent when Arkansas didn't need government help. Well the school bought the land for the facilities, the WPA built the core of the current stadium and built the arena they finally replaced, the school subsidized them for years and that investment finally paid off with a program that could function independently.

It's still an educational endeavor, Title IX says so, but there do need to be reasonable controls in place to insure spending stays within the level of a reasonable burden to the school and students. If you can't afford FBS or even non-football Division I without essentially all the dollars coming from the school, you should seek appropriate classification to build your program.

(05-21-2015 11:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 10:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Most schools are state institutions. The more they make the less government has to fund them. End of story. There will be no antitrust legislation that stops a cash cow to any element of the government.

There are only 11 schools taking less than $1.5 million in subsidy. Only 23 taking less than $3 million, 43 taking less than $5 million.

All but 13 of the 43 taking less than $5 million could pour $10 million or more over to academics if they did not have to spend massive dollars in the name of staying competitive.

A $70 million hard cap would see 42 schools pouring over between $3 million and $76 million a year. Come to me seeking anti-trust exemption, you better be offering something, promising to pour $40 million a year over to academics would gain my attention.

That figure may be doable. But I'd be interested to see what the mean was for the present P5. It seems to me that two things would happen if we used the mean. 1. All conferences would do a little house cleaning which would only strengthen the competition for the surviving upper tier. 2. I think some fans who have dropped by the wayside would buy back in if they saw it actually contributing to the mission of the school. The fans we have now buy into the football success, but those we've lost along the way might see that as their opportunity to mend fences and support their schools again.

(05-22-2015 12:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 11:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 10:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Most schools are state institutions. The more they make the less government has to fund them. End of story. There will be no antitrust legislation that stops a cash cow to any element of the government.

There are only 11 schools taking less than $1.5 million in subsidy. Only 23 taking less than $3 million, 43 taking less than $5 million.

All but 13 of the 43 taking less than $5 million could pour $10 million or more over to academics if they did not have to spend massive dollars in the name of staying competitive.

A $70 million hard cap would see 42 schools pouring over between $3 million and $76 million a year. Come to me seeking anti-trust exemption, you better be offering something, promising to pour $40 million a year over to academics would gain my attention.

That figure may be doable. But I'd be interested to see what the mean was for the present P5. It seems to me that two things would happen if we used the mean. 1. All conferences would do a little house cleaning which would only strengthen the competition for the surviving upper tier. 2. I think some fans who have dropped by the wayside would buy back in if they saw it actually contributing to the mission of the school. The fans we have now buy into the football success, but those we've lost along the way might see that as their opportunity to mend fences and support their schools again.

JR, Auburn's budget is over $100 million/year according to http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ . The SEC median would be between Kentucky, 7th in the SEC at about $94 million, and Arkansas, 8th in the SEC at $92 million.

(05-22-2015 01:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 12:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 11:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 10:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Most schools are state institutions. The more they make the less government has to fund them. End of story. There will be no antitrust legislation that stops a cash cow to any element of the government.

There are only 11 schools taking less than $1.5 million in subsidy. Only 23 taking less than $3 million, 43 taking less than $5 million.

All but 13 of the 43 taking less than $5 million could pour $10 million or more over to academics if they did not have to spend massive dollars in the name of staying competitive.

A $70 million hard cap would see 42 schools pouring over between $3 million and $76 million a year. Come to me seeking anti-trust exemption, you better be offering something, promising to pour $40 million a year over to academics would gain my attention.

That figure may be doable. But I'd be interested to see what the mean was for the present P5. It seems to me that two things would happen if we used the mean. 1. All conferences would do a little house cleaning which would only strengthen the competition for the surviving upper tier. 2. I think some fans who have dropped by the wayside would buy back in if they saw it actually contributing to the mission of the school. The fans we have now buy into the football success, but those we've lost along the way might see that as their opportunity to mend fences and support their schools again.

JR, Auburn's budget is over $100 million/year according to http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ . The SEC median would be between Kentucky, 7th in the SEC at about $94 million, and Arkansas, 8th in the SEC at $92 million.

Yeah I know what the median is in the SEC. My musing was over the median for all of the P5. I think if that was the number set it might be closer to 70 than to 94. Then as I stated there would be some house cleaning to bring that mean up to establish the norm. I think for an upper tier that might be healthy.

(05-22-2015 01:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 01:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 12:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 11:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 10:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Most schools are state institutions. The more they make the less government has to fund them. End of story. There will be no antitrust legislation that stops a cash cow to any element of the government.

There are only 11 schools taking less than $1.5 million in subsidy. Only 23 taking less than $3 million, 43 taking less than $5 million.

All but 13 of the 43 taking less than $5 million could pour $10 million or more over to academics if they did not have to spend massive dollars in the name of staying competitive.

A $70 million hard cap would see 42 schools pouring over between $3 million and $76 million a year. Come to me seeking anti-trust exemption, you better be offering something, promising to pour $40 million a year over to academics would gain my attention.

That figure may be doable. But I'd be interested to see what the mean was for the present P5. It seems to me that two things would happen if we used the mean. 1. All conferences would do a little house cleaning which would only strengthen the competition for the surviving upper tier. 2. I think some fans who have dropped by the wayside would buy back in if they saw it actually contributing to the mission of the school. The fans we have now buy into the football success, but those we've lost along the way might see that as their opportunity to mend fences and support their schools again.

JR, Auburn's budget is over $100 million/year according to http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ . The SEC median would be between Kentucky, 7th in the SEC at about $94 million, and Arkansas, 8th in the SEC at $92 million.

Yeah I know what the median is in the SEC. My musing was over the median for all of the P5. I think if that was the number set it might be closer to 70 than to 94. Then as I stated there would be some house cleaning to bring that mean up to establish the norm. I think for an upper tier that might be healthy.

Whether you set it at 70 or 80 million, it could never get through Congress. How many Alabama representatives in Congress would vote for a federal law that forces Bama and Auburn to cut more than $20 million out of their annual athletic budgets while having no effect on the budgets at Ole Miss or Mizzou?

(05-22-2015 02:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 01:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 01:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 12:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 11:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There are only 11 schools taking less than $1.5 million in subsidy. Only 23 taking less than $3 million, 43 taking less than $5 million.

All but 13 of the 43 taking less than $5 million could pour $10 million or more over to academics if they did not have to spend massive dollars in the name of staying competitive.

A $70 million hard cap would see 42 schools pouring over between $3 million and $76 million a year. Come to me seeking anti-trust exemption, you better be offering something, promising to pour $40 million a year over to academics would gain my attention.

That figure may be doable. But I'd be interested to see what the mean was for the present P5. It seems to me that two things would happen if we used the mean. 1. All conferences would do a little house cleaning which would only strengthen the competition for the surviving upper tier. 2. I think some fans who have dropped by the wayside would buy back in if they saw it actually contributing to the mission of the school. The fans we have now buy into the football success, but those we've lost along the way might see that as their opportunity to mend fences and support their schools again.

JR, Auburn's budget is over $100 million/year according to http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ . The SEC median would be between Kentucky, 7th in the SEC at about $94 million, and Arkansas, 8th in the SEC at $92 million.

Yeah I know what the median is in the SEC. My musing was over the median for all of the P5. I think if that was the number set it might be closer to 70 than to 94. Then as I stated there would be some house cleaning to bring that mean up to establish the norm. I think for an upper tier that might be healthy.

Whether you set it at 70 or 80 million, it could never get through Congress. How many Alabama representatives in Congress would vote for a federal law that forces Bama and Auburn to cut more than $20 million out of their annual athletic budgets while having no effect on the budgets at Ole Miss or Mizzou?

I thought the point here was to make as much as you possibly can with the athletic budget but cap it's operational expenses so that the excess was funneled back into the classroom? Would those responsible for appropriations vote for that? Quite possibly. Especially if nobody could spend any more than their schools could spend.

(05-22-2015 02:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 01:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 01:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 12:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 11:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There are only 11 schools taking less than $1.5 million in subsidy. Only 23 taking less than $3 million, 43 taking less than $5 million.

All but 13 of the 43 taking less than $5 million could pour $10 million or more over to academics if they did not have to spend massive dollars in the name of staying competitive.

A $70 million hard cap would see 42 schools pouring over between $3 million and $76 million a year. Come to me seeking anti-trust exemption, you better be offering something, promising to pour $40 million a year over to academics would gain my attention.

That figure may be doable. But I'd be interested to see what the mean was for the present P5. It seems to me that two things would happen if we used the mean. 1. All conferences would do a little house cleaning which would only strengthen the competition for the surviving upper tier. 2. I think some fans who have dropped by the wayside would buy back in if they saw it actually contributing to the mission of the school. The fans we have now buy into the football success, but those we've lost along the way might see that as their opportunity to mend fences and support their schools again.

JR, Auburn's budget is over $100 million/year according to http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ . The SEC median would be between Kentucky, 7th in the SEC at about $94 million, and Arkansas, 8th in the SEC at $92 million.

Yeah I know what the median is in the SEC. My musing was over the median for all of the P5. I think if that was the number set it might be closer to 70 than to 94. Then as I stated there would be some house cleaning to bring that mean up to establish the norm. I think for an upper tier that might be healthy.

Whether you set it at 70 or 80 million, it could never get through Congress. How many Alabama representatives in Congress would vote for a federal law that forces Bama and Auburn to cut more than $20 million out of their annual athletic budgets while having no effect on the budgets at Ole Miss or Mizzou?

I bet there is a long list of legislation that has been adopted without votes from the Alabama congressional delegation.

Does making higher ed more self-sufficent cause enough heartburn to derail when reducing government spending on higher ed is a popular theme? The state of Alabama is a different critter.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/upshot....html?_r=0

Heck set the cap at whatever Texas spends and turn the cap over to the Secretary of Education to adjust by CPI rate as soon as say 50 schools hit the cap.

Set the cap at $70 million adjusted annually upward by CPI rate and give schools 10 years to comply.

The thing is most of college athletics wounds are self-inflicted.

We got rid of the stipend because we had a lousy economy and didn't know the impact of Title IX, when revenue caught back up in the late 80's no one bothered to reinstate the stipend and instead the salary and facilities arms race took off.

Then when a sensible stipend was proposed the FCS and non-football schools killed it and we end up instead of the ridiculous COA imposed out of the O'Bannon case tying it to financial aid calculations that the judge didn't understand nor did the plaintiffs or most of the defense.

The money dash just made the gap between a scholarship and full cost more noticeable.

But I agree with the point that if people know part of their ticket purchase is pouring over to academics college athletics becomes an even bigger deal. I'd love to see it just for the day when a Faculty Senate adopts a no-confidence resolution because the President and AD in their opinion aren't doing enough to maximize athletic revenie.

(05-21-2015 10:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Most schools are state institutions. The more they make the less government has to fund them. End of story. There will be no antitrust legislation that stops a cash cow to any element of the government.

It could happen if you are from a state that do not have any schools in the P5 conferences. The best thing for these conferences in the P5 is to take schools like Boise State, Hawaii, Alaska-Fairbanks(if they re-start their football), Montana, Wyoming, Nevada/UNLV, New Mexico, North Dakota State, South Dakota State, Vermont, Delaware, URI, U. Conn., New Hampshire and Maine. Maybe add schools just to avoid headaches who are making noise like Houston, UAB, Northern Illinois, Cincinnati, BYU, East Carolina, Eastern Washington, Memphis and several others as long as it will satisfy everybody.

(05-22-2015 02:24 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I bet there is a long list of legislation that has been adopted without votes from the Alabama congressional delegation.

Does making higher ed more self-sufficent cause enough heartburn to derail when reducing government spending on higher ed is a popular theme? The state of Alabama is a different critter.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/upshot....html?_r=0

Heck set the cap at whatever Texas spends and turn the cap over to the Secretary of Education to adjust by CPI rate as soon as say 50 schools hit the cap.

That would be politicallly doable, though that would make the cap $147 million/year (more than $50 million more than the SEC median, as discussed above) and legislators might say, why bother setting any cap if it's that high.

(05-22-2015 02:24 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 02:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 01:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 01:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 12:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  That figure may be doable. But I'd be interested to see what the mean was for the present P5. It seems to me that two things would happen if we used the mean. 1. All conferences would do a little house cleaning which would only strengthen the competition for the surviving upper tier. 2. I think some fans who have dropped by the wayside would buy back in if they saw it actually contributing to the mission of the school. The fans we have now buy into the football success, but those we've lost along the way might see that as their opportunity to mend fences and support their schools again.

JR, Auburn's budget is over $100 million/year according to http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ . The SEC median would be between Kentucky, 7th in the SEC at about $94 million, and Arkansas, 8th in the SEC at $92 million.

Yeah I know what the median is in the SEC. My musing was over the median for all of the P5. I think if that was the number set it might be closer to 70 than to 94. Then as I stated there would be some house cleaning to bring that mean up to establish the norm. I think for an upper tier that might be healthy.

Whether you set it at 70 or 80 million, it could never get through Congress. How many Alabama representatives in Congress would vote for a federal law that forces Bama and Auburn to cut more than $20 million out of their annual athletic budgets while having no effect on the budgets at Ole Miss or Mizzou?

I bet there is a long list of legislation that has been adopted without votes from the Alabama congressional delegation.

Does making higher ed more self-sufficent cause enough heartburn to derail when reducing government spending on higher ed is a popular theme? The state of Alabama is a different critter.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/upshot....html?_r=0

Heck set the cap at whatever Texas spends and turn the cap over to the Secretary of Education to adjust by CPI rate as soon as say 50 schools hit the cap.

Set the cap at $70 million adjusted annually upward by CPI rate and give schools 10 years to comply.

The thing is most of college athletics wounds are self-inflicted.

We got rid of the stipend because we had a lousy economy and didn't know the impact of Title IX, when revenue caught back up in the late 80's no one bothered to reinstate the stipend and instead the salary and facilities arms race took off.

Then when a sensible stipend was proposed the FCS and non-football schools killed it and we end up instead of the ridiculous COA imposed out of the O'Bannon case tying it to financial aid calculations that the judge didn't understand nor did the plaintiffs or most of the defense.

The money dash just made the gap between a scholarship and full cost more noticeable.

But I agree with the point that if people know part of their ticket purchase is pouring over to academics college athletics becomes an even bigger deal. I'd love to see it just for the day when a Faculty Senate adopts a no-confidence resolution because the President and AD in their opinion aren't doing enough to maximize athletic revenie.

The SEC is the top earning conference in the nation. If we would agree to level the playing field in Alabama I bet you those who earn less would even be more likely to support the legislation, particularly if it avoids anti-trust legislation. The question would be what would the Texas, Michigan, and Ohio delegations vote to do? All legislators who deal with budgetary issues would love to see the athletics departments of successful state schools relieve part of their burden. I'm sure that sentiment is not alien to the nation's Congress.