(10-27-2016 08:45 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-27-2016 06:31 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't think capping expenditures would be near the crisis long-term.

Alabama was able to win a few games with a head coach who never made more than the university president.

In 1975 the head coach at Arkansas State made 85% of what the head coach at Arkansas made. Today the head coach at Arkansas State makes 17.5% of the head coach at Arkansas. I don't think they are getting more than 5x superior coaching over AState. They pay it to be competitive but until very recently the MAC was paying across the board less than the Sun Belt and still was hiring very good coaches.

Can't cap salaries, though. The NCAA lost a lawsuit when they tried to do that to assistant coaches several years ago. Any expenses cap that had the aim of putting a lid on salaries would be attacked in court for the same reasons.

As I said earlier. The Supreme Court indicated you can cap overall spending and cap how much revenue flows into an athletic department from various sources.
The restricted earnings case says you can't cap salary because that is price fixing.

(10-27-2016 09:22 PM)panama Wrote:  

(10-27-2016 04:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-27-2016 07:54 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If I were to guess.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if subsidies (transfers from the school budget, government budget, student fees) weren't eventually capped as a condition of an institution being eligible to receive federal financial aid for students. Maybe no more than 50% or 30% or whatever number of the athletic budget could come from subsidies.

Would be a bit more surprised but not stunned if the regional accreditation bodies did something like that.

In Board of Regents v. NCAA, the Supreme Court said they weren't convinced that limiting TV was the least restrictive way to encourage competitive balance and struck down the NCAA rules on TV, but suggested they would probably look more favorably on caps on spending or caps on revenue sources such as donations or university funds.

There is always a possibility that the mega rich programs might set a spending cap (though a very high one that G5 schools would not be able to reach) to permit them to safely start funneling athletic revenue over to the university budget.

Frankly, I find it hard to come up with a marketing plan that would generate the same level of name recognition, generate similar good will within the region, generate the same level of donations---while providing a popular amenity for students and alumni of the school. There is a significant number of students who have decided their school based upon being a fan of their sports team. When you consider, most HS senior have no idea what they want to eventually major in---a college decision isn't going to be based on how good the astrophysics department is. Its more likely to based on something as silly as a long held affinity for its sports teams that developed over a period of years.

Im never going to be convinced that an athletic department must operate in the black in order to be a benefit to the school. In fact, Im just the opposite. I think the athletic department is effectively the marketing arm of the university. Marketing departments represent an expense item---not a profit center. The beauty of the current college athletic department is that it actually offsets much of its own costs through ticket sales, tv revenue, merchandise sales, and donations. An advertising campaign isn't going to ever do that.

Boom

It's a marketing cost center

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Not arguing that athletics do not have value, I'd have no reason to go back to campus without athletics, but great football can be played without a video board that is 160 feet wide (or more), it can be played without paying $4 million to a head coach or a $1 million to an offensive coordinator.

Athletic departments became flush with cash, partially because of TV, but primarily because of premium seating and mandatory donations for ticket priority and to gain access to premium seating and parking.

They had no clue of what to do with that money. November of 1995 Bobby Bowden signed a $1 million a year coaching contract at Florida State.

If coaching salaries tracked inflation, that would be $1,584,000 today and would put you at 66th in the nation just between Notre Dame and the newly fired coach at Fresno State.
Adjusted for inflation Urban Myer makes 4X what Bowden made and Harbaugh makes 6X. Tom Herman makes 2X, Bob Diaco makes about 10% more than Bowden did in 1995 after adjusting for inflation.

Dollars in the college athletics are like German Marks in the depression. Take a wheelbarrow to buy a loaf of bread.

If schools want to spend like crazy, so be it. But it isn't good to have a situation like Maryland faced where they were within a few years of potentially defaulting on bonds because they weren't generating enough cash flow.

College athletics are not a business. No one has a business for a century that requires constant influx of capital from the owner. There needs to a point where you tell a school I'm sorry, you just have to make due on the $____ million you bring in and stop pulling resources out of the students and the school.

"There needs to a point where you tell a school I'm sorry, you just have to make due on the $____ million you bring in and stop pulling resources out of the students and the school."

Yes, and that is solely the decision of the school's board, president, CFO, and students!!!!!!!

There is no "you", in the sentence, outside that context!

There will be a time that the P5 conference networks will fail to generate money which would mean lost of money for the P5 schools. There are already backlash at people being forced to have those networks that many people do not want.

(10-28-2016 10:26 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  "There needs to a point where you tell a school I'm sorry, you just have to make due on the $____ million you bring in and stop pulling resources out of the students and the school."

Yes, and that is solely the decision of the school's board, president, CFO, and students!!!!!!!

There is no "you", in the sentence, outside that context!

As long as colleges are asking their state government and federal government for direct funds, asking the citizens enrolled in those institutions who are represented by Congressmen and legislators to pay or go elsewhere, those students are being funded by government funded grants, scholarships and government backed loans, and insisting that their athletic activities be deemed charitable activities that may receive donations that are then removed from the taxable income of taxpayers... it is not solely the decision of the school president and board of trustees.

(10-28-2016 06:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 10:26 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  "There needs to a point where you tell a school I'm sorry, you just have to make due on the $____ million you bring in and stop pulling resources out of the students and the school."

Yes, and that is solely the decision of the school's board, president, CFO, and students!!!!!!!

There is no "you", in the sentence, outside that context!

As long as colleges are asking their state government and federal government for direct funds, asking the citizens enrolled in those institutions who are represented by Congressmen and legislators to pay or go elsewhere, those students are being funded by government funded grants, scholarships and government backed loans, and insisting that their athletic activities be deemed charitable activities that may receive donations that are then removed from the taxable income of taxpayers... it is not solely the decision of the school president and board of trustees.

That isnt tjw way ot works in the real world though. More of theoretical happy path.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

(10-28-2016 10:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  College athletics are not a business. No one has a business for a century that requires constant influx of capital from the owner. There needs to a point where you tell a school I'm sorry, you just have to make due on the $____ million you bring in and stop pulling resources out of the students and the school.

Agreed in principle, but put no-subsidy rules in practice, and every D-I athletic department with a subsidy that's at least 40% of their budget would be at risk, and every athletic department with a 70% subsidy would be in grave danger of folding altogether because they could not adjust to the new rules. So it seems very unlikely to be implemented in that way.

A hard cap on subsidies of $10 million/year, with every school subject to an outside audit and violations punished by loss of federal funds? That's at least possible, but still seems a long way away.

There is still enough money flooding into the system - even at the G5 level. If things were that bad, then about a third to 1/2 of the G5 wouldn't have actively built things in the last 3-4 years.

This is much ado about nothing. The ENTIRE FBS gets marketing value from playing top-level football. This isn't about direct ROI. If you're overspending then it's time to axe the AD.

(10-26-2016 12:38 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 11:57 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016...tball-bowl


It seems that the issue with the haves and have nots is going to hurt all the teams at the FBS level down the road. There are issues about anti-trust and all that, and ways to avoid it by having salary caps for coaches and all that. The model as is is unsustainable for even P5 schools. If schools at the FBS drops football or move down to FCS? It would hurt even P5 schools. It is no guarantee that a P5 schools like Duke, Iowa State and some lower rung P5 might face in the future to follow the route of Idaho or UAB. Reform at the D1 level may be needed including a cap on how much a school can spend. This points out from a few months ago about schools from the FCS levels could be brought up as FBS in new conferences to help bring the spending down for all FBS schools in the future. This could be more regional conferences to the conferences in the future. Which means D2 schools could be brought up as well to fill in spots where it is needed.

I think this is more of an idea about Idaho, Montana, Montana State and some others to FBS talk recently.

The NCAA had some caps on salaries (think it was on their part time coaches). They lost in court under the anti-trust act in the last 10 years.

The cap needs to be on total football only expenses. The same would be true of basketball only expenses. Coaches can get whatever they want but it has to fit within the total cap.

The reason for the cap is the costs of the sports has been a major reason for the decline in men's minor sports. Despite the explosion in revenue, participation rates in men's sports have fallen. As a non-profit the mission of the NCAA is to increase participation rates and they are failing.

ark st #45,

I didn't say that. How did you read that???



- "As long as colleges are asking their state government and federal government for direct funds,"

Like I said in another post, it would be perfectly valid for federal and/or state laws requiring certain/all govt funds that flow into the university to be prohibited from transferring to the athletic dept.

The school would have to show that only other forms of cash inflows were being transferred.


- "asking the citizens enrolled in those institutions who are represented by Congressmen and legislators to pay or go elsewhere,"

And I never said cut students out of the loop! Where did you read that???

Students have to vote to approve more student fees. And as I said, eventually students will say no, if you keep going back and back and back to that well.

- "those students are being funded by government funded grants, scholarships and government backed loans,"

See above two points.

- "and insisting that their athletic activities be deemed charitable activities that may receive donations that are then removed from the taxable income of taxpayers... "

And this would be plenty valid justification for why they (the fed and/or state govt) could enact rules prohibiting govt inflows from being transferred to the A.D.

- "it is not solely the decision of the school president and board of trustees."

Yes it is. So long as the above rules are in place, then no one outside the school has any say how much they can choose to spend of their own money on athletics.

Sacto,

So which costs would fall under the "football only expenses"?

Football coaching salaries, obviously. Anything relating to the direct operations of football (travel costs, recruiting budget, football equipment, gameday expenses for the stadium).

But what about things like: weight lifting staff, other support staff (nutrition, training, equipment, student managers, etc.), facilities upgrades, food budget, academic budget (tutors, facilities, supplies - computers etc). You could even argue that scholarships aren't really a football expenses, but that one would get more pushback I bet.

(10-29-2016 09:53 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Sacto,

So which costs would fall under the "football only expenses"?

Football coaching salaries, obviously. Anything relating to the direct operations of football (travel costs, recruiting budget, football equipment, gameday expenses for the stadium).

But what about things like: weight lifting staff, other support staff (nutrition, training, equipment, student managers, etc.), facilities upgrades, food budget, academic budget (tutors, facilities, supplies - computers etc). You could even argue that scholarships aren't really a football expenses, but that one would get more pushback I bet.

Fairly simple. If an asset or facility is purchased solely for the use of the football team it's a football only expense. Big screen TVs over the football players locker a football only expense. A weight room used exclusively by the football team would be a football only expense. A scholarship given to a football player is a football only expense. If the staff only serve football it's a football only expense.

LOL. This is never happening

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

(11-02-2016 06:09 AM)panama Wrote:  LOL. This is never happening

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Lot of nevers in American politics happen.
A Republican president created the EPA by Executive Order.
We entered defense treaties with numerous non-western hemisphere powers.
Supreme Ct flipped to stop striking down New Deal legislation.
Slavery was banned.
Women given the vote.
Voters would never support elected officials cutting higher ed funding.

Just takes the right buttons being pushed at the right moment in time.

(10-28-2016 06:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 10:26 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  "There needs to a point where you tell a school I'm sorry, you just have to make due on the $____ million you bring in and stop pulling resources out of the students and the school."

Yes, and that is solely the decision of the school's board, president, CFO, and students!!!!!!!

There is no "you", in the sentence, outside that context!

As long as colleges are asking their state government and federal government for direct funds, asking the citizens enrolled in those institutions who are represented by Congressmen and legislators to pay or go elsewhere, those students are being funded by government funded grants, scholarships and government backed loans, and insisting that their athletic activities be deemed charitable activities that may receive donations that are then removed from the taxable income of taxpayers... it is not solely the decision of the school president and board of trustees.

That's not the case for the private schools (ND, BC, SU, Duke, etc.) of course, where it truly is the decision of the school president and BOT.

(11-02-2016 08:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 06:09 AM)panama Wrote:  LOL. This is never happening

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Lot of nevers in American politics happen.
A Republican president created the EPA by Executive Order.
We entered defense treaties with numerous non-western hemisphere powers.
Supreme Ct flipped to stop striking down New Deal legislation.
Slavery was banned.
Women given the vote.
Voters would never support elected officials cutting higher ed funding.

Just takes the right buttons being pushed at the right moment in time.

All more likely than Wall Mart fans giving up their right to fantasize that they have a chance to be an elite program. Nobody is going to put a cap on that irrational dream. If anything we live in a time when prevailing thought is going in the opposite direction of that. A pseudo billionaire looney tunes cartoon character is one step from the Presidency. LOL.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk