(05-08-2013 08:31 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 07:14 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  That proposed $2,000.00 payment is an attempt to gain another recruiting advantage. They are just buying the athletes.

It is better than luring them to your school then telling them they can't get a job, can't accept gifts, and expect they will just sit around their dorms studying all night while their classmates go to the movies.

Then they need to just call it what it really is. It is the same money that the boosters where already giving to the athletes, except the schools just want to hand it out themselves above board. It is just to gain the recruiting advantage; nothing more and nothing less, because 2 grand in cash to a poor college student from an impoverished background is like a million dollars.

It is a real sleazy business by about 60 schools to try to chop down about a 100 other schools.

(05-08-2013 08:57 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 08:31 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 07:14 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  That proposed $2,000.00 payment is an attempt to gain another recruiting advantage. They are just buying the athletes.

It is better than luring them to your school then telling them they can't get a job, can't accept gifts, and expect they will just sit around their dorms studying all night while their classmates go to the movies.

Just to stir it up, not all these kids are poverty stricken. Maybe from the 10s of thousands of dollars their families don't have to spend to send them to school like the parents of non athletes do they can scrap up $10 for a movie ticket

They might not all be poverty stricken but there are a lot of them going to these schools they can't afford to attend and couldn't get into on their own then they aren't given any options to make up the funding gap between them and their classmates.

If this happens that just makes big time college football and basketball more and more like the pro brand.........boring as heck. And it makes FCS all that much more appealing.

Maybe we should just have a do over.....put up a sign (or send it out on social media in this day and time I guess) on the bulletin board on the first day of classes in the fall, "football tryouts 3pm, must be a fulltime student".

(05-08-2013 09:03 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 08:31 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 07:14 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  That proposed $2,000.00 payment is an attempt to gain another recruiting advantage. They are just buying the athletes.

It is better than luring them to your school then telling them they can't get a job, can't accept gifts, and expect they will just sit around their dorms studying all night while their classmates go to the movies.

Then they need to just call it what it really is. It is the same money that the boosters where already giving to the athletes, except the schools just want to hand it out themselves above board. It is just to gain the recruiting advantage; nothing more and nothing less, because 2 grand in cash to a poor college student from an impoverished background is like a million dollars.

It is a real sleazy business by about 60 schools to try to chop down about a 100 other schools.

It is the same money schools are giving kids on academic and needs based scholarships. If people are going to be invited to school to play sports it isn't as though the need for living expenses is any less than those there for other reasons. The NCAA has restricted their options with respect to getting jobs and taking money that would otherwise be offered to them. So I think a small stipend is the least you can do.

(05-08-2013 09:06 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  If this happens that just makes big time college football and basketball more and more like the pro brand.........boring as heck. And it makes FCS all that much more appealing.

Maybe we should just have a do over.....put up a sign (or send it out on social media in this day and time I guess) on the bulletin board on the first day of classes in the fall, "football tryouts 3pm, must be a fulltime student".

That $5.40/day they want to give the students to live off of is the difference between being an amateur and a pro to you?

(05-08-2013 09:11 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 09:06 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  If this happens that just makes big time college football and basketball more and more like the pro brand.........boring as heck. And it makes FCS all that much more appealing.

Maybe we should just have a do over.....put up a sign (or send it out on social media in this day and time I guess) on the bulletin board on the first day of classes in the fall, "football tryouts 3pm, must be a fulltime student".

That $5.40/day they want to give the students to live off of is the difference between being an amateur and a pro to you?

They are going to a university for free. In many cases had they not been recruited to play football or basketball they wouldn't have been admitted because they wouldn't have qualified academically. Why not just hire them to play and not require them to be a student at all? The ones that qualify academically and wanted to could take classes during the off season and the others could work for the university. Thus they are the schools team but not necessarily the schools students.

I support the idea of paying players. The universities are essentially running minor league sports programs and the players should be treated as the professionals that they are with appropriate wages.

The problem is that the numbers don't work. There are fewer than 2 dozen public universities whose athletic departments make a profit. A handful of privates can be added to that list. In many cases, the profit margin is very small. Paying players would make the list of profitable schools even smaller.

(05-08-2013 09:24 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 09:11 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 09:06 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  If this happens that just makes big time college football and basketball more and more like the pro brand.........boring as heck. And it makes FCS all that much more appealing.

Maybe we should just have a do over.....put up a sign (or send it out on social media in this day and time I guess) on the bulletin board on the first day of classes in the fall, "football tryouts 3pm, must be a fulltime student".

That $5.40/day they want to give the students to live off of is the difference between being an amateur and a pro to you?

They are going to a university for free. In many cases had they not been recruited to play football or basketball they wouldn't have been admitted because they wouldn't have qualified academically. Why not just hire them to play and not require them to be a student at all? The ones that qualify academically and wanted to could take classes during the off season and the others could work for the university. Thus they are the schools team but not necessarily the schools students.

I didn't qualify for need based aid. I got about 2k in academic scholarships each semester while I was at school. Our department had a pretty good list of scholarships and would make sure they spread them around to everyone. It pretty much covered books and part of one month's rent. I did have a part time job too.

I don't think 2k is an unreasonable living allowance for a student that you aren't allowing to have any job or academic scholarships. It really isn't fair to them.

You can say they are getting their education for free which is true. However if you don't have the funds for college you could apply for need-based scholarships and they would cover more than the actual cost of your attendance. You do get living expenses from them. You could apply under academic scholarships if you work hard enough. You could get a job to make up any funding gap. The students going on athletic scholarship don't have those options though. It isn't just as simple as "you get your education free". There are costs of just being alive that you need to cover. Free education is great if you can afford to live with no job and no family assistance.

(05-08-2013 09:26 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I support the idea of paying players. The universities are essentially running minor league sports programs and the players should be treated as the professionals that they are with appropriate wages.

The problem is that the numbers don't work. There are fewer than 2 dozen public universities whose athletic departments make a profit. A handful of privates can be added to that list. In many cases, the profit margin is very small. Paying players would make the list of profitable schools even smaller.

Most of those Athletic Departments don't want to show a profit. Remember how state run institutions work. If you don't spend it you lose it. So they reinvest as much in their salaries, facilities, trainers, etc., as they can each year so that the carryover listed as profit is relatively low.

That's not to say that there aren't many schools who are legitimately in the red, it's just to say that there are many more who are far more in the black than they are letting be known.

These lists also tend to discount schools who subsidize athletics with student activities fees and that reduces those listed as profitable as well.

(05-08-2013 09:26 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I support the idea of paying players. The universities are essentially running minor league sports programs and the players should be treated as the professionals that they are with appropriate wages.

The problem is that the numbers don't work. There are fewer than 2 dozen public universities whose athletic departments make a profit. A handful of privates can be added to that list. In many cases, the profit margin is very small. Paying players would make the list of profitable schools even smaller.

The profit margin is small by design. So many people look at these numbers published by usatoday and think they actually mean something. Why would you show a huge profit as an athletic department? If your funding foundation is separate, why would you give the athletic department more than they could spend that year? There is more money and there is room to move things around in a lot of these budgets.

It isn't a coincidence that so many schools match their revenue with expenses penny-for-penny.

(05-08-2013 09:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 09:26 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I support the idea of paying players. The universities are essentially running minor league sports programs and the players should be treated as the professionals that they are with appropriate wages.

The problem is that the numbers don't work. There are fewer than 2 dozen public universities whose athletic departments make a profit. A handful of privates can be added to that list. In many cases, the profit margin is very small. Paying players would make the list of profitable schools even smaller.

Most of those Athletic Departments don't want to show a profit. Remember how state run institutions work. If you don't spend it you lose it. So they reinvest as much in their salaries, facilities, trainers, etc., as they can each year so that the carryover listed as profit is relatively low.

That's not to say that there aren't many schools who are legitimately in the red, it's just to say that there are many more who are far more in the black than they are letting be known.

These lists also tend to discount schools who subsidize athletics with student activities fees and that reduces those listed as profitable as well.

There are a lot of schools who also claim as much as half of the licensing revenue towards the university's general funds, and they aren't just schools that make a big profit on athletics or schools that receive zero subsidies from the university. Looking solely at athletic department revenue is a good start, but there are many accounting tricks put forth in these numbers that hide the real truth.

(05-08-2013 09:37 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 09:26 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I support the idea of paying players. The universities are essentially running minor league sports programs and the players should be treated as the professionals that they are with appropriate wages.

The problem is that the numbers don't work. There are fewer than 2 dozen public universities whose athletic departments make a profit. A handful of privates can be added to that list. In many cases, the profit margin is very small. Paying players would make the list of profitable schools even smaller.

The profit margin is small by design. So many people look at these numbers published by usatoday and think they actually mean something. Why would you show a huge profit as an athletic department? If your funding foundation is separate, why would you give the athletic department more than they could spend that year? There is more money and there is room to move things around in a lot of these budgets.

It isn't a coincidence that so many schools match their revenue with expenses penny-for-penny.

Forget about the profit margin. Just look at how much money is being contributed by the schools already just to balance the budget. Now they're going to take more money from the rest of the students to pay players?

Texas must have the world's worth accountants since they just ignore "small profit margin by design" rule. Pretty dumb of them, right?

(05-08-2013 09:43 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 09:37 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 09:26 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I support the idea of paying players. The universities are essentially running minor league sports programs and the players should be treated as the professionals that they are with appropriate wages.

The problem is that the numbers don't work. There are fewer than 2 dozen public universities whose athletic departments make a profit. A handful of privates can be added to that list. In many cases, the profit margin is very small. Paying players would make the list of profitable schools even smaller.

The profit margin is small by design. So many people look at these numbers published by usatoday and think they actually mean something. Why would you show a huge profit as an athletic department? If your funding foundation is separate, why would you give the athletic department more than they could spend that year? There is more money and there is room to move things around in a lot of these budgets.

It isn't a coincidence that so many schools match their revenue with expenses penny-for-penny.

Forget about the profit margin. Just look at how much money is being contributed by the schools already just to balance the budget. Now they're going to take more money from the rest of the students to pay players?

Texas must have the world's worth accountants since they just ignore "small profit margin by design" rule. Pretty dumb of them, right?

Most of the large schools aren't funding their athletics out of general university funds. Those that are are mostly trying to keep up with the Jones. I don't count student fees as funding out of the general fund either.

Some of this depends on the state you are in. If at VT the AD showed a profit and donated the money to the general fund of the university, the state would reduce the amount they gave by the same amount. This is why UVA, W&M, and Tech tried to get special rules written for them so their budgets wouldn't be reduced when their patents, corporate research arms, or athletic departments turned a profit.

Ways you can inflate your "budget" if you care to include things like facilities rent since most of the buildings are actually owned by the university (this includes any parking lots that would be used). Whether your school requires your athletic department to pay out of state tuition rates on out of state students will impact it. Whether your apparel licenses are counted towards the athletic department funds. Whether you allocate university employees' time proportionately towards the athletic department (ex landscapers, janitors, sidewalk sweepers). Is the fund-raising arm counted as a net amount or do you include their expenses as well? Does your conference pay expenses for you or distribute money and have your school pay them?

Those are just some easy ones I can think up. I'm sure accountants could go wild.

(05-08-2013 09:43 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 09:37 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 09:26 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I support the idea of paying players. The universities are essentially running minor league sports programs and the players should be treated as the professionals that they are with appropriate wages.

The problem is that the numbers don't work. There are fewer than 2 dozen public universities whose athletic departments make a profit. A handful of privates can be added to that list. In many cases, the profit margin is very small. Paying players would make the list of profitable schools even smaller.

The profit margin is small by design. So many people look at these numbers published by usatoday and think they actually mean something. Why would you show a huge profit as an athletic department? If your funding foundation is separate, why would you give the athletic department more than they could spend that year? There is more money and there is room to move things around in a lot of these budgets.

It isn't a coincidence that so many schools match their revenue with expenses penny-for-penny.

Forget about the profit margin. Just look at how much money is being contributed by the schools already just to balance the budget. Now they're going to take more money from the rest of the students to pay players?

Texas must have the world's worth accountants since they just ignore "small profit margin by design" rule. Pretty dumb of them, right?

Athletics is just a part of the university and its part of what the school is selling to students. Why would you look at the athletics department any differntly than you would any other service that the university provides. Do you expect the janitorial department to make a profit? Alot of the student body at many schools selected that college because they grew up watching its sports teams on TV. The athletic department profit and loss statement is useless in determining the true value of the athletics department to many universities. Truth be told, the schools sports teams essentially funtion as the public face of the school and the marketing arm of the modern university.

(05-08-2013 06:06 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 06:05 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Is Silve saying pay ALL athletes $2000 stipend or just the FB players? Does Lax and Field Hockey get those stipends? Do women's sports get the stipend?

Yes. It comes to somewhere between $200,000 and $500,000 from estimates I've seen. Most football schools can afford it.

That dollar amount really isn't that bad as long as it's CAPPED at $2k.

(05-08-2013 09:32 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 09:24 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 09:11 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 09:06 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  If this happens that just makes big time college football and basketball more and more like the pro brand.........boring as heck. And it makes FCS all that much more appealing.

Maybe we should just have a do over.....put up a sign (or send it out on social media in this day and time I guess) on the bulletin board on the first day of classes in the fall, "football tryouts 3pm, must be a fulltime student".

That $5.40/day they want to give the students to live off of is the difference between being an amateur and a pro to you?

They are going to a university for free. In many cases had they not been recruited to play football or basketball they wouldn't have been admitted because they wouldn't have qualified academically. Why not just hire them to play and not require them to be a student at all? The ones that qualify academically and wanted to could take classes during the off season and the others could work for the university. Thus they are the schools team but not necessarily the schools students.

I didn't qualify for need based aid. I got about 2k in academic scholarships each semester while I was at school. Our department had a pretty good list of scholarships and would make sure they spread them around to everyone. It pretty much covered books and part of one month's rent. I did have a part time job too.

I don't think 2k is an unreasonable living allowance for a student that you aren't allowing to have any job or academic scholarships. It really isn't fair to them.

You can say they are getting their education for free which is true. However if you don't have the funds for college you could apply for need-based scholarships and they would cover more than the actual cost of your attendance. You do get living expenses from them. You could apply under academic scholarships if you work hard enough. You could get a job to make up any funding gap. The students going on athletic scholarship don't have those options though. It isn't just as simple as "you get your education free". There are costs of just being alive that you need to cover. Free education is great if you can afford to live with no job and no family assistance.

That is why I said just make them employees of the university. Pay em, make em employees, but don't admit people that don't qualify to go to the school. That takes up a place for a deserving student that can't run a football or set a screen.

(05-08-2013 09:32 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 09:24 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 09:11 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 09:06 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  If this happens that just makes big time college football and basketball more and more like the pro brand.........boring as heck. And it makes FCS all that much more appealing.

Maybe we should just have a do over.....put up a sign (or send it out on social media in this day and time I guess) on the bulletin board on the first day of classes in the fall, "football tryouts 3pm, must be a fulltime student".

That $5.40/day they want to give the students to live off of is the difference between being an amateur and a pro to you?

They are going to a university for free. In many cases had they not been recruited to play football or basketball they wouldn't have been admitted because they wouldn't have qualified academically. Why not just hire them to play and not require them to be a student at all? The ones that qualify academically and wanted to could take classes during the off season and the others could work for the university. Thus they are the schools team but not necessarily the schools students.

I didn't qualify for need based aid. I got about 2k in academic scholarships each semester while I was at school. Our department had a pretty good list of scholarships and would make sure they spread them around to everyone. It pretty much covered books and part of one month's rent. I did have a part time job too.

I don't think 2k is an unreasonable living allowance for a student that you aren't allowing to have any job or academic scholarships. It really isn't fair to them.

You can say they are getting their education for free which is true. However if you don't have the funds for college you could apply for need-based scholarships and they would cover more than the actual cost of your attendance. You do get living expenses from them. You could apply under academic scholarships if you work hard enough. You could get a job to make up any funding gap. The students going on athletic scholarship don't have those options though. It isn't just as simple as "you get your education free". There are costs of just being alive that you need to cover. Free education is great if you can afford to live with no job and no family assistance.

I learned a new word yesterday, Humble Bragger, does this qualify

(05-08-2013 11:39 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 09:32 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 09:24 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 09:11 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 09:06 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  If this happens that just makes big time college football and basketball more and more like the pro brand.........boring as heck. And it makes FCS all that much more appealing.

Maybe we should just have a do over.....put up a sign (or send it out on social media in this day and time I guess) on the bulletin board on the first day of classes in the fall, "football tryouts 3pm, must be a fulltime student".

That $5.40/day they want to give the students to live off of is the difference between being an amateur and a pro to you?

They are going to a university for free. In many cases had they not been recruited to play football or basketball they wouldn't have been admitted because they wouldn't have qualified academically. Why not just hire them to play and not require them to be a student at all? The ones that qualify academically and wanted to could take classes during the off season and the others could work for the university. Thus they are the schools team but not necessarily the schools students.

I didn't qualify for need based aid. I got about 2k in academic scholarships each semester while I was at school. Our department had a pretty good list of scholarships and would make sure they spread them around to everyone. It pretty much covered books and part of one month's rent. I did have a part time job too.

I don't think 2k is an unreasonable living allowance for a student that you aren't allowing to have any job or academic scholarships. It really isn't fair to them.

You can say they are getting their education for free which is true. However if you don't have the funds for college you could apply for need-based scholarships and they would cover more than the actual cost of your attendance. You do get living expenses from them. You could apply under academic scholarships if you work hard enough. You could get a job to make up any funding gap. The students going on athletic scholarship don't have those options though. It isn't just as simple as "you get your education free". There are costs of just being alive that you need to cover. Free education is great if you can afford to live with no job and no family assistance.

I learned a new word yesterday, Humble Bragger, does this qualify

I'm not bragging, I'm trying to tell you from personal experience that 2k can help a lot when you aren't getting need-based grants even if your school is "paid" for (in my case by loans).

There is some idea that two thousand dollars spending money will equate to a semi pro league. You do have expenses when you are away from home and the NCAA closes every "loophole" normal students would use to help.

Another thing about that is that in my department we had about 60 students and I can't think of any that didn't receive some amount of a scholarship. There could be money for these kids that are playing sports if the NCAA didn't restrict scholarships.

(05-08-2013 06:26 PM)krux Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 06:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 05:58 PM)krux Wrote:  I don't think the "First 4" Games are worth enough to warrant all those invites frankly. I'm not trying to crap on anybody because I think it's unfortunate but I don't see the math working to warrant splitting the pie that much.

Plus what would be lost from those other games could be gained by marketing an all inclusive "New NCAA Tournament" (whatever the post-split name would be). Think about it, a tournament where literally EVERYONE gets a chance at the title. Sounds like a goldmine to me.

Nice and neat at 65

Remember too, that just because Georgetown (example only here) doesn't have an upper tier football team doesn't mean that the more established basketball only schools would eschew the breakaway. We might well wind up with 65 to 72 football teams in the upper tier plus another dozen to two dozen basketball only schools who wish to pay stipends beyond scholarships and compete against the larger schools of the football upper tier for hoops.

Valid

Not valid. That would keep teams like UCONN and Cincy not only out of football but the basketball tournament too in favor of basketball only schools.

Orange crushes' idea is FAR more realistic. It has been a stated goal of the P5 not to make any regular season in any sport irrelevant. Having only 68 teams and ALL of them getting to be in the tourney from day one, no matter their record, would be a disaster. Adding basketball only teams to help alleviate the problem will be shot down. I can see football going the way of Orange Crush's idea and the tourney being the same plus adding the select basketball only conferences.

(05-08-2013 09:41 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 09:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 09:26 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I support the idea of paying players. The universities are essentially running minor league sports programs and the players should be treated as the professionals that they are with appropriate wages.

The problem is that the numbers don't work. There are fewer than 2 dozen public universities whose athletic departments make a profit. A handful of privates can be added to that list. In many cases, the profit margin is very small. Paying players would make the list of profitable schools even smaller.

Most of those Athletic Departments don't want to show a profit. Remember how state run institutions work. If you don't spend it you lose it. So they reinvest as much in their salaries, facilities, trainers, etc., as they can each year so that the carryover listed as profit is relatively low.

That's not to say that there aren't many schools who are legitimately in the red, it's just to say that there are many more who are far more in the black than they are letting be known.

These lists also tend to discount schools who subsidize athletics with student activities fees and that reduces those listed as profitable as well.

There are a lot of schools who also claim as much as half of the licensing revenue towards the university's general funds, and they aren't just schools that make a big profit on athletics or schools that receive zero subsidies from the university. Looking solely at athletic department revenue is a good start, but there are many accounting tricks put forth in these numbers that hide the real truth.

Interesting. Where can I find a list of schools that do this?