You have been donating to a business for years now. The NCAA and college football in particular are certainly businesses and ran as such by the institution and the NCAA. Charlotte takes your donations with the intent to improve their athletic programs. That in turn will lead to more conference/NCAA titles which lead to more money for the institution. Which leads to better facilities, better athletes and maybe a better conference. That leads to even more money.
They certainly aren’t buying Bibles with it so they can evangelize.
My argument would be I have been donating to provide education opportunities for athletes and the facilities and leadership required.
If players have free movement to schools paying compensation that is not a model im interested in. I also do not think it is fair to ask students to fund that with student fees. I can completely see this resulting in sports being dropped from colleges because the math simply wont work.
NCAA is big business but really only for 20-30 programs. For everyone else it’s keep you head above water
Anyone know the reasoning behind MLB’s approach to the draft? I think that’s a wonderful idea that would immediately benefit college basketball.
As for college athletics operating like a for-profit business, there just isn’t a way players can benefit financially that don’t degrade the entire system. But it’s only fair to allow players to make money because the institutions, programs, administrators, and coaches all make lots of money.
The only way back would be through massive legislation and regulation forcing financial regulations that incentivize the right things, and we know that ain’t happening. So, really, for those who feel like NWA, it’s only a matter of time before you’ll have to move on.
If that’s true you should also feel for all those athletes in non-revenue sports, the system collapses it takes them with it.
I will disagree that a four year degree free and clear isn’t a benefit. There may be a few that read this board that are attempting to pay off massive student debt that could enlighten you on that.
The players choose to enter into this agreement, no one is forcing them. If by choice they accept a scholarship/stipend/room and board they forgo other forms of payment. The overwhelming majority of NCAA athletes benefit more from this than they would receive a straight check. The Zions of the world that wouldn’t, well I think he did just fine raising his profile playing at Duke.
I am a little curious, didn’t you suggest that athletes should be able to leave without penalty any time? I apologize if not but if that’s the case how can you advocate forbidding basketball players from going pro after a year?
It’s not as simple as starting to play football/basketball players salaries (Title IX lawsuit would be launched day one if women’s sports are not included). A lot of people are going to get caught in the anti-NCAA crusade if reform isn’t done carefully.
" But it’s only fair to allow players to make money because the institutions, programs, administrators, and coaches all make lots of money. "
This simply is not true. All institutions do not make money from their athletic programs. Many barely break even & in the case of ECU (and I’m sure others) operate in the red. That is the big misconception. Everyone sees Clemson, Alabama and Texas making millions but that is the exception not the norm.
Overall some programs may operate in the red, at least in their down years, but a good portion operate in the black and there are still plenty of administrators and coaches making really good money regardless of red/black. The coaches can then make even more from other sources like apparel companies and various marketing tie-ins. That’s why it’s only fair that players can somehow benefit as well, especially since they are typically right there on the cover of any marketing material you see and thus a huge part of any profits made.
But Chidave is right in considering the impact of all student-athletes outside Football and Men’s Basketball, although I’ve never said a scholarship is not one helluva benefit. For the overwhelming majority of SA’s, nothing could come close to the financial benefit that comes with a scholarship.
But there is a fallacy in tying the financial benefit of scholarships to NIL benefits as if to argue you should get one or the other. Any SA can make money however they see fit as long is it is not tied to their role as an SA. I’ve known friends on scholarship who schedule late classes so they can day-trade in the mornings. They make bank but still have a scholarship. Should we begrudge that student and ask for the scholarship back? Hell no. So why can’t an SA make a little side-hustle cash repping a local apparel store?
Again, I think most of us have an urge to be against NIL because it would hurt our program and help others. And its the same with the transfer rule. It would hurt us, help others, but still technically be the fairest thing for an individual. Not that the current system is awful, there’s just room for more fairness.
First, as noted above, many of these SAs “make” more than they would expect from a post-college job.
Second. if you start allowing them to profit off of NIL without any regulation, then you’re going to see the Alabama booster say “I think every 5-star kid’s autograph is worth about $5k per autograph - please sign the following 10 autographs and I will pay you for them.” Without some sort of massive regulation, you’re going to have a problem. If you try to operate it the same way that you try to control impermissible academic benefits, then they’ll just use the UNC-CHeat method to get out of it “well, I paid that one non-SA $5k for an autograph, so I’m not treating SAs any differently than the general population.” It just doesn’t work.
What gets completely ignored, however, is that these SAs DO NOT have to operate within this system. They can go to college without playing football/basketball. They can also leverage their sport for getting into college and then drop from the team if they find it unfair (but still go to that college). The deal is, we’ll help you get into school and then we’ll pay for full tuition, room, board, food, books, travel, training, coaching, a personal assistant, a cost of attendance stipend, etc., for four years (or even pay for grad school) if you play on the team. That’s about $250,000-$500,000 depending on the school. I.e., we’ll not only help you get into Duke, we’ll pay you the equivalent of about $90,000 per year (more, if you include what you’d have to make pre-tax) to play. If you don’t like that contract, then don’t take that job.
The NCAA reported in 2016 that the average Division I school lost $12.6m annually on athletics if they don’t have a football team, and $14.4m if they do. In Division II, the annual loss per school as of 2014 was $5.1m if they had a football team and $4.1m if they did not. For Division III, football schools lost $3.1m on athletics while those without football experienced a $1.6m loss.
Largely, student fees and hiked tuition subsidize these costs at smaller private universities, although taxpayers contribute at state government-operated public colleges. Even so, a 2010 Washington Post report revealed that nine public colleges in Virginia charged each student more than $1,000 annually in fees to fund their athletic department.
That’s because of the separate pots that academic and sports money have to come from in Virginia. You can’t cross the streams even more rigidly than other states. Virginia, unlike some other states, does not allow general fund revenue to subsidize athletic programs.
That’s what most are missing. They see these ADs bringing in massive cash but only those top programs operate on the black. Most, like us, rely on student fees to make it work. Why should student fees cover that budget if we are saying there is so much money athletes need to be compensated?
The most important part of that first sentence is “The NCAA reported”. So the organization that is fighting the push to pay athletes is reporting there isn’t enough money. I’m shocked
Yeah whatever. Believe what you want to believe. You have changed my mind. Every student athlete should be given a credit card with no limit & be able to play on whatever team they feel like on any given night. That shouldn’t cause any problems.
The big programs make money no doubt. The Texas the Bama the Ohio states. Most athletic departments rely on student fees and school funds to make the budget work though. If the field tilts to far against schools like ours with NIL and transfer rules that we can’t compete in any sports why should we even sponsor teams and more importantly why should students foot the bill?
I also agree with what has been said. No one forces these kids into this agreement. They choose this. If they have some issue with it then they can skip college. Football is the only sport without another path and even there I’m betting the NFL would fill a role if 5 star prospects started skipping college for a year.
I guess UConn’s $41 million AD deficit is creative accounting as well.
Anyway, good to know Ohio State doesn’t have a student athletic fee, which should be the norm in the so-called Power 5. Of course, in a perfect world, there would be no student athletic fees at any school.
UCONNs deficit is a result of a horrible business decision. They have since reversed and should save 2-3 mil in travel expenses alone not counting the increase in season ticket sales for men’s and women’s basketball.
A basketball school made a football decision. It’s their own doing.
