This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
6/10/2011 9:37 AM
Umm it is way over the line. As far as I know no student athlete has had his foot cut off for skipping classes.
6/10/2011 9:47 AM (edited)
Posted by crickett13 on 6/10/2011 9:37:00 AM (view original):
Umm it is way over the line. As far as I know no student athlete has had his foot cut off for skipping classes.
You would be right on that point however it seems that you struggle to make a point on the financial side of the coin which is the focus of the discussion. Unless your point is that as long as they don't cut off their feet then all other forms of disproportionate compensation is OK.
6/10/2011 9:54 AM
Posted by crickett13 on 6/10/2011 9:37:00 AM (view original):
Umm it is way over the line. As far as I know no student athlete has had his foot cut off for skipping classes.
Well, if you want to ignore the argument and not read the part about them not being actual slaves then I will point out that as far as I know no slaves were paralyzed repeatedly running head first into each other. 
6/10/2011 10:00 AM
Posted by livemike on 6/10/2011 9:54:00 AM (view original):
Posted by crickett13 on 6/10/2011 9:37:00 AM (view original):
Umm it is way over the line. As far as I know no student athlete has had his foot cut off for skipping classes.
Well, if you want to ignore the argument and not read the part about them not being actual slaves then I will point out that as far as I know no slaves were paralyzed repeatedly running head first into each other. 
Now  THAT, is f'n funny.
6/10/2011 10:14 AM
Posted by rmancil on 6/10/2011 8:38:00 AM (view original):
bfkfraser your just repeating yourself. You need to read the CNN links on Div 1 a football and the amount money they profit. The expected profit is over 1 billion just this year.
I have several questions:

Do you deny that the college has the right to determine how best to allocate their expenditures from their revenue ao long they are complying with the rules?  
Do you deny that colleges should first remian compliant with the law?   This means they have to provide equal opportunites and some of the funding has to come from profit centers.   
If they fail to remain compliant, could they lose government funding or lose NCAA eligibilty?  I am not sure on this, but I know of a Big ten school that feared the repurcussions of not being compliant and considered (and maybe did) eliminate their baseball program.
Are you aware that the Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA is mandated to ensure the student athletes remain amatuers?

As for the $1 billion in profit, that sounds like across the board or roughly $8.333 million per school.   Did the writer completely analyze the athletic budget or take the bottom line of the football portion of the fund?   Did the writer remove budget transfers and government grants as they are considered revenue in fund accounting?    Did the writer allocate common expenses (compliance office AD salary, athletic building expenses between all sports?  If so, how was it allocated?  If not, the profit is overstated.  

If you pay players, where do you get the money to continue to fund other athletics and remain compliant with the law?   If you lose funding due to non-compliance, are schools prepared to lose government funding, which amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars per school?  Or failure to comply would result in penalties form the NCAA, whether sanctions or expulsion.  Either way, the college could stand to lose more.

Simply stating a profit figure without seeing the entire picture does not mean the paying players are feasible, especially when you consider less than 10% of colleges have completely self sufficient ahletic departments year in year out.   More, in fact, lose money than make money. 
6/10/2011 10:34 AM
Posted by rmancil on 6/10/2011 9:47:00 AM (view original):
Posted by crickett13 on 6/10/2011 9:37:00 AM (view original):
Umm it is way over the line. As far as I know no student athlete has had his foot cut off for skipping classes.
You would be right on that point however it seems that you struggle to make a point on the financial side of the coin which is the focus of the discussion. Unless your point is that as long as they don't cut off their feet then all other forms of disproportionate compensation is OK.
In most places of work, compensation is determined by the market, not the amount of revenue or profit, unless you are the owner.     The student athlete is getting a free ride, which in most instances would equate to more money than they would earn if they chose to not go to college.    And if they take their education seriously, chances are they would have better paying jobs available if they do not make the NFL.   And if they are good enough to make it to the NFL, they are getting enhanced training and the chance to showcase themselves.   Yes, they put a lot of work into it.  But, what about the students that put the same amount of work into research projects as well?  Why is one to get special treatment?
6/10/2011 11:24 AM (edited)
Posted by bfkfraser on 6/10/2011 10:34:00 AM (view original):
Posted by rmancil on 6/10/2011 9:47:00 AM (view original):
Posted by crickett13 on 6/10/2011 9:37:00 AM (view original):
Umm it is way over the line. As far as I know no student athlete has had his foot cut off for skipping classes.
You would be right on that point however it seems that you struggle to make a point on the financial side of the coin which is the focus of the discussion. Unless your point is that as long as they don't cut off their feet then all other forms of disproportionate compensation is OK.
In most places of work, compensation is determined by the market, not the amount of revenue or profit, unless you are the owner.     The student athlete is getting a free ride, which in most instances would equate to more money than they would earn if they chose to not go to college.    And if they take their education seriously, chances are they would have better paying jobs available if they do not make the NFL.   And if they are good enough to make it to the NFL, they are getting enhanced training and the chance to showcase themselves.   Yes, they put a lot of work into it.  But, what about the students that put the same amount of work into research projects as well?  Why is one to get special treatment?
I see your point on grants and think you may want to start a separate thread to discuss that.On the law front and the NCAA what we have here is at this time rules and laws for public schools and rules/laws for private schools along with rules enforced by the N.C.A.A. on its members who in turn help make those rules. In fact the institutions along with the congress make our laws or influence the laws that are passed and the interpretation/enforcement of them.

We also have laws about monopolies and their creation. We use to have laws that allowed slavery ,denied women the right to vote and allowed several oil and rail monopolies all of them changed over time. Your free ride argument in it self and by itself is not much compensation based on the elite nature short career and risk to these entertainers/athlete's. The denial to promote themselves and to except any limit/deny compensation that is related to their sport is completely with out any comparable work form I know of.

I also struggle with what appears to be your attempt to say two wrongs= a right.

Finally at this time the golden rule is in effect he who has the gold makes the rules.
6/10/2011 12:29 PM
Posted by bfkfraser on 6/10/2011 5:46:00 AM (view original):
Posted by maddog63 on 6/10/2011 3:01:00 AM (view original):
BTW -
for those that dont get it yet "All Sports Expense to Revenue Difference" basically means income minus expenses
Do we know what exactly constituted a revenue?  What was considered an expense?    In some non-profits, money transfers from other budgets are considered revenue, which would make the stated revenue not be representative of athletics only.
This is from the 2004-05 school year (I hope the formatting doesn't suffer too badly).
You can view this and more here http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/
Sample: Ohio State University
Revenue Statement
Football
Men's Basketball
Women's Basketball
Other
Non Program Specific
Total
Ticket Sales
$29,186,872
$3,534,105
$423,885
$928,227
$0
$34,073,089
Student Fees
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Guarantees
$300,000
$468,710
$0
$0
$0
$768,710
Contributions
$10,311,906
$95,718
$86,482
$823,823
$8,511,627
$19,829,556
Third Party Support
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Government Support
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Direct Institutional Support
$0
$0
$0
$1,921
$3,508
$5,429
Indirect Institutional Support
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
NCAA/Conference Distributions
$5,201,884
$5,992,477
$0
$0
$254,564
$11,448,925
Individual School Media Rights
$1,217,878
$666,000
$10,000
$0
$0
$1,893,878
Concessions, Programs, Parking
$2,131,812
$585,626
$130,974
$307,342
$2,204,639
$5,360,393
Advertisements & Sponsorship
$2,429,350
$42,000
$42,000
$417,500
$4,303,588
$7,234,438
Sports Camps
$1,030,905
$50,205
$42,410
$1,805,970
$112,021
$3,041,511
Endowments/Investments
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,748,479
$1,748,479
Other
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,296,571
$4,296,571
Subtotal
$51,810,607
$11,434,841
$735,751
$4,284,783
$21,434,997
$89,700,979
Expense Statement
                         Football
Men's Basketball
Women's Basketball
Other
Non Program Specific
Total
 
Student Aid
$1,941,692
$337,434
$410,097
$7,853,496
$0
$10,542,719
Guarantees
$600,000
$360,000
$42,803
$68,988
$0
$1,071,791
Salaries
$4,033,217
$2,016,828
$1,357,009
$6,361,840
$0
$13,768,894
Other Coaches' Comp.
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Support Staff Salaries
$593,876
$251,532
$229,055
$196,120
$9,529,403
$10,799,986
Other Support Staff Comp
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Severence Payments
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Recruiting
$418,975
$129,923
$50,617
$380,156
$0
$979,671
Team Travel
$2,750,782
$437,663
$287,618
$1,886,674
$0
$5,362,737
Equipment
$375,469
$21,262
$9,694
$372,392
$0
$778,817
Game Expenses
$788,180
$327,334
$242,324
$447,256
$1,498,155
$3,303,249
Promotion
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,684,925
$1,684,925
Sports Camp
$632,247
$45,497
$33,681
$921,792
$126,802
$1,760,019
Facilities, Maintenance
$13,353,276
$10,030
$1,985
$733,939
$11,992,788
$26,092,018
Spirit Groups
$0
$0
$0
$0
$304,281
$304,281
Indirect Institutional Support
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Medical
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,331,356
$2,331,356
Memberships
$1,500
$0
$2,792
$14,734
$257,270
$276,296
Other Operating
$222,264
$114,469
$47,594
$211,942
$9,927,277
$10,523,546
Total Operating
$25,711,478
$4,051,972
$2,715,269
$19,449,329
$37,652,257
$89,580,305
Expense to Revenue Difference
$26,099,129
$7,382,869
$-1,979,518
$-15,164,546
$-16,217,260
$120,674
 
6/10/2011 12:31 PM
It looks like the formatting did get screwed with a little bit so just squint your eyes, tilt your head and do the best you can to line things up.
6/10/2011 12:52 PM
Potter always starts the best debate threads.
6/10/2011 1:37 PM

After glancing at maddog's post, the $16 million loss from non-program specific is likely amounts that cover many sports, but cannot be allocated as such, such as administrative salaries, office expenses, etc.    These expenses would likely still need to be covered from profit generating programs regardless of which side of this issue you are on.   That leaves about between $10-15 million from football available, which is covering other programs.   These programs may keep OSU compliant with Title IX or may add value in attracting other types of students to the univeristy.      This leaves a balance of about $120,000 to spend or put in reserves for a long term project or anticipated decline in funding.  

6/10/2011 4:57 PM
Posted by maddog63 on 6/10/2011 12:31:00 PM (view original):
It looks like the formatting did get screwed with a little bit so just squint your eyes, tilt your head and do the best you can to line things up.
Sweet Baby Jesus in the Manger. Am I actually looking at a profit and loss statement on the WIS forums? Very solid. Now we are getting down to the nitty gritty! I love it.
6/10/2011 8:34 PM
Posted by bfkfraser on 6/9/2011 11:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by rmancil on 6/9/2011 11:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by slid64er on 6/9/2011 11:05:00 PM (view original):
rmancil - You finally understand.  It's socialist, not capitalist.  Every educational institution is a non-profit.  That's also why they support the NCAA and participate in intercollegiate athletics despite it being a money hole for >90% of them.  Schools have a much larger mandate and the NCAA helps them fulfill it.  

And besides, it's no one right to pursue a professional athletic career just as it's no one's right to be a doctor.  It takes certain training and sacrifice in either case, but just because you want it doesn't mean that everyone else gets out of your way to make it easy for you.  Yet you want to cater to that 0.1% that do make it.  Tail wagging the dog.

Again, you also can't differentiate between an employee and student athlete.  If you can't make the differentiation, that's on you.  If you can't understand the cost/benefit analysis for all student athletes, that's on you too. 

Anyway, I'm done.  Believe what you want.  I'm not going any further into a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
 
You like that tail wagging the dog a lot don't you? First off the non profit is a legalism in fact no school or organization can in fact run a loss year after year unless of course your the federal government and get to print the money every institution makes a profit.

On the professional front your a pro at anything when you cash a check. You may want to be a Doctor or a star QB but if you fail to have to brain power and the work ethic you won't be a doctor and if you lack the skill set no matter how smart you are you will not be a QB.

It is no mean trick to be a student and a employee.

When in doubt insult.

1)  You fail to realize that receiving something for free that would otherwise cost money is actually receiving payment.    The free tuition is payment.    Any additional would open cans of worms that would allow the few rich schools to buy players and make it easier for schools to cheat under the guise of payments,   They do receive a hefty payment.

2)   Colleges are not businesses.   Most are governemnt funded non-profit organizations that main purpose is to educate young adults.    Why should a college cater to a small percentage of the student body?  Why should they pay extra to a small group when other students have to struggle to pay their way and earn the college money in the form of grants?

3)  Where will this money come from?   An overwhelming majority of athletic departments lose money.   You take money from other sports, you risk alienating other students, violating Title iX.   Or do you increase your paying students costs?  Or do you get more money from the taxpayers?  None of this is fair when you consider the NPV of a free college education that the student athletes are already being paid.    This is something they are paid for their athletic ability; something that they agreed to do when they accepted the scholarship; something they could have refused and had to pay for college like most of their fellow students.

Doesn't Auburn know that they are broke, its not a business and the football program doesn't make money.  And man, that Chizik is greedy and spoiled.  He agreed to his compensation when he signed up and anything more is just excessive.  He should just be thankful that he was given a great opportunity to showcase his talents and gain experience.   


http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/Auburn-hikes-football-coach-Gene-Chiziks-salary-to-35-million-after-national-championship-061011
of 12

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.