I used to be a fan, but I cannot watch it now. The money needed to compete makes me think it should be semi-pro, not college.
College Football
- Thread starter cwbullet
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
mh9162013
Well-Known Member
It's been that way for decades. Only now, people are more willing to let the money exchanging hands be a little bit more visible.
That might be true. Very disappointing.
The fact that the highest-paid state government employee in most states is a college sports coach makes me want to set things on fire.
The absolute worst part of all this is that most of the money needed to run the sports programs is extracted from students as part of tuition. How much student debt is taken on these days for the benefit of the football team rather than the student? And then, of course, those students, along with everyone else, have to go on paying for it through their state taxes.
I've bitterly loathed college football (and basketball to a lesser extent) for a long time. If the NFL wants a minor league to recruit from, they need to be forced to pay for it themselves.
The absolute worst part of all this is that most of the money needed to run the sports programs is extracted from students as part of tuition. How much student debt is taken on these days for the benefit of the football team rather than the student? And then, of course, those students, along with everyone else, have to go on paying for it through their state taxes.
I've bitterly loathed college football (and basketball to a lesser extent) for a long time. If the NFL wants a minor league to recruit from, they need to be forced to pay for it themselves.
mh9162013
Well-Known Member
Much of that is only partially true.
A lot of the compensation that goes to coaches comes from sources that would not be otherwise going to student tuition/services, ie boosters and athletic department donations/contributions from small donors.
So yes, if "Coach Smith" and his staff pull in $15 million a year in compensation, it's not like that money would otherwise be going to a library upgrade and scholarships to students. Instead, it would be sitting in the pockets of super-rich alumni or they'd be spending that money on something other than education.
Either way, I agree with you that it's not right. I think the NCAA should have a rule that requires a significant % of every dollar donated to the althletic program be earmarked for the education needs of students who don't participate in sports.
- Joined
- May 29, 2019
- Messages
- 1,234
- Reaction score
- 993
The entire idea of these athletic scholarships was for the purpose of getting an education. 95% of these kids will have no professional athletic career. Of the ones that do, the VAST majority of of those will have a career so short it is insufficient to fund the rest of their life.
These kids are getting precious little education, and the likelihood of injury is very high, and the colleges are supporting this. These costs have also spilled over to all students at most universities as athletic fees, which shouldn't be allowed. As much as I may hate it, I'd rather see my school shut down sports than force academic students to subsidize entertainment for alums.
mh9162013
Well-Known Member
All good points.
I do think that there's a lot of value the school and its students indirectly receive as a result of a prominent sports program. Graduating from a school that's known for X, Y or Z in sports is often a good thing when in the professional world. It also helps a lot with recruiting new students and serves as a major marketing tool for the school.
So, let's say the UT Austin spends $50 million each year on its varsity athletic programs. And if the school were to stop all varsity athletic programs, let's say $20 million can be indirectly diverted to education-related things. How much would UT Austin have to spend to "recoup" what it lost (in terms of name recognition, marketing, recruiting, etc.) from the lack of varsity athletics? I would assume (spitballin' here), that whatever they'd have to spend would be more than the $20 million it was able to divert due to the cancellation of its sports programs. And don't forget, a lot of money gets generated by the sports program itself (bowl profit sharing, merchandise, tickets, etc.) would now be lost. Maybe most of that was going to the sports programs and not academics, but I'm sure at least a small % is helping the general student body.
In other words, for every $1 spent and generated on or from a school's' major sports programs, only 5 cents may be benefiting the general student body. That's not a lot, but it's better than 2 cents the student body would receive from diverted funding if the sports programs were shut down.
I don't think we should shut down sports programs. I think we should mandate sports programs to do more to support the student body. So instead of 5 cents of every dollar going to the education activities of a school (from the money generated by the sports programs), it's 25 cents, for instance.
I do recognize the problem in that these big-name schools will spend tens of millions for just coaches, but so many academic departments struggle to make do with just a few hundred thousand dollars for professor salaries, scholarships and research funding.
We have a nursing shortage in the USA b/c we can't get enough frickin' nursing professors. Why? B/c the private sector pays more. An easy fix would be to double the faculty compensation budget for most nursing departments at major colleges and universities. It would only be a few million dollars, at most, but could probably double the output of RNs in just a few years. But no, we need that $5 million for that head football coach's buyout b/c the boosters are livid about going 3-9 and losing to the in-state rival.
Last edited:
Zeus-cat
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2009
- Messages
- 4,993
- Reaction score
- 1,459
I went to a division III school where there are no athletic scholarships. People participate in sports because they enjoy them. Very few division III players make it to the pros. Most likely the purest of collegiate athletics.
mh9162013
Well-Known Member
And what school did you go to? Don't tell me, because I've probably never heard of it. And b/c I've never heard of it, when my kid starts thinking about college, I'll be unable to mention your alma mater as a school my kid should consider applying to.
No, I'm not putting down your school or your education. I'm making the point of why name recognition is a valuable asset that sports programs provide schools.
- Joined
- May 29, 2019
- Messages
- 1,234
- Reaction score
- 993
I don't think the benefit is justified. That ^^ 2% is taken as justification for allowing NIL money going to children under 18 (meaning parents and attorneys/agents). These kids will get hosed. More money for attorneys, I guess.
The end result will be more wasted people that could have had a better life being at least partially educated. I think we can do better. If the NFL needs to have a vocational athletic development league, they should find persons to pay for it that actually want it. A primary reason the subsidization takes place is that these costs are borne by loans. If people had to justify these expenses by line item and pay for them out of pocket, I believe this pill wouldn't have been swallowed.
We abuse some injured players by not giving them everything they need after injury.
There is some good name recognition associated with athletics, but there is also bad.
Now, the NFL has a development league for free.
mh9162013
Well-Known Member
More good points, but now you're bringing in other things that need to be improved, such as the NFL, how parents raise children, the legal system, etc. Not saying those can't be improved, but those are whole 'nuther cans of worms as they relate to how our society works on a fundamental level.
It really all comes down to, "People care about sports far too much."
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,734
- Reaction score
- 1,384
Because of NIL, athletic scholarships should be prohibited. People will argue that only a few get NIL deals but that puts a stain on the rest of the organization. Much like title 9 (a joke by definition), the "wealthy" should now pay for the field fodder. As the band Rush once said; "All the Worlds a Stage", and if they want to use college football as a stage, they should pay.
Note: Yes, I know William Shakespeare pinned All the Worlds a Stage. I didn't play college football but a did play Rush.
Note: Yes, I know William Shakespeare pinned All the Worlds a Stage. I didn't play college football but a did play Rush.
Interesting. I would be good with getting rid of athletic scholarships.
Lots of good info but also lots of incorrect information. In most cases the schools pay the athletic department - not the other way around
Do a real analysis, and you may find out as I believe, that college sports have really no benefit to the academics, and that some of the players academically are a joke to the reputation of the university.
This is a recent NCAA report.
A recent NCAA report stated that only 14 of the 120 athletic programs in the Football Bowl Subdivision made money. The Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) includes all BCS conferences (PAC 10, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, etc) so odds are your favorite athletic program is losing money.
According to the NCAA study, only two sports were reported by any university as being profitable:
Three items account for over 50% of revenues:
Two items account for over 50% of expenses:
How much does a college athletic program cost each university?
Average assistance that each university gave to the athletic department was $10.2 million.
Do a real analysis, and you may find out as I believe, that college sports have really no benefit to the academics, and that some of the players academically are a joke to the reputation of the university.
This is a recent NCAA report.
A recent NCAA report stated that only 14 of the 120 athletic programs in the Football Bowl Subdivision made money. The Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) includes all BCS conferences (PAC 10, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, etc) so odds are your favorite athletic program is losing money.
Which college athletic sports are profitable?
According to the NCAA study, only two sports were reported by any university as being profitable:
- Football
- Men’s Basketball
- Football
- There is a lot of discussion about football keeping athletic departments alive. Yes, football is one of only two sports (men’s basketball being the other) that ANY university reported as being profitable. At the same time, however, only 57% of football programs reported being profitable. Thus the other 43% of football programs are still part of the problem.
- Men’s Basketball
- As the only other profitable sport that any university reported, men’s basketball is also considered an important aspect of keeping college athletics alive. Once again, however, keep in mind that roughly 57% of men’s basketball programs reported being profitable, so there is a large percentage of men’s basketball programs losing money.
Three items account for over 50% of revenues:
- Ticket Sales (17%)
- Alumni/booster donations (27%)
- NCAA/conference distribution (14%)
Two items account for over 50% of expenses:
- Salaries and benefits (32%)
- Scholarships (Grants In Aid) (25%)
- Facilities maintenance and rental (13%)
- Team travel (7%)
- Recruiting (2%)
- Equipment/uniforms/supplies (3%)
- Game expenses (4%)
How much does a college athletic program cost each university?
Average assistance that each university gave to the athletic department was $10.2 million.
- Joined
- May 29, 2019
- Messages
- 1,234
- Reaction score
- 993
The college I went to (a state ABET accredited engineering school) subsidizes the athletic department by about 40%. They don't use student fees, just general fund money which is basically state money.
I don't think it's right to subsidize either way. When I went there, there was a well developed job placement department. Big industry would come on campus to interview engineers as a pre-screen to get a trip to a plant. The school was very interested in making sure all its graduates were placed. They also wanted people to not waste time in school, basically "get graduated".
The placement office doesn't exist anymore as it used to (of course, industry in the US is different now than in the 1990's), and they don't try to get people out of school, they try and get people to stay. Too many climbing walls, lazy rivers, boutique dorms, spa crap and other useless stuff, including bureaucrats and some degrees.
I don't think it's right to subsidize either way. When I went there, there was a well developed job placement department. Big industry would come on campus to interview engineers as a pre-screen to get a trip to a plant. The school was very interested in making sure all its graduates were placed. They also wanted people to not waste time in school, basically "get graduated".
The placement office doesn't exist anymore as it used to (of course, industry in the US is different now than in the 1990's), and they don't try to get people out of school, they try and get people to stay. Too many climbing walls, lazy rivers, boutique dorms, spa crap and other useless stuff, including bureaucrats and some degrees.
Sounds very much like the my experiences at NC State in the early 70s. The head of the undergraduate electrical engineering department was a US Naval Academy retired professor. A large percent of my class were Naval officers studying for an EE Degree and were part of Admiral Rikover's nuclear navy. Stiff competition for a newly graduated high school kid.
mh9162013
Well-Known Member
I feel it's ok for athletics to pay for education, but I don't like it otherway around. This is because we're talking about colleges here, not NFL teams, where the primary goal of a college should be to educate, not fund/operate sports teams.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,734
- Reaction score
- 1,384
...and therein lies the problem. Modern college athletics are in most cases, nothing more than the PR arm of the university and deemed worthy of the expense. With the introduction of "pay for play" into college sports, we now are talking about similarities to professional sports organizations. My Alma mater had, arguably, the best football team in college history in 2019. The baseball team has won more NCAA CWSs than all but two (tied for second). You ask someone about the university, they will bring up sports and not their award winning engineering, medical or veterinary programs. It's no longer about excellence that draws accolades, it's now about name recognition... Yes, I'm a little cynical.
mh9162013
Well-Known Member
Come on, you can't deny Joe Burrow was a beast that year. And this is coming from an LSU hater...
I'm of the belief that name recognition is very important for colleges and universities and that improving name recognition is goal worth paying for. However, I'm also of the belief that schools (from Power 5 conferences) spend too much money on their athletic programs to achieve this name recognition.
If Alabama spent $3 million less per year on their college football program and instead diverted that booster money to scholarships to regular students, would the Crimson Tide name be tarnished? Doubtful. Ok, but they only win 1 national title every 5 years instead of every 3 years. I think that's a fair trade off given the primary mission of the University of Alabama: to educate students, not run a college football program. But I know that any influential alumnus or administrator from that school that feels the same way would be in the minority.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Messages
- 5,993
- Reaction score
- 4,101
Other than football and basketball programs athletic scholarships exist for students in many sports which do not have big pro outcome, woman's softball, men's lacrosse, fencing, crew, etc that provide a path to kids to lower their education costs.
Nothing wrong with college big name and money sports, the market wants it. A liberal arts major that also endured the discipline and rigor of a college varsity program has a lot of personal development from that experience in my opinion. I do have a problem where college athletes do not get the college education. But even that process spits out some gems occasionally. Jim Brown got a certificate of attendance from Syracuse University. I am happy he got the opportunity to go to college.
Nothing wrong with college big name and money sports, the market wants it. A liberal arts major that also endured the discipline and rigor of a college varsity program has a lot of personal development from that experience in my opinion. I do have a problem where college athletes do not get the college education. But even that process spits out some gems occasionally. Jim Brown got a certificate of attendance from Syracuse University. I am happy he got the opportunity to go to college.
Someone much wiser than I, and I can't remember who, said this: If the highest paid person at your state university (or state government) is an athletic coach, that state university is, in reality, a sports franchise that runs higher education as a side gig.
mh9162013
Well-Known Member
Interesting point. It's like how a lot of companies are in the business of X, but make their money doing Y.
Insurance and airline companies are prime examples.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Messages
- 5,993
- Reaction score
- 4,101
And if they have large endowments then the university in reality is a hedge fund running a sports franchise as a side gig and education a smaller side gig.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,734
- Reaction score
- 1,384
JoeyB is the man! He's the next "Brady" or closest thing to it. That year was amazing and did quite a bit of good for the school.
mh9162013
Well-Known Member
Don't disrespect Joe Burrow by comparing him to that cheater...
A few years ago my wife and I went to a college football game for the first time in a couple of decades. We had gone to a lot of games when we were in college. In fact, we met in the college marching band. But between then and more recently, the commercialism of college football has become pervasive. After every first down by the home team, the PA announcer would scream, “This first down is brought to you by the law firm of _______.” Might as well have been Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe. We haven’t returned, and rarely even pay attention to the team that in a very real way brought us together.
The Atlantic Coast Conference will be adding Stanford, Cal and SMU next year.
They can keep the acronym but should change the title of the conference to "All Coast Conference".
(BTW Stanford 21, Hawaii 10 at the half).
They can keep the acronym but should change the title of the conference to "All Coast Conference".
(BTW Stanford 21, Hawaii 10 at the half).
Expansion is becoming ridiculous. Loss of camaraderie and region has destroyed college sports. It is now all about the dollar.The Atlantic Coast Conference will be adding Stanford, Cal and SMU next year.
They can keep the acronym but should change the title of the conference to "All Coast Conference".
(BTW Stanford 21, Hawaii 10 at the half).
mh9162013
Well-Known Member
That's actually pretty clever! I wouldn't be surprised if the change their conference to that name.The Atlantic Coast Conference will be adding Stanford, Cal and SMU next year.
They can keep the acronym but should change the title of the conference to "All Coast Conference".
(BTW Stanford 21, Hawaii 10 at the half).
Similar threads
