Page 16 of 20 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 194
  1. #151
    Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    408
    I am a simple man. I believe in the free market, I think monopolies are a danger to the free market.

    If you can convince me the NCAA is not a monopoly then I am willing to discuss. But beyond that, everything else is sort of moot. This is a business that generates billions annually and the primary labor in that business are not entitled to the benefits of a free market. That is immoral and wrong in my opinion and no pining about hypothetical "fairness" and "student spirit" will change that for me.

  2. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by xubrew View Post

    When the NCAA Tournament contract was extended to 2032 and increased to over $1.1 BILLION a year, they should stopped to think "Damn, this is a lot of money! How is this going to look when we continue to beat the drum of amateurism?"

    Say they had done this...Say they had come out and said " we are going to take $400 million of that money each year, and give it directly to all the players at the D1 level. It would come out to over $2.5k a year per athlete regardless of the sport (if they're on a full scholarship). The schools would then be allowed to match that figure if they chose to. This money would be in addition to, and not in place of, the cost of living stipend. In addition to cost of living and player compensation via the NCAA Tournament, we are also working on new legislation that will allow players to monetize their NILs"

    Do the players feel mistreated? Is there as big of a push to get this into the courts if they do that?? It's impossible to say for certain, but I would argue that there would not have been. Granted, it would have left those "amateur" proponents at the NCAA with a mere $700 million to operate with, but that seems like a more than manageable sum since they got by without even having that much for decades.
    Hey Brew. You are throwing around some BIG number pretty recklessly.

    I dont have the details about the NCAA Tournament contract. I dont know if it's $1.1B in revenue today, or is that the number in 2032. That actually matters for purposes of your diatribe.

    But lets just get one important question out there. WHAT DO YOU THINK IT COSTS for the NCAA to produce the tournament annually? Just step back and consider the hundreds of people that have to plan EVERYTHING. Just think about the costs of renting the Staples center for 4 days. They have 8 venues going that first weekend. Hell, the first 4 at UD Arena probably costs $400 a night!

    The logistics are mind blowing to pull this off. Not Olympics level mindblowing, but the idea that they just throw it all together and take $1.1B to the bottom line destroys your own argument. The NCAA distributes ALOT of this money directly to the CONFERENCES by the way. Not the participants directly, but rather the conferences based on their teams performance. The CONFERENCES then distribute the money to their members, and then the schools us that money to fund the basketball program and nearly all the rest of the teams at the school.

    The idea that there is just $400M sitting around for the NCAA to just hand out to the schools is so unrealistic that it AGAIN undermines any actual points that you may have made. Oh, and the schools can just match it if they like. OK, yeah that makes sense cause what ELSE would they do with that budget surplus the always seem to have.

    It so easy to throw out some ideological argument. But that boat doesn't float.

  3. #153
    Quote Originally Posted by xubrew View Post

    As for the non-revenue sports you mentioned, it depends on how you actually count the money. Some will say "well, if they're not receiving full scholarships (which a lot of them are not) then the tuition they are paying out of their own pockets is actually revenue that's being generated for the university. Even if they are on scholarships, the athletic department is paying that money to the university, so that is actually revenue!" Others would say "any money spent on those sports is a net loss." The truth, in my opinion, is actually somewhere in the middle. Most (certainly not all) of what an athletic department spends is money that doesn't leave the school. This is particularly true for scholarships. So when a school tries to claim they are losing money because of scholarships, that's kind of a disingenuous to make it look like the school is exerting itself more than it really is. It doesn't cost $10,000 to write yourself a check for $10,000, and a scholarship check is really money that's being moved from one part of the university to the other.
    Brew- I dont know you. But I DO know that you are NOT an accountant. Again, more ridiculous ideas.

    I thought this was a discussion about compensating players? Free tuition is free tuition. And you go off on a tangent about how a partial scholarship is actually revenue for the sport because the OTHER part of tuition is paid by the student....WTF????

    You ideas only lack one basic element. They cannot be executed.

  4. #154
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    10,147
    Quote Originally Posted by MHettel View Post
    Hey Brew. You are throwing around some BIG number pretty recklessly.

    I dont have the details about the NCAA Tournament contract. I dont know if it's $1.1B in revenue today, or is that the number in 2032. That actually matters for purposes of your diatribe.

    But lets just get one important question out there. WHAT DO YOU THINK IT COSTS for the NCAA to produce the tournament annually? Just step back and consider the hundreds of people that have to plan EVERYTHING. Just think about the costs of renting the Staples center for 4 days. They have 8 venues going that first weekend. Hell, the first 4 at UD Arena probably costs $400 a night!

    The logistics are mind blowing to pull this off. Not Olympics level mindblowing, but the idea that they just throw it all together and take $1.1B to the bottom line destroys your own argument. The NCAA distributes ALOT of this money directly to the CONFERENCES by the way. Not the participants directly, but rather the conferences based on their teams performance. The CONFERENCES then distribute the money to their members, and then the schools us that money to fund the basketball program and nearly all the rest of the teams at the school.

    The idea that there is just $400M sitting around for the NCAA to just hand out to the schools is so unrealistic that it AGAIN undermines any actual points that you may have made. Oh, and the schools can just match it if they like. OK, yeah that makes sense cause what ELSE would they do with that budget surplus the always seem to have.

    It so easy to throw out some ideological argument. But that boat doesn't float.
    For the D1 men's basketball tournament I have no idea what the total dollar amount is to "produce." I believe the total dollar amount that the NCAA spends on all the championships in all the sports in all three divisions is about $154 million. (at least I think that's what it was in 2019. 2020-2021 could have been more due to the added expenses of COVID testing and protocol). The use of the arenas for the men's basketball tournament doesn't really cost them anything.

    Believe it or not, I pretty much know exactly how the revenue distribution works. You're right. It goes to the conferences to the tune of $1.8 million per unit. There are 67 games with two teams apiece, so the total payouts to conferences comes out to about $242 million. That is still pretty far below the $700 million dollar figure after giving $400 million to players.

    To be fair, there are also payouts on top of that, which go directly to D1 schools that are based on the number of teams and scholarships. There are also the new payouts for the academic incentives. I don't know the exact amount because it varies, but it comes out to about another $200 million.
    Last edited by xubrew; 06-28-2021 at 01:53 PM.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  5. #155
    Supporting Member MADXSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Finneytown
    Posts
    7,212
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew View Post
    I am a simple man. I believe in the free market, I think monopolies are a danger to the free market.

    If you can convince me the NCAA is not a monopoly then I am willing to discuss. But beyond that, everything else is sort of moot. This is a business that generates billions annually and the primary labor in that business are not entitled to the benefits of a free market. That is immoral and wrong in my opinion and no pining about hypothetical "fairness" and "student spirit" will change that for me.
    Drew, I don't think anyone is saying that the NCAA is not a monopoly. No one is saying that monopolies are good. Everyone agrees in the free market as well. The problem is that by opening up this can of worms in the way of how it is getting opened is not going to have a good outcome. Now that the NCAA is not a monopoly, where is the competition going to come from? The rich are going to get richer and the poor poorer.

    Not every D1 school plays basketball in arenas. Most play in gyms. The reason: there isn't enough money.

    I just had a D1 assistant football coach in my office and he made 55k per year.

    We had a discussion on another thread talking about how in sports such as baseball the NCAA limit of scholarships are 9.9 but most teams don't have the money to spend for the entire 9.9 scholarships. Plus that 9.9 is split up between x number of players.

    My daughter played D1 soccer with out of state tuition. She ended up a Captain on a very good team. Women's soccer has 14 scholarships to be divided by 30 players. I do know that the budget did not allow for the pay of 14 full scholarships. She left with over a 100k in student loans. It was her choice. She has a good job and should have that paid off in 5 years if not sooner.

    My take is that there will be even less money for the non revenue sports than there is now because of the downward trickle effect. Boosters will be paying for certain athletes to come to their school for football or basketball. That money will now not go into the general fund which supports other teams. The teams will turn into club sports or will be dissolved entirely. So once again what will the alternative be now that the NCAA is no longer a monopoly?
    Balls of Steele!!

  6. #156
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    10,147
    Quote Originally Posted by MHettel View Post
    Brew- I dont know you. But I DO know that you are NOT an accountant. Again, more ridiculous ideas.

    I thought this was a discussion about compensating players? Free tuition is free tuition. And you go off on a tangent about how a partial scholarship is actually revenue for the sport because the OTHER part of tuition is paid by the student....WTF????

    You ideas only lack one basic element. They cannot be executed.
    I don't know you either, but I do know that you have no concept of how revenue flows throughout college athletics. Then again, I suppose it wouldn't shock me to learn that you are an NCAA staffer. There are reasons that the NCAA was unable to avoid ending up in a situation where they got totally smacked down by the Supreme Court.

    It's sot revenue for the SPORT, it's revenue for the INSTITUTION. That's what tuition is. If a student who would otherwise not be at the school is paying tuition, then there are those who count that as revenue generated by athletics. There are D3 schools that rely on athletics as a means of attracting tuition paying students.

    At schools like Xavier where enrollment is capped, a scholarship is arguably an expense to the institution because you could argue that a tuition paying student would be there paying full tuition to the school in place of that athlete. But at most D1 public schools that are trying to grow their enrollment, it's virtually not an expense to the institution at all. The scholarship athletes are there in addition to the tuition paying students, not in place of them. The money that it costs the athletic department to pay for the scholarship is money that is paid to the institution. That is actually reported to the NCAA as both an expense and as revenue generated. I was just making the point that while it is technically both in terms of how expenses and revenues are reported, it is arguably practically neither.

    ...and, that was kind of my point. Those who say "look at all the money athletics makes for the school!" when looking at those figures are wrong. Those who say "look at all the money athletics is costing the school!" when looking at those figures are also wrong. When an athletic dept. is spending the schools money within the school, then it isn't really costing the school as much as the critics like to insinuate, nor is it making the school as much as the critics like to insinuate even though it's technically reported that way. It's actually pretty close to a break even proposition.
    Last edited by xubrew; 06-28-2021 at 01:03 PM.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  7. #157
    Quote Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
    I don't know you either, but I do know that you have no concept of how revenue flows throughout college athletics. Then again, I suppose it wouldn't shock me to learn that you are an NCAA staffer. There are reasons that the NCAA was unable to avoid ending up in a situation where they got totally smacked down by the Supreme Court.

    It's sot revenue for the SPORT, it's revenue for the INSTITUTION. That's what tuition is. If a student who would otherwise not be at the school is paying tuition, then there are those who count that as revenue generated by athletics. There are D3 schools that rely on athletics as a means of attracting tuition paying students.

    At schools like Xavier where enrollment is capped, a scholarship is arguably an expense to the institution because you could argue that a tuition paying student would be there paying full tuition to the school in place of that athlete. But at most D1 public schools that are trying to grow their enrollment, it's virtually not an expense to the institution at all. The scholarship athletes are there in addition to the tuition paying students, not in place of them. The money that it costs the athletic department to pay for the scholarship is money that is paid to the institution. That is actually reported to the NCAA as both an expense and as revenue generated. I was just making the point that while it is technically both in terms of how expenses and revenues are reported, it is arguably practically neither.

    ...and, that was kind of my point. Those who say "look at all the money athletics makes for the school!" when looking at those figures are wrong. Those who say "look at all the money athletics is costing the school!" when looking at those figures are also wrong. When an athletic dept. is spending the schools money within the school, then it isn't really costing the school as much as the critics like to insinuate, nor is it making the school as much as the critics like to insinuate even though it's technically reported that way. It's actually pretty close to a break even proposition.
    I honestly dont know what you are saying. Schools just get to make up the accounting on the fly? Sometimes this counts, sometimes that counts? It's nonsense. There are revenues and expenses associated with College athletics. The schools have ACTUAL accountants that apply consistent and "accepted" accounting concepts when they come up with their financial reports. There are auditors involved.

    Here is my favorite: "The use of the arenas for the men's basketball tournament doesn't really cost them anything."

    like what the hell. Do you actually believe that?

  8. #158
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    10,147
    Quote Originally Posted by MHettel View Post
    I honestly dont know what you are saying. Schools just get to make up the accounting on the fly? Sometimes this counts, sometimes that counts? It's nonsense. There are revenues and expenses associated with College athletics. The schools have ACTUAL accountants that apply consistent and "accepted" accounting concepts when they come up with their financial reports. There are auditors involved.

    Here is my favorite: "The use of the arenas for the men's basketball tournament doesn't really cost them anything."

    like what the hell. Do you actually believe that?

    Okay, what I'm saying is that people who believe all D1 programs make tens of millions in revenue each year are wrong, AND that people who say D1 programs lose tens of millions in revenue are also wrong. People abuse the data, or see what they want to, to try and make their points about how badly the players are exploited, or about how all the schools are going bankrupt because of athletics.

    As far as how schools report revenue externally, money spent on scholarships is considered both an expense and revenue generated. It all comes out to zero.

    As far as how schools "make up the accounting on the fly," the answer is...yeah. Pretty much. Some count tuition as revenue generated, and others don't. Some count made up fees and expenditures such as "facilities fees" (my personal favorite) as an expense to make it look like they're spending all this money, and others don't. When it comes to the money that the athletic department spends within the school, I'm convinced that no two places report it in the same way.

    As far as your favorite "The use of the arenas for the men's basketball tournament doesn't really cost the NCAA anything," IT DOESN'T!! I would imagine that big entertainers like Garth Brooks (or whoever) aren't paying for the use of the arenas and stadiums. The arenas and stadiums are paying them, or they have some sort of contract where the profits are split in some way.

    The NCAA does not lose any money when it comes to the use of arenas, nor do they pay for the staffing of those arenas. That I am quite certain of. Even if they did, they'd make all the money back from ticket sales and then some. They sure as hell wouldn’t need to dip into their TV money to cover any losses. That typically falls on whoever the host school (or conference) is to basically do all the NCAA's work for nothing, as well as arrange the availability of the venue. Earlier you mentioned Dayton. The NCAA isn't really dishing out any money at all for the First Four.

    Now, getting back to what really was my whole over-arching point, the NCAA could have done things to prevent this from ending up in the courts and potentially losing everything. Even if none of my ideas would have worked at all, things couldn't have possibly ended up all that much worse. The one thing you and I do agree on is that this is (at least potentially) going to change college sports as we know it, and it could make the competitive balance even way more out of balance than what it already is.
    Last edited by xubrew; 06-28-2021 at 05:47 PM.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  9. #159
    Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by MADXSTER View Post
    Drew, I don't think anyone is saying that the NCAA is not a monopoly. No one is saying that monopolies are good. Everyone agrees in the free market as well. The problem is that by opening up this can of worms in the way of how it is getting opened is not going to have a good outcome. Now that the NCAA is not a monopoly, where is the competition going to come from? The rich are going to get richer and the poor poorer.

    Not every D1 school plays basketball in arenas. Most play in gyms. The reason: there isn't enough money.

    I just had a D1 assistant football coach in my office and he made 55k per year.

    We had a discussion on another thread talking about how in sports such as baseball the NCAA limit of scholarships are 9.9 but most teams don't have the money to spend for the entire 9.9 scholarships. Plus that 9.9 is split up between x number of players.

    My daughter played D1 soccer with out of state tuition. She ended up a Captain on a very good team. Women's soccer has 14 scholarships to be divided by 30 players. I do know that the budget did not allow for the pay of 14 full scholarships. She left with over a 100k in student loans. It was her choice. She has a good job and should have that paid off in 5 years if not sooner.

    My take is that there will be even less money for the non revenue sports than there is now because of the downward trickle effect. Boosters will be paying for certain athletes to come to their school for football or basketball. That money will now not go into the general fund which supports other teams. The teams will turn into club sports or will be dissolved entirely. So once again what will the alternative be now that the NCAA is no longer a monopoly?
    If a school wants to sponsor non-revenue sports then that should come out of the school's pockets, not those who are generating revenue. At the least the revenue generating sports should share that burden equally instead of putting it all on the athletes.

  10. #160
    Supporting Member MADXSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Finneytown
    Posts
    7,212
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew View Post
    If a school wants to sponsor non-revenue sports then that should come out of the school's pockets, not those who are generating revenue. At the least the revenue generating sports should share that burden equally instead of putting it all on the athletes.
    This probably says more than all of your other posts combined.
    Balls of Steele!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •