Coach Nell thanks the NCAA

The Jacket

The Coat
Joined
Jun 17, 2002
Messages
26,264
Imagine being providing food, hotels, working with local governments for weeks to provide pandemic safety protocols stronger than nuclear power plants, coordinating with several conferences, travel agencies, supporting the education and athletic opportunity of all the participants that their parents could only dream of TV exposure and promotion on the biggest sports network in the country exclusively and them being told the weight room is unfair.
Did you just attempt to portray the NCAA as a benevolent entity? And then excuse them failing their student-athletes as a little slip-up? Them, the N-C-double-ööööing-A. Holy öööö man, you guys really are ööööed.
 

GTCrew4b

Get That Corn Outta Ma Face
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
24,706
Did you just attempt to portray the NCAA as a benevolent entity? And then excuse them failing their student-athletes as a little slip-up? Them, the N-C-double-ööööing-A. Holy öööö man, you guys really are ööööed.
For the vast majority (99.99% most likely) the NCAA is a great organization. For the very few select athletes who may be able to market their skills and athletic prowess outside of the intercollegiate athletics arena it’s not so great. The NCAA or an organization like it would exist to organize competitions under any circumstance so unless you just want a student athlete led organization or congress or something (something no majority of collegiate athletes would want) in some idealistic vision you will just hate whatever front org is in charge of it.
 

andrew

Bobby Bonilla's Financial Planner
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
23,249
Do you envision this to be a good dream or a bad one...?

What I imagine is letting people do whatever they want, and the invisible hand of the free market satisfies the largest number of people's largest number of needs and preferences.

Which means that, yes, it is entirely possible that the pinochle king of the world is going to make less money from his pinochle talents than the coding king of the world is going to make from his coding. And thank heavens for that!

This all goes back to an old problem in estate law – when doling out the family cash, is it "fair" to treat your overachieving son and your underachieving son equally? Or is it "fairer" to give more to the guy that has demonstrated better ability to steward it? Or is it "fairer" to give more money to the guy that has demonstrated a greater need for it?

You can tell you're in a policy discussion where people are just voting with their feelings, contingent upon their personal histories and what they ate that morning, when they rely upon "fairness" to justify the outcome. I used to tell my kids "fair" was a four-letter word that wasn't allowed in our household.
I envision it to be completely correct. Compensation shouldn't come based on how hard you work, or how much skill you have, or how much a central planning committee decides what you do should be worth. It should come from how much society values what you do, and the best way to determine that is via a capitalist system where people are free to spend money as they choose. If more people want to watch football than lacrosse, then, well, sorry Charlie.

I don't fully agree with letting people/businesses do whatever they want. I do think we need antitrust laws, because the system only works well if there is competition and price discovery. And that links back to why I am frustrated that the schools run college football like a business (major TV contracts, huge salaries for coaches, exorbitant merchandise prices, etc.) but are also allowed to agree among themselves to cap the compensation of the players, essentially eliminating price discovery.
 
Last edited:

The Jacket

The Coat
Joined
Jun 17, 2002
Messages
26,264
For the vast majority (99.99% most likely) the NCAA is a great organization. For the very few select athletes who may be able to market their skills and athletic prowess outside of the intercollegiate athletics arena it’s not so great. The NCAA or an organization like it would exist to organize competitions under any circumstance so unless you just want a student athlete led organization or congress or something (something no majority of collegiate athletes would want) in some idealistic vision you will just hate whatever front org is in charge of it.
Those are pretty wordy apologetics for an organization that can and should do its ööööing job and do right by its female student athletes, but doesn't because they don't give a öööö and have people like you on their side to let everyone know the corrupt billion-dollar organization is trying its best.
 

BuzzLaw

I hope it rains at my funeral
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
9,160
That goes both ways. If you think compensation with money is fair, why isn't compensation with tuition and room and board fair? What justifies paying a back up third string punt returner more than the six figures he's already getting?
Im computer literate

The reality is that when you add up all the value the college kids are getting, they're getting way more than (for example) minor league baseball players. Be careful what you wish for athletes... if we go to straight cash, the overall benefit you receive is likely to go way, way down.
how about that. Thanks for the help.
 

GTCrew4b

Get That Corn Outta Ma Face
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
24,706
Those are pretty wordy apologetics for an organization that can and should do its ööööing job and do right by its female student athletes, but doesn't because they don't give a öööö and have people like you on their side to let everyone know the corrupt billion-dollar organization is trying its best.
I think the organization does more for female athletes than any organization in the world as evidenced by the American female dominance in the olympics, world championships, etc. in fact the American women win more medals than the men now at what would be considered the pinnacle of amateur competition.

the NCAA sponsors more female sports than male sports. And the numbers of athletes are roughly equivalent despite women being far less interested in sports than men on a general basis.
 

The Jacket

The Coat
Joined
Jun 17, 2002
Messages
26,264
I think the organization does more for female athletes than any organization in the world as evidenced by the American female dominance in the olympics, world championships, etc. in fact the American women win more medals than the men now at what would be considered the pinnacle of amateur competition.

the NCAA sponsors far more female sports than male sports. And the numbers of athletes are roughly equivalent despite women being far less interested in sports than men on a general basis.
And they're not doing enough, as evidenced by the weight room video you dismiss and the reasonable expectations in Nell's post which you find outrageous. This is easy to understand. Easier than providing adequate facilities instead of a dumbbell in a corner, and less expensive than decent presentation on a television broadcast. And yet..
 

BuzzLaw

I hope it rains at my funeral
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
9,160
Only colleges don't "make millions" off of you. It is telling that in our always-incoherent-but-progressing MSM, the debate about college athletics is completely schizophrenic... half the articles are: "students are slaves on college plantations as higher ed makes millions off of them" and the other half are: "academics go bankrupt while colleges pour millions into college athletics." So is major college athletics a terrible waste of resources from academics or a cash cow built on the backs of slaves?

Neither, obvs. Some athletics departments require subsidy from the university (just like the theater department and the arts department do), and others break even or even provide a small (couple million dollar) subsidy to the university.

And for you to look at the NFL draft tells me that we're debating different things. Obvs the best HS football players go to college. This isn't evidence they aren't free to try another route, whatever they might think that is. Rather, it is evidence that colleges (and donors like you and me) have voluntarily invested hundreds of millions of dollars in building an infrastructure (weight rooms, stadiums, "academic success centers," you name it) to enable these students to mature, develop and thrive, both as players and as students.

The idea that 'colleges' are making millions off of student athletes is ridiculous. Rather, construction companies and university administrators are making millions off of football-motivated donors like me. The student athletes get a lot of training and a free education for their role in the mechanism. I didn't get anything but a dumb clear plastic bag and a window flag. When you think about it, I'm the one who needs some revenue sharing.

And to be clear, the kids that play football overwhelmingly *love playing football,* which they would not be able to do with this level of support (medical, academic, fan, media, you name it) if they insisted on being treated as a professional at the age of 18.

The idea that poor players are having their arms twisted by some cruel and relentless capitalist Scrooge to lay their bodies on the line for the benefit of old fat white guys like me, is absurd. Players scratch and crawl over one another to get a D1 scholarship, as well they should – it's a lot of fun, it's a great deal, and you get both a great education and a chance to make millions playing football, if you happen to be among the lucky few that are talented enough for that.
So some colleges will use their resources for sports and others won’t. The ones who manage their resources appropriately will have the best programs, whether it’s college football or robotics.
Some colleges may say they still aren’t providing any more than tuition. Others may pay thousands or hundreds of thousands.
The way I see it, the ncaa is set up so the colleges can say their hands are tied and can’t pay, at least can’t pay in the light. It’s hard for me to look at the tv deals and coaching salaries and say colleges aren’t making money on football.


That goes both ways. If you think compensation with money is fair, why isn't compensation with tuition and room and board fair? What justifies paying a back up third string punt returner more than the six figures he's already getting?

The reality is that when you add up all the value the college kids are getting, they're getting way more than (for example) minor league baseball players. Be careful what you wish for athletes... if we go to straight cash, the overall benefit you receive is likely to go way, way down.
I’m fine with that. No offense but it sounds like a sales pitch. Be careful going with this because you may lose all this nice shiny stuff we have laid out for you.

It’s a marketplace. There will be winners and losers. But at least let them be paid if there is a market for them. You’re in favor of shutting down the market, and that seems to go against the grain of American economics to me.

And, for the record, I do agree this will have a negative impact on college football. But I’m becoming more convinced the shady deals going on under the table are producing just as many negative effects.
 

BuzzLaw

I hope it rains at my funeral
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
9,160
Imagine you're a coach and you want your team to have access to decent facilities during a championship tournament and generally be treated like human beings, and a discussion of that fact by the people who should be your biggest supporters devolves into a pissing match over legal terminology regarding a tangentially related subject because most of them don't have the balls to support you.
I liked this post because I generally agree we’ve gone off topic, and I’m partly responsible for that. I’m sorry.
 

18in32

Petard Hoister
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
24,018
I envision it to be completely correct. Compensation shouldn't come based on how hard you work, or how much skill you have, or how much a central planning committee decides what you do should be worth. It should come from how much society values what you do, and the best way to determine that is via a capitalist system where people are free to spend money as they choose. If more people want to watch football than lacrosse, then, well, sorry Charlie.

I don't fully agree with letting people/businesses do whatever they want. I do think we need antitrust laws, because the system only works well if there is competition and price discovery. And that links back to why I am frustrated that the schools run college football like a business (major TV contracts, huge salaries for coaches, exorbitant merchandise prices, etc.) but are also allowed to agree among themselves to cap the compensation of the players, essentially eliminating price discovery.
Then it sounds like you and I are in very similar places on this.

The primary difference is that I don't think college football is run 'like a business' nearly as much as everyone else around here does. That's why there are hundreds of football programs in the country that make no money. There are a handful that easily operate in the black, and fund large coaches' salaries – but most of the money that big programs make goes to support non-revenue sports, and even the biggest and most successful programs receive lots and lots of voluntary donations. Almost 20% of the budget of one of the country's richest programs (Alabama) is from voluntary donations. In 2019 Tech got $24 mil in contributions. You're not going to find that in any other 'business.'
 

The Jacket

The Coat
Joined
Jun 17, 2002
Messages
26,264
I liked this post because I generally agree we’ve gone off topic, and I’m partly responsible for that. I’m sorry.
It wasn't you who did it. It started in the very first few replies to this thread, people finding anything to talk about, any subject to switch to which isn't addressing the fact that NCAA should be doing better by the women's basketball division. I've had to repeat that phrase something like half a dozen times now because nobody seems to know or give a öööö what this thread was about. Really makes me wonder how the NCAA gets away with it.
 

BuzzLaw

I hope it rains at my funeral
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
9,160
I envision it to be completely correct. Compensation shouldn't come based on how hard you work, or how much skill you have, or how much a central planning committee decides what you do should be worth. It should come from how much society values what you do, and the best way to determine that is via a capitalist system where people are free to spend money as they choose. If more people want to watch football than lacrosse, then, well, sorry Charlie.

I don't fully agree with letting people/businesses do whatever they want. I do think we need antitrust laws, because the system only works well if there is competition and price discovery. And that links back to why I am frustrated that the schools run college football like a business (major TV contracts, huge salaries for coaches, exorbitant merchandise prices, etc.) but are also allowed to agree among themselves to cap the compensation of the players, essentially eliminating price discovery.
This does a much better job at what I’ve been trying to say in all my posts. Well done.
 

andrew

Bobby Bonilla's Financial Planner
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
23,249
Then it sounds like you and I are in very similar places on this.

The primary difference is that I don't think college football is run 'like a business' nearly as much as everyone else around here does. That's why there are hundreds of football programs in the country that make no money. There are a handful that easily operate in the black, and fund large coaches' salaries – but most of the money that big programs make goes to support non-revenue sports, and even the biggest and most successful programs receive lots and lots of voluntary donations. Almost 20% of the budget of one of the country's richest programs (Alabama) is from voluntary donations. In 2019 Tech got $24 mil in contributions. You're not going to find that in any other 'business.'
I was under the impression that every Power 5 football program was well in the black. The athletic department as a whole may not turn a profit because as you say they pile most or all of the revenue they don't spend on football into the non-revenue sports, but I thought the football programs were all very profitable. Perhaps that is partly hearsay and speculation, as I'm not sure if they release financials in that level of detail.
 

GTCrew4b

Get That Corn Outta Ma Face
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
24,706
And they're not doing enough, as evidenced by the weight room video you dismiss and the reasonable expectations in Nell's post which you find outrageous. This is easy to understand. Easier than providing adequate facilities instead of a dumbbell in a corner, and less expensive than decent presentation on a television broadcast. And yet..
they’re not doing enough as evidenced by men getting more. I imagine the weight room would’ve been provided if someone simply asked for an improvement at the last tournament. Maybe they did and the NCAA laughed in their faces and said “You’re women, what do you need a weight room for?” But I doubt it. Instead the athlete went straight to social media. Nice.
 

18in32

Petard Hoister
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
24,018
It’s hard for me to look at the tv deals and coaching salaries and say colleges aren’t making money on football.
The coaches make a ton. How do the colleges make a ton? Those TV deals are spent on... non-revenue sports, including women's sports. Thanks to Title IX, America's interest in top quality male athletics has been a huge boon to women's volleyball and softball and the rest.

It’s a marketplace. There will be winners and losers. But at least let them be paid if there is a market for them. You’re in favor of shutting down the market, and that seems to go against the grain of American economics to me.
Huh? If you and any colleges you can convince want to pay their 'students' to play a sport, go right ahead. But the colleges that believe in amateurism should be allowed to continue with the model they have created. Believing in amateurism is not being opposed to the free market.
 

The Jacket

The Coat
Joined
Jun 17, 2002
Messages
26,264
they’re not doing enough as evidenced by men getting more. I imagine the weight room would’ve been provided if someone simply asked for an improvement at the last tournament. Maybe they did and the NCAA laughed in their faces and said “You’re women, what do you need a weight room for?” But I doubt it. Instead the athlete went straight to social media. Nice.
Pretty sick mindless speculation bro.
 

18in32

Petard Hoister
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
24,018
I was under the impression that every Power 5 football program was well in the black. The athletic department as a whole may not turn a profit because as you say they pile most or all of the revenue they don't spend on football into the non-revenue sports, but I thought the football programs were all very profitable. Perhaps that is partly hearsay and speculation, as I'm not sure if they release financials in that level of detail.
I think you're right that the P5 football programs (specifically) are all in the black. I was referring to all the other colleges that play football besides those 60+ teams.
 

BuzzLaw

I hope it rains at my funeral
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
9,160
The coaches make a ton. How do the colleges make a ton? Those TV deals are spent on... non-revenue sports, including women's sports. Thanks to Title IX, America's interest in top quality male athletics has been a huge boon to women's volleyball and softball and the rest.


Huh? If you and any colleges you can convince want to pay their 'students' to play a sport, go right ahead. But the colleges that believe in amateurism should be allowed to continue with the model they have created. Believing in amateurism is not being opposed to the free market.
Well then be amateurs. Don’t let players who can’t read join your college. Actually make them earn a degree. Make punishments for receiving money so harsh that the school and the players never do it.

I think we’re going in circles. I understand your points. I think you understand mine. No sense repeating them in different order.
 
Top