Generally speaking do the other levels have training tables or do they eat dorm food or on their own type of setup?
NCAA read the writing on the wall
- Thread starter Duck_walk
- Start date
let me get my calculator out assuming there are 20,000 students enrolled across the college 3 million divided by that amount is 150 dollars a student over a 4 year career that is 600 dollars. 600 dollars compounded over 20 years (the average life of a student loan) assuming 8% interest is equivalent to 2796.57 dollars times 20000 students is 55931400 million I was off by about 9 million dollars which is a significant amount but hardly derails the point that a substantial amount of money could be saved by cutting coaches salaries... you're lucky I'm showing a movie today and have time do all this math haha
I'm fundamentally against a person not being allowed to profit off of their own talents in any way they can, as long as it doesn't cause harm to anyone else. If it means the "downfall" of the sham collegiate athletics system, who cares?
People are in an uproar because it could cause their cash cow to come crashing down. They don't want to have to share money, or have it go away altogether.
Funny how people that are for a free and open, market-based, capitalist economy aren't for this. Shows their true colors.
People are in an uproar because it could cause their cash cow to come crashing down. They don't want to have to share money, or have it go away altogether.
Funny how people that are for a free and open, market-based, capitalist economy aren't for this. Shows their true colors.
And typically any academic or other scholarship are applied first to preserve as much money for partial scholarships as possible at the D2 level not sure about D1. Colleges will even give large scholarships based on a sliding ACT/GPA score
Plenty of these large colleges charge activity fees that dwarf your estimated $20 per semester, FYI
You pay for more than coaches - there are facilities, trainers, recruiting costs, etc.
For sure. The underlying fact here is that college tuition isn't like milk at the grocery store: there's not "one price" - the price is whatever a college thinks it should charge you to have you on campus. The headline tuition numbers at a lot of colleges are fictitious
yea i knew there were other states that were in discussion after California's initial bill passed. perhaps others complaining knew this as well but thats on them.
Easy fix is to up the full scholarships that can be offered:
NCAA D1 85 to 135
NCAA D1 AA 36 to 100
D-2 24 (which is crazy) to 100
NAIA 24 to 100
It is not like they can not afford more money to give to athletes.
NCAA D1 85 to 135
NCAA D1 AA 36 to 100
D-2 24 (which is crazy) to 100
NAIA 24 to 100
It is not like they can not afford more money to give to athletes.
When we look back in 25 years, we're going to think it was crazy that the system still worked the way it does in 2019. It's like the old NCAA cartel rules that limited how much football could be shown on TV.
Top tier NCAA football and basketball is a professional sport raking in billions of dollars a year. Something had to give that resulted in more of that money going to the full time employees.
Top tier NCAA football and basketball is a professional sport raking in billions of dollars a year. Something had to give that resulted in more of that money going to the full time employees.
This is the exact wrong way, the issue in the NCAA is that the best players are underpaid, not that marginal players are underpaid
Plus D2, NAIA, etc. are all money losing machines that do not need higher costs...the real reckoning to come at lower levels is why they sponsor so many sports and spend so much on a nonessential activity. Mizzou revolves around football, it's a part of student life. that's true at some lower tier schools. At a place like Truman? Eh
I hate to be the guy but does anybody on here really endorse title IX right now how it is
ageed on on all of that. no one likes change and things are changing. i was going to post the free market,capitalism rhetoric you mentioned but beat me to it.
The marginal players are putting their health on the line just as the superstar is doing. The money is there to pay those athletes as well. Do what the SEC does and NCAA share all revenues with programs to balance out the scale. NAIA move to form of NCAA. I disagree about the best players being underpaid as well. Take out of state tuition for top player at MU(since they have trouble getting top in state players). Tuition, housing/dining, books is $40,542 a year. Times that by 5 years and the top athlete is paid $202,710! Not including any federal money that they get to keep in financial aid. That is well compensated for top players.
People will raise complaints but Title IX governs educational spending, not sponsorships/private spending. I suspect this is a reason the California law and other pushes were focused on spending that sits outside of the university's budget.
There's also nothing to stop UConn, etc from having sponsors.
The marginal players aren't professionals is the issue. Their scholarship is fair or more than fair value.
Also, list tuition prices are a nonsense measure of the value of a scholarship to Mizzou. The average kid at Mizzou isn't paying anywhere near $40k a year to be there. And the value of a top tier FB player is way over $40k a year in any case.
What do you think a top tier Mizzou FB player would get paid if the schools had to bid for his services? Far more than $40k a year. Mizzou FB generates tens of millions a year.
I don't think Title IX is perfect, but it had a point. If a college wants to sponsor truly amateur athletics in a bunch of non-revenue generating sports, it should have to spread that money out among men and women.
It wasn't meant for a world like SEC football or basketball, which are professional sports. But it makes a lot of sense to tell UMSL that if you want Federal educational funding, you can't spend 90% of your scholarships on men's sports. Cash is fungible, and we expect you to spend that cash in non-discriminatory ways.
oh there are going to be issues like this popping up but they can be worked through in the end. cant let the perfect be the enemy of the good. bottomline line is its not fair for universities and third parties raking in millions,billions off the image likeness of someone yet the person of said image cant....makes no sense and its bs.
I don't disagree with that but in my opinion football should be exempt or considered coed against the scholarship limit at the D1 level because at the end of the day it is not an expenditure at all but a profit base for the school that helps fund the athletic department
"Coach...hey man, my agent's gonna give you a call about
my touches against tech on Saturday...Gonna need about
15-20...Nike has this thing they want me to do...
Oh and my agent disagrees on how you're using me on kick off return also.."
my touches against tech on Saturday...Gonna need about
15-20...Nike has this thing they want me to do...
Oh and my agent disagrees on how you're using me on kick off return also.."
I think this at the high end, but that's absolutely not true at all at the low end of D1 even in FBS, let alone in FCS. Places like UAB lose their shirts on football.
I get that this is a tough thing to handle via statute, where you need defined rules that you can implement. I could argue for the line being FBS, or something like the Power 5 + ND
One of the things we have to acknowledge is that the conferences have effectively defined the P5 + Notre Dame as the only schools that are competing for the NCAA title, which means they've defined even D1 football down to a professional subset.
I meant FBS I should have specified and part of the problem with teams losing there shirt has more to do with AD's spending to have there facilities compete with the big boys.
Why is it nonsense? About 75 players are out of state and have to pay that in scholarship money to attend Mizzou.
the power 5 schoold should just break away from the ncaa as a whole. the ncaa is a joke
It costs a lot of money to have facilities, coaches, and 85 scholarships. If you don't draw fans/donations or have a good TV deal, you will lose millions.
Also if you cut having to match the 70 scholarships with womens sports football becomes a lot more profitable
Arguably, they did halfway with the playoffs and with how they totally control the TV money now.
If the NCAA pushes too far, they just might.
a little off topic but thats one of the reasons mizzou accepted an sec offer...fairness
I think its a matter of time the NCAA is poorly managed and doesn't have the monopoly protection of the NFL
Factually true, but I disagree with the premise when football is not a professional sport. Arkansas State is not operating on the same level as Mizzou. Why should they get to spend some of our Federal subsidies solely on men's athletics?
I can see this completely causing collegiate sports to disappear in America, We will end up like the European countries having athletes fighting for spots on Club teams that will then in turn finally give them a shot at the pros. I do not see the NCAA being able to control everything correctly.
Because the average out of state kid pays nowhere near full tuition. Look at the deals they offer to kids from border states, look at the scholarships, etc.
Because they wouldn't be running at a deficit if the football budget was separate from all other athletics and did not effect scholarship counts
Sorry, but that's not true at all for lower D-1 FBS schools. Football is expensive.
Football only makes money when you're selling 5 figures of tickets per game, raking in millions in TV deals, and millions in scholarship fund contributions.
They
do not pay that because they are on scholarship of some sort. Fact is that total costs for out of state player at Mizzou is $40,542 a year. That includes everything.
