Sherman, Bennett Bash NCAA

[rickm1976]

Cry me a frickin' river, college is an educational institution that these athletes use to get into the pros.  It provides them free room, board, tuition AND the stage they need, if their skills are high enough, to achieve more wealth than any Medical school, law school or business school student  could ever hope to achieve.  And that is done on the backs of the tax payers so yes they get enough and don't need additional stipends.   Talk to the student who falls in the gray area whose parents aren't rich enough to pay for college but make too much money to be given financial aid, the ones working two jobs and going to school full time, try that and then talk about how hard playing a sport is, and it is easy to schedule a full load from 7-2, hell you can do that and only go to school three days a week.   Although I do believe they should be allowed to go straight to the pros if they have the talent, save the scholarship for someone who actually wants an eduction.   My two cents...

How much of those scholarships do we taxpayers pay?

[jkstock04]

Nobody is forcing them to be a part of college athletics. But they do need some extra stipends.
I worked for a company that made millions & I helped them do it. But I agreed to my salary when I took the job.

These guys acting surprised that being a student athlete is hard shows their ignorance. Bennett really came off sounding like a moron with these comments. Lol at that restaurant analogy.

All this is, is the day in age we live in...and big headed guys wanting more due to greed and being pampered.

Ohhh nooo the poor baby had -40 in his account and had to study after football practice!! Ohhh nooo the poooor baby had trouble with his schedule!! Lol I mean these are guys who are now multi-millionaires truly seeing the fruits of their labors...one with a degree from Stanford...and this is what they cry about.

There are millions of Americans every day that make sacrifices in order to make a means to an end...especially long term goals. These guys goals are to make it to the NFL. These are the sacrafices you have to make. If were easy everyone would do it.

Ya the universities and NCAA make a killing off these kids. I would say if you have a problem with that, simply don't sign up for it...do something else. I don't like this world we live in where everyone feels they are owed something more. It's everywhere you look.

Instead of being GREATFUL for the opportunity to play college ball for a major program, on scholarship...these guys still want more. That's just basic human nature though...people can rarely make due and be happy, they always want more. The problem is they want more for doing nothing.

[Fatty McGee]

Actually they want what the free market would offer them. Not more for nothing. That doesn't make them any different than any of the rest of us.

[YankHog]

How much of those scholarships do we taxpayers pay?

Well that money comes from a whole bunch of different areas, state funds sent to the university provided by "tax payers",  ticket sales from us "tax payers",  tuition and other fees us "tax payers" have paid into the university from either going there ourselves or sending our kids,  merchandise us avid "tax payer" fans buy that are licensed, TV income the university gets from games from cable companies that were paid to them by "tax payers" and so on. 

[Fatty McGee]

Well that money comes from a whole bunch of different areas, state funds sent to the university provided by "tax payers",  ticket sales from us "tax payers",  tuition and other fees us "tax payers" have paid into the university from either going there ourselves or sending our kids,  merchandise us avid "tax payer" fans buy that are licensed, TV income the university gets from games from cable companies that were paid to them by "tax payers" and so on. 

You mean "consumers".  Using taxpayers implies you are spending that money against your will.

[YankHog]

You mean "consumers".  Using taxpayers implies you are spending that money against your will.

that is perhaps an entirely different topic, would you pay taxes to support the state or not, different people will answer differently,  maintanence of roads, bridges, educational institutions, but yes, I didn't have to go there or send my kids there, I chose to.

[jm]

This argument will never end. These guys are well compensated for the hours that they do "work". It isn't as simple as the hours of effort being forth.  It isn't as simple as the school makes alot of money so they should share it.
Are the athletes well compensated for their personal image that the school uses? Are they compensated enough to account for the injury risks they absorb? Are the athletes compensating the school enough for being their publicist?  What does an image consultant charge these days? What would it cost to pay a personal trainer like Ben Herbert? What is it worth to be trained to speak publically and given a chance to practice those skills in a real environment?  Would someone like Richard Sherman be able to speak publicly about his opinion if not for the opportunities he received?
Some schools are making  money (lots of money for some), but they are also providing a valuable service that goes far beyond the degree that they hand the players if they graduate.

[26.2Hog]

There are 1,083 colleges and universities with sports programs that fall under the governance of the NCAA.

Only 20 of them are profitable. All the rest are losing money on athletics, and have to be subsidized with taxpayer money, additional student fees, etc.

The general notion that athletes are generating big profits for all these schools is a myth.

[Fatty McGee]

There are 1,083 colleges and universities with sports programs that fall under the governance of the NCAA.

Only 20 of them are profitable. All the rest are losing money on athletics, and have to be subsidized with taxpayer money, additional student fees, etc.

The general notion that athletes are generating big profits for all these schools is a myth.

We're only talking about D-1, and more specifically, those schools with D-1 football.  The rest of the classifications, except for basketball, are not relevant to this conversation.  Why?  Because in those schools the athletes likely don't have any significant outside market value, and the cost to maintain their programs is nothing like the cost of maintaining a D-1 football program.

The notion that those schools who are in D-1 are making some massive financial sacrifice is the bigger myth.  In the past couple decades, only one school has dropped DOWN from D-1 football, UAB.  Multiple schools have joined though, none of which have a hope of winning a national title, like nearly every other school outside the Power 5.  Even within the Power 5 probably only 1/4 of the schools have a realistic hope of winning a title in a generation.

Why would they do that if they're all losing money hand over fist?  Poor leadership?  Trustees with no financial acumen?

Short answer, they're not, when you properly classify athletics as marketing.  From that standpoint, athletics are a bargain when you figure the cost of airtime to purchase that kind of advertising.  It's a great deal.

Here's the other thing - the numbers reported by the colleges often aren't "real" numbers.  For example, many put the "cost" of a scholarship at the full tuition value.  But that's not a real cost because it doesn't cost a university that much money to add a student.  This explains it in detail:

http://regressing.deadspin.com/how-athletic-departments-and-the-media-fudge-the-cost-1570827027

[ThundrHawg]

The root of this entire issue is that college football and basketball have turned into developmental leagues for the pros. As much as it would suck to watch our beloved college sports become less exciting I think they should do away with athletic scholarships entirely. Scholarships should be given to the best and brightest STUDENTS that need help attending. The rest of the world continues to pass us by in education while we argue how much our institutes of higher learning should be paying ATHLETES. We should all be ashamed every time they stick the microphone in the face of some guy who can barely put words together to make sentences after a big game, realizing this is the face of our college education system. Set up actual development leagues for the pro sports and pay these guys whatever the market is willing to give them. That way they can save everyone the farce that has become of the modern day "student-athlete".

[Michael D Huff AIA]

http://financialaid.stanford.edu/undergrad/budget/

$62,801 per year.  This is what a Stanford degree cost PER YEAR!  That's about a quarter million for a 4 year degree.  By comparison, a 4 year in-state degree at UA is about $36,000.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciajessop/2013/08/31/the-economics-of-college-football-a-look-at-the-top-25-teams-revenues-and-expenses/

$25.56 million in 2012.  This is what Stanford made in revenue from football in one year.  That equates to just over $100 million during a 4 year period.  By comparison, UA made $80.675 million last year from football.  That equates to about $323 million over a 4 year period.

Things learned from this research:
1.  Get a full scholarship if you plan on going to Stanford.
2.  Playing in the SEC does not suck from a revenue standpoint.  Stanford has more wins in the past few years, but UA out revenues them 3.2 to 1.
3.  If UA has 80 scholarship players @ $36k per 4 years, that's a cash outlay of $11.52 million.  That $11.52 million returned $323 million to UA, a 28.04X ROI.  That's pretty amazing.  I realize there are other expenses that would lower that ROI, but wow.
4.  I can understand how athletes want a piece of that pie. 

[demonHOG1013]

People that want to say that regular students that have a job after school is the same and kids playing football is a silly argument. I'm sorry but there's not a regular student out there that has a job that requires you work an hour and a half to two hours before school, then makes you come back and work from 1:30pm-6:00pm Mon-Friday, come back in on Saturday and work 4-6 hours and then oh yeah we're gonna need you to come in on Sunday night and work another 4 hours.  Oh yeah and if you don't get a 2.0 GPA you can't work here anymore. Oh yeah and even though most people think your job is for four years, it is really only one year at a time.  So if I (your boss) determine that I want to give your paycheck to someone else next year I can do that and you can continue to work here for free.

[Michael D Huff AIA]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/

Using this chart, it does seem (if the numbers are correct) that the large majority of programs lose money. 

I did some Excel math and of the 230 programs on this list, 20 are in the black.  I subtracted their "profit" from the subsidy from the school.  If they were in the red they are not profitable. 
- 20 are in the black after subsidies
- 127 are in the black before subsidies
- Mississippi St. was the #49 school on the list and they were the last profitable school (after subsidies).
- 50 through 230 lost money.
- 8 of the 20 profitable were SEC schools.
- The average school does make money ($1.187m) but the average subsidy is $10.63m, so that blows the doors off "profitability". 
- Tennessee, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Ole Miss -- all in the red.
-  Rutgers is a zero profit school, but receives almost $47m in subsidies.
-  Alabama is #1 before subsidies at $27.2m profit. (UA is #13)
-  Texas, Ohio St., OU, LSU, Penn St., Nebraska, and Purdue are the only non-subsidy schools out there.
-  The UA sports teams get a total of 2.03% subsidy from the school.

[Doug]

- Tennessee, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Ole Miss -- all in the red.

The only reason why Tinnar is in the red is because of buyouts of two football coaches and at least 1 basketball coach (and a couple other coaches). Fulmer and Dooley got Tinnar good for being "fired".

[Fatty McGee]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/

Using this chart, it does seem (if the numbers are correct) that the large majority of programs lose money. 

I did some Excel math and of the 230 programs on this list, 20 are in the black.  I subtracted their "profit" from the subsidy from the school.  If they were in the red they are not profitable. 
- 20 are in the black after subsidies
- 127 are in the black before subsidies
- Mississippi St. was the #49 school on the list and they were the last profitable school (after subsidies).
- 50 through 230 lost money.
- 8 of the 20 profitable were SEC schools.
- The average school does make money ($1.187m) but the average subsidy is $10.63m, so that blows the doors off "profitability". 
- Tennessee, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Ole Miss -- all in the red.
-  Rutgers is a zero profit school, but receives almost $47m in subsidies.
-  Alabama is #1 before subsidies at $27.2m profit. (UA is #13)
-  Texas, Ohio St., OU, LSU, Penn St., Nebraska, and Purdue are the only non-subsidy schools out there.
-  The UA sports teams get a total of 2.03% subsidy from the school.

That chart is considered in more detail here:

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/6/6/5783394/college-sports-profits-money-schools-revenues-subsidies

"At Tennessee, for example, which is listed as taking more than $12 million in 2013 subsidies despite having a 102,000-seat football stadium and an SEC television contract, the accounting makes the Vols look less sustainable than similar schools:

According to a report in Tuesday's USA Today, the University of Tennessee athletic department derived 12 percent ($13.552 million) of its revenue from subsidies. That's a misleading figure, though, UT officials say, as the majority of it is money that has never actually existed.

Example: Thompson-Boling Arena is one year older, therefore it is worth [$8.36 million] less than it was the previous year.

That $8.36 million counted as a "Depreciation" line item in the 2011 subsidy report. According to GoVolsXtra's report, Tennessee only took about $1 million of what most of us would actually think of as subsidies -- in this case, student fees. The athletic department also sent $6.84 million in revenue to the school itself, so if we were to limit the subsidies category to student fees, then the University of Tennessee would've made about $5.8 million off of its athletic department in 2011."

Again, though, college sports are marketing, and you would be hard pressed to find marketing as effective as that for the cost.

[Inhogswetrust]

No one is suggesting they do. But they can also leave McDonald's any time for another quarter an hour at Burger King and it would be illegal for McDonald's and BK to agree to set their pay.

They can leave one school for another anytime they want too. Don't forget they can go anywhere they want to as long as they have some way of paying tuition and stuff. You are assuming they are there for one reason only and that is to play ball. MOST are not even close to being there for that reason and I've had friends that played college ball that went on to the pros.

[Inhogswetrust]

These guys acting surprised that being a student athlete is hard shows their ignorance. Bennett really came off sounding like a moron with these comments.

He was an aggie so that does apply....................................

[Inhogswetrust]

Actually they want what the free market would offer them. Not more for nothing. That doesn't make them any different than any of the rest of us.

But they do have a free market .......there are other ways to play sports. They don't have to sign up for a college scholarship. If they don't like it do something else or wait until the pros say you can play for them. It's the pros problem NOT the colleges.

[Fatty McGee]

But they do have a free market .......there are other ways to play sports. They don't have to sign up for a college scholarship. If they don't like it do something else or wait until the pros say you can play for them. It's the pros problem NOT the colleges.

Maybe you and I have different definitions.  If your employer conspired with all the other employers who hire for your job to prevent you from changing, and from ever earning more than anyone else no matter how good a job you do, or even from unionizing to prevent you and your colleagues from negotiating for a better group deal, I bet you wouldn't consider it free.

Thankfully, the Kessler lawsuit is probably going to trial this year and will render this all moot.

[Inhogswetrust]

Maybe you and I have different definitions.  If your employer conspired with all the other employers who hire for your job to prevent you from changing, and from ever earning more than anyone else no matter how good a job you do, or even from unionizing to prevent you and your colleagues from negotiating for a better group deal, I bet you wouldn't consider it free.

Thankfully, the Kessler lawsuit is probably going to trial this year and will render this all moot.

We've had this debate going way back before.....................They aren't employees and I know what happened with Northwestern. The scholarship is compensation for attending school. For that privilege they get to play a sport they love while other students pay for their education in other ways.  No matter how you slice it they have to pay for an education in some way shape or form as ALL students do. If they want to go to a different school they can. I don't like unions either.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

We've had this debate going way back before.....................They aren't employees and I know what happened with Northwestern. The scholarship is compensation for attending school. For that privilege they get to play a sport they love while other students pay for their education in other ways.  No matter how you slice it they have to pay for an education in some way shape or form as ALL students do. If they want to go to a different school they can. I don't like unions either.

I'm still with you.

[Fatty McGee]

We've had this debate going way back before.....................They aren't employees and I know what happened with Northwestern. The scholarship is compensation for attending school. For that privilege they get to play a sport they love while other students pay for their education in other ways.  No matter how you slice it they have to pay for an education in some way shape or form as ALL students do. If they want to go to a different school they can. I don't like unions either.

It's no more a privilege than you getting to go to work is your privilege.  You provide something of value to your employer, just as they provide something of value to the school.  In return, your employer pays you whatever they and you agree upon, with the understanding that you can at any time ask for and receive more from a competitor, or you can freely negotiate for additional benefits from them.

The only difference is the student does not get to freely negotiate, which is a situation you would not tolerate in any other walk of life, but strangely do here. 

Fortunately, there are enough believers in capitalism in this country, and in the converse, in the educational purpose of the schools, that this is about to change.  And not a moment too soon.

What other students may do or not do has no relevance.  No more so than what I do in my job has any relevance to your negotiation with your employer.

[ArmyOfnobunaga]

It will shift guys. In mexico and Europe all of the college teams are really just paid dudes that don't go to class.

How will a salary cap be enforced and will it? I have no idea. But the writing is on the wall.


CFB will change for better or worse but by the time my kid is in college I expect he will be cheering on pros who have an option for free classes but not mandatory.

Think Im crazy? 15 years ago I said a football playoff is inevitable when many didn't. Bu some things like pay for play are inevitable and a huge elephant in the room that most people ignore.

[Inhogswetrust]

It's no more a privilege than you getting to go to work is your privilege.  You provide something of value to your employer, just as they provide something of value to the school.  In return, your employer pays you whatever they and you agree upon, with the understanding that you can at any time ask for and receive more from a competitor, or you can freely negotiate for additional benefits from them.

The only difference is the student does not get to freely negotiate, which is a situation you would not tolerate in any other walk of life, but strangely do here. 

Fortunately, there are enough believers in capitalism in this country, and in the converse, in the educational purpose of the schools, that this is about to change.  And not a moment too soon.

What other students may do or not do has no relevance.  No more so than what I do in my job has any relevance to your negotiation with your employer.

you are partly correct. They work very hard to get to play football but it is still a privilege. It's not a constitutional right. To say how other students are compensated is irrelevant is disingenuous. What matters is they are a student and compensated for going to school. They have to do certain things to remain getting compensated just like any student on any scholarship. IF any student doesn't like their scholarship they can go anywhere else. They may or may not receive a scholarship at their new location. I know because I transferred to the UA from elsewhere and was offered a music scholarship equal to what I was receiving from where I came from. I turned it down because I wanted to concentrate on my business studies and not have to spend all the time required for my scholarship compensation. Guess what I still had to pay for school someway else and did.

[rickm1976]

Well that money comes from a whole bunch of different areas, state funds sent to the university provided by "tax payers",  ticket sales from us "tax payers",  tuition and other fees us "tax payers" have paid into the university from either going there ourselves or sending our kids,  merchandise us avid "tax payer" fans buy that are licensed, TV income the university gets from games from cable companies that were paid to them by "tax payers" and so on. 

Thanks, that was my point exactly in asking such a rhetorical question.  I hate when folks just throw out blanket statements when they have no clue.

[hog911]

Cry me a river!  Big babies.  If it weren't for athletic scholarships most of them wouldn't have been able to go to college anyway.  Sherman complains that regular students can do whatever they want after classes and athletes can't.  Guess what Sherm, they're paying for their education with money from loans etc. and they can do whatever they please. Sorry you were inconvienced by practice. Athletes  pay for school with their time and athletic ability.  Period. Sorry life wasn't easier for you those 3-5 years Mr Millionaire!

+1  Everyone wants the reward, but none of the sacrifice!

[Philip Seaton]

So because some of them wouldn't have gotten in to college they should all get screwed over?  He wasn't complaining about being "inconvenienced" by practice, he was simply pointing out the FACT that their lives are nothing like the non-athletes college experience, and so to compare them to regular students makes little sense.

If those other students are paying for their education with loans or such that's their problem.  They lack a gift a college is willing to give a scholarship for, a fan is willing to watch, a television network wants to televise, and an advertiser wants to be associated with.  That's not an argument for not giving someone the college IS willing to give a scholarship for something.

Let's see. Only a handful of colleges are actually showing excess monies, and mostly those are derived through Booster Clubs, i.e. The Razorback Foundation. They are given a free education, free tutoring, free food, free lodging, etc. Normal students don't get this. They cry and cry, guess what, don't do it. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head to do this. If these guys realized that because of Title IX, most of the monies that is derived is used to pay for non-revenue producing sports and women's sports. Please, I get sick of this argument and the cry babies. Because my boss makes millions off his businesses, I am entitled to a piece of this cut. Please.

This sense of entitlement for some is beyond belief.

[LTHog]

The root of this entire issue is that college football and basketball have turned into developmental leagues for the pros. As much as it would suck to watch our beloved college sports become less exciting I think they should do away with athletic scholarships entirely. Scholarships should be given to the best and brightest STUDENTS that need help attending. The rest of the world continues to pass us by in education while we argue how much our institutes of higher learning should be paying ATHLETES. We should all be ashamed every time they stick the microphone in the face of some guy who can barely put words together to make sentences after a big game, realizing this is the face of our college education system. Set up actual development leagues for the pro sports and pay these guys whatever the market is willing to give them. That way they can save everyone the farce that has become of the modern day "student-athlete".

Exactly what I was thinking.

Very skrong ThundrHawg

^^see what I did there.

[majp51]

In my opinion, the networks, ncaa and the universities are all making big, big money on the backs of 18 year old kids.  There is no balance.

You talk about this like it's just NCAA Atheltics. Colleges and Universities make a killing off their students (Athletes or Not), then steal their research, and keep patents they help build. 

People always complain about the 1% and Big business, but what people fail to see is one of the biggest businesses around is "Higher Education"

[Inhogswetrust]

You talk about this like it's just NCAA Atheltics. Colleges and Universities make a killing off their students (Athletes or Not), then steal their research, and keep patents they help build. 

People always complain about the 1% and Big business, but what people fail to see is one of the biggest businesses around is "Higher Education"

How is providing facilities, professors and research capabilities that the Universities are the one's that 99.9% of the time is there for to begin with "stealing research". Our son did research as an undergrad at the UA and then went to MIT for graduate school. ALL his research was funded by a consortium of businesses in his field through his research professor. He never owned any of the facilities or equipment or library or research capabilities himself. Now he is in private business USING his education received from both Universities to advance his career after school. That's the way it is set up and suppose to be. I promise you he and anyone else would probably have NO chance of doing anything in private enterprise like they do without the University first. It is all about using research for educational purposes. 

[Wahls]

Let's see. Only a handful of colleges are actually showing excess monies, and mostly those are derived through Booster Clubs, i.e. The Razorback Foundation. They are given a free education, free tutoring, free food, free lodging, etc. Normal students don't get this. They cry and cry, guess what, don't do it. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head to do this. If these guys realized that because of Title IX, most of the monies that is derived is used to pay for non-revenue producing sports and women's sports. Please, I get sick of this argument and the cry babies. Because my boss makes millions off his businesses, I am entitled to a piece of this cut. Please.

This sense of entitlement for some is beyond belief.

There is nothing more amusing than watching multiple people do mental gymnastics (like these above) to defend outright free market collusion and socialism, then turn around and claim the people subjected to this collusion and socialism are "entitled".

I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.

[Temprees]

And if you were truly valuable in making those millions, you could have gone to a competitor for a higher salary or your employer could have given you more in recognition of your efforts and value.  The players can't do that, which is why comparisons to the real world don't make sense, and in fact undercut the argument they shouldn't be allowed into the free market.

And also, throw in that if he left to go to another company, he could go to work and get paid immediately.  The athlete can get the scholarship at a new school (if he transfers) but he can't work (i.e. play football).  You are right F McGhee, real world comparisons don't make sense. 

[Inhogswetrust]

And also, throw in that if he left to go to another company, he could go to work and get paid immediately.  The athlete can get the scholarship at a new school (if he transfers) but he can't work (i.e. play football).  You are right F McGhee, real world comparisons don't make sense. 

IF an athlete can be on scholarship yet not play then he should be grateful since people worry about them "working" too much. One less thing they don't have to do. They STILL have to work out, practice with the team, watch film, etc. The game itself is only a small portion of the time they do supporting their scholarship. Besides there are players on a lot of teams that are on scholarship that never get to play in the game. Some log only a few minutes their whole scholarship years actually playing in games.

[Pistol Pete]

In my opinion, the networks, ncaa and the universities are all making big, big money on the backs of 18 year old kids.  There is no balance.

Anything other than 100% of college athletics proceeds going back to the government, is pure insanity. Nobody should be getting 1 cent of the money generated except the state and federal treasuries.

Education is extremely costly, tuition does not cover it. Tax payer funded.

[Pistol Pete]

What's the value of playing football on national television?

[Fatty McGee]

Let's see. Only a handful of colleges are actually showing excess monies, and mostly those are derived through Booster Clubs, i.e. The Razorback Foundation. They are given a free education, free tutoring, free food, free lodging, etc. Normal students don't get this. They cry and cry, guess what, don't do it. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head to do this. If these guys realized that because of Title IX, most of the monies that is derived is used to pay for non-revenue producing sports and women's sports. Please, I get sick of this argument and the cry babies. Because my boss makes millions off his businesses, I am entitled to a piece of this cut. Please.

This sense of entitlement for some is beyond belief.

It's a sense of entitlement to wish to get the maximum value for your skills in a free market?  Sounds more like garden variety capitalism.

Normal students can't run a 4.4 40 either.  Normal students don't have a 1400 on the SATs, but that kid can not only get a scholarship, he can get more!

And yes, if your boss gets millions off your work, you can negotiate for more money.  Or leave to go to someone who will value you more highly.  So that analogy is a dumb one.

The schools are not going broke doing athletics.  Or there wouldn't be so many in the business.  It's not like it makes them more prestigious academically to field, say, a Sun Belt football team.

[Fatty McGee]

What's the value of playing football on national television?

To the school it's huge.  They could not buy advertising that cheaply. 

But we really don't know what the value is to the player, because so many people like you are against an open market.  We know the value of coaching on national television has shot up far past the normal rate of inflation.

[Fatty McGee]

IF an athlete can be on scholarship yet not play then he should be grateful since people worry about them "working" too much. One less thing they don't have to do. They STILL have to work out, practice with the team, watch film, etc. The game itself is only a small portion of the time they do supporting their scholarship. Besides there are players on a lot of teams that are on scholarship that never get to play in the game. Some log only a few minutes their whole scholarship years actually playing in games.

He should be grateful, and maybe a scholarship is all he's worth to the team.  Let's let the market decide, what do you say?  Who's with me for some good old fashions American capitalism?!  USA!USA!USA!

[Fatty McGee]

How is providing facilities, professors and research capabilities that the Universities are the one's that 99.9% of the time is there for to begin with "stealing research". Our son did research as an undergrad at the UA and then went to MIT for graduate school. ALL his research was funded by a consortium of businesses in his field through his research professor. He never owned any of the facilities or equipment or library or research capabilities himself. Now he is in private business USING his education received from both Universities to advance his career after school. That's the way it is set up and suppose to be. I promise you he and anyone else would probably have NO chance of doing anything in private enterprise like they do without the University first. It is all about using research for educational purposes. 

You contradicted yourself there. 

[Pistol Pete]

To the school it's huge.  They could not buy advertising that cheaply. 

But we really don't know what the value is to the player, because so many people like you are against an open market.  We know the value of coaching on national television has shot up far past the normal rate of inflation.

First of all, schools need no advertising, they eat money, they don't make money. That's total crap, they are jockeying for TAX dollars, MY tax dollars.

Secondly, open market? It's a government institution, funded by tax dollars, what's open market about that?

Coaches are mostly paid by booster organizations, not their government salary.

It's people like you that have no clue that nothing is free, just a long convoluted path back to "Joe 6-pack's" back pocket.

[Fatty McGee]

They need no advertising?  Where have you been?  They advertise nonstop. That's what college athletics IS at this level. Otherwise there'd be no point.

I'm not asking for anything out of your pocket.  I'm not sure where you got that. Doesn't make much sense.

[Pistol Pete]

First of all, schools need no advertising, they eat money, they don't make money. That's total crap, they are jockeying for TAX dollars, MY tax dollars. Name one open market company that would keep divisions of their businesses that put them in the RED EVERY YEAR.

Secondly, open market? It's a government institution, funded by tax dollars, what's open market about that?

Coaches are mostly paid by booster organizations, not their government salary.

It's people like you that have no clue that nothing is free, just a long convoluted path back to "Joe 6-pack's" back pocket.

[Pistol Pete]

They need no advertising?  Where have you been?  They advertise nonstop. That's what college athletics IS at this level. Otherwise there'd be no point.

I'm not asking for anything out of your pocket.  I'm not sure where you got that. Doesn't make much sense.

College costs eat tax dollars, how will we pay athletes?

[Pistol Pete]

They need no advertising?  Where have you been?  They advertise nonstop. That's what college athletics IS at this level. Otherwise there'd be no point.

I'm not asking for anything out of your pocket.  I'm not sure where you got that. Doesn't make much sense.

What is the U of A advertising for? More students? More season ticket holders? What?

If it's trying to make a profit off of Athletics, they ALL need to stop NOW.
No athletic program makes money... If it's about profits, keep football, drop everything else.

[Fatty McGee]

College costs eat tax dollars, how will we pay athletes?

We just gave a guy with a 7-6 season an additional $1M and we are worrying about the taxpayers all the sudden?

[Fatty McGee]

What is the U of A advertising for? More students? More season ticket holders? What?

If it's trying to make a profit off of Athletics, they ALL need to stop NOW.
No athletic program makes money... If it's about profits, keep football, drop everything else.

Yes more students. Why do you think they're always touting how much they've grown?  Why do you think they advertise in the first place?  Why in the world do you think they compete in Division 1 as opposed to Division 3 at a fraction of the cost?  Why let in students who wouldn't get in otherwise?

You're right athletics isn't particularly profitable, although the accounting is sketchy. But the value of the marketing bang for the buck is incredible. Go price two hours of TV time every Saturday in the fall. See what it would cost to buy that exposure.

The scam that is student loans and the profitability to the schools is too long for me to type, but it's explained well here:  http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/ripping-off-young-america-the-college-loan-scandal-20130815

It really is appalling what's happening. Do you ever wonder why a college education cost has increased so much when real inflation has largely been flat?

[Pistol Pete]

I read the article, and I'm familiar with the student loan bubble. Wasn't familiar with all the different theories discussed in the article.

But at the end of the day, it makes zero difference to a sane person (me). Bottom line is, money isn't free. It comes from somewhere, and that somewhere is the middle class (me). Regardless of the convoluted ways colleges are getting funded, it's nothing but a tax of some kind. Millions of students will graduate every year with 10's of thousands in student loan debt. The money being loaned is government money (our money) soon to be 1 trillion $.

Guess who won't have any debt when they graduate from college, or drop out, or go pro early?   The scholarship athlete. And you want to pay them. Smh.
Won't cost us a dime, right? Wrong, that's what politicians do, they hide direct taxes by convoluting everything. But I promise you this, we pay.

btw, what happened to all the lottery money? Thought it was supposed to pay for college. Let me guess... It's running short of funds. So is Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, or any other government program.

[Fatty McGee]

I read the article, and I'm familiar with the student loan bubble. Wasn't familiar with all the different theories discussed in the article.

But at the end of the day, it makes zero difference to a sane person (me). Bottom line is, money isn't free. It comes from somewhere, and that somewhere is the middle class (me). Regardless of the convoluted ways colleges are getting funded, it's nothing but a tax of some kind. Millions of students will graduate every year with 10's of thousands in student loan debt. The money being loaned is government money (our money) soon to be 1 trillion $.

Guess who won't have any debt when they graduate from college, or drop out, or go pro early?   The scholarship athlete. And you want to pay them. Smh.
Won't cost us a dime, right? Wrong, that's what politicians do, they hide direct taxes by convoluting everything. But I promise you this, we pay.

btw, what happened to all the lottery money? Thought it was supposed to pay for college. Let me guess... It's running short of funds. So is Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, or any other government program.

That's the thing, it's not coming from you.  Did you read where student loan collections are a PROFIT to the taxpayer?  Granted, Washington isn't sending us refunds, but it's not coming out of your pocket. 

You misread my post.  I don't want to PAY them.  I want the market to decide what they're worth, that's all.  If a school and its boosters decide to pay them, great.  If they don't, great.  And really, I'd be satisfied if they could market their own likenesses at least, sell autographs, sell their bowl crap, get the money from video games, etc.

Are you complaining about the skyrocketing coaches' salaries because of the cost to the taxpayer?  If not, why complain about the players who are the people you come to see?

[Pistol Pete]

That's the thing, it's not coming from you.  Did you read where student loan collections are a PROFIT to the taxpayer?  Granted, Washington isn't sending us refunds, but it's not coming out of your pocket. 

You misread my post.  I don't want to PAY them.  I want the market to decide what they're worth, that's all.  If a school and its boosters decide to pay them, great.  If they don't, great.  And really, I'd be satisfied if they could market their own likenesses at least, sell autographs, sell their bowl crap, get the money from video games, etc.

Are you complaining about the skyrocketing coaches' salaries because of the cost to the taxpayer?  If not, why complain about the players who are the people you come to see?

I assure you this... In the end, it absolutely WILL come out of my pocket. The student loan bubble is going to burst. Just like the housing bubble did.

Coaches salaries are obscene. Even the part that comes from the tax payer is obscene. We have neurosurgeons that don't make as much but perform a far greater service to the world.

I'm not liberal, progressive, or anything remotely close... The mixing of tax dollars with free market is horrible.

[Fatty McGee]

I assure you this... In the end, it absolutely WILL come out of my pocket. The student loan bubble is going to burst. Just like the housing bubble did.

I agree, but that's a different question.  And I don't know that it necessarily means the feds will go broke on this.

Coaches salaries are obscene. Even the part that comes from the tax payer is obscene. We have neurosurgeons that don't make as much but perform a far greater service to the world.

I'm not liberal, progressive, or anything remotely close... The mixing of tax dollars with free market is horrible.

We agree more than we realize.