NLRB Favors Football Players

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I assume this is the article:

“Last year Texas had income of $109 million; no other team made more than $90 million. The biggest source of revenue was ticket sales, which contributed $34.5 million last season, an increase of more than $2 million from the previous year. Texas football also collected $30 million from contributions and another $15 million from Big 12 and NCAA distributions.”

-I don’t see TV or shoe deals on the list? I also don’t see merchandise sales?

"As our methodology indicates, there are some rather well-defined ways to create value with college football.

First, and most obviously, is that successful teams generate a positive operating income for a school?s athletic department. Football is ordinarily an athletic department?s biggest revenue driver, and that income is required to support non-revenue sports like golf and swimming. If a team is profitable enough to cover those costs and still put its athletic department in the black, then revenue can be directed back to the parent university to support academic programming.

This is particularly true for the top SEC schools. Florida led the way last year, contributing $7.2 million to academic programming, with $1.5 million of that earmarked for non-athletic scholarships. Alabama wasn?t far behind, providing nearly $6.5 million to the university to help pay for scholarships, faculty support and the school?s Acts of Kindness fund. Other big donors were Ohio State ($5 million) and Georgia ($4 million)."

-Revenue from football helps supports athletic programs that make no money and then academics. What do you think will happen to both if athletes start getting paid?

[/quote]

Really, academics? Why isn’t it doing more with that money to make sure college athletes graduate? Remember that thing they pay lip service to?

Athletes wouldn’t need to get paid if the NCAA would let them make money off themselves.

What do YOU think will happen if the NCAA stops being a hypocrite and isn’t the only person to make money off the kids and the kids can make money off themselves?

182

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

You sure about all that? Not everyone is so lucky apparently. If I’ve learned one thing about college sports from people it is that different programs and universities have different ways of doing things. Saying it’s already there leaves out all the conflicting evidence and people who “thought” they were covered that weren’t.

And that says nothing of the care needed AFTER school by some people.

[/quote]

Pretty positive. Hell I know cheerleaders that tore ACLs that were covered by the University. Now its not as iron clad as it needs to be but I already mentioned that and I know you read that.

I did not mention after school in my post because I’ve already mentioned it in prior posts as needing to be addressed and fixed. I’m sure you read those as well.[/quote]

So articles that show evidence to the contrary make you more or less likely you are correct?

183

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
I’d say Forbes spits in the face of the USA Today article.

http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2012/business-of-college-football.html[/quote]

The forbes article(s) don’t mention expenses at all. [/quote]

Yes it does. It shows revenue and profits. Texas made 78 million according to the article. It has others for the top 20. [/quote]

Oh, I thought it was the same article I posted. Will read.

184

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

You’re going to pretend these star athletes are being exploited because they don’t get paid? They do get paid, on draft day. Wiggins will get plenty for showing off his skills at KU. [/quote]

What do the players who were brought in to play a game and weren’t very good at school to begin with that don’t graduate get? Unemployment? Medical bills perhaps? Lifetime of pain?
[/quote]

Second, if you are offered a free education and you choose to piss it away that is your responsibility AS AN ADULT. You have been arguing all thread long that these kids deserve the right to control their image because they are legally adults and I don’t disagree. But guess what? Being an adult comes with some fucking responsibility and you can’t whine and cry about them getting “unemployment” when they are ADULTS who VOLUNTARILY chose to piss away their opportunity at free education. That is on them. Their fault they chose to do that. If you want to talk parenting or something that’s something else and I might very well agree with you but that is NOT the NCAAs fault.

You can’t argue that it is impossible or “too much” to expect that D1 athletes handle both sports and academics, plenty and I mean plenty of people do that. I knew and still know a ton of college athletes at the school I do research at. Both money making sports and non-money makers. They get degrees. They are responsible and handle both sports and school. The people who don’t don’t get to blame the NCAA for that shit, that’s their fucking fault they didn’t use the opportunity given them.

You are given opportunities in life. You either use them or not, but as an adult you don’t get to whine when your own negligence or laziness or short sightedness costs you.
[/quote]

So nothing is shady about universities working to make sure athletes can gain eligibility so they can play a sport and then place all the emphasis on the kids for making sure they graduate as well?

Nothing about that strikes you as off? You’re really gonna throw personal responsibility here on every single case, especially all the kids who have no business being at a large college, but get help to maintain eligibility? Not good grades. Not on pace to graduate. Not to find a great job post graduation. To play a game to represent a university.

You keep accusing me of strawmans, but your posts are putting a lot of words in my mouth man.

185

[quote]H factor wrote:
Really, academics? Why isn’t it doing more with that money to make sure college athletes graduate? Remember that thing they pay lip service to? [/quote]

I thought all these “athletes” were there because they have to be? Why waste money on people that don’t want to graduate?

[quote]
What do YOU think will happen if the NCAA stops being a hypocrite and isn’t the only person to make money off the kids and the kids can make money off themselves? [/quote]

Only way that happens is if they pay players, which brings me right back to my question.

186

Michigan athletic department spent $111.8 million in 2011, had total revenue of $122.7 million
By Nick Baumgardner

The University of Michigan athletic department spent money to make money in 2011.

According to a USA Today report, Michigan was one of the biggest spenders in America last year. In doing so, it had one of the highest total revenue numbers of any NCAA Division I public school.

Per the report, Michigan spent $111.8 million on athletics a year ago, the third-highest number of any school in the country. The Wolverines also received $122.7 million in total revenue, fifth-best in America.

UMFB_Michigan_Stadium.jpg

Eight home football games (and plenty of maize T-shirt sales) helped the University of Michigan athletic department record revenues of $122.7 million in 2011.

Melanie Maxwell | AnnArbor.com

The $111.8 million spent was a $22.7 million increase from 2010, while the total revenue number was up $15.9 million.

A breakdown of Michigan’s revenue and expenses:

Revenue

Rights/Licensing: $46,745,506
Ticket sales: $41,688,589
Contributions: $27,961,623
Other revenue: $6,090,650
School funds: $272,684
Student fees: $0

Expenses

Coaching staff: $37,754,836
Other expenses: $32,822,376
Building/Grounds: $24,944,126
Scholarships: $16,323,215

Across Washtenaw County, Eastern Michigan had $27.7 million in revenue and $25.9 million in expenses. A majority of its revenue came from subsidies, including school funds ($21.2 million) and student fees ($1.5 million).

Neither of the state’s two other Mid-American Conference schools claim revenue from student fees. Western Michigan used $18.6 million in school funds as part of its $25.6 million revenue. Central Michigan used $16.6 million in school funds in its $23.5 million revenue.

Texas spent $133.7 million in 2011, which was $11.3 million more than any other athletic department. The Longhorns also earned more revenue than anyone, bringing home $150.3 million.

Ohio State was No. 2 on the list in both expenses ($122.3 million) and revenue ($131.8 million).

Michigan State had the 14th-highest expenditure ($84 million). Its revenue number was $505,970 higher than its expenses.

Michigan’s $27.9 million in contributions was up from the $19.3 million it received in 2010.

The overall budget for Michigan’s coaching staff was up $4.5 million from a year ago, as well. The Wolverines’ $37.8 million spent on coaches was higher than any other Big Ten school.

The total operating expenses for schools in the Big Ten (except Northwestern, a private institution) is as follows:

  1. Ohio State: $122.3 million
  2. Michigan: $111.8 million
  3. Penn State: $101.3 million
  4. Wisconsin: 95.6 million
  5. Iowa: $93.4 million
  6. Michigan State: $84.5 million
  7. Nebraska: $83.7 million
  8. Minnesota: $78.9 million
  9. Illinois: $77.7 million
  10. Indiana: $71 million
  11. Purdue: $66.2 million
187

Sports programs are expensive and only a handful end up in the red.

188

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

Michigan athletic department spent $111.8 million in 2011, had total revenue of $122.7 million
By Nick Baumgardner

The University of Michigan athletic department spent money to make money in 2011.

According to a USA Today report, Michigan was one of the biggest spenders in America last year. In doing so, it had one of the highest total revenue numbers of any NCAA Division I public school.

Per the report, Michigan spent $111.8 million on athletics a year ago, the third-highest number of any school in the country. The Wolverines also received $122.7 million in total revenue, fifth-best in America.

UMFB_Michigan_Stadium.jpg

Eight home football games (and plenty of maize T-shirt sales) helped the University of Michigan athletic department record revenues of $122.7 million in 2011.

Melanie Maxwell | AnnArbor.com

The $111.8 million spent was a $22.7 million increase from 2010, while the total revenue number was up $15.9 million.

A breakdown of Michigan’s revenue and expenses:

Revenue

Rights/Licensing: $46,745,506
Ticket sales: $41,688,589
Contributions: $27,961,623
Other revenue: $6,090,650
School funds: $272,684
Student fees: $0

Expenses

Coaching staff: $37,754,836
Other expenses: $32,822,376
Building/Grounds: $24,944,126
Scholarships: $16,323,215

Across Washtenaw County, Eastern Michigan had $27.7 million in revenue and $25.9 million in expenses. A majority of its revenue came from subsidies, including school funds ($21.2 million) and student fees ($1.5 million).

Neither of the state’s two other Mid-American Conference schools claim revenue from student fees. Western Michigan used $18.6 million in school funds as part of its $25.6 million revenue. Central Michigan used $16.6 million in school funds in its $23.5 million revenue.

Texas spent $133.7 million in 2011, which was $11.3 million more than any other athletic department. The Longhorns also earned more revenue than anyone, bringing home $150.3 million.

Ohio State was No. 2 on the list in both expenses ($122.3 million) and revenue ($131.8 million).

Michigan State had the 14th-highest expenditure ($84 million). Its revenue number was $505,970 higher than its expenses.

Michigan’s $27.9 million in contributions was up from the $19.3 million it received in 2010.

The overall budget for Michigan’s coaching staff was up $4.5 million from a year ago, as well. The Wolverines’ $37.8 million spent on coaches was higher than any other Big Ten school.

The total operating expenses for schools in the Big Ten (except Northwestern, a private institution) is as follows:

  1. Ohio State: $122.3 million
  2. Michigan: $111.8 million
  3. Penn State: $101.3 million
  4. Wisconsin: 95.6 million
  5. Iowa: $93.4 million
  6. Michigan State: $84.5 million
  7. Nebraska: $83.7 million
  8. Minnesota: $78.9 million
  9. Illinois: $77.7 million
  10. Indiana: $71 million
  11. Purdue: $66.2 million[/quote]

Total operating expenses huh? You mean like paying people like coaches, athletic directors, gigantic salaries?

Yeah…operating expenses. Most of them on purpose because high profits look bad for public universities. If you can “spend” most of that money by giving it to high up people then it looks like you’re struggling.

189

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Sports programs are expensive and only a handful end up in the red.[/quote]

Ask yourself honestly why that is if all these contracts for shoes, tv deals (BILLION dollar tv deals), etc. keep climbing.

It’s important to “spend” most of that money because having gigantic profits looks bad. At least some people are making bank off the process. Don’t let the “in the red” part fool you. Many aren’t there intentionally.

You can keep fooling people when you can talk about the money it takes to “run” your not for profit operation. I think coaches, AD’s, sponsors, etc are all laughing at the people who keep buying this.

190

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Really, academics? Why isn’t it doing more with that money to make sure college athletes graduate? Remember that thing they pay lip service to? [/quote]

I thought all these “athletes” were there because they have to be? Why waste money on people that don’t want to graduate?

[quote]
What do YOU think will happen if the NCAA stops being a hypocrite and isn’t the only person to make money off the kids and the kids can make money off themselves? [/quote]

Only way that happens is if they pay players, which brings me right back to my question. [/quote]

Actually that’s not true. They don’t HAVE to pay players to do this. They just have to give kids the opportunity to make money off their own names. See the Olympics for an example. Why would it be wrong to allow a kid to be in a commercial if the demand was there? We let it happen in the Olympics. We let those “amateurs” do it. Things seem to work out ok.

The NCAA doesn’t have to do shit, but stop with the bullshit restrictions that exist to keep things “fair.” If kids start making a lot of money then it’s going to be hard to sell that horsecrap student athlete line to all the lemmings who still eat that up.

191

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Really, academics? Why isn’t it doing more with that money to make sure college athletes graduate? Remember that thing they pay lip service to? [/quote]

I thought all these “athletes” were there because they have to be? Why waste money on people that don’t want to graduate?

[quote]
What do YOU think will happen if the NCAA stops being a hypocrite and isn’t the only person to make money off the kids and the kids can make money off themselves? [/quote]

Only way that happens is if they pay players, which brings me right back to my question. [/quote]

Actually that’s not true. They don’t HAVE to pay players to do this. They just have to give kids the opportunity to make money off their own names. See the Olympics for an example. Why would it be wrong to allow a kid to be in a commercial if the demand was there? We let it happen in the Olympics. We let those “amateurs” do it. Things seem to work out ok.

The NCAA doesn’t have to do shit, but stop with the bullshit restrictions that exist to keep things “fair.” If kids start making a lot of money then it’s going to be hard to sell that horsecrap student athlete line to all the lemmings who still eat that up. [/quote]

I seriously doubt very many players would make money off there name in college.

192

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Really, academics? Why isn’t it doing more with that money to make sure college athletes graduate? Remember that thing they pay lip service to? [/quote]

I thought all these “athletes” were there because they have to be? Why waste money on people that don’t want to graduate?

[quote]
What do YOU think will happen if the NCAA stops being a hypocrite and isn’t the only person to make money off the kids and the kids can make money off themselves? [/quote]

Only way that happens is if they pay players, which brings me right back to my question. [/quote]

Actually that’s not true. They don’t HAVE to pay players to do this. They just have to give kids the opportunity to make money off their own names. See the Olympics for an example. Why would it be wrong to allow a kid to be in a commercial if the demand was there? We let it happen in the Olympics. We let those “amateurs” do it. Things seem to work out ok.

The NCAA doesn’t have to do shit, but stop with the bullshit restrictions that exist to keep things “fair.” If kids start making a lot of money then it’s going to be hard to sell that horsecrap student athlete line to all the lemmings who still eat that up. [/quote]

I seriously doubt very many players would make money off there name in college. [/quote]

I bet you would be surprised. Even if you’re right, that isn’t the point. Why is the NCAA allowed to control these things and not individual athletes? You said you thought them not being able to work was crap. So why be against them signing autographs, selling memorabilia, commercials, etc.

Why can only the university profit off those things? Without the kids you don’t have a game.

193

[quote]H factor wrote:
Total operating expenses huh? You mean like paying people like coaches, athletic directors, gigantic salaries?

Yeah…operating expenses. Most of them on purpose because high profits look bad for public universities. If you can “spend” most of that money by giving it to high up people then it looks like you’re struggling. [/quote]

Well since the FREE MARKET has determined that’s how much they are worth, I don’t see the problem? All public Universities have to publicly provide salaries, it’s not like there’s some secret conspiracy going on here.

And operating expenses such as maintenance, buses, flights, equipment, advertising, building new fields/arenas, recruiting, scholarships, health insurance.

You fail to forget if there is such unethical actions going on, there would be MASSIVE collusion within the Universities including the Board of Directors, University Presidents, Athletic Directors, Internal Auditors, External Auditors, regulators, etc. The list is exhaustive.

194

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Really, academics? Why isn’t it doing more with that money to make sure college athletes graduate? Remember that thing they pay lip service to? [/quote]

I thought all these “athletes” were there because they have to be? Why waste money on people that don’t want to graduate?

[quote]
What do YOU think will happen if the NCAA stops being a hypocrite and isn’t the only person to make money off the kids and the kids can make money off themselves? [/quote]

Only way that happens is if they pay players, which brings me right back to my question. [/quote]

Actually that’s not true. They don’t HAVE to pay players to do this. They just have to give kids the opportunity to make money off their own names. See the Olympics for an example. Why would it be wrong to allow a kid to be in a commercial if the demand was there? We let it happen in the Olympics. We let those “amateurs” do it. Things seem to work out ok.

The NCAA doesn’t have to do shit, but stop with the bullshit restrictions that exist to keep things “fair.” If kids start making a lot of money then it’s going to be hard to sell that horsecrap student athlete line to all the lemmings who still eat that up. [/quote]

I seriously doubt very many players would make money off there name in college. [/quote]

I bet you would be surprised. Even if you’re right, that isn’t the point. Why is the NCAA allowed to control these things and not individual athletes? You said you thought them not being able to work was crap. So why be against them signing autographs, selling memorabilia, commercials, etc.

Why can only the university profit off those things? Without the kids you don’t have a game. [/quote]

And without employees you don’t have a business, but my boss isn’t exactly sharing what I would consider a “fair share” of profits with me?

If kids hate it so much, stop playing sports and then see what happens. Until then, the market has dictated that people are willing to do this at the price given. That’s how a free market works.

195

[quote]H factor wrote:
I bet you would be surprised. [/quote]
I doubt it. I bet 2-3 players per team would make some money. Everyone else would get scraps.

Free market remember. I think you’d have a better argument if you called the NCAA a monopoly on student athletes or pre-pro athletes if you’d prefer.

[quote]
You said you thought them not being able to work was crap. So why be against them signing autographs, selling memorabilia, commercials, etc.

Why can only the university profit off those things? Without the kids you don’t have a game. [/quote]

Seriously?

I enjoy going back and forth with you, but I’m not going to continue if you don’t listen. The only thing I am against is them being paid a salary. I DO NOT care if they make money by working a side job, selling autographs, or starring in commercials. I’ve said that multiple times now.

196

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
And without employees you don’t have a business, but my boss isn’t exactly sharing what I would consider a “fair share” of profits with me?

If kids hate it so much, stop playing sports and then see what happens. Until then, the market has dictated that people are willing to do this at the price given. That’s how a free market works.[/quote]
When you use terms like free market and kids together you have to recognize the incongruity of the relationship. Especially when you talk about kids who are undereducated, inexperienced, poor and gullible. Just how free are they?

And I don’t see how free market arguments apply when state schools are subsidized by tax payers.

197

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
And without employees you don’t have a business, but my boss isn’t exactly sharing what I would consider a “fair share” of profits with me?

If kids hate it so much, stop playing sports and then see what happens. Until then, the market has dictated that people are willing to do this at the price given. That’s how a free market works.[/quote]
When you use terms like free market and kids together you have to recognize the incongruity of the relationship. Especially when you talk about kids who are undereducated, inexperienced, poor and gullible. Just how free are they?

And I don’t see how free market arguments apply when state schools are subsidized by tax payers. [/quote]

They don’t. Free market keeps getting thrown around when it is isn’t a free market. Maybe if you say free market enough it becomes one?

198

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
I bet you would be surprised. [/quote]
I doubt it. I bet 2-3 players per team would make some money. Everyone else would get scraps.

Free market remember. I think you’d have a better argument if you called the NCAA a monopoly on student athletes or pre-pro athletes if you’d prefer.

[quote]
You said you thought them not being able to work was crap. So why be against them signing autographs, selling memorabilia, commercials, etc.

Why can only the university profit off those things? Without the kids you don’t have a game. [/quote]

Seriously?

I enjoy going back and forth with you, but I’m not going to continue if you don’t listen. The only thing I am against is them being paid a salary. I DO NOT care if they make money by working a side job, selling autographs, or starring in commercials. I’ve said that multiple times now. [/quote]

I AM listening, but you contradict yourself.

Your words:

This is not true. The NCAA can lift restrictions and let kids make money off themselves which would be much higher than you anticipate. After all watch the money they make off their own names when they go pro.

199

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

And without employees you don’t have a business, but my boss isn’t exactly sharing what I would consider a “fair share” of profits with me?

If kids hate it so much, stop playing sports and then see what happens. Until then, the market has dictated that people are willing to do this at the price given. That’s how a free market works.[/quote]

They are trying to have common sense changes, but the “no one forces” you inane arguments don’t work apparently.

So your contention is that “the market” has determined kids shouldn’t be able to sign autographs for money, star in commercials, have their names on the back of jerseys and get paid for their video game sales?

You sure by “the market” you don’t mean THE monopoly that is the NCAA?

Voluntary exchange does not equal free market no matter how much you keep repeating it. Econ 101 man.

200

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
And without employees you don’t have a business, but my boss isn’t exactly sharing what I would consider a “fair share” of profits with me?

If kids hate it so much, stop playing sports and then see what happens. Until then, the market has dictated that people are willing to do this at the price given. That’s how a free market works.[/quote]
When you use terms like free market and kids together you have to recognize the incongruity of the relationship. Especially when you talk about kids who are undereducated, inexperienced, poor and gullible. Just how free are they?

And I don’t see how free market arguments apply when state schools are subsidized by tax payers. [/quote]

They don’t. Free market keeps getting thrown around when it is isn’t a free market. Maybe if you say free market enough it becomes one? [/quote]

How is it not a free market? Perhaps you don’t know what a free market is?

The NCAA and College organizations decided that a league they created and owned has to follow rules. The government didn’t come in and say they had to do all of this.

It’s no different than NFL/NBA/CFL/MLB/MLS organization rules. Then the people who want to participate in the organization’s product (the game), they have to follow the rules set up.

Would you say the any of those organizations are not participating in a free market?