THE PAC12 THREAD v.4

[HammerDown]

How the hell did I end up in the LPGA forum when I clicked on the PAC-12 thread in the CFB forum?

@HammerDown, have you been messing with my account settings again?

Did you see Ohio State fans bragging about a women's archery title?

 

[trojanfan12]

Did you see Ohio State fans bragging about a women's archery title?

I missed that.

 

[socaljim242]

I listened to the new UW AD on the radio yesterday and she talked about the reasons UW doesn't have their new basketball facilities. Basically the revenue was nowhere close to the expected revenue. Do football players bring in millions sure, but they are interns and athlete use the NCAA just as much as the NCAA using athletes for money.

So the conference, millions upon millions. The coaches millions . The school multi millions. The NCAA billions. The networks millions. The actual ones training, using and abusing their bodies with the possibility of a lifetime of damage and whos talent makes it all possible? The same as the guy on the golf team? Interns assist and learn they aren't the product bringing in the revenue.

 

[socaljim242]

I listened to the new UW AD on the radio yesterday and she talked about the reasons UW doesn't have their new basketball facilities. Basically the revenue was nowhere close to the expected revenue. Do football players bring in millions sure, but they are interns and athlete use the NCAA just as much as the NCAA using athletes for money.

From an article explaining why UW built a new stadium.
"Because football revenues fund 85 percent of a department budget that sustains the 17 other varsity sports and facilities, investment in the stadium was mandatory and long overdue". Why? More luxury boxes more revenue. The UW athletic dept budget in 2013 was 70 million and football brought in 85% of that. Football is used to make money pure and simple. In the 20s 30s 40s 50 60s 70s it was entertainment for the alumni and student body. That time has passed.

 

[Olyduck]

Did you see Ohio State fans bragging about a women's archery title?

Thats not even an NCAA sport

 

[TROJAN-MAN]

Thats not even an NCAA sport

 

[Olyduck]

How the hell did I end up in the LPGA forum when I clicked on the PAC-12 thread in the CFB forum?

@HammerDown, have you been messing with my account settings again?

Socaljim brought up USC winning the beach volleyball title and Buddha was talking up that tennis title so I figured it was fair game

 

[HammerDown]

Thats not even an NCAA sport

I refuse to believe that an Ohio State fan would lie.

 

[mrwallace2ku]

If a Mormon kid commits to Washington or other programs, they would have to wait till after their college playing days are over to take that time off for missionary work.

I believe Oregon State has at least 2-3 kids on missions right now who will be playing in the future...

 

[Olyduck]

back to my other post about UW ladies winning the golf title. I was right.

 

[RegentDenali]

From an article explaining why UW built a new stadium.
"Because football revenues fund 85 percent of a department budget that sustains the 17 other varsity sports and facilities, investment in the stadium was mandatory and long overdue". Why? More luxury boxes more revenue. The UW athletic dept budget in 2013 was 70 million and football brought in 85% of that. Football is used to make money pure and simple. In the 20s 30s 40s 50 60s 70s it was entertainment for the alumni and student body. That time has passed.

Exactly. And for most schools, the male football and basketball programs are increasingly responsible for the entire AD budgets because of the title IX crap. Schools have to create an artificial balance between men's and women's sports, and provide comparable facilities, lockerooms, staff etc..., no matter how much the women sports don't generate a dime or break even.

The Washington ahtletic program and medical school are the only financially self sustaining programs at UW. The rest have to funded by the school related budget and local govt. And as a university, UW gets shockingly little from the govt. compared to other major universities.

Husky football has to be king because it funds the whole show.

Spoiled children like Rosen can take a long walk off a short pier with their "we should get paid" crap.

 

[WizardHawk]

jim, if they pay those football players then likely they dump every other athletic program outside of basketball and maybe baseball. Maybe. It's not like the schools are making money and lining their pockets with the cash. Football makes the rest of the athletics possible.

The vast majority end up with an education that will do more for them than they would have had access to without that exchange. The lucky few end up making to the NFL where they get their payday.

I don't see where douche ball kids have room to bitch about it.

In the same interview that wazzy brought up with the new UW AD she also mentioned that part of the reason they aren't able to build a basketball facility at this time is they are now spending over $1 more in upgraded food and extras for those football players so they have been increasing what they get as compensation. There are what? 100 kids or so in most programs? And they are spending now over a mill more than they were just a couple of years ago. They aren't exactly living off of ham sandwiches and juice boxes.

 

[socaljim242]

jim, if they pay those football players then likely they dump every other athletic program outside of basketball and maybe baseball. Maybe. It's not like the schools are making money and lining their pockets with the cash. Football makes the rest of the athletics possible.

The vast majority end up with an education that will do more for them than they would have had access to without that exchange. The lucky few end up making to the NFL where they get their payday.

I don't see where douche ball kids have room to bitch about it.

In the same interview that wazzy brought up with the new UW AD she also mentioned that part of the reason they aren't able to build a basketball facility at this time is they are now spending over $1 more in upgraded food and extras for those football players so they have been increasing what they get as compensation. There are what? 100 kids or so in most programs? And they are spending now over a mill more than they were just a couple of years ago. They aren't exactly living off of ham sandwiches and juice boxes.

I ,like almost every player find it puzzling that the money generated buy the football programs generate enough money to fund 85% of the other programs and pay the exorbitant salaries of all the people involved (coaches,TV, cable , NCAA) which in most cases are way above any professors at the college and yet call the ones actually playing the game amateurs and can't find a few bucks to spread out to them. Maybe not even money maybe a lifetime of medical . Something that shows that they acknowledge what they bring in. If USC can pay an entire staff 7 million every year theres money that could have been set aside for when these players leave.
I totally understand the education they are given in exchange and how we would love this for ourselves or our kids. But how many were actually good enough students to be in college without football?How many would have never sniffed college because of poor habits too much football or simply not college material and are only there because they can play football at a higher level.You're giving them something they are poorly equipped to take advantage of because it's all you can give them. Maybe some of them would have been better with a trade school education than some classes they have no business being in other than trying to stay eligible.
I don't know the solution but it's ridiculous and hypocritical the money everyone else is cashing in on while these guys are the ones putting on the show and getting the injuries. It's easy for us to say we'd take it in a heartbeat because it's not us putting in the work to become an athlete at that level were 80k would come and pay to watch us.

 

[trojanfan12]

I see both sides of this debate. On the one hand, those who think that the players can be paid or given more, etc. have a solid point. It's got to be difficult for a player to see all of that money, etc. being made off of his labor, while in many cases knowing that his family at home may not be able to pay their electric bill that month. They also know that if they accept any money, they and the program could be in serious trouble.

On the other hand, the best of them are getting to audition for a job that will make them millionaires overnight and the rest will get an education, degree and connections that will give them some serious advantages in their careers for the rest of their lives. They get to attend a university that they likely wouldn't be able to get accepted to or even afford if they could get accepted for free, because they can play a sport. They also get to take advantage of the facilities, training, nutrition, etc. that the money they bring in provides.

Seems to me that there should be able to be some sort of middle ground reached. Lifetime medical, should definitely be part of that (including walk-ons). As should assistance for the families of players that truly need it. I also think that this is about the NCAA more than the schools themselves.

I think that most schools would love to be able to do more for their players and their families, but NCAA rules don't allow it. As an example, why shouldn't the school be allowed to cover the cost for a players immediate family (or at least the parents) to travel to and attend away games?

 

[socaljim242]

I see both sides of this debate. On the one hand, those who think that the players can be paid or given more, etc. have a solid point. It's got to be difficult for a player to see all of that money, etc. being made off of his labor, while in many cases knowing that his family at home may not be able to pay their electric bill that month. They also know that if they accept any money, they and the program could be in serious trouble.

On the other hand, the best of them are getting to audition for a job that will make them millionaires overnight and the rest will get an education, degree and connections that will give them some serious advantages in their careers for the rest of their lives. They get to attend a university that they likely wouldn't be able to get accepted to or even afford if they could get accepted for free, because they can play a sport. They also get to take advantage of the facilities, training, nutrition, etc. that the money they bring in provides.

Seems to me that there should be able to be some sort of middle ground reached. Lifetime medical, should definitely be part of that (including walk-ons). As should assistance for the families of players that truly need it. I also think that this is about the NCAA more than the schools themselves.

I think that most schools would love to be able to do more for their players and their families, but NCAA rules don't allow it. As an example, why shouldn't the school be allowed to cover the cost for a players immediate family (or at least the parents) to travel to and attend away games?

I agree it's not black and white. I know i'd love the free education but lets get real how many of these players have any business being in college? I have a friend whos kid has had a 4.0 since freshman in high school and got rejected to many schools yet some guy who can't do basic math is allowed into graduate school because he can play football. So giving them this free education is like giving me free medical school. I don't belong there .

 

[Olyduck]

then there is all the talk of if you pay football players do you have to play every athlete in every sport? and what about the sports not under the NCAA like Men's rowing. Women's is so if there is a pay for all NCAA athletes women's crew would get some but mens is not so they wouldn't? also acro and tumbling, Rugby, Cycling, Equestrian among others.
then you run into scale. how do you determine who gets how much? is it a flat per sport or are there tiers? you could see why paying the back up QB more than a guy who leads the track team by placing 1st in 4 races or the ace pitcher who leads the nation in strike outs because their sports don't generate as much income could get controversial.

 

[WizardHawk]

Again, things are changing. In that interview by our AD she brought up a million more in upgraded or added food and I think she said around a million more for other added benefits, but I don't recall which ones. The topic was about why they can't build a basketball facility at this time and that was one of many things she brought up in terms of where their money is going.

If they are paying out now something between one to two million more for those 100 athletes than their prior budgets had planned for isn't that a substantial sign of change?

I do believe medical was part of that second million she talked about, but don't quote me on it.

I just don't see where they should get paid like NFL players. And it is a valid point to bring up about all of the rest of the programs impacted by the decision to give them more compensation.

Do some players not belong at a university? Of course. And there will always be those kids slipping through and earning degrees that aren't worth the paper they are printed on just because of their athletics. It will still help those kids all throughout the rest of their life even if they don't reach the NFL. People with that piece of paper earn more than those without.

I've never been of the mindset that those kids don't deserve anything more than their education, but I also think Rosen and others like him are way off base in what they expect should come in terms of compensation. The sweet spot is somewhere in between.

When you heard stories not long about about kids in the football program going hungry out of season because they couldn't afford to eat and yet can't take on extra jobs because of the time their program takes up all year long of course you want to see that changed. When kids get injured and face life long medical expenses it should be entirely paid for no questions asked for the rest of their life. Most of those things are common sense and I don't see people arguing against them. They are different from talking about salaries though. I'm not in favor of paying them millions. Just not.

They should be compensated enough to get around and still be able to have some fun while they are in school and should never be concerned with any costs of living or going to school.

 

[RegentDenali]

Because of title IX aka title feminism, if the the football players got paid, all the female sports would be screaming about them not get paid "equal" to the males.

 

[socaljim242]

Because of title IX aka title feminism, if the the football players got paid, all the female sports would be screaming about them not get paid "equal" to the males.

I've heard that wouldn't hold up. They dont bring in the money. title IX just means they have to fund womens sports teams as much as the mens but what comes in from football can be spent how they choose. I dont know any womens coaches being paid like mens coaches .

 

[socaljim242]

Again, things are changing. In that interview by our AD she brought up a million more in upgraded or added food and I think she said around a million more for other added benefits, but I don't recall which ones. The topic was about why they can't build a basketball facility at this time and that was one of many things she brought up in terms of where their money is going.

If they are paying out now something between one to two million more for those 100 athletes than their prior budgets had planned for isn't that a substantial sign of change?

I do believe medical was part of that second million she talked about, but don't quote me on it.

I just don't see where they should get paid like NFL players. And it is a valid point to bring up about all of the rest of the programs impacted by the decision to give them more compensation.

Do some players not belong at a university? Of course. And there will always be those kids slipping through and earning degrees that aren't worth the paper they are printed on just because of their athletics. It will still help those kids all throughout the rest of their life even if they don't reach the NFL. People with that piece of paper earn more than those without.

I've never been of the mindset that those kids don't deserve anything more than their education, but I also think Rosen and others like him are way off base in what they expect should come in terms of compensation. The sweet spot is somewhere in between.

When you heard stories not long about about kids in the football program going hungry out of season because they couldn't afford to eat and yet can't take on extra jobs because of the time their program takes up all year long of course you want to see that changed. When kids get injured and face life long medical expenses it should be entirely paid for no questions asked for the rest of their life. Most of those things are common sense and I don't see people arguing against them. They are different from talking about salaries though. I'm not in favor of paying them millions. Just not.

They should be compensated enough to get around and still be able to have some fun while they are in school and should never be concerned with any costs of living or going to school.

I don't think Rosen said pay me this much. He just said it's hypocritical to call them amateurs when the school gets 280 million from UA.
I don't think the players should get millions. But there's easily some small percentage they can put away for them till they get out of school. Maybe it's to get ready for the real world now that they aren't playing football . Maybe they could take some courses in something that they couldn't take at the Univercity that fits their skill set. If they go pro then don't dole it out . Give them some serious medical.