College programs, particularly women's and "second tier" programs, do not HAVE to lose money...they choose to. They do not HAVE to take the trips they do. They do not HAVE to eat at the restaurants they do.

Most athletic departments go in the red because of football and basketball. Baseball is actually the sport that loses the most money out of any of the "other" sports. That came from the Journal of Higher Education. I don't believe they factor tuition money in the budget either. If they did that, these sports probably do not go in the red. But that's just my guess.

There are less than 15-20 percent of Division I schools that are in the red in football. My guess, it's very similar to that percentage in basketball too. For every Ohio State football program, there are 10 University of Kentucky football programs -- meaning, a budget in the black to those that are in the red. Don't go blaming those "other" sports for that.

But, back to paying athletes...less than 1% of NCAA athletes go professional in their sport. The majority come out with a nice degree and good things learned through athletics. They also have the opportunities that most traditional/nontraditional students don't get -- bowl games, all-expenses paid trips, plush accommodations, etc. The NCAA is not "exploiting" them -- EVERY school in the NCAA gets cuts from the revenue generated, EVERY student and student-athlete benefits from those revenues. That's a positive contribution. Heck, student-athletes receive major perks from generous donors helping build grandiose facilities, and many of those generous donors didn't play athletics. The NFL, NBA, NHL, or MLB have no idea how many or who of these NCAA athletes will actually make it when those student-athletes step on the competitive surface when they go from freshman to senior.

If a student-athlete struggles so much, don't go big time. Odds are, they won't make it professionally. Save money. Start out at a JUCO, NAIA, or DII/DIII school. Get an associates. Transfer. Blah blah blah. They know what they are getting themselves into. They aren't stupid -- well, maybe some are because of the crap they keep doing. In the end, $2,000 is a drop in the bucket. When will it stop? What's the number going to be once there continues to be trouble next year? Is the number going to change with inflation/recession?

Manhattan Buckeye;945522 wrote:"I'd be completely in favor of scrapping any team that loses money."

That's practically every team, and all women's teams with the possible exception of UConn/Tennessee basketball. Even baseball loses money at the top programs. You're in favor of losing all sports?

I don't care about women's basketball or college baseball, so yes. If people do care about those sports, I'd expect them to be supported. If not, get rid of the waste. Or have your players be non-scholarship, stay in worse hotels, etc. Why should being good at a sport no one gives a shit about and loses your school money be worthy of a free education?

HitsRus;945568 wrote:Reread the article....the figures are for the entire athletic programs. There were 14 schools that turned a profit on athletics. That includes all sports.

ok, so there are still half of D1 programs that lose money. How are schools like Akron or some of the bottom feeders in an auto qualifier conference going to afford to pay $121000 a year when they lose money by having football?

"College programs, particularly women's and "second tier" programs, do not HAVE to lose money...they choose to. They do not HAVE to take the trips they do. They do not HAVE to eat at the restaurants they do."

Then they don't compete. How the hell does a team play without traveling? I can't believe people would want to scrap programs like track & field, swimming, lacrosse, etc. just because it doesn't make money. It is part of the athletic budget. Without track Ohio St. and the USA woudn't have Jesse Owens, without cross-country we wouldn't have Steve Prefontaine. The fact is these sports don't get a paying audience or tv contracts, but they are still important.

Manhattan Buckeye;945592 wrote:Then they don't compete. How the hell does a team play without traveling? I can't believe people would want to scrap programs like track & field, swimming, lacrosse, etc. just because it doesn't make money. It is part of the athletic budget. Without track Ohio St. and the USA woudn't have Jesse Owens, without cross-country we wouldn't have Steve Prefontaine.

If it's important, people will support it. Free market right?

The fact is these sports don't get a paying audience or tv contracts, but they are still important.

Important to who? And why?

Their "rocks" are cheap Cubic Zirconia.

Fool, their "huge rocks" are cheap Cubic Zirconia.

karen lotz;944311 wrote:Except the money they get isn't spent on food. Its spent on huge rocks for their ears, rims, etc.

Doofus, their "huge rocks" are cheap Cubic Zirconia.

2kool4skool;945599 wrote:If it's important, people will support it. Free market right?



Important to who? And why?

People that donate to the athletic program and enjoy the sports. NCAA sports are an amateur endeavor, a step above high school. Few, if any, high school sports programs turn a profit, but we still support them. It made a difference in my life, I enjoyed playing basketball and baseball in HS and running track and CC. It would have sucked not to have had those opportunities. No one paid a cent to watch me run in the district/regional/state and I'm sure it cost the district money in gasoline for the coaches (who IIRC worked for free) to drive us to the meets.

Manhattan Buckeye;945592 wrote:Then they don't compete. How the hell does a team play without traveling? I can't believe people would want to scrap programs like track & field, swimming, lacrosse, etc. just because it doesn't make money. It is part of the athletic budget. Without track Ohio St. and the USA woudn't have Jesse Owens, without cross-country we wouldn't have Steve Prefontaine. The fact is these sports don't get a paying audience or tv contracts, but they are still important.

You don't have to have hundreds of thousands of dollars to compete.

I know a particular program that had a $250,000 budget and got 4 wins out of 20ish games. Those 4 wins were against the same opponent. The program was flying all over the country to compete. That's ridiculous. You don't have to do that. You don't have to eat steaks all the time. You don't have to get all the best gear. Heck, no one has addressed the 20+ coaches that DI football programs have...all this garbage invests TOO much money in programs.

I never said anything about dropping programs. A small athletic team at Wright State University doesn't have to travel to southern Florida to compete in a certain competition just for "competition" sake. They can get the same competition elsewhere, and save A LOT of money. Why would the University of Kentucky softball team have to travel to Washington (state) to play a softball game? Don't have to. Why would Campbell University (NC) travel to Massachusetts to run a cross country meet? Doesn't make sense. Spend the budget more wisely or raise more money.

A team I coached had a budget of around $15,000 one year (not counting the coaches' pay or scholarships) and went 21-games unbeaten while making the first ever conference tournament, winning conference, and first ever National tournament appearance. Large budgets don't mean success in the wins column -- just ask Notre Dame, Texas, and Ohio State football right now.

Pick6;945525 wrote:here: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5490686

According to your posted link, 68 football teams made money...not 5.

Manhattan Buckeye;945611 wrote:People that donate to the athletic program and enjoy the sports.

Guess they should be donating more then.

NCAA sports are an amateur endeavor, a step above high school. Few, if any, high school sports programs turn a profit, but we still support them.

We also support High School in general, being that everyone's education is essentially free(at public schools.) You're not entitled to go to college for free, perhaps you shouldn't be entitled to get a scholarship just because you're good at a sport no one cares about either.

OSH;945614 wrote:You don't have to have hundreds of thousands of dollars to compete.

I know a particular program that had a $250,000 budget and got 4 wins out of 20ish games. Those 4 wins were against the same opponent. The program was flying all over the country to compete. That's ridiculous. You don't have to do that. You don't have to eat steaks all the time. You don't have to get all the best gear. Heck, no one has addressed the 20+ coaches that DI football programs have...all this garbage invests TOO much money in programs.

I never said anything about dropping programs. A small athletic team at Wright State University doesn't have to travel to southern Florida to compete in a certain competition just for "competition" sake. They can get the same competition elsewhere, and save A LOT of money. Why would the University of Kentucky softball team have to travel to Washington (state) to play a softball game? Don't have to. Why would Campbell University (NC) travel to Massachusetts to run a cross country meet? Doesn't make sense. Spend the budget more wisely or raise more money.

A team I coached had a budget of around $15,000 one year (not counting the coaches' pay or scholarships) and went 21-games unbeaten while making the first ever conference tournament, winning conference, and first ever National tournament appearance. Large budgets don't mean success in the wins column -- just ask Notre Dame, Texas, and Ohio State football right now.

+1

2kool4skool;945645 wrote:Guess they should be donating more then.



We also support High School in general, being that everyone's education is essentially free(at public schools.) You're not entitled to go to college for free, perhaps you shouldn't be entitled to get a scholarship just because you're good at a sport no one cares about either.

People do support athletic foundations. It is a charity that many alumni contribute to.

Ohio State's is here:

https://www.giveto.osu.edu/igive/onlinegiving/category/athletics.aspx?num=athletics_vp&coll=none

What is your point? No part of your rambling makes any sort of sense.

Why support athletics?, c'mon. It's what keeps the donations flowing to all aspects of the University, and what brings back alumni year after year.

pick 6...I don't think anyone is saying they should be paid the stated "value" of $121,000. The issue more is whether they should be compensated at all for bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars a year, or whether stipends should be raised $2k a year.
More and more coaches, including Duke's Coach K , Gary Williams from Maryland, Beamer from VT, think that raising the stipend or allowing kids to earn a like amount of money off their status as college athletes, would go along way in solving these petty improper benefits/income issues by taking some of the financial pressure off some athletes, particularly those from lower income families.

2kool4skool;945574 wrote:I don't care about women's basketball or college baseball, so yes. If people do care about those sports, I'd expect them to be supported. If not, get rid of the waste. Or have your players be non-scholarship, stay in worse hotels, etc. Why should being good at a sport no one gives a shit about and loses your school money be worthy of a free education?

Yea, athletes that don't play men's basketball or football should be denied their dreams of playing college athletics, because you don't care about those sports. That's a foolish statement.

se-alum;945753 wrote:Yea, athletes that don't play men's basketball or football should be denied their dreams of playing college athletics, because you don't care about those sports. That's a foolish statement.

They are welcome to play, but I don't see why someone should be given a scholarship for a skill that 1.) has nothing to do with education, and 2.) doesn't make the school any money(in fact, loses money.) Either figure out how to stop being a drain on the athletic department/university, or play a club sport. Just because someone "dreams" of playing varsity table tennis, doesn't mean they're entitled to it.

Manhattan Buckeye;945647 wrote:People do support athletic foundations. It is a charity that many alumni contribute to.

If people REALLY want to see cross country, field hockey, badminton, whatever, continue then they will donate more so those sports can continue to exist. If not, then it should be clear that perhaps people don't care as much as you seem to think.

What is your point? No part of your rambling makes any sort of sense.

My point is, that there's a lot of extolling the virtues of "free market" here. But the idea of allowing a truly free market to exist where sports that aren't making money are cut, doesn't sit well with anyone. Why allow these drains on the university to exist?


If you'd like it summarized: If football players, who generate millions of dollars for their school, are being "fairly compensated" with an academic scholarship, free housing, etc. then why should someone who loses the university money, be worthy of the exact same benefit? That sounds like the opposite of a free market.

You should have stopped when you were behind. That last post made less sense than the other ones. People do support non-revenue programs with donations. Did you even read the link I posted?

Manhattan Buckeye;946159 wrote:People do support non-revenue programs with donations. Did you even read the link I posted?

I'm aware. But if they're all losing money, it looks like they need to donate more. And in a free market, that's exactly what would happen if these sports are truly important to people. Or if that doesn't work. they could cut expenses, go non-scholarship. Lots of options other than being drains on the athletic department.

These are amateur sports programs, it is the definition of "non-profit", hence why it is a charity. Again, quit when you are behind.

Manhattan Buckeye;946171 wrote:These are amateur sports programs, it is the definition of "non-profit", hence why it is a charity.

Agreed. So what we're looking at isn't a free market at all. It's a small group of athletes with high worth, by and large, subsidizing a lot of athletes with no worth.

I guess what I'm confused about, is how you can think that football players are already given "too much" while being perfectly alright it seems with the exact same benefits given to athletes in these other sports?

people just need to stop babying d-1 athletes and all will be fine.

2kool4skool;946172 wrote:Agreed. So what we're looking at isn't a free market at all. It's a small group of athletes with high worth, by and large, subsidizing a lot of athletes with no worth.

I guess what I'm confused about, is how you can think that football players are already given "too much" while being perfectly alright it seems with the exact same benefits given to athletes in these other sports?

Because they aren't the same. At my college even home weekends the football team stayed at a local hotel on the Friday night before, with all meals provided and had "team-building" movie night (in reality, it was to make sure no one got in trouble the day before a game). I can assure you that the tennis team wasn't afforded the same luxury. In addition to the athletic facility, the football team had its own gym, which is common at many BCS conference schools.

The whole idea of paying athletes is STUPID. They ALREADY are receiving a FREE EDUCATION amongst COUNTLESS other BENEFITS.

Let's say we pay them $20,000. You're still going to have boosters/schools offering $5,000 incentives to get recruits to attend "their" school.

If you pay them $50,000, an athlete is STILL going to look for $55,000. If you pay them $100,000.... an athlete is STILL going to look for $110,000.

Even with paying athletes, we're STILL going to find ourselves right int he same situation we're currently in today.

Approved today...the NCAA is spineless.