|
NIL money
Feb 28, 2024 13:02:00 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by slxpress on Feb 28, 2024 13:02:00 GMT -5
One of the overlooked factors is how much D1 athletes are already compensated in comparison to their student peers. There are very, very few academic scholarships that cover all costs. A lot of smart students who contribute research time and energy to their institutions consider themselves lucky to get tuition paid, let alone anything else. Athletes get tuition, room, board, books, food, clothing and stipends whether their sport brings in cash or not. Well, for full scholarship sports. Most sports are partial scholarship sports, and I can tell you from personal experience I write a hefty tuition check twice a year so my niece can start for her Div I team. Glad to do it, frankly. She’s had a great experience, even if she’s never going pro, and never making diddly squat from NIL. It’s still a good point, but not the whole story.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Feb 28, 2024 14:32:45 GMT -5
The comparison between a well oiled for profit major sports league, to an entire collegiate athletics program, is misplaced. The typical operating costs of a [insert any generic large D1 athletics program] is FAR higher than any NFL or NBA team because these programs are required to fund and maintain dozens of non-profitable entities on the balance sheet. The Green Bay Packers had $541 million in operating expenses last year. That's double any DI athletic department. This is completely disingenuous. That number for the packers INCLUDES player salaries for, again, a completely for profit, self sustaining model. If you want to compare Texas’ football expense and revenue (a self sustaining model) that’s one thing, but I’m talking about the ENTIRE athletics department. The operating costs it takes to maintain mulitple stadiums/venues, fly/bus teams all around the country for games, training facilities, marketing and recruiting, meals and misc. social benefits (like banquets) etc. for a bunch of sports that do NOT make money isn’t something the Green Bay Packers have to do. This is what I’m talking about when I say that a university athletics program has far higher operating costs. As a percentage of overall expense, in particular as is relates to corresponding revenue, universities must spent a lot of the budget on pure operations.
|
|
|
NIL money
Feb 28, 2024 14:38:38 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 28, 2024 14:38:38 GMT -5
One of the overlooked factors is how much D1 athletes are already compensated in comparison to their student peers. There are very, very few academic scholarships that cover all costs. A lot of smart students who contribute research time and energy to their institutions consider themselves lucky to get tuition paid, let alone anything else. Athletes get tuition, room, board, books, food, clothing and stipends whether their sport brings in cash or not. Just because another group of students are underpaid for their labor doesn't mean athletes should be.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 28, 2024 14:42:04 GMT -5
The Green Bay Packers had $541 million in operating expenses last year. That's double any DI athletic department. This is completely disingenuous. That number for the packers INCLUDES player salaries for, again, a completely for profit, self sustaining model. If you want to compare Texas’ football expense and revenue (a self sustaining model) that’s one thing, but I’m talking about the ENTIRE athletics department. The operating costs it takes to maintain mulitple stadiums/venues, fly/bus teams all around the country for games, training facilities, marketing and recruiting, meals and misc. social benefits (like banquets) etc. for a bunch of sports that do NOT make money isn’t something the Green Bay Packers have to do. This is what I’m talking about when I say that a university athletics program has far higher operating costs. As a percentage of overall expense, in particular as is relates to corresponding revenue, universities must spent a lot of the budget on pure operations. How is it disingenous? You said the operating costs of a DI athletic department are "FAR higher than any NFL or NBA team." That's clearly not true. Texas Athletics spent $232 million last year on athletics. That includes scholarships. So they're running a 20 team department for half of what it costs to operate the Packers.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Feb 28, 2024 15:34:38 GMT -5
This is completely disingenuous. That number for the packers INCLUDES player salaries for, again, a completely for profit, self sustaining model. If you want to compare Texas’ football expense and revenue (a self sustaining model) that’s one thing, but I’m talking about the ENTIRE athletics department. The operating costs it takes to maintain mulitple stadiums/venues, fly/bus teams all around the country for games, training facilities, marketing and recruiting, meals and misc. social benefits (like banquets) etc. for a bunch of sports that do NOT make money isn’t something the Green Bay Packers have to do. This is what I’m talking about when I say that a university athletics program has far higher operating costs. As a percentage of overall expense, in particular as is relates to corresponding revenue, universities must spent a lot of the budget on pure operations. How is it disingenous? You said the operating costs of a DI athletic department are "FAR higher than any NFL or NBA team." That's clearly not true. Texas Athletics spent $232 million last year on athletics. That includes scholarships. So they're running a 20 team department for half of what it costs to operate the Packers. fine, I'll strike disingenuous and say misleading. Adding in the multi-million dollar salaries for a handful of NFL players as "operating costs" isn't what I'm talking about as it relates to what college athletics programs do. College athletics spend tens of millions just to maintain the ability for a number of sports to compete because they are required to. None of that is going away (at least not that I'm aware of). Again, if you want to just compare a major D1 football budget to an NFL team, have it, THAT is an apples to apples comparison, but the minute you include the entire athletics program, which is required to spend tens of millions in operating costs that a professional sports team is not, it's simply not a fair comparison, and just throwing out total numbers as it relates to what athletes could be potentially sharing in is misleading.
|
|
|
NIL money
Feb 28, 2024 16:07:50 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 28, 2024 16:07:50 GMT -5
How is it disingenous? You said the operating costs of a DI athletic department are "FAR higher than any NFL or NBA team." That's clearly not true. Texas Athletics spent $232 million last year on athletics. That includes scholarships. So they're running a 20 team department for half of what it costs to operate the Packers. fine, I'll strike disingenuous and say misleading. Adding in the multi-million dollar salaries for a handful of NFL players as "operating costs" isn't what I'm talking about as it relates to what college athletics programs do. College athletics spend tens of millions just to maintain the ability for a number of sports to compete because they are required to. None of that is going away (at least not that I'm aware of). Again, if you want to just compare a major D1 football budget to an NFL team, have it, THAT is an apples to apples comparison, but the minute you include the entire athletics program, which is required to spend tens of millions in operating costs that a professional sports team is not, it's simply not a fair comparison, and just throwing out total numbers as it relates to what athletes could be potentially sharing in is misleading. Labor is an operating cost. It's accounted for in college athletics department expenses, too, not just pro teams. And my initial NFL comparison was intended to show what a revenue share could look like on a per athlete basis. I wanted to show the per athlete revenue is significant, even if it doesn't reach the level of pro leagues.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Feb 28, 2024 17:36:28 GMT -5
fine, I'll strike disingenuous and say misleading. Adding in the multi-million dollar salaries for a handful of NFL players as "operating costs" isn't what I'm talking about as it relates to what college athletics programs do. College athletics spend tens of millions just to maintain the ability for a number of sports to compete because they are required to. None of that is going away (at least not that I'm aware of). Again, if you want to just compare a major D1 football budget to an NFL team, have it, THAT is an apples to apples comparison, but the minute you include the entire athletics program, which is required to spend tens of millions in operating costs that a professional sports team is not, it's simply not a fair comparison, and just throwing out total numbers as it relates to what athletes could be potentially sharing in is misleading. Labor is an operating cost. It's accounted for in college athletics department expenses, too, not just pro teams. And my initial NFL comparison was intended to show what a revenue share could look like on a per athlete basis. I wanted to show the per athlete revenue is significant, even if it doesn't reach the level of pro leagues. Speaking of "labor being an operating cost" in pro sports and comparing what a revenue share could look like on a per athlete basis in college athletics, in the for-profit sphere of sports (NFL, NBA etc.), "labor" is generally commensurate with the market rate value of that labor. In college sports, considering that it's generally only football and mens basketball that generates any surplus revenue, what is the market rate value of the hundreds of other athletes that the university is required to fund for sports but which don't produce surplus revenue?
|
|
|
NIL money
Feb 28, 2024 17:39:03 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 28, 2024 17:39:03 GMT -5
Labor is an operating cost. It's accounted for in college athletics department expenses, too, not just pro teams. And my initial NFL comparison was intended to show what a revenue share could look like on a per athlete basis. I wanted to show the per athlete revenue is significant, even if it doesn't reach the level of pro leagues. Speaking of "labor being an operating cost" in pro sports and comparing what a revenue share could look like on a per athlete basis in college athletics, in the for-profit sphere of sports (NFL, NBA etc.), "labor" is generally commensurate with the market rate value of that labor. In college sports, considering that it's generally only football and mens basketball that generates any surplus revenue, what is the market rate value of the hundreds of other athletes that the university is required to fund for sports but which don't produce surplus revenue? Possibly little to none! Also, most American pro sports artificially limit labor costs below market rate via salary caps and max contracts. Limitations that have been collectively bargained by labor and ownership.
|
|
|
NIL money
May 6, 2024 7:01:32 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by rjaege on May 6, 2024 7:01:32 GMT -5
In the past there have been instances of young professional athletes making bad decisions seeming related to their new found fame and wealth. Will NIL bring this to the college game? Maybe it already has?
|
|
|
NIL money
May 6, 2024 8:31:35 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by mervinswerved on May 6, 2024 8:31:35 GMT -5
In the past there have been instances of young professional athletes making bad decisions seeming related to their new found fame and wealth. Will NIL bring this to the college game? Maybe it already has? Young people are entitled to make the same mistakes as anybody else. It's not a valid argument against paying them what they are worth.
|
|
|
NIL money
May 6, 2024 8:33:45 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by slxpress on May 6, 2024 8:33:45 GMT -5
In the past there have been instances of young professional athletes making bad decisions seeming related to their new found fame and wealth. Will NIL bring this to the college game? Maybe it already has? Why would you limit it to professional athletes? Ever read about how often big lottery winners have their lives impacted negatively? Folks who inherit a lot of money that squander it? How about the Prodigal Son as told by Jesus in the Bible? This isn’t a new dynamic. Of course it’s going to happen. But an alternative to ensuring it doesn’t happen is to make sure they don’t get the wealth in the first place is not the right way to go, either.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on May 6, 2024 8:41:14 GMT -5
In the past there have been instances of young professional athletes making bad decisions seeming related to their new found fame and wealth. Will NIL bring this to the college game? Maybe it already has? Why would you limit it to professional athletes? Ever read about how often big lottery winners have their lives impacted negatively? Folks who inherit a lot of money that squander it? How about the Prodigal Son as told by Jesus in the Bible? This isn’t a new dynamic. Of course it’s going to happen. But an alternative to ensuring it doesn’t happen is to make sure they don’t get the wealth in the first place is not the right way to go, either. It's the "NIL caused Harper Murray's DUI" argument, which is easily one of the dumbest takes I've ever seen on this website.
|
|
|
Post by OHVBKING on May 6, 2024 9:15:41 GMT -5
I love how we have people who think they have been assigned the duty to judge others. I also love it when people start comparing athletic scholarships to academic scholarship. Please tell us how bad it is.
|
|
|
NIL money
May 6, 2024 9:55:17 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by rjaege on May 6, 2024 9:55:17 GMT -5
In the past there have been instances of young professional athletes making bad decisions seeming related to their new found fame and wealth. Will NIL bring this to the college game? Maybe it already has? Young people are entitled to make the same mistakes as anybody else. It's not a valid argument against paying them what they are worth. NIL for college athletes is relatively new. Colleges give a lot of support/advise to entering freshman on how to balance their new freedom with scholastic/career endeavors. Maybe their needs to be something similar for SA's. Although, I'm sure their is, NIL is new and there may be improvements that need to be looked at. I am not against NIL for SA's. That ship has sailed anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Norah Sus on May 6, 2024 10:01:44 GMT -5
Young people are entitled to make the same mistakes as anybody else. It's not a valid argument against paying them what they are worth. NIL for college athletes is relatively new. Colleges give a lot of support/advise to entering freshman on how to balance their new freedom with scholastic/career endeavors. Maybe their needs to be something similar for SA's. Although, I'm sure their is, NIL is new and there may be improvements that need to be looked at. I am not against NIL for SA's. That ship has sailed anyway. Do they, though?
|
|