HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

NCAA-O'Bannon Case: using athlete images w/o compensation-#756 Court Favors Plaintiff

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-23-2013, 06:00 AM
  #151
wildthing202
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Douglas, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 638
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to wildthing202 Send a message via Yahoo to wildthing202
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
MOD NOTE - reminder, this suit is about the use of the athlete's image in games and such (and merchandise sales -- even without the name on the jersey).

It's not so much a referendum on the entire student athlete/scholarship system.

The suit asks the question:

Is EA Sports and/or schools benefiting from using the student athlete's "image"? AND should the students be compensated (beyond scholarship)?

Right now, the judge is considering if this should be a class action lawsuit or not.

We've got a ways to go on this.
Does it matter if EA or the schools benefit? The people who play college sports usually have to sign a waiver don't they? Not to mention they get the scholarships, free travel, free stuff(bowl gifts, etc.) and access to higher paying jobs. They get enough as is.

And to answer that 2nd question, no they shouldn't get anything else unless they want to take the scholarships from the non-revenue sports and use that money to give them even more benefits.

wildthing202 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2013, 07:46 AM
  #152
Brodie
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,163
vCash: 500
They get free travel! Everyone else involves gets millions of dollars. This is a totally equitable system, yes sir.

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2013, 08:23 AM
  #153
Brodie
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,163
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
So, your argument is that because Michigan employs people to work in athletics, and that sum is more than the value of UM tuition, the kids are exploited?

Those employees SERVE THE STUDENT-ATHLETES. They are the:

Equipment People - ordering their free gear and washing their workout clothes.
Strength and condition coaches - create workout plans, oversee their training and make them stronger and more explosive
media relations - recording their stats and telling the world how awesome they are. Also prep the for interviews so they sound smart on TV
video department - preparing them to win by cutting game film; and putting their games and highlights online so their parents can watch them if they aren't local.
athletic trainers - who tape, stretch, treat, and rehab not just their "injuries" but also give them cold and cough medicine, pepto, have piles of free condoms, etc.
Academic Coordinators - who make sure they're on pace for graduation, give them early registration in classes, finds them tutors if they need it, monitor their study halls.
Compliance - who teaches them what the NCAA rules are, so they don't jeopardize their eligibility
Marketing - who promotes them in the community

The idea that athletic department employees are getting rich off of student athletes is pure insanity. It simply costs more to give a salary and benefits to full-time employees than the price of tuition. Benefits alone cost 35 to 45% of what someone's actual salary is.

That number also includes coaches who contracts are still on the books after they got fired. That's expensive, because your coaches need to be on contracts with 5 years left at all times, because otherwise that will be used against them in recruiting. Michigan was paying TWO football coaches.

It also includes all the game-day employees who show up as ushers, concession stands, etc.


For crying out loud, this is the Business of Hockey Board. Just look at the expenses of NHL teams and what they spend on support staff:

San Jose (using them because they have zero debt on their arena) - $101 million in revenue, $66 million in payroll, and -$0.9 million in operating income. That means it costs San Jose $36 million in non-payroll expenses. That covers everything, including staff payroll, facilities and game day employees.

That's $36 million to SERVICE ONE TEAM. Michigan has THIRTY TEAMS. The Sharks have 45 staff members and Michigan has 285.
Grasping at serious straws here to explain why total revenue doubled and salaries doubled ("we've got all this extra money, raises for everyone!") while the amount spent on the actual athletes, the ones who are actually putting in the work here, went up by a little more than half that amount.

By the way, the athletic department at Michigan employees about 325 people. Something tells me this is more in line with what the Sharks employee than you're probably willing to admit. And many of them, like the PR representative and communications director, are doing the exact same job and both drawing well over $100k base for it. Or the ones who are only listed as incredibly vague "administrative specialists", also making over $125k in base compensation. Yeah, they deserve the cash while Denard Robinson and Trey Burke and Jacob Trouba are being perfectly well compensated with free trips to road games in such exotic destinations as West Lafayette and State College Vanderbilt somehow manages to survive without paying any of them.

It's like that blog post said... if the AD at Alabama disappeared tomorrow, would anyone notice? Do you even know his name off the top of your head? If it were C. J. Mosley, on the other hand, how big would the story be? Now tell me again which one deserves to make $620k plus incentives this year.

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2013, 08:48 AM
  #154
19Yzerman19
Registered User
 
19Yzerman19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 1,697
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodie View Post
Grasping at serious straws here to explain why total revenue doubled and salaries doubled ("we've got all this extra money, raises for everyone!") while the amount spent on the actual athletes, the ones who are actually putting in the work here, went up by a little more than half that amount.

By the way, the athletic department at Michigan employees about 325 people. Something tells me this is more in line with what the Sharks employee than you're probably willing to admit. And many of them, like the PR representative and communications director, are doing the exact same job and both drawing well over $100k base for it. Or the ones who are only listed as incredibly vague "administrative specialists", also making over $125k in base compensation. Yeah, they deserve the cash while Denard Robinson and Trey Burke and Jacob Trouba are being perfectly well compensated with free trips to road games in such exotic destinations as West Lafayette and State College Vanderbilt somehow manages to survive without paying any of them.

It's like that blog post said... if the AD at Alabama disappeared tomorrow, would anyone notice? Do you even know his name off the top of your head? If it were C. J. Mosley, on the other hand, how big would the story be? Now tell me again which one deserves to make $620k plus incentives this year.
or you know the athlete could just skip college all together and find some other way to make it to a professional sport because he doesn't want to be "used" in this manner right?

19Yzerman19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2013, 09:44 AM
  #155
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19 View Post
or you know the athlete could just skip college all together and find some other way to make it to a professional sport because he doesn't want to be "used" in this manner right?

If then NFL and NBA weren't getting a free development system from universities the way they do now, these leagues would need to do what the NHL does-- rely on junior and minor pro leagues. So, yes, the athletes bound for the pros would still find a path. Where do you think future NFL and NBA players would come from if this scam system was abolished?

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2013, 12:54 PM
  #156
wildthing202
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Douglas, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 638
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to wildthing202 Send a message via Yahoo to wildthing202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
If then NFL and NBA weren't getting a free development system from universities the way they do now, these leagues would need to do what the NHL does-- rely on junior and minor pro leagues. So, yes, the athletes bound for the pros would still find a path. Where do you think future NFL and NBA players would come from if this scam system was abolished?
Name one sports league that doesn't get players through a college draft. The NFL is the only one that doesn't have a minor league because it develops its own players (after college) rather than sending them to a small city in order to train like the others do. Heck Canada uses a junior and a minor pro system only because they don't bother putting much stock in the high school and college system that the US uses heavily. Does anyone even know an NHL player who went from a Canadian College straight to the NHL?

Basically people are pissed because the NFL and NBA don't draft 18 year olds and the NHL and MLB do.

The NFL wants adults hence the 3 years out of high school requirement and the NBA got sick of getting 18 year old ball-hog projects since they were probably the only talented player on their high school teams so they have a two year requirement. MLB has the luxury of drafting kids and not signing them which forces them to go either into Indy ball or college until they get drafted and signed and the NHL has the luxury of dumping kids into the minors which pays far less then what the average scholarship football player gets per year in benefits btw.

Scam system? It's only a scam when the moneymakers want a bigger share. I mean who gets paid and who doesn't? Does the starting QB get paid more than the backup QBs? Do walk-ons get paid? Do club sport players get paid as well? Do female athletes get equal pay? Does the B1G have to pay more than the Big 12? Do FCS schools have to pay as much as FBS schools? If the tv bubble collapses and colleges get pennies on the dollar for TV rights do they still have to fork out that much cash or can they pay less? Do scholarship science majors get paid since they out produce the sports department in terms of revenue earned (research anyone)?

Is the current system perfect? No it isn't but somebody has to pay the bills for the dead weights(aka the Title IX scholarships and non-revenue sports players).

wildthing202 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2013, 01:40 PM
  #157
VOB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,593
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
That's not a grad rate. The one that can count athletes who transfer in good standing is the Progress rate, not the grad rate.
.
That was my point, that the NCAA trumpets its rate as a "success" in measuring the graduation rate when it really does no such thing...

The reality is that an entity is making massive profits from the play of their athletes, even when those athletes leave the program.

VOB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2013, 02:11 PM
  #158
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildthing202 View Post
Name one sports league that doesn't get players through a college draft. The NFL is the only one that doesn't have a minor league because it develops its own players (after college) rather than sending them to a small city in order to train like the others do. Heck Canada uses a junior and a minor pro system only because they don't bother putting much stock in the high school and college system that the US uses heavily. Does anyone even know an NHL player who went from a Canadian College straight to the NHL?

Basically people are pissed because the NFL and NBA don't draft 18 year olds and the NHL and MLB do.
??

The NHL gets the majority of its players outside the NCAA, although a certain portion of drafted players do end up going that route.

The NBA and NFL are utterly reliant on the universities to "develop" their players, most going straight to pro right after college (or if they leave early). That's pretty nice. That's also roughly the age that most drafted NHL prospects actually make the transition to the pros.


Quote:
The NFL wants adults hence the 3 years out of high school requirement and the NBA got sick of getting 18 year old ball-hog projects since they were probably the only talented player on their high school teams so they have a two year requirement. MLB has the luxury of drafting kids and not signing them which forces them to go either into Indy ball or college until they get drafted and signed and the NHL has the luxury of dumping kids into the minors which pays far less then what the average scholarship football player gets per year in benefits btw.
You're describing the ideal system for pro leagues-- get the players at the optimum age, while getting a chance to watch, weed out, from the sidelines. Do you believe the NHL wouldn't love to have this in place too, IF college hockey were big enough to attract worldwide talent and be as big as it is for football and basketball?



Quote:
Scam system? It's only a scam when the moneymakers want a bigger share. I mean who gets paid and who doesn't? Does the starting QB get paid more than the backup QBs? Do walk-ons get paid? Do club sport players get paid as well? Do female athletes get equal pay? Does the B1G have to pay more than the Big 12? Do FCS schools have to pay as much as FBS schools? If the tv bubble collapses and colleges get pennies on the dollar for TV rights do they still have to fork out that much cash or can they pay less? Do scholarship science majors get paid since they out produce the sports department in terms of revenue earned (research anyone)?
I really don't care who gets the money other than to point out that it's a scam because the athletes do NOT get most of that money (unlike the pro leagues where their share is 50%), and that these colleges are NOT FOR PROFIT tax designations! That's the scam.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2013, 03:06 PM
  #159
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodie View Post
Grasping at serious straws here to explain why total revenue doubled and salaries doubled ("we've got all this extra money, raises for everyone!") while the amount spent on the actual athletes, the ones who are actually putting in the work here, went up by a little more than half that amount.
No, that's what those people actually do for a living. Usually about 60 to 80 hours a week, or more.

One of the massive increases in college athletics is video: Video streaming of all the sports (major recruiting pitch), graphics and content for the video scoreboards at all the games, and be a mini regional sports network, providing content for the website (and in Michigan's case, Big Ten Network). That didn't exist before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodie View Post
By the way, the athletic department at Michigan employees about 325 people. Something tells me this is more in line with what the Sharks employee than you're probably willing to admit.
The Sharks staff directory lists 36 people, plus their team doctors/dentists, etc, who have outside practice. It doesn't list coaches and players. Michigan's budget report says 285 people. That lists coaches, but not players.

Both have other gameday-only employees: outside contractors like ushers and concession people at games. The Sharks have 41 home games, plus preseason. Michigan probably has 500+ home events a year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodie View Post
And many of them, like the PR representative and communications director, are doing the exact same job and both drawing well over $100k base for it.
Bwaaah ha ha ha ha ha haha hahahahahahahahahahaah. Ah hahahahahahahahahaha. Ah ha ahahahahahahahahaha.

This is why I can't take your arguments seriously. The Sharks staff is sharing responsibilities for one sport. Whereas Michigan has more sports than media people.

There are 343 schools in Division I. Once you get outside the BCS, the biggest media relations department are five people covering 15-20 sports. My alma mater -- who competes at a pretty high level, actually -- has two SIDs.

And the average salary of an SID is $46,020, a number that's skewed by the BCS staffs. 1200 of the 1500 SIDs in Division I are probably making under than average.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2013, 03:29 PM
  #160
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildthing202 View Post
Does it matter if EA or the schools benefit? The people who play college sports usually have to sign a waiver don't they?
That's the crux of this lawsuit: the NCAA has athletes sign an agreement giving the NCAA licensing rights to their likeness and image IN PERPETUITY.

The lawsuit started because Ed O'Bannon and Oscar Robertson among others, were featured in a set of trading cards, for sale by the NCAA, and they realized they weren't getting any royalties.

YES, the players should be compensated for items like that after their careers were over. They also should get a free copy of the video games their likenesses are used in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VOB View Post
That was my point, that the NCAA trumpets its rate as a "success" in measuring the graduation rate when it really does no such thing...

The reality is that an entity is making massive profits from the play of their athletes, even when those athletes leave the program.
Not quite. Academic Progress Rate and Grad Rate are two different things. Both are drastically flawed.

ESPN Outside The Lines did an episode once on Bob Huggins at the University of Cincinnati, and how his grad rate was awful, and he'd NEVER had an African-American graduate. Sounds deplorable. Except that on the wall in his office, he has a picture of all his grads in caps and gowns; and there's a dozen or so black kids included.

Here's how NCAA Grad Rates work:
"You had X number of freshman enter the program on scholarship. How many had degrees from your university six years later?"

It would be entirely possible to have every single person who played basketball for your school earn a college degree, but still have an NCAA Grad Rate of 0%.

There was an Academic All-American a year or two ago, who graduated with close to a 4.0. In a real major. And he doesn't show up as a grad on any school's Grad rates because he transferred.

Over 50% of marriages fail in this country, but Grad Rates expect that 17-year old kids make perfect decisions on their college choices 100% of the time.


And again, they're not making massive PROFITS. They are making massive REVENUES. And they re-invest virtually all their surplus into improvements. Improvements which improve the athlete's experience.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2013, 04:19 PM
  #161
VOB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,593
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
T
Not quite. Academic Progress Rate and Grad Rate are two different things. Both are drastically flawed.

ESPN Outside The Lines did an episode once on Bob Huggins at the University of Cincinnati, and how his grad rate was awful, and he'd NEVER had an African-American graduate. Sounds deplorable. Except that on the wall in his office, he has a picture of all his grads in caps and gowns; and there's a dozen or so black kids included.

Here's how NCAA Grad Rates work:
"You had X number of freshman enter the program on scholarship. How many had degrees from your university six years later?"

It would be entirely possible to have every single person who played basketball for your school earn a college degree, but still have an NCAA Grad Rate of 0%.

There was an Academic All-American a year or two ago, who graduated with close to a 4.0. In a real major. And he doesn't show up as a grad on any school's Grad rates because he transferred.

Over 50% of marriages fail in this country, but Grad Rates expect that 17-year old kids make perfect decisions on their college choices 100% of the time.


And again, they're not making massive PROFITS. They are making massive REVENUES. And they re-invest virtually all their surplus into improvements. Improvements which improve the athlete's experience.
No, they are making massive profits and the majority of those profits are flowing into very large salary packages for the non-players.

The NCAA uses their GSR as proof that a large number of their athletes are doing what students are suppose to be doing, and that is graduating with a degree yet, as you even admit, those numbers are deeply flawed and do not reflect what is truly going on...and that is less are graduating then what the NCAA is claiming.

VOB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2013, 06:09 PM
  #162
rj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,070
vCash: 500
my discussion on this from elsewhere as it relates to college hockey:

Quote:
Quote:
I hope O'Bannon wins! The NCAA has been legal slavery for far too long. Their colusion with the NBA and NFL has essentially created a Cartel. I hope the judge ****s them hard.

Time will tell but I think we have all discussed how the College football model is wrong. I think college hockey is a much better model.
If this thing passes and the universities pay players, college hockey would die outside of those programs that can make a profit from ticket sales (e.g. Minnesota, North Dakota) and those that are funded by alumni. Football pays for almost every other sport in an athletics department. Basketball makes enough money to be self-sustaining with a little left over. They're the two brought up in the lawsuit, no other sport is. It's not in the interest of O'Bannon for him to designated the same as a softball player, the softball player lives off him. And if the NCAA were required to pay every athlete the same, softball alongside almost every other non-revenue sport would be cancelled. I don't know how that works because from the standpoint of Title IX, paying only football and basketball players would seem to breach federal law, and only playing those sports would breach that because they're the only two that on a widespread basis make a profit. But you know what's going to happen, certain schools are going to pay more than others in football, everyone wants to be the top school, and so more money will get diverted to football, and there'll be nothing left for anyone else.

In effect it'd be taking all the money, putting it in the hands of a few, and the remaining 90% "lose their jobs". For football players, that probably makes sense for them, as why should a team that doesn't bring any revenue into the school take away money from the sport does? It's a seductive argument on its face.

Big can of worms. The end result is I think the football and basketball players get paid because they're the ones bringing in the money, and every other sport that doesn't make money is told "break even, either via ticket sales or alumni donations, break even; if you don't, you're gone".
If I was an athletics director and told I had to pay every single student-athlete under scholarship (I don't know how it is legally possible for Ed O'Bannon as a UCLA basketball player to be separated from a UCLA softball player; of course, basketball brings in money and softball does not, but how do you make that distinction in law under the circumstances they played under?), I would cancel every single sport that could not pay for itself. And how many college hockey programs is that?

rj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2013, 06:35 PM
  #163
Brodie
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,163
vCash: 500
the argument is that players are entitled a cut of video game licensing (and, some legal scholars have argued, TV rights) fees, so it's unlikely to result in women's lacrosse players making money

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2013, 07:15 PM
  #164
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VOB View Post
No, they are making massive profits and the majority of those profits are flowing into very large salary packages for the non-players.
Define "massive profits" ????

This is the real world.
A - Budgets are made based on projections. Schools outlay their spending based on the projections. So if Michigan is thinking they'll make $125 million in revenue, they're going to plan their expenses to what they have coming in. This includes new capital projects, like upgrading the cross country or field hockey locker room.

B - Zero distinction is made between "revenue" from tickets and donation revenue. At most big schools, those are linked: Donate a ton of money, get great football tickets. On this Business of Hockey board, if an NHL team was getting $33 million in revenue from booster donations, people would say the franchise wasn't sustainable and should be relocated.

C - People keep saying "college athletics" and "massive profits."

Only 22 of the 229 athletic departments at public universities were in the black last season. How many times do I have to say "DIVISION I HAS 343 TEAMS" ????

The schools people keep mentioning in this thread are THOSE 22 teams. (Notre Dame, Southern California, Stanford are probably making a profit, but as private schools they don't have to disclose their budgets. I'd throw Baylor, Villanova, Georgetown, on the list of POSSIBLY making a profit).

So here's all the Division I schools NOT making a profit:
BCS
Arizona
Arizona State
Auburn
California
Cincinnati
Clemson
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida State
Georgia Tech
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Kentucky
Louisville
Maryland
Miami
Minnesota
Mississippi
Mississippi State
Missouri
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Oregon State
Pittsburgh
Rutgers
South Carolina
Texas Tech
UCLA
Utah
Virginia
Washington State

Non-BCS
Akron
Arkansas State
Ball State
Boise State
Bowling Green
Buffalo
Central Florida
Central Michigan
Colorado State
East Carolina
Eastern Michigan
Florida Atlantic
Florida International
Fresno State
Hawaii
Houston
Idaho
Kent State
Louisiana Tech
Louisiana-Lafayette
Louisiana-Monroe
Marshall
Memphis
Miami Univ.
Middle Tennessee State
Nevada
New Mexico
New Mexico State
North Texas
Northern Illinois
Ohio
San Diego State
San Jose State
South Florida
Southern Mississippi
Temple
Texas-El Paso
Toledo
Troy
UAB
UNLV
Utah State
Western Kentucky
Western Michigan
Wyoming
Brigham Young
Southern Methodist
Rice
Tulsa
Tulane

FCS
Pennsylvania
Delaware
James Madison
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Stony Brook
Lehigh
Hofstra
Colgate
Liberty
Yale
Rhode Island
Southern Illinois
Cornell
Northeastern
Princeton
Delaware State
Harvard
California Davis
Holy Cross
Columbia
Richmond
Coastal Carolina
Old Dominion
Bucknell
William & Mary
Dartmouth
Sacred Heart
Maine
Towson
Furman
Montana
Northern Iowa
Missouri State
Montana State
Texas State
Illinois State
Brown
Cal Poly
Sacramento State
Elon
Albany
North Dakota
Lafayette
Eastern Kentucky
Northern Arizona
Wofford
Gardner
North Dakota State
Eastern Illinois
The Citadel
Youngstown State
American
Appalachian State
Monmouth
Chattanooga
Jacksonville State
Samford
Robert Morris
College of Charleston
Howard
Georgia State
Virginia Military Institute
Stephen F Austin
Tennessee State
Indiana State
Davidson
Portland State
Bethune-Cookman
Central Connecticut State
Murray State
Campbell
Idaho State
South Dakota State
South Dakota
Iona
Eastern Washington
Wagner
Western Illinois
Southern
Marist
North Carolina Greensboro
Jacksonville
Southeast Missouri
Western Carolina
North Carolina A&T
Tennessee Tech
Saint Francis PA
South Carolina State
Northern Colorado
Sam Houston State
Morgan State
Hampton
Tennessee Martin
Central Arkansas
Southeastern Louisiana
Charleston Southern
Georgia Southern
Presbyterian
Norfolk State
Northwestern State
Jackson State
Weber State
Grambling State
Texas Southern
Southern Utah
Alabama State
McNeese State
Austin Peay
Alabama A&M
Florida A&M
Arkansas Pine Bluff
Morehead State
Nicholls State
North Carolina Central
Prairie View A&M
Mississippi Valley State
Winston-Salem State
Alcorn State
Savannah State

Non-Football
Boston University
Denver
George Washington
Fordham
Dayton
Seton Hall
Wichita State
Providence
San Diego
Loyola Marymount
DePaul
Vermont
Santa Clara
Pacific
Fairfield
George Mason
California Santa Barbara
Pepperdine
Virginia Commonwealth
Drexel
Xavier
Creighton
Long Beach State
Saint Joseph's
California Irvine
Drake
Saint Louis
Binghamton
Quinnipiac
Bradley
San Francisco
La Salle
Long Island
Butler
Saint Mary's
Milwaukee
Rider
Loyola
Charlotte
Illinois Chicago
Wright State
Portland
Cal State Fullerton
Duquesne
Maryland Baltimore County
Hartford
Valparaiso
Oral Roberts
Winthrop
Texas San Antonio
Cal State Northridge
Cleveland State
Siena
South Alabama
Niagara
Oakland
Stetson
California Riverside
Evansville
Canisius
Belmont
Arkansas Little Rock
Loyola
Manhattan
Missouri Kansas City
Mount Saint Mary's
Cal State Bakersfield
Detroit
North Carolina Wilmington
Saint Bonaventure
New Jersey Tech
Radford
Texas Arlington
North Florida
Texas A&M Corpus Christi
Kennesaw State
Lipscomb
Green Bay
High Point
Saint Peter's
Centenary
Utah Valley University
Fairleigh thingyinson
Longwood
Mercer
East Tennessee State
Texas Pan America
Lamar
IPFW
IUPUI
Chicago State
Maryland Eastern Shore
Florida Gulf Coast
Coppin State
New Orleans
North Carolina Asheville
South Carolina Upstate
Saint Francis NY


Any questions?

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2013, 07:38 PM
  #165
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rj View Post
If I was an athletics director and told I had to pay every single student-athlete under scholarship (I don't know how it is legally possible for Ed O'Bannon as a UCLA basketball player to be separated from a UCLA softball player; of course, basketball brings in money and softball does not, but how do you make that distinction in law under the circumstances they played under?), I would cancel every single sport that could not pay for itself. And how many college hockey programs is that?
The NCAA minimum requirements is 14 teams.

Title IX (federal law) states that you have to have an equal number of scholarship opportunities for men and women.

So football (85), men's (13) and women's (15) basketball, women's soccer (23), women's volleyball (13) would still exist.

Then you'd have sports like women's cross-country (7), indoor (22) and outdoor track (22). Those are three different sports, but your seven cross-country runners run distance in indoor and outdoor track, and your sprinters and throwers (15) compete in indoor and outdoor; so that adds up to 50 "opportunities," but you only have to pay for 22 kids.

You'd need six more sports total, half of the opportunities would have to be women's sports. You go with the cheapest: Sand Volleyball (same 13 kids as women's volleyball), and sports that use the same facilities so you don't have to maintain seperate venues. Tennis is an easy one to keep, because the two teams use the same facilities and you don't have to pay ushers and stuff cause no one comes. You don't even need seating.

You could kiss hockey goodbye. Probably lacrosse, golf, and field hockey as well.

Baseball (and softball) has the fastest growing TV coverage, because in April and May, it's the only college sport going on; and the NHL isn't. It's cheap programming for ESPN, Big Ten Network, Pac-12 Network, etc.

So the big schools will keep those. But anyone else (with the exception of some school really good at it in California and the South) would axe it.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2013, 09:09 PM
  #166
VOB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,593
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Define "massive profits" ????

This is the real world.
A - Budgets are made based on projections. Schools outlay their spending based on the projections. So if Michigan is thinking they'll make $125 million in revenue, they're going to plan their expenses to what they have coming in. This includes new capital projects, like upgrading the cross country or field hockey locker room.

B - Zero distinction is made between "revenue" from tickets and donation revenue. At most big schools, those are linked: Donate a ton of money, get great football tickets. On this Business of Hockey board, if an NHL team was getting $33 million in revenue from booster donations, people would say the franchise wasn't sustainable and should be relocated.

C - People keep saying "college athletics" and "massive profits."
The NCAA signed a 14-year, $10.8 billion deal with CBS Sports and Turner Broadcasting, covering just “March Madness.” That’s $770 million a year. Again, that's just one tournament in basketball...football T.V. contracts are worth billions annually...that my friend is PROFIT because that money is taken and distributed to coaches, AD's and the like whose compensation is in the millions per year...

Here is perhaps the best article written on the situation...

http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar...sports/308643/

Here is another as to how a star athlete who generates far more than what is returned is treated

http://www.thenation.com/blog/173667...#axzz2X5z0aBKs

VOB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2013, 09:27 PM
  #167
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VOB View Post
The NCAA signed a 14-year, $10.8 billion deal with CBS Sports and Turner Broadcasting, covering just “March Madness.” That’s $770 million a year. Again, that's just one tournament in basketball...football T.V. contracts are worth billions annually...that my friend is PROFIT because that money is taken and distributed to coaches, AD's and the like whose compensation is in the millions per year...
No, that's REVENUE.

Profit = REVENUE minus EXPENSES.


The NCAA's members, total, had $775 million in TV rights. (That's from the claim filed against the NCAA in court; You're forgetting that all these contracts escalate, it's not just total value divided by years).

The NCAA also pays over TWO BILLION dollars in scholarships.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2013, 09:42 PM
  #168
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
No, that's REVENUE.

Profit = REVENUE minus EXPENSES.


The NCAA's members, total, had $775 million in TV rights. (That's from the claim filed against the NCAA in court; You're forgetting that all these contracts escalate, it's not just total value divided by years).

The NCAA also pays over TWO BILLION dollars in scholarships.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/...ic+scholarship

Quote:
Individual schools award athletic scholarships, not the NCAA.

Division I and II schools offer athletic scholarships. Division III schools offer academic scholarships only. NCAA members provide more than $1.5 billion in athletics scholarships annually.

DyerMaker66 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2013, 09:56 PM
  #169
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
I went off this, because it was my top google result:

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/...olarships+Work

Quote:
Divisions I and II schools provide more than $2 billion in athletics scholarships annually to more than 126,000 student-athletes. Division III schools do not offer athletically related financial aid.


Last edited by KevFu: 06-23-2013 at 10:19 PM.
KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2013, 10:01 PM
  #170
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,894
vCash: 500
Also, the NCAA TV contract needs to be left out of the debate, for a couple of reasons:

The contract is 81% of the NCAA (organizations) revenues.
-- 40% of their revenue funds the NCAA's day-to-day operating expenses and hosting the 88 NCAA Championships (Remember, the NCAA has to put on championships for D-II and D-III, who aren't getting the TV money).

But most importantly: 60% of that revenue is distributed to the member schools. Where it shows up as "revenue" for that school. In other words, it's already being counted; you can't count it TWICE

When we say Michigan had $126 million in revenue, that number INCLUDES their revenue from making the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2013, 10:03 PM
  #171
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,894
vCash: 500
Let's break this down:

College athletics generates $9 billion in revenue a year
College athletes get $2 billion a year in scholarship dollars (22%)

The argument being discussed is that 22% of revenues isn't a fair cut.

Pro Leagues Withhold Revenue From Players' Cut
NHL players get 50% of HRR. You know what "Hockey-Related Revenue" means: It means the NHL is keeping about $500 million off the table from player negotiations.

So let's determine College's "Sports Related Revenues."
1. Ticket Sales
2. Media Rights Fees
3. Licensing

Piecing it together from various sources around the web, roughly 60% of athletics revenues come from "Sports Related Revenues" of ticket sales, TV rights and licensing.

College Athletics Has $5.4 billion in "Sports Related Revenue."
College Athletes are getting 37% of SRR via their scholarship (a higher percentage than MLS)

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2013, 10:13 PM
  #172
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Let's break this down:

College athletics generates $9 billion in revenue a year
College athletes get $2 billion a year in scholarship dollars (22%)
The more recently updated website disagrees.

DyerMaker66 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2013, 10:22 PM
  #173
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
The more recently updated website disagrees.
heh heh. They also have a press release about participation and opportunities, where they say the number of players and scholarships is going up.

So what's more likely? One website didn't update their numbers, or the cost of tuition at all these schools went DOWN 4% ?

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2013, 10:26 PM
  #174
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,723
vCash: 500
The NCAA padding their numbers.

DyerMaker66 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2013, 10:31 PM
  #175
joelef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 383
vCash: 500
i think college/BA degree are the biggest scam out there . College athletics are no exception.

joelef is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:48 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.