So, since NBA is a big subject in our big sport down time, I figured I'd look into a few things.

At a cap level of $94M, teams need to reach a minimum level floor cap spend of 90% of that, or 84.6M by the last day of the '16-'17 season. If they don't, the players on that team share in the amount needed to get their spend up to that floor.

Some interesting reasons, why a team may or may not want to get to the floor by outside talent.

http://www.denverstiffs.com/2016/7/5/12095...ba-salary-floor

Here's an interesting article on the rising cap and it's impact on players' salaries.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2016/6/30/1205...ents-ridiculous

Lastly, we see our 76ers currently at 35.8M sans new signs and without removal of those cut to make room.

So maybe Bayliss and Henderson less the cuts get us to $48M?? Then what? Everyone gets a 76% raise as a reward for being a piss poor team that wins what, 25 games? (Isn't that the level of excellence we threw around)

http://hoopshype.com/salaries/philadelphia_76ers/

And one overriding question.

Who the fuck is watching the NBA in great numbers to get the huge increase in the TV deal that makes this all possible?

I mean, I like basketball. I played it in high school, went to about 30 college games, mostly Big Five, in my college and few years after college, and I have been coaching basketball for 15 years, but aside from a few of the finals games, I have watched as many NBA games this year, as the number of Eagles games I have missed in the last thirty five years: Approximately three.

Who the hell is buying this stuff? Why is it so much more profitable now than it was three years ago? I know baseball went way up too?

What gives?

By interest comparison, the NFL TV contracts increase should dwarf the doubling of the NBA deal in the three year span.

Can't understand it.

Anyone?

Let me get this straight....

You don't watch NBA basketball. So you assume nobody does?

Got it.

They've invested heavily overseas, too. Specifically China which has a few people.

I used to love basketball in the mid-90's. NCAA first, but I really enjoyed the NBA.

Personally, the game is so different now than the one that I played (as was capable of playing) that I don't get as much enjoyment out of it.

With that being the case, it appeals to a younger audience and I know tons of people that absolutely love it.

Personally, I like today's game so much better than that ISO garbage we saw for decades. And prior to that it was that Charles Barkley-esque "big man, backing his big ass into the low block for 20 seconds" that was as fun to watch as growing grass.

Today's pace-n-space is (to me) the most entertaining basketball the NBA has offered its fans in 20 years.

The NCAA game is junk today with all the one-&-done talent preventing the building of "team." So too, the virtual slavery that is all NCAA sports makes it unwatchable to these eyes regardless of which ball is in play. College football? Lame. College hoops? Unwatchable.

And John Oliver propagandizes another weak-minded moron.

Getting to go to college for free with celebrity-esque status on campus, while having the chance to showcase your talents to professional leagues. It's kind of like slavery! Fucking idiot.

Eat a fat dick, ass hole.

Are you actually stupid enough to think that these 1 and done ballers are getting an education? So too, you think being "celebrity-esque" on "campus" is a fair trade off for the BILLIONS of dollars in revenue they generate for their "school?"



You must have really struggled to get laid if you think that's an equitable arrangement for an 18 year old athlete.



Not to mention the myriad of other available avenues through which a player can "showcase" their "talents." Would you rather earn $600k for playing a year in Europe or China? No. You'd rather play for free, and risk your future to potential injury for nothing but a chance to impress Mary Jane Rotten Crotch because you've had enough of banging your dick against your bedroom wall.

And you call me a fucking idiot?



By the bye . . . who the fuck is john oliver?

Yes, obviously. Comparing voluntarily choosing to get a free ride to a college with an education and a chance to showcase their talents to professional leagues to involuntarily being in bondage is the mark of a complete fucking idiot. And likely a bigoted one at that.

John Oliver is the limey 'comedian' you got your idiotic opinion from. I know you're confused between him and Colbert.

Actually, Oliver's opinion is one that has been based on common thought for quite some time.

The comparison has been drawn for quite some time with the following being the most obvious sticking points:

Yes, but they DO get to be "celebrity-esque" on campus. Who needs to make a living when you get to be the big cheese down on the quad?

Today's game, with the exception of San Antonio and GSW to a degree is garbage basketball...you site the ISO garbage? That is today's game for many teams.....see Lebron on the games Cleveland won Do you remember Andrew Toney? Or Dr. J?...or Del Curry....the listof shooters is endless. The big men played an inside out game and there was a physical component that was palpable. Teams actually ran an offense. Today's game is a run and gun league that is often hard to watch. So little help on defense, so little physical play. It is certainly a different game.

The debate is an interesting one. First leys clear some things up. No athletic program generates "billions". Michigan State going to the final four in 2014 generated 78 million across all their sports programs. That was the most combined of all final four teams. Their basketball program generated 18 million. That year Duke basketball generated 27 million.

Last year Texas A&M led the way with a total sports revenue of 192 million. Their expenses were 109 million so they cleared 83 million. So the question is not a simple one. How do you distribute the money among the athletes? Do you bid for players? What about the schools that don't generate large revenue? WHat about sports that don't makeany money? What about schools that don't generate the huge money? To say the scholarship is peanuts is really rather ignorant. The scholarship athletes at a D1 school for athletes is far more encompassing than a normal scholarship student. Tutors, extended food, a ton of perks...the list is really shocking....personally I benefited from it because many of my friends and my roommate played for the basketball, soccer and baseball teams which were all ranked in the top 20 while I was there or went to the NCAA tournament.(that gets them lots of swag, by the way...every game they won meant TVs, electronics, clothes..etc.)

It has nothing to do with getting laid and everything to do with generating revenue that is used to fund other campus activities and building funds. AT Penn STate the football team allows them to pay for most of the other sports. Remember that the overwhelming number of student athletes do not go onto play professional sports so pointing to the one and done athletes is a bit silly.

The easy way to solve this is to let athletes go right to the pros......then they can earn whatever they can get or become another of the overwhelming number of failures of guys who left school too early.

Paying them is easy to say as a talking point but practically impossible in reality.

The logistics are a challenge but worth solving. I believe D was stating that collectively, billions are made off of these athletes. And yes, that is almost exclusively men's basketball and football.

Especially when they are selling these kids' jerseys and other blatant exploitation that goes far beyond offering a college education.

The whole concept of the student athlete was conceived by people explicitly to find a loophole to avoid this very concept. It wasn't done out of the goodness of their hearts.

Despite all the perks, a lot of these kids struggle to get by. Especially because they're also limited on what they can do as far as working.

It is easy to find the numbers and when you do you will see you are dead wrong...there are about 20 schools that make a substantial profit from their athletic department...the rest make a small profit or break even. Their are not "billions being made unless you group together multiple years. To ignore the fact that many of the basketball and football programs generate the revenue that allows schools to field programs that lose money but allow the m to comply with title nine is shortsighted. The problem is that people look at schools like Texas or Alabama and conveniently forget the James Madisons and the Fresno STates of the world. Beyond that, unless you have associated with Dicision 1 athletes you just don't realize just how much they get. What about the student athletes at smaller schools? Does a school eliminate programs because it can't afford to pay players? We live in a world of "never enough". The player makes the decision of whether or not they are going to be students or one and done and they bear the responsibility for the ramifications of that. Look at the cost of a full ride to Duke. For football, that is nearly 350,000 for a five year player. For a non athlete that is impossible to pay for at all with a job that the student athlete "can't get". To say that these kids are victimized is insulting to all the kids who have to pay their own way.

Here are the actual numbers....

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

You're not considering the billion that the NCAA earns annually.

And yes, classic RF. The only cool guy who got to hang with all the athletes. I heard you also scored 3 TDs for Polk High back in the day.

Coaches are getting paid $6M+ a year. They can find a way to make this work.

Of course you need to get upset and get your pussy in an uproar....I played sports so I naturally was friends with athletes...shocking...sorry you are hurt by that. Any time your sorry ass wants I can give names and numbers....I love sorry piss ants like you that are so insecure about something so silly

The NCAA took in 1.1 billion last year...95% of that goes to NCAA member schools for a host of expenses.

As usual you look at the group of 20 schools that dominate the headlines and ignore the lionshare of schools that break even....or lose money but are subsudized by the NCAA so that there are leagues for student athletes to play in.

Look at the big picture....look at all the 2nd teir schools and division 2 and 3....all NCAA members

I don't care whether you were or weren't buddies with all the jocks. My mood (which leans more towards comedic than anger) is about your arrogance that leads you to believe you're the only one who had D1 athlete friends.


Because they can't properly disperse the billions of dollars they're making on these athletes is their own problem. Coaches make millions. Mark Emmert makes over a million dollars a year and he's a total shitbird.

I don't think athletes should be getting professional salaries, but there is money to go around. Especially to the top athletes who are primarily being exploited.

It is not my arrogance, it is the idiotically naive statements you made regarding the athletes....if you were ever around them you would realize how much they get in perks and how foolish your statements are....you make them sound destitute...that is the farthest thing from the truth and that was at a mid tier division 1 school....but in your typical bitch way you completely misread it to suit your point....not my fault.

ANd now on to your next brilliant point....so the top athletes get bid on? They get the money and the lesser athletes get what? They don't face the same financial burden you ascribe the great athletes? Do only those sgchools that make big money get to pay their players and then they bid on them? That would do wonders for parity.....and that is just the first hurdle....

You are also apparently ignorant of the rule change the NCAA passed last year that allow for unlimited food and snacks now as well as travel expense and personal expenses. A change that is expected to distribute close to 160 million to student athletes. For example, South Carolina gives its football players $400 per month for incidentals.

Now if you want to have the NCAA send all the money (as I said and you ignored which is typical of you when your argument sucks) to schools to lower tuiton for all students I can agree but then they already do. In 2015 96% of revenue taken in by the NCAA was distributed to its member schools. Maybe you want the schools to take all the money they spend to build the arenas and stadiums, you know, the places all these poor downtrodden athletes go to showcase their talent to get noticed by the professional teams they aspire to play for, and spend that money on the students. Maybe the elite facilities the players enjoy is just not enough. It has been estimated that division ! athletes get between 65-130 thousand in tuition and benefits depending on the school per year....I guess that and the chance to showcase their talents on a national stage is not enough. You realize, of course, that they do not need to go to school and face such heinous treatment....they can get a job and go pro at the first opportunity.

I forgot they are forced to accept these scholarships...

Here is an interesting article...a few years old but still pretty accurate

If you want to talk about the NCAA's corruption, I'm all for it. But comparing student athletics to slavery is simply stupid and shouldn't be taken seriously.

It's all politics with this topic - Oliver's job is to advance an agenda, in this case the left's agenda to unionize college sports, creating another money funnel into their party. If you want to end exploiting college-age athletes for zero pay, then end public funding for universities' sports programs. This will force the NFL and NBA to create minor league systems, as well as forcing MLB and the NHL to tweak theirs.

Good luck with that.

No link?

Hopefully you see this before Z.
It is a major setback in the progress in your linking skills.

Someone that knows about the actual injustice > any bullshit RF spews

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/11/college-...he-world-unite/

*and yes, I'm familiar with the brand new rule allowing unlimited snacks. Those kids are living the high life, one Cheezit at a time.

A couple of things come to mind:

• Athletes on scholarship are getting a free education based more on their athletic prowess than their academics.
• College athletes on scholarship who graduate, regardless of their academic aptitude, benefit from their degree and their athletic experience.
• College athletes who go on to play professional sports benefit by their college experience well beyond any compensation that would have been provided to them.
• College students on academic scholarship likely benefit from both the exposure and income the athletes provide.
• Students not on academic or sports scholarship may benefit from the exposure but not the income the athletes provide.
• The institution benefits from both the exposure and the income the athletes provide.

It seems to me the institution makes out the most from the arrangement, followed closely by the athletes, especially those who turn professional. It also seems that the non-scholarship students are those who end up paying the tab for both the athletes and the institution but we're listening to people complain that they're not officially getting paid. I think it would be nice if the income from college athletics helped keep the cost of tuition, room and board affordable for those who don't have a scholarship before we consider unionizing those who are already benefiting. JMO.

Rising costs

We should leave hopeless causes to barmaids who know how to deal with special needs.

Hey it's not like these athletes are putting the long term physical well being at risk each time they step on the field. And it's not like a school would cancel a scholarship due to injury.

Not to mention traveling all over the country during much of their school year, while being full time students. Take, for instance, Penn State, which is now sending the "student athletes" to Nebraska, Iowa and elsewhere because of conference expansion. But that's all done for the "student's" well being, right? Not financially driven at all. No sir.

Like I said, I'll take Kareem's opinion on the subject. He probably knows a thing or two, having been arguably the greatest college athlete ever.

Hey, it is not like these athletes are forced to play the fucking sport or take the scholarship offer you idiot. You make it seem like servitude when, in fact they get an enormous fiancial benefit not available to other students or student athletes at other levels. These athletes, should they choose to, get first class educations while being coddled to receive those educations. They have titors, they have guardians....they get benefits even other scholarship students do not get.

You really have no clue at all what these folks get.

Like I said, I'll take the words of Kareeem Abdul Jabbar over what you perceived to be the case when you, Stan Gable and Ogre were tearing up the gridiron for Adams College.

Of course you were....that is why you said something so stupid.....

They do not have to pay for any food, they get unlimited meals....they don't have to pay for any rent or utilities...the incidental money is fun money...

So it is clear you had no clue but I expect that from you. You open your mouth without knowing a damn thing because you think you know. Try using supporting data....and try to make it recent, not Kareem's experience from the fucking 60's...talk about fucking ignorant...I guess you do not even realize that much of the NCAA memebership was not even participating in the 60s....too damn funny. Yeah...nothing has changed drastically since the 60's

Try, just once, reading before commenting.

Wow....you really must have gotten smacked around in college.....you still carry that animus against athletes....very sad,,,,very sad...

again....AKreem played in the fucking 60s ....real relevant today..

Sorry...I was just so flustered by the comments that seem to imply that student athletes are forced to play college sports and accept scholarships to prestigious schools where they showcase their ability to make millions of dollars....here I thought it was voluntary and mutually beneficial....go figure

http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Myth...-Cash-Cow2.aspx

My apologies.....I had a lapse.....restarting the 12 steps...

No, not just me.

I was talking about it with my brothers in laws and nephews. Most of us who played a decent amount of b-ball. Also our company has about 40 men, blue collar types, all in the 20-60 range and by far football gets the juices flowing more. Sports are always talked about and the NBA finals did draw interest and a bunch of bets, but nothing like football.

It just didn't seem like the interest in my little world, didn't warrant the huge increase in the TV money we've seen.

Maybe it is the foreign influence.

Again...they do it for their own personal benefit......how do you not see that? Who forces them to do it? They also get first class trainers and athletic facilities. Now if you want to debate 4 year guaranteed scholarships I will agree with you completely....they should be fully insured or guaranteed rather than renewed annually and at the discretion of the coach or AD. That is a totally fair point and morally correct without question. But do not lose sight of the fact that the very reason the athlete is getting the scholarship and not having to pay his expense to attend that school is because of his athletic ability...it is a barter. If they did not have that ability they would pay their freight like us.

As far as the travel? You really need to research this stuff....the lionshare of the NCAA teams do not fly around the country....and those that do do not do it on a weekly basis and the student athletes at those schools that travel have an army of support staff for academics for them. They get an educational benefit that no student, scholarship or otherwise, have access to and it is all free.

You seem to look at this concept as if all teams are Alabama or Penn State....there are 350 division 1 teams.....maybe 30 of them are cash cows and I am being generous.

How much money do you think is made from Billkens or Saluki jersies? (St. Louis U & Southern Illinois)

I agree.....I used to live and breathe the Sixers.....loved it....used to get courtside seats for 3-4 games a year from one of my dad's vendors (was there to see Barkley catch Spud Webb in mid air like a baby..lol). I am trying to get into it...I love Brett Brown.....just hard to watch. College basketball is just so much better, partly because of parity. You have the Kentucky one year express but look at the final four:
Villanova
2 Seniors
2 juniors
1 freshman
UNC
2 seniors
2 juniors
2 sophmores

OU
Buddy Held...4th year player
Woodard....3rd year player
Cousins....4th year player
Spangler...4th year player


Only the Cuse had a 1 year hired gun.....and Nova plays real team basketball...

Interesting topic, except for the unnecessary insults.

It's strange as I don't have the polarizing opinions of most on this subject.

I see RF's articles and Nabby's and find good points on both sides of the aisle.

A few things that pop out as needing clarification IMO:

1. Those athletes on full scholarship get their food paid for. That should be counted regardless of how you value an education. However, that is only for those on full scholarship. I am not sure how many full scholarships vs. partials are in this data. A family that doesn't have to feed Jr for four years, can afford a few dollars to give a him to go to the movies.

2. RF's article said studies don't show a benefit of winning in sports vs applications. Really? I'll have two sons at Temple and the freshman class this year applications sky rocketed mostly based on the football program's success.

3. You need to count, on the revenue side, the tuition from people going there b/c of the school having sports and deduct the subsidies to get a true picture. Hard to quantify, but I think it is safe to say, that pumps up the profitability a bit.

I was a D1 athlete for 4 years, graduated 30 years ago this year. (yep, an old head). I have not kept up with NCAA finances much during the years so some of the things mentioned I did not know or pay attention to. I ask RF how do athletes get paid today. What specifically do yo know that they get. Are you taking about D1?

I played baseball, so we didn't have to fly too often back then as the leagues were more geographically based than today. A few things I remember was that we got $5 lunch or dinner money when we had an out of town game. If we stayed over, then we'd get an extra $10 for combo of dinner and breakfast, plus our hotel was paid for. We used to have it down to a science, what we could get at McD's or BK for that $5. There were always arguments as to which one we would stop at. We were living large!!

I remember the basketball team made the NCAA's one year (after I left we made it for many years, but only once when I was officially enrolled in under grad), and if I remember correctly, the amount paid was over $200K per round, they only played one round that year. I had a work study job in the athletic offices and there were a lot of happy people. It was big time money back then. Paid for a lot of things. I can only imagine what it is today.

Baseball was never a money maker, but my Jr year we made the NCAA's, came one game away from the CWS and we got enough money that it made the program profitable for the four years I was there. Without that one trip, the baseball program would have been in the red along with most of the other sports.

I look back and think fondly of all of the fun times, not all of the hard work of managing two majors and a sport. I wasn't even going to play and was just going to worry about school. I had some decent academic scholarship money and I was ready to forget baseball. The summer before my freshman year, I worked with some athletes I knew from the PCL in the athletic department on work study and they convinced me to tryout. Walked on, made the team, played four years and had some athletic money supplement my academic and combined it paid for school.

I got two majors, a real nice job from them, close friends and a shitload of great memories.

I don't feel they owe me a dime. Maybe I'd feel different if they were selling NEPM jerseys in the campus store, or had my likeness on the cover of CWS Xbox game, but I doubt it.

If I remember correctly, when I was in there was when they were changing the work rules for scholarship athletes. They were doing away with the lawn watering jobs but in typical fashion, they over did it. My family had a a business and I worked there all through high school, except after my senior year when the economy was really bad. According to the letter of the law, I couldn't work for my family business when I got some athletic money. I said fuck it and worked anyway. If they wanted to come after my $3 per hour plus tips for my "cushy" family job, then let them try. Good luck with that one.

One other thing that is a big difference today. The amount of time commitment that these student athletes need to put in today is outrageous. When I played baseball, we practiced once or twice a week in the fall and then played in fall ball tournaments a few fall weekends. We had off until us pitchers had to go to workouts mid January followed by the regular guys two weeks later. Our first game was the Florida trip in first week of March, season over mid to late May depending on playoffs if any, then done for the year. During the regular season, we had either games or practice every day from Florida until the end. We would get a day off maybe once ever three weeks. Nowadays, these athletes it is a full year round job, almost every day a week. I can't imagine trying to do an Accounting & Computer Science dual with that sport schedule today. The sacrifices to getting a real education by athletes these days are enormous. I have numerous kids I coached or sons of guys I played with who were good enough to get scholarships for sports, some full scholarships, who quit their sport and some quit college all together because of all of the hours. One of my college teammates sons was on a full baseball scholarship. He was playing well, getting good playing time and he comes home over winter break his sophomore year and tells his father he doesn't want to play anymore that it's too much like a job. Up at 5:30 AM during the off season for crissakes for team workouts. Left a prestigious university on full ride and took a semester off to enroll in a state school. Smart kid too. Moral of the story here is that while I never felt taken advantage of, I can see with the hours these kids put in, some might.

Just one man's opinion.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is a SJW piece of shit who is simply playing politics, while sitting on his $20 million. The guy who sued a fellow Bruin once he made it to the NFL for having a similar name to him, that's the paragon of virtue you're going to side with, who only cares about college players?

Scum.

This is a major assumption. I'm consistently amazed by the inability for people on this board to grasp how different some people have it from them.

The system is designed so the people at the top keep cashing in, while the ones doing the real work get as little as the NCAA and its schools can get away with.

Abdul Jabbar summed it up perfectly...

Look at all those free snacks!

I'm not sure what point you're making here. He is the highest scorer in basketball history. Are you somehow suggesting his money is unearned?

The fellow bruin, who was playing in the NFL, and capitalizing on the name, college affiliation and jersey number.

"Similar name"? Okay buddy.


You sure are. And predictable I'll add.

I, by no stretch of the imagination had it well financially growing up. You make uninformed assumptions about how people "had it" growing up. No complaints but hardly a life of luxury. The fact that those teammates of mine on full scholarship got free meals put money in their pockets because my teammates in those situations did get decent funds from home. I'm not saying that it was a ton of money, but to guys accustomed to a life of luxury of a $5 meal on a road trip, it helped.

If they were to distribute the money from NCAA sports to the athlete's who made the money, you would have maybe 5 guys on a basketball team, maybe 10 guys on a football team getting paid, all of the other marginal starters, backups and people on non profit producing sports either not getting paid or their sport shut down. I don't think that's a good thing.

The takeaway from NCAA sports for 99% of the men and women who play are good memories, time management skills, and the ability to take the concept of "team" into the real workplace where you are already well versed on working with assholes for the common good, a skill not easily attained by non athletes. And, for maybe 60% of them, a college education with marketable skills to make their futures better than those of their families. To me, those are worthy outcomes, even if not perfect.

Quite the contrary, his money was well-earned - and possible because of his opportunity to play college basketball, choosing UCLA. I mentioned his net worth to point out how disingenuous scum SJW's manipulate stupid people like you into supporting their political causes. For instance, Michael Moore sitting on $50 million while getting countless idiots to support communism. Tom Morello, Bill Maher, Jon Liebowitz, etc. This is a leftist political cause to unionize student athletes, because unions funnel their money into the Democratic Party. There's literally not one other thing that matters about this issue to these people.



Uh oh, you're committing a tolerance foul - report to your local Starbucks and buy 3 lattes for unemployed graphic artists hanging out there as your penance.

As a Muslim, Sharmon Shah was given the name Karim Abdul-Jabbar by his Imam. He claimed to wear #33 because of Tony Dorsett - maybe that's bullshit, maybe not. My point is a filthy rich basketball legend thought it necessary to sue a young NFL player fresh out of the same college he went to. Also, as a fellow Muslim, he would've known where the name came from and perhaps could've done something other than sue the kid. But now he only 'cares about the children athletes.' Spare me.



You're voting for a woman who used her power to destroy the lives of her husband's rape victims. Try explaining that to your daughter when she's old enough.

I'm making no assumptions about you or your background. I just think the idea that because these kids get meals, that their parents can unquestionably supplement that is naive at best.

Hey look - resident dipshit is ruining a thread with politics. Boy, I've missed that.

Do you mean like the average student who either has life changing student loans, is fortunate enough to have parent's foot the bill and/or has to work three jobs to pay expenses through school? Why are we leaving these people out of the discussion?

Precisely. Many students will be in debt until their 50's, with useless degrees that make them unemployable in the field of their study.

But to answer your question, they're being left out of the discussion because this is about unionizing college athletes, students simply don't generate the same revenue.

It shouldn't be that surprising, especially when considering the systemic issue within the country.

True, but to me the greater issue is our willingness to look for and recognize all sides of a given problem.

To me, it's apparent that the institution is making a lot of money on the backs of student athletes .. that's the obvious part of the discussion. While the institution is making more money and the student athletes are at least compensated with free education and provided with expert training in their given sport, the student with no scholarship is playing the part of an indentured servant to the institution but is ignored in the discussion.

The people who are benefiting from the arrangement are either remaining quiet (institution) or complaining that they're not getting more. The people who get nothing and are arguably contributing to the beneficiaries, remain silent. So to me, the truly important point is that we fall into a trap of elimination. Intelligent people allow themselves to be misdirected from relevant parts of a discussion by those who have a vested interest in the outcome.

This isn't restricted to this topic and we're probably headed to the G&G closet with this.

Systemic issue???

So Z, let me make sure I understand your point.

You are saying that the non athlete students are footing the net bill for the athletic programs. Correct?

If I understand you then a few follow up points.

In looking at RF's link to the finances, there are 219 of 231 athletic departments were not self sufficient. So they needed subsidies from the school fund.

I didn't have the time to research it and/or compute it, but it would be interesting what that net subsidy is for non athlete students.

So going forward with this, let's cut out the drain on college funds and the subsidy paid by non thlete students and lets do away with all college athletics.

What will happen?

Initial reaction is that tuition for paying students will go down because no need to subsidize. I'm guessing, even in the net, that's less than $200 per year/ per student. Again, no time now to look in detail. So bear with me and let's use the $200 figure per year.

If we wave our magic wand and athletics disappear, there will be a drop in attendance of PAYING students. True Dexter the book worm will still go, as will most other paying students, but what you will lose is some athletes who are on partial scholarship and some who are not on scholarship. Even though they don't pay for it all, they do pay some. Using my team as an example, we had 25 players. We also had a JV club team, with 25-30 guys on it. On our varsity team, we probably had 12 guys on full ride, 8 guys on partial and 5 guys with no athletic scholarship. On my team, I think we would have lost 6 of the 8 partial guys as these were players who hoped to get a full ride and were biding time in school hoping for that to come to be. They were there to play ball and the discounted rate made it more feasible. So we're at six on my team. Now it was not the norm that a kid who didn't make the varsity team would move up. It wasn't like high school that way. However, there would be maybe two or three over a four year period who did make the jump. But, there were a few guys on that team who were there to earn a spot on the main squad. Not many, but I'd say 3-5 of them were there just for ball. Call it four. So at my school and in my sport, enrollment would have dropped by 10 of 55. Really, the 6 varsity guys were probably paying 1/2 tuition, so that is really three lost FTE plus the four JV guys and we would have lost 7 FTE tuition fees. That's one school, one sport. Extrapolate that across all men and women sports at my school, and we're talking at least 75-100 fewer paying FTE's. The fact that most athletes live on campus also takes away room and board revenue. Today, that tuition without R&B is over $40K/year so zapping sports would result in a revenue loss of $3-$4 Million per year. Now that is not profit. That is revenue. I’d guess that maybe 25% drops to the gross profit line, so maybe the net loss is $750K to $1M per year. It is difficult to cut expenses for small drops in attendance. You still need that English Lit teacher, whether there are 22 students in the class or 20. You need to offer the same amount of majors, etc. You need to have the same amount of buildings for dorms. Instead of being full or near full, you have a few more empty rooms. Still need a library etc.

My point is that there will be some net profit drop off by removing sports. This does not consider less interest in the school by alums, which will result in less donations. That is a fact. Sport success does lead to increased donations. My daughter worked in the phone donation department at La Salle and they saw a big increase in donations during their sweet sixteen run a few years ago.

Maybe that revenue completely covers the $200 per paying kid subsidy. But what if it doesn’t? Say it covers half. Then we’re talking $100 per paying kid per year over a four year period.
Schools have a name for such things: activity fees.

My daughter was on the Resident Student Association board for three years and they would get a nice piece of the activities fees in their budget and their job was to find fun things to pay for to make life on campus more enjoyable for the students. They used it for food truck carnivals, movies on campus, comedians and magicians, barbeque, you name it. Could not that $100 be thought of as an activity fee for the students to enjoy a fun event that makes college more enjoyable?
I think that the subsidy is in actuality an activity fee and just like paying for things to do on campus to RSA, paying $100 for enjoyment of sport can be considered the same.

This is strictly a dollars and sense look at assigns no net benefit to athletics at all which there are many IMO. (education and open avenues for people who may not have them otherwise, team skills which are valuable in real life, being teammates with people with very different back grounds than you etc)

I will return to being civil and try to keep emotion out of this.

You are amazed at the inability of some to grasp how different some people have it and that statement is odd to me because it seems apparent that you make assumptions about several things. First, you assume all division 1 athletes come from poor backgrounds. While scholarships are a real lifesaver for those from poor backgrounds, many athletes come from middle and upper middle class backgrounds. You statements are classing them all as poor kids.

You also still do not understand the new NCAA rules. For example, Tennessee gives their athletes nearly 6 grand as a "Cost of Attendance" stipend. It varies from school to school and there is already an uproar about schools boosting numbers so they can legally pay kids more to attend their schools.

The people at the top do cash in, no question, but you clearly ignore the 300 other division one schools that do "cash in" but are able to provide student athletes with scholarships and provide a full range of teams...they are subsidized by those 50 teams that cash in. And it trickles down to division 2 and 3. Do you think Millersville is a cash cow for athletics?

My last word on Kareem.....he was a great Pro....but he left out a few things....like how Lucius Allen paid him to stay at UCLA....He treatened to transfer to MSU because he felt UCLA reneged on some of the money they promised him....he meets Allen, a businessman, and poof....he stays.....

That is the problem when you read someone;s account of themselves....they rarely tell the whole story, just enough to support their point....his athletic prowess does not make him noble or honest, it makes him a great player.

I'm saying that the income from athletic programs should pay for more than the requisite physical needs of the programs. I'm saying that a resort atmosphere isn't needed for higher education. I'm saying that I don't want to pay for your daughter's education like the Bern groupies suggest I should. I'm saying that there should be a more sensible allocation of the $billions that flow through college athletic programs. I'm saying that paying college athletes is pretty far down the list.

Well said