Amen!

[bamacheats]

Please refer to my link above.

Are they cash-based accounting or accrual-based? Assuming you don't work in the UTAD Accounting office (and I could be wrong), I'll postulate you know as much as I do on the topic.

According to your link, with average attendance being 15,510 and REVENUE, not profit, being $1,130,000, means that tickets cost $4.28.

No one with 5 minutes worth of business experience would believe that that business model, especially of a spectator sport, is profitable.

 

[Recoil]

According to your link, with average attendance being 15,510 and REVENUE, not profit, being $1,130,000, means that tickets cost $4.28.

No one with 5 minutes worth of business experience would believe that that business model, especially of a spectator sport, is profitable.

First of all, I didn't intend to start an argument or sound disrespectful. If it came across that way, I apologize. :hi:

Maybe I didn't read that the same way you did. Perhaps it was worded incorrectly. Net Revenue is sometimes interchanged with net profit (revenue net of discounts and returns). Given the title of the report, I was inclined to believe that's what they meant. Again, I certainly could be (and sounds like I am) wrong.

I'm curious about OPEX. Does anybody have any idea what it costs to run that program? I know I don't...

 

[feathersax]

I believe cheerleaders are on full scholarship, too. That IS absurd IMO.:crazy:

 

[vol66]

The problem with having any meaningful discussion on scholarships as it pertains to college baseball (11.7) /softball (12) or discussions about paying players full cost of tuition in football and basketball, or allowing players to profit from their likeness is that it's easy to say nothing can be done because of...fill in the blank.

Title IX, the NCAA, amateurism are all loaded stopping points for any kind of discussion.

Title IX came about in 1972, but it would take 10 more years before the NCAA held women's championships across all divisions. 30+ years have passed since then. Neither title IX nor the NCAA 100 years ago, could have fore seen the money involved, largely brought on by television rights. This has changed the landscape of college athletics over the last 20 years, and little to no legislation has been passed to address these changes for the betterment of the student athletes and their families.

Partial Scholly students and their families must go out and find those extra scholarship dollars...holding on to those dollars requires these students keep a certain GPA.

This is when we need to look at the revenue sports and make sure they are holding up their end. If you look at any D1 football roster your going to find some names that don't seem familiar because they never play...but they sure do make good grades.

If an NFL team can get by with a 53 man roster, couldn't a college football team get by with 70, 75...why do they need 85 scholarships...full scholarships?

A better question might be, If men's and women's basketball teams across the Divisions are breaking even or losing money, why shouldn't those athletes and those teams be treated the same as all of the other non revenue producing athletes and teams? Why should a basketball player get a full ride and a baseball player get a partial, same with a softball player and a women's basketball player? Especially if you factor in that a basketball roster is 12-15 student athletes compared to a 35 man baseball roster.

With the money involved in major college athletics, with the television money, the NCAA championship money, conference network deals with major networks...isn't it about time we revisit how partial scholarship numbers are divided out? What would be the cost of 24 scholarships in baseball and softball as opposed to 11.7 and 12 and how much difference would that make in the lives of the student athletes and their families?

 

[jkleno]

Actually it is about 18 million a year for the tv rights to all NCAA games - other than basketball and football. NCAA is pad 55 million over three years for the rights to Baseball, softball, volleyball, track, etc. etc. etc. And I am pretty sure the NCAA pays for the travel and lodging for the teams at the world series, etc. I am glad the Baylor coach isn't teaching math.

Thank you. Someone is naive if they think a baseball tourney will rake in 9 billion dollars!

 

[jkleno]

That's not what he is saying.

The vast majority of college sports teams give out partial Schollys.

...baseball teams carry 35 players.

The coach is saying, before we start doling out EXTRA money to those on FULL schollys, how about taking care of the others first.

Sorry partner, but I have to disagree. Those who bring in the $$$ deserve the reward. I can't agree with a football player whose team brings in millions of $$$ should have to share the $$$ with a baseball player on 53% scholarship. That is just not the way the world works. I would also say there is more economic hardships on the player's families who play football and basketball than members of the baseball, golf, rowing,volleyball, tennis teams. I realize that might be a blanket statement, but I would imagine it is probably true

 

[OldTimer]

Thank you. Someone is naive if they think a baseball tourney will rake in 9 billion dollars!

If the NCAA Baseball tournament raked in 9 Billion, they would be on the 2013 Fortune 500 list ranked #292 right next to Hertz and Discover. 9 million maybe..........

The majority (not on this forum) have no idea how much a Billion $$ really is, more or less a 17 TRILLION and counting.

 

[vol66]

Sorry partner, but I have to disagree. Those who bring in the $$$ deserve the reward. I can't agree with a football player whose team brings in millions of $$$ should have to share the $$$ with a baseball player on 53% scholarship. That is just not the way the world works. I would also say there is more economic hardships on the player's families who play football and basketball than members of the baseball, golf, rowing,volleyball, tennis teams. I realize that might be a blanket statement, but I would imagine it is probably true

You may not agree with it, but that's the way it has been for a very long time. the revenue sports pay for the non revenue sports.


What's changed is the money...and what will be changing is the programming.

When the SEC Network, just to use as an example, comes on line, they are going to be showing some football games and some basketball games (mostly second and third tier games), but the vast majority of their programming will be the non-revenue sports like baseball and softball, and that's a ton of games just based on how many games those teams play in an average season.

Football and basketball numbers are a known. There may be fluctuation from year to year, but everybody knows what the ceiling is. Where there is room for growth is the non revenue sports. Will more TV exposure make those games, teams more popular? I think all that one needs to do is look at the growth of women's basketball, it directly benefitted from TV exposure.

To say that football players deserve to keep all that they generate would be about as drastic as saying they deserve more.

The model needs to change...well it's going to change, soon, the only question is will it be to the benefit of the student athletes.

 

[volman85]

The problem with having any meaningful discussion on scholarships as it pertains to college baseball (11.7) /softball (12) or discussions about paying players full cost of tuition in football and basketball, or allowing players to profit from their likeness is that it's easy to say nothing can be done because of...fill in the blank.

Title IX, the NCAA, amateurism are all loaded stopping points for any kind of discussion.

Title IX came about in 1972, but it would take 10 more years before the NCAA held women's championships across all divisions. 30+ years have passed since then. Neither title IX nor the NCAA 100 years ago, could have fore seen the money involved, largely brought on by television rights. This has changed the landscape of college athletics over the last 20 years, and little to no legislation has been passed to address these changes for the betterment of the student athletes and their families.

Partial Scholly students and their families must go out and find those extra scholarship dollars...holding on to those dollars requires these students keep a certain GPA.

This is when we need to look at the revenue sports and make sure they are holding up their end. If you look at any D1 football roster your going to find some names that don't seem familiar because they never play...but they sure do make good grades.

If an NFL team can get by with a 53 man roster, couldn't a college football team get by with 70, 75...why do they need 85 scholarships...full scholarships?

A better question might be, If men's and women's basketball teams across the Divisions are breaking even or losing money, why shouldn't those athletes and those teams be treated the same as all of the other non revenue producing athletes and teams? Why should a basketball player get a full ride and a baseball player get a partial, same with a softball player and a women's basketball player? Especially if you factor in that a basketball roster is 12-15 student athletes compared to a 35 man baseball roster.

With the money involved in major college athletics, with the television money, the NCAA championship money, conference network deals with major networks...isn't it about time we revisit how partial scholarship numbers are divided out? What would be the cost of 24 scholarships in baseball and softball as opposed to 11.7 and 12 and how much difference would that make in the lives of the student athletes and their families?

Not sure your NFL 53 man roster to NCAAF is comparing apples to apples. You have a natural attrition in college that is a fact and at most its 5 years to play 4. So there are no Peyton's, Brady's, Roethlisberger's, Flacco's, Romo's...or Wayne's, L Fitzgerald's, A Peterson's, M Lynch...etc. The NFL will have pools over 100+ players in summer mini camps thru start of preseason and make cuts accordingly to get to the 53 man roster. Then each team has practice squad players under contract that can be called upon each week as needed. Then the NFL has a pool of free agents that are not under contract that can be added off the street as needed thru the season. As I am sure you know Butch and his peers do not have those same luxuries during a season. Then add non-football related attrition (grades, legal issues, home sickness, immaturity, etc) that comes with 18-22 yr olds. Thats why college coaches stockpile at positions like at QB were most teams have at least 4 to 6 on scholly to protect from the unknown (transfer, talent evaluation, declaring for NFL after 3 yrs.)
Some NFL carry just 2 QB's on gameday on their active 53. Some NFL teams carry just 7 or 8 active O-Lineman. That's just not feasible in NCAAF in my opinion to maintain a program, although it may give the Duke's and Kentucky's a glimmer of hope to win it all against the big boys.

 

[OldTimer]

Not sure your NFL 53 man roster to NCAAF is comparing apples to apples. You have a natural attrition in college that is a fact and at most its 5 years to play 4. So there are no Peyton's, Brady's, Roethlisberger's, Flacco's, Romo's...or Wayne's, L Fitzgerald's, A Peterson's, M Lynch...etc. The NFL will have pools over 100+ players in summer mini camps thru start of preseason and make cuts accordingly to get to the 53 man roster. Then each team has practice squad players under contract that can be called upon each week as needed. Then the NFL has a pool of free agents that are not under contract that can be added off the street as needed thru the season. As I am sure you know Butch and his peers do not have those same luxuries during a season. Then add non-football related attrition (grades, legal issues, home sickness, immaturity, etc) that comes with 18-22 yr olds. Thats why college coaches stockpile at positions like at QB were most teams have at least 4 to 6 on scholly to protect from the unknown (transfer, talent evaluation, declaring for NFL after 3 yrs.)
Some NFL carry just 2 QB's on gameday on their active 53. Some NFL teams carry just 7 or 8 active O-Lineman. That's just not feasible in NCAAF in my opinion to maintain a program, although it may give the Duke's and Kentucky's a glimmer of hope to win it all against the big boys.

Nice post......

 

[vol66]

Not sure your NFL 53 man roster to NCAAF is comparing apples to apples. You have a natural attrition in college that is a fact and at most its 5 years to play 4. So there are no Peyton's, Brady's, Roethlisberger's, Flacco's, Romo's...or Wayne's, L Fitzgerald's, A Peterson's, M Lynch...etc. The NFL will have pools over 100+ players in summer mini camps thru start of preseason and make cuts accordingly to get to the 53 man roster. Then each team has practice squad players under contract that can be called upon each week as needed. Then the NFL has a pool of free agents that are not under contract that can be added off the street as needed thru the season. As I am sure you know Butch and his peers do not have those same luxuries during a season. Then add non-football related attrition (grades, legal issues, home sickness, immaturity, etc) that comes with 18-22 yr olds. Thats why college coaches stockpile at positions like at QB were most teams have at least 4 to 6 on scholly to protect from the unknown (transfer, talent evaluation, declaring for NFL after 3 yrs.)
Some NFL carry just 2 QB's on gameday on their active 53. Some NFL teams carry just 7 or 8 active O-Lineman. That's just not feasible in NCAAF in my opinion to maintain a program, although it may give the Duke's and Kentucky's a glimmer of hope to win it all against the big boys.

That's a very fair post and obviously you are right about the NFL's ability to go out and get players in a number of different situations. I also realize that it's not an apple to apple comparison. I understand much of what you say and to be clear, I never suggested going to 53, I said 70-75.

85 was a number that was agreed to many years ago...At a time when a college football roster was only at the mercy of the budget of said school to determine how many football players there would be.

Coaches and AD's raised holy hell about it at the time and said 85 wouldn't work. It's been just fine.

In fact, I studied up on the UT football roster today, which of course does not include the bulk of the signing class...yet.

I wonder, and I might be wrong on how this works so please bear with me...There's approximately 12, 13 or so guys, not freshmen, not redshirt freshmen, I'm not counting them...who have never played a meaningful snap, but are listed as SEC Academic Honor Roll...

My question is this, if he hasn't played in a game in 2 + years, and he's not on scholarship, why should his grades count towards the APR? You want to see some coaches fidget, the way they run players in football and to a lesser degree, basketball.

Let's at least be honest about what is going on in Football as it relates to College and getting a degree. It's big business and the normal rules don't apply, I get that, I do.

Just because some people hashed out an agreement that made no one happy 30 or more years ago, doesn't mean it should just stand for the sake of standing.

 

[johnboyhunter]

Oh good idea. Don't just pay for students to go and learn. Pay them too. I see this ending really well.

Don't agree with paying large sums to college athletes but some kind of allowance to cover things would be ok. With me. No way a football player has time to do football, academics and a part time job. These kids may want to occasionally have a few dollars to go to a movie or something. Lots come from poorer families. And even though a free education that does not start paying until you graduate and find a job. A couple hundred dollars a month or so would be very helpful to some of these kids. Heard stories where these football players from poorer families can't afford to do normal college kid things.

Small stipend but not pay for performance. Definitely against making them employees of the University and against making them basically semi-pro. Base it on a needs basis kind of like financial aid.

You will still have your Johnny "Selling my Autograph" Football and your "Return my Crab Legs" Winston no matter what. Don't punish the majority for a few self centered, narcissistic jerks.