BIG story-NCAA football players attempt to unionize

[downtown]

According to the article I posted in the other thread, there are 227 Division 1 colleges. And only 22 of them have athletic programs that break even.

No, there are 227 *public* D1 schools. There are lots of private ones, which have different reporting mechanisms. Sadly, we can't FOIA contracts or budgets from private schools, or even a handful of public ones that are protected by state law.

You are correct that most of them are not profitable, but again, given the ancillary bonus potential, most ADs would say that their program could theoretically be successful even if it wasn't profitable.

 

[Light Cleric]

There's a difference in football programs and the entire athletic department. From the latest report

• Between 50 and 60 percent of football and men’s basketball programs have reported net generated revenues (surpluses) for each of the nine years reported. This percentage has been relatively stable as has the dollar amount. (3.6)

Also, the 23 profitable ones it mentions is about the FBS, which is 135 schools iirc, not all of D1.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That is 23 colleges over 2 years.

A total of 23 FBS athletics programs reported positive net generated revenues in both 2011 and 2012. It should be noted, however, that the 23 profitable programs are not the same for the two reporting years.. (3.5)

And yes, I think everybody understands that is for the "entire athletic program".

The point is that big time college football and basketball no longer lowers the cost of attending college, except in rare circumstances. What it has really done instead is to cause colleges to provide even more athletic scholarships and to fund other athletic programs, especially for women after Title IX passed. This is directly causing the cost of attending to increase substantially to subsidize college athletics. From the articles I quoted in the other thread:

...For example, at Miami of Ohio, $950 of a student’s annual $1,796 annual fee goes towards sports...

College sports create undeniable campus pride and identity, but spending has increased so fast it's taking money from academics and student services.

Nearly every university loses money on sports. Even after private donations and ticket sales, they fill the gap by tapping students paying tuition or state taxpayers.

Athletics is among the biggest examples of the eruption in spending by universities that has experts concerned about whether higher education can sustain itself.

The lethal combination of exploding spending, tuition and student debt could lead to a wider financial crisis, reminiscent of the Internet bubble of the late 1990s or the housing bubble in the late 2000s.

"It's very alarming to see how intercollegiate athletics is distorting expenditures and value in higher education," the Knight Commission's Kirwan said. "It has so much potential for good, but I think we're on a trajectory now that in my opinion is doing more harm than good."

It sounds like the college students should form their own union to try to restore some sanity to collegiate extracurricular activities. The tail is wagging the dog.

 

[Light Cleric]

No, it isn't "23 colleges over 2 years". Read that sentence more closely.

 

[warpus]

It varies a lot. Big Time College Football is pretty similar to a semi-pro or junior league in a lot of it's trappings. The NCAA represents a LOT of different schools, and once you get past the top 70 or so football programs, or the top 90 or so basketball programs, the athletes and those programs are VERY different. I'm not so sure I'd call say, the Colgate or UMKC basketball program semi-professional.

That explains it, thanks. I just know nothing about football and it surprised me quite a bit that the league right under the NFL is "amateur". With the amount of people that come out to those games, how much money the league makes, how popular it is, that the best players in this league end up in the NFL (for the most part, right?) and so on, at first glance I saw nothing amateur about it.

 

[Formaldehyde]

No, it isn't "23 colleges over 2 years". Read that sentence more closely.

Only that is exactly what it also means. I didn't claim they were unique each year, which would be silly. Now did I?

Taken together, that would tend to indicate that both statements are likely true. It also helps reinforce my own point that college athletics is no longer a means to decrease the costs of going to college except in a handful of cases.

That explains it, thanks. I just know nothing about football and it surprised me quite a bit that the league right under the NFL is "amateur". With the amount of people that come out to those games, how much money the league makes, how popular it is, that the best players in this league end up in the NFL (for the most part, right?) and so on, at first glance I saw nothing amateur about it.

Big time college football stopped being amateur when Notre Dame first started broadcasting their games on a regular basis back in the 60s. We just need to find a way to get the genie to go back into the bottle.

 

[downtown]

The point is that big time college football and basketball no longer lowers the cost of attending college, except in rare circumstances.

This was never the point though.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I know it wasn't with you and others who know it is no longer tenable. That excuse was abandoned a while ago when colleges were forced to use that revenue to fund other sports teams.

The new excuse is that you cannot attract as many "smart students" to a college that simply doesn't care about ever appearing in a bowl. One that concerns itself with academics instead of deliberately cheating on a wide-scale basis to further its reputation with sports fans.

Again, it is really the students who need a union to protect themselves from those who don't really seem to care that academics and costs to students suffer as a direct result.

 

[Zack]

The new excuse is that you cannot attract as many "smart students" to a college that simply doesn't care about ever appearing in a bowl.

strawman

 

[downtown]

No, I really don't think it was *ever* the goal. I don't think I've ever heard a university president, or read about one in the past, specifically talking about college athletics as a way *to make college cheaper for others*, although I know many in that group of 22 are kicking money back to general scholarships.

There have been lots of ways that schools have pushed sports as being in the general interest of the university, and a lot of them have surprisingly not changed over history, but that one is new to me.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is a shame that your apparent sense of history in this regard is confined to a very brief period when you paid attention to it. It was quite frequently stated when I went to college prior to Title IX. The big time football and basketball teams did indeed generate sizable revenue for many colleges, and it did lower the costs of education for all students as a result.

But even so, I had to pay the athletic department to be able to attend the games. At least it was made optional so that students who didn't want to participate didn't have to help subsidize it.

 

[downtown]

Ehh, I remain skeptical, but that would require me digging up budgets from 30 years ago and tracking where the money went, and that's a project for the doldrums of July, not a few days before NSD.

In actual OP related news, a few lawmakers have offered their opinions on unionization:

“I’ve always said, they ought to consider paying players because the coach gets millions of dollars and the player gets nothing. I think we ought to consider compensation,” said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., an avid sports fan. “I don’t see unionization getting that far, but if they want to try, that’s fine.”

http://www.rollcall.com/news/senato...rompts_important_questions-230570-1.html?pg=1

 

[Formaldehyde]

It still does occur except on a far more limited basis now:

The school themselves often benefit as well. Dosh notes that the Ohio State University, Louisiana State University and University of Florida football programs all gave money back to their respective schools to alleviate budget constraints and support various facility renovations.

But the number of colleges which made substantial profits from football in particular used to be far more pervasive before Title IX forced colleges to have the same number of female scholarships as it does male, as well has having "equivalent treatment, benefits, and opportunities". Now all it does is help defray the costs of monstrous athletic programs which are helping to destroy the university system in the US except in a few rare cases.

Dramatically increasing the expenses of the collegiate football and basketball by giving the athletes more compensation could very well be the catalyst which will return it to being amateur extramural competition for legitimately enrolled students.

Of course this will also mean that the US doesn't win near as many Olympics medals, after using big time college football to turn the country into the next Soviet Union of international semi-pro athletics.

 

[downtown]

Only sorta. Ohio State's check back to the university didn't go towards making the school itself any cheaper. It went toward facility construction, namely, the massive renovation of Oxley Library (which is still a very noble cause!). Before that, it went to build dorms.

I *think* Notre Dame has sent the profits back to the general operating budget...but since they don't have to publish their numbers, I can't check.

Nobody, not even Texas, makes enough of an actual profit to reasonably defray cost increases to the student body. However, like that article said, even nonprofitable football teams can earn important political capital with lawmakers, which can help defray budget cuts. I can't see how they ever did, to be honest, although I'm willing to accept the *possibility* of that happening in the 60s or something. MAYBE.

What any of this has to do with the Olympics, well, hell if I know.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Where do you think the profits go if not back into the college?

You really don't see any connection at all between Title IX and the drastic improvement in US women's Olympics medals?

Title IX And The Success Of Women At The Olympics

he 2012 Olympics, the first in which the U.S. team has had more women than men, happens to coincide with the 40th anniversary of Title IX, the landmark law that granted women equal access to education and sports. That may seem coincidental, but it’s not: Title IX and the commitment to equality that followed is what made the success of America’s female athletes possible.

Without Title IX, many of the women on America’s Olympic team may not have made it to London, and others would have taken paths with many more hurdles along the way. In the U.S., female participation in sports has increased 545 percent at the college level and nearly 1,000 percent at the high school level since Title IX passed in 1972, and it has led to opportunities for female athletes that did not exist years ago.

Take Abby Wambach, the star forward for the women’s soccer team, as an example. Wambach played her college soccer at the University of Florida, which added a women’s soccer program specifically to comply with Title IX. “I like to tell people, ‘Title IX gave me a national championship ring,’” Wambach told ESPN earlier this year.

She’s not alone. Before Title IX passed, few women received college athletic scholarships. There are now more than 200,000 women playing sports at American colleges and universities. Those women largely play low-revenue sports like basketball, track and field, soccer, and volleyball — all sports where American women either have or will win medals, most of them gold.

 

[Zack]

Nobody, not even Texas, makes enough of an actual profit to reasonably defray cost increases to the student body. However, like that article said, even nonprofitable football teams can earn important political capital with lawmakers, which can help defray budget cuts. I can't see how they ever did, to be honest, although I'm willing to accept the *possibility* of that happening in the 60s or something. MAYBE.

Texas does, however, make a lot of money from athletics at no cost to the students - and a lot of that money goes into other areas of the university.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...longhorns-athletics-revenue-expenses/5062161/

Texas' athletics department is among the few nationally that gets no revenue from student fees or institutional or state sources. The department transferred $9.2 million of its 2012-13 operating surplus to the university – up from $8.3 million in transfers in 2011-12.

Texas is an anomaly, of course, but it's still worth mentioning.

 

[JollyRoger]

Texas' profit per football win is astounding.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Yet they still weren't in the top 10 for cost per win based on 2011 data.

 

[Zack]

Yet they still weren't in the top 10 for cost per win based on 2011 data.

That list isn't very meaningful - it's not based on revenue.

 

[Formaldehyde]

No. It's based on how much money the vast majority of FBS colleges foolishly waste by not generating the revenue to offset the ever increasing costs.

Some people consider that to be far more important. YMMV.