College Sports and the NCAA - Page 9 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

College Sports and the NCAA

...

Page 9 of 11

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Page 9 of 11

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

04-22-2015 , 11:33 AM

#201

stealinpotatoes

banned

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 574

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

Texas football financials
Revenue: 113 million
Profit: 74 million
.

The revenue number looks correct. The profit number looks like unadulterated nonsense. But what do you expect from a source like Forbes?

04-22-2015 , 11:37 AM

#202

metaname2

self-banned

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 3,996

I am going to have one of my interns fact check those statistics.

04-22-2015 , 11:45 AM

#203

Dyenimator

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 23,131

Lots of talk about football, cool. How about the other activities where the student athletes are going pro in something other than sports?

04-22-2015 , 11:48 AM

#204

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by stealinpotatoes

I said three decades, not 25 years.

lol so colorado then. Cool program.

You still weren't using the shanghai ratings... and you're still likely a liar. BTW, it's not as easy to find figures for such a minor school, but given that the school athletic revenue shortfall was 8 million this year (66m vs 58m total budget) and the school running 5 non revenue creating sports, it's highly likely football runs a profit too.

04-22-2015 , 11:50 AM

#205

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by stealinpotatoes

The revenue number looks correct. The profit number looks like unadulterated nonsense. But what do you expect from a source like Forbes?

lol this is based directly on data from texas dude. **** this is texas's athletic department.

They made ~9 million AFTER PAYING FOR EVERY NON-REVENUE SPORT!

04-22-2015 , 11:56 AM

#206

stealinpotatoes

banned

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 574

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

Colorado didn't win the championship that year. They tied for it. But not like 1997. They maybe deserved a piece.

I didn't mean for this to degenerate into a debate about Michigan. But besides having one of the crookedest dirtiest sports programs in the NCAA, Michigan is probably the most overrated university in whole world.

I just looked at the medical rankings, and you get crushed. Behind Pittsburgh.

04-22-2015 , 11:58 AM

#207

stealinpotatoes

banned

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 574

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

lol this is based directly on data from texas dude. **** this is texas's athletic department.

They made ~9 million AFTER PAYING FOR EVERY NON-REVENUE SPORT!

That's kind of my point. The athletic department is a completely disinterested, honest, source of information about its finances.

04-22-2015 , 11:58 AM

#208

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

LOL this hasn't degenerated to a debate about Michigan, but it's pretty obvious that you want it to. You're wrong about everything.

eta: and apparently there's a nationwide conspiracy to lie about athletic department budgets.

04-22-2015 , 12:00 PM

#209

lycosid

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 2,806

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dyenimator

Lots of talk about football, cool. How about the other activities where the student athletes are going pro in something other than sports?

If a school wants to give scholarships to volleyball players, trombone players, or stand-up comedians, they are free to do so, provided they deliver on the education promised. That volleyball player should also be able to charge for autographs, should anyone be willing to pay.

Is there a specific issue you wanted to talk about?

04-22-2015 , 12:00 PM

#210

stealinpotatoes

banned

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 574

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaname2

I am going to have one of my interns fact check those statistics.

Good. Then we can write it up, let ikes sign it, and Michigan's ranking will go up.

04-22-2015 , 12:04 PM

#211

metaname2

self-banned

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 3,996

I don't think that would be a worthwhile comparison - I'm pretty sure Michigan disbanded their football program years ago.

04-22-2015 , 12:10 PM

#212

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

terrible football, but still making well into 9 figures per year.

04-22-2015 , 12:12 PM

#213

Dyenimator

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 23,131

Quote:

Originally Posted by lycosid

I agree, but her created revenue doesn't exceed the cost of her scholarship.

04-22-2015 , 12:13 PM

#214

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dyenimator

I agree, but her created revenue doesn't exceed the cost of her scholarship.

Yet, schools are required by law to treat them the same.

04-22-2015 , 01:58 PM

#215

lycosid

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 2,806

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dyenimator

I agree, but her created revenue doesn't exceed the cost of her scholarship.

Almost certainly not. But her scholarship exists because the school wants to pretend its football team exists for the enrichment of the students and not so they can make money exploiting the labor of teenagers. They can't maintain that illusion while simultaneously discriminating on gender. Michigans volleyball team is basically a cost of doing business for the football team.

Non-revenue athletes on scholarship mostly come out ahead in this exchange. But schools happily pay that cost so they can continue shafting their football and basketball players.

04-22-2015 , 02:37 PM

#216

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

No, her scholarship exists because schools are legally required to offer it.

04-22-2015 , 03:06 PM

#217

lycosid

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 2,806

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

No, her scholarship exists because schools are legally required to offer it.

They are legally required to be non-discriminatory in their provision of 'any educational program or activity.' If they want to pretend their football team represents an educational activity, then they have to offer similar opportunities to women.

04-22-2015 , 03:16 PM

#218

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Yeah, and it's absurd to treat a single athlete who is generating millions of dollars for the school, money that is literally paying for the female's athlete's entire scholarship, coach, facilities and program, the same as a female athlete.

Title IX was conceived a different era of college athletics, and it's hopelessly outdated at this point. Women's lacrosse shouldn't be funded off the backs of a largely poor minority because of laws attempting to address discrimination.

04-22-2015 , 03:31 PM

#219

lycosid

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 2,806

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

I agree (although I question whether major college athletics were really any different in 1972). Its absurd if you (correctly) view the primary purpose of football teams as drivers of revenue, exposure, and donations. If you imagine football is an educational activity (which universities do because it lets them screw over their athletes), then title ix is perfectly reasonable.

04-22-2015 , 03:45 PM

#220

Dyenimator

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 23,131

But the female athlete should receive treatment that's in line with someone on an academic scholarship. Since their sport is essentially a job, provide money, benefits (immediate or long-term), or allow for the opportunity to make money, essentially replacing the lost time spent practicing/competing/traveling.

04-25-2015 , 03:42 PM

#221

stealinpotatoes

banned

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 574

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

What college athlete is generating "millions of dollars" for any school? Name one. Nate Robinson doesn't count.

04-25-2015 , 03:47 PM

#222

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by stealinpotatoes

What college athlete is generating "millions of dollars" for any school? Name one. Nate Robinson doesn't count.

LOL is it 5 days ago? You just got completely bitchslapped on this topic. You really want to do it again? Texas made 113m in revenue in 2014, they have 85 scholarship players. On average, every single player contributed over 1m in revenue. This is the school you supposedly work at.

But wait! They lie or something...... and you have no citation to back that up. You need to get your **** together.

04-25-2015 , 03:48 PM

#223

xdeuceswild81xx

old hand

Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,252

Quote:

Originally Posted by stealinpotatoes

What college athlete is generating "millions of dollars" for any school? Name one. Nate Robinson doesn't count.

Mariota

04-25-2015 , 03:51 PM

#224

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

There's no reason to name individual players. We have actual revenue numbers for every public school. There are dozens that take in over 50m a year. It's a certainty that multiple players on each of those teams are bringing in >1m a year.

04-30-2015 , 12:56 PM

#225

einsteinaint****

adept

Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 1,041

If I divide Walmart's annual revenue by its total number of employees (approximately 400 billion divided by 2 million) I get 200,000. So does each walmart employee generate 200,000 for Walmart? If so, shouldn't you be upset they are paid minimum wage?

Page 9 of 11

First

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Last

...

Page 9 of 11

First

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Last