Explain why college athletes shouldn't/won't ever get paid.

Google "EADA Institution List." Then choose any BCS school.

 

They are in an open market. That's what Nocera is asking for. Like I said, I'm OK with the current system plus some tweaks. But to compare players to research assistants is silly since there is no group of universities coming together, agreeing that there can only be 85 research assistants per school and they can only get paid $XX per hour. If the schools did that, they'd be engaged in an illegal practice.

You have to defend the system in order to defend the system.

 

I realize this is controversial and probably not feasible, but I'm in favor of sports journalists being paid.

 

I have no problems with women's programs. I have a big problem with the notion that universities should make a priority of kissing King Football and King and Queen Basketball's ass

 

Are you some kind of freak?

 

Too late - as this thread and all like it - reliably demonstrates. What are you, some kind of Bolshevik?

 

And athletes in the sports are already rewarded plentifully, as I've pointed on this thread and all like it. More plentifully than other kinds of specialized students, who contribute a lot more in the long run.

 

Hmmm. Fun site to play with. I think it's interesting that Rutgers made EXACTLY as much as it spent on football to the dollar. That seems ... unlikely.
Still, cool to see the numbers on that site.
(UConn lost money on football, although that's the only one I found during a brief BCS=AQ-only search (assuming I'm reading it right)).

 

You realize that's where the money goes, right? For example, Florida in 2009-2010 spent $21,269,660 on its non-football/non-men's basketball, and earned only $3,688,442 on that money. That's $17.5 million of a public/taxpayer institution going to those teams. Thankfully, for Florida, football brought in $72.8 million and only spent $26.2 million so that those losses were offset. But if Florida didn't have those other teams? That would be $17.5 million going to the academy, rather than that $17.5 million coming from taxpayers.

 

The schools that match up exactly sometimes lost money but include general fund transfers as part of "revenue." Rutgers also is paying Vivian Stringer way too much thanks to Don Imus.

 

Interesting. Good to know. Pitt had the same thing going on in football.

Kansas came nowhere close to a profit in football. Minus-$3 million... the biggest AQ loss I've seen so far.

This is surprisingly fun.

 

There are a few things that are tough to judge. For example, if you look at the ACC schools, it's clear that some of them include some of the conference football TV contracts in "not allocated by gender or sport," while others put it directly into football. So, while some schools like Rutgers inflate their revenue, others deflate it.