1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Azrael, Jan 2, 2012.

  1. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    Which is why I've never trusted any of those reported numbers any further than I can throw them.
     
  2. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    Yeah, the EADA numbers have a few flaws -- and the "not allocated by gender or sport" line item is a big one. (For instance, to pick a random SEC school, Georgia reports $22M in football expenses vs. $74M in football revenue, $82M in total expenses vs $92M in total revenue. Looks pretty good at first glance ... but the "not allocated" numbers say $33M in expenses and $1.9M in revenue. How much of that $31 million gap is actually football-related expenses? It's a safe bet to say a majority of it is.)

    The NCAA numbers and the EADA numbers frequently have discrepancies, because the EADA report doesn't allow for certain revenues or expenses to be reported. Also, the EADA revenue numbers don't separate institutional or government support from self-generated revenue, which for the very top BCS schools actually deflates their revenue numbers.

    Coaches' benefits are not included in the EADA numbers (only salaries), nor are "third-party payments" for coaches' activities. I'm sure there are other factors I've missed, on both sides of the budget line.

    I'm not saying the EADA site isn't valuable to go through, because it is. But it's not the be-all, end-all for any program or athletic department's "profitability", either.
     
  3. Absolutely agreed on almost all counts. It's just the best we have. I think spending time going through all the teams in the BCS-AQ conferences, though, you get a pretty good sense of which ones are profitable by synthesizing what is there, incorporating what we know through other public information, etc.

    For example, Notre Dame's is tough to decipher because its revenues can't be compared against conference affiliates, but it publishes a report every year on how much athletics feeds into the general fund, which makes the EADA numbers meaningful.
     
  4. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Sez who? The NCAA?

    NCAA tried limiting assistant coach salaries and got burned for millions of dollars when the assistants sued. Hence, we'll never see them limit coaching salaries.

    But they're (as of now) allowed to limit athlete compensation. But that's OK?
     
  5. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    They go to class. They just go to the classes in majors that the coaches pick for them. And they get those tutors because they are on the road so much. A football team playing on the road in ESPN Thursday night game will miss at least two days of classes with travel time, the game day, and may miss a third day if they don't feel like going to class on 3 hours of sleep.
     
  6. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Yep. They're allowed to limit students to free classes and housing, and numerous perks for now and future. What bastards. And the assistants are employees; students are not.
     
  7. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Which is why the athletes themselves are really getting sick and tired of the system, and the NCAA is getting dragged kicking and screaming into passing some reforms.

    What the NCAA definitely doesn't want, is for the referee at the NCAA men's basketball championship game to toss the ball in the air for the opening tip and see 10 players all simultaneously take a seat.
     
  8. tapintoamerica

    tapintoamerica Well-Known Member

    The author conveniently ignores this fact: If you pay players, you must give up tax-exempt status. The $100 M in revenue suddenly becomes something much less. Donors would also lose tax exemptions for contributions.
     
  9. Johnny Dangerously

    Johnny Dangerously Well-Known Member

    Details, details.

    Pay 'em! Just pay "em!
     
  10. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Here's another log on the fire for the players: Tennessee coach Derek Dooley tells wide receiver that he can transfer to a school in his home state in Michigan because his father is ill .... but (here's the catch) .. the kid cannot go to Michigan or Michigan State unless he pays his own way.

    http://outkickthecoverage.com/derek-dooley-bungles-deanthony-arnett-transfer.php

    Now who the fuck died and gave Derek Dooley the right to make any decision that Deanthony Arnett wants to make?
     
  11. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    What does that have to do with paying players?
     
  12. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

    Why did the kid go to Tennessee when his father was ill?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page