|
Deteriorata posted:There have been dozens of independent minor leagues through the years, all have failed financially because the NFL refused to fund then. It's got nothing whatever to do with the NCAA.
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:45 |
|
|
I find it interesting that NCAA athletes with scholarships are considered amateur when, according to the Internal Revenue Code, scholarships are potentially taxable gross income (subject to the rules under Section 117 of the IRC). And even if the scholarships in question fall under Section 117, I'm not sure how it's not income, since one would not say that Muni-bond interest (which is also excluded) isn't income, for example.
Horseshoe theory fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:I should have said "teams" rather than "leagues," I was kind of imagining a scenario where independent teams and Div I could exist and compete under the same mantle, something that's currently impossible. The current system is capable of funding itself, but I guess that begs the question of whether that's because of the collegiate aspect or because people just like minor-league football and basketball. The rule requiring players to be at least 3 years (IIRC) out of high school to be eligible for the draft is from the NFL. The NCAA doesn't care. There is no football minor league because the NFL doesn't want one. They would have to fund it because there isn't enough fan interest to support it independently. Paying players at some schools and not others would not work. They would need a separate league. Amateur college teams competing against professionals (as well has high schools) was one of the things that were identified as a major source of corruption and injuries and one of the first things banned back when the NCAA formed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The rule requiring players to be at least 3 years (IIRC) out of high school to be eligible for the draft is from the NFL. The NCAA doesn't care. There is no football minor league because the NFL doesn't want one. They would have to fund it because there isn't enough fan interest to support it independently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:Other sports support minor leagues. Is all the potential interest just sopped up by college football? I'm not sure. I think something that's also missed in this discussion is minor leagues versus youth leagues. The AHL is the minor league for the NHL, basically, but the CHL and its equivalents are used to develop young players at the very beginnings of their careers (U-20). It seems like, in football, once you're out of college eligibility, you're essentially hosed unless you make it to the NFL right away unless you take the incredibly rare path through the CFL or whatever startup league is trying to compete with the NFL at that point in time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Milk Malk posted:In order to start paying student athletes, there would need to be a huge shift in how we think about them-- instead of being members of the student body taking part in an extracurricular they would be paid employees who also happen to take classes. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. There's a principle in employment law that I'm quite fond of: "if someone is doing work that generates value for your company, you pay them for that work, no matter what their title is or what kind of loopholes you try to wrap around their relative to your company". College sports is somewhat insulated from the legal implications of that, but from an ethical perspective I think it quite nicely wraps up your questions. go3 posted:Colleges dumping money into football at the expense of academics is not directly because of sports, but that colleges are hilariously for-profit institutions complete with former Fortune 500 executives running them. Even if sports weren't around they'd still be hiking tuition and gutting non-prestigious departments and pouring that money into something else that would get them a better return. This is true. Even if colleges have plenty of funding to go around, tuition will still get raised, because college presidents worry that charging less than other schools will make them look low-quality and drive away prospective students.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
No, plenty of public universities advertise how they're the "best value" for the degree you get.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, plenty of public universities advertise how they're the "best value" for the degree you get. That's a function of perceived prestige as much as cost, though. It's essentially meaningless if the university is the one pushing that line.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:Other sports support minor leagues. Is all the potential interest just sopped up by college football? That's part of it, certainly. Baseball's minor league system developed before college athletics was a thing, so baseball became associated with minor league professionals in every town. In contrast, football was almost exclusively affiliated with high school and college institutions, with professional leagues developing slowly years later, drawing on the supply college graduates who had used up their eligibility. Another factor is that football is a physically demanding sport, and most players have fairly short careers. While it is good business to groom a baseball player for several years in the minor leagues to hone his skills, football doesn't require the same sort of long-term technique development and players don't pay off in the same way. Additionally, the economics of baseball are different. A minor league team will have 70-odd home dates through almost half the year, and drawing a few thousand fans for each is enough to keep them in business (since the major league clubs are paying the players' salaries). Football has only a handful of home games and so it relies on drawing huge crowds to those few games to support the entire operation for the rest of the year. That makes it much harder to sustain as an on-going operation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, plenty of public universities advertise how they're the "best value" for the degree you get. As a fundraiser for a large state university that constantly says just that, I can tell you that low cost is just a pretext for proportionally larger tuition increases. In my experience, a significant proportion of these increases go to things like new buildings, "student services," and administrative salaries, rather than athletics as such. Not that athletics isn't a problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
PT6A posted:That's not the unethical part, though, since most big teams like that are generating a profit and actually putting money back into the school. The unethical part is that the school is making large amounts of money off what is essentially free labour, and fairly dangerous free labour at that. Politifact says that at most, 20 turn a profit. The others either lose money hoping they'll make more down the line and that it's an investment while others (supposedly) just sink the money into other athletics that are not profitable, though most won't publish any kind of records and are usually pretty pissy about getting audited. This is kind of important because what counts as an expenses matters a whole lot for poo poo like this if you start externalizing all your costs. If the university creates a stadium in part with it's general budget claiming it's all purpose area but it's used for the football team so they can qualify for status, then it's really an expense of the program but it may not appear as such. Your average student has zero ability to sign up to use the space and often many other sports teams will not be allowed to use it consistently due to the football training schedule. Combine this with the vast majority of universities do not get 15k on average a game attendance and are trying to get to that point and you have a huge problem of colleges investing money for an extremely unlikely outcome and essentially gambling with public money. This is causing a huge rift in some universities as tuitions soar and people are suspecting it's been the explosion of college sports programs offsetting their expenses. quote:Moran’s spokesman, Thomas Scanlon, said the congressman’s claim was based on an NCAA study on Division I athletic department budgets that was released in April. The report says, "A total of 20 athletics programs in the FBS reported positive net revenues for the 2013 fiscal year." The study deals in broad statistics and does not identify schools that are in the black or the red. It should be noted that the reporting on operating costs and revenue gets really shady with the NCAA because the super profitable schools don't want people to know exactly how their money is audited (since students will push harder for money), and everyone else wants their team to be viewed as successful. This is without getting into how revenues are usually only measured on a few schools on the very profitable end, the rest all foolishly hope to catch up some day and drop tons of money into it. Big sports in America has a TERRIBLE history of corruption in terms of using public dollars to finance private profits and it's so entangled I really hesitate to claim it's actually a net positive, especially given that your athletics department loses money trying to get to that top tier and investing in it rather than investing in literally anything else in the university. In most states, the highest paid public employees are coaches for NCAA teams. If the teams are so profitable on their own, they should really be separated and taxed accordingly. Edit: And they definitely gently caress over their labor, ie the players. Your average player is putting a hilarious amount of hours into their NCAA football career. I would be amazed if their scholarships exceeded minimum wage given their hours and over time. And as someone else pointed out if your goal with college is education and development then sports can foster that but a sport that has been linked to degeneration of your brain and body seems kinda counter to that principle. mugrim fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
deptstoremook posted:In my experience, a significant proportion of these increases go to things like new buildings, "student services," and administrative salaries, rather than athletics as such. Not that athletics isn't a problem. Which makes sense since universities on the whole still have growing student populations, which require additional services and infrastructure to support them (admin has a lot of padding though, even if some is necessary). Speaking as someone whose university approved a $450 million renovation of the football stadium, I highly doubt sports takes up nearly as much cost as people are assuming, especially if you exclude capital infrastructure projects. computer parts fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Universities run at a loss because just like in football there is a never ending 'arms race' for facilities and faculty
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Edit: And they definitely gently caress over their labor, ie the players. Your average player is putting a hilarious amount of hours into their NCAA football career. I would be amazed if their scholarships exceeded minimum wage given their hours and over time. And as someone else pointed out if your goal with college is education and development then sports can foster that but a sport that has been linked to degeneration of your brain and body seems kinda counter to that principle. Just to point out some nitpicky things - Presumably you wouldn't be surprised. - Medically, football hasn't been linked to mind/body degeneration in the same way that smoking has been linked to heart and lung disease. This is of course due to the fact that the medical studies just haven't been done, and is perhaps a reason that these studies are going to be slow in coming. But if they do, the situation is going to become a lot more untenable for colleges.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
go3 posted:Universities run at a loss because just like in football there is a never ending 'arms race' for facilities and faculty They've largely always run at a loss because they're basically government agencies. They don't have to make money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:They've largely always run at a loss because they're basically government agencies. They don't have to make money. Well, for-profit ones that aren't 501(c)(3) organizations (like University of Phoenix) technically do, particularly since they can't get tax-deductible donations from alumni as a cash flow source.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Skeesix posted:- Medically, football hasn't been linked to mind/body degeneration in the same way that smoking has been linked to heart and lung disease. This is of course due to the fact that the medical studies just haven't been done, and is perhaps a reason that these studies are going to be slow in coming. Could you explain this? My understanding is that such medical evidence and etiology have been established.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Well, for-profit ones that aren't 501(c)(3) organizations (like University of Phoenix) technically do, particularly since they can't get tax-deductible donations from alumni as a cash flow source. for-profit ones also don't have sports teams.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:for-profit ones also don't have sports teams. For some reason I through University of Phoenix had one, but I was confused because they bought naming rights to the Arizona Cardinal's stadium.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Could you explain this? My understanding is that such medical evidence and etiology have been established. OK, certainly you're more likely to get broken bones and other athletic injuries from athletic activity. That's not in doubt. But then that isn't what people mean these days when they talk about mind/body degeneration. They mean CTE. And as far as I know there have been something like 100 brains studied for CTE, mostly by people who are worried they have it before they pass. And true, the results so far don't look good for football. But 100 samples is pitiful from a medical perspective, even without the fact that it's also a highly biased sample. The time will probably come when a medical correlation between football and CTE is established, but for now it's not even close.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:Nobody's going to touch on the fact that these kids are basically consistently taking hits and brain damage and things that destroy their minds and bodies? Broken bones, concussions, internal injuries. And they're all expected to take this because without that football scholarship they aren't going to school?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
Fanatic posted:As a rugby follower, I always find it bizarre the types of tackles permitted in American Football. They really need to look at banning shoulder charges, spear and chicken wing tackles, at least on a college level as they are especially damaging. There's basically no reason rugby would be better for brains than American Football though so it's probably not specific tackles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
There is a lot of rules that rugby follows for "safe" tackles, such as no grabbing above the shoulders, no lifting the tackled person, and so on. I've been playing for years and I've seen a grand total of one concussion when a w(h)inger (small fast runner dude) got tackled by a prop (big, usually fat, scrum dude)...to be fair the winger was caught flat footed from a truly lovely hospital pass. Whether or not these tackling rules are followed is up to the ref on the field, who by both rules and tradition are unquestioned authorities during the match, and traditionally bitched about after the match over a pint or four. EDIT: Ha, well, a quick google search seems to go against my instincts: http://www.brain-injury-law-center.com/latest-news/head-injuries-rugby-vs-football/ The Dipshit fucked around with this message at 13:38 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
For those who say paying some players while we don't pay others can't work...explain the service academies? As I recall, all cadets/midshipmen attend free (like, everything except a few odds and ends paid for by the government) *and* get paid for it (not much, but still). And they play Division I sports (at least Navy, Army, and Air Force do). We already do that, thus. Why not expand the principle?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:45 |
|
|
Spacewolf posted:For those who say paying some players while we don't pay others can't work...explain the service academies? As I recall, all cadets/midshipmen attend free (like, everything except a few odds and ends paid for by the government) *and* get paid for it (not much, but still). Free tuition = athletic scholarship. The stipend is something all the cadets get at an academy - it is not a remuneration for playing a sport. They also commit to four years of service after graduation, which is a significant difference from an ordinary college. They aren't really a model for the rest of college athletics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 04:24
|
|