Documentary on College Athletics

[slick1ru2]

Title IX

easy ways around it. give every scholarship player a number of free tickets to each of their events. that's equal benefits. let them sell them

 

something tells me alabama football players will get more for their tickets than alabama field hockey players.

 

then let the players sell their own rights for marketing purposes. manziel will get more than a womans soccer player to endorse something.

That's like having ESPN paying schools based on number of actual viewers per game. The schools make money from rights contracts regardless of number attending or viewing so why make it so the athletes get paid by a different criteria?

[JTrue]

Oh yeah, it's definitely capitalism in Alabama. They have the best facilities imaginable and yet 20-25% of the population live below the poverty level.

Please show me the link where the residents paid for those facilities.

[usfgrad84]

Using football as an example, I believe they are allowed 20 hours a week practice time (during the season). Between meetings, S&C training and film study they probably put in a total of 40 to 60 hours a week of work (plus whatever they do on their own).

Since student athletes don't have time to work and I am not sure they are allowed to work if they are on scholarship anyway, I have no problem allowing them to be paid minimum wage for at least part of the hours they put in.

I don't believe they should be compensated for memorabilia sales, TV revenue, etc. That is where the scholarship part comes in.

[Bull94]

 

 

Title IX

easy ways around it. give every scholarship player a number of free tickets to each of their events. that's equal benefits. let them sell them

 

something tells me alabama football players will get more for their tickets than alabama field hockey players.

 

then let the players sell their own rights for marketing purposes. manziel will get more than a womans soccer player to endorse something.

That's like having ESPN paying schools based on number of actual viewers per game. The schools make money from rights contracts regardless of number attending or viewing so why make it so the athletes get paid by a different criteria?

 

ESPN does pay schools based on viewers. why do you think SEC schools get paid more than AAC schools.

[Bull94]

 

 

 

 

Notre Dame football players receive an education that costs other students parents $250,000.00. How many kids can earn that kind of money coming out of high school?

first off tuition at most universities is way overstated. they want people to feel like they are getting something of greater value. Most students receive a considerable break on the published tuition amounts. secondly ND tuition and fees is said to be $44k per year. that amounts to $75k less than the amount you stated.

 

not many kids can earn that much and not many kids can bring in $100M per year to a university either.

 

BTW UF states in their own student guide that it costs roughly $16k per year which includes a car, insurance, gas, etc. everyday living expenses. not just tuition and room / board.

 

Give the revenue athletes an incentive to graduate. Give them $100k when they receive their degree. a drop in the bucket. say 25 football players graduate a year (it's not even close to that). it would cost the university $2.5M which is a drop in the bucket. adjust ADs and coaches salaries down. let the players earn a few bucks

 

Get back to me about that $75k, after you've put two kids through ND.

BTW: Do you know how many D1 School's sports programs run in the black?

 

sorry but ND doesn't cost $62,500 / year. notice how you pick an expensive private school to base your argument. their athletic department brings in nearly $100M and their football program alone bring in $70M. That's $825k for every scholarship player on the team. they are about to sign a $100M deal with under armour.

 

Stop paying coaches and ADs millions per year then we can talk profit and loss. athletic departments aren't meant to operate at a profit even with their funny accounting methods.

 

I picked Notre Dame because I have put two of my children through that "expensive private school", and as I stated above get back to me when you have done likewise.

 

good for you. then you probably know that you way over stated the cost of sending a kid there. you did not come out of pocket $500k to send 2 kids to college. If you did then you obviously don't know how to do a cost-benefit analysis. BTW most of these schools are state funded public universities that don't cost anywhere near what you claim the cost of a 4 year education.

Edited February 2, 2014 by Bull94

[NCBull]

Title IX

QFT....again!

[Who'sYourData?]

 

Title IX

easy ways around it. give every scholarship player a number of free tickets to each of their events. that's equal benefits. let them sell them

 

something tells me alabama football players will get more for their tickets than alabama field hockey players.

 

then let the players sell their own rights for marketing purposes. manziel will get more than a womans soccer player to endorse something.

 

 

Even the dumbest judge knows that volleyball tickets aren't worth the same as football tickets.  That would never fly.

[slick1ru2]

 

 

 

Title IX

easy ways around it. give every scholarship player a number of free tickets to each of their events. that's equal benefits. let them sell them

 

something tells me alabama football players will get more for their tickets than alabama field hockey players.

 

then let the players sell their own rights for marketing purposes. manziel will get more than a womans soccer player to endorse something.

That's like having ESPN paying schools based on number of actual viewers per game. The schools make money from rights contracts regardless of number attending or viewing so why make it so the athletes get paid by a different criteria?

 

ESPN does pay schools based on viewers. why do you think SEC schools get paid more than AAC schools.

 

 

 

They pay based on an estimate of relative popularity during an upcoming time period based on a past time period. They don't pay as they go, x dollars per viewer. No.

[slick1ru2]

 

Title IX

QFT....again!

 

 

 

Having a sister who was a scholarship athlete in 1970 and into the time Title IX went into effect, its made a world of difference.  She had to basically play in every woman's sport to get that scholarship. There was one set of uniforms, shared between all sports. No facilities, etc.. This was at FSU. She was going to go to USF for her undergrad but went to a volleyball tournament and saw all the support for FSU by their fans and was impressed. She did go to USF for her masters. When she was part of the group honored at halftime of one of their games during The Year of Women in Sports, she was on the first FSU volleyball team to go to the national tournament, she was amazed at the difference of facilities for women since she attended.

[Knight_Light]

 

Title IX

easy ways around it. give every scholarship player a number of free tickets to each of their events. that's equal benefits. let them sell them

 

something tells me alabama football players will get more for their tickets than alabama field hockey players.

 

then let the players sell their own rights for marketing purposes. manziel will get more than a womans soccer player to endorse something.

 

 

And something tells me Alabama field hockey players will get more for their tickets than USF (insert 60-70 other  program) Football players...and that's probably true even if bama doesn't even have a varsity field hockey team.

 

There is no way the Federal Courts will allow higher payments for football players vs say women volleyball or softball players...as Title IX is basically unbreakable.