UB will drop four sports teams in athletics budget cutback

[upperdeck]

p5 level of play only makes sense for the sports that make money or can come close. the other sports should play the ECAC model and stay local until play off time. forcing schools to be all Div 1 or not by spending the money the revenue sports bring in was dumb.

take Su tennis, if we played UB/cornell/canisius/St bonnie /albany/colgate/army/UR and a few DivIII schools were Div 1 like they old days, the costs would drop drastically from the cost of an ACC schedule.

you could then afford to have more teams, bring back baseball/wrestling/swimming programs.

teams that are closer to p5 schools would have a tougher schedule but also save more money.

 

[shandeezy7]

Yeah, but see, that's a good thing.

I can't see how that's a good thing for anybody but the top 15-20 schools with the biggest boosters and the kids who benefit from that. Instead of a system like you're proposing, which would become easily corrupted, why not structure it like a mini-NBA, with each team having a salary cap. Wouldn't that be easier to maintain and create more of a level playing field than your idea of having shady boosters throwing around cash with no consequences and no basis in reality/actual fair market value of athletes?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I can't see how that's a good thing for anybody but the top 15-20 schools with the biggest boosters and the kids who benefit from that. Instead of a system like you're proposing, which would become easily corrupted, why not structure it like a mini-NBA, with each team having a salary cap. Wouldn't that be easier to maintain and create more of a level playing field than your idea of having shady boosters throwing around cash with no consequences and no basis in reality/actual fair market value of athletes?

No. You would destroy educational institutions if you did that.

Things being better for the kids is the whole point.

 

[orange79]

It would. It would be different, and yes, we'd see different winners and losers from what we expect now.

But the positives beat the negatives and it would ultimately be more fair because it's putting the money into the right hands.

That's where we disagree. By saying 'you don't control it' invites rampant cheating. Making it a free-for-all just wouldn't work, IMO. Unless you have rules in mind you aren't stating.

The 'P5' conferences would become the 'P5' teams. And I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be one of them.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

That's where we disagree. By saying 'you don't control it' invites rampant cheating. Making it a free-for-all just wouldn't work, IMO. Unless you have rules in mind you aren't stating.

The 'P5' conferences would become the 'P5' teams. And I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be one of them.

It wouldn't be cheating.

And again, in the big picture, let's say it is a doomsday scenario and only a handful of schools field competent athletics. Big picture wise - it's fine if we're not a part of it.

 

[tep624]

That's where we disagree. By saying 'you don't control it' invites rampant cheating. Making it a free-for-all just wouldn't work, IMO. Unless you have rules in mind you aren't stating.

The 'P5' conferences would become the 'P5' teams. And I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be one of them.

Making it a free for all makes it professional.

If it's going to go that route, might as well disband college athletics all together and just have expanded minor leagues.

 

[orange79]

Making it a free for all makes it professional.

If it's going to go that route, might as well disband college athletics all together and just have expanded minor leagues.

Yep - meant to add that myself. Good thought.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Making it a free for all makes it professional.

If it's going to go that route, might as well disband college athletics all together and just have expanded minor leagues.

Sure, I mean, you could throw away all of the history and audience that college sports have spent a century building and start fresh with more robust minor leagues for football and basketball, and throw away all of the Olympic sports in the process. You could do that.

Or, just let the kids make some money from their own identity and see how it shakes out. It would literally not cost the schools directly a cent.

 

[tep624]

Sure, I mean, you could throw away all of the history and audience that college sports have spent a century building and start fresh with more robust minor leagues for football and basketball, and throw away all of the Olympic sports in the process. You could do that.

Or, just let the kids make some money from their own identity and see how it shakes out. It would literally not cost the schools directly a cent.

Your doomsday scenario effectively does the same thing. The majority of BCS programs that currently exist would not be BCS programs under your model anymore. And interest would most definitely wane. It would not be the same as it is now.

I think the better alternative is to eliminate the 1 year waiting period rule or for that matter ANY waiting period for a player to enter the draft. The basketball rule is idiotic in my opinion and solves nothing. That way, if you want to play for pay and own your likeness - you're free to. If not, go the NCAA route.

 

[shandeezy7]

No. You would destroy educational institutions if you did that.

Things being better for the kids is the whole point.

An un-regulated free-for-all with rogue boosters paying athletes whatever they want would certainly destroy college athletics.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

An un-regulated free-for-all with rogue boosters paying athletes whatever they want would certainly destroy college athletics.

Nope.

 

[creatorsgam]

Shocked tennis wasn't one of them. I've been lucky enough to go on some D1 Head Coaching interviews over the past month - and the landscape for college tennis is certainly changing.

Best of luck! Let us know if you land a new opportunity.

 

[shandeezy7]

Nope.

Not exactly debate winning material there. Care to add anything to this thought? Like maybe how it would be good for college athletics?

 

[Hoo's That]

Something to keep in mind when you formulating your ideas. The second anything athletic hurts donations for the academic side, athletics gets shut down fast. Paying athletes could easily make the academic donors decide to say, "If you can afford to pay athletes, you don't need my money for academics."

 

[OrangeAl]

The schools without insane boosters would soon become very pedestrian.
The Syracuse market is not going to support a pedestrian program.
SU would likely have to drop to a lower division.
I have to admit, my attachment to my alma mater is influenced a great deal by our sports teams and their success.
Without the sports reminders of my attachment, my academic donations go downward.
Bottom line, the whole institution of SU would suffer from unregulated boosterism.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Not exactly debate winning material there. Care to add anything to this thought? Like maybe how it would be good for college athletics?

Fine, let's do this. As always, college athletes > college athletics in importance, but even that said...

1, it would be good for college athletes, so it would be good for college athletics.

See, people always go straight to the defensive end that would rake it in or the flashy point guard that would get a great endorsement deal, but they forget about the exceptional Olympic sport athlete that could benefit. The top wrestlers/swimmers/gymnasts/tennis players could also have some monetary benefit from their athletic prime. I believe that female athletes in particular would benefit from being able to make endorsement money. Think of all of the businesses that would love to have an educated, positive female role model representing their brand at the local level. The defensive end or point guard is out if their reach, but the popular women's volleyball player or the local college's top men's rugby player is. And those kids have the chance at some real benefit for all of their hard work.

But let's talk about the defensive end or point guard. Sure, they'd benefit a lot (which again, I think is a good thing), but a circumstance could exist where their local celebrity as a college player is actually worth more for a time than going pro. Which would mean that player remains in college longer. Plus, if their family is in need, that pressure to turn pro is alleviated.

I mean, think of GMac. How much scratch could Gerard have made in Scranton during his Syracuse playing days? Answer - more than he made from the NBA. What heinous evil would have been done if he was Hawking Dunder Mifflin paper?

2, rich people are generally at least somewhat smart when it comes to what they do with their money. A million dollars for a player's autograph is a pretty terrible investment. Especially when rosters have a limited size. So sure, they'd pay some of these guys well, but they'd expect a return on that, and they aren't getting it from the 13th guy on the bench or the backup nose tackle. You might even see talent be less concentrated than it is now, because the athlete's choice and preferences matter too. Alabama represents the best path to the NFL from college football. But suppose a player is offered $50k a year in endorsements to go to Alabama and compete for playing time... or they can take $100k a year in endorsements to be one of the top players at Tulane. Sure, some schools will pony up more... but that happens now.

3, people point to the boosters paying off Saban's house as evidence against the player's being able to benefit monetarily from their popularity. I think that's backwards. Saban, pardon my French, is a grown ass man that is able to sign contracts for whatever he wants whenever he wants to make money off of who he is. He doesn't sacrifice his physical self on Saturdays in the name of entertainment. He isn't held to any academic standards while having considerable demands on his time due to his athletic scholarship. If he blows out a knee, it doesn't change some of his professional options.

See, our society values athletic entertainment. If a kid is so exceptional that people will part with their money to see them perform live, and TV networks will shell out coin to broadcast their competitions, that kid doesn't necessarily deserve a cut because a competitive platform does matter, but restricting them from benefitting from who they are is despicable. This isn't just an issue for athlete's either. As the world becomes increasingly digital, identity matters more and more. I believe the time will come when infringement on identity will be viewed as a human rights issue (there's way more to this in my head, but just go with it). The fact that the system transfers the money benefit of the athlete's identity to the NCAA is absolute crap, and it becomes even more shameful and ludicrous when instead Saban the clown, who is completely capable of providing for himself, gets people to pay off his house because of who he is, and his players can't get the same benefit. You don't mean to tell me that that booster money couldn't have made a bigger impact had it covered rent or some house payments for the family's of some of Alabama's players?

Again, competitive balance (what a crock) and what's "best" for college athletics take a backseat to how unduly disadvantaged student-athletes are. Fix that problem. That's the right thing to do. If Syracuse (or any other school without supposedly unlimited booster money) has to adapt in the meantime for the greater good, so be it.

And let me close with this, so we don't forget about the regular student that isn't an athlete... if the day comes that schools start paying players directly, schools that do not have an athletics program will FLOURISH. Because that student's choice will come down to "pick the school with the great sports, and ohbytheway a bunch of my tuition that I'm paying via student loans goes straight to those athletes so I can watch them play sports" vs "pick the school where the tuition I pay and debt I incur is a direct investment in my own future." Maybe some meatheads here would say "her dur sports!" But that will prove to not be the smart play over time.

Allowing student-athletes to benefit from their own name and likeness is the best answer. It is. The sooner everybody comes around to this, the better.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Something to keep in mind when you formulating your ideas. The second anything athletic hurts donations for the academic side, athletics gets shut down fast. Paying athletes could easily make the academic donors decide to say, "If you can afford to pay athletes, you don't need my money for academics."

See, now you're on to something...

 

[shandeezy7]

Fine, let's do this. As always, college athletes > college athletics in importance, but even that said...

1, it would be good for college athletes, so it would be good for college athletics.

See, people always go straight to the defensive end that would rake it in or the flashy point guard that would get a great endorsement deal, but they forget about the exceptional Olympic sport athlete that could benefit. The top wrestlers/swimmers/gymnasts/tennis players could also have some monetary benefit from their athletic prime. I believe that female athletes in particular would benefit from being able to make endorsement money. Think of all of the businesses that would love to have an educated, positive female role model representing their brand at the local level. The defensive end or point guard is out if their reach, but the popular women's volleyball player or the local college's top men's rugby player is. And those kids have the chance at some real benefit for all of their hard work.

But let's talk about the defensive end or point guard. Sure, they'd benefit a lot (which again, I think is a good thing), but a circumstance could exist where their local celebrity as a college player is actually worth more for a time than going pro. Which would mean that player remains in college longer. Plus, if their family is in need, that pressure to turn pro is alleviated.

I mean, think of GMac. How much scratch could Gerard have made in Scranton during his Syracuse playing days? Answer - more than he made from the NBA. What heinous evil would have been done if he was Hawking Dunder Mifflin paper?

2, rich people are generally at least somewhat smart when it comes to what they do with their money. A million dollars for a player's autograph is a pretty terrible investment. Especially when rosters have a limited size. So sure, they'd pay some of these guys well, but they'd expect a return on that, and they aren't getting it from the 13th guy on the bench or the backup nose tackle. You might even see talent be less concentrated than it is now, because the athlete's choice and preferences matter too. Alabama represents the best path to the NFL from college football. But suppose a player is offered $50k a year in endorsements to go to Alabama and compete for playing time... or they can take $100k a year in endorsements to be one of the top players at Tulane. Sure, some schools will pony up more... but that happens now.

3, people point to the boosters paying off Saban's house as evidence against the player's being able to benefit monetarily from their popularity. I think that's backwards. Saban, pardon my French, is a grown ass man that is able to sign contracts for whatever he wants whenever he wants to make money off of who he is. He doesn't sacrifice his physical self on Saturdays in the name of entertainment. He isn't held to any academic standards while having considerable demands on his time due to his athletic scholarship. If he blows out a knee, it doesn't change some of his professional options.

See, our society values athletic entertainment. If a kid is so exceptional that people will part with their money to see them perform live, and TV networks will shell out coin to broadcast their competitions, that kid doesn't necessarily deserve a cut because a competitive platform does matter, but restricting them from benefitting from who they are is despicable. This isn't just an issue for athlete's either. As the world becomes increasingly digital, identity matters more and more. I believe the time will come when infringement on identity will be viewed as a human rights issue (there's way more to this in my head, but just go with it). The fact that the system transfers the money benefit of the athlete's identity to the NCAA is absolute crap, and it becomes even more shameful and ludicrous when instead Saban the clown, who is completely capable of providing for himself, gets people to pay off his house because of who he is, and his players can't get the same benefit. You don't mean to tell me that that booster money couldn't have made a bigger impact had it covered rent or some house payments for the family's of some of Alabama's players?

Again, competitive balance (what a crock) and what's "best" for college athletics take a backseat to how unduly disadvantaged student-athletes are. Fix that problem. That's the right thing to do. If Syracuse (or any other school without supposedly unlimited booster money) has to adapt in the meantime for the greater good, so be it.

And let me close with this, so we don't forget about the regular student that isn't an athlete... if the day comes that schools start paying players directly, schools that do not have an athletics program will FLOURISH. Because that student's choice will come down to "pick the school with the great sports, and ohbytheway a bunch of my tuition that I'm paying via student loans goes straight to those athletes so I can watch them play sports" vs "pick the school where the tuition I pay and debt I incur is a direct investment in my own future." Maybe some meatheads here would say "her dur sports!" But that will prove to not be the smart play over time.

Allowing student-athletes to benefit from their own name and likeness is the best answer. It is. The sooner everybody comes around to this, the better.

Thanks for the in-depth response, and I don't disagree with much of what you say, but I still feel that you can't implement what you want to implement without some sort of regulation to it. An unchecked system of "endorsement" money for college athletes is just asking for trouble, imo.

I also think that if boosters start paying athletes directly, it will hurt athletic departments' bottom lines, as those donations stop flowing through the universities and instead flow directly to players, which in turn would still end up costing the average Joe student, as universities would have to dedicate more operating money to athletic programs as donations dwindle. Now maybe that's an unlikely scenario, but I could see it being highly likely if an endorsement system is implemented with zero restrictions.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Thanks for the in-depth response, and I don't disagree with much of what you say, but I still feel that you can't implement what you want to implement without some sort of regulation to it. An unchecked system of "endorsement" money for college athletes is just asking for trouble, imo.

I also think that if boosters start paying athletes directly, it will hurt athletic departments' bottom lines, as those donations stop flowing through the universities and instead flow directly to players, which in turn would still end up costing the average Joe student, as universities would have to dedicate more operating money to athletic programs as donations dwindle. Now maybe that's an unlikely scenario, but I could see it being highly likely if an endorsement system is implemented with zero restrictions.

It might, but don't forget - donations to Universities provide significant tax benefits.

Making payments to athletes wouldn't.

 

[UnknownOrange]

It would. It would be different, and yes, we'd see different winners and losers from what we expect now.

But the positives beat the negatives and it would ultimately be more fair because it's putting the money into the right hands.

Well when you give Eric Dungey $100 for his autograph and T Boone Pickens gives a QB $10,000 ... where do you think student-athletes will go? You're okay with SU football and many other programs folding?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Well when you give Eric Dungey $100 for his autograph and T Boone Pickens gives a QB $10,000 ... where do you think student-athletes will go? You're okay with SU football and many other programs folding?

Pickens can't give money to every single player.

And yes, if some programs can't compete, that's fine. I'm absolutely on board with that potential reality. There are bigger issues of fairness at play.

I don't think you read what I posted at all.

I'll raise the stakes even. People that would deny student-athletes the opportunity to benefit from who they are because they care more about their SU sports are, and you can quote me on this, selfish buttheads that need to get a life.

 

[UnknownOrange]

Pickens can't give money to every single player.

And yes, if some programs can't compete, that's fine. I'm absolutely on board with that potential reality. There are bigger issues of fairness at play.

I don't think you read what I posted at all.

I'll raise the stakes even. People that would deny student-athletes the opportunity to benefit from who they are because they care more about their SU sports are, and you can quote me on this, selfish buttheads that need to get a life.

Haha no I agree. I hate the orange-glasses many use with several issues that arise in college athletics. I am 100% for paying the players. I really am. I just need a full-proof system to do it. I don't want programs to drop a level (whether that's cuse or not) because donors are spending their money on the recruits/players and not the actual program.

I am fine if there was a capped amount of money given to each scholarship player and an amount to be paid to them later if schools/ncaa use their name and likeness. I know it's tough to figure out but I think you get to go to school for free, get a salary (so to speak) AND you're given bonus money after you leave school. Idk. I am sure that's flawed in many ways too... there's too much money that's being made NOT to pay the kids SOMETHING

 

[721Comstock]

Pickens can't give money to every single player.

And yes, if some programs can't compete, that's fine. I'm absolutely on board with that potential reality. There are bigger issues of fairness at play.

Yes, he can. He's that wealthy.
And he'd never even miss it.

Ours is one of the some programs that can't compete in that reality.
We don't have a huge sugar daddy/massive boosters like those programs.
Say goodbye to SU revenue sports in that world.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Yes, he can. He's that wealthy.
And he'd never even miss it.

Let's just suppose he can.

Why would he?

 

[Hoo's That]

Let's just suppose he can.

Why would he?

More of this. And this.