UB will drop four sports teams in athletics budget cutback

[OttoinGrotto]

More of this. And this.

Facilities provide a different kind of benefit.

Why would Pickens hypothetically give money to every single QB with a pulse?

Only one guy can line up under center

 

[Hoo's That]

Facilities provide a different kind of benefit.

Why would Pickens hypothetically give money to every single QB with a pulse?

Only one guy can line up under center

As Mr. Bevo, Darrel K. Royal, once said about a promising recruit during the days of unlimited scholarships, "I can't guarantee he'll play for the University of Texas, but I can guarantee he won't play against the University of Texas."

 

[JackBauer44]

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

Thank you! I definitely will. There are some opportunities on the horizon so I'll be extremely excited if one comes through!

 

[UnknownOrange]

Facilities provide a different kind of benefit.

Why would Pickens hypothetically give money to every single QB with a pulse?

Only one guy can line up under center

Well I meant he'll pay HIS guys. If you're a 16 year old QB recruit and you just heard a kid at OK State got 10 or 20 or whatever grand ... you'll probably have them in your top 3 lol

 

[Scooch]

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.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Big time college athletics is... weird... when you really think about it. Almost no other country on Earth has a system like ours.

 

[tep624]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Big time college athletics is... weird... when you really think about it. Almost no other country on Earth has a system like ours.

Not saying it isn't unique. It is. I just don't see how suggesting that neutering all but 30 or so P5 programs or some other high fliers on the basketball side somehow protects "history and audience". It does for a small minority of schools.

And I also don't see this model being in the best interest of the student athlete in general - yeah it's in the best interest of the top 5% of all student athletes. The rest that get to watch lower level P5 football schools offering 85 free rides a year drop down a level or two and start offering partials, if that, might have a different take on it.

I mean I guess one possible outcome you could have, which is probably pretty likely, is that schools teetering between being academic or athletic focus will teeter heavily back towards the academic side. That isn't necessarily a bad thing but it would fundamentally change private school participation in major athletics, probably permanently.

 

[NJCuse97]

Not saying it isn't unique. It is. I just don't see how suggesting that neutering all but 30 or so P5 programs or some other high fliers on the basketball side somehow protects "history and audience". It does for a small minority of schools.

And I also don't see this model being in the best interest of the student athlete in general - yeah it's in the best interest of the top 5% of all student athletes. The rest that get to watch lower level P5 football schools offering 85 free rides a year drop down a level or two and start offering partials if that might have a different take on it.

I mean I guess one possible outcome you could have, which is probably pretty likely, is that schools teetering between being academic or athletic focused will teeter heavily back towards the academic side. That isn't necessarily a bad thing but it would fundamentally change private school participation in major athletics, probably permanently.

The greater the separation of haves and have nots, the greater the disparity amongst athletes and eventually sports. Non-revenue sports would all but cease to exist as the need would no longer be on the school to support them (or the incentive/money) as the big money schools would funnel so much money to revenue sports forcing lesser monied schools to drop the programs outright just in an effort to compete. With less teams to play, there is a greater travel expense which will take out most of the hangers on. The same would happen with hoops and football. Small schools and mid-majors die off and with them goes some traditional rivalries. Some big conference schools may put their eggs in one basket. Schools like Syracuse, Indiana, Duke, Kentucky may decide to drop football in favor of basketball. Coaching will be greatly affected as their salaries are maybe the most affected. Shoe and apparel endorsements now go to the athletes. There is simply no business value in Nike supplementing Jim B. As for tradition, now that players own the endorsement deals, how can you tell a kid he can't take a more lucrative deal with Rebok because the school likes Adidas. How will uniforms be kept consistent? Remember the original dream team fiasco? What about bad deals or bad products? What if a kid blows out a shoe and can't get it replaced in time because he took a deal with a fly by night outfit? For those that think bad decisions are an impossibility here, remember that when he entered the NBA, John Wallace took a shoe deal with Karl Kani
20 NBA Players Who Didn't Deserve Sneaker Deals

 

[All4SU]

I will never understand the concept that throwing some kid a few bills is "in the best interest of the kids." If you really want to look at this issue from a purely social perspective, what's best for the kids is getting a quality education. That's it. We as a society have lost sight of that. We're so far gone past that concept that people think the only solution is to bail out and pacify people with a dollar or two. That's irresponsible in my opinion. Tear the thing down and start again may be the only way to go. I'm not naive enough to think that colleges will turn their backs on the millions of dollars that they are making. But if they start paying kids, it will not be to do the right thing, it will be to keep their hands on the money.

 

[Trueblue25]

Is it typical for D1 football players to stay in hotel rooms the night before HOME games? The main argument I'm seeing throughout Facebook by enraged UB students/alum is that these non-revenue producing sports were cut because UB couldn't afford to sustain them anymore, while at the same time UB doles out $70,000 a year just on home game hotel stays for the football team.

Is this standard for D1 football teams?

 

[sutomcat]

Is it typical for D1 football players to stay in hotel rooms the night before HOME games? The main argument I'm seeing throughout Facebook by enraged UB students/alum is that these non-revenue producing sports were cut because UB couldn't afford to sustain them anymore, while at the same time UB doles out $70,000 a year just on home game hotel stays for the football team.

Is this standard for D1 football teams?

I believe it is. Last I knew, Syracuse did it.

 

[upperdeck]

on the other hand 70K for hotel rooms wouldnt be enough to fund 1 kid for a sport its dropping.

 

[JackBauer44]

on the other hand 70K for hotel rooms wouldnt be enough to fund 1 kid for a sport its dropping.

Not necessarily. A lot of olympic and non revenue sports deal with partial scholarships. From my standpoint in men's tennis - the maximum men's scholarship in this side is 4.5 for a roster of 8 (some schools carry as many as 10). I know of some schools as well that are only dealing with 2.5 on the men's side as well.

 

[Trueblue25]

Not necessarily. A lot of olympic and non revenue sports deal with partial scholarships. From my standpoint in men's tennis - the maximum men's scholarship in this side is 4.5 for a roster of 8 (some schools carry as many as 10). I know of some schools as well that are only dealing with 2.5 on the men's side as well.

Such is the case, or was the case, for baseball scholarships at UB. I can't remember what the number figure for was but I know it was roughly a little greater than half of that which was allotted on average to other MAC baseball programs.

 

[upperdeck]

I know the partial scholie thing, but whats the budget for the sport when you put in coaching and travel. 4.5 scholies still means 200-250K and probably even a cheap budget puts you near 500K.

 

[OttoMets]

I will never understand the concept that throwing some kid a few bills is "in the best interest of the kids." If you really want to look at this issue from a purely social perspective, what's best for the kids is getting a quality education. That's it. We as a society have lost sight of that. We're so far gone past that concept that people think the only solution is to bail out and pacify people with a dollar or two. That's irresponsible in my opinion. Tear the thing down and start again may be the only way to go. I'm not naive enough to think that colleges will turn their backs on the millions of dollars that they are making. But if they start paying kids, it will not be to do the right thing, it will be to keep their hands on the money.

It took three pages, but someone gets it.

FFS, receipt of money isn't always the "best" outcome in life.

 

[OttoMets]

Is it typical for D1 football players to stay in hotel rooms the night before HOME games? The main argument I'm seeing throughout Facebook by enraged UB students/alum is that these non-revenue producing sports were cut because UB couldn't afford to sustain them anymore, while at the same time UB doles out $70,000 a year just on home game hotel stays for the football team.

Is this standard for D1 football teams?

Many teams do. But that $70,000 sounds low.

I'd like to see schools take another look at practices like that. Instead I fear things are headed in the other direction.

 

[Newhouser]

And when the money isn't there, what do they do? I don't think they could cover the cost of being competitive in football and both basketballs even if they cut off all non-revs. The Ivies play in D-1 but follow D-3's rules. I think that if paid players ever came about and the present scholarship set-up was ended, there would be a division set up to follow the Ivy rules and a lot of familiar names would be in it.

Another poster had the story of the kid who was offered his choice of a quarter or a dollar from someone every day and always took the quarter because he knew the guy's money offer would end if he took the dollar. In my view of that story, the kid is the athletic department and the one "handing out money" was the academics. It is also difficult for me to see how the present construct of athletics can survive the coming shift in demographics of graduates, once the baby boomers reach the age when they stop giving money.

Is it typical for D1 football players to stay in hotel rooms the night before HOME games? The main argument I'm seeing throughout Facebook by enraged UB students/alum is that these non-revenue producing sports were cut because UB couldn't afford to sustain them anymore, while at the same time UB doles out $70,000 a year just on home game hotel stays for the football team.

Is this standard for D1 football teams?

Yes - SU does it and I think every other program does it in the BCS.

 

[cuse10]

I thought schools liked tennis because it is pretty cheap. Equipment is cheap, small rosters (especially to travel), can double up coaches on the men's and women's teams.

Tennis is hardly cheap. Its a sport that is generally comprised of well off people for a reason. Training is very expensive. When I was interning on Wall St one year, one of the people at the firm had a very lucrative side gig as a trainer at IMG because he was proven.

 

[bnoro]

It took three pages, but someone gets it.

FFS, receipt of money isn't always the "best" outcome in life.

When these kids' families are homeless and they have to choose between two more years of an education or getting paid to support their family, receipt of money is the best outcome.

It's very easy from the perspective of middle class and up families to say "a college education is important" when they don't have these problems.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

The greater the separation of haves and have nots, the greater the disparity amongst athletes and eventually sports. Non-revenue sports would all but cease to exist as the need would no longer be on the school to support them (or the incentive/money) as the big money schools would funnel so much money to revenue sports forcing lesser monied schools to drop the programs outright just in an effort to compete. With less teams to play, there is a greater travel expense which will take out most of the hangers on. The same would happen with hoops and football. Small schools and mid-majors die off and with them goes some traditional rivalries. Some big conference schools may put their eggs in one basket. Schools like Syracuse, Indiana, Duke, Kentucky may decide to drop football in favor of basketball. Coaching will be greatly affected as their salaries are maybe the most affected. Shoe and apparel endorsements now go to the athletes. There is simply no business value in Nike supplementing Jim B. As for tradition, now that players own the endorsement deals, how can you tell a kid he can't take a more lucrative deal with Rebok because the school likes Adidas. How will uniforms be kept consistent? Remember the original dream team fiasco? What about bad deals or bad products? What if a kid blows out a shoe and can't get it replaced in time because he took a deal with a fly by night outfit? For those that think bad decisions are an impossibility here, remember that when he entered the NBA, John Wallace took a shoe deal with Karl Kani
20 NBA Players Who Didn't Deserve Sneaker Deals

No. None of this would happen.

 

[NJCuse97]

No. None of this would happen.

Yes it will

 

[tipphill]

Many teams do. But that $70,000 sounds low.

I'd like to see schools take another look at practices like that. Instead I fear things are headed in the other direction.

motel 6 will leave the light on for ya

 

[Shrmdougluvr]

When these kids' families are homeless and they have to choose between two more years of an education or getting paid to support their family, receipt of money is the best outcome.

It's very easy from the perspective of middle class and up families to say "a college education is important" when they don't have these problems.

Then they should go pro if the opportunity is available. Take a kid like Dontae Strickland. My guess is giving him hardships growing up, he wouldn't have even had a sniff of higher education if he couldn't ball. But he can, and seems like a good kid too. So he had three options: 1. finish up hs and get a job; 2. come to college, not pay a cent, play ball, and leave with your degree (and let's not pretend these kids saying i played football at school x doesn't give them an advantage during the hiring process); or 3. go pro (when the time is right), which likely will never actually be an option for him.

To me, what ALL4Su was implying is that it's shortsighted to not see that #2, for the vast majority of college athletes, even in revenue producing sports, is far and away the best option.

I know there are hardships, but lets not act like the inability to buy a playstation is one of them. The only real argument for paying these kids is "coach x makes 5 mil a year and the department clears 20 mil, it's unfair not to spread the wealth to the players who make it possible." I'm ok with that argument as its about fairness, but it's also disingenuous, given the perks of being a scholarship athlete on a revenue producing sport.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

I know there are hardships, but lets not act like the inability to buy a playstation is one of them. The only real argument for paying these kids is "coach x makes 5 mil a year and the department clears 20 mil, it's unfair not to spread the wealth to the players who make it possible." I'm ok with that argument as its about fairness, but it's also disingenuous, given the perks of being a scholarship athlete on a revenue producing sport.

So are you of the opinion that all MLB players should make $300,000 a year? The profits are in the millions and are created because of the product produced by the players, but the players are receiving perks that many of us never got or will never get, so they should be happy with that? That makes no sense.

In every other scenario, a player gets control, bargaining rights. The best players command the best salaries because they know they're a driving force behind profits. They get a cut of their likenesses (jersey sales, video game appearances, etc.). Plus, they have the right to capitalize on their noteworthiness through endorsements, autograph sessions, etc.

But college players, who people (coaches) and institutions are profiting off of massively, have no benefit of their own labor, aside from a relative pittance of the revenue they create. How is free school even close to enough?

 

[bnoro]

Then they should go pro if the opportunity is available. Take a kid like Dontae Strickland. My guess is giving him hardships growing up, he wouldn't have even had a sniff of higher education if he couldn't ball. But he can, and seems like a good kid too. So he had three options: 1. finish up hs and get a job; 2. come to college, not pay a cent, play ball, and leave with your degree (and let's not pretend these kids saying i played football at school x doesn't give them an advantage during the hiring process); or 3. go pro (when the time is right), which likely will never actually be an option for him.

To me, what ALL4Su was implying is that it's shortsighted to not see that #2, for the vast majority of college athletes, even in revenue producing sports, is far and away the best option.

I know there are hardships, but lets not act like the inability to buy a playstation is one of them. The only real argument for paying these kids is "coach x makes 5 mil a year and the department clears 20 mil, it's unfair not to spread the wealth to the players who make it possible." I'm ok with that argument as its about fairness, but it's also disingenuous, given the perks of being a scholarship athlete on a revenue producing sport.

You invalidated your whole post when you said that most of these kids just want money to buy a playstation, when the reality is most of these kids are sending home part of their COA stipend to support their parents.

And taking four years when your family is on the poverty line and not making ANY money, when they could be working and making money in the real world is a long, long time. Especially when the school is profiting off YOU directly, and you can't take advantage.