UB will drop four sports teams in athletics budget cutback

[tep624]

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?

95% or more of college players that receive partial or full scholarships to play a sport would have no ability to even be compensated for playing a sport, at the level the institutions currently compensate them at, if it wasn't for the system that the institutions have created.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

95% or more of college players that receive partial or full scholarships to play a sport would have no ability to even be compensated for playing a sport, at the level the institutions currently compensate them at, if it wasn't for the system that the institutions have created.

And if a professional baseball league didn't exist, there would be no outlet for the best baseball players to make money playing baseball.

While a free education seems enticing, the argument doesn't hold up against any other lens you put on it. If the collective efforts of myself and my team yield my company millions of dollars in profit, I'd start looking for another job immediately if all of the financial rewards were heaped on the management and reinvested into the company. No sane human being would accept "we've given you good wages and that's all you'll get" when everyone else is benefiting off of your hard work.

 

[shandeezy7]

And if a professional baseball league didn't exist, there would be no outlet for the best baseball players to make money playing baseball.

While a free education seems enticing, the argument doesn't hold up against any other lens you put on it. If the collective efforts of myself and my team yield my company millions of dollars in profit, I'd start looking for another job immediately if all of the financial rewards were heaped on the management and reinvested into the company. No sane human being would accept "we've given you good wages and that's all you'll get" when everyone else is benefiting off of your hard work.

I feel like you've just described corporate America to a T. The overwhelming majority of profits do go to upper management, shareholders and reinvestment, and millions of workers in this country take their wages and that's it.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

I feel like you've just described corporate America to a T. The overwhelming majority of profits do go to upper management, shareholders and reinvestment, and millions of workers in this country take their wages and that's it.

But in this case, substitute incentives (free education) for wages. It's like how coal mines used to pay their workers in coupons that could only be used at stores owned by the coal mine.

 

[All4SU]

The problem is that the kids don't value an education. It's the single best chance of turning their lives around (and the lives of their future generations) -- far greater chance than a school throwing them a few scraps, which will be gone in a flash; and far greater than a long shot at a pro career. That's not going to happen for the overwhelming majority of them. But when other, younger kids see their heros trod off to college, sure that they will make the pros, and then they don't, what message does that send? Another message of failure. But IF (note Big IF) we can turn around the attitudes, and refocus on education, those younger kids will see their heros end up with degrees, and jobs. Not used up and spit out by the system. The kids who focus solely on play for paynin the minors will be the ones who will be shown to fail. It's about education, not about money. And that's the standard we need to hold the system to. That's what we owe these kids. It's highly improbable given the amount of money everyone is making. But that doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.

 

[OttoMets]

The problem is that the kids don't value an education. It's the single best chance of turning their lives around (and the lives of their future generations) -- far greater chance than a school throwing them a few scraps, which will be gone in a flash; and far greater than a long shot at a pro career. That's not going to happen for the overwhelming majority of them. But when other, younger kids see their heros trod off to college, sure that they will make the pros, and then they don't, what message does that send? Another message of failure. But IF (note Big IF) we can turn around the attitudes, and refocus on education, those younger kids will see their heros end up with degrees, and jobs. Not used up and spit out by the system. The kids who focus solely on play for paynin the minors will be the ones who will be shown to fail. It's about education, not about money. And that's the standard we need to hold the system to. That's what we owe these kids. It's highly improbable given the amount of money everyone is making. But that doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.

Hell, half the posters on here don't value an education either. And virtually all of us have more experiential knowledge than the 20-year-olds.

It's disappointing. I agree with you.

 

[bnoro]

The problem is that the kids don't value an education. It's the single best chance of turning their lives around (and the lives of their future generations) -- far greater chance than a school throwing them a few scraps, which will be gone in a flash; and far greater than a long shot at a pro career. That's not going to happen for the overwhelming majority of them. But when other, younger kids see their heros trod off to college, sure that they will make the pros, and then they don't, what message does that send? Another message of failure. But IF (note Big IF) we can turn around the attitudes, and refocus on education, those younger kids will see their heros end up with degrees, and jobs. Not used up and spit out by the system. The kids who focus solely on play for paynin the minors will be the ones who will be shown to fail. It's about education, not about money. And that's the standard we need to hold the system to. That's what we owe these kids. It's highly improbable given the amount of money everyone is making. But that doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.

Most of these kids come back to school after they have their chance at the pros and finish their degree.

They should get paid.

 

[All4SU]

Just my opinion, but the pros should be paying them. And colleges should get out of the professional sports biz.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

The problem is that the kids don't value an education. It's the single best chance of turning their lives around (and the lives of their future generations) -- far greater chance than a school throwing them a few scraps, which will be gone in a flash; and far greater than a long shot at a pro career. That's not going to happen for the overwhelming majority of them. But when other, younger kids see their heros trod off to college, sure that they will make the pros, and then they don't, what message does that send? Another message of failure. But IF (note Big IF) we can turn around the attitudes, and refocus on education, those younger kids will see their heros end up with degrees, and jobs. Not used up and spit out by the system. The kids who focus solely on play for paynin the minors will be the ones who will be shown to fail. It's about education, not about money. And that's the standard we need to hold the system to. That's what we owe these kids. It's highly improbable given the amount of money everyone is making. But that doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.

While I completely agree with you on the overall meaning and potential of education, I can't in good conscience use that as an excuse for why others are able to profit from these athletes in excess, while the equivalent monetary value of what the athlete receives is so little in comparison.

 

[All4SU]

That's why I'm advocating having the colleges make less $.

 

[NJCuse97]

Just my opinion, but the pros should be paying them. And colleges should get out of the professional sports biz.

I think this is what many here are advocating. If you introduce paying student athletes to the whatever the extent their talent can earn, that is great for them, I don't begrudge them that, but it's just not college athletics, so you blow it up. I think they continue to offer what they offer, but they have to give up the stranglehold on the financials, watch the athletes, TV deals and other endorsement deals go away and see how they come out on the other side. I don't see anything staying the same, but that is what it is.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

That's why I'm advocating having the colleges make less $.

That would mean they have to fight against their nature.

 

[texascpa]

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.

I don't doubt there are some that do this, I doubt it's most.

 

[upperdeck]

the reality is that 2-3 sports make money for some schools and that funds the other 75% of the kids that play sports.

schools dont have to belong to the ncaa and kids dont have to go play at schools. if there was a business model that would work someone would have created it, most all that have tried have failed because they couldnt get the buy in.

there are a ton of kids playing minor league hockey/baseball that didnt go to college, got paid almost nothing more than a living wage and end up with nothing when they dont get to the big time.

pro sports have the same struggle that the ncaa is trying to stop from happening.. big market teams could and would pay more money, so they have caps and profit sharing to make it fairer and somewhat level the playing field. the ncaa chooses to have scholie limits and not allow kids to get paid. once you go down that route 75% of the teams would fold and most of these kids wouldnt being seeing any money nor get a chance for a free college ride.

SU is struggling to come up with money to fix the stadium but people think they have millions to throw at paying kids, and we are in the upper 10% of schools actually making money. if we went to a 32 team ncaa what do the rest of the schools and kids do?

 

[SouthernCuse]

I'm surprised they're cutting women's rowing because that has the highest number of scholarships (20) and can have the largest roster (usually >40) of any women's sport and is the big counterbalance to football for Title IX. The only "mandatory travel" for rowing teams in the ACC is the ACC Championship Regatta held at Lake Hartwell near Clemson. Otherwise, most compete regionally and only the "really big girls" travel much across the country. The same thing is done in cross country.

You know, sitting here in some Mexican airport waiting for my delayed flight and drinking more than is good for me, I am actually surprised and weirdly pleased that an ncaa decision was apparently NOT made for Title IX reasons.

 

[SouthernCuse]

Imagine that non-revenue teams are going to be getting dropped more and more frequently nationwide. The cost to fly around the country for something like swimming and diving that barely anyone cares about and brings in no revenue whatsoever just doesn't make sense these days. UBs baseball facility was a joke, my mens league team played in the same stadium most weeks and it was barely a good environment for a mens league.

I know swimming pretty well, former scholarship swimmer. You got me thinking, ncaa D1 trains a lot of US Olympic medals, but it also provides some of the best coaching in the world to non US athletes, in the end the Chinese and other state sponsored nations would probably win more. Just thinking out loud,

But, if you paid athletes, you still can't drop too many women's sports, Title IX, I don’t see how you get around that.

 

[chugg21]

I know swimming pretty well, former scholarship swimmer. You got me thinking, ncaa D1 trains a lot of US Olympic medals, but it also provides some of the best coaching in the world to non US athletes, in the end the Chinese and other state sponsored nations would probably win more. Just thinking out loud,

But, if you paid athletes, you still can't drop too many women's sports, Title IX, I don’t see how you get around that.

Title IX mixed with the amount of scholarships a D1 football team uses is such an awful combination.

 

[upperdeck]

football could go they way of other sports and do 42 scholies but only half..

 

[bnoro]

the reality is that 2-3 sports make money for some schools and that funds the other 75% of the kids that play sports.

schools dont have to belong to the ncaa and kids dont have to go play at schools. if there was a business model that would work someone would have created it, most all that have tried have failed because they couldnt get the buy in.

there are a ton of kids playing minor league hockey/baseball that didnt go to college, got paid almost nothing more than a living wage and end up with nothing when they dont get to the big time.

pro sports have the same struggle that the ncaa is trying to stop from happening.. big market teams could and would pay more money, so they have caps and profit sharing to make it fairer and somewhat level the playing field. the ncaa chooses to have scholie limits and not allow kids to get paid. once you go down that route 75% of the teams would fold and most of these kids wouldnt being seeing any money nor get a chance for a free college ride.

SU is struggling to come up with money to fix the stadium but people think they have millions to throw at paying kids, and we are in the upper 10% of schools actually making money. if we went to a 32 team ncaa what do the rest of the schools and kids do?

The kids that play olympic sports aren't going to make money off their likeness.

So let those whose likenesses allow them to make money to profit off of that. Very simple. The school isn't paying anyone.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

The kids that play olympic sports aren't going to make money off their likeness.

I think some of them will actually. In fact, I think that's one of the more compelling parts of the likeness argument.

 

[OttoMets]

Title IX mixed with the amount of scholarships a D1 football team uses is such an awful combination.

I think football scholarships are exempted from the Title IX calculations.

 

[Trueblue25]

Cuomo doing his part to not help the situation

 

[bnoro]

I think some of them will actually. In fact, I think that's one of the more compelling parts of the likeness argument.

Great, if that's the case they deserve that money! All these athletes work their asses off and should get to benefit off their popularity.

 

[Hoo's That]

I think football scholarships are exempted from the Title IX calculations.

Absolutely not! The 85 scholarships for D-1A football are the greatest contributor to the Title IX disparities. They are the primary reason why so few P5 teams have MLax even though most all of them have club teams.

 

[SU68]

I think football scholarships are exempted from the Title IX calculations.

Football scholarships are not exempt. "Under Title IX there are no sport exclusions or exceptions. Individual participation opportunities (number of student-athletes participating rather than number of sports) in all men's and women's sports are counted in determining whether an institution meets Title IX participation standards."

"The Javits Amendment stated that legitimate and justifiable discrepancies for nongender related differences in sports could be taken into account (i.e., the differing costs of equipment or event management expenditures). A male football player needs protective equipment such as pads and a helmet, and a female soccer player needs shin guards. Title IX does allow for a discrepancy in the cost of the equipment as long as both the football and soccer player received the same quality of equipment. However, a female ice hockey player must receive the same protective equipment that a male ice hockey player would receive, inasmuch as the protective equipment is the same."

Title IX Frequently Asked Questions