NCAA Passes New Reforms - Thoughts?

[RedKingGold]

Major relevant highlights include a $2,000 "cost of attendance" money with scholarship offers and allowing schools to offer multi-year scholarship offers, which I relate to guaranteed contracts in professional sports:

NCAA panel approves major scholarship rules changes - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7156548/ncaa-panel-approves-major-scholarship-rules-changes)

Probably a step in the right direction. While I don't support the NCAA, I do realize their difficulties in the tension between being a business and maintaining the facade of amateurism.

[Young Drachma]

It's probably good on the surface, but only for well-heeled schools that can afford it in regards to the extra payment (which obviously will affect everyone from tennis to golf to basketball) but the part I thought was critical was the scholarships change.

It's one thing for a player to lose their scholarship for unsatisfactory progress academically. But with the mobility coaches have that players do not, I think there ought to be more safeguards for student-athletes who do what's asked of them and then get cut after a year and are left to flounder simply because a coach changes his mind, a new staff shows up or whatever.

They aren't professionals, after all. To me, that was the boldest reform. The academic requirements will never be enough, but it does seem good they're getting serious on the surface about that. In reality, it'll just mean more puff courses and majors aimed at keeping them eligible.

[wade moore]

The $2,000 thing gives me mixed feelings.

As a big follower/supporter of an FCS/Mid-Major program it is hard enough to fund scholarships. Adding $2,000 on top on every player won't be impossible, but it will take funds away from something else.

Don't get me wrong. It is great for the athletes. And, there's a major part of me that thinks it's right. It' just going to be hard, as DC mentions, for many schools.

[cougarfreak]

At the same time, tuition skyrockets.

[sterlingice]

Does this mean I don't have to hear some star basketball player complain about how he doesn't have enough money to go to McDonalds? I'm pretty sure Drew Gooden or Nick Collison or Paul Pierce or whoever could have got food whenever they wanted in Lawrence (not that I heard them claiming otherwise).

Seriously, tho, this just became a rich get richer almost overnight. And we're about to see another crunch of non-revenue generating men's sports. Schools will have to choose between paying their football and basketball players $2K as well as the other 500 students in their athletic programs to the tune of a couple of million bucks. If you're Texas, no sweat. If you're, say, Rutgers, and you're in pretty bad financial state, you just have to say no and then lose the better players to schools who can offer more money.

SI

[bronconick]

Idea created by the Big Ten for the sole purpose of driving as many competitors out as possible.

$40 a week isn't going to keep your star QB from taking that cash from the booster, and anyone that's been on a campus in the last 30 years knows it's not like these guys are the ones actually in line at the store buying ramen to last three weeks, and even if they were it's because they're on their $400 smart phone and not paying attention to what the other guy picked up off the shelf to put in their new-ish car.

[Young Drachma]

I am not of the opinion that these guys and (to a lesser extent, girls) live a gilded life. Practices are cutthroat even at pansy-ass schools and unless they're Myron Rolle or at Vandy or Duke or Stanford they're often steered to the easiest majors.

The disparities and abuses are rampant and it's hard not to see why. They are indentured servants who clearly bring in far more than they take. The degree is nice for the ones that get it and I do think the cultural capital gained for the opportunity is immeasurable. But when you consider how much work goes into what amounts to a lifetime lottery ticket for a very few of them born with the ability and work ethic to make it happen.

Using the few stars of each program as the benchmarks for a policy seems misguided. Also, this can't be enacted on a program by program basis, leagues will decide to follow the rules or not. At the end of the day, tuition figures -- especially at private schools -- are made up numbers that get heavily discounted to begin with. We talk a lot about "sticker price" in higher ed because it is what it is.

Student-athletes even at the D3 non-scholarship level bring more than they take. (Obviously those kids pay full freight) If giving them a small bone in the form of a part-time job to ensure the honest ones live a bit better and get what students who have jobs on campus get to do, then I don't see a problem with it.

[DanGarion]

At the same time, tuition skyrockets.
Our tax dollars at work!

[JPhillips]

I think big time athletes need to get better treatment, but it shouldn't come through the college system. It's insane that all but a handful of public universities subsidize their athletic departments to the tune of millions of dollars when states are slashing education budgets. Public universities shouldn't be in the business of professional sports. If the NBA and NFL want player development leagues they should pay for them.

[Drake]

Our tax dollars at work!

Not really. At Indiana University (where I work), less than 15% of our budget comes from tax dollars. I believe Penn State just reported that their state funding has dropped below 5%. There are starting to be serious discussions in higher ed administration about ending what many see as the the charade of "state supported" schools and going private outright.

[RomaGoth]

I think big time athletes need to get better treatment, but it shouldn't come through the college system. It's insane that all but a handful of public universities subsidize their athletic departments to the tune of millions of dollars when states are slashing education budgets. Public universities shouldn't be in the business of professional sports. If the NBA and NFL want player development leagues they should pay for them.

Until there is something besides ridiculous amounts of money to be made in college sports nothing will change. I see things getting worse, not better. I am wondering how the hell my kids will ever be able to afford a college education.

[JPhillips]

Not really. At Indiana University (where I work), less than 15% of our budget comes from tax dollars. I believe Penn State just reported that their state funding has dropped below 5%. There are starting to be serious discussions in higher ed administration about ending what many see as the the charade of "state supported" schools and going private outright.

Does that include research grants and subsidized student loans?

[JPhillips]

Student-athletes even at the D3 non-scholarship level bring more than they take. (Obviously those kids pay full freight) If giving them a small bone in the form of a part-time job to ensure the honest ones live a bit better and get what students who have jobs on campus get to do, then I don't see a problem with it.

There are a whole lot of "leadership" scholarships for D3 athletes. It's really non-scholarship in name only. I would imagine that they do bring in more than they cost personally, but I'm not sure it's true if you add in coaches, expenses and facilities.

[SirFozzie]

a bandaid on a sucking chest wound.

[Young Drachma]

There are a whole lot of "leadership" scholarships for D3 athletes. It's really non-scholarship in name only. I would imagine that they do bring in more than they cost personally, but I'm not sure it's true if you add in coaches, expenses and facilities.

Meh, that's pretty overblown. Overwhelming majority of D3 conferences have stamped out that form of blatant cheating. On average, those kids are far better students, major in real things and get jobs. So it's not a cover for kids who will someday be pros in anything.

Even crappy D3s will carry a full roster. Sometimes, they'll even have JV teams. Each kid is paying to be there somehow. There are more kids than there are players and so each one paying full freight or some variation of that is added to operating budget cash. It's why a lot of schools add sports, because it's a net gain on enrollment and tuition dollars.

[JPhillips]

The athletes are certainly paying something, but at least where I've worked they are significantly under the average non-athlete. Then when you add in salaries, facilities, and other expenses the profit from athletes isn't nearly as great as college president's like to claim.

My current president likes to talk about tuition revenue, but leaves out all the expenses going to the athletic department. We've spent at least five million on new facilities in the past five years alone with a new baseball field in the works.

[wade moore]

Until there is something besides ridiculous amounts of money to be made in college sports nothing will change. I see things getting worse, not better. I am wondering how the hell my kids will ever be able to afford a college education.

This is a really, really common misconception.

A few articles that address this:

Contrary to Popular Belief, College Sports Teams Lose Money (http://www.quickanded.com/2010/06/contrary-to-popular-belief-college-sports-teams-lose-money.html)

College sports dollar drain*makes no sense - Nov. 10, 2006 (http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/10/commentary/sportsbiz/index.htm)

College Athletics Revenues and Expenses - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/ncaa/revenue/_/year/2008)


If you look at the last link, it's probably the best illustration.

There are maybe 20-30 universities making "big money" off of college athletics. The rest are breaking about even or losing money.

[JPhillips]

This allows you to search each institution and shows the astounding amount of institutional subsidies most schools rely on.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ncaa-finances.htm

[wade moore]

Great link JPhillips.

To support some of my comments. My Alma-Mater that I support (William and Mary - FCS Football, Mid-Major Basketball):

Revenue: 18mil (50% from student fees, 0% from state/government support)
Expenses: 17.9mil (34% for athletic student aid)

Penn State (since it was used above):

Revenue: 106mil (39% Ticket Sales, 0% from state/government support)
Expenses: 88mil (13% for athletic student aid)

Going to select a random FBS school that is not a consistent top-25 type school. Let's go Toledo (I'm picking them without looking at their numbers first):

Revenue: 19.9mil (50% from student fees, 0% from direct state/government funding)
Expenses: 20mil (31% from student aid)


So, I think this shows how much more impact increased student aid will have on a smaller school.

What I'm not sure it does is support JPhillips concern about sates funding the athletic programs. Certainly students are, but I'm not seeing it at the state. I'd like to look at a D2 or D3 school, but I'm not seeing any I recognize on here.

[Drake]

Does that include research grants and subsidized student loans?

To me, this also applies to private schools, so doesn't enter the equation. It's on the same level as Pell grants and other federal aid (meaning: that money is attached to the student rather than the institution).

[Drake]

Here's a question I don't have an answer to and I'm hoping someone else might: The word I get at IU -- which I have admittedly never bothered to confirm officially -- is that our athletic dept is a completely separate financial entity from the rest of the university.

There's some overlap in that some employees and facility personnel are paid out of the university's staff budget (including things like academic advisors, secretaries, etc.), but the vast majority of the AD budget, revenues and expenditures -- including coaching salaries -- are purely AD-generated revenue. It's an independent silo from "university revenue".

Is that sort of arrangement common at other major universities?

Edit: Or I could just look at link wade posted that details things like direct and indirect institutional support. The internets know everything. :)

[JPhillips]

What I'm not sure it does is support JPhillips concern about sates funding the athletic programs. Certainly students are, but I'm not seeing it at the state. I'd like to look at a D2 or D3 school, but I'm not seeing any I recognize on here.

I don't think it's about state money, just that many universities are spending millions on athletics at a time when instructional budgets are declining due to state cuts.

Look at some of these crazy numbers.

Delaware subsidizes athletics over 25 million.

James Madison spends almost 24 million in student fees.

Morehead St., that doesn't even have D1 football, subsidizes over 7 million.

The big schools generally get enough in ticket sales and contributions to break even without fees or institutional support, but the mid and low level conferences spend an obscene amount on athletics.

[RomaGoth]

This is a really, really common misconception.

A few articles that address this:

Contrary to Popular Belief, College Sports Teams Lose Money (http://www.quickanded.com/2010/06/contrary-to-popular-belief-college-sports-teams-lose-money.html)

College sports dollar drain*makes no sense - Nov. 10, 2006 (http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/10/commentary/sportsbiz/index.htm)

College Athletics Revenues and Expenses - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/ncaa/revenue/_/year/2008)


If you look at the last link, it's probably the best illustration.

There are maybe 20-30 universities making "big money" off of college athletics. The rest are breaking about even or losing money.

I was already aware of the huge deficits in college sports. Not that I am arguing with you, because I am sure the truth is somewhere in the middle of all of this but I saw another article related to one of yours from above that explained how the U of Texas (and others) was making huge profits off their football program. I can imagine that some smaller schools may not be doing as well, but I find it hard to believe that if college football/basketball was such a money pit that they would continue on as they are....:confused:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/04/commentary/column_sportsbiz/sportsbiz/index.htm?postversion=2006010506

[wade moore]

I don't think it's about state money, just that many universities are spending millions on athletics at a time when instructional budgets are declining due to state cuts.

Look at some of these crazy numbers.

Delaware subsidizes athletics over 25 million.

James Madison spends almost 24 million in student fees.

Morehead St., that doesn't even have D1 football, subsidizes over 7 million.

The big schools generally get enough in ticket sales and contributions to break even without fees or institutional support, but the mid and low level conferences spend an obscene amount on athletics.

I'm not sure that you and I are that far off in our thinking. It's just more of a debate about where the money is coming from.

For instance, most facilities upgrades at small and mid level schools come from direct donations. Student fees are a way to get around this logic. Not sure where you're getting the 25 million subsidy from Delaware, cause your link shows no direct funding from the state. Or are you referring to the Direct/Indirect Institution support? Not sure exactly where that money actually comes from tbh.

[Young Drachma]

I imagine that only FBS conferences will be adding this extra payment for students. And even then, it'll be bigger, more well heeled leagues anyway. As it should be. Everyone else will and can operate in the status quo. It might affect recruiting some, but I doubt that it will take a kid who was going to go low major and make him go high.

[King of New York]

a bandaid on a sucking chest wound.

This.

In fact, I see the $2,000 payment as blowing up in the NCAA's face sooner rather than later. Once the NCAA admits in principle that student-ahtletes can be paid, then the question becomes: how much should they be paid? And the amount of $2,000 will soon become indefensible, because at a few schools it's far too little, and at many more schools, it's far more than they can afford. For schools that generate huge amounts of sports revenue, it is a pittance, out all proportion to the actual economic value of some student-athletes to the institution, and those student-athletes will be justified in asking for much larger amounts. And for schools that do not generate huge amounts of sports revenue, the $2,000 will create a very serious burden.

I would not be surprised to see a fair number of schools forced to drop down to Division III, or forced to slash the number of terams that they support.

This is also going to have a terrible effect on campuses where athletics have not gotten out of control. At a place like William & Mary, where the athletes are generally good students and well integrated into the student body, paying athletes is going to cause a rift between students who bust their butts to pay tuition bills and already pay very high athletics fees on top of that tuition (the majority), and students who will now be getting paid to miss half of their classes so that they can play a game.

[JPhillips]

I'm not sure that you and I are that far off in our thinking. It's just more of a debate about where the money is coming from.

For instance, most facilities upgrades at small and mid level schools come from direct donations. Student fees are a way to get around this logic. Not sure where you're getting the 25 million subsidy from Delaware, cause your link shows no direct funding from the state. Or are you referring to the Direct/Indirect Institution support? Not sure exactly where that money actually comes from tbh.

Yes, I'm talking about direct and indirect institutional support. That's money being spent by the institution that would otherwise go to other areas, instruction, financial aid, etc. I'm fine with college athletic departments getting big if they sustain themselves, but I find it outrageous that a school like Delaware spends 25 million from it's general revenue on athletics.

[JPhillips]

I was already aware of the huge deficits in college sports. Not that I am arguing with you, because I am sure the truth is somewhere in the middle of all of this but I saw another article related to one of yours from above that explained how the U of Texas (and others) was making huge profits off their football program. I can imagine that some smaller schools may not be doing as well, but I find it hard to believe that if college football/basketball was such a money pit that they would continue on as they are....:confused:

UT is college football's financial powerhouse - Jan. 5, 2006 (http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/04/commentary/column_sportsbiz/sportsbiz/index.htm?postversion=2006010506)

Football and basketball can be money makers, but athletic departments overall rarely are.

[Young Drachma]

This.

In fact, I see the $2,000 payment as blowing up in the NCAA's face sooner rather than later. Once the NCAA admits in principle that student-ahtletes can be paid, then the question becomes: how much should they be paid? And the amount of $2,000 will soon become indefensible, because at a few schools it's far too little, and at many more schools, it's far more than they can afford. For schools that generate huge amounts of sports revenue, it is a pittance, out all proportion to the actual economic value of some student-athletes to the institution, and those student-athletes will be justified in asking for much larger amounts. And for schools that do not generate huge amounts of sports revenue, the $2,000 will create a very serious burden.

I would not be surprised to see a fair number of schools forced to drop down to Division III, or forced to slash the number of terams that they support.

This is also going to have a terrible effect on campuses where athletics have not gotten out of control. At a place like William & Mary, where the athletes are generally good students and well integrated into the student body, paying athletes is going to cause a rift between students who bust their butts to pay tuition bills and already pay very high athletics fees on top of that tuition (the majority), and students who will now be getting paid to miss half of their classes so that they can play a game.

D3 itself is gigantic. The only thing stopping D3 from splitting up between the "schools that play sports competitively" and "the schools that are just playing to have sports teams" is the nomenclature. No one wants to be in "Division 4." So the discussion has been shelved.

But there are over 600 schools in D3. It's a last resort.

For every school that you cite that doesn't play sports, there are legions of schools that generate a ton of positive vibes -- and donations -- from having teams. Alumni aren't all interested in the good will of educating students. They give money emotionally and sports often helps that.

At the JUCO level, sports keep the school in the local community.

I don't think folks who want the money for sports to be reallocated elsewhere realize that college -- especially in this era -- is an arms race. If you stop doing something, your competitors are going to do it with a flourish and likely beat you at it. It might suck, it might not seem right...but it's the system that we're in.

So living in the dream world of "oh gee, why not just let them cut sports and go to D3 and all students can be students first in peas and harmony." Just isn't living in the real world. Institutions will continue to spend on the sports they deem important. It's why Rutgers cut olympic sports that were doing well to grow football which isn't nearly going to have the rate of success. Why? Some administrator though it was a good idea. But also? Because football generates far more alumni interest than golf or tennis or minor sports.

There is value in sports and if there wasn't, institutions won't invest in it. Has it gone too far? You betcha. Should it be better? I think it should. But in the status quo, $2k isn't going to change the game and you won't notice an appreciable difference.

[wade moore]

This is also going to have a terrible effect on campuses where athletics have not gotten out of control. At a place like William & Mary, where the athletes are generally good students and well integrated into the student body, paying athletes is going to cause a rift between students who bust their butts to pay tuition bills and already pay very high athletics fees on top of that tuition (the majority), and students who will now be getting paid to miss half of their classes so that they can play a game.

KoNY, I think you generally have a good grasp on the W&M culture.

Personally, I think you're way off on this specific one.

As someone that was a W&M student not TOO long ago, I think this is wrong for a number of reasons.

1. Most kids I simply think wouldn't care. Hell, let's be honest, there are a fair number of rich entitled kids who are going to school on daddy's money. Sure there are a lot that aren't, but they are dealing with their own stuff.
2. Most kids don't even know who the athletes in their class are.
3. Even if they do, a good percentage more won't even know about this $2k thing.

When I was at W&M I was on the upper end of the spectrum for caring about W&M athletics. Not where I am now, but still. I could pick out maybe 3 football players on campus.

[sterlingice]

Great link JPhillips.

To support some of my comments. My Alma-Mater that I support (William and Mary - FCS Football, Mid-Major Basketball):

Revenue: 18mil (50% from student fees, 0% from state/government support)
Expenses: 17.9mil (34% for athletic student aid)

Penn State (since it was used above):

Revenue: 106mil (39% Ticket Sales, 0% from state/government support)
Expenses: 88mil (13% for athletic student aid)

Going to select a random FBS school that is not a consistent top-25 type school. Let's go Toledo (I'm picking them without looking at their numbers first):

Revenue: 19.9mil (50% from student fees, 0% from direct state/government funding)
Expenses: 20mil (31% from student aid)


So, I think this shows how much more impact increased student aid will have on a smaller school.

What I'm not sure it does is support JPhillips concern about sates funding the athletic programs. Certainly students are, but I'm not seeing it at the state. I'd like to look at a D2 or D3 school, but I'm not seeing any I recognize on here.

So, Kansas is at $70M in and $69M out with $1M in school aid.

SI

[DanGarion]

Not really. At Indiana University (where I work), less than 15% of our budget comes from tax dollars. I believe Penn State just reported that their state funding has dropped below 5%. There are starting to be serious discussions in higher ed administration about ending what many see as the the charade of "state supported" schools and going private outright.

Let me rephrase that, Our Tuition Dollars at work!

[Drake]

1. Most kids I simply think wouldn't care. Hell, let's be honest, there are a fair number of rich entitled kids who are going to school on daddy's money. Sure there are a lot that aren't, but they are dealing with their own stuff.
2. Most kids don't even know who the athletes in their class are.

Does it make me a bad person that the only football game I've ever attended at IU (either as an undergrad or now as an appointed professional staff) was the one where they gave my kid free tickets as part of an Office of Scholarships recruitment deal?

Or does the fact that it's IU get me off the hook?

[Drake]

Let me rephrase that, Our Tuition Dollars at work!

As a tuition-paying parent (at least partially - my kids get half-off as work perk), I support this comment 100%.

[sterlingice]

Here's a question I don't have an answer to and I'm hoping someone else might: The word I get at IU -- which I have admittedly never bothered to confirm officially -- is that our athletic dept is a completely separate financial entity from the rest of the university.

There's some overlap in that some employees and facility personnel are paid out of the university's staff budget (including things like academic advisors, secretaries, etc.), but the vast majority of the AD budget, revenues and expenditures -- including coaching salaries -- are purely AD-generated revenue. It's an independent silo from "university revenue".

Is that sort of arrangement common at other major universities?

Edit: Or I could just look at link wade posted that details things like direct and indirect institutional support. The internets know everything. :)

About 15 years ago, when I looked into this, it was typically the case. I know, for instance, that KUAC (Kansas Univ Athletic Corp) was a separate entity.

Football and basketball can be money makers, but athletic departments overall rarely are.

Basically, you take your income from football and basketball and occasionally other sports (Iowa wrestling, for instance). You make sure your bills are paid in those sports (expensive coaches, higher level travel, etc) so they continue bringing in revenue. You then take an equal amount of money and give it to your women's sports as your Title IX payment. You then pay your administration a bunch of cash. Then you take the remaining money, split it down the middle, and use it to create non-revenue generating men's sports and more non-revenue generating women's sports. Welcome to the NCAA.

SI

[Kodos]

Does it make me a bad person that the only football game I've ever attended at IU (either as an undergrad or now as an appointed professional staff) was the one where they gave my kid free tickets as part of an Office of Scholarships recruitment deal?

Or does the fact that it's IU get me off the hook?

I never missed a football game during my years at IU. Of course, those were during the Mallory years when we were actually somewhat competitive.

[CU Tiger]

you will notice most of these approach a net sum zero, and for a very good reason.

WHile they would never admit it, athletic departments are a giant marketing arm for most universities. Only instead of being a 100% loss they have found a way to make it a near zero sum marketing game. Only the few with a dedicated alumni sports specific fund raising arm show profits as there is a limit to how much people will give if it is not spent in a fudicially responsible manner.

That said I support the move so long as it is a step towards zero tolerance. Ok you can give the kids 2k to spend...but if you get caught giving houses, cars and such away there are substantial penalties.

[molson]

It's always been odd to me that big-time colleges hire these players and pay them in the product they sell - college classes. Imagine any other company doing that. I'm not sure I'd want to work for Goodyear as a lawyer and get paid in tires. Hell, I bet the university janitors, IT people, and lawyers don't want to just be paid in college classes....though that might be a nice perk.

[Young Drachma]

It's always been odd to me that big-time colleges hire these players and pay them in the product they sell - college classes. Imagine any other company doing that. I'm not sure I'd want to work for Goodyear as a lawyer and get paid in tires. Hell, I bet the university janitors, IT people, and lawyers don't want to just be paid in college classes....though that might be a nice perk.

I've only worked at one school (I'm on my 4th) where tuition was free for professional staff. So I'm agree with you on that.

It's akin to those total compensation forms I used to get in the military that tells you what your "total value" of benefits is worth when you factor in insurance and stuff. It's like "great...how about you give me that?"

[RomaGoth]

It's always been odd to me that big-time colleges hire these players and pay them in the product they sell - college classes. Imagine any other company doing that. I'm not sure I'd want to work for Goodyear as a lawyer and get paid in tires. Hell, I bet the university janitors, IT people, and lawyers don't want to just be paid in college classes....though that might be a nice perk.

While I agree with what you are saying, a college education/degree has long term benefits and can add income over a lifetime, while tires (as in your example) need to be replaced every 30 or 40 thousand miles. ;)