Started By
Message
1
Posted on 10/3/19 at 7:29 pm to Rabern57
Snappy comeback broken one, I love the tears of fans that make excuses for not winning even though their program is out doing the exact same thing. 
Posted on 10/3/19 at 7:31 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
When you have an athletic budget that is in the millions do you really think $100,000 of student activity fees are keeping sports afloat?
Was this a typo?
Yearly Athletic Fees run $150-300 at the top 75 Colleges that I'm talking about , maybe someone from one of these SEC schools can chime in to give recent Fee amounts
30,000 students * $150 = $4.5MM per year on the low side and $9MM per yr on the high side
Where did you get this $100K nonsense from?
Places like Ohio State and Michigan have upwards of 50K students so the yearly fees might be less than my $150 estimate
This post was edited on 10/3/19 at 7:32 pm
Posted on 10/3/19 at 7:31 pm to MIZ_COU
quote:You still have to give them all that. You will just have players with a different charger for every day of the week. If some hardcore fan with alot of money wants to go broke trying to buy wins let them try.
Is it cheaper or more expensive than a dodge charger?
Posted on 10/3/19 at 7:35 pm to TT9
quote:Auburn hasn't been in trouble in 30+ years. Bama can't say the same. Don't worry. If Bama is as great as yall claim and players love it for the school and not the extras, yall will be fine. Otherwise yall will turn back to the Shula days when yall didn't have an advantage and few top players came there and yall didn't know what a #1 class was.
Snappy comeback broken one, I love the tears of fans that make excuses for not winning even though their program is out doing the exact same thing.
This post was edited on 10/3/19 at 7:37 pm
Posted on 10/3/19 at 7:35 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
There are already bidding wars for top players every year. They just happen under the table for high school kids.
True. But when money comes into play.....open and free wheeling. What do you think happens with nick Chubb or Todd Gurley or Sony Michel or D'Andre Swift if Alabama decides they want another RB?
quote:Sure. I guess the NCAA could always hire another 1,00 people or so to monitor 10,000 college athletes.
Transfer rules still exist. That could be monitored.
Posted on 10/3/19 at 7:38 pm to Rabern57
I feel for idiots like you, I truly do.
Envy has to suck. Fortunately, I'll never know.
Envy has to suck. Fortunately, I'll never know.
Posted on 10/3/19 at 7:41 pm to PeeJayScammedGT
quote:
Those fees add up to 4-5% at most of those big-time schools I clearly wrote that in an earlier post
Yes, you wrote it. You worte a lot of stuff and they were mostly wrong. And no. It does not add up to 4-5%. More like 1%. It's not in the millions. It's closer to less than $100,000 for the biggest programs/schools.
Why do you even bother. You come on here and I give you links and information directly from the schools, and you provide....nothing but your word. And I have already shown that things you have claimed to be "proven facts" were incorrect.
quote:Show me where i said that. you can't because I never said it. Come on dude. You are a Democrat, aren't you? say stuff and don't worry about whether it is truthful.
But those fees don't go to subsidizing greedy selfish Athletes like you originally claimed they do
quote:A lot of people care about them. Especially the students who go there. You know....the people it will affect the most?
Once again I have never mentioned small Colleges that no one cares about from an Athletics perspective
Seriously? I'm done. You provide nothing but your word and never even bother to look at reports, budgets and media about the subject. But hey. You said so, so it must be true.
Have a good evening and i hope you enjoy wallowing in your willful ignorance.
Posted on 10/3/19 at 7:42 pm to DawgsLife
quote:The bigger schools will have their hands full with all the talent. You are going to have to worry about the middle schools going all in for a top RB to build around. It will make the game more competitive and not when all the players pile on about 10 schools. The SEC in 90's was alot more fun to watch (when a bottom school could beat top one on a given week vs top schools blowing out all the bottom schools) than the mess it is now.
What do you think happens with nick Chubb or Todd Gurley or Sony Michel or D'Andre Swift if Alabama decides they want another RB?
Posted on 10/3/19 at 8:03 pm to DawgsLife
I'm waiting to see what happens the first time a recruit backs out and goes somewhere else after taking some of the money from someone and it ends up in court. With it being a free for all with them trying to come up with innovative ways to do it then it's bound to happen.
Posted on 10/3/19 at 8:03 pm to DawgsLife
At your precious UGA Athletic Fees are separate from Activity Fees and are $106 per YEAR for a total budgeted amount of $3.2MM per yr to the Athl Association
Still wanna stick with your $100K per year crap?
Here's a link for you -go to section "mandatory fees"
click on this idiot
Still wanna stick with your $100K per year crap?
Here's a link for you -go to section "mandatory fees"
click on this idiot
This post was edited on 10/3/19 at 8:07 pm
Posted on 10/3/19 at 8:12 pm to DawgsLife
Posted on 10/3/19 at 10:20 pm to DawgsLife
DawgsLife,
I don't know if you read my post or not, but if you did, you complete missed the point I was trying to make.
Inflation applies to everything. A scholarship in the 40's is exactly the same as the ones to today, the only difference is the adjustment for inflation. Your argument doesn't make sense, because if the tv deals had never manifested itself, we would still have football with student athletes receiving scholarships today. Are the values increased? Yes, claiming that is an added benefit is not accurate. This concept has absolutely nothing to do with the tv dollars.
Under this old model, athletic departments were break even at best and probably most if not all lost money.
Amateurism is defined as "the practicing of an activity, especially a sport, on an unpaid rather than a professional basis"
The NCAA has a certification process to ensure athletes are amateurs ( LINK)
The problem is that the NCAA claims to be a amateur sports organization (and a non-profit) that ensures its participants are unpaid; however, they have monetized the TV market. They made over 1.1 Billion in 2017 ( LINK). Simply put, a market was created where none existed before. The product didn't really change. Everything else is the same except now there is a huge influx of money that did not exist before (at least for the lucky conferences).
Those two concepts don't mesh. You either are amateur and not in it for the money, or you are a business and take advantage of capitalism. It was fair when athletic departments were break even at best where a student athlete could receive a free education for representing a university (what I would consider a true non-profit). That all changed once the NCAA monetized their sports.
I'll say it again. Is the NCAA an amateur organization or is it a business? The NCAA has acted more like a business the last 20+ years, but their workforce has no more tangible benefits than before the TV deals. It seems unfair to create a billion dollar business and not have that somehow benefit the workforce in some capacity.
The amateur model is about fair competition whereas capitalism is about winning through any advantage you can create for yourself.
I would personally prefer the amateur philosophy over the business philosophy (just for athletic sports - I'm all about capitalism), but the reality is that ship has most likely sailed.
Has our conference benefited from it? Probably more than any other, but the whole premise of the NCAA was to create a level playing field (which I agree that it isn't the case today anyway).
Also - I don't know where all the race crap came from. That doesn't seem relevant to the points I'm trying to make.
I don't know if you read my post or not, but if you did, you complete missed the point I was trying to make.
Inflation applies to everything. A scholarship in the 40's is exactly the same as the ones to today, the only difference is the adjustment for inflation. Your argument doesn't make sense, because if the tv deals had never manifested itself, we would still have football with student athletes receiving scholarships today. Are the values increased? Yes, claiming that is an added benefit is not accurate. This concept has absolutely nothing to do with the tv dollars.
Under this old model, athletic departments were break even at best and probably most if not all lost money.
Amateurism is defined as "the practicing of an activity, especially a sport, on an unpaid rather than a professional basis"
The NCAA has a certification process to ensure athletes are amateurs ( LINK)
The problem is that the NCAA claims to be a amateur sports organization (and a non-profit) that ensures its participants are unpaid; however, they have monetized the TV market. They made over 1.1 Billion in 2017 ( LINK). Simply put, a market was created where none existed before. The product didn't really change. Everything else is the same except now there is a huge influx of money that did not exist before (at least for the lucky conferences).
Those two concepts don't mesh. You either are amateur and not in it for the money, or you are a business and take advantage of capitalism. It was fair when athletic departments were break even at best where a student athlete could receive a free education for representing a university (what I would consider a true non-profit). That all changed once the NCAA monetized their sports.
I'll say it again. Is the NCAA an amateur organization or is it a business? The NCAA has acted more like a business the last 20+ years, but their workforce has no more tangible benefits than before the TV deals. It seems unfair to create a billion dollar business and not have that somehow benefit the workforce in some capacity.
The amateur model is about fair competition whereas capitalism is about winning through any advantage you can create for yourself.
I would personally prefer the amateur philosophy over the business philosophy (just for athletic sports - I'm all about capitalism), but the reality is that ship has most likely sailed.
Has our conference benefited from it? Probably more than any other, but the whole premise of the NCAA was to create a level playing field (which I agree that it isn't the case today anyway).
Also - I don't know where all the race crap came from. That doesn't seem relevant to the points I'm trying to make.
Posted on 10/3/19 at 10:56 pm to DrKnievel
Actually the NET VALUE of the scholarship hasn't increased
In the 1940s it led to a Bachelor's Degree and in 2019 it leads to a Bachelor's Degree
Actually the NCAA was founded on 3 major principles
Safety for the participants
Academic Integrity
Administration of Rules for fair competition and hosting Championships
Somewhere along the way they figured reaping billions off of an unpaid labor force seemed like a great idea
In the 1940s it led to a Bachelor's Degree and in 2019 it leads to a Bachelor's Degree
Actually the NCAA was founded on 3 major principles
Safety for the participants
Academic Integrity
Administration of Rules for fair competition and hosting Championships
Somewhere along the way they figured reaping billions off of an unpaid labor force seemed like a great idea
This post was edited on 10/3/19 at 11:02 pm
Posted on 10/4/19 at 1:09 am to PeeJayScammedGT
Since Bachelor's Degrees are significantly more valuable today than they were in the 1940s, you could definitely argue the value of a full-ride athletic scholarship has increased since then as well. However, is this increase in scholarship value to the players even remotely commensurate to the increase in revenue to the schools over that same span? No. Is it even remotely commensurate to the increase in revenue to the NCAA over that same span? Hell no.
Posted on 10/4/19 at 5:26 am to PeeJayScammedGT
quote:
At your precious UGA Athletic Fees are separate from Activity Fees and are $106 per YEAR for a total budgeted amount of $3.2MM per yr to the Athl Association
Okay genius. You asked for it.
UGA Athletics: Budget of $127.5 Million Approved by UGAAA Board
LINK
Do you still want to stick with your 4-5% of total budget?
Do you really think most schools have as large a student body as UGA's? Or they all have the same activity fees?
Crap. Now who's the idiot?
This post was edited on 10/4/19 at 5:47 am
Posted on 10/4/19 at 5:27 am to PeeJayScammedGT
(no message)
This post was edited on 10/4/19 at 5:39 am
Posted on 10/4/19 at 5:36 am to PeeJayScammedGT
quote:
Actually the NET VALUE of the scholarship hasn't increased
Are you absolutely nuts?
In 1934, a freshman matriculating at Dartmouth would spend $1,050 on tuition, room and board, and “incidentals.” The expected real cost of a year at Dartmouth, after fraternity fees and other expected expenses were accounted, was $1,700—by TIME’s reporting, “highest in the land.”
LINK
The highest tuition and incidentals in the country was $1700.00. Take $1700.00 down to GT and tell them you want Tuition, board and room for the semester and see what they tell you.
Is the degree level the same? yes. But the value is completely different.
quote:Unpaid labor force?
Somewhere along the way they figured reaping billions off of an unpaid labor force seemed like a great idea
Tuition
Books
Medical care
Training
Food
Room
Insurance
Crap dude. What exactly is your definition of unpaid?
It's a good thing I am about to leave for vacation, because I would love to keep coming back on here and serving you your head.
You keep arguing, but you keep providing links that do not say what you want them to say, and making wild claims that could not be further from the truth.
Tell us all. You went to and graduated from GT, didn't you? Education at its finest.
Posted on 10/4/19 at 5:45 am to PeeJayScammedGT
quote:
Those fees pay for NON REVENUE and TITLE IX Sports, the revenue producing Sports pay their own freight, Baseball is a break even sport at most colleges
And since you called me an idiot....do you still want to stand by this comment?
Posted on 10/4/19 at 6:07 am to DrKnievel
quote:
I don't know if you read my post or not, but if you did, you complete missed the point I was trying to make.
Sorry. I didn't. I was embroiled in an argument with the GT guy and didn't see it.
quote:Actually no. Athletic scholarships back then did not include nearly the same things they do today.
Inflation applies to everything. A scholarship in the 40's is exactly the same as the ones to today, the only difference is the adjustment for inflation.
Today they receive
Room
Board
Insurance
Medical care
Training
Tuition
Tutoring
Stipends (yes, they get money)
Back then they pretty much got room and board, IF thyestayed at the home of a coach.
In the beginning, compensation for collegiate athletes usually meant assistance with employment, gifts, favors and usually free room and board at the home of a coach or a team supporter. Primarily funded by a school’s alumni and fraternities, incentives were offered to entice players to choose a specific school and to constantly improve on their performance.
Tuition
quote:I get that. But every time a business makes a higher profit, it does not necessarily have to share that wealth with the employee. nobody is forcing the athlete to go to college.
This concept has absolutely nothing to do with the tv dollars.
Yes, I get the argument that they don't have the option to go directly to the pros because of rules. however, their bodies could not stand up to the pounding the NFL would give to a HS kid. This gives them the opportunity to get trained..better their game andget a good education at the same time while letting their bodies develop and become prepared for the NFL.
quote:
Under this old model, athletic departments were break even at best and probably most if not all lost money.
The same applies today. Of the 1,000+ colleges that provide athletics to their students, only about 50 make money.
quote:
The problem is that the NCAA claims to be a amateur sports organization (and a non-profit) that ensures its participants are unpaid; however, they have monetized the TV market. They made over 1.1 Billion in 2017 ( LINK). Simply put, a market was created where none existed before. The product didn't really change. Everything else is the same except now there is a huge influx of money that did not exist before (at least for the lucky conferences).
Here is where you misunderstand. It is the governing body of the amateur athletes. the athletes are amateurs, not the NCAA. The NCAA is a non profit entity.
quote:And I will answer again. they are a nonprofit organization. The monies collected for TV rights go to the schools with a portion going to fund day to day activities. Your argument is confusing the NCAA with individual schools.
I'll say it again. Is the NCAA an amateur organization or is it a business?
Are the schools profiting? Some. But only 50 out of 1,00+ show an athletic profit. You start paying athletes (all of them because if you pay some you will have to pay all) and the schools will surely begin dropping sports that are offered,. The non money making sports would go away.
That would leave you with Football and Basketball. if you want to call it a business, then they will be forced to run it like a business. If you don't make money, you go out of business.
It is the governing body over amateur athletes. The NCAA is non profit. The money from TV revenues go to the schools and help run the day to day activities of the NCAA.
ETA
Would love to stick around and talk to you, but the wife and I are off on vacation. I MIGHT have internet access where I am going, but I doubt if I check in for this.
This post was edited on 10/4/19 at 6:09 am
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News