I have read some of this material before. It explains why some schools wind up dropping individual sports. And you can bet that those who continue fielding a full complement of sports aren't stealing from the academic or capital improvement side in order to do it, either. The revenue is coming from someplace else, someplace which might or might not be there for people to read about.
They simply eat the scholarship and housing money....which does come off the academic side.
Sooner or later, The upside-down ones retrench by cutting sports, travel budgets, or letting infrastructure slide. Equilibrium will be achieved somehow.
You’re absolutely right.
With inevitable realignment of the major conferences, we don’t have enough clout to force our way in.
Most don't have large travel budgets in the first place and they are not in a facilities arms race like the P-5 schools. Even at Georgia Southern the new expansion to the football stadium was funded by a fee on all students. At Dayton, they did the same to fund improvements to the UD Arena. Schools are willing to fund the sports because of the unity, pride and comraderie they provide.
Good for him. If any other individual in America can make money, then college athletes should be able to as well.
You are the #1 QB in the country…what school you choosing? I’m probably going to the one that the QB has $1M in endorsements before he’s even won the job…
I agree with the last statement. The two schools you mentioned, are they losing money on athletics? No, because whatever their bottom line shows, they have found a way (which some would find odious) to fund their athletic enterprises without detracting from the schools' core educational activities. So really, they're liquid on both sides.
SURE...here is a nice article about a study done that quantifies the REALITY that most "student" athletes are NOT REALLY STUDENTS who would have been otherwise admitted to their college but for their sports participation.
Last edited:
Well I guess that depends on how define "losing money" or who is losing it. As you noted, it is a mutually beneficial relationship....in which case, no one is losing. Even at a "small" school like Dayton, athletics attracts students which benefits the school....it makes no difference that their football program doesn't play in an 80,000 seat stadium or their baseball team would love to have old Sarge Frye field.
UD's "big" donors (outside the Catholic church) gave to the University, not the athletic department. At the time, the student fees for athletics were higher than what I paid at USC. That was a fun and interesting 2-year internship.
Last edited:
Not to be argumentative, but they are student-athletes as long as they fulfill their athletic responsibilities and attend class. And those who receive degrees validate the characterization still further. That many of them meet lower entrance requirements to get into most schools is neither news nor is it new. That goes back much farther than 40 years. I'm old enough to know. But if they attended school and participated in intercollegiate athletics, they were student-athletes. And a significant number of them became alumni.
We got away with it for too long. It was fun while it lasted. I suspect it won't be so bad.
Not in that form, no. All those other circus leagues or leagues where 99% of the players really have no shot at the NFL are almost unwatchable. And I don't mean like 16 teams playing a 12 game schedule. Maybe something like 6 teams playing 5 to 10 games. Perhaps they could even play them in different stadiums around the country.
Of course, there is every chance I could be wrong about this and it would fail, but if the NFL would get behind it I think it would have a shot.
Last edited:
I get the feeling that the NIL is simply a way to do the thousand dollar handshakes at schools out in the open. There’s no limit on what a student can make. You can’t tell me that someone who has never played a down of college football is worth $1 million to advertisers. I doubt any business giving money will get a return on investment worth more than they spent. I could be wrong. Basically it appears now the schools need to go out and round up boosters to hire kids for promotions and such. The kids will gravitate where they can get paid the most. I just hope my school jumps in fullbore.
If he was at Clemson, he was probably making more before the NIL came to fruition
Since we're mostly talking about theories and participating in speculation, here's another take.
Initially we see "the wild west" with NIL agreements just out of control. Perhaps later many of these
"donors" begin to see that
1. It's best to wait to see how some players develop. The list of "can't miss" recruit who rarely saw the field is endless.
2. There may not be the return on the investment that was initially thought of.
I'm just throwing this out there as a possibility, not exactly willing to aggressively defend either scenario.
Initially we see "the wild west" with NIL agreements just out of control. Perhaps later many of these
"donors" begin to see that
1. It's best to wait to see how some players develop. The list of "can't miss" recruit who rarely saw the field is endless.
2. There may not be the return on the investment that was initially thought of.
I'm just throwing this out there as a possibility, not exactly willing to aggressively defend either scenario.
I think it will be out of control for a while and eventually calm down for reasons you say. How many collegiate athletes are REALLY worth the investment to advertisers? A handful.
I see it mostly being used for:
1. Recruiting of top talent
2. Retention of top talent
3. Larger programs scalping top talent from secondary programs
Well, when you put it that way, no way the rich don't get richer.
Agree....and it's not hard to pick the teams.
From the SEC:
Alabama
TAMU
LSU
Georgia
maybe one other.
From the ACC:
UNC
Clemson
FSU
maybe one other.
From the Big 10:
TOSU
Michigan
Penn State
Wisconsin
maybe one other.
From the Big 12:
Texas
Oklahoma
OSU
maybe one other,
From the PAC-12
SoCal
UCLA
Oregon
Arizona
maybe one other
Independent:
Notre Dame
I think there will be about 20-25 teams that will begin to create a large gap between them and the others. I tried to pick the surest from each conference. Any others???
Last edited:
Oregon and Southern Cal will certainly lead the way in the Pac 12. Overall, the best brands are already known and they will capitalize on that notoriety. The rest of us will scramble for the scraps.
