NCAA head warns that 95% of student athletes face extinction if colleges actually have to pay them

[AlterEgo]

if your business model relies entirely on not paying the people who actually are out there as the face of it and are risking bodily injury while putting in the work, then your business shouldn't exist.

The issue: there are over 1,000 NCAA schools. Less than 25 have profitable athletic departments.

[AlterEgo]

if your business model relies entirely on not paying the people who actually are out there as the face of it and are risking bodily injury while putting in the work, then your business shouldn't exist.

The issue: there are over 1,000 NCAA schools. Less than 25 have profitable athletic departments.

that doesn't really change what I said. Universities should broadly focus on academics, not athletics. If it's not profitable without exploiting student athletes, the program shouldn't exist. I wouldn't give a damn if my university lost its sports teams tomorrow. I've literally not gone to a single game and it's been more of an annoyance than anything else because they have to close roads. Not to mention the funding aspect, our department barely has enough staff to function. I've heard similar issues among classmates in other majors.

Here's the thing, though: that "exploitation" is only happening in situations where a university is making piles of cash off the efforts of the athletes that are not then compensated any of that revenue. Even at "sports factories" like Alabama, Ohio St., etc., I doubt you'll find many cross-country runners who think they're being "exploited."

But I'm sure the ladies golf team at Florida Gulf Coast, the men's soccer team at Marshall, and cross country team at Old Dominion will all be thrilled their programs cease to exist.

[AlterEgo]

if your business model relies entirely on not paying the people who actually are out there as the face of it and are risking bodily injury while putting in the work, then your business shouldn't exist.

The issue: there are over 1,000 NCAA schools. Less than 25 have profitable athletic departments.

that doesn't really change what I said. Universities should broadly focus on academics, not athletics. If it's not profitable without exploiting student athletes, the program shouldn't exist. I wouldn't give a damn if my university lost its sports teams tomorrow. I've literally not gone to a single game and it's been more of an annoyance than anything else because they have to close roads. Not to mention the funding aspect, our department barely has enough staff to function. I've heard similar issues among classmates in other majors.

Most of these athletes get full ride scholarships so it’s not like they aren’t getting any compensation. If they are out of state students, then it’s pretty big compensation

Actually, only about 1% of college athletes receive full-ride scholarships.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertfarrington/2023/05/22/athletic-scholarships-arent-enough-to-pay-for-college/?sh=77576fa42b76

[AlterEgo]

 This is called the free market and people who supposedly support free markets get very weird about the NCAA. The players are making many people money, remove the bogus system that doesn't let them share in these revenues and something will be figured out that is a lot better than denying hard working young people billions of dollars and making everybody else rich. Football and Basketball coaches are paid in the millions of dollars a year at the major schools, the money is there.

 As far as women's sports there will be stars in women's sports. Livvy Dunne($3.5 million) and Angel Reese($2 million) are top 10 NIL deals. Before the "name, image, and likeness" ruling how many great athletes or popular athletes lost the opportunity to earn life changing money from their fame. The NCAA has been robbing these kids and young adults for decades!

Again, there are over 1000 NCAA member schools. 23 of them have profitable athletic departments.

[AlterEgo]

 This is called the free market and people who supposedly support free markets get very weird about the NCAA. The players are making many people money, remove the bogus system that doesn't let them share in these revenues and something will be figured out that is a lot better than denying hard working young people billions of dollars and making everybody else rich. Football and Basketball coaches are paid in the millions of dollars a year at the major schools, the money is there.

 As far as women's sports there will be stars in women's sports. Livvy Dunne($3.5 million) and Angel Reese($2 million) are top 10 NIL deals. Before the "name, image, and likeness" ruling how many great athletes or popular athletes lost the opportunity to earn life changing money from their fame. The NCAA has been robbing these kids and young adults for decades!

Again, there are over 1000 NCAA member schools. 23 of them have profitable athletic departments.

Yep. The vast majority of atheletic departments are in regional schools, small liberal arts colleges,

However, this makes me wonder if we should just ELIMINATE the whole idea of college sports altogether. I can't imagine a University in Spain or South Korea having this much emphasis on sports.

 Profitability is a matter of accounting, something that the players have no access to because again they're not given any rights. Sure every athletic program won't have million dollar athletes but we're not talking about that. There were college sports before money was involved. The idea that only the modern day big business is what is making college sports at smaller schools is ridiculous. There have been sports in college before there was radio, tv, etc.

A large number of NCAA schools are public institutions, so accounting is a matter of public record.

"The idea that only the modern day big business is what is making college sports at smaller schools is ridiculous." Huh? Where did anyone make that argument? What makes college sports at those schools is running at a deficit and student fees? And we're not just talking about tiny, liberal-arts colleges here either. We're also talking sizable public universities like UCF and USF.

The issue is that once the courts and/or Congress decides players get paid, there is no opting out just because a university's athletic department doesn't make money. We'll see a few things happen: sports will get trimmed, lots of sports will be dropped to club level. Most importantly, though, very few P4 and even most G5 schools will simply increase student athletic fees.

[AlterEgo]

This is called the free market and people who supposedly support free markets get very weird about the NCAA. The players are making many people money, remove the bogus system that doesn't let them share in these revenues and something will be figured out that is a lot better than denying hard working young people billions of dollars and making everybody else rich. Football and Basketball coaches are paid in the millions of dollars a year at the major schools, the money is there.

 As far as women's sports there will be stars in women's sports. Livvy Dunne($3.5 million) and Angel Reese($2 million) are top 10 NIL deals. Before the "name, image, and likeness" ruling how many great athletes or popular athletes lost the opportunity to earn life changing money from their fame. The NCAA has been robbing these kids and young adults for decades!

Again, there are over 1000 NCAA member schools. 23 of them have profitable athletic departments.

Yep. The vast majority of atheletic departments are in regional schools, small liberal arts colleges,

However, this makes me wonder if we should just ELIMINATE the whole idea of college sports altogether. I can't imagine a University in Spain or South Korea having this much emphasis on sports.

 Profitability is a matter of accounting, something that the players have no access to because again they're not given any rights. Sure every athletic program won't have million dollar athletes but we're not talking about that. There were college sports before money was involved. The idea that only the modern day big business is what is making college sports at smaller schools is ridiculous. There have been sports in college before there was radio, tv, etc.

A large number of NCAA schools are public institutions, so accounting is a matter of public record.

"The idea that only the modern day big business is what is making college sports at smaller schools is ridiculous." Huh? Where did anyone make that argument? What makes college sports at those schools is running at a deficit and student fees? And we're not just talking about tiny, liberal-arts colleges here either. We're also talking sizable public universities like UCF and USF.

The issue is that once the courts and/or Congress decides players get paid, there is no opting out just because a university's athletic department doesn't make money. We'll see a few things happen: sports will get trimmed, lots of sports will be dropped to club level. Most importantly, though, very few P4 and even most G5 schools will simply increase student athletic fees.

Maybe that is A good thing though.

Less than 1% of NCAA athletes receive full-ride scholarships, and less than 2% go pro in their respective sports. It's safe to surmise that probably 90+% of them know that there's no career in their sport. So, these athletes are doing it because they love it, they want to participate, they want to represent their school, etc. I don't know that I'd argue that taking away many of those opportunities is a good thing.

Additionally, even if you think that culling some sports programs is a good thing, the reality is, as I said, no FBS programs are going to drop a level. They might cull a few sports, but that's about it. That will likely lead to increases, in many cases possibly massive, in student athletics fees in tuition payments. That, I don't know how anyone finds to be a "good" thing (except maybe college administrators).

[AlterEgo]

This is called the free market and people who supposedly support free markets get very weird about the NCAA. The players are making many people money, remove the bogus system that doesn't let them share in these revenues and something will be figured out that is a lot better than denying hard working young people billions of dollars and making everybody else rich. Football and Basketball coaches are paid in the millions of dollars a year at the major schools, the money is there.

 As far as women's sports there will be stars in women's sports. Livvy Dunne($3.5 million) and Angel Reese($2 million) are top 10 NIL deals. Before the "name, image, and likeness" ruling how many great athletes or popular athletes lost the opportunity to earn life changing money from their fame. The NCAA has been robbing these kids and young adults for decades!

Again, there are over 1000 NCAA member schools. 23 of them have profitable athletic departments.

Yep. The vast majority of atheletic departments are in regional schools, small liberal arts colleges,

However, this makes me wonder if we should just ELIMINATE the whole idea of college sports altogether. I can't imagine a University in Spain or South Korea having this much emphasis on sports.

 Profitability is a matter of accounting, something that the players have no access to because again they're not given any rights. Sure every athletic program won't have million dollar athletes but we're not talking about that. There were college sports before money was involved. The idea that only the modern day big business is what is making college sports at smaller schools is ridiculous. There have been sports in college before there was radio, tv, etc.

A large number of NCAA schools are public institutions, so accounting is a matter of public record.

"The idea that only the modern day big business is what is making college sports at smaller schools is ridiculous." Huh? Where did anyone make that argument? What makes college sports at those schools is running at a deficit and student fees? And we're not just talking about tiny, liberal-arts colleges here either. We're also talking sizable public universities like UCF and USF.

The issue is that once the courts and/or Congress decides players get paid, there is no opting out just because a university's athletic department doesn't make money. We'll see a few things happen: sports will get trimmed, lots of sports will be dropped to club level. Most importantly, though, very few P4 and even most G5 schools will simply increase student athletic fees.

Maybe that is A good thing though.

Less than 1% of NCAA athletes receive full-ride scholarships, and less than 2% go pro in their respective sports. It's safe to surmise that probably 90+% of them know that there's no career in their sport. So, these athletes are doing it because they love it, they want to participate, they want to represent their school, etc. I don't know that I'd argue that taking away many of those opportunities is a good thing.

Additionally, even if you think that culling some sports programs is a good thing, the reality is, as I said, no FBS programs are going to drop a level. They might cull a few sports, but that's about it. That will likely lead to increases, in many cases possibly massive, in student athletics fees in tuition payments. That, I don't know how anyone finds to be a "good" thing (except maybe college administrators).

My point is; College Sports should be a significantly smaller portion of the American University System, period. End of story.


Other higher education Systems in other Developed countries do have sports, but they don't.... focus as much on the sports, or heck, most of the us college " experience".

If students want to participate in sports, they can do it... as a secondary factor in their college life, join a club.  If they want to take their sport seriously, they can do it through a specialized academy.






Quite frankly, with this news, along with ivy league crap, and the opening up of state jobs to people without a college degree, I think it's time for a national conversation on American higher education. This system is failing us. Drastically. The whole deal.

Well, outside of most state flagships and elite privates, we're seeing university enrollment declining in addition to the coming of age of a smaller college-aged cohort. So, we're very likely going to see lots of consolidation and school closings soon.

[AlterEgo]

If you listen to people that talk about this (Dan Wetzel and Pat Forde at Yahoo Sports are the best IMO), what the universities really want is for some Congress bill to go through and nationalize the standard that everyone lives up to. Any standard the NCAA throws up will be taken to court. Because right now it's the Wild West. Missouri for example has a law on the books where in-state high school students once they sign an NIL deal can begin making NIL money in high school, but only if they commit to play in colllege at an in-state public university (read: University of Missouri). That's a law designed to give Mizzou a leg up on the football field and basketball court in recruiting. A Florida Gator collective signed Jaden Rashada to a $13 million NIL deal, and the money never showed up, so Rashada left Florida and that became a scandal. Meanwhile the NIL booster collectives that in effect control recruiting now and university officials like coaches and athletics directors are not allowed to talk to one another officially, similar to political candidates and PAC's.

There's no signs Congress has any desire to help out the NCAA and the universities in this. Pretty much what's occurred is the NCAA is founded on the notion of voluntary self-governance like most groups in the U.S. are, all the universities are the members that choose what the NCAA stands for and does. Their self-governance was removed when it came to amateurism, but it was replaced by nothing. Meanwhile the people that really run big-time college sports at the moment are not the universities or the NCAA, it's Fox and ESPN.

It's not that amateurism was removed and replaced by nothing. From a technical standpoint, amateurism still exists for the NCAA and its member universities. It's why NIL collectives are separated from university officials as you say, as NILs are 3rd-parties not affiliated with the schools. The reality is that NIL was envisioned as allowing athletes to sell their autographs or to get paid for appearances at the local car dealership, not to essentially get paid for playing at a certain school. The two highest-profile incidents that led to NIL establishment were Johnny Manziel selling his autographs at Texas A&M and the UCF kicker having to leave the team over his profitable YouTube channel. But...everyone found a loophole.

Congress is not going to step in, and the courts are going to rule in favor of direct pay-for-play from universities. At that point, the SEC and Big 10 are going to lead a charge to leave the NCAA. (Ostensibly, this will allow them and all schools/conferences that come with to better monetize and cut out the NCAA middle-man on the NCAA men's basketball tournament.)

But once there is pay-for-play, unless Congress steps in and creates an anti-trust exemption for any schools not at the Profit Tier, non-club collegiate sports will die at most schools. 

[AlterEgo]

If you go to college, you go there to get a higher education in a profession. Engineering. Law. Medicine. Education. Not for stupid atheletics, and not for woke majors.


It goes both ways.

Quite frankly, this was the System in American higher education before the 1950s. We had the liberal arts colleges, the land grant universities, and the normal schools dedicated to teacher education. And there were strong technical trade programs in high school as well.

Here's the thing, though, university athletic departments are generally funded in a some combination of ways: athletic department revenue, booster/alumni contributions, and/or student athletic fees. These are all different buckets than a university's general fund and in lots of places the university's academic side can't legally fund the athletic department. Now you could argue that if the AD didn't exist, some of those boosters/alumni would give to the university's academic side, but that certainly wouldn't be a one to one relationship. You could also make the argument that the student athletic fees from tuition could go to academics, but would the state legislatures who allow the athletic fees allow that? So, the reality is that most of the money that goes to sports wouldn't/can't simply transfer over to academics.

It's clear that you think the college experience should just be to go there, go to class, get a degree so you can get a job, and not have any further connection with the university community outside of maybe making some alumni donations. The reality is that a lot of people want to be part of a larger community when they attend school. And sports is a big part of that in American culture. And, also, the reality is that for a lot of alumni, if they didn't have those sports keeping them coming back to campus and being a continuing part of the university community, wouldn't feel the connection that has them making academic donations in the first place.

[AlterEgo]

Why shouldn’t I be proud to be born in America? The best thing my parents did was immigrate here and I am glad I live a really good life in the best country in the world which I wouldn’t get  in any other place.

Well, there is of course a theory that it's somewhat silly to be "proud" concerning random attributes that one had absolutely no control over.

[AlterEgo]

ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips stated that if athletes are made employees, the schools will likely only pay revenue-producing athletes and an equivalent number of female athletes to comply with Title IX.

Phillips: "You can go from 28 to 6 sports in one fiscal year."