Couldn’t agree more. Take SEC football for example…nobody cares about or watches that league, right?
Oh I agree with you, But it’s not as bad as the other stuff that directly profits off their likeness. And it least there’s a coherent argument for it.
1 Like
I think this overlooks the fact that all the payroll, and all the prices paid for scholarships etc are inflated precisely BECAUSE they players aren’t. Jim Harbaugh doesn’t make more than an NFL coach in a world where players are compensated. He does now because they are precious few places to spend money that actually impacts winning (because players are free), and coach is one of the few left.
AD’s, assistant AD’s, comma people, trainers, assistant coaches, bowl commissioners, conference presidents, etc…all these people are making money subsidized by not paying players.
2 Likes
Again - someone, at some point, decided to have “non-profit” institutions run a multi-billion dollar business.
As long as that fundamental disconnect exists, this issue will.
2 Likes
Thanks for the breakdown. I wonder how much of that budget is essential and how much of it is bloat because the money is there. I’m glad that the school hasn’t blown money on stupid stuff like waterfalls in the locker rooms. Michigan seems better than most at at least trying to put that money towards giving the players a well-rounded college experience. (like the football trips abroad, academic support.) But I have to think that there’s fat there.
I agree with you - an actual minor/developmental league would be a good solution. I realize the GLeague has existed in some form for years but it clearly doesn’t work.
Ultimately, however, the NBA (and the NFL To an even greater degree due to there being no foreign leagues of note) have no incentive to do it precisely because the NCAA exists in its current form, and doesn’t cost them a dime. Players can walk into their games as celebrities before playing a minute, and they spend nothing for that marketing.
Some good stats in this article:
Rising administrative and support staff pay is one of the biggest reasons otherwise profitable or self-sufficient athletic departments run deficits, according to a Washington Post review of thousands of pages of financial records from athletic departments at 48 schools in the five wealthiest conferences in college sports. In a decade, the non-coaching payrolls at the schools, combined, rose from $454 million to $767 million, a 69 percent jump.
100% - I think you’ve nailed the tensions in play.
Yeah this is my point - these salaries, and to a degree some of these jobs - exist explicitly because schools can only spend money on the marginal drivers of success, not the primary ones. They exist because players don’t share the windfall.
2 Likes
I think those are fair points, but college basketball isn’t holding anyone back from doing that. If the NBA wanted a really good minor league system, I assume they would fund it.
This is the one area where I start to feel some real sympathy for the players.
I’m not necessarily in favor of paying players - I think some reform is needed, but not necessarily drastic reform - but if the choice is between unnecessary, new administrative staff being hired and paid bloated salaries, or the players being paid, then clearly the money should go to the players.
That’s why I feel like schools, and the NCAA, should be forced to open their books and show everyone exactly where the money is going.
If the schools are using the money to fund scholarships, or expand opportunities for athletes in non-profitable sports, or to build new, state of the art facilities, that’s one thing. If it’s just going toward ridiculous, unnecessary salaries, it’s quite another.
I just don’t think that we would get very far with that sort of analysis. What is the standard of need? And most schools’ athletic budgets are still subsidized by the academic side. Do you raise tuition to pay players? Eliminate non-revenue sports?
I think the books of most public schools and the NCAA are open now. But any analysis of how they spend money is subjective. How many Michigan fans expressed the idea that money should be no object in the search for Beilein’s replacement? Money spent on salaries can be defended on a school by school basis as wins translate into increased revenue. That doesn’t apply to a sport as a whole though.
I think most people greatly overestimate the NCAA’s budget. They spend about half as much on salaries and administrative expenses as the Michigan AD.
1 Like
Don’t get me wrong, a great head coach is probably worth 2-3 times what he already makes. Just look at Alabama football under Saban.
I’m saying eliminate needless AD jobs. If I recall, Dave Brandon created a ton of new, high paying jobs in the AD. The need for those ought to be evaluated. Schools and the NCAA needlessly waste money like anyone else. If I’m not mistaken, I read the chair of the Peach Bowl committee (or someone with a similar title) made like $750,000 last year. That’s pure insanity. Similarly, the Dean of UM law school makes $521,000 a year. That’s outrageous. How hard is it to maintain the academic standing of a school that has ranked in the top 5-10 for like 50 years?
For example, this is just all utter nonsense and makes the case for opening the books to see exactly where the money is going.
2 Likes
I don’t think there’s any question that some bowl games take advantage of schools. If the schools had an alternative way to play an extra game, they could negotiate better deals. Maybe the bad press pushes the NCAA in that direction. Certainly a 16 team playoff with rounds played at home stadiums would make an impact.
Still, tradition is a big deal in college football and the big bowl games are able to negotiate huge TV deals. The Rose Bowl gets $80M per year. The group that owns the rights to the name and negotiates the deals are going to take a big chunk of cash and the NCAA can’t tell them how to spend it. They just host one game, but it takes in more revenue than 98% of the schools gross all year, all sports included.
1 Like
Of course the NCAA can tell them how to spend it. They’re showing two college football teams playing each other, right? So the NCAA can certainly negotiate for a bigger percentage of the gate.
The bowl games are independent of the NCAA, organizationally. For example, the Peach Bowl is now run by the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce. The Rose Bowl is technically run by the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association. Other bowl games are run by city/metro sports councils. So it’s not an NCAA determination how these private entities spend their finances. Which is much different than say, the NCAA Basketball Tournament, which is owned/run by the NCAA (but many of the preseason/holiday tournaments are owned/run privately outside of the NCAA).
And, for whatever it’s worth, that’s why bowl game statistics were not counted officially by the NCAA for many decades — NCAA viewed the bowl games as exhibitions put on and paid for by external business entities.
Only recently did the NCAA relent to common sense and realize that 99.9% of the population viewed bowl games as a part of the college football season (and thus started counting those stats toward officially recognized stats & records).
So this seems like the teams/athletes are a specialized commodity and for sale. Exploitation of labor at its finest. What right’s do the schools have to sell their teams for a profit…this is amateur sports correct? Amateur status for the players but not the administration.