This thread has made me schedule an appointment with my VA psyche for tomorrow.

All I wanted to discuss was awesome athletic facilities and dream about our new building......

Saint3333 wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:14 pm

Only approximately two programs of about 40 schools out the 20 programs at 200+ schools make a profit, should we pay all student athletes or only those that make a profit? No student athlete at App would get paid in the latter.

You may also not understand the difference between revenue and profit.

Well, first off, as i said Saint, there’s a reason there’s “no profit”... because of the facilities spending.

“Facilities spending 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 2014, these 48 schools spent $772 million combined on athletic facilities, an 89-percent increase from $408 million spent in 2004, adjusted for inflation. Those figures include annual debt payments, capital expenses and maintenance costs.”

^LOL that number of $772 million is as of 2014, if only we knew the 2017 figure.

Secondly. Jimbo Fisher just got a guaranteed $75 million in the ole bank account. Nick Saban is making $11 million a year. Jim Harbaugh $7 million. Tom Herman $5.5 million. Luke freaking Fickell is making more than $2 million a year. Dave Arnada is making $2 million as a COORDINATOR. Texas A&M spent $485 million on renovations to Kyle Field (thanks Johnny Manziel). Maryland took on a $155 million athletic renovation. Oregon spent $138 million on facilities. Auburn has a $3.5 million video board. Kevin Sumlin is getting paid $10.5 million to NOT coach for Christ’s sakes.

On top of the TV contract money and the Nike/Adidas/UA money, don’t tell me there’s no money to actually pay the talent that is lining all these pockets. There’s smart enough people there to figure out the logistics. But they’d all rather participate in a self-enriching racket.

At schools like App St I AM telling you that. You are referencing the 40ish football programs that make a profit. What do we pay the other 95% of programs, do those players not get paid and thus those opportunities are forfeited so we can pay 2% of th athletes that play for profitable programs?

App91 wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:10 pm

Yosef10 wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 18, 2018 7:40 pm

Saint3333 wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:47 am

Yosef10 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:01 pm

Saint3333 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:47 pm

When people say they want to pay student athletes, they need to be reminded of all the perks and benefits they receive that the average student does not.

The lifestyle they live while in college will be unattainable at any point in their lives post graduation for 95+% of them.

But they only build facilities like this because they don’t have to pay the players...and then the universities cry broke after they build said facilities. Take a poll and i bet you 99.999% of the players will take say a $30 million facility and some cash in their pockets versus having a $166 million facility.

Maybe that lifestyle post grad would be a little more attainable if they were actually paid for the billions in revenue they generate

They do get some cash in their pocket, the COA was added two years ago. $100k in education costs, a few thousand dollars of spending money each semester, excellent nutrition program, access to world class facilities to train, first cut at all classes and times, tutors. And that is for 300+ athletes at 200+ programs.

I would kill to have my daughters be talented enough to receive such poor treatment 10 years from now.

If we should pay athletes the profit (not revenue, big difference here) they generate, should we ask the athletes in non-revenue sports and athletes are mid-majors to pay a portion of the benefits they receive as they aren't profitable?

The money they bring far outweighs the money they receive. That’s indisputable. All the fluff is cool, though. College athletics is literally the only industry in the country where the talent doesn’t earn its market value in wages but yippee they get a piece of paper after their education is compromised by design. Walter Byers himself, the man who legitimized this current system, said this setup is a sham. I’ll never know why some folks choose to defend it so whole heartedly.

And thats the problem right there. There are some of us to whom that still means something, alot actually. And then, well those where its not.
I know you are all for equitable, so what about the other SA's who don't generate $$ or the FB programs outside of the P5 generate a lot less money. Does that go out the window when you are getting yours?

First, lol. But seriously, i know you are all for free market, as am i. So why is college athletics the only extremely profitable industry you choose to hamstring the workers and their (potential) wages?

Saint3333 wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:26 pm

At schools like App St I AM telling you that. You are referencing the 40ish football programs that make a profit. What do we pay the other 95% of programs, do those players not get paid and thus those opportunities are forfeited so we can pay 2% of th athletes that play for profitable programs?

Then exclude schools like App State from the conversation if you choose, although even the App State athletic departments of the world could pay their workers if they so prioritized instead of fluff. At the absolute least App State kids should be able to profit from their likeness.

If you can spend $166 million on a facility, as the original post referenced, then you can pay your workers.

Why would we exclude App from the conversation on the MMB???

What are you going to pay the student athletes at App and 95% of the other programs across America with? There are no profits to pay them. That is the point.

Do you work for a corporation? Actually the way college athletics is set up is very similar to corporate America, a small number at the top are paid quite a bit more than the “workers”.

Often times the CEO makes well over 100 times the median employee.

Saint3333 wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:46 pm

Why would we exclude App from the conversation on the MMB???

What are you going to pay the student athletes at App and 95% of the other programs across America with? There are no profits to pay them. That is the point.

Do you work for a corporation? Actually the way college athletics is set up is very similar to corporate America, a small number at the top are paid quite a bit more than the “workers”.

Often times the CEO makes well over 100 times the median employee.

No profits to pay yet we’ve raised $60 million in the past and are about to spend $50 million on a renovation. You’re talking in circles here. I’ve already said the money isn’t there to pay players because it’s spent, yes even at App State, on non-essential items when paying the worker should be priority #1. I also said there’s smart enough minds there, they can figure out how to split the pie.

Yes CEOs are often paid 100s more than the worker, but the worker is paid.

You are also choosing to ignore the key part of the argument in favor paying players their rightful wages. The man who legitimized the system of NOT paying players called the system a sham himself. Again, i don’t know how you can choose to argue against that but here we are.

The free market is at work here. Two parties enter into mutual agreements each year(recruits and schools) on mutually ageeed terms. Some, on the other hand, have chosen other options they deem more equitable... in Europe.

Talking in circles, nope very consistent.

Students are compensated, to argue they aren’t makes all other points null and void. Great examples in earlier posts.

Rightful wages? That is subjective even if there were profits, which there aren’t at our level. Those “non-essential items” weren’t paid for out of profits, they were paid by donations and or debt for those purposes.

If we're going to call them workers then they're going to have to be subject to the same scrutiny other university workers face. Are we sure we want to see a kicker get fired after missing a kick in a big game, or a wide receiver get fired for dropping the winning TD?

I will agree that there may need to be some changes, but making the players employees is not one of them.

Wouldn't the value of all their benefits be taxable? That would add up to a good sized 1099 and one heck of a tax bill.

Yosef10 wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:35 pm

Saint3333 wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:26 pm

At schools like App St I AM telling you that. You are referencing the 40ish football programs that make a profit. What do we pay the other 95% of programs, do those players not get paid and thus those opportunities are forfeited so we can pay 2% of th athletes that play for profitable programs?

Then exclude schools like App State from the conversation if you choose, although even the App State athletic departments of the world could pay their workers if they so prioritized instead of fluff. At the absolute least App State kids should be able to profit from their likeness.

If you can spend $166 million on a facility, as the original post referenced, then you can pay your workers.

Completely agree. Colleges should not be "paying" collegiate athletes to play sports. That is a serious rabbithole no one wants to jump down. Consider it an internship. However, I think the student athletes should get royalties from the sale of their likeness, autographs, jersey sales. This is another rabbithole as big boosters can work the loopholes to lure bigtime athletes, student athletes would need "representation" etc, but is that not happening already? It would hurt the smaller schools, but it is not like the AppSts of the world have a lot of protection from these things anyway.

Yosef10 wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 18, 2018 7:40 pm

Saint3333 wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:47 am

Yosef10 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:01 pm

Saint3333 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:47 pm

When people say they want to pay student athletes, they need to be reminded of all the perks and benefits they receive that the average student does not.

The lifestyle they live while in college will be unattainable at any point in their lives post graduation for 95+% of them.

But they only build facilities like this because they don’t have to pay the players...and then the universities cry broke after they build said facilities. Take a poll and i bet you 99.999% of the players will take say a $30 million facility and some cash in their pockets versus having a $166 million facility.

Maybe that lifestyle post grad would be a little more attainable if they were actually paid for the billions in revenue they generate

They do get some cash in their pocket, the COA was added two years ago. $100k in education costs, a few thousand dollars of spending money each semester, excellent nutrition program, access to world class facilities to train, first cut at all classes and times, tutors. And that is for 300+ athletes at 200+ programs.

I would kill to have my daughters be talented enough to receive such poor treatment 10 years from now.

If we should pay athletes the profit (not revenue, big difference here) they generate, should we ask the athletes in non-revenue sports and athletes are mid-majors to pay a portion of the benefits they receive as they aren't profitable?

The money they bring far outweighs the money they receive. That’s indisputable. All the fluff is cool, though. College athletics is literally the only industry in the country where the talent doesn’t earn its market value in wages but yippee they get a piece of paper after their education is compromised by design. Walter Byers himself, the man who legitimized this current system, said this setup is a sham. I’ll never know why some folks choose to defend it so whole heartedly.

So how much to you pay? Do Alabama starters get paid millions as opposed to Western Carolina players? It’s not a simple as you are making it out to be and for the four years I was broke and ate lots of ramen noodles. I worked hard as a teen and early twenty something and made a career for myself. Once you start paying these kids like they are nfl players, the floodgates will open in the way of lawsuits galore. It’s fine how it is.

Saint3333 wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 20, 2018 11:16 pm

Talking in circles, nope very consistent.

Students are compensated, to argue they aren’t makes all other points null and void. Great examples in earlier posts.

Rightful wages? That is subjective even if there were profits, which there aren’t at our level. Those “non-essential items” weren’t paid for out of profits, they were paid by donations and or debt for those purposes.

I would add that those "non essential" items are what I keep hearing we have to have in order to recruit the players in the first place. Saint is right on the money. The vast majority of schools are not breaking even. I would also add that if you are going to start talking about "profit" you need to exclude student fees. My opinion is you need to leave things alone or you just may open a can that can't be closed.