Staff Reductions Coming To ADs

[AppStFan1]

I think we are at the NCAA minimum number of teams required for D1 membership or FBS membership, I’m not certain. There have been discussions about lowering that number which is 16 or 17 . Until then we will have that number. And football will be far and away the first priority.

This, And cutting golf seems the most likely of casualties saves you maybe $500k.

500k would allow you to adequately fund personnel department and give a deserving raise to a very good strength coach or 500k would give a big boost in NIL where you could go get 3-4 high level players.

[bcoach]

First this nutty thought that football is a cash cow really needs to stop. Second folks need to realize that revenue sharing is not profit sharing. There is no profit. Revenue sharing is just adding more expense to a bottom line that has been suffering. Paying players was is and always will be a bad idea. Third people had to be living under a rock to think this was going to work out well.

[bcoach]

This information tells me three things
1. I can't afford to work there
2. We are very, very lucky that there are those that will
3. There is a glaring mistake/shortfall in the Yosef section

After receiving a couple phone calls let me clarify. Raising major funds is not a $50K job. It is at the very least three time that. And a healthy expens account.

[AppStFan1]

First this nutty thought that football is a cash cow really needs to stop. Second folks need to realize that revenue sharing is not profit sharing. There is no profit. Revenue sharing is just adding more expense to a bottom line that has been suffering. Paying players was is and always will be a bad idea. Third people had to be living under a rock to think this was going to work out well.

I agree with you that of course it was and is a bad idea. A lot of D1 programs will either dismantle football or drop down to D3 because it is. Most of us knew it would not work out well but we have idealists who also think because head coaches make big money that every player can as well.

[AppSt94]

I think we are at the NCAA minimum number of teams required for D1 membership or FBS membership, I’m not certain. There have been discussions about lowering that number which is 16 or 17 . Until then we will have that number. And football will be far and away the first priority.

This, And cutting golf seems the most likely of casualties saves you maybe $500k.

500k would allow you to adequately fund personnel department and give a deserving raise to a very good strength coach or 500k would give a big boost in NIL where you could go get 3-4 high level players.

Again. Your end game is to kill anything that gets in the way of football. That’s not how this works.

[appst89]

I think we are at the NCAA minimum number of teams required for D1 membership or FBS membership, I’m not certain. There have been discussions about lowering that number which is 16 or 17 . Until then we will have that number. And football will be far and away the first priority.

This, And cutting golf seems the most likely of casualties saves you maybe $500k.

500k would allow you to adequately fund personnel department and give a deserving raise to a very good strength coach or 500k would give a big boost in NIL where you could go get 3-4 high level players.

Again. Your end game is to kill anything that gets in the way of football. That’s not how this works.

I think we can all agree that isn't how it should work, but it's exactly how it's going to play out at a lot of lower P4 and a whole lot of G6. Many, many Olympic sports, and maybe everything but football, are going to be sacrificed at the altar of professional college football.

[AppSt94]

I think we are at the NCAA minimum number of teams required for D1 membership or FBS membership, I’m not certain. There have been discussions about lowering that number which is 16 or 17 . Until then we will have that number. And football will be far and away the first priority.

This, And cutting golf seems the most likely of casualties saves you maybe $500k.

500k would allow you to adequately fund personnel department and give a deserving raise to a very good strength coach or 500k would give a big boost in NIL where you could go get 3-4 high level players.

Again. Your end game is to kill anything that gets in the way of football. That’s not how this works.

I think we can all agree that isn't how it should work, but it's exactly how it's going to play out at a lot of lower P4 and a whole lot of G6. Many, many Olympic sports, and maybe everything but football, are going to be sacrificed at the altar of professional college football.

It’s trending that way for sure, but until it does, if it does, we can’t cut off opportunities to true student athletes. At some point the schools and the federal government will come into play if Title IX is compromised. The only ones that are going to win in this instance is going to be the lawyers.

[appst89]

This, And cutting golf seems the most likely of casualties saves you maybe $500k.

500k would allow you to adequately fund personnel department and give a deserving raise to a very good strength coach or 500k would give a big boost in NIL where you could go get 3-4 high level players.

Again. Your end game is to kill anything that gets in the way of football. That’s not how this works.

I think we can all agree that isn't how it should work, but it's exactly how it's going to play out at a lot of lower P4 and a whole lot of G6. Many, many Olympic sports, and maybe everything but football, are going to be sacrificed at the altar of professional college football.

It’s trending that way for sure, but until it does, if it does, we can’t cut off opportunities to true student athletes. At some point the schools and the federal government will come into play if Title IX is compromised. The only ones that are going to win in this instance is going to be the lawyers.

Title IX is going to be interesting. Most of the legal analysts I've heard believe that Title IX does not apply to revenue sharing, but there is no doubt it will be widely litigated.

You say we can't cut off opportunity, but that is exactly what is going to happen. I agree that we shouldn't, but I see a lot of schools letting a lot of blood of non-revenue sports and doing irreparable damage before they realize that they simply cannot compete in this world.

[ASUFan4863]

There are a lot more people who care & complain when a sport is cut than people who care about supporting the sport when it’s active.

That statement isn’t to talk down on anyone but I haven’t seen many people advocating for financially supporting the golf program in the past. If you want to make a difference and keep these non-revenue sports, earmark your YC donations to them.

[hapapp]

There are a lot more people who care & complain when a sport is cut than people who care about supporting the sport when it’s active.

That statement isn’t to talk down on anyone but I haven’t seen many people advocating for financially supporting the golf program in the past. If you want to make a difference and keep these non-revenue sports, earmark your YC donations to them.

It's my understanding that the golf program does get a lot of non-university funding.

[AppSt94]

There are a lot more people who care & complain when a sport is cut than people who care about supporting the sport when it’s active.

That statement isn’t to talk down on anyone but I haven’t seen many people advocating for financially supporting the golf program in the past. If you want to make a difference and keep these non-revenue sports, earmark your YC donations to them.

It's my understanding that the golf program does get a lot of non-university funding.

It does. Those vans and last seasons trip to Stanford for a tournament were funded by a donor.

[AppSt94]

500k would allow you to adequately fund personnel department and give a deserving raise to a very good strength coach or 500k would give a big boost in NIL where you could go get 3-4 high level players.

Again. Your end game is to kill anything that gets in the way of football. That’s not how this works.

I think we can all agree that isn't how it should work, but it's exactly how it's going to play out at a lot of lower P4 and a whole lot of G6. Many, many Olympic sports, and maybe everything but football, are going to be sacrificed at the altar of professional college football.

It’s trending that way for sure, but until it does, if it does, we can’t cut off opportunities to true student athletes. At some point the schools and the federal government will come into play if Title IX is compromised. The only ones that are going to win in this instance is going to be the lawyers.

Title IX is going to be interesting. Most of the legal analysts I've heard believe that Title IX does not apply to revenue sharing, but there is no doubt it will be widely litigated.

You say we can't cut off opportunity, but that is exactly what is going to happen. I agree that we shouldn't, but I see a lot of schools letting a lot of blood of non-revenue sports and doing irreparable damage before they realize that they simply cannot compete in this world.

Title IX is a requirement that must be met for federal funding. If schools lose federal dollars that benefit academia because of athletics then it could get really ugly.

I’d check the House Settlement as I believe that money distribution from the schools has to be appropriated across both genders.

[appst89]

Again. Your end game is to kill anything that gets in the way of football. That’s not how this works.

I think we can all agree that isn't how it should work, but it's exactly how it's going to play out at a lot of lower P4 and a whole lot of G6. Many, many Olympic sports, and maybe everything but football, are going to be sacrificed at the altar of professional college football.

It’s trending that way for sure, but until it does, if it does, we can’t cut off opportunities to true student athletes. At some point the schools and the federal government will come into play if Title IX is compromised. The only ones that are going to win in this instance is going to be the lawyers.

Title IX is going to be interesting. Most of the legal analysts I've heard believe that Title IX does not apply to revenue sharing, but there is no doubt it will be widely litigated.

You say we can't cut off opportunity, but that is exactly what is going to happen. I agree that we shouldn't, but I see a lot of schools letting a lot of blood of non-revenue sports and doing irreparable damage before they realize that they simply cannot compete in this world.

Title IX is a requirement that must be met for federal funding. If schools lose federal dollars that benefit academia because of athletics then it could get really ugly.

I’d check the House Settlement as I believe that money distribution from the schools has to be appropriated across both genders.

Yep, I know what Title IX is. The House Settlement has not been collectively bargained. Taking revenue from those who generate it and forcing them to give it to someone else restricts the ability of the athletes to make money. SCOTUS has already said the NCAA cannot do that. So, Title IX is going to clash with Antitrust laws and nobody knows where it is going to land. I'm certainly not an attorney, but I've listened to a lot of discussion about this. It is absolutely not settled and will have to be decided in court, likely SCOTUS, because it pits two federal laws directly against one another.

[AppSt94]

I think we can all agree that isn't how it should work, but it's exactly how it's going to play out at a lot of lower P4 and a whole lot of G6. Many, many Olympic sports, and maybe everything but football, are going to be sacrificed at the altar of professional college football.

It’s trending that way for sure, but until it does, if it does, we can’t cut off opportunities to true student athletes. At some point the schools and the federal government will come into play if Title IX is compromised. The only ones that are going to win in this instance is going to be the lawyers.

Title IX is going to be interesting. Most of the legal analysts I've heard believe that Title IX does not apply to revenue sharing, but there is no doubt it will be widely litigated.

You say we can't cut off opportunity, but that is exactly what is going to happen. I agree that we shouldn't, but I see a lot of schools letting a lot of blood of non-revenue sports and doing irreparable damage before they realize that they simply cannot compete in this world.

Title IX is a requirement that must be met for federal funding. If schools lose federal dollars that benefit academia because of athletics then it could get really ugly.

I’d check the House Settlement as I believe that money distribution from the schools has to be appropriated across both genders.

Yep, I know what Title IX is. The House Settlement has not been collectively bargained. Taking revenue from those who generate it and forcing them to give it to someone else restricts the ability of the athletes to make money. SCOTUS has already said the NCAA cannot do that. So, Title IX is going to clash with Antitrust laws and nobody knows where it is going to land. I'm certainly not an attorney, but I've listened to a lot of discussion about this. It is absolutely not settled and will have to be decided in court, likely SCOTUS, because it pits two federal laws directly against one another.

It wasn’t my intent to insinuate that you didn’t know what the House Settlement is.

[appst89]

It’s trending that way for sure, but until it does, if it does, we can’t cut off opportunities to true student athletes. At some point the schools and the federal government will come into play if Title IX is compromised. The only ones that are going to win in this instance is going to be the lawyers.

Title IX is going to be interesting. Most of the legal analysts I've heard believe that Title IX does not apply to revenue sharing, but there is no doubt it will be widely litigated.

You say we can't cut off opportunity, but that is exactly what is going to happen. I agree that we shouldn't, but I see a lot of schools letting a lot of blood of non-revenue sports and doing irreparable damage before they realize that they simply cannot compete in this world.

Title IX is a requirement that must be met for federal funding. If schools lose federal dollars that benefit academia because of athletics then it could get really ugly.

I’d check the House Settlement as I believe that money distribution from the schools has to be appropriated across both genders.

Yep, I know what Title IX is. The House Settlement has not been collectively bargained. Taking revenue from those who generate it and forcing them to give it to someone else restricts the ability of the athletes to make money. SCOTUS has already said the NCAA cannot do that. So, Title IX is going to clash with Antitrust laws and nobody knows where it is going to land. I'm certainly not an attorney, but I've listened to a lot of discussion about this. It is absolutely not settled and will have to be decided in court, likely SCOTUS, because it pits two federal laws directly against one another.

It wasn’t my intent to insinuate that you didn’t know what the House Settlement is.

Unionization fixes it. I'm not sure there is any other solution. Too many genies have been let out of too many bottles. That is most definitely not the outcome I want to see, but I believe it is the inevitable outcome.

[ASUFan4863]

There are a lot more people who care & complain when a sport is cut than people who care about supporting the sport when it’s active.

That statement isn’t to talk down on anyone but I haven’t seen many people advocating for financially supporting the golf program in the past. If you want to make a difference and keep these non-revenue sports, earmark your YC donations to them.

It's my understanding that the golf program does get a lot of non-university funding.

It does. Those vans and last seasons trip to Stanford for a tournament were funded by a donor.

Thank you for making my point for me. Right now there are a literal handful of people supporting the program financially. There would be hundreds, maybe thousands, mad if the program were cut that never thought to support it themselves.

[Stonewall]

There are a lot more people who care & complain when a sport is cut than people who care about supporting the sport when it’s active.

That statement isn’t to talk down on anyone but I haven’t seen many people advocating for financially supporting the golf program in the past. If you want to make a difference and keep these non-revenue sports, earmark your YC donations to them.

It's my understanding that the golf program does get a lot of non-university funding.

You are correct. Golf alumni contribute at a high level.

[AppSt94]

There are a lot more people who care & complain when a sport is cut than people who care about supporting the sport when it’s active.

That statement isn’t to talk down on anyone but I haven’t seen many people advocating for financially supporting the golf program in the past. If you want to make a difference and keep these non-revenue sports, earmark your YC donations to them.

It's my understanding that the golf program does get a lot of non-university funding.

It does. Those vans and last seasons trip to Stanford for a tournament were funded by a donor.

Thank you for making my point for me. Right now there are a literal handful of people supporting the program financially. There would be hundreds, maybe thousands, mad if the program were cut that never thought to support it themselves.

Yep. That trip cost around $35k as I was told. That is definitely an investment.

Along those same lines but not really a sport that would be in danger is baseball. Don Phillips and Governor Byars spend a great deal on baseball.

[AppStFan1]

There are a lot more people who care & complain when a sport is cut than people who care about supporting the sport when it’s active.

That statement isn’t to talk down on anyone but I haven’t seen many people advocating for financially supporting the golf program in the past. If you want to make a difference and keep these non-revenue sports, earmark your YC donations to them.

It's my understanding that the golf program does get a lot of non-university funding.

It does. Those vans and last seasons trip to Stanford for a tournament were funded by a donor.

It is a booster who loves golf and basically keeps the program afloat because they love it, right? It is not because they are selling out matches and drawing revenue from crowds or TV money, correct?

[AppStFan1]

Title IX is going to be interesting. Most of the legal analysts I've heard believe that Title IX does not apply to revenue sharing, but there is no doubt it will be widely litigated.

You say we can't cut off opportunity, but that is exactly what is going to happen. I agree that we shouldn't, but I see a lot of schools letting a lot of blood of non-revenue sports and doing irreparable damage before they realize that they simply cannot compete in this world.

Title IX is a requirement that must be met for federal funding. If schools lose federal dollars that benefit academia because of athletics then it could get really ugly.

I’d check the House Settlement as I believe that money distribution from the schools has to be appropriated across both genders.

Yep, I know what Title IX is. The House Settlement has not been collectively bargained. Taking revenue from those who generate it and forcing them to give it to someone else restricts the ability of the athletes to make money. SCOTUS has already said the NCAA cannot do that. So, Title IX is going to clash with Antitrust laws and nobody knows where it is going to land. I'm certainly not an attorney, but I've listened to a lot of discussion about this. It is absolutely not settled and will have to be decided in court, likely SCOTUS, because it pits two federal laws directly against one another.

It wasn’t my intent to insinuate that you didn’t know what the House Settlement is.

Unionization fixes it. I'm not sure there is any other solution. Too many genies have been let out of too many bottles. That is most definitely not the outcome I want to see, but I believe it is the inevitable outcome.

Funny you say that. I have had that talk with a couple people on here before and this article on Yahoo Sports today talks about ADs now pushing it. These players must be labeled as employees and have a CBA. Because of Title IX and the demands for revenue sharing it is the only way to go.

Here is the article: https://sports.yahoo.com/college-footba ... 29195.html