Staff Reductions Coming To ADs

[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.

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?

So what’s your point? Baseball sells tickets but it doesn’t generate the revenue that makes it self sufficient. Do we shutter baseball? Not all donors share the same viewpoint as you on a football first structure. There are donors that contribute handsomely to the viability of non revenue sports that likely go away altogether if the program(s) that they support and love go away. The money that Irene Sawyer provides to women’s sports won’t be redistributed to football because it likely goes away. The same goes away for those that support golf, track and the like.

[AtlAppMan]

Let me ask some historical questions about how athletic departments have been funded in the past. I don't know so I am asking for some inputs from folks that are in the know.
How were university athletics funded in 1960's/1970's? same in 80's/90's and again 2000's-2015ish? What or has anything changed from back then? When I was in school in 80's we paid tuition of $500 plus room and board. I know my tuition was not funding much athletics then. Maybe NC state funding flowed and covered athletics via state taxes. There was little to no revenue from ticket sales back then from football and/or basketball. Everybody would just show up for any other sports i.e. baseball/tennis/soccer and watch for free so no revenue there. I know bigger universities i.e. SEC/B1G/PAC/ACC did receive revenue from football and basketball ticket sales 40-50 yrs ago but did it cover all their sports programs?

Where did the money come from in the past and then where is it coming from now?

[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?

So what’s your point? Baseball sells tickets but it doesn’t generate the revenue that makes it self sufficient. Do we shutter baseball? Not all donors share the same viewpoint as you on a football first structure. There are donors that contribute handsomely to the viability of non revenue sports that likely go away altogether if the program(s) that they support and love go away. The money that Irene Sawyer provides to women’s sports won’t be redistributed to football because it likely goes away. The same goes away for those that support golf, track and the like.

When you talk about Irene I am curious how old is she? She might fund a sport now but when she dies will her children still do it? If you are depending on one person and the sport does not generate revenue through tickets, merchandise, TV revenue, etc then at some point that sport will be a drain unless you replace that donor with someone younger.

The whole reason for debate is Title IX and other sports wanting to share revenue. I want to keep all other sports if they are fully funded by a booster and they are not eating up a share of the revenue that the sports who generate revenue bring in. We need the system to be solvent or we will all see losses of things we don't want. Having a CBA appears to be the way to go. I have always thought we should have it and more ADs are now saying so.

[AppStFan1]

Let me ask some historical questions about how athletic departments have been funded in the past. I don't know so I am asking for some inputs from folks that are in the know.
How were university athletics funded in 1960's/1970's? same in 80's/90's and again 2000's-2015ish? What or has anything changed from back then? When I was in school in 80's we paid tuition of $500 plus room and board. I know my tuition was not funding much athletics then. Maybe NC state funding flowed and covered athletics via state taxes. There was little to no revenue from ticket sales back then from football and/or basketball. Everybody would just show up for any other sports i.e. baseball/tennis/soccer and watch for free so no revenue there. I know bigger universities i.e. SEC/B1G/PAC/ACC did receive revenue from football and basketball ticket sales 40-50 yrs ago but did it cover all their sports programs?

Where did the money come from in the past and then where is it coming from now?

My understanding is the big thing that has changed is this pay for play system they call NIL and we have seen inflated staffs due to needing more people for recruiting, the portal, etc. I would be curious to know how much others received from the revenue that football and basketball generate or if most of our secondary sports are fully funded by 1-2 donors for each of them.

[bcoach]

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?

So what’s your point? Baseball sells tickets but it doesn’t generate the revenue that makes it self sufficient. Do we shutter baseball? Not all donors share the same viewpoint as you on a football first structure. There are donors that contribute handsomely to the viability of non revenue sports that likely go away altogether if the program(s) that they support and love go away. The money that Irene Sawyer provides to women’s sports won’t be redistributed to football because it likely goes away. The same goes away for those that support golf, track and the like.

The whole reason for debate is Title IX and other sports wanting to share revenue. I want to keep all other sports if they are fully funded by a booster and they are not eating up a share of the revenue that the sports who generate revenue bring in. We need the system to be solvent or we will all see losses of things we don't want. Having a CBA appears to be the way to go. I have always thought we should have it and more ADs are now saying so.

So how would you feel when they went on strike?

[AppStFan1]

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?

So what’s your point? Baseball sells tickets but it doesn’t generate the revenue that makes it self sufficient. Do we shutter baseball? Not all donors share the same viewpoint as you on a football first structure. There are donors that contribute handsomely to the viability of non revenue sports that likely go away altogether if the program(s) that they support and love go away. The money that Irene Sawyer provides to women’s sports won’t be redistributed to football because it likely goes away. The same goes away for those that support golf, track and the like.

The whole reason for debate is Title IX and other sports wanting to share revenue. I want to keep all other sports if they are fully funded by a booster and they are not eating up a share of the revenue that the sports who generate revenue bring in. We need the system to be solvent or we will all see losses of things we don't want. Having a CBA appears to be the way to go. I have always thought we should have it and more ADs are now saying so.

So how would you feel when they went on strike?

I did not want a CBA a long time ago but it is the only legal way out of this mess with Title IX and revenue sharing. I know a strike would be a risk. Do you think they will be able to strike for too long? I think a strike would hurt players more than fans. Maybe we need to get to the CBA and players have a strike and they can find out the ramifications of doing that.

[BambooRdApp]

Generally, yes, strikes have benefited athletes, primarily in the area of collective bargaining and achieving better working conditions.
Benefits Gained Through Strikes:
Improved Salaries and Benefits: Strikes are often centered around financial issues. Through strikes and negotiations, athletes have secured better salaries, minimum salary limits, and retirement benefits.

[Yosef10]

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

Oh the irony of the AD at the state flagship lobbying for a CBA while said state doesn’t allow public sector employees to unionize.

[AppSt94]

A strike hurts everyone. We are already losing donors who don’t want any part of this NIL. Some, like me stomach it because I want to continue supporting App. But if this current trajectory creates a stoppage of play, then you will lose those folks siting on the fence.

[AppSt94]

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

Oh the irony of the AD at the state flagship lobbying for a CBA while said state doesn’t allow public sector employees to unionize.

Excellent point.

[Mikeyosef1]

This topic is making my head hurt! I find myself less and less interested in anything college sports related these days. I really think all of this is killing the golden goose for athletes; the opportunity to earn a 4 year degree, potentially changing the course of their lives. Very few of these young men and women will ever earn a check as professional athletes after college and only a few will make much money from NIL. Their best bet for a better future is to earn an education out of all of this. Sadly, that is slipping away in the conversation. That's true for all levels of college sports, in every sport. Mainly this whole NIL and Portal thing is there to generate money and opportunity for agents, etc., those not interested one damn bit in what's best for the "student" athlete.

[AppStFan1]

A strike hurts everyone. We are already losing donors who don’t want any part of this NIL. Some, like me stomach it because I want to continue supporting App. But if this current trajectory creates a stoppage of play, then you will lose those folks siting on the fence.

So far it is small numbers that has not really hurt our attendance and that stuff does not hurt the pro level so it will be interesting to see how it effects college. I am prepared for it and I do think it will hurt players more. Schools could play hardball and the players would cave first anyway. Regardless, from a legal standpoint having a CBA is the only way to stop lawsuits. Until we go that route the lawsuits will continue with no end coming soon.

[AppStFan1]

This topic is making my head hurt! I find myself less and less interested in anything college sports related these days. I really think all of this is killing the golden goose for athletes; the opportunity to earn a 4 year degree, potentially changing the course of their lives. Very few of these young men and women will ever earn a check as professional athletes after college and only a few will make much money from NIL. Their best bet for a better future is to earn an education out of all of this. Sadly, that is slipping away in the conversation. That's true for all levels of college sports, in every sport. Mainly this whole NIL and Portal thing is there to generate money and opportunity for agents, etc., those not interested one damn bit in what's best for the "student" athlete.

That is why they are trying to bank what they can now at the expense of dumb fans willing to give big parts of their hard earned money just to feel like they are contributing at a chance for titles. Athletes know this is their big chance. I agree with the thought on this and yes the people who are making money off the portal and NIL are doing it for themselves and don't care one bit about the athletes.

Did you know there are agents out there who are simply scouting non FBS schools just for players they can get in their ears and shop them to FBS schools to make themselves money? They are nothing but leeches who are destroying the small school talent pool every year.

[AppSt94]

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?

So what’s your point? Baseball sells tickets but it doesn’t generate the revenue that makes it self sufficient. Do we shutter baseball? Not all donors share the same viewpoint as you on a football first structure. There are donors that contribute handsomely to the viability of non revenue sports that likely go away altogether if the program(s) that they support and love go away. The money that Irene Sawyer provides to women’s sports won’t be redistributed to football because it likely goes away. The same goes away for those that support golf, track and the like.

When you talk about Irene I am curious how old is she? She might fund a sport now but when she dies will her children still do it? If you are depending on one person and the sport does not generate revenue through tickets, merchandise, TV revenue, etc then at some point that sport will be a drain unless you replace that donor with someone younger.

The whole reason for debate is Title IX and other sports wanting to share revenue. I want to keep all other sports if they are fully funded by a booster and they are not eating up a share of the revenue that the sports who generate revenue bring in. We need the system to be solvent or we will all see losses of things we don't want. Having a CBA appears to be the way to go. I have always thought we should have it and more ADs are now saying so.

I brought her up because she spends a lot of money a time fundraising for women’s sports. She does not give enough to fund them. It is not the responsibility of any donor to fund a budget for a sport. Donations are subsidies given out of generosity. There isn’t a single sport at App, including football that can survive on its own revenue.

Football generates roughly $2 million in season ticket sales and another $5.4 million in individual ticket sales These are rough numbers based on 8k season tickets at $250 per and 12,000 individual game tickets at an average of $75 per seat per game. That is roughly $7.4 million. That doesn’t cover the football budget.

I’m sorry, but what you “want” is purely selfish in that it is completely football driven. You aren’t an App supporter, you are an App Football supporter with a thinly veiled “I want to keep all sports” if someone else pays for it.

Getting rid of everything that can’t find additional support on their own is like Michael Jordan playing a game of 5 on 1. Sure he is the best player but who’s going to inbound the ball to him?

[Mikeyosef1]

This topic is making my head hurt! I find myself less and less interested in anything college sports related these days. I really think all of this is killing the golden goose for athletes; the opportunity to earn a 4 year degree, potentially changing the course of their lives. Very few of these young men and women will ever earn a check as professional athletes after college and only a few will make much money from NIL. Their best bet for a better future is to earn an education out of all of this. Sadly, that is slipping away in the conversation. That's true for all levels of college sports, in every sport. Mainly this whole NIL and Portal thing is there to generate money and opportunity for agents, etc., those not interested one damn bit in what's best for the "student" athlete.

That is why they are trying to bank what they can now at the expense of dumb fans willing to give big parts of their hard earned money just to feel like they are contributing at a chance for titles. Athletes know this is their big chance. I agree with the thought on this and yes the people who are making money off the portal and NIL are doing it for themselves and don't care one bit about the athletes.

Did you know there are agents out there who are simply scouting non FBS schools just for players they can get in their ears and shop them to FBS schools to make themselves money? They are nothing but leeches who are destroying the small school talent pool every year.

And, there's no regulation like there is in professional sports. College agents are incentivized more that professional agents. This is all so FUBARed

[t4pizza]

A strike hurts everyone. We are already losing donors who don’t want any part of this NIL. Some, like me stomach it because I want to continue supporting App. But if this current trajectory creates a stoppage of play, then you will lose those folks siting on the fence.

So far it is small numbers that has not really hurt our attendance and that stuff does not hurt the pro level so it will be interesting to see how it effects college. I am prepared for it and I do think it will hurt players more. Schools could play hardball and the players would cave first anyway. Regardless, from a legal standpoint having a CBA is the only way to stop lawsuits. Until we go that route the lawsuits will continue with no end coming soon.

It is not the only way for the lawsuits to stop. An anti trust exemption from Congress would stop all lawsuits since every lawsuit now is aimed at the monopolistic practices and how they hurt the student/athlete. With an anti trust exemption, there is not issue of monopolistic practices harming anyone because the US government has allowed the organization to do it, therefore it is not illegal and nothing to sue about.

[BambooRdApp]

Do strikes really hurt the players? Maybe short run while on strike. Seems NFL, NBA and MLB players getting paid more after each strike.

[AppStFan1]

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?

So what’s your point? Baseball sells tickets but it doesn’t generate the revenue that makes it self sufficient. Do we shutter baseball? Not all donors share the same viewpoint as you on a football first structure. There are donors that contribute handsomely to the viability of non revenue sports that likely go away altogether if the program(s) that they support and love go away. The money that Irene Sawyer provides to women’s sports won’t be redistributed to football because it likely goes away. The same goes away for those that support golf, track and the like.

When you talk about Irene I am curious how old is she? She might fund a sport now but when she dies will her children still do it? If you are depending on one person and the sport does not generate revenue through tickets, merchandise, TV revenue, etc then at some point that sport will be a drain unless you replace that donor with someone younger.

The whole reason for debate is Title IX and other sports wanting to share revenue. I want to keep all other sports if they are fully funded by a booster and they are not eating up a share of the revenue that the sports who generate revenue bring in. We need the system to be solvent or we will all see losses of things we don't want. Having a CBA appears to be the way to go. I have always thought we should have it and more ADs are now saying so.

I brought her up because she spends a lot of money a time fundraising for women’s sports. She does not give enough to fund them. It is not the responsibility of any donor to fund a budget for a sport. Donations are subsidies given out of generosity. There isn’t a single sport at App, including football that can survive on its own revenue.

Football generates roughly $2 million in season ticket sales and another $5.4 million in individual ticket sales These are rough numbers based on 8k season tickets at $250 per and 12,000 individual game tickets at an average of $75 per seat per game. That is roughly $7.4 million. That doesn’t cover the football budget.

I’m sorry, but what you “want” is purely selfish in that it is completely football driven. You aren’t an App supporter, you are an App Football supporter with a thinly veiled “I want to keep all sports” if someone else pays for it.

Getting rid of everything that can’t find additional support on their own is like Michael Jordan playing a game of 5 on 1. Sure he is the best player but who’s going to inbound the ball to him?

Can you provide a link with those exact numbers?

I am not an App football only supporter. I do think football, basketball, and baseball should drive most decisions but it is good to have other sports for more athletes. Those happen to be my 3 favorite sports but they are the money sports. They should carry the most weight.

[AppStFan1]

This topic is making my head hurt! I find myself less and less interested in anything college sports related these days. I really think all of this is killing the golden goose for athletes; the opportunity to earn a 4 year degree, potentially changing the course of their lives. Very few of these young men and women will ever earn a check as professional athletes after college and only a few will make much money from NIL. Their best bet for a better future is to earn an education out of all of this. Sadly, that is slipping away in the conversation. That's true for all levels of college sports, in every sport. Mainly this whole NIL and Portal thing is there to generate money and opportunity for agents, etc., those not interested one damn bit in what's best for the "student" athlete.

That is why they are trying to bank what they can now at the expense of dumb fans willing to give big parts of their hard earned money just to feel like they are contributing at a chance for titles. Athletes know this is their big chance. I agree with the thought on this and yes the people who are making money off the portal and NIL are doing it for themselves and don't care one bit about the athletes.

Did you know there are agents out there who are simply scouting non FBS schools just for players they can get in their ears and shop them to FBS schools to make themselves money? They are nothing but leeches who are destroying the small school talent pool every year.

And, there's no regulation like there is in professional sports. College agents are incentivized more that professional agents. This is all so FUBARed

Having a CBA would bring more regulation with agents as well. There would be a CFPA (College Football Player's Association) and they could make regulations on agents so they can't charge 20%, have fees for agents, player fees to be a member of the union, etc) and stop a lot of the craziness that is going on with agents. They could require them to pass a test and have standards of what you have to be in general to even apply to take the test to become an agent.

[AppStFan1]

A strike hurts everyone. We are already losing donors who don’t want any part of this NIL. Some, like me stomach it because I want to continue supporting App. But if this current trajectory creates a stoppage of play, then you will lose those folks siting on the fence.

So far it is small numbers that has not really hurt our attendance and that stuff does not hurt the pro level so it will be interesting to see how it effects college. I am prepared for it and I do think it will hurt players more. Schools could play hardball and the players would cave first anyway. Regardless, from a legal standpoint having a CBA is the only way to stop lawsuits. Until we go that route the lawsuits will continue with no end coming soon.

It is not the only way for the lawsuits to stop. An anti trust exemption from Congress would stop all lawsuits since every lawsuit now is aimed at the monopolistic practices and how they hurt the student/athlete. With an anti trust exemption, there is not issue of monopolistic practices harming anyone because the US government has allowed the organization to do it, therefore it is not illegal and nothing to sue about.

I did not bring that up because that is a given. You would need to have a Collective Bargaining Agreement to begin with. Without the antitrust exemption the CBA would be illegal and could be challenged. I am essentially saying college football will have to do exactly what we have in the NFL. Without antitrust we could not have a CBA because technically a salary cap, draft, etc are all illegal.