Printable View
Love the part where the NIL donor, Mr. LifeWallet, says he doesn’t renegotiate, they have a contract. Who knows, as the party who was getting money under the table come out, greed sets in. It will never be enough, even the vast majority of P-5 donors can’t sustain the level of greed coming.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaginScotsman
Even whale donors have their limits. Ruiz is working 111 deals for the Hurricanes. Buyer’s regret? And the programs are caught in the crossfire.
Hard to believe all these donors were purposely holding back their support for their beloved programs all these years or now magically have all this “extra money”
Oh, in this day and age, just wait until one of these deal go really, really, bad...to the level of criminal. Then phone/media records get drawn in, and the emperor (university) gets exposed. Long term, RICO in the making.
This really seems to be a far stretch . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by ZoomZoom
The article I saw didn't say. The sponsor is a female owned Buick dealership who is using the NIL deal as part of her female empowerment ad campaign. I imagine the girls will do ads for the money/cars/whatever, so that could be a year round gig.Quote:
Originally Posted by RougaWhite&Blue
This just makes me want to vomit. Its only the begining of what is to come. And i didnt realize you could have an agent as an amateur athlete.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZoomZoom
I guess you can have an NIL agent.
You guys have on blinders here. This is not about baseball or softball or even about NIL.. What it IS about is forcing all but the richest programs out of FBS football. Let's do a little math here.. there are currently only 4 headcount sports, football, men's basketball, women's basketball and women's volleyball. These account for roughly 130 scholarships with current scholarship limits. In order to play FBS football under current rules, a school must sponsor a minimum of 16 sports, at least 9 of which must be women's sports. Let's assume every school plays all the current headcount sports. Most schools will sponsor baseball, softball, Men's and women's golf, men's and women's tennis, and men's and women's track and cross country. Track and cross country count as 6 sports, currently about 30 scholarships; baseball and softball, currently about 25; golf and tennis, about 25 total. So most schools are now fielding 16 sports with about 230 scholarships. Current rosters for the equivalency sports total about 150 athletes, with about 80 scholarships to divide among them. If this goes through, schools will have to add a minimum of 70 full scholarship equivalents to stay in FBS, 90 if they lift the 85 football limit to 105 [the roster limit, which they will]. Let's not forget that they are talking adding to the permissible coaches number as well. If they add only 1 per sport, that is 10-16 new coaches to be competitive.
Where are most G-5's going to find the money for this? The easiest path is to go FCS, which lowers football to 65 scholarships and sports requirements to 14. But the path that most G-5 conferences will take is to adopt the current rules; remaining with current scholarship limits. This instantly makes it impossible for ANY G-5 to compete with the big boys in football AND in ALL current equivalency sports.
Welcome to the new world order, gentlemen.
Wow, this may be the most informative post in the history of this site. Really opens the eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by VObserver
Some of those rules are known in the back of the mind, but never really put it in that context. More like viewed as those are the rules to move up, never thought about having to maintain it. And really never thought you could get kicked out for giving less scholarships.Quote:
Originally Posted by RougaWhite&Blue
I knew the plan wasnt good, (as i always thought less scholarships was better for competitiveness sake) never trust the P5 to make a plan good for us (as many know) but wow, even they slipped this one past me.
If you tie a few NILs that go really bad to what VO eloquently posted, throw in congressional investigation, RICO isn’t a real stretch. Just have to tie in the universities, and in this day of age of perpetual record keeping, it all blows up.Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunVic
Wait until the greed of the players and unions combine. It’s coming.
So they tried to act like they cared about title ix by throwing money at softball(ive suspected that all along, that it was a loss leader strategy, to drive others out then they could lower their costs when they were only game left in town). then they act like they care about baseball by increasing scholarships(hey its for the player, we need to compete with minors, looking out for the student to get him an education first), but both were rooses, as they are trying to get the competition to drop off, just like when the big man at end of poker table keeps raising the stakes until the others drop off, even though the little man had the better cards.
It costs the school next to nothing to put an another athlete in the classroom or online.
Dorm electricity is the biggest expense.
LUS needs to comp the electricity for athletes as a NIL investment.
Athletes are only expensive to the school on paper.
You keep saying this, but it is patently not true. There are many costs associated with adding athletes that increase costs besides the scholarship, notably insurance to protect the athlete against injury, Besides which, by every accounting system I am familiar with, services provided free are a legitimate expense. I agree that the actual dollar impact is less than the on paper cost, but it is absolutely far from free.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbine
And they count the cost in their “budget” figure when p5 says to g5 hey your “budget” isnt big enough to move up, but also say to g5, no you arent spending that, so your “budget” figure is even that much lower than ours? so they can count it and we cant, thats a double dip!Quote:
Originally Posted by VObserver
and who still lives in the dorm, geez. That was one of the first steps at “separation” under guise of taking care of the athletes, and we all fell for that one hook, line and sinker.
1995, wow….
I am no insurance expert so I don't know how much corporate group policies fluctuate with the addition or subtraction of specific emplyoyees.Quote:
Originally Posted by VObserver
1 athlete could be close to immaterial because there is no added fixed cost and some of the variable costs also do not increase (for instance in meal costs, things like vegetables, Mac and cheese, rice, mashed potatoes there are servings cooked already that now go to waste and would be used). Once the addition of athletes require an adjustment in fixed costs as well as the indicated variable costs, the materiality rises substantially.Quote:
Originally Posted by VObserver
Could a school conceivably have a team in one of the “lesser sports” (i.e. the ones now shown to only exist to fill the quota of 16 and scholarship bodies to qualify for FBS) that is independent and plays no road games/matches/meets/etc. And fill the scholarship spots by placing students already on academic scholarship on those rosters. Play a few glamorized “scrimmages” that qualify as intercollegiate vs some d3 teams maybe with help of a few walkons with no expectation that they wont get crushed? i.e. find the loopholes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cajun Caviar
Do non-scholarship players not eat at training tables now? Do they have to pay for their food?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cajun Caviar
I'm with Turbine here. Adding scholarships to current sports wouldn't cost the school very much. Adding sports and coaches would.
I agree with Esqueleto and Turbine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esqueleto
The question isn't how much it costs the university, it is how much it costs the Athletic Department. Trust me on this one, even if the is zero additional cost to the university, the Athletic Department has to pay the university for those scholarships. Every additional scholarship is a cost to the athletic department in the form of actual money one way or another. Either they cut a check to the U from theAthletic budget, or the university counts the cost as part of institutional support for athletics, and sjubtracts that amount from thee dollars they send athletics.
Its a shell game. Thats why you've never seen a report of a delay in an athletic department paying academics.Quote:
Originally Posted by VObserver
Conversely you've never read a story on how profitable athletics is to the university.
Athletics sponsoring 300-400 academic scholarships annually should generate tons of headlines but it doesn't because the money exchange isn't necessary for survival.
The last time I read a story about athletics cutting a check to a school was TAF making a donation from its surplus.
According to my information, UL Athletics cuts a check to the University every year for the cost of scholarships, or at the very least has the cost of scholarships cut from its funding from the university.
Either way, it is money that Athletics has to pay.
The training table Q is an excellent question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esqueleto