The future of college baseball

[ZoomZoom]

This really seems to be a far stretch . . .

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.

Wait until the greed of the players and unions combine. It’s coming.

[R1Letterman]

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.

[Turbine]

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.

[VObserver]

It costs the school next to nothing to put an anotber 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.

[R1Letterman]

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 lessthan the on paper cost, but it is absolutely far from free.

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!

[R1Letterman]

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….

[Turbine]

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.

I am no insurance expert so I don't know how much corporate group policies fluctuate with the addition or subtraction of specific emplyoyees.

[CajunVic]

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.

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.

[R1Letterman]

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.

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.

[Esqueleto]

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.

Do non-scholarship players not eat at training tables now? Do they have to pay for their food?
I'm with Turbine here. Adding scholarships to current sports wouldn't cost the school very much. Adding sports and coaches would.

[JMV JustMyView]

Do non-scholarship players not eat at training tables now? Do they have to pay for their food?
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.

[VObserver]

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.

[Turbine]

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.

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.

[VObserver]

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.

[R1Letterman]

Do non-scholarship players not eat at training tables now? Do they have to pay for their food?
I'm with Turbine here. Adding scholarships to current sports wouldn't cost the school very much. Adding sports and coaches would.

The training table Q is an excellent question.