F the NCAA

[twocoach]

in the sec's new media contract it will be stipulated "no more school for the athletes."

the big 10 will follow.

no more school for the athletes is the natural progression.

OK, we'll see.

[Deleted User 863]

Are these kids not attending class or being involved in the University? Those things haven't changed at all.

they will eventually take the going to school part of the equation out of the equation. how can they not. we are going to have kids flying all over the country, coast to coast. 2-3-4-5-6 game road trips. how can they be expected to study. in between road trips and home games they got commercials to cut. appearances to make. they got contracts.

they will eventually take the going to class part right out of the equation.

They already only have to stay eligible for a few months anyway if they are one and done.

Is it the NCAA who has academic eligibility requirements or individual schools and conferences?

Kevin Durant failed every single 2nd semester class iirc.

[pdub]

So what would be an acceptable amount for an athlete to receive in order to be considered the same as other students and not have it be considered pro sports?

viewtopic.php?p=113835#p113835

"I'm not an expert in business.
Find a medium where shoe companies can help fund the programs but not to the tune of 15 million dollars a year.
I don't have the solve - just like it would difficult to solve how to pay college players through the schools - I just know I lean more towards college being an amateur sport ( less money in basketball rather than more )."

"If you don't value the things that college basketball provides, which at its heart should be an education ( regardless of what it is now and that's a big part of what I'm arguing - so i'm not going "miss you" with the "nonsense" ) in basketball and in whatever you decide to become, then the argument is moot.

Getting to go to school completely free, no cost to anyone in your family, is very valuable."

"I go to a hole in the wall local pub ( or used to pre-covid ) because I like the people.
If the local pub gets a new more expensive menu, a big loud digital jukebox, installs a dance floor and a bunch of new clientele come in who I don't vibe with, i'll find a different pub.

Some people who love that pub won't care if the pub has changed - it's still the pub in name for them - and that's fine too.

And the pub ain't perfect. There are things i'd change. But i'd rather it not have the big loud digital jukebox."

[Deleted User 863]

most colleges and universities are nonprofit entities. state universities and community colleges are usually (if not always) nonprofit. many private colleges are also nonprofit. why on earth do they need such "revenue expansion"? and, more importantly, should what they do w/ that revenue matter to individuals that have contributed considerable amounts to them?

do i need to break out the charts that show how it 1. hasn't lowered tuition for students; or 2. increased salaries for professors? in fact, both are going in the wrong directions at staggering rates as colleges and boards of regents nationally seem to have bought in to this idea that revenue/bottom line is the primary concern rather than quality of the product or staff satisfaction.

one example (thanks, Google): in 1969, 80 percent of professors in America were tenured or on a tenure track. today, around 75 percent of faculty are adjuncts or not on the tenure track. this means a higher rate of university faculty has less job security, and receives lower pay and fewer-to-no benefits.

at this point, we're used to conglomerates taking over and ever-expanding their product markets, but its beyond me why universities would join in that, or be the biggest landowners in the state, or holders of hedge funds worth billions from endowments, etc.

feels like we've lost the plot, but maybe its just me and pdub...

Good points.

Is Bill Self the highest paid employee for KU? My guess is yes.

[CrimsonNBlue]

Are these kids not attending class or being involved in the University? Those things haven't changed at all.

they will eventually take the going to school part of the equation out of the equation. how can they not. we are going to have kids flying all over the country, coast to coast. 2-3-4-5-6 game road trips. how can they be expected to study. in between road trips and home games they got commercials to cut. appearances to make. they got contracts.

they will eventually take the going to class part right out of the equation.

They've been missing a shit ton of classes for decades now, particularly basketball players.

Who would have thought that turning college athletics into a billion dollar industry would fundamentally change the institution.

[MICHHAWK]

the university's are now just sponsors. they are sponsors of pro teams.

[CrimsonNBlue]

most colleges and universities are nonprofit entities. state universities and community colleges are usually (if not always) nonprofit. many private colleges are also nonprofit. why on earth do they need such "revenue expansion"? and, more importantly, should what they do w/ that revenue matter to individuals that have contributed considerable amounts to them?

do i need to break out the charts that show how it 1. hasn't lowered tuition for students; or 2. increased salaries for professors? in fact, both are going in the wrong directions at staggering rates as colleges and boards of regents nationally seem to have bought in to this idea that revenue/bottom line is the primary concern rather than quality of the product or staff satisfaction.

one example (thanks, Google): in 1969, 80 percent of professors in America were tenured or on a tenure track. today, around 75 percent of faculty are adjuncts or not on the tenure track. this means a higher rate of university faculty has less job security, and receives lower pay and fewer-to-no benefits.

at this point, we're used to conglomerates taking over and ever-expanding their product markets, but its beyond me why universities would join in that, or be the biggest landowners in the state, or holders of hedge funds worth billions from endowments, etc.

feels like we've lost the plot, but maybe its just me and pdub...

Good points.

Is Bill Self the highest paid employee for KU? My guess is yes.

No. It goes to my earlier post in response to this one: Bill Self is not a University or state employee. His LLC is paid by KUAI.

The highest paid KU employee, I would guess, would either be Doug Girod or Travis Goff.

The B-School Dean (or another Dean) might also be up there.

[pdub]

the university's are now just sponsors. they are sponsors of pro teams.

It's not there yet but give it, say, 5 years.

[hoopla]

1. i agree i did move the needle on the argument, noted as much in my last post (and, tbh, it was beaten to death already); and

2. thanks ND and cascadia for acknowledging the validity of of the issue, was wondering if i was about to join pdub at the end of the beat-up line... however, IMO, it is exactly on point for this thread, you can't divorce the flawed/fraud/facade from the system that permits and encourages it without wondering "why". i mean, the thread title is F the NCAA, is it not, i.e. F the organization of member universities, no? what is in it for the uni/regents/decision-makers?

my opinion on this would change a lot if, for instance, the uni used some of the money to cover everyone's tuition. at least then there would be a linear path between the mission and the revenue.

"The mission of the University of Kansas is to lift students and society by educating leaders, building healthy communities and making discoveries that change the world."

[Deleted User 863]

most colleges and universities are nonprofit entities. state universities and community colleges are usually (if not always) nonprofit. many private colleges are also nonprofit. why on earth do they need such "revenue expansion"? and, more importantly, should what they do w/ that revenue matter to individuals that have contributed considerable amounts to them?

do i need to break out the charts that show how it 1. hasn't lowered tuition for students; or 2. increased salaries for professors? in fact, both are going in the wrong directions at staggering rates as colleges and boards of regents nationally seem to have bought in to this idea that revenue/bottom line is the primary concern rather than quality of the product or staff satisfaction.

one example (thanks, Google): in 1969, 80 percent of professors in America were tenured or on a tenure track. today, around 75 percent of faculty are adjuncts or not on the tenure track. this means a higher rate of university faculty has less job security, and receives lower pay and fewer-to-no benefits.

at this point, we're used to conglomerates taking over and ever-expanding their product markets, but its beyond me why universities would join in that, or be the biggest landowners in the state, or holders of hedge funds worth billions from endowments, etc.

feels like we've lost the plot, but maybe its just me and pdub...

Good points.

Is Bill Self the highest paid employee for KU? My guess is yes.

No. It goes to my earlier post in response to this one: Bill Self is not a University or state employee. His LLC is paid by KUAI.

The highest paid KU employee, I would guess, would either be Doug Girod or Travis Goff.

The B-School Dean (or another Dean) might also be up there.

Thanks!

So KU Athletics Inc is the franchise who runs our pro sports teams.

[Deleted User 863]

the university's are now just sponsors. they are sponsors of pro teams.

It's not there yet but give it, say, 5 years.

If KU Athletics Inc exists then I'd say it's maybe already there?

[NDballer13]

So what would be an acceptable amount for an athlete to receive in order to be considered the same as other students and not have it be considered pro sports?

viewtopic.php?p=113835#p113835

"I'm not an expert in business.
Find a medium where shoe companies can help fund the programs but not to the tune of 15 million dollars a year.
I don't have the solve - just like it would difficult to solve how to pay college players through the schools - I just know I lean more towards college being an amateur sport ( less money in basketball rather than more )."

"If you don't value the things that college basketball provides, which at its heart should be an education ( regardless of what it is now and that's a big part of what I'm arguing - so i'm not going "miss you" with the "nonsense" ) in basketball and in whatever you decide to become, then the argument is moot.

Getting to go to school completely free, no cost to anyone in your family, is very valuable."

"I go to a hole in the wall local pub ( or used to pre-covid ) because I like the people.
If the local pub gets a new more expensive menu, a big loud digital jukebox, installs a dance floor and a bunch of new clientele come in who I don't vibe with, i'll find a different pub.

Some people who love that pub won't care if the pub has changed - it's still the pub in name for them - and that's fine too.

And the pub ain't perfect. There are things i'd change. But i'd rather it not have the big loud digital jukebox."

An education is still provided though. That didn't change.

Your example about the pub is also flawed too. Has watching a game on TV or in AFH changed from pre-NIL to the current experience? I certainly haven't noticed any change. Fans are the same. Cameras are the same. In game sights and sounds are the same.

[pdub]

1. i agree i did move the needle on the argument, noted as much in my last post (and, tbh, it was beaten to death already); and

2. thanks ND and cascadia for acknowledging the validity of of the issue, was wondering if i was about to join pdub at the end of the beat-up line... however, IMO, it is exactly on point for this thread, you can't divorce the flawed/fraud/facade from the system that permits and encourages it without wondering "why". i mean, the thread title is F the NCAA, is it not, i.e. F the organization of member universities, no? what is in it for the uni/regents/decision-makers?

my opinion on this would change a lot if, for instance, the uni used some of the money to cover everyone's tuition. at least then there would be a linear path between the mission and the revenue.

"The mission of the University of Kansas is to lift students and society by educating leaders, building healthy communities and making discoveries that change the world."

Yup.
I said this a ways back,
"The issue is the NCAA, if they want to maintain amateurism, need to figure out how to keep a stable business while also putting their 'money where their mouth' is -- and find the trouble spots and separate them from college basketball even if it means making less profit."

[jfish26]

The players are being recruited and paid by wealthy individuals ( yes, the people in the collectives are wealthy ) to play at the schools.
It is different than any 'kid with a job', obviously, or there wouldn't be this kind of discussion about it.

You want professional basketball in college towns.
I want college basketball.

You want KC Phogushers.
I want KU Jayhawks.

I assume that some collective participants are wealthy. I assume others aren't. I'm not sure what difference it makes.

A kid in business school can take whatever job he wants, from whomever he wants, while in school. Doesn't lose his scholarship, or his @ku.edu, or his workspace(s) in campus buildings, whatever. It's just a normal and unremarkable thing that happens in the ordinary course.

There is simply NOT a fundamental distinction between that, and athletes. Just bigger numbers and more publicity.

Again, nobody is saying that all the cool stuff that comes along with being a KU basketball player - from the scholarship to the room and board to the stipend to the facilities to the publicity to the travel arrangements to the popularity and on and on and on - is without value.

Not one person has ever said that, straw man arguments to the contrary notwithstanding.

[pdub]

So what would be an acceptable amount for an athlete to receive in order to be considered the same as other students and not have it be considered pro sports?

viewtopic.php?p=113835#p113835

"I'm not an expert in business.
Find a medium where shoe companies can help fund the programs but not to the tune of 15 million dollars a year.
I don't have the solve - just like it would difficult to solve how to pay college players through the schools - I just know I lean more towards college being an amateur sport ( less money in basketball rather than more )."

"If you don't value the things that college basketball provides, which at its heart should be an education ( regardless of what it is now and that's a big part of what I'm arguing - so i'm not going "miss you" with the "nonsense" ) in basketball and in whatever you decide to become, then the argument is moot.

Getting to go to school completely free, no cost to anyone in your family, is very valuable."

"I go to a hole in the wall local pub ( or used to pre-covid ) because I like the people.
If the local pub gets a new more expensive menu, a big loud digital jukebox, installs a dance floor and a bunch of new clientele come in who I don't vibe with, i'll find a different pub.

Some people who love that pub won't care if the pub has changed - it's still the pub in name for them - and that's fine too.

And the pub ain't perfect. There are things i'd change. But i'd rather it not have the big loud digital jukebox."

An education is still provided though. That didn't change.

Your example about the pub is also flawed too. Has watching a game on TV or in AFH changed from pre-NIL to the current experience? I certainly haven't noticed any change. Fans are the same. Cameras are the same. In game sights and sounds are the same.

"Some people who love that pub won't care if the pub has changed - it's still the pub in name for them - and that's fine too."

[pdub]

viewtopic.php?p=113253#p113253

viewtopic.php?p=113222#p113222

viewtopic.php?p=113230#p113230

[Deleted User 863]

Athletes have been getting special treatment for a long time. Recuced admission requirements, etc.

If the " dollar amount" of special treatment is what bothers you then that's problematic. If $35k NIL money doesn't bother you, but $200k NIL money does, then that doesn't make sense to me personally.

I'd be down with true amatuerism. "Students playing sports for the school they attend". But that doesn't make the big bucks for the people in charge.

[pdub]

Athletes have been getting special treatment for a long time. Recuced admission requirements, etc.

If the " dollar amount" of special treatment is what bothers you then that's problematic. If $35k NIL money doesn't bother you, but $200k NIL money does, then that doesn't make sense to me personally.

I'd be down with true amatuerism. "Students playing sports for the school they attend". But that doesn't make the big bucks for the people in charge.

"The issue is the NCAA, if they want to maintain amateurism, need to figure out how to keep a stable business while also putting their 'money where their mouth' is -- and find the trouble spots and separate them from college basketball even if it means making less profit."

I've been against NIL from the start.

"The problem is that likely more often than not, these channels will just be ways to pay a college athlete to play basketball at the university rather than actually providing a service worth the value."

[jfish26]

"If the Salty Iguana wants to pay Jalen Wilson $10k to promote their Taco Tuesday specials"

This isn't what is happening.
Nigel Pack just got 800,000 dollars.
Nigel Pack.

Among your many blind spots on this issue, the weirdest ones are when the things you use as "evidence" of one thing, are obviously evidence of something else entirely.

The fact that Pack got $800,000...is evidence that someone with $800,000 to spend decided it's worth giving him $800,000. At the end of the day, that's how literally everything about how economic liberalism works. I'd guess it's how the livelihood of nearly every person who ever reads this works.

It's really not any more complicated than that, hurt feelings aside.

[KUTradition]

most colleges and universities are nonprofit entities. state universities and community colleges are usually (if not always) nonprofit. many private colleges are also nonprofit. why on earth do they need such "revenue expansion"? and, more importantly, should what they do w/ that revenue matter to individuals that have contributed considerable amounts to them?

do i need to break out the charts that show how it 1. hasn't lowered tuition for students; or 2. increased salaries for professors? in fact, both are going in the wrong directions at staggering rates as colleges and boards of regents nationally seem to have bought in to this idea that revenue/bottom line is the primary concern rather than quality of the product or staff satisfaction.

one example (thanks, Google): in 1969, 80 percent of professors in America were tenured or on a tenure track. today, around 75 percent of faculty are adjuncts or not on the tenure track. this means a higher rate of university faculty has less job security, and receives lower pay and fewer-to-no benefits.

at this point, we're used to conglomerates taking over and ever-expanding their product markets, but its beyond me why universities would join in that, or be the biggest landowners in the state, or holders of hedge funds worth billions from endowments, etc.

feels like we've lost the plot, but maybe its just me and pdub...

you’re not wrong, but this isn’t anything new…or even something linked only to athletics

for reference, look at the history of KU’s Natural History museum, when it was built and where the funding came from. you’d be out of your mind to think that such a thing would be possible today

universities and colleges have been cutting costs and trying to improve their bottom lines since long before athletic department budgets ballooned…it’s just that now the dichotomy is much more pronounced