House vs. NCAA

[Vespidae]

Is that still the case? I know it was when I was in school 30 years ago, but didn't know it still was. I figured that a lot of college classes now used online resources.

It always seemed like a scam to me as a poor college kid. The professor always required his own textbook as the course book, and was able to sell it at whatever price they wanted to set it at. You are required to purchase a $300 textbook, and the $150 solutions guide to take a required class, and the professor, who sets the textbook requirement, profits from requiring you to purchase that book to attend a required class.

Yes, it's still the case. It's just digital now. Many state universities have ethics rules so you can't require your own students to buy them, but other sections can.

 

[CEB]

Is that still the case? I know it was when I was in school 30 years ago, but didn't know it still was. I figured that a lot of college classes now used online resources.

It always seemed like a scam to me as a poor college kid. The professor always required his own textbook as the course book, and was able to sell it at whatever price they wanted to set it at. You are required to purchase a $300 textbook, and the $150 solutions guide to take a required class, and the professor, who sets the textbook requirement, profits from requiring you to purchase that book to attend a required class.

My son is buying proprietary online resources now. The university offers similar systems / resources “free of charge” but the professor requires them to use something else. Wonder why that is?
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[forensicbuzz]

That is exactly where GT struggles. Many uga alumni will give their last dollar on their deathbed to pay a kid if it means they win at football. At GT the donors want it a specific way and if those needs aren't met then dollars dry up. GT has GT (all things GT) supporters. uga has uga football supporters. GT NEEDS far more GT football supporters that make an impact. Ones that will go bankrupt pushing the team to a natty lol.

The great thing is it's my money and I get to spend (share) it how I want to. I (and probably most of my GT brethren) don't set our self-worth on the status of our school athletics. We want them to be successful and compete at the highest level, but not under these circumstances. To me, this is no longer about my alma mater, it's about a bunch of lawyers wanting to get paid.

The compensation of scholarship plus stipend is commensurate with the product. Anything more and I'm not interested. I've never been one to feel like I have to keep up with the Joneses, so I disagree. I think it's not a worthwhile endeavor to donate my heard earned capital to fund an organization that is going to pay "students" significant money to play a game. Feel free to join all those uga fans/alumni whose self-worth is based on how 18-22 year olds perform.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Because everyone believes that if you aren’t growing you’re dying, and research dollars are trophies administrators can brag about to each other. Personally I’m not convinced that the coupling of undergrad education and high-$ research (vs, say, industry or dedicated organizations) makes any more sense than the coupling of undergrad education and football.

Better undergraduate education at places that don't have all the research dollars. Research money goes to fund graduate students and faculty that have no interest in undergraduates.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

The great thing is it's my money and I get to spend (share) it how I want to. I (and probably most of my GT brethren) don't set our self-worth on the status of our school athletics. We want them to be successful and compete at the highest level, but not under these circumstances. To me, this is no longer about my alma mater, it's about a bunch of lawyers wanting to get paid.

The compensation of scholarship plus stipend is commensurate with the product. Anything more and I'm not interested. I've never been one to feel like I have to keep up with the Joneses, so I disagree. I think it's not a worthwhile endeavor to donate my heard earned capital to fund an organization that is going to pay "students" significant money to play a game. Feel free to join all those uga fans/alumni whose self-worth is based on how 18-22 year olds perform.

I can agree with all your points except the last sentence. There are a lot of people who can and will support the future of college football with paid players who do not derive their self-worth based on how 18-22 year olds perform.

That's painting with an awfully big brush.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I can agree with all your points except the last sentence. There are a lot of people who can and will support the future of college football with paid players who do not derive their self-worth based on how 18-22 year olds perform.

That's painting with an awfully big brush.

Aren't we all? This discussion isn't about nuance.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Aren't we all?

No.

 

[boger2337]

If your self worth isn't held up to how your team performs any given Saturday then you're not fanning right.

 

[forensicbuzz]

No.

Beg to disagree with you. Any discussion about paying the players and what that affects is painting with big brushes. Every school is different, so there is no nuance.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Beg to disagree with you. Any discussion about paying the players and what that affects is painting with big brushes. Every school is different, so there is no nuance.

That's your defense for claiming everyone who disagrees with your opinion derives their self-worth based on how 18-22 year olds perform?

Gotcha.

 

[forensicbuzz]

That's your defense for claiming everyone who disagrees with your opinion derives their self-worth based on how 18-22 year olds perform?

Gotcha.

Way to take a minor point in a post and make it into something that it wasn't.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Way to take a minor point in a post and make it into something that it wasn't.

I was responding completely to that last sentence. I don't consider gross mischaracterization of peoples motives a minor point.

 

[bigrabbit]

If a 19 year old wants “education”, he or she can go to a number schools. Tech is one of the few “modern Ivy’s” that not only educate, but do so using cutting edge methods.

I recall a lecture at Tech by an ME prof. After an hour of expanding a theorem, he declared … “This (pointing at two full blackboards in SSTC) is what you learn at Tech. And this (he drew a box around the formula) … is what you learn at State U.”

Spot on, if you don’t want faculty bothered by engineering research, you have Kennesaw State, Mercer, Georgia Southern. Plus those are schools where you can still gain admittance with an average GT SAT score from the 1970s

The business school is where things can get stupid…try reading the A+ journals required for tenure sometime. I think this nonsensical highly rigorous irrelevance flows from insecurity that what the business school does isn’t complex or scientific enough. I used to read IEEE journals, doctors read medical journals, most business people have no clue about A+ journals.

Why Isn't Business Research More Relevant to Business Practitioners?

There’s a pervasive paradox in academia: Research conducted at business schools often offers no obvious value to people who work in the world of business.

hbswk.hbs.edu

Anyway, back to sports.

 

[stinger78]

I can agree with all your points except the last sentence. There are a lot of people who can and will support the future of college football with paid players who do not derive their self-worth based on how 18-22 year olds perform.

That's painting with an awfully big brush.

You’re right, of course. Add in those who have more dollars than sense.

Paying an 18-year-old $1M is a fool’s errand to begin with. Just the corrupting influence alone makes it a highly debatable practice, not to mention risk of poor performance, among others.

We should save the big bucks for folks who have actually accomplished something in life, having mastered a trade.

Professional athletics is perhaps the only “profession” that is willing to pay huge money based on “potential.” Movie stars at least get paid huge sums based on what they’ve done previously. Highly skilled surgeons have years of education, residency, and practice. Top engineers have to pass the PE exam and work their way up.

What has the typical FR/SO RB done? Dominate a field full of 15-17 year old kids? Is not a grant for over $100K worth of education and related athletic perks over 4 years enough for said RB?

I repeat: College athletics is so screwed these days…IMPO.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I was responding completely to that last sentence. I don't consider gross mischaracterization of peoples motives a minor point.

Go back and read that last sentence (I did) and then come back with where I painted with a broad brush. Real what was written, not what you thought I wrote.

All I did was invite the font to join all the uga fans and alumni who derive their self-worth….i know the statement may be nuanced for you, but I’m sure if you slow down and read it for comprehension, you’ll agree with me that there was no broad brush strokes (unless you don’t think there are uga fans / alumni whose self-worth is based on how their favorite university sports teams perform).

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

You’re right, of course. Add in those who have more dollars than sense.

Paying an 18-year-old $1M is a fool’s errand to begin with. Just the corrupting influence alone makes it a highly debatable practice, not to mention risk of poor performance, among others.

We should save the big bucks for folks who have actually accomplished something in life, having mastered a trade.

Professional athletics is perhaps the only “profession” that is willing to pay huge money based on “potential.” Movie stars at least get paid huge sums based on what they’ve done previously. Highly skilled surgeons have years of education, residency, and practice. Top engineers have to pass the PE exam and work their way up.

What has the typical FR/SO RB done? Dominate a field full of 15-17 year old kids? Is not a grant for over $100K worth of education and related athletic perks over 4 years enough for said RB?

I repeat: College athletics is so screwed these days…IMPO.

We all spend money on something that doesn't make sense to someone else. Some people will spend money on high end cars when a Honda Civic could get them to and from work just as easily. Some people spend good money on quality bourbon when cheap whiskey will get you just as drunk. Some people love going to places like Vegas and dropping serious money to gamble knowing the odds of winning big aren't in their favor. Myself, I have some really expensive backpacking equipment that I paid an extra couple of hundred dollars for just to save a few ounces of weight off my back. The point is that some people just really love college football, and they are going to spend money to make sure their team is competitive. Do some of these people have more dollars than sense? Do some of them derive their self worth from the teams performance? Sure. But there are a lot of people who simply enjoy the game and want their team to do well, even if the game has changed to the point where it no longer looks like it used to.

Personally, I am close to being done with college football, and have begun contemplating whether or not I will renew my season tickets after this season, but that's just me. I can't speak for everyone else.

 

[stinger78]

We all spend money on something that doesn't make sense to someone else. Some people will spend money on high end cars when a Honda Civic could get them to and from work just as easily. Some people spend good money on quality bourbon when cheap whiskey will get you just as drunk. Some people love going to places like Vegas and dropping serious money to gamble knowing the odds of winning big aren't in their favor. Myself, I have some really expensive backpacking equipment that I paid an extra couple of hundred dollars for just to save a few ounces of weight off my back. The point is that some people just really love college football, and they are going to spend money to make sure their team is competitive. Do some of these people have more dollars than sense? Do some of them derive their self worth from the teams performance? Sure. But there are a lot of people who simply enjoy the game and want their team to do well, even if the game has changed to the point where it no longer looks like it used to.

Personally, I am close to being done with college football, and have begun contemplating whether or not I will renew my season tickets after this season, but that's just me. I can't speak for everyone else.

Certainly there are differentiated value judgements we all make day to day. Still, there’s a couple of magnitudes (at least) difference between buying the expensive backpacking gear that you have (I assume as an accomplished backpacker) or even buying a McLaren to drive around (one-time 6-figure purchase that has collector value) and tossing 7-figures at an unproven 17 year-old HS football player to play for your team. And all that doesn’t even touch the deleterious effect of having WAY too much money far too soon. These kids are already turning up their nose at $100K plus remuneration in the form of education and bennies, that will set them up for a lifetime for these NIL “contracts.”

IMPO, there is just no way to rationalize that, and I don’t think I’ll be part of it.

 

[boger2337]

I hope GT has something similar set up....

https://sports.yahoo.com/with-colle...their-piece-120021493.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

 

[orientalnc]

I hope GT has something similar set up....

https://sports.yahoo.com/with-colle...their-piece-120021493.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

A couple of thoughts:

The article says this new PE group would base its returns on revenue growth. If I am a university CFO I'm going to insist that the growth be based on already projected revenue streams, not using today as a fixed point of reference. So, if Alabama has a revenue stream that includes the CFP revenue and the new ESPN contract, growth would have to be based on those numbers. Growth is going to a tough target at Bama. Or uga or Notre Dame or Ohio State.

It seems to me that going for a big successful program that is filling its stadium 7-8 times every year and is already getting huge alumni support is not a winning strategy. Go for programs located in areas where support is lagging but has great facilities and potential financial partners are almost unlimited.

The early returns are the highest in their model, so going to Nashville and pouring equity into Vandy might be a better opportunity than FSU or Clemson. Also, I think the fact that Vandy is a private school might mean there fewer legislative roadblocks. Can you imagine FSU telling the PE group they cannot sue FSU because of sovereign immunity? Why would a PE group enter into a contract with a partner they cannot sue if needed.

I would go to a university that has facility based debt and help relieve those constraints to fielding a more competitive team that can dramatically increase home attendance and TV revenue. The growth potential has to be there or the PE model does not work.

 

[boger2337]

A couple of thoughts:

The article says this new PE group would base its returns on revenue growth. If I am a university CFO I'm going to insist that the growth be based on already projected revenue streams, not using today as a fixed point of reference. So, if Alabama has a revenue stream that includes the CFP revenue and the new ESPN contract, growth would have to be based on those numbers. Growth is going to a tough target at Bama. Or uga or Notre Dame or Ohio State.

It seems to me that going for a big successful program that is filling its stadium 7-8 times every year and is already getting huge alumni support is not a winning strategy. Go for programs located in areas where support is lagging but has great facilities and potential financial partners are almost unlimited.

The early returns are the highest in their model, so going to Nashville and pouring equity into Vandy might be a better opportunity than FSU or Clemson. Also, I think the fact that Vandy is a private school might mean there fewer legislative roadblocks. Can you imagine FSU telling the PE group they cannot sue FSU because of sovereign immunity? Why would a PE group enter into a contract with a partner they cannot sue if needed.

I would go to a university that has facility based debt and help relieve those constraints to fielding a more competitive team that can dramatically increase home attendance and TV revenue. The growth potential has to be there or the PE model does not work.

I can agree with these thoughts. I guess the "growth" for the top tier teams is that as the sport generates more revenue with inflation so will those teams. Take Ohio State/uga/Bama/USC. They are what I would call the S&P 500 of college football. More than likely all P4 schools are aligned to that, but as you stated there is more room to grow with a someone like a Rutgers/Vandy/GT.