House vs. NCAA

[cpf2001]

It’s not trophies, it’s about getting top flight faculty, students, labs, facilities and rankings. Research funds all that. WPI stayed as it was and is ranked #92

If all that research was done in an environment where the researchers didn’t have to worry about teaching 19 year olds, would it be harmed?

If the 19 year olds were taught by people who weren’t distracted chasing grants or doing the hard work for their grad advisors, would those students be worse off?

It’s obviously not just GT but the whole research-money-chasing industry of academia seems like a huge distraction from education.

 

[stinger78]

If all that research was done in an environment where the researchers didn’t have to worry about teaching 19 year olds, would it be harmed?

If the 19 year olds were taught by people who weren’t distracted chasing grants or doing the hard work for their grad advisors, would those students be worse off?

It’s obviously not just GT but the whole research-money-chasing industry of academia seems like a huge distraction from education.

Man is this ever true.

 

[UgaBlows]

I just want GT sports to rule the earth, is that too much to ask?

 

[LT 1967]

I Have attached an article concerning the BIG 12 Presidents and Chancellors approving the House vs. NCAA proposed settlement. I mentioned earlier that the ACC Presidents were meeting in Charlotte this week (On realignment Thread). We will likely hear that the ACC Presidents have approved the proposed settlement this week. If I understand correctly from the Ken Sugiura AJC article and the attached article, schools will have a Salary Cap of approximately 21 million dollars to pay athletes directly through the colleges. Some good comments in the attached article concerning this issue.

This is a guess, but I think GT has approximately 350 to 400 Student/Athletes. If GT can raise this kind of money for direct pay, we are talking about an average of $52,500 per athlete per year ($21 million/400). I realize they will not be paid on an average basis. I am sure Football and Basketball will receive a larger share of the pie. One of our Swarm members had information that showed Georgia Tech's current NIL fund at 4 million. So, GT has a long way to go in order to compete at the top. Also, according to the AJC, GTAA cleared 2 million last year while UGAA cleared 23 million. So, the pups are ready to roll in the new world.

As an old timer, I have a hard time imagining that GT might be paying $500,000 or a $1,000,000 per year for a highly rated quarterback. Some on the Swarm have expressed that they would not contribute to this total destruction of the Amateur Model. For me, I have to let this new world order in college sports sink in a little while before making any decision. I just noticed that I received an email from the GTAA today encouraging me to renew my contribution to the Scholarship fund.

This makes me think about Bobby Jones playing Pro Golf as an amateur for many years to demonstrate his appreciation of amateurism.

 

[CEB]

What is the alternative? If they go to trial, they are likely to lose much more than the settlement amount.

The NCAA is nothing but a collection of colleges that compete in intercollegiate sports. I don't know what the voting methods and majority requirements are for NCAA votes, but if enough schools do not want to settle, they can prevent it.

I agree that the colleges have made wrong decisions when they made votes in their intercollegiate sports organization and are now paying the price for those wrong votes.

I’m not questioning the settlement aspect. Trial could be a catastrophe…..
Just think my that roughly 20% of D1 is responsible for 90% of the issue and I’m betting there is little attempt at proration. That probably why a lot of “non-P5” schools are squawking.

 

[awbuzz]

So the NCAA screwed the little guys again in order to save their own skin? I’m shocked! Shocked I tell ya!

 

[CEB]

I Have attached an article concerning the BIG 12 Presidents and Chancellors approving the House vs. NCAA proposed settlement. I mentioned earlier that the ACC Presidents were meeting in Charlotte this week (On realignment Thread). We will likely hear that the ACC Presidents have approved the proposed settlement this week. If I understand correctly from the Ken Sugiura AJC article and the attached article, schools will have a Salary Cap of approximately 21 million dollars to pay athletes directly through the colleges. Some good comments in the attached article concerning this issue.

This is a guess, but I think GT has approximately 350 to 400 Student/Athletes. If GT can raise this kind of money for direct pay, we are talking about an average of $52,500 per athlete per year ($21 million/400). I realize they will not be paid on an average basis. I am sure Football and Basketball will receive a larger share of the pie. One of our Swarm members had information that showed Georgia Tech's current NIL fund at 4 million. So, GT has a long way to go in order to compete at the top. Also, according to the AJC, GTAA cleared 2 million last year while UGAA cleared 23 million. So, the pups are ready to roll in the new world.

As an old timer, I have a hard time imagining that GT might be paying $500,000 or a $1,000,000 per year for a highly rated quarterback. Some on the Swarm have expressed that they would not contribute to this total destruction of the Amateur Model. For me, I have to let this new world order in college sports sink in a little while before making any decision. I just noticed that I received an email from the GTAA today encouraging me to renew my contribution to the Scholarship fund.

This makes me think about Bobby Jones playing Pro Golf as an amateur for many years to demonstrate his appreciation of amateurism.

$21M doesn’t feel like much of a cap!

Aren’t there only a handful of schools generating revenue over $200m? That “cap” is nearly 10% of the richest schools’ total revenue. It’s probably more than the TOTAL revenue of a LOT of D1 schools.
Am I thinking wrong here?
I’m thinking all of these reports of sensational NIL have skewed perception. This “cap” doesn’t seem like something 90% of schools could approach if they wanted to.
Right?!?

 

[RonJohn]

$21M doesn’t feel like much of a cap!

Aren’t there only a handful of schools generating revenue over $200m? That “cap” is nearly 10% of the richest schools’ total revenue. It’s probably more than the TOTAL revenue of a LOT of D1 schools.
Am I thinking wrong here?
I’m thinking all of these reports of sensational NIL have skewed perception. This “cap” doesn’t seem like something 90% of schools could approach if they wanted to.
Right?!?

I haven't read any articles in the past couple of weeks, but IIRC the indications early on were that the $20 million or so per school would only be for the P4 conferences.

 

[Vespidae]

If all that research was done in an environment where the researchers didn’t have to worry about teaching 19 year olds, would it be harmed?

If the 19 year olds were taught by people who weren’t distracted chasing grants or doing the hard work for their grad advisors, would those students be worse off?

It’s obviously not just GT but the whole research-money-chasing industry of academia seems like a huge distraction from education.

It depends on the university model. Many top flight research universities either don’t teach or teach only a very light load. The goal is to do research, publish that research, enhance the reputation of the university… upgrade facilities, staff, etc. In fact, tenure is often based on the number of peer reviewed articles published in Tier 1 journals.

I know one top flight university that barely breaks even on its undergraduate programs. It’s the graduate programs and research that drives 90% of the profit contribution of the school.

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.”

 

[CEB]

I haven't read any articles in the past couple of weeks, but IIRC the indications early on were that the $20 million or so per school would only be for the P4 conferences.

Interesting… still seems that relatively few P5 schools could reach this level. Though It’s quite possible I am naive too…

 

[RonJohn]

Interesting… still seems that relatively few P5 schools could reach this level. Though It’s quite possible I am naive too…

It doesn't matter if they can afford it or not, it will be the new reality. I believe they are trying to minimize the impact of athletes being declared employees, or at least get some kind of payment system ahead of a union and collective bargaining agreements.

All speculation on my part: I think that the Big10 and SEC want for payments to players to be based on the averages of all P4 programs instead of by conference or by team. Imagine what would happen if the players' union gets something like the NFL contract, where 50% of all revenue goes to the players. Especially if that is individually by school. Ohio State and Texas would each have to pay something like $125 million to the players. I think those schools would like for the salaries to be based off of media money only. To keep it that way, they need schools with less extra revenue above media. If the ACC and Big12 go away, or drop to another level, then the Big10 and SEC would have to negotiate based on large media contracts and schools with large money from other sources. I have seen a lot of speculation about a 60-70 team league/conference/whatever made up mostly of the current P5. That would destroy the current conference structure. However, it would potentially isolate the really wealthy schools from paying a lot more to the players. I don't have a clue what the future of college sports, in particular football, will look like. But I think it will be structured very different in 5-10 years than it is now. I think we will end up with something so different than the current structure that all of this concern and argument about getting into a better conference will be entirely meaningless.

 

[CEB]

It doesn't matter if they can afford it or not, it will be the new reality. I believe they are trying to minimize the impact of athletes being declared employees, or at least get some kind of payment system ahead of a union and collective bargaining agreements.

All speculation on my part: I think that the Big10 and SEC want for payments to players to be based on the averages of all P4 programs instead of by conference or by team. Imagine what would happen if the players' union gets something like the NFL contract, where 50% of all revenue goes to the players. Especially if that is individually by school. Ohio State and Texas would each have to pay something like $125 million to the players. I think those schools would like for the salaries to be based off of media money only. To keep it that way, they need schools with less extra revenue above media. If the ACC and Big12 go away, or drop to another level, then the Big10 and SEC would have to negotiate based on large media contracts and schools with large money from other sources. I have seen a lot of speculation about a 60-70 team league/conference/whatever made up mostly of the current P5. That would destroy the current conference structure. However, it would potentially isolate the really wealthy schools from paying a lot more to the players. I don't have a clue what the future of college sports, in particular football, will look like. But I think it will be structured very different in 5-10 years than it is now. I think we will end up with something so different than the current structure that all of this concern and argument about getting into a better conference will be entirely meaningless.

That’s a great point… and you’re right. It’s a limitation of liability for the top schools, which I honestly hadn’t considered…. But it all fits… it’s not about competition, it’s about keeping the rich rich

 

[Techster]

 

[LT 1967]

$21M doesn’t feel like much of a cap!

Aren’t there only a handful of schools generating revenue over $200m? That “cap” is nearly 10% of the richest schools’ total revenue. It’s probably more than the TOTAL revenue of a LOT of D1 schools.
Am I thinking wrong here?
I’m thinking all of these reports of sensational NIL have skewed perception. This “cap” doesn’t seem like something 90% of schools could approach if they wanted to.
Right?!?

My understanding is that the $21 Million Cap is for P4 only. Not sure about the G5 and lower? G5 media revenue is only 8 or 9 million per school as I recall. So, only P4 schools will be able to approach 21 MIL. As I mentioned in my post UGA made enough profit in 2023 to cover the top limit. Their revenue in 2023 was 210 million (According to AJC-Ken S.) with $187 MIL expenses and $23 MIL profit. The $120-130 million range budget schools like GT will have a tough time keeping up.

 

[CEB]

My understanding is that the $21 Million Cap is for P4 only. Not sure about the G5 and lower? G5 media revenue is only 8 or 9 million per school as I recall. So, only P4 schools will be able to approach 21 MIL. As I mentioned in my post UGA made enough profit in 2023 to cover the top limit. Their revenue in 2023 was 210 million (According to AJC-Ken S.) with $187 MIL expenses and $23 MIL profit. The $120-130 million range budget schools like GT will have a tough time keeping up.

Yeah… I hear you.
To me, It feels “symbolic.” It lets them say they have a “cap” so they can continue the perception of competition / equality without really addressing anything.

 

[iceeater1969]

It depends on the university model. Many top flight research universities either don’t teach or teach only a very light load. The goal is to do research, publish that research, enhance the reputation of the university… upgrade facilities, staff, etc. In fact, tenure is often based on the number of peer reviewed articles published in Tier 1 journals.

I know one top flight university that barely breaks even on its undergraduate programs. It’s the graduate programs and research that drives 90% of the profit contribution of the school.

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.”

So tthe gt profs get to skip class but get big bucks to do research.

 

[pinglett]

So tthe gt profs get to skip class but get big bucks to do research.

Essentially, yes in most cases. I'll add to what @Vespidae said.....tenure is based on your appointment which ranges from 100% research (totally funded from grants) to 100% teaching (totally funded based on tuition). In the middle are profs like myself with a mix, e.g., I'm 30% teaching (2 courses per year) and 70% research (need several active grants with graduate students, and several journal publications per year). The cut of the research grants that goes to the University (especially federal grants) is usually larger than student tuition.....so unless your money comes from mostly teaching, that is of minor concern.

 

[Vespidae]

So tthe gt profs get to skip class but get big bucks to do research.

I don't know GT's model. But it's entirely possible. And that's not new. Top schools are expected to publish, otherwise you'll find yourself at a small school. GT's physics department was famous in the 80s for abhorring teaching. So young guys were brought in to teach undergraduates while researchers taught smaller grad courses.

BTW, the big money is in writing textbooks.

 

[RonJohn]

BTW, the big money is in writing textbooks.

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.

 

[wrmathis]

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.

Don’t forget each semester or year is a new edition which is required so you can’t just keep passing books down.