SEC throws down gauntlet in football to NCAA

[Rock]

I am gonna get flamed for this but I have a biz degree so that's how my mind thinks.

Academics aside, (I know that is what college is for but), College football is a multi-multi million, (if not Billion) dollar a year biz and a God to some people. The universities are a business, they are for profit. IMHO, I think it is completely $ driven to make more. That's how they build these new modern buildings, stadiums, athletic facilities, and attract more students ( which = $$).

I can pay my players, attract the top players, win more NC's, fill the stadiums, sell more tickets, hot dogs, cokes, shirts, etc.. and run it like a pro team, why not???

I know college is for academics and preparing for your future, but I really feel like most top college players (GT may be an exception) are there for their 3 years and on the NFL. That's why you are seeing more juniors and RS SOPH declare lately. They are not thinking about, what if I don't make it big. I know too many (baseball) that thought they were the next pitcher for the Braves and now they are regretting not paying attention in class. From top to bottom its all about the $$.

Now, do I think players should get paid... No.
but I do feel like the NCAA are a bunch of clowns sometimes.
Just my .02.

 

[IEEEWreck]

I am gonna get flamed for this but I have a biz degree so that's how my mind thinks.

Academics aside, (I know that is what college is for but), College football is a multi-multi million, (if not Billion) dollar a year biz and a God to some people. The universities are a business, they are for profit. IMHO, I think it is completely $ driven to make more. That's how they build these new modern buildings, stadiums, athletic facilities, and attract more students ( which = $$).

I can pay my players, attract the top players, win more NC's, fill the stadiums, sell more tickets, hot dogs, cokes, shirts, etc.. and run it like a pro team, why not???

This is a pretty interesting point to me. Structurally, all the schools and AA's are not for profits, and hypothetically should have leadership that guides a mission of educating people on the one hand or having a good time and eliciting alumni engagement on the other.

On the other hand, you list powerful (probably unintended) incentives to behave as though they were for profit institutions, but these goals are not universal and specific to roles within the system.

On the academic side, there's some interesting dynamics. The president has a monetary incentive to get more alumni donations. On the other hand, if those donations mostly perpetuate the football program the president doesn't really care except for some abstract notion of school notability. Stanford seems to think Football will be good for their coffers. On the other hand, GT has a lot of high profile donations from very wealthy alumni but none have a demonstrable link to football that I know of, despite the rich history of football at GT.

I like the empire builder theory of buracracies. In the absence of personal profit or threat, people tend to build up little fiefdoms that buff their personal image. Tuition skyrockets, but neither faculty nor faculty salaries increase meaningfully to the trend. Why? Well, we need 12 assistants making $60K a year for the Dean of Apparently Prestigious Foreign Stuff. Administration is so hilariously overbloated that in Georgia the Regents are merging two, three, and even four schools into one because one school had enough administration for itself plus its three nearest neighbor institutions.

I can totally see why that incents AA's to have giant, cash bloated operations. I'm not sure I get where the schools care one way or the other.

 

[Rock]

This is a pretty interesting point to me. Structurally, all the schools and AA's are not for profits, and hypothetically should have leadership that guides a mission of educating people on the one hand or having a good time and eliciting alumni engagement on the other.

On the other hand, you list powerful (probably unintended) incentives to behave as though they were for profit institutions, but these goals are not universal and specific to roles within the system.

On the academic side, there's some interesting dynamics. The president has a monetary incentive to get more alumni donations. On the other hand, if those donations mostly perpetuate the football program the president doesn't really care except for some abstract notion of school notability. Stanford seems to think Football will be good for their coffers. On the other hand, GT has a lot of high profile donations from very wealthy alumni but none have a demonstrable link to football that I know of, despite the rich history of football at GT.

I like the empire builder theory of buracracies. In the absence of personal profit or threat, people tend to build up little fiefdoms that buff their personal image. Tuition skyrockets, but neither faculty nor faculty salaries increase meaningfully to the trend. Why? Well, we need 12 assistants making $60K a year for the Dean of Apparently Prestigious Foreign Stuff. Administration is so hilariously overbloated that in Georgia the Regents are merging two, three, and even four schools into one because one school had enough administration for itself plus its three nearest neighbor institutions.

I can totally see why that incents AA's to have giant, cash bloated operations. I'm not sure I get where the schools care one way or the other.

I know they are "not for profit" but you and I both know that is not the case.
It was just my twisted biz mind thinking. I don't like the idea of paying players but I also realize kids are kids and the ones that come from poverty and barely afford cleats in HS that get a full ride and barely stay eligible, aren't worried about education.
I don't know how that does or will translate up the chain to president and faculty but it was just my thought.

 

[awbuzz]

and the alternative? Government intervention? the schools "regulate" themselves?
I think people levy these statements based on isolated incidences as if everything has run amok. When the reality is that games are played, institutions are are in some way regulated in about as much as they reasonably can. They manage over 1200 institutions 3 Divisions, multiple sports, conferences, and players, and people are in a uproar over what isolated incident they read in the paper. I get it. It's not perfect somethings are antiquated, somethings need to be strengthened but NCAA is far from being completely incompetent and ineffective.

ATL1 is right. Just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean the next solution will be. Sometimes we have to be careful for what we wish...

 

[takethepoints]

I know they are "not for profit" but you and I both know that is not the case.
It was just my twisted biz mind thinking. I don't like the idea of paying players but I also realize kids are kids and the ones that come from poverty and barely afford cleats in HS that get a full ride and barely stay eligible, aren't worried about education.
I don't know how that does or will translate up the chain to president and faculty but it was just my thought.

I think it's worth remembering here that post-secondary education in the US used to be run as, at best, a break-even operation. The UC model predominated. Schools committed to educating the students who wanted to get in—not, mind, those with the brains to get merit scholarships, but every kid who wanted to come. The state picked up enough of the tab to be sure that tuition remained high enough to be sure that the student and her family had skin in the game, but not so high as to preclude a lot of students getting in. Later on the feds got into it to help the states out with revenue sharing. In short, post-secondary institutions most definitely weren't in it for the money. It was this model, btw, that transformed Southern state universities from a national joke to the right decent institutions we see today.

So what happened? Problem = as usual, Americans wanted Swedish-type public services for Mississippi-type taxes. When things got a bit tough in the '80s, the country decided to cut taxes at both the state and national level. That made competition for students more stringent and began the "amenities" - and, hence, the administrators needed to run them - craze. Big time college sports sought TV and corporate sponsorship, just like the rest of the institutions. And, of course, sucking up to alums became an organizational necessity. We see the result in front of us, yet we do nothing. "Too expensive!" "Too risky!" And, as a consequence we see the percentage of our 25 - 35 age cohort with a college degree slipping to 7th in the world and a whole lot of countries that look at our colleges, shake their heads, and say, "We can do better then that!" I've had several students born here to foreign parents who are actively looking overseas where they have relatives for careers because they think that, long term, they'll be better off elsewhere.

Well, it's a bigger problem then college sports, of course, but taking a trim at that part of it would actually be easier then tackling some of the rest. I think the costs will finally drive us to do just that. Hope it isn't too late.

 

[daBuzz]

This is a pretty interesting point to me. Structurally, all the schools and AA's are not for profits, and hypothetically should have leadership that guides a mission of educating people on the one hand or having a good time and eliciting alumni engagement on the other.

It should be pointed out that "not for profit" is simply an accounting term. That means that the organization is not allowed to make a profit at the end of the year....it does not mean that they cannot increase assets (ie facilities), expenses (salaries) and liabilities (bond debts on facilities) to offset increased revenue. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what happens.

 

[daBuzz]

Leaving the NCAA is more real than people think. I talked to our AD 3 years ago and he told me in a small lunch meeting that there are 3 things on the table and they were all real. One of those was GT to the big Ten. I will reveal that because it eventually didn't happen due to all the changes the last 3 years. But that was on the table. One was discussion about what to do with the NCAA, and the final was the course we took which was simply staying with the ACC....It was an interesting topic of discussion.

I was told around the same time that every coach on our staff wanted us to move to the B1G.

 

[IEEEWreck]

It should be pointed out that "not for profit" is simply an accounting term. That means that the organization is not allowed to make a profit at the end of the year....it does not mean that they cannot increase assets (ie facilities), expenses (salaries) and liabilities (bond debts on facilities) to offset increased revenue. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what happens.

Heck, they can even just pile up big ol' wads of cash in the bank account at the end of the year, because cash is an asset. I think the one thing they're categorically prevented from doing is paying dividends.
But you do have to have a purpose and serve that purpose. That purpose can't be "selling engineering consulting to make IEEEWreck's salary as big as possible." "Selling Engineering Consulting to raise money for Atlanta schools," however, is probably ok. That evaluation is what gives you your tax exempt status. GT-IEEE, for example, is a 501(c)3 because we serve a charitable educational mission. There are different letters and numbers corresponding to paragraphs in whatever law that correspond to what kind of mission you fulfill.


But not for profits ought to (and in this case, demonstrably do) have missions in their charters other than 'make all the damn money we can any damn way we can'. It's the job of the board of directors (or Regents, etc.) to see that that mission is being carried out, just like at for profits. Rock has an important insight here because these not for profits are acting a lot like for profits, and I'd like to know more about why.

 

[augustabuzz]

Thanks @33jacket Do you have a link for the discussion about leaving the NCAA altogether?

The discussions about leaving the NCAA have been real for over 30 years. The BCA was the first byproduct of those discussions. The problem back then was too many smaller schools preventing the largest schools from making changes that would help the largest schools solve problems that only the largest schools incurred.

Over time, the separation has increased, but the votes continue to inhibit the will of the largest schools. The threat is real and if it happens, the NCAA will lose its primary revenue source, March Madness. The smaller schools maybe thinking, "We're better off without you." They may be right. To be honest, I'm not sure which is better for Tech. in the long run.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

I know they are "not for profit" but you and I both know that is not the case.
It was just my twisted biz mind thinking. I don't like the idea of paying players but I also realize kids are kids and the ones that come from poverty and barely afford cleats in HS that get a full ride and barely stay eligible, aren't worried about education.
I don't know how that does or will translate up the chain to president and faculty but it was just my thought.

The NCAA is not for profit from the IRS tax status point of view in the way they account for revenues and expenses.

For NCAA key employees, the NCAA structure maximizes their compensation and whether they were working for a profit or non-profit is immaterial. The NCAA paid it's people over $52M in 2012. Here's the NCAA's Tax Exempt Report for 2011: http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/440/440567264/440567264_201208_990.pdf check out page 423 and 424 for some of the people and compensation. Their interest and livelihood depends on maximizing their compensation. Many of these compensations are over $300K for "non-profit" work. For me, I had to recommend where to make donations for our local Kiwanis club. So I went to the 990's to see where the money went. Many non-profits do have board of directors which are not compensated or are very lightly compensated (out of pocket expenses type thing). In my mind, they are the real non-profits serving the public. The non-profit status of the NCAA is nothing more than a legal tax avoidance scheme which increases the national deficit and makes the NCAA employees a lot of money.

LMAO at their statement; "THE NCAA'S PURPOSE IS TO GOVERN COMPETITION IN A FAIR, SAFE, EQUITABLE AND
SPORTSMANLIKE MANNER AND TO INTEGRATE INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS INTO HIGHER EDUCATION SO THAT THE
EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE OF THE STUDENT-ATHLETE IS PARAMOUNT."

 

[IEEEWreck]

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/387407/stu-dent-ath-o-leets

Seriously though, the NCAA is a pretty despicable place. Don't they have language specifically added for them in the law on not for profits because they wouldn't pass scrutiny otherwise?

 

[Animal02]

Because a bus cost less... only semi joking... is GT to fly Gostis home for each holiday? What about other players from around the globe? The thought is nice, but doesn't seem feasible because you are "giving" one student a higher compensation rate amount than another (for this discussion exclude the difference in out of state vs. ins state tuition).

It certainly would make it easier to recruit nationwide if you could tell a kid......yes, we will get you home twice a year. It is a nominal cost in the grand scheme of things.....and I don't think it is unreasonable considering the amount of money being generated.

 

[augustabuzz]

The discussions about leaving the NCAA have been real for over 30 years. The BCA was the first byproduct of those discussions. The problem back then was too many smaller schools preventing the largest schools from making changes that would help the largest schools solve problems that only the largest schools incurred.

Over time, the separation has increased, but the votes continue to inhibit the will of the largest schools. The threat is real and if it happens, the NCAA will lose its primary revenue source, March Madness. The smaller schools maybe thinking, "We're better off without you." They may be right. To be honest, I'm not sure which is better for Tech. in the long run.

BCA should be "CFA".

 

[33jacket]

Thanks @33jacket Do you have a link for the discussion about leaving the NCAA altogether?

I was referring to my discussion with the AD as leaving the NCAA being on the table. I think there was some media types that wrote articles referring to the concept....but specifically this was a in person conversation I had.

 

[33jacket]

just cuz, a quick google search; there are many similar articles over the past 2-3 years...If you note specifically it refers to a 2011 meeting...right at the time I had lunch with our AD

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/04/21/college-football-ncaa-split/2097115/

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

ATL1 is right. Just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean the next solution will be. Sometimes we have to be careful for what we wish...

If I thought it was near, or even sniffing at perfect I would agree with both of you. I happen to think the organization is pretty damn awful and thus warrants change. I don't expect the next solution to be perfect. But I'd expect it to be a damn sight better.

 

[augustabuzz]

If I thought it was near, or even sniffing at perfect I would agree with both of you. I happen to think the organization is pretty damn awful and thus warrants change. I don't expect the next solution to be perfect. But I'd expect it to be a damn sight better.

Why?

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Why?

Which statement was your "why?" in response to? Guess I will go ahead and counter with "why not"

 

[augustabuzz]

Which statement was your "why?" in response to? Guess I will go ahead and counter with "why not"

Sorry I wasn't clear. The question was in reference to your statement, "But I'd expect it to be a damn sight better."

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I just have a pretty low opinion on the NCAA currently. Maybe "a damn sight better" was a bit of an overstatement. But I do believe "better" is easily achievable and a damn sight better is possible.