Money well spent

The next time you catch somebody insisting that there isn’t enough money in big time college athletics to pay players, point ‘em to this item in Georgia’s 2015 athletic budget:

A video board to be featured on the wall of the multi-purpose turf room at the Butts-Mehre building, mostly for recruiting purposes and various functions and gatherings ($250,000).

About these ads

36 Comments

Filed under Georgia Football, It's Just Bidness

36 responses to “Money well spent

  1. AthensHomerDawg

    Well I hope they do a design study before pulling the trigger on that project.
    *Another $300,000 will go to a design study for football practice field improvements that will result in replacing the two FieldTurf fields and the block wall near the field following the 2013 season.

    “It’s a hazard on young men on down and out runs,” McGarity said.*

    • stoopnagle

      Not sure the metal and stone fence is any less a hazard, but OK. Maybe that did something inside the fence.

  2. Ant

    I don’t think that helps your argument.First, it is only $2941.18 per player for each of the eighty five scholarship players not even counting the walk ons that put in the same time and in some cases more. That would not be nearly enough to satisfy the selfish demands of some of the players especially if they were in anyway represented by some third party. Second, if that money was not spent to keep up with the competition then soon there would be increasingly diminished recruiting success, which would lead to decreased on the field performance, which would lead to lower fan participation, which would lead to much lower revenues (see Tennessee). In short with a few tweaks {cost of attendance, a little less total time invested in the sport} we have a system that works for everybody including the players, coach’s, schools, and fans.

    • Oy.

      Dude, you think this is the only budget item that could be adjusted if need be?

      • Ant

        No sir. That’s just the one you pointed to. But the result would be the same for any item unless you wanted to eliminate some non revenue sport or sports all together.

        • If there were only one item, sure. Somehow I doubt it’s that limited.

          I’d also note that your argument’s already been dismissed by the judge in O’Bannon.

        • DawgPhan

          Holy balls..I totally read your first post as great snark. Then I see that you meant it. And now I am just sad that you hate freedom and america. ON memorial day weekend no less. Have you no shame?

    • Macallanlover

      Ant, you bring up a point that is seldom discussed: will only scholarship athletes get a stipend, or all football team members? I have always been a proponent of a stipend for spending money for scholarship athletes, on a full ride, and in sports that are revenue positive. I feel paying the walk-ons the same, or any money, should not be allowed. It makes them seem more like employees, or mercenaries. I can justify, in my mind, adding expense money, but paying “volunteers” seems to make them professionals.

      • Ant

        I agree with. But the people saying that they are employees or that they should be paid can’t make that argument. How can someone say that someone receiving a free education for their efforts deserves more than someone doing the same work for nothing?

        • That’s what the marketplace does every day. Or are you saying that any place using hardworking interns who aren’t paid can’t pay any employees doing similar work?

          • Ant

            Those interns in general are not doing the same work with the same responsibility as their paid counter parts and often times those internships are a requirement to graduate from school (as my daughter in laws was this last summer). The bottom line is people who argue for paying players place no value on the educational opportunities the players are receiving.

            • And most walk-ons never see the field.

              • Mayor

                Not so. They see the field every day in practice as tackling dummies for the varsity. They play a big part in the overall success of the football program during the season, particularly the scout team QB who is expected to be a chameleon, changing from week to week as he pretends to be the opposing teams’ QB in practice. Ain’t so easy being on the scout team D, either. If anybody deserves compensation (morally, at least) in this situation it’s the walk-ons, the unheralded heroes of every football team. And they don’t even get a f#cking letter.

              • Ant

                How is that relevant. Many interns never “see the field” in the field they interned in?

                • You’re the one saying walk-ons are doing the same work. They ain’t.

                  • Ant

                    What are they doing differently? You can argue that fewer of them play on Saturday but the actual “work” is done the rest of the week. We have all seen, this year in fact, players on scholarship with an entitlement mentality that want to up and transfer when something doesn’t go there way.

                    The bottom line to me still is you can’t compare our business economic system to the educational system.

                    Again we have basically the same model we have had for years. But the sports (primarily football) gets more popular, TV money gets better so now some people think the rules should change. That is what is wrong with this covetous society. To many people want what someone else has instead of being thankful for what they do have.

                    I’m all for school being able to pay, for ALL scholarships (athletic or academic) the true cost of attendance but that is as far as it should go.

                    • Walk-ons don’t get the reps that the first or second teamers do. Nor do they play in games to the same extent, as you note. It’s not a level playing field.

                      As for your point about not comparing the two systems, perhaps you can explain how a conference television network is part of the educational system.

                      I know you feel strongly otherwise, but I don’t see how anyone can honestly assert the model is still the same. Even the guys running the sport don’t argue that anymore.

                    • Ant

                      Senator You asked “how a conference television network is part of the educational system”. It’s not. To me it is not relevant because scholarships are with an institution of higher learning not a conference. Many schools belong to more than one conference and as we have seen the last few years schools change conferences.

                      As for the model being the same. I would ask how is it essentially different? The fact that there are more zeros to the left of the decimal point does not change the model.
                      To me a school recruits a person for a scholarship that it (the school) thinks will help it achieve its goals for a free education (and in some cases a lot of notoriety, though that is a fringe benefit) in return. Nothing in that sentence is essentially different than it was in 1980 when we watched Hershel out run George Rogers (and everybody else).

                    • Senator You asked “how a conference television network is part of the educational system”. It’s not. To me it is not relevant because scholarships are with an institution of higher learning not a conference.

                      Awesome hair splitting, man. So the conference members – otherwise known as schools – are just idle bystanders in the whole affair. LMAO.

                      So let’s take that a step further. What does that make the NCAA, which is the institution enforcing the concept of amateurism?

                      As for your school goals for a free education tradeoff, what does a player stipend have to do with that?

                      Since 1980, we’ve seen the regular season lengthened, the postseason lengthened, the summer converted into quasi-mandatory practice time, etc. The players have been asked to contribute more, not for some academic mission, but in order for the schools to make more money. But a scholarship fits all, eh?

                      I’m not writing this in the hopes of changing your mind, because it’s obvious that you won’t. But I do think it illustrates how much you turn a blind eye to.

                    • Ant123

                      It’s not hair splitting. The conferences in college serve the same purpose as the high school associations and divisions. For example in we have the Georgia High School Association, and are divided into divisions such as AA AAA etc. They simply help organize and standardize the basic ground rules for the various schools in their conferences.

                      As for your question on the NCAA amateurism was around at the schools before it ever existed. There are many things about the NCAA I do not like and I am not a defender of them necessarily. That being said many of the things people complain about now were things people were complaining about from the other side a few years ago. I can remember people paying athletes on scholarship for a job the kid never or rarely performed. So many were complaining that this was not right and something needed to be done. So they did. There are many other such examples along the same line. The NCAA basically tries to make sure the rules are even so one conference or one area of the country does not have an advantage. Are they perfect far from it. But it is a function that is needed.

                      As for a stipend, I think it is needed now because of the poor state the countries families are in. When I was in school in the early eighties most everyone had a mother and a father at home and they were supportive of the student. It is not that way any more. Therefore I think the stipend is needed to fill that void. I think it should be for all full scholarships not just athletes.

                      As for “Since 1980, we’ve seen the regular season lengthened, the postseason lengthened, the summer converted into quasi-mandatory practice time, etc. The players have been asked to contribute more, not for some academic mission, but in order for the schools to make more money. But a scholarship fits all, eh?” Most of those things are true. However the value of their scholarship has increased during that time as well as the prestige of being an athlete on scholarship. Because of all the media exposure many of the athletes have no trouble finding work and not just at the professional sports level. I don’t think the things you mentioned came about so the school could make more money but so a coach, or a team can gain a competitive advantage on the field or in recruiting.

                      I don’t know how you can say I turn a blind eye to something that I clearly recognize. I see college athletics as invaluable and I believe the path the O’Bannon suit has it own will destroy it for many athletes, schools and fans needlessly.

                    • As for a stipend, I think it is needed now because of the poor state the countries families are in. When I was in school in the early eighties most everyone had a mother and a father at home and they were supportive of the student. It is not that way any more. Therefore I think the stipend is needed to fill that void. I think it should be for all full scholarships not just athletes.

                      Don’t look now, but you’ve just acknowledged the model needs to change.

                    • Ant123

                      I freely made that acknowledgement from the beginning. But there is a vast difference between a small stipend for all scholarshiped students and paying only those blessed with athletic talent. The stipend does not change the amateur status model we have all known and enjoyed for decades.

                    • The stipend does not change the amateur status model we have all known and enjoyed for decades.

                      When is a change not a change? When you say it isn’t, I guess.

                    • Ant

                      Herschel that is.

                    • mp

                      Regarding 1980 vs now: agreed that it is the same now as then, i.e. wrong then and wrong now. Exploitative then and exploitative now. How lazy to say nothing should change because that’s the way it’s always been. University athletic departments act as profit maximizers hiding in the skirts of non-profit universities, what a farce.

                    • Ant123

                      Why was it wrong then and if it was so wrong then why was no one saying it was wrong then?
                      While many of the more well known institutions do make a nice profit most years most of them and the rest carry a large debt load also. I don’t see why how much profit they make is relevant. It has no bearing on the issue at hand.

    • mp

      Nice of you to decide what’s works for the players and their “selfish demands”. Any other speaking on their behalf you would like to do for them? Let the market decide, you Socialist!

      The fact that people don’t think about the economic inefficiency created on spending to create a spectacle created to entice recruits rather than the efficiently transfering the funds directly makes me shake my head. You know how my employer told me they wanted me more than another offer? Their package of salary, benefits, and opportunity for me was superior to the other guy’s. It wasn’t that they took me to dinner at a better steak house or that they had better muzak in the elevator.

      You want to spend money to keep up with the competition? Directly appeal to the people who you are recruirting instead of trying to impress them with a water feature in the locker room!

      • mp

        posted before restating the first sentence of the second paragraphy: “inefficiency created simply to create a spectacle to entice recruits rather than…”

      • Ant

        I am not “speaking on their behalf” merely stating the facts that apply to someone that wants what belongs to someone else.

        While the things you mention (how my employer told me they wanted me more than another offer? Their package of salary, benefits, and opportunity for me was superior to the other guy’s ) apply well and were designed for the market place. They will not work nor were they designed to work for the education system.
        “You want to spend money to keep up with the competition? Directly appeal to the people who you are recruirting instead of trying to impress them with a water feature in the locker room!”
        So given the previous statement it stands to reason that schools should put the music and academic scholarships on the payroll to appeal directly to the people they are recruiting rather than having a modern lab for the biology and chemistry students etc…
        Of course most people would consider “trying to impress them with a water feature in the locker room” appealing directly to the people they are trying to recruit since that is the only reason its there.

        • DawgPhan

          Why do you hate the free market and capitalism? Are you from Russia or Europe or something? Bet you voted for Obama, twice!(well really probably 4 times. hehehe)

          • Ant

            Your comments show you no nothing about me, but the people that do found your absurd comments very entertaining. Why people can’t just stick to discussing issues I don’t understand.

  3. reipar

    I am all for a free market place and playing the players, but the market place is not totally free. For example in California you cannot have volunteer work or an unpaid internship. You must at least receive min wage. I wonder how that would work for the walk-ons?

  4. Sound improvements at Sanford Stadium, including speakers throughout the stadium and sound equipment atop of scoreboard, to be finished before the Clemson game ($750,000.

    I suppose to better blast the ears full of so-called ‘music’, no matter where you are in the stadium. That crap won’t reach my ears. I bailed out, for the most part, about 8 years ago when Damon Evans started that nonsense.

    After seeing this, I’ll pass on even the biggest games, like Alabama next year.
    ~~~

    • Newnan Dawg

      Having attended 3 games at Alabama last season on recruiting visits, Sanford needs the upgrades. The sound quality difference is very noticeable and several recruits mentioned it.

      • Thanks for that info. I’m for whatever it takes, within the rules, to recruit. I guess the ‘game atmosphere’ has just passed me by.
        ~~~