“We are making more money than ever, but we are spending more money than ever.”

Tim Tebow tries nuance.

A lot of people are going to see certain things that are wrong. I think it’s important to try and come together and find a way that’s right for the student-athlete, for the game and for the universities. Let’s take the University of Florida, for example. There’s only two of their 21 sports that sustain themselves: Football and basketball. And basketball doesn’t make enough money to support other sports. Football has to support 19 others, for men and women. You have to take all that into account and understand that all of it is part of this bigger issue.

Here’s what that “support” means in real life:

If you are lucky enough to be the head golf coach at Texas A&M, you are down to make $209,100, which is dog food compared to the head men’s golf coach at the University of Texas, who makes $275K.

The head women’s basketball coach at UTEP makes $246,000, or $700 less than the defensive coordinator for a Miners football program that is currently 1-4.

And if you are the the head women’s bowling coach at Sam Houston State university you pull in $73,584.

These are a few examples taken from state schools in Texas, but they reflect the entire country.

If you want to look at least one reason why the NCAA and its member schools are in an alligator-fight against student-athletes being paid, look no further than the ledgers and just how much money is spent to pay coaches, and staffers.

“The other side of student-athlete benefits has always been coach and staff compensation,” Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby said.

Schools are asking college athletes from revenue producing programs, most of whom come from impoverished backgrounds, to subsidize the salaries of athletic staffers in non-revenue producing programs.  Why should that be their responsibility?

Well, let Mr. Bowlsby, in a remarkable fit of honesty, explain.

“Whatever resource the athletic department has they typically spend it; they operate hand to mouth,” Bowlbsy said. “The difference between the college athletics model and the pro athletics model is they manage to a profit. We manage to a zero outcome, or something marginally above zero.

“If there is $300,000 left, they are going to find something to do with it.”

Just as long as it doesn’t involve player compensation, anyway.

Advertisements

17 Comments

Filed under It's Just Bidness

17 responses to ““We are making more money than ever, but we are spending more money than ever.”

  1. spur21

    And the slave owners said – what’s the problem – we provide them with a job – housing – food what else do they deserve?

    Like

  2. Tebow will never be mistaken for a Mensa member. Once again, trading on NLI won’t cost the budgets of these athletic departments one dime.

    Like

  3. So, Title IX is to blame?

    Like

  4. NCDawg

    So we should get rid of all other sports except men’s football and basketball?

    Like

  5. Anonymous

    I really wish the NCAA would grow a pair and pass requirements that student athletes have to be real students that make it through the normal admissions process before receiving a scholarship. The hypocrisy is not that revenue generating sports fund non-revenue generating sports. STEM fields bring in research money and grants that support having Arts, Social Work, etc. The hypocrisy is pretending that functionally illiterate bozos with an SAT score 500 points below the student body average is actually a student getting an education.

    It isn’t incumbent upon our institutions of higher education to run a farm league for the NFL. Fuck ’em. They won’t pony up the cash for a farm league until you force them.

    inb4 the Senator complains that it isn’t realistic. I don’t care. It needs to be part of the discussion. These players consider the student part of being a student-athlete a pain in the ass. I don’t want to watch them.

    Like

    • The hypocrisy is not that revenue generating sports fund non-revenue generating sports.

      The hypocrisy is that college athletes playing revenue generating sports are funding staff in non-revenue generating sports, often at inflated salaries, while being restricted in compensation themselves.

      As for the rest of it, I’m not saying you’re unrealistic. D-III football is ready for you right now. Have at it.

      Like

      • Anonymous

        That isn’t hypocrisy. Graduate students in STEM fields do research the grunt work of research that brings revenue into the schools that funds staff in non-revenue generating fields, often at inflated salaries, while being restricted in compensation themselves.

        I want to watch my Alma Mater play her rival schools. If they all drop to D-II, then great. You don’t have to be D-III without scholarships. I think they should be treated like Graduate students that do research. They get free tuition, room and board, and a stipend to cover living expenses. They should then be able to profit from their likeness rights like Olympians. What I don’t want to watch is a professional football team full of morons with criminal records that is attached to my Alma Mater for no other reason than so that media companies can make a profit.

        Like

        • Your analogy will be relevant the day ESPN pays a billion dollars for us to watch research.

          As for what you want to watch, that’s nice, but you’re in a very small minority.

          Like

          • Anonymous

            Much of that research is paid for by for-profit corporate entities. That research is why we have the technologies that allow you to watch ESPN in 75 inches of glorious 4K in your living room and the medical technology for people to reach your age in good health.

            I don’t think I am in that small of a minority. People watch college football for the tradition, pageantry, and emotions. This is why the Army vs. Navy game is the epitome of college football. People that want to watch the biggest and fastest morons give each other brain damage will watch the NFL. I think a lot of college football fans would find a more cerebral game refreshing.

            Like

            • No doubt that’s why Harvard outdraws Georgia every week.

              Like

              • Anonymous

                That is not an argument and you know it. Harvard doesn’t try to compete on the same level or for the same eyeballs as major programs. Would you enjoy college football less if the players were smarter and the game was more strategic / less of what you call “man ball”? I believe you have answered that question about 20 times this week.

                Like

    • Gaskilldawg

      I looked it up for you. Princeton plays Brown at 12:30 on ESPN+. Then Pennsylvania plays at Columbia at 1:30 on ESPN +. No functional illiterates playing in the Ivy League.

      Like

  6. Normaltown Mike

    Wait, I thought you want NLI? Now you want the University to compensate the athlete?

    Good job moving the goal line.

    Like

    • You think I’ve moved the goal line? Seriously?

      My position on player compensation has been both open and consistent.

      BTW, schools already compensate the athlete. We’re just arguing over the amount.

      Like

      • AthensHomerDawg

        Okay, I’ll bite. What should the amount be?

        Like

        • Do any of you guys actually read my posts on player comp? I don’t care what the final numbers look like. I just want the schools to quit colluding to fix the market. As long as a result is reached where the NCAA doesn’t impose from above, I’m good with it.

          Like

          • AthensHomerDawg

            0uch. Yes, yes you have.
            Ross’ Book about breaking up the cartel proves that he was not an economics major in college.
            On the other hand, with your background and interests, you would have a better perspective on how to resolve this than the majority of GTPers here.
            What say you?

            Like