Pants on fire

C’mon, now.

One of the nation’s most respected university presidents plans to tell Congressional lawmakers on Tuesday that college programs do not sponsor athletics with the purpose of generating revenue.

“The business model for college athletics is greatly misunderstood by the public,” Wisconsin chancellor Rebecca Blank says in written testimony. “We’re not running sports to primarily make money.”

Primarily is doing a shit-ton of heavy lifting there.  After all, when they say it’s not about the money…

************************************************************************

UPDATE:  Paging Jimmy Sexton!

33 Comments

Filed under It's All Just Made Up And Flagellant, Political Wankery, The NCAA

33 responses to “Pants on fire

  1. Godawg

    Love to see the video of that quote. If she said it with a straight face she either needs to be nominated for an academy or play high-stakes poker.

    Like

  2. RangerRuss

    Yeah well, Bluto, I’m having difficulty focusing on the content of the post as that pasty white GoGo dancer is a distraction to my naturally twisted grunt brain.

    Liked by 2 people

    • gurkhadawg

      Damn, she could move. She was so hot, that for most of the video they could show her only the from the neck up.

      Liked by 3 people

    • I though you preferred blonds. 😉

      Like

      • Illini84

        A review of her in Rat Pfink and Boo Boo. “What can you say about this infamous mess? Steckler had a strange sense of humor but he was smart enough to keep putting Carolyn Brandt in his films. Brandt couldn’t act much but she was a hot piece of ass and was always sexy in her roles. The dubbing is especially bad as there was no microphone during filming so all dialogue and sound effects were put in later like the sound of a toilet flushing when they tried to start the motorcycle! Rat Pfink’s voice sounds like a drunk Bullwinkle or Yogi Bear. You know your in for a cheap movie when it has a narrator for no reason at all. The fight scenes are phony and what was up with having a gorilla in the film? The gorilla handler was a real strange guy, he sounded real gay and had a big round butt. Why was Rat Pfink always pointing his finger when they rode in the motorcycle? And Boo-Boo cannot fight to save his life. And when the thugs wanted to get money all they did was make crank calls to Brandt before they kidnapped her. Why? Movies that are this low budget and inept are interesting to watch and I wouldn’t be telling the truth if I said I wasn’t entertained by this nonsense. Good shots of Hollywood in the mid sixties. If you love really bad films than you have to see this one!”

        Liked by 2 people

    • Got Cowdog

      I cant decide how I feel about the clip, other than without the burlesque show that doesn’t appear to be related to the actual song it has no entertainment value whatsoever.

      Like

  3. Xon Hostetter

    This is just classic Thomas Aquinas, but turned to the purpose of filthy lucre!

    The Doctrine of Double Effect: if a thing has both an intended and unintended consequence, you can do the thing as long as your intended consequence is good. In this case, they WANT to just have amateurism (don’t we believe them???), but they JUST HAPPEN to make a shit ton of money doing it. Oh well, what can you do?

    Liked by 4 people

  4. gurkhadawg

    True for teams like UGA, Bama, etc. But don’t a lot of teams lose money on football. Some lose a shit ton on football. I haven’t done the research, but isn’t that why some colleges are dropping football?

    Like

    • They’re only losing $ on football because they have to spend every $ they take in to keep up the facade of a non-profit entity.If they were treated like the for-profit entities they really are, I imagine you’d start seeing them treat their non-essential expenses a little differently.

      Liked by 2 people

    • charlottedawg

      Most athletic departments “lose” money through opaque and best accounting (remember there is no standard for their accounting unlike say a public traded company) and even then when you dig into the numbers they basically grossly over exaggerate their expenses if not classify stuff that’s not an expense as such. Classic examples include showing the full sticker price of tuition and fees, transfers to the university and the total amount of the upfront cost of buildings and facilities all as expenses. The household equivalent would be me making $500k from my job then claiming a “loss” of $100k on my taxes due to buying a $400k vacation home, $50,000 to a retirement account, $75,000 in “rent” to my wife for our joint residence and the new lake house I just bought and another $75,000 to our joint savings account. Also in case anyone is wondering, yes if a household or for profit business tried to pull this shit it would be illegal AF. Schools are basically trying to have their cake and eat it too in that they want the benefits of a cash flowing business as well as the tax treatment of a non profit.

      These schools make money from football and basketball, they’re lying when they say they don’t. 1) look at their collective freak out when COVID threatened to cancel the season and it’s collective revenue stream and 2) why do you think these schools keep building bigger facilities and paying their coaches more? You really think they’re throwing more and more money at CFB and CBB so they can sink further and further into the red for some vague altruistic reason? Let’s not be naive here, the sole reason they do this is because these sports are profit centers and a fundamental rule of business is investing your precious capital into the assets that generate the highest return. As a wise preacher once noted, you can tell a man’s priorities just by looking at his checkbook.

      Liked by 3 people

      • gurkhadawg

        I know what you’re saying and agree 100% when talking about the big players. That’s why I said UGA, Bama, etc. They make tons of money. But a lot of schools aren’t in the same situation. That’s why a lot of schools will willing take an ass whipping for a $500,000 payday. They desperately need the money.

        Liked by 1 person

        • ASEF

          Because they choose to operate a football program that large. And they want the publicity.

          If it were a money losing operation, you wouldn’t see 7 FBS programs in a state like North Carolina.

          Liked by 2 people

          • charlottedawg

            This succinctly encapsulates my response. Nobody makes these schools run football programs. By virtue of the fact that they keep not only doing so, but keep spending more and more money on said programs, the logical conclusion is that they do so precisely because the football program is a net money maker. Otherwise, why not just shut down or significantly scale back the football program?

            Liked by 2 people

        • mp

          I would suspect they also get donations to the general fund from alums. Additionally, I suspect there is a correlation between applications and D-I sports. (Don’t know how to probe that, but they have certainly proven that success in basketball and football increase applications.) both of those effects (if they exist) don’t show up in the Athletics Dept revenue, but would justify big-time sports as a loss leader.

          Liked by 1 person

  5. Hogbody Spradlin

    I’m a university president. I can spew baloney with a straight face and it’s credible because I have three diplomas, I’m a master of rhetoric, and I’m in HIGHER EDUCATION so I must be smart.

    Liked by 3 people

    • In my limited time and experience on earth I’ve been given the impression the sole purpose of a University president is to strengthen its financial position. Am I wrong? It doesn’t matter if they say intelligent things. Just as long as they aren’t involved in scandal and they keep the dough rolling in.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Skeptic Dawg

    I believe that athletic departments sponsor football and basketball solely to sponsor non-revenue sports. Their intent is not to create a stockpile of cash. As Xon Hostetter said above, raking in mountains of cash by a select few is an unintended consequence. Emphasis on a select few. We are led to believe that the vast majority of D1 football and hoops squads print cash. This is flat out false.

    Like

  7. Greg

    DGAS….but I do GAS about the video. OUTSTANDING, good work!

    Like

  8. Dylan Dreyer's Booty

    The first rule of lying is to say something that could be true. Second rule is to say it in a way that can’t be easily fact-checked.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. As usual, pie chart applies here.

    Like

  10. Don in Mar-a-Lago

    Becki Falwell a Go Go

    Like

  11. Sam Johnson

    She testifies, “If we had to spend all of our revenue only within our three revenue-producing sports, there would be no Olympic sport opportunities and a relatively small number of student-athletes. Under these circumstances, I’m not sure we would choose to run an athletic program at UW-Madison.”

    First, why is it a mission of public universities to provide training for prospective Olympic athletes?

    Second, there is so much revenue sloshing into facilities, extra staff and coaching salaries, it’s clear that substantial revenue could be diverted to athletes with zero effect on non revenue sports.

    Finally, granting NIL rights to athletes in no way limits all revenue spending to revenue producing sports. This is a dissembling straw man argument. I would have expected better from the UW chancellor.

    Like

  12. 79dawg

    I have no doubt the Wisconsin President believes that, and it is easily a correct statement: universities don’t operate athletic programs primarily for direct monies – $5MM into Georgia’s overall budget from athletics is a drop in the bucket.
    However, as someone mentioned above, there are lots of indirect funds that flow through athletics to the universities, such as full tuition payments for a good size chunk of students, etc. But even more importantly are the indirect benefits that come from athletics, such as:
    (1) prestige for the university (and, by extension, the administrators of that university);
    (2) closely related to #1, is empire building for said administrators (again, while the “net” from athletics is a drop in the bucket, adding the gross revenue from athletics to the overall budget is much more significant);
    (3) creating a sense of pride among alumni to assist with donations to academics; and
    (4) creating a sense of desire among students to attend said institution and pay grossly exorbitant amounts of tuition for the privilege of doing so,
    among others…
    If college athletic departments were intended to maximize direct benefits to their universities rather than the indirect benefits, they would be run on a radically different basis….

    Like

  13. À lot of us might agree with Chris Murphy in principle, but would we as Dawgs want the coach who’d work for $174K?

    Like

    • Derek

      We sure don’t want the congresspeople who would. But thats what we have.

      Fwiw: in real terms congressmen made about 50% more in 1965. The president made over double then what he makes now.

      Like

  14. classiccitycanine

    I don’t see any pants…

    Like