In case anyone missed the 60 Minutes segment about the business of college football, it's here.
that is nice bonus change
In case anyone missed the 60 Minutes segment about the business of college football, it's here.
There was a lot of speculation that it was going to be really negative. For those that saw it, how did it end up and how was Dave Brandon?
It you checked the 60 Minutes open thread before the segment aired, everyone kept saying that the promos made Michigan look like a "football factory," which I took to mean a school that puts football above everything else. That's obviously not how it turned out, though.
It was good and fair, I think. The tone seemed to be "the business of college football is really messed up, but here are some schools that are managing to do it right (or at least the best they can)."
As we've learned today and 60 Minutes proved last night:
$$$$$$$$$$ > Everything and anything else
Given that the 60 Minutes segment including a lot of discussion about how broken the college athletics business model is and how the vast majority of schools lose money, I'm not sure if you can really say schools put money before everything else. Either that or they're just really bad at it.
It is money before everything else. Look at the Cal example they used. There's a school with limited football success that dumped $300 million into their stadium. Why? Because it wasn't up to par with the rest of the Pac-12 schools.
Football success = higher profile = donors giving big bucks and increased enrolment.
But football success costs $$$$$$. You cannot compete for the top players if your facilities suck. So you get lots of schools spending big bucks hoping to stay relevant.
...and this is why Hawai'i sucks more years than not despite contuing to play all of their home games in Hawai'i. It's why June Jones left after they went to the Sugar Bowl a few years back (and got killed); they weren't putting any of the money they got back into the program, although if their experience was anything like UConn's last trip to the Fiesa Bowl they probably lost a boatload of money in the bargain.
So in other words completely unlike anything else we experience here in modern-day America?
And your next lesson: Wu Tang Clan ain't nothin to fuck with.
Cast UM in as positive of a light as it could given the subject matter (unbelievable pressure on student athletes to generate department-saving revenue for AD offices, which in turn generate broader donations for universities).
Thought it was a balanced report. Interesting that alumni giving peaks during football season (did DB say about 70%??)
Also, try explaining Title IX to foreigners. Explain how athletic departments (particularly football teams) generate revenue, and these athletes see nothing. it's a really odd system where the denard robinson's (or dare I say Marcus Lattimores, Fitz Toussaints) pay for other sports. Most people on this board think it's okay, because they get an "education", but I always challenge that notion, insofar as, how able are these student athletes to take advantage of this education they receive? To me, this problem transcends college athletics, and really is indicative of a much larger problem in the education system.
I think that a lot of people on this board agree with you, broadly speaking, that the Lattimores and Toussaints of the world are exploited to some extent. I do.
I think really the majority would agree that a certain subset of players (mostly the football stars) are under compensated, assuming we go by marginal value to the athletic department.
The disagreement shows up because the large majority of student athletes are overcompensated (certainly the softball team and even the Brandin Hawthorne types who play a little but don't really have vast potential value as a pro). So in large part the people exploiting the student athletes are in fact other student athletes, and I think there's a legitimate concern about tossing the baby with the bath water if you try to pay the Lattimores their true value.
Of course all that really only applies to the athletic departments. Those guys at EA making a ton of cash and giving nothing to the students and next to nothing to the schools are a bunch of dicks.
Say what you will about the Hawthornes, but he's still putting his body in significant harm's way. With concussions, spine injuries etc.
I really struggle, because if you pay players, there are many reasons it would get messy, and jeopardize parity in college football. On the other hand, in soccer, baseball, hockey, and other sports around the world... you have the option to go pro without having to go through college athletics. Why should football and I suppose basketball players be forced to essentially "work for free" (if you agree the majority of these players that are professional calibur are typically unable to compete in the classrooms.) Why shouldn't they have an alternative vehicle through which to prepare for the big time?
The alternative would be minor league football. I just don't see how a minor league football team can ever compete with college football and its' tradition.
These players have no alternative if they want to play football.
Because college football players are (and have been) forced to go through the channel of college football ...virtually forever. There's no escaping the fact that the system is pretty messed up.
No minor league team can compete with UM or OSU in terms of fan support. It also must be noted that the vast majority of players get more out of the university than the university gets out of them. Most players are either mediocre-to-poor starters, backups, or benchwarmers.If not for subsides from the university and sponsorships there is no way a school like Eastern or Western could field a team. There isn't enough interest.
Most schools are not profiting at all from these kids. UM, OSU, Bama, and the rest of power conference teams certainly are, but not at the lower rungs.
I went to a school in that lower rung of FBS. Exploitation is not what is going on. Not when your program struggles to draw 10,000 a game, is almost never on television, and never goes to a bowl. Frankly, I'am trying hard to find a reason for why my Alma Mater(EMU) fields a team. About the only ones who benefit are the student-athletes.
There's a spike in charitable giving overall in Nov and Dec, because people want the tax advantage before year-end. I'm sure DB includes that period in his numbers, even though the causation is likely not mostly due to football.
...are often not good business. Hell, even a lot of professional teams struggle to make money.
I'm slightly baffled as to why anybody should expect college sports to make money. I'd think the real goal for most schools would just be to avoid losing large sums. That's not to say they can't make money, but it's not their only objective.
I think what differentiates college sports from other sports, such as professional teams/leagues, is that college sports are attached to schools, many of them public. If a public university's athletic department is operating in the red, there is some amount of tax payer burden to keep that department going. There is also the issue of what colleges and universities exist for, which many people would argue is strickly education, and that this level of attention to athletics simply diverts attention and funding away from the real reason the institution exists.
Compare that to professional organizations, which are private entities that look to make money. There are a lot of emotions wrapped up in professional sports teams, but they are also organizations that look to make money and do not have the additional burden of being a large school.
Sports is just a line item. Cry me a river on programs in the "red".
Universities are making money hand-over-fist:
U.S. colleges have built investment behemoths and rainy day funds of more than $408 billion
In 2011, 74 U.S. schools had endowments of more than $1 billion
Nearly 40% of the largest endowments are at public schools
"Colleges and universities are sitting on more wealth than has been amassed by any other group of non-profit institutions in the history of our nation — including private foundations,"
My comment about public institutions with money-losing athletic departments was more about the principle of spending money on sports. I think a lot of people would say that any dime taken away from the academic side to keep the athletic department afloat is money misspent for an academic institution.
Personally, I don't think universities are rolling in the money quite the way you're claiming*, but I also think universities like to play up how much their struggling for the purposes of fund raising and gaining leeway to make cuts where and how they want. But like I said, my original point was that, on principle, people will argue that money should not be directed away from academics at a public academic institution.
*A lot of the endowment figures you tossed out, to me, aren't terribly meaningful without some context. What's the return on a $1 billion endowment? Plus, 74 is only in the neighborhood of 2/3 of FBS schools, so another 51 FBS schools are below that figure. Also, by your own numbers, public schools make up less than half the "large endowment" schools by a considerable margin, but what portion of college students are at public institutions? Those numbers all seem big, but I suspect that when put into the proper context, they don't seem so monstrous.
I totally want my newborn to touch a banner as he's born. Fans are crazy man.
Hate how CBS doesn't allow their videos to be streamed on an iPad. Want to send this video to the dad, but his only "computer" is an iPad and the CBS site re-directs you to their $5 app and this link doesn't display the video at all.
Guess I'll wait til it hits youtube.
and catch the 60 Minutes Overtime "behind the scenes" video.
As you learn, there is someone out there that is very fixated on the M Club banner
where do you get a mini-GO BLUE banner?