KUGRDON Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Texas announces their contingency plan to be implemented should the NCAA lose appeals in the O'Bannon Case. Everyone knew there was a new day dawning for collegiate athletics, thanks to autonomy for Power Five conferences and the O’Bannon lawsuit and the like. Part of the change called for increased benefits for all student-athletes in elite conferences specifically, including football players. Tuesday, one university put a price tag on that change. At a Big 12 sports forum yesterday, Texas athletic director ****** Patterson revealed that his university will soon begin paying its student-athletes in every sport, male and female. UT expects to spend $6 million annually on the endeavor, which works out to roughly $10,000 per athlete per year. The Dallas Morning News writes that “[t]he money will cover college expenses that aren’t covered by a traditional full scholarship and give each player $5,000 in compensation for the university’s use of his image.†The latter is in connection to the O’Bannon suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scscsc89 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 So much for "it will only be football and Men's basketball players". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KUGRDON Posted October 23, 2014 Author Share Posted October 23, 2014 That was never going to be the model as long as Title IX is at issue. In order to work around Title IX, football and basketball would have to be club sports run by someone licensed by the university. That would be a radical and politically unpopular arrangement. Essentially, some colleges will be able to afford professional teams, others will not. While it may not suit my personal likes and dislikes, I think there is going to have to be a major reshuffling with some schools going back to an amateur model while others forge ahead into professionalism (of course they won't call it that). While my heart doesn't like it, my head says there is no way in hell that football and basketball coaches should be among the top paid employees of state government. I hope WSU returns to pure amateurism with coaches making less than professors, with a few teams competing with regional schools in inter-collegiate athletics and with a much greater emphasis in intramural sports with the aim of benefiting almost every student. You know, serving an educational mission intended to benefit the most students possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scscsc89 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Maybe we should merge this with the 64 thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KUGRDON Posted October 23, 2014 Author Share Posted October 23, 2014 There won't be 64. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAC MAN Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 That six million bill for Texas is due to the number of sports. CU, who probably has the least amount of sports in the PAC might have to spend about half of what Texas is doing. I can see the likes of WSU and OSU cutting some sports sooner than later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAC MAN Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 If you have 30K students paying an extra $100 per semester in athletic fees, you can get that extra $6M. I'm thinking talk of schools being at a disadvantage might be overblown. You could split it 50-50 between the students and boosters plus tv revenues are pointing upwards instead of down in the coming years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mano Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 I don't understand why rather than the schools paying the players for use of their likeness, they don't just let the athletes control and sell their likeness, autographs, etc. on the open market. It would not be a part of the scholarship at all, so should not violate title IX, and the star athletes that are actually generating millions for the schools could cash in on their moment of fame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcbl Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 I hope WSU returns to pure amateurism with coaches making less than professors, with a few teams competing with regional schools in inter-collegiate athletics and with a much greater emphasis in intramural sports with the aim of benefiting almost every student. You know, serving an educational mission intended to benefit the most students possible. So you are willing to give SDSU your spot in the PAC? How benevolent of you.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcbl Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 I don't understand why rather than the schools paying the players for use of their likeness, they don't just let the athletes control and sell their likeness, autographs, etc. on the open market. It would not be a part of the scholarship at all, so should not violate title IX, and the star athletes that are actually generating millions for the schools could cash in on their moment of fame. Yeah, the problem is that would take all control of the money away from the powers that be, and the powers that be don't be ready for that radical of an idea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KUGRDON Posted October 23, 2014 Author Share Posted October 23, 2014 If you have 30K students paying an extra $100 per semester in athletic fees, you can get that extra $6M. I'm thinking talk of schools being at a disadvantage might be overblown. You could split it 50-50 between the students and boosters plus tv revenues are pointing upwards instead of down in the coming years. Fewer and fewer students are interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAC MAN Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Fewer and fewer students are interested. Would it really matter if athletic fees are mandatory? CU's athletic fees for the 2014-15 school year are $28.50 per semester if you are taking four credit hours or more. Those fees are mandated by CU's Board of Regents. I imagine those fees are mandated by the other school's Board of Regents or Board of Governors so students do not really have a say in those matters. http://bursar.colorado.edu/tuition-fees/fees-description/student-fees/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Hail Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Fewer and fewer students are interested.Are you basing this on students not showing up to the games as much? You realize that's a flawed analysis right? Attendance in general is down yet TV analytics say eyeballs are up. If anything, this suggests that more students -- at the very least, more people -- are watching the games than ever before. They are just choosing to do so on their couch, or at a place that has their favorite beer on tap rather than in a giant burning or freezing bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Hail Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Would it really matter if athletic fees are mandatory? CU's athletic fees for the 2014-15 school year are $28.50 per semester if you are taking four credit hours or more. Those fees are mandated by CU's Board of Regents. I imagine those fees are mandated by the other school's Board of Regents or Board of Governors so students do not really have a say in those matters. http://bursar.colorado.edu/tuition-fees/fees-description/student-fees/ At the UC's, you can't raise fees for non academic reasons without a vote from the students. Ucdavis has the highest tuition among the UCs because their students have voted to build new rec centers, etc more often than other students at other UCs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quack 12 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 I hope WSU returns to pure amateurism with coaches making less than professors, with a few teams competing with regional schools in inter-collegiate athletics and with a much greater emphasis in intramural sports with the aim of benefiting almost every student. You know, serving an educational mission intended to benefit the most students possible. That makes a lot of sense on the heels of your recent photo tours of WSU's $67M football operations center. WSU can never "return to pure amateurism" because there is no such thing and there never has been. Even at WSU, boosters grease palms and slip envelopes, and they always have. This is just going to bring it out into the light. At least then we might find out out how much the SEC really does pay its players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAC MAN Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 At the UC's, you can't raise fees for non academic reasons without a vote from the students. Ucdavis has the highest tuition among the UCs because their students have voted to build new rec centers, etc more often than other students at other UCs. Yup it depends on the individual school and whether the regents or students have the final say on such fees. And I think CU has the coolest student rec center swimming pool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scscsc89 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Looks like a manatee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAC MAN Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 That makes a lot of sense on the heels of your recent photo tours of WSU's $67M football operations center. WSU can never "return to pure amateurism" because there is no such thing and there never has been. Even at WSU, boosters grease palms and slip envelopes, and they always have. This is just going to bring it out into the light. At least then we might find out out how much the SEC really does pay its players. If WSU can pay for those football facilities, I think they can afford to pay the athletes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KUGRDON Posted October 23, 2014 Author Share Posted October 23, 2014 No it won't. There will be the same palm greasing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quack 12 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 No it won't. There will be the same palm greasing. Fair enough. So it isn't the beginning of the end of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.