PDA

View Full Version : NCAA Spending Cap-Oregon/OSU



stals
08-14-2013, 09:23 PM
Why don't the NCAA Presidents put a spending cap on athletic "Tag Mahals" by limiting spending on capital projects for athletic teams to "X"% of what the schools spend on non-athletic capital programs? For example, a school couldn't spend more than 25% of its capital budget on athletic programs over a three or five year time horizon. This could be a way to stop the runaway spending on athletic facilities we see right now, per Oregon/OSU.

Student-Athletes, indeed.

Edouble
08-14-2013, 10:11 PM
Why don't the NCAA Presidents put a spending cap on athletic "Tag Mahals" by limiting spending on capital projects for athletic teams to "X"% of what the schools spend on non-athletic capital programs? For example, a school couldn't spend more than 25% of its capital budget on athletic programs over a three or five year time horizon. This could be a way to stop the runaway spending on athletic facilities we see right now, per Oregon/OSU.

Student-Athletes, indeed.

I believe that the NCAA has a single president, but I get your meaning.

I think it is counterintuitive to limit the amount of money coming into a school's athletic dept. The more money that gets spent, the bigger, better, and flashier the product (in this case, college football).

I don't know why the NCAA would want less money to come into the system. Some boosters don't want to give money to a non-athletic part of the school, they just want it to go to an athletic program (i.e. football). If someone wants to give money to football, why would the NCAA want to limit that dollar amount?

Also, to some degree, you are talking about the NCAA affecting the amount of money that a school does or does not spend on their non-athletic budget. They can't and shouldn't stick their nose in there!

tommy
08-15-2013, 12:05 AM
Wouldn't Title IX have something to say about the spending? If the palaces discussed in the other Oregon thread are, as Oregon's appears to be, exclusively for the use of the football team, doesn't the university have to spend an equal amount on women's sports in some manner?

Des Esseintes
08-15-2013, 12:12 AM
Wouldn't Title IX have something to say about the spending? If the palaces discussed in the other Oregon thread are, as Oregon's appears to be, exclusively for the use of the football team, doesn't the university have to spend an equal amount on women's sports in some manner?

The form of Title IX compliance pretty much all universities follow is scholarship equivalence. I think courts have ruled--or it's in the original statute--that 1:1 equality in spending is not necessary. I agree that the spirit of the law is not much abided by this sort of thing, but it's at least legal.

tommy
08-15-2013, 12:14 AM
The form of Title IX compliance pretty much all universities follow is scholarship equivalence. I think courts have ruled--or it's in the original statute--that 1:1 equality in spending is not necessary. I agree that the spirit of the law is not much abided by this sort of thing, but it's at least legal.

Yeah, 1:1 equality is not necessary, but these are tens of millions of dollars being spent essentially on male-only facilities, aren't they?

Des Esseintes
08-15-2013, 12:42 AM
Yeah, 1:1 equality is not necessary, but these are tens of millions of dollars being spent essentially on male-only facilities, aren't they?

Sure seems like it. I wish people would remember buildings such as these the next time some drive-time host starts complaining about the women's crew team being the reason wrestling got axed.

cato
08-15-2013, 12:16 PM
Sure seems like it. I wish people would remember buildings such as these the next time some drive-time host starts complaining about the women's crew team being the reason wrestling got axed.

I agree wholeheartedly, but I'm not getting my hopes up. The only time most people have any problem with the amount of resources dedicated to football is when the topic of giving money to football players comes up.

A-Tex Devil
08-15-2013, 12:35 PM
Sure seems like it. I wish people would remember buildings such as these the next time some drive-time host starts complaining about the women's crew team being the reason wrestling got axed.

That's not completely fair. It's not like these facilities are being built with tuition money. They are through donations that are targeted to a specific program. If I want to donate to Duke, but want to ensure my money goes to the cheerleading program or the baseball team, I believe I can still do that, right? If my money isn't allocated as I've directed, I probably never know if I'm donating 3-5 figures, but if I'm donating 7-8 figures, I want the money spent how I directed it.

Which is better? A $20,000,000 donation to the football team's facilities that might (or might not) have some positive trickle down effect on the rest of the AD, or not getting that donation at all because you told your donor he wouldn't have control over where the money went?

Des Esseintes
08-15-2013, 12:52 PM
That's not completely fair. It's not like these facilities are being built with tuition money. They are through donations that are targeted to a specific program. If I want to donate to Duke, but want to ensure my money goes to the cheerleading program or the baseball team, I believe I can still do that, right? If my money isn't allocated as I've directed, I probably never know if I'm donating 3-5 figures, but if I'm donating 7-8 figures, I want the money spent how I directed it.

Which is better? A $20,000,000 donation to the football team's facilities that might (or might not) have some positive trickle down effect on the rest of the AD, or not getting that donation at all because you told your donor he wouldn't have control over where the money went?

I get what you're saying, but I don't think it changes my point. I've heard many times the complaint that Title IX considerations are why scholarship support for men's wrestling, men's swimming, etc. has to be axed. Meanwhile, football takes up approximately one meellion scholarships AND sucks in mountains of donor cash. Whether the donors or the administration decide to earmark the money for football rather than support other sports doesn't really matter, does it? What matters is the choice.

Now, I know these issues are complicated. I know that football also helps pay for Olympic sports at successful DI schools such as Oregon and UT. And I like football! I just hate that the way Title IX is often made to take the blame when the cost of women's scholarships is dwarfed by facilities money to the football team.

Dev11
08-15-2013, 01:03 PM
I get what you're saying, but I don't think it changes my point. I've heard many times the complaint that Title IX considerations are why scholarship support for men's wrestling, men's swimming, etc. has to be axed. Meanwhile, football takes up approximately one meellion scholarships AND sucks in mountains of donor cash. Whether the donors or the administration decide to earmark the money for football rather than support other sports doesn't really matter, does it? What matters is the choice.

Now, I know these issues are complicated. I know that football also helps pay for Olympic sports at successful DI schools such as Oregon and UT. And I like football! I just hate that the way Title IX is often made to take the blame when the cost of women's scholarships is dwarfed by facilities money to the football team.

Think of it as investing. Football has the most potential for making money, so limited resources should be pumped to it for the best return. Giving a wrestler a scholarship returns no potential investment, because that program makes virtually no money.

I'm not a finance expert, this is as deep as I go.

Des Esseintes
08-15-2013, 01:53 PM
Think of it as investing. Football has the most potential for making money, so limited resources should be pumped to it for the best return. Giving a wrestler a scholarship returns no potential investment, because that program makes virtually no money.

I'm not a finance expert, this is as deep as I go.

1. I didn't wade into this argument from a returns-based perspective. The point was about lazy arguments people make against Title IX. That said...

2. The goal of athletic departments is to win, right? They make money in order to win, not the other way around? I understand that universities are basically multinationals these days, but an AD that keeps his department solvent and loses all over the field is still likely to get fired. It's not like corporate America in every particular. Furthermore...

3. I think you could flip the investment argument around easily. In which sport will a dollar of donation go further to put a winning product on the field? A dollar into wrestling is probably 100x more efficient for producing winners than a dollar for football. Ask China (http://olympics.time.com/2012/07/27/reality-or-strategy-china-plays-down-hopes-of-beating-the-u-s-in-gold-medal-count/) and Trinity (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/sports/trinitys-record-winning-streak-ends-at-252.html?_r=0). If donors cared about overall university athletics winning, they would pump money into volleyball and crew, sports where a little extra dough could produce juggernauts. They don't, because...

3. You and I both know football doesn't get more donor money because "investing." Football gets more money because people care about it more. Many fans consider a 4-8 football team plus a title-winning fencing team to be a disappointing year. Which is fine. Nothing wrong with supporting the thing you like best and ignoring a sport that doesn't speak to you. But let's not contort it into some it's-super-smart-cuz-a-rising-tide-lifts-all-ships argument. After all, a retreating tide (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-15/budget-disparity-increase-college-athletics/54960698/1)...

Dev11
08-15-2013, 02:11 PM
You and I both know football doesn't get more donor money because "investing." Football gets more money because people care about it more. Many fans consider a 4-8 football team plus a title-winning fencing team to be a disappointing year. Which is fine. Nothing wrong with supporting the thing you like best and ignoring a sport that doesn't speak to you. But let's not contort it into some it's-super-smart-cuz-a-rising-tide-lifts-all-ships argument. After all, a retreating tide (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-15/budget-disparity-increase-college-athletics/54960698/1)...

People caring more about football = more money to be made by pumping it up.

I had friends on a lot of teams at Duke, including many of the less publicized sports. As much fun as it was to go to their games and cheer for them, part of me always wondered, what's the point of lots of scholarships for what I'm watching?

Either way, I don't actually think that the school directly paying players is the way to go. The school says, here's a scholarship, maintain a 2.0 and you can keep playing sports for us. If you want to go pitch shoes or cars or detergent, have fun, but know that we can kick you off the team if we think you're overworked from endorsement commitments, and nobody wins if we have to do that. By the way, if you want an agent to help you make some cash, we'll help you find one.

Des Esseintes
08-16-2013, 01:08 AM
People caring more about football = more money to be made by pumping it up.

I had friends on a lot of teams at Duke, including many of the less publicized sports. As much fun as it was to go to their games and cheer for them, part of me always wondered, what's the point of lots of scholarships for what I'm watching?

Either way, I don't actually think that the school directly paying players is the way to go. The school says, here's a scholarship, maintain a 2.0 and you can keep playing sports for us. If you want to go pitch shoes or cars or detergent, have fun, but know that we can kick you off the team if we think you're overworked from endorsement commitments, and nobody wins if we have to do that. By the way, if you want an agent to help you make some cash, we'll help you find one.

Edited for reality:

"Either way, I don't actually think that the school directly paying players is [hardcore enough]. The school says, here's [$650,000 in 'endorsements' we've lined up for you. If our main rival for your services doesn't find you endorsements over $850k, our upper limit], you can keep playing sports for us. If you want to go pitch shoes or cars or detergent, have fun, but know that we [will put even more endorsements your way next year if it means you will not jump to the Association. Seriously, do anything you want. The small amount of influence we had over you before this new regime came in has been reduced to a farcical nothing.] By the way, if you want an agent to help you make some cash, [his office is where that of the men's diving coach used to be]."