The Swamp

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:42 am**

Patrick Hruby's article in Sports on Earth today. Suggest you read it: http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/42924176/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Our old friend bravesandbirds has also been kicking some serious ass on this topic on Twitter.

I've never been completely comfortable with the idea of paying college athletes--it's always seemed too unwieldy to me--but over time I've come to the realization that I cannot be on the same side of the argument as the college administrators and AD's who make millions off of "amateur" sports. Kind of similar to how I feel about guns and the NRA.

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:57 am**

Just let the boosters pay them off.

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 1:20 pm**

Grasspenis wrote:Just let the boosters pay them off

more.

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 1:26 pm**

The argument that the schools make big money off the labor of the athletes in two sports leaves me cold. Since when has this not been true in many areas of major universities?

It's called "grad school" and "post-doc research." Particularly in the schools of medicine, business, engineering and many science departments, both the university and professors recoup many times the cost of educating their labor force in a significant fraction of the cases. The parallel is stronger than may seem obvious.

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 1:29 pm**

DC47 wrote:The argument that the schools make big money off the labor of the athletes in two sports leaves me cold. Since when has this not been true in many areas of major universities?

It's called "grad school" and "post-doc research." Particularly in the schools of medicine, business, engineering and many science departments, both the university and professors recoup many times the cost of educating their labor force in a significant fraction of the cases. The parallel is stronger than may seem obvious.

The difference is that people don't pay big money to watch some post grad research the migration patterns of the african swallow vs the european swallow.

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 1:40 pm**

People don't pay big money to watch college soccer games either. Or 99.5% of all college athletic events. We're talking only about 0.5% of college athletic events -- the football and basketball games of a small percentage of colleges.

So too with where the money is in the academic side of universities. Drug discovery, medical service delivery (University hospitals), business school professors' consulting projects, internet business spin-offs -- these are but a few areas where someone other than the grad student or post-doc can make big money at many universities. The staple money maker is major grant-funded research. Universities can rake off 40-60% in overhead charges, which are vastly more than what they provide many research programs.

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 1:42 pm**

Well, you can't lump all your examples into one pile and not let me do it, too!

Indian lumper!

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 1:48 pm**

But the athetes get zero. Grad students get paid. Or is that your point?

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 1:50 pm**

It would be nice to stop ridiculous speculation about things as innocuous as who bought whom a backpack.

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 1:57 pm**

Then just let the boosters pay the really good players, or is that too free market for you commies?

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:05 pm**

roomtemperaturemayo wrote:But the athetes get zero. Grad students get paid. Or is that your point?

The athletes get a lot more than zero, if we're talking about recruited players in football and basketball at major sports universities. They get free tuition and most living expenses covered, as well as expert training in their profession. And of course, they get side benefits in many cases. Some minor, some not so minor.

Most grad students who are working for professors, med school interns, and post-docs get roughly the same. They "pay" covers living expenses, more or less. Athletes get this covered directly.

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:10 pm**

If Texas Instruments buys Ranjidikishar Khan a sweet new Hyundai, and the NCAA finds out about it, does he lose his eligibility to research superconductors?

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:11 pm**

DC47 wrote:
roomtemperaturemayo wrote:But the athetes get zero. Grad students get paid. Or is that your point?
The athletes get a lot more than zero, if we're talking about recruited players in football and basketball at major sports universities. They get free tuition and most living expenses covered, as well as expert training in their profession. And of course, they get side benefits in many cases. Some minor, some not so minor.

Most grad students who are working for professors, med school interns, and post-docs get roughly the same. They "pay" covers living expenses, more or less. Athletes get this covered directly.

You didn't read the article it seems. No one denies that they get perks. But the argument is that basically, those 85 football scholarships cost the big schools nothing but the cost of the chairs for them to sit in class, while they generate revenue far beyond that.

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:13 pm**

That "free college" argument would be more persuasive if you weren't forcing the top talent to take your $40K in non-transferable freebies over millions and millions of dollars in actual dollars.

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:17 pm**

Nope. But does it happen?

Also, note that I'm pointing out that undergraduate athletes are in a similar economic situation as grad students, post-docs and medical interns. That's a pretty sweet deal for an undergrad.

I think the real problem is that collusion between colleges and pro leagues has produced age limits on when the top pro leagues can sign players. That limits the options of the "amateur" players. Sure they can go pro -- but not in the top pro leagues. It's amazing to me that this is legal. To some extent, it is the same with grad students, post-docs and medical interns, though it can be argued that this is either more justified (e.g., interns) or not a result of collusion (the academic path).

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:17 pm**

Right, I think the bigger story here was how money that isn't being spent on players is being spent instead on things that provide little to no real value. That the idea that schools lose money is bogus because they're always going to spend what they take in, and if you don't have real expenses, then you make some up, like having a staff of 400+ and administrators making high six figures.

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:22 pm**

AB_skin_test wrote:
DC47 wrote:
roomtemperaturemayo wrote:But the athetes get zero. Grad students get paid. Or is that your point?
The athletes get a lot more than zero, if we're talking about recruited players in football and basketball at major sports universities. They get free tuition and most living expenses covered, as well as expert training in their profession. And of course, they get side benefits in many cases. Some minor, some not so minor.

Most grad students who are working for professors, med school interns, and post-docs get roughly the same. They "pay" covers living expenses, more or less. Athletes get this covered directly.
You didn't read the article it seems. No one denies that they get perks. But the argument is that basically, those 85 football scholarships cost the big schools nothing but the cost of the chairs for them to sit in class, while they generate revenue far beyond that.

I know the argument quite well.

The cost of the players is far from "nothing." I'd estimate it at around $40-80K per year; far more with proper accounting as below.

Obviously at some schools they claim that they get back far more on average. Though this is largely a result of fraudulent accounting. For example, assuming the cost of the land and buildings for a football team is zero. Many of the big-time football and basketball programs actually lose money when the accounting is done right.

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:27 pm**

DC47 wrote:Nope. But does it happen?

Also, note that I'm pointing out that undergraduate athletes are in a similar economic situation as grad students, post-docs and medical interns. That's a pretty sweet deal for an undergrad.

I think the real problem is that collusion between colleges and pro leagues has produced age limits on when the top pro leagues can sign players. That limits the options of the "amateur" players. Sure they can go pro -- but not in the top pro leagues. It's amazing to me that this is legal. To some extent, it is the same with grad students, post-docs and medical interns, though it can be argued that this is either more justified (e.g., interns) or not a result of collusion (the academic path).

I think it's fair to point out that some of the excessive spending in college sports does trickle down to the players--the sweet dorms, the free access to state of the art gyms and professional trainers, the pussy--I think Posnanski did a great job of summarizing that a few months ago in one of the articles I go back to when I'm still trying to grasp why players should not be compensated. But so much of the spending does not trickle down, and once all of the sweet weight rooms and dorms are built, there doesn't seem to be much left to do but line the pockets of the coaches and the administrators.

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:29 pm**

Does that accounting include intangibles? Because I'm pretty sure there's been a proven correlation between football/basketball success and donations + applications.

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:29 pm**

Although I'll acknowledge that insurance costs to operate a football team are going to be astronomical before too long, if it's not too early to merge my two threads.

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:06 pm**

mister d wrote:Does that accounting include intangibles? Because I'm pretty sure there's been a proven correlation between football/basketball success and donations + applications.

I think there's a connection between short-term application and donation surges and a high-level of short-term success (e.g., national championships). This is most pronounced when schools that haven't had much prominence do very well in the two major college sports (e.g., VCU, Butler). I don't know of any evidence regarding the long term effects. Strong evidence won't be easy to come by for several reasons. In particular, it won't happen anytime soon that a major football or basketball power will voluntarily kill their programs.

So I don't see a lot of benefit in these areas. If there is any relationship, it's probably not large and long-term, and it won't apply to the vast majority of schools that are not in the top tier but still compete in high-level basketball and football. It's also arguable that any stable long-term increase in applications or donations does not actually amount to a social good. It may help, say Notre Dame or North Carolina. But does shifting some quality high school applications in that direction and away from, say, St. Johns or South Carolina a positive for society?

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:21 pm**

Grasspenis wrote:If Texas Instruments buys Ranjidikishar Khan a sweet new Hyundai, and the NCAA finds out about it, does he lose his eligibility to research superconductors?

I think this hits it on the head.

Grad students in a lot of fields can get stipends from outside, and it does not make them ineligible.

Also, while grad students usually get shit for pay, there is nothing making it illegal for schools to pay grad students better. It just now happens that the market allows schools to get away with paying grad schools small stipends. But if there is a grad student who manages to build a demand for his services, then he can bargain with schools for a better deal. Athletes don't have that option.

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:23 pm**

DC47 wrote:It's also arguable that any stable long-term increase in applications or donations does not actually amount to a social good. It may help, say Notre Dame or North Carolina. But does shifting some quality high school applications in that direction and away from, say, St. Johns or South Carolina a positive for society?

I'm not sure I understand the "social good" in keeping wealth at the institution / administrator level.

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:24 pm**

Strong academic norms make the potential for significant increases in pay very rare. Market-defeating collusion can take many forms.

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:32 pm**

mister d wrote:
DC47 wrote:It's also arguable that any stable long-term increase in applications or donations does not actually amount to a social good. It may help, say Notre Dame or North Carolina. But does shifting some quality high school applications in that direction and away from, say, St. Johns or South Carolina a positive for society?
I'm not sure I understand the "social good" in keeping wealth at the institution / administrator level.

There's none at all. The system is fundamentally corrupt. University presidents know this. Witness the writings of former University of Michigan president Jim Duderstadt -- but only after he left this office. The forces that keep the system in place are enormous. I don't see any way to fundamentally alter the way things are. It will probably happen some day -- but not in any way I can predict.

The damage to higher education from sports extends to academically elite Division III schools. The number of athletes recruited at places like Kenyon College and Harvard U. is so great that a surprisingly high percentage of the student body is there due to their athletic prowess. Add this percentage to the legacy students who owe their admission to their parents' college choices, and the notion that the tremendous resources given to the elite colleges in the US for educational purposes are focused on the students with the highest potential students is far less valid than it appears.

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:33 pm**

Yeah, but those athletes at Kenyon are terrible. At least the ones that don't swim.

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:54 pm**

Grasspenis wrote:Yeah, but those athletes at Kenyon are terrible. At least the ones that don't swim.

The point is that there are forces that elevate athletic performance to an important place in college admissions even in places like this where the level of play and the revenue gain to the college is much lower than it is at Ohio State or Florida in football and basketball. Sports detracts from the primary mission (aka corrupts) many kinds of institutions of higher learning in this country. This is not a given. As far as I can tell, it's not the case in Western Europe.

Posted: **Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:15 pm**

Here is a piece that illustrates the dangerous intersection of stupid and disgusting. Despite my cynicism. At least last year I made more than Phil Matthews (former USF head coach, current Bruin assistant). ETA: Almost certain to be an NCAA sanction in this story.

How UCLA's Shabazz Muhammad was groomed for stardom by father

Posted: **Tue Apr 02, 2013 6:34 am**

Heard this on Crazy Ira and the Douche this morning: Pac-12 head of basketball officials encouraged refs to target Arizona's Sean Miller during the conference tournament

The Pac-12 has basically swept it under the rug at this point.

Rush, according to a source within the Pac-12 officiating group, told a group of referees on the Thursday of the Pac-12 tournament in Las Vegas that he would give them $5,000 or a trip to Cancun if they either "rang him up" or "ran him," meaning hit Miller with a technical or toss him out of the game. Rush then reiterated during a Friday morning meeting, according to one referee in attendance, that officials should take similar action against Miller if he did anything on Friday in the Pac-12 semifinals against UCLA.

"He was emphatic about not dealing with him (Miller)," the ref told CBSSports.com. "He made that perfectly clear."

Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott issued a statement to CBSSports.com:

"Based on the review, we have concluded that while Rush made inappropriate comments that he now regrets during internal meetings that referenced rewards, he made the comments in jest and the officials in the room realized they were not serious offers," Scott told CBSSports.com. "Following our review, we have discussed the matter with Rush, taken steps to ensure it does not happen again, and communicated our findings to all of our officials."

Referee Michael Irving -- who sources confirmed was in the room with Rush on Friday -- hit Miller with a controversial technical with 4:37 left in the Pac-12 semifinals against UCLA. The Bruins wound up winning the game, 66-64. Miller was upset about a double-dribble call on Arizona point guard Mark Lyons, arguing that a UCLA player had gotten his hand on the ball before Lyons picked it up.

Miller later claimed he did not direct any profanities at Irving or any of the other officials at the time. The technical was his first of the season.

Posted: **Tue Apr 02, 2013 7:07 am**

Former NBA ref, Ed Rush. Oh wait, this is an NCAA meltdown thread...not a Let's just all follow David Stern's marching orders and look away from so much evidence of corrupt questionable NBA officiating and concentrate on more important stuff like baseball players taking steroids thread.

Posted: **Tue Apr 02, 2013 7:55 am**

Hmmm, Miller grew up in western PA and went to the University of Pittsburgh, and is probably a big Steelers fan. I'm not surprised at the news.

Posted: **Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:25 pm**

Check out this asshole who should be fired or completely left alone because boys need to be men goddammit

Also, Eric Murdock says cunt

Posted: **Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:39 pm**

He really puts the "v" in "Gilvydas".

Posted: **Tue Apr 02, 2013 3:13 pm**

Biruta, who was born in Lithuania but played high school basketball in New Jersey, described his treatment.

"He would throw his cap at me and he would call me many names," he said of Rice. "The adjectives were creative. They were mean words."

Sounds like he was just helping the lad learn English

Posted: **Tue Apr 02, 2013 3:22 pm**

Could have received the same English education on XBox Live.

Posted: **Tue Apr 02, 2013 7:05 pm**

Back to the meltdown:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc ... u/2047607/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Tue Apr 02, 2013 8:05 pm**

Ryan wrote:Check out this asshole who should be fired or completely left alone because boys need to be men goddammit

Also, Eric Murdock says cunt

Jesus, what a psychopath. That dude has no business coaching at any level. He needs help.

Posted: **Tue Apr 02, 2013 8:18 pm**

Shirley wrote:
Ryan wrote:Check out this asshole who should be fired or completely left alone because boys need to be men goddammit

Also, Eric Murdock says cunt
Jesus, what a psychopath. That dude has no business coaching at any level. He needs help.

Wow. Too bad he didn't coach Latrell Sprewell.

Posted: **Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:57 pm**

Shirley wrote:
Ryan wrote:Check out this asshole who should be fired or completely left alone because boys need to be men goddammit

Also, Eric Murdock says cunt
Jesus, what a psychopath. That dude has no business coaching at any level. He needs help.

My guess is that 1 in 20 D1 college coaches are roughly in this category. Probably a higher number in D1 football programs, perhaps more at the assistant level where they are more hands-on. So to speak.

Posted: **Tue Apr 02, 2013 10:26 pm**

FredRomero wrote:Wow. Too bad he didn't coach Latrell Sprewell.

Same take, and you know a minimum of 75% of sports fans would have instantly killed a Rutgers player who punched a coach a few weeks ago because of kneejerk authoritarianism.

The Swamp

NCAA meltdown thread

NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread

Re: NCAA meltdown thread