930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: mjnova on June 26, 2003, 10:05:00 am
-
Um, television, radio, and now college sports!!!! wooo! thanks Maryland, you're really setting a good example for your students. The ACC should be really super in a few years. I'll be glad to be gone by then.
-
Well if they ruin college sports, colleges may go back to being places were people go to learn stuff.
-
Did i miss something? what happened in college sports?
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Did i miss something? what happened in college sports?
acc wanted to expand, and they wanted miami who's in the big east. miami wanted to take boston college and syracuse with them. virgina wanted to bring in virigina tech instead, for obvious reasons. And Va Tech and some other Big East teams sued the ACC. Then Va Tech got invited to the expansion.
So it went from an expansion of 1 to 3 to 4, and now it's down to just Miami and Virigina Tech. Which make the expansion esentially worthelss becuase the ACC would need 12 teams to have a Conference Championship game in football, which is apperently a big money event. Bascially, the ACC looks bad, Miami looks greedy, and Virgina Tech just come off looking like the biggest bunch of sore loser little kids ever.
It's highly probably that the Big East will continue the cycle by cannibalizing another league.
-
All kidding aside, can you explain to me why it's a big deal to go from the Big East to the ACC or whatever it is they're trying to do....they still play the sport and all try to get into the same bowl games or whatever they call them?...don't they?
-
Maybe it's due to scouts. I don't know, I don't really follow sports.
-
OK, thats what i thought you meant, but not sure why Maryland is involved, i thought they were being quiet about the whole thing. Basically, from a sports standpoint, if SYU, Miami and Va Tech were in the ACC, then so much for teams like Clemson and Virginia and NC State EVER winning a football title, ever again. Also, in basketball, as if its not bad enough that the 2 aforementioned teams have to play Duke and Wake Forest and Maryland, now they have to play Miami and the national champs!? I am sure Duke doesnt want to play Syracuse twice a year either.
I dont see Va Tech looking bad in this thing, but the ACC does, and so does Virginia, definitely. Sometimes I think they should make college sports like the pros, East and West and sort it out from there, instead of 20 conferences i cant keep track of.
So did they scrap the whole thing yet?
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Well if they ruin college sports, colleges may go back to being places were people go to learn stuff.
Sorry Mankie but I think it will have the opposite effect.
Don't understand it myself as I hate most sports, especially college sports.
-
Wouldn't they just improve the team to try to win the title if they were in a better league? I thought it was all politics anyway for these bowl games seeing as it's by invitation that they play in them.
Anyway, I don't care enough about it to make a big deal but was just trying to understand why some people are getting their knickers in a twist over it.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Wouldn't they just improve the team to try to win the title if they were in a better league? I thought it was all politics anyway for these bowl games seeing as it's by invitation that they play in them.
Anyway, I don't care enough about it to make a big deal but was just trying to understand why some people are getting their knickers in a twist over it.
Basically, it comes down to this. If you are a high school football player, and two schools want you, Virginia and Virginia Tech...well, you arent getting paid, but VT is a much more highly revered school as far as football goes, the NFL likes that, and more scouts and TV and fans and publicity goes to VT (some of that will come to other ACC teams if VT plays them though).
Plus, VT has a better chance at winning the National title in the next 4 years , and we ALL know, that even though atheletes dont get paid, they get a LOT of shit....thats just like getting paid.
So, therefore, VT and Miami and Florida State have a better chance at scoring to good new recruits. Like Duke in basketball, who wouldnt want to play for Duke? so they get whoever they want.
and yes, its all politics , but name one thing thats not ;)
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Well if they ruin college sports, colleges may go back to being places were people go to learn stuff.
Colleges have been playing sports for like 100 years! You want them to go back to the good ole 1880s?
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Wouldn't they just improve the team to try to win the title if they were in a better league? I thought it was all politics anyway for these bowl games seeing as it's by invitation that they play in them.
Anyway, I don't care enough about it to make a big deal but was just trying to understand why some people are getting their knickers in a twist over it.
First, it has everything to do with making the ACC more credible as a football conference (an aside would have been letting SU in to distract the obvious football benefit, but that fell by the wayside). Then, it's all about money, TV deals and as was mentioned before, a Major Conference Championship game before the BCS bowl game. The Major Conference Championship game provides exposure for the rest of the teams and could increase potential bowl teams and thus increase dollars for the conference. Look at it this way, if your top 3 teams are Miami, Fl St. and V-Tech, wouldn't your bowl worthiness as a conference increase as opposed to FL St, MD and NC State? The closer the bowl to New Years Day and the BCS days - the more money the conference gets. Should the the ACC get two teams in the BCS - that's almost $25 million for the conference.
The money then gets shared by each program and each program would then get better. So yes, you're right to an extent and the ACC has decided that money is the way to do that. Otherwise, the will continue to be in the shadow of the Big 12, SEC, Big 10 and PAC 10 whose football teams all make a ton of money.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Colleges have been playing sports for like 100 years! You want them to go back to the good ole 1880s?
[/b]
I was just being sarcastic....although I do believe that some colleges have their priorities all 'effd up by putting the emphasis on sports rather than learning.
And trust good old Smackmeister to explain it to me perfectly. I was thinking it was a level of play or something, like when they promote the top three teams from the lower division and relegate the bottom three teams from the upper division. It's all about the $$$$$$ ! Who would've thought that in America!! ;)
-
Ha, the ACC just wants to be as great as the SEC, which will never happen!
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Basically, it comes down to this. If you are a high school football player, and two schools want you, Virginia and Virginia Tech...well, you arent getting paid, but VT is a much more highly revered school as far as football goes, the NFL likes that, and more scouts and TV and fans and publicity goes to VT (some of that will come to other ACC teams if VT plays them though).
Plus, VT has a better chance at winning the National title in the next 4 years , and we ALL know, that even though atheletes dont get paid, they get a LOT of shit....thats just like getting paid.
So, therefore, VT and Miami and Florida State have a better chance at scoring to good new recruits. Like Duke in basketball, who wouldnt want to play for Duke? so they get whoever they want.
and yes, its all politics , but name one thing thats not ;)
If you think this is for the players, you're sadly mistaken.
They are secondary benfeficiaries, my friend.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
OK, thats what i thought you meant, but not sure why Maryland is involved, i thought they were being quiet about the whole thing. Basically, from a sports standpoint, if SYU, Miami and Va Tech were in the ACC, then so much for teams like Clemson and Virginia and NC State EVER winning a football title, ever again. Also, in basketball, as if its not bad enough that the 2 aforementioned teams have to play Duke and Wake Forest and Maryland, now they have to play Miami and the national champs!? I am sure Duke doesnt want to play Syracuse twice a year either.
I dont see Va Tech looking bad in this thing, but the ACC does, and so does Virginia, definitely. Sometimes I think they should make college sports like the pros, East and West and sort it out from there, instead of 20 conferences i cant keep track of.
So did they scrap the whole thing yet?
Va Tech has agreed, no surpise. The reason that they look bad is that they flip flopped, and agreed immediately, too fast actually. They look really really really really desperate.
Miami will probably accept in the next day or two if they do. I'd say it's 70/30 that they accept.
Maryland is complicit, and I go there, hence I think they're setting a bad example.
Mankie, conferences have certain revenue sharing aspects. When FSU goes to a bowl, the whole ACC benefits, I dunno if it's same in the Big East, but having more good teams tends to pull the level of competition up. Maryland and NC State still can't beat FSU on a regular basis, but they're slowly developing into football powerhouses, which was no doubt hastened by FSU's entrace into the league a decade or so ago.
The thing I don't like is how this might affect bball. If, for example UMD only plays Duke once a season, that would have a really adverse effect on the rivalry that's developing, cause teams would have to wait a year to extract revenge.
-
Isn't that guy Beckham guilty of chasing the money as well?
Originally posted by mankie:
It's all about the $$$$$$ ! Who would've thought that in America!! ;)
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
If you think this is for the players, you're sadly mistaken.
They are secondary benfeficiaries, my friend. [/b]
What i meant about the players, was when Mankie asked why teams couldnt just get better if they were in a better league, and i was saying that its not that easy. You have to recruit good players, and notoriously good schools can do that better, its like that in every sport, every conference.
I understand that the players have nothing to do with this realignment thing.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
The money then gets shared by each program and each program would then get better. So yes, you're right to an extent and the ACC has decided that money is the way to do that. Otherwise, the will continue to be in the shadow of the Big 12, SEC, Big 10 and PAC 10 whose football teams all make a ton of money.
There was a big article in, I think the NYTimes magazine saying that football teams actually tend to lose a lot of money. Funny, huh?
-
Originally posted by thirsty moore:
[QB]
Isn't that guy Beckham guilty of chasing the money as well?
Not the same thing. And anyway, no he didn't chase the money. He didn't want to leave United, his boss wanted him gone. (the twat!) and the only other team he could've gone to that wasn't a step down was Real Madrid.
And I wasn't knocking the fact it's about the money, just making the statement.
-
Originally posted by mjnova:
Maryland is complicit, and I go there, hence I think they're setting a bad example.
[/b]
No offense, but when has Maryland set a GOOD example so far as sports (or fan / student behavior) are concerned?
-
Originally posted by mjnova:
Va Tech has agreed, no surpise. The reason that they look bad is that they flip flopped, and agreed immediately, too fast actually. They look really really really really desperate.[/b]
If I was Virginia Tech, I would agree quickly too. Look at what conference they are in? they are in the Atlantic 10!!! Temple, Rhode Island, LaSalle, St. Josephs? all big football powerhouses!! haha VT has been carrying the weight of the entire A-10 football program, i am SURE they are sick of it.
This is a dream come true to VT.
-
Originally posted by mjnova:
There was a big article in, I think the NYTimes magazine saying that football teams actually tend to lose a lot of money. Funny, huh?
[/b]
How the HELL can they lose money when they don't pay the players, or give them royalties from all the clothing they sell? Sounds like a load of horse-crap if you ask me...maybe that lying reporter for the NY Times wrote the article.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by mjnova:
There was a big article in, I think the NYTimes magazine saying that football teams actually tend to lose a lot of money. Funny, huh?
[/b]
How the HELL can they lose money when they don't pay the players, or give them royalties from all the clothing they sell? Sounds like a load of horse-crap if you ask me...maybe that lying reporter for the NY Times wrote the article. [/b]
I do not think that collegiate athletes can sell clothing or do any endorsements. just for corrections sake.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
If I was Virginia Tech, I would agree quickly too. Look at what conference they are in? they are in the Atlantic 10!!! Temple, Rhode Island, LaSalle, St. Josephs? all big football powerhouses!! haha VT has been carrying the weight of the entire A-10 football program, i am SURE they are sick of it.
This is a dream come true to VT.
Uh, they're in the Big East conference.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
If I was Virginia Tech, I would agree quickly too. Look at what conference they are in? they are in the Atlantic 10!!! Temple, Rhode Island, LaSalle, St. Josephs? all big football powerhouses!! haha VT has been carrying the weight of the entire A-10 football program, i am SURE they are sick of it.
This is a dream come true to VT.
Uh, they're in the Big East conference. [/b]
sorry
i am a basketball fan.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
How the HELL can they lose money when they don't pay the players, or give them royalties from all the clothing they sell? Sounds like a load of horse-crap if you ask me...maybe that lying reporter for the NY Times wrote the article.
Among many other things Title IX, which requires the revenue of mens sports to be shared equally with womens sports, which don't earn as much revenue at most schools.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by mjnova:
There was a big article in, I think the NYTimes magazine saying that football teams actually tend to lose a lot of money. Funny, huh?
[/b]
How the HELL can they lose money when they don't pay the players, or give them royalties from all the clothing they sell? Sounds like a load of horse-crap if you ask me...maybe that lying reporter for the NY Times wrote the article. [/b]
I do not think that collegiate athletes can sell clothing or do any endorsements. just for corrections sake. [/b]
I see an awful lot of collegiate sports clothing...someone is making a lorry load of money from it, and I know it's not the players.
-
DAMNIT!!! haha, wasnt Va Tech in the Atlantic 10 at one point in time? please tell me i am not a complete ninny.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
I see an awful lot of collegiate sports clothing...someone is making a lorry load of money from it, and I know it's not the players.
well, i suppose its the university, but they probably use that to pay for the athletes every expense. which, if you saw the dorms the athletes stay in sometimes, WOOO DADDY!
-
One thing that I've learned about most schools and churches, they are some of the biggest money grabbers, in the name of (education/faith), out there! Doesn't matter whether they are public, private, State owned, whatever. They ALL want the money! Most of their policies are money driven and not what they claim to be. At least, professional teams are honest enough to admit it. Professional teams are about the business of sports. Colleges use sports to suck in loads of money in the name of education.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
DAMNIT!!! haha, wasnt Va Tech in the Atlantic 10 at one point in time? please tell me i am not a complete ninny.
I dunno, but it was really funny when you said that, cause for a second, I thought I might have been wrong.
And mankie, you're right about merchandise. There are certainly jerseys with players names on them, which would consitute expoiting poor college students . . . who will go on to be very rich.
But way off with the other comment. Think about the staff needed to maintain a college football team, coaches, recruiters, groundskeepers. Not to mention greasing of palms both on and off the record. And a bad year can do very nasty things to your finances if doners don't pony up. If a team keeps winning it can stay in the black, if it doesn't than things can turn sour very quickly.
-
So is there something wrong with a school, or any organization for that matter, that has aspirations to expand and better itself? Its not as if the college presidents are stuffing their pockets with TV revenues. It's my understanding that the money generated from sports goes back into the school and into the athletic facilities.
-
Originally posted by mjnova:
And mankie, you're right about merchandise. There are certainly jerseys with players names on them, which would consitute expoiting poor college students . . . who will go on to be very rich.
Right. The student-athletes get a free education and they're the ones getting exploited.
It's us less physically gifted but smart kids that being exploited.
It's not easy being male middle class and white these days.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
DAMNIT!!! haha, wasnt Va Tech in the Atlantic 10 at one point in time? please tell me i am not a complete ninny.
At least in this respect your not. V Tech was in the A10 for some sports (and still might be in smalled sports) as recently as 2000.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Right. The student-athletes get a free education and they're the ones getting exploited.
IT'S NOT A FREE EDUCATION, IT'S A FREE CERTIFICATE. HOW MANY OF THEM ACTUALLY GET "EDUCATED", AS IN GO TO CLASS?
It's not easy being male middle class and white these days.
I HEAR YER BRO'''IT'S OLD BLACKY KEEPING US DOWN AGAIN.
[/b]
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by mjnova:
And mankie, you're right about merchandise. There are certainly jerseys with players names on them, which would consitute expoiting poor college students . . . who will go on to be very rich.
Right. The student-athletes get a free education and they're the ones getting exploited.
It's us less physically gifted but smart kids that being exploited.
It's not easy being male middle class and white these days. [/b]
Cry me a fucking river. Sure we may get passed up for jobs and might not get into all the Ivys of the world, but I have very little to bitch about. Except for those "overcomming adversity" essays for college, those are just the toughest.
The problem though is when a college's rep is tied to sports. Maryland was "riot-school" which stemmed from the stupidity of students related to sports. Although the riots were pretty fun the first one or two times. And the recent coach firings show that colleges will do anything to cover their asses.
-
Originally posted by Mongo:
So is there something wrong with a school, or any organization for that matter, that has aspirations to expand and better itself? Its not as if the college presidents are stuffing their pockets with TV revenues. It's my understanding that the money generated from sports goes back into the school and into the athletic facilities.
When that is the case, it's one thing. I've known of a few cases, and not even at the college level, where there where lots of personal kick-backs and pay-offs at the expense of all others, especially of those whom they were supposed to be working for. A lot of it had nothing to do with sports either. I just know though that this sort of thing is more sports oriented in a college. It's more book companies and such at a lower level. Yes, it's illegal, but they still do it all the time.
Anyway, too many schools will exploit sports and their players and pretend that they are offering such and 'education' when they are more concerned with how much money the teams are bringing in. Like any business, I know they need money but there is such a thing as honesty and business ethics.
-
Originally posted by Mongo:
So is there something wrong with a school, or any organization for that matter, that has aspirations to expand and better itself? Its not as if the college presidents are stuffing their pockets with TV revenues. It's my understanding that the money generated from sports goes back into the school and into the athletic facilities.
I didn't say it was wrong. As a matter of fact, it's the only chance the East as to compete.
If you look at the demographics, the SEC controls the south, the Big 12 the southern-half of the midwest, the Big 10 (11) the northern half of the midwest, and the Pac 10 the west. With the east being split between 8 football school (the ACC) and the Big East with fewer football schools, but a plethora of basketball schools in both divisions, the East Coast is poorly represented in the big time football market for bowl games and TV rights. They had no choice but to try to make a big time east coast football coference, lest they be swallowed up in a few years time by the BCS money making conferences.
-
well, the entire acc is complicit, with the apparent exceptions of duke and north carolina. i think the worse behaviour is on virginia, holding out their vote unless vt got an invitation. so, voila, vt gets an invitation, and now there are 8 votes for expansion. sally jenkins in today's post has got this whole thing correct. this is nothing but a ploy by the acc leadership promising loads, or scads, of cash to the universities, but with only 11 teams, they can't hold a conference championship (which would generate tv revenue). if miami leaves, the big east loses football money from tv, and colleges that had been trying to build their football program get screwed since the big east will lose their automatic bid into the bcs. so, now, they'll run to take a school or two from conference usa (probably louisville). nevertheless, this is still a relatively neutral outcome, as opposed to worse case scenarios (that espn spent days writing about), such as the demise of the entire a-10 and conference usa.
i don't agree with what the acc is doing, since this is a blind grab at trying to get money that won't benefit a single school. after all, revenue won't go up by much and will have to be split 11 ways as opposed to 9 ways. anyway, i haven't agreed with conference switching since arkansas left the southwest conference for the money and glory of the sec. ha, we showed them up by forming the big 12, and general athletic superiority.
-
Originally posted by mjnova:
Cry me a fucking river. Sure we may get passed up for jobs and might not get into all the Ivys of the world, but I have very little to bitch about. Except for those "overcomming adversity" essays for college, those are just the toughest.
It was a joke, relax. I'm completely fine with the education I recieved (yet, am still paying for) and am quite happy for my less fortunate minority brothers and sisters who got into better graduate schools because of their minority status. I know they didn't have life as easy a childhood as I did growing up in white suburban Orange County and I for one am fine with them getting breaks in colleges and grad schools.
But I will not listen to student-athletes complain about their likenesses being used by colleges to sell tickets and t-shirts. they are there for free and they should show some respect. What they do with their opportunity is their choice.
As for your comment about reputation of the school, I have no idea what you're talking about in the context of this conversation.
-
So with this new law the Supreme Court passed, will I be a shoo-in at Howard University seeing as I'm a minority there? (Or any other DC college for that matter)
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
ha, we showed them up by forming the big 12, and general athletic superiority.
Amen. Hook 'em Horns.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by mjnova:
Cry me a fucking river. Sure we may get passed up for jobs and might not get into all the Ivys of the world, but I have very little to bitch about. Except for those "overcomming adversity" essays for college, those are just the toughest.
It was a joke, relax. I'm completely fine with the education I recieved (yet, am still paying for) and am quite happy for my less fortunate minority brothers and sisters who got into better graduate schools because of their minority status. I know they didn't have life as easy a childhood as I did growing up in white suburban Orange County and I for one am fine with them getting breaks in colleges and grad schools.
But I will not listen to student-athletes complain about their likenesses being used by colleges to sell tickets and t-shirts. they are there for free and they should show some respect. What they do with their opportunity is their choice.
As for your comment about reputation of the school, I have no idea what you're talking about in the context of this conversation. [/b]
My point is that sports are so tied into the fabric of schools now that a sports scandal has a far bigger impact, than say recuiting a nobel loriet (however you spell it) professor. I'm was just saying that things are really out of whack. Which is pretty obvious.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
So with this new law the Supreme Court passed, will I be a shoo-in at Howard University seeing as I'm a minority there? (Or any other DC college for that matter)
You'll get into the college but, if what I've heard is true, you won't get much attention in their emergency room.
-
Originally posted by mjnova:
My point is that sports are so tied into the fabric of schools now that a sports scandal has a far bigger impact, than say recuiting a nobel loriet (however you spell it) professor. I'm was just saying that things are really out of whack. Which is pretty obvious. [/QB]
Yeah, yeah, and Laci Peterson is bigger news than a nucler North Korea. That's just our American attention spans at work.
-
Ha, and to think that U Conn just spent $90 million on their football facilities to get them up to speed for the Big East only to find out it's not as sweet a deal as they thought.
-
Originally posted by Jaguär:
You'll get into the college but, if what I've heard is true, you won't get much attention in their emergency room.
[/b]
This is true!
Actually I think this law they passed to give the blacks preference is more disparaging to themselves than anyone. When they graduate and go to get a job, the company are bound to think. "Huh, got into MI because they were black, not good eh" and I'd rather be accepted because I was qualified, not a certain color.
And isn't this a case of two wrongs making a right?
And does this law apply to all minorities?
Hispanics
Asians
Pacific Americans
Gays
Lesbians
Albinos
Cross-dressers
Native Indians
Scottish
Those people that have both a hoo-hoo and willie.
Left handed
Am I missing any group?
-
Originally posted by mjnova:
My point is that sports are so tied into the fabric of schools now that a sports scandal has a far bigger impact, than say recuiting a nobel loriet (however you spell it) professor. I'm was just saying that things are really out of whack. Which is pretty obvious.
It's a question of culture. If you're a pop culture person or spend most of your time watching network television you'd think that. NPR actually reports on universities landing top Nobel Laureates all the time. You might also be surprised to learn that despite these multi-million dollar TV deals and sports successes, the richest schools in America are still Harvard and Yale. Only Stanford is in the top five and has full D-1 athletics.
And still, the majority of American students still pick their schools based on academic reputation, not athletic reputation.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
And still, the majority of American students still pick their schools based on academic reputation, not athletic reputation.
[/b]
Who you kidding smackie? Girls pick the school that has the "hottest guys" and boys pick the schools that has the most sluts, or rather NJ girls!
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by mjnova:
My point is that sports are so tied into the fabric of schools now that a sports scandal has a far bigger impact, than say recuiting a nobel loriet (however you spell it) professor. I'm was just saying that things are really out of whack. Which is pretty obvious.
It's a question of culture. If you're a pop culture person or spend most of your time watching network television you'd think that. NPR actually reports on universities landing top Nobel Laureates all the time. You might also be surprised to learn that despite these multi-million dollar TV deals and sports successes, the richest schools in America are still Harvard and Yale. Only Stanford is in the top five and has full D-1 athletics.
And still, the majority of American students still pick their schools based on academic reputation, not athletic reputation. [/b]
Very true. But a lot of money donated is based on sports. Rich alumni can with enough money, have say in who gets choosen as a coach etc.
Students only give money for 4 years, alumni though, that's where the money is.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by mjnova:
[qb] And still, the majority of American students still pick their schools based on academic reputation, not athletic reputation. [/b]
Those who have money do. Sadly, most of those I've known outside of particular colleges selected them moreso do to cost and sometimes location with reputation taking, at best, 3rd place. I would exclude the DC area though because it is very different from most of America.
-
Originally posted by Jaguär:
Those who have money do. Sadly, most of those I've known outside of particular colleges selected them moreso do to cost and sometimes location with reputation taking, at best, 3rd place. I would exclude the DC area though because it is very different from most of America.
Of course, there are many other factors, but all else being equal, most students would pick academic reputation over sports reputation - that's all I was saying.
-
I would be willing to go out on a limb and say that not ALL (or even most) of the money generated from sports, goes directly back into sports. If it did, then they would just be a pro sports team!
Also, as for exploiting college kids and free education. I would venture to say that a regular non athlete is getting a better education than an athlete...at least the ones with thier own jerseys for sale and are so crucial to thier teams success that thier tests are surely taken for them to insure eligibility!
-
Originally posted by Mongo:
Ha, and to think that U Conn just spent $90 million on their football facilities to get them up to speed for the Big East only to find out it's not as sweet a deal as they thought.
That they did, and it's due to open this fall. I believe that they are suing the ACC now.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
I would be willing to go out on a limb and say that not ALL (or even most) of the money generated from sports, goes directly back into sports. If it did, then they would just be a pro sports team!
Well, I can only speak for my school, but there was a big to-do from the students about sports and money. We have a multi-gazillion dollar stadium and sports is big business, and students were complaining about the money going into the athletic program. Turned out, according to school officials, that sports funds and student funds are kept separately. Stadium renovation and all those things are funded completely by revenue earned from ticket/merch sales (or money earmarked from alums), and that money does not mix with the rest of the university funds. So tuition and sports money are kept essentially separate. At least at one school.
-
Originally posted by SueAndNotU:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
I would be willing to go out on a limb and say that not ALL (or even most) of the money generated from sports, goes directly back into sports. If it did, then they would just be a pro sports team!
Well, I can only speak for my school, but there was a big to-do from the students about sports and money. We have a multi-gazillion dollar stadium and sports is big business, and students were complaining about the money going into the athletic program. Turned out, according to school officials, that sports funds and student funds are kept separately. Stadium renovation and all those things are funded completely by revenue earned from ticket/merch sales (or money earmarked from alums), and that money does not mix with the rest of the university funds. So tuition and sports money are kept essentially separate. At least at one school. [/b]
so much for giving the world the benefit of the doubt, again.
-
Originally posted by SueAndNotU:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
I would be willing to go out on a limb and say that not ALL (or even most) of the money generated from sports, goes directly back into sports. If it did, then they would just be a pro sports team!
Well, I can only speak for my school, but there was a big to-do from the students about sports and money. We have a multi-gazillion dollar stadium and sports is big business, and students were complaining about the money going into the athletic program. Turned out, according to school officials, that sports funds and student funds are kept separately. Stadium renovation and all those things are funded completely by revenue earned from ticket/merch sales (or money earmarked from alums), and that money does not mix with the rest of the university funds. So tuition and sports money are kept essentially separate. At least at one school. [/b]
Hopefully in this case, it's all on the level. Very possibly is. However, in the school system that I use to work for, the books were cooked! Those of us who had been there awhile learned about how very often that funds that were earmarked for Special Education were often syphoned for other uses. I don't know how they did it but I do know for a fact that they have their dirty little ways of moving funds around while making it appear totally different on the books. In case you question this, some principals have even told us that that is what they were doing. Of course, they tried to justify it with this or that. They have lots of other little scams going on too. In the end, it was all screwed up.