College Athletes can now be paid directly by schools to play

[PootieNunu]

Kids have been paid directly by the schools for years, this just puts the money in the publics eyes. 

 

[Davidson Deac II]

23 hours ago, Barney said:

They need to take a look at the State funding a school receives.  If you have a kid at one of these football schools many times all of the money is flowing into athletics and athletic facilities while the regular student dorms are falling apart and many academic buildings are in bad shape, but check out that new and even bigger jumbotron.  If the schools start paying, any state funding going toward their scholarships should be removed.  I don't agree with our tax dollars paying college athletes.  Let that money come from boosters and endorsements.  

The money will come from the funds that the schools earn from sports.  For example, the ACC paid each of its schools an average of 45 million, which came from tv, bowls, ncaa tournament etc...  The money to pay the athletes will come from that distribution as well as any money the school makes from ticket and memorabilia sales.  Per the deal made, they are allowed to distribute 22% of that money to the players.  

[Barney]

1 hour ago, Davidson Deac II said:

The money will come from the funds that the schools earn from sports.  For example, the ACC paid each of its schools an average of 45 million, which came from tv, bowls, ncaa tournament etc...  The money to pay the athletes will come from that distribution as well as any money the school makes from ticket and memorabilia sales.  Per the deal made, they are allowed to distribute 22% of that money to the players.  

Great point.  I totally overlooked that piece.  I would say if they are being paid scholarships are no longer needed unless paid for from those same funds.  No more tax money going to fund any athletes being paid by the school.  I think with what you laid out here that should cover the student athlete payrolls.  

[Terry Tjs]

1 hour ago, Davidson Deac II said:

The money will come from the funds that the schools earn from sports.  For example, the ACC paid each of its schools an average of 45 million, which came from tv, bowls, ncaa tournament etc...  The money to pay the athletes will come from that distribution as well as any money the school makes from ticket and memorabilia sales.  Per the deal made, they are allowed to distribute 22% of that money to the players.  

I think his point is that under the old rules, special dorms, practice facilities, relaxation zones, scholarships and special meals were all justified by the "revenue" the major sports brought in. If 22% of the revenue is now paid out as cash, are those other "perks" being provided  at a loss to the taxpayer?

[Basbear]

Such a poo show now, made it easy to drop following them. 

[Davidson Deac II]

9 hours ago, Terry Tjs said:

I think his point is that under the old rules, special dorms, practice facilities, relaxation zones, scholarships and special meals were all justified by the "revenue" the major sports brought in. If 22% of the revenue is now paid out as cash, are those other "perks" being provided  at a loss to the taxpayer?

From what I have read, all of that is paid out of the money that they make from sports, or from donations.  The power five schools make more than enough money to cover it.  I remember reading that some taxpayer funding went into the Dean Dome, but for the most part, almost all the funding comes from income generated by the sports program and from fees included in tuition.  At least at a power five conference school.  Not sure how the others do it.  

A few schools even make a profit which goes back into the general fund, although that may go away now.  

For example, UNCCH made 139 million in revenue last year.  That was more than enough to cover the expenses of the athletic program.  But the one part I found annoying when I paid for my son to go to a UNC school (not Chapel Hell) was that his tuition included an athletic fee that he had to pay whether he chose to go to a game or not.  I believe all the schools do this and for those that lose money, this is what puts them over the top.   

[Davidson Deac II]

10 hours ago, Barney said:

Great point.  I totally overlooked that piece.  I would say if they are being paid scholarships are no longer needed unless paid for from those same funds.  No more tax money going to fund any athletes being paid by the school.  I think with what you laid out here that should cover the student athlete payrolls.  

Some of the schools might have to cut back in other areas though to cover it.  At a place like Alabama, probably not an issue.  But for say Vanderbilt or Wake Forest, this could mean some programs get cut or reduced.