If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   University of Alabama spends $9 million on a new state-of-the-art A) research facility, B) lecture hall, or C) weight room for the football team   (espn.go.com) divider line 95
    More: Asinine, University of Alabama, Alabama, tides, T.J. Houshmandzadeh, state-of-the-art, Nick Saban, weight trains, junior college  
•       •       •

1361 clicks; posted to Sports » on 02 Mar 2013 at 7:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



95 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-02 05:15:31 PM
If you want a pro football team, you have to have pro football facilities.

The money was raised from outside sources. It isn't like they diverted classroom funds to the Athletic Department. This time.
 
2013-03-02 05:23:21 PM
The athletic department is fiscally independent from the university for all intents and purposes.
 
2013-03-02 06:09:08 PM
Meh, I'm still outraged.
 
2013-03-02 06:41:59 PM

Mentat: The athletic department is fiscally independent from the university for all intents and purposes.


So it's a football team with a university relationship.
 
2013-03-02 07:15:49 PM
How is a 9 mill weight room even possible.
Color me impressed instead of mad.
 
2013-03-02 07:17:50 PM
Most Tier 1 college football programs are huge profit centers for the university.  Their revenues support most of the other college sports programs, especially those mandated by Title IX.  Not much of  a revenue stream from women's rowing.  And although I DNRTFA, I suspect the funds came from a grateful alumnus.

So point your phoney educational system angst in another general direction.
 
2013-03-02 07:18:50 PM

2wolves: Mentat: The athletic department is fiscally independent from the university for all intents and purposes.

So it's a football team with a university relationship.


Yep.  As long as we adhere to the facade of amateurism, that's what you get.
 
2013-03-02 07:34:14 PM
So , the fact that The Univ of Alabama built a 23 million dollar Research and Development wing and a 19 million Dollar Language institutes wing, that shouldn't get in your way. Go ahead morons.
 
2013-03-02 07:37:24 PM

Rodeodoc: Most Tier 1 college football programs are huge profit centers for the university.  Their revenues support most of the other college sports programs, especially those mandated by Title IX.  Not much of  a revenue stream from women's rowing.  And although I DNRTFA, I suspect the funds came from a grateful alumnus.

So point your phoney educational system angst in another general direction.


Indeed.  There are a lot of things to get worked up about when it comes to the state of higher education in the United States, but this is not one of them.
 
2013-03-02 07:38:28 PM

ThisIsntMe: 19 million Dollar Language institutes wing, that shouldn't get in your way. Go ahead morons.


About time the South learned how to speak English.
 
2013-03-02 07:39:59 PM

poughdrew: ThisIsntMe: 19 million Dollar Language institutes wing, that shouldn't get in your way. Go ahead morons.

About time the South learned how to speak English.


It's actually devoted to the learning of Chinese languages.
 
2013-03-02 07:42:46 PM
Come on. This isn't even the most heinous thing Alabama has done this week.
 
2013-03-02 07:44:20 PM
University of Alabama spends $9 million on bailbondsmen

dmnewsi.files.wordpress.com

/ FTFY
 
2013-03-02 07:45:32 PM
More Kathrine Webb!!
 
2013-03-02 07:46:03 PM
Hell, I'm surprised it wasn't 90 million.
 
2013-03-02 07:47:13 PM
I am outraged that a research facility or lecture hall at the University of Alabama didn't make nearly as much money or gain as much attention as the National Championship Football team did.
 
2013-03-02 07:50:30 PM
Looks like your attempt at creating outrage has failed, irishmitter.
 
2013-03-02 07:51:13 PM
If submitter is desperate for something to get outraged about, he could try to argue that smaller schools without the alumni base MAY use general school funds to upgrade facilities to try to keep pace with the D-1 facilities arms race... But probably not.

As has been said in this thread several times, major college sports programs are financially independent from their schools.  Academics are free to dream that the money alumni donate to sports would otherwise be donated to education, but we all know the reality.

Most athletic departments end up donating very little direct cash to their schools.  However, success in sports has been proven to increase the number of future applicants to the school, which leads to both higher standards and an increased tuition and donor base.
 
2013-03-02 07:51:34 PM

Krieghund: If you want a pro football team, you have to have pro football facilities.


These guys are going to be in for a harsh reality check if they get drafted by Oakland.
 
2013-03-02 08:04:46 PM

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Most athletic departments end up donating very little direct cash to their schools.  However, success in sports has been proven to increase the number of future applicants to the school, which leads to both higher standards and an increased tuition and donor base.


Citation, please.

Also, cite how the "increased tuition" is a net positive for the school and/or state, financially.

/the donor base comment is accurate
//but a good sports program, or at least the myth of one, can do that by just getting the local uneducated folk on the bandwagon
///see: the University of Oregon
 
2013-03-02 08:05:45 PM

great_tigers: I am outraged that a research facility or lecture hall at the University of Alabama didn't make nearly as much money or gain as much attention as the National Championship Football team did.


I'm outraged that the professors at the University of Alabama didn't make as much money as the players did on the B(C)S Championship Team.
 
2013-03-02 08:22:48 PM

ThisIsntMe: poughdrew: ThisIsntMe: 19 million Dollar Language institutes wing, that shouldn't get in your way. Go ahead morons.

About time the South learned how to speak English.

It's actually devoted to the learning of Chinese languages.


Maybe they should start with English first, instead of more complex languages like Chinese.
 
2013-03-02 08:27:50 PM

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: If submitter is desperate for something to get outraged about, he could try to argue that smaller schools without the alumni base MAY use general school funds to upgrade facilities to try to keep pace with the D-1 facilities arms race... But probably not.

As has been said in this thread several times, major college sports programs are financially independent from their schools.  Academics are free to dream that the money alumni donate to sports would otherwise be donated to education, but we all know the reality.

Most athletic departments end up donating very little direct cash to their schools.  However, success in sports has been proven to increase the number of future applicants to the school, which leads to both higher standards and an increased tuition and donor base.


May? They most certainly do. And not just general funds. Some athletic departments have the weight to pull money from other budgets on campus. I lived it first hand. It kinda sucks when money gets pulled from your budget so they can install new bleachers for basketball games which nobody attends.
 
2013-03-02 08:29:52 PM

Rodeodoc: Most Tier 1 college football programs are huge profit centers for the university.  Their revenues support most of the other college sports programs, especially those mandated by Title IX.  Not much of  a revenue stream from women's rowing.  And although I DNRTFA, I suspect the funds came from a grateful alumnus.

So point your phoney educational system angst in another general direction.


Only the top 20 or so athletic departments in college sports turn a profit. The Texases and Ohio States and such. Every other one is a money loser.
 
2013-03-02 08:37:16 PM

puffy999: Citation, please.


Missouri had its highest freshmen enrollments ever in the two years after their 2007 season in which they were ranked #1 and one game away from the National Championship.  Obviously there's a law of marginal returns in effect since schools like Alabama probably don't see such a bump.
 
2013-03-02 08:38:25 PM

ElwoodCuse: Only the top 20 or so athletic departments in college sports turn a profit. The Texases and Ohio States and such. Every other one is a money loser.


No, not every other one.  Before their move to the SEC, Missouri and Texas were the only profitable AD's in the Big XII.  I believe Kansas State is now also profitable.  Both Mizzou and Kansas State achieved that by being pragmatic with their money.
 
2013-03-02 08:41:43 PM

Krieghund: If you want a pro football team, you have to have pro football facilities.

The money was raised from outside sources. It isn't like they diverted classroom funds to the Athletic Department. This time.


How much revenue does the football program bring in for the title IX sports?

If it's more than $9 million annually, people need to stuff it.
 
2013-03-02 08:46:54 PM

Mentat: ElwoodCuse: Only the top 20 or so athletic departments in college sports turn a profit. The Texases and Ohio States and such. Every other one is a money loser.

No, not every other one.  Before their move to the SEC, Missouri and Texas were the only profitable AD's in the Big XII.  I believe Kansas State is now also profitable.  Both Mizzou and Kansas State achieved that by being pragmatic with their money.


I don't know if this is the case for all schools, but I do know that many schools don't include big ticket items like new stadiums in yearly budgets.  I remember seeing numbers from what the University of Minnesota athletic department claimed to spend and bring in, and it never included the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the stadium, which came from a different money source.  I'm sure that Alabama athletics would be profitable no matter how you did the math, but if I had to guess, I'd say that there are maybe 20 ADs in the nation that turn a profit over time if you include everything.

The real problem for me is this:

The public often ends up paying for athletics at schools that don't turn a profit (at state schools anyway).  But as soon as athletic departments make money, its all "hey, we are making money, so we get to spend it on more athletics".  So losses are funded by the public, while gains are mostly kept by athletic departments.  I'm not a big fan of that.

Plus, you have arms races where less successful schools that don't make money on athletics have to spend big to even keep up with the successful schools like Alabama.  Really the top tier of college sports should include about 50 schools, and the rest should be in some other tier that isn't expected to really compete or spend as much, but whatever.

But really, as people have said, the problem is at less successful schools, not the Alabamas of the world.
 
2013-03-02 08:47:25 PM

ElwoodCuse: Only the top 20 or so athletic departments in college sports turn a profit. The Texases and Ohio States and such. Every other one is a money loser.


Athletic departments or football programs? Without football or in some cases men's basketball would any AD turn a profit or lose even more money?
 
2013-03-02 08:52:09 PM
ibankcoin.com
 
2013-03-02 08:56:17 PM

Rodeodoc: Most Tier 1 college football programs are huge profit centers for the university.  Their revenues support most of the other college sports programs, especially those mandated by Title IX.  Not much of  a revenue stream from women's rowing.  And although I DNRTFA, I suspect the funds came from a grateful rich alumnus who values sports over education.



fixed
 
2013-03-02 09:13:31 PM

Rodeodoc: Most Tier 1 college football programs are huge profit centers for the university.  Their revenues support most of the other college sports programs, especially those mandated by Title IX.  Not much of  a revenue stream from women's rowing.  And although I DNRTFA, I suspect the funds came from a grateful alumnus.


Right and wrong- Most schools are making profits at all but they do use big football programs to generate all the money for the athletics at a school. See here but also the 60 minutes piece back in Nov 2012 which broke it down and found that on 22/125 BCS eligible schools make profit. Thats nearly 1/5th of all schools with "big" football programs. Its not like they are all bringing in the money- most of it just is cover the cost of the normal athletic seasons for all sports.
 
2013-03-02 09:19:58 PM

Happy Hours: Rodeodoc: Most Tier 1 college football programs are huge profit centers for the university.  Their revenues support most of the other college sports programs, especially those mandated by Title IX.  Not much of  a revenue stream from women's rowing.  And although I DNRTFA, I suspect the funds came from a grateful rich alumnus who values sports over education.



fixed


Rich alumni who value their own entertainment over other peoples education.

/count me in
 
2013-03-02 09:27:57 PM

CipollinaFan: How is a 9 mill weight room even possible.
Color me impressed instead of mad.


My company outfits gyms & fieldhouses. The specialized weight room flooring alone in that place runs about $500,000. That's just for starters.
 
2013-03-02 09:28:28 PM
Why does subby hate America?
 
2013-03-02 09:36:46 PM
Bank Roll Tide?
 
2013-03-02 10:03:08 PM
I gotta agree with other posters - how the hell do you even spend $9 million on a weight room? Does every player get his own personal jacuzzi and massage therapist?
 
2013-03-02 10:07:10 PM
Incest?
 
2013-03-02 10:08:05 PM

rcf1105: I gotta agree with other posters - how the hell do you even spend $9 million on a weight room? Does every player get his own personal jacuzzi and massage therapist?


Or, and mind you I'm just thinking out loud here, you SAY you're building a $9M weight room when in fact it only costs $5M, so you can hide the other $4M for various player salaries, perks, and lavish sex parties.
 
2013-03-02 10:14:44 PM
It's chump change compared to how much revenue the team brings to the school.
 
2013-03-02 10:18:22 PM
With the way they are doing that's just peanuts to them.

One thing that I do respect alabama fans, faculty, and students for is that they don't try to be hypocrites in saying they are a university first and football team second.  They know football stirs the drink and everything else related to the university pales in comparison.
 
2013-03-02 10:21:47 PM

puffy999: cite how the "increased tuition" is a net positive for the school


that's a joke, right

ElwoodCuse: Only the top 20 or so athletic departments in college sports turn a profit.


With the recent giant TV contracts awarded to the SEC, BIG 10, BIG 12, PAC 12, and to a somewhat lesser degree the ACC, that number is turning sharply upwards.
 
2013-03-02 11:17:00 PM

ThisIsntMe: So , the fact that The Univ of Alabama built a 23 million dollar Research and Development wing and a 19 million Dollar Language institutes wing, that shouldn't get in your way. Go ahead morons.


Isn't that what a university is supposed to be spending funds on?


What's the graduation rate of the revenue positive athletic teams at Alabama?
 
2013-03-02 11:50:49 PM

BigJake: With the recent giant TV contracts awarded to the SEC, BIG 10, BIG 12, PAC 12, and to a somewhat lesser degree the ACC, that number is turning sharply upwards.


Oh good so maybe once it gets a little further past that one-fifth number they can do something about maybe exploiting the players less
 
2013-03-02 11:51:26 PM
There's a sign in the new weight room that says "Sweat is just your fat crying."
 
2013-03-03 12:03:34 AM

2wolves: ThisIsntMe: So , the fact that The Univ of Alabama built a 23 million dollar Research and Development wing and a 19 million Dollar Language institutes wing, that shouldn't get in your way. Go ahead morons.

Isn't that what a university is supposed to be spending funds on?


What's the graduation rate of the revenue positive athletic teams at Alabama?


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2012/10/25/ncaa-graduatio n- rates-notre-dame-sec-college-football/1656329/

Notre Dame #1, LSU #6, Alabama #7, Florida #8.  That's for football.
 
2013-03-03 12:08:03 AM

ElwoodCuse: Oh good so maybe once it gets a little further past that one-fifth number they can do something about maybe exploiting the players less


Most of the "exploitation" is by their fellow student-athletes whose entire programs and scholarships wouldn't exist if football profits didn't fuel them

And considering less than 10% of college players will ever play a down of pro ball there's not a whole lot of exploitation going on
 
2013-03-03 12:09:03 AM
*fewer than
 
2013-03-03 12:15:08 AM

BigJake: ElwoodCuse: Oh good so maybe once it gets a little further past that one-fifth number they can do something about maybe exploiting the players less

Most of the "exploitation" is by their fellow student-athletes whose entire programs and scholarships wouldn't exist if football profits didn't fuel them

And considering less than 10% of college players will ever play a down of pro ball there's not a whole lot of exploitation going on


What does that have to do with whether or not the college is exploiting them?
 
2013-03-03 12:22:24 AM
High schools have been doing this for a while, so I can't be that appalled when a college does it.
The culture has some serious issues in its choice of idols and aspirations. What's new?

/At least it's private money... I think?
 
2013-03-03 12:32:40 AM

Rodeodoc: Most Tier 1 college football programs are huge profit centers for the university.  Their revenues support most of the other college sports programs, especially those mandated by Title IX.  Not much of  a revenue stream from women's rowing.  And although I DNRTFA, I suspect the funds came from a grateful alumnus.

So point your phoney educational system angst in another general direction.


puffy999: great_tigers: I am outraged that a research facility or lecture hall at the University of Alabama didn't make nearly as much money or gain as much attention as the National Championship Football team did.

I'm outraged that the professors at the University of Alabama didn't make as much money as the players did on the B(C)S Championship Team.


From my quick search, it looks like the University of Alabama players make around $15,000 a year cash (in addition to their scholarship).  Obviously, the professors are making WAY more than that.
 
2013-03-03 12:34:10 AM

Mentat: 2wolves: ThisIsntMe: So , the fact that The Univ of Alabama built a 23 million dollar Research and Development wing and a 19 million Dollar Language institutes wing, that shouldn't get in your way. Go ahead morons.

Isn't that what a university is supposed to be spending funds on?


What's the graduation rate of the revenue positive athletic teams at Alabama?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2012/10/25/ncaa-graduatio n- rates-notre-dame-sec-college-football/1656329/

Notre Dame #1, LSU #6, Alabama #7, Florida #8.  That's for football.


Am I reading it wrong or is that information based on 8 year old data?
 
2013-03-03 12:35:23 AM

srhp29: Mentat: 2wolves: ThisIsntMe: So , the fact that The Univ of Alabama built a 23 million dollar Research and Development wing and a 19 million Dollar Language institutes wing, that shouldn't get in your way. Go ahead morons.

Isn't that what a university is supposed to be spending funds on?


What's the graduation rate of the revenue positive athletic teams at Alabama?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2012/10/25/ncaa-graduatio n- rates-notre-dame-sec-college-football/1656329/

Notre Dame #1, LSU #6, Alabama #7, Florida #8.  That's for football.

Am I reading it wrong or is that information based on 8 year old data?


Forget it.  I was reading it wrong.
 
2013-03-03 12:36:50 AM

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: If submitter is desperate for something to get outraged about, he could try to argue that smaller schools without the alumni base MAY use general school funds to upgrade facilities to try to keep pace with the D-1 facilities arms race... But probably not.


This should be the entirety of the point.  Nearly every Big Ten and SEC school makes more money on football than their schools spend on athletics overall.  A handful of other schools do as well.  But the substantial majority of Div 1 FBS teams and all Div 1 FCS, Div 2, and Div 3 schools spend more money on athletics than they bring in.
 
2013-03-03 12:38:18 AM

dave2198: What does that have to do with whether or not the college is exploiting them?


Because they aren't being prevented from making a lot more money elsewhere by the NFL's 3-years-out-of-high-school rule and they're getting a free college education when they likely otherwise wouldn't have. Considering that's worth easily in the six figures most places and you get a degree out of it with zero debt when you get out it's a pretty square deal.
 
2013-03-03 12:38:28 AM

ElwoodCuse: Rodeodoc: Most Tier 1 college football programs are huge profit centers for the university.  Their revenues support most of the other college sports programs, especially those mandated by Title IX.  Not much of  a revenue stream from women's rowing.  And although I DNRTFA, I suspect the funds came from a grateful alumnus.

So point your phoney educational system angst in another general direction.

Only the top 20 or so athletic departments in college sports turn a profit. The Texases and Ohio States and such. Every other one is a money loser.


You guys are arguing different things.  About half of NCAA Div 1 FCS teams bring in more money than they pay out.  Around 20-25 schools bring enough money in from football to fund their entire athletic department.
 
2013-03-03 12:39:47 AM

meanmutton: the substantial majority of Div 1 FBS teams


not anymore
 
2013-03-03 12:47:43 AM

ElwoodCuse: BigJake: With the recent giant TV contracts awarded to the SEC, BIG 10, BIG 12, PAC 12, and to a somewhat lesser degree the ACC, that number is turning sharply upwards.

Oh good so maybe once it gets a little further past that one-fifth number they can do something about maybe exploiting the players less


They get paid comparable to what single-A baseball or junior hockey players make.  The problem for a small handful of players is that it's a perfectly socialist system -- the football players get the same salary and same scholarship than the swimmers get; the star quarterback gets the same money and clothes and whatnot as the bowman of the women's crew team.

The players who tend to pull in more money for the school than they get in salary tend to be the ones going off to play in the NFL.  It's rare that you get guys like TIm Tebow, Eric Crouch, or Denard Robinson who contribute hugely to the college but aren't sure-fire stars in the pros.
 
2013-03-03 12:49:51 AM

BigJake: dave2198: What does that have to do with whether or not the college is exploiting them?

Because they aren't being prevented from making a lot more money elsewhere by the NFL's 3-years-out-of-high-school rule and they're getting a free college education when they likely otherwise wouldn't have. Considering that's worth easily in the six figures most places and you get a degree out of it with zero debt when you get out it's a pretty square deal.


Plus their cash salary.  Why do people always forget that?  That check from the University every month or semester (depending on how they pay it out) might not be much, but it's still cash, cash money.
 
2013-03-03 12:54:28 AM

meanmutton: Why do people always forget that?


For much the same reason I forget to throw salt over my left shoulder for luck. Because it's not a real thing.
 
2013-03-03 01:07:48 AM

Krazikarl: Mentat: ElwoodCuse: Only the top 20 or so athletic departments in college sports turn a profit. The Texases and Ohio States and such. Every other one is a money loser.

No, not every other one.  Before their move to the SEC, Missouri and Texas were the only profitable AD's in the Big XII.  I believe Kansas State is now also profitable.  Both Mizzou and Kansas State achieved that by being pragmatic with their money.

I don't know if this is the case for all schools, but I do know that many schools don't include big ticket items like new stadiums in yearly budgets.  I remember seeing numbers from what the University of Minnesota athletic department claimed to spend and bring in, and it never included the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the stadium, which came from a different money source.  I'm sure that Alabama athletics would be profitable no matter how you did the math, but if I had to guess, I'd say that there are maybe 20 ADs in the nation that turn a profit over time if you include everything.

The real problem for me is this:

The public often ends up paying for athletics at schools that don't turn a profit (at state schools anyway).  But as soon as athletic departments make money, its all "hey, we are making money, so we get to spend it on more athletics".  So losses are funded by the public, while gains are mostly kept by athletic departments.  I'm not a big fan of that.

Plus, you have arms races where less successful schools that don't make money on athletics have to spend big to even keep up with the successful schools like Alabama.  Really the top tier of college sports should include about 50 schools, and the rest should be in some other tier that isn't expected to really compete or spend as much, but whatever.

But really, as people have said, the problem is at less successful schools, not the Alabamas of the world.


I don't know if Minnesota did it the same way as Michigan, but for Michigan, they took out debt to pay for the new stadium and include debt service in the yearly budget. So instead of $200 million in one year, they are paying about $8 million a year in debt. As a whole the B1G should be doing fine, they are raking in the cash from their own network and other TV deals.
 
2013-03-03 01:29:51 AM

BigJake: meanmutton: Why do people always forget that?

For much the same reason I forget to throw salt over my left shoulder for luck. Because it's not a real thing.


Are you really that ignorant or do you pretend that the checks that the colleges hand out as "food and housing allotments" aren't really money that the recipients can spend on whatever they want?
 
2013-03-03 01:31:37 AM
the football team that brings in tens of millions of dollars?
 
2013-03-03 01:47:01 AM

meanmutton: Are you really that ignorant or do you pretend that the checks that the colleges hand out as "food and housing allotments" aren't really money that the recipients can spend on whatever they want?


Well if they want to be homeless and bank a few hundred bucks a month, I suppose they could. So what?
 
2013-03-03 01:49:27 AM
9 million  on a weight room? I can see how it could be done but i can also see it being down for less. alot less.
 
2013-03-03 02:22:40 AM
Also, what's worse- donating money to a sports program that actually uses the funds but only breaks even, or donating money to an endowment that just sits there, untouched, as little more than an academic pissing contest?

Is Alabama's $9 million weight room, that will be used every day to develop dozens (hundreds?) of future professionals, worse than Yale's $19.3 billion that basically just sits there?
 
2013-03-03 03:14:49 AM
Bama still sucks.

mix104.info
 
2013-03-03 03:15:48 AM

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Also, what's worse- donating money to a sports program that actually uses the funds but only breaks even, or donating money to an endowment that just sits there, untouched, as little more than an academic pissing contest?

Is Alabama's $9 million weight room, that will be used every day to develop dozens (hundreds?) of future professionals, worse than Yale's $19.3 billion that basically just sits there?


You don't have any clue how an endowment works, do you?

The basic idea is that the principal sits there, while, in theory, you can use the profits from the investment to do your thing. So you have a perpetual, long term source of funding which should not go down over time.  Of course, investments like that can sometimes lose money, but it is a very responsible and long term way of doing things.

But you do have the classic American mentality of "screw saving and fiscal responsibility, if we have money, we had better spend it right away".  That mentality is really doing wonders for this country.
 
2013-03-03 04:17:56 AM

hardinparamedic: Bama still sucks.

[mix104.info image 850x637]


/nothing sucks like a big orange
 
2013-03-03 05:50:15 AM

puffy999: Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Most athletic departments end up donating very little direct cash to their schools.  However, success in sports has been proven to increase the number of future applicants to the school, which leads to both higher standards and an increased tuition and donor base.

Citation, please.

Also, cite how the "increased tuition" is a net positive for the school and/or state, financially.

/the donor base comment is accurate
//but a good sports program, or at least the myth of one, can do that by just getting the local uneducated folk on the bandwagon
///see: the University of Oregon


As an alumnus, I resent the snide attack on the honor of the University of  Philknight Oregon. Of course, aside from the new Matt Court and the football training blimp hangar, he did fix up the library first.
 
2013-03-03 08:27:42 AM
I'll never understand the appeal of college football (or really football overall, so let's just change that to "college sports"). Are you attending that school? Have some friends that play on the team? Got nothing to do on a Friday? Have fun, go watch the game. Are you a high school dropout living 400 miles away? Then why are you obsessed with some college team? It's really odd.

As for how the colleges treat these teams: yes, I know they bring in a lot of money. However, I couldn't stand to be told I couldn't use the parking lots that I paid a shiat-tonne of money to park in each semester because they were reserved that day for stinky rednecks who were just there to watch the team play. If it's a university, then the main goal should be education.
 
2013-03-03 08:48:00 AM
I'm pissed because now MY university is going to try and pitch that they need to spend $10 million on a new weight room for the football team in order to remain competitive with Alabama.

/Ohio University
//Never going to happen
///Stop pretending OU can be Ohio State one day!
 
2013-03-03 09:16:09 AM
I dare subby to go to Birmingham Alabama, go to any bar and start complaining loudly about UofA's $9m weight room.
 
2013-03-03 09:27:52 AM

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Also, what's worse- donating money to a sports program that actually uses the funds but only breaks even, or donating money to an endowment that just sits there, untouched, as little more than an academic pissing contest?

Is Alabama's $9 million weight room, that will be used every day to develop dozens (hundreds?) of future professionals, worse than Yale's $19.3 billion that basically just sits there?


Yes because there's no way for large sums of money such as endowments to be parlayed into additional funds through investing... it "basically just sits there"

/spend spend spend right?
 
2013-03-03 09:28:16 AM
Explain to me how a lecture hall costs $9 million.  UNC spent $18 million on Memorial, but that was a performance hall; they're not exactly letting a professor teach POLI 41 in there.
 
2013-03-03 09:29:17 AM

ElwoodCuse: Oh good so maybe once it gets a little further past that one-fifth number they can do something about maybe exploiting the players less


I love when people whine about "exploiting the players."  These kids get to go to school for free and get an opportunity to essentially interview for potential employers on national farking television. 

Someone who goes to law school gets to pay 100k+ for the pleasure and the school doesn't broadcast their skills to all their potential employers, nor are the garunteed a job when they leave. 

So yeah, I'll play the world's smallest farking violin for the mouthbreathing "exploited" athletes.
 
2013-03-03 09:45:03 AM

BigJake: dave2198: What does that have to do with whether or not the college is exploiting them?

Because they aren't being prevented from making a lot more money elsewhere by the NFL's 3-years-out-of-high-school rule and they're getting a free college education when they likely otherwise wouldn't have. Considering that's worth easily in the six figures most places and you get a degree out of it with zero debt when you get out it's a pretty square deal.


If you'll allow some time, I'm going to punch some holes in this argument, which people always use to justify college sports:

1. A waiver on tuition, room, and board does not = a free college education. There are many, many other costs which go into college, and the school doesn't cover them all. Aside from school costs, they have the same costs for rent & utilities (if they live off-campus), food, gas, clothes, etc. that every other student has. Student athletes are not allowed to have jobs while in school. So, when the scholarship money runs out, where do you think they get the funds? That's right, student loans.

2. The smaller the school, the fewer freebies are offered. The "dream ride" scenario doesn't play out at all levels of college sports. If you pretend that all of the issues in college sports can be summed up by looking at the top 50 schools, you're not dealing with reality.

3. How valuable is this education? Let's think about it this way: For 4 years, a student has attended classes (maybe... student athletes miss a LOT of class...), and perhaps even achieved good grades, since most programs require it. However, all of their time and energy outside of class is devoted to their sport, and not their future career. They study to pass tests, they don't study to learn. I have taught many student athletes, and while they passed their tests, they were the worst-performing students in the class when it came to assignments requiring any kind of real-world skills. On top of that, student athletes often don't think about their future career until they are on their way out the door. They don't pursue internships above and beyond what they need to do to graduate. They don't participate in student groups or go to any conferences in their field, since they never have any spare time (or just don't care to). They don't spend time networking. They don't spend time planning. So... how valuable is that education looking now?

4. Most football players I've met are under the impression that they have a shot at making it to the NFL. The last school I taught at was a Division II school in the Midwest. I believe 1 person in the history of the entire program made it to the NFL. One person. The rest of them were dumped into the real world with a degree they don't care about, in a field in which they have no experience, with student loan debt. However, when they were recruited, they were often led to believe that football could offer them a great future.

5. Big schools make millions off he backs of the students, while offering them very little compensation while they are playing, and absolutely NO future compensation, despite the health problems many student athletes experience for the rest of their lives. Students give their school the strongest 4 years of their lives, and once they are used up, they are dumped into the real world and replaced with younger students. Meanwhile, these athletes experience the same injuries players in the pros do. However, they receive absolutely no help with their increased medical expenses post-graduation.

I could go on, but nobody's got time to read all this shiat.
 
2013-03-03 09:45:32 AM
3 national championships in 4 years... chances are thats where they got the money... im ok with this
 
2013-03-03 09:49:03 AM

lilplatinum: ElwoodCuse: Oh good so maybe once it gets a little further past that one-fifth number they can do something about maybe exploiting the players less

I love when people whine about "exploiting the players."   These kids get to go to school for free and get an opportunity to essentially interview for potential employers on national farking television.

Someone who goes to law school gets to pay 100k+ for the pleasure and the school doesn't broadcast their skills to all their potential employers, nor are the garunteed a job when they leave. 

So yeah, I'll play the world's smallest farking violin for the mouthbreathing "exploited" athletes.


LOL... yeah, if they are among the 0.01% that make it pro. The rest of them? Forgotten. Not promoted. ignored. These "benefits" you're imagining do not exist.
 
2013-03-03 11:19:45 AM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-03 11:47:27 AM

ThisIsntMe: So , the fact that The Univ of Alabama built a 23 million dollar Research and Development wing and a 19 million Dollar Language institutes wing, that shouldn't get in your way. Go ahead morons.


lol an Alabama language institution! I'm still laughing. "The origin of Ya'll"
 
2013-03-03 12:08:14 PM
D) Salaries for their future recruits, now in sixth grade.
 
2013-03-03 12:26:11 PM

Malcolm_Sex: ThisIsntMe: So , the fact that The Univ of Alabama built a 23 million dollar Research and Development wing and a 19 million Dollar Language institutes wing, that shouldn't get in your way. Go ahead morons.

lol an Alabama language institution! I'm still laughing. "The origin of Ya'll"


It's Y'all. Moron.
 
2013-03-03 02:44:37 PM

ThisIsntMe: So , the fact that The Univ of Alabama built a 23 million dollar Research and Development wing and a 19 million Dollar Language institutes wing, that shouldn't get in your way. Go ahead morons.


There's something effing funny about a language institutes wing in Alabama.
 
2013-03-03 03:01:53 PM

dave2198: lilplatinum: ElwoodCuse: Oh good so maybe once it gets a little further past that one-fifth number they can do something about maybe exploiting the players less

I love when people whine about "exploiting the players."   These kids get to go to school for free and get an opportunity to essentially interview for potential employers on national farking television.

Someone who goes to law school gets to pay 100k+ for the pleasure and the school doesn't broadcast their skills to all their potential employers, nor are the garunteed a job when they leave. 

So yeah, I'll play the world's smallest farking violin for the mouthbreathing "exploited" athletes.

LOL... yeah, if they are among the 0.01% that make it pro. The rest of them? Forgotten. Not promoted. ignored. These "benefits" you're imagining do not exist.


I love "disillusioned faculty member who has no idea how his school's athletic department works and has made no effort to do so, instead relying on his own foolish prejudices."  He's fun.

/3.75 of your 5 points in your rant above were ill informed and completely off base.
//But nobody has time to read that shiat.
 
2013-03-03 04:27:21 PM
Yeah, but the funds were paid for by proceeds from football, not academics
 
2013-03-03 09:10:52 PM

marius2: I'll never understand the appeal of college football (or really football overall, so let's just change that to "college sports").


I have no interest in coupled with a similar level of knowledge of the subject at hand. Here are my opinions:

dave2198: hey have the same costs for rent & utilities (if they live off-campus), food,


You know these are part of the scholly, right? RIGHT?

dave2198: If you pretend that all of the issues in college sports can be summed up by looking at the top 50 schools, you're not dealing with reality.


I would be fine if athletic departments who couldn't support themselves ceased to exist. Nothing of value from a fan perspective would be lost.

dave2198: how valuable is that education looking now?


Considering a very large proportion of them likely wouldn't be there at all, vs. having their time more productively spent if they weren't in an athletics program, pretty goddamn good.

dave2198: Most football players I've met are under the impression that they have a shot at making it to the NFL.


1. Anecdotes data
2. Might be true at a few schools

dave2198: Students give their school the strongest 4 years of their lives


18-22 are the strongest 4 years of your life for no one in the first world, unless you get cancer at 23
 
2013-03-03 09:12:05 PM

CommiePuddin: I love "disillusioned faculty member who has no idea how his school's athletic department works and has made no effort to do so, instead relying on his own foolish prejudices." He's fun.

/3.75 of your 5 points in your rant above were ill informed and completely off base.
//But nobody has time to read that shiat.


Yeah, they're the best. Furrowed brow and pensive expression, verrrrrryyy concerned

I dunno why I bothered
 
2013-03-03 09:18:26 PM

CommiePuddin: dave2198: lilplatinum: ElwoodCuse: Oh good so maybe once it gets a little further past that one-fifth number they can do something about maybe exploiting the players less

I love when people whine about "exploiting the players."   These kids get to go to school for free and get an opportunity to essentially interview for potential employers on national farking television.

Someone who goes to law school gets to pay 100k+ for the pleasure and the school doesn't broadcast their skills to all their potential employers, nor are the garunteed a job when they leave. 

So yeah, I'll play the world's smallest farking violin for the mouthbreathing "exploited" athletes.

LOL... yeah, if they are among the 0.01% that make it pro. The rest of them? Forgotten. Not promoted. ignored. These "benefits" you're imagining do not exist.

I love "disillusioned faculty member who has no idea how his school's athletic department works and has made no effort to do so, instead relying on his own foolish prejudices."  He's fun.

/3.75 of your 5 points in your rant above were ill informed and completely off base.
//But nobody has time to read that shiat.


You know nothing about me. I worked closely with a lot of athletic department jackasses before I started teaching. Please... tell me how I'm wrong.
 
2013-03-03 09:19:15 PM

BigJake: CommiePuddin: I love "disillusioned faculty member who has no idea how his school's athletic department works and has made no effort to do so, instead relying on his own foolish prejudices." He's fun.

/3.75 of your 5 points in your rant above were ill informed and completely off base.
//But nobody has time to read that shiat.

Yeah, they're the best. Furrowed brow and pensive expression, verrrrrryyy concerned

I dunno why I bothered


You know absolutely nothing about Division II athletics.
 
2013-03-03 09:25:00 PM

dave2198: You know absolutely nothing about Division II athletics.


No one was talking about that, because no one gives a shiat about it. You jumped into a conversation about D-1 athletics. Your very Boobies in this thread highlighted that fact, and the highlighting was added by you. Stick to the subject at hand.
 
2013-03-03 09:26:16 PM
ALABAMA BUILT A WEIGHT ROOM?!? HERE ARE MY OPINIONS ON DIVISION II ATHLETICS:
 
2013-03-03 09:28:17 PM

BigJake: dave2198: You know absolutely nothing about Division II athletics.

No one was talking about that, because no one gives a shiat about it. You jumped into a conversation about D-1 athletics. Your very Boobies in this thread highlighted that fact, and the highlighting was added by you. Stick to the subject at hand.


I jumped into a conversation about college athletics. If you want to look at the top 5% of schools and pretend that this is how the rest of the world is, you can go right ahead. I'll stay in reality, where most schools don't have the budget of Alabama.
 
2013-03-03 09:34:45 PM

dave2198: If you want to look at the top 5% of schools and pretend that this is how the rest of the world is, you can go right ahead.


BCS programs represent quite a bit larger share of Division I than that. Division I is the relevant part of that world, and the part that the rest of this thread is talking about. Feel free to yell at clouds though.
 
2013-03-03 10:30:30 PM
Jocks 1
Nerds (99%of Fark) 0
 
Displayed 95 of 95 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report