UCLA's Mac Etienne Down to La Salle and De Paul

[MisterD]

I'd really like Steve to answer why he believes students have wage caps that are determined by other students.

[theneumann64]

Jan 24, 2024 10:09:19 GMT -5 MisterD said:

I'd really like Steve to answer why he believes students have wage caps that are determined by other students.

Steve has made it clear in the past that he's strongly opposed to free markets and favors heavy restrictions by outside bodies on the amount an individual is allowed to earn.

[MisterD]

I guess its just that born-and-bred US of A capitalist in me that can't comprehend his radical proposals.

[mookie]

Jan 24, 2024 9:31:59 GMT -5 hykos1045 said:

The average could be affected by outliers, however the mean, or typical wage, would be an interesting comp.

I would think it would be helpful to see all 3; however, recognizing average could be impacted by outliers I would imagine given the anticipated sample size, things would “average out”. t’s more or less for directional purposes.

[mookie]

Jan 24, 2024 10:42:01 GMT -5 MisterD said:

I guess its just that born-and-bred US of A capitalist in me that can't comprehend his radical proposals.

Folks like him, it’s “American” when it fits their argument and “unamerican” when it doesn’t. I’ll stop there because it’ll quickly devolve into politics which will get us absolutely nowhere.

[calsufan]

Jan 23, 2024 16:54:55 GMT -5 coachd said:

NCAA needs to be drained of current leadership. Otherwise all colleges allowing students to be paid more than what a normal student can earn at a part-time job must lose their 501c3 exemption as it violates their tax-exempt status. This will also stop state schools and other schools with large endowments from "crushing the competition" which is not the purpose of higher education institutions. If the current trend goes on without oversight or common sense regulations you will be left with just 32 or so big state schools playing division 1 basketball in 10 years or so.

withmydegree.org/are-universities-501c3/#:~:text=As%20a%20result%20of%20their%20501%20%28c%29%20%283%29,contributions%20from%20donors%203%20Potentially%20reduced%20postal%20rates

I read your little article link and although I'm not wild how the NIL has turned into an out of control gold rush, I don't see how the schools are violating their 501c3 exemptions. In your linked article it said "Nonprofit institutions can better focus on improving the students’ experience and increasing student success because there is no pressure to generate revenue or satisfy the demands of shareholders." Isn't having a competitive basketball or football team enhancing the students' experience? And why "must" they lose their exemption? Because ExplorerSteve (you) said so? And you do understand that the NIL went through the court system don't you? So how exactly will draining the current leadership of the NCAA accomplish anything if the next set of leaders are obligated to follow the Supreme Court ruling? One more question. When did you become a socialist? After all, it appears that you're promoting equality of wealth.

[JoeFedorowicz]

Don’t feed the clowns

[hykos1045]

The real reason many of us, including CoachD, seem diametrically opposed to NIL, is because it sets us further behind the big spenders. La Salle was a heavyweight in the NCAA until around 1992. Around then, TV contracts for march madness ballooned from 55.3M in 1990 to double that by 1994. It's now around 1 billion a year, or 20 times the value from 1990. Inflation during that time has been around 90% cumulatively, but TV revenues for the NCAA have shot up 2000%. Our piece probably didn't keep pace even though there is plenty more money to spread around, it's not filling our coffers.

The contract gives CBS exclusive rights to televise the tournament from 1991-97. The fee, which was $550,000 in 1970, escalates from $55.3 million for the 1990 tournament, which the network will share with ESPN, to about $110 million in 1994. There will be further increases in the other three years of the deal.

[mookie]

Jan 24, 2024 19:31:01 GMT -5 hykos1045 said:

The real reason many of us, including CoachD, seem diametrically opposed to NIL, is because it sets us further behind the big spenders. La Salle was a heavyweight in the NCAA until around 1992. Around then, TV contracts for march madness ballooned from 55.3M in 1990 to double that by 1994. It's now around 1 billion a year, or 20 times the value from 1990. Inflation during that time has been around 90% cumulatively, but TV revenues for the NCAA have shot up 2000%. Our piece probably didn't keep pace even though there is plenty more money to spread around, it's not filling our coffers.

The contract gives CBS exclusive rights to televise the tournament from 1991-97. The fee, which was $550,000 in 1970, escalates from $55.3 million for the 1990 tournament, which the network will share with ESPN, to about $110 million in 1994. There will be further increases in the other three years of the deal.

While it’s hard to ignore those numbers, the issue (imo) is the lack of vision and commitment from the University towards maintaining that success and leveraging basketball as true revenue stream for the University. We all saw what happened with the Sweet 16 appearance and the University’s snail pace movement following it. Meanwhile, we saw others use NCAA Tourney revenue and exposure and fundraise to build up the program and/or the campus. I’ve said it before, but Gonzaga is a prime example of a university that committed to basketball upon its NCAA success and maybe I’m wrong or biased but I think the A10 had/has more prestige than WCC. To me, La Salle had everything it needed to have significant revenue generated annually from basketball (to be nationally relevant) and the opportunity was wasted in the 90s and then again following the Sweet 16.

[MisterD]

Jan 24, 2024 19:31:01 GMT -5 hykos1045 said:

The real reason many of us, including CoachD, seem diametrically opposed to NIL, is because it sets us further behind the big spenders. La Salle was a heavyweight in the NCAA until around 1992.

In the bubble of college basketball and as a competition thing for our favorite university, I totally get this. The argument falls completely apart on a macro level when you consider that so many people who think payments to kids have to be capped or eliminated are 100% against any similar regulations in any other aspect of american life. This is like the one place where they aren't getting their way and where groups who are not them are benefiting so they want someone to step in and do something to make it fair for them.