UCF Player Rebellion

[MBWC41]

On 8/10/2020 at 9:17 AM, swamprat said:

Friday, UCF cancelled the start of fall practice when the players, nobody knows how many, refused to attend demanding hazard pay, scholarship security, and 20% of AAC revenue.

Another nail in the coffin for college football this fall. 

 

Are you of the opinion that UCF football players should assume the risk of playing with no compensation so the university can offer softball, soccer, gymnastics, archery and a swim team ?

[swamprat]

46 minutes ago, MBWC41 said:

If you were the only reason your company profited, would you not demand compensation?

It is not the same, but they are already being compensated.

Free education, room, board, and they get a stipend. In my view that is all they deserve. 

In 80% of the schools, they are getting that off the backs of those going into debt and working jobs, when not in class, to pay tuition, room, board, and a large part of the players tuition, room board, and stipend, as well as facilities, staff, coaches, and administration. 

I think that an athletic department is an athletic department and it must stand on its own merit. If football is financing the other sports then so be it. Better to do that than to add to the burden of the student population, tax payers, or donors to maintain those sports. If you have no regard for the other sports, I understand. I do, though. 

I paid my way through school working multiple jobs, 52 weeks a year. Therefore, I'm afraid I feel no sympathy for the players. I know many players that have taken that free education and made quite a life for themselves, not getting anywhere near the NFL. Several are doctors. A few run multi-million dollar business. Remember 99 percent of college players never play in the NFL. 

I know my stance is not popular. I've stated my case. Nothing further to add, from me anyway. Have at it.

By the way, the Lightning/Blue Jacket game is in its 4th overtime. They have played 2 full games and are still tied at 2. Back to that. 

[MBWC41]

9 minutes ago, swamprat said:

It is not the same, but they are already being compensated.

Free education, room, board, and they get a stipend. In my view that is all they deserve. 

In 80% of the schools, they are getting that off the backs of those going into debt and working jobs, when not in class, to pay tuition, room, board, and a large part of the players tuition, room board, and stipend, as well as facilities, staff, coaches, and administration. 

I think that an athletic department is an athletic department and it must stand on its own merit. If football is financing the other sports then so be it. Better to do that than to add to the burden of the student population, tax payers, or donors to maintain those sports. If you have no regard for the other sports, I understand. I do, though. 

I paid my way through school working multiple jobs, 52 weeks a year. Therefore, I'm afraid I feel no sympathy for the players. I know many players that have taken that free education and made quite a life for themselves, not getting anywhere near the NFL. Several are doctors. A few run multi-million dollar business. Remember 99 percent of college players never play in the NFL. 

I know my stance is not popular. I've stated my case. Nothing further to add, from me anyway. Have at it.

By the way, the Lightning/Blue Jacket game is in its 4th overtime. They have played 2 full games and are still tied at 2. Back to that. 

You’d need to make 30 dollars an hour to accomplish this now...

[Unrivaled97]

3 hours ago, MBWC41 said:

Are you of the opinion that UCF football players should assume the risk of playing with no compensation so the university can offer softball, soccer, gymnastics, archery and a swim team ?

I for one am not of that opinion....but Title IX is.

[MBWC41]

10 hours ago, Unrivaled97 said:

I for one am not of that opinion....but Title IX is.

Agreed.

[GrantNKY]

14 hours ago, swamprat said:

It is not the same, but they are already being compensated.

Free education, room, board, and they get a stipend. In my view that is all they deserve. 

 

Im confused as to why this is your stance? Their value to the university is way more than that of the average student who is paying their way through college. I disagree with the idea of “student athletes.” I think it’s a false narrative. At most of these major power 5 universities they are athletes first, students second. They are getting an education because they play football, they aren’t playing football so they can get an education. To suggest otherwise I think is just trying to keep up this outdated idea of amateurism. 

[CincySportsFan]

On 8/11/2020 at 9:20 AM, swamprat said:

In the 2018/19 academic year, Ohio State had total revenue of $210,548,230. Their expenses tallied $220,572,956. That is a loss of over $10 million. 

 

 

 

Sometimes raw numbers don't tell the full story.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bigten/2020/02/14/ohio-state-athletic-revenue-210-million-but-department-lost-money/4760028002/

According to the article:

Citing an internal management report, school administrators said the 2019 deficit sat at only $624,359, with $210.3 million in total revenues and $210.9 million in expenses.

Officials attributed the sizable discrepancy to bookkeeping, largely a change in how the department recorded donations. In its internal report, presented in May to its athletic council, Ohio State listed $40.1 million in contributions, while its NCAA report noted only $29.7 million.

The department said the $10.4 million difference is made up of contributions from so-called “plant funds,” money that was held from previous fundraising efforts. The school allocated the money toward its budget for the 2019 fiscal year, but different external-audit requirements prevented it from recording the contributions on its report to the NCAA.

...

Officials noted that the $624,359 deficit for 2019 shown on its internal financial report was to be covered by the department’s reserve funds, which currently hold $8.9 million and are projected to grow to $10 million by the end of the 2020 fiscal year.

Ohio State’s athletic department does not receive subsidies from the state, university or through student fees, and it provided the campus with $3.1 million in the 2019 fiscal year.

 

I think the last paragraph might be the most important one here.  I won't speak for any other program, but it appears that OSU does not use the student fees to prop up its athletic budget.  And, it still has transferred millions of dollars to the university for non-athletic use.

[FootballBobcat]

On 8/11/2020 at 7:38 PM, MBWC41 said:

If you were the only reason your company profited, would you not demand compensation?

Getting close to $100K or more in tuition, room and board, fees, a great dorm (in some cases), fees and a stipend is a pretty good starting point. A lot of students who have to pay athletic fees as part of their tuition (whether they support the teams or not!) have to take student loans and graduate with debt. Do they get their athletic fees back?

[MBWC41]

3 hours ago, FootballBobcat said:

Getting close to $100K or more in tuition, room and board, fees, a great dorm (in some cases), fees and a stipend is a pretty good starting point. A lot of students who have to pay athletic fees as part of their tuition (whether they support the teams or not!) have to take student loans and graduate with debt. Do they get their athletic fees back?

They should...

They shouldn’t have to pay them to begin with. If a sports team can’t cover the cost for it to exist then it shouldn’t be played.

At the very least, teams who can’t support themselves should compete at more of a local level to slow the bleeding a little.

Students shouldn’t be asked to chip in for failing programs.

[Voice of Reason]

9 hours ago, FootballBobcat said:

Getting close to $100K or more in tuition, room and board, fees, a great dorm (in some cases), fees and a stipend is a pretty good starting point. A lot of students who have to pay athletic fees as part of their tuition (whether they support the teams or not!) have to take student loans and graduate with debt. Do they get their athletic fees back?

This causes me to think ... is a student athlete who is able to generate revenue for him/her self taking advantage of the school? Surely a football player at Alabama or basketball player at Duke is going to be able to generate more revenue because they are at those schools. Aren't they taking advantage of the university? 

Perhaps this could be done. An athlete gets a choice when they enter college. Take the scholarship and keep no revenue they can generate or play as a non-scholarship athlete and not allowed to create a revenue fund. If a player chooses their own revenue, they still count against the school's scholarship count.

[MBWC41]

1 hour ago, Voice of Reason said:

This causes me to think ... is a student athlete who is able to generate revenue for him/her self taking advantage of the school? Surely a football player at Alabama or basketball player at Duke is going to be able to generate more revenue because they are at those schools. Aren't they taking advantage of the university? 

Perhaps this could be done. An athlete gets a choice when they enter college. Take the scholarship and keep no revenue they can generate or play as a non-scholarship athlete and not allowed to create a revenue fund. If a player chooses their own revenue, they still count against the school's scholarship count.

In a perfect world, kids would be able to go pro right out of high school and not have to make this decision.

I’d be onboard with your idea as an alternative though.