Ole Miss women's bball coach is upset.......

[dog12]

Clear example of someone who has an emotional response to a very cut and dried reality.

In other words . . . a woman.

 

[Irondawg]

As for how both programs are losing that much money, I have to think they are hitting it with notes from the pavilion build.

With coach salaries these days, that takes up a lot of the budget for these teams

 

[TXDawg.sixpack]

No other country in the world has a college sports model like the USA. The facilities and money for even smaller sports like soccer, track and field, and volleyball are incredible compared to other countries, which really don’t have a college sports culture. It’s why so many international students come to the States to play college sports. Well what pays for all that? Football and men’s basketball. If you take away football and make it a professional league, all the other sports go away or become basically club sports because there is no money to pay for them. That’s why it’s a very slippery slope we’re treading on right now with college football and players becoming employees.

I’ll add to that to say that the lack of “college sports culture” that supports the “lesser” sports is also why Europe is also the only place that has professional leagues for the ”lesser“ sports: WBB, VB (men’s and women’s), soccer, etc. Yes, the US has WNBA and MLS, but those are even smaller, lower revenue leagues than pro VB in Europe.

It‘s definitely a cultural difference, but there’s no doubt that the NFL, MLB, and NBA dominate the US pro sports landscape; which drives the college revenue sports.

 

[Dawgg]

As for how both programs are losing that much money, I have to think they are hitting it with notes from the pavilion build.

With coach salaries these days, that takes up a lot of the budget for these teams

From what I’m reading, the Pavilion building debt is charged as an operating expense to both programs. Some folks mentioned the Kermit buyout, but I would have thought the boosters would have handled that.

 

[leeinator]

They are paying for a brand new Pavilion and a newly renovated baseball stadium.....just like we are. If not for the new or renovated facilities, both sports would be showing a profit.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Let me make sure I'm following: you're telling me liberals support NIL, and conservatives don't? And I guess you're further saying the conservatives are getting tricked into funding the NILs by the dastardly liberals?

I assure you, I'm not interested in arguing politics but this isn't making a whole lot of sense.

Of all the reasons that conspiracy theorists sound stupid, the simple realization that if “your side” can be that easily duped AND that “their side” is organized and intelligent enough to do so might give one pause in questioning who is better equipped to run things…

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Let me make sure I'm following: you're telling me liberals support NIL, and conservatives don't? And I guess you're further saying the conservatives are getting tricked into funding the NILs by the dastardly liberals?

Well let's look at history:

- 1970s, when it all started. Rich white dudes start paying players because they want to win. Of course, I'm assuming they are more conservative Republican types. I'd say this was all based on greed, no politics.
- 2009, Ed O'Bannon case started, this was when the whole pay for pay really picked up.
- 2013-2014, all the networks started, this is when the talk really started ratcheting up by the media about paying players. This also corresponds with when other political issues really start to get big around the country. So paying players becomes a political thing, and the ideal system with which to do it.

So let me rephrase, I think liberals are more about killing amateurism and wanting players to become employees, which bottom line, ruins the game (like I pointed out in some of the original posts in this thread). Many think that the 'schools' are some boogeyman hoarding all the money. They aren't - they aren't corporations run for profit, but that's another story for another day. Liberals say they are, and want the machine to be destroyed, because it's modern day player free labor or whatever. Conservatives think that's a bit much, and the players still benefit a good bit. And further, I don't think it's worth it to tear down what has historically been a very popular and uniting system over the fact that the schools make some money off TV (which subsidizes other less profitable programs, obviously).

Back to NIL, that's just a legal way for people to buy players, i.e. the same system. I don't think this is something liberals like - because the 'system' is still in place. I think they will continue to bltch, as long as there is one benchwarmer at the end of the least profitable sport there is, is not getting paid (especially if they are a disadvantaged group). Whether they deserve it or not.

So - you SORT OF created a strawman when you asked if liberals were funding NIL. My point was not about NIL, per se, it's about the notion of the school actually becoming a business. NIL is really just a continuation of the old amateur system.

So if you want to get political, it's all just a rich man's game, like everything else. The middle class, both liberal and conservative, are likely not participating.

 

[dorndawg]

Well let's look at history:

- 1970s, when it all started. Rich white dudes start paying players because they want to win. Of course, I'm assuming they are more conservative Republican types. I'd say this was all based on greed, no politics.
- 2009, Ed O'Bannon case started, this was when the whole pay for pay really picked up.
- 2013-2014, all the networks started, this is when the talk really started ratcheting up by the media about paying players. This also corresponds with when other political issues really start to get big around the country. So paying players becomes a political thing, and the ideal system with which to do it.

So let me rephrase, I think liberals are more about killing amateurism and wanting players to become employees, which bottom line, ruins the game (like I pointed out in some of the original posts in this thread). Many think that the 'schools' are some boogeyman hoarding all the money. They aren't - they aren't corporations run for profit, but that's another story for another day. Liberals say they are, and want the machine to be destroyed, because it's modern day player free labor or whatever. Conservatives think that's a bit much, and the players still benefit a good bit. And further, I don't think it's worth it to tear down what has historically been a very popular and uniting system over the fact that the schools make some money off TV (which subsidizes other less profitable programs, obviously).

Back to NIL, that's just a legal way for people to buy players, i.e. the same system. I don't think this is something liberals like - because the 'system' is still in place. I think they will continue to bltch, as long as there is one benchwarmer at the end of the least profitable sport there is, is not getting paid (especially if they are a disadvantaged group). Whether they deserve it or not.

So - you SORT OF created a strawman when you asked if liberals were funding NIL. My point was not about NIL, per se, it's about the notion of the school actually becoming a business. NIL is really just a continuation of the old amateur system.

So if you want to get political, it's all just a rich man's game, like everything else. The middle class, both liberal and conservative, are likely not participating.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

View attachment 520316

That's all good, but I did answer your question.

So, you can both read it, and then post on here that it's just the ramblings of muh GoAt moaron. You get the info, AND the 6pack credit. #winning

 

[She Mate Me]

No other country in the world has a college sports model like the USA. The facilities and money for even smaller sports like soccer, track and field, and volleyball are incredible compared to other countries, which really don’t have a college sports culture. It’s why so many international students come to the States to play college sports. Well what pays for all that? Football and men’s basketball. If you take away football and make it a professional league, all the other sports go away or become basically club sports because there is no money to pay for them. That’s why it’s a very slippery slope we’re treading on right now with college football and players becoming employees.

Apparently, if your football program is also struggling to make a go of it, you must tap funds that were initially set aside to help po folks if you want a shiny new volleyball court.

 

[mstateglfr]

The below is reposted from another thread since it applies here too. The OM coach could have chosen to discuss the financials from a lens of investment and say that OM WBB is working towards becoming a program that drives interest and enrollment applications to OM thru success on the court.
Instead, she went the exact opposite route and it didnt look good.

Since athletic success in the 4 major college sports helps drive interest in attending the university, investing in that success can be seen as a legitimately good decision, even if a report shows a financial loss for the athletics department.

^ this is not a new concept and has been shown to be true many times this century(Oregon, Bama, Butler, Gonzaga, VCU, AppState, Boise State, FGCU, and many more). Hell, its so common that there is a name for it- Flutie Effect.

 

[mstateglfr]

Well let's look at history:

- 1970s, when it all started. Rich white dudes start paying players because they want to win. Of course, I'm assuming they are more conservative Republican types. I'd say this was all based on greed, no politics.
- 2009, Ed O'Bannon case started, this was when the whole pay for pay really picked up.
- 2013-2014, all the networks started, this is when the talk really started ratcheting up by the media about paying players. This also corresponds with when other political issues really start to get big around the country. So paying players becomes a political thing, and the ideal system with which to do it.

So let me rephrase, I think liberals are more about killing amateurism and wanting players to become employees, which bottom line, ruins the game (like I pointed out in some of the original posts in this thread). Many think that the 'schools' are some boogeyman hoarding all the money. They aren't - they aren't corporations run for profit, but that's another story for another day. Liberals say they are, and want the machine to be destroyed, because it's modern day player free labor or whatever. Conservatives think that's a bit much, and the players still benefit a good bit. And further, I don't think it's worth it to tear down what has historically been a very popular and uniting system over the fact that the schools make some money off TV (which subsidizes other less profitable programs, obviously).

Wow there are a lot of conclusions you jump to here, a ton of assuming, and a whole bunch of painting with a broad brush.

The last thing I have ever thought of when it comes to the shitshow that is major college athletics right now(NIL, transfers, etc) is that its a political position that can be divided along party lines.
With that said, I did laugh at your analysis since it basically boils down to- 'liberals want student athletes to have an opportunity to make money while in college and conservatives think student athletes should appreciate what they have and just play'.

 

[Msdeltareb]

Here's a short video of some of the best female basketball players in the world.

 

[Msdeltareb]

As for how both programs are losing that much money, I have to think they are hitting it with notes from the pavilion build.

With coach salaries these days, that takes up a lot of the budget for these teams

This is correct - they are getting allocated a portion of the Pavilion debt service. Kermit's buyout is also included in the men's figure.

 

[mstateglfr]

Here's a short video of some of the best female basketball players in the world.

Good thing I couldnt make a 3 minute video of terrible and uncoordinated clips from the NBA over multiple years.**

 

[Msdeltareb]

Good thing I couldnt make a 3 minute video of terrible and uncoordinated clips from the NBA over multiple years.**

Obviously, my point is that most people don't find women's basketball entertaining. The WNBA would shut down tomorrow if the NBA was propping it up. Nobody goes to the games for a reason.

 

[Dawgg]

Obviously, my point is that most people don't find women's basketball entertaining. The WNBA would shut down tomorrow if the NBA was propping it up. Nobody goes to the games for a reason.

Over 9100 people were in the Hump last night to watch Mississippi State beat LSU in (checks notes) women's basketball. The highest attended college basketball game in the state of Mississippi was when 10,800 people watched Mississippi State beat South Carolina in (checks notes again) women's basketball.

You don't want to support your team, fine, but don't come over here and make excuses for your lousy аss fanbase.

 

[patdog]

Over 9100 people were in the Hump last night to watch Mississippi State beat LSU in (checks notes) women's basketball. The highest attended college basketball game in the state of Mississippi was when 10,800 people watched Mississippi State beat South Carolina in (checks notes again) women's basketball.

You don't want to support your team, fine, but don't come over here and make excuses for your lousy аss fanbase.

Average SEC mens attendance - 11,344
Average SEC womens attendance - 4,551

 

[BulldogBlitz]

Here's a short video of some of the best female basketball players in the world.

That even seems like a smaller ball than college. Looked like exhibition/Baptist night pickup/4th grade boys first chance on the court.

 

[Xenomorph]

I agree 100%. The courts have destroyed the old model that was working a hell of a lot better than what we have now. There are only two ways to remedy this correctly.

2. Or, eliminate “college” football entirely, allowing the collectives to run the franchise, pay the players/coaches etc and pay a franchise fee to use the university’s image and likeness. The catch? The players can be any age, don’t have to go to school, and have no eligibility limits. Guess who won’t care? 90% of the football players. And absolutely, the fans (many would be equity owners in the team collective)would still lap up the ****** product.

That’s known throughout cyberspace as the “Xenomodel”… cause I’ve been saying it for a year.

College athletics has to get the courts out. And to get the courts out you’ve got to separate the athletic departments from education.

The NIL collectives should own the teams. The players should be under contract to the collectives.

Go to school or don’t go to school.. spend all your money on hookers and blow when you’re 19. It’s capitalism baby… go wild.

We tried to do right and offer education for play but society has said 17 that. Now it’s just minor league sports.

There is no other solution.

 

[Dawgg]

Average SEC mens attendance - 11,344
Average SEC womens attendance - 4,551

WAIT.... you're telling me SEC men's basketball outdraws SEC women's basketball?!?!?

Shocking***

In other news, water.... is wet.

 

[mstateglfr]

Obviously, my point is that most people don't find women's basketball entertaining. The WNBA would shut down tomorrow if the NBA was propping it up. Nobody goes to the games for a reason.

Just came across a YouTube short and thought of this thread.

 

[pseudonym]

I’m ok with certain sports operating at a loss. I know our women’s basketball team lost money under Vic, but as a fan those were some of the most fun seasons of the last ten years, any sport.