The ewes have some expectations for their football coach - Norvell fired

[OrediggerPoke]

Per

I'm going to disagree a little bit. For the amount of time and risk these players take (football in particular), I think they deserve to be paid. Not millions or even several hundred thousands - but they should receive something. Forget about ROI for a minute. Wyoming has no pro sports. UW is it. It's a matter of pride for the entire state. I would agree that BYU level of spending is beyond reasonable. I'll leave it to others to determine what is reasonable. But zero is out of the question to have any semblance of competitiveness. I'm guessing that 3-4 million a year for all sports keeps us in the game.

Personally, I believe a 5 year education, room and board in nice facilities and a small stipend is a heck of a deal and very reasonable. How many students go 100+ thousand in debt to get the same thing and end up with that financial burden for decades to come?

But we aren’t ever going back to the amateur model at the upper echelon of college sports. It’s actually why I am watching more division 2 sports these days.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

All that being said...I don't think there is a valid argument anymore for just not paying them.

Pandora's box is fully open on this topic. This is professionalism in athletics with no salary cap and no systems of talent distribution (like drafts). If Wyoming and the teams that Wyoming compete with pay thier athletes, the teams that pay the most will win the most. There will be upsets...but you will ultimately get what you pay for. It won't even take a lot of difference in money...a 5% difference in pay will get you better tallent in business and it's no different in athletics.

All that being said...I don't think there is a valid argument anymore for just not paying them.

I think there is a very valid argument. Businesses only pay (and hire) employees salaries if they are making money. The vast majority of athletic departments don’t turn a profit. Why should players be paid beyond their scholarships and living costs if they aren’t actually generating positive revenue? I will vote and actively campaign against any politician who suggests using state funds to subsidize the ‘salaries’ of players when the team/business fails to turn a profit to pay them with.

Players don’t have to play. It’s a choice. Play and have your schools expenses paid, if you’re good enough go to a school turning a profit that will pay you or don’t play and either get a job or pay for college like every other high school graduate in the country.

 

[doreno5]

The truth is college sports , especially football, have for a long time been dominated by money. We used to joke about the Hundred dollar handshake. With NIL and open season for transfers big time college football is now a professional league. Wyoming without state funding simply does not have deep enough pockets to compete at the highest level. Where UW ends up is still uncertain. My guess is it will be at least a tier or two below the elite programs.

 

[307bball]

I think there is a very valid argument. Businesses only pay (and hire) employees salaries if they are making money. The vast majority of athletic departments don’t turn a profit. Why should players be paid beyond their scholarships and living costs if they aren’t actually generating positive revenue? I will vote and actively campaign against any politician who suggests using state funds to subsidize the ‘salaries’ of players when the team/business fails to turn a profit to pay them with.

Of all of the reasons not to pay athletes...the fact that athletic departments operate at a loss is one of the weaker reasons. That logic doesn’t hold up anymore because the economics of college sports have completely changed. We’re not talking about “hobby sports” run by universities anymore... this is now a fully professional labor market. The players are the product. They generate the TV contracts, ticket sales, donor interest, and conference payouts that fund the entire enterprise.

The idea that you only pay labor when you’re turning a profit doesn’t exist in any other business or industry. Businesses routinely invest in payroll to stay competitive and grow... because without talent, there is no product and no chance of ever being profitable. College athletics is no different.

The best argument to not pay them is something like the Ivy league amateurism position. Don't join the facilities arms race and don't try to have it both ways...that is what has ultimately fractured the NCAA position. It's obvious that major college football and basketball in the US is a farm system for the NBA and NFL. Those who participate in that system deserve compensation commensurate with the revenue that they generate. At the levels of college athletics that generate the most interest, players getting room/board and tuition have been getting the shaft...it's obvious now that you see the millions that are being funneled to them.

None of that really matters to Wyoming though...there just isn't a river of currency that would support it.

Players don’t have to play. It’s a choice. Play and have your schools expenses paid, if you’re good enough go to a school turning a profit that will pay you or don’t play and either get a job or pay for college like every other high school graduate in the country.

This is the part where UW finds itself between a rock and a hard place. The hard place is that Wyoming fans remember a time when we were competetive with a group of teams that are now paying players a lot of money. We just aren't competetive with them anymore. The rock looks something like FCS irrelavance.

I don't often agree with Ragtime about stuff on here but his posts about the future related to this topic specifically being largely unknowable for Wyoming make sense to me....

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Of all of the reasons not to pay athletes...the fact that athletic departments operate at a loss is one of the weaker reasons. That logic doesn’t hold up anymore because the economics of college sports have completely changed. We’re not talking about “hobby sports” run by universities anymore... this is now a fully professional labor market. The players are the product. They generate the TV contracts, ticket sales, donor interest, and conference payouts that fund the entire enterprise.

The idea that you only pay labor when you’re turning a profit doesn’t exist in any other business or industry. Businesses routinely invest in payroll to stay competitive and grow... because without talent, there is no product and no chance of ever being profitable. College athletics is no different.

This is senseless to me. Name one long term successful business that pays its employees more than it takes in in revenue (or capital gains)? And if you can name that business, I for damn sure don’t want to invest in it.

 

[307bball]

This is senseless to me. Name one long term successful business that pays its employees more than it takes in in revenue (or capital gains)? And if you can name that business, I for damn sure don’t want to invest in it.

That is not really the right comparison. College athletic departments aren’t traditional businesses trying to turn a profit.. they’re marketing and branding arms of the university. The “return” is in exposure, enrollment, alumni engagement, donations, and state pride. That value doesn’t show up on a balance sheet, but it’s very real.

And honestly, there’s an entire world of non-profits that don’t generate ROI in the business sense but still pay people. I think most Universities are in that category. They claim to be non-profit, but athletic departments and the NCAA have made that a pretty hypocritical stance.

These schools aren’t putting on games out of the goodness of their hearts. They’re getting plenty out of it....attention, money, relevance. “Non-profit” universities somehow manage to pay coaches millions and build palace-level facilities. If coaches made salaries in line with other university staff and the facilities arms race hadn’t gone nuclear, maybe the old amateur model still makes sense. Look to the Ivy League or FCS. But once schools started acting like pro programs, that line was crossed by them....not the players.

So yeah, no private investor would fund an unprofitable business. But universities aren’t hedge funds. They’re competing for attention, students, and prestige. The ones that understand and have the audience to do it will adapt. The ones that don't understand or don't have the audience (again...this put's Wyoming with the Ivy's and FCS) will be regionally relevant at best....in athletics.

The position you are staking out in regards to the state funding a semi-pro team is one that I think I share with you. If i'm not mistaken, you have also acknowledged that this means the version of Wyoming athletics we all yearn for will not be a reality.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

That is not really the right comparison. College athletic departments aren’t traditional businesses trying to turn a profit.. they’re marketing and branding arms of the university. The “return” is in exposure, enrollment, alumni engagement, donations, and state pride. That value doesn’t show up on a balance sheet, but it’s very real.

And honestly, there’s an entire world of non-profits that don’t generate ROI in the business sense but still pay people. I think most Universities are in that category. They claim to be non-profit, but athletic departments and the NCAA have made that a pretty hypocritical stance.

These schools aren’t putting on games out of the goodness of their hearts. They’re getting plenty out of it....attention, money, relevance. “Non-profit” universities somehow manage to pay coaches millions and build palace-level facilities. If coaches made salaries in line with other university staff and the facilities arms race hadn’t gone nuclear, maybe the old amateur model still makes sense. Look to the Ivy League or FCS. But once schools started acting like pro programs, that line was crossed by them....not the players.

So yeah, no private investor would fund an unprofitable business. But universities aren’t hedge funds. They’re competing for attention, students, and prestige. The ones that understand and have the audience to do it will adapt. The ones that don't understand or don't have the audience (again...this put's Wyoming with the Ivy's and FCS) will be regionally relevant at best....in athletics.

The position you are staking out in regards to the state funding a semi-pro team is one that I think I share with you. If i'm not mistaken, you have also acknowledged that this means the version of Wyoming athletics we all yearn for will not be a reality.

Non-profits consider donations as revenue. Donations are currently considered as revenue on the athletics balance sheet and I am certainly considering donations to athletics as revenue.

The only way to pay players a bunch of money at Wyoming is: (1) generate more donors; or (2) leave the tab to the current students, state legislature and taxpayers. As I’ve indicated, I’m vehemently opposed to #2 as an absolute waste of and misuse of public funds. I don’t see #1 as likely given Wyoming’s relatively small donor base and the relative lack of big pockets amongst that base.

 

[307bball]

Non-profits consider donations as revenue. Donations are currently considered as revenue on the athletics balance sheet and I am certainly considering donations to athletics as revenue.

The only way to pay players a bunch of money at Wyoming is: (1) generate more donors; or (2) leave the tab to the current students, state legislature and taxpayers. As I’ve indicated, I’m vehemently opposed to #2 as an absolute waste of and misuse of public funds. I don’t see #1 as likely given Wyoming’s relatively small donor base and the relative lack of big pockets amongst that base.

You and I agree completely here.

I think there is some sort of alternate reality where the NCAA had a moral backbone and created some sort of revenue sharing and was able to keep conferences in check while compensating student-athletes fairly. This would have come at the cost of high-end coaching salaries and some of the higher athlete deals along with some of the more exorbitant facility spending....but would have been better for the majority of college athletes.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

This is senseless to me. Name one long term successful business that pays its employees more than it takes in in revenue (or capital gains)? And if you can name that business, I for damn sure don’t want to invest in it.

Are you tracking the Big10 situation?

How the Big Ten Spent Its Way Into a $2 Billion Dilemma

Lavish facilities and soaring salaries have left athletic departments desperate for new revenue and now a private capital investment may come to the rescue.

www.si.com

Lots of risk and what in the heck is UC Cal Pension fund doing "investing" in Big 10 Enterprises? Using retirement investments?

The Jones can't even keep up with the Jones.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Are you tracking the Big10 situation?

How the Big Ten Spent Its Way Into a $2 Billion Dilemma

Lavish facilities and soaring salaries have left athletic departments desperate for new revenue and now a private capital investment may come to the rescue.

www.si.com

Lots of risk and what in the heck is UC Cal Pension fund doing "investing" in Big 10 Enterprises? Using retirement investments?

It’s absurd IMO (especially diverting retirement funds). Having worked extensively with private equity in the energy industry, I also believe that mixing public dollars and private equity dollars to basically provide stakes in university resources to private equity is wrong (and probably against Wyoming’s constitution). At least a couple schools have raised their antenna to the crazy path they are headed down.