I posted this over on the other board too... different audience here, so I thought I would repost.
No secret that I have not been a huge fan of pay for play or the direction college athletics has been going in. I am ok with true NIL, but colleges paying players, especially what some think we should be paying them, is something I am against. It's been funny (not haha) to watch, because as money gets paid out, and more money is promised, athletic directors are having to make some serious decisions about where the money to pay these folks will come from. And the decision is not surprising...
Ross Dellenger did a good piece on Friday about this... one quote that struck me spoke of not just non-revenue sports being cut or impacted, but the sacred cow being gored as well...
"in football, it is estimated that more than 1,500 walk-on players — roughly 20-30 per team — will see their spots cut. In all, the 68 power conference schools are expected to eliminate at least 3,000 roster positions as administrators work to adhere to new roster limitations, reallocate resources from lower-tier to revenue-generating sports, and balance men and women opportunities to comply with the federal Title IX law."
Extrapolating, because costs for revenue sports keep going up if you want to be competitive, and at some point there won't be enough " income" to balance it out; at what point do schools cut programs like baseball and track where males are the majority. Further, at what point does this become too much of a headache, and some of the smaller schools say "to heck with it" an pull athletics all together? It's easy to be in one of the top 68 schools and look down and say "oh well". But the model was never supposed to be about making people rich, or seeing which school can bring in the most money. It was supposed to be about the "student" who used "athletics" to help fun an education. It was supposed to be about the "student" who carried on their HS athletic career while getting an education. Thousands of kids, many of whom need this opportunity, will be cut out each year so that a football player can make adult money, or a football/basketball coach can be the highest paid employee in the state. Has the "university" lost it's way? Or do we just blame it on changing landscapes and say "adapt or die" and it's all good.
Bringing it closer to home. Mizzou is not a rich ADept. We have been blessed to be in the SEC and get SEC TV money, but we are not competitive with many on the top half of the conference. That means as costs go up, we are going to have to cut... so what programs do you suggest? Soccer and Tennis? their facilities are rotting (from what I read on the boards) so that is an easy cut, but they are female sports and we have to worry about Title IX. How about baseball, nobody cares any way and our QB could stay healthy. How about killing all men's sports other than Football, Basketball and Wrestling? Balance that with killing Women's Golf, Tennis and Soccer... it would save on facilities and salaries... if you are the AD, what do you do? And then how do you explain it to the players, parents, and those who support the university and it's mission?
It's easy when the team is 10-2, 11-2, even maybe for 8-4... but how do you do that for a 6-6 program costing millions and cutting opportunities for other students to get an education?
I know, shut up Val... but hey, it's the off week and maybe it is good to look ahead at the whole picture and not just if we can find a QB to play against Oklahoma....
https://sports.yahoo.com/historic-h...lympic-sport-athletes-in-peril-125238713.html
No secret that I have not been a huge fan of pay for play or the direction college athletics has been going in. I am ok with true NIL, but colleges paying players, especially what some think we should be paying them, is something I am against. It's been funny (not haha) to watch, because as money gets paid out, and more money is promised, athletic directors are having to make some serious decisions about where the money to pay these folks will come from. And the decision is not surprising...
Ross Dellenger did a good piece on Friday about this... one quote that struck me spoke of not just non-revenue sports being cut or impacted, but the sacred cow being gored as well...
"in football, it is estimated that more than 1,500 walk-on players — roughly 20-30 per team — will see their spots cut. In all, the 68 power conference schools are expected to eliminate at least 3,000 roster positions as administrators work to adhere to new roster limitations, reallocate resources from lower-tier to revenue-generating sports, and balance men and women opportunities to comply with the federal Title IX law."
Extrapolating, because costs for revenue sports keep going up if you want to be competitive, and at some point there won't be enough " income" to balance it out; at what point do schools cut programs like baseball and track where males are the majority. Further, at what point does this become too much of a headache, and some of the smaller schools say "to heck with it" an pull athletics all together? It's easy to be in one of the top 68 schools and look down and say "oh well". But the model was never supposed to be about making people rich, or seeing which school can bring in the most money. It was supposed to be about the "student" who used "athletics" to help fun an education. It was supposed to be about the "student" who carried on their HS athletic career while getting an education. Thousands of kids, many of whom need this opportunity, will be cut out each year so that a football player can make adult money, or a football/basketball coach can be the highest paid employee in the state. Has the "university" lost it's way? Or do we just blame it on changing landscapes and say "adapt or die" and it's all good.
Bringing it closer to home. Mizzou is not a rich ADept. We have been blessed to be in the SEC and get SEC TV money, but we are not competitive with many on the top half of the conference. That means as costs go up, we are going to have to cut... so what programs do you suggest? Soccer and Tennis? their facilities are rotting (from what I read on the boards) so that is an easy cut, but they are female sports and we have to worry about Title IX. How about baseball, nobody cares any way and our QB could stay healthy. How about killing all men's sports other than Football, Basketball and Wrestling? Balance that with killing Women's Golf, Tennis and Soccer... it would save on facilities and salaries... if you are the AD, what do you do? And then how do you explain it to the players, parents, and those who support the university and it's mission?
It's easy when the team is 10-2, 11-2, even maybe for 8-4... but how do you do that for a 6-6 program costing millions and cutting opportunities for other students to get an education?
I know, shut up Val... but hey, it's the off week and maybe it is good to look ahead at the whole picture and not just if we can find a QB to play against Oklahoma....
https://sports.yahoo.com/historic-h...lympic-sport-athletes-in-peril-125238713.html
