NCAA MBB Player FMV $375k each/season

MI Sooner said:
Does OU's basketball program even make money?
Click to expand...

The last good number that I saw showed the program to be a breakeven operation. It was the last year of the Capel era and Basketball turned an about $200,000 profit.

The big salaries for Kruger and his assistants, along with what was likely a bigger recruiting budget, probably got the program into the red. Men's basketball will never be a big money maker. However, consistently good teams with more fan support could make the program consistently marginally profitable.
 
garyeb2 said:
The last good number that I saw showed the program to be a breakeven operation. It was the last year of the Capel era and Basketball turned an about $200,000 profit.

The big salaries for Kruger and his assistants, along with what was likely a bigger recruiting budget, probably got the program into the red. Men's basketball will never be a big money maker. However, consistently good teams with more fan support could make the program consistently marginally profitable.
Click to expand...

That is about how I remember it. I'm wanting to say we were turning a small profit toward the end of Sampson's tenure as well.

I also seem to remember that some small number, less than 10 perhaps, of D1 college bball programs were turning a profit.
 
why did this need a new thread?

Boca, you realize that if you had your way, there would be no college basketball? It would be professional basketball. It would be people playing for money, going to schools where they could get paid the best. Gone are the days of kids playing for university pride and the legends that came before them. Say goodbye to the atmoshpere at college events.

Why do you want another pro league?
 
WTSooner said:
That is about how I remember it. I'm wanting to say we were turning a small profit toward the end of Sampson's tenure as well.

I also seem to remember that some small number, less than 10 perhaps, of D1 college bball programs were turning a profit.
Click to expand...

So, now you wander into the really crazy part of this. MANY basketball programs would essentially die, since I'd think you couldn't use football money to support other programs - including basketball.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
 
WTSooner said:
That is about how I remember it. I'm wanting to say we were turning a small profit toward the end of Sampson's tenure as well.

I also seem to remember that some small number, less than 10 perhaps, of D1 college bball programs were turning a profit.
Click to expand...

Including all athletics, I think there are only 10-12 profitable ADs in the nation.
Broken down by program, there are probably only 40 profitable programs in the nation.
 
garyeb2 said:
The last good number that I saw showed the program to be a breakeven operation. It was the last year of the Capel era and Basketball turned an about $200,000 profit.

The big salaries for Kruger and his assistants, along with what was likely a bigger recruiting budget, probably got the program into the red. Men's basketball will never be a big money maker. However, consistently good teams with more fan support could make the program consistently marginally profitable.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I think the only reason why a profit was made that year was because the lack of post season play.
 
Has anyone seen a list of profitable football and basketball teams? If you find one please post a link.
 
I think it's only about 1/3rd of football programs that make a profit the last time I looked. A few basketball programs, a couple women's basketball programs. Almost none of the other sports make a profit. But that's what you expect when the goal is not the really make a profit as it is to have as many participate as possible.
 
NickZepp said:
I think it's only about 1/3rd of football programs that make a profit the last time I looked. A few basketball programs, a couple women's basketball programs. Almost none of the other sports make a profit. But that's what you expect when the goal is not the really make a profit as it is to have as many participate as possible.
Click to expand...

It is 1/3 at best and was a lot less 5 years ago - the rest lose money. Big time college athletics costs big time money and comparing the Cadillac schools to the other schools just doesn't work when those schools are bleeding money just by fielding teams.

However they decide on a legalized pay for play stipend there are just so many complications involved that to me it just points towards the top 35 or so schools breaking away from the NCAA. We are already at a point where big time college athletics is basically at the semi pro level.
 
Pay for play would likely be an end to scholarships as we know it. And it would likely end the NCAA as we know it. Not sure if we would go to a complete semi pro route like you suggest but it's possible.
 
MercedeSooner said:
It is 1/3 at best and was a lot less 5 years ago - the rest lose money. Big time college athletics costs big time money and comparing the Cadillac schools to the other schools just doesn't work when those schools are bleeding money just by fielding teams.

However they decide on a legalized pay for play stipend there are just so many complications involved that to me it just points towards the top 35 or so schools breaking away from the NCAA. We are already at a point where big time college athletics is basically at the semi pro level.
Click to expand...

Problem is, these schools are legislated to consider 3rd string women's soccer goalie equal to Adrian Peterson. In other words, the star lacrosse player at Syracuse is more valuable in his market than Drew Allen was. With that in mind, all funds have to be thrown into a pot and redistributed. Under those guidelines, there's really no way to allow for paying players in college.

Some, not you, keep forgetting about the main reason the teams exist. You'd think one look at the smaller schools would explain it, but a person's greed keeps them from seeing it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
 
Section31 said:
Some, not you, keep forgetting about the main reason the teams exist. You'd think one look at the smaller schools would explain it, but a person's greed keeps them from seeing it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

More importantly most are basing their opinions on OKlahoma, Alabama, Texas, etc. and ignoring UNT, Texas State, and Central Michigan not to mention the FCS and lower division schools.

This is not a black and white issue. It is complicated and will have far reaching consequences.
 
The $375k fmv is for every player at every D1 school.

The NCAA basketball tournament collects double the ad revenue as the NBA playoffs and doesn't pay the players. The travesty is that a mediocre coach like Kruger has raked in $7.1 million in 3 years while Austin Johnson got nothing and is now poor back in Amarillo noodling.
 
Section31 said:
Problem is, these schools are legislated to consider 3rd string women's soccer goalie equal to Adrian Peterson. In other words, the star lacrosse player at Syracuse is more valuable in his market than Drew Allen was. With that in mind, all funds have to be thrown into a pot and redistributed. Under those guidelines, there's really no way to allow for paying players in college.

Some, not you, keep forgetting about the main reason the teams exist. You'd think one look at the smaller schools would explain it, but a person's greed keeps them from seeing it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I didn't want to get into it but the Title IX issues are one of the main reasons why this thing is going to blow up if they are going to seriously consider pay to play, especially if you are talking about a fund that supposedly will be equally divided and paid out.
 
MercedeSooner said:
I didn't want to get into it but the Title IX issues are one of the main reasons why this thing is going to blow up if they are going to seriously consider pay to play, especially if you are talking about a fund that supposedly will be equally divided and paid out.
Click to expand...

One doesn't even have to go that route (although it's a great point). Boca ignorantly applies Blake Griffin's value to only Austin Johnson and Terry Evans, but can't fathom that the school has to apply that same value to Keilani Ricketts. Since the AD is operated as a single entity and is legislated to be fair to women AND since Keilani Ricketts may have more FMV at OU than Tyler Neal, the whole idea that one group should garner more value because of the sport they play is just asinine.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
 
Additionally, once you reduce the number of schools based on profitability, you also reduce the popularity of the sport within the regions where the unprofitable schools are king. In other words, your FMV takes a nose dive.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
campbest said:
Another rule the NCAA needs to change:

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-ba...2014-age-limit-nick-johnson-john-calipari-acc

Stu Jackson - one of the NBA executives - confirmed the NBA reached out to the NCAA to inform them this rule would hurt a players career and future. The NCAA's response? We don't care.
Click to expand...

Of course the NCAA dosen't care. It never has cared about whats best for the Athletes. The NCAA cares about what is best for them. So now all of the sudden players realize this and stand up to it and some on this board say they are wrong.
 
Max Power said:
Of course the NCAA dosen't care. It never has cared about whats best for the Athletes. The NCAA cares about what is best for them. So now all of the sudden players realize this and stand up to it and some on this board say they are wrong.
Click to expand...

lol just because the NCAA as a whole makes decisions in their best interest doesn't mean that every decision that they make is wrong
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top