3 ms·

And this is without paying the athletes, who should be earning their market value. Students walk around campus wearing their favorite player's jersey and said

And this is without paying the athletes, who should be earning their market value. Students walk around campus wearing their favorite player's jersey and said player gets nothing more than a scholarship out of the deal. I'm however surprised to hear that football isn't a big moneymaker for universities. I remember being told that Kentucky, a famous place for basketball, makes more off of football, and a quick search seems to confirm that: http://kykernel.com/2012/09/17/less-funding-could-hurt-uk-football/ http://kykernel.com/2012/09/17/less-funding-could-hurt-uk-fo... Kentucky made $18 million off of football for 2012-2013, while making only $8 million off of its wildly popular basketball program. All other sports combined lost $11.6 million. Still a pretty nice little profit. Maybe their math is a bit different.

VLM 13y ago
Depends if you define "moneymaker" as revenue or profit and how wide of a range you're willing to spread the small number of net positives over. The only relevant startup lesson I can see in this story, is its the same old pattern where entrenched interests have a huge financial stake in growing, and no opposition exists, resulting in the eventual death or disability of the host. Its the cancer lifecycle. As a design pattern, it kills businesses (like universities... or startups) just as well as it kills people. Anytime money flows out, have to find some force to oppose it, or inevitably all the money will eventually flow out that direction. That's what makes it very weird that they specifically selected a fifth year senior in an entrepreneurship program, of all things, to quote. Someone in marketing? Sure. Someone in phys therapy? Sure. Someone in "newscasting/communications"? Sure. But an entrepreneur of all people has the very least resources to be drilling unpatchable holes in his new companies money bucket.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>And this is without paying the athletes, who should be earning their market value. Wait a minute. I'll agree that student athletes ought to be paid something, the current arrangement is exploitation. But I'm not sure that starting a athlete salary arms-race is the answer. And what about students who (end up) contributing disproportionately through research & development (patents, and patent licensing)? >I'm however surprised to hear that football isn't a big moneymaker for universities. Isn't everyone? Someone finally addressed the myth that pouring money into athletics is like buying golden egg laying geese. Good.
- natejenkins 13y ago
  I should say that I don't think college sports should exist in their current form at all. However, coaches making millions of dollars while players make nothing leaves a bad feeling in my stomach. If college sports were not about making money, I would have no problem with student athletes not making money. But college sports are all about making money, and they are making it off students who have such a time commitment with their chosen sport that they cannot afford to major in something that will lead to a decent career afterwards. Sure, there are the stars who will go on to the NBA or NFL, but for the rest of the student athletes I'm not convinced that this is a great investment in their future.
acjohnson55 13y ago
Let's not forget that the majority of student-athletes don't have scholarships at all.

VLM 13y ago

Depends if you define "moneymaker" as revenue or profit and how wide of a range you're willing to spread the small number of net positives over. The only relevant startup lesson I can see in this story, is its the same old pattern where entrenched interests have a huge financial stake in growing, and no opposition exists, resulting in the eventual death or disability of the host. Its the cancer lifecycle. As a design pattern, it kills businesses (like universities... or startups) just as well as it kills people. Anytime money flows out, have to find some force to oppose it, or inevitably all the money will eventually flow out that direction. That's what makes it very weird that they specifically selected a fifth year senior in an entrepreneurship program, of all things, to quote. Someone in marketing? Sure. Someone in phys therapy? Sure. Someone in "newscasting/communications"? Sure. But an entrepreneur of all people has the very least resources to be drilling unpatchable holes in his new companies money bucket.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

>And this is without paying the athletes, who should be earning their market value. Wait a minute. I'll agree that student athletes ought to be paid something, the current arrangement is exploitation. But I'm not sure that starting a athlete salary arms-race is the answer. And what about students who (end up) contributing disproportionately through research & development (patents, and patent licensing)? >I'm however surprised to hear that football isn't a big moneymaker for universities. Isn't everyone? Someone finally addressed the myth that pouring money into athletics is like buying golden egg laying geese. Good.

natejenkins 13y ago
I should say that I don't think college sports should exist in their current form at all. However, coaches making millions of dollars while players make nothing leaves a bad feeling in my stomach. If college sports were not about making money, I would have no problem with student athletes not making money. But college sports are all about making money, and they are making it off students who have such a time commitment with their chosen sport that they cannot afford to major in something that will lead to a decent career afterwards. Sure, there are the stars who will go on to the NBA or NFL, but for the rest of the student athletes I'm not convinced that this is a great investment in their future.

acjohnson55 13y ago

Let's not forget that the majority of student-athletes don't have scholarships at all.