11/21/24
February 14, 2007
"Go play intramurals, brother!": University of Colorado head coach Dan Hawkins recently received an anonymous letter from one of his player's parents complaining about the loss of a week off due to a more stringent offseason conditioning program. Hear Hawkins discuss why this shouldn't be an issue (cilck the video link in the top right corner).
I'm with the coach. let them have the whole summer off and let them pay their own tuition.
posted by louisville_slugger at 06:18 PM on February 14, 2007
i'm somewhere in between on this. yes, these kids are on scholarship but their college experience shouldn't revolve totally around the football program. let them have a little more than two weeks in the summer to travel, party their asses off, or visit the family. however, i can see the coaches point on this. this is big-time college football with millions of dollars at stake for the university and the coaches themselves. with the seasons starting sometimes before the fall semester starts, it is important for them to be conditioning during the summer. the NCAA sets strict limits on the number of hours teams can be on the field or in the weight room. If these coaches comply, the student/athletes should have enough time to have an enjoyable college experience and not feel like a slave to the program.
posted by erkno11 at 07:13 PM on February 14, 2007
Hah, just barely beat you to the punch. I heard this earlier today and listened to it about 14 times. It made me go to the gym each time I listened to it. Yes, that's right, I've worked out 14 times today. I can rest after finals and around July 4, I figure.
posted by vito90 at 07:40 PM on February 14, 2007
This is awesome. Can you imagine being the player whose mom sent this letter? I'd be mortified. I wonder if she still kisses him when she drops him off at the bus stop, too.
posted by SummersEve at 06:40 AM on February 15, 2007
Looks like University of Colorado head coach, Dan Hawkins went straight Dennis Green on somebody's ass. This was funny as hell to hear since it all started innocently enough but resulted in a complete eruption of some sort.
posted by BornIcon at 08:00 AM on February 15, 2007
Even with this, he has a way to go to reach the asshole level of Bill McCartney and Gary Barnett...
posted by ajaffe at 08:40 AM on February 15, 2007
Yeah, really, what a bunch of punks! They are football players, not college students. Oh, wait. They are college students, who he thinks are lucky to get a 3 weeks off a year. He's an asshole.
posted by bperk at 09:51 AM on February 15, 2007
I can't believe that mommy and daddy had to write a letter because their poor little son didn't get enough vacation. How embarassing for the player, good thing for him it was anonymous. I agree with Hawkins, this is Division 1 Football. If you sign the scholarship, you know what you are in for. In Division 1, sports come first, then studies. D2 stresses a balance of the two, while D3 academics come first and sports are secondary. I didn't make the (unwritten) rules, thats just how it has evolved. Parents today seem to want to manipulate things to make it accomodating for themselves. No responsibility is being taught. The lesson they are sending is: if things get tough mommy and daddy will bail your ass out.
posted by urall cloolis at 10:16 AM on February 15, 2007
this is big-time college football with millions of dollars at stake for the university and the coaches themselves. And there you have it. There's some stinky history here. CU football is under the gun for good and valid reasons, not all having to do with their dismal '06 win-loss record. A lot has been sacrificed on the altar of CU football, a lot of money was spent buying out various coaches' contracts. So far, what they have to show for it is a 2-10 record. The people who made the decisions leading to the current situation, and the people who got a big paycheck out of it, got some 'splainin' to do. Hawkins is scared, and he should be.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:45 AM on February 15, 2007
I just do not understand how the coach is a jerk simply because he has set a standard of commitment for his team and won't back off in the face of a complaint. Going to the University of Colorado is a choice, and football is an elective. The coach is saying, look, if you're interested in being part of this activity, you will be expected to do X. You don't go to Harvard Law School and ask the profs if they could lighten the load a little because it's cutting into your social life. You're either willing to make the total commitment or your not. If your college agenda includes playing football, travelling, partying and visiting family during the summer, then maybe Colorado isn't the school for you. There are plenty of less intense programs that will allow you to do all of those things. It is bizarre to me that anyone can look at a guy who is so passionate about maintaining a high standard for his program -- which is his job -- and come away labelling him an ass. In Division 1, sports come first I know you are speaking in generalities, and I don't mean to nitpick, but I know of a lot of Division I schools that still put academics ahead of their sports programs. I don't dispute your point where it comes to Colorado or many of the other large state schools.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 11:03 AM on February 15, 2007
It is bizarre to me that anyone can look at a guy who is so passionate about maintaining a high standard for his program -- which is his job -- and come away labelling him an ass. Don't be in a big rush to ennoble the guy. He's passionate about keeping his very well-paying job.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:05 AM on February 15, 2007
Don't be in a big rush to ennoble the guy. I'm not sainting him or anything. I just don't see the character flaw in his position on this issue.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 11:09 AM on February 15, 2007
I'm amazed people are so heavily criticizing this guy for this. His delivery was a bit odd, but like Sousey Bullpen points out, there's an expected level of commitment that comes with playing at a top program. You don't like that, go play for a smaller Division-One program, a I-AA program, or go D-2 or D-3.
posted by SummersEve at 11:29 AM on February 15, 2007
It is one thing to set a different practice schedule, it is a whole other matter to be an ass about it. I would suggest that he talk to the parents, students, and everyone else and explain to him why he chose this particular schedule and how he thinks it will help the football team. Ranting and raving about the situation is why he is an ass. Parents have a legitimate concern about their student athletes having absolutely no free time. It is playing football in exchange for a free education, not four years of servitude. If he chose this schedule just because he can and cannot come up with a better explanation than this or if he feels he has no need to come up with a better explanation, then he is an ass.
posted by bperk at 12:36 PM on February 15, 2007
College is for preparing kids for life after college. If a free-ride football player makes it to the NFL, he's going to have his free time pinched by coaches and other decision makers (and the extra conditioning he got in college just might get him through the combine and onto a team). If he starts in a regular job, his bosses and other decision makers will pinch his time similarly. He'll be less likely to complain about it, more likely to do his work, and probably rise through the ranks faster (by dint of the work ethic he learned in part from his college coach, not to mention his boss being more likely to promote an ex-football scholarship player than some regular slob). Plus, there's the free-ride aspect. No, it's not slavery. It's an opportunity. College for full-ride scholarship students is like a job, and if they find some of the conditions too onerous, like a job, they can quit. Kids who have their schooling paid for in order to play in a big program are being given an opportunity in return for their doing what their coaches and deans tell them to do. Maybe if they walk, they can get a scholarship to a smaller school with a lighter schedule. Maybe they'll be a real standout there, and get more stats and attention that they would at the big school. There are all sorts of opportunities out there, but they're opportunities, not servitude. That said, Coach Hawkins is an ass for making such a big stink.
posted by Hugh Janus at 01:23 PM on February 15, 2007
bperk,blame the idiot parent!You said it,they are getting a free education to play football & their 2-12 record is your explanation!!!Reread by the way,they are only being asked to give up 1 week which is hardly "no time off"!A college year has time off between ALL semesters as well as spring break,Christmas,summer etc.,etc.!Stop contributing to making excuses for society.These kids need the discipline & structure offered by this coach since obviously the parents are lacking!!!
posted by mdavidsf at 01:31 PM on February 15, 2007
College is for preparing kids for life after college. If a free-ride football player makes it to the NFL, he's going to have his free time pinched by coaches and other decision makers (and the extra conditioning he got in college just might get him through the combine and onto a team). Nobody from the Buffs is going to play in the NFL. (unless you count Jeremy Bloom, that is)
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:02 PM on February 15, 2007
These kids need the discipline & structure offered by this coach since obviously the parents are lacking!!! And you need a spacebar.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:03 PM on February 15, 2007
Actually, it's possible the kid whose parents wrote the letter is not on full scholarship. (For that matter, maybe the player didn't complain and the letter was the parent's idea entirely.) And the notion that a full scholarship somehow covers all the expenses of attending college far from home is mistaken. Kids from low-income homes often find the out-of-pocket cost of their full ride is much greater than advertised. And since when do parents give up the right to express their opinion just because their kid might be getting a scholarship? I grant that sending a letter anonymously is the worst way to do it. For my part, I'd have no problem sitting across a desk from Dan Hawkins, or anybody, if I thought my kid's interests were ill-served by their policies. I wouldn't be a helicopter-parent, either; I work at a college and know what they are. No responsible, reasonable adult should have a problem with another grown-up questioning their policies. As a teacher and administrator, I'd have no problem with it. The number of parents with excessive concern for their kids is minute compared to the number of those who never speak up or stick their neck out. When one of them shows up in my office, a dialogue starts that ends with everybody happy ninety-eight times out of a hundred, even if their complaint united indignation, misinformation, and muddled thinking. If Hawkins likes to dine at the big-boy table, he should be able to answer this without histrionics. I've known plenty of coaches, and most would handle a situation like this with some dignity. His conduct reminds me of those who like to play the "free education card" excessively, rubbing it in and making it clear they think the kid couldn't possibly have gone to college if it weren't for his largesse.
posted by Uncle Toby at 02:17 PM on February 15, 2007
I think Hawkins's tone is being misread here just a little bit. In throwing in "brutha" in the last sentence, he's obviously making a reference to Hulk Hogan and poking a bit of fun at his whole tone. As for the sentiment, I agree wholeheartedly. The University of Colorado stinks like a dead otter right now, and the only way to turn it around is to practice hard and hit the weight room. I'm sure all of this was made extremely clear to the players when Hawkins arrived, and they certainly have the choice to quit or attempt to transfer somewhere else. Hell, I'd rather play for this guy than some simp who's more concerned about his shoe deal or which dealership is spotting him a car for the year. His conduct reminds me of those who like to play the "free education card" excessively, rubbing it in and making it clear they think the kid couldn't possibly have gone to college if it weren't for his largesse. Out of curiosity, do you work at a major college with a major football program? Because even at some of the smaller D-IAA schools I've covered, a large chunk of the players would have identified the ACT as their favourite type of microwave popcorn. It's not true all high-level football players are morons ... but they aren't all Rhodes Scholars, either.
posted by wfrazerjr at 02:59 PM on February 15, 2007
I am sure that if the parents had come to Hawkins for an explanation or at least called we would not be having this discussion, as he would not have spoke about it to the press. Where in his job description does it say that he needs to tell all parents his reasons for doing whatever the hell he wants with the program. He owes the parents no explanation at all for his methods. The parents and player chose the school and to accept the work that goes along with it. Lets see him cover 25,000 in tuition and fees by working at a fast food restaurant while studying. I guarantee the football takes less time and is more rewarding. Does the kid even get into the school without football? I think his outburst was to make a point- "no wonder we sucked, we have no commitment and parents are trying to make excuses and lessen the workload" or something along those lines. Maybe it gets through and makes a point to a handful of players. Maybe they become more committed and in return the program is more successful.
posted by urall cloolis at 03:33 PM on February 15, 2007
Transferring sucks because the players would lose a year of eligibility. Off-season conditioning program means that the players have to be in Colorado, away from home for all but a few weeks in the year. A lot of these kids are not from Colorado. A fairly significant number are from California. So, they get to be home for a whole four weeks during the entire year. I can certainly understand why parents and students would be antsy about losing some of that time. How does that translate into not wanting to work hard? These guys are 18-22, most of them weren't recruited by Hawkins, and they are pansies who should be playing intramurals if they are bummed about wanting that one extra week at home?
posted by bperk at 03:33 PM on February 15, 2007
These guys are 18-22, most of them weren't recruited by Hawkins, and they are pansies who should be playing intramurals if they are bummed about wanting that one extra week at home? YES! The players would not necessarily lose a season of eligibility if they transfer between the coaching change. They can get a "release" from the athletic department, which is often granted when a coaching change occurs. Much like a player can opt out of a letter of intent when the coach he signs with leaves before he begins classes.
posted by urall cloolis at 03:50 PM on February 15, 2007
The players would not necessarily lose a season of eligibility if they transfer between the coaching change. They can get a "release" from the athletic department, which is often granted when a coaching change occurs. I don't think this is true unless they transfer to a Div II school. From this article: Isn't it a bit unfair that coaches can come and go as they please but student-athletes, whom we are suppose to be the most concerned about, have to sit out a full academic year. And if a Division I-A football player doesn't receive a release from the university he currently attends, he not only has to sit out the year but also isn't eligible for an athletic scholarship for the year.
posted by bperk at 04:24 PM on February 15, 2007
bperk- nice article and informative. I know that in D2 soccer (and other sports) players can transfer laterally, even within the conference, without a coaching change as long as a release is granted by the AD of the school they are leaving. That player also can recieve a scholarship and not have to sit a year. If they are not granted a release, they must sit a year. Apparantly I was mistaken and D1 football (and probably basketball) is different. In the Mustain story the head coach never left, but an assistant he was very fond of did. I am, however, somewhat leery of allowing players one free transfer. It should be on a case by case basis. Some players commit and the school commits to them. Then when things arent going great they shouldn't be able to just get a free pass. There would be transfers up the ying yang. The smaller schools would be farm teams for the powerhouses.
posted by urall cloolis at 04:43 PM on February 15, 2007
VACATION??? VACATION??? YOU KIDDING??? VACATION?? Thanks, Jim Mora! A college education valued at anywhere from $80 to $100K and given free ought to command a little respect and appreciation! Hey, guys...once the 98% of you who don't make the NFL get in the real world, don't be baffled by the "one week off after one year" policy your first employer hands you!
posted by Sooner Coop at 04:52 PM on February 15, 2007
Think about it, this coach went 2 and 10! I'm from the big 12 area and his words will get worse, Colorado football sucks right now. He's frustrated and worried about his own job! This school's football program isn't what it used to be. Half the teams in the big 12 could play thier second string and still make them look bad!LOL.
posted by robi8259 at 05:39 PM on February 15, 2007
Wow! I bet it was a Mom who did this. The same type of shit used to happen in high school all of the time. The kid who belongs to this parent needs to go have a serious talk with her and let her know that she is not helping matters.
posted by yay-yo at 06:46 PM on February 15, 2007
Say a prayer for those poor, persecuted college athletes. Drafted into service and forced to practice oh so hard.
posted by SummersEve at 06:56 PM on February 15, 2007
First off, if you didn't want to party a lot at college, then there is no reason to go to the University of Colorado, perenially ranked as one of the top drinking schools in the nation. Secondly, I'm not sure that the argument that these guys are rewarded with a free college education carries as much weight when the coach makes $850,000 a year guaranteed (according to an article from CU's athletic homepage ) which is probably far more than anyone at the University does. I mean, the school values football more than an education, and the previous coach was fired for bad football performance, not for his character or that of the teams he produced, why should the players (who make nothing off their work) place a high importance on their education?
posted by Bonkers at 09:18 PM on February 15, 2007
I'm with urall and the crafty one on this. Mommy and Daddy need to cut the cord loose and let their little baby suck it up. I can count endless peopl in much worse position than this, they suck it up and make it. I starte working 12 to 16 hour days the moment my foot hit high school graduation, and supported myself. And I know I had it easy! VACATION??? What's that? Oh yeah, its that week you or your SO gets off so you can catch up on your "honey-do" list or fix the children's X, Y, Z. I remember now. Grow up buddy! I would be apalled if my parents thought about this
posted by bavarianmotorworker at 08:53 AM on February 16, 2007
Secondly, I'm not sure that the argument that these guys are rewarded with a free college education carries as much weight when the coach makes $850,000 a year guaranteed (according to an article from CU's athletic homepage ) which is probably far more than anyone at the University does. Just to put this in perspective, that $850,000 is nearly three times the total annual budget for the CU men's tennis program, which was axed last spring on the argument that the athletic department needed to save money. The tennis team and the community raised $560,000 (maybe more, not sure of the final number) to keep the program alive, but that cut no ice with the athletic director, and the program was terminated. The team finished its final season ranked 23rd in the nation with a 19-8 record and went to the NCAA tournament for the first time since 1998.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:35 AM on February 16, 2007
Secondly, I'm not sure that the argument that these guys are rewarded with a free college education carries as much weight when the coach makes $850,000 a year guaranteed (according to an article from CU's athletic homepage ) which is probably far more than anyone at the University does. I'm sure the coach went to college, so why does his salary have anything to do with it? I'm not denying that there are a lot of issues out there when it comes to college athlectics and how the big money is allocated, but I'm not gonna throw that on this guys shoulders when all he is trying to do is turn a football team around. It sounds like they need all the practice and conditioning they can get. With the salary you mentioned, he could lie on a beach in the bahammas that extra week. Instead, he's committed his time as well as the team's time to build what he hopes will be a winning team.
posted by louisville_slugger at 03:23 PM on February 16, 2007
Just to put this in perspective, that $850,000 is nearly three times the total annual budget for the CU men's tennis program. This doesn't put things in perspective so much as compare apples to oranges. Coaches salaries (and other state employees for that matter) are all about supply and demand. Everytime a new coach gets hired at the UDub this same point gets trotted out, that the coach is getting paid $X million while other programs get cut and sociology professors make $40,000. Yup, there's capitalism for you. There are fewer than 1,000 people in the world who could coach a division 1 football team (right? Maybe fewer than 500?). There are alot more people that could coach a tennis team or teach English or Sociology. A University HAS to pay those sums of money to attract football coaches because that's what the market will bear. If the market demanded more tennis teams then those programs would earn more and the coaches would get paid more too.
posted by vito90 at 09:09 PM on February 16, 2007
I'm sure the coach went to college, so why does his salary have anything to do with it? I'm not denying that there are a lot of issues out there when it comes to college athlectics and how the big money is allocated, but I'm not gonna throw that on this guys shoulders when all he is trying to do is turn a football team around. It sounds like they need all the practice and conditioning they can get. With the salary you mentioned, he could lie on a beach in the bahammas that extra week. Instead, he's committed his time as well as the team's time to build what he hopes will be a winning team. His salary has something to do with it because he is coaching amateur athletics-his players are not paid for their efforts. How much is a college education worth? A lot, but probably not 850 large (which, by the way, is a minimum, not counting incentives)? The question is not about whether the team needs conditioning and to improve themselves, the question is how much you can ask from people who are (at least in theory) unpaid amateurs, especially when other people are making so much money off their work.
posted by Bonkers at 09:42 PM on February 16, 2007
This doesn't put things in perspective so much as compare apples to oranges. Given that they sacrificed the one to keep the other, vito, it's not as apples and oranges as all that. There are fewer than 1,000 people in the world who could coach a division 1 football team (right? Maybe fewer than 500?). There are alot more people that could coach a tennis team or teach English or Sociology. With all due respect, and not to harsh on you...but while you may know what you're talking about WRT teaching English or Sociology[sic] (or you may not), you don't know what you're talking about WRT coaching Division 1 tennis -- not if you think that "alot[sic] more people" could do it.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:01 PM on February 16, 2007
His salary should not be an issue in this thread. If he gets paid one dollar or a billion doesn't change the fact that he wants more time with the team to make improvements. I guess if he was being paid 30k a year it would be ok to make the kids work an extra week, but since he is being paid a lot more he should give them time off? As far as cutting sports, it has nothing to do with the football coaches salaries. The salaries are based on money the college can make with a successful team. When was the last time you saw the NCAA tennis tournament on a major network. I am sure tennis (or golf, swimming, water polo, wrestling, etc...) brings in a lot of revenue at the gate as well. Not enough to cover scholarships, coaches salaries, travel, etc... Maybe enough to cover a few racquets and all the balls they need. Football and basketball bring in the revenue to support all of the other sports. I am sure athletic boosters/alumni throw a lot of money at schools because of the tennis program (not). If you are mad for losing a program, I would suggest going after Title IX instead of going after football coaches.
posted by urall cloolis at 11:44 PM on February 16, 2007
lbb, is it your position that the fraternal brotherhood (and sisterhood) of tennis coaches is a more elite group than football coaches? they sacrificed the one to keep the other The market decided one was viable and one wasn't.
posted by vito90 at 03:44 AM on February 17, 2007
I'm not about to fall into the athletes-paid argument, and I'm not really sure what this has to do with Hawkins and his practice schedule. But you absolutely have to admit the market vito refers to is really, really messed up. I don't have a clue how you fix it, but paying one coach the budget of another team and then cutting said other team is shitty to say the least. Call it market forces, call it greed, call it flibbiddy-flu, it's still effed up in a supposed not for profit.
posted by SummersEve at 07:59 AM on February 17, 2007
urall: Football and basketball bring in the revenue to support all of the other sports. That's a myth. You can believe it if you want, but it's just not true. vito: lbb, is it your position that the fraternal brotherhood (and sisterhood) of tennis coaches is a more elite group than football coaches? Sigh. You're the one who tried to play the more-elite-than-thou card, by apparently pulling an assertion out of your butt. If that's not so, then please tell me what's the basis for your knowledge about who's coaching Division I NCAA tennis, and how common that skillset is.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:06 PM on February 17, 2007
urall: Football and basketball bring in the revenue to support all of the other sports. That's a myth. You can believe it if you want, but it's just not true. LBB, no disrespect but I am a collegiate coach for another sport (mens soccer) and have done budgets many times. It is definitely NOT a myth, it is the truth whether you choose to believe it or not. I can go through what a typical budget looks like in a "minor" sport and we can do the math. In the majority of cases "minor" sports bring in nowhere near the income (tickets and TV revenue being the biggest) than the expenses that they have to shell out (scholarships, travel, equipment, facilities).
posted by urall cloolis at 07:16 AM on February 18, 2007
Addendum to above post... of course there are conferences/ divisions where all of the teams lose money including basketball and football. But in major conference D1 football and basketball generally do support and help fund the other sports.
posted by urall cloolis at 08:02 AM on February 18, 2007
Sigh You forgot to type "Rolls eyes". What, are you channeling Al Gore? I used the word elite here to denote how the market rewards scarcity. If you want to debate semantics, you'll be debating yourself. The market, umm, pretty clearly values football over tennis in this country at the collegiate level. There are fewer people (men exclusively in this case, there is one reason for the scarcity, the pool of people who can coach football is restricted to one gender, see only one gender plays college football while both play tennis, ergo there are more people that can coach collegiate tennis than football, can we please, please just stipulate so as to not digress that a woman will never coach a men's college football team?). So maybe I'll leave it at that. W/r/t availability of coaches, the pool for tennis includes qualified people of both genders, for football qualified people of one gender.
posted by vito90 at 01:30 PM on February 18, 2007
LBB, no disrespect but I am a collegiate coach for another sport (mens soccer) and have done budgets many times. It is definitely NOT a myth, it is the truth whether you choose to believe it or not. I can go through what a typical budget looks like in a "minor" sport and we can do the math. In the majority of cases "minor" sports bring in nowhere near the income (tickets and TV revenue being the biggest) than the expenses that they have to shell out (scholarships, travel, equipment, facilities). And do you also know what the numbers are for football and men's basketball at your college? Do you know how much "profit" they make? Does that cover your budget, and the budget of every other sport at your college? Do you know the difference between income and profit? This is the Big Lie of men's basketball and football: that they're making this big profit that carries the entire athletic department.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:04 PM on February 18, 2007
You forgot to type "Rolls eyes". What, are you channeling Al Gore? Hey, that's cute! Got any more politically-flavored non sequiturs to raise the tone of the discourse? So maybe I'll leave it at that. W/r/t availability of coaches, the pool for tennis includes qualified people of both genders, for football qualified people of one gender. You made an assertion that I believe to be groundless -- an assertion that had to do with the relative rarity of the skill set to coach Div I football vs. Div I tennis. I'm not debating semantics; you're now trying to redefine the argument to be in terms of how "the market" values one position vs. the other. Sorry, but...you'll be debating yourself, there; I didn't say anything on the subject. As for the rarity of the skills, I know Div I tennis coaches; I know what their skill set is, and it's not found on every public court. You made an assertion that sure sounded like you pulled it out of your butt about how common that skill set was. If the assertion came from somewhere else, okay, but let's hear it. Until then, I'll continue to think that it's not necessarily easier to find the skills for Div I tennis coaching than for Div I football coaching -- it's just easier to pay for, which is not the same thing.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:14 PM on February 18, 2007
Searchable athletic department budgets according to the Dept of Education.
posted by SummersEve at 05:31 AM on February 19, 2007
There's the resource I was searching for but couldn't find. At the UW, football and basketball accounted for 31.8 M ending fiscal 2006, all other sports combined for 1.4M. Thanks for the link SummersEve. This link is almost good enough on its own for a FPP.
posted by vito90 at 11:21 AM on February 19, 2007
Thanks for the resource summerseve. You should have a look before lambasting me LBB.
posted by urall cloolis at 06:00 PM on February 19, 2007
I don't see how that link supports your contention that football and basketball are supporting the other sports. It doesn't indicate that the revenue above expenses actually goes to the other sports. From the link, the other sports could be supported by student fees, not football and basketball.
posted by bperk at 06:21 PM on February 19, 2007
As far as profit and loss of an athletic dept overall, if basketball and/or football are making a big profit and the others are losing money, where does the money go? It goes to the overall athletic department, which in turn pays the expenses of all sports. So yes, I believe it does support my argument.
posted by urall cloolis at 06:33 PM on February 19, 2007
cloolis, your statement was as follows: Football and basketball bring in the revenue to support all of the other sports. ...and I stated that that's a myth. Well, I guess it depends a little on your definition of a myth, and/or whether you're expecting people to read words that weren't in your statement. Yes, there are some Div I-A schools where football's revenues exceed its expenses. UW is one, OSU is another, you'll find other Div I-A football powerhouses where that's also the case. But does that really translate to a statement of, "Football and basketball bring in the revenue to support all of the other sports", for all collegiate athletics? And do we really see all the expenses -- like, oh, for example (to return to the subject of CU) 3.8 million dollars to buy out coaching contracts?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:13 PM on February 19, 2007
I stated that in D1 major conference ball- which University of Colorado is a member of that was the case. I also stated that in lower divisions and such that most all teams lose money. If you look at my posts, that is exactly what I said and I stand by those statements. This is like beating a dead horse.
posted by urall cloolis at 07:19 PM on February 19, 2007
lbb, your passion and love for the second tier of sports*, and your support for women's sports is rendering you completely and totally obtuse. I have now clicked through twenty universities and in all of them the basketball and football programs are contributing so much revenue over their expenses that any argument to the contrary is silly. For many of the schools (Kansas, UConn, Kentucky, Louisville just to name the last set I looked at) hoops and football contribute nearly $20M of revenue and ALL OTHER SPORTS COMBINED don't reach $1M. Your precious tennis coaches are being paid by the football and basketball teams. bperk, according to this article, at the University of Alabama, the football team accounts for 80% of the entire athletic department's budget. (Anything other than football and hoops, as defined by SE's link, which specifically breaks out those sports from the others, as if to make a point)
posted by vito90 at 07:59 PM on February 19, 2007
Nice link SE.
posted by louisville_slugger at 09:12 PM on February 19, 2007
Well think about it, the guys are still going to school. And it's not like their getting paid a salary by the college. If these guys are pro and making millions then it's a little different. Then it becomes their career on the line if they don't do their conditioning. It's a fine line. Hey look at Tiki and what he's saying. At some point you will have burn out.