calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Cry me a f'ing river.

SCT Jr. is kicking ass and taking no prisoners with a 4.0 his Frosh year in the college of chemistry with a prestigious fellowship at HHM research campus. We are paying full freight. For the LIFE of me I do not begin to understand why non revenue sports (ergo no one wants to watch them so they are non revenue) athletes deserve a scholarship while Cal offers almost no academic scholarships other than Regents.

---

Admission preference, coaching and facilities is more than enough as the baseline. At a minimum the scholarship should only cover the amount of in-state tuition. If the opportunity to gain admission to compete in non-revenue sports at Cal ends up going to mostly Californians, then so be it.

The former CEO of the company I used to work for, made a 7 or 8 figure salary. His son, who went to Piedmont High, got a fencing scholarship to Stanford.

Meanwhile need-based financial aid and loan programs are being gutted.

---

Oski87 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Cry me a f'ing river.

SCT Jr. is kicking ass and taking no prisoners with a 4.0 his Frosh year in the college of chemistry with a prestigious fellowship at HHM research campus. We are paying full freight. For the LIFE of me I do not begin to understand why non revenue sports (ergo no one wants to watch them so they are non revenue) athletes deserve a scholarship while Cal offers almost no academic scholarships other than Regents.

---

Admission preference, coaching and facilities is more than enough as the baseline. At a minimum the scholarship should only cover the amount of in-state tuition. If the opportunity to gain admission to compete in non-revenue sports at Cal ends up going to mostly Californians, then so be it.

The former CEO of the company I used to work for, made a 7 or 8 figure salary. His son, who went to Piedmont High, got a fencing scholarship to Stanford.

Meanwhile need-based financial aid and loan programs are being gutted.

---

But to be clear - if you make less than 200k per year you go to Stanford for free.

Stanford wants a fencing team. They have it for a reason - what reason I do not know. So what if they decide to do that with their money. 18% of their undergrads are athletes. That's their thing. Of course they are getting kids from Piedmont.

---

Sebastabear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

Clearly, you guys didn't read the article. The two divers were not on scholarship. What's happening is the schools cut the sports to save operating funds, which do not include scholarships, in order to have money for the settlements that have to be paid, primarily to football and basketball.

Calumnus is right that schools that are able to endow their sports will have a huge advantage, because they can keep the sports going despite the settlement, whereas other schools cannot.

I still think a backlash is coming against football if most of the other sports get endowed.

---

UVa, for example, has a mandatory fee to fund varsity athletics ($786 per year in 2025-26) that both undergrads and grad students have to pay. That's about $20 million/year raised by taxing students, or just about the maximum amount the university can pay to athletes under the House settlement, nearly all of which will go to football or men's basketball players.

So, yeah, backlash is coming at any school that pays football and basketball players while getting money for varsity athletics from student fees. If you are a typical student who is just trying to get good grades and graduate while carrying a bunch of student loans, you may not be thrilled that you and your classmates are funding the big bucks that will be given to football players, many of whom will be mercenaries just spending a season or two at the school.

---

But again, that is not really where the money for the football players is coming from. The money for the football players is coming from the ticket sales to watch football games and the media deal (90%+ of which is being paid for the right to broadcast football games) and the merchandise sold with football player names on the jerseys and the parking and concessions for people watching the football games, etc.

At virtually every school football pays for itself and generates money for the university before you get into the intangible donor and alumni engagement benefits. It is top line profitable. Conversely at virtually every school the athletic department as a whole is losing money. So if students want to be mad at their fees being diverted, they should be mad that they are paying for a diving program, because that's what is happening.

Why endowing the Olympic sports is critical. Only way these things will survive.

---

Sebastabear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

Clearly, you guys didn't read the article. The two divers were not on scholarship. What's happening is the schools cut the sports to save operating funds, which do not include scholarships, in order to have money for the settlements that have to be paid, primarily to football and basketball.

Calumnus is right that schools that are able to endow their sports will have a huge advantage, because they can keep the sports going despite the settlement, whereas other schools cannot.

I still think a backlash is coming against football if most of the other sports get endowed.

---

UVa, for example, has a mandatory fee to fund varsity athletics ($786 per year in 2025-26) that both undergrads and grad students have to pay. That's about $20 million/year raised by taxing students, or just about the maximum amount the university can pay to athletes under the House settlement, nearly all of which will go to football or men's basketball players.

So, yeah, backlash is coming at any school that pays football and basketball players while getting money for varsity athletics from student fees. If you are a typical student who is just trying to get good grades and graduate while carrying a bunch of student loans, you may not be thrilled that you and your classmates are funding the big bucks that will be given to football players, many of whom will be mercenaries just spending a season or two at the school.

---

But again, that is not really where the money for the football players is coming from. The money for the football players is coming from the ticket sales to watch football games and the media deal (90%+ of which is being paid for the right to broadcast football games) and the merchandise sold with football player names on the jerseys and the parking and concessions for people watching the football games, etc.

At virtually every school football pays for itself and generates money for the university before you get into the intangible donor and alumni engagement benefits. It is top line profitable. Conversely at virtually every school the athletic department as a whole is losing money. So if students want to be mad at their fees being diverted, they should be mad that they are paying for a diving program, because that's what is happening.

Why endowing the Olympic sports is critical. Only way these things will survive.

---

Does it matter to students whether their money is the exact money going to football players? Even if it's not, the argument against such fees would be something like, if they have so much money that they can pay $20 million a year to football players, then they don't need $786 from students like me that I could use to buy spaghetti or toward getting my used car fixed or whatever.

Also, there are many schools at which football doesn't pay for itself. Every school outside the so-called power four gets minimal TV revenue and nearly all of them have far less ticket revenue than any "power" football program. Those are also the schools most likely to hike student fees to cover part of their budget deficits.

---

I'll agree that the messaging will be critical. If schools want to continue levying these fees they have to explain why. But we're moving the goalposts here. You mentioned UVA fee as a school where this perception could be problematic and where the school was levelling the fees. That's what I responded to. Now you're talking about the G5 and FCS. Different conversation.

UVA is a P4 school. UVA is absolutely making money off of its football program. So if at UVA students want to complain about the fees they absolutely should. But their administration needs to be honest with the students: "Your fees aren't going to pay the football players. The football player money is coming from money they are generating for the school and by the way they are making a lot more for us than we are giving them. Your fees are going to pay for diving. And by the way, we just cut diving . . . "

What's happening at the G5 level and the FCS level is a different issue, but virtually none of them are going to be able to afford the $20.5m in revenue share. They won't even try. So the optics and discussion will be different. Any G5 or FCS school trying to pay its football players $15m in rev share AND levelling fees on the students will definitely have a problem. I just don't think there will be any of those.

---

Sebastabear said:

---

PaulCali said:

---

But, Sebastabear, given the small media share we will be getting from the ACC for several years going forward, will Cal Football even be able to pay for itself during this period? Or am I missing something?

---

This is going to quickly get complicated and I'll lose people in all the math and the various components of the revenue stream, but the short answer is yes, absolutely. Even with the reduction in Tier One revenue for the next seven years and the uneven viewership distribution model football more than pays for itself after the $20m hit to Tier One revenue from the ACC deal (Calimony and the subsidy from the Regents are making up for a big chunk of that). What Cal football doesn't do is throw off enough revenue to pay for itself PLUS one of the three largest athletic departments in all of collegiate sports. Hence why Cal getting endowments for these Olympic sports is critical. It's either that or cut them.

And of course this article wasn't even about Cal. We were talking about the overall ecosystem. Specifically this was about Virginia and North Carolina State, but the point holds regardless. At Cal football makes enough money to pay for itself even with the additional $15m hit for revenue share (football only gets 75% of the $20.5m). What it doesn't do is make enough for that and paying for our bloated athletic department and even more bloated administrative overhead.

---

BearSD said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

Clearly, you guys didn't read the article. The two divers were not on scholarship. What's happening is the schools cut the sports to save operating funds, which do not include scholarships, in order to have money for the settlements that have to be paid, primarily to football and basketball.

Calumnus is right that schools that are able to endow their sports will have a huge advantage, because they can keep the sports going despite the settlement, whereas other schools cannot.

I still think a backlash is coming against football if most of the other sports get endowed.

---

UVa, for example, has a mandatory fee to fund varsity athletics ($786 per year in 2025-26) that both undergrads and grad students have to pay. That's about $20 million/year raised by taxing students, or just about the maximum amount the university can pay to athletes under the House settlement, nearly all of which will go to football or men's basketball players.

So, yeah, backlash is coming at any school that pays football and basketball players while getting money for varsity athletics from student fees. If you are a typical student who is just trying to get good grades and graduate while carrying a bunch of student loans, you may not be thrilled that you and your classmates are funding the big bucks that will be given to football players, many of whom will be mercenaries just spending a season or two at the school.

---

But again, that is not really where the money for the football players is coming from. The money for the football players is coming from the ticket sales to watch football games and the media deal (90%+ of which is being paid for the right to broadcast football games) and the merchandise sold with football player names on the jerseys and the parking and concessions for people watching the football games, etc.

At virtually every school football pays for itself and generates money for the university before you get into the intangible donor and alumni engagement benefits. It is top line profitable. Conversely at virtually every school the athletic department as a whole is losing money. So if students want to be mad at their fees being diverted, they should be mad that they are paying for a diving program, because that's what is happening.

Why endowing the Olympic sports is critical. Only way these things will survive.

---

Does it matter to students whether their money is the exact money going to football players? Even if it's not, the argument against such fees would be something like, if they have so much money that they can pay $20 million a year to football players, then they don't need $786 from students like me that I could use to buy spaghetti or toward getting my used car fixed or whatever.

Also, there are many schools at which football doesn't pay for itself. Every school outside the so-called power four gets minimal TV revenue and nearly all of them have far less ticket revenue than any "power" football program. Those are also the schools most likely to hike student fees to cover part of their budget deficits.

---

I'll agree that the messaging will be critical. If schools want to continue levying these fees they have to explain why. But we're moving the goalposts here. You mentioned UVA fee as a school where this perception could be problematic and where the school was levelling the fees. That's what I responded to. Now you're talking about the G5 and FCS. Different conversation.

UVA is a P4 school. UVA is absolutely making money off of its football program. So if at UVA students want to complain about the fees they absolutely should. But their administration needs to be honest with the students: "Your fees aren't going to pay the football players. The football player money is coming from money they are generating for the school and by the way they are making a lot more for us than we are giving them. Your fees are going to pay for diving. And by the way, we just cut diving . . . "

What's happening at the G5 level and the FCS level is a different issue, but virtually none of them are going to be able to afford the $20.5m in revenue share. They won't even try. So the optics and discussion will be different. Any G5 or FCS school trying to pay its football players $15m in rev share AND levelling fees on the students will definitely have a problem. I just don't think there will be any of those.

---

You're right, UVa would have a difficult time telling its students that their fees are going to pay for Olympic sports if they are dropping those sports. Universities, like any large corporation or government agency, are rarely forthcoming about how their money is spent.

---

Quote:

---

University of Minnesota students will pay a new $200 athletics fee this year even if they never don a Gophers football helmet or attend a single game.
The Twin Cities campus for the first time has added a $100-per-semester fee to offset the substantial price for paying student athletes to play on Gophers teams. Even so, the athletics budget is $8.75 million short, though U officials said they're hopeful they can close the gap.
The new fees are drawing ire from student government leaders and come at the same time as a significant tuition increase of 6.5% for in-state undergraduates and 7.5% increase for out-of-state undergraduates this fall.

---

BearGoggles said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

What if your city charged every resident 5000 more in taxes per year but they got free Giants tickets, how well do you think that goes over lol

---

This is a poor analogy. But to play along, I suppose citizens that didn't like that charge could move elsewhere?

The larger point is that all students are getting the benefit of Cal having D-1 sports. Those add to the visibility and reputation of the schools and drive alumni engagement/donations - all of which inure to the benefit of current and future students. They provide entertainment to students and often contribute to school spirit and the sense of community (e.g., gameday).

---

BearGoggles said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

What if your city charged every resident 5000 more in taxes per year but they got free Giants tickets, how well do you think that goes over lol

---

This is a poor analogy. But to play along, I suppose citizens that didn't like that charge could move elsewhere?

The larger point is that all students are getting the benefit of Cal having D-1 sports. Those add to the visibility and reputation of the schools and drive alumni engagement/donations - all of which inure to the benefit of current and future students. They provide entertainment to students and often contribute to school spirit and the sense of community (e.g., gameday).

There are existing "student services fees" imposed regardless of whether a student uses the student services, a transit fee imposed regardless of whether the student uses the transportation, and a Berkeley Campus Fee that pays for other student activities - not to mention other similar fees. These fees support the overall campus environment and provide typical amenities. There is no reason NIL and D-1 sports should not be funded via fee, as the contribute massively to the college experience and success of the university.

https://registrar.berkeley.edu/tuition-fees/fee-schedule/

Cal should adopt a D-1 sports/NIL fee, allow current students to opt out for the next 3 years, and then make it mandatory for all new students admitted in 2025 or after. The fee doesn't need to fully offset the NIL costs . . . but even if it did it would be around $700 a year. And to be clear, I'd be in favor of giving students free or very low cost admission to sports events in exchange for the fee (which should be the case in any event).

---

HoopDreams said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

What if your city charged every resident 5000 more in taxes per year but they got free Giants tickets, how well do you think that goes over lol

---

This is a poor analogy. But to play along, I suppose citizens that didn't like that charge could move elsewhere?

The larger point is that all students are getting the benefit of Cal having D-1 sports. Those add to the visibility and reputation of the schools and drive alumni engagement/donations - all of which inure to the benefit of current and future students. They provide entertainment to students and often contribute to school spirit and the sense of community (e.g., gameday).

There are existing "student services fees" imposed regardless of whether a student uses the student services, a transit fee imposed regardless of whether the student uses the transportation, and a Berkeley Campus Fee that pays for other student activities - not to mention other similar fees. These fees support the overall campus environment and provide typical amenities. There is no reason NIL and D-1 sports should not be funded via fee, as the contribute massively to the college experience and success of the university.

https://registrar.berkeley.edu/tuition-fees/fee-schedule/

Cal should adopt a D-1 sports/NIL fee, allow current students to opt out for the next 3 years, and then make it mandatory for all new students admitted in 2025 or after. The fee doesn't need to fully offset the NIL costs . . . but even if it did it would be around $700 a year. And to be clear, I'd be in favor of giving students free or very low cost admission to sports events in exchange for the fee (which should be the case in any event).

---

Hmmm ... new Cal students pay $241 Document Management Fee!

---

BearGoggles said:

---

BearSD said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

What if your city charged every resident 5000 more in taxes per year but they got free Giants tickets, how well do you think that goes over lol

---

This is a poor analogy. But to play along, I suppose citizens that didn't like that charge could move elsewhere?

The larger point is that all students are getting the benefit of Cal having D-1 sports. Those add to the visibility and reputation of the schools and drive alumni engagement/donations - all of which inure to the benefit of current and future students. They provide entertainment to students and often contribute to school spirit and the sense of community (e.g., gameday).

---

Raise that money from alumni and fans. When a university with a broad base of alums has an athletic program that benefits the university as a whole, they ought to be able to convince alumni and other fans to fund that athletic department. If they can't do that, then most likely whomever is supposed to be raising athletic donations is just not good enough at what they are doing. A university should never be picking its students' pockets to compensate for the university's own failure to bring in donations.

---

As noted, the students are being provided services, entertainment, brand enhancement and the other described benefits. So we just disagree as to whether their pockets are being picked. Imposing a fee on students doesn't mean that alums and fans won't also contribute - obviously they will.

---