Schooled:The Price of College Sports (student athlete or unpaid employees)

[Pompous Elitist]

Generally a monopoly or cartel is illegal because it is the sole source of a good or commodity and leads to obscenely high prices. It is a burden on society.

The NCAA is not the sole source of sports. It is not the only avenue available for kids coming out of high school to play sports or earn a paycheck.

Again, not many judges are going to be sympathetic to the sob story of a kid who finds it less palatable to go the AFL other juco route than "slave" in the NCAA. It's simply not going to happen.

End of story.

 

[maroonedinCA]

Generally a monopoly or cartel is illegal because it is the sole source of a good or commodity and leads to obscenely high prices. It is a burden on society.

The NCAA is not the sole source of sports. It is not the only avenue available for kids coming out of high school to play sports or earn a paycheck.

Again, not many judges are going to be sympathetic to the sob story of a kid who finds it less palatable to go the AFL other juco route than "slave" in the NCAA. It's simply not going to happen.

End of story.

I don't know how to read

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Enlighten me.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

Generally a monopoly or cartel is illegal because it is the sole source of a good or commodity and leads to obscenely high prices. It is a burden on society.

The NCAA is not the sole source of sports. It is not the only avenue available for kids coming out of high school to play sports or earn a paycheck.

Again, not many judges are going to be sympathetic to the sob story of a kid who finds it less palatable to go the AFL other juco route than "slave" in the NCAA. It's simply not going to happen.

End of story.

I don't think you know what you're talking about at all.

Also, true or false, the NCAA hid behind amateurism and the term "student-athlete" to shield itself and its members from worker's compensation costs instead of adopting it for the benefit of the players?

 

[Deleted_User]

Again, I was referring only to the allegation that the NCAA is restraining trade BECAUSE the NFL has a three year draft rule. I'm not an attorney but I believe the prior statement can only be true if the NCAA is colluding with the NFL. It begs the question - why don't they collude with the NBA & NHL, and why don't they keep players for four years rather than three?

There is no connection being made to the NFL or any career afterward by the plaintiffs or their lawyers.

 

[Deleted_User]

I don't think you know what you're talking about at all.

Also, true or false, the NCAA hid behind amateurism and the term "student-athlete" to shield itself and its members from worker's compensation costs instead of adopting it for the benefit of the players?

+1

 

[Gopherocious]

For those on the side of the argument that players are treated unfairly:

You realize that you are arguing for only 1% of college football players, right? The 1% that actually move on to the NFL.

Think of all the good things the rest of 99% of college football players get. FREE tuition, meal plan, housing, clothes, etc and on the fast track to success after school. If the players were to all be paid/given extra benefits/whatever you are arguing for, surely the 1% have better situations, but the money that will be divided up will surely will take away from the 99%. Not all college football players can possibly win in this situation, and the 1% who move onto the NFL are going to be filthy rich when they get there anyway. Why not keep a system where EVERYONE can benefit?

 

[GopherinPhilly]

Well argued, but the point that a market driven model would produce higher "wages" than the value of a scholarship is easy to disprove using current supply and demand. It's a fact that A majority of football players pay to play. Thus, supply exceeds demand. Unless, there is a government instituted floor, "wages" would likely drop.

No higher wages for all, but higher wages for elite athletes, yes, with out a doubt. Not only would these athletes be able to negotiate compensation with the schools, but also with endorsement deals, appearance fees, etc. The NCAA restricts ALL TRADE while attending school on a D-1 athletic scholarship.

There is simply no way that the NCAA's 400 page rule book created by a consortium of public and private universities for the sole purpose of controlling costs while raking in billions of dollars is going to stand up.

The NCAA can scream student athlete from the roof tops but when you force non-competes (one year transfer rule and no transfer within conference), limit outside compensation, require attendance at meetings, practices, games, etc. or compensation will be terminated, it is an employment agreement. Further, when 350 employers get together and decide the value of all employee wages without employee representation it is collusion and when the employers rake in tens of millions in profits from this unfair labor practice it is illegal.

 

[GopherinPhilly]

For those on the side of the argument that players are treated unfairly:

You realize that you are arguing for only 1% of college football players, right? The 1% that actually move on to the NFL.

Think of all the good things the rest of 99% of college football players get. FREE tuition, meal plan, housing, clothes, etc and on the fast track to success after school. If the players were to all be paid/given extra benefits/whatever you are arguing for, surely the 1% have better situations, but the money that will be divided up will surely will take away from the 99%. Not all college football players can possibly win in this situation, and the 1% who move onto the NFL are going to be filthy rich when they get there anyway. Why not keep a system where EVERYONE can benefit?

Because thats not how the laws in this country work.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

I don't think you know what you're talking about at all.

Also, true or false, the NCAA hid behind amateurism and the term "student-athlete" to shield itself and its members from worker's compensation costs instead of adopting it for the benefit of the players?

You clearly haven't much experience with the US legal system. We can agree to disagree and revisit this issue in 2,3,4 years when the lawsuits reach their conclusion.

Bookmark this page.

 

[Killjoy]

You clearly haven't much experience with the US legal system. We can agree to disagree and revisit this issue in 2,3,4 years when the lawsuits reach their conclusion.

Bookmark this page.

You got that right! Only with time will we know the answer to how this play out. Meanwhile, Gopherguy0723 will continue to believe he smarter than the anybody else and that anybody who doesn't agree with him just doesn't get it. The one thing that is clear that Gopherguy0723 will continue to believe that his opinion is the only correct one.

 

[Gopherocious]

Because thats not how the laws in this country work.

So are you saying the NCAA and schools are breaking the law by treating all players equally by giving them the same full-ride scholly? What about the kids who don't get a full ride? It would seem like those schools are saying the kids that get full rides are more valuable than the kids that get part scollys, no?

 

[atsgopher]

No higher wages for all, but higher wages for elite athletes, yes, with out a doubt. Not only would these athletes be able to negotiate compensation with the schools, but also with endorsement deals, appearance fees, etc. The NCAA restricts ALL TRADE while attending school on a D-1 athletic scholarship.

There is simply no way that the NCAA's 400 page rule book created by a consortium of public and private universities for the sole purpose of controlling costs while raking in billions of dollars is going to stand up.

The NCAA can scream student athlete from the roof tops but when you force non-competes (one year transfer rule and no transfer within conference), limit outside compensation, require attendance at meetings, practices, games, etc. or compensation will be terminated, it is an employment agreement. Further, when 350 employers get together and decide the value of all employee wages without employee representation it is collusion and when the employers rake in tens of millions in profits from this unfair labor practice it is illegal.

While I think you have valid points and do not disagree that those are factors that will affect the final outcome, I don't think anything is close to settled on this front. I'm fully convinced this will ultimately be settled via the Supreme Court either directly or through abstention (not granting writ of Certiorari). Moreover, I think both sides are easy to construct an argument in favor of their position.

Restraint of trade is not illegal "unreasonable restraint of trade" is illegal. I won't pretend I can define, nor predict how the court will find on that one. Nonetheless, I think if that becomes the focus of the plaintiffs that gives the court an easy out. My good sense tells me the plaintiffs will try for "Price Fixing" as it is hard to beat that argument. The NCAA will argue this is an undergrad program of learning, and will draw parallels to other undergrad programs. While I won't get into that here (I could go for pages); I think a fantastic case could be made for it. However, if they can defeat the employer-employee argument then price fixing is moot.

I think it is a matter of how issues are framed.

Finally, You also have ancillary participants (other NCAA athletes, coaches, ESPN, bowls, media, hotel/food workers, etc). This could very well decide the fate of the issue. Given equally strong arguments made in support of both positions, those benefiting from tangential considerations will tend to tip the balance in favor of NCAA. If there is no need to blow this up, it won't be blown up. Unless of course, real exploitation can be shown. IMHO, I see none, and this is probably where we differ.

 

[GopherinPhilly]

Wrong forum - unless you mean 'drivel.'

Well, glad to see it wasn't missed on you...except, you missed it.

 

[GopherinPhilly]

So are you saying the NCAA and schools are breaking the law by treating all players equally by giving them the same full-ride scholly? What about the kids who don't get a full ride? It would seem like those schools are saying the kids that get full rides are more valuable than the kids that get part scollys, no?

Price fixing, collusion, restraint of trade...heck if the employee/employer relationship is upheld, we could see players sue for back pay and over time pay. The list is long with a small group of schools collude to restrain fair value and bargaining.

This could get kicked back to the states on many issues and states like MN would have a much harder time defeating these claims because our labor laws are so employee friendly compared to TX or FL.

In the end, I think that the lawyers smell blood in the water and the thousands of potential plaintiffs will force changes and for the NCAA and member schools to finally NEGOTIATE with player representation than just DICTATE after their annual meeting where they set prices from on high.

 

[GopherinPhilly]

Unless of course, real exploitation can be shown. IMHO, I see none, and this is probably where we differ.

And this is the two sides of the argument. I see, like many, that blue chip players are exploited for the benefit of other athletes, the schools, states, universities and the NCAA without representation, rights, negotiation or the ability to make money off their own names and likenesses (which until the NCAA lost in court, the NCAA and member's were doing illegally).

 

[atsgopher]

And this is the two sides of the argument. I see, like many, that blue chip players are exploited for the benefit of other athletes, the schools, states, universities and the NCAA without representation, rights, negotiation or the ability to make money off their own names and likenesses (which until the NCAA lost in court, the NCAA and member's were doing illegally).

Just to point a clarification; the NCAA never lost in court. EA sports did settle the O'Bannon suit out of court though. While I'm not certain, I have read in the past the law has historically exempted non profits and governmental entities from these suits,. However, the same source read these cases may have begun to shift.

As for Blue Chip Athletes; you have a point, but were talking about at most 20 to 30 vs 500,000. Of those 20, how much is that fame due to the University? How much credit does one bestow the player? Most players don't gain fame outside of their position within the University's teams (i.e. the Alabama QB will be famous, as will the Notre Dame, etc). Basketball players are different, but the argument that football players are creations of their own volition, versus granted title are hard to argue. Especially given such a limited time. These guys for the most part are in an undergraduate apprenticeship post. In the grand scheme of things, 20 guys losing a couple hundred grand because of a system, that if it didn't exist would have zero anyways. Meanwhile, most of those blue chips will get paid more in one year (by virtue of both NFL and NBA rookie contracts) than the average American makes in a lifetime (which is roughly 2 Million) within a short few years. Also, only by virtue of the system they're trying to implode.

BTW: out of curiosity, mostly due to the Irony, how is it that a libertarian (at least I thought you've declared that in the past) ends up arguing in favor of the Sherman Antitrust act? Especially, when there is private regulation already in effect? And once again Ironically, I'm about the opposite and arguing against.

 

[GopherinPhilly]

Just to point a clarification; the NCAA never lost in court. EA sports did settle the O'Bannon suit out of court though. While I'm not certain, I have read in the past the law has historically exempted non profits and governmental entities from these suits,. However, the same source read these cases may have begun to shift.

As for Blue Chip Athletes; you have a point, but were talking about at most 20 to 30 vs 500,000. Of those 20, how much is that fame due to the University? How much credit does one bestow the player? Most players don't gain fame outside of their position within the University's teams (i.e. the Alabama QB will be famous, as will the Notre Dame, etc). Basketball players are different, but the argument that football players are creations of their own volition, versus granted title are hard to argue. Especially given such a limited time. These guys for the most part are in an undergraduate apprenticeship post. In the grand scheme of things, 20 guys losing a couple hundred grand because of a system, that if it didn't exist would have zero anyways. Meanwhile, most of those blue chips will get paid more in one year (by virtue of both NFL and NBA rookie contracts) than the average American makes in a lifetime (which is roughly 2 Million) within a short few years. Also, only by virtue of the system they're trying to implode.

BTW: out of curiosity, mostly due to the Irony, how is it that a libertarian (at least I thought you've declared that in the past) ends up arguing in favor of the Sherman Antitrust act? Especially, when there is private regulation already in effect? And once again Ironically, I'm about the opposite and arguing against.

I would say in FB alone, the top 200 players in any given year could get more than base scholarships if schools had to compete. Maybe the top 100 in BB. Which would in turn create a second tier in both sports and so on. I think if this was a market based system, over 1,000 D-1 athletes would be valued above the base scholarship if competition existed.

And as far as being a libertarian...nothing is more free market based than negotiation of value of a workers worth. I am not asking the government to set the value of the scholarship, but when a system is so broken as to completely disregard an entire group (athletes) that generate billions in revenue for NCAA member schools but are told they can't make money beyond what we "allow" you to make and only in ways that we "allow." Nothing is more contrary to Libertarianism than that.

And I am not saying the schools don't play a role in the process and deserve to be compensated as well...they have set up a system where they get together and "collude" to prevent competition, fair trade and fair value. Maybe when it is done, the value of an athlete will be the scholarship...but I can assure you if Manziel had the ability to transfer after his FR year without the restrictions enforced by the NCAA that he sit out a year, I guarantee you he would have been worth more than his tuition and books. But not only has the NCAA et al made it impossible for Manziel to negotiate his value, they also made it impossible for him to make money off his own success without losing out on his career.

Yes, he could go to Canada, blah blah blah. But then you could choose not to have a phone, yet Ma' Bell was deemed illegal and broken up, you could choose to not drive a car and yet Standard Oil was broken up, you could choose to ride a train and yet they were broken up. And so will the NCAA.

As for EA sports, they settled with the players and the NCAA is no longer using player likenesses. So maybe they didn't lose to a jury, but they lost the case. Otherwise they would still be collecting those fat checks for NCAA video games.

 

[Deleted_User]

Anybody remember Gary Hall, a very good U basketball player. He took the U to court because he was about to be ineligible to play his senior year just before the draft. It was known then that he would get drafted high enough to get a guaranteed NBA contact if he remained eligible, which hinged on him being admitted to a degree program, which he was denied. Judge Miles Lord presided and he had some remarkable findings related to Mr. Hall that are relevant to the student athlete. let me sum up some of his decision here.

Prior case law has established a student's attendance is a property right (conditionally). In ue Process, Lord stated, "The private interest at stake here, although ostensibly academic, is the plaintiff's ability to obtain a "no cut" contract with the National Basketball Association. The bachelor of arts, while a mark of achievement and distinction, does not in and of itself assure the applicant a means of earning a living.

"The plaintiff and his fellow athletes were never recruited on the basis of scholarship and it was never envisioned they would be on the Dean's List. Consequently we must view with some skepticism the defendant University's claim, regarding academic integrity. This Court is not saying that athletes are incapable of scholarship; however they are given little incentive to be scholars and few persons care how the student athlete performs academically, including many of the athletes themselves. It well may be true that a good academic program for the athlete is made virtually impossible by the demands of their sport at the college level. If this situation causes harm to the University, it is because they have fostered it and the institution rather than the individual should suffer the consequence."

Lord mandated the U admit Hall to a degree program in order for Hall to receive Due Process in order to have a chance to be drafted by the NBA high enough to gain a guaranteed contract. If he did not gain admission, his draft round would likely decline to a non guaranteed round.

It is somewhat obvious that the ruling gave the athlete some property rights over the scholarship and if you read his comments on the NCAA infractions that would result, Lord regarded those as inconsequential to Hall's rights.

I take away that the NCAA does not have to be a factor in the scholarship regardless of their governance. The athlete gains property rights if the major purpose of accepting the scholarship is to improve their football value.

 

[GopherinPhilly]

Anybody remember Gary Hall, a very good U basketball player. He took the U to court because he was about to be ineligible to play his senior year just before the draft. It was known then that he would get drafted high enough to get a guaranteed NBA contact if he remained eligible, which hinged on him being admitted to a degree program, which he was denied. Judge Miles Lord presided and he had some remarkable findings related to Mr. Hall that are relevant to the student athlete. let me sum up some of his decision here.

Prior case law has established a student's attendance is a property right (conditionally). In ue Process, Lord stated, "The private interest at stake here, although ostensibly academic, is the plaintiff's ability to obtain a "no cut" contract with the National Basketball Association. The bachelor of arts, while a mark of achievement and distinction, does not in and of itself assure the applicant a means of earning a living.

"The plaintiff and his fellow athletes were never recruited on the basis of scholarship and it was never envisioned they would be on the Dean's List. Consequently we must view with some skepticism the defendant University's claim, regarding academic integrity. This Court is not saying that athletes are incapable of scholarship; however they are given little incentive to be scholars and few persons care how the student athlete performs academically, including many of the athletes themselves. It well may be true that a good academic program for the athlete is made virtually impossible by the demands of their sport at the college level. If this situation causes harm to the University, it is because they have fostered it and the institution rather than the individual should suffer the consequence."

Lord mandated the U admit Hall to a degree program in order for Hall to receive Due Process in order to have a chance to be drafted by the NBA high enough to gain a guaranteed contract. If he did not gain admission, his draft round would likely decline to a non guaranteed round.

It is somewhat obvious that the ruling gave the athlete some property rights over the scholarship and if you read his comments on the NCAA infractions that would result, Lord regarded those as inconsequential to Hall's rights.

I take away that the NCAA does not have to be a factor in the scholarship regardless of their governance. The athlete gains property rights if the major purpose of accepting the scholarship is to improve their football value.

Flies in the face of all those that keep saying the NCAA hasn't lost court cases and the players have no chance...

 

[atsgopher]

Flies in the face of all those that keep saying the NCAA hasn't lost court cases and the players have no chance...

I don't think anyone has said they haven't.

I think there are even more in the past, that have reached the supreme court. U of OK sued NCAA for Anti-Trust Violations and won. Which, come to think of it, is where all these revenue issues originated. It was so the NCAA had to let more games be broadcast on TV. They used to limit it to one per year or something to that effect. Don't quite have time to look, but maybe this could shed light on some of the precedent involved.

Someone admitted to the bar might have an easier time finding the trail as the resources available blow the doors off what we can access easily.

Either way, this will be decided at a higher level than district court.

The personality rights issue is based on State laws. I am unsure whether they need be adjudicated separately, but would imagine that is the case.

 

[Killjoy]

I don't think anyone has said they haven't.

I think there are even more in the past, that have reached the supreme court. U of OK sued NCAA for Anti-Trust Violations and won. Which, come to think of it, is where all these revenue issues originated. It was so the NCAA had to let more games be broadcast on TV. They used to limit it to one per year or something to that effect. Don't quite have time to look, but maybe this could shed light on some of the precedent involved.

Someone admitted to the bar might have an easier time finding the trail as the resources available blow the doors off what we can access easily.

Either way, this will be decided at a higher level than district court.

The personality rights issue is based on State laws. I am unsure whether they need be adjudicated separately, but would imagine that is the case.

Contrary to some here, how this issue is resolved or decided is not as clear as they would have you believe it is. There is a reason why there are 5-4 decisions at the Supreme Court. Given the complexity and the ramifications of this potential decision on so many things, including Title 9, I suspect the judges are going to be very careful in how they rule and the scope of their ruling.

 

[Deleted_User]

Contrary to some here, how this issue is resolved or decided is not as clear as they would have you believe it is. There is a reason why there are 5-4 decisions at the Supreme Court. Given the complexity and the ramifications of this potential decision on so many things, including Title 9, I suspect the judges are going to be very careful in how they rule and the scope of their ruling.

Given the proscribed manner the Supreme court has defined for determined Due Process and other rights, I don't think it will ever get there. Title 9 is about to be erased from history if this becomes an employment issue. The Equal Pay Act and the Fair Pay Acts will be the acts referring to equal opportunity and fair pay of women athletes, among the smorgasbord of acts regulating employment. For men's sports of federally funded institutions with another professional sports franchise in town, well prevailing wage laws will make things interesting, unless the courts find a way of separating college teams. It just gets more intriguing all the time.

 

[atsgopher]

Given the proscribed manner the Supreme court has defined for determined Due Process and other rights, I don't think it will ever get there. Title 9 is about to be erased from history if this becomes an employment issue. The Equal Pay Act and the Fair Pay Acts will be the acts referring to equal opportunity and fair pay of women athletes, among the smorgasbord of acts regulating employment. For men's sports of federally funded institutions with another professional sports franchise in town, well prevailing wage laws will make things interesting, unless the courts find a way of separating college teams. It just gets more intriguing all the time.

Interesting thing to bring up; since a majority of sports lose money, are a majority of athletes employees? Or can they be legally separated? I imagine that separation is desirable (from plaintiff's perspective). Kessler limited his suit to the big conferences and NCAA.

A 2009 independent report shows 68 profit with 52 losing on football with similar totals for basketball, with basketball losses being far less. Overall, NCAA athletics lose money. Finally, NCAA as an org pays it all out, so they effectively break even.

As for pro vs college teams I imagine they'll look to the market. Major pro leagues make a ton, but other pros make crap. I think the StP Saints are given 30k. However, unless there is a large amount added to revenue, were looking at 2 or 3k per player at most under the current structure.

The loss of ability to compensate via scholarship also creates a major cash flow issue, so the pool of available money shrinks after one factors in the liquidity limitations. That will mean each school will have to borrow for the season via line of credit to make payroll. Thus, add the cost of debt service to the income statement.

I wonder how the lack of money available will play out in the courts? Too bad they can't pay for this by selling a video game or something .

 

[Deleted_User]

The above argument is the first, and best, defense against higher scholarships. All others are mere wannabe arguments.

 

[Killjoy]

Given the proscribed manner the Supreme court has defined for determined Due Process and other rights, I don't think it will ever get there. Title 9 is about to be erased from history if this becomes an employment issue. The Equal Pay Act and the Fair Pay Acts will be the acts referring to equal opportunity and fair pay of women athletes, among the smorgasbord of acts regulating employment. For men's sports of federally funded institutions with another professional sports franchise in town, well prevailing wage laws will make things interesting, unless the courts find a way of separating college teams. It just gets more intriguing all the time.

I have been very hesitant to get involved in this discussion because it is one big rabbit hole. This, plus the passionate nature of this subject matter, along with the likelihood of a long drawn process doesn't sound that intriguing to me! My hope is that smarter and cooler people are able to come together to find a workable solution to this problem. If they don't, a far reaching court imposed solution may be bad for everybody with unintended consequences.

 

[Deleted_User]

I have been very hesitant to get involved in this discussion because it is one big rabbit hole. This, plus the passionate nature of this subject matter, along with the likelihood of a long drawn process doesn't sound that intriguing to me! My hope is that smarter and cooler people are able to come together to find a workable solution to this problem. If they don't, a far reaching court imposed solution may be bad for everybody with unintended consequences.

Even with some Justices I don't care for, this is a good group of decision makers. I think they may come up with a very creative take on the situation, if it gets that far.

 

[Killjoy]

Even with some Justices I don't care for, this is a good group of decision makers. I think they may come up with a very creative take on the situation, if it gets that far.

Hope you're right! This is a very complicated issue from both a legal and systemic stand point. Both needs to be considered in arriving at their decision. One of the more complicating elements is Title 9 and the funding of all the athletic programs. If you look at the profit of football alone instead of the profit of the athletic department in total you will draw some different conclusions. But you are right, how they frame the issues will be interesting. My problem is that I want them to optimize the overall results for all the stakeholders, not just a few.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

You clearly haven't much experience with the US legal system. We can agree to disagree and revisit this issue in 2,3,4 years when the lawsuits reach their conclusion.

Bookmark this page.

That's interesting considering I win cases in court and you sit in an ivory tower.

I also notice you keep ignoring the question posed to you. I suspect it is because you can't handle to truth, to borrow a phrase.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

Interesting thing to bring up; since a majority of sports lose money, are a majority of athletes employees? Or can they be legally separated? I imagine that separation is desirable (from plaintiff's perspective). Kessler limited his suit to the big conferences and NCAA.

A 2009 independent report shows 68 profit with 52 losing on football with similar totals for basketball, with basketball losses being far less. Overall, NCAA athletics lose money. Finally, NCAA as an org pays it all out, so they effectively break even.

As for pro vs college teams I imagine they'll look to the market. Major pro leagues make a ton, but other pros make crap. I think the StP Saints are given 30k. However, unless there is a large amount added to revenue, were looking at 2 or 3k per player at most under the current structure.

The loss of ability to compensate via scholarship also creates a major cash flow issue, so the pool of available money shrinks after one factors in the liquidity limitations. That will mean each school will have to borrow for the season via line of credit to make payroll. Thus, add the cost of debt service to the income statement.

I wonder how the lack of money available will play out in the courts? Too bad they can't pay for this by selling a video game or something .

The only problem with that analysis is that athletic departments engage in creative accounting and have no incentive to be profitable. If they make more money then they spend they simply engage in profligate spending. They put the money in unscheduled capital improvements in the never ending arms race and pay coaches in low revenue sports lots of money. An article I read a few weeks ago made this point by illustrating how an athletic department had tons of leftover money so it decided to pay its volleyball coach 350k a year. I will find the article later and link it.

Needless to say, athletic many departments could turn a big profit if they had to or wanted to.

Here's the link. Also, I was wrong about the volleyball coach. It was $300k not $350k.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...ved-economic-downturn-earning-record-revenues