Most major sports have some form of cost containment to insure costs don’t spiral out of hand and a broad set of teams can compete. Do college sports need an expense cap for revenue sports?

The implication would be:
Less pressure on men’s minor sports
More level playing field
Less likely the same 8 teams go to the national championship

In general, I think NCAA athletics would be better off.

The only type of spending capped in pro leagues is player salaries. The NCAA already has a cap for those.

The other thing they could feasibly cap would be coaching salaries. But in order to cap those, there would have to be a coach's union that they could negotiate with.

Capping anything else would be impossible to track and enforce.

(05-01-2018 08:33 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Most major sports have some form of cost containment to insure costs don’t spiral out of hand and a broad set of teams can compete. Do college sports need an expense cap for revenue sports?

The implication would be:
Less pressure on men’s minor sports
More level playing field
Less likely the same 8 teams go to the national championship

In general, I think NCAA athletics would be better off.

"More level playing field"
The P5:


"Less likely the same 8 teams go to the national championship"
The Alabamas and the Ohio States:

(05-01-2018 08:33 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Less likely the same 8 teams go to the national championship

I think the NCAA's goal is to have the same 8 teams go the the national championship.........

(05-01-2018 09:18 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The only type of spending capped in pro leagues is player salaries. The NCAA already has a cap for those.

The other thing they could feasibly cap would be coaching salaries. But in order to cap those, there would have to be a coach's union that they could negotiate with.

Capping anything else would be impossible to track and enforce.

When the capped the salaries of basketball assistant coaches in 1991, the NCAA was found guilty of antitrust violations in 1995 and formally settled the case in 1999.

The answer is yes, it is needed. It may not be legal under current law's, but that wasn't the question.

(05-01-2018 09:54 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 08:33 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Less likely the same 8 teams go to the national championship

I think the NCAA's goal is to have the same 8 teams go the the national championship.........

No, the NCAA's #1 goal is to maintain its March Madness cash cow, which allows the NCAA to siphon off hundreds of millions in TV revenue that could instead be paid out to the schools whose teams generated that TV revenue.

And part of maintaining that March Madness cash cow is keeping hands off of FBS football, because excessive NCAA meddling in football is probably the one thing that would cause P5 programs to walk out of the NCAA, and that walkout would kill off the March Madness cash cow.

The NCAA can cap total budget. They can cap budget based on grants-in-aid awarded.

The NCAA cannot say you can't pay a coach more than X dollars.

We already have a few schools capping spending by pouring athletic earned dollars into the university budget. Not a huge stretch to think the day will arrive that they agree to cap athletic spending. It won't be anywhere in the neighborhood of what G5's spend and probably will be more than most P5's spend.

(05-01-2018 10:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The answer is yes, it is needed. It may not be legal under current law's, but that wasn't the question.

Of course it's not legal just as it isn't legal in any other industry. Unless coaches and other athletic department employees choose to collectively bargain as a union, the NCAA certainly cannot legally put any cost cap on any sports. That's an antitrust violation with collusion to depress wages.

I'm not speaking about the OP here, but it's fascinating to me how the Spin Room is largely made up of pure capitalists in the broader context, but then a lot of them turn into raging socialists when it comes to college sports revenue. I've said this many times before: let the free market reign in college sports. If anything, we ought to be REMOVING constraints as opposed to imposing more of them.

(05-01-2018 11:26 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I'm not speaking about the OP here, but it's fascinating to me how the Spin Room is largely made up of pure capitalists in the broader context, but then a lot of them turn into raging socialists when it comes to college sports revenue. I've said this many times before: let the free market reign in college sports. If anything, we ought to be REMOVING constraints as opposed to imposing more of them.

Well, I think there's an easy explanation for that... Wanting restrictions in the business world is one thing, but when it comes to sports, people are far more likely to want a level playing field. It's why stock car racing has restrictions; to make it about who has the most talent, not about who has the most resources. Of course, in the end, it comes down to the latter usually anyway, but I think that's the thought process.

(05-01-2018 11:56 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 11:26 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I'm not speaking about the OP here, but it's fascinating to me how the Spin Room is largely made up of pure capitalists in the broader context, but then a lot of them turn into raging socialists when it comes to college sports revenue. I've said this many times before: let the free market reign in college sports. If anything, we ought to be REMOVING constraints as opposed to imposing more of them.

Well, I think there's an easy explanation for that... Wanting restrictions in the business world is one thing, but when it comes to sports, people are far more likely to want a level playing field. It's why stock car racing has restrictions; to make it about who has the most talent, not about who has the most resources. Of course, in the end, it comes down to the latter usually anyway, but I think that's the thought process.

Sure - I understand the stock car racing rationale since that's a restriction on technology and equipment in actual competition. However, I believe that stock car racing teams are free to use their resources to attract the "talent" driving those cars in any manner. (Please correct me if I'm wrong since I only have a rudimentary knowledge of NASCAR.) Pro sports leagues have drafts and salary caps/luxury taxes that somewhat mitigate the financial advantages of wealthier large market teams... but those leagues also have unions that have collectively bargained and agreed to those restrictions. At the same time, those restrictions also only apply to the unionized players, so pro teams are free to spend as much as they want on managers/coaches, front office personnel, scouts, data scientists, etc.

The problem is what we often see proposed in the context of college sports is a classic "have your cake and eat it, too" situation where people want to impose financial restrictions on individuals that haven't agreed to any type of collective bargaining or, in the cases of the players themselves, no compensation at all. It's typically just a visceral response to believing that their favorite school isn't part of the club and attempting to rectify the situation in a manner that wouldn't be legal in any other context in America.

(05-01-2018 11:26 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 10:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The answer is yes, it is needed. It may not be legal under current law's, but that wasn't the question.

Of course it's not legal just as it isn't legal in any other industry. Unless coaches and other athletic department employees choose to collectively bargain as a union, the NCAA certainly cannot legally put any cost cap on any sports. That's an antitrust violation with collusion to depress wages.

I'm not speaking about the OP here, but it's fascinating to me how the Spin Room is largely made up of pure capitalists in the broader context, but then a lot of them turn into raging socialists when it comes to college sports revenue. I've said this many times before: let the free market reign in college sports. If anything, we ought to be REMOVING constraints as opposed to imposing more of them.

Supreme Court in Board of Regents vs. NCAA seemed to think it would be an appropriate restriction, more specifically capping revenue.

American sports fans are socialists by and large, drafts and salary caps are the norm.

You want unfettered capitalism need to follow soccer outside of the US and Canada.

(05-01-2018 12:12 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 11:26 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 10:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The answer is yes, it is needed. It may not be legal under current law's, but that wasn't the question.

Of course it's not legal just as it isn't legal in any other industry. Unless coaches and other athletic department employees choose to collectively bargain as a union, the NCAA certainly cannot legally put any cost cap on any sports. That's an antitrust violation with collusion to depress wages.

I'm not speaking about the OP here, but it's fascinating to me how the Spin Room is largely made up of pure capitalists in the broader context, but then a lot of them turn into raging socialists when it comes to college sports revenue. I've said this many times before: let the free market reign in college sports. If anything, we ought to be REMOVING constraints as opposed to imposing more of them.

Supreme Court in Board of Regents vs. NCAA seemed to think it would be an appropriate restriction, more specifically capping revenue.

American sports fans are socialists by and large, drafts and salary caps are the norm.

You want unfettered capitalism need to follow soccer outside of the US and Canada.

You mean, American sports team owners are socialists. They want drafts and salary caps to protect the value of their franchises from their own dumb decisions or from other owners whose decisions are much better.

The almost-no-rules capitalism of European soccer leagues hasn't hurt the popularity of their leagues at all.

Yes. Cost should never exceed revenue.

(05-01-2018 09:54 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 08:33 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Less likely the same 8 teams go to the national championship

I think the NCAA's goal is to have the same 8 teams go the the national championship.........

The NCAA doesn't really generate revenue off of the CFP. Therefore since they do not profit by the decisions, why should they care?

What the NCAA cares about is who goes to the Sweet 16 and beyond because that drives ratings and add revenue which goes into the NCAA's pocket.

So you are barking up the right tree, but at the wrong animal in that tree. It's not football that makes the NCAA wealthier, it's basketball.

The CFP makes the participants and the network that carries it wealthier. So I would say it's the network that cares most about the participants of the CFP.

(05-01-2018 10:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The answer is yes, it is needed. It may not be legal under current law's, but that wasn't the question.

No. It would only have one outcome. Even more money would be funneled through outside sources. A simpler and more productive rule would be to require that a certain % of gross revenue be given back to the academic endeavors of the University. By taking it off of the Gross Receipts it would have the effect of forcing the elimination of at least some of the waste within top athletic departments. Set that % at a fairly solid 20 to 25% and the caps on spending that you seek would be self imposed so that needed revenue went to the right items within the Athletic Department.

(05-01-2018 10:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The answer is yes, it is needed. It may not be legal under current law's, but that wasn't the question.

Baseball has an antitrust exemption. I’m pretty sure the NCAA could get one too.

(05-01-2018 12:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 12:12 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 11:26 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 10:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The answer is yes, it is needed. It may not be legal under current law's, but that wasn't the question.

Of course it's not legal just as it isn't legal in any other industry. Unless coaches and other athletic department employees choose to collectively bargain as a union, the NCAA certainly cannot legally put any cost cap on any sports. That's an antitrust violation with collusion to depress wages.

I'm not speaking about the OP here, but it's fascinating to me how the Spin Room is largely made up of pure capitalists in the broader context, but then a lot of them turn into raging socialists when it comes to college sports revenue. I've said this many times before: let the free market reign in college sports. If anything, we ought to be REMOVING constraints as opposed to imposing more of them.

Supreme Court in Board of Regents vs. NCAA seemed to think it would be an appropriate restriction, more specifically capping revenue.

American sports fans are socialists by and large, drafts and salary caps are the norm.

You want unfettered capitalism need to follow soccer outside of the US and Canada.

You mean, American sports team owners are socialists. They want drafts and salary caps to protect the value of their franchises from their own dumb decisions or from other owners whose decisions are much better.

The almost-no-rules capitalism of European soccer leagues hasn't hurt the popularity of their leagues at all.

I think most American sports fans like the worst team getting the first crack at the draft rather than free for all free agent signing in lieu of a draft. Hell most of the drafts are televised and draw large audiences.

(05-01-2018 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 10:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The answer is yes, it is needed. It may not be legal under current law's, but that wasn't the question.

No. It would only have one outcome. Even more money would be funneled through outside sources. A simpler and more productive rule would be to require that a certain % of gross revenue be given back to the academic endeavors of the University. By taking it off of the Gross Receipts it would have the effect of forcing the elimination of at least some of the waste within top athletic departments. Set that % at a fairly solid 20 to 25% and the caps on spending that you seek would be self imposed so that needed revenue went to the right items within the Athletic Department.

Depends on how you structure it. You can track costs spent on revenue sports.

(05-01-2018 03:52 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 10:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The answer is yes, it is needed. It may not be legal under current law's, but that wasn't the question.

No. It would only have one outcome. Even more money would be funneled through outside sources. A simpler and more productive rule would be to require that a certain % of gross revenue be given back to the academic endeavors of the University. By taking it off of the Gross Receipts it would have the effect of forcing the elimination of at least some of the waste within top athletic departments. Set that % at a fairly solid 20 to 25% and the caps on spending that you seek would be self imposed so that needed revenue went to the right items within the Athletic Department.

Depends on how you structure it. You can track costs spent on revenue sports.

I believe the issue to which I refer is untraceable from a University standpoint. I doubt the Athletic Department's of any of the FBI targets were totally aware of benefits paid to players by the shoe companies. It would not only be as difficult with regard to major donors, but also not in their self interest.

However, by recycling a % of profits into the University, and allowing for the stipends paid, it will be easier to end some incentives for illicit payments. The donors by sending the money through the Athletic Department not only benefit the sports, get a write off, and avoid wrongdoing, but they benefit the mission of the school as well. The easier we make it for people to take a legal pathway the better it will be for everyone. Capping anything only encourages other.