Wisconsin Hockey: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 WE WANT MORE!
Come to the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
Originally Posted by Wisko McBadgerton:
"Baggot says Hughes and Rockwood are centering the top two lines...
Timothy A --> Great hockey mind... Or Greatest hockey mind?!?"
"An area that needs to be addressed."
This is going to be fun. (Just try to translate Commish Ackerman’s statement if you have any doubts.)
Last edited by thirdtime's . . .; 10-29-2019 at 05:02 PM.
IMO, it will only make the big stronger and the weak weaker.
The Labron James types will reap all the benefits and the "stars" of lesser sports will get peanuts
basically it legalizes and brings above board what is already happening below the table
the NCAA is a brilliant fabrication, it takes all the blame off the schools, who in turn are the NCAA
IOW, the NCAA is an organization that does the bidding of the schools
so IOW, if each fan ate 6 brats, 5 chips & cheese wiz, and washed it down with twenty one beers, that would do it
I think that's doable by the typical Wisconsinite
Season - ticket revenue - total attendance - average ticket price
2012-13 - $44,842 - 32,590 - $1.38
2013-14 - $76,676 - 46,589 - $1.65
2014-15 - $59,571 - 36,523- $1.63
2015-16 - $84,045 - 42,398 - $1.98
2016-17 - $98,640 - 55,315 - $1.78
2017-18 - $102,612 - 38,505 - $2.66
After I posted I thought more about the professor using the multiplier of the highest paid NHL player vs the average NHL salary and decided to look into it more. The 2019-20 salaries listed on Hockey-Reference.com show a new highest paid player, Mitch Marner, at $16 million and a higher average salary at $3,297,344, but the multiplier is almost the same, 4.85 vs 4.87. However, breaking the numbers down by team shows that Marnerís multiplier for his team is only 3.65, as Toronto has the highest payroll in the league. Looking at each teams' highest paid player vs the average NHL salary show a multiplier range from Marnerís 4.85 to Coloradoís and Calgaryís highest paid players with a low of just 2.05. And when comparing players against their teamís average salary the high is Edmontonís 4.86 to Calgaryís low of 1.92. In a true free market each school would be able to determine the value of their players and not all would receive the same multiplier. Still, I averaged the team and league multipliers for each teamís highest paid player(s) and the team average is just under 3.14 and the league average is just over 3.14. Therefore, I have added a sheet to my spreadsheet that uses the 3.14 multiplier and not Berriís 4.87. Using it shows that the numbers moving even more in the direction of the current scholarship model vs a paid model for the top players.
I also added a second sheet for each school using the 2017-18 numbers. Since most players are not top performers I added average pay columns to compare the EADA revenue and NCAA reported and earned revenue vs the actual or estimated scholarship and meal allowance amounts each school awarded. It turns out that 9 of the 11 (Iím still waiting on Minnesota State) public schools I have data for awarded more in scholarships and meal allowances than the average pay calculated using the EADA numbers. Ten of the 11 did so using the NCAA reported revenue and all 11 did so using the NCAA earned revenue numbers, with the difference increasing in the favor of the players. Of the 24 private schools, all 16 that offer scholarships awarded more in estimated scholarship amounts than the average pay calculated using the EADA numbers.
Furthermore, Profosser Berri did not mention (and I overlooked) that if the players were paid then that would be taxable income. As far as I'm aware scholarships and meal allowances are not taxable.
ďThe solution to the N.C.A.A.ís 'modernization problem' already exists.Ē
This is really interesting, assuming youíre okay with ďreinforcing the union of sports and scholarship." Among other things, in theory, no one sport would suffer. Bouncy ball stars help pay for ice time.
To make my value of players spreadsheet relevant to the men's forum (where I have also posted this) I had added a sheet that has the 2018 numbers for most of the schools that have menís programs (Army and Air Force donít submit EADA reports and I donít have Armyís NCAA financials, while Iím still waiting on Minnesota State for their 2017 & 2018 NCAA financials). As expected, with the higher revenues for the menís programs most of them donít do as well when it comes to having scholarships and meal allowances being an equal or better value than if the players were paid.
The schools awarded $42,309,659 in scholarships and another $1,039,948 in meal allowance, just 30.6% of their combined reported EADA revenue (minus Army & Air Force) of $141,507,277. Even when the 10 schools that donít offer scholarships are excluded itís just 34.6% of reported EADA revenue. Both fall far short of the womenís 51.7% of their combined reported EADA revenue going to scholarships and meal allowances ($23,148,059 in scholarships and another $200,983 in meal allowances against $45,205,433 in EADA reported revenue) for all schools and the 64.4% of reported EADA revenue when the 8 non-scholarship schools are excluded. That said, 16 of the 28 public schools that give men's scholarships did give out more in scholarships and meal allowances than the average pay each player would have received based on reported NCAA earned revenue. And the estimated scholarships given out by 10 of the private schools is 59.9% of their reported EADA revenue, so it likely even more of the private schools give out at least 50% of their earned revenue in scholarships and meal allowances.
What is the motivation behind paying college athletes? I can see where the athletes and parents would be for this, but most just seem proud and grateful for the opportunity. And there is the matter of taxes, parents would lose their kid as a credit/deduction (which it could be argued should be the case anyway since the schools are supporting them now).
Today there is a lot of discussion about white privilege but in the deepest darkest days of Jim Crow laws whites never had the advantage over blacks that athletes today enjoy over the rest of the students. That should be the real discussion, athlete privilege in universities.
Is it because the world of sophisticated left coast liberals has been turned upside down by Midwesterners who have just fallen off the turnip truck and southern hillbillies who have risen above them in athletic competition? Is it the money managers and lawyers who see more potential clients? Are alumni tired of paying star athletes under the table and want recognition for their efforts? Anybody know?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)