Characterisitcs of Big Time Programs

On October 1, 2013 the title of the lecture was Intercollegiate Sports. Some of the things we touched base on in lecture were Characteristics of Big Time Programs and Research shows Spending Money on Big Time College Sports:

• There's usually emphasis on football and basketball because they have the highest revenue, in reality football gets paid more
•     Most teams lose millions on travel, equipment, scholarships, facilities, paying coaches,
•    Teams travel extensively as both teams and universities jump from state to state trying to generate more revenue.
•    Spending more money than actually making a profit.
• Spending money on "Big time"(Coakley pg.481) programs increase 4 times faster than academic budngets
• Also spending money increases the wealth gap bewtween athletic departments.

 An article provided October 16, 2013 by Memphis Tennesse Associated Press stated that the commissioner of the AAC (American Athletic Conference) says his league will negotiate if they want to give players stipends. By doing this the AAC thinks it will balance out the cost of attending college. I was shocked by this article because knowing that there’s already a significant amount of things teams have to pay, the AAC now wants to pay athletes also. Mike Aresco does not want to pay players. He is trying to avoid the employer-employee relationship. I feel like if the AAC does decide to pay athletes they need to think about other consequences they are already not benefiting from such as paying coaches, traveling, equipment, scholarships, facilities and hotel fees. All of this is very expensive; in fact teams are spending more money than actually receiving a profit.

As stated in the lecture less than 1 in 5 D1 schools make money. Coakleys text stated “The amount of money spent every year on intercollegiate sports varies from less than 250,000 at some small colleges or universities to over $100 million at Ohio State University and The University of Texas” (Page 480).Large universities can have up to 10 or more coaches by itself to where as a smaller university may have about 3 or four coaches. I’m on Aresco’s side, if you think about paying players your loosing massive money. Since football and basketball are emphasized more in the sport industry they have the highest revenue but, football generates more money. Also in lecturee we dicussed how research shows spending money on big time college sports increase 4 times faster than academic budgets. It also increase the wealth gap bewteen athletic departments. So before the AAC wants to start paying athletes they need to ask themselves " Is it worth it?"

To view and read this link go to the following link: