In Reply to: ? posted by TheHappyBurgermeister on February 06, 2024 at 16:04:36
So you are fine with pay to play, you just want football to pay for money losing sports that people aren’t willing to pay for.
That’s sorta a new one for me.
First, I’m not sure that the new structures being floated won’t result in more net money for the other sports (love the double negative). It will certainly adversely impact the teams that were big 10 and SEC members who aren’t invited to the Premier League. I don’t think it’s gonna change the Moutain West or AAC schools’ balance sheets.
OTOH if players are allowed to unionize none of these non-revenue sports are gonna exist. There won’t be enough $$ to afford it with or w/o football. That has nothing to do with cfb. That’s just the law. Sorta like why many of these women sports exist (they needed more women’s sports to offset football to be title IX compliant).
If I recall correctly, all the other sports at ole Miss and lsu resulted in about (25mm). That could be offset by licensing revenue from football and by any revenue a basketball program generates.
I just had an intellectual problem that the sport that results in the most life altering injuries should be the revenue generator for swimmers or field hockey.