🍊

  • 0 Posts
  • 21 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 21st, 2023

help-circle


  • As someone who is decent at math and shit a social interactions I was promised “No really bro, you want to make more money, trust me bro” by persons of authority and then it turns out, no I don’t really. Because yeah it turns out doing extra math homework opens more doors, but those doors are all the same and what was behind those doors was never actually explained. If the government says my brain is still developing and that I can’t be trusted to vote for the president then surely that same government must admit that I can’t be trusted to make informed choices about 40,000 - 200,000 dollar investments. As someone who really wishes that they took your path, I can absolutely attest that I was coerced into making a poor choice early. And while I won’t try and deflect that as it ultimately was a choice I made, I was far from informed.




  • But that’s just the point, the inflation of college tuition is borderline predatory. I absolutely went to college because I “had” to, but after 4 years of further self discovery and education I realized I didn’t actually want/need the education I received (the social aspects were absolutely a blast though, don’t get me wrong). If I wasn’t socially pressured by academic advisors and the wealthy into going to college and instead was actually explained what college entailed, I likely wouldn’t have gone (at least in hindsight). Now I work in a profession completely unrelated to my 2 computer science/math degrees and will be paying for the mistake of biting the higher education pill for decades.



  • Would these greys not have experimented with nuclear explosives and/or had nuclear incidents in their past? Surely they would look at us the same way we would look at the English and French hurling huge rocks at each other in the middle ages were we to time travel. There are plenty of reasons for intelligent life to skip past earth but I doubt a history of nuclear science is one of them.











  • g0d0fm15ch13f@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlScore
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Yeah, the few at the top bring in revenue, but most don’t. Speculating on future revenue is not helpful.

    Not true? Even schools as low as 220 in that list are bringing in a profit, admittedly not as much, but if we only look at the schools that have the vastly overpaid coaches then we start only looking at the schools that are bringing in multiple millions of dollars a year. The usatoday numbers include contributions as well, and as the Princeton paper shows those donations increase with high performing teams (again the teams with overpaid coaches).

    As for your articles, in your first link look at the schools that are actually taking money for athletics. These are all tiny schools, without a major cfb or m/wbb program to subsidize the rest of athletics. So again the schools with crazy overpaid coaches aren’t taking much tuition money (searching for the cfb bluebloods in that list shows most charge no money or somewhere in the range of 30 to 50 dollars annually, so covering your costs at the student rec center effectively).

    For your second article, we’re only looking at P5 schools, not D1. This is good as it gives us a better look at the schools with overpaid coahces. But the number in the article is cherry picked. They are using generated revenue for that figure, not total revenue. If you follow their own link (https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2019/11/12/finances-of-intercollegiate-athletics-database.aspx) and look at the numbers for total net you’ll see P5 is bringing in on average 4.9 million and this is from the NCAA’s numbers themselves. Admittedly looking at the range you’ll find a P5 school losing 34 million last year. What’s important to note with these figures is that often P5 programs are jumping back and forth from red to black year over year as they continually expand facilities. And with there being only one football stadium per university, this mostly means upgrades to student athletic facilities/equipment or non revenue sport facilities/equipment.

    Your last article seems to mostly be a pro NIL piece laying out why college athletes deserve to be paid. And for what it’s worth I think that you’re right here. Especially revenue earning teams should see some of that revenue go towards their athletes. Those young men and women are putting their bodies on the line for their respective universities and deserve compensation for that.

    At the end of the day, I think it’s no coincidence that the schools with the overpaid coaches are bringing in more money than the schools that don’t put as much emphasis on athletics. And I totally believe that the presidents of these huge universities know better than either of us when it comes to running and funding their schools. Even if I believe that the money coaches earn is ridiculous. Also if you want to get really upset, look up how much Jimbo Fisher is getting paid to NOT coach at Texas A&M.


  • g0d0fm15ch13f@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlScore
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Title 9 is the definition of great idea but terrible execution. It has caused tons of men’s non revenue programs to fold in the past few decades. Notably, as a swimmer, the University of Iowa no longer has a men’s swim team, and they literally invented butterfly.