Wilfork Named in Miami Booster Scandal (Well-Corroborated Allegations)

[upstater1]

Would you like me to pull it up from Thomas? It says nothing about that.
THOMAS (Library of Congress)

It lists all laws, their state, bills entered, and any amendments.

I'm going to just say you are mistaken.

Mistaken about what? Be specific.
Schools are forced to fund women's scholarships in equal proportions to men's scholarships. Are you saying that statement is wrong?

 

[upstater1]

Yes, but he's saying all. Once you get done funding whatever sports are needed, they can smoke crack with the money if they want to do that. They might not have a job for long but I see nothing that makes the claim that they have to spend it all.

Huh?

I wrote they have to fund women's scholarships equally to men's scholarships.

 

[upstater1]

also, the Title 9 act only states that if you're going to field a men's team, you've got to be willing to field a woman's team and spend sufficient funds so they can compete at that level..

You don't have to spend equal money...just fund them fully. If you spend 20 million on football, that doesn't mean you have to spend 20 million on girls softball. You just have to fund them fully and sufficiently.

Here are the guidelines.

1. Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes
2. The provision of equipment and supplies;
3. Scheduling of games and practice time;
4. Travel and per diem allowance;
5. Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring on mathematics only;
6. Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;
7. Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities;
8. Provision of medical and training facilities and services;
9. Provision of housing and dining facilities and services;
10. Publicity.

I'm not sure why you're having such difficulty with this. The major costs are scholarships, room & board and travel. The coaching salaries for minor sports are negligible.

If a school is spending $10 million on scholarships for football, then they have to spend $10 million on scholarships for women.

Easy.

 

[sportsreport360]

Well now that Wilfork has been named in this booster scandal, there is only one thing to do and that is go play his best season ever. I guess if he did take the alleged amounts of money he knew the true meaning of an incentive laden game performance before he even officially became a pro. While he can not save the 'U' from the death penalty, he can help the Patriots raise the Lombardi Trophy and that is awfully important.

 

[Synovia]

While looking at the straight line economics sports apparently "lose" money for the universities themselves, I imagine they do attract more paying students, boosters and alumni donations in general, which makes them "profitable" to the school's bottom line. Otherwise, as you said, why would schools continue to support such loser programs?

U of Miami is on the map because of its football program, whether on paper it "makes" money for them or not.

D1 sports lose money for their universities just like the Yankees lose money for their parent organization, or the Red Sox lose money for NESV.

The profit just shows up in other buckets.

 

[upstater1]

D1 sports lose money for their universities just like the Yankees lose money for their parent organization, or the Red Sox lose money for NESV.

The profit just shows up in other buckets.

Explain.

I think it's the exact reverse. The shell game is all about funneling money to athletics to make it look like they aren't losing as much as they really are. I even provided a link that shows you how money is being funneled from one side to the other.

 

[Synovia]

Explain.

I think it's the exact reverse. The shell game is all about funneling money to athletics to make it look like they aren't losing as much as they really are. I even provided a link that shows you how money is being funneled from one side to the other.

If the schools were losing huge amounts of money on athletics, why would they have athletic programs?

Because they don't actually lose money. The athletic programs raise admissions. They increase donations to the school. They increase sales of school merchandise (athletically branded or not).

These are large corporations. They're not stupid.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

I'm not sure why you're having such difficulty with this. The major costs are scholarships, room & board and travel. The coaching salaries for minor sports are negligible.

If a school is spending $10 million on scholarships for football, then they have to spend $10 million on scholarships for women.

Easy.

NO, what Title 9 says is that YOU MUST HAVE AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS FOR BOTH MEN AND WOMEN. It says nothing about the funding, in fact in most cases the football and basketball (men's) teams, pay for the rest of the athletic teams. So if you have a big time football program say 105 scholarships, then you must off-set that with 105 female athletic scholarships. I know a girl who got a full ride to UNC for Fencing!!! But I can assure you that she did not get the same privledges that the UNC football or Baskeball players get. Basketball scholarships are easily off-set with a womens team, ditto for soccer, etc. The sports that get killed by this rule are wrestling, and other male only (you know tough guy sports) sports, colleges have had to cut out these type of sports because a) they don't make the college any money and b)they do not want to fund additional female scholarships in other sports.

My niece is actually being recruited by some big time schools right now for, wait for it...
Cheerleading!, Granted she is an excellent athlete, but a scholarship for cheerleading? This is what title 9 has brought us....

Take a look at any major football school's athletic department and you will see that they actual have MORE FEMALE TEAMS than male ones.

Let's take Syracuse:

Male Sports:
Basketball, Lacrosse, Rowing, Soccer, Track & Field, Cross-Country, and Football

Female Sports:
Basketball, Lacrosse, Rowing, Soccer, Track & Field, Cross-Country, Softball, Tennis, Ice Hockey, Field Hockey, and Volleyball.

If you figure that the Basketball, LAX, Rowing and Track teams cancel each other out as far as scholarships go, then it takes Softball, Tennis, Volleyball, Ice Hockey and Field Hockey
to cancel out the football scholarships.

But look what isn't there, no wrestling, no ice hockey (men's), no baseball (they turned the bb field into a parking lot for the Carrier Dome years ago).

Title 9 was a good idea in theory, but like all government programs and edicts, it unintended consequenses are much worse than the problems that they originally set out to fix.

 

[upstater1]

I agree with most of this. Not sure what you're finding in disagreement.

You say it says nothing about funding. But read my post. I said the funding of scholarships. ADs literally fund scholarships to the tune of $10 million at the big programs. So, if you're funding men at that amount, you must fund women. A scholarship is an outlay--these aren't free for the school. I'm not talking about you need to fund better coaching, amenities, etc. I was referring to pure tuition plus books, fees, room & board, etc.

NO, what Title 9 says is that YOU MUST HAVE AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS FOR BOTH MEN AND WOMEN. It says nothing about the funding, in fact in most cases the football and basketball (men's) teams, pay for the rest of the athletic teams. So if you have a big time football program say 105 scholarships, then you must off-set that with 105 female athletic scholarships. I know a girl who got a full ride to UNC for Fencing!!! But I can assure you that she did not get the same privledges that the UNC football or Baskeball players get. Basketball scholarships are easily off-set with a womens team, ditto for soccer, etc. The sports that get killed by this rule are wrestling, and other male only (you know tough guy sports) sports, colleges have had to cut out these type of sports because a) they don't make the college any money and b)they do not want to fund additional female scholarships in other sports.

My niece is actually being recruited by some big time schools right now for, wait for it...
Cheerleading!, Granted she is an excellent athlete, but a scholarship for cheerleading? This is what title 9 has brought us....

Take a look at any major football school's athletic department and you will see that they actual have MORE FEMALE TEAMS than male ones.

Let's take Syracuse:

Male Sports:
Basketball, Lacrosse, Rowing, Soccer, Track & Field, Cross-Country, and Football

Female Sports:
Basketball, Lacrosse, Rowing, Soccer, Track & Field, Cross-Country, Softball, Tennis, Ice Hockey, Field Hockey, and Volleyball.

If you figure that the Basketball, LAX, Rowing and Track teams cancel each other out as far as scholarships go, then it takes Softball, Tennis, Volleyball, Ice Hockey and Field Hockey
to cancel out the football scholarships.

But look what isn't there, no wrestling, no ice hockey (men's), no baseball (they turned the bb field into a parking lot for the Carrier Dome years ago).

Title 9 was a good idea in theory, but like all government programs and edicts, it unintended consequenses are much worse than the problems that they originally set out to fix.

 

[upstater1]

If the schools were losing huge amounts of money on athletics, why would they have athletic programs?

Because they don't actually lose money. The athletic programs raise admissions. They increase donations to the school. They increase sales of school merchandise (athletically branded or not).

These are large corporations. They're not stupid.

Why do Ivies have athletics? Why do schools lose money on a bunch of campus activities. For a variety of reasons.

They lose money, I provided you the link.

Andrew Zimbalist shows some schools benefit from admissions, but the vast majority who try to increase admissions through athletics do not. If you measure big state schools with big sports against big state schools without sports, you're not going to see a difference in the rise of admissions. SUNY and Cal's for instance have experienced 20% increase in applications.

Donations to the school are counted as AD revenue (they're listed in the link I provided to the tune of $20 million or so). Royalites are also counted as athletics revenue, also listed in that link (even though the school would experience at least some royalty profit without sports).

One reason the money continues to be lost despite a lot of pressure to curtail the losses is because of the pressure from politicians and alumni. The last few presidents that tried to buck the trend were fired.

Elsa Murano was canned at Texas A&M after Rick Perry stepped in when the football program stuck the academic side with an unexpected $18 million bill. She told the AD that cuts needed to be made to pay the bill, he called the governor.

Seriously, is this the first time that someone is saying that college sports are a political hot potato?

We're talking about landmines all over the place.

They are a money loser, and that's fine because even our top universities with D3 programs accept losing a little money (sub $10 million) on athletics.

 

[Synovia]

.

Donations to the school are counted as AD revenue (they're listed in the link I provided to the tune of $20 million or so). Royalites are also counted as athletics revenue, also listed in that link (even though the school would experience at least some royalty profit without sports).

No, only donations directly to the athletic program are listed in there, and they're a small fraction.

Do you really think that Harvard and Yale's general donations don't go up around the Harvard-Yale game?

One reason the money continues to be lost despite a lot of pressure to curtail the losses is because of the pressure from politicians and alumni. The last few presidents that tried to buck the trend were fired.

Why do you think they were fired? Because the schools KNOW that losing the football program would negatively affect them. They would affect the school's name, admissions, etc. Which all affect the bottom line.

They are a money loser, and that's fine because even our top universities with D3 programs accept losing a little money (sub $10 million) on athletics.

No, the problem is, you're only looking at money that comes in DIRECTLY via the athletics, and thats only a very small portion of the pie.

If someone drives into boston to see a BC game, the athletic department gets to add the $20 for a ticket to their bottom line. The $45 that person spend buying a BC hoodie in the school bookstore doesn't get listed as part of the sports program (unless it has a football on it), but it absolutely is.


College sports are, at their heart, gigantic advertising programs. And advertising, is almost always money well spent, and is almost always profitable.

 

[upstater1]

No, only donations directly to the athletic program are listed in there, and they're a small fraction.

A survey was done regarding the longhorn foundation. Over 30% of contributors thought they were contributing money for the school and NOT just the football program.

Sports contributions at schools like Texas and Texas A&M are already about 15-20% of total contributions. $40 million to sports versus $220 to the school total at UT or $34 million to sports versus $180 at A&M. But then you look at the top schools raking in donations and the vast majority are not big sports schools. Cal-San Francisco and New York U, for instance, double A&M in contributions among several other non-sports schools. So, honestly, how much of the $146 million that A&M brings in outside the AD can be attributed to sports? SMU beats them too. Rice is at $100 million.

Why do you think they were fired? Because the schools KNOW that losing the football program would negatively affect them. They would affect the school's name, admissions, etc. Which all affect the bottom line.

I wasn't talking about axing a football program. I referred to the A&M scenario to give you an example of what happens when a President asks a football program to live within its means. Andrew Zimbalist did a study of the exact thing you're talking about that threw cold water over this approach. He wrote that 10% of the schools trying to benefit from sports experience that benefit (schools like Boston College) while the vast majority don't, and some even hurt themselves. Since Rutgers began its athletics buildout, it has cratered reputationally in the rankings, for instance. You'd have to explain why schools without sports bring in just as much money and have just as many applicants per seat and also why these schools are just as highly ranked.

No, the problem is, you're only looking at money that comes in DIRECTLY via the athletics, and thats only a very small portion of the pie.

I asked you to lay out the rest of the pie. Earlier you assumed that things like royalties and donations were not included in AD revenues. They are. The vast majority of schools include the total amount of royalties in the AD budget.

If someone drives into boston to see a BC game, the athletic department gets to add the $20 for a ticket to their bottom line. The $45 that person spend buying a BC hoodie in the school bookstore doesn't get listed as part of the sports program (unless it has a football on it), but it absolutely is.

Wrong. I gave you the link. I already made this point a number of times. Royalties are included in AD revenues. You're also assuming that the only reason people buy those sweaters is for sports. You're going to have to explain why people can be seen sporting sweaters from schools that don't have sports.

College sports are, at their heart, gigantic advertising programs. And advertising, is almost always money well spent, and is almost always profitable.

As schools eliminate programs, reduce full-time faculty from 75% to 30% nationally, cut classes forcing students to go for 5 or 6 years, while non-sports schools maintain the same level of interest and applications as the sports schools, it seems more like a scam.

A $5 million loss for sports is totally fine. Some BCS conference schools are losing $40 million a year. Hard to justify.

I calculated that $500 a year in student fees goes directly to sports. It's easy to do. You look at the total revenue generated by student fees and divide by the number of students. $2000 over 4 years. Hard to justify charging every student that.

 

[Synovia]

A survey was done regarding the longhorn foundation. Over 30% of contributors thought they were contributing money for the school and NOT just the football program.

Again, you are completely ignoring what I'm saying. Without the football program, people aren't even thinking about donating money to Texas "THE SCHOOL".

Sports increase school spirit. They improve your time as a student. These things lead to higher donations to schools, whether or not those donations go directly to athletics.

I asked you to lay out the rest of the pie. Earlier you assumed that things like royalties and donations were not included in AD revenues. They are. The vast majority of schools include the total amount of royalties in the AD budget.

Again, only things donated to the AD are listed in there. If I make a donation to BC for a new science building, its not listed in there. If a large part of the reason I donated money to BC is because I had a great time at BC because their football team was good the years I was there (I didn't go to BC), that doesn't get listed, but it IS a product of the athletic program.

Wrong. I gave you the link. I already made this point a number of times. Royalties are included in AD revenues. You're also assuming that the only reason people buy those sweaters is for sports. You're going to have to explain why people can be seen sporting sweaters from schools that don't have sports.

I'm not assuming that at all. I'm assuming that sports increases apparallel sales, even non-athletic apparal.
Exactly what schools don't have sports?


And exactly which one of these schools are selling as many sweatshirts, as say, Notre Dame?

 

[captain stone]

NO, what Title 9 says is that YOU MUST HAVE AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS FOR BOTH MEN AND WOMEN. It says nothing about the funding, in fact in most cases the football and basketball (men's) teams, pay for the rest of the athletic teams. So if you have a big time football program say 105 scholarships, then you must off-set that with 105 female athletic scholarships. I know a girl who got a full ride to UNC for Fencing!!! But I can assure you that she did not get the same privledges that the UNC football or Baskeball players get. Basketball scholarships are easily off-set with a womens team, ditto for soccer, etc. The sports that get killed by this rule are wrestling, and other male only (you know tough guy sports) sports, colleges have had to cut out these type of sports because a) they don't make the college any money and b)they do not want to fund additional female scholarships in other sports.

My niece is actually being recruited by some big time schools right now for, wait for it...
Cheerleading!, Granted she is an excellent athlete, but a scholarship for cheerleading? This is what title 9 has brought us....

Take a look at any major football school's athletic department and you will see that they actual have MORE FEMALE TEAMS than male ones.

Let's take Syracuse:

Male Sports:
Basketball, Lacrosse, Rowing, Soccer, Track & Field, Cross-Country, and Football

Female Sports:
Basketball, Lacrosse, Rowing, Soccer, Track & Field, Cross-Country, Softball, Tennis, Ice Hockey, Field Hockey, and Volleyball.

If you figure that the Basketball, LAX, Rowing and Track teams cancel each other out as far as scholarships go, then it takes Softball, Tennis, Volleyball, Ice Hockey and Field Hockey
to cancel out the football scholarships.

But look what isn't there, no wrestling, no ice hockey (men's), no baseball (they turned the bb field into a parking lot for the Carrier Dome years ago).

Title 9 was a good idea in theory, but like all government programs and edicts, it unintended consequenses are much worse than the problems that they originally set out to fix.

As was once said on King of the Hill, Title IX was **** Nixon's biggest mistake.

(I personally believe that establishing the DEA & EPA were even bigger ones, but who am I to agrue?)

 

[upstater1]

Again, you are completely ignoring what I'm saying. Without the football program, people aren't even thinking about donating money to Texas "THE SCHOOL".

We should end this conversation since I responded already numerous times and you ignored it. I wrote that schools without bigtime sports draw more in donations than Texas, which defeats the point you're making, which is impossible to prove regardless.

I'm not assuming that at all. I'm assuming that sports increases apparallel sales, even non-athletic apparal.

Let me say this again: all royalties and branding, all apparel sales at a university, all of it, are counted as AD revenues. So, the academic side doesn't benefit at all from any of those sales.

There are lots of big schools that don't have D1 sports.

 

[Patjew]

College sports are, at their heart, gigantic advertising programs. And advertising, is almost always money well spent, and is almost always profitable.

As a former marketing executive I just wanted to reply to this with a .

What advertising actually is is something almost impossible to quantify the effect of that marketers continue to cling to out of a sense of self-preservation. Most organizations find that wisely cutting advertising has no negative effect on sales or profits.

I know, that's not what this is about.

 

[borg]

A few years ago, I had a long conversation with a U Tenn alum who was a big supporter of the school. At the time he had rights to 8 season tickets (2,2,4) for football. Each year he had to write checks for 2=$10,000, 2=$20,000, and 4 =$50,000........8 tix cost him $80,000 plus face value of the seats. Of course he was invited to all the ****tail parties, dinners and jock sniffing events that his status provided. He estimated that U Tenn was taking in $140 mill yearly on ticket sales and these additional "donations".
This alum happened to be a major insurance salesman in Tenn and he claimed the $80,000 was a sound business investment because it opened up the doors to the alum network that took care of their own.

 

[jbb9s]

No, only donations directly to the athletic program are listed in there, and they're a small fraction.

Do you really think that Harvard and Yale's general donations don't go up around the Harvard-Yale game?


Why do you think they were fired? Because the schools KNOW that losing the football program would negatively affect them. They would affect the school's name, admissions, etc. Which all affect the bottom line.


No, the problem is, you're only looking at money that comes in DIRECTLY via the athletics, and thats only a very small portion of the pie.

If someone drives into boston to see a BC game, the athletic department gets to add the $20 for a ticket to their bottom line. The $45 that person spend buying a BC hoodie in the school bookstore doesn't get listed as part of the sports program (unless it has a football on it), but it absolutely is.


College sports are, at their heart, gigantic advertising programs. And advertising, is almost always money well spent, and is almost always profitable.

Look at UNC, a state school that is harder to get into out of state than the bottom tier ivys.

Question: how could a state school, with reduced state funding year after year, be this way while continuing to offer admission for 12k a year for in-state students?

Answer: 18 final fours.

So now UNC is the 2nd or 3rd best state school in the country, top 25 overall, has a top 5 undergrad business school and basically rakes in cash from everything associated with additional press to having more successful graduate base with more ability to donate. They build nicer buildings and have a 20k seat dome.

 

[bagwell368]

Anyone that thinks Wilfork is a major target in this, or will face anything other then the weakest slap on the wrist of all time is - what is the word? - naive.

 

[borg]

Anyone that thinks Wilfork is a major target in this, or will face anything other then the weakest slap on the wrist of all time is - what is the word? - naive.

The NCAA can't touch him. The NFL would have to punish most every U of M alum in the NFL to get a Wilfork....not gonna happen. But the tax man may have his say. Receiving benefits without claiming them on your return could be problematic....but then there is the statute of limitations..."Under section 6501(e) of the Tax Code and section 301.6501(e)-1 of the Tax Regulations the statute of limitations is 6 years if the taxpayer omits additional gross income in excess of 25% of the amount of gross income stated in the tax return filed with the IRS."...Looks like Vince is free and clear