Power 5 programs accounting for 88% of that is the key number. Although the Group of 5 has its share, they more or less make smarter financial decisions when it comes to this because they know they can't afford it.

There's another thread where people are insistent that we add to that total this offseason. Even though we're already adding to that total this season.

Frank received the difference between his OHIO salary and his Nebraska salary for about this first three years in Athens, so Nebraska was paying both Frank and its new coach for that period of time.

We have no business buying anyone out of their contract. We lose money on athletics. If these other schools want to throw money away, I would hope alums would refuse to donate. I certainly would.

Universities haven’t lost a dime on athletics. They know exactly where they spent it. All of it. And why. And determined it’s all worth it. Including this click bait $533 million. If it wasn’t worth it, many of them would stop. Boards are filled with smart / successful/ connected people. Virtually none have stopped. Not Stanford. Or Vanderbilt. Or Duke. Or the flagship top publics in red or blue states. Not Ivys. Nor D3 Little Ivys… When it’s no longer worth it, they’ll stop.

😎

Then you’ve just proved it is not an amateur operation by any means.

The Federal Government has allowed tax exempt institutions like hospital systems and religious organizations to run as obvious, for-profit organizations for decades. It's unclear to me why paying college players is the bridge too far.

This just seems like a thing people who are afraid of change say to argue against change. It's far from a certainty that paying players changes tax exempt status. Tax exempt status is driven more by industry than the day-to-day operations, and so long as organizations adhere to certain key tenets (not issuing/accruing equity for executives, investing profits back into the org) there's no real reason to think the status will change.

How? (Asking seriously.)

UBIT tax won’t stop the P5. They’ll just pay it and keep going.

Not sure how it will happen, but likely the top of the P5 will ultimately revolt. Alabama’s starting QB gets a few BBQ sandwiches in his NIL deal while Saban hauls in 10M. It’s just a matter of time, regardless of the top down tax status.

Why is this fiscal mismanagement? Universities have decided, very publicly through their action and continued support of Athletics that these are legitimate expenditures in terms of recruiting students, retaining students, university reputation, and student, community, alum and donor engagement. At most if not all universities the spend is likely a small % of overall budgets. Like 2-3-4%. The students, alums, communities, and donors expect positive results/experiences and when not delivered request changes fully knowing contracts will be “bought out” and the costs involved. Calling it dead money sure gets clicks I guess. It ain’t perfect. Just like no other industry is perfect. When it works, it can permanently change the trajectory of a university and community/region (Uconn, Virginia Tech, Gonzaga, etc). Or, provide waves of enrollment, engagement, donations, improvements, national awareness, etc. (Cincinnati, Coastal Carolina, and even OU at times). The students, athletes, and members of the public who are not interested in the model have plenty of other options. If there are areas of higher education or a community that someone thinks needs to be improved, by all means go advocate for that. But attacking Athletics means the focus in on Athletics, not those areas…. Anyway… I sure must have needed to rant, eh?. Awesome fall day in Southern Ohio… time to stop ranting and get outside….