Search results

False. USA Today publishes numbers annually. Those Forbes numbers aren’t accurate.

Only problem, those figures aren’t accurate.

Funding for paying players isn't bottomless. The big money programs will outspend everyone else even more than they are right now, which will decrease parity further.

LOL...revenue is meaningless if you are losing money on the bottom line dude. In the context of college football programs, you can't just site revenue figures as a justification for paying players. If the program's expenses are greater than their revenues (and the majority are) then, where...

LOL...Miami's deal with Adidas doesn't help your argument dude. Yes, that deal exists primarily because of the football program, but what's your point? All of that money we are getting from Adidas, and donors, and tv contracts, etc. is getting reinvested back into the athletic program (primarily...

Again, everything you’ve said is false. But, since you are the board clown who I know has absolutely zero knowledge about how business works, I’m not going to bother with you.

Who is making billions? Revenue is a meaningless number. The vast majority of school athletic programs are operating at a loss despite all the money being brought in. Again, these kids are getting paid. They are getting paid handsomely. They are getting access to the best coaching, training...

That’s incorrect. In a big way. Right now, there isn’t enough parity but that’s because the NCAA is allowing programs like Bama and Clemson to do whatever they want. A crack down on that would restore parity to a sustainable level. There isn’t as much parity today as there could be, but it could...

I have a degree in Finance and a PhD in economics, and I’m telling you right now that paying players is next to impossible without destroying the college football system. The college football system and all the money it generates is dependent on a certain level of parity. It doesn’t need to be...

False.