<p>The Udub is not using your money to pay for its sports programs--the Seattle school distict is so take your complaints to them. same for the Big 10 schools. You cannot scale back " a little" because you are either a winning program or a loser and losing programs will soon be losing money. Look at the fall in attendance at Udub football and the rise in bball as one program is now losing and the other winning. Did Romar make a difference?? You bet. Did Gilby?? Obviously. Gilby was whay you get for $500K.</p>
<p>Everyone that follows college sports will tell you that the coach makes about 75% of the difference in success. The rest is recruitng base, facilities, and tradition.</p>
<p>Well, okay. And since the NCAA can set rules on the "salaries paid" to athletes across Division I schools, they could do exactly the same with coaches. Or would that be a cartel in restraint of trade?</p>
<p>Since scholarships and related benefits are not considered taxable income the two are not comparable. So no, the NCAA cannot set coaches salaries. They do set the number of coaches each school is allowed.</p>
<p>I know. Cartel in restraint of trade. But it would be very simple for colleges to decide to "pay" students a taxable income (out of which scholarships and benefits could be deducted), making it "comparable". The only reason it isn't comparable is because they CHOOSE not to make it comparable.</p>
<p>Barrons, when I said "my school district" I was not talking about Seattle; I was talking about the suburban district where I live. I've been booed out of school meetings for bringing up that issue (seriously); I was told that it was worth paying for such an expensive program because "kids get athletic scholarships to college." I maintained then, and maintain now, that it would make more sense for them to get academic merit scholarships.</p>
<p>I doubt that was the only reason you were booed as very few kids get either type of scholarship and fewer yet would qualify for both. People like HS sports. You are messing with Middle America when you start talking cutting HS sports. That's why we have majority rule, so if you can get elected as an anti-sports school board member have at it--good luck with that in the burbs.</p>
<p>So no, the NCAA cannot set coaches salaries.</p>
<br>
<p>Why not? I understand that there is debate as to whether the NCAA should be considered a private organization. But if it is a private organization, then it can set virtually any conditions on membership that it wants, even if they are discriminatory, anticompetitive, a restraint on free speech (like the mascot rules), or whatever else.</p>
<p>I mean, the NBA is not a cartel in restraint of trade. It's a private organization that a team owner can choose to participate in or not. If you choose to participate, you agree to follow its rules about what you can pay your employees (salary caps, league minimum, etc.). Why would the NCAA be different?</p>
<p>If there's a court ruling on this I'm not aware of, do fill me in.</p>
<p>barrons: once again, we're talking about priorities. It appalls me that any school district would put sports <em>ahead of academics.</em> Let those who want sports pay for them directly, outside of school, like Little League.</p>
<p>There has been widespread cutting of sport budgets within high schools along with an associated rise in fund raisers for sports team to make up for that cut in funding. Additionally, some schools require a user fee for sports participation. Something not required for academic endeavors. This varies district to district.</p>
<p>However, I would agree that most want sports and academics.</p>
<p>That's fine with me. We were talking about a specific district but most still provide substantial support for sports programs. I'm fine with pay to play too if there are exceptions for poor kids. The Seattle district was spending millions to bus kids around town for dubious social engineering reasons. Talk about a waste of $$$$.</p>
<p>I think sports and academics are both important. Many private schools require their students to participate in an afterschool team. So lets fund both...I suggest removing any tax advantages given to second homes. Let school districts capture the mortage or real property tax advantaages currently given beyond the primary residence. Education is important, let us pay for it.</p>
<p>I've read every post on this thread and I love the debate. Good points on all sides. The only thing I have to add is that I love College Football and all the excitement and school spirit it inspires in the students, alumni's and general public (me). I'll see you at the Rosebowl my beloved Longhorns!</p>