Football entree with education fries (Austin, Howe: to buy, schools, university)

[UnfairPark]

Imho concussions and costs outweigh any gains high school football has to offer. It's a free country so sure people can volunteer their kids for gladiatordom but they should pay themselves, school districts shouldn't have to support them. Schools should focus on academics, school level sports, and fine arts.

Some resources should go towards teaching basic life skills like nutrition/health, physical fitness, personal finances, basic cooking, basic home/car care, computer/technology foundation, some relationship education, community building skills, public speaking, resume writing, etc so we have young adults who are well equipped to take on life.

[kyam11]

Originally Posted by platon20

Bonds should not be used for operating costs but they SHOULD be used for future schools.

Using bonds to pay for massive stadiums is short sighted because they are front-loaded before the next 20 years of school build-out is planned.

So for example a school district proposes a bond for a 50 million dollar stadium in 2017. However there is no advanced funding for the extra school bulidings that the district KNOWS it is going to need by 2022. Therefore they issue the bond for the stadium in 2017 but don't issue a bond for new schools until 2020. By that time people are tired of paying for bonds and those are much more likely to get declined, forcing schools to become overcrowded.

Prosper is a perfect example of this. They approved a 50 million dollar bond for a stadium 7 years ago, but did they include in that bond funding for new school buildings over the next 7 years that meets population demand? Nope. As a result the schools are getting extremely crowded and will require more bonds to fund development.

Here's how athletic stadiums should be handled. It should be a rule that bonds for athletic stadiums can only be submitted if the district has proven that it has already issued bonds for construction meeting school building progress to cover population expansion over the next 10 years. Only AFTER those school building bonds are assured should they be allowed to seek funding for football cathedrals.

That is what votes are for.

[BigDGeek]

Originally Posted by UnfairPark

Who is going to pay off these bonds, how and when?

Taxpayers, probably for the next 20-30 years. A lot of the people who voted "yes" on those bonds won't be around to see them paid off (they'll have moved elsewhere).


Keep that in mind if you're looking to move to a fancy exurb that worships high school sports.

[Beardown91737]

McKinney bundled the stadium with additional classrooms, music rooms, auditoriums, renovations, a bus fueling facility, and a co-located "event center". Parents of kids in schools felt like a vote against the bundled package would ruin their child's future. I advocated a no vote on the bonds and let the school district come back with an unbundled choice in six months. I don't know how many of the educational facilities are under construction but it has been full speed ahead on the stadium.

I live in McKinney zoned to Allen ISD, so I already had a bigger stadium, but put my opinion forward after having seen the same bundling tactics in California. For the record I have voted yes on every school bond (and prison bond) that was on the ballot.

Originally Posted by Ishad

In the majority vast majority of states the highest paid public employee is a college football or basketball coach. All it really says is universities have plenty of money since they don't have to pay their athletes.

Garland is getting a $30 million dollar Natatorium. Is that really that much different than a brand new football stadium?

Natatoriums are another trophy, but I can't wait until Allen gets good in basketball and then moves into the Allen Event Center, to be followed by Frisco Schools moving to the Dr Pepper arena (but having to schedule around the Legends). Then what would be McKinney's response?

City of Los Angeles had the airport director as the highest paid employee. Airport is a dump with bad traffic problems, so maybe a football coach deserved more. UCLA Coach made more but is a state employee.

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

I think the Texas fascination with high school school football is weird. Very weird. Never in a million years would I consider going to watch a high school football game if I didn't have a child or a family friend playing.

Spending this kind of money on football stadiums seems to me to be an indication of having priorities in the wrong place.

Agree on that. Same people take a pass on small college, junior college and semi-pro games, but watch random HS games.

[kyam11]

How do you people not understand that the reason that college football coaches get more pay is they bring in more $ than all the other members of faculty combined for the university.

UCLA football brought in $44 million dollars last year. Their whole budget was $96 million. Football budget was $26 million. Almost $20 million in profit for the school. Mora was worth every penny.

Men's basketball was the only other profitable sport. You should be very happy about the football and basketball programs if you have a child who plays any other sport because those sports would likely not exist without the 2 profitable programs

ETA: Look at UCLA football in 2012 when Mora would have no affect on anything yet. Revenue of $25M with expenses of $19M. Profit of $6M only.

[UnfairPark]

I read some interesting articles about this topic. Some of you may want to read interesting analysis.

Is College Football Profitable for Universities? – Ethos

https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/hig...he-dallas-area

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/11/ucla...-football.html

[kyam11]

Originally Posted by UnfairPark

I read some interesting articles about this topic. Some of you may want to read interesting analysis.

Is College Football Profitable for Universities? – Ethos

https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/hig...he-dallas-area

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/11/ucla...-football.html

First article extremely flawed.

2nd article spot on.

3rd article also makes perfect sense. Honestly shocked any high school sport is profitable. I have no clue why any parent would let their kid play high school football with the only caveat being if it were the only way their child could go to college.

[UnfairPark]

It may get few kids from every school to a college but many can't hold on their own to fairly pass their classes.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.nj.co...p_athletes.amp

What bothers me most is that football ruins moral fabric of schools and colleges, cheating/unfair grade bumping, hazing, drugs, rapes, concussions,partying, bullying etc. Its demeaning how smart and athletic girls are reduced to being cheerleaders for football players. These girls deserves to play sports or shine at gymnastics but they end up shaking pom poms for football heroes.

[BLDSoon]

Originally Posted by kyam11

How do you people not understand that the reason that college football coaches get more pay is they bring in more $ than all the other members of faculty combined for the university.

UCLA football brought in $44 million dollars last year. Their whole budget was $96 million. Football budget was $26 million. Almost $20 million in profit for the school. Mora was worth every penny.

Men's basketball was the only other profitable sport. You should be very happy about the football and basketball programs if you have a child who plays any other sport because those sports would likely not exist without the 2 profitable programs

ETA: Look at UCLA football in 2012 when Mora would have no affect on anything yet. Revenue of $25M with expenses of $19M. Profit of $6M only.

To add another caveat to this discussion, is it Mora making the school money or the unpaid college athletes? Nobody's coming to watch Mora play. And lets be real, coaching is a minor( but important) part of it. I'd say the players and their skills carry more weight as far as whether the team is good or not, right? The coach is a guide he doesn't execute. Kind of like CEO's don't actually do the jobs they get credited with or Presidents dont make the laws they get associated with. Etc...

[kyam11]

Originally Posted by BLDSoon

To add another caveat to this discussion, is it Mora making the school money or the unpaid college athletes? Nobody's coming to watch Mora play. And lets be real, coaching is a minor( but important) part of it. I'd say the players and their skills carry more weight as far as whether the team is good or not, right? The coach is a guide he doesn't execute. Kind of like CEO's don't actually do the jobs they get credited with or Presidents dont make the laws they get associated with. Etc...

Both are making money. Look at UCLA revenue and players and record before Mora. Exponentially better. You do not understand college football if you think the coach carries less weight. Jim Harbaugh took over a Michigan team with the same players and they were far better. Better coaches leads to getting better players, more TV money, more bowl money, more booster money. Look at Alabama before Saban. Not even relevant.

Good coaches are worth their cost. It is the same reason that I am willing to pay anyone on this board any amount they want to work for me. All they need to do is let me know what they want their pay to be.