New bill would force KU and WSU to play

[Kung Wu]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

While the universities are state schools and receive state funding, I believe the athletic departments are separate corporations (if that's the right word) and do not receive direct funding from the state. And in WSU's case I think the funds the athletic department does receive from the institution are in the form of student fees. I don't know if that's the case at KU or KSU.

I bring this up only to point out, assuming I'm correct, being state schools doesn't automatically bring athletics under the jurisdiction of the state. While I wouldn't complain if such legislation were to pass, I'd rather WSU make its case by establishing consistency at the top of the conference, in the ranking, and in the NCAA tournament.

Who are the shareholders of the ICAA?

[shockmonster]

Every person that outspokenly talked like this people ended up calling a Socialist.
Just saying

Could you elaborate on the ways that KU screwed WSU over by using the legislature to get an unfair advantage?

This is not one of our more intelligent posts on Shockernet. Socialism is an economic system where the government owns the means of production. This law has to do with athletics that are governed by state owned schools (owned by the taxpayers). This is not Socialism for a representative of the taxpayers to try to tell the schools how to operate.

Whether this is a good idea is to be debated but it isn't Socialism. Personally, whether the legislature votes on this or not, I like the fact that it is being discussed.

Even the Kansas City stations have been bringing up the fact that KU doesn't play a Top 30 program within the same state and they've been initiating the question to Self and Marshall in interviews. I think that Self's answer that the reason that they don't play WSU is because they don't have to (the legislature doesn't make them like New Mexico and Iowa) sounds silly.This discussions great and I don't think that it makes WSU look small at all. Self does.

[shockmonster]

[QUOTE=RoyalShock;367621]Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

While the universities are state schools and receive state funding, I believe the athletic departments are separate corporations (if that's the right word) and do not receive direct funding from the state. And in WSU's case I think the funds the athletic department does receive from the institution are in the form of student fees. I don't know if that's the case at KU or KSU.[QUOTE]

The schools are still owned by the state (technically the taxpayers) and are set up to operate or be governed by the state.

[Veritas]

Regardless, I definitely don't think the Sunflower Showdown, Sunflower Classic, Sunflower anything should be used for the KU v KSU basketball games unless Wichita State is included. WSU probably has a better winning percentage against KU in the past 33 years than does K-State.

[shockmonster]

Regardless, I definitely don't think the Sunflower Showdown, Sunflower Classic, Sunflower anything should be used for the KU v KSU basketball games unless Wichita State is included. WSU probably has a better winning percentage against KU in the past 33 years than does K-State.

Everytime I walked through the hometown Dillons this fall, this was brought to my attention.

[Rlh04d]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

While the universities are state schools and receive state funding, I believe the athletic departments are separate corporations (if that's the right word) and do not receive direct funding from the state. And in WSU's case I think the funds the athletic department does receive from the institution are in the form of student fees. I don't know if that's the case at KU or KSU.

I bring this up only to point out, assuming I'm correct, being state schools doesn't automatically bring athletics under the jurisdiction of the state. While I wouldn't complain if such legislation were to pass, I'd rather WSU make its case by establishing consistency at the top of the conference, in the ranking, and in the NCAA tournament.

The Florida/Florida St analogy is an interesting one, but until WSU restarts football, I don't see KU or KSU bowing to legislative pressure to sign a contract.

I think "bowing to legislative pressure" is a misnomer. "Pressure" is only correct if it's a matter of negotiation. Public universities are owned by the state ... the heads of the universities are state employees. If legislative pressure turns into legislative action, there is nothing they can do about it. The Kansas legislature can tell KU they have to play a scrimmage against a middle school if they want to.

As for the FSU/UF analogy, WSU's basketball program is far better than FSU's football program was then. UF got absolutely nothing out of playing us for years and years, while KU would be playing a top 30 school almost every season, which would help them. As for football, football was not king in 1958 when the UF/FSU series began. Basketball would have been king then. I don't think football has anything to do with it ... in fact, WSU not having a football program should make this MORE likely to happen, as KU and KSU get to play a top 30 basketball team without being forced to play a terrible football team as part of the bargain.

And no, athletic departments are not a "separate corporation" aligned with a university, under anything I've ever heard. While a lot of BCS athletic departments are self-sufficient, I believe every member of the athletic department of a public university is a university employee and thus a state employee. I'm not sure if coaches are commonly paid out of booster donations or public funds, though. FSU just had an issue with hiring new coaches because they were affected by a new law regarding state employees.

Quick quote on that note:

Very few of FBS athletics departments were able to pay all their bills without help from university or state funds or student fees, in 2010, according to USA Today.

[Flip1381]

This is not one of our more intelligent posts on Shockernet. Socialism is an economic system where the government owns the means of production. This law has to do with athletics that are governed by state owned schools (owned by the taxpayers). This is not Socialism for a representative of the taxpayers to try to tell the schools how to operate.

Whether this is a good idea is to be debated but it isn't Socialism. Personally, whether the legislature votes on this or not, I like the fact that it is being discussed.

Even the Kansas City stations have been bringing up the fact that KU doesn't play a Top 30 program within the same state and they've been initiating the question to Self and Marshall in interviews. I think that Self's answer that the reason that they don't play WSU is because they don't have to (the legislature doesn't make them like New Mexico and Iowa) sounds silly.This discussions great and I don't think that it makes WSU look small at all. Self does.

This was the specific wording I was referring to:
"You do what the state asks of you to make sure each and every one of the universities supported is as successful as possible. In this instance, both WSU and KU receive welfare from the state of Kansas. Both WSU and KU should play each other in any athletic events that will help to strengthen the weaker school - WSU. If WSU restarts football, the same thing goes. If KSU receives welfare from the state of Kansas (and it does), it should be required to schedule the weaker school - WSU."

Yes, not specifically socialism, but similar, and it was used more as a joke referring to everything Obama does being called socialism.

[jocoshock]

810whb.com is going to have to Senator on in a few minutes to discuss the bill....

http://www.810whb.com/#

[jocoshock]

810whb.com is going to have to Senator on in a few minutes to discuss the bill....

http://www.810whb.com/#

Wow... the guy is a no-show after confirming he would be on....

[Rlh04d]

This was the specific wording I was referring to:
"You do what the state asks of you to make sure each and every one of the universities supported is as successful as possible. In this instance, both WSU and KU receive welfare from the state of Kansas. Both WSU and KU should play each other in any athletic events that will help to strengthen the weaker school - WSU. If WSU restarts football, the same thing goes. If KSU receives welfare from the state of Kansas (and it does), it should be required to schedule the weaker school - WSU."

Yes, not specifically socialism, but similar, and it was used more as a joke referring to everything Obama does being called socialism.

We're a socialist country, and have been for decades. It's time we accepted that >=)

As for strengthening the weaker school, that's only a desire if it improves the state. It should in both the short term and long term. The goal shouldn't be to make WSU better out of pity ... it should be to make WSU better because that's good for Kansas.

[XManCometh]

Wow... the guy is a no-show after confirming he would be on....

He's losing credibility by the minute.

[Anthroshock]

Wow... the guy is a no-show after confirming he would be on....

He was on KGSO about 15 minutes ago. Made some good points.

[shock]

Seems pretty cut and dried to me. It's a economic stimulation package.

Hehe. I said stimulation package.

[SB Shock]

810whb.com is going to have to Senator on in a few minutes to discuss the bill....

http://www.810whb.com/#

He was on 1410 just a few minutes ago.

[1979Shocker]

Senator’s Wichita State-KU game proposal altered to include K-State; ties with state funding eliminated