[Roberton3]

I don't see how the NCAA could limit spending on facilities. It would lead to all kinds of anomalies. If a school like, say, Alabama, where football tickets are sold out until the year 6782, decided it wanted to build a new stadium with 25,000 more seats to make more tickets available, how could the NCAA justify stopping it? I think a lot of schools would rise in open rebellion against such a rule.

You're misunderstanding what I'm suggesting (which is probably my fault, because I wasn't clear).  I had in mind a cap on spending on stuff used by coaches and/or players, but not fans or the general student body.  So the cost to expand a stadium wouldn't be under the cap (though if that new stadium includes a nice locker room, that part of the cost would be under the cap).  A new building open to all students (without any special preference for athletes) wouldn't be covered, but a new building specifically for athletes would be.  Then set the cap high enough that athletes get nice facilities, but low enough to prevent over-the-top spending.

You'd need a good team of lawyers to write the rules, of course.  And schools would try to cheat around the edges.  So it wouldn't be perfect.  But it'd save schools a fair bit of money and wouldn't cut out anything genuinely valuable.

[Roberton3]

I don't see how the NCAA could limit spending on facilities. It would lead to all kinds of anomalies. If a school like, say, Alabama, where football tickets are sold out until the year 6782, decided it wanted to build a new stadium with 25,000 more seats to make more tickets available, how could the NCAA justify stopping it? I think a lot of schools would rise in open rebellion against such a rule.

You're misunderstanding what I'm suggesting (which is probably my fault, because I wasn't clear).  I had in mind a cap on spending on stuff used by coaches and/or players, but not fans or the general student body.  So the cost to expand a stadium wouldn't be under the cap (though if that new stadium includes a nice locker room, that part of the cost would be under the cap).  A new building open to all students (without any special preference for athletes) wouldn't be covered, but a new building specifically for athletes would be.  Then set the cap high enough that athletes get nice facilities, but low enough to prevent over-the-top spending.

You'd need a good team of lawyers to write the rules, of course.  And schools would try to cheat around the edges.  So it wouldn't be perfect.  But it'd save schools a fair bit of money and wouldn't cut out anything genuinely valuable.