Just from CFB revenue sharing http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/f...venue-Distribution-by-Conference_20180430.pdf that is just from the tv deal not including ticket sales, merchandising, Booster donations etc
NCAA read the writing on the wall
- Thread starter Duck_walk
- Start date
http://media.arkansasonline.com/news/documents/2016/05/08/budget3.pdf
The entire athletic budget summarized
The entire athletic budget summarized
You're making a major error here. List tuition prices are fiction, and an awful way to evaluate what a college tuition costs or is worth.
What really matters is the average price that Mizzou actually charges to out of state kids. It's nowhere near $40k.
"Merit scholarships" issued by a college aren't real money; they are simply discounts in the price expected for their service. List tuitions are like list prices at a hospital; they are the opening round of negotiations for the actual price.
1 M a school in lower tier conferences isn't enough to put a lot of them in the black.
And this should be considered heavily at risk; the Power 5 / ND could easily break away and remove this subsidy. The value to the CFP of, say, North Texas is approximately $0. They are lucky that the NCAA is giving them this subsidy.
How do you figure? Also my post had nothing to do with "Amateurism" it pertained to the dead of college sports and the NCAA.
They're inherently tied together.
The current NCAA regime largely made sense in a world where amateurism was the model.
When you move into the world we are in, where SEC football is a professional sport played by full time athletes in world class facilities to be broadcast on TV via conference negotiated TV deals to millions of people for millions of dollars per game, with a large % of the players training to move on to the major league (the NFL) of course the regulator designed to oversee amateurism would eventually have to change how it operates.
In 2019, the truth is that the Power 5 and Notre Dame clearly have more power than the NCAA, and if they wanted to break away, they would be able to do so. What is the NCAA going to do, have a second championship that is won by Memphis?
They don't want to screw up their precious tax exemptions and the rules that have historically allowed them to not pay the players, so they play along enough, but they've already carved themselves out what matters via the TV deals and the rules for how they pick the champion. They took the cash and the title for themselves.
Last edited:
Yes that is exactly what I said NCAA and College sports are going to disappear. If these athletes are going to start getting paid the NCAA will go to the wayside and Agents will be taking the place of the NCAA (changing the way it operates) and colleges will most likely not have the money to sustain these massive programs. so European type clubs will form. If we are basing these decisions on money then you will have to be an athlete with a regular revenue stream to help finance or buy into the clubs as well as being talented.
I understand your point, however, I strongly disagree.
So my question to you is if you have an untethered system (like it sounds like you're proposing). how do you control (or support would be a better word) athletes from being swindled by Boosters or other money giving bodies who would try to deceive? You know the Schools and the boosters are going to have lawyers and the like to evaluate all dealings. What will the prospective athlete have in his corner? Are we going to allow Agents? Are those agents going to shop around to other schools for better deals? Can those kids sit out to go in the portal if their agent finds a better market? There is just a lot of questions that can screw kids, coaches etc that we haven't even considered.
The other question then I have for you. Since you propose that these athletes be fully able to profit untethered what happens to the programs (I'm assuming you have no problem with the portal or transfer rules since it is free and open) when these kids leave? will they (the program) take a hit on their APR? So know you are looking at affecting a program not the money but the program and multitudes of peoples well being, Coaches, S&C, Admin Asst, ADs etc based off what we don't know yet...
So sorry if we disagree but I think a let's figure this out approach is better than let's go hog wild and you can get any and all money you can get approach.
Honestly,
If I was in charge I would do 3 things that i think would assist in living conditions of student athletes and I think would assist in making an easy transition:
1. Up the current Stipend (most of the country it's 2-5K a year). I would say find out what the average part time college worker can make and use that as a stipend $500-800/Month and make it universal..
2. Set up a Trust fund. If you are enrolling at the school, and you graduate (3+ years at the school) you walk away with a $20,000 - $40,000 Trust. If you don't graduate that money goes back in the schools cauffers and if you transfer in, you get a pro-rated version of that depending on your length at the school.
3. Set up 3 autograph/picture dates for each sport while at other sporting events (i.e. Basketball teams at a football game), allow those kids to make whatever they can make during that 2 or so hour window off their likeness.
To me, you make a very nice amount of money, you can do things and feel like you have the money to do it and if you are not NFL, NBA, MLB etc player at the end you have a good trust to fall back on.
Complaints?
Gripes?
There are two problems with the NCAA pay structure right now:
- Pay is limited to some cap
- Everyone gets paid the same
A real solution has to address the second problem, not just the first one. You can't offer all players at Mizzou, Alabama, and Illinois the exact same pay. An autograph window is not a solution to the second problem.
Agents already exist, they are called AAU coaches, parents, etc. They're already selling kids to the highest bidder. Did you sleep through the Adidas trials?
The "European club" stuff makes no sense. This doesn't work without the brand of the big universities. It's a symbiotic relationship. People aren't going to support the "St. Louis 18-22 year old football club" they are here to support their alma mater, the University of Missouri. Plus no big university is going to play games against those clubs.
The infrastructure advantage they have is too high. Heck, we can't even get a minor league professional football league set up with 10s of millions behind it. The idea that "european clubs" are going to overtake the big universities is silly.
Also, you're going to have to have rules around transfers/contracts/pay agreements, and the concept of APR/maintaining eligibility is somewhat of a joke anyway.
Who is the last decent CFB player to miss a semester for academic failure at Alabama? At Florida? At Clemson? It's a joke.
You clearly do not know what you are talking about when it comes to European clubs. its over your head so do not argue about it.
Also The Adidas Trails arent even the same thing, I am talking real paid agents that will end up managing everything for these kids and carry with them to pros.
The agent thing is a challenge but I’d rather people have above the table agents than a scummy AAU coach.
Dude what are you talking about with Euro clubs? The only thing over ones head here is this bizarre idea that college football teams are magically going to be replaced by some brand new sports teams. What happens is the college programs will evolve into something that is even more like a pro sports league than the current set up. Alabama college football is going to be more even like a franchise than it is now.
If it made sense for this to happen it would have already happened when a competitor league could have paid players amounts that the schools and their boosters couldn’t publicly match.
the much more plausible scenario is the P5 and ND continue to evolve away from the rest of college athletics, potentially moving to a league where only the top 60 teams play each other.
no one is going to fund euro clubs. They future is going to be Boone Pickens/OSU on steroids - huge funding for already extant programs.
Everything you propose is designed to limit the earning power of the athletes. Give them a little, appease them, get them to quit griping and filing lawsuits. If someone wants to pay me to sign my name...I should be able to take the money. It's not that difficult.
The only way the players won't continue to get screwed is to form a union that will look out for their interests.
Everyone is forgetting all the universities have to do to not pay a kid is take there name and picture off of the merch... If you buy Burks number 24 jersey and it doesn't have his name on it the university will just say they bought number 24 not Marvin's jersey.
My daughter has a bunch of friends in her sorority at Mizzou that are from Illinois and most of them pay about that amount. They rent apartments and don't live in them for the spring semester and summer of their freshman years because the discount to in state tuition pays for the apartment pretty easily. Once they establish residency they are good for the next 3 years, but it you don't establish residency then you are the hook for that amount. Every college is different, but I know that is the case at Mizzou. I do know there are out of state scholarships especially to those whose parent are alumni that also discount the out of state tuition. I know Arkansas has border counties. So if you live in a county that borders the state, they will charge you in state tuition.
Either way you cut it, players are being given money for their services for the most part.
so now the players can take ownership of their own image and possible compensation. a win for the man/woman putting their health at risk so we can be entertained.
Sure, but not something resembling a market price, especially for the higher end players.
Well, its not like they have been conscripted. They are all there voluntarily aren't they? What about what it costs the taxpayer (and others voluntarily) to provide the platform for them to hone and display their abilities on?
Seems to me the real answer is to take away the NFL'S anti-trust exemption unless they do away with the stupid rule that says player's aren't employable right out of high school. Talk about a self-serving rule. What they are really saying is, "Let someone else pay for developing our future supply of players and weed out many who would be bad investments." There is the answer for those who want the money and not the education.
What really concerns me is what is to stop the guarantee of x$$ in likeness money if you come play for us?
I'll make a deal with you: we're going to take your job and mandate that everyone who works it gets paid the same X forever, because all of the potential employers are part of a cartel.
This is the problem with the NCAA model. It was a fine deal when it was all amateurs, and it remains a great deal below the top 50-60 schools. But, as is, it's effectively a cartel that allows them to get around paying the labor its true value. It only works because the regulators allow them to act in a way that private employers would never be able to.
The NFL has to negotiate with its union about work rules and the split of the $$$, so there is a power structure that gives a weight to the players that does not exist in college athletics.
How would an autograph/picture etc window not fix the problem of everyone getting paid the same????
If you go to Mizzou or Alabama, are you going to pay the same for Kelly Bryant or Tua's autograph/picture etc as you would for Yasir Durant or Jedrick Wills (pretty good OL)?.. Thus solving for the second problem.
My question is why can't you offer all players the same pay as a base pay? They can earn more money if they sell themselves well at Those autograph session...I'm not getting that part of your argument.
This isn't volunteering, it's working. We understand in the real world that employers, if they cooperate, have an imbalance of power over individual workers, which is why we have laws mandating basic labor protections and rules limiting their ability to cooperate to suppress pay. Amateurism is a sham that allows them to get around labor laws for professional football players
You do realize that you are making this a minor league and we already have a perfect example to prove that point is minor league baseball. The minor leagues do bring out fans across the country, but the sport gets a tiny fraction of the attention and television coverage that college football enjoys. Baseball as a sport is still popular, but when sports are taken down a notch from the top professional level, they need something like the pride and pageantry of college football to compete with the big leagues.
Two reasons:
1. It's dumb to pay people like this. Just pay them directly. Are you going to make the Waltons stand in autograph lines to pay the Arkansas football team $50k a pop? Just pay them directly and cut out the nonsense
2. Autograph sessions are about collecting a little bit of money from a number of people. The core issue is that millions are coming from sponsors/TV deals that aren't being used to fund a market price for talent. Is NBC going to stand in the autograph line for Notre Dame players?
I get the idea, but the whole point of saying "players should be paid for their labor" is that players should be directly paid, not "guys should get a convoluted way to get a little cash on the side"
RE: allowing younger people in the draft
I'm not necessarily opposed to that, but I think everyone knows that there's a huge gap between the body of an 18 year old and the body of a 22 year old who has spent 4 years in a college weight room.
Could you let some people leave earlier? Sure. But the average player needs some of the college FB time, and the current setup generates so much more money than a minor league for the NFL ever would. Both sides recognize the value of keeping CFB as the feeder league to the NFL
I'm not necessarily opposed to that, but I think everyone knows that there's a huge gap between the body of an 18 year old and the body of a 22 year old who has spent 4 years in a college weight room.
Could you let some people leave earlier? Sure. But the average player needs some of the college FB time, and the current setup generates so much more money than a minor league for the NFL ever would. Both sides recognize the value of keeping CFB as the feeder league to the NFL
CFB already is the minor leagues. Just a very high revenue one. Look at how they operate. These kids are there to play football first and foremost in a way that generates a ton of revenue and publicly.
They aren't paying Nick Saban a gazillion dollars because he supports the pedagogical goals of the State of Alabama.
Getting paid $25k when you should get paid $250k if the market set the price is getting screwed.
But you can not have college experience with professional pay though. If the NFL would expand the practice squads, develop kids there and then play them in a few years.
Where does this magic idea come from that there is some mythical college experience that is harmed by paying kids. What is going to be different? These kids live and breathe football as is. They spend summers in the weight room, evenings in coaching sessions, etc.
Come on out into the real world, where the top 50 schools run professional sports teams that just happen to be located on a college campus. The only thing that changes is people actually get paid to be a part of them.
The NFL doesn't want to run 50 person practice squads. If this made sense and improved their profits, they'd have done it 20 years ago. The big schools make so much money that they want to keep being the minor leagues. Everyone involved recognizes that the NCAA operates the most profitable minor league in existence and that a substantive change that tries to replace CFB with a private league is flushing billions of dollars of revenue down a toilet. The only question is how do you split the revenue pie.
From Forbes a few years ago
Despite recent claims that college football players are "oppressed" and "undervalued" relative to the revenues they generate for their universities, I argue using "cost of attendance" and "projected earnings" data that the average "value" of a college football scholarship is in excess of $2 million for student-athletes who (1) play for one of the pre-season Top 25 schools and (2) would not have pursued a college degree if it weren't for their scholarship.
And for over 99% of Division I FBS college football players on scholarship, this projected value in excess of $2 million is far greater than what any of them INDIVIDUALLY generate in revenue for their school.
Here, here!! The royalties have been nice. Cant retire on em though!
This is a lazy, lousy argument.
Let's extrapolate this into something meaningful: if we can create $2 M per person of value by putting all of these kids onto college campuses, why aren't capitalists flocking to fund the attendance of all sorts of other kids at colleges in exchange for a share of their future earnings?
The answer is the number is total nonsense. The only way the number makes sense is if you're saying that colleges should get to take a large share of the NFL earnings of CFP players, too.
What’s wrong with college athletes being able to market themselves and make the highest wage they can negotiate????
That’s kind of the premise that has made the USA the greatest country on Earth
You or someone on here said they could make more working at McDonalds. If they turn that opportunity down then I guess its because they think the schollie is a better deal than working at McDonalds. Its a voluntary deal. They could skip college and go be a G-Man. Again, its a voluntary deal, they are in the driver's seat.
If anyone should be complaining its suckers like me that weren't good enough to get a D-1 offer. I didn't even get a chance to not volunteer.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Smith files motion to drop all charges against Trump- Latest: Toots_mcgee
