more since they generate dollars above what most scholarship athletes produce.

And I agree, Notre Dame and other high perceived value educational institutions should tout the value of their degree over others more often. That said, are Ivy League players asking for more money than a free ride, though most don't get one, than the student a Directional University.

Most athletic departments operate at a deficit. Pay athletes more if they bring in more money than a replacement athlete...there aren't very many that do.

And why am I being "pretty unreasonable"? Is it just because I disagree with much of your argument? The world is not black and white. The answer is in the gray.

realize the entire system depends on the entire team right? From your viewpoint only a handlful of players drive that value. What would happen if the other 75 decided not to show up for their part time job on 9/23/23 when OSU is in town? I guess their replacement value would look a lot better than it does today.

their tuition, room and board as unskilled non-educated 18-22 year olds and would have to find another school. The high level players would find takers if they agreed to never pull a stunt like that again. The bench riders would have to look for student loans to pay their tuition. They would be out of work. The larger point is it would never happen so it's a straw man argument.

WAR or Wins Above Replacement is a great concept. Small market MLB teams in baseball that don't have unlimited budgets to buy and trade players, use it to remain competitive. The Tampa Bay Rays and Cleveland Indians are solid examples of the validity of the approach.

If all Notre Dame needs is a bunch of 2-3 star guys, maybe Tyrone Willingham should be brought in as a consultant. As I recall. he was great at identifying guys to fill a roster and not so good at getting the star guys. How did that turn out?

shit, go to NMSU, UNM, or a similar school for damn near free.

our football team and what they would be able to do in terms of going to college.



Also does not sound like you have a very high opinion of the athletes at ND off the field or court.

and everything to do with the ridiculous example of 70 football players walking out on playing a game. If they did that, yes, most would have a tough time righting their proverbial ship.

I have a very high opinion of ND athletes. I do not have a high opinion of players that would do what you suggested.

nobody is tuning in for 7 on 7.

don't be dense; just because you don't value their contribution as much as you likely should doesn't make them overcompensated, it simply means that you don't calculate their worth the same way others can and do. Now, go ahead and convince me that Jack Swarbrick deserves the generational wealth that he's been making off of his job.

get docked for the poor vision and ill fated result of the Under Armour relationship. UA is old news and kids don't like their shoes. At best, they are a third choice for athletic footwear. It hurts recruiting.

so you'll take the money from Jack and give it to whom? The school? The poor? Lower tuitions?




What a fantasy land you live in.

or to hire a dedicated trainer for basketball. Make up your mind, is Swarbrick over-compensated or fairly/under compensated? You want it both ways.

swarbrick is paid what the market will bear.

Boy, you are dense.

you have a liberal arts education, right?

My argument has been consistent all along; yours is the one that has changed, similar to how the NCAA changes and pivots when caught.

and like the NCAA, you will lose the argument. Mainly because you don't really know how to honestly and coherently articulate a point, but more importantly because you're simply wrong. Not one shred of a point in any of your posts. 100% and completely wrong.

market decide. Your early "market demand" comment was laughable. Some of your other comments ping ponged all over the place. Should I cut and paste a few? Your argument has always been...JT is right. Irishdog80 is wrong. The truth is somewhere in the middle and thus some of my subtle changes. My basic tenets have remained the same.

I've said that the NCAA problems should not be solved by the athletes, it should be the NCAA. Since the NCAA is a membership driven organization and not simply a bunch of individual schools, that makes sense. It does not make sense for the athletes to solve the NCAA's problems; there is absolutely nothing in it for them.

There's no waffling, you just are not very smart.

Read an article about the change in mindset when you refer to a job as low wage not low skill. One of the examples was being a line cook at a restaurant in NYC where they have skills I dont but those skills dont draw a wage.

The poster does not value the skills here and the value they generate for everyone else.

For me a system where Kirk Herbstreit and Chris Fowler get millions to talk about kids playing a game for a scholarship is just wrong.

major sports network was a client. At dinner one night with a Senior Vice President for the company, he expressed frustration at some of the negotiations he was having with their announcers. His comment, and I am paraphrasing it a bit, was, "No one tunes into a game to listen to XYZ announcer. They are there to watch the game." That said, he understood that some broadcasters provided unique insight that had value but he felt most were over paid for their work and could be replaced.

Today's world has also changed for "line cooks" with the emergence of celebrity chefs, cooking competitions and other chances to improve your lot. More and more Americans appreciate the skill it takes to craft a great meal.

I value the skills provided by college athletes and recognize the scholarship and other benefits they receive is fair compensation for most. Those that deserve more, can now get it through NIL relationships.

it's basically one guy saying, "I don't value what you do, therefore you should be happy with whatever your employer decides to give you."

That's just not the way things work in this country.

not value your contribution to the company, you have the freedom to seek better employment and a higher salary with an organization that appreciates your work. If it turns out other companies do not have the same high opinion that you do for yourself, some introspection and hard work can change your path. The same applies to student-athletes. You are always free to leave if you feel there are better opportunities for you at another school...that is the beauty of the new transfer rules. If you want to stay and get "more money", athletes now have NIL...let the market determine your worth.

prevent athletes from being able to make those moves. In fact the changes you are complaining about coming about as the system moves toward what you are saying is the way it shoud work.

I am honestly baffled about what you believe. Part time but not part time. Overpaid with a a scholarship but should get a living wage.

Sports in our society have changed significantly in the last 40 years. No longer are MLB / NFL / NBA players required to have "real jobs" in the offseason to the pay their bills. You want to compare college football and basketball to minor league baseball bit of course they generate billions more in revenue than minor league baseball.

not. For some athletes, due to their family background, the scholarship "pays them" more than enough. Some college athletes come from less privileged backgrounds and need a "living wage" to bring them up to their fellow classmates and athletes level.

"In fact the changes you are complaining about coming about as the system moves toward what you are saying is the way it shoud work." Not sure what you are trying to say in this one.

The top tier of college sports generates a lot of revenue. There are 893 schools playing football. I assure you most are not making money.

I get it. Viewed through the prism of the money sports in college athletics, it makes perfect sense the players deserve more. Viewed in the context of entire athletic departments and budgets for non-revenue sports, the "pay the players" argument gets less sensible.

Go back to October 15, 1988. Catholics v. Convicts #1 v #4. Lou Holtz was mking something like $300,000 ($762,000 adjusted for inflation) as the head coach. Tickets were $21 ($53.40 adjusted for inflation).

Last year Freeman made somewhere in the neighborhood of 7 million reportedly. Tickets for the worst games had face values that were more than the inflation adjusted price of that game and for the best games were 6 times higher in some cases.

The University has raised hundreds of millions of dollars to expand the Stadium not once but twice. They have raised millions of dollars to build practice facilities for the team indoor and outdoor plus the amenities around the Gug. This is going on at every school to some degree or another and if they chose they could share revenue like every other major sport does in one way or another.

Assuming it is true there is not "enough money to play the athletes" it is because the Universities have chosen to spend the money on other things.

for not fixing the unpaid labor trick-bag they now find themselves in with the legal system and the professional league of CFB they've been operating for years.

Their hand will be forced on this issue anyways. Hopefully.

They have:

A. Preferential admissions for student-athletes. Like, very preferential (although still requiring pretty decent academics given how high the standards for normal admissions are to start).

B. Need-based aid available regardless of athlete status that is so generous that it ends up benefiting significant numbers of student-athletes.

The stories of someone's neighbor's brother's cousin who makes $1 million a year but had their kid go to Princeton for free because he's so good at football are self-serving fabrications.

My wife coached in the Ivy League for a decade. I currently work in the Ivy League. My social circle is largely comprised of Ivy League coaches. The stories about stealth athletic scholarships are simply not how it works.

Preferred admissions for athletes is definitely under fire at some Ivies…also likely the reason Stanford tried to cut half its athletics programs.