In reply to: Oh, well if you truly doubt it then... posted by FL_Irish
who are there so the Univeristy can profit off them in a way the really good student on scholarship is not expected to benefit the University. They also are forced to sacrifice other aspects of the college experience due to the requirements of their "part-time" job.
What would your view be if NCAA schools required students awarded an academic scholarship to work 55 hours a week one semester and 20 hours a week another semster and then stay around for the summer take classes and work for 20 hours a week?
I do not profess to have a silver bullet for the "NIL" situation and fully agree some level of compensation is long overdue yet with the system being also abused, but as an example, a classmate was the first female 4.0 CHEG graduate....and also captained an elite WSOC team that could have won an NC. Women's soccer did not derive a single dollar of revenue from my student game attendance as a free sport, yet many of these fellow alumni have become very successful after; to paraphrase Ike's "I want a man for a dangerous mission. Send me a West Point football player", I may amend to please let me work with the Olympics sports walk-on who woke up at 5am when no one on campus was watching, yet also graduated & became a successful doctor, businessperson, teacher etc. This might be my blue & gold tinted glasses, but I do think ND has done an incredible job with the sports out of the limelight but whom end up wonderful representatives of our University, and no problem whatsoever on my end with them getting scholarships and some sort of monetary compensation.
with the way the Univeristy has supported the non-revenue sports since I graduated.
non-revenue sports.
understand it, maintaining an academic scholarship requires performance commensurate with the reward. If you don't achieve, the money goes away. The University also grants academic scholarships with the belief having quality students benefits the university in terms of prestige and, likely, hoped for alumni dollars down the line from a high achieving and thankful alumni.
You make a good point. Clearly my "part time" reference hit a raw nerve for some. With 20 varsity sports at Notre Dame, many do not require a full time year round commitment thus my reference.
players.
do explain. And when you're explaining, use the math. And don't pull up your bullshit numbers of what it might cost to go buy some t shirts at the store, go ahead and figure out how much it actually costs the school. Same with tuition, room and board, etc. Actual cost to the school, not what it would cost the individual.
If you're going to make that sort of claim, you had better be able to back it up.
Hint: Notre Dame football turned a 50 plus million dollar profit last year, IIRC. They aren't losing money on ANY of these kids. What a bullshit argument.
for the third string offensive guard.
...clue about what they require? Are you aware, for example, that there are non-revenue sports that compete in both the Fall and Spring semesters?
Lay your cards on the table. Both and I jt are of the opinion that is fairly obvious you have no meaningful exposure to Division I athletics based on some of your statements. Prove us wrong. What is your exposure? Which of the sports do not require a full-time year round commitment?
Do you have any actual evidence to offer? Or are we still stuck in the land of what you "truly believe"?
in both semesters. And for what it's worth I have cousins that were D1 athletes on both sides of the family...Big Ten football on my side, Ivy League and mid-major on my wife's. Also have cousin's that are a former D1 head football coach and another that is a current Commissioner of a D1 Conference...smaller schools. I have worked most of my career in trademark licensing working with major television networks, sports associations, and minor leagues. What are your's and JT's references?
I consider full time 12 months a year, 40 hours a week or the equivalent.
…year as you? If so, let me suggest that your relatives’ experience of what it was like to be a Division I athlete in the early 1980s may not be terribly representative of what things are like almost half a century later.
My wife has spent her entire career in college athletics in the Big Ten, Big 12, and Ivy League. I also work in higher education. As a result of my wife’s career, I am frequently asked to mentor student-athletes. I see on a daily basis what the life of a Division I student-athlete is currently like.
I played college football, both at the big school and small school level. I coached high school football for over a decade, and I also coached youth football for over a decade. My dad was a teacher and coach for over 40 years at various levels. I have had several players play in the NFL and one drafted into the NFL. I have immediate family members currently participating in NCAA athletics. I have relationships with a few dozen current division one football players. I have relatives who have coached NCAA football, my godfather was a coach in the NFL and NCAA for years, and I have numerous contacts in and around NCAA football, Major league baseball, college baseball, as well as trainers (basically the new middlemen) throughout the country. For the record, these specific references have been shared with the board ops of this board. I don't know about your second cousin who played D1 (or what sport that was), or what your wife's relatives have to do with this discussion, but my guess is that you either didn't speak to them very much about their situation or you did and you just didn't take much from it.
Nobody else in the country is expected to work 12 months a year, 40 hours a week with no vacation, holiday, etc. Your standards are higher than the IRS', for example.
your point of view. Please tell me what college athletes or any athlete, for that matter, that work 12 months a year, 40 hours a week with no vacation or holiday?
With respect to college athletic scholarships, I believe there should be more of them across the board...revenue and non-revenue sports. Universities are the proverbial plane, it is leaving town full or not full and it basically costs the same for the airline either way. Yes, universities, and especially Notre Dame with it's significant endowment, can "afford" to provide more scholarships and it would likely be to the school's benefit to do so.
Bottom line, for most 18-22 year olds making the equivalent of anywhere from $35,000 to over $100,000 per year is a god send and getting an education while you hone your craft in your chosen sport is an added bonus. If you want to get on your soap box, go do it for minor league baseball and hockey players or golfers trying to make it on the tour. College athletes have it better than all of them.
understanding. That's your definition of full time, which is more stringent than the IRS' definition. You're completely clueless--go look up the actual definition of full time and come back to me. Or don't. Either is fine with me. I find it humorous that you claim that athletes shouldn't get money but yet provide no alternative (other than pulling money from endowments for more scholarships) as to whom should get more money. I can only conclude that you feel that Gene Smith, Jack Swarbrick, Brian Kelly, and guys like that deserve the money. Great. You can keep propping up those kinds of guys. Does not bother me.
You are entitled to your opinion about my claims, that's fine. I don't care one way or the other if you believe me. If it bothers you so and you think that I am exaggerating, feel free to click the "report post" button and type a message to board ops. They know me and how to get in touch with me.
scholarship and other added benefits is generous "compensation" for student-athletes. Some, due to their performance on the field or unique appeal to the market, deserve additional dollars through either NIL or some other legal NCAA method. I never said "athletes shouldn't get money". Yes, full time is 30 hours a week by the strict IRS definition. Then there is this...Student-athletes are only allowed to dedicate a maximum four hours per day, 20 hours per week during the season with one day off and eight hours per week in the offseason with two days off..
During the summer vacation period, student-athletes may not participate in any countable athletically related activities. Strength and conditioning coaches may design and conduct specific workout programs for student-athletes, provided such workouts are voluntary and conducted at the request of the student-athlete.
The paying of student-athletes is a bigger issue than Notre Dame. Please explain what you would do if you were the Athletic Director at St. Francis University or similar institution. Also tell me what you would say to the student-athletes that have a dwindling universe of places they can ply their trade.
I would need to adjust or risk going out of business. That's what st Francis is doing. That's the way the market works. Exactly why should that be a concern to other athletes? I can see why other schools should care, but not athletes. Maybe notre Dame should chip in some of their nearly 100 million in profit between football and men's basketball?
As to the other athletes who might be losing opportunities, I again ask why that is a concern for football and men's basketball athletes? Seems like a problem for the schools to figure out, but of course they don't have to because rubes like yourself give them an out by demanding socialism for the athletes and free market for the schools.
when I read the St. Francis College posts.
I'm guessing irishdog80 in real life probably fashions himself as some sort of fiscal conservative as well.
"market demand" earnings of others. Pick a lane. And nothing wrong with being a Socially Liberal/Fiscal Conservative like most Independent voters in America.
Long term, if D1 college football players get paid like some on here are saying, it will all boil down to 25-30 college teams playing high minor league feeder level football and waning interest in the rest of the programs. Half empty stadiums at those programs with people paying $5-10 per ticket to watch games between a bunch of no name/nondescript players. Non-revenue sports will become club level for most schools. And I'm not even going down the path of concerns about concussions and other injuries impacting the sport of football in general. It's a slippery slope.
that the star players can play the games by themselves. That's not how this works. I know, it's hard to believe irishdog80, but they even have rules and everything. Referees too! Hey, if those "non-star" athletes won't get paid as much, so be it. If there ends up being some sort of labor agreement which results in some type of salary cap with only so much money available, I'm sure that the stars will generate a high % of the cap (kind of like, oh I don't know, the NFL).
That's how these things work.
Now, it would be kind of silly for NFL players to decide to give up some of their money in order to ensure that the WNBA players got a fair wage, right? I mean, if they wanted to do that and agreed to it, that would be one thing. But to have you or your comrade Czar airborneirish come in and demand that they do it strikes me as kind of odd and likely illegal. And yet, here we are.
If running a business legally (which includes paying the labor, just like the micks got paid for helping build the railroads back in the day) means that there are only 25-30 teams, that's life in the big city. If the schools determine that there is worth in having more teams, they can find a way to subsidize those smaller market teams (like the NFL and MLB have done with their revenue sharing programs and tax systems for higher spending teams). If it would result in more money overall to have more programs, I'm sure that something could and would be worked out.
That's the way business works. And yet, you want to sit here and pontificate over what "might" happen and claim that it is the athletes ethical responsibility to give up money while the school's get to have bloated staff, pay their athletic department employees whatever the going rate is, etc.
foolish.
thrive in the wild, wild, west you envision. Plenty of money flowing into the coffers, rabid fan base, etc.
I also had the joy...I kid...of going to 3 home games during Brian Kelly's masterpiece, his 2016 season. Paid good money to see the Irish lose to Michigan State...it was almost a laugher, but not for me..., the Duke game...nothing like it, watch your team lose to an academic peer school that stinks at football, good times... and the Stanford game...bonehead special by Kelly. Once the dike breaks, if it truly does like some of you envision--revenue sharing with players--more seasons like 2016 are likely unless a cold-blooded, in a good way, approach is taken by everyone involved with Notre Dame football. If you don't, the Fighting Irish become the Chicago Bears or Detroit Lions and middle along--something sort of fun to do a Saturday afternoon in this case.
The labor is paid...scholarships and other benefits--much better than the minor leagues for every other professional sport. NIL is in it's nascent stages and will ultimately have a positive impact--the whole world of endorsements is barely touched by most programs. And the sport of college football is overall healthy. Agents and profiteers want the unfettered world of revenue sharing for 18-22 year old athletes. In time, NIL and some form of basic "salary" of $10-15,000 range on top of their scholarship and benefits will work for the good of all which is good for self.
On another note, are you familiar with any corporations that guarantee 4 years of income even if you are unable to perform the position you were "hired" for due to underperforming? Would Notre Dame have to cease offering that sort of "benefit" if everything changes?
income, even if the employee is unable to perform the duties.
Have you ever heard of major league baseball?
Have you ever heard of amortized signing bonus'?
Have you ever heard of Bobby Bonilla?
You really are quite dumb.
revenues and pay all of the employees equally...guaranteed? If your company, if you have one, had a windfall amount with profits that exceeded expectations, are you planning on giving it all equally to your employees?
I have no idea what you're referring to.
I never mentioned anything about what pay or revenue split should be, you moron.
amount of money ND football makes. You have suggested that "revenue sharing" is the only fair route to compensate college football players and especially at Notre Dame. I am thus led to believe JT Corporation or whatever entity you work for or own must immediately vest all of it's employees in "revenue sharing" for the company and pays them salaries commensurate with last year's profits. Are you saying, revenue sharing is fine for other guys, but not yours?
Again, stop with your straw man approach to your narrative. I have never said the players shouldn't get any money. I have said they are largely more than fairly compensated with a tax free full ride to a premier educational institution, other perks and benefits...clothing, improved food, free tutoring, etc. and that NIL, run properly, will allow players to earn money that far exceeds NFL rookie dollars. I also believe all college and high school athletes should be able to go "pro" whenever the market "demands" it. Tennis players, figure skaters, gymnasts, etc. can turn pro at 14-16 or whenever, why not college football players? And I find your name calling comical and a bit sad.
I am getting the impression if you really put specifics and numbers to your half-baked plan, you would begin to realize it's shortcomings and that doesn't fit your preferred narrative. It's a slippery slope and most Notre Dame athletes and students wouldn't like it.
the players. Back out scholarship values, then the rest is cash-money.
agreement are not guaranteed. Or are you too dim to realize we are talking football here? You avoid the real question and instead answer the question you want to answer.
Your half-baked idea of "revenue sharing" by the players starts to fall apart when the details come into play. Let's play your half-witted game. Notre Dame signs a class of 22-25 players. Your buddy Mr. E. says they should be paid around $440,000 per year as each players share of "revenue"--a pretty generous amount for an 18 year old. The real value of their agreement, according to your cockeyed vision is $1,760,000 guaranteed. Multiply the guaranteed amount times 25 players and it equals $44,000,000 in booked dollar commitments by the Notre Dame Athletic Department for each recruiting class. Beyond the ridiculousness of Mr.E's number, what do you suggest as a economically feasible approach to maintain the integrity of Notre Dame's historical offer of a 4 year scholarship?
On another note, who negotiates on the player's behalf? Do Agents become part of the high school football experience?
And you still haven't answered the question of how much do FCS football players get or D2, D3 or NAIA? They are all putting in the same "hours" in most cases. How should they be compensated? Or shouldn't they other than the scholarships and other benefits they receive?
the NFL salary structure and compensation method was also collectively bargained, as was free agency, the draft, OTA's, etc. The signing bonus and the guaranteed money aspect of their deals has become the main focus, not the annual salary.
What exactly is your point?
through your MLB reference that the boneheaded Bobby Bonilla deal is the norm...it is an outlier and cautionary tale for any organization investing in their "team". In some cases...Michael Jordan's mega-contract with the Bulls...a team will pay the player for past performance. I get it...the MLB reference fit your narrative. Funny.
Are you saying Notre Dame signees will be cuttable or will they get a guaranteed 4 year agreement as they currently receive? Would they be cut at the end of "training camp"? Will the roster be cut down to 55 or so like the professional leagues?
And, I would hardly call that pay for past performance since he did win championships in those years.
The Bobby Bonilla deal was a Madoff-related boneheaded decision only in retrospect. If Madoff wasn't running a Ponzi scheme and was truly a Buffett-like investor then it would have been a brilliant move.
And, NFL salaries have been trending in the direction of guaranteed money which the owners have been fighting against. But, it appears, for the moment, that the market is winning and the guarantees are trickling down beyond just the true superstars. I would predict that within the next 20 years nearly all NFL contracts (at least non-rookie contracts) will be 75%-80% guaranteed money if not fully guaranteed.
was characterized by Jerry Reinsdorf, conveniently, and Chicago media as payment for past performance--the $30,000,000 one year agreement. Jordan signed for $33 million for the next season. In each case, his pay was nearly double what the next closest NBA player was making...and again, I agree, MJ was wildly underpaid though that is partially 20/20 hindsight given today's agreements.
Also consider that Bonilla's original agreement for $29,000,000 over 5 years was the richest contract in team sports at the time. Bonilla was good, but he was not Michael Jordan level good.
The salary cap in the NFL will continue to have the biggest impact on the direction of new contracts. General Managers are paid to figure out ways around the cap. Guaranteed dollars stretched out over a longer period of time and pay tied to performance seem to be trends.
But of course you know that. You don't include the entire definition because you are a dishonest mick.
Nobody can accuse you of exaggerating your claims. “I have non-immediate family members who played college sports during the Carter administration” is about as weak a claim to expertise as I can fathom.
This has been swell. As noted, I think it’s perfectly possible to make a cogent argument that scholarships are adequate compensation for almost all student-athletes. I would suggest that you make that argument without resort to the ridiculous claim that being a Division I student-athlete is a part-time commitment. Anyone with 5 minutes experience of college athletics in the 21st century can tell you have no clue what you’re talking about when it comes to the demands on modern student-athletes. And what those demands entail has been broken down for you on a day-to-day basis repeatedly in this thread.
I have current connections regarding the relevant part of my major point, paying athletes beyond their scholarships and appropriate and legal other compensation is not sustainable for most college athletic programs. Add in that for many sports the athlete's time is part time, not full time, and you have a system that currently works for most schools and their athletes.
And are you JT? Or JT's answer guy? Lighten up Francis.
Take a look at Colgate's list of sports. Let me know which are full time, or, if it's easier, part time. Full time is described as 12 months a year, 40 hours a week commitment with time off only for holidays as necessary...I recognize there can be some holiday tournaments, etc.
have consistentyly been making.
Read back through your posts you were stating two things repeatedly.
1. D-1 athletes are pt workers at best and only during the season if that
2. Based upon the fact they are part time workers at best they are over compensated by their scholarship except for the few exceptional players.
If you want to have a conversation about the overall impact that is a legitimate one to have and I recognize there will be fall out from a change and happy to engage in a conversation about that but that is not what you have been pushing in this thread.
We can't pay them they're amateur athletes
Becomes
They're getting plenty given the value of the scholarship
Becomes
It's not a full time job
Becomes
Athletic departments will shut down
Becomes
We will have to stop girls sports. Why do you hate title 9?
Becomes
The NFL should pay (the only idea that actually has merit)
Etc. It's all a way of saying, "they don't deserve it, the schools do. Jack Swarbrick does."
exist in 10 years but the we should not continue with an inequitable system simply because we like it and its the way it has always been.
Football will likely be 40 schools. Basketball seems most likely to stay somewhat close to what it is today perhaps with fewer schools. I have no idea what non-revenue sports will look like because it will depend on large part what atletic departments will do.
Look at the athletic department staff list I linked below. I would guess a lot of those people are making more than 6 figures and how many layers of employees are below these people?
For the record I am not faulting these folks their career choices and I am not saying there dont work hard or provide value to the University. However, when you see all these people we can afford to pay but cant afford to pay the athletes it seems a little odd.
The fact also remains the Univrsity has plenty of cash to function without collecting the tuition they lose from scholarships to athletes.
if they make the changes I am suggesting, it will likely cost me some money.
I could be a selfish mick jerk like irishdog80 and try and maintain the status quo, or I could use my liberal arts education and determine right from wrong and try my best to be on the side of right.
the poor will get poorer. Prove me wrong.
look at the NFL. People were making similar arguments about free agency ruining the game in 1991. A judge even ruled against it, which resulted in limited free agency, and then I believe they collectively bargained for free agency in their next CBA. Their business model, including smaller market teams like Green Bay and Kansas City, has never been stronger.
In the book "Ball Four" Jim Bouton talks about spring training meetings where management would tell the players to avoid talking to Marvin Miller or forming a union because "the reserve clause is what makes the game competitive." Strangely enough, the game has survived over 45 years with free agency. Now, they could do a better job, but the biggest reason it is a mess now is because of how selfish owners were back before free agency.
In fact, Marvin Miller spoke about his greatest fear was a suggestion by Charlie Finley that every play (star and non star alike) would be a free agent at the end of the year. Marvin knew that this was a path to lesser overall salaries for the vast, vast majority of players. However, the other owners hated Finley and ignored him, due to their desire to try and control the stars.
In other words, my man, if you let all of the players be free agents every year (which you seem to be so afraid of) it will drive down salaries and income for the vast majority of players (NIL isn't going to just be an open checkbook, and schools will have to pay out of their sports revenues). Of course, you will have to give up control, which appears to be hard for you. Hell, if there are only 25 to 30 teams, my guess is that the cost of labor would be very, very low. The supply would FAR exceed the demand, and the points on the graph would have to intersect.
My guess is that most schools and athletic department officials foolishly share your concerns and miss the forest through the trees, so most likely we will end up with a situation like MLB.
professional sports versus college sports is that the value of the franchise is part of the equation. The Kansas City Royals stunk it up for 20-25 years. David Glass of Walmart success swoops in and buys the team for $96 million in 2000...there wasn't a lot of interested parties at the time...and then runs the team like Walmart, gets lucky in 2014-2015 and sells the team for $1 Billion in 2019. Nice move for him. The same opportunity exists across all top tier professional leagues. Uber rich guys like buying a team for the fun of it. It is a limited availability and valued asset. They can spend however they please...spend or not spend...and then sell it for a huge profit down the line. University athletic programs do not work in that world.
The Arena Football League was a trademark client back in the day. David Baker...probably the largest human I have ever met in person...was the Commissioner and lead salesman for the AFL. He was a great face for the league and his primary business was selling franchises and building value for the league.
I remember going to the 1998 Arena Bowl in Tampa...the War on I-4...between the Orlando Predators and the Tampa Bay Storm and being at a big pre-game party thrown by the league. Semi-truly rich guys were walking around with their chests puffed out...owners of AFL franchises at the time. Baker was selling them for around $500,000 in 1998. I wondered how sustainable the AFL was. Franchises did increase in value for awhile until financial difficulties hit. Needless to say, it was fun while it lasted for most of the franchise owners and most lost a lot. If you don't keep up on the treadmill, team performance slips, people stop attending the games or watching on tv, ticket prices go down and tv revenue decreases.Becoming a de facto minor league for a monolith like the NFL is a slippery slope.
athletic programs, the athletes don't deserve any money?
So I can start a business and not be able to pay people and they should just accept it? Even when I'm signing billion dollar TV deals and paying my board millions of dollars a year.
You seem to have a limited understanding of fairness here. Would you take less than market value just because your employer couldn't pay you? If you had other options, you might not. Of course, these athletes have no other option, which is kind of a big factor here (which you consistently ignore).
move to Belfast and start blowing shit up?
That works for your people, but the average college football player is trying to make it as a professional, not join the IRA.
they want...go to the NFL, XFL or CFL right out of high school. College isn't for everybody. Play for Alabama, LSU, Ohio State or whatever school is offering more money and might provide a better path to their desired career.
Have you been to Belfast? Why the hate for the Irish and Irish Catholics in particular?
They need to attend class. During the season I think many athletes only take 4 classes so that is 12 hours a week. Assume an average of one hour of work per hour of class. so now you are at 24 hours. They are "limited" to 20 hours per week so now you are up to 44 hours. Add in meeting with coaches, S&C sessions, injury treatment and the like for another hour a day on average which my gut tells me is low you are now at 51 hours. All before you have any game time. Hell the football team for a home game would start at like 4 on Friday and not be released from work until after the game / treatment etc so that would be a good 24 hours there and of course if it is an away game it would be more.
In the off season would it be less yes but I am confident would still be more than 40 hours when you include class / homework which of course is a condition of their "employment" in order to maintain academic standing.
peeves is that many college athletes find it difficult to "work" during the summer. Given that issue, some compensation should be provided so they have money commensurate with what a typical student might earn over a summer.
and they usually go to class as well for a similar amount of time.
for the record, quite a few of them actually do get part time jobs as well, if they need or want extra income. They usually do have a week or so off during the summer to go home or do whatever they want, but my experience is that most of them continue the grind.
Honestly, your statements are really just betraying a lack of true understanding as to what these kids do. I think you should go discuss this with your wife's cousins brother in law who played at the Ivy league level to get an idea. Truly, your comments are bordering on insulting, and I'm sure that you don't mean it to be that way.
They work more than what you think. You should educate yourself. They work harder than Jack Swarbrick, for example.
miners and smoke jumpers work harder and risk their lives, but that doesn't mean they make more money than anybody.
And I thought, based on your earlier comment, athletes work 12 months a year, 40 hours a week with no vacation and aren't allowed to talk to the opposite sex for the entire year...I kid with the last one.
What's insulting about believing that receiving a free education plus myriad other bonuses is a pretty good deal for an 18-22 year old. Yes, Notre Dame makes a lot of money from it's athletic Crown Jewels. I suggest you educate yourself about the plights of hundreds of other schools and the athletes that count on scholarships from those institutions. Think bigger and broader. Open your eyes.
coal miners and smoke jumpers are subject to market demands, athletes aren't.
You're just not being an honest person here in my opinion; intentionally dense, obtuse, and you just won't say the quiet part out loud--you've determined that they're getting enough, and that's that. No room for disagreement.
You need to go check again with your wife's second cousin, twice removed to see what it exactly is that athletes do.
planet do you live on? Market demand is the aggregate of the individual demands for a commodity from purchasers in the marketplace. If more purchasers enter the marketplace and they have the capability to pay for commodities on sale, then the market demand at each cost price degree will increase...it pretty much explains free agency in professional sports and the complicated NIL world the NCAA is facing. Wow, just wow...you really don't understand. I am flabbergasted at your lack of understanding.
And all of my contacts are first cousins or closer. The ones that were on athletic scholarship value the education and experience they had. In many cases, the fact they played sports at a high level made a distinct difference in their career. No complaints. And due to my lengthy time in the world of trademark licensing, I have some insight into today's NIL that exceeds most. Here's a hint...no one cares about or buys a lot of merchandise for lower level athletes and teams. Look at the list of best selling merchandise for the pro leagues...the jersey you bought with JT on the back of a Chiefs jersey does not sell well. Put Mahomes on a Chiefs jersey with his number and you have gold.
Jersey, keep all the money from it, and in return pay for Patrick to live in a dorm, get a few meals, some free clothes to wear, and pay for some classes, and we are all good, right? That's a fair exchange in irishdog80's world because his cousin rowed for Duke in nineteen dickity eight. And if he can generate some sponsorship money he can keep that.
No, of course not. He makes 40 million dollars per year plus whatever endorsement income he gets because that's his market value.
earning NIL money...the system needs to be tweaked and refined, but the basic concept is valid--Mahomes gets the royalties for his Texas Tech jersey with his name on it. College athletes should be able to earn unlimited income from valid licensing deals, endorsements, appearances, etc. I am also for "living wage" as needed for the athletes that come from modest means though, as I understand it, they do get extra dollars for food and "living".
You are the king of the straw man argument. It's weak. Quit claiming I said something I didn't.
handsomely paid for a part time job. You literally said the 2 and 3 star players are overpaid if they dont make it on the field even if they do their part and bust their ass in practice and make the other players better, do all their off the field workouts and contribute to an environment or hard work and succes.
reference. I stand by my comment that, at Notre Dame, an 80K plus benefits equal to around 20K, for an 18-22 year old that does not make the field is "handsomely paid". I would have gladly taken that for myself and my kids as would thousands of other athletes. Tell me how many 18-22 year olds you know that are being paid the equivalent of 100K per year?
People bust their ass in practice at hundreds of smaller college football programs and they get far less and the schools couldn't afford to pay them. Have you ever been to an NAIA football game? Are they working less hard than Notre Dame players? According to you, they should be paid as much as the guys at Notre Dame since they are doing the same work.
as the kid who earns a full ride based upon their academics is elite at what he or she does while my kid and many others are paying tuition.
The fact that tution is "market value" reflects not the true market value of the players but the value that was established by a monoploy that told them that was all they could receive and enforced a whole lot more rules upon them. Look at what the OSU AD said about NIL - it was taking money away from his department. That shows you there are revenues that were previously going to the school for them to use as they wanted and they were not paying the talent.
Do you think the fans value the players or the random person in the AD's office?
I also am not saying the schools should pay them millions but there should be enough money to pay them something reaosnable and then let them get their NIL money whereever they can get it.
I have agreed they should get something. I am against wholesale revenue sharing concepts like some have suggested...it would be a slippery slope for all of college athletics.
what amounts to a professional sports league?
As I think you pointed out elsewhere the schools in D2, D3 and NAIA seem to find a way to have sports teams without million dollar tv contracts. Without coaches making millions of dollars and without spending hundreds of millions of dollars on stadiums and special facilities only for the teams.
Is it my desire to blow up college sports? Not really but I do think there needs to be a more equitable system and if they are going to keep playing the equity needs to extend to all sports. The amlunt of money being earned by thousands of people while the players get nothing is wrong. And keep in mind when you throw out the ND tuition number as what they are getting paid ND likes to brag about how many people dont pay that number.
Some deserve more and some are "replaceable". In the world, some on here are suggesting...40% revenue sharing for the top tier college football programs actually making money...the art of negotiation would be part of the equation. If I am a lower level player and demand bigger dollars, schools can pass on that player and find a substitute. It goes on in all of the leagues...the average NFL career length is 3.3 years and that is the average not the norm. Most players...wash out with maybe a practice squad on their resume. Star players will thrive at the collegiate level...all the others, not so much. If they want to play, they will have to play along. Only the best players are worth the extra dollar...don't kid yourself, it goes on in every professional sport.
the NCAA needs to revenue share.
It's not the athlete's concern.
the NCAA should share more revenue. That said, running D3 swim meets and bowling tournaments costs money...so they do that.
is they go to summer school. Of course there will also be S&C workouts and various "practices".
My son is a HS junior and a private HS that does not emphasize sports. His Basketball team practiced three hours a day 5 days a week with games on the weekends for the entire month of June. He also worked with a trainer 2-3 times a week.
I am fairly confident D-1 athlete is putting in more time than that in the offseason.
extent travel baseball and basketball. One year my oldest played 140 games between the three sports...yes, he still loves to play them at 30 years of age...80 soccer games--outdoor, indoor and futsal, 30 basketball and 30 baseball. His soccer team even took a trip to Las Vegas for a showcase tournament as well as Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri. At the end of it all, they both chose major universities with big time D1 programs that they were not quite good enough for...both were late bloomers physically one is my size 6'2" and the other grew to 6'6" both during their senior years...curse of the Irish.
Depending upon the sport, the year round time commitment will vary and thus my glib "part time" reference. Paying athletes is a slippery slope. I am for a "living wage" as needed beyond their tuition, room and board. And NIL is something that can work for the "top earners" in college athletics.
carry on.
And I'm sure other sports do as well. Irishdog80 just sounds like an unreasonable guy, to be honest.
kid wants to play summer baseball to pursue his career in baseball instead of digging ditches, I think that is a reasonable choice by the athlete. Are they working full time in the Cape Cod league and similar? I hear it's a good time. I also know they aren't paid at all for their work.
Your view seems to be Notre Dame centric. I assure you most colleges can not afford to pay their athletes any more than tuition, room and board and I am confident many student-athletes are happy to have the opportunity. Paying players is a slippery slope that most school's can't afford to stand on.
ditch the TV money and get out of the game.
That's how the market works, irishdog.
with a market value that far exceeds the compensation for most 18-22 year olds. Why is that hard for you to understand? Oh, that's right. You're the guy that thinks people pay to watch 2 and 3 star guys and the game "wouldn't exist" without them. Sounds like the whining of a wannabe player.
Have you bought the XFL jersey for your regional team? Maybe your favorite player on the Brahmas or the Battlehawks is available for an appearance and jersey signing. Check out the declining ratings in the attached for a league without stars and big name teams. Hilarious. You're wrong about most of what you have said.
We don't artificially reduce people's income simply because some employers can't or won't pay.
It's not your place to determine what something is worth. The market can and does pay more.
You are 100 percent incorrect.
your point. What does the current market pay for an 18-22 year old college football player? D1? D2? D3? NAIA?
Thanks.
barriers to receiving compensation.
Boy, are you dense.
and you are still dense.
"compensation" would assume taxable income. I don't believe these players are receiving any compensation because the NCAA is an illegal cartel.
What does the current market pay for an 18-22 year old college football player? D1? D2? D3? NAIA?
or more succinctly, what SHOULD the market pay an 18-22 year old college football player? D1? D2? D3? NAIA?
You realize D1 players aren't unionized and aren't paid, but coaches are making $10M per year, Northwestern is building a $700M football stadium, and TV contracts are in the billions now. And under-the-table payments have set some level of competition for talent in a "black market" of sorts, which is now coming to light with above-the-table NIL deals, to some extent, albeit in a clunky and not perfectly efficient fashion.
Swarbrick and Co are desperately trying to build the case for not paying CFB players their market value (40-50% of revenue).
blue bloods of college football and to a lesser degree, basketball, hockey, wrestling at Iowa, etc all make a lot of money that makes the whole concept of paying the athletes a valid discussion. If you break it down to the idea of "pay college athletes", it becomes a lot more complicated. Paying college athletes across all sports other than a full tuition plus room and board, is not viable for the lion's share of college sports...893 schools play college football, around 5300 total schools play some form of sports.
If the idea of 40-50% of revenue was applied, the college football world would be cleaved into 50-75 programs that can pay...to varying degrees...and everybody else. The idea of Notre Dame's "4 year degree" would be tossed out the window...and every player would be a free agent every year with teams bidding on the talent available within the "salary limits" each school has. In short, a minor league for pro football.
If the idea of 40-50% of revenue was applied, the college football world would be cleaved into 50-75 programs that can pay...to varying degrees...and everybody else.
Yes, this is exactly what is going to happen. The schools that generate TV revenue will be in one bucket and those that don't will be in another bucket.
The idea of Notre Dame's "4 year degree" would be tossed out the window.
It will certainly be lessened, but football is still not going to be a viable career path for many of the players. I think many players will still be interested in a ND degree while also earning their fair market value.
every player would be a free agent every year
This is already in effect. And guess what, every student can be a free agent every year if they want.
teams bidding on the talent available within the "salary limits" each school has.
IF the coaches and ADs can be bidded on by all teams for millions of dollars, why not the players too?
get 40-50% of the revenue, what happens to the funding for all other "loss leader sports that have previously received funding from the varying success of the football program?
In order to compete with the other programs, the ND "four year commitment" would have to be gone. Add in the issues ND has with transfers admissions and the Fighting Irish would suffer against their soon to be former peers in college football.
I agree that players should be able to be free agents.
And be careful what you wish for applies to bidding wars for college athletes. The result would be a dwindling supply of viable opponents...no one wants to watch a team of superstars play an objectively bad team. If it happens, the 50-75 will become 25-35 viable programs that mirrors the NFL. I also doubt that most college administrations would agree to 40% revenue sharing so there is that issue too.
not sure why it should concern the football players. What value do they get from those sports?
Perhaps the athletic department can and would lower their expenses down if they wanted to support those sports and saw value there.
Every time we say we cant afford X we are saying I dont value X enough to forego Z. Maybe those players dont get the same amount but they get something more than they do today.
I am not saying I have completely settled on all the answers but contiuing a system where the players dont get paid just because that is how it has always been isnt right.
the college football program would be shut down due to no longer being in the "haves" and being a big cost center and ultimately liability. The money would go up for players in the "haves" and would disappear for the "have nots".
Players get a scholarship and other benefits plus earn NIL money as their performance proves they deserve. I have heard $10-15,000 bandied about as a possible "wage" above and beyond the scholarships and benefits plus NIL money. That number seems fair and equitable for largely unproven talent on the collegiate level along with other items they receive.
the shortcut and short term approach is NIL, but it is problematic for everyone.
The answer is likely a de facto minor league setup for some programs and club status for others.
big step in the right direction if run correctly.
equitable. Plus full scholarship.
NIL would be gravy on top earned the way Aaron Rodgers gets paid by State Farm, or Michael Jordan by Gatorade.
(this is just for Major CFB players, not any other athletes).
for the whole season, $277,200. The percentage of NCAA D1 football players that make it to the NFL is 1.6% of players. Do you want to reconsider your number?
50% rev share should be the solution.
Average wages of an 85-man roster for 50% rev share would be closer to $530,000 per player (on top of their full scholarship).
If they want to have practice squads, so be it.
YOu could ratchet down scholarships to, say, 70, and keep a practice squad of 15 or whatever. Just keep giving $50M a year per program to players in scholarships + wages.
of organization would pay entry level 18 year old employees $530,000 per year or anything close to that number?
On another point, if you gave $50M per program to the 120..or so...D1 programs, the total number is $6 billion on the low end. Are you aware how much most "programs" make and do you understand that Notre Dame along with maybe the top tier of Power 5 programs are in rarified air...and that's when the team(s) have a good season. The money is not only flowing at high levels.
All P5 college programs, save for a few, are operating at 40% to 60% margins in CFB due to the free labor system.
Players should get 50%, or $3B per year.
requirement and let the 18-22 year olds go pro whenever the NFL says they are ready...draftable.
like your idea, too.
are suggesting unproven 18-22 year olds at Iowa State University or similar should get, on average, $407,000? Sorry, but that is nowhere near realistic.
all those unproven NFL draft picks sign huge contracts. It's in their CBA.
It's a different industry from Major CFB, Inc.
the program in the red. Professional sports are focused on one sport. College athletic departments use dollars earned from the revenue producers to fund the non-revenue sports that are a big part of the fabric of a school. Would you pay those other athletes too? They work hard.
It's profound respect for the work they put it and the sacrifices they make. Which is why I don't care for that work and those sacrifices being minimized by someone who very clearly has no idea what he's talking about.
You're perfectly entitled to the opinion that scholarships are sufficient compensation for the value created by most student-athletes. You are not entitled to an alternate reality in which being a Division I student-athlete is some 20-hour-a-week gig.
I was somewhat glib in my "part time" reference though I still believe in a universe of 20 varsity sports at Notre Dame, many of them require a "part time" commitment compared to the real workaday world.
I stand by the belief a full ride scholarship is adequate compensation for most 18-22 year olds with high performers deserving more. In the bigger picture, the overall concept of "paying" college athletes will lead to more St. Francis's. I truly believe if more schools drop more sports to fund the paying of athletes for high revenue sports, it would be detrimental to and greatly reduce the overall universe of student-athletes...a sad result to appease the big revenue sports.
that sounds like the market at work.
If it bothers the NCAA so much, they should take some money from Jack Swarbrick and Notre Dame to help pay. That's the sort of thing that the NFL has done, and it's worked wonders. And the NFL is even able to stay in compliance (for the most part, with notable exceptions) with federal labor law.
schools drop their athletic programs. JT is on the side of the haves...tough it out have nots. You're welcome.
cashing checks and claiming poverty doesn't fly in any other employment arena.
Perhaps someone else will step in in that instance and subsidize things. Hmmmmmm, is there a professional league in need of a developmental program? Why I believe there is! Do they have an interest in making sure there is adequate training and development? Why yes they do! If schools can't afford it any longer, will this league still need the development? It would seem so, wouldn't it?
Gosh, we don't even have to go that far. Are there football programs and basketball programs that do turn a profit? Why yes, apparently Notre Dame made 77 MILLION last year. Do they have an interest in making sure that they have enough teams to play? Why I think they do! Imagine that. Might they be able to share some of that burden with these poor, poor schools that just can't afford it, or should we dump all of the burden on the athletes and make them play for free? (of course we all know your answer there).
How does the NFL make it with a team in small market Green Bay? Can the Packers even pay their bills? Do they get players for free?
My goodness, you don't even understand exactly what it is you're supporting--you're supporting the billionaires holding wages down under the guise of amateur athletics. It's quite foolish.
Let the market decide.
to win and hundreds of other institutions currently offering collegiate sports and athletic scholarships will fail in the subsequent arms race. The bottom portion of the FBS will begin to de-emphasize football and other costly sports and only the "billionaire" programs will succeed.
And if the market decides compensation, I assure you most 2 and 3 star athletes will not get compensated at the same level as the 4 and 5 star athletes or the player that rises to the top through their standout performance on the field. If you think those players are "needed", you are a fool. They will be replaced with the next guy that wants a free education and all the glamour that comes with being a D1 athlete. Next man in applies to all of them except for the genuine stars/difference makers.
So, let's use your own words here to help explain it to you:
"Notre Dame has the capacity to win and hundreds of other institutions currently offering collegiate sports and athletic scholarships will fail in the subsequent arms race. The bottom portion of the FBS will begin to de-emphasize football and other costly sports and only the "billionaire" programs will succeed."
All right, so if it is important for Notre Dame to keep those other non-billionaire programs around, they'll find a way to share the wealth, right? And if it isn't, they won't, right?
So why is it an athlete's problem? It sounds like a school problem. If the argument is that the current athletes should sacrifice so that other athletes can survive, you need to make a more compelling argument. Let's say that you are a division one athlete (so put yourself in the place of one of your cousins, I suppose); what value is there for you in ensuring that someone else whom you've never met who doesn't compete in the same sport you compete in and who goes to a different school than you gets a similar opportunity to you?
You want the athletes to sacrifice without having the schools sacrifice; you and people like you basically create the problem and then claim there is no solution without tearing the whole thing down and "ruining" it for everyone. You create the billionaire class, and then try and defend it. It's the labor that needs to sacrifice, not the ownership.
It's the same nonsense that people were saying about granting baseball players free agency in the 60's; "oh, if we take away the reserve clause it will ruin the game and the league will fold." Yeah, the courts disagreed and were proven right. Same thing with NFL free agency. "Oh, the small market clubs like Green Bay will be decimated." Didn't happen.
from being against "socialism" to saying the billionaire programs need to share because they can. Pick a lane and stay in it.
With the opening up of the transfer rules and other changes, college athletes have a choice. Stay and except what they have...dozens of wonky parameters that will determine the true "value" of their current opportunity--playing time, visibility, NIL potential, education, etc. Or they can go to another program for a better set of "values"--more playing time, more TV time, NIL dollars, whatever is important to that particular player. For some, education might be the most important consideration--play at Harvard, etc.
At best, college sports is high level minor league professional sports. The "haves" of the college sports world represent around 5-10% of the overall college football market...893 schools play college football and around 50 or so are "making money" in any given year. For comparisons sake, check out how much most minor league players make and you have the beginnings of what the "market will bear" for most college athletes in a free market system. Bottom line, it is clearly wrong that minor league baseball players are woefully underpaid in today's market for less skilled athletes. College athletes are living like kings compared to them and with NIL, run properly, they have the opportunity to "earn their value".
I have not jumped back and forth on anything.
If the NCAA members find value in having programs that aren't money makers on their own, they should pool resources and fund them. It's not up to the players. I've said that the whole time.
The NCAA is a cartel. Look that word up and get back to me. The athletes have very limited choices, and the NCAA is likely avoiding employment law illegally.
I will let you worry about the haves and the have nots. That's an NCAA concern, not an athlete concern. I'm concerned about the athletes; if you can come up with one good reason as to why a football player should be concerned about women's basketball players getting a fair wage, let me know. But I have asked you and asked you and asked you and you've refused to answer, just like you refused to give the full IRS definition of full time employment; it's because you are a dishonest person.
It is more comparable to the NBA, MLB, NHL, and NFL than to any minor league (or other college sports, for that matter).
As such, players should receive close to 50% of total revenue, instead of the paltry sum they currently receive (5% or so).
other mechanisms to "fix" their leagues. The NHL was late to the party and suffered financially and MLB still hasn't truly figured it out. CFB at it's highest levels...50,000+ seat stadiums filled to capacity and multi-million dollar TV contracts shared equally across a conference, etc...is a "professional" sport. The rest of college athletics, much less so. Giving college football players 50% of total revenue would change the sport and I wonder if it would be for the better.
Back in the day, I worked with the trademark licensing firm that represented, among other entities and brands, the CBA...a nice little minor league basketball league that was a form of a feeder for the NBA. It plodded along, but it was viable. Isaiah Thomas "bought" the league and it's demise soon followed...much like he ran the Knicks into the ground. A cautionary tale. The number of schools that would be able to "pay to play" would boil down to 50-60 schools...good for them, bad for others.
business every year.
If the CBA had been more valuable to the NBA, it wouldn't have gone under. It was poorly run, so it went under. It happens. It's a cautionary tale about bad business ownership, but it has very little to do with the current situation.
If it is only the top 50-60 schools (and it would be more, but we'll go with your numbers), that's too bad but it still isn't a good reason to break employment law. If the NCAA finds value in having more schools participate, then they can pool their resources and make it happen.
You're going to have to do much, much better.
cautionary tale. They overvalued the league and ran it quickly into the ground. I witnessed it first hand. Found the egos involved to be almost comical and ultimately delusional.