In reply to: How would you have the first... posted by FL_Irish
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.