In reply to: my references? posted by jt
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?