In reply to: Well one thing’s for sure… posted by FL_Irish
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?