love it if my kids were talented enough to get that.

These kids are among the best in the nation (world) at what they do and bring value to the University. We dont ask the kids on Academic Scholarship to go out and earn millions in revenue for the school so why do we think the scholarship is adequate compensation for those laying sports?

Take top line and divide by 85. That is around $1 million. It’s not even close to “”each player earning million(s)”. You guys need to take a step back and do some honest accounting. Just because the coaches are extracting a ridiculous sum from the school does not mean the players are generating millions each.

There’s also the reality that ND can field a JV team and still generate revenue. To that end the reality is the players ought to be entitled to a share of the incremental revenue they generate. And I reality NIL ought to efficiently accomplish that.

If we can get on the same page regarding value created, the cost to create it, etc we can get on the same page for the value each player ought to fairly capture. As is the ideas thrown out here are risible.

First, I hate the word deserve. Nobody deserves anything. You get what you demand.

Second, take all compensation restrictions off the table. Schools and boosters can write any offer they want to sign any athlete to play any sport. Athletes should have competent representation that has passed the necessary licensing similar to that required of NBA and NFL agents. Write and enforce rules about fraud and academics, tampering, etc. which can serve to protect players and keep the schools at least as honest as they currently are about the academic mission.

It's really not that hard. There is an entire page of posts about worth and value and appropriate restrictions. Who are we to say worth or value. Should the 85th man on the roster "deserve" anything? Maybe, maybe not. No different than the 12th man on an NBA team. But, if they were able to fairly contract for the services then it's a moot point. Maybe for the vast majority of players, the best offer they receive will be a 4 year scholarship. Maybe the top 20 players take so much of the pie that #50-85 no longer receive full scholarships or any scholarship at all. Maybe women's gymnastics and volleyball and tennis and down the line no longer have scholarships to offer or the ability to play in conference matches from coast to coast. Who the fuck cares?! If you do care then please explain to me how it's fair that some athletes should be expected to subsidize other athletes.


If Notre Dame wants to play it like the Cubs and argue for a "home town" discount to market values because of the "added value of the brand" then so be it. Notre Dame is free to contract how'd they like relative to how successful they want the on-field product to be. I'd argue that if they want it to be national championship quality then they are going to need to spend the money acquiring talent. Of course, a middling playoff team could, and probably would, be far more profitable for the University and is probably the route they would take.

Wow, I had no idea it cost the school that much.

Withiout the players putting in the work that revenue isnt there. My point is why do we expect athletes on scholarship to work for the beneft of the school but not students on academic scholarship;

I disagree we could field a JV team and generate the same revenue. A JV team would not compete agains the top teams. Goodbye NBC contract. Goodbye ticket sales. Hell look at what is happening with ticket sales to lesser games on the schedule. To generate the revenues we do you need a top flight program. A JV tean would be in the Ivy League and we know they dont generate the same money.

You are saying now they shoud get the incremental revenue they create but that is starting from a place where the system was designed to prohibit them from being able to get the revenue they generated in the first place.

To me implicit in this objeciton is the romantic ideal these students are just kids on campus who hapened to be good at a sport and get togther and play neighbor schools. If it truly is just the University creating the value and the players are not adding any the stop recruiting, hold tryouts in August for any student admitted and field a team. You could even use the interhall teams as a farm club or development squad and if someone gets hurt pick up replacement players from those teams.

This point and a few stand outs can arguably profit from NIL. I doubt anyone here can name more than 20 players. These guys are getting after tax benefits worth nearly $100k a year. On a pre tax basis that’s around 180k in income. If you guys think they should be paid all you’re going to do is make it so the irs gets them some of the pie. This whole argument is dumb and enabled by the bogus accounting that goes on with non profits.

let's eliminate the barriers and find out, shall we?

You and I (and others) can speculate all we want, but I think it's better to let the market decide. If the courts decide that these kids are employees (decent chance), there will need to be a plan in place.

simply stomping your feet and declaring, "they're not worth that much!" isn't going to fly; I can be pissed off that my costs for employees has doubled over the past 8 years, but I can't just decide to not pay them because I don't think they're worth that much.

How foolish.

And allow (force) the NFL to get in on it as well.

But unfortunately, I don't think most college players are worth that much. A small percentage are. I don't make the claim that colleges can't afford it, but I'm not convinced that most D1 college football players - let alone most D1 college athletes - will be better off in a market based system. A small percentage will do dramatically better (though maybe not much better than NIL allows), a larger, but still small chunk will do about the same, and the vast majority will be worse off.

The top 6 cap hits on the Chiefs make up more than 50% of the total team salary. College will likely follow a similar route where Isaiah Foskey, Mayer, Ben Morrison, Joe Alt and Sam Hartman get compensated the highest compared to the guys at the bottom of the roster.

At the end of the day, I’d rather those guys get the money compared to the coaches and Admin. The players are the ones sacrificing their health for our enjoyment.

If Chris O’Leary makes, say, $500k, Morrison is worth at least 3x.

If Al Washington makes $500K, I’d pay a stud edge prospect like Keon Keeley $2M per year. He’d be worth it, even if "unproven" - just like Will Anderson, unproven as he is, will be worth whatever he gets from the Arizona Cardinals with the 3rd pick next month.

Sam Hartman should probably be making $5M this year.

The NFL has always been able to change their rules to suit their needs. The NFL players have collectively bargained for the three year rule. And your answer, rather than remove compensation restrictions for college athletes, is to force the NFL players and owners to change their rules?

Why does it matter that some will be better off but most won’t? Even assuming that’s true, which I doubt it is, a system of artificial restraint which is then partially filled by black market compensation hardly seems the better alternative. But, maybe the whole thing burns itself up, and we go back to some form of the current system in 20 or 30 years. Seems a worthwhile risk compared to watching schools taking advantage of free labor to sign $10m contracts for mediocre coaches.

You probably don’t think Brian Kelly is a $10m coach, but he is according to LSU. So that should guide your thinking when you say “I don’t think most college players are worth that much”

If it wasn't for a specially granted congressional exemption.

The idea that the existing employment based model should be allowed to continue to collude to not hire people while the existing amateur model should be forced to pay people doesn't quite make sense to me.

I'm advocating removing restrictions on pay which I think is a pretty big difference. If schools don't want to pay then so be it -- as long as the athletes have appropriate representation.

Then it's forcing pay.

Now, I'll admit that I haven't researched whether Hollywood actors are characterized as independent contractors or employees. I thought at one time that professional athletes were independent contractors, but based on what I have found online in limited searching, they are employees.

I don't feel like getting into the IRS definition of employees vs. independent contractors. I would guess based on the captive and control provisions, it is likely the IRS would deem NCAA athletes employees.

Based on the black market compensation historically and now with NIL, it appears that both sides are in agreement that there is surplus value provided by the service providers. I'm not forcing universities to change their rules. I'd force the NCAA to abolish the amateurism rules thus allowing its member institutions the freedom to contract with the athletes as they'd like and for the athletes to procure proper representation. If Notre Dame wanted to continue with their current approach of NIL and scholarships and no other compensation, then I don't have a problem with it. They won't win, but I have come to expect that result anyway so no change there.

$25K per scholarship player per year. That's the same payroll as Texas Tech's football team's player payroll.

I believe at least a small group of high-performers get a lot more (mid 6 figures) or have done so in this most recent year. "NIL"...or whatever.

Ohio State is targeting $13M per year. Penn State/Franklin are on the record for wanting similar for payroll. Harbaugh thinks Michigan could do 2x that. Locksley (Maryland) says he could do well with 1/2 of the $13M Ryan Day wants.

Imagine that. The schools (well, their captive but "independent" charities) are voluntarily raising money to sign these players to deals out of the goodness of their hearts. That's so sweet of them. I was told in this thread that it's not a market so it can't be supply and demand driving these payments. We all know that 1st round All-American tight ends are a dime a dozen.

And, if anything isn't a more clear example of the stupidity of the current amateur structure, it's every single school funneling donations to NIL funds. So, rather than just removing the arcane amateurism rules around compensation and player representation, they've implemented a system where they are openly paying players but saying "it's not directly from the school". It's the equivalent of the pastor's daughter fucking half the football team but saying she's still a virgin because she only does anal. Well, sure, technically, but not really.

Justin Scott, the 5 star defensive line prospect at St. Ignatius, should have an attorney and an agent (certified by the NCAA) helping him with this process. Certainly not his high school football coach or a "friend of the family". We treat these kids like professionals in every way when it comes to the schools' interest but not when it comes to their own interests. It's preposterous the number of people on this board supporting the continuation of the obvious power imbalance.

They did a little post-mortem on their interview of Swarbrick from earlier in this week.

Wetzel finds it laughable that the NCAA/C. Baker are trying to turn NIL into a consumer protection concern while ignoring/blocking any progress to a free market system (which apparently Baker ran on politically at some point?), and the joke of a system that major CFB is in that it doesn't allow players the basic right of negotiating.

The transparency guy was full of shit. If they want to require disclosure to the school or another governing body, then it should only go as far as KYC-type reporting and not into actual contract terms.

I get most frustrated about the whole thing when people act like there aren't other models to follow for how to execute and where to put guardrails to protect from bad actors. The NBA and NFL have agent certification and registration requirements. I'm pretty sure both leagues also have rules about the kinds of products that can be endorsed.


I don't love salary caps or even collective bargaining at least to start. I'd prefer running it wide open for 5 or so years to see if universities are able avoid colluding to keep compensation down or, on the other end, bankrupting themselves with bad deals. If, after 5 years, the athletes want to consider unionizing and collective bargaining then it might make sense. Jumping straight there will be a bad deal for the players almost guaranteed.

Michael Mayer and Drake Maye are recent examples of success stories. Same with Nigel Pack, Nico I (Tennessee QB), Kansas State basketball, et al. The Rashada deal was unfortunate, but probably a necessary learning point for recruits and current CFB players.

I agree a wide-open marketplace (like the real world job market) would be better than unionized labor and salary caps and floors. I bang the 50% rev share drum primarily to show the discrepancy in treatment between Major CFB and the other 4 major pro leagues. 5% vs. 50%.

I believe the free market is much better. Let Ohio State find their $13M and see if that is enough to compete. If not, ratchet it up to $25M, $30M, $60M whatever it takes to pay the players and still have a shot at the national title.

If Northwestern wants to put all their donations from Ryan into a stadium and keep player payroll at $2M a year, pocket the TV money, and go 1-11, so be it.

Dan Wetzel as guest ("Fixing College Football"). Much of the same from Wetzel plus more. Should be required listening for all CFB fans. A couple of highlights:

"Amateurism is a ruse"

"What is morally wrong about paying people money that are good at sports?"

The NCAA and all the ADs are bureaucrats that like rules, structures, codes and would be better off just letting NIL "go" wherever it may go. There is no problem. As Wetzel continually asked Swarbrick "Where's the problem?"

Freeman wants NIL "enhanced."

Anything to avoid the looming FLSA/DOL/Title IX clusterfuck he's created.

And agree on Justin Scott, he should do quite well if he chooses to shop around.

If Alabama wants to offer ND's best player $1M to play TE for 1 season, he should be able to consider that option, go back to ND with that information, receive a counteroffer and then make a decision.

And same with all players, regardless of star power or benchwarmer status.

Recruits too.

I am fine with this less-restrictive model as well, although I see it being a lot messier than the NFL/NBA/MLB/NHL collectively-bargained rev share structure.

Contracts would eventually start to look like coach's contracts with termination language and fees, guarantees, moral character language, etc.

Colleges and athletic departments would be free to make decisions they think are in their best interests as would athletes. Budgets and pay ranges by position will develop. Some schools and boosters will care more than others and invest what many would consider to be insane amounts. Some will pay lip service to competing, pay below market, and extract huge profits. Same as it's ever been.

they deserve/demand from the system, it would be a much better system than the current one.

I'm not a lawyer, but from what I understand the courts are loathe to override such agreements; setting eligibility for employment is a right that I can certainly see subject to bargaining.

Lou Holtz made around $100k while the cost of a scholarship was around $20k.

In 2023, Marcus Freeman makes $5 million while Michael Mayer earned $80k (the cost of a scholarship).

Do you think it makes any sense whatsover that in the span of 30 years, we've gone from coaches earning 5x more than their players to 50x?

You are right that some players right now have a good deal under the current rules. But the current system is not even close to fair market value for the top 25 percent of the roster.

you might argue that was the "value" of the scholarship, but it wasn't the cost. Of course, that doesn't factor in financial aid, grants, etc.

Don't get fooled by the NCAA shell game. Next thing you know we'll be discussing the ramifications of title 9 if football and basketball players are determined to be employees. It's a distraction ploy.

from the university.

and if you want to pay the players a salary (it would now be around 85k, I believe), you can 1099 them the money for the tuition and pay them a salary on top of it.

These aren't insurmountable obstacles, but guys like Jack and Fr Jenkins want you to believe that they are.

If you don't think Michael Mayer had offers to go elsewhere for big money...

Collectives are being tucked in to internal football program operations at places like Ole Miss so the coach can figure out who to pay what. Brian Polian's job is now basically just that. Ryan Day wants $13M to pay his roster.

Each ND player gets a fixed NIL payment of low 5-figures. Other schools have the same arrangement (Texas Tech just one example). A non-inducement inducement.

The talent is the product. The talent sells TV ads.

And yet for a CFB program that has top line of $100M, the players only get about 5% of that. A steal for the schools.

ND, at $150M in revenue and only $8M in scholarships...and we wonder why JS and JJ are writing op-eds.

Amortization of the stadium and facilities alone is $30 million a year. Then there is the cost of coaching, subsidizing women’s sports, transpiration ($1 million a pop 7-9 times a year) etc etc.

Most enterprises shoot for profitability of 10-12% of top line. For the players to capture nearly 10% of that in all in benefits tells me they are amply compensated.

We have NIL. Mayer etc can get a fair shake. Paying them all more is insulting to the student body generally.

why should the football players be concerned with that?

I'm not sure what transpiration is, but that's an interesting line item. 9 million dollars a year for that seems odd, you would have thought I might have heard of it.

And how exactly is paying them more insulting to the student body? How is it any business of the student body?

You seem to be very concerned about what amount of money other people make, which I find odd. Why would you begrudge someone the opportunity to make more money? Do you feel that their talents belong to the state or something? Would you be more comfortable with a socialist or communist economy?

not the athlete's problem. You can't and shouldn't ask labor to solve management's problems without giving labor something significant in return. The question then becomes, is what labor is getting significant enough to justify what they're giving up? Many argue that it isn't, especially for the top end guys at the highest revenue schools.

We aren't in the oil and gas industry. ND, and other schools, spend profligately because they aren't supposed to be turning a profit. That $30M equates to what, almost ~$1B of capital expenditures? There's also debt service on top of the depreciation, which further degrades profitability.

The number of athletic departments which have revenue equate to expenses is absurd.

the players.

In fact, they spend a ton on facilities to entice players because they aren't paying them. They also don't need a dozen analysts on staff but, again, there's a lot of money to spend.

The Big-10 is about to distribute $100M annually to each of its member schools. That is going to be $50-60M of incremental revenue at almost 100% profitability to those schools. SEC is in the same, enviable boat.

The Big-12 just signed a deal that will increase its TV revenue by an average of 75%.

Also, NFL teams spend about 4% on coaching staffs. CFB is closer to 12-15%.

Right-sizing that spend would free up millions per year

I Would like to see a wage report for the athletic departments of CFB programs. Probably could find another several million per year there too.

And then there's the arms race spending on facilities...the fault of the ADs and Presidents.

We statutorily need to support. The team doesn’t “make millions”. That’s a falsity and until we can agree on that there is nothing to talk about. I hate Jenkins and soredick but they are correct in so far as they say these aren’t the money minting ventures the agents think they are.

First, we dont have the money to pay because schools established a system where they did not need to pay the players and then spent the money in other ways.

The question I would ask is why (ignoring title IX) you think it is right for basketball and football players to be required to work for the same scholarship the non-revenue athlete gets. If you owned a company that had 4 subs 2 made money and two lost money would you tell the employees of the profitable companies sorry I cant pay you more because I need to pay those people?

From your postings on other boards here I know that is not an idea you support.

If these issues are not dealt with well it may mean the end of college sports as we know it but that is more a refelction that college sports did not change its system to reflect the changes it went through.

that question about subsidizing other sports, there is never a good answer given as to why revenue producing sports should subsidize non revenue producing sports. Truthfully, there is never an answer at all. Here, your question is ignored and I've posted it several other times, notably to that dishonest poster irishdog80, and it is never addressed. Worse even, he doesn't note the difference between business partners (the NCAA member schools) distributing surplus amongst the partnership and athletes supporting other athletes who are in different sports and who are not partners in the slightest.

It's a very, very dishonest approach. There are reasons to not pay the athletes any more, but the horse is out of the barn now. You can't treat it as a big business on one hand and then amateur athletics on the other. It just doesn't work that way.