Is college football near the end as we know it.

[Vespidae]

Back in the day, a scholarship might have been a good deal. But the NCAA, conferences, schools, TV networks, apparel makers and Bowls are now making Billions on college sports. IMHO, a scholarship is not a fair cut for the folks putting in the labor.

Let's put this in perspective. The schools (I refer to them as schools, but they are mostly the athletic departments which may or may not be part of the school) are earning $10.9 billion from their athletic programs. However, these same schools had costs associated with their athletic programs of $10.6 billion. The net effect is that 230 schools are generating about $250 million. Of that, ten schools earn 80% of that figure. 88 schools lose money.

So for all the REVENUE generated, it's hardly raining money from heaven.

As to the students not getting a cut, so what? GE earns billions … labor doesn't participate in that. They get what they contracted for.

The idea that sports as part of a university education is necessary to round out the individual is an outdated concept. Money is all over the place now and I fear will bring out the worst in people.

 

[bobongo]

I think we’re talking past each other. You’re concerned with the overall competitiveness of the sport, and I’m concerned about the injustice (to me, at least) of artificial restrictions on compensation. I can’t even reach your issue because I view mine as foundational, and in the absence of a just relationship between player and school, I don’t care about competitiveness.

To your point, though, I think the sport is already dominated by an oligopoly. Check me on this, but I think there have only been 12 teams to win a national championship since the introduction of the BCS. I guess every now and then someone breaks through, but it’s essentially the same eight to twelve teams every season that have a shot at the big prize.

Given the current environment of the sport, I tend to think payments to players might actually break that logjam, because the one thing that’s finite in all of this is playing time, and it’s the thing that’s most valuable to the players. A school with lesser players has more playing time available, and the marginal value of one or two elite players to the lesser school is greater than that of the larger one. Because the smaller program can capture greater marginal return from that player (and because he gets more playing time, he is also satisfied), it stands to reason that the smaller programs can make up ground against a heavyweight. There are only 60:00 and 22 positions in a game, after all.

I see your point, and I hope you're right about how it will all shake out. But as someone already pointed out, these players don't exist in a vacuum. The skill players on offense aren't going anywhere without an offensive line, most of them laboring in obscurity. And there's something wrong with the flashy running back raking in all the gold while the linemen end up with a lump of coal. That's where some degree of regulation comes in.

 

[JacketOff]

Let's put this in perspective. The schools (I refer to them as schools, but they are mostly the athletic departments which may or may not be part of the school) are earning $10.9 billion from their athletic programs. However, these same schools had costs associated with their athletic programs of $10.6 billion. The net effect is that 230 schools are generating about $250 million. Of that, ten schools earn 80% of that figure. 88 schools lose money.

So for all the REVENUE generated, it's hardly raining money from heaven.

As to the students not getting a cut, so what? GE earns billions … labor doesn't participate in that. They get what they contracted for.

The idea that sports as part of a university education is necessary to round out the individual is an outdated concept. Money is all over the place now and I fear will bring out the worst in people.

This proposition has nothing to do with the schools though, other than maybe some outside licensing deals. This is about athletes being able to make their fair share on their own likeness based on market value like every other man, woman, or child in a free market country. If ESPN is going to use Trevor Lawrence to market their college football coverage, don’t you think it’s unfair he doesn’t get anything out of it?

 

[Vespidae]

This proposition has nothing to do with the schools though, other than maybe some outside licensing deals. This is about athletes being able to make their fair share on their own likeness based on market value like every other man, woman, or child in a free market country. If ESPN is going to use Trevor Lawrence to market their college football coverage, don’t you think it’s unfair he doesn’t get anything out of it?

The school that is giving him an education is getting something out of it. They get broadcasting revenue that builds facilities and hires coaches.

So if he’s in a Clemson uniform, no. He shouldn’t get paid. If he’s representing Trevor Lawrence Inc, fine.

 

[chris975d]

Exactly. There is no limit or rationality when it comes to donor spending. Our fans, including myself, may not understand or agree with it—but the factories will have enough dough to set up full recruiting classes with endorsement deals. Players will understand that if I go to X School, they will take care of me. All they have to do is find out % of players who receive endorsements. Many will get cash whether they actually play or not.

You’re right, there is no limit or rationality to what some with money do for “their program”. Interesting read here:


https://www.bannersociety.com/2014/4/10/20703758/bag-man-paying-college-football-players

If any of this is true, this guys admits they pay recruits even when they know they aren’t getting them, just as a sign of good will more or less.

 

[Milwaukee]

You’re right, there is no limit or rationality to what some with money do for “their program”. Interesting read here:


https://www.bannersociety.com/2014/4/10/20703758/bag-man-paying-college-football-players

If any of this is true, this guys admits they pay recruits even when they know they aren’t getting them, just as a sign of good will more or less.

lmao best part:

”There’s some guy I know. He’s in the [official booster club for the university]. I’ve known him almost all my life — he’s a friend of my family. Guy gives about $50,000 a year to the program. And so he gets to wear a jacket and have his name in the [annual alumni magazine] and gets to shake hands with the coaches and feel really goddamn important. I see this guy all the time, and we talk about the team, and he’s always trying to big **** about how important he is to the program. Now let me ask you, who do you think is more important to this team winning next season? Him with his $50,000 getting bathrooms painted in the basketball arena, or what I do with not even a quarter of that much money?”

#truth

 

[TampaGT]

There are many issues outside of just the players getting paid. There is word that if the players get paid then they may get taxed on their scholarships. Another issue, regular student may complain that if the athletes are getting paid then regular students shouldn’t have to pay activity fees. I think this is a bad road to travel down, I don’t know why the response is if you want to get paid go pro, if you don’t like the rules nobody is forcing you to sign the Sholly. I think the push should be forcing the NFL to drop their rule about when you can enter the draft. I think the part that missing is that very few people watch a team because of who is playing. I started following GT because of Jerry Mays because he is from my hometown, but I watch GT now because it’s GT. If all the current players D1 players formed their own league and all the 1AA players moved up to D1 and they had a game on the same day who you watching??? I’m sure most would be watching GT. The value is in the program and the fans that follow that program. The guys that we have committed this year, is anybody going to follow them if they decide to go to another school. NOPE. How many here were excited a few years ago when Miles adruy(SP?) did the hat deal and picked GT and didn’t play here. How many people searched out weekly to see how he was doing in JC. I haven’t read the laws passed in the Communist republic of California, but I don’t see how they would have standing in court if the school and the player/parents come to agreement in a contract that they Relinquish their rights to NIL for a scholarship.

 

[chris975d]

There are many issues outside of just the players getting paid. There is word that if the players get paid then they may get taxed on their scholarships. Another issue, regular student may complain that if the athletes are getting paid then regular students shouldn’t have to pay activity fees. I think this is a bad road to travel down, I don’t know why the response is if you want to get paid go pro, if you don’t like the rules nobody is forcing you to sign the Sholly. I think the push should be forcing the NFL to drop their rule about when you can enter the draft. I think the part that missing is that very few people watch a team because of who is playing. I started following GT because of Jerry Mays because he is from my hometown, but I watch GT now because it’s GT. If all the current players D1 players formed their own league and all the 1AA players moved up to D1 and they had a game on the same day who you watching??? I’m sure most would be watching GT. The value is in the program and the fans that follow that program. The guys that we have committed this year, is anybody going to follow them if they decide to go to another school. NOPE. How many here were excited a few years ago when Miles adruy(SP?) did the hat deal and picked GT and didn’t play here. How many people searched out weekly to see how he was doing in JC. I haven’t read the laws passed in the Communist republic of California, but I don’t see how they would have standing in court if the school and the player/parents come to agreement in a contract that they Relinquish their rights to NIL for a scholarship.

Help me understand how they would be taxed on their scholarships, if they aren’t getting paid by the school? Under what’s being proposed/been passed, they would be getting paid by 3rd parties/not the school or athletic associations. That income would/could/should be taxed, the same as any legit income. But how would that cause taxation of a scholarship?

 

[awbuzz]

Define “fair share”. For decades, taxes were less than 5%.

Is it 35%? 50? 90?

Are you a "progressive" (Democrat) or think that the government has a spending problem and not a revenue problem or somewhere in between? That will determine the answer. As will what that person "makes" each year...

 

[JorgeJonas]

They can already be taxed on the portion of their scholarship allocated to room and board, living expenses, meals, etc.

 

[JorgeJonas]

I see your point, and I hope you're right about how it will all shake out. But as someone already pointed out, these players don't exist in a vacuum. The skill players on offense aren't going anywhere without an offensive line, most of them laboring in obscurity. And there's something wrong with the flashy running back raking in all the gold while the linemen end up with a lump of coal. That's where some degree of regulation comes in.

But that’s life, right? People who are more talented with rarer skill sets get paid more. I mean, left tackles in the NFL aren’t exactly hungry. But right guards are probably a little easier to come by.

 

[awbuzz]

Didn't the NCAA yesterday throw the ball in the courts of the three divisions to decide how it would be handled in their respective divisions. The devil will be in these details.

Yes, they threw the problem over the fence for others to figure out.

 

[TampaGT]

Help me understand how they would be taxed on their scholarships, if they aren’t getting paid by the school? Under what’s being proposed/been passed, they would be getting paid by 3rd parties/not the school or athletic associations. That income would/could/should be taxed, the same as any legit income. But how would that cause taxation of a scholarship?

I’m not sure, but I could see it argued that it if they are getting paid for football then the scholarship is now a gift.

 

[ibeattetris]

I’m not sure, but I could see it argued that it if they are getting paid for football then the scholarship is now a gift.

Considering all of the verbiage so far has been around getting paid for their likeness, I don't think it can be easily argued that they are getting paid to play football.

 

[chris975d]

I’m not sure, but I could see it argued that it if they are getting paid for football then the scholarship is now a gift.

Everything so far has been pretty clear to state that they wouldn’t be getting paid for their playing of a sport/performance, so I really don’t see how this pretty big jump could be made. A current student athlete with a job isn’t getting taxed on their scholarship. And if they now get our as a “spokesperson” for Joe’s Ford dealership, then that’s a job. At least on paper.

 

[awbuzz]

Considering all of the verbiage so far has been around getting paid for their likeness, I don't think it can be easily argued that they are getting paid to play football.

If the person in question as a football player, would the be getting paid for their likeness if they weren't playing? If so, they are being paid to play per se.

 

[Vespidae]

Are you a "progressive" (Democrat) or think that the government has a spending problem and not a revenue problem or somewhere in between? That will determine the answer. As will what that person "makes" each year...

Government has a spending problem. It’s basically unlimited overhead charges.

Having worked for the Feds, it’s totally inefficient.

 

[Vespidae]

Are you a "progressive" (Democrat) or think that the government has a spending problem and not a revenue problem or somewhere in between? That will determine the answer. As will what that person "makes" each year...

Btw, a “progressive” is a socialist. Progressive sounds better.

 

[ibeattetris]

If the person in question as a football player, would the be getting paid for their likeness if they weren't playing? If so, they are being paid to play per se.

If lawsuits come from this, I believe the interpretation of this will be a main point of contention. I am only saying that all language of the California bill or the NCAA statement does not include being paid to play, but being paid for you image or likeness. It would be up to lawyers to argue the point you make. I agree with you, by the way, just raising the point.

 

[BCJacket]

As to the students not getting a cut, so what? GE earns billions … labor doesn't participate in that. They get what they contracted for.

I'm going to disagree with you on that - http://www.geworkersunited.org/bargaining/

The student athletes don't have the right to unionize and didn't negotiate a contract for their labor. Maybe they should.

Everyone else around the sport gets to profit - the schools, apparel makers, TV networks, radio, etc etc... everyone but the people risking injury to make the product. If the NCAA really cared about amateurism it wouldn't be branded, sponsored, broadcast and sold; all of college sports would be like DII. It's a business. What the NCAA cares about is maximizing profits for their partners. In any other business, the NCAA's treatment of the 'Labor' (colluding to set low wages and not allowing collective bargaining) would be blatantly illegal.

If the NCAA's solution was to demonetize it and return the sports to an extracurricular activity for full time students, that would be fine. But their solution is "we want to keep making our billions off it and pretending it's not a business." It's not going to fly in 2019.