Is college football near the end as we know it.

[Vespidae]

Nothing? Like I said, they all get paid pretty well in the NFL albeit the discrepancy.

It's college ball where almost all linemen will get really, literally nothing from endorsements while some of the backs they block for rake it in if it's not regulated. I'm not talking about just a difference in pay, I'm talking about infinity, I'm talking about gold vs. a lump of coal.

We are talking about college football.

 

[jacket_fan]

Seems clear to me we have crossed the line between "offered a scholarship to play college athletics" to a "paid profession".

All of the discussion of taxes, unions, etc. whether you are for or against seem a bit superfluous to me. This new ruling by California and the NCAA finally recognizes college athletics is not an amateur sport anymore. Pandora's box is open and let the fun begin.

It will be interesting to me to see where this leads in 10 to 20 years. I cannot imagine any improvement in the experience of college football. All I can imagine is lawyers and politicians making hay with this change. And I am not fond of lawyers and politicians. Sure, a limited number of college players get more money. Just imagine the fanfare when someone like a female La cross player gets paid for their likeness. The media and politicians will go nuts.

Nope, I see no good going forward. Money will change hands just like it always has. There will be inequities we have not thought about yet. Folks will complain. New laws will be legislated. And the cycle will be repeated.

 

[CINCYMETJACKET]

Running backs need big contracts because they don’t last long. There’s no Tom Brady of running backs.

I would argue that Frank Gore would be considered the Tom Brady of RB's today. Not as far as super bowl titles, which requires a lot more than 1 player, but in terms of longevity. First NFL season was 2005. Brady played 1 game in 2000, but didn't take over full time until 2001. So, as a RB, that's an incredible, HOF run for Gore. Especially considering that he had 2 ACL tears in college at Miami.

 

[CINCYMETJACKET]

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.

I liked the Waffle House reference. Perhaps CGC gets it!

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

the schools aren’t making billions, very few even make money. Most of them are break even or lose money.

Thank goodness someone realizes this.

Those “billions” are paying for every scholarship for every sport, travel expense, tutors, coach, administrator - Everything in an athletic department. Men’s & womens - and in commifornia for the “others”.

What schools in P5 do not have ticket donation programs to take up the deficits?

 

[BCJacket]

the schools aren’t making billions, very few even make money. Most of them are break even or lose money.

Exactly! Yes, there’s lots of revenue ... but few profits.

The athletics departments are essentially non-profit corporations. The fact that they are choosing to spend all of their revenue on "expenses" like: donations to their school, non-revenue sports, promotional events, lobby waterfalls, private jets, dozens of support staff... doesn't really undermine the fact that there is plenty of money in the pot overall to pay the athletes (or allow them to earn on their own) a reasonable return for their labor. Priorities will have to change.

Also ignores how much money is in the business that isn't directly on the athletics department P&L sheet. All the money between the NCAA and the TV networks and the apparel makers and the bowl games...

Yes, it's not every school that is flush with cash and buying jets and waterfalls. But all the P5 schools are in on the TV deals, apparel deals, Conference deals. It's probably going to have to be different systems for P5, G5 and FCS. I think it's going to have to be something set on the conference level, ie an equal share of the TV revenue to all players in the conference. Or it's going to make it into a league of just 20 top programs buying free agents with unlimited money.

 

[MWBATL]

the schools aren’t making billions, very few even make money. Most of them are break even or lose money.

Yeah....sort of.

It seems to be in their best interests not to show a profit, ergo...they don't make a profit. But there are tons of people, ranging form administrators to coaches etc, who are getting paid a ton of money. They are getting the profits.

 

[Vespidae]

The athletics departments are essentially non-profit corporations. The fact that they are choosing to spend all of their revenue on "expenses" like: donations to their school, non-revenue sports, promotional events, lobby waterfalls, private jets, dozens of support staff... doesn't really undermine the fact that there is plenty of money in the pot overall to pay the athletes (or allow them to earn on their own) a reasonable return for their labor. Priorities will have to change.

Also ignores how much money is in the business that isn't directly on the athletics department P&L sheet. All the money between the NCAA and the TV networks and the apparel makers and the bowl games...

Yes, it's not every school that is flush with cash and buying jets and waterfalls. But all the P5 schools are in on the TV deals, apparel deals, Conference deals. It's probably going to have to be different systems for P5, G5 and FCS. I think it's going to have to be something set on the conference level, ie an equal share of the TV revenue to all players in the conference. Or it's going to make it into a league of just 20 top programs buying free agents with unlimited money.

Not so fast. Where is it written that a non-profit can’t make a profit? Of course they can. They just can’t distribute it.

Where do you think the women’s volleyball funds come from? Diving? Gymnastics? All these programs require funding and generate almost no revenue.

I have no problem with SA’s getting a split. But they should forego their grants then.

 

[GT_EE78]

NCAA should just stand its ground. Any athlete who accepts payments should not be eligible and teams should forfeit all games if they allow them to play.
This isn't complicated and they can't allow California to destroy amateur sports.

 

[chris975d]

NCAA should just stand its ground. Any athlete who accepts payments should not be eligible and teams should forfeit all games if they allow them to play.
This isn't complicated and they can't allow California to destroy amateur sports.

What happens to the NCAA when, along with California, the states of Georgia, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, Texas, etc all pass legislation allowing SAs to profit off of their likeness? And the NCAA doesn’t, and the schools in those states all form their own new association, thereby taking the vast, vast majority of the money with them (isn’t the number 80+% of all NCAA money comes from 10 schools...its in this thread, but I’m on mobile, so hard to look up while typing)? The NCAA simply runs off the lion’s share of their revenue. They aren’t going to willingly allow that to happen.

 

[a5ehren]

NCAA should just stand its ground. Any athlete who accepts payments should not be eligible and teams should forfeit all games if they allow them to play.
This isn't complicated and they can't allow California to destroy amateur sports.

Amateur sports is a made up concept, even moreso when dealing with revenue sports at P5 schools. Players are forced to accept below-market compensation for their labor because it is the only (realistic) path to a professional career where they can best apply their talents.

You can't make a coherent argument for treating them any differently than, say, a PhD student in an in-demand field (like all of the ones at Tech) - they get a full scholly, housing, a 5-digit stipend, and are allowed to take work on the side.

 

[a5ehren]

What happens to the NCAA when, along with California, the states of Georgia, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, Texas, etc all pass legislation allowing SAs to profit off of their likeness? And the NCAA doesn’t, and the schools in those states all form their own new association, thereby taking the vast, vast majority of the money with them (isn’t the number 80+% of all NCAA money comes from 10 schools...its in this thread, but I’m on mobile, so hard to look up while typing)? The NCAA simply runs off the lion’s share of their revenue. They aren’t going to willingly allow that to happen.

Yeah. If CA/TX+SEC states pass laws that are incompatible with NCAA membership, you'll basically be left with the B1G and a bunch of basketball schools. The NCAA would be meaningless at that point.

 

[chris975d]

Yeah. If CA/TX+SEC states pass laws that are incompatible with NCAA membership, you'll basically be left with the B1G and a bunch of basketball schools. The NCAA would be meaningless at that point.

And don’t think for a minute that the B1G states wouldn’t quickly follow suit. Ohio St, Penn St, Nebraska, Michigan would not be left out. They would go to the new “money association” as well as fast as they could. Then the teams left over would effectively become like a Division II, which is where we (GT) would be located.

 

[Vespidae]

And don’t think for a minute that the B1G states wouldn’t quickly follow suit. Ohio St, Penn St, Nebraska, Michigan would not be left out. They would go to the new “money association” as well as fast as they could. Then the teams left over would effectively become like a Division II, which is where we (GT) would be located.

This is already happening. The prediction is there will be one league of the Top 20 ... and everyone else.

Is this really what we want?

 

[MWBATL]

All I know is that these changes will lead to unforeseen and unintended consequences

 

[chris975d]

This is already happening. The prediction is there will be one league of the Top 20 ... and everyone else.

Is this really what we want?

I don’t, but if that’s what those schools want, it’s going to happen with or without the NCAA. NCAA is trying to keep some control (aka protect their revenue) with this latest decision. NCAA isn’t the draw, it’s those popular schools (the factories), so the NCAA is going to have to go the direction the factories want in order to keep the factories. No one in the NCAA wants to take a MASSIVE pay cut.

 

[MWBATL]

All the NCAA worries about is basketball revenue. They make almost nothing off football.

 

[GT_EE78]

Yeah. If CA/TX+SEC states pass laws that are incompatible with NCAA membership, you'll basically be left with the B1G and a bunch of basketball schools. The NCAA would be meaningless at that point.

Are you suggesting that is a bad thing?

 

[Vespidae]

The way it’s done in Japan is a corporate league. They pay for everything.

Imagine the UPS Yellow Jackets. Or the Delta Air Lines Ramblin Reck. Cuz that’s where it’s headed.

 

[JorgeJonas]

This is already happening. The prediction is there will be one league of the Top 20 ... and everyone else.

Is this really what we want?

If it’s already happening, then there’s no harm in the rule change(s).