Is college football near the end as we know it.

[Jacket4Life9]

My gut reaction was that only a handful of players would actually bring in big $. However, given the recruiting landscape/craze, all 4* guys—at minimum—will be “offered” some sort of endorsement opportunity. Even if they create rules which prevent such offers before stepping on campus (good luck enforcing those), players will know the % of players alumni “take care” of. If one school goes over the top, all others with resources will follow.

You’d be naive to believe that only players such as Zion or Justin Fields will be paid—the Josh Nesbitts and low 4*s will too. How much would GT pay for a couple of low 4* DTs right now??? If I had the $, I’d be willing to set them up with a nice endorsement gig.

 

[Jacket4Life9]

I don't know if I buy this logic. Donors still give tens of millions to schools for athletics facilities and other stuff they don't get immediate results from. How is this that much different?

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.

 

[Vespidae]

There is less and less rationality applied to college sports every day.

Nick Saban makes $8M a year running a $100M football program. I ran a $600M business and was paid a fraction of that. And on top, he's getting commercial deals, tv shows, shoe contracts, etc etc etc. Now we involve the players.

There's no answer other than eventually, the shoe is going to drop. And it's not going to be pretty.

 

[bobongo]

Yep. Markets work, if we will let them.

With proper regulation...

 

[Vespidae]

With proper regulation...

I thought this might be fun to look at … so I looked at the profitability of college athletics by examining the total profits of the top 230 sports programs. Ten (10) schools account for 80% of the total profitability and can reinvest at an alarming rate. If I use the ratios used to determine "industry competitiveness", it's borderline "moderately competitive". Eighty-eight schools (88) out of the 230 lost money.

I suppose what I would conclude (without extensive analysis, but back of the envelope) is that college sports is not sufficiently regulated today and it is going to skew even more towards the top ten programs.

 

[JorgeJonas]

With proper regulation...

I can think of no reason this market needs regulation. If the NCAA and the players want to collectively bargain, so be it (though the players would need to unionize). But there is absolutely no governmental interest in placing restrictions on, or otherwise manipulating, a market for football players.

 

[ramblin_man]

So I have to wonder how all of this endorsement/paying players is going to impact all the marketing and publishing of materials etc. I mean unless some type of cap is established the big money programs will really benefit by luring in kids on “promises earnings” and Continue to widen the gap between them and the programs chasing after them or even trying to improve their current situation. I really wonder how Collins will shift his marketing techniques or how he will build up an account of monies to ensure that he has the needed funding to land “elite” recruits? also does this mean that an individual player could be sponsored by a athletic brand other than the college is under contract with? Or does a program have to pay a player who hosts a recruit that’s on their “official visit” because the college is leveraging the presence of the current player to entice the recruit to sign with that college? This opens the doors for much more scandal and opportunities for corruption. Why not just have a minor league league for all sports for those athletes who are solely focused on the potential financial gains and have no real interest in obtaining an education while playing a sport? This will be interesting to see this “lived out” and how do you ever go back now that Pandora’s box has been opened?

 

[MWBATL]

And there is still nothing preventing that student from getting compensation outside of GTRI!

What worries me is the amount of money in college sports. Comparisons to most other students are irrelevant because Vegas doesn’t take bets or post odds on next week’s GTRI work or patents or concert is it’s or ....well most anything else.

The huge risk is that gambling will find ways to funnel money to players thus influencing the whole game. Hard to see how it will work without recognizing this enormous problem

 

[Vespidae]

What worries me is the amount of money in college sports. Comparisons to most other students are irrelevant because Vegas doesn’t take bets or post odds on next week’s GTRI work or patents or concert is it’s or ....well most anything else.

The huge risk is that gambling will find ways to funnel money to players thus influencing the whole game. Hard to see how it will work without recognizing this enormous problem

There are usually safeguards in place to make sure that contractors working for an institution like GTRI cannot trade on GTRI's name, affiliation or work. That's not the case in sports. They are endorsing products or lending their likeness BECAUSE of the affiliation.

Regardless, the genie is to come out of the bottle. I can't wait to order the Tobias Oliver Triple Decker Cheese Pizza from Domino's.

 

[JorgeJonas]

What worries me is the amount of money in college sports. Comparisons to most other students are irrelevant because Vegas doesn’t take bets or post odds on next week’s GTRI work or patents or concert is it’s or ....well most anything else.

The huge risk is that gambling will find ways to funnel money to players thus influencing the whole game. Hard to see how it will work without recognizing this enormous problem

How is this any different than the situation now? If anything, not paying the players, or allowing N&L compensation, makes this exact result more likely.

Plus, point shaving/fixing is already a federal crime. No concern necessary.

 

[MWBATL]

How is this any different than the situation now? If anything, not paying the players, or allowing N&L compensation, makes this exact result more likely.

Plus, point shaving/fixing is already a federal crime. No concern necessary.

It is easier to police a situation where you are not allowed to make ANY money than to begin allowing grey areas cohere some income is allowed but other income is not. When Harrah’s starts to sponsor Zion Williamson jerseys, how can you stop it?

 

[JorgeJonas]

It is easier to police a situation where you are not allowed to make ANY money than to begin allowing grey areas cohere some income is allowed but other income is not. When Harrah’s starts to sponsor Zion Williamson jerseys, how can you stop it?

But it’s not gray at all. They’d be allowed to earn income from N&L receipts and not from point shaving. Sponsorships by casinos would raise no issue at all, either. If the player is point shaving, that would be proved exactly the same way it is now.

 

[bobongo]

I can think of no reason this market needs regulation. If the NCAA and the players want to collectively bargain, so be it (though the players would need to unionize). But there is absolutely no governmental interest in placing restrictions on, or otherwise manipulating, a market for football players.

I didn't mean government regulation in this context. But it has got to be regulated in some way (by the NCAA) or it will lead to oligopoly. Well, we already have that in college football but it could get a lot worse. Mind you I realize this is a train that can't be stopped. But it had better have some kind of ground rules or it will run over the rest of college football and end up being the ruination of all of college football, unless the factories think they can make it work by making their own conference. Regulation in this sense is good for all, whether they all realize it or not.

 

[gtpi]

The problem is not just paying football players... With Title IX, as soon as you pay the FB players, you have to pay EVERYONE... It will really hit the non-revenue sports hard as many of them will get dropped entirely to save money...

i like the idea of putting a set % aside and dividing it up among all the athletes at the end of spring semester.
ie one could argue that the uconn womens bb team is the most recognizable team for that college. maybe it could be divvied out by a formula that handicaps the sports somehow.

without his line and rb and wr a qb wouldnt what he is so it seems fair to me to split it evenly.

 

[gtpi]

you cant fix a problem that you dont acknowledge and putting this ENTIRE amateur play for pay out in the open would bring it out of the shadows. that is the time you start making rules to enforce it imo.

 

[LongforDodd]

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.

 

[MidtownJacket]

Wel apparently the NFLPA is making a play to represent the college players. Looks like the NCAA may be about to cede even more authority than they expected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jd89]

Hopefully, all of the successful tech companies coming out of GTRI or GT alumni will need new faces for commercials or all of the folks locating in the new GT midtown offices need to sponsor athletes....geez it sound ridiculous.
I think a cap on spending and put into a trust u get upon graduation would be a good way to address and keep kids in school. They are not going hungry and Are probably too busy with training and school to need tons of party money.

 

[BCJacket]

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. The value of a full scholarship to Alabama is about $30,000/year. Not nothing. But the value of the entire scholarship roster for Bama football is about 1/3 of Saban's salary. He's not risking concussion, spinal injury or torn ligaments on every play.

To me, the only way this works is for there to be some sort of players committee(s) that negotiate with the NCAA, Conferences and outside interests for the benefit of all the SA's. Have some portion of the money go in to trusts to pay for post-playing healthcare, retirement accounts, grad school scholarships, job placement assistance or whatever. The rest go into a stipend for all SAs. Maybe the Revenue sport SAs get more, maybe the individual players get a bonus based on merch with their # or a percentage of a standard fee for personal appearances... But to have the QB1 at UGA making millions 'cause he's signed with Nike and the TE making thousands endorsing the local Chevy dealer and the WR5 eating ramen because he's got no deal just isn't going to work.

ETA: I've seen analyses that put the value of a scholarship over 100k. But that's assuming every athlete only went to college because of the schollarship, they graduate and make a good college grad salary. And had they not had the scholarship every one would only have a high school diploma and make high school graduate average salary. And putting all of the value of future earnings into the scholarship's value. Not really accurate.

 

[JorgeJonas]

I didn't mean government regulation in this context. But it has got to be regulated in some way (by the NCAA) or it will lead to oligopoly. Well, we already have that in college football but it could get a lot worse. Mind you I realize this is a train that can't be stopped. But it had better have some kind of ground rules or it will run over the rest of college football and end up being the ruination of all of college football, unless the factories think they can make it work by making their own conference. Regulation in this sense is good for all, whether they all realize it or not.

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.