Notre Dame to consider starting it's own football league.

[IrishLax]

I concede 100% that I don't have the solution all thought out. But I do believe it is obscene that in a sport that generates so much revenue doesn't share any of it with the people most responsible for generating the revenue.

The solution, IMO, is the Olympic Model. It's fair to every party involved, and it also doesn't step on Title IX.

 

[woolybug25]

Why is it recreation for the player and not for the coach? The player is generating revenue with his efforts. Calling that "recreation" is disingenuous. If a college swim team or marching band makes money, then they should share that with the swimmers and band members. If they don't make money off it, then it is recreation. You have a ton of old people who aren't doing the actual marketable thing that people are paying for drawing huge salaries, but the people making the biggest contributions don't deserve anything?

And in most cases, generating expenses. There are probably a handful of players in the country in any given year that actually create actual profit for their university. There are a ton that create revenue, but it isn't worth a damn thing if that player is a net cost. They still have to house, feed, teach and provide cultural experience for the kid. I don't think you understand how very little impact most college athletes actually have to bottom line profitability. Which is all that matters at the end of the day.

This argument is the closest one to being acceptable to me, but again, I am not arguing that these kids should be getting big signing bonuses and 6 or 7 figure salaries. Just give the kids something for the time they are putting in (which is generating revenue for the schools). Sure, the opportunity for an education is a nice perk, but why do the kids need to take a vow of poverty? They aren't training to be monks.

Again... [/le sigh] revenue is completely worthless if there isn't an end game net profit. Which most kid's 3-4 years of football will ever create. You're acting like they don't get "a little something" already. They do.

First of all, if they are basing the calculation on the max practice time allowed with coaches (the "20/8 rule"), then they are underestimating the time investment by about 250%. Second of all, the value of the education they are getting in return varies greatly, so you'd end up with a pretty big range and the "average" would be pretty tough to pin down and basically meaningless. And access to athletic facilities and medical and training staffs doesn't really persuade me, since it isn't like that is a huge privilege - it is a responsibility for an athlete. They wouldn't be using those things if they weren't athletes.

Neither would the university... so tell me why the school should pay for the privilege again?

I continue to be amazed that people are soooo invested in and committed to the idea that kids shouldn't be given anything for their time and efforts. What is it to you, really? Some antiquated ideal about "true amateurism"? Just seems silly to me that anyone would be on the side of anyone not getting paid for their service.

They are already getting more than they deserve in most cases. For every Tebow or Manziel that might create a small net profit for a program, there are thousands of other kids that are a net loss for the university as a whole. So I honestly don't get what you mean when you say that they should get something for their effort. Why? They cost the school money.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I am going to make this argument to my boss. Yes, I'm paid a good amount of money.... but don't you care about me? Wouldn't it be better if you paid me more money?

If you generated all of your company's revenue and in return your boss offered to pay your rent and provide your meals, that would work for you?

 

[Grahambo]

So, was I the only one on here that watched NFL Europe?

 

[koonja]

Are Bonita fish big?

 

[Irish#1]

Because he is a human whose efforts are resulting in revenue?

He's already getting paid. Why does it have to be more? These kids aren't living in poverty.

 

[kmoose]

1. Every DI athlete on athletic scholarship (all sports) gets paid minimum wage based on practice hours (up to the 20-hour/week limit).

2. Paychecks will be awarded by semester OR collected in an account and distributed as a lump sum upon graduation. The account on the lump-sum option could be a student savings account that gathers interest over their 4/5 years on campus.

This doesn't address the main argument, that kids don't even have the money to go see a movie or get a hamburger. Holding their money until the end of the semester means that they go without for the duration of the semester. And what happens when Sooner Savings and Loan, or Longhorn Investments offer 5,000% interest, compared to Hilltopper Bank, which can only offer 3% interest?

By the way.......... your athletes have now become empoyees, so where are their benefits as required by the ACA?

3. If a student fails to maintain eligibility, or does not achieve a minimum GPA requirement in a semester, the practice-hours pay for that semester will not be granted.

Professors in State College, Columbus, Seattle, and Tallahassee are already pressured to make sure students don't lose their scholarship because of a bad grade. Now we are going to add "and he may not be able to eat" to that pressure?

4. If a student does not finish school, there is a penalty (50% ?) on the money that they can receive. The remaining money can be recycled for future athletes.

If you hire me, and I quit after amassing only 40 hours, you are not entitled to pay me half wages for those 40 hours. What makes you think that this would be any different?

I like where you are headed with all of this, I just think it is way more complicated.

 

[BobbyMac]

Profits don't have anything to do with it. Plenty of people work for companies that do not make a profit and still pay their employees. My argument has nothing to do with profits, only revenues. As you've noted, most schools are willing to operate their football programs in the red, so paying their most valuable contributors should be doable. Figure out a revenue split with players (say 2% of revenues goes to players, who split the pool evenly) and let them get some of what they are generating for the school.

So you want every guy at Texas to get $28k on top of their TR&B, books, insurance, medical & dental, tutors, training staff, away games transportation and lodging plus that bowl week outlay?

What about Louisiana - Monroe players? Their cut would be $823 each. Is that fair?

 

[wizards8507]

Please explain to me what is cynical about saying that I believe many of the people donating to a stadium expansion are donating because they love Notre Dame football?

Because you're saying it to people who DO donate to the University and it doesn't have jack shit to do with football. My wife and I actually give more to Saint Mary's each year than Notre Dame and that obviously has nothing to do with athletics whatsoever.

 

[greyhammer90]

If you generated all of your company's revenue and in return your boss offered to pay your rent and provide your meals, that would work for you?

Plus a stipend and a degree of my choosing for a minimum of 4 years?

Fuck yes.

 

[woolybug25]

Are Bonita fish big?

Jesus, Koon.... Don't interrupt him when he's telling a story...


Well, Koon, they are what's called a trophy fish.


So, yeah, they're pretty big.


I'm sorry.


Anyway...

 

[wizards8507]

This doesn't address the main argument, that kids don't even have the money to go see a movie or get a hamburger.

That's horse shit and I think you know it. Those kids live like kings.

 

[kmoose]

But I do believe it is obscene that in a sport that generates so much revenue doesn't share any of it with the people most responsible for generating the revenue.

You keep saying this as if it were true.......... How do you think that an athletic scholarship works? Do you think that the school just puts a 0 in the "due" column for that student?

No, the Athletic Department pays for that kid's tuition, room, and board (or part thereof). The academic side of the University still gets paid.

 

[Irish Insanity]

If you generated all of your company's revenue and in return your boss offered to pay your rent and provide your meals, that would work for you?

They also get a top notch education at a world class university that is a stepping stone to their financial security for the rest of their lives if they choose to take it seriously. All for free.

 

[woolybug25]

If you generated all of your company's revenue and in return your boss offered to pay your rent and provide your meals, that would work for you?

Revenue does not equal profit.

If I created a net cost for my company... I would get fired. Almost all college football players are in this boat.

 

[kmoose]

That's horse shit and I think you know it. Those kids live like kings.

I didn't say that I believe it. But that is what you will hear. Because they will always want more. Its human nature.

 

[wizards8507]

If you generated all of your company's revenue and in return your boss offered to pay your rent and provide your meals, that would work for you?

If generating my company's revenue meant running out of that tunnel with a gold helmet on my head and a chance to play football on national television for the University of Notre Dame, I'd not only do it for free, I'd pay handsomely for the privilege.

 

[Rhode Irish]

And in most cases, generating expenses. There are probably a handful of players in the country in any given year that actually create actual profit for their university. There are a ton that create revenue, but it isn't worth a damn thing if that player is a net cost. They still have to house, feed, teach and provide cultural experience for the kid. I don't think you understand how very little impact most college athletes actually have to bottom line profitability. Which is all that matters at the end of the day.



Again... [/le sigh] revenue is completely worthless if there isn't an end game net profit. Which most kid's 3-4 years of football will ever create. You're acting like they don't get "a little something" already. They do.



Neither would the university... so tell me why the school should pay for thI e privilege again?




They are already getting more than they deserve in most cases. For every Tebow or Manziel that might create a small net profit for a program, there are thousands of other kids that are a net loss for the university as a whole. So I honestly don't get what you mean when you say that they should get something for their effort. Why? They cost the school money.

I'm on my phone in the car, so I'm not going to go point by point through this right now (maybe later). But overall, you seem to be arguing from a place where schools are playing big time football for some unstated altruistic reason even though they lose money on it. Even if a football program loses money on paper, they are clearly benefitting in a huge way through goodwill, exposure and other ancillary benefits. Otherwise they wouldn't make the investment. (There is perhaps no better example of this than ND, which is now world class institution and much bigger than its football team, but in large part owes much of its prestige to its historic football program.)

Again, I'm not saying they get nothing. My only point is that players should share in the revenue they are generating.

 

[tussin]

If you generated all of your company's revenue and in return your boss offered to pay your rent and provide your meals, that would work for you?

...what do you think I use my salary for? Rent, meals, living expenses.

Here is a solution that I mentioned earlier, Rhode. Give the student athletes their scholarship money in straight cash. Let them pay for tuition and life like every other college student in the world.

 

[IrishLion]

This doesn't address the main argument, that kids don't even have the money to go see a movie or get a hamburger. Holding their money until the end of the semester means that they go without for the duration of the semester. And what happens when Sooner Savings and Loan, or Longhorn Investments offer 5,000% interest, compared to Hilltopper Bank, which can only offer 3% interest?

My answer to this would be two things:
1. My plan for minimum-wage payment for practice hours does not eliminate their regular stipend, nor does it eliminate their free meals that they have available from the school. It is literally just adding hourly pay for their practice hours.
2. They aren't "going without" during the semester, because they have free housing and meals, and also a stipend for some spending money. If they want MORE spending money, they can elect to receiver by-semester payment for their practice hours, and use the previous semesters' paycheck for that spending money. OR, they could choose to use the resources ALREADY AT THEIR DISPOSAL AS STUDENT ATHLETES, and have their hourly wages deposited into a savings account. But they have a choice. If they want more spending money, they can take their check at the end of each semester and spend if over the course of the next.

By the way.......... your athletes have now become empoyees, so where are their benefits as required by the ACA?

Their benefits are the free education and use of athletic facilities, campus living facilities, dining facilities, and paid medical care, WHICH THEY ALREADY GET CURRENTLY.

Professors in State College, Columbus, Seattle, and Tallahassee are already pressured to make sure students don't lose their scholarship because of a bad grade. Now we are going to add "and he may not be able to eat" to that pressure?

Again, they get unlimited free meals already. They wouldn't go away if you pay kids for practice hours.

If you hire me, and I quit after amassing only 40 hours, you are not entitled to pay me half wages for those 40 hours. What makes you think that this would be any different?

This would simply be motivation for them to stay in school despite getting paid. They could sign a contract about the funds being withheld. Or we could delete the idea... it's just me hoping that academic focus remains a priority, and tying it in with humans' love for money as motivation.

I like where you are headed with all of this, I just think it is way more complicated.

Yes, it's just a simple outline that wouldn't necessarily crush college athletics in the way that other ideas would.

 

[BobbyMac]

Stuff your "facts", Crusader. Every one of the top 22 FBS programs is a modern plantation, shamelessly exploiting vulnerable young minorities for profit.

Just caught this and my heart dropped to my belt loops. Please remember, I'm a few rungs down the ladder with only a Lutheran degree to show for my seasons spent toiling in the fields.

Some italics would have saved me 5 seconds of despair. lol

 

[woolybug25]

I'm on my phone in the car, so I'm not going to go point by point through this right now (maybe later). But overall, you seem to be arguing from a place where schools are playing big time football for some unstated altruistic reason even though they lose money on it. Even if a football program loses money on paper, they are clearly benefitting in a huge way through goodwill, exposure and other ancillary benefits. Otherwise they wouldn't make the investment. (There is perhaps no better example of this than ND, which is now world class institution and much bigger than its football team, but in large part owes much of its prestige to its historic football program.)

Again, I'm not saying they get nothing. My only point is that players should share in the revenue they are generating.

You cannot quantify either a) what amount a football program provides for it's university or b) whether a player has any direct impact on that.

So how in the hell do you know that they aren't getting enough benefit if your entire argument is that they, as a royal whole, create an "altruistic" benefit to the university? It's a ridiculous argument that wouldn't even be something we talked about if all of you "pay them" guys didn't realize that there wasn't this huge profit windfall of college football you thought there was.

 

[wizards8507]

I'm on my phone in the car, so I'm not going to go point by point through this right now (maybe later). But overall, you seem to be arguing from a place where schools are playing big time football for some unstated altruistic reason even though they lose money on it. Even if a football program loses money on paper, they are clearly benefitting in a huge way through goodwill, exposure and other ancillary benefits. Otherwise they wouldn't make the investment. (There is perhaps no better example of this than ND, which is now world class institution and much bigger than its football team, but in large part owes much of its prestige to its historic football program.)

Again, I'm not saying they get nothing. My only point is that players should share in the revenue they are generating.

It's not an unstated altruistic reason, it's a very clearly stated altruistic reason. To educate young men in mind, body, and spirit. The marching band doesn't bring in any money, but universities have those. Giving a slob like me a $40,000 scholarship didn't bring ND any revenue, but they did that. It's surely not profitable to have a diving team or fencing or track and field, yet those all exist.

Honestly, what do you think a university is?

 

[GATTACA!]

Because you're saying it to people who DO donate to the University and it doesn't have jack shit to do with football. My wife and I actually give more to Saint Mary's each year than Notre Dame and that obviously has nothing to do with athletics whatsoever.

Good for you and your wife? What do you want a cookie? Do you notice how in my response you quoted I said MANY, I never said every single donor. IMO many of the donors that donated to Notre Dame's STADIUM expansion did so because they love football.

Are you actually trying to argue that not a single person donated to the crossroads project because of football? Also I love how you dropped the independent bullshit after kmoose made you look like the uninformed idiot.

 

[Emcee77]

Profits don't have anything to do with it. Plenty of people work for companies that do not make a profit and still pay their employees. My argument has nothing to do with profits, only revenues. As you've noted, most schools are willing to operate their football programs in the red, so paying their most valuable contributors should be doable.

I totally agree. The profit argument falls totally flat for me. Revenue is the key stat, not profit.

The problem I have with all of your arguments is that they solve nothing except saying "Give more money!" You say you don't want players to be paid millions of dollars but you say they should be paid "something." The problem is that they are paid something. They get stipends already on top of all their other perks (food, clothes, gear, on campus housing, and of course the scholarship). So really all you're saying is that they should get paid more, but not too much, but more. So let's say your dream came true, what do you think would happen next? Even ignoring all the other effects this would have on an athletic department (Title IX, etc.), it would just lead to players asking for more money. At some point you've got to pick a side, either complete amateurism (unfair to some student athletes, a boon for others) or players getting paid their FMV (more issues than I can list, complete shift of the entire collegiate system and total destruction of multiple athletic departments)

Im on my phone so sorry about grammar, bluntness, etc.

I think that's right, and that is what I think is so interesting about the Fr. Jenkins interview that kicked off this discussion. He sees that coming. At some point we will have to pick a side, and ND will not be on the side of glorified semipro football. I like that.

 

[kmoose]

My answer to this would be two things:
1. My plan for minimum-wage payment for practice hours does not eliminate their regular stipend, nor does it eliminate their free meals that they have available from the school. It is literally just adding hourly pay for their practice hours.
2. They aren't "going without" during the semester, because they have free housing and meals, and also a stipend for some spending money. If they want MORE spending money, they can elect to receiver by-semester payment for their practice hours, and use the previous semesters' paycheck for that spending money. OR, they could choose to use the resources ALREADY AT THEIR DISPOSAL AS STUDENT ATHLETES, and have their hourly wages deposited into a savings account. But they have a choice. If they want more spending money, they can take their check at the end of each semester and spend if over the course of the next.



Again, they get unlimited free meals already. They wouldn't go away if you pay kids for practice hours.

Sorry I didn't use italics, but I was sarcastically pointing out that the plan doesn't address one of the lamest arguments for paying the kids........ that they can't afford to eat or go to a movie. We've seen a plethora of written articles outlining how these kids have no food in the fridge, while their coaches dine at only the finest of restaurants, etc.

 

[wizards8507]

Good for you and your wife? What do you want a cookie? Do you notice how in my response you quoted I said MANY, I never said every single donor. IMO many of the donors that donated to Notre Dame's STADIUM expansion did so because they love football.

Are you actually trying to argue that not a single person donated to the crossroads project because of football? Also I love how you dropped the independent bullshit after kmoose made you look like the uninformed idiot.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. The project ISN'T A stadium expansion at its core. It's a campus infrastructure project that has virtually nothing to do with football other than location.

And I stand by my "independent" position. The sale of premium boxes is self-contained within this project, i.e. independent of other outside revenue streams.

 

[wizards8507]

I totally agree. The profit argument falls totally flat for me. Revenue is the key stat, not profit.

Except that, without profit, these programs would cease to exist if operating expenses increased substantially.

And Rhode's point has been that players deserve a "taste" of these fat stacks the schools are raking in. But if schools are spending more to field a team than the team generates, then there ARE NO STACKS.

 

[Rhode Irish]

It's not an unstated altruistic reason, it's a very clearly stated altruistic reason. To educate young men in mind, body, and spirit. The marching band doesn't bring in any money, but universities have those. Giving a slob like me a $40,000 scholarship didn't bring ND any revenue, but they did that. It's surely not profitable to have a diving team or fencing or track and field, yet those all exist.

Honestly, what do you think a university is?

It doesn't exist so we can have football. If we can invest in football so that the football team flies charter jets and coaches make millions of dollars and coaches have private planes to go on recruiting trips, then the resources exist to take care of players. You can't spend all this money like you are the monarch of a small Arabian oil producing nation and then point to your balance sheet and say you lose money so the players can't have any. Does the diving team's coach go on recruiting trips in a private plane? If the investment in football was the same as the investment in the diving team then bringing up the existence of the diving team would make sense.

 

[GATTACA!]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. The project ISN'T A stadium expansion at its core. It's a campus infrastructure project that has virtually nothing to do with football other than location.

And I stand by my "independent" position. The sale of premium boxes is self-contained within this project, i.e. independent of other outside revenue streams.

So the aluminum seating is for the science department, the jumbotron is for liberal arts, the new press boxes and premium box seats are for the history department??

You're either a fool or you're being purposefully ignorant.