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

[Emcee77]

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.

This:

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.

Revenue is in the millions, even for middling or low-level programs, according to the article that Whiskey linked earlier. It is tough for me to swallow the idea that there is no way to give the kids on the field a slice of that.

 

[kmoose]

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.

Again, how are players not "being taken care of"? They are provided with housing, food, clothing, medical care, fitness memberships, education.......... how are they NOT being taken care of?

 

[woolybug25]

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.

First of all, income is reported on the income statement not the balance sheet.

The reality is that if the school takes a loss on the program, the existence of a jet doesn't magically change that. You could argue maybe they shouldn't have the jet, but most schools that have them, need them for a variety of other uses.

You really haven't addressed any of my points and your explanation of finance is appalling.

 

[woolybug25]

This:



Revenue is in the millions, even for middling or low-level programs, according to the article that Whiskey linked earlier. It is tough for me to swallow the idea that there is no way to give the kids on the field a slice of that.

So should they get "a slice" of the net loss they take too?

 

[GATTACA!]

So should they get "a slice" of the net loss they take too?

Should you only be paid based on your company's performance? No, you are either paid a salary or an hourly wage. If your company doesnt manage their budget properly they still have to pay you.

 

[tussin]

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.

Players are the workers and coaches are the CEO. College players are replaceable and dime a dozen while there are probably only 10-15 elite level CFB coaches in the world. Players are compensated about $60-70K in education, living, food, and medical care. Nick Saban, the best "CEO" in the business, is making about $7M this year, or 100 times the average "worker" salary.

For comparison, the CEO at my company also made about 100 times my salary.

The players are getting a fair deal.

 

[woolybug25]

Should you only be paid based on your company's performance? No, you are either paid a salary or an hourly wage. If your company doesnt manage their budget properly they still have to pay you.

If I don't make money for my company, I get fired. Don't know how it works for you...

If the entire argument is based on the schools making money, then the argument doesn't really make sense if they don't.

 

[Rhode Irish]

First of all, income is reported on the income statement not the balance sheet.

The reality is that if the school takes a loss on the program, the existence of a jet doesn't magically change that. You could argue maybe they shouldn't have the jet, but most schools that have them, need them for a variety of other uses.

You really haven't addressed any of my points and your explanation of finance is appalling.

I know the difference between a IS and a BS. In my haste I typed the wrong thing. As I said, I'm multi-tasking. But thanks for pointing out my error, even though it doesn't really change my point. Revenues are what matter, not profits. Most people's compensation is tied to whether or not the company is profitable. You are paid from revenues, and your salary or wage is an expense. My point about the jets isn't that football programs shouldn't have them, it's that all or almost all major football programs are making those kinds of investments, so they could afford to give the players some money for living expenses.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

If I don't make money for my company, I get fired. Don't know how it works for you...

If the entire argument is based on the schools making money, then the argument doesn't really make sense if they don't.

Exactly. It's a terrible analogy which would lead to some very perverse outcomes if one follows the logic.

An employee typically gets paid regardless of the company's performance (at least for a time). Only shareholders get a "taste" of the profits; but they're also the ones answering capital calls when the company struggles. So what's the argument for treating student athletes as shareholders? If we did that, only those at the top 22 FBS programs would get paid; and that pay would be contingent on a whole host of variables that the players have no control over.

Colleges and universities are not-for-profit corporate entities, so this entire analogy is inapt. If you want to consider them employees, the vast majority of them are getting paid far more than their market value already through the scholarship. There are a few superstars who are prevented from realizing their full market value due to the current rules; if that rare injustice keeps you up at night, support the adoption of the Olympic model Lax has described.

But there's no way that paying players would result in a more just and egalitarian distribution than the current system. Doing so would necessitate blowing up the current system and setting up a semi-professional farm league for the NFL; to the serious detriment of the vast majority of student athletes, who don't play in a revenue sport and who's market value is virtually nil.

 

[IrishinSyria]

If I don't make money for my company, I get fired. Don't know how it works for you...

If the entire argument is based on the schools making money, then the argument doesn't really make sense if they don't.

But why not let the market figure it out. If players aren't worth more than the scholarships they receive, they won't get paid. If they are, then they will.

Football is a full-time job for these kids. They practice for 20 hours a week, and then film study, travel time, weight training, game time, and misc. locker room time gets added on top of that. Even at ND, a football player just isn't getting the same academic experience as a normal student. They can't intern over the summer like all of their classmates. They can't take advantage of a lot of what the university offers. Treating them like they're amateur athletes while doing everything possible to profit of them (regardless of whether or not universities are successful on that front) is a scam.

Also there's no way that only 20 some teams profit of off their football teams. Each major conference runs a tv network that makes millions of dollars for all of the member schools. Technically, that revenue doesn't get credited to the football team, because the networks cover all sports, but I think it's pretty obvious what sport makes those networks profitable. Same story with merchandise sales. Same with booster donations. I'm sure that universities make millions off of football programs that don't get credited to the programs.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Um........ he was:

Exactly. It's a terrible analogy which would lead to some very perverse outcomes if one follows the logic.

An employee typically gets paid regardless of the company's performance (at least for a time). Only shareholders get a "taste" of the profits; but they're also the ones answering capital calls when the company struggles. So what's the argument for treating student athletes as shareholders? If we did that, only those at the top 22 FBS programs would get paid; and that pay would be contingent on a whole host of variables that the players have no control over.

Colleges and universities are not-for-profit corporate entities, so this entire analogy is inapt. If you want to consider them employees, the vast majority of them are getting paid far more than their market value already through the scholarship. There are a few superstars who are prevented from realizing their full market value due to the current rules; if that rare injustice keeps you up at night, support the adoption of the Olympic model Lax has described.

But there's no way that paying players would result in a more just and egalitarian distribution than the current system. Doing so would necessitate blowing up the current system and setting up a semi-professional farm league for the NFL; to the serious detriment of the vast majority of student athletes, who don't play in a revenue sport and who's market value is virtually nil.

I would support the olympic model + either the development of a minor league or the opening of the NFL to players directly out of high school. I think hockey and baseball are model systems: players have the ability to choose whether they value the early financial benefits of going pro or the academic benefits of the NCAA. Of course, that model isn't as good for the fans, but that's kind of the point of the whole protest.

 

[GATTACA!]

If I don't make money for my company, I get fired. Don't know how it works for you...

If the entire argument is based on the schools making money, then the argument doesn't really make sense if they don't.

Then according to Whiskeys stats you keep parroting about 100 D1 schools should "fire" all of their players. Your premise is faulty, it's not the individual players responsibility to make sure the program makes money. Weather the AD and board of directors are able to turn a profit on the money football brings in has no impact on weather or not the players did their jobs. If some Wal Mart doesn't make a profit it's not the employees who stock the shelves fault, and those employees still get.paid for the time they spent working. Going forward maybe that Wal Mart should reevaluate how they do business, but one of their option WON'T be hey let's not pay our employees.

 

[pkt77242]

For a second I thought that I had accidentally clicked on the politics thread.

 

[ND NYC]

lets start with ALL schools guaranteeing the 4year scholarship (eliminate the one year renewables)


(and yes I know at ND we do gurantee the 4 yr...its everyone else i'm talking about here)

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

But why not let the market figure it out. If players aren't worth more than the scholarships they receive, they won't get paid. If they are, then they will.

If players were worth more than the scholarships they receive I assume there would exist a viable, independent minor league football system to compete with the FBS schools for their talents.

 

[Rhode Irish]

If players were worth more than the scholarships they receive I assume there would exist a viable, independent minor league football system to compete with the FBS schools for their talents.

I said this earlier in the thread, but it goes both ways. Nobody would pay to see these same players if you took the school affiliations away and it was just a minor league, but also nobody would pay to see a team of regular biology students from one school take on a bunch of film majors from another school. It is a symbiotic relationship.

Maybe to avoid competitive imbalance, the answer would really be to pool revenues - say all teams pay in 1% of their revenues plus 1% of whatever sport-wide revenues there are from bowl games, TV contracts, etc., then distribute that pool pro rata among all scholarship athletes in that sport at that level. I know, it's a socialist idea. But if the concern is protecting the competitive balance, it seems like a workable alternative to each program just paying whatever they want while still allowing the players to see some of the revenue they are generating.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I said this earlier in the thread, but it goes both ways. Nobody would pay to see these same players if you took the school affiliations away and it was just a minor league, but also nobody would pay to see a team of regular biology students from one school take on a bunch of film majors from another school. It is a symbiotic relationship.

Let's consider this analogy, but under more realistic circumstances. Assume the entire 85-man roster at each of the top 22 FBS schools goes on strike tomorrow. Assume also that, through some bizarre set of circumstances, the top 22 FBS schools were able to immediately restock their rosters with the best Division II players. Because the alternative to the current crop of elite athletes is not really "regular biology students", but only slightly less elite athletes. Do you really think the fans would turn their noses up at the level of competition and stop watching? I don't see how.

Maybe to avoid competitive imbalance, the answer would really be to pool revenues - say all teams pay in 1% of their revenues plus 1% of whatever sport-wide revenues there are from bowl games, TV contracts, etc., then distribute that pool pro rata among all scholarship athletes in that sport at that level. I know, it's a socialist idea. But if the concern is protecting the competitive balance, it seems like a workable alternative to each program just paying whatever they want while still allowing the players to see some of the revenue they are generating.

That would be an extreme remedy to address the 20 FBS schools with profitable football programs who aren't offering elite degree value. Student athletes at virtually every other school are already being "overpaid" (in terms of this ridiculous free market analogy).

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

I said this earlier in the thread, but it goes both ways. Nobody would pay to see these same players if you took the school affiliations away and it was just a minor league, but also nobody would pay to see a team of regular biology students from one school take on a bunch of film majors from another school. It is a symbiotic relationship.

Maybe to avoid competitive imbalance, the answer would really be to pool revenues - say all teams pay in 1% of their revenues plus 1% of whatever sport-wide revenues there are from bowl games, TV contracts, etc., then distribute that pool pro rata among all scholarship athletes in that sport at that level. I know, it's a socialist idea. But if the concern is protecting the competitive balance, it seems like a workable alternative to each program just paying whatever they want while still allowing the players to see some of the revenue they are generating.

Just running quick numbers (assuming the average program generates $60 million which is a made up number) I get about $7,000 per scholarship athlete. If we give it to all football players (assuming 105 per school) it falls to about $5,700. If we divide this across all sports then its going to fall below the stipend amounts currently being paid.

I think there is a significant barrier in moving beyond the amateur/stipend system. Once you delve into other areas of compensation from the university (as opposed to the Olympic third party model) you invite the employer/employee legal regime into the situation. I don't know enough to understand everything that would change (or how much would be good or bad) but once you go there the NCAA is no longer making the rules. Further, you are going to subject the players to income taxes and I really have no idea what all becomes taxable at that point.

All that is a long-winded way of saying that if you are advocating a sea change in HOW athletes are compensated I think the net result is going to be negative for them as a class unless the additional money is going to be very significant.

This is why the Olympic model makes sense to me. I agree that it's easily exploitable but I find the current arrangement unpalatable enough to try it.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

Let's consider this analogy, but under more realistic circumstances. Assume the entire 85-man roster at each of the top 22 FBS schools goes on strike tomorrow. Assume also that, through some bizarre set of circumstances, the top 22 FBS schools were able to immediately restock their rosters with the best Division II players. Because the alternative to the current crop of elite athletes is not really "regular biology students", but only slightly less elite athletes. Do you really think the fans would turn their noses up at the level of competition and stop watching? I don't see how.



That would be an extreme remedy to address the 20 FBS schools with profitable football programs who aren't offering elite degree value. Student athletes at virtually every other school are already being "overpaid" (in terms of this ridiculous free market analogy).

I wholly agree that if a minor league jumped up and grabbed the top 1,000 prospects (or whatever) it wouldn't dampen my interest in college football one iota. In fact, I hope it happens.

 

[wizards8507]

I wholly agree that if a minor league jumped up and grabbed the top 1,000 prospects (or whatever) it wouldn't dampen my interest in college football one iota. In fact, I hope it happens.

Agreed. I'd be thrilled to see 128 teams full of Joe Schmidts running around without ever having to read some fool tweet about Cardale Jones playing school or Shabazz Napier withering away from starvation.

 

[Irish Insanity]

Then according to Whiskeys stats you keep parroting about 100 D1 schools should "fire" all of their players. Your premise is faulty, it's not the individual players responsibility to make sure the program makes money. Weather the AD and board of directors are able to turn a profit on the money football brings in has no impact on weather or not the players did their jobs. If some Wal Mart doesn't make a profit it's not the employees who stock the shelves fault, and those employees still get.paid for the time they spent working. Going forward maybe that Wal Mart should reevaluate how they do business, but one of their option WON'T be hey let's not pay our employees.

Not all of there players, just the under performing ones and replace them with better ones to make the program better, and in the end more profitable. The again, schools already do that. I'm looking at you SEC and OSU

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I wholly agree that if a minor league jumped up and grabbed the top 1,000 prospects (or whatever) it wouldn't dampen my interest in college football one iota. In fact, I hope it happens.

It won't happen: (1) because there's no demand for such a league with our current robust CFB system; and (2) because the NFL enjoys limited scouting risk by excluding anyone who's not at least a rising senior from the draft.

 

[MNIrishman]

Agreed. I'd be thrilled to see 128 teams full of Joe Schmidts running around without ever having to read some fool tweet about Cardale Jones playing school or Shabazz Napier withering away from starvation.

Bam. This. I don't watch football for elite athletes. I watch it because it's an opportunity for my school to beat up other schools.

 

[MNIrishman]

It won't happen: (1) because there's no demand for such a league with our current robust CFB system; and (2) because the NFL enjoys limited scouting risk by excluding anyone who's not at least a rising senior from the draft.

1) Not the problem of the universities.
2) Also not the problem of the universities.

We're all mad at the schools when we really should be mad at the NFL for its ridiculous monopoly.

 

[GATTACA!]

Bam. This. I don't watch football for elite athletes. I watch it because it's an opportunity for my school to beat up other schools.

Nothing would change. Instead of clamoring in recruit threads for the Jaylon Smith's of the world we would all be going gaga over a bunch of 2 star athletes.

So is this argument in this scenario, because these players suck we don't have to pay them?

 

[zelezo vlk]

Bam. This. I don't watch football for elite athletes. I watch it because it's an opportunity for my school to beat up other schools.

Agreed.

 

[wizards8507]

It won't happen: (1) because there's no demand for such a league with our current robust CFB system; and (2) because the NFL enjoys limited scouting risk by excluding anyone who's not at least a rising senior from the draft.

That's really what this boils down to. The NFL is using college football as its talent whore and college football is happy to oblige. The only way I see anything like this happening is if Notre Dame and others actually do what Jenkins talks about in this article and that new league gains momentum. If the Cam Newton league sees the RKG league maintaining national exposure without the expenses associated with the semi-pro model, the pendulum could swing back in the direction of amateurism. The best thing for college football would be a viable for-profit alternative to the NFL so that the power universities don't have to corrupt the spirit of amateur athletics by being football factories.

 

[wizards8507]

Nothing would change. Instead of clamoring in recruit threads for the Jaylon Smith's of the world we would all be going gaga over a bunch of 2 star athletes.

So is this argument in this scenario, because these players suck we don't have to pay them?

Yes. The players who are worth money as you and Rhode allege would be out earning it. The guys playing for the love of the game are the ones we'd watch on Saturdays.

 

[Circa]

<iframe src="//giphy.com/embed/46itMIe0bkQeY" width="480" height="266" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="http://giphy.com/gifs/stop-person-of-interest-46itMIe0bkQeY">via GIPHY</a></p>

 

[Whiskeyjack]

1) Not the problem of the universities.
2) Also not the problem of the universities.

We're all mad at the schools when we really should be mad at the NFL for its ridiculous monopoly.

I agree. Just pointing out that, for those who feel it would improve CFB, a semi-pro league is unlikely to come into existence under the status quo.