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

[Irish Insanity]

Yes. Everything is about the bottom line. Do you think these schools are taking losses on football just for the love of the game? I have no idea what minimum wage for all practice hours would look like. For the sake of argument let's say 20k a year. 20k times 85 scholarship athletes equals 1.7 million. Notre Dame could spend 1.7 million without noticing it was gone. We make what something like 15 million from NBC alone every year.

I know they are raking in money. I just think 'hundreds of millions' is an exaggerated number once all the things they provide to the athletes is deducted. But I could be wrong.

 

[wizards8507]

The more interesting part of this news is Fr. Jenkins's adamance that ND would rather leave the NCAA than pay its players.

I fully support paying players in the current NCAA environment ... but I would also fully support leaving NCAA football for a true amateur student-athlete system, which in my view big-time D-I FBS NCAA football is not.

I typed this yesterday in another thread on this subject:

"I don't doubt that Jenkins is dead serious about ND dropping big-time football if it becomes openly semiprofessional football. That's what I like about him.

The University of Chicago, a former Big 10 school, dropped big-time college football decades ago due to concern that it was getting in the way of the players' education rather than helping it, and we should definitely follow suit if it comes to that. We aren't there yet ... right now, our players are able to graduate with marketable degrees, so even if you think (as I do) that the time/energy commitment required to play football at a big-time school like ND is a little bit out of proportion with any educational benefit playing big-time football may provide, the program is still justifiable as long as players come in knowing what the deal is (work really, really hard for 4 years, play big-time football, get a [solid degree in marketing or management or sociology or, if you potentially want to work REALLY hard and are REALLY smart and efficient, in the degree of your choice)]."

But if the deal changes so that our players don't graduate with regularity and deal is more about the players' opportunity to market themselves as athletes, we would have to seriously consider whether the football program would still make sense under those circumstances.

 

[Emcee77]

I'd love nothing more than for a semiprofessional league to develop so that all of the guys who want to go get paid can go get paid. They won't have an education, and when they tear an ACL two months later they'll be good and fucked. College football would once again be populated by kids who actual want to go to class instead of "playing school" until their draft stock is strong enough.


ALL college football is lower level. College football is already the equivalent of crappy HBO shows because the NFL exists. Despite the NFL being higher-quality football, CFB still thrives.

Yes, I totally agree with this part of your post.

 

[woolybug25]

From the article Wiskey posted yesterday ND's football program makes 80 mill a year.

Revenue is not the same as Profit. Notre Dame makes money with their program, but they are one of the lucky 22.

According to Jeff Benedict and Armen Keteyian, authors of The System: The Glory and Scandal of Big-Time College Football (2013), figures from the 2010-11 academic year show that only 22 of the 120 top-tier football programs broke even or made a profit. That means that while these big-time teams generate millions of dollars of revenue, the cost of running such programs usually exceeds that revenue. To put that more starkly, even within the so-called top tier, 82% of college football teams actually take away money from the university’s budget, rather than generate net revenue.

Upon Further Review, College Football Is a Giant Waste Of Money For Most Schools - The Daily Banter


Which is what always cracked me up about Northwestern players wanting to find a way to get paid. The school should have said, "hell yes... we'll pay you 50% of Net Profit from the football program". Most schools would only exasperate their current losses with some of the ideas being thrown out. Hurting the actual university in the process.

 

[IrishLion]

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.

The kids are granted "living expenses," right? If they spend that on bullsh*t, that's their own fault. They don't need to live in poverty if they take full advantage of the benefits that their scholarship and status as a student athlete offers.

The other thing is that not every school generates the same revenue, and EVERY athlete at each school would deserve some of the revenue. What do you do when the athletic department doesn't have enough money to pay every athlete in every sport?

The players are making the institutions hundreds of millions of dollars. Their "work" is what allows all the other recreational sports to survive. They are being paid with a scholarship. If you think that is fair compensation that's your prerogative but to feign that this is recreational and the same as a fraternity flag football game is ignorant.

I understand that the players are being paid with a scholarship, but IMO that isn't fair compensation. While it is great that the students don't have to pay a bill to attend school the amount of hours they are forced to put in for football means that they have no way of earning any other income. Especially at a university like Notre Dame where classwork itself could he a part time job these kids need some way of earning a small disposable income.

I'm not saying that they should be paid $45 and hour, but minimum wage for their practice hours seems appropriate to me. The point of work study is to pay students for preforming tasks that make the schools money, idk how you can argue that playing football doesn't fall under that category.

To the first bolded, as I said above, not every school is making a bunch of money on athletics. I would guess (but I'm not 100% sure) that many sports at most schools actually operate on a deficit that is made up in other places. So already the "they make the school money!" argument is on an uneven playing field at every level: institution-to-institution, sport-to-sport, athlete-to-athlete. How are these differences accounted for?

The second bolded is an argument that I do not buy. They get a stipend, they get unlimited meals, they get free room and board. Their disposable income can be the stipend. I really don't think these kids are struggling like most people think, especially with the new "unlimited meals" rule. If they blow their stipend on dumb stuff, or they need the new PS4 RIGHT NOW and can't save their money, that's another life lesson that their status as a student athlete has provided them.

The third bolded is a plan I could maybe get behind, as long as every athlete in every sport is provided the same pay, and as long as that money is regulated by an entity outside of the institution (but oh god please don't let it be the NCAA). I would also argue that maybe the kids get all of that minimum-wage payments put into an account that can't be accessed until they've graduated, that way the STUDENT-athletes are actually forced to be STUDENTS while they're earning the extra money on top of all the other perks they have that regular students don't (like free tuition).

 

[IrishinSyria]

If I were recruiting against ND I would send this article to every recruit. In three years do you want to be getting paid to play big time college football or do you want to be lining up against the university of Chicago.

 

[tussin]

You sound like Karl Marx. And that's not a strawman, you could honestly be paraphrasing the Communist Manifesto.

Let me illustrate how free markets work.

The price of labor is not determined by the profitability of the enterprise. Apple makes a lot more money when they sell an iPhone than Motorola makes when they sell a shitty entry-level brick. That has nothing to do with how much the laborers who build the iPhone earn compared to those who build the Motorola. The price of labor is determined by the laborer's willingness to do a job at a given rate. College football players are willing to play football for tuition, room, and board, therefore the market rate for playing college football is tuition, room, and board. If Jaylon Smith thought his labor was worth $175,000 per year, he wouldn't agree to play for the mere sum of tuition, room, and board. There are kids willing to play for free. There are kids who would actually pay to be able to play. A lot of them. If the guy behind you is willing to play for free, you have zero argument to claim you deserve all sorts of money.

I'd love nothing more than for a semiprofessional league to develop so that all of the guys who want to go get paid can go get paid. They won't have an education, and when they tear an ACL two months later they'll be good and fucked. College football would once again be populated by kids who actual want to go to class instead of "playing school" until their draft stock is strong enough.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Tgij7iRRew0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Rhode Irish]

You sound like Karl Marx. And that's not a strawman, you could honestly be paraphrasing the Communist Manifesto.

Let me illustrate how free markets work.

The price of labor is not determined by the profitability of the enterprise. Apple makes a lot more money when they sell an iPhone than Motorola makes when they sell a shitty entry-level brick. That has nothing to do with how much the laborers who build the iPhone earn compared to those who build the Motorola. The price of labor is determined by the laborer's willingness to do a job at a given rate. College football players are willing to play football for tuition, room, and board, therefore the market rate for playing college football is tuition, room, and board. If Jaylon Smith thought his labor was worth $175,000 per year, he wouldn't agree to play for the mere sum of tuition, room, and board. There are kids willing to play for free. There are kids who would actually pay to be able to play. A lot of them. If the guy behind you is willing to play for free, you have zero argument to claim you deserve all sorts of money.

I'd love nothing more than for a semiprofessional league to develop so that all of the guys who want to go get paid can go get paid. They won't have an education, and when they tear an ACL two months later they'll be good and fucked. College football would once again be populated by kids who actual want to go to class instead of "playing school" until their draft stock is strong enough.

OK, then completely open the market and see if you can get Jaylon Smith to play for tuition plus room and board. He'll do it now because he has no other viable option. You can't artificially suppress a market then say that market is demonstrative of the true value something.

It is obviously not true to say that if someone else will do your job for free you don't have any right to compensation. If nobody wants the guy who will do it for free, that guy doesn't supply any leverage. It is only if the guy who would do it for free is equally (or adequately) talented. How many people as talented as Jaylon Smith would pay money to be able to play? Zero.

I also don't understand why you would want to make a guy choose between getting an education and getting paid? Why don't you want the guy to get both, if the market allows for it? Seems unnecessarily spiteful to say "if you want to get paid I hope you blow out your knee so you can understand the value of an education" when you could easily give him both in the first place.

 

[Section20Row27]

You sound like Karl Marx. And that's not a strawman, you could honestly be paraphrasing the Communist Manifesto.

Let me illustrate how free markets work.

The price of labor is not determined by the profitability of the enterprise. Apple makes a lot more money when they sell an iPhone than Motorola makes when they sell a shitty entry-level brick. That has nothing to do with how much the laborers who build the iPhone earn compared to those who build the Motorola. The price of labor is determined by the laborer's willingness to do a job at a given rate. College football players are willing to play football for tuition, room, and board, therefore the market rate for playing college football is tuition, room, and board. If Jaylon Smith thought his labor was worth $175,000 per year, he wouldn't agree to play for the mere sum of tuition, room, and board. There are kids willing to play for free. There are kids who would actually pay to be able to play. A lot of them. If the guy behind you is willing to play for free, you have zero argument to claim you deserve all sorts of money.

I'd love nothing more than for a semiprofessional league to develop so that all of the guys who want to go get paid can go get paid. They won't have an education, and when they tear an ACL two months later they'll be good and fucked. College football would once again be populated by kids who actual want to go to class instead of "playing school" until their draft stock is strong enough.


ALL college football is lower level. College football is already the equivalent of crappy HBO shows because the NFL exists. Despite the NFL being higher-quality football, CFB still thrives.

Agreed.

Football players have the opportunity to get a free education, which they then have the ability to capitalize on for the rest of their lives. Universities are using that revenue stream to maintain/improve educational quality. If they want to get paid and do not care about an education, they should play semi-pro ball as a path to the NFL.

The argument becomes mute when you consider that there are NFL players right now who went to schools that do not make millions in revenue....

 

[woolybug25]

Football players have the opportunity to get a free education, which they then have the ability to capitalize on for the rest of their lives. Universities are using that revenue stream to maintain/improve educational quality. If they want to get paid and do not care about an education, they should play semi-pro ball as a path to the NFL.

The argument becomes mute when you consider that there are NFL players right now who went to schools that do not make millions in revenue....

Again... see my post above, over 80% of college football programs COST their university money.

 

[tussin]

Set up an NFL minor league system and organize college football like college baseball.

 

[Irish Insanity]

Revenue is not the same as Profit. Notre Dame makes money with their program, but they are one of the lucky 22.



Upon Further Review, College Football Is a Giant Waste Of Money For Most Schools - The Daily Banter


Which is what always cracked me up about Northwestern players wanting to find a way to get paid. The school should have said, "hell yes... we'll pay you 50% of Net Profit from the football program". Most schools would only exasperate their current losses with some of the ideas being thrown out. Hurting the actual university in the process.

And that's just football programs. What happens when you factor in all of the other sports at each university and the cost to keep them running vs the money they make. I bet there are very few schools making any substantial profit that could be successfully split between all of the student athletes at that particular school.

 

[Rhode Irish]

No
That's what an internship is. I'm a paid employee who completes tasks for my employer to earn his corporation money. Players learn from the coaches to develope into someone for future employment. Like an intern.

His responsibility includes the development of the players. The coaches develope the players by teaching them.

Just want to make sure you realize that these are all arbitrary distinctions you are making. The players are completing tasks in order to earn their school money. They may or may not learn something along the way, but the players are there to PLAY football, not to LEARN football. I learn something from my bosses on almost a daily basis, but I would not do my job for free.

 

[GATTACA!]

You sound like Karl Marx. And that's not a strawman, you could honestly be paraphrasing the Communist Manifesto.

Let me illustrate how free markets work.

The price of labor is not determined by the profitability of the enterprise. Apple makes a lot more money when they sell an iPhone than Motorola makes when they sell a shitty entry-level brick. That has nothing to do with how much the laborers who build the iPhone earn compared to those who build the Motorola. The price of labor is determined by the laborer's willingness to do a job at a given rate. College football players are willing to play football for tuition, room, and board, therefore the market rate for playing college football is tuition, room, and board. If Jaylon Smith thought his labor was worth $175,000 per year, he wouldn't agree to play for the mere sum of tuition, room, and board. There are kids willing to play for free. There are kids who would actually pay to be able to play. A lot of them. If the guy behind you is willing to play for free, you have zero argument to claim you deserve all sorts of money.

I'd love nothing more than for a semiprofessional league to develop so that all of the guys who want to go get paid can go get paid. They won't have an education, and when they tear an ACL two months later they'll be good and fucked. College football would once again be populated by kids who actual want to go to class instead of "playing school" until their draft stock is strong enough.


ALL college football is lower level. College football is already the equivalent of crappy HBO shows because the NFL exists. Despite the NFL being higher-quality football, CFB still thrives.

Except this isn't a free market, that's the whole problem. What if Obama came out and made legislation that said no teacher could make over 40k per year? That's destroying the whole concept of a free market.

 

[Irish Insanity]

Just want to make sure you realize that these are all arbitrary distinctions you are making. The players are completing tasks in order to earn their school money. They may or may not learn something along the way, but the players are there to PLAY football, not to LEARN football. I learn something from my bosses on almost a daily basis, but I would not do my job for free.

I though they were there to get an education and football was just and extracurricular activity.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Except this isn't a free market, that's the whole problem. What if Obama came out and made legislation that said no teacher could make over 40k per year? That's destroying the whole concept of a free market.

Exactly. I like how the post purporting to explain the concept of free markets to us communists does not seem to understand that what he is arguing for is not, in fact, a free market at all.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I though they were there to get an education and football was just and extracurricular activity.

C'mon, man. Nobody is a stronger advocate for student athletes actually being students than I am. It is a huge reason why I root for Notre Dame as a non-alum. I think the kids that go to college just to play sports are throwing away a huge opportunity. But don't be naive. Most of the kids that are playing revenue-generating sports would not be at their school if they couldn't help the school generate revenue. So let's not pretend these are just regular students that happen to play football in their spare time.

I am not advocating for turning college sports in to semi-pro. I just want to acknowledge that these kids are spending an incredible amount of time and energy helping their schools generate revenue, so I think they should get a little something for their efforts (in addition to the education which I hope they are taking advantage of). Someone said something before like "it is an important life lesson that they can't afford an XBOX" and I just don't understand that line of thinking. Why don't they deserve an XBOX, or new Altima or nice apartment or whatever reasonable "luxury" they would use some extra cash on? They are making people so much money....they don't deserve to take part in the spoils at all?

 

[kmoose]

Why would anyone not want these kids to get paid? Should they be getting million dollar contracts? No. But they should be compensated for their work, which generates tons of money for their universities, coaches and business partners, at least at a level that affords them to live with some comfortability commensurate with what they are providing their communities.

Terrible argument. My CEO and President have gotten wealthy off of the work of about half a dozen of us technicians, who bust our asses for SIGNIFICANTLY less than what Upper Management/Ownership gets. And there are tens of millions of others, just like us, out there. Why should football players be any different? Their annual compensation (at ND, USC, and other private schools) is well into 6 figures a year. What more do they need, for Christ's sake?

 

[wizards8507]

OK, then completely open the market and see if you can get Jaylon Smith to play for tuition plus room and board. He'll do it now because he has no other viable option. You can't artificially suppress a market then say that market is demonstrative of the true value something.

I agree. I'm not advocating for the status quo. Like I said, let Malik sign a three year deal with Gatorade. Let the Raiders draft Leonard Fournette at 17. Then we'll find out who's worth what.

It is obviously not true to say that if someone else will do your job for free you don't have any right to compensation. If nobody wants the guy who will do it for free, that guy doesn't supply any leverage. It is only if the guy who would do it for free is equally (or adequately) talented. How many people as talented as Jaylon Smith would pay money to be able to play? Zero.

Joe Schmidt was willing to do it for free. I think you're automatically assuming that every player worth a damn would pick a paycheck over a degree. I think there are plenty of RKGs out there who would still play "real" college football and be grateful for the opportunity.

I also don't understand why you would want to make a guy choose between getting an education and getting paid? Why don't you want the guy to get both, if the market allows for it? Seems unnecessarily spiteful to say "if you want to get paid I hope you blow out your knee so you can understand the value of an education" when you could easily give him both in the first place.

I would want them to get both if the market would allow it. I don't believe the market would. But for the first block of reasons above, on which we agree, we don't know that answer yet. It's easy to look at college football and thing that Oregon, Notre Dame, Michigan, Alabama, and USC are rolling in piles of money. But as Wooly and others have articulated, that's not the case with most schools. For the sake of competitive balance, the NCAA has to set ground rules or we'd see the same ten schools trying to outbid each other for championships every year. In other words, open up the markets outside of the school/NCAA framework (allowing endorsements, outside deals, direct-to-NFL prospects, developmental league, etc.), but maintain strict standards for the financial relationship between universities and players within the NCAA framework. If the NCAA goes the other direction, that's when Notre Dame severs ties.

 

[wizards8507]

Except this isn't a free market, that's the whole problem. What if Obama came out and made legislation that said no teacher could make over 40k per year? That's destroying the whole concept of a free market.

It's free enough. Yes, it's highly regulated within the NCAA framework, but the NCAA isn't the only football entity out there. NCAA rules are not the same as "rules that apply to anyone who plays football anywhere." Guys could play in Canada, arena leagues, etc. It's the NFL that's causing most of the problems we see with college football. If the NCAA stopped letting them, then the NFL would have to nut up and either fund a developmental league or allow high school kids to make pro teams.

ETA: And again, I'm not saying "the system we have now is good."

 

[GATTACA!]

To the first bolded, as I said above, not every school is making a bunch of money on athletics. I would guess (but I'm not 100% sure) that many sports at most schools actually operate on a deficit that is made up in other places. So already the "they make the school money!" argument is on an uneven playing field at every level: institution-to-institution, sport-to-sport, athlete-to-athlete. How are these differences accounted for?

The second bolded is an argument that I do not buy. They get a stipend, they get unlimited meals, they get free room and board. Their disposable income can be the stipend. I really don't think these kids are struggling like most people think, especially with the new "unlimited meals" rule. If they blow their stipend on dumb stuff, or they need the new PS4 RIGHT NOW and can't save their money, that's another life lesson that their status as a student athlete has provided them.

The third bolded is a plan I could maybe get behind, as long as every athlete in every sport is provided the same pay, and as long as that money is regulated by an entity outside of the institution (but oh god please don't let it be the NCAA). I would also argue that maybe the kids get all of that minimum-wage payments put into an account that can't be accessed until they've graduated, that way the STUDENT-athletes are actually forced to be STUDENTS while they're earning the extra money on top of all the other perks they have that regular students don't (like free tuition).

I may have over estimated the amount the schools make per year, but it's still up there somewhere. I would imagine four year players definitely see the program make hundreds of millions by the time they graduate. I find it hard to worry when we are adding what an 800 million dollar expansion onto our stadium. That money isn't coming from the biology department.

I guess the second part is just a difference of opinions. I don't think the small stipend is fair compensation. I know for sure there is no way I would have traded the income I made at my part time job while I was in school for some meals. Which realistically these programs should be providing to athletes anyways if they want them preforming properly.

I think a minimum wage work study type program is the only feasible option. How could you ever regulate players being able to profit off their likeness? Instantly you would have car dealerships in Alabama and Texas giving out a million dollars to players for doing one radio ad. The money would of course be coming from Alabama and Texas boosters, under the guise of the car dealerships and such. That would truly be the free market Wiz is advocating for.

 

[Irish#1]

Why is it recreation for the player and not for the coach?

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.


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.

It's not recreation and it's not a perk, but you can't compare a coach to a player. The coach has already went to school and is earning a salary in a vocation. Why can't you see the benefit of the scholarship, room, board, etc.? I personally don't think that is antiquated thinking.

But let's look at this differently. Who's to say these kids have to play football or they have a right at a shot in the NFL? They have every right to earn a living another way. They are given an opportunity by the school who will benefit from their participation, and the player will receive benefits (free tutoring, access to a doctor and trainer and a lot of free shirts, shoes, etc.) from the school in return.

Let's take this a little further. First, I believe the Northwestern players lost their right to create a union and get paid. Given that, it tells me there isn't a strong case for this as the court must see the tuition, room & board, etc. as reasonable pay. I may be wrong on that, but that's my interpretation. Let's say the courts say players must be paid. With Title IX you can be sure every athlete in every sport including non-revenue will get paid. What is fair then? Should the water polo player no one has heard of get the same as the star QB? Equality says yes, but if you pay players differently you can be sure there will be lawsuits filed. How can you measure the contribution by each? You can't do it by sales of a jersey because the water polo guy doesn't have one and if he did we know it wouldn't be for sale in a store. What about the band? They are a significant contributor to football games and spend more time than most people realize honing their skills. Shouldn't they be paid?

So now were paying all of these students. Or are we? How many schools will cut out the athletic programs because they can't afford to pay these kids? There will be plenty, because many schools are in the red for athletics already. Schools won't want to take on additional debt. One or two hundred a month per player is more than many can afford. There aren't many schools like ND that have deep pockets and a healthy donor base. Like I said, if you don't like the situation go to school for the education or find a job.

 

[Cali_domer]

 

[EddytoNow]

The coaches are basically teachers, no? We pay teachers at every level of education, we don't pay the students.

Room, board, and tuition at a school like Notre Dame is more than what most teachers make for a living. If the athletes need to be paid then force them to pay for their own room, board, and tuition just like every other student.

Most college students aren't making $50,000 to $60,000 per year. If you want to make college football a profession it might just as well be minor league football. Forget about an education and go right to minor league football, then we can have football players still trying to make it to the big leagues in their 30's, just like baseball.

College football fans aren't paying to see any one particular "Star" player, they are paying for the whole college football experience. Does anyone really believe you could remove the school name from the team and people would still pay to see these players perform? If you took Alabama's roster, LSU's roster, FSU's roster, etc. and created a league disassociated from the respective schools, you wouldn't get 5,000 paying customers to go watch the games.

I've watched Notre Dame football for nearly 50 years now. I didn't quit when Clausen and Tate left early, because I was a fan of Notre Dame football. I welcomed the next players who decided to be part of the football program at ND. I didn't quit when Golson or Rees underperformed. I was watching every Saturday, win or lose. I didn't quit when Aaron Lynch or Eddie Vanderdos decided to leave. Next man in. The players come and go. Some return to thank the university. Some use their education to change their lives. Some waste their education. Some, like Joe Schmidt, begin with neither scholarship nor paycheck, and earn their way. That's what college football is all about, student-athletes, not semi-professional mercenaries.

I support the team. We are Notre Dame. And Notre Dame is much more than the individuals who happen to be on the football team. A Notre Dame athletic scholarship is an honor. Those who receive one of those scholarships have an opportunity that few others ever get. And I doubt the scholarship football players would trade places with the average student working for $8.00 an hour and accumulating student-loan debt to obtain a similar education.

 

[wizards8507]

I may have over estimated the amount the schools make per year, but it's still up there somewhere. I would imagine four year players definitely see the program make hundreds of millions by the time they graduate. I find it hard to worry when we are adding what an 800 million dollar expansion onto our stadium. That money isn't coming from the biology department.

You're talking out of your ass and obviously have no clue. Crossroads is 100% independently funded. It's taking ZERO from the athletic department budget, ZERO from current tuition, and ZERO from future tuition for maintenance and upkeep. The construction and operation of the facility is fully funded in perpetuity. Plus, the expansion has very little to do with football. The space is for faculty, staff, students. Recreation facilities, study space, classrooms, a band building, a career center, etc. Also, arguing that Notre Dame can afford so-and-so is not the same as arguing that Northwestern or Vanderbilt could afford the same thing.

I guess the second pairing is just a difference of opinions. I don't think the small stipend is fair compensation. I know for sure there is no way I would have traded the income I made at my part time job while I was in school for some meals. Which realistically these programs should be providing to athletes anyways if they want them preforming properly.

I earned maybe $8,000 a year in my part-time job at Notre Dame. Room and board was about $12,000. It's not "trading it for a few meals."

 

[GATTACA!]

I would want them to get both if the market would allow it. I don't believe the market would. But for the first block of reasons above, on which we agree, we don't know that answer yet. It's easy to look at college football and thing that Oregon, Notre Dame, Michigan, Alabama, and USC are rolling in piles of money. But as Wooly and others have articulated, that's not the case with most schools. For the sake of competitive balance, the NCAA has to set ground rules or we'd see the same ten schools trying to outbid each other for championships every year. In other words, open up the markets outside of the school/NCAA framework (allowing endorsements, outside deals, direct-to-NFL prospects, developmental league, etc.), but maintain strict standards for the financial relationship between universities and players within the NCAA framework. If the NCAA goes the other direction, that's when Notre Dame severs ties.

You don't want this. This system would be 1000x worse and more corrupt than simply paying the players minimum wage across the board.

 

[EddytoNow]

Just want to make sure you realize that these are all arbitrary distinctions you are making. The players are completing tasks in order to earn their school money. They may or may not learn something along the way, but the players are there to PLAY football, not to LEARN football. I learn something from my bosses on almost a daily basis, but I would not do my job for free.

Cardale, is that you?

 

[Rhode Irish]

It's not recreation and it's not a perk, but you can't compare a coach to a player. The coach has already went to school and is earning a salary in a vocation. Why can't you see the benefit of the scholarship, room, board, etc.? I personally don't think that is antiquated thinking.

Sometimes I'm not sure why I bother to write more than a sentence or two, because that is all anyone seems to read. Nuance is completely wasted.

I do see the benefit of the tuition, room and board. I think that is and always should be the primary benefit given to players in return for their service to the university. But I also think it would be fair to let the players share in the in the revenues they are making for the school, at least to some degree. Just give them something. I think the stipend idea that has been instituted is the right idea, I'd just like to see it beefed up a little bit.

 

[GATTACA!]

You're talking out of your ass and obviously have no clue. Crossroads is 100% independently funded. It's taking ZERO from the athletic department budget, ZERO from current tuition, and ZERO from future tuition for maintenance and upkeep. The construction and operation of the facility is fully funded in perpetuity. Plus, the expansion has very little to do with football. The space is for faculty, staff, students. Recreation facilities, study space, classrooms, a band building, a career center, etc. Also, arguing that Notre Dame can afford so-and-so is not the same as arguing that Northwestern or Vanderbilt could afford the same thing.


I earned maybe $8,000 a year in my part-time job at Notre Dame. Room and board was about $12,000. It's not "trading it for a few meals."

Where do you think that independent funding is coming from lol? Where did I say anything about them using tuition? You have your head buried so far in the sand it's incredible.

I'm not talking about room and board. I already conceded that their scholarship is their compensation. I was talking specifically about the new unlimited meals rules.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

To the first bolded, as I said above, not every school is making a bunch of money on athletics. I would guess (but I'm not 100% sure) that many sports at most schools actually operate on a deficit that is made up in other places. So already the "they make the school money!" argument is on an uneven playing field at every level: institution-to-institution, sport-to-sport, athlete-to-athlete. How are these differences accounted for?

Only the top 22 FBS programs break even or generate a profit (which is then used to support other athletic programs). The other 98 FBS programs, and every single D2 program, is a net negative for its college or university.

The third bolded is a plan I could maybe get behind, as long as every athlete in every sport is provided the same pay, and as long as that money is regulated by an entity outside of the institution (but oh god please don't let it be the NCAA). I would also argue that maybe the kids get all of that minimum-wage payments put into an account that can't be accessed until they've graduated, that way the STUDENT-athletes are actually forced to be STUDENTS while they're earning the extra money on top of all the other perks they have that regular students don't (like free tuition).

This whole exploitation argument only makes sense if you accept at face value that amateurism is just an elaborate tax dodge and that college athletes (at least in the revenue sports) aren't there to play school. That's definitely true of some of the top 22 FBS programs, but not all of them (Notre Dame and Stanford), and it's not true for the vast majority of college athletes, who play for programs that don't make a profit.