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

[Rhode Irish]

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'm not really understanding the fixation on the 22 schools that have "profitable" programs. As a whole, FBS football generates significant revenue. That many programs spend money in such a way that they ultimately run their program at a loss isn't really my concern. If you designated certain revenue streams (TV, tickets and sponsorships, let's say) generated at the school, league and national FBS (i.e., bowl money) levels and taxed that at 1% and distributed that pool to the players, you'd be at least making some gesture acknowledging their role in the partnership between schools and athletes that allows for so much money to come in the door.

This is not an idea that I have spent more than 10 minutes thinking about or run models on, so arguing the specifics is less of a concern for me than the general idea. And the fact that the idea of sharing 1% of the revenues with the players that are at least in part responsible for those revenues is seen as being so radical is a pretty damning indictment of the system, in my view.

 

[Circa]

Idk if this was brought up anywhere else, but according to Father Jenkins in the NYT yesterday, if colleges begin paying players Notre Dame may start it's own football league.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/1...ifts-in-college-athletics.html?referrer=&_r=0

Does anyone think things actually feasible? I think for this to even stand a chance the NFL will have to have some sort of minor league already established.

Imagine baseball without the Yankees. Now swallow hard and assk me that again.

 

[Circa]

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.

Reps but I can't. Never thought this could happen but proud to say It has!

 

[GATTACA!]

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.

You are the one that brought up a free market back on like page 2, not me. I would never advocate a system were players could get whatever someone is willing to pay for them.

I would be in favor of players all getting the exact same compensation. Every football player would get the federal minimum wage for the time they spend practicing. I would set a limit, something like 20 hours a week. This would be approximately equal to a part time job that they are unable to get because of their commitment to football.

Or

I would also be for a system closer to a work study program. This could work almost as is, except the as it is now work study money has to be used towards tuition, and obviously all the players we are talking about have scholarships. So what I would do is have FAFSA evaluate every player and determine what amount of work study money they would be eligible for if they had no scholarship. Then I would take whatever number it gives for each player and allow them to earn that money in cash. I think I was eligible for something like 1,200 a semester. So this also isn't a huge amount of money, but because each student is a case by case situation the school is only paying those players that legitimatly might need a little extra cash each month.

 

[Rocket89]

A few things I am sure of:

1) College athletes are going to get 'more' in some form or another

A few people have mentioned it already, what is wrong about the athletes getting some more?

They get enough as it is? Highly debatable and not a course of action likely to continue in the future.

There's something morally wrong about it? Doesn't really fit either because people thought the same thing about full scholarships after WWII. Institutionally, athletes have been getting 'more' as the sport(s) have grown and made more money. We're at the biggest impasse since the 1950's when it's time to look over the rules again.

There's not enough money to go around where the athletes will really get all that much more money? Probably true! So what's the big deal?

2) Notre Dame Football will continue to play at the highest level

No way would they really 'break away' and I really think there's a very small chance it'll ever come to that.

Jenkins & Co. are doing their best to influence the course of events, which is fine, but they'll make it work in the end.

 

[MNIrishman]

Ok, I can't help you then. I don't mind if you disagree with me, but if you can't follow my arguments that is a you problem.



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.

I disagree with the premise that the players are the ones most directly responsible for the revenue. If our current team decided to collectively rebel, leave school, and call themselves the 'South Bend Wildcats,' would you watch them? Would you travel across the country to buy tickets? What if they were playing across town from the ND Fighting Irish, drawn from the dorm teams across campus? Which game would you pay to see? The one with the players? Or the one that I hold would generate more revenue, on campus?

 

[Rhode Irish]

I disagree with the premise that the players are the ones most directly responsible for the revenue. If our current team decided to collectively rebel, leave school, and call themselves the 'South Bend Wildcats,' would you watch them?

Um....

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.

OK, that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. But I actually agree. I don't think a minor league not associated with colleges and comprised of the same players would generate much interest at all. But, at the same time, a college football where teams just competed with students that were already attending the school and not with players they recruited and admitted for the purpose of playing football would not generate much interest, either (or, who won the Amherst-Williams game last season?). So it is a symbiotic relationship, but only one side is getting a taste of the money being generated.

 

[MNIrishman]

Um....

OK, because those answers seem incongruent with your position. Either the players themselves are most responsible for the revenue, or they happen to be the individuals lucky enough to wear the uniform that Saturday and would be valueless to the general public without it.

 

[pkt77242]

OK, because those answers seem incongruent with your position. Either the players themselves are most responsible for the revenue, or they happen to be the individuals lucky enough to wear the uniform that Saturday and would be valueless to the general public without it.

Why couldn't it be some combination of both? Why does it have to be one or the other?

 

[GATTACA!]

Why couldn't it be some combination of both? Why does it have to be one or the other?

And why does it matter at all? There are a countless number of people that could do my job. So should i not get paid since technically no one would come into my place of business without the infrastructure around me allowing me to simply do my job?

 

[pkt77242]

And why does it matter at all? There are a countless number of people that could do my job. So should i not get paid since technically no one would come into my place of business without the infrastructure around me allowing me to simply do my job?

They are getting paid though. Tuition, room and board, tons of food, travel, medical care and COA.

 

[Rhode Irish]

OK, because those answers seem incongruent with your position. Either the players themselves are most responsible for the revenue, or they happen to be the individuals lucky enough to wear the uniform that Saturday and would be valueless to the general public without it.

Not really, if you read my whole posts (asking a lot, I know). If you had a minor league, people wouldn't care. If you had a college league with players that weren't high caliber future pros, people wouldn't care (at least not at the same level they do now). And while the school allegiance is obviously a big factor in the sport's popularity, you wouldn't have a sport without the players. The idea that it is outrageous to suggest that the players should get 1% of the revenue is confounding to me. You can't argue they are responsible for producing less than 1% of the revenue. In fact, to the real "pay the players" zealots, my 1% suggestion would likely seem as bad to them as not paying them at all. I'm trying to take what I think is a pretty moderate position and I've got all but one or two posters shouting me down and calling me an idiot.

 

[wizards8507]

And why does it matter at all? There are a countless number of people that could do my job. So should i not get paid since technically no one would come into my place of business without the infrastructure around me allowing me to simply do my job?

That's a crap analogy. The players SIGNED UP to play for tuition, room, and board. The appropriate analogy would be you signing a four-year contract with your employer wherein you agree to work for free food and housing. In that case, no, you should not be paid. Don't like it? Don't sign the contract. Go do something else.

 

[Rhode Irish]

That's a crap analogy. The players SIGNED UP to play for tuition, room, and board. The appropriate analogy would be you signing a four-year contract with your employer wherein you agree to work for free food and housing. In that case, no, you should not be paid. Don't like it? Don't sign the contract. Go do something else.

Sure they signed up for it, because it is the best deal they can get if they want to play football. But I don't relate to feeling toward the players "if you don't like this deal, screw." I want to pay them. I think they deserve some money. I get that if you don't want to give them anything you can say "well they play for tuition and room and board now, why should I give them more," but I don't understand why you don't want to give them money. Why does it matter to you so much that the players don't get any money?

 

[wizards8507]

Sure they signed up for it, because it is the best deal they can get if they want to play football. But I don't relate to feeling toward the players "if you don't like this deal, screw." I want to pay them. I think they deserve some money. I get that if you don't want to give them anything you can say "well they play for tuition and room and board now, why should I give them more," but I don't understand why you don't want to give them money. Why does it matter to you so much that the players don't get any money?

Because amateurism is part of what makes the sport great. Kids playing because they love football, 99% of them knowing full well they'll never make a career out of it.

 

[GATTACA!]

Because amateurism is part of what makes the sport great. Kids playing because they love football, 99% of them knowing full well they'll never make a career out of it.

If every single player is paid $8.50 an hour for their practice time how does that change anything? Now instead of playing for the love of the game the players are gonna be playing for slave wages that they could be making without having to practice for 40 hours a week. No it lets them have a life outside of school and football.

 

[Rhode Irish]

So you can only enjoy it if the players can't share in some of the money they are making for other people. Not only does that make no sense to me, it is pretty selfish to deny people something they deserve because you have arbitrarily decided them not getting it is important to you on principle.

 

[greyhammer90]

If every single player is paid $8.50 an hour for their practice time how does that change anything? Now instead of playing for the love of the game the players are gonna be playing for slave wages that they could be making without having to practice for 40 hours a week. No it lets them have a life outside of school and football.

Out of curiosity, when regular college kids are working 40 hours a week in college what do you think they are spending their money on? Might it be rent, food, electricity, water, tuition and books?

It's one thing to argue that CFB players should get paid some form of money because they play a vital role in a cash cow like Rhodes, but knock it off trying to paint their lives in college as some sort of Kafka novel.

They're college f*cking football players. I never saw one in 7 years on campuses that I wouldn't have traded places with in a second. They live on campus, for free, with no utility bills. They get three meals a day at a minimum. They pay for no books, they pay no tuition. They get free gear, shoes, t shirts you name it constantly.

Sorry if hearing the story about them looking through their couch cushions at the end of the month to buy food doesn't tug at my heartstrings... It's college, we ALL do that.

 

[BobbyMac]

The one thing that hasn't been mentioned that I've seen is Pell Grant money. For students athletes who qualify, that's potentially over $20,000 cash to do as you want over your college career.

 

[wizards8507]

If every single player is paid $8.50 an hour for their practice time how does that change anything? Now instead of playing for the love of the game the players are gonna be playing for slave wages that they could be making without having to practice for 40 hours a week. No it lets them have a life outside of school and football.

1. Have you paid attention to the "cost of attendance" argument at all? They're already getting roughly that much. That's a check. Cash. Free money. Discretionary funds.

2. It's nowhere near 40 hours a week.

3. They have plenty of "life outside football." They live like royalty on these campuses, every one of them. If life was as bleak as you seem to think, I might agree with you, but these players have everything they need and more. Did you see the Season With... episode where the football team and the football team only got to spend a day at the South Bend Country Club? Free golf, pool access, rec facilities, and water sports? How about Culver where they had the same stuff? That kind of thing happens all year long and it's just given to them.

4. They don't "have to" practice and participate like it's some kind of chore. It's a thing they want to do, get to do, have the joy and privileged to do. Playing college football is not a day at the office, it's a day at Disney World.

 

[T Town Tommy]

1. Have you paid attention to the "cost of attendance" argument at all? They're already getting roughly that much. That's a check. Cash. Free money. Discretionary funds.

2. It's nowhere near 40 hours a week.

3. They have plenty of "life outside football." They live like royalty on these campuses, every one of them. If life was as bleak as you seem to think, I might agree with you, but these players have everything they need and more. Did you see the Season With... episode where the football team and the football team only got to spend a day at the South Bend Country Club? Free golf, pool access, rec facilities, and water sports? How about Culver where they had the same stuff? That kind of thing happens all year long and it's just given to them.

4. They don't "have to" practice and participate like it's some kind of chore. It's a thing they want to do, get to do, have the joy and privileged to do. Playing college football is not a day at the office, it's a day at Disney World.

Have you seen the daily itinerary of most major football programs? I would not compare it to a day at Disney. While I agree football players have access to things other students may not, they still have tremendous schedules to keep up. More so today than when I was in college as well. The demands placed on them for school, practice, film, position meetings, mandatory study hall, workouts, etc takes way more than most would consider a full day.

I am not in favor of paying players because they are getting to play the game they love all the while getting an education (or at least I would hope so). But let's not make it seem like a walk in the park. It is not.

 

[wizards8507]

Have you seen the daily itinerary of most major football programs? I would not compare it to a day at Disney. While I agree football players have access to things other students may not, they still have tremendous schedules to keep up. More so today than when I was in college as well. The demands placed on them for school, practice, film, position meetings, mandatory study hall, workouts, etc takes way more than most would consider a full day.

I am not in favor of paying players because they are getting to play the game they love all the while getting an education (or at least I would hope so). But let's not make it seem like a walk in the park. It is not.

I didn't mean leisurely or easy. I meant enjoyable, fun. Something for which you're more likely to pay for the privilege of experiencing than be paid for the burden of enduring. When it's framed as a job, it's as if the only reason players play is for whatever reward they can get out of it, whether that be a scholarship, salary, or NFL exposure. My point is that kids play because they want to. They like it. They'd do it for free or pay to do it. It's not a job just because it has a huge time commitment, just like band or cheerleading or the Irish Guard. Having a schedule to keep is not a sufficient condition to label something "employment."

So no, it's not a walk in the park. But I reject the premise that "not being a walk in the park" is a legitimate reason to call it a job. Lots of things are grueling and they're not jobs.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Everyone knows the breakdown of how many athletes currently succeed at each level of football, and how few of high school and college players actually end up making it to the NFL. But the implications of these established statistics have direct bearing on this conversation about paying college athletes.

The converse side of the wash out rate, is in what level of quality does the fan insist on seeing in their product?

If top notched competition is expected for the dollar, the cost are going to climb even more precipitously for competing schools; what, 82% of major D1 programs are already running red ink? (And remember, bagmen don't even count as part of a school's budget!)

Yet is the NFL going to allow any kind of subjugation and siphoning of their future talent pool for the benefit of those that come before them?

And can College football, through the use of cash incentives actually produce a product that competes for fan attention with the NFL big-boys?

Pay would have to be lower for a less developed product, wouldn't it? And in that case any model presented doesn't come close to explaining how the 'bigs' would recoup potential losses in player potential by being subjected to professional competition required to produce professional results, at a much earlier and more susceptible player age, does it?

So then the clear risk is producing a still inferior level of football at what was the college level. Because of greater and earlier career ending injuries to meet ramped up levels of play, the NFL risks a reduced quality pool of recruits than they currently have.

Show me how a model of a paid system would complement professional football, which would be a direct rival for player health and longevity!

I don't think any hashing out of the morality, ethics or rights of a player are required for a hypothetical situation where a viable business model can be produced!

There is definitely a problem that needs to be solved. But throwing money at it isn't or never has been the solution. It probably is (the essense) of the problem.

If I were looking to solve the problem I would take cash out of the NFL system. Whether it be from multi-million dollar player's salary and bonuses, or from team profits and inject it into pension and medical costs. And I would cover college players the same as pro's with insurance, therapy, and retirement benefits.

In my opinion what is needed to make football, (college and pro), better is making players safer, healthier over the entirety of their lives (How much shorter is the average NFL players life than the general populations?), and provide them with a well funded pension, based upon the overwhelming evidence that they are likely to be disabled or otherwise incapacitated as they get older.

 

[stlnd01]

One thing, to me, that always gets missed in these conversations is one of our favorite subjects on the recruiting threads: The value of the degree.

If the university holds up its end of the bargain and gives these kids a legit education, they are absolutely getting tremendous value for their labor, something my parents worked hard to give me and I'll work for the next 15 years in the hopes of providing my kids (and they'll probably work for 15 years after that to finish paying off). Football players get it for being good at football.

Now, if - as is the case in too many places - the universities don't really offer these kids a good education - or the opportunity to make the most of the education they do offer - then the argument that they're just junior-grade pro football players holds a lot more water, and maybe they should get paid more. That's the cynical view of the "pay them all" crowd, and I totally understand why.

But if I was organizing a players union, or lobbying that players should get a better cut of the deal, I'd focus my arguments on holding schools accountable for the educational opportunity they provide. Four-year scholarships. Fewer joke majors. Real consequences when grad rates dip. All that. Because in the in the long run a real education is going to mean a hell of a lot more than the $20,000 or whatever these kids might actually get paid before they blow a knee and wind up on the scrap heap.

 

[wizards8507]

One thing, to me, that always gets missed in these conversations is one of our favorite subjects on the recruiting threads: The value of the degree.

If the university holds up its end of the bargain and gives these kids a legit education, they are absolutely getting tremendous value for their labor, something my parents worked hard to give me and I'll work for the next 15 years in the hopes of providing my kids (and they'll probably work for 15 years after that to finish paying off). Football players get it for being good at football.

Now, if - as is the case in too many places - the universities don't really offer these kids a good education - or the opportunity to make the most of the education they do offer - then the argument that they're just junior-grade pro football players holds a lot more water, and maybe they should get paid more. That's the cynical view of the "pay them all" crowd, and I totally understand why.

But if I was organizing a players union, or lobbying that players should get a better cut of the deal, I'd focus my arguments on holding schools accountable for the educational opportunity they provide. Four-year scholarships. Fewer joke majors. Real consequences when grad rates dip. All that. Because in the in the long run a real education is going to mean a hell of a lot more than the $20,000 or whatever these kids might actually get paid before they blow a knee and wind up on the scrap heap.

I like where you're coming from but I don't think you put enough responsibility on the players. I don't think there are any players just itching to study Chemical Engineering but are forced into those joke majors you describe. Even football factories offer legitimate courses of study, but it's up to the student to select those courses. I totally agree about four year scholarships and the NCAA could fix that tomorrow if they wanted. Just eliminate the "once a counter, always a counter" rule. Let Saban and Urbie cut guys who suck but let them stay in school without counting towards the 85.

 

[T Town Tommy]

I like where you're coming from but I don't think you put enough responsibility on the players. I don't think there are any players just itching to study Chemical Engineering but are forced into those joke majors you describe. Even football factories offer legitimate courses of study, but it's up to the student to select those courses. I totally agree about four year scholarships and the NCAA could fix that tomorrow if they wanted. Just eliminate the "once a counter, always a counter" rule. Let Saban and Urbie cut guys who suck but let them stay in school without counting towards the 85.

Send me the names of the ones Saban cuts.

 

[Irish#1]

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.

Would never happen. The few schools that make money would split off to start their own association. Then you would see college football die a quick death. People would tire of seeing the same 22 teams play each other all the time. Not being a smart ass, but would still like to know why the scholarship and the side benefits (medical, clothing, tutoring, etc.) athletes currently receive aren't enough?

 

[vmgsf]

Bogs major reps.

"If I were looking to solve the problem I would take cash out of the NFL system. Whether it be from multi-million dollar player's salary and bonuses, or from team profits and inject it into pension and medical costs. And I would cover college players the same as pro's with insurance, therapy, and retirement benefits.

In my opinion what is needed to make football, (college and pro), better is making players safer, healthier over the entirety of their lives (How much shorter is the average NFL players life than the general populations?), and provide them with a well funded pension, based upon the overwhelming evidence that they are likely to be disabled or otherwise incapacitated as they get older."

College football should be exempted by Congress and the President from Title IX. The risks you are taking to your life and your health are quite a bit larger than if you are playing tennis. The extent of the brain damage risks are NOT currently known. Playing football is not the same as playing volleyball.

 

[stlnd01]

I like where you're coming from but I don't think you put enough responsibility on the players. I don't think there are any players just itching to study Chemical Engineering but are forced into those joke majors you describe. Even football factories offer legitimate courses of study, but it's up to the student to select those courses. I totally agree about four year scholarships and the NCAA could fix that tomorrow if they wanted. Just eliminate the "once a counter, always a counter" rule. Let Saban and Urbie cut guys who suck but let them stay in school without counting towards the 85.

Of course. The reality of the scenario that I'd love to see play out is a long way off, and the players have to hold up their end, too. This is complicated by the reality that many - most? - D1 football players, even at the big state schools, would not get in to these schools based on their academic talents alone.
Still, they're getting the sort of opportunity that most families in this country can only dream about - a free college education at a major university. It's a travesty how few really take advantage of that, for reasons you can pin on both the schools and the kids. In the long run that education offers them a lot more than whatever pay most will ever get from football.
Also, I'd agree the joke major issue is less of a big deal than four-year scholarships and tougher APR requirements. But I do think it's an issue. The soft tyranny of low expectations, and all that.

 

[Black Irish]

Paying players likely will quickly move into paying players what they are worth. And there's a can of worms. Some posters have touched on this point already, but if players are going to get paid, then why shouldn't they get paid what their true value is? If the argument is "these kids are generating revenue for the school so they should share in that revenue" then why limit it to minimum wage or a fixed stipend? If players are getting paid based on the idea that their on field contributions are making the school money, then we need to drill down into who is really making the school money. The all world Heisman winner who gets named MVP after his team wins the championship should get paid significantly more than the 3rd string bench-warmer, right? Or should that 3rd stringer even get paid? And what happens when they get injured? They are not playing, are not contributing. Then what? Things can get messy real quick.

And if schools are going to start paying players, then what's to keep the schools from bidding on top notch high school talent? Because if the paying-the-players system is artificially set at something very low (i.e. minimum wage) then the incentives to lure those top notch high school players falls right back to the incentives we currently have: school tradition, recent W-L records, facilities, educational value. If there are truly players who are having trouble making ends meet because they are cash poor, then there has to be a better way to alleviate that problem.Throwing money at these young men is going to cause more problems then it will solve; that's assuming there is a true problem here in the first place.