College Football Oversight & Compensation

[tyappleg]

16 minutes ago, Scotty R said:

I didn't say anything about players getting paid just saying the theory of the players getting taken advantage of is non sense

In the 70's and 80's it was fine.  But now with the billions of dollars in television and ad revenue they absolutely were being used to make millions and millions with very little in return. (Yes, a scholarship and an apartment is very little in the grand scheme of things) It's been a whole different game for a while now. 

[Hurryin' Hoosiers]

14 hours ago, tyappleg said:

Letting a few hundred kids go to school for free costs the school nothing. Meanwhile the players are bringing in millions and millions of dollars for the schools. While ideally there would be more regulation, players deserve to get paid more than a free scholarship and an apartment and I'm glad they are finally getting it.  

Feel free to keep that 1980's mindset though.  

It is lost revenue.  Pretending it costs nothing is a load of bs.  More than likely they end up charging non-athletes more in tuition to cover it

If it was such a bad deal, players wouldn't have signed up to play in college.  

I would be jumping for joy if my kids saved me 6 figures by getting a full ride

[Hurryin' Hoosiers]

13 hours ago, tyappleg said:

In the 70's and 80's it was fine.  But now with the billions of dollars in television and ad revenue they absolutely were being used to make millions and millions with very little in return. (Yes, a scholarship and an apartment is very little in the grand scheme of things) It's been a whole different game for a while now. 

Maybe the problem wasn't in how much the players were making but in what the greedy at the top were doing with the profits.

Maybe instead of coaches and players making 6-8 figures, tuition could be subsidized for the whole student body.   There goes the multi billion dollar predatory student loan industry though

[Stuhoo]

7 hours ago, Hurryin' Hoosiers said:

It is lost revenue.  Pretending it costs nothing is a load of bs.  More than likely they end up charging non-athletes more in tuition to cover it

If it was such a bad deal, players wouldn't have signed up to play in college.  

If would be jumping for joy if my kids saved me 6 figures by getting a full ride

My kid is at a very good, big state school and is getting free tuition, room and board, and I am thrilled. But my kid brings in zero revenue to that school; he merely contributes to bumping up their entry stats a bit, and has a good chance to be a contributor alumnus.

An athletic scholarship kid that brings in tons of revenue who would go there for free under the old system would also be getting a great deal, but comparatively would be getting screwed.

So both things can be true; that prior system full ride can be a great thing, but still not be a reasonable model for a free market system.

[Brass Cannon]

3 minutes ago, Hurryin' Hoosiers said:

It is lost revenue.  Pretending it costs nothing is a load of bs.  More than likely they end up charging non-athletes more in tuition to cover it

If it was such a bad deal, players wouldn't have signed up to play in college.  

If would be jumping for joy if my kids saved me 6 figures by getting a full ride

An in state college education didn’t cost 6 figures 20 years ago and certainly not in the 70s and 80s.  Heck I’m not sure it does now but honestly don’t know.  
 

But let’s use 2009 numbers because I know them. 7500 for a year at IU.  Multiplied by 100 football players would cost of 750,000.  For multi million(s) in revenue.  
 

 

[Stuhoo]

Sometimes the problem is easy to identify but the solution is extremely difficult to identify.

So anyone that has a functional solution? Let’s hear it!

[Pagoda]

10 minutes ago, Hurryin' Hoosiers said:

Maybe the problem wasn't in how much the players were making but in what the greedy at the top were doing with the profits.

Maybe instead of coaches and players making 6-8 figures, tuition could be subsidized for the whole student body.   There goes the multi billion dollar predatory student loan industry though

Let's assume a very expensive large football program cuts their $50M spend on staff and players down to $10M.  A $40M savings.  For a typical state school student population of 40K, that's about $1K per student per year.  It's not going to make a dent.

And of course to do this, you'd be screwing players and even coaches out of what they're worth.  And in reality, today football programs still turn a profit or at worst produce a small, de minimis loss.

[Hoosierfan2017]

13 hours ago, tyappleg said:

In the 70's and 80's it was fine.  But now with the billions of dollars in television and ad revenue they absolutely were being used to make millions and millions with very little in return. (Yes, a scholarship and an apartment is very little in the grand scheme of things) It's been a whole different game for a while now. 

The revenue is because of the universities. The players, except in very very limited exceptions, are interchangeable. Look at the attendance/viewership for minor league teams. It’s nothing compared to college sports. 15k plus people aren’t packing in Assembly Hall to watch Tucker Devries (no offense to him). They’re coming to watch Indiana University. 100k people wouldn’t go watch the Tuscaloosa Tide play the Athens Bulldogs. 

I’m not against NIL in theory. If people want to buy a player’s autograph, or if Mother Bears wants to pay Anthony Leal to advertise pizzas, no problem with that. But the current “NIL” landscape is so far removed from that. It’s a complete mess, and it’s only going to get worse. 

[Hovadipo]

IU pays about $20 million a year in athletic scholarships (according to TDH). Schools fund those differently (it can get really tricky at lower levels), but I’d imagine most of IU’s comes from our massive TV deals and things like that.

Do with that what you will. This debate doesn’t really interest me one way or the other because it isn’t changing and likely will only get crazier. Adapt or die. 

[Pagoda]

7 minutes ago, Hoosierfan2017 said:

The revenue is because of the universities. The players, except in very very limited exceptions, are interchangeable. Look at the attendance/viewership for minor league teams. It’s nothing compared to college sports. 15k plus people aren’t packing in Assembly Hall to watch Tucker Devries (no offense to him). They’re coming to watch Indiana University. 100k people wouldn’t go watch the Tuscaloosa Tide play the Athens Bulldogs. 

I’m not against NIL in theory. If people want to buy a player’s autograph, or if Mother Bears wants to pay Anthony Leal to advertise pizzas, no problem with that. But the current “NIL” landscape is so far removed from that. It’s a complete mess, and it’s only going to get worse. 

I don't know.  If we changed out IU's team to all walk-ons, we'd be 0-12 this season.  What do you think attendance and program revenue would be?  The team would have Indiana University on their jerseys, but ain't nobody watching that.

NIL looks like a good thing overall.  It's basically just really rich people paying players who are generally run of the mill middle class people.  And in some cases players from tough backgrounds get lifechanging money for themselves and their families (of course they have to use it right, and while some don't, most probably do).  This looks good to me.

[Home Jersey]

If paying the players wasn't worth it, the schools wouldn't do it. Very simple.

The players are a huge part of the equation just like the university brands are important.

[Hoosierfan2017]

6 minutes ago, Pagoda said:

I don't know.  If we changed out IU's team to all walk-ons, we'd be 0-12 this season.  What do you think attendance and program revenue would be?  The team would have Indiana University on their jerseys.

NIL doesn't seem bad to me.  It's basically just really rich people paying players who are generally run of the mill middle class people.  And in some cases players from tough background get lifechanging money for themselves and their families (of course they have to us it right, and while some don't, most probably do).  NIL is pretty harmless.

In football? No, because IU doesn’t have a rich football history. But IU was 16th in the country in attendance Crean’s first season despite going 6-25 with a bunch of walk ons1  because people still wanted to watch IU basketball. 

NIL has created a system where every player in the country is a one year rental, and sometimes the players don’t even finish out the year. If you could create a system that paid players and wasn’t a complete disaster? Sure, I’d have no problem with that. I don’t care if players get paid. It’s not my money. Doesn’t affect my bottom line. But the college sports landscape that it has created really sucks. 

[Home Jersey]

The only solution to the current chaos is finally evolving from the impotent NCAA and forming some new entity that drops the false pretense of amateurism and enforces some sort of collective bargaining agreement with players. IMO.

What that looks like exactly, who knows. And where that leaves the NCAA, who knows... but also, who cares? It's time. 

[Brass Cannon]

Just now, Home Jersey said:

The only solution to the current chaos is finally evolving from the impotent NCAA and forming some new entity that drops the false pretense of amateurism and enforces some sort of collective bargaining agreement with players. IMO.

What that looks like exactly, who knows. And where that leaves the NCAA, who knows... but also, who cares? It's time. 

An actual minor league for Football would be interesting. But then again I think the NFL and NBA are fine with how things are currently.  Unless one of them is willing to try and wrestle away control of the intermediate level of the sport then the power will stay right where it is. 
 

That or some billionaire is willing lose millions building out a league   
 

NBA arguably could do it fairly easily with the NBDL Players can sign a salary out of high school with the NBDL but then have to enter the draft.  

[Pagoda]

34 minutes ago, Hoosierfan2017 said:

In football? No, because IU doesn’t have a rich football history. But IU was 16th in the country in attendance Crean’s first season despite going 6-25 with a bunch of walk ons1  because people still wanted to watch IU basketball. 

NIL has created a system where every player in the country is a one year rental, and sometimes the players don’t even finish out the year. If you could create a system that paid players and wasn’t a complete disaster? Sure, I’d have no problem with that. I don’t care if players get paid. It’s not my money. Doesn’t affect my bottom line. But the college sports landscape that it has created really sucks. 

IU doesn't have a rich football history because we've had overall bad players for 125 years.  

2009 was a good showing by IUBB fans, but that was heavily driven by fans supporting a temporary rebuild process with the expectation of improvement.  Attendance was down 15% from the previous year and if we measured people through the turnstiles, it was likely quite a bit more of a decline than that.  IU has juiced bball attendance numbers for a long time -- for example this season they have claimed six sellouts which is not even close to true.

I don't think college sports is all players, I agree the University plays a big role, but the players matter a lot.  They have to be good for people to watch.

And does the college sports landscape really suck?  I'll agree CBB is struggling.  But as for the big sport, the only one that really matters -- CFB interest, attendance, and TV ratings are quite high.  CFB teams still retain a large portion of their rosters despite "one year rentals." 

The NIL/transfer portal era has given more teams and chance to compete if they hire a good coach and invest.  Teams cannot hoard talent anymore.  The new rules helped IUFB turn things around quickly and go undefeated and win the B1G.  And now we've got the best stretch of IU athletics since the 1980's.  I'm struggling to see what really sucks right now.

[Stuhoo]

28 minutes ago, Home Jersey said:

The only solution to the current chaos is finally evolving from the impotent NCAA and forming some new entity that drops the false pretense of amateurism and enforces some sort of collective bargaining agreement with players. IMO.

What that looks like exactly, who knows. And where that leaves the NCAA, who knows... but also, who cares? It's time. 

And exactly how would this reimagined new entity have the legal standing to enforce?

[Home Jersey]

3 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

And exactly how would this reimagined new entity have the legal standing to enforce?

How does any entity like the NBA or NFL enforce a CBA with their players? 

I said in my post "who knows" what exactly a post-NCAA structure would look like. Not pretending to have all the answers.

[AZ Hoosier]

7 minutes ago, Home Jersey said:

How does any entity like the NBA or NFL enforce a CBA with their players? 

I said in my post "who knows" what exactly a post-NCAA structure would look like. Not pretending to have all the answers.

Agreed.

There are member schools who have historically gamed the system - paying players under the table, etc. No matter what the rules are, schools like Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, Michigan State, etc will continue to test the limits. If the new governing body sets rules that those schools deem too restrictive, the under-the-table payments and inducements will return.

Somehow, the professional leagues have found a way to stop that grift, and keep a semblance of control over the salary caps, CBAs, etc. Not sure any college governing body present or future will be able to control that aspect. 

At least with professional athletics, their commissioner and controlling interest has 30ish teams to manage. College athletics has 10-15 times the number of programs across all levels of competition.

[Pagoda]

15 minutes ago, Home Jersey said:

How does any entity like the NBA or NFL enforce a CBA with their players? 

I said in my post "who knows" what exactly a post-NCAA structure would look like. Not pretending to have all the answers.

I'm not expert, but the key is the CBA.  Get one of those in place and everything works much better because the agreed to rules can be enforced.

Just for discussions sake, I think the challenges to a CBA are two things:

- The transient nature of the large college player population.  It's a huge number of players and they're generally only around a few years.  How does this large and disconnected group select someone to negotiate on their behalf and on what terms?  I don't know, but it appears very complex.

- I suspect a CBA process would result in schools having to pay players even more.  Other pro leagues pay a larger % of revenue to players.  I'd guess schools are very afraid of this, and the current messy rev share/NIL thing is ultimately better for them because it's less money.

Like you I'd love a CBA and more professionalized college sports in terms of player contracts and rules.  I'm not disagreeing with your point that one is needed, just speculating for fun on why it's tricky to do.

[Home Jersey]

7 minutes ago, AZ Hoosier said:

Agreed.

There are member schools who have historically gamed the system - paying players under the table, etc. No matter what the rules are, schools like Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, Michigan State, etc will continue to test the limits. If the new governing body sets rules that those schools deem too restrictive, the under-the-table payments and inducements will return.

Somehow, the professional leagues have found a way to stop that grift, and keep a semblance of control over the salary caps, CBAs, etc. Not sure any college governing body present or future will be able to control that aspect. 

At least with professional athletics, their commissioner and controlling interest has 30ish teams to manage. College athletics has 10-15 times the number of programs across all levels of competition.

My armchair opinion is that such an entity would probably only make sense for a few schools. Probably the big SEC/Big Ten schools and a couple handfuls of ACC/Big 12. All football oriented. Not sure how basketball would factor in. 

The other schools I think would continue playing in a much lesser NCAA that's also much less money-oriented.