|
Post by dodger on Aug 13, 2020 12:27:26 GMT -5
Hypothetical: move football and MBKB to the marketing office on your college campus: dont make them student athlete’s: make them employee’s: hire them out of HS: pay them salary: 3 year contracts: not guaranteed : as employee no title IX requirements on those sports: Div. III for all other sports: title IX for student/athletes and no scholarships: ivy model! Employee and IRS and you can be fired for power ? Quasi pro college teams! Pro teams market a city: get tax breaks for stadiums, seen as positive for their cities: and now we can have pro team for a college/university.
|
|
|
Post by jgoodson on Aug 13, 2020 12:33:08 GMT -5
It’s the end of the world as we know it. And I feel fine.
REM
This reminds me of the late 1960’s early 1970’s Olympic era when Avery Brundage, the IOC head at the time , was insisting the Olympics maintain the façade of amateurism. The commercialism of ski racing drove him nuts. How dare skiers make money promoting ski equipment? That will lead to the ruination of the Olympic movement. When Brundage retired in 1972, the rules on amateurism began to change.
How many people feel that the Olympics are worse off today because Mikaela Shiffrin can get rich because of her talent as a skier? Or that in basketball, the Dream Team, was allowed to compete? In volleyball are the Olympics worse off because players can play professionally and still play in the Olympic Games? Brundage thought all of that would lead to disaster.
Same with college athletics today. There are no good reasons college athletes should be banned from making money. I think it should really be opened up.
If a coach can do endorsement deals, same for an athlete. If a coach can have a radio deal, why not an athlete? If a shoe company wants to pay an athlete to wear their shoes, fine by me. If boosters want to pay athletes to attend State U, fine by me.
A lot of the payments already occur behind the scenes. Open it up. The need for an NCAA enforcement arm would nearly disappear.
College athletics will be fine and there is no threat to their existence long term. The model makes too much money. Of the boatload of money generated, only a modest share of the pie redirected to athletes would make for a better more equitable system. The Olympic games were not ruined when athletes were allowed to make money. Neither would college sports.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 13, 2020 12:33:50 GMT -5
Hypothetical: move football and MBKB to the marketing office on your college campus: dont make them student athlete’s: make them employee’s: hire them out of HS: pay them salary: 3 year contracts: not guaranteed : as employee no title IX requirements on those sports: Div. III for all other sports: title IX for student/athletes and no scholarships: ivy model! Employee and IRS and you can be fired for power ???? Quasi pro college teams! Pro teams market a city: get tax breaks for stadiums, seen as positive for their cities: and now we can have pro team for a college/university. Right. This could happen. I can't come up with any reason that university presidents would have any desire to operate a pro football team on their campus though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2020 12:41:28 GMT -5
Hypothetical: move football and MBKB to the marketing office on your college campus: dont make them student athlete’s: make them employee’s: hire them out of HS: pay them salary: 3 year contracts: not guaranteed : as employee no title IX requirements on those sports: Div. III for all other sports: title IX for student/athletes and no scholarships: ivy model! Employee and IRS and you can be fired for power ? Quasi pro college teams! Pro teams market a city: get tax breaks for stadiums, seen as positive for their cities: and now we can have pro team for a college/university. Right. This could happen. I can't come up with any reason that university presidents would have any desire to operate a pro football team on their campus though. I can think of $everal rea$ons.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 13, 2020 12:53:46 GMT -5
Right. This could happen. I can't come up with any reason that university presidents would have any desire to operate a pro football team on their campus though. I can think of $everal rea$ons. I'm not sure this is that profitable when you're paying athletes. At least not profitable enough to be worth the headache.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2020 12:57:22 GMT -5
I can think of $everal rea$ons. I'm not sure this is that profitable when you're paying athletes. At least not profitable enough to be worth the headache. If you want to know the kind of headaches collegiate sports are apparently worth, talk to your favorite SEC athletic director right now.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 13, 2020 13:01:44 GMT -5
I'm not sure this is that profitable when you're paying athletes. At least not profitable enough to be worth the headache. If you want to know the kind of headaches collegiate sports are apparently worth, talk to your favorite SEC athletic director right now. But this is about not going bankrupt by the end of the year. Not developing a new, more sustainable model. I don't think the goal is to have all future years feel like this one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2020 13:09:38 GMT -5
If you want to know the kind of headaches collegiate sports are apparently worth, talk to your favorite SEC athletic director right now. But this is about not going bankrupt by the end of the year. Not developing a new, more sustainable model. I don't think the goal is to have all future years feel like this one. That's the issue with monopolies. Before they collapse, some can't imagine anything else in their place. Free market will provide the solution though. The new constraints will either be profitable, in which case, collegiate sports will endure with a new model that is less exploitative of the athletes and less lucrative for the colleges - or it won't. In which case, something else will replace it. I understand why those who enjoy the status quo are scared of the upheaval, but it is happening regardless.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 13, 2020 14:05:05 GMT -5
But this is about not going bankrupt by the end of the year. Not developing a new, more sustainable model. I don't think the goal is to have all future years feel like this one. That's the issue with monopolies. Before they collapse, some can't imagine anything else in their place. Free market will provide the solution though. The new constraints will either be profitable, in which case, collegiate sports will endure with a new model that is less exploitative of the athletes and less lucrative for the colleges - or it won't. In which case, something else will replace it. I understand why those who enjoy the status quo are scared of the upheaval, but it is happening regardless. Are these laws also going to force high schools to share revenues with their athletes? And small D3 schools that charge admission to their game?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2020 14:10:08 GMT -5
That's the issue with monopolies. Before they collapse, some can't imagine anything else in their place. Free market will provide the solution though. The new constraints will either be profitable, in which case, collegiate sports will endure with a new model that is less exploitative of the athletes and less lucrative for the colleges - or it won't. In which case, something else will replace it. I understand why those who enjoy the status quo are scared of the upheaval, but it is happening regardless. Are these laws also going to force high schools to share revenues with their athletes? And small D3 schools that charge admission to their game? That's called the slippery slope fallacy. Supporters of the current model of collegiate athletics resort to it frequently. In answer to your 'concern' no. I imagine such legislation will be specific to the multi-billion dollar side of college sports.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 13, 2020 14:28:44 GMT -5
Are these laws also going to force high schools to share revenues with their athletes? And small D3 schools that charge admission to their game? That's called the slippery slope fallacy. Supporters of the current model of collegiate athletics resort to it frequently. In answer to your 'concern' no. I imagine such legislation will be specific to the multi-billion dollar side of college sports. Just curious how the law would be worded. Because none of these departments report a profit. If it’s based on a certain revenue level (and not profit), I think schools could creatively stay under that level.
|
|
|
Post by ned3vball on Aug 13, 2020 17:33:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by joetrinsey on Aug 13, 2020 18:52:20 GMT -5
But this is about not going bankrupt by the end of the year. Not developing a new, more sustainable model. I don't think the goal is to have all future years feel like this one. That's the issue with monopolies. Before they collapse, some can't imagine anything else in their place. Free market will provide the solution though. The new constraints will either be profitable, in which case, collegiate sports will endure with a new model that is less exploitative of the athletes and less lucrative for the colleges - or it won't. In which case, something else will replace it. I understand why those who enjoy the status quo are scared of the upheaval, but it is happening regardless.
I think those on here who enjoy the status quo are scared of the upheaval because it will threaten the viability of the current system of college volleyball.
The free market solution for college sports seems to me to end up with some amount of football and men's basketball programs operating at the professional level and most of the other programs scaling back to something more like Division 2/3 sports.
And there's nothing wrong with that. I played Division 3 volleyball and had a great experience. But my coach wasn't making what coaches in the Big 10 are making and if we wanted to fly across country in the pre-season we had to pay (out of pocket or via fundraising) for it. We didn't have dedicated academic support staff or our own trainer. And again, nothing wrong with that. Volleyball will go on.
|
|