|
Post by mervinswerved on Aug 3, 2020 8:17:30 GMT -5
Clearly plenty of these athletes' labor has value beyond the cost of their scholarship and benefits. And definitely more than just the handful who turn pro. How would you assign revenue sharing in a program that loses money? I don't know! I think NIL rights are a good start, but not in the restrictive fashion Emmert is trying to push through at the moment. Roughly, the NCAA requires a minimum number of sports for Division I membership, therefore even if the volleyball team loses money, their mere existence is a net positive for the school, because it allows them to play major football/basketball (this obviously doesn't apply to most places outside FBS). In concert with NIL rights, I like Sonny Vaccaro's idea: the athletes (who should definitely try unionizing again) negotiate some fixed percentage of TV/media revenue and that's divided among them proportionally based on game appearances. The TV contracts would have no value without the players and they deserve a share. I think the same argument could be made for ticket sales.
|
|
|
Post by playaplease on Aug 3, 2020 9:04:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 3, 2020 9:33:34 GMT -5
That whole article is misleading. It’s about an athlete who is opting out of the season due to COVID concerns (he has sickle cell trait) and was asked to move his stuff out of the locker room. The coach in the phone call seemed to cautiously tell him that his scholarship is still guaranteed if opting out of the season for COVID reasons. That isn’t necessarily true if he opts out for other reasons. Not that it WOULD be cut, but it’s a different conversation. www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/aug/02/pac-12-players-threaten-to-boycott-season-unless-c/Several semi-quotes there of what was said between the athlete and coach. The coach seems to have no clue how the university or conference would respond to a boycott/strike. Even if he fully supports the athletes, I think it’s good mentorship to let people know that in the real world, a strike can backfire.
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Aug 3, 2020 9:38:58 GMT -5
Lets look at salary: average g-league basketball $35,000 and average AAA baseball $2150 per month and a $25 per diem food on road! It would seem that college players trading athletic skill for compensation are doing better on average than at least 2 professional sports body’s.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2020 9:39:53 GMT -5
Setting football aside there are definitely pro options for most NCAA athletes. The NBA G League began offering contracts to top HS players, bypassing the 1 and done system. Maybe 3-5 players total (pre-pandemic) were offered that route at about $125k per year. Golf & tennis will let anyone turn pro and earn based on your results. I guess volleyball & soccer players could go to Europe if any are good enough. The problem is that outside a rare few, NCAA athletes aren’t good enough at their sport to make $ in the marketplace. NFL is so confident of that They don’t want to even talk to them for 3 years. I don’t begrudge players using whatever leverage they have to get more, but if their only leverage is “I’m not playing unless” then I’m afraid the likely response is “ok, next man up!” (What could be more footbally?) It isn't that football thinks they suck, it is that an 18yr old has not had years of bulking up like the pros. An 18yr old would be endangered under all but the verymost rare circumstances on an NFL playing field now that they have 300lb guys running 4.5 40s.
|
|
|
Post by jgrout on Aug 3, 2020 9:45:16 GMT -5
I guess I didn't make my point clearly enough in my original post.
I believe governments will insist upon compensation for all players for all required activities. That would end collegiate sports as we know it including that for those who would do it without compensation (e.g., Division III). Participants will not be allowed to choose to do it for less than minimum wage.
There are ample precedents for this in California. The choice between the cheapest possible premium or a choice of choosing a higher premium in hopes of a "dividend" (really, a refund) if the company has a good year could be free and fair... when I lived there, Illinois law required mandatory disclosure of pricing options and opt-in for a mutual policy at each renewal... but California's insurance czar, an elected official who is usually a political candidate working their way up through the ranks, justifies their existence by saying no to mutual insurance because it preys on the ignorant.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Aug 3, 2020 9:53:00 GMT -5
Setting football aside there are definitely pro options for most NCAA athletes. The NBA G League began offering contracts to top HS players, bypassing the 1 and done system. Maybe 3-5 players total (pre-pandemic) were offered that route at about $125k per year. Golf & tennis will let anyone turn pro and earn based on your results. I guess volleyball & soccer players could go to Europe if any are good enough. The problem is that outside a rare few, NCAA athletes aren’t good enough at their sport to make $ in the marketplace. NFL is so confident of that They don’t want to even talk to them for 3 years. I don’t begrudge players using whatever leverage they have to get more, but if their only leverage is “I’m not playing unless” then I’m afraid the likely response is “ok, next man up!” (What could be more footbally?) It isn't that football thinks they suck, it is that an 18yr old has not had years of bulking up like the pros. An 18yr old would be endangered under all but the verymost rare circumstances on an NFL playing field now that they have 300lb guys running 4.5 40s. They just haven't juiced up enough.
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Aug 3, 2020 9:53:17 GMT -5
And responding to “ without athletes” no tv! I would add without the colleges and conferences and the emotion of your (Fan) school affiliation there would be no television money! I , personally, watch a fair amount of college football, but never have i watched to see a player, i watch to see a program! If ratings and money equated directly to watching elite athlete’s compete more pro-leagues would be getting television rights! Do we really believe that if there was “minor league” football they would draw enough revenue to pay more than they already receive as scholarship?! College sports has a complicated formula of “our” school versus “your” school and thinking like minor league’ pro’s brings with it a raft of issues! “Pay” me brings in IRS, taxes, and issues Of staying elegible! If your a pro can you be fired for performance ? Etc etc etc
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 3, 2020 9:54:03 GMT -5
I guess I didn't make my point clearly enough in my original post. I believe governments will insist upon compensation for all players for all required activities. That would end collegiate sports as we know it including that for those who would do it without compensation (e.g., Division III). Participants will not be allowed to choose to do it for nothing, or even for less than minimum wage. There are ample precedents for this in California.. for example, mutual insurance has been effectively outlawed because the state insurance czar says so. The choice between the cheapest possible premium or a choice of choosing a higher premium in hopes of a "dividend" (really, a refund) if the company has a good year could be free and fair... Illinois law requires mandatory disclosure and opt-in at each renewal... but California's insurance czar steps in and makes the choice for California residents. I’m not sure I follow. You think they’ll force compensation for people to participate in athletic activities? Will that also apply to high school athletes? Middle school? What if I join a local beer softball league. Is the league required to compensate me?
|
|
|
Post by beachgrad on Aug 3, 2020 9:55:15 GMT -5
I just find it hard to agree with the argument that these college kids are being underpaid/valued at their university and that dissolving college sports for some semi/pro league is a better alternative. 99% of the college athletes do not have the ability to play pro sports and are just playing for the degree or for the love of the game. These 99% would have to pay their own way to school and play in club sports if some of these ideas are implemented. Why do we devise a system based on the 1% and not the 99%. We keep focusing on the pro drafted athlete and what he/she might have lost financially by playing college sports but not the majority that just received a college education that they can use the rest of their lives. Let’s not forget that a lot of these scholarship athletes are first generation college graduates in their family and many of them could not afford college in the first place. Plus, there is no viable pro market for these players outside of a handful of sports. The thousands of athletes that do not play baseball, football, etc have no where to go and make money playing their sport. Would hate to see what happens to the Olympic sports if college sports go out the window.
Plus what do you think will happen to the high school club scene if their was not an opportunity for a college scholarship or the dream of a scholarship.
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Aug 3, 2020 9:56:04 GMT -5
My last comment: ncaa “Presidents” want to stop all this Divide all revenue equally to all division 1 schools and not just P-5 and the amount of money available to be split is negligible and salaries gor coaches will go down to university appropriate numbers! MAYBE
|
|
|
Post by jgrout on Aug 3, 2020 9:57:20 GMT -5
It isn't that football thinks they suck, it is that an 18yr old has not had years of bulking up like the pros. An 18yr old would be endangered under all but the verymost rare circumstances on an NFL playing field now that they have 300lb guys running 4.5 40s. They just haven't juiced up enough. Come on... I've talked to volleyball players who didn't "juice" and they've all said to me that weight work during the off-season is very difficult and painful as they work through its routine complications... but that it makes a huge difference between a freshman and a sophomore... and that's in a non-contact sport. In a contact or collision sport (Bill Russell made that BB versus FB distinction many years ago), building muscle is vital even if you do it without "juice".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2020 10:39:03 GMT -5
I am going to admit, right up front, that I am not up to date on current pro sports, but I can only remember Kobe (and Wilt Chamberlain*) playing right out of highschool. What year did the guy state that, Like I mentioned it was only a $22,000 total degree in 84, that is pretty cheap =)
It is over priced, but that is what it costs without a scholarship, so relative to non-scholarshpipped students (which is the majority) it is actual money saved. Just like a 1200sq/ft 2 bedroom home on a 6000sq/ft lot is 2.4 million in West LA.
Caveat; UCLA was still relatively expensive in 1984.
FYI, Wilt was at Kansas for 3 years. He only left 1 year early, and played for the Globetrotters that year, not the NBA. His college coach retired before his soph year (freshmen were not eligible), and by his junior year he was constantly triple teamed, teams would stall for most of games (pre shot clock) and any joy was sucked out of the college game for him, so he left when given the opportunity. There were a lot of guys who played right out of high school until the NBA (Not NCAA) changed that rule. Moses Malone was one of the first to bypass college. In the 90s and 2000s it became pretty common. Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Jermaine O'Neal, Tracy McGrady, Darius Miles, Dwight Howard, Lebron James are a few of those who bypassed college. But, there were some massive whiffs like Kwame Brown (#1 Overall) and Eddy Curry and a few who tried to go straight from high school and weren't drafted. I think that is what caused the NBA to change the rule. A few have gone international out of high school rather than play college. Options do exist. And, now there is the G League. Whether that makes any money or not, I don't know. But, it won't make as much as the NCAA does. It's like I said above. Sometimes, opportunities to go pro are there. Sometimes, they aren't. That high school kids who could get drafted in the 1st Round of the NBA have to go to college is the NBA's doing. The NFL requires 3 years removed from high school. Sure, having the NCAA as a place the players can be stashed for a year (or 3) makes that call easier. I think professional leagues have grown where they were able to grow, and failed when they weren't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2020 10:58:01 GMT -5
There were a lot of guys who played right out of high school until the NBA (Not NCAA) changed that rule. Moses Malone was one of the first to bypass college. In the 90s and 2000s it became pretty common. Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Jermaine O'Neal, Tracy McGrady, Darius Miles, Dwight Howard, Lebron James are a few of those who bypassed college. But, there were some massive whiffs like Kwame Brown (#1 Overall) and Eddy Curry and a few who tried to go straight from high school and weren't drafted. I think that is what caused the NBA to change the rule. A few have gone international out of high school rather than play college. Options do exist. It's like I said above. Sometimes, opportunities to go pro are there. Sometimes, they aren't. That high school kids who could get drafted in the 1st Round of the NBA have to go to college is the NBA's doing. The NFL requires 3 years removed from high school. Sure, having the NCAA as a place the players can be stashed for a year (or 3) makes that call easier. I think professional leagues have grown where they were able to grow, and failed when they weren't. If you look outside of the U.S., virtually every elite, professional athlete turns pro by 18. It is only here that fans think players "aren't ready" for the rigours of professional sport, meanwhile you have players aged 18-22 who are the best in the world at their respective sports. As for professional leagues in sports like volleyball - the NCAA has a chokehold on the labor market. Again, look around the world; if there was no NCAA, there would be professional development opportunities. To suggest that the conditions under a monopoly (as it was described by the man who orientated it) such as the NCAA are indicative of what the market can and would bear, in a world without such an entity controlling the sector, is simply false.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 3, 2020 11:08:02 GMT -5
Let’s not forget that a lot of these scholarship athletes are first generation college graduates in their family and many of them could not afford college in the first place. Plus, there is no viable pro market for these players outside of a handful of sports. The thousands of athletes that do not play baseball, football, etc have no where to go and make money playing their sport. Would hate to see what happens to the Olympic sports if college sports go out the window. Plus what do you think will happen to the high school club scene if their was not an opportunity for a college scholarship or the dream of a scholarship. First of all, I don't think you understand how many colleges offer generous need-based aid packages. Secondly, why is the first-generation college student who is good at the football/baseball more deserving of these educational opportunities? If we want to think about access, make it really about access and not the NFL/NBA's absolution of the responsibility and expense of player development.
|
|