|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 3, 2020 14:41:54 GMT -5
You also need to look at college baseball to see what happens to revenue when the NCAA isn't the "next best" level of a major sport.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 3, 2020 14:51:27 GMT -5
College sports derive a lot of their support from the fact that they are college sports. They have a huge built-in fanbase that no minor league developmental sports league has. The only really significant developmental leagues in US sports are for baseball, and they largely pre-dated the popularity of college sports.
Even with that, have any of you ever seen the College World Series on TV? Now, have you ever seen any minor league baseball championship series on TV?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 3, 2020 14:53:08 GMT -5
You also need to look at college baseball to see what happens to revenue when the NCAA isn't the "next best" level of a major sport. Baseball is something of a special case, because it's much older as an organized professional sport than most of the other sports played in the US.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 3, 2020 14:55:06 GMT -5
College sports derive a lot of their support from the fact that they are college sports. They have a huge built-in fanbase that no minor league developmental sports league has. The only really significant developmental leagues in US sports are for baseball, and they largely pre-dated the popularity of college sports. Even with that, have any of you ever seen the College World Series on TV? Now, have you ever seen any minor league baseball championship series on TV? Is college baseball one of the revenue sports being protected or are those teams sweating out cuts? They have fans, and some schools have very dedicated fanbases. They aren't moving the needle in the business of college athletics revenues.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on Aug 3, 2020 14:56:05 GMT -5
Fifth, Yes, athletes are forced to go to college to progress in their sport. Alternative routes are either non-existent or frowned upon because the NCAA fills up the space for all of those. basketball prospects get dinged for going foreign, god knows how NFL scouts would react to someone skipping NCAA for college ball. The alternatives aren't attractive precisely because the NCAA is taking up their space. Others answered your other points. But this is just not true. The NBA signs players from overseas every year. The NFL would be happy to sign anyone that can help and over the years has signed players not only that didn't go to college but who had limited football experience. They have clear alternatives. They just aren't nearly as good as going to a major college under the existing terms. Minor league players make generally very little around the world. For instance, there is no reason why any player couldn't go to Canada to play football. The issue is first that the vast majority of them aren't good enough to make a CFL team. Then you have the issue that $80K a year isn't exactly compelling. This has nothing to do with the NCAA taking up their space. The issue is that minor league sports generally don't make very much money. It turns out that the college scholarship is actually a pretty good deal....
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,440
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 3, 2020 14:57:00 GMT -5
It is relative. There is a ton of money to be had. If we took the 100 best HS players in the country and forced them to bypass college basketball. The blue blood basketball universities would continue to recruit the heck out of players 101-120 and compete against each other and make the same amount of money. Just before the one and done - this is what we saw. Only it wasn't the top 100 players, it was the top 10-15. And then the ones that did go to college, if they were really good, they didn't stick around. Didn't matter - as the level of play continued to decrease - the interest in the game didn't drop. Then those players are still providing value. And the top colleges still need the top players available. There is no perennial losing team generating that revenue. Yes - they need the top players available.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 3, 2020 15:01:50 GMT -5
Fifth, Yes, athletes are forced to go to college to progress in their sport. Alternative routes are either non-existent or frowned upon because the NCAA fills up the space for all of those. basketball prospects get dinged for going foreign, god knows how NFL scouts would react to someone skipping NCAA for college ball. The alternatives aren't attractive precisely because the NCAA is taking up their space. Others answered your other points. But this is just not true. The NBA signs players from overseas every year. The NFL would be happy to sign anyone that can help and over the years has signed players not only that didn't go to college but who had limited football experience. They have clear alternatives. They just aren't nearly as good as going to a major college under the existing terms. Minor league players make generally very little around the world. For instance, there is no reason why any player couldn't go to Canada to play football. The issue is first that the vast majority of them aren't good enough to make a CFL team. Then you have the issue that $80K a year isn't exactly compelling. This has nothing to do with the NCAA taking up their space. The issue is that minor league sports generally don't make very much money. It turns out that the college scholarship is actually a pretty good deal.... The NBA signs foreigners from overseas every year. Americans who skip college are still heavily stigmatized and take a significant risk in the draft stock. Going to try and hack it in the CFL is not a viable path for football prospects. The college scholarship is therel because it's the path that is paved. That doesn't make it a "good" deal.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Aug 3, 2020 15:15:04 GMT -5
Others answered your other points. But this is just not true. The NBA signs players from overseas every year. The NFL would be happy to sign anyone that can help and over the years has signed players not only that didn't go to college but who had limited football experience. They have clear alternatives. They just aren't nearly as good as going to a major college under the existing terms. Minor league players make generally very little around the world. For instance, there is no reason why any player couldn't go to Canada to play football. The issue is first that the vast majority of them aren't good enough to make a CFL team. Then you have the issue that $80K a year isn't exactly compelling. This has nothing to do with the NCAA taking up their space. The issue is that minor league sports generally don't make very much money. It turns out that the college scholarship is actually a pretty good deal.... The NBA signs foreigners from overseas every year. Americans who skip college are still heavily stigmatized and take a significant risk in the draft stock. Going to try and hack it in the CFL is not a viable path for football prospects. The college scholarship is therel because it's the path that is paved. That doesn't make it a "good" deal. Right, the American pro leagues (along with their unions) set the conditions of the labor market for pro sports. The NBA doesn't want 18-year-olds right now and the NFL would rather shift the development burden to the NCAA for free instead of paying six or seven figures to teenagers. The unions, especially the NFLPA is happy with this, because it keeps veterans employed. In the NBA, at least, there's only a handful of 18 year-old basketball players capable of making a 12 man roster and even fewer who could crack a rotation. If I was sports dictator (I promise my reign will be benevolent and terrible), I'd lift the age restrictions for all pro leagues. If a high school senior wants to sign with an NBA team, so be it. The G League is unquestionably a better fit for development- better competition than NCAA ball and NBA-style coaching. The thing is, college basketball is fun and carries its own benefits. Zion Williamson went from a top 5 pick in November 2018 to the clear #1 by his 10th game for Duke. If the NCAA got religion and allowed NIL, there wouldn't be any issue for kids like Zion or Trevor Lawrence. Or Katelyn Ohashi, Katie Ledecky, and Lexi Sun, for that matter. Oh, and I would definitely abolish the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, and MLS drafts.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on Aug 3, 2020 16:44:14 GMT -5
The NBA signs foreigners from overseas every year. Americans who skip college are still heavily stigmatized and take a significant risk in the draft stock. Going to try and hack it in the CFL is not a viable path for football prospects. The college scholarship is therel because it's the path that is paved. That doesn't make it a "good" deal. You really don't know what you are talking about. LaMelo Ball is a top 5 pick this year who did a year in New Zealand skipping college. Professional sports will draft anyone that can help their team. They certainly aren't protecting the NCAA. The problem is there are only a handful of kids good enough to even sign with an overseas team. The other issue is they don't make much money. The average player in NZ makes about $80K. Which takes us right back to the basic point that players in minor league sports don't really make any money. That is a fact that you seem to not be able to deal with. A small number of players is good enough to go overseas instead of college. They have to play with grown men and don't really make much money. In the free market they just aren't worth that much. OTOH, they can go to college. Get to know a bunch of kids their own age. Play in front of packed houses of rabid fans. Learn from some of the best coaching. It is a no brainer. But that isn't because NBA teams won't draft them if they go overseas or even take a year off to train.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 3, 2020 16:49:52 GMT -5
The NBA signs foreigners from overseas every year. Americans who skip college are still heavily stigmatized and take a significant risk in the draft stock. Going to try and hack it in the CFL is not a viable path for football prospects. The college scholarship is therel because it's the path that is paved. That doesn't make it a "good" deal. You really don't know what you are talking about. LaMelo Ball is a top 5 pick this year who did a year in New Zealand skipping college. Professional sports will draft anyone that can help their team. They certainly aren't protecting the NCAA. The problem is there are only a handful of kids good enough to even sign with an overseas team. The other issue is they don't make much money. The average player in NZ makes about $80K. Which takes us right back to the basic point that players in minor league sports don't really make any money. That is a fact that you seem to not be able to deal with. A small number of players is good enough to go overseas instead of college. They have to play with grown men and don't really make much money. In the free market they just aren't worth that much. OTOH, they can go to college. Get to know a bunch of kids their own age. Play in front of packed houses of rabid fans. Learn from some of the best coaching. It is a no brainer. But that isn't because NBA teams won't draft them if they go overseas or even take a year off to train. $80K IS A LOT MORE MONEY THAN PLAYERS ARE MAKING NOW. Plus they have the ability to earn additional income from endorsements.
|
|
|
Post by joetrinsey on Aug 3, 2020 17:01:48 GMT -5
What are sports like in those countries? I genuinely have no clue. I assume soccer is big there, but are those volleyball leagues sustainable behind no fewer than 5 massive, established pro sports leagues? What is the pay like in those leagues? Enough that somebody like Kathryn Plummer would want the paycheck instead of a degree from Stanford? Great questions. It is rare in countries like Belarus that teams are "professional" in any way resembling what they are in the USA. There is little to no pay for most of the players and coaches. That's why the ones who are able "escape" to Russia or western European teams. Most Americans would be shocked to realize how few "professional" European clubs have more than one or two full time employees apart from some of the players & coaches. It's also important to understand that at least in Italy, there is NO PROFESSIONAL VOLLEYBALL (soccer, cycling & basketball are the only professional team sports in Italy). But isn't Italy of the biggest leagues? Yes, but the legal structure is amateur - and that is important because it has allowed it to exist for the last 70 years. I believe this is generally similar across most, if not all, of Europe but I can only speak with authority about Italy. What does it mean to be an amateur club: it means that clubs aren't required to pay for catastrophic injury insurance for their players, or pay for them to go to private medical hospitals/clinics if they are injured. It means clubs aren't required to pay into their player's retirement benefits. It means that contracts can be broken quite easily because the player is ostensibly playing "for the love of the game." It means that the clubs can raise money much more easily than if they were professional. It means there are fewer legal hoops to jump through (in normal times - in COVID times this is different) in order to get a foreign player into the team. There is actually a movement on the men's side of Italian volleyball to professionalize Serie A. It would be good for the players, and some clubs think it would be good for them. They are still a few years away from that move if it ever happens. My point is that there is an underlying legal structure that allows a quasi-"professional" structure to exist (apart from schools) in non-revenue sports in Europe that doesn't exist in the USA. It's wrong to say that "if they can have professional volleyball in Switzerland we can do it here in the USA" without understanding why it works in the other country. 100 years ago amateur sport in the USA developed through schools and over time the laws have been written to accommodate that (anti-trust exemptions and things like that). In Europe amateur sport developed apart from schools and the laws were written to reflect the realities in each country. Finally somebody in this thread who understands something about professional sports in other countries. The Big 10 is far more of a professional league in almost every aspect that 95% of volleyball being played out there. They have a full range of paid staff, medical support, fantastic facilities, and there are “worker protections” in the form of hours restrictions, independent investigators to address complaints of abuse, and a standardized compensation package (depending on school/conference: scholarship, housing, cost of attendance stipend, etc). None of that exists in most pro leagues. Go sign as a “professional” in many of these other leagues and you’ll find that just because you signed a contract or $4,000/mo doesn’t mean you’re getting that amount. And in your third week in the Korean League and the coach is telling you that you’re practicing for 6 hours after a loss, your choice is to practice for 6 hours or get fired with no compensation. That doesn’t mean that these pro leagues, but it does mean for the vast majority of athletes (excepting some FB/MBB and a few other scattered programs), their compensation is already far above market value. There’s nothing wrong with that, but I see the three main options as: 1. Remove scholarships as a form of compensation. Pay players a wage and a revenue share. Say you pay volleyball players $20/hr, which is a pretty reasonable entry wage for an 18 yo with only a hs diploma (there’s plenty of coaches who aren’t even making that). Hours are limited to 20/week in season and 8 hours at other times. Even at 20 hours a week for all 52 weeks, you’re looking at about $20,000. Add in 50% of program revenue and that goes up to about $20,001. It’s hard for me to see an argument where a volleyball player’s labor market value is worth more than what a typical scholarship is worth. 2. Keep everything the same. Unlikely, since there’s obviously some discontent here. 3. Allow players to receive compensation for their likeness, autographs, etc. There’s a million ways to do this, and it only seems a matter of time. This won’t change anything for 98% of collegiate athletes, but it will allow the most marketable ones to profit fairly from the value they bring.
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Aug 3, 2020 17:03:45 GMT -5
Others answered your other points. But this is just not true. The NBA signs players from overseas every year. The NFL would be happy to sign anyone that can help and over the years has signed players not only that didn't go to college but who had limited football experience. They have clear alternatives. They just aren't nearly as good as going to a major college under the existing terms. Minor league players make generally very little around the world. For instance, there is no reason why any player couldn't go to Canada to play football. The issue is first that the vast majority of them aren't good enough to make a CFL team. Then you have the issue that $80K a year isn't exactly compelling. This has nothing to do with the NCAA taking up their space. The issue is that minor league sports generally don't make very much money. It turns out that the college scholarship is actually a pretty good deal.... The NBA signs foreigners from overseas every year. Americans who skip college are still heavily stigmatized and take a significant risk in the draft stock. Going to try and hack it in the CFL is not a viable path for football prospects. The college scholarship is therel because it's the path that is paved. That doesn't make it a "good" deal. There are a lot of NFL stars that had to cut their teeth in the CFL. Doug Flutie, Warren Moon, Jeff Garcia, Andre Rison, Mike Vanderjagt, etc.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Aug 3, 2020 17:14:20 GMT -5
College sports provides a lot of opportunities for the average athlete that they would not otherwise have. It also provides services for elite athletes, but it does restrain their earning power temporarily in doing so, and extracts benefits from their association with the universities' brands. I don't like the way that distorts the universities' missions, and I don't doubt that professional leagues have learned to depend on it and use it to their advantage, if only because the system has been in place for so long.
But that institution, for all it's faults, provides a lot of support for a wide variety of athletes and sports. Those systems of support would have to be remade piecemeal from scratch if college athletics fails. The European model essentially subsidizes corporate sponsorship with tax dollars to build Olympic and womens sports. In essence, that is what we do with Olympic sports at the university level - plus we leverage other more lucrative sports to help augment tax payer support, and to replace the support that tax payers have decided to forgo progressively over the last 4 decades.
The american people asked public universities to become more like businesses, pulling back state support in the process. I don't like it, but it has been a clear mandate for a while. What we have now is what the universities came up with in response.
|
|
|
Post by joetrinsey on Aug 3, 2020 17:20:22 GMT -5
The NBA signs foreigners from overseas every year. Americans who skip college are still heavily stigmatized and take a significant risk in the draft stock. Going to try and hack it in the CFL is not a viable path for football prospects. The college scholarship is therel because it's the path that is paved. That doesn't make it a "good" deal. Right, the American pro leagues (along with their unions) set the conditions of the labor market for pro sports. The NBA doesn't want 18-year-olds right now and the NFL would rather shift the development burden to the NCAA for free instead of paying six or seven figures to teenagers. The unions, especially the NFLPA is happy with this, because it keeps veterans employed. In the NBA, at least, there's only a handful of 18 year-old basketball players capable of making a 12 man roster and even fewer who could crack a rotation. If I was sports dictator (I promise my reign will be benevolent and terrible), I'd lift the age restrictions for all pro leagues. If a high school senior wants to sign with an NBA team, so be it. The G League is unquestionably a better fit for development- better competition than NCAA ball and NBA-style coaching. The thing is, college basketball is fun and carries its own benefits. Zion Williamson went from a top 5 pick in November 2018 to the clear #1 by his 10th game for Duke. If the NCAA got religion and allowed NIL, there wouldn't be any issue for kids like Zion or Trevor Lawrence. Or Katelyn Ohashi, Katie Ledecky, and Lexi Sun, for that matter. Oh, and I would definitely abolish the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, and MLS drafts. As you noted, a lot of the conflict here is the player unions themselves. The NBA owners would, in a vacuum, prefer to abolish age limits. Increasing the labor pool benefits management. If NBA owners could offer 15 year olds a 20 year contract, better believe some of them would do it. But they also want to cap risk and avoid winner’s curse situations. Both NBA and NFL unions had pretty much mutual agreement between union and management on capping rookie contracts. When Jamarcus Russell or Andrew Luck becomes the highest paid guy in the league on Day 1, it’s not ideal for team dynamics or veteran players and exposes the owners to tremendous risk. So rookies don’t quite get paid what they’re worth, but the union sees it as a compromise that benefits their members overall. There’s a bit of that in the NCAA. There’s probably 50 or so MBB players taking a significant paycut so that the 8th guy on University of Delaware can still get his scholarship. And a significant amount of SEC football players taking paycuts so their volleyball and swimming and track teams can enjoy the facilities they do. The reality is that there’s a big Pareto distribution in sports. I believe in the NBA it’s something like the 30 highest paid players in the league make more than the rest of the league combined. And that’s with a max salary already in place.
|
|
|
Post by redcard on Aug 3, 2020 17:28:48 GMT -5
Let’s assume, wildly, that college sports go away and the “path” to the Pro’s closes. Firstly, that impacts about 3% of all athletes and secondly a new path or paths will be created for prospective athletes to go to the next level in the form of new leagues and International opportunities. Who’s to say the NFL doesn’t create a farm team feeder system like baseball. Or the NBA adds another level. Or, how about if AAU mixes things up a bit and creates the PAU Development Leagues!! If there’s any money to be made the big leagues will be on it. The reality is college sports, especially the ones that gen revenue, aren’t going anywhere.✌🏽
|
|