|
|
Post by mfaulkhof2011 on Apr 26, 2024 9:03:32 GMT -8
There was an interesting comment from Ziegler in yesterdays article regarding Butler's entering the portal. He mentioned in his breakdown on what Butler made last season at SDSU in NIL money. For review, it was $50k from the Mesa Foundation, $50k from a prominent booster, and $75-$100k from a half dozen "REAL"NIL deals with local businesses.
This I think is the big problem with NIL. The REAL NIL deals were supposed to be what it was about. Ed O'Bannon of UCLA fame was pissed that video game companies were making money off his name, image and likeness and he saw nothing from it. Even Steve Alford got his hand slapped back at Indiana back in the day for allowing a sorority to use his name, image and likeness for a philanthropy when he was placed in their calendars for sale that was sold and profits given to charity. Going back to the Marshall Faulk days when 50k screaming fans were yelling "Marshall, Marshall, Marshall" from the stands as we all wore #28 jerseys with his name, he must have thought the same thing.
My point is when NIL was started it was supposed to be about athletes being allowed to make "REAL" NIL money from advertising product, selling of jerseys, video games with their likeness, etc. It was never intended to be for a salary.
My hope would be that someday they could put this Genie back in the bottle but my fear is that will never happen. As been opined here, my interest in college sports is really starting to dwindle as it has become more about paying Caleb Williams a salary of $6M a year for two years to play at USC and amateurism has been thrown out the window.
It is what it is though so I guess Butler should go get paid if he wants. I agree with others though that going for the money has tarnished his legacy a bit if for no other reason than I would have liked to see what he could do in one more year here as opposed to elsewhere. Not sure that different coaching is going to bring that out of him or if another hard working off season wouldn't produce the same results here.
|
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Apr 26, 2024 9:23:38 GMT -8
There was an interesting comment from Ziegler in yesterdays article regarding Butler's entering the portal. He mentioned in his breakdown on what Butler made last season at SDSU in NIL money. For review, it was $50k from the Mesa Foundation, $50k from a prominent booster, and $75-$100k from a half dozen "REAL"NIL deals with local businesses. This I think is the big problem with NIL. The REAL NIL deals were supposed to be what it was about. Ed O'Bannon of UCLA fame was pissed that video game companies were making money off his name, image and likeness and he saw nothing from it. Even Steve Alford got his hand slapped back at Indiana back in the day for allowing a sorority to use his name, image and likeness for a philanthropy when he was placed in their calendars for sale that was sold and profits given to charity. Going back to the Marshall Faulk days when 50k screaming fans were yelling "Marshall, Marshall, Marshall" from the stands as we all wore #28 jerseys with his name, he must have thought the same thing. My point is when NIL was started it was supposed to be about athletes being allowed to make "REAL" NIL money from advertising product, selling of jerseys, video games with their likeness, etc. It was never intended to be for a salary.My hope would be that someday they could put this Genie back in the bottle but my fear is that will never happen. As been opined here, my interest in college sports is really starting to dwindle as it has become more about paying Caleb Williams a salary of $6M a year for two years to play at USC and amateurism has been thrown out the window. It is what it is though so I guess Butler should go get paid if he wants. I agree with others though that going for the money has tarnished his legacy a bit if for no other reason than I would have liked to see what he could do in one more year here as opposed to elsewhere. Not sure that different coaching is going to bring that out of him or if another hard working off season wouldn't produce the same results here. Exactly right. I'd feel a lot better about NIL if this was how it really worked. Unfortunately it's just become play-for-play a.k.a PAYOLA. |
|
|
|
Post by kevinharlanooooh on Apr 26, 2024 11:33:11 GMT -8
There was an interesting comment from Ziegler in yesterdays article regarding Butler's entering the portal. He mentioned in his breakdown on what Butler made last season at SDSU in NIL money. For review, it was $50k from the Mesa Foundation, $50k from a prominent booster, and $75-$100k from a half dozen "REAL"NIL deals with local businesses. This I think is the big problem with NIL. The REAL NIL deals were supposed to be what it was about. Ed O'Bannon of UCLA fame was pissed that video game companies were making money off his name, image and likeness and he saw nothing from it. Even Steve Alford got his hand slapped back at Indiana back in the day for allowing a sorority to use his name, image and likeness for a philanthropy when he was placed in their calendars for sale that was sold and profits given to charity. Going back to the Marshall Faulk days when 50k screaming fans were yelling "Marshall, Marshall, Marshall" from the stands as we all wore #28 jerseys with his name, he must have thought the same thing. My point is when NIL was started it was supposed to be about athletes being allowed to make "REAL" NIL money from advertising product, selling of jerseys, video games with their likeness, etc. It was never intended to be for a salary. My hope would be that someday they could put this Genie back in the bottle but my fear is that will never happen. As been opined here, my interest in college sports is really starting to dwindle as it has become more about paying Caleb Williams a salary of $6M a year for two years to play at USC and amateurism has been thrown out the window. It is what it is though so I guess Butler should go get paid if he wants. I agree with others though that going for the money has tarnished his legacy a bit if for no other reason than I would have liked to see what he could do in one more year here as opposed to elsewhere. Not sure that different coaching is going to bring that out of him or if another hard working off season wouldn't produce the same results here. That's exactly what I have been thinking regarding NIL, making money off your name through advertisements, etc., not salary. This salary thing from donations is what I'm against and I think is ruining college sports. |
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Apr 26, 2024 11:57:17 GMT -8
There was an interesting comment from Ziegler in yesterdays article regarding Butler's entering the portal. He mentioned in his breakdown on what Butler made last season at SDSU in NIL money. For review, it was $50k from the Mesa Foundation, $50k from a prominent booster, and $75-$100k from a half dozen "REAL"NIL deals with local businesses. This I think is the big problem with NIL. The REAL NIL deals were supposed to be what it was about. Ed O'Bannon of UCLA fame was pissed that video game companies were making money off his name, image and likeness and he saw nothing from it. Even Steve Alford got his hand slapped back at Indiana back in the day for allowing a sorority to use his name, image and likeness for a philanthropy when he was placed in their calendars for sale that was sold and profits given to charity. Going back to the Marshall Faulk days when 50k screaming fans were yelling "Marshall, Marshall, Marshall" from the stands as we all wore #28 jerseys with his name, he must have thought the same thing. My point is when NIL was started it was supposed to be about athletes being allowed to make "REAL" NIL money from advertising product, selling of jerseys, video games with their likeness, etc. It was never intended to be for a salary.My hope would be that someday they could put this Genie back in the bottle but my fear is that will never happen. As been opined here, my interest in college sports is really starting to dwindle as it has become more about paying Caleb Williams a salary of $6M a year for two years to play at USC and amateurism has been thrown out the window. It is what it is though so I guess Butler should go get paid if he wants. I agree with others though that going for the money has tarnished his legacy a bit if for no other reason than I would have liked to see what he could do in one more year here as opposed to elsewhere. Not sure that different coaching is going to bring that out of him or if another hard working off season wouldn't produce the same results here. Exactly right. I'd feel a lot better about NIL if this was how it really worked. Unfortunately it's just become play-for-play a.k.a PAYOLA. When thw word money was mentioned in NIL, the lawyers quickly gravitated towards that fragrance in the air. Nuff' said. |
|
|
|
Post by zurac315 on Apr 26, 2024 19:15:43 GMT -8
There was an interesting comment from Ziegler in yesterdays article regarding Butler's entering the portal. He mentioned in his breakdown on what Butler made last season at SDSU in NIL money. For review, it was $50k from the Mesa Foundation, $50k from a prominent booster, and $75-$100k from a half dozen "REAL"NIL deals with local businesses. This I think is the big problem with NIL. The REAL NIL deals were supposed to be what it was about. Ed O'Bannon of UCLA fame was pissed that video game companies were making money off his name, image and likeness and he saw nothing from it. Even Steve Alford got his hand slapped back at Indiana back in the day for allowing a sorority to use his name, image and likeness for a philanthropy when he was placed in their calendars for sale that was sold and profits given to charity. Going back to the Marshall Faulk days when 50k screaming fans were yelling "Marshall, Marshall, Marshall" from the stands as we all wore #28 jerseys with his name, he must have thought the same thing. My point is when NIL was started it was supposed to be about athletes being allowed to make "REAL" NIL money from advertising product, selling of jerseys, video games with their likeness, etc. It was never intended to be for a salary.My hope would be that someday they could put this Genie back in the bottle but my fear is that will never happen. As been opined here, my interest in college sports is really starting to dwindle as it has become more about paying Caleb Williams a salary of $6M a year for two years to play at USC and amateurism has been thrown out the window. It is what it is though so I guess Butler should go get paid if he wants. I agree with others though that going for the money has tarnished his legacy a bit if for no other reason than I would have liked to see what he could do in one more year here as opposed to elsewhere. Not sure that different coaching is going to bring that out of him or if another hard working off season wouldn't produce the same results here. Exactly right. I'd feel a lot better about NIL if this was how it really worked. Unfortunately it's just become play-for-play a.k.a PAYOLA. I had no idea an athlete at SDSU could make that kind of money! |
|
|
|
Post by bananaslug on Apr 27, 2024 6:56:47 GMT -8
Caveat: I have am no expert, and this is pure speculation, but I have a contrarian view:
The best years of our basketball program have occurred while this system has been taking shape. Why>
This post assumes that we end up in a player salary system like professional sports (which is already much the case, i.e. donors will donate to players instead of programs so it will feel to the schools, even without direct salaries, that they are paying the athletes)
What might happen?
1) If this works out like every other professional sport the top 10% of players will earn the vast majority of the money, likely more extreme than MLB or the NBA because there will be no minimum salaries that artificially limit salary concentration. I would also expect that aside from a very few, top transfers will benefit more than recruits.
2) College sports will become significantly less profitable for all schools, but much more so for the top schools who will not have new revenue sources but will be faced with very high payrolls. They will have to make difficult choices on how to budget their athlete's salaries as they are forced to bid with each other anyway. Also, unlike football, TV revenue from basketball is relatively small, winning, attendance, and alumni resources matter.
2) The schools with more resources will land the top transfers. The Bad: It will be harder for second tier schools to retain stars, The Good: There will be fewer slots for recruits in top tier schools (as they take transfers instead), so second tier schools will have access to HS talent they have not traditionally had.
3) Athletes will stay in college longer. Simple supply and demand economics, some of the players that would have gone overseas to earn money will now stay in school since they can earn equivalent salaries by doing so. The Good: This will reduce the slots for new recruits in top tier schools so second tier schools will have access to HS talent they have not traditionally had.
4) Waiting it out on the bench at a top tier school, is a much worse option for athletes. If you get paid by either starting at your school or being a top transfer then you are better off going to a second tier school (either recruit or transfer) than being the 9-13 player at a top tier school. This was not always the case when we had transfer restrictions and no NIL.
So what might this mean for SDSU?
I would argue we are at the top of the 'second tier' list. We have less media money but a large wealthy alumni base, high attendance, favorable geography.
As in many other professional sports, teams will have the option to focus on either buying talent or developing talent as viable strategies. In general, we will continue to choose the latter, and we are damn good at it.
The top-tier schools will still have the top raw talent. That doesn't always equate to wins especially in a sport that depends on young players with limited track records, there will be a lot of uncertainty.
We almost never got the top 100 recruits anyway, we still won't.
We will lose the Lamont Butlers to top-tier programs late in their careers.
We will gain access to talent through transfers and recruiting that we haven't been able to get previously because top-tier programs take fewer recruits and athletes look for programs that have a track record for developing talent.
I think this has actually been playing out. Might it change? Sure, but I don't think its doom and gloom.
BTW football is a bit of a different beast because the media dollars are so high, but will have some of the same dynamics.
|
|
|
|
Post by mfaulkhof2011 on Apr 27, 2024 7:55:16 GMT -8
Caveat: I have am no expert, and this is pure speculation, but I have a contrarian view: The best years of our basketball program have occurred while this system has been taking shape. Why> This post assumes that we end up in a player salary system like professional sports (which is already much the case, i.e. donors will donate to players instead of programs so it will feel to the schools, even without direct salaries, that they are paying the athletes) What might happen? 1) If this works out like every other professional sport the top 10% of players will earn the vast majority of the money, likely more extreme than MLB or the NBA because there will be no minimum salaries that artificially limit salary concentration. I would also expect that aside from a very few, top transfers will benefit more than recruits. 2) College sports will become significantly less profitable for all schools, but much more so for the top schools who will not have new revenue sources but will be faced with very high payrolls. They will have to make difficult choices on how to budget their athlete's salaries as they are forced to bid with each other anyway. Also, unlike football, TV revenue from basketball is relatively small, winning, attendance, and alumni resources matter. 2) The schools with more resources will land the top transfers. The Bad: It will be harder for second tier schools to retain stars, The Good: There will be fewer slots for recruits in top tier schools (as they take transfers instead), so second tier schools will have access to HS talent they have not traditionally had. 3) Athletes will stay in college longer. Simple supply and demand economics, some of the players that would have gone overseas to earn money will now stay in school since they can earn equivalent salaries by doing so. The Good: This will reduce the slots for new recruits in top tier schools so second tier schools will have access to HS talent they have not traditionally had. 4) Waiting it out on the bench at a top tier school, is a much worse option for athletes. If you get paid by either starting at your school or being a top transfer then you are better off going to a second tier school (either recruit or transfer) than being the 9-13 player at a top tier school. This was not always the case when we had transfer restrictions and no NIL. So what might this mean for SDSU? I would argue we are at the top of the 'second tier' list. We have less media money but a large wealthy alumni base, high attendance, favorable geography. As in many other professional sports, teams will have the option to focus on either buying talent or developing talent as viable strategies. In general, we will continue to choose the latter, and we are damn good at it. The top-tier schools will still have the top raw talent. That doesn't always equate to wins especially in a sport that depends on young players with limited track records, there will be a lot of uncertainty. We almost never got the top 100 recruits anyway, we still won't. We will lose the Lamont Butlers to top-tier programs late in their careers. We will gain access to talent through transfers and recruiting that we haven't been able to get previously because top-tier programs take fewer recruits and athletes look for programs that have a track record for developing talent. I think this has actually been playing out. Might it change? Sure, but I don't think its doom and gloom. BTW football is a bit of a different beast because the media dollars are so high, but will have some of the same dynamics. You make a lot of good points. The only thing I don’t agree with is that the “schools” don’t pay the athletes from profits. They can give the athletes better facilities, food, travel accommodations, charter flights, etc. but all salaries, real NIL, etc. come from collectives like MESA or big donors. I agree though that so far we have thrived. Dutcher discussed this was because we have always worked transfers and were familiar with the landscape starting way back with Randy Holcomb, Tony Bland and continuing with X Thames, Malachi Flynn to Jaedon LeDee. None of these guys save for LeDee came here for NIL and even he red shirted like the old rules and made little other than pocket money in today’s dollars. |
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Apr 27, 2024 14:18:02 GMT -8
I agree that we are heading toward a "player salary system". This would necessitate the colleges directly paying the players from the profit that the schools are making. This is how it should be. The players are probably worth a lot more then they are currently receiving. There has to be some professional league pay scales in place that could be used as a template. How it all plays out...I don't know...
|
|
|
|
Post by DeeMoney on Apr 27, 2024 15:51:36 GMT -8
I believe most of the problems that people have with college athletics now arent rooted in NIL, but are in the transfer portal.
Leave NIL, but just fix the portal as such-
Allow any NCAA athlete one free transfer without a lost year of eligibility, but after that only if your head coach (or coach who recruited you leaves, or position coach, or whatever) leaves, or for extenuating circumstances: family illness, etc. People are still free to go to whatever college they want, but the NCAA will collectively enforce a rule (imagine that) that you must sit out a year of competition and lose that year of eligibility.
In return, schools guarantee athletic scholarships to extend throughout 5 years (or 6 if need be) long enough to earn a degree, with obvious expectations.
You do this, but keep NIL how it is, and things will look more like how most people want them to. Sure, those schools with the most money would usually get the best recruits, but those schools have probably always gotten the best recruits anyways. Athletes would now have guaranteed scholarships throughout a period of time long enough to earn their degree, and be able to earn NIL money. They can still transfer once without losing eligibility, but it prevents this free-for-all that seems to irk most out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Apr 27, 2024 16:40:51 GMT -8
The problem is simple. The players are actually worth a lot more then they are getting paid. Stop preventing the players access to the funds they are actually generating! The colleges are making off like bandits! Players can make $50,000 - $500,000 + AND they are not getting a cent of the actual revenue generated by the sport! Man, there must be a LOT of money being left on the table that the players should have access to.
Like I said before, there has to be pro-league pay structures out there that the colleges could emulate. They just don't have the incentive to do so. Some college needs to go rouge and revenue share with their players! Make the NCAA "ban" them, and see what happens! Unfortunately, once the other colleges are forced to open up the coffers, the brave school that bucked the system will get smashed by the competition...a tragic tale.
|
|
|
|
Post by DeeMoney on Apr 27, 2024 17:00:02 GMT -8
The problem is simple. The players are actually worth a lot more then they are getting paid. Stop preventing the players access to the funds they are actually generating! The colleges are making off like bandits! Players can make $50,000 - $500,000 + AND they are not getting a cent of the actual revenue generated by the sport! Man, there must be a LOT of money being left on the table that the players should have access to. Like I said before, there has to be pro-league pay structures out there that the colleges could emulate. They just don't have the incentive to do so. Some college needs to go rouge and revenue share with their players! Make the NCAA "ban" them, and see what happens! Unfortunately, once the other colleges are forced to open up the coffers, the brave school that bucked the system will get smashed by the competition...a tragic tale. Wouldn't paying football players and basketball players what they generate end up killing off most NCAA sports though? Only a few sports make money and they basically fund the rest. I like the idea of there being lots of sports that offer scholarships and give kids opportunities to earn a degree, I'd hate to think of them dying out. Maybe its just me being a bit of a Polyanna, but when I see lots of FCS & D2 schools, where there arent individual athletes generating all this money, & then I believe that the true student athlete model isnt dead. Instead, we just focus on the tip of the iceberg schools that do make lots of money. Maybe we let those big money schools break off into their own thing, and let actual student athlete model exist with the addition of NIL. |
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Apr 27, 2024 17:37:36 GMT -8
I agree that the true student athlete model is not dead. We have club sports at SDSU that are more in line with what student athlete sports really should look like. Or like you mentioned FCS and D2 schools. What we have with D1 football and basketball is professional college sports. I think ultimately we will have some type of leveling with college sports where some schools pay more and some less, and some just give a scholarship. I would like SDSU to be in the "pay more" category, but ultimately I would just like a more even, clear cut playing field, so the other teams you are competing against can't just buy the better players.
EDIT: I agree with the idea of some schools "breaking off" and other schools not doing so. I think that is where we are heading.
|
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Apr 27, 2024 17:53:02 GMT -8
As far as other sports are concerned, I guess, if the college can't afford them, they would go more in the club sport category. And it might sound harsh, but I'm actually not that worried about students not getting athletic scholarships. I mean it would be nice, but...Or better yet, cut the fat if you want to lower the price of college and make it more accessible for everyone (I paid $250 (EDIT $330) a semester back in 1985). I'm more concerned about the college making millions on the players and then not paying them because...they don't have to! EDIT: according to this www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/awidevelop.html average wages has increased from about 15,000 to 60,000 since 1985, a four fold increase. Cost of college at SDSU in 1985 $330, in 2024 $4100, more than a 12 fold increase. |
|
|
|
Post by Ambivalent_Fan on Apr 27, 2024 19:52:55 GMT -8
If you’re going to start paying players directly…then there should be some kind of long-term contract system as well…this will effectively eliminate transfers (if you lock the player up for 4 years + an option year)…
Blue blood schools can still sign the best high school players for high salaries…but schools like SDSU could sign lower-cost prospects and then develop them knowing they can’t contractually leave the program for 4-5 years…
This is how the pro leagues do it…
|
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Apr 27, 2024 20:24:33 GMT -8
Yeah, makes sense, but who knows! The whole system would change.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecdan8 on Apr 27, 2024 22:04:54 GMT -8
The problem is simple. The players are actually worth a lot more then they are getting paid. Stop preventing the players access to the funds they are actually generating! The colleges are making off like bandits! Players can make $50,000 - $500,000 + AND they are not getting a cent of the actual revenue generated by the sport! Man, there must be a LOT of money being left on the table that the players should have access to. Like I said before, there has to be pro-league pay structures out there that the colleges could emulate. They just don't have the incentive to do so. Some college needs to go rouge and revenue share with their players! Make the NCAA "ban" them, and see what happens! Unfortunately, once the other colleges are forced to open up the coffers, the brave school that bucked the system will get smashed by the competition...a tragic tale. You're conveniently forgetting or ignoring one important thing... the revenue and profits from FB & BB pay for every other sport on campus. None of those sports generate any revenue, let alone profit. You can't start playing players a percentage of revenues/profits when the other sports need all that money, let alone the impact of Title Ix. |
|
|
|
Post by TPAztec on Apr 27, 2024 22:40:17 GMT -8
Caveat: I have am no expert, and this is pure speculation, but I have a contrarian view: The best years of our basketball program have occurred while this system has been taking shape. Why> This post assumes that we end up in a player salary system like professional sports (which is already much the case, i.e. donors will donate to players instead of programs so it will feel to the schools, even without direct salaries, that they are paying the athletes) What might happen? 1) If this works out like every other professional sport the top 10% of players will earn the vast majority of the money, likely more extreme than MLB or the NBA because there will be no minimum salaries that artificially limit salary concentration. I would also expect that aside from a very few, top transfers will benefit more than recruits. 2) College sports will become significantly less profitable for all schools, but much more so for the top schools who will not have new revenue sources but will be faced with very high payrolls. They will have to make difficult choices on how to budget their athlete's salaries as they are forced to bid with each other anyway. Also, unlike football, TV revenue from basketball is relatively small, winning, attendance, and alumni resources matter. 2) The schools with more resources will land the top transfers. The Bad: It will be harder for second tier schools to retain stars, The Good: There will be fewer slots for recruits in top tier schools (as they take transfers instead), so second tier schools will have access to HS talent they have not traditionally had. 3) Athletes will stay in college longer. Simple supply and demand economics, some of the players that would have gone overseas to earn money will now stay in school since they can earn equivalent salaries by doing so. The Good: This will reduce the slots for new recruits in top tier schools so second tier schools will have access to HS talent they have not traditionally had. 4) Waiting it out on the bench at a top tier school, is a much worse option for athletes. If you get paid by either starting at your school or being a top transfer then you are better off going to a second tier school (either recruit or transfer) than being the 9-13 player at a top tier school. This was not always the case when we had transfer restrictions and no NIL. So what might this mean for SDSU? I would argue we are at the top of the 'second tier' list. We have less media money but a large wealthy alumni base, high attendance, favorable geography. As in many other professional sports, teams will have the option to focus on either buying talent or developing talent as viable strategies. In general, we will continue to choose the latter, and we are damn good at it. The top-tier schools will still have the top raw talent. That doesn't always equate to wins especially in a sport that depends on young players with limited track records, there will be a lot of uncertainty. We almost never got the top 100 recruits anyway, we still won't. We will lose the Lamont Butlers to top-tier programs late in their careers. We will gain access to talent through transfers and recruiting that we haven't been able to get previously because top-tier programs take fewer recruits and athletes look for programs that have a track record for developing talent. I think this has actually been playing out. Might it change? Sure, but I don't think its doom and gloom. BTW football is a bit of a different beast because the media dollars are so high, but will have some of the same dynamics. Great analysis. for basketball, the raw hs talent and 2nd tier transfers ring true, but for football, that's going to get worse. Many players can hop in the portal and join a SEC school to be a vet backup, and still make some pretty good money based off NIL deals, compared to coming to a place like SDSU. |
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Apr 28, 2024 5:55:53 GMT -8
The problem is simple. The players are actually worth a lot more then they are getting paid. Stop preventing the players access to the funds they are actually generating! The colleges are making off like bandits! Players can make $50,000 - $500,000 + AND they are not getting a cent of the actual revenue generated by the sport! Man, there must be a LOT of money being left on the table that the players should have access to. Like I said before, there has to be pro-league pay structures out there that the colleges could emulate. They just don't have the incentive to do so. Some college needs to go rouge and revenue share with their players! Make the NCAA "ban" them, and see what happens! Unfortunately, once the other colleges are forced to open up the coffers, the brave school that bucked the system will get smashed by the competition...a tragic tale. You're conveniently forgetting or ignoring one important thing... the revenue and profits from FB & BB pay for every other sport on campus. None of those sports generate any revenue, let alone profit. You can't start playing players a percentage of revenues/profits when the other sports need all that money, let alone the impact of Title Ix. I'm not sure how paying players directly would impact other sports and Title IX. Title IX would seem to be a lot more tricky, esp if it calls for equal pay between men and women regardless of revenue generated (If true, that would be a little unfair to say the least and would seem to be a form of discrimination). If the college really couldn't afford to support the other sports, then they would be gone. Why does a college HAVE to have a "whatever" team if it can't afford it? Have it be a club sport. The reality is, the colleges are running an extremely profitable business and NOT paying their most important employees. Employees that would just happen to make between six and seven figures per year (basketball). Quite a system if you can keep it! |
|
|
|
Post by DeeMoney on Apr 28, 2024 8:44:02 GMT -8
You're conveniently forgetting or ignoring one important thing... the revenue and profits from FB & BB pay for every other sport on campus. None of those sports generate any revenue, let alone profit. You can't start playing players a percentage of revenues/profits when the other sports need all that money, let alone the impact of Title Ix. I'm not sure how paying players directly would impact other sports and Title IX. Title IX would seem to be a lot more tricky, esp if it calls for equal pay between men and women regardless of revenue generated (If true, that would be a little unfair to say the least and would seem to be a form of discrimination). If the college really couldn't afford to support the other sports, then they would be gone. Why does a college HAVE to have a "whatever" team if it can't afford it? Have it be a club sport. The reality is, the colleges are running an extremely profitable business and NOT paying their most important employees. Employees that would just happen to make between six and seven figures per year (basketball). Quite a system if you can keep it! TO be fair, they are paying them with a free education, room, board, food, clothing etc. Now are the top athletes for major sports earning exactly what they generate? NO, so their is a level of exploitation. But to claim they arent paying them is ignoring he basic agreement of a college scholarship. We pay for you to receive a free education (and room, and board, and food, etc) in exchange for you playing sports here. If you figure the avg annual cost of all that is about $35,000, then a 5-year athlete has earned $175,000, plus the additional earning potential they have now due having a college degree. Thats not to argue that you shouldn't pay athletes, just that there already is a form of payment going to them. Equal to what they generate, no, but nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Apr 28, 2024 13:08:06 GMT -8
You are correct, players are getting compensation for playing. And it is something, probably a good deal for most on scholarship!
|
|
