JBo the activist

[anon_bb9wlf9kj42py]

Who takes home no salary?

What salary do they get? Yeah the scholarship confers a lot of bennies, no where near what some of them are worth, but it does. But they don't get any cash.

I don't know why I'm engaging here. It's changing one way or another. CA is proceeding with a lawsuit that allows them to profit off of NIL. The NCAA keeps giving concessions like the cost of living scholarships.

This isn't 1983 anymore where football tickets cost $10 and the head coach makes 100k. Coaching staffs make close to 10 million a year. People spend thousands on tickets.

I'm friends with a former DL. The guy is 30 and he has arthritis. I can't imagine what life is going to be like for him at 50. I think it's a crime what we ask football players especially to go through physically for our entertainment with zero take home income at the end. We disagree. We likely won't agree ever. I'll leave it at that.

 

[anon_bb9wlf9kj42py]

@ISUBryceHell I think the median income in the U.S. is like $60,000 for a family so football players are not terribly oppressed.

I never said they were oppressed. I think they are vastly underpaid due to a cartel controlling what their income potential is.

 

[cidhawkeye]

What salary do they get? Yeah the scholarship confers a lot of bennies, no where near what some of them are worth, but it does. But they don't get any cash.

I don't know why I'm engaging here. It's changing one way or another. CA is proceeding with a lawsuit that allows them to profit off of NIL. The NCAA keeps giving concessions like the cost of living scholarships.

This isn't 1983 anymore where football tickets cost $10 and the head coach makes 100k. Coaching staffs make close to 10 million a year. People spend thousands on tickets.

I'm friends with a former DL. The guy is 30 and he has arthritis. I can't imagine what life is going to be like for him at 50. I think it's a crime what we ask football players especially to go through physically for our entertainment with zero take home income at the end. We disagree. We likely won't agree ever. I'll leave it at that.

‘Nowhere near what some of them are worth’ you addressed the biggest issue in this conundrum. The vast majority are worth zero. How do you determine their value and good luck telling volleyball or swimming they are worth zero without lawsuits coming in. The current life of a D1 athlete isn’t without some serious benefits, with stipends, pell grants for some, living off campus and getting paid the difference from room and board, the nutrition programs, the bowl swag, the gear and a debt free college education with some decent resume boost and connections it isn’t a bad gig. Failure to capitalize on that falls on the individual. Individuals who fail to capitalize on that opportunity probably aren’t even having a chance to go to college and their earning potential would be greatly reduced. Athletics are a means to a pretty solid end. The bookkeepers at all these schools can make them all plead poverty if needed. Look at how few can operate independent of subsidies. The arms race will only worsen if your concept gets pushed through.

 

[IowaNiceHawk]

People are very unaware of what Div 1 athletes ‘get’ it’s not a bad deal for them.

Please explain the very generous Meal program these guys get for
4 years on scholarship............it was surprising to me all that was there.
GO HAWKS

 

[Hawkdiver]

I never said they were oppressed. I think they are vastly underpaid due to a cartel controlling what their income potential is.

Underpaid compared to what? College students? 20 year old men in the workforce? The CEO of a Fortune 500 company? The NFL league minimum? What are we comparing them to? The only logical comparison would be to a 20 year old in the workforce which I believe is around $25,000. The players are not forced to play college football and accept a $40,000+ "employment package" they have other avenues, just like anyone else in america. The problem is, given their goals, the NCAA looks like the best, most lucrative way to get there. How much are players making in the wonderful league Ball set up? That is always an option but so far it doesn't look like it is as lucrative as the NCAA route.

I think there is a very thin line then between a business and a cartel. I could contend that McDonalds could be construed as a cartel since the bulk of their employees are making around $10 per hour ($20,000 per year) and the CEO is making $16M per year all in. We keep talking about how the payment for TV rights and everything else leaves plenty of money for the players. Look at McDonalds again, total sales of $21B last year and they pay the rank and file $20,000. Looks to me like the Iowa football players are getting a pretty good deal; double the compensation for a program that brings in less than half a percent of McDonalds income. Someone better alert the media that corporate america is full of unfair cartels that treat people unfairly, I'm sure the media will be shocked.

 

[L. Wade Childress]

I believe this has more to due with school budgets and being a non profit than actual money.

When the team brings in more money they either have to spend more or redistribute it in some way. The goal is not for the University to profit in the same sense other businesses do.

Someone with more knowledge might be able to provide more insight on this.

Each sport still has their own budget to meet. Most costs are fairly set. The big question around the paying players argument is if you think the coaches make too much money. They are the only people getting rich off the student athletes.

 

[anon_bb9wlf9kj42py]

How much are players making in the wonderful league Ball set up? That is always an option but so far it doesn't look like it is as lucrative as the NCAA route.

Several players are skipping college basketball altogether this year.

I think there is a very thin line then between a business and a cartel. I could contend that McDonalds could be construed as a cartel since the bulk of their employees are making around $10 per hour ($20,000 per year) and the CEO is making $16M per year all in.

You should look up the definition of a cartel.

 

[IowaNiceHawk]

I agree with this.

98.75% of the kids are fine with free tuition, room and board as “payment”.

And so are 99% of the parents of kids who get those Full rides.

GO HAWKS

 

[unoHawkeye]

Underpaid compared to what? College students? 20 year old men in the workforce? The CEO of a Fortune 500 company? The NFL league minimum? What are we comparing them to? The only logical comparison would be to a 20 year old in the workforce which I believe is around $25,000

SOME are underpaid in relation to the amount of money generated by the program, and underpaid in relation to what the coaches make. Bench warmers and first year starters? Not underpaid. Stars who individually have a dramatic effect on the quality of the team? Potentially (even likely) underpaid. It is less evident in football than basketball, but could still be shown.

I was going to come up with my own example regarding Christian McCaffery’s value to Stanford in 2015 compared to coach David Shaw’s $4.3 million per year and the $40 million generated in revenue by the football team to illustrate my point, but this article from the Stanford Daily did my work for me:

“In the fiscal year ending Aug. 31, 2016, the Stanford football program generated revenues of $43,744,639, according to disclosuresprovided to the Department of Education. The team’s expenses were $23.7 million, meaning that each of the program’s 85 scholarship football players generated $235,532.14 in profit for the athletics department. Stanford’s Office of Financial Aid calculated the school’s 2017-18 full cost of attendance to be $69,109, meaning that scholarship Cardinal players receive, in in-kind (non-cash) benefits, less than 29 percent of what they generate for the University”
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/09/06/stanford-athletics-and-the-profitability-of-amateurism/

Of course, each player didn’t generate $235,532 for the athletic department. About half those players didn’t see the field, and some were only minor contributors. As I’ve said, a salary/wage will never work. But why wouldn’t Christian McCaffery or Bryce Love for Stanford be able to profit off of themselves and make enough money to validate what they provide for the football team and university?

 

[unoHawkeye]

Underpaid compared to what? College students? 20 year old men in the workforce? The CEO of a Fortune 500 company? The NFL league minimum? What are we comparing them to? The only logical comparison would be to a 20 year old in the workforce which I believe is around $25,000. The players are not forced to play college football and accept a $40,000+ "employment package" they have other avenues, just like anyone else in america. The problem is, given their goals, the NCAA looks like the best, most lucrative way to get there. How much are players making in the wonderful league Ball set up? That is always an option but so far it doesn't look like it is as lucrative as the NCAA route.

I think there is a very thin line then between a business and a cartel. I could contend that McDonalds could be construed as a cartel since the bulk of their employees are making around $10 per hour ($20,000 per year) and the CEO is making $16M per year all in. We keep talking about how the payment for TV rights and everything else leaves plenty of money for the players. Look at McDonalds again, total sales of $21B last year and they pay the rank and file $20,000. Looks to me like the Iowa football players are getting a pretty good deal; double the compensation for a program that brings in less than half a percent of McDonalds income. Someone better alert the media that corporate america is full of unfair cartels that treat people unfairly, I'm sure the media will be shocked.

Oh and btw, no low-skilled 20 year old in the workforce flipping burgers at McDonald’s for 10/hr, $25k/year generates millions of dollars for their company, so that is an awful comparison

 

[HawkLand]

SOME are underpaid in relation to the amount of money generated by the program, and underpaid in relation to what the coaches make. Bench warmers and first year starters? Not underpaid. Stars who individually have a dramatic effect on the quality of the team? Potentially (even likely) underpaid. It is less evident in football than basketball, but could still be shown.

I was going to come up with my own example regarding Christian McCaffery’s value to Stanford in 2015 compared to coach David Shaw’s $4.3 million per year and the $40 million generated in revenue by the football team to illustrate my point, but this article from the Stanford Daily did my work for me:

“In the fiscal year ending Aug. 31, 2016, the Stanford football program generated revenues of $43,744,639, according to disclosuresprovided to the Department of Education. The team’s expenses were $23.7 million, meaning that each of the program’s 85 scholarship football players generated $235,532.14 in profit for the athletics department. Stanford’s Office of Financial Aid calculated the school’s 2017-18 full cost of attendance to be $69,109, meaning that scholarship Cardinal players receive, in in-kind (non-cash) benefits, less than 29 percent of what they generate for the University”
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/09/06/stanford-athletics-and-the-profitability-of-amateurism/

Of course, each player didn’t generate $235,532 for the athletic department. About half those players didn’t see the field, and some were only minor contributors. As I’ve said, a salary/wage will never work. But why wouldn’t Christian McCaffery or Bryce Love for Stanford be able to profit off of themselves and make enough money to validate what they provide for the football team and university?

These examples make no sense for an argument. There is not one actual business that pays most or all of their income(if making money) to the people that “make the money”. People keep throwing around McDonalds employees. It doesn’t even have to be a low paying job. If you make 250k at google you don’t have access to the 30 billion in profits. And yes they have angry employees despite an average salary of nearly 200k.

What if you are at a university where a stadium is being built or remodeled while you are there and the football budget is not profitable due to high investment expenses. Should the players have to pay back some of the schollies since they are not making money?

If this was such a “cartel”, “prison” or whatever people like to call it. 10’s of thousands of kids wouldn’t be working there ass off to become a part of this system.

Show me one kids announcement on Twitter that doesn’t say he blessed to be offered by Iowa(or insert school), or blessed to accept a Scholarship.

If it’s such a horrible, ruthless business I would think anyone could come up with a better alternative for all of these kids. Maybe team up with the Ball family.

EVERY player is allowed to leave whenever they like to pursue another avenue if the feel college is not getting them what they deserve. The free market certainly will let them know.

I’m honestly fine if they come up with a way to pay some money, but it just seems impossible to me to get everyone for all sports and genders to agree on anything. Hell it would even be fun if every team was given a salary cap they could spend each year on a team. That will really level the playing field if every coach could spend 2 million on players as he saw fit. .

 

[unoHawkeye]

These examples make no sense for an argument. There is not one actual business that pays most or all of their income(if making money) to the people that “make the money”. People keep throwing around McDonalds employees. It doesn’t even have to be a low paying job. If you make 250k at google you don’t have access to the 30 billion in profits. And yes they have angry employees despite an average salary of nearly 200k.

What if you are at a university where a stadium is being built or remodeled while you are there and the football budget is not profitable due to high investment expenses. Should the players have to pay back some of the schollies since they are not making money?

If this was such a “cartel”, “prison” or whatever people like to call it. 10’s of thousands of kids wouldn’t be working there ass off to become a part of this system.

Show me one kids announcement on Twitter that doesn’t say he blessed to be offered by Iowa(or insert school), or blessed to accept a Scholarship.

If it’s such a horrible, ruthless business I would think anyone could come up with a better alternative for all of these kids. Maybe team up with the Ball family.

EVERY player is allowed to leave whenever they like to pursue another avenue if the feel college is not getting them what they deserve. The free market certainly will let them know.

I’m honestly fine if they come up with a way to pay some money, but it just seems impossible to me to get everyone for all sports and genders to agree on anything. Hell it would even be fun if every team was given a salary cap they could spend each year on a team. That will really level the playing field if every coach could spend 2 million on players as he saw fit. .

You’ve mistaken my stance. I’ve got no problem with what the schools pay the players in scholarships and don’t think there is any obligation to pay them more. I’ve got an issue with the fact that players can’t attempt to make additional money using their own brand given how much money they generate for the school/NCAA (you yourself cite the free market - let it do its thing)

Obviously I don’t think Stanford should pay out their entire profit margin to the players. Give me some credit man

 

[Hawkdiver]

I guess the real question is who should control how the players use their own brand to generate income and what restrictions should be in place? Today the restrictions from the NCAA are no sponsorships/advertising, etc. If they were to allow this who determines what is an appropriate use of the player's brand? I know any company I have worked for puts pretty tight restrictions on what I can and can not endorse or sponsor as they are in essence paying me for my brand, the NCAA looks at this the same way, the scholarship is paying for the player's brand.

I would imagine the NFL, NBA, etc. has restrictions around what a player can endorse. Could Lebron decide he wants to endorse and become the face of a bump stock manufacturer? My guess is no, the NBA wants no association with that. It gets a little tougher for the NCAA to monitor almost half a million athletes, across 3 divisions and dozens of sports as to appropriate use of likeness/brand. This would be a logistic nightmare and the simple solution is to not allow it.

Does anyone remember back in the mid 80's there was an Iowa football player whose dad owned a bar in Cedar Rapids (I don't remember his name) and the dad used his son's picture in a bar calendar or ad and they got into trouble with the NCAA. These little things are what would need to be tracked or monitored across almost half a million athletes, a herculean task.

 

[cidhawkeye]

Oh and btw, no low-skilled 20 year old in the workforce flipping burgers at McDonald’s for 10/hr, $25k/year generates millions of dollars for their company, so that is an awful comparison

They probably aren’t getting Pell Grants, unlimited meals, snacks or food per diems, having their rent paid, flying charter, getting clothing allowances, bowl swag or working in buildings that cost hundreds of million dollars and a free education. Your right, horrible analogy.

 

[unoHawkeye]

They probably aren’t getting Pell Grants, unlimited meals, snacks or food per firms, having their rent paid, flying charter, getting clothing allowances, bowl swag or working in buildings that cost hundreds of million dollars and a free education. Your right, horrible analogy.

Thanks for agreeing. For most players, the perks you have mentioned make up or more than make up for what they provide to the team. However, all-conference/all-American players are worth even more than all the things you mentioned (which, combined, are well under $100k). These players should have the opportunity to make what people (fans, boosters) are willing to pay them. I don’t know how you take issue with this opinion

 

[cidhawkeye]

Thanks for agreeing. For most players, the perks you have mentioned make up or more than make up for what they provide to the team. However, all-conference/all-American players are worth even more than all the things you mentioned (which, combined, are well under $100k). These players should have the opportunity to make what people (fans, boosters) are willing to pay them. I don’t know how you take issue with this opinion

Lol... definitely my take...if you want any semblance of college sports the ‘what people are willing to pay them’ model isn’t the direction you want to go. Kids are getting offers younger and younger, boosters and sponsors will pay those kids to align with a school at that age. If Saban targets a high school freshmen then a booster will pay them. Not sure where the line is drawn.

 

[SB_SB]

Thanks for agreeing. For most players, the perks you have mentioned make up or more than make up for what they provide to the team. However, all-conference/all-American players are worth even more than all the things you mentioned (which, combined, are well under $100k). These players should have the opportunity to make what people (fans, boosters) are willing to pay them. I don’t know how you take issue with this opinion

How is an all-conference player really worth a lot more. For football it's a team sport and it's about how the team plays. You really think people go to the game just to watch one or two players? Do you think there's going to be huge drop in revenue after losing two TE's? No, there isn't.

Why would you create a system where only a couple of players get paid per team. You don't think that's going to create issues with the players. It would be a disaster if they start paying select players.

 

[unoHawkeye]

Lol... definitely my take...if you want any semblance of college sports the ‘what people are willing to pay them’ model isn’t the direction you want to go. Kids are getting offers younger and younger, boosters and sponsors will pay those kids to align with a school at that age. If Saban targets a high school freshmen then a booster will pay them. Not sure where the line is drawn.

I feel like you have a naive view of college sports. There’s a pretty good chance that this stuff already happens. I think it may as well be made legal and put everybody on an equal plane

 

[Hawkdiver]

I would have to take a look but I'm not sure Illinois had any All American players last year and from my understanding they received the same payment from the conference based on TV rights. Does that mean as a whole Illinois players are deserving of a bigger cut of the money simply because they had no one that was good? The Iowa players that were not All American are less deserving?

This is a slippery slope that I think the NCAA understands, even given all of the faults of the NCAA. It all boils down to what was said earlier and apples to any situation in America. If you don't think you are getting a fair deal look for a better one. If you don't like your job, find a new one. If you don't like your neighborhood, move. If you think the NCAA model is exploiting you find another place to play that gives you a better deal. The fact that the NFL or NBA will not look at you until you reach a certain age is not a problem the NCAA needs to fix, it is a problem the athlete needs to understand and address and find the right situation for him, until the point that the pro door is opened.

 

[unoHawkeye]

How is an all-conference player really worth a lot more. For football it's a team sport and it's about how the team plays. You really think people go to the game just to watch one or two players? Do you think there's going to be huge drop in revenue after losing two TE's? No, there isn't.

Why would you create a system where only a couple of players get paid per team. You don't think that's going to create issues with the players. It would be a disaster if they start paying select players.

Like I said in an earlier post, this discussion is tougher in football than basketball because the impact of a star player is mitigated more in football.

No, people do not go to watch one or two players. However, without a team’s one or two best players, what does the team look like? What if Iowa was without Fant and Hockenson last year? Shonn Green in 08? Desmond King and Josey Jewell in 2015? What would fan sentiment look like? What would football support like?

All speculation, but it’s tough to deny the value that a team’s top players add to that team. Again, I am not suggesting that these players get paid extra. I am suggesting that EVERY player have the opportunity to make money based off of their name and brand. Naturally, the better players will end up making more money. Would it really be a huge deal to you if an Iowa booster wrote Beathard a check after the 2015 run? He earned it! He put his body on the line and played hurt every week, but the amount of money he can make is the exact same as Iowa’s backup fullback. I think that’s dumb.

 

[unoHawkeye]

I would have to take a look but I'm not sure Illinois had any All American players last year and from my understanding they received the same payment from the conference based on TV rights. Does that mean as a whole Illinois players are deserving of a bigger cut of the money simply because they had no one that was good? The Iowa players that were not All American are less deserving?

This is a slippery slope that I think the NCAA understands, even given all of the faults of the NCAA. It all boils down to what was said earlier and apples to any situation in America. If you don't think you are getting a fair deal look for a better one. If you don't like your job, find a new one. If you don't like your neighborhood, move. If you think the NCAA model is exploiting you find another place to play that gives you a better deal. The fact that the NFL or NBA will not look at you until you reach a certain age is not a problem the NCAA needs to fix, it is a problem the athlete needs to understand and address and find the right situation for him, until the point that the pro door is opened.

This is getting extremely frustrating. EVERYBODY on Illinois should have the chance to make money for themselves based on their name, brand, and likeness. I only cited all Americans as people who provide more value to the team, to support my point that they are worth more than end of the bench players. Newsflash: since most of the players on Illinois are bad, nobody would probably make much more than what their scholarship is worth, because nobody would be willing to pay them

 

[Hawkdiver]

But who gets to decide who can pay them? Now that sports betting is being legalized across the country can the QB agree to an endorsement for Joe's Sports Book? Think the school would have a problem with that? Could the school revoke a scholarship if they see a problem with a sponsor? The slope is too slippery when you are talking about trying to track and monitor almost a half a million athletes a year. Cheating is already happening because this is impossible to track, imagine magnifying it with all of the agents and sponsors that would enter the equation at all levels.

 

[unoHawkeye]

But who gets to decide who can pay them? Now that sports betting is being legalized across the country can the QB agree to an endorsement for Joe's Sports Book? Think the school would have a problem with that? Could the school revoke a scholarship if they see a problem with a sponsor? The slope is too slippery when you are talking about trying to track and monitor almost a half a million athletes a year. Cheating is already happening because this is impossible to track, imagine magnifying it with all of the agents and sponsors that would enter the equation at all levels.

The whole point of making allowing the players the same abilities is so that the NCAA (which is already failing at its job) doesn’t have to track each of the millions of players.

Also, I’m pretty sure the scenario you illustrated regarding the QB and the gambling agency is illegal. Schools can basically pull a scholarship at any time they want anyways (or the coach can bench a player, which is as good as pulling a scholarship if the player isn’t playing)

 

[sbhawk64]

Here is the skinny if you play player and why it would devastate the environment of college athletics. To want players to be compensated is to to hope for the end of the sport.

If you pay football and basketball players, you will have to pay all athletes. You cant pay targeted players and not others. Huge legal battles if you try. School cant afford to pay every single athlete so that will devastate the sport. You also have the issue of so some players get paid more than others because of more perceived value? Who decides their value? Players will have to get agents to help through that bird's nest. Again devastating to the sport.

Then another issue arises. What about students who perform non-athletic events. Musicians, vocalists, students in the sciences? How are they benefiting the school? They will want compensated as well.

Conclusion- not one athlete has been forced to perform for the school. If the schools offer them the vehicle to play for fun or for exposure to the community and they accept their offer, what is the problem. two adults coming to an agreement. If the athletes don't like their offer, they are free to search for a better deal. such is life in the real world.

Side note- this is why minimum wage should be abolished for non-children. Not govt's job to manage the negotiations of two adults

 

[Hawkdiver]

I'm not sure that legal sports books will not be allowed to advertise, the legal casinos can advertise, we know that, so change the scenario. Would the NCAA and/or the University of Iowa like their star QB to be doing gambling commercials? Or even more realistic with the concern over college drinking culture that every school is dealing with would Iowa have a problem if Tristen Wirfs was endorsing Busch Light? If so (and I bet KF would have an issue) who gets to draw the line? If Iowa says you can only get money/deals from these types of companies aren't we just running into a different area of restraint of trade?

It is just too slippery a slope to track where every dollar every athlete is getting is coming from. It is near impossible so a strict prohibition is much easier to manage. Do some instances of cheating happen, yes; is this easier to police than a free market free for all across all levels of NCAA athlete, again yes.

 

[cidhawkeye]

I feel like you have a naive view of college sports. There’s a pretty good chance that this stuff already happens. I think it may as well be made legal and put everybody on an equal plane

Naive? Interesting thought. Did you miss the part of having a scholarship athlete in this recent era? You realize that has an impact on my personal finances based on how it works? I had a son work in compliance at a P5 school, i think you would be surprised on what athletes get, how it’s monitored, Etc. some of the things you are alleging do happen, making it legal and unlimited hastens the end of college football. Hello club sports. Can you provide some insight on how this will play out with some specifics? Where you gained your perspective on how it impacts budgets, non revenue sports, etc.? Then tell me how in this current climate that how 10-12 athletes per school will get paid and others won’t.

 

[unoHawkeye]

Naive? Interesting thought. Did you miss the part of having a scholarship athlete in this recent era? You realize that has an impact on my personal finances based on how it works? I had a son work in compliance at a P5 school, i think you would be surprised on what athletes get, how it’s monitored, Etc. some of the things you are alleging do happen, making it legal and unlimited hastens the end of college football. Hello club sports. Can you provide some insight on how this will play out with some specifics? Where you gained your perspective on how it impacts budgets, non revenue sports, etc.? Then tell me how in this current climate that how 10-12 athletes per school will get paid and others won’t.

I’m not trying to be a jerk here, but I don’t even understand what you are asking in half of these questions. The bolded questions are worded weirdly to the point that I’m not following what you’re asking.

Personally, I don’t believe that this impacts school budgets or non-revenue sports in the slightest. Scholarship swimmers should have the same opportunity to profit off of themselves that scholarship football players do. All I suggest is allowing student athletes to become entrepreneurs if they so choose. If you or your son has information that show why I, as a student athlete, cannot feasibly accept payment for my signature, or a check from a donor, I would love the opportunity to become more informed. It seems to have worked great for a substantial amount of big time athletes

Your “end of college football” declaration seems a bit dramatic. My opinion is that it could actually increase parity in college football, as larger donors from smaller schools could convince bigger recruits to attend their school with additional compensation beyond a scholarship offer. Again, I’m no fortune teller, and if I’m misinformed, would love to know why, without you asking me 15 questions and to write my own dissertation on the topic

 

[unoHawkeye]

Here is the skinny if you play player and why it would devastate the environment of college athletics. To want players to be compensated is to to hope for the end of the sport.

If you pay football and basketball players, you will have to pay all athletes. You cant pay targeted players and not others. Huge legal battles if you try. School cant afford to pay every single athlete so that will devastate the sport. You also have the issue of so some players get paid more than others because of more perceived value? Who decides their value? Players will have to get agents to help through that bird's nest. Again devastating to the sport.

Then another issue arises. What about students who perform non-athletic events. Musicians, vocalists, students in the sciences? How are they benefiting the school? They will want compensated as well.

Conclusion- not one athlete has been forced to perform for the school. If the schools offer them the vehicle to play for fun or for exposure to the community and they accept their offer, what is the problem. two adults coming to an agreement. If the athletes don't like their offer, they are fret o search for a better deal. such is life in the real world.

Side note- this is why minimum wage should be abolished for non-children. Not govt's job to manage the negotiations of two adults

You do a great job explaining why a school paying athletes cannot feasibly work. I’m still trying to understand why athletes across all sports (revenue and non revenue) accepting payments from third parties also cannot feasibly work

 

[Hawkdiver]

The problem with any athlete being given the ability to accept a check from a donor is that it would further decrease parity and as an Iowa fan this should be of great concern. Iowa has a much smaller and less wealthy alumni/fan base than much of the rest of the country and as such could not keep up with the Jones'. If it becomes a bidding war who wins ND or Iowa? PSU or Iowa? Texas or Iowa? USC or Iowa? etc. etc. etc. We could not compete, we don't have the wealth or size to keep up.

Warren Buffet is a Nebraska alum and has the means to support the entire Nebraska program if he chose to. He is an upstanding guy and I don't see it happening but he could theoretically afford to pay all 85 scholarship football players $1M per year for the foreseeable future. There are very few programs that would have that kind of access to cash, does this sound like it would make a competitive landscape? This is why it is a problem for the NCAA and the NCAA is perfectly OK if players want to "go get paid" as long as they don't compete in the NCAA while doing it. It is 2 different things. The money you are asking them to make does not in any way reflect the money they are making for the school/NCAA it is outside money and the NCAA does not want outside money invading their business model, just like any other organization.

 

[unoHawkeye]

The problem with any athlete being given the ability to accept a check from a donor is that it would further decrease parity and as an Iowa fan this should be of great concern. Iowa has a much smaller and less wealthy alumni/fan base than much of the rest of the country and as such could not keep up with the Jones'. If it becomes a bidding war who wins ND or Iowa? PSU or Iowa? Texas or Iowa? USC or Iowa? etc. etc. etc. We could not compete, we don't have the wealth or size to keep up.

Warren Buffet is a Nebraska alum and has the means to support the entire Nebraska program if he chose to. He is an upstanding guy and I don't see it happening but he could theoretically afford to pay all 85 scholarship football players $1M per year for the foreseeable future. There are very few programs that would have that kind of access to cash, does this sound like it would make a competitive landscape? This is why it is a problem for the NCAA and the NCAA is perfectly OK if players want to "go get paid" as long as they don't compete in the NCAA while doing it. It is 2 different things. The money you are asking them to make does not in any way reflect the money they are making for the school/NCAA it is outside money and the NCAA does not want outside money invading their business model, just like any other organization.

Lolwut? Rich people don’t get rich by blowing millions of dollars on a shaky investment like a college football team. Warren Buffett, who drives an early 2000’s Buick, isn’t liquidating millions of dollars of Berkshire stock to fund Nebraska’s football team... especially if every other school has access to the same players

Every school has rich donors. None of them are funding a team indefinitely. A player here and there? Sure. Have you seen the cars Alabama football players drive? What if other teams’ players had it that good? Parity would increase not decrease

 

[unoHawkeye]

Alright I was able to think of an argument against my “players should be able to profit off of themselves” stance, and it has nothing to do with compliance or parity.

Player safety could absolutely become a concern. If I accept a generous donation from a donor to go to school A, attend school A my freshman year, and hate it and want to transfer, or get hurt, or want to go pro after my second year, then the donor wants their money back. If I can’t or won’t pay them, then this could result in a legal battle or something worse. That is a valid argument. Doesn’t really change my opinion though

 

[Hawkdiver]

I agree Warren Buffet is not doing it, as I said in my post but it is theoretically possible. What doesn't change is the fact that Iowa and the bulk of P5 schools could not keep up with the big boys in terms of "off the books" money. We don't today and making it above board is not going to make it an easier to keep up.

The money changes hands already, it is just the scope of the money that would be an issue. I'm not sure how old you are but I remember (and was an athlete at Iowa at the time) when every Iowa football player had a matching Honda scooter. It was outside the rules but it was a $1,000 scooter at a time when Illinois was giving out Chevy Blazers to athletes. The violation/punishment would have been the same but it was the degree to which we could keep up. Illinois boosters could afford trucks Iowa boosters could afford 50cc scooters. Allowing unfettered cash to change hands is not to the benefit of most college programs and hence not to the advantage of the NCAA.

 

[unoHawkeye]

I agree Warren Buffet is not doing it, as I said in my post but it is theoretically possible. What doesn't change is the fact that Iowa and the bulk of P5 schools could not keep up with the big boys in terms of "off the books" money. We don't today and making it above board is not going to make it an easier to keep up.

The money changes hands already, it is just the scope of the money that would be an issue. I'm not sure how old you are but I remember (and was an athlete at Iowa at the time) when every Iowa football player had a matching Honda scooter. It was outside the rules but it was a $1,000 scooter at a time when Illinois was giving out Chevy Blazers to athletes. The violation/punishment would have been the same but it was the degree to which we could keep up. Illinois boosters could afford trucks Iowa boosters could afford 50cc scooters. Allowing unfettered cash to change hands is not to the benefit of most college programs and hence not to the advantage of the NCAA.

So Iowa was at a disadvantage when you played, and would supposedly also be at a disadvantage if the rules change. So what actually changes for Iowa? It’s not like they are currently bringing in studs. They bring in solid players (ones who wouldn’t be paid big money by donors) and develop them, and that’s exactly what would happen if players could make money off of themselves.

It’s been a good discussion, but I think I’ve worn out my point

 

[Hawkdiver]

I agree horse beaten.

 

[Hawk94Mn]

I don’t think you need a base salary. There are other options outside the realm of college sports to earn a wage, but let them benefit from their image. The restrictions on autographs and appearances seem hierarchical and dated.

 

[silasstarr]

What salary do they get? Yeah the scholarship confers a lot of bennies, no where near what some of them are worth, but it does. But they don't get any cash.

I don't know why I'm engaging here. It's changing one way or another. CA is proceeding with a lawsuit that allows them to profit off of NIL. The NCAA keeps giving concessions like the cost of living scholarships.

This isn't 1983 anymore where football tickets cost $10 and the head coach makes 100k. Coaching staffs make close to 10 million a year. People spend thousands on tickets.

I'm friends with a former DL. The guy is 30 and he has arthritis. I can't imagine what life is going to be like for him at 50. I think it's a crime what we ask football players especially to go through physically for our entertainment with zero take home income at the end. We disagree. We likely won't agree ever. I'll leave it at that.

They do get cash.

 

[sbhawk64]

If the NCAA were to compensate athletes, does the athlete, if he under-performs the value of their scholarship owe the school money for the cost of marketing them and the scholarship value?.

 

[cidhawkeye]

I’m not trying to be a jerk here, but I don’t even understand what you are asking in half of these questions. The bolded questions are worded weirdly to the point that I’m not following what you’re asking.

Personally, I don’t believe that this impacts school budgets or non-revenue sports in the slightest. Scholarship swimmers should have the same opportunity to profit off of themselves that scholarship football players do. All I suggest is allowing student athletes to become entrepreneurs if they so choose. If you or your son has information that show why I, as a student athlete, cannot feasibly accept payment for my signature, or a check from a donor, I would love the opportunity to become more informed. It seems to have worked great for a substantial amount of big time athletes

Your “end of college football” declaration seems a bit dramatic. My opinion is that it could actually increase parity in college football, as larger donors from smaller schools could convince bigger recruits to attend their school with additional compensation beyond a scholarship offer. Again, I’m no fortune teller, and if I’m misinformed, would love to know why, without you asking me 15 questions and to write my own dissertation on the topic

You indicated in your previous point that you thought I was naive in my perspective on college athletics. I asked if you missed the point about me being directly involved with college athletics in personal way. As far as your opinion that every athlete should be able to be an entrepreneur. They do have that opportunity, they just can’t do it in the NCAA. Just curious, what is your experience/background in college athletics that forms your opinions on budgeting and how the process could work?

 

[unoHawkeye]

You indicated in your previous point that you thought I was naive in my perspective on college athletics. I asked if you missed the point about me being directly involved with college athletics in personal way. As far as your opinion that every athlete should be able to be an entrepreneur. They do have that opportunity, they just can’t do it in the NCAA. Just curious, what is your experience/background in college athletics that forms your opinions on budgeting and how the process could work?

I’m confused as to how you being a parent of a D1 athlete at one specific school gives you more insight into cheating/shady recruiting going on in D1 athletics nationally... which is what was being discussed when I used the word “naive.” Furthermore, you continue attempting to argue a point with me that I do not disagree with. I understand the perks of being a D1 athlete. I am close friends with several, and have done a bit of my own research. I do not feel that athletes are treated unfairly by the schools in terms of the benefits they receive, so I don’t know why you continue pressing me on this issue

The whole crux of my argument is what I bolded in your comment. I think it’s dumb and is what needs to be changed. If you being the parent of a D1 athlete gives you some unique insight as to why the bolded portion should not be changed, please explain. Having gone back through the entirety of this thread, the vast majority of your posts lack actual information/opinion, and consist of you asking other people questions. If you know more than everybody else, I implore you to educate everybody

 

[cidhawkeye]

I’m confused as to how you being a parent of a D1 athlete at one specific school gives you more insight into cheating/shady recruiting going on in D1 athletics nationally... which is what was being discussed when I used the word “naive.” Furthermore, you continue attempting to argue a point with me that I do not disagree with. I understand the perks of being a D1 athlete. I am close friends with several, and have done a bit of my own research. I do not feel that athletes are treated unfairly by the schools in terms of the benefits they receive, so I don’t know why you continue pressing me on this issue

The whole crux of my argument is what I bolded in your comment. I think it’s dumb and is what needs to be changed. If you being the parent of a D1 athlete gives you some unique insight as to why the bolded portion should not be changed, please explain. Having gone back through the entirety of this thread, the vast majority of your posts lack actual information/opinion, and consist of you asking other people questions. If you know more than everybody else, I implore you to educate everybody

I have to continue to ask due to your lack of answers. Every athlete has the be an entrepreneur like you desire. They can sell their signature, their jersey, their shoes. Your desire to have it be done at the NCAA level is unworkable. The money will become concentrated, smaller schools with less well heeled boosters couldn’t compete. Remember rich people didn’t get rich by supporting unsuccessful ventures. College football would evolve into a club sport environment. The current structure would change dramatically. I know you have told us repeatedly that it won’t. The reasons you have given us.... because you say so. You haven’t really supported your premise. Now tell us how they are prohibited from being an entrepreneur.