Jump to content
Jaroslav Hasek

the NCAA is not 'above the law'

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, olddirty said:

I think possibly you are not adding in certain factors in to your opinion (which is a good one).  If the universities were to pay the coaches and the athletes, surely, the pay would be commiserate with how much money they generate, and operating budget would now be funded by how much money they generate.  In this case, your model holds true.  The athletes are infinitely more important than the coach because they generate the entertainment.  However, that would quickly end college wrestling.  Operating budget and athlete/coach salaries vs revenue would sink most teams.  This is assuming the athletes would get paid a salary by the billions the NCAA generates.  The other option is the "likeness only" proposition which was the base of the thread.

 

On the contrary, with the proposed situation, the coach becomes much, much more important.  The coaches are the ones setting up what would be donor or corporate sponsors.  These people want team championships, not random 1 off wrestlers.  Team championships are not won by 18-24 year old athletes on their own.  They dont know how to run an NCAA contender team.  They dont know how to recruit athletes that can put the university in a place to compete, which IMO, would be where the majority of money will be derived from.  A wrestler competing for Cael Sanderson can garner way more money than a wrestler competing for Andy Lausier.  This is the exact reason why pro athletes have agents.  We arent the NBA.  Great wrestlers generally try to go to places where they think they can win, and places they feel they would enjoy competing.  That is heavily weighted on the coach, not athletes.  This model would sink NCAA wrestling much slower.  You would have much less parity, but you would get to see the same exciting match ups individually.  I think this is so because we dont have the interest in college wrestling like we do in college football.  A good player who sits the bench on a team that generates tons of money would make a good salary in the above model.  Wrestling would be on a much smaller salary scale.  I dont believe a wrestler would sit the bench to get $10k a year wrestling at PSU, vs making $1k a year and wrestling for Arizona State with the chance to win an NCAA title. 

 

Curious about your thoughts on this.  You are obviously a smart person.

I don't know what is best for NCAA wrestling.  I also don't think what's best for wrestling will ultimately matter.  This is unfortunate.  It also won't matter what is good for all of the non-revenue men's and women's sports.  This whole discussion is likely the end of NCAA sports as a model for non-revenue sports.  Sports will have to find a way forward that isn't connected to universities.  This is sad, but the student-athlete model has been broken for a long time and I don't see any way it's equitably fixed.

I think the "likeness only" model is by far the best of the imperfect options going forward.  I don't know how this would work out, but I don't think it would necessarily mean that everyone goes to PSU for money.  Sometimes being the biggest in a small pond is better for likeness related revenue.  

https://www.theringer.com/features/2021/6/21/22542839/disc-golf-niche-sports-million-dollar-endorsement-deals

I just read this yesterday.  People who can market themselves to a niche are often worth more than people who exist in a huge market.  This disc golf player is top 70 in the USA for sports endorsement earnings.  He's ahead of NFL stars like Khalil Mack.  I suspect the same might be true about being the 10th guy at PSU or the 1st guy at some other school.  There are niches to be exploited.  In the likeness model some people think women's college athletes would do better than men on the whole.  That's because women are worth more on social media.  Companies pay more for women followers then men followers.  The top women's college basketball players couldn't make much in endorsements, but they could make a million dollars plus just on their large social media followings.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, IronChef said:

The post you replied to was my first on this thread, so you may be mixed up a little on who said what. That said, college sports generates billions of dollars in revenue each year. This is not in dispute. Where exactly each dollar goes requires more research. Nobody is claiming a single athlete is responsible for billions of dollars in revenue to a single school. What is happening is that college sports generates a lot of money, and that money is not making its way to the players without whom there would be no money. The combined 2019 revenue for the 14 SEC football teams is over a billion dollars. Is that specific enough for you? The NCAA DI basketball tournament generates $800 million in revenue. Over a quarter of that is distributed among the schools. Nick Saban makes $9.3 million a year. That's about $70,000 per football player. Imagine if he was forced to scrape by on a paltry $3 million and the other 6.3 went to the people actually on the field.

Ok, that is more specific, now you are say one conference is generating over a billion in revenue.   Revenue is not profit or net, so we still don't know if any are "making" money, that would require specific data. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

every person on this thread speculating that the players may not really be worth the money is ignoring the real elephant in the room: if the restriction was lifted some colleges would *immediately* begin paying players as a recruiting tool. the schools themselves will let you know whether they think the best players (or the depth players) are worth more than the scholly. 

the guy who thinks title ix means that the schools immediately have to start paying everyone has no idea what he's talking about. football is already basically an exception to title ix and if you think the men's and women's basketball teams receive roughly equivalent treatment ... come on. COME ON! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

From the Sports Illustrated article about the attempted unionization of Northwestern football:

In 2012 he worked on a study with Drexel professor Ellen Staurowsky that found the average scholarship fell short of what top-division football players needed by more than $3,000 a year, while more than 80% of athletes playing football on “full scholarship” lived below the poverty line. What’s more, the study found that if revenues were shared among players and owners as in pro sports, each Division I football player would be worth $137,357 per year.

They also talked about the extent of insurance coverage was actually quite minimal. For example, it typically is just an augmentation to the parent's insurance. And if the parents don't have insurance, the student needs to purchase it. Insurance coverage also does not extend to voluntary activities (that often do not feel voluntary to the athletes).

Yeah, there are expenses outside of the scholarship that an athlete needs money for, so 3k does not surprise me. However, having access to team trainers and trained medical staff on a daily basis to get a diagnosis or treatment for something is beyond what the normal student would have access to. What  a normal student would go to the doctor for, an athlete has instant access to free of charge - Sometimes minutes after something happens. Obviously more serious injuries would be different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Idaho said:

Yeah, there are expenses outside of the scholarship that an athlete needs money for, so 3k does not surprise me. However, having access to team trainers and trained medical staff on a daily basis to get a diagnosis or treatment for something is beyond what the normal student would have access to. What  a normal student would go to the doctor for, an athlete has instant access to free of charge - Sometimes minutes after something happens. Obviously more serious injuries would be different. 

I view the access to trainers and medical staff as a push relative to the access non-athlete students have because the student athlete, by virtue of the sport, is injured more. The non-student athlete does not need instant access, just like my couch sitting self does not need an MRI machine in the other room. So providing more access to injury is offset by more access to treatment. Not a perfect equivalency perhaps. Anecdotally, we all have heard stories of injuries that end a college athlete's athletic career which leads to the lack of support from the athletic department (lose of scholarship). And the poorer that student athlete is going in, the less likely they can maintain their status as a student without the scholarship. So the outcomes would appear to be asymmetrical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dman115 said:

This is an interesting article...again, it doesn't include the WHOLE picture as some revenues are not included, and not all expenses are included, but interesting none the less.

Alabama athletics lost money in 2019, but it comes with a catch - al.com

It says expenses for FB are about 70million.  Looks like somewhere around 2/3 of their team is out of state, so direct payment to the players is under 3.5 million.  That means the sum of all player compensation is 1/4 that of a single coach.   Pretty solid representation the USA.

Edited by Plasmodium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In total, then, only 25 of the approximately1,100 schools across 102 conferences in the NCAA made money on college sports last year. That's because the cost of running an entire athletics program, which can feature as many as 40 sports, almost always exceeds the revenue generated by the marquee attractions of football and basketball”

 

https://www.bestcolleges.com/blog/do-college-sports-make-money/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like the only thing preventing a successful sports department at most schools is the existence of money, whether it is real or imagined.  The correct model  for the non-revenue sports is all around us.  D2, D3, NAIA, Juco.  They all exist at a fraction of the D1 cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ccrider55 said:

In total, then, only 25 of the approximately1,100 schools across 102 conferences in the NCAA made money on college sports last year. That's because the cost of running an entire athletics program, which can feature as many as 40 sports, almost always exceeds the revenue generated by the marquee attractions of football and basketball”

 

https://www.bestcolleges.com/blog/do-college-sports-make-money/

if you think that many colleges take an honest loss that large while also choosing to pay coaches 7 figure salaries you may want to ask yourself why schools do that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NCAA has known this decision was very possible, don't think for a second they aren't prepared and ready to counter all of this. They are prepared to fight this to the end. The big wigs in Indianapolis will not let up any time soon.

Title IX will be interesting if we see the schools giving equal pay to women's athletes. If they are forced to do that then it will be a struggle to pay the athletes what they are worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rpbobcat said:

The possibility of colleges paying athletes isn't new.

I remember a couple of lawyers on a radio show pointing out the "elephants in the room" with the concept.

1.First and foremost is Title IX.

Their opinion was that, if a college wants to pay any D1 athletes, they have to pay all D1 athletes.

That means everyone, on every male and female team's roster.

They also said that, as they look at Title IX, all athletes on a particular team ,and possibly 

all athletes, on all teams ,would have to be paid the same.

2 Another question they raised: If a college pays athletes directly, do they become employees ?

3.If they are employees, can they unionize, either at the school or nationally.

In my opinion, regardless of how this moves forward, there are going to be numerous legal

issues and court challenges before any athlete sees a paycheck.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why would they have to pay all athletes or all athletes on a given team? Certainly such a rule would also be an antitrust law violation. What the antitrust laws say is a private entity cannot control what members or employees are paid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, ugarte said:

if you think that many colleges take an honest loss that large while also choosing to pay coaches 7 figure salaries you may want to ask yourself why schools do that

1: Athletics is the front porch of the university. It is both first impression for many future potential students and a nearly year round alumni solicitation activity by simply being visible. For many non king schools the occasional exceptional year (particularly in a “revenue” program with attendant higher visibility) results in dramatic increase in alumni donations. Surprisingly, they are not strictly focused on athletics but are often made to the alums degree  department.

2: if they don’t take a significant amount of red ink they would fall even further behind (primarily in D1) and would be essentially not trying to compete.

3: Most schools realize most (and in many cases, all) sports will not cover their expenses. They view athletics as a part of the educational experience for a large number of their students, beyond just the athletes.

Edited by ccrider55

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The athletes are the benefactor here, in what way? we will see how this plays out. 

The looser here is the NCAA, as far as how it exists now. They will have to regroup and see what role they will play in college athletics.  They may not have a role. And cease to exist. My money is on the banishment of NCAA. They are not needed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/22/2021 at 1:16 PM, MSU158 said:

Not the first time I have disagreed with a Judge!  Probably won't be the last time either.   Plus, I didn't say SOME College Athletes don't deserve some monetary compensation.  I just don't think the Colleges should be responsible and I don't see how you could properly determine that value even if they did.

As far as getting screwed goes, the Athlete MUST know what he is signing when he commits.  To me, it is much like a non-compete.  Don't sign it if you don't want to honor it......

The question in the future won’t be whether an athlete entered into a contract.

Instead, given Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion, the question will likely be whether the NCAA is engaging in illegal price fixing of labor. Here’s what Kavanaugh had to say about that:

Quote

The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in any other industry in America. All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that “customers prefer” to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a “love of the law.” Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a “purer” form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a “tradition” of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a “spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood.

 

Edited by Katie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ccrider55 said:

1: Athletics is the front porch of the university. It is both first impression for many future potential students and a nearly year round alumni solicitation activity by simply being visible. For many non king schools the occasional exceptional year (particularly in a “revenue” program with attendant higher visibility) results in dramatic increase in alumni donations. Surprisingly, they are not strictly focused on athletics but are often made to the alums degree  department.

2: if they don’t take a significant amount of red ink they would fall even further behind (primarily in D1) and would be essentially not trying to compete.

3: Most schools realize most (and in many cases, all) sports will not cover their expenses. They view athletics as a part of the educational experience for a large number of their students, beyond just the athletes.

thank you. finally, someone who gets it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, NJDan said:

Why would they have to pay all athletes or all athletes on a given team? Certainly such a rule would also be an antitrust law violation. What the antitrust laws say is a private entity cannot control what members or employees are paid.

The lawyers I referred to said that is was their opinion that,under Title IX,if a college decides to pay any D1 athlete,

they have to pay them all.

Are they correct ?

That will be up to the courts.

As I posted,no matter which way this goes,the litigation will go

on for years.

One thing for sure,if this does go forward,for a long while,the only

people making money,will be the lawyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NCAA is not going down the drain.  If anything, they need to make even more money now. The colleges and universities have to form a national league of sorts for business and competitive purposes.  The NCAA is that league.   Student athletes aren't going away either.  A select few of them will have very lucrative collegiate experiences, many more will make a bit of money and most will continue needing a landscaping job in the summer to supplement student loans and a partial scholarship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Take Out said:

No wrestlers will make any money.  This will be the death of the non-major sports.

The world is ending...it is the apocalypse.  <eyeroll>

So....David Taylor in college wouldn't make a lot of money off the likeness of his name?  Dake?  Burroughs?  Spencer Lee?  Gable?  Seriously??  

People...slow your roll!  The NCAA or colleges aren't going to pay any athletes any time soon...if at all.  This isn't over by any stretch of the imagination one way or the other.  My guess as to what happens...there won't be such strict restrictions on athlete's making money off of autograph's, memorabilia, clothing, social media, camps, etc. and that will probably happen soon.  The notion of athlete's getting "paid" by college's or the NCAA will probably never happen in my life time...but I am a bit older than some on here sooo...anyway, all of this will not "be the death of non-major sports".  My guess is there will be other things that may cause non-major sports to go away, but this isn't one of them.

Signed,

dman Nostradamus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, ionel said:

Ok, that is more specific, now you are say one conference is generating over a billion in revenue.   Revenue is not profit or net, so we still don't know if any are "making" money, that would require specific data. 

I think that's actually the wrong question. NCAA athletic departments are not designed to generate profit, so using the current revenue vs. expense numbers isn't that helpful. The revenue is there, and the school has to decide how to spend it. Do you want a barbershop in your team building (almost all SEC football teams have this), or should you give the players some money? Should you redirect some portion of the millions paid to coaches to the athletes. Ohio State's football staff list has 39 people on it (https://ohiostatebuckeyes.com/staff-directory/sports/m-footbl/). Perhaps they can get by with a paltry 30. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, IronChef said:

I think that's actually the wrong question. NCAA athletic departments are not designed to generate profit, so using the current revenue vs. expense numbers isn't that helpful. The revenue is there, and the school has to decide how to spend it. Do you want a barbershop in your team building (almost all SEC football teams have this), or should you give the players some money? Should you redirect some portion of the millions paid to coaches to the athletes. Ohio State's football staff list has 39 people on it (https://ohiostatebuckeyes.com/staff-directory/sports/m-footbl/). Perhaps they can get by with a paltry 30. 

So all wrestling programs are doing fine because they bring in revenue.  ;_;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dman115 said:

The world is ending...it is the apocalypse.  <eyeroll>

So....David Taylor in college wouldn't make a lot of money off the likeness of his name?  Dake?  Burroughs?  Spencer Lee?  Gable?  Seriously??  

People...slow your roll!  The NCAA or colleges aren't going to pay any athletes any time soon...if at all.  This isn't over by any stretch of the imagination one way or the other.  My guess as to what happens...there won't be such strict restrictions on athlete's making money off of autograph's, memorabilia, clothing, social media, camps, etc. and that will probably happen soon.  The notion of athlete's getting "paid" by college's or the NCAA will probably never happen in my life time...but I am a bit older than some on here sooo...anyway, all of this will not "be the death of non-major sports".  My guess is there will be other things that may cause non-major sports to go away, but this isn't one of them.

Signed,

dman Nostradamus

I agree.... I think the biggest part of this is being able to make money off of your likeness or just to get a job like any other kids- autographs, jerseys, social media, camps, etc. Every athlete can do this - can make their own brand no matter what school you are at. If a school/NCAA has a big name athlete then they are going to have to pay up to use their image if they use it. The better the athlete and marketing the better pay off. Another question to "As the Wrestling World Turns"... will some schools get better recruits because of agreements to use their image more than other schools will because they can afford to do that? As one other poster said, will being a big fish in a small pond actually be more beneficial because you will get more opportunities to brand  your image? All questions with no answers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Idaho said:

I agree.... I think the biggest part of this is being able to make money off of your likeness or just to get a job like any other kids- autographs, jerseys, social media, camps, etc. Every athlete can do this - can make their own brand no matter what school you are at. If a school/NCAA has a big name athlete then they are going to have to pay up to use their image if they use it. The better the athlete and marketing the better pay off. Another question to "As the Wrestling World Turns"... will some schools get better recruits because of agreements to use their image more than other schools will because they can afford to do that? As one other poster said, will being a big fish in a small pond actually be more beneficial because you will get more opportunities to brand  your image? All questions with no answers. 

Good questions Idaho!  Another reason I go back and forth on this topic.  So many unknows and how this all could be used for ill intent, or cause a large discrepancy in programs...or I should say larger discrepancy.  Heck...big programs could recruit guys by saying, "Hey, if you come here, you can use our branding to promote your likeness."  

Anyway, will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Idaho said:

I agree.... I think the biggest part of this is being able to make money off of your likeness or just to get a job like any other kids- autographs, jerseys, social media, camps, etc. Every athlete can do this - can make their own brand no matter what school you are at. If a school/NCAA has a big name athlete then they are going to have to pay up to use their image if they use it. The better the athlete and marketing the better pay off. Another question to "As the Wrestling World Turns"... will some schools get better recruits because of agreements to use their image more than other schools will because they can afford to do that? As one other poster said, will being a big fish in a small pond actually be more beneficial because you will get more opportunities to brand  your image? All questions with no answers. 

I think you are misunderstanding what is about to change. The upcoming laws and potential rule changes are for third party NIL deals. Minnesota won't be paying Gable Steveson to use his image. If Scraplife wants him to endorse their gear, that's who will be paying him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...