Paying players

[hog88]

Anybody see today that the senate introduced a bill to make college athletes into employees of their schools? Not sure if it has a chance of passing or not, but will be interesting to see what changes this might lead to.

That will end college athletics.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

that is going to kill small sports.

Maybe not . I’m sure one of the co-sponsors of the bill will ensure that everyone gets part of the championship payouts.

 

[05_never_again]

that is going to kill small sports.

Which is why it will not pass.

It his comical how the "athletes need to be paid" and the "athletes should unionize and be employees" crowd doesn't understand that if they got what they wanted, it would lead to a situation that they'd deem even more unfair than the current system.

If they think the current system is unfair, I can't imagine how they'd react to a system where some sports get paid and some don't, some sports pay more than others, and some sports go away altogether.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

Which is why it will not pass.

It his comical how the "athletes need to be paid" and the "athletes should unionize and be employees" crowd doesn't understand that if they got what they wanted, it would lead to a situation that they'd deem even more unfair than the current system.

If they think the current system is unfair, I can't imagine how they'd react to a system where some sports get paid and some don't, some sports pay more than others, and some sports go away altogether.

That’s the issue I have. It’s certainly not perfect, but they mostly don’t know how good it is right now . Here we are though, we have Mark Emmert and Bernie Sanders going at it. What could possibly go right?

 

[hog88]

If this bill passes and Universities have to treat them as employees my guess is they would be required to sign contracts with penalties for transferring or losing eligibility.

 

[wmcovol]

I’m not sure this question has been answered. If you pay a player do they become an employee and thus benefits received can become taxable especially if it’s more than what other employees receive. Thus, scholarship, free tutoring, meals, etc. could become taxable.
For full disclosure I’m against paying players. They are already getting scholarship, meals, tutoring, pell grants, etc. Start paying players and it is just the minor league for NFL instead of being college students like they are suppose to be.

If players get paid then they also need to pay the tab for school, living expenses, off-season training, etc. if they want to play like pros, let them pay like pros.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

If this bill passes and Universities have to treat them as employees my guess is they would be required to sign contracts with penalties for transferring or losing eligibility.

I agree. I really hope they get ahold of this before it actually happens. I think there is a way where these guys can be compensated properly and not be unionized.

 

[LSU-SIU]

If players get paid then they also need to pay the tab for school, living expenses, off-season training, etc. if they want to play like pros, let them pay like pros.

Why not let everyone else figure it out their own business model? Meaning, what not both? It really should be up to the individual school, the problem isn't that the school isn't or should be paying but that they are colluding with the other schools thru the NCAA.

Generally, I see nothing wrong with School A saying we need to pay players doing X,Y,Z as we think they are employees. And School B saying.... this is just a school activity, it depends on the law and facts of the situation.

The problem now... there is no way for government to make a level playing field without the players getting paid as employees i.e. an exemption to the anti-trust act.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Which is why it will not pass.

It his comical how the "athletes need to be paid" and the "athletes should unionize and be employees" crowd doesn't understand that if they got what they wanted, it would lead to a situation that they'd deem even more unfair than the current system.

If they think the current system is unfair, I can't imagine how they'd react to a system where some sports get paid and some don't, some sports pay more than others, and some sports go away altogether.

The athletes might need to be paid via federal and state law, but each situation should be going thru the administrative process for determinations.

The problem is, there really shouldn't be a "system" to start with, if individual schools want a certain policy than generally that wouldn't have been a huge issue. The problem is the "system" in which the schools have acted, and I would argue very provable in a criminal manner.


- I see nothing generally wrong with an individual school saying a scholarship player can't have outside income or specific income limitations
- There is something terribly wrong with schools forming associations form to stop commerce and blacklist, which is what is going on

Either way, all of this is coming to a very rapid conclusion.

 

[wmcovol]

Why not let everyone else figure it out their own business model? Meaning, what not both? It really should be up to the individual school, the problem isn't that the school isn't or should be paying but that they are colluding with the other schools thru the NCAA.

Generally, I see nothing wrong with School A saying we need to pay players doing X,Y,Z as we think they are employees. And School B saying.... this is just a school activity, it depends on the law and facts of the situation.

The problem now... there is no way for government to make a level playing field without the players getting paid as employees i.e. an exemption to the anti-trust act.

There is no way any school in the country can compete with the University of Texas or ATM in the money game. They have more money than any school x2 outside of Ivy League schools. Texas or Aggies can make any rules they want them. Is that really competition?

 

[n_huffhines]

There is no way any school in the country can compete with the University of Texas or ATM in the money game. They have more money than any school x2 outside of Ivy League schools. Texas or Aggies can make any rules they want them. Is that really competition?

It's not only going to be about $ and no matter how much money they have, they don't have enough to outbid everyone for everyone. I promise you their $ alone isn't even close to enough to build a Bama-type dynasty.

 

[tnutater]

There is no way any school in the country can compete with the University of Texas or ATM in the money game. They have more money than any school x2 outside of Ivy League schools. Texas or Aggies can make any rules they want them. Is that really competition?

The top teams make their own rules now.
If college football is to survive there has to be level competition.
Expanding the number of play off teams will change nothing.
The same 3 or 4 teams will continue to be in the finals.

 

[n_huffhines]

The top teams make their own rules now.
If college football is to survive there has to be level competition.
Expanding the number of play off teams will change nothing.
The same 3 or 4 teams will continue to be in the finals.

CFB is thriving right now with a totally disparate level of competition.

 

[tnutater]

It's not only going to be about $ and no matter how much money they have, they don't have enough to outbid everyone for everyone. I promise you their $ alone isn't even close to enough to build a Bama-type dynasty.

Wee Little Nicky did not build the Bama dynasty without a tremendous amount of money being spent. He did not do it by himself. I hate everything crimson but you have to tip your hat to their booster network.

 

[tnutater]

CFB is thriving right now with a totally disparate level of competition.

As ratings go down, so will TV contracts.
Blow out games are the norm now and are not very much fun to watch.
Without TV money, very few programs would be thriving.
Stadium attendance is down most everywhere as is donor donations to the AD.
We can all agree that paying players will change all college sports.
For better or worse.... time will tell.

 

[n_huffhines]

Wee Little Nicky did not build the Bama dynasty without a tremendous amount of money being spent. He did not do it by himself. I hate everything crimson but you have to tip your hat to their booster network.

Money helps but it's only a necessary component. It's far from the only component and it's not the most important component*. We have more money than just about anybody.

*I would say coach and local talent are the two most important components.

 

[n_huffhines]

As ratings go down, so will TV contracts.
Blow out games are the norm now and are not very much fun to watch.
Without TV money, very few programs would be thriving.
Stadium attendance is down most everywhere as is donor donations to the AD.
We can all agree that paying players will change all college sports.
For better or worse.... time will tell.

I'm not so sure about that. TV ratings are down across the board and sporting events are still the best way to get a live audience. TV contracts might go down but I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[tnutater]

I'm not so sure about that. TV ratings are down across the board and sporting events are still the best way to get a live audience. TV contracts might go down but I'll believe it when I see it.

If the ESPN bubble were to burst???
I certainly see that as a possibility. They are not as strong as they were.
Ratings are now taken several times a game. In a blowout by the 4 quarter not many folks still watching, making advertisement spots way less valuable.

 

[n_huffhines]

If the ESPN bubble were to burst???
I certainly see that as a possibility. They are not as strong as they were.
Ratings are now taken several times a game. In a blowout by the 4 quarter not many folks still watching, making advertisement spots way less valuable.

Do you have access to any information that shows advertisers are paying less for these spots than they were, say 10 to 15 years ago?

 

[tnutater]

Money helps but it's only a necessary component. It's far from the only component and it's not the most important component*. We have more money than just about anybody.

*I would say coach and local talent are the two most important components.

Nobody thinks we have spent our money wisely.

 

[n_huffhines]

Nobody thinks we have spent our money wisely.

Yes, and the ability to spend money wisely is just another component necessary to building a Bama-like dynasty.

Money separates the top-tier programs from the lower-tier programs, but within the top-tier programs, the differences in $ don't matter that much.

 

[wmcovol]

Money helps but it's only a necessary component. It's far from the only component and it's not the most important component*. We have more money than just about anybody.

*I would say coach and local talent are the two most important components.

People is the most important ingredient but money can buy the right people. The game is changing to be more influenced by money than it ever has. The best coaches will migrate to those programs that give them the best opportunity for success.

 

[n_huffhines]

People is the most important ingredient but money can buy the right people. The game is changing to be more influenced by money than it ever has. The best coaches will migrate to those programs that give them the best opportunity for success.

This has always been true, right?

The exception to the rule has always been the Matt Campbells of the world. Were there mid-tier program coaches in 1991 who were turning down the equivalent of $65M? I don't remember.

 

[tnutater]

Do you have access to any information that shows advertisers are paying less for these spots than they were, say 10 to 15 years ago?

I do not. In fact I would say the spots are significantly more than 10 to 15 years ago.
Not very many things are less expensive now than back then.
The point being that ratings determine the value in the very competitive TV ad business.
In non competitive blow out games the ratings drop throughout the game.
On any given Saturday, most games on TV are not competitive. Without better games to sell,
college football can not thrive.

 

[n_huffhines]

TBH, we might have more guys staying at mid-tier programs than ever before. Kyle Whittingham, Gary Patterson, Matt Campbell, and Pat Fitzgerald come to mind.