California just passed a law that allows college athletes to get paid

[etowncoug]

The economic illiteracy surrounding this issue is astounding. Who exactly is making a profit off college athletics? I know the generate a ton of revenue, but most athletic departments run operate at a deficit. All of this before you factor in mandatory student "fees" and charitable donations from donors.
All sports except football and men's basketball bleed money. Schools dump crap tons of money into football and mens basketball because if those sports don't bring in enough revenue you run into a massive problem like Cal is experiencing. No one who argues for paying players is advocating the elimination of Title IX for NCAA sports. Nor are they for eliminating the tax deductable status of donations to college athletics. Nor about eliminating mandatory student fees to pay for athletics.

The most "fair" thing to do would be to eliminate college sports all together. No one gets exploited this way.

 

[CougEd]

The economic illiteracy surrounding this issue is astounding. Who exactly is making a profit off college athletics? I know the generate a ton of revenue, but most athletic departments run operate at a deficit. All of this before you factor in mandatory student "fees" and charitable donations from donors.
All sports except football and men's basketball bleed money. Schools dump crap tons of money into football and mens basketball because if those sports don't bring in enough revenue you run into a massive problem like Cal is experiencing. No one who argues for paying players is advocating the elimination of Title IX for NCAA sports. Nor are they for eliminating the tax deductable status of donations to college athletics. Nor about eliminating mandatory student fees to pay for athletics.

The most "fair" thing to do would be to eliminate college sports all together. No one gets exploited this way.

Nah... once the NFL is pushed to have a minor league system a lot of these problems go away .

 

[etowncoug]

Nah... once the NFL is pushed to have a minor league system a lot of these problems go away .

Again, this isn't economic reality. Ask yourself why so many people watch college football. Or why communities come out to watch a bunch of high schoolers on Friday nights.

High school football players have zero value as football players. No one would bother watching them if they weren't representing institutions we has some degree of emotional attachment to. People show up to watch the name on the front of the jersey, not the back.

The problem with minor league football is it is economically unviable to offer that players more than they get in college. And this ill advised California bill makes it more difficult for an alternative to spring up. Right now they get at least 4 years of college paid for, room and board, the best strength and conditioning coaches in the world, and world class nutrition. I don't see the NFL wanting to drop serious money into a minor league, because no one would watch and it would basically be a money pit.

So if being an amateur college athlete provides more of a benefit than minor league professional football, who is going to go pro? Basically the JuCo kids who can't make the grades and talented head cases like Kyrin Priester who keep getting kicked off teams due to attitude problems.

 

[cougarhawk1]

you can only play football once a week, minor league football will never work, minor league basketball really doesn't work-baseball and hockey are about the only sports where it works.

I think the courts/ncaa will clamp this thing down, and UCLA, USC , Cal will all toe the line rather than lose eligibility.

 

[etowncoug]

you can only play football once a week, minor league football will never work, minor league basketball really doesn't work-baseball and hockey are about the only sports where it works.

I think the courts/ncaa will clamp this thing down, and UCLA, USC , Cal will all toe the line rather than lose eligibility.

Minor League baseball works because professional teams pay the salaries of staff. The club's themselves own and run the facilities which are paid for by revenue from the games and corporate sponsorships. They don't make a ton of cash, but the generally don't lose money.

I don't see fans giving up a Friday (high school), Saturday (college), or Sunday (NFL) to watch minor league football. Spring Football has never worked. International Football hasn't either.

 

[CougEd]

Minor League baseball works because professional teams pay the salaries of staff. The club's themselves own and run the facilities which are paid for by revenue from the games and corporate sponsorships. They don't make a ton of cash, but the generally don't lose money.

I don't see fans giving up a Friday (high school), Saturday (college), or Sunday (NFL) to watch minor league football. Spring Football has never worked. International Football hasn't either.

That's why you hitch your wagon to the CFL. How much did Philly invest in Dillard to get him to 310 pounds, learn how to pass block, and be polished enough to get picked in the first round? Zip.The NFL has been on a gravy train for developing talent. They need to subsidize either the NCAA or create their own league for development.

 

[425cougfan]

That's why you hitch your wagon to the CFL. How much did Philly invest in Dillard to get him to 310 pounds, learn how to pass block, and be polished enough to get picked in the first round? Zip.The NFL has been on a gravy train for developing talent. They need to subsidize either the NCAA or create their own league for development.

Why? Honest question. What, exactly, creates this need for the NFL to subsidize the NCAA or to create their own league? Is it the need for some star college football players to get paid? Something else?

 

[cougarhawk1]

Ed is chasing his tail

 

[etowncoug]

Why? Honest question. What, exactly, creates this need for the NFL to subsidize the NCAA or to create their own league? Is it the need for some star college football players to get paid? Something else?

Economic realities are hard for some to grasp. College football does a pretty good job of developing players for the NFL at zero cost to the league. In order to match what college football does, it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars each year. The NFL isn't going to dump that money for no ROI.

And the California law makes the CFL idea even more ridiculous. Now players are going to be getting in the 50k-100k range for bogus "endorsement" deals. Plus room and board, plus a free college, and plus top notch weight rooms. Congrats California! Your economic illiteracy just make it even more unlikely for an alternative to the NCAA spring up.

 

[CougEd]

Ed is chasing his tail

Why would I do that. You are the one who thinks college football is going to be ruined by the new rule.

 

[CougEd]

Economic realities are hard for some to grasp. College football does a pretty good job of developing players for the NFL at zero cost to the league. In order to match what college football does, it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars each year. The NFL isn't going to dump that money for no ROI.

And the California law makes the CFL idea even more ridiculous. Now players are going to be getting in the 50k-100k range for bogus "endorsement" deals. Plus room and board, plus a free college, and plus top notch weight rooms. Congrats California! Your economic illiteracy just make it even more unlikely for an alternative to the NCAA spring up.

Hmmm...I understand it fine. Yes, college football develops players just fine for the NFL at no cost to the NFL.

I understand provisions that could be written in the scholie contract. Like if you leave early for the NFL you must repay your entire scholie plus an early out penalty. There are tons of stuff the NCAA could do including prohibiting the NFL from having their pro days on campus to try and make it equitable.

Look, the NFL pays Goodell 44 million. Maybe it is time they got a different partnership, pay kids at 18 a small signing bonus and the really good kids can get their endorsements. Sure, in the beginning is there aren't many dollars for the likeness of say Timm Rosenbach.(if he went developmental football vs college) But as time moved forward the additional income would increase. People thought the AFL was the dumbest idea around.

And yes, you will have bogus endorsements ONLY if uw or usc, Oregon or ucla signs the top 25 kids every year. 100 kids from the west coast getting sweet deals from overzealous alumni.

And what does that do to the golden goose for the NFL? It ruins their developmental league long term. How is this good for college football or Pro football. it is a game changer....

And you are assuming someone will want to go and get free room and board and have to go to class vs going a vo-tech route.

 

[CougEd]

Why? Honest question. What, exactly, creates this need for the NFL to subsidize the NCAA or to create their own league? Is it the need for some star college football players to get paid? Something else?

Quite simple. For the NCAA you remove kids who aren't "student athletes" but just athletes. You give those kids an alternative instead of playing the charade.

Second, the student athletes that really want to go to college will be the kids on campus playing football and going to school. It will bring back the real meaning of student athlete.

Third, the NCAA will be consolidated to about 25 programs that can have their alums offer them marketing packages. Currently room and board is what, about 35k a year? Take Roger Goodell's salary, and say they pay each kid 50k a year, you could fund 880 players, or 16 teams on his salary alone.

Yes, the NFL has been getting the milk for free for a long long time.

 

[roses04]

Maybe the athletes can donate 50% of their earnings to the homeless.

 

[CougEd]

Maybe the athletes can donate 50% of their earnings to the homeless.

Sure. That makes sense . Sorry you missed the math. The NFL can find their own developmental system .

 

[roses04]

Sure. That makes sense . Sorry you missed the math. The NFL can find their own developmental system .

It was a joke Ed, should have known you wouldn't see it that way, since you have no sense of humor. I stated a long time ago, that paying athletes will destroy college football, there might be 30-50 teams that participate, in big markets where players can market themselves. And WSU won't be one of those teams and WSU probably end up in a league with Idaho, Eastern and Oregon St., and the Montana's of the world.

 

[Coug95man2]

Title IX. How this will impact Title IX is a strong consideration. What about our network finances and having/needing to pay individual players instead of profits going to the schools?

 

[CougEd]

Title IX. How this will impact Title IX is a strong consideration. What about our network finances and having/needing to pay individual players instead of profits going to the schools?

Oh it impacts everything. The economic model is changing, it is shortsighted. It will give a few players more money, other players will starve, woman's programs will suffer as will men's non revenue sports. My guess is coaching salaries will continue to increase and those non elite schools will be asked to reign in the spending for their coaches.

 

[CougEd]

It was a joke Ed, should have known you wouldn't see it that way, since you have no sense of humor. I stated a long time ago, that paying athletes will destroy college football, there might be 30-50 teams that participate, in big markets where players can market themselves. And WSU won't be one of those teams and WSU probably end up in a league with Idaho, Eastern and Oregon St., and the Montana's of the world.

Oh if I may quote Sgt Hulka "I have a hell of a sense of humor". Sorry this one went over my head.

Yep, you are correct, this can be a game changer. There will be a super conference of 24 ish. Tenn, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, LSU, Michigan, MSU, Ohio State, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Penn State, USC, UCLA, Oregon, ASU, and UW.

You are also correct looking at what is likely to happen to WSU and OSU. This is similar to WSU in 1980. We were looking down a similar barrel. The only difference is it was more "local". The big boys in our conference wanted us out, and probably why I consider Walden the most important figure in WSU football since I have followed the program.

And if Leach is still winning games, and he is still roaming the sideline when the contraction comes, he may make it hard for WSU not to be included in a super conference not because of economics but because he has one of the more winning programs. (His is a longer shot than what Walden had done)

 

[cboom]

Oh if I may quote Sgt Hulka "I have a hell of a sense of humor". Sorry this one went over my head.

Yep, you are correct, this can be a game changer. There will be a super conference of 24 ish. Tenn, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, LSU, Michigan, MSU, Ohio State, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Penn State, USC, UCLA, Oregon, ASU, and UW.

You are also correct looking at what is likely to happen to WSU and OSU. This is similar to WSU in 1980. We were looking down a similar barrel. The only difference is it was more "local". The big boys in our conference wanted us out, and probably why I consider Walden the most important figure in WSU football since I have followed the program.

And if Leach is still winning games, and he is still roaming the sideline when the contraction comes, he may make it hard for WSU not to be included in a super conference not because of economics but because he has one of the more winning programs. (His is a longer shot than what Walden had done)

Sadly I don’t believe wins and losses will have anything to do with it. It’s going to be 100% about money.

 

[CougEd]

Sadly I don’t believe wins and losses will have anything to do with it. It’s going to be 100% about money.

Unfortunately yes.

 

[OrangeGravy]

Title IX. How this will impact Title IX is a strong consideration. What about our network finances and having/needing to pay individual players instead of profits going to the schools?

Schools aren't paying players, private companies would be. This is only an initial law that concerns an individual athlete and his legal right to have someone in the private sector pay him for his likeness. Has nothing to do with the schools.

 

[CougEd]

Schools aren't paying players, private companies would be. This is only an initial law that concerns an individual athlete and his legal right to have someone in the private sector pay him for his likeness. Has nothing to do with the schools.

Well it has EVERYTHING to do with schools. You don't think a wealthy UW booster will pay for a jersey of a 5 start athlete? They are all intertwined.

 

[OrangeGravy]

Well it has EVERYTHING to do with schools. You don't think a wealthy UW booster will pay for a jersey of a 5 start athlete? They are all intertwined.

A booster isn't "officially" a representative of the school/program and those boosters are doing these things right now anyway. We still don't know what this is going to look like in practice yet. The NCAA may come up with their own version that requires a certain level of "distance" from the school in order to enter into one of these agreements. There's always going to be a work around for people who want to cheat just like there is now. For me that's not a good enough reason not to make changes.
I think all of these states are doing this to force the NCAA to come up with something and they're going to have to. It won't be just California with a law like this, there will most likely be states in every conference footprint in the next 18 months. The last thing the NCAA wants is to have to ban schools from certain states. It would be a complete circus.

 

[kayak15]

At least one more state has similar legislature in the pipeline. Seem to recall that at least one is Florida.

It looks to me that if this is carried out throughout the U.S. that we will end up with a two tiered D1. Amateur D1 and semipro D1. WSU trying to compete with schools where prospective athletes are offered tens of thousands to play is absurd.

Most universities do not have the "sugar daddies" to compete, WSU being one. Some university presidents and BORs may be opposed to doing away with the scholar/athlete designation and opt for pure- or relatively pure- amateur status. Talk about the complexity of rearranging conferences! The Cal schools, uw and Oregon may have to travel a thousand miles or more to reach their opponent's destination. Another expense on top of the usual ones. Sounds like a real hot mess to me but one that may be coming. Many of the political class just love to spend money in search of "fairness", especially if it is someone else's money.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I talked with my co-worker who just happens to have been on scholarship his last 3 years in college. His opposition to rules that allow for players to get paid is that 90% of the players don't "need" the money and will waste it on gold chains, tats, 22" wheels and idiotic things like that. He said that when he was in school, he could choose between a university provided meal plan or cash. Most of the guys on the team went for the cash. His biggest laugh was when some dude got his stipend check and showed up the next day with 22" wheels on his 15 year old Caprice. Yeah.....that guy would benefit a lot from more money. In case you didn't know, he received a monthly stipend, free clothes, free food, text books, tutoring and other benefits that the media loves to overlook when talking about the issue.

My co-worker got his degree in construction engineering and values the scholarship that he received. Of course, since he had to pay for the first year out of pocket (he was a preferred walk-on), he actually knew how much that scholarship is really worth. Most of the idiots on his team (his words....not mine) had no appreciation of the value of the scholarship and most of them had delusions of playing in the NFL when they got on campus. Unfortunately, only about 1 out of 25 scholarship players were actually making it to the NFL at his school, so there's a lot of dudes with generic degrees (if they even finished them) that don't do them any good. He loves his school, but he is pretty judgmental about football players in general and how they spent their time and money in college. We love to put these guys on pedestals and there are some good ones out there, but I have no doubt that WSU (and every school) has it's share of knuckleheads that share characteristics with the guys that my co-worker played with.

 

[etowncoug]

Good anecdote, Flat.

To my earlier point, the economic realities are lost of many of these college athletes. The see the revenues of the NCAA and college programs and equate that with profits and feel they are being ripped off. There is no concept of how much it costs to give them the opportunity to play college ball.

 

[Coug95man2]

Schools aren't paying players, private companies would be. This is only an initial law that concerns an individual athlete and his legal right to have someone in the private sector pay him for his likeness. Has nothing to do with the schools.

Sorry I'm late to this....

To respond, in this striving for "fairness", it's fair for a football player to earn thousands of dollars AND get a scholarship, while the women struggle? Should football players get a scholarship while earning money?

And like I outlined prior, the PAC12 Network will be scrutinized strongly. They/the schools are "benefiting" from the image and performance of the players. So if the football players get a portion of the commercial sales of the airing of a game, shouldn't the women soccer players? THIS is where Title X comes in.

Then lets talk about how that would affect the contracts with ESPN or Fox...

This is a quagmire, pure and simple. And it will exacerbate UNfairness. This is only one issue I find with the concept. There's plenty more.