Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Death of College Football and Amateurism

Buffnik said:
It's bull****, but only in context of the overall revenue of the enterprise they are part of.

We have other merit scholarships on campus. Maybe a music scholarship for a talented performance artist, for example. Or maybe a math whiz. They contribute something special to the university environment which the university values highly enough to recruit them to attend while providing a scholarship, housing and other costs of attendance.

That's also been the deal for athletes (though they didn't even get the cost-of-living stipend until recently while also having restrictions placed on them with what jobs they were allowed to have).

But there's a fundamental difference between the music prodigy and the football prodigy: that music prodigy is not part of a music program that's delivering $50 million a year in concert ticket and broadcast revenue. If he/she were, wouldn't we be saying that the person should earn some of that money instead of protecting the sanctity of being an "amateur musician" working in exchange for an education?

I think this issue is actually pretty simple when I look at coach salaries and the money available to pay buyouts while the players get nothing. I also don't see why they should be barred from selling an autograph or appearing in advertising or whatever.

The only place this gets murky to me is with the Title IX implications. All women's sports lose money. Is it a violation of federal law if only football and men's basketball players get paid as scholar-athletes?

But if we keep it to athletes profiting off their own name and likeness outside of any revenue share from the universities, then what's the big deal? I don't particularly care if a pianist on scholarship signs an endorsement deal with Steinway or if a football player gets some money from Nike or a swimmer with Speedo.
Click to expand...
Your Title IX question is interesting. Does it even apply to this situation?

I would see the opportunity to earn money from NIL as an independent contract between the player and the paying institution, and all this would be outside the auspices of the university.

A lawyer should weigh in.
 
In 2019:
Dabo Swinney - $10.2M + endorsements
87 head coaches make at least $1M + endorsements
All 125 head coaches of FBS programs make a 1%er salary ($350k+)
Coordinators and some assistants at moderately-well funded places like CU hitting $400k+
The NCAA generates over $1B in annual revenue
Average FBS teams generate ~$35M annually, with well over 25 generating $100M+.
Mark Emmert made nearly $4M

But yeah, "AMATUERISM" and "let's not let money taint the sport." Quit gaslighting.

Let them get paid.
 
TSchekler said:
Even if Colorado passes the same law, where is the money going to come from to pay players at CU?
Click to expand...

The NFL? NBA? If you think about it they reap the benefits of these players being developed without having or funding a development program. Compare that to soccer outside the US (and a little bit in the US now) in that youth players with promise are shifted into a Developmental Academy that the parent club funds. In some cases the players are paid.

So, lets say the NFL drafts player X out of high school and pays him to go to college and pays his tuition. That preserves the current system while providing a place to develop. Hopefully they are somebody by the time they graduate.
 
MiamiBuffs said:
The NFL? NBA? If you think about it they reap the benefits of these players being developed without having or funding a development program. Compare that to soccer outside the US (and a little bit in the US now) in that youth players with promise are shifted into a Developmental Academy that the parent club funds. In some cases the players are paid.

So, lets say the NFL drafts player X out of high school and pays him to go to college and pays his tuition. That preserves the current system while providing a place to develop. Hopefully they are somebody by the time they graduate.
Click to expand...
Hockey players, golfers, and baseball players who play in college seem to figure this issue out.
 
This battle is going to be so interesting to watch as it unfolds. CA law doesn't go into effect until 2023.

Pac-12 Release:

The Pac-12 is disappointed in the passage of SB 206 and believes it will have very significant negative consequences for our student-athletes and broader universities in California. This legislation will lead to the professionalization of college sports and many unintended consequences related to this professionalism, imposes a state law that conflicts with national rules, will blur the lines for how California universities recruit student-athletes and compete nationally, and will likely reduce resources and opportunities for student-athletes in Olympic sports and have a negative disparate impact on female student-athletes.

Our universities have led important student-athlete reform over the past years, but firmly believe all reforms must treat our student-athletes as students pursuing an education, and not as professional athletes. We will work with our universities to determine next steps and ensure continuing support for our student-athletes.
 
Buffnik said:
This battle is going to be so interesting to watch as it unfolds. CA law doesn't go into effect until 2023.

Pac-12 Release:

The Pac-12 is disappointed in the passage of SB 206 and believes it will have very significant negative consequences for our student-athletes and broader universities in California. This legislation will lead to the professionalization of college sports and many unintended consequences related to this professionalism, imposes a state law that conflicts with national rules, will blur the lines for how California universities recruit student-athletes and compete nationally, and will likely reduce resources and opportunities for student-athletes in Olympic sports and have a negative disparate impact on female student-athletes.

Our universities have led important student-athlete reform over the past years, but firmly believe all reforms must treat our student-athletes as students pursuing an education, and not as professional athletes. We will work with our universities to determine next steps and ensure continuing support for our student-athletes.
Click to expand...
Boo hoo. Scot just doesn't want to have to compete for his millions of dollars. Mountain out of a molehill.
 
The solution to the student-athlete pay question is the NCAA setting a minimum and maximum salary that is the same (somewhere around 8 to 12 thousand) that is awarded to all football players. Give the athletes some spending money (which face it already occurs at powerhouse schools) but instill in them the fact they are getting a good that is valued in the tens of thousands of dollars a year for free (perhaps even show the dollar value of the tuition in an escrow account) Put the majority of that salary into financial instruments that cannot be touched for a number of years after graduation (if they do not fulfill eligibility requirements or leave early subtract that amount of investment in the escrow account). How to fund all this is a different question but the alternative of a free for all in regards to money is far worse.
 
Boulder said:
The solution to the student-athlete pay question is the NCAA setting a minimum and maximum salary that is the same (somewhere around 8 to 12 thousand) that is awarded to all football players. Give the athletes some spending money (which face it already occurs at powerhouse schools) but instill in them the fact they are getting a good that is valued in the tens of thousands of dollars a year for free (perhaps even show the dollar value of the tuition in an escrow account) Put the majority of that salary into financial instruments that cannot be touched for a number of years after graduation (if they do not fulfill eligibility requirements or leave early subtract that amount of investment in the escrow account). How to fund all this is a different question but the alternative of a free for all in regards to money is far worse.
Click to expand...
The Olympic model that CA has passed allows schools and conferences to avoid figuring out all of the Title IX matters and equity calculations. Some people will get more money than others based upon their popularity. I think this is really a mountain out of a molehill since some kids are already getting paid. This enables everybody a chance to get a piece if their marketability dictates.
 
Boulder said:
The solution to the student-athlete pay question is the NCAA setting a minimum and maximum salary that is the same (somewhere around 8 to 12 thousand) that is awarded to all football players. Give the athletes some spending money (which face it already occurs at powerhouse schools) but instill in them the fact they are getting a good that is valued in the tens of thousands of dollars a year for free (perhaps even show the dollar value of the tuition in an escrow account) Put the majority of that salary into financial instruments that cannot be touched for a number of years after graduation (if they do not fulfill eligibility requirements or leave early subtract that amount of investment in the escrow account). How to fund all this is a different question but the alternative of a free for all in regards to money is far worse.
Click to expand...
Ethically, I don't know how to justify an earnings cap.

Selfishly, I fear for the sport I love and the competitiveness of CU in a "fair market value" environment.

But I don't know that I can look myself in the mirror if I allow that fear to cause me to come out against a person being able to leverage his market value for every dollar he is worth.

At the end of the day, if a school's boosters & local businesspeople can offer a kid $40k a year while the boosters & businesspeople associated with the school I cheer for can only offer $10k -- how is it "fair" for me to to have the opinion that $10k should be the limit?
 
Buffnik said:
This battle is going to be so interesting to watch as it unfolds. CA law doesn't go into effect until 2023.

Pac-12 Release:

The Pac-12 is disappointed in the passage of SB 206 and believes it will have very significant negative consequences for our student-athletes and broader universities in California. This legislation will lead to the professionalization of college sports and many unintended consequences related to this professionalism, imposes a state law that conflicts with national rules, will blur the lines for how California universities recruit student-athletes and compete nationally, and will likely reduce resources and opportunities for student-athletes in Olympic sports and have a negative disparate impact on female student-athletes.

Our universities have led important student-athlete reform over the past years, but firmly believe all reforms must treat our student-athletes as students pursuing an education, and not as professional athletes. We will work with our universities to determine next steps and ensure continuing support for our student-athletes.
Click to expand...
This release is horse bleep. Katie Ledecky gets 1700 per year. Had to quit Stanford swim to be able to train for Olympics.
 
Boulder said:
The solution to the student-athlete pay question is the NCAA setting a minimum and maximum salary that is the same (somewhere around 8 to 12 thousand) that is awarded to all football players. Give the athletes some spending money (which face it already occurs at powerhouse schools) but instill in them the fact they are getting a good that is valued in the tens of thousands of dollars a year for free (perhaps even show the dollar value of the tuition in an escrow account) Put the majority of that salary into financial instruments that cannot be touched for a number of years after graduation (if they do not fulfill eligibility requirements or leave early subtract that amount of investment in the escrow account). How to fund all this is a different question but the alternative of a free for all in regards to money is far worse.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting they cap their ability to earn money on their NIL? How is that fair?
 
Trump will write an executive order saying California can't make it's own rules after pinning this legislation on Obama.
 
Kuratz said:
In 2019:
Dabo Swinney - $10.2M + endorsements
87 head coaches make at least $1M + endorsements
All 125 head coaches of FBS programs make a 1%er salary ($350k+)
Coordinators and some assistants at moderately-well funded places like CU hitting $400k+
The NCAA generates over $1B in annual revenue
Average FBS teams generate ~$35M annually, with well over 25 generating $100M+.
Mark Emmert made nearly $4M

But yeah, "AMATUERISM" and "let's not let money taint the sport." Quit gaslighting.

Let them get paid.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the $$ put down each week gambling.
 
manhattanbuf said:
Agreed. The P12 should like this because the P12 excels in Olympic sports. More folks in those sports will be able to get paid by corporate sponsors and still compete as college students.
Click to expand...
You bring up something I hadn’t considered, which is the possibility that Olympic sport athletes could be the biggest winners here. Jeremy Bloom, for example, could have skied for CU had this been in place. Lots of Olympic athletes who might have had to turn pro (Michael Phelps is the best example) can now continue their education at the school of their choice. The offshoot is that college sports like swimming, track, skiing, tennis, gymnastics, golf and wrestling may be blessed with bigger names, and thus a broader appeal. This could be a way to make non revenue sports a little more profitable.
 
Not Sure said:
You bring up something I hadn’t considered, which is the possibility that Olympic sport athletes could be the biggest winners here. Jeremy Bloom, for example, could have skied for CU had this been in place. Lots of Olympic athletes who might have had to turn pro (Michael Phelps is the best example) can now continue their education at the school of their choice. The offshoot is that college sports like swimming, track, skiing, tennis, gymnastics, golf and wrestling may be blessed with bigger names, and thus a broader appeal. This could be a way to make non revenue sports a little more profitable.
Click to expand...
Going way back, maybe Mary Decker would have been at CU for 4 years if she could have gotten paid endorsements while earning her degree.
 
Imagine Simone Biles competing in college gymnastics. Think folks would show up? Think there might be some coverage when she’s competing?

This could also have an impact on sports like hockey and baseball. We could see more players choose to go to college as opposed to entering the minor league systems.

There are some possible positive outcomes of this.
 
Kuratz said:
In 2019:
Dabo Swinney - $10.2M + endorsements
87 head coaches make at least $1M + endorsements
All 125 head coaches of FBS programs make a 1%er salary ($350k+)
Coordinators and some assistants at moderately-well funded places like CU hitting $400k+
The NCAA generates over $1B in annual revenue
Average FBS teams generate ~$35M annually, with well over 25 generating $100M+.
Mark Emmert made nearly $4M

But yeah, "AMATUERISM" and "let's not let money taint the sport." Quit gaslighting.

Let them get paid.
Click to expand...

I think everyone agrees with you. The problem is that we are going to have to figure out how to maintain a modicum of competitive balance.

Someone needs to figure out how to balance the payments so that schools like USC don’t just “pay more” for players than schools like Utah or CU. Until I read about a solution to this dilemma, I will believe that this bill signals the end of college football that we know and love.
 
I just realized the types of things this could open up.

Would you have bought an autographed AllBuffs LaViska t-shirt this year with profits split with him? Or a Kin one for hoops? I know I would have and been willing to pay at least double what I'd normally be willing to fork out for an AB shirt.
 
https://www.si.com/college-football/2019/09/30/fair-pay-to-play-act-law-ncaa-california-pac-12

Excerpt from an informative SI.com article ... sounds like case law might predicate the unconstitutionality of California’s law.

“The NCAA is very familiar with Commerce Clause challenges. It likely feels optimistic that one would work against the Act. In 1993, the NCAA secured a legal victory against a state statute on Commerce Clause grounds. In NCAA v. Miller, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Commerce Clause barred the State of Nevada from requiring the NCAA to provide “a Nevada institution, employee, student-athlete, or booster who is accused of a rules infraction with certain procedural due process protections during an enforcement proceeding in which sanctions may be imposed.” The statute was passed in the wake of the UNLV men’s basketball recruiting controversy.
The core problem with the state statute, noted Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, is that it in order to apply equal rules across the 50 states, the NCAA would be required to adopt the rules of Nevada for every state. “The practical requirement that the NCAA would have to use the Statute in enforcement proceedings in every state in the union,” Judge Fernandez reasoned, “runs afoul of the Commerce Clause.” Indeed, Nevada’s statute would “directly control commerce occurring wholly outside the boundaries of the state.”

Judge Fernandez also expressed concern that other states could adopt requirements that diverge from those in Nevada. The NCAA would then be forced to deal with “conflicting requirements” by state.
The NCAA will argue that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in NCAA v. Miller, which governs federal courts in California, is directly on-point and renders the Act unconstitutional. If the Fair Pay to Play Act goes into effect, it would (as detailed above) force the NCAA to change its national rules so that they match those in California (or other states), allow California schools to play by different rules or expel California schools. As NCAA attorneys will stress, even if the NCAA comports with California’s new law, other states could adopt measures that conflict with those in California. To that point, the NCAA will be sure to highlight legislative efforts in New York and South Carolina and differences between those legislative proposals and California’s Act”
 
Last edited:
Honestly, this boils down to the NCAA constintely kicking the can down the road due to their own greed. This was all a matter of time and is just the beginning.

Instead of the NCAA getting out in front of this, they are allowing states (which we know how amazing politicians are at this) to make the decision for them. It sounds like the NCAA is prepared to fight this with lawsuits. I think it is also important to know that this law will not take place until 2023. At that point, it sounds like at least 12 states would be enacting similar laws. The NCAA can't sue every state and they know this. At some point your greed comes back to haunt you.

Ultimately, players who are going to benefit from this, already benefit. We just don't completely know about it because it is all under the table.
 
I’m sure this is asinine but why shouldn’t the NCAA (P5s) proactively control the outcome instead of react to it.

1. Cut all schools except for the P5s
2. Eliminate sport requirements, which would allow the elimination of most men and women non-revenue sports except for offsetting women’s sports for Title IX purposes.
3. Theoretically CU could have only men’s football and basketball, and whatever throw-in women’s sports to offset
4. Allow 115 scholarships for football to finally put the dagger in G5 schools and consolidate all market share, tv deals, the entire commercial-industrial complex for the P5s.
5. Funnel the monetary surplus to more lucrative stipends and perhaps an equal post-graduation trust for all men’s and women’s athletes, regulated and dictated in size by the NCAA.
5. Allow any male or female athlete to ink endorsement deals on their own.
6. Cap coaching salaries at an agreed upon rate.
7. ... profit
 
hawg1 said:
Are you suggesting they cap their ability to earn money on their NIL? How is that fair?
Click to expand...

I am suggesting that in order for some semblance of college football to remain you need ensure that is recruiting is not just turned into an unrestricted free agency frenzy, which it would if no reasonable cap was in place.The players receive compensation in more than just a salary under the system I proposed, since scholarships would still exist (they gain utility form that arrangement even if it is not in the form of cash) and they get an invested properly. The low cash amount still allows smaller schools to remain somewhat solvent and competitive in Division 1. Perhaps my estimate is too low and players should get some of the cut for direct likeness like autographs or memorabilia, but if you allow teams to compensate without any bounds you run into issues in my opinion.
 
Not Sure said:
Imagine Simone Biles competing in college gymnastics. Think folks would show up? Think there might be some coverage when she’s competing?

This could also have an impact on sports like hockey and baseball. We could see more players choose to go to college as opposed to entering the minor league systems.

There are some possible positive outcomes of this.
Click to expand...

College hockey is much like college basketball for top recruits it is one and done for them. College hockey will never be huge because the game is more global and robust development leagues like the Quebec Major Junior League snag top players before they are even 18 and help to fulfill the same role of seasoning as the NCAA does. The athletes should be compensated but it probably will not have the massive impact on viewership of other college sports.
 
Big Jim said:
Things "about money":

- College football playoffs
- NCAA basketball tournament
- Conference championship games in football
- Conference playoffs in basketball
- Nike/Adidas/UA paying colleges to use their uniforms and shoes as advertising billboards
- Stadium naming rights


Some people like some of the things on that list, some don't, but they are all money driven at their core.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about that, of course, those events are money driven. They'll exploit it to more than that, I'm pretty damn sure of that. If you don't think the people that put this in place won't benefit too, I don't know what to say.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top