Death of College Football and Amateurism

[steph]

Here is my problem with paying college athletes. The current system provides a free college education to 150,000 NCAA athletes in the US.It also provides player development, remarkable training facilities, broad television exposure, all of which have a real value. Less than 2% of these athletes will go on to become a professional. Of those 2%, very few likely have much real marketing value. So to benefit a very small proportion of athletes currently participating in college athletics, we are going to essentially burn the system to the ground. CU makes millions on the backs of their football players, but where is that money going? it's going back into the programs to support all athletes, not just the chosen few. ESPN, FOX, cable companies etc make millions off of college football, but without them, most colleges and universities would have trouble supporting anything near the current levels of support for more than a few high revenue sports. Last year the NCAA had a total revenue of over $1B, with an operating surplus of just over $100M after expenses. So lets say we want to give athletes their share and pay the entire operating surplus to the 150,000 NCAA scholarship athletes. Do the math and each of those athletes gets a fat $700 check. The current system isn't completely fair, but I don't think it will survive in any recognizable fashion if they start allowing the athletes to get paid.

 

[buffs04]

I'd really like to see an argument for why college athletes in particular shouldn't be paid market wages.

The value of the opportunity to (potentially) earn a college degree has idiosyncratic value. United States dollars do not have idiosyncratic value. And that's why people who work in the United States are paid in dollars, not in non-transferrable tuition vouchers.

 

[steph]

I can picture the Buffs if right now players were able to get paid for marketing themselves. Laviska would be making millions peddling Nike and Red Bull, while the great majority of the team would be making nothing, or perhaps get lucky making a few hundred bucks spending a saturday signing autographs at a local car dealership. Where do you think that type of scenario is going to lead?

 

[steph]

I'd really like to see an argument for why college athletes in particular shouldn't be paid market wages.

The value of the opportunity to (potentially) earn a college degree has idiosyncratic value. United States dollars do not have idiosyncratic value. And that's why people who work in the United States are paid in dollars, not in non-transferrable tuition vouchers.

What is the market wage for a CU football player? Lets pretend CU Football is a professional sports team and determine market value of an athlete in 2017. In 2017 CU total revenue was $86.5M, expenses close to $86.5M with a net revenue of $192. Not much left over there to pay anybody, so your going to have to cut expenses. What are you going to cut? Non-revenue generating sports? Coaching salaries and coaches? Sports medicine and nutrition support? Facilities upgrades? Scholarships?

 

[Buffnik]

Here is my problem with paying college athletes. The current system provides a free college education to 150,000 NCAA athletes in the US.It also provides player development, remarkable training facilities, broad television exposure, all of which have a real value. Less than 2% of these athletes will go on to become a professional. Of those 2%, very few likely have much real marketing value. So to benefit a very small proportion of athletes currently participating in college athletics, we are going to essentially burn the system to the ground. CU makes millions on the backs of their football players, but where is that money going? it's going back into the programs to support all athletes, not just the chosen few. ESPN, FOX, cable companies etc make millions off of college football, but without them, most colleges and universities would have trouble supporting anything near the current levels of support for more than a few high revenue sports. Last year the NCAA had a total revenue of over $1B, with an operating surplus of just over $100M after expenses. So lets say we want to give athletes their share and pay the entire operating surplus to the 150,000 NCAA scholarship athletes. Do the math and each of those athletes gets a fat $700 check. The current system isn't completely fair, but I don't think it will survive in any recognizable fashion if they start allowing the athletes to get paid.

Then you should love the CA law. It doesn't touch the revenues the NCAA, conferences and schools are enjoying. It only says that the athletes have the right to sign with a licensed agent and to independently profit off of their own name, image and likeness.

 

[BuffUp]

I can picture the Buffs if right now players were able to get paid for marketing themselves. Laviska would be making millions peddling Nike and Red Bull, while the great majority of the team would be making nothing, or perhaps get lucky making a few hundred bucks spending a saturday signing autographs at a local car dealership. Where do you think that type of scenario is going to lead?

exactly. and that one or two players a team could possibly pull in more than the HC in some scenarios. What would that cause.

 

[NW Buff]

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.

There’s not really competitive balance now. That’s what I don’t get about all of the arguments against it. We can’t pay players because USC, Alabama and Ohio State would them get all of the 5* recruits!!! They already do

 

[slider]

This is just going to result in absurd financial agreements during recruitment. Big money schools like Nebraska, Bama, USC etc will have deals with dealerships and other companies to promise recruits $$ before they have even played. "Come to Nebraska and we already have a deal with xyz dealership for you to get paid $50k a year to make a couple commercials

CU will not do well under these circumstances.

 

[steph]

Then you should love the CA law. It doesn't touch the revenues the NCAA, conferences and schools are enjoying. It only says that the athletes have the right to sign with a licensed agent and to independently profit off of their own name, image and likeness.

I understand the new law, but I think it will completely change college athletics with ripple effects going way beyond a few athletes getting to profit from marketing themselves. If a player thinks they are ready to be a professional then why not let them turn pro right out of high school and start getting paid. Of course the answer is that very few are anywhere close to being ready to play professional football right out of high school. Tthey need a few years of development before they are ready to get paid, and use the NCAA to develop, mature, and make a name for themselves, subsequently commanding a higher draft pick and the accompanying larger payoff. To pretend that they are not already profiting a great deal from all the money schools are pouring into their college football programs is disingenuous.

 

[onealcd]

Haven't commented on this thread yet.

I think they should just split the schools up and get it over with. There are schools right now, specifically those in the South that have the resources to do this type of thing (a lot of them already do) so let them create their own NFL lite of 30 or so teams and the rest of the schools can continue to operate under a different model. There is just simply no way for Colorado to compete at that level. Our alums think $200 is too much for a football ticket to see our old rival from the big 12. They think $300 for season tickets is a lot of money. They think they shouldn't have to pay for parking on campus becuase they already paid tuition and they are getting ripped off. This is just too saturated of a sports market to go against these teams.

 

[onealcd]

This is just going to result in absurd financial agreements during recruitment. Big money schools like ****braska, Bama, USC etc will have deals with dealerships and other companies to promise recruits $$ before they have even played. "Come to ****braska and we already have a deal with xyz dealership for you to get paid $50k a year to make a couple commercials

CU will not do well under these circumstances.

The sponsorship money is probably not going to be a huge amount of money just because there are so many players and they are only there for such a small period of time but there is no way to regulate where the money if coming from and what it is for. Boosters will funnel money to players under the likeness side of things and pretty much legalize all cheating that is happening right now.

The only good thing I see coming out of it is the ridiculous facilities race will slow down dramatically and the coaching salaries will plateau and probably drop a little.

 

[ChillyBuff]

The way I see it, this is a problem of kids out of high school not having any NFL development options other than CFB. If you can fix that then you have a system where the elite players can develop and move into the NFL. The kids who still want to play for their school and get an education fit into the current CFB model. First and foremost CFB participants now are STUDENT-athletes. Not saying they aren't also marketable entities, but those don't have a place in the current system, which again is STUDENT-athlete based. Allowing student NIL money brings in an unfair and unregulated recruiting tool across the collegiate landscape. You now create an unbalanced eco-system which the NCAA tries (arguable how successfully) to maintain.

 

[NW Buff]

This is just going to result in absurd financial agreements during recruitment. Big money schools like ****braska, Bama, USC etc will have deals with dealerships and other companies to promise recruits $$ before they have even played. "Come to ****braska and we already have a deal with xyz dealership for you to get paid $50k a year to make a couple commercials

CU will not do well under these circumstances.

Ask your self honestly if CU is doing well under the current system. Will CU really be doing any worse?

 

[Jens1893]

Ultimately the issue is that the NCAA has no power itself and only is in a position of power because the big conferences and programs accept its role because it's a mutually beneficial arrangement for all involved as there's plenty of cake for everyone to be happy.

If the P12, B1G, ACC, SEC and Big 12 and its schools all got on board to do their own thing, the NCAA would be absolutely obsolete because it's an empty shell without their support.

 

[leftybuff]

That’s a strange conclusion.

...don't get high on your supply.

 

[leftybuff]

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.

Bravo Sierra.

 

[jizzrag85]

...don't get high on your supply.

don’t smoke weed, don’t like the ****. Could care less if other people want to smoke themselves stupid and lazy, that’s their business.

 

[jumped ship]

don’t smoke weed, don’t like the ****. Could care less if other people want to smoke themselves stupid and lazy, that’s their business.

sounds like you might actually care a whole lot...

you’re aversion to this new law is making me rethink my initial hesitations

 

[DBT]

Let's go line by line...

• Degree: Totally fair and valuable
• Exposure to NFL: 16,000 players in NCAA football, ~300 rookies in NFL...a benefit to a very few. Remember that UCF kicker who was deemed ineligible because of his youtube account? Not NFL caliber so this law helps him leverage the small spark of fame he has too make some cash
• Training/Doctors: I'd f'ing hope so considering the beating they take daily and weekly. Might as well tack on the free water they get.
• Coaches: As a fan of a team that has willingly employed Dan Hawkins, Jon Embree, and Mike Mac's G5 assistants I'm not sure if you're joking
• Swag: I've received at least a grand worth of swag from my company at events this year alone. Somehow they still find a way to pay me.

The issue isn't that Person/Institution X is getting rich off Person Y. The issue is that Person Y isn't allowed to get rich also even if it doesn't meaningfully diminish the wealth of Person X.

You left out the most important benefit. Having been a college football player is great for the resume.

 

[hawg1]

What is the market wage for a CU football player? Lets pretend CU Football is a professional sports team and determine market value of an athlete in 2017. In 2017 CU total revenue was $86.5M, expenses close to $86.5M with a net revenue of $192. Not much left over there to pay anybody, so your going to have to cut expenses. What are you going to cut? Non-revenue generating sports? Coaching salaries and coaches? Sports medicine and nutrition support? Facilities upgrades? Scholarships?

Schools don’t pay.

 

[hawg1]

Good roundtable article in The Athletic. Worth subscribing.

 

[jizzrag85]

sounds like you might actually care a whole lot...

you’re aversion to this new law is making me rethink my initial hesitations

I voted yes on marijuana dumb ****. So take your hesitations and shove em right up your ass. Have a great day!

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I go back and forth on this issue. As much as I think these players should be compensated more than tuition, books, small stipend, I just don't see how any of this could ever be regulated to the point where there is any semblance of order. Where does it stop? Clemson, Bama, Ohio State, USC, etc going back and forth, bidding on every top recruit because they will find bottomless wallets. People keep throwing out $10-$50k/year? That's going to be chump change for the 5* guys. Hiring good recruiters won't matter because most players will go to the highest bidders. High school kids will be hiring agents, who will keep driving up the price tag each year based on position, rating, etc. College football as we know it will be over and it will be a true NFL farm system.

 

[BUFFering]

You left out the most important benefit. Having been a college football player is great for the resume.

So is dotting the i in Ohio but that tuba player can still endorse cars.

 

[DBT]

So is dotting the i in Ohio but that tuba player can still endorse cars.

Yeah. Right.

 

[Not Sure]

I’m kind of surprised at the opposition to this around here. When Jeremy Bloom wanted to earn money endorsing skis, nobody was against that. What’s changed?

 

[jizzrag85]

I’m kind of surprised at the opposition to this around here. When Jeremy Bloom wanted to earn money endorsing skis, nobody was against that. What’s changed?

I noted that on like the first page. That was a bull**** situation and I’ve always thought those situations were bull****.

 

[BUFFering]

Yeah. Right.

I was being glib of course, but you're basically arguing 4 years of NCAA football should be considered an unpaid internship. In a world where you can now monetize basically anything (instagram, your car, your house, etc) arguing, "I'm not going to pay you for the privilege of collating my copies and listening to me ramble about flying when you could smoke on the plane. It'll look great on your resume," isn't going to hold water. Plus the office coffee jockey isn't sacrificing their long term health for those "benefits."

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I’m kind of surprised at the opposition to this around here. When Jeremy Bloom wanted to earn money endorsing skis, nobody was against that. What’s changed?

It was an isolated situation that would have benefited CU. This is nationwide that is going to put CU back further

 

[Buffnik]

Has anyone considered that the fans & boosters of many programs who are willing & able to come up with $10k a year to support recruiting are already tapped out at certain programs?

CU doesn’t have the infrastructure of behind-the-scenes bagman boosters that we need to compete at the highest levels.

But we may very well have just as much in the way of above-board opportunities from businesspeople looking to promote their brand through athletes.

A rule like CAs could actually level the playing field vs the SEC.