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!
Pac 12 players threaten opt-out of 2020 CFB season unless health and safety and other demands are met
- Thread starter Jens1893
- Start date
Interesting thread from CU’s own on 50% revenue sharing. He brings up some interesting points. I still think it’s a pipe dream, but this kind of thinking really could revolutionize College Athletics as we know it. It would be awesome if the PAC would take the buffalo by the horns here.
I actually think it's interesting that they are taking the "50% revenue to athletes" stance. That seems more nuanced to me than "pay us 50%."
Basically, it seems like they are saying "spend 50% of the revenue on athletes," which is a much different demand than "pay us 50%."
More full ride scholarships for "non-revenue" athletes. Better facilities and support for "non-revenue" athletes. Guaranteed scholarships, even if you get hurt (and no, this isn't always a thing even though we'd like it to be). Health insurance that continues after graduation (even if it just includes coverage for sport-related injuries).
All of those things (and more) could be included in the 50% revenue spent on athletes without actually "paying" the players anything.
Note: this could be my interpretation, but I'm leaning towards giving the kids the benefit of the doubt - this is actually a pretty reasonable "demand."
I would call the players bluff, and see how quickly they change their tune with no scholarships. Pac 12 administrators will likely try and placate to them however. Most Pac 12 teams have a handful or less of pro prospects. Not one fan truly cares at all about the names on the back of the jerseys.
Medford M.
Well-Known Member
Are you seriously suggesting the colleges threaten to pull kids' scholarships?
bpc5180
Well-Known Member
Revenue share in college football sounds good on the surface by major conferences.
Then you factor in Title IX & how many programs it will kill probably in the big 6 conferences, let alone mid major, I-AA conferences, etc that don't have big budgets and the money they do make off football is used to prop up it's other flagging sports programs.
Sure, a few college athletes at bigger programs will line their pockets. But it will be at the detriment of 50-60% of the sport across the country. Those programs go away, so do scholarships for so many athletes that normally can't pay to attend big Universities or get opportunities to achieve things like degrees because of athletic scholarships.
Then you factor in Title IX & how many programs it will kill probably in the big 6 conferences, let alone mid major, I-AA conferences, etc that don't have big budgets and the money they do make off football is used to prop up it's other flagging sports programs.
Sure, a few college athletes at bigger programs will line their pockets. But it will be at the detriment of 50-60% of the sport across the country. Those programs go away, so do scholarships for so many athletes that normally can't pay to attend big Universities or get opportunities to achieve things like degrees because of athletic scholarships.
Why?
yes, let them have it their way. The trade-off for a negotiated revenue or profit sharing is no guaranteed scholarships, books, food, housing, spending $$, etc. It would eliminate a $100,000 per year fixed cost for CU to keep a non-contributor on scholarship for 4 years, since the university should also have the right to cut players as they see fit.
tradeoff of revenue sharing as a replacement for scholarships.
I wasn’t in the military but there is a reason beds have to be made perfectly, boots have to be shined, your area has to be immaculate, etc.
hawg1
Well-Known Member
You good with the other requests?
College football as we know it is over. I certainly have mixed emotions, but let’s see what emerges.
I'd be interested to see what the economic impact of such a plan (or something similar) would have on athletic departments. Seems like it would create a further separation between the have and have nots. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out.
This isn't necessarily specific to the ADs, but the players need to be careful what they wish for as there are going to be some serious unintended consequences. I hope the players don't believe that 50% revenue sharing simply means they keep getting everything they have right now, plus an extra $100k/year or something. Guaranteed scholarships WILL go away, players will be on their own for food, housing, tuition (another can of worms with in-state/out of state tuition/public/private), books, medical, etc.
Buffslax2
Active Member
I care deeply. You'd be cool with automatons out there? Why do you even watch sports?
this.
we're talking about a group of people who, across the P5, have their coaches bus them to a hotel in a different city to keep the players inside and their girlfriends and party buddies away. Expecting compliance to virus mitigations is probably not realistic for a group that can't be trusted to refrain from partying the evening before a game.
I have come around to the idea players should be paid. CFB is not about the education, so the schollie is kind of an illusory benefit. I have had a couple of younger relatives go the college sports route at D1 schools. Being a college athlete is very much like a job, and often times, you are subtly, and not so subtly, told what classes/majors are acceptable if you get the athletic schollie.
The problem is only one sport, sometimes two, at any university actually makes money. Some schools have no sports that turn a profit. If you start paying players in CFB, I highly doubt you are going to have a lot of money left over for women's lax, swimming, wrestling etc.
The proposal sounds like it wants the benefits of a free market, but not the burdens. Pay us as revenue generators, but still subsidize the sports that don't make money.
I can certainly get the frustration a player feels when they see their HC pulling down 3-5 million a year while they stress about expenses. The student-athlete model has been exploited to the hilt.
As Buffup said, CFB as we know it is probably over. It will still exist, but it will not be in the form it is now. It will be more like the NFL, and I will proably lose interest along the way.
The problem is only one sport, sometimes two, at any university actually makes money. Some schools have no sports that turn a profit. If you start paying players in CFB, I highly doubt you are going to have a lot of money left over for women's lax, swimming, wrestling etc.
The proposal sounds like it wants the benefits of a free market, but not the burdens. Pay us as revenue generators, but still subsidize the sports that don't make money.
I can certainly get the frustration a player feels when they see their HC pulling down 3-5 million a year while they stress about expenses. The student-athlete model has been exploited to the hilt.
As Buffup said, CFB as we know it is probably over. It will still exist, but it will not be in the form it is now. It will be more like the NFL, and I will proably lose interest along the way.
Re the bolded... I used to think this way too, until I came around to the fact that the "free ride" is what allows 95% of the players to actually attend the University and therefore be part of the program in the first place. As I mentioned above, if you start actually paying the players instead of simply allowing them to profit on their name and likeness, they will then be responsible for their own tuition, books, housing, meals, insurance, etc. People want to just throw the scholarship aside as some trivial benefit because these guys didn't come here to "play school", but that scholarship is part of the revenue share that the players get; the school just takes care of all that stuff for them. Do they need a tutor? Great, go pay for one like every other student. Get injured doing anything? Hope you've been paying your insurance premiums!
Those are just the issues as it pertains to football/basketball players and doesn't even touch on Title IX nightmares with the non revenue sports.
Which is perfectly fine
Goodbye non-revenue sports
Considering this story in light of the news around the P5 actually discussing a break from the NCAA, I really wonder if this is a case of multiple signs showing the Pac12 breaks out and does they're own thing.
Assuming the players are indeed unified and unwilling to back down, and assuming the rest of the P5 breaks away:
1. If the Pac doesn't play due to player strike, the P4 won't want to wait
2. If the Pac does play, they can't stay in the NCAA and pay players under the current rules (correct if I misunderstand this)
Assuming the players are indeed unified and unwilling to back down, and assuming the rest of the P5 breaks away:
1. If the Pac doesn't play due to player strike, the P4 won't want to wait
2. If the Pac does play, they can't stay in the NCAA and pay players under the current rules (correct if I misunderstand this)
I see the revenue sports being splintered as separate entities from the schools.
jizzrag85
Well-Known Member
100% agree, although none of the democrats here will agree with you. They want 50%? Strip everything they get for free and give them 50% and you’re on your own. No free housing, food, tickets or other perks. But just like the employee you want to become, you can be fired at any time.
This would be awesome actually, no more useless players on scholarships anymore! Colleges can’t afford to pay their players gobs of money and coddle them. The idea that scholarships are valuable for playing football is always contentious around here and always shot down.
Well, if scholarships and what they get are useless, they don’t need them right?
You care until they graduate.
What the players can't seem to wrap their heads around is that all the value is in the university brands, not the individual players. Reality is the players should be paying the schools for the level exposure they get in front of a national audience and NFL scouts and team executives.