Thanks for breaking down. Given how poorly NFL contracts treat players, it is almost surprising to see how well players have fared. I would’ve expected much worse compared to inflation.
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!
Parity in College Football
- Thread starter The Alabaster Yak
- Start date
It’s also a ridiculous comparison. Players are paid in regular installments and don’t have an up front outlay of capital to produce in order to reap their financial reward. Pat Bowlen never sold the team, so it was just a capital outlay for him (acknowledging there were almost certainly some cash flow benefits as well, but we don’t get to know what those were). Basic point is that comparing player salaries to the increase in value to an investment is deceptive and rather meaningless.
Ummm, you do realize that if you take the word "player" out of that sentence and substitute the word "worker" that...
literal wars have been fought about something you think is "meaningless."
The comparison is meaningless. I thought I was clear about that. The issue of worker compensation is a different discussion.
No - people compare the return to capital and the return to labor all the time - that comparison has meaning. Enough meaning that yes, wars are fought when the comparison is found to be too unfair.
One has nothing to do with the other. If you want to compare salaries of workers as a percentage of revenues for the company, then that’s a meaningful comparison. The fact that wars are fought over meaningless things should be a surprise to nobody.
But it's not though.
Aside from what @skibum has pointed out, which is deeply relevant and which you keep side stepping as "meaningless", that valuation is based partly upon projected cash flows (which you seem to want to discount entirely). Those cash flows are dependent on the players continuing to put out a high quality of product so that people like you and me continue to spend billions of dollars annually in tickets, jerseys, hats, and other licensed goods.
Even if you want to put it just in terms of "opportunity cost" by the time the players arrive in the league they have put in a huge outlay of capital to ensure that high quality of product for very little return. It's absurd that salaries have not reflected the drastic increase in revenues that the league has experienced since the 80s.
We are talking about two completely different sources of revenue. There’s ongoing cash flow that pays player salaries, and there’s sales proceeds which is what pays for the realized gain in the asset. If you want to make the argument that players should be paid more because revenues are up, go right ahead. I won’t argue that at all. When you say that players should get paid more because the value of the franchise they happen to play for has increased substantially in value, that’s conflating two separate and unrelated issues. Owners of any business will receive financial benefit from the cash flow generated and from the sale of the asset, but they aren’t selling the franchise to pay the employees. So comparing the increase in player salaries to the increase in franchise value is - once again - meaningless. If you want to compare the increase in player salaries on a percentage basis to the increases in franchise REVENUES, then by all means knock yourself out.
Medford M.
Well-Known Member
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
Then make it conference by conference. $11m probably works in the SEC and Big 12 (or whatever's left of it at this point) but the cap for this conference say would probably need to be higher.
I think the only way this works as well is if every P5 member does it. Maybe if you don't you're relegated?
Klatt still reads AllBuffs?
There will always be coaches that create destination programs. The best players will always go to those programs so they have the best chance at the NFL.
CUs problems in regards to hiring and retaining good coaches extends beyond Rick Georges control.
What about the players now being paid? We all suspect that that change is going to have unintended consequences too.
There is a reason the NFL has a player salary cap and a draft rather than a coaching salary cap. The former creates parity, the latter does not.
Unless you can figure out how a college can draft a kid out of high school (hint: you can’t), there will be no parity. Universities can only improve their status by going “all in” on football, but even that has some limits, as the majority of the inherit advantages lies in the southeast. The southeast produces the most talent and the people of that region watch the most football.
As it relates to the PAC 12, the region is producing fewer football players per capita as parents steer their kids away from football and a lot of the immigration into the region doesn’t give a flip about football. People out west are less likely to spend their Saturdays inside watching football and less willing to dump significant dollars into their school’s athletic departments. In the long run, that’s probably healthy.
We are less than five years into cord cutting, and this is going to have a huge impact in the dollars surrounding sports overall. Most of the public is not sports fans or very casual sports fans. They have been subsidizing all sports on an enormous level through cable bundles and exorbitant carriage fees for ESPN and Fox for years. This is ending. And it’s not going to be pretty, especially in a decade when they realize today’s ten year olds don’t consume sports like I did when I was a kid.
Limiting coaching salaries is a nice thought as a way to create parity, but isn’t very feasible (there are so many ways to increase effective compensation. In fact, the entire health care system paid by employers arose in the U.S. because of a tax maneuver to increase comp without increasing salaries). It also doesn’t address parity in players, which largely revolve around regional differences in popularity, demographics, and donations.
@Jens1893 was right in the first five posts. If you want parity, you best find a new sport to watch.
Unless you can figure out how a college can draft a kid out of high school (hint: you can’t), there will be no parity. Universities can only improve their status by going “all in” on football, but even that has some limits, as the majority of the inherit advantages lies in the southeast. The southeast produces the most talent and the people of that region watch the most football.
As it relates to the PAC 12, the region is producing fewer football players per capita as parents steer their kids away from football and a lot of the immigration into the region doesn’t give a flip about football. People out west are less likely to spend their Saturdays inside watching football and less willing to dump significant dollars into their school’s athletic departments. In the long run, that’s probably healthy.
We are less than five years into cord cutting, and this is going to have a huge impact in the dollars surrounding sports overall. Most of the public is not sports fans or very casual sports fans. They have been subsidizing all sports on an enormous level through cable bundles and exorbitant carriage fees for ESPN and Fox for years. This is ending. And it’s not going to be pretty, especially in a decade when they realize today’s ten year olds don’t consume sports like I did when I was a kid.
Limiting coaching salaries is a nice thought as a way to create parity, but isn’t very feasible (there are so many ways to increase effective compensation. In fact, the entire health care system paid by employers arose in the U.S. because of a tax maneuver to increase comp without increasing salaries). It also doesn’t address parity in players, which largely revolve around regional differences in popularity, demographics, and donations.
@Jens1893 was right in the first five posts. If you want parity, you best find a new sport to watch.
If you REALLY love you some Parity, become an MLB fan, where a team going .650 is playoff bound and the manager is God, and a team going .450 is garbage and the manager is on the hot seat or already gone. I know, the nature of the two sports is totally different and the parity in baseball is baked into the sport itself, but that's a natural parity and it's cool. Doesn't have to be configured or artificially constructed. When I was young I thought baseball sucked because of that. Later in life I realized that's one of the beauties of the sport.
The old bowl system was probably the best thing for parity, and I warned people at the time that the BCS system, and later the playoffs, would severely damage the game.
My solution would be to start a western super league of 26 teams in football, and maybe 40 in basketball. Control 100% of media rights, and let media execs and advertisers know that if you want to reach anyone west of Omaha, you need to deal with us.
- Prior to 1995, teams in the southeast really didn’t win a lot of championships (other than Alabama).
- The 1996 Gators, the Spurrier-coached group that went 12–1 and produced a Heisman Trophy quarterback, is the last first-time national champion in college football. Twenty five years ago!!!
- Beginning in 1998, the first year of the BCS and the dawn of the era when national championships are decided on the field and not in the polls, six teams have combined to win 74% of the championships: Alabama (6), LSU (3), Clemson (2), Florida State (2), Florida (2) and Ohio State (2).
- In the last 23 years, just 17 teams have qualified for the 46 spots in championship games.
- The Playoff era, which began with the 2014 season, made things worse. Four teams—Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State and Oklahoma—have accounted for 20 of the 28 playoff spots (71%), and the Tide, Tigers and Buckeyes have combined for 11 of the possible 14 championship game berths.
- In a study from MaxPreps, seven programs have signed 55% of the five-star prospects since 2011. They include LSU, Alabama, Clemson, Florida State, Ohio State, USC, and Georgia. And USC has faltered of late.
My solution would be to start a western super league of 26 teams in football, and maybe 40 in basketball. Control 100% of media rights, and let media execs and advertisers know that if you want to reach anyone west of Omaha, you need to deal with us.
Kuratz
Well-Known Member
In a year filled with upsets including an irrelevant Clemson and early losses by Ohio St and Alabama it’s looking like we will be left with no newcomers to the CFP. Barring a Michigan upset or some other unlikely result we could have Georgia-Alabama-Ohio St and Oregon/Oklahoma/Notre Dame. You just know the committee won’t put in Cinci unless each of the above is sitting with 2 losses and I don’t see Wake getting the nod even if they are a one loss ACC champion. Same with Okie St. Just feels like they are all-in on choosing the biggest brands as tiebreakers which in turn solidifies those same programs in recruiting etc. This is a huge bummer.
Klatt is 100% right. CFB desperately needs to expand the CFB to at least 8 so that we get a little more variety and less subjectivity.
Klatt is 100% right. CFB desperately needs to expand the CFB to at least 8 so that we get a little more variety and less subjectivity.
Oklahoma and Notre Dame aren’t getting in ahead of Cincy
If you really want to make a dent in wins and losses coaches pay is not it. What would work imho is reducing scholarships based on success. Much like the NFL team that wins the SB drafts last, the college team that wins it all has the least scholarships to give that march (symbolic, i know). Whereas the worst teams would have the most scholarships. Base it largely on win loss records.
This actually isn't a terrible idea.
NIL renders it competely ineffective, but prior to nil it actually would have worked.