Started By
Message
re: NCAA official response to CA: State’s 58 member schools would be ineligible to compete
Posted on 10/1/19 at 12:39 pm to 00 Tech Grad
Posted on 10/1/19 at 12:39 pm to 00 Tech Grad
Other States are following CA. The end of the NCAA is coming.
You can't have coaches make 75 million and don't let the players benefit from their imagen. Its hypocricy at its finest.
Of course it changes the entire structure of the game and it may not ever be the same; but it was fun while it lasted.
This is not a new issue, but its the closest it has been to reaching the point of no return. A book called “The one hundred yard lie” that came out a long time ago proposed something along the lines of this: Let major universities Host pro teams that can use school colors, in conjunction with the NFL. Amongst compensation players can earn future scholarships when their playing days end but don’t have to hypocritically pretend to be students. After 4 year they even move to the big league or are done at this level.
All other schools can field legitimate college teams closer to what the lower divisions or other sports do. Real students, real college coaches not the mercenaries that run the sport like Saban.
It won’t be the same but the current state of affairs has endured more than it should have to be honest.
You can't have coaches make 75 million and don't let the players benefit from their imagen. Its hypocricy at its finest.
Of course it changes the entire structure of the game and it may not ever be the same; but it was fun while it lasted.
This is not a new issue, but its the closest it has been to reaching the point of no return. A book called “The one hundred yard lie” that came out a long time ago proposed something along the lines of this: Let major universities Host pro teams that can use school colors, in conjunction with the NFL. Amongst compensation players can earn future scholarships when their playing days end but don’t have to hypocritically pretend to be students. After 4 year they even move to the big league or are done at this level.
All other schools can field legitimate college teams closer to what the lower divisions or other sports do. Real students, real college coaches not the mercenaries that run the sport like Saban.
It won’t be the same but the current state of affairs has endured more than it should have to be honest.
1
Posted on 10/1/19 at 12:40 pm to nicholastiger
quote:
The problem with the NCAA is they are trying to govern between unlike divisions and unlike sports. Women sports and men sports should be separate to begin with. Why football and basketball (some baseball) have to fund all these other sports is ridiculous to begin with. Most athletic departments will run a deficit if this passes. Think of all the lawsuits that will come from all athletes that can't profit off their own and only a handful actually will be able to benefit from that.
The NCAA has absolutely nothing to do with what you just said.
That is 100% the result of government mandated extension of Title IX which has slowly been broadened every administration until this one.
That being said, this 90% the fault of the NCAA from focusing on limiting player benefits while fully supporting the what I consider excessive benefits to the coaches and universities. They should have reigned this in decades ago, but they didn't and they are about to lose their relevance.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 12:42 pm to 00 Tech Grad
As well they should. College players are supposed to be amateurs. California politicians have just about bankrupted their state, and now they are trying to bankrupt their educational system.
But that's okay...they can always ask the federal government to bail them out.
But that's okay...they can always ask the federal government to bail them out.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 12:47 pm to DivePlay
quote:
That being said, this 90% the fault of the NCAA from focusing on limiting player benefits while fully supporting the what I consider excessive benefits to the coaches and universities.
The NCAA has nothing to do with "excessive benefits" of coaches. I am assuming you mean pay. Is it excessive? yes. But that is on the universities athletic departments, not on the NCAA. As for "excessive benefits" for the universities? The majority of the money taken in by football goes to support all of the other sports the universities provide. Some even go into the academic coffers.
People have the mistaken notion that they are swimming in money because of huge television deals, and large ticket prices. This simply isn't the case.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 12:48 pm to AuburnTigers
quote:
Of course all of the top athletes will then go to the ones offering money and boom. Bye bye NCAA and amateurism
But those will not be the same schools. Say in basketball, the "haves" will form a league that will pay. However that league will only consist of 10-15 teams, with the rest staying in the ncaa. Those 10-15 teams will have lower TV ratings, even when they have their championship game. The ncaa will still have March Madness that will have huge ratings.
Football will have about the same thing.
So the California schools have a choice between the two leagues, and most California schools will choose the ncaa
Posted on 10/1/19 at 12:56 pm to Lonnie Utah
quote:
With $1,000,000,000 in revenue for 2017...
The majority of the revenue came from its usual source -- the NCAA men's basketball tournament. The NCAA pulled in $761 million from the 2017 NCAA tournament. That number is set to rise to $869 million this year.
However if you are not in the ncaa, you will not be invited. Members only........ if California does not want their schools to be in the ncaa, it just means room for other schools, and the ncaa still has this....
Posted on 10/1/19 at 12:58 pm to 00 Tech Grad
California just started their own semi pro football league.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:12 pm to Lonnie Utah
quote:
With $1,000,000,000 in revenue for 2017...
Today’s research topic is the difference between revenue and profit.
Hint: They are not the same thing.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:13 pm to AirbusDawg
quote:WHY? If a school intends to brake the NCAA's amateurism rules and allow athletes to get paid, then why the hell would the school adhere to any limits on the # of players on a team?
States will also see this as a big money grab for them. Imagine all the tax revenue we can get off these college athletes now? More money is the name of the game for the government.
I guess when you really think about it. How many running backs and quarterbacks can a team have? You will still be limited in the number of players you can have on your team. Maybe it will regulate itself. If I am a 5 star QB and go to this school where they already have two 5 stars, why would I go there? The NCAA would have to crack down on transfers. Otherwise, you would have a player wanting to go to the team that offers him the most every year.
I don't think an NCAA member school is allowed to pick and choose which rules they want to operate under are they?
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:22 pm to LB84
quote:
Tennessee and Nebraska used to be national powers. Clemson was a national laughing stock. Things change
And why, pray tell, did those things change?
quote:
The reason Bama is the monster it has been is because the university funnels money into facilities and they have Saban.
A&M has dumped more money into its facilities and hired a championship winning coach and is nowhere close to achieving what Bama has achieved. Same can be said for Georgia.
Bama is what it is because it was the first to invest in Saban’s totalitarian approach to managing a football program with total buy in from donors and total approval from the university
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:25 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
College players are supposed to be amateurs.
Or at least that’s what the universities said they should be back in the 1930s when ringers were still a huge problem and again in the 1950s when the question of paying out workers comp to players came up and it was all but screamed in the late 80s when all of a sudden conferences and schools were finally free to negotiate their own tv deals after the NCAA got hit with their first antitrust suit and the influx of money really began.
Fact of the matter is that this elephant has been in the room since the day the first tv contract was signed; there is more money in college sports now than ever before and the labor market has every right to demand equal access to compete for those dollars
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:29 pm to 00 Tech Grad
I always laugh at the people who think the NFL is worried about this. They’re licking their chops.
Kill college athletics, which is essentially what’s going to happen, and their product becomes that much more profitable. Not to mention a “farm system” for the NFL is viable now, it just wouldn’t be profitable enough for them to bother with because it would be competing directly with CFB.. Continue with this nonsense and you’ll see them go all in and have NFL-B, and probably NFL-C, which would both be a money making entity with college football being nothing more than club level amongst each state, possibly region. If this comes down, 95% of these guys will end up making 50K for 2-3 years before flaming out and then they’re back in their hometown only without a college degree this time.
Roger Goodell and the owners are sitting back praying this all comes to fruition, and at the end of the day it’s only going to benefit the top 2-3% of the players.
Kill college athletics, which is essentially what’s going to happen, and their product becomes that much more profitable. Not to mention a “farm system” for the NFL is viable now, it just wouldn’t be profitable enough for them to bother with because it would be competing directly with CFB.. Continue with this nonsense and you’ll see them go all in and have NFL-B, and probably NFL-C, which would both be a money making entity with college football being nothing more than club level amongst each state, possibly region. If this comes down, 95% of these guys will end up making 50K for 2-3 years before flaming out and then they’re back in their hometown only without a college degree this time.
Roger Goodell and the owners are sitting back praying this all comes to fruition, and at the end of the day it’s only going to benefit the top 2-3% of the players.
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 1:33 pm
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:33 pm to real_gator8
quote:
College football isn't a money making machine for the schools...they don't make profits. The $$ goes to all the other sports also including Title 9.
It's amazing how the "expenses" seem to mirror the revenues for all these schools...
Couldn't possibly be because schools mirror their expense budget based on the revenues they bring in...
The average of the top 50 schools by revenue... $128,698,807 - with over 5M in average profit...
I think the law is silly, but it's laughable to pretend like the universities *aren't* profiting at the expense of a subset that has no viable alternative to market their athletic prowess in the sport.
As mentioned before... the more reasonable target for anti-trust/discrimination suit would be the NFL's CBA preventing HS players from going pro (as is possible in MLB, and has been possible in the NBA).
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:35 pm to fibonaccisquared
LSU returns 10-20 million dollars a year from athletic (non-taxpayer) revenue to education, and education is still sucking wind. Just wait til these states start having to fund those gaps with taxpayer money.
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 1:37 pm
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:40 pm to JustGetItRight
quote:
Today’s research topic is the difference between revenue and profit.
Tomorrow’s lesson is in how organizations can mask profit distributions in the form of salaries and capital investments. See hospitals.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:42 pm to RB10
quote:
Kill college athletics, which is essentially what’s going to happen, and their product becomes that much more profitable.
Can you break down in what way college athletics will be killed and how it makes the NFL more profitable?
quote:
Not to mention a “farm system” for the NFL is viable now, it just wouldn’t be profitable enough for them to bother with because it would be competing directly with CFB..
CFB is already a no cost farm system for the NFL. How does letting players sign endorsement deals in college change that?
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:44 pm to 00 Tech Grad
Exactly... There's so much nuance to the revenues brought in and where the funds end up (not to mention in exorbitant coaching salaries)... To act like the universities aren't benefiting financially is just willfully ignorant or comically stupid to begin with...
Ultimately, I'm not even against the endorsement idea... I think there are some safeguards/caps that should probably be put in place initially and I really like the idea that any compensation would more or less be put in Escrow with a 401k/IRA like investment format, with the gains to be paid out when the student completes their degree or moves on from the university...
Ultimately, I'm not even against the endorsement idea... I think there are some safeguards/caps that should probably be put in place initially and I really like the idea that any compensation would more or less be put in Escrow with a 401k/IRA like investment format, with the gains to be paid out when the student completes their degree or moves on from the university...
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:46 pm to RB10
quote:
Kill college athletics, which is essentially what’s going to happen, and their product becomes that much more profitable. Not to mention a “farm system” for the NFL is viable now, it just wouldn’t be profitable enough for them to bother with because it would be competing directly with CFB.. Continue with this nonsense and you’ll see them go all in and have NFL-B, and probably NFL-C, which would both be a money making entity with college football being nothing more than club level amongst each state, possibly region. If this comes down, 95% of these guys will end up making 50K for 2-3 years before flaming out and then they’re back in their hometown only without a college degree this time.
Right now the NFL has a 255 team Farm System that costs them nothing. They have no interest in messing that up.
Minor league teams are really a profitable venture for MLB and NBA teams they are about developing prospects.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:53 pm to Todd O'Connor
quote:
ight now the NFL has a 255 team Farm System that costs them nothing. They have no interest in messing that up.
The only reason the NFL hasn’t already created a farm system isn’t because they get “free” service from CFB, it’s because they can’t make money off of it.
Open the door for the NFL to make a profit on a B league and they will absolutely make it happen. The NFL is run by businessmen. They will take every opportunity given to make more money.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:54 pm to tylerdurden24
quote:
Fact of the matter is that this elephant has been in the room since the day the first tv contract was signed; there is more money in college sports now than ever before and the labor market has every right to demand equal access to compete for those dollars
Come on, man. They are compensated with an education. Anybody that says it isn't enough needs to look around and see how many other college students are making around $40,000 a year.
I promise you this...if they start paying football players a lot of other sports will be eliminated. Colleges will not be able to afford to support other sports with football dollars anymore. College athletics will either go away, or ticket prices will go up substantially.
Smaller schools will drop football and most other sports because the athletics departments will not be able to support the sports.
Page 5 of 7
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News