Started By
Message
re: The NCAA is a total failure
Posted on 7/13/24 at 1:54 pm to 3down10
Posted on 7/13/24 at 1:54 pm to 3down10
quote:
I had a feeling you would try to make this claim while pretending that the money they are given isn't distributed to the conferences/teams
Then I'm sorry to have disappointed you by not "pretending" this.
Nobody is arguing the schools don't get a rev share or give out scholarships so I'm not sure who you're arguing with.
1
Posted on 7/13/24 at 2:03 pm to jonnyanony
quote:
Then I'm sorry to have disappointed you by not "pretending" this.
Nobody is arguing the schools don't get a rev share or give out scholarships so I'm not sure who you're arguing with.
The numbers people quote for the NCAA revenue of the multi billions are not based solely on the money you linked about, they include the total revenue of all schools.
And those same schools are the ones who issue the scholarships.
All you did was take out a small part of that revenue and claim it was to the NCAA because of how the money is funneled.
If there was any point to be made it's that the scholarship number is based on what the schools themselves are charging, and that while the revenue is somewhat even with the scholarship numbers, the actual money is more loaded towards the top teams, while the scholarship money is based on schools who get very little of that money. So there is not a direct link between the 2 costs.
Because as I previously pointed out, the majority of schools lose money on sports. Only about 60 schools are in the black among hundreds in the NCAA. Most survive because of donations.
Posted on 7/13/24 at 2:23 pm to 3down10
quote:
I'm not sure what you mean for providing a framework for conferences and schools to pay them. There is nothing that limits the NCAA/schools from doing this anytime they want. They could do that at any time, there aren't any restrictions.
Is it in somehow defining their minimums? I guess I can see it in that way. However, are we now going to go around to every company and demand they pay their employees a % of the revenue as defined by a court settlement?
And are you allowed to give some players a higher %?
Payment allocation coming from the settlement will be left up to the school. College football is generating most of the revenue even at a lot of blueblood basketball schools. Schools can reward each player and team accordingly.
It should make sense that athletes and teams who are generating the most money would get the greatest economic return going forward, as well as backward. That's true of men's sports and it's true of women's. NIL deals will still favor the highest revenue-generating athletes. That's more than fair too.
Posted on 7/13/24 at 2:27 pm to 3down10
quote:
Because as I previously pointed out, the majority of schools lose money on sports.
You seem to think this means something. The NCAA doesn't lose money, nor does half their contribution to schools make the schools even in aggregate.
If you're arguing they should give more back to the schools then we agree. But it looks like you're now just saying some schools lose money, which ... OK?
Posted on 7/13/24 at 2:29 pm to 3down10
quote:
All you did was take out a small part of that revenue and claim it was to the NCAA because of how the money is funneled.
I did not claim this and frankly it doesn't make any sense.
Posted on 7/13/24 at 2:34 pm to jonnyanony
quote:
You seem to think this means something. The NCAA doesn't lose money, nor does half their contribution to schools make the schools even in aggregate.
If you're arguing they should give more back to the schools then we agree. But it looks like you're now just saying some schools lose money, which ... OK?
It does mean something. It highlights the actual issues with the NCAA, not the crap you keep claiming.
And it's not so much that I think the smaller schools should be given more, it's that the NCAA tries to make rules and regulations that apply to them all.
As with most things, some control needs to decentralized.
What the organization the NCAA keeps itself isn't of any concern. They do have to pay for things, hire people, etc.
Posted on 7/13/24 at 2:59 pm to 3down10
quote:
It highlights the actual issues with the NCAA, not the crap you keep claiming.
The crap I am claiming is playing out in real time. Feel free to share the "actual issues," I'm sure they're valid, but I doubt they're comprehensive.
College football was king in the 1920s when Red Grange left school early and the 3-year rule became defacto ever after, finally formalized in the 90s. During that time, both sports grew and benefited, and the players were forced to enrich college football while the NFL got a free developmental league. In the mean time, the NCAA not only prevented players from making money off their labor, name, and likeness, they punished them. To pretend this was some altruistic system is incredibly naive.
I'm certainly glad their party is over. If they had allowed players who had no interest in college to play professional football we'd have a better system in college. NIL wouldn't be a loophole for recruiting, players who actually wanted to go to college could, and the whole thing wouldn't have turned into the heap of shite it is today.
Posted on 7/13/24 at 3:16 pm to jonnyanony
quote:
College football was king in the 1920s when Red Grange left school early and the 3-year rule became defacto ever after, finally formalized in the 90s. During that time, both sports grew and benefited, and the players were forced to enrich college football while the NFL got a free developmental league. In the mean time, the NCAA not only prevented players from making money off their labor, name, and likeness, they punished them. To pretend this was some altruistic system is incredibly naive.
Again, this is all made up bullshite.
The NCAA has 0 leverage over the NFL. It was not a big business sport and the interest in the sport overall was limited.
And there is no rule that says they have to go to college for 3 years. The NFL, just like most every other professional company in the world, just doesn't want kids straight out of high school.
Posted on 7/13/24 at 3:19 pm to 3down10
quote:
Again, this is all made up bullshite.
Not at all. Well documented. A little history lesson: LINK
quote:
The NCAA has 0 leverage over the NFL.
When the arrangements were first formed, they had all the leverage. It took about forty years for that to shift. From the article:
quote:
Just six days after playing his final college game in front 85,000 at the massive Horseshoe of Ohio Stadium, Grange strapped into his Bears uniform for the first time. While the attendance at Wrigley Field in Chicago had been 7,500 the game prior to Grange's arrival
It took until the late 60s for the NFL to overtake NCAA football.
Posted on 7/13/24 at 3:20 pm to jonnyanony
quote:
The Grange-era of the NFL exploded onto the sporting scene and the league got its first taste of cultural legitimacy. Instantaneously the newspapers were covering the Bears as if the professional game . As a consequence of the NFL's immediate rule changes to appease the outraged universities, Grange became the last athlete to compete both in a college and professional football game in the same season.
This post was edited on 7/13/24 at 3:21 pm
Posted on 7/13/24 at 3:44 pm to jonnyanony
quote:
Not at all. Well documented. A little history lesson: LINK
Article does not support your claims.
quote:
When the arrangements were first formed, they had all the leverage. It took about forty years for that to shift. From the article:
The agreement you are claiming to be formed was not formed, nor was it an agreement.
An agreement is something between 2 parties.
Posted on 7/13/24 at 3:46 pm to jonnyanony
quote:
The Grange-era of the NFL exploded onto the sporting scene and the league got its first taste of cultural legitimacy. Instantaneously the newspapers were covering the Bears as if the professional game . As a consequence of the NFL's immediate rule changes to appease the outraged universities, Grange became the last athlete to compete both in a college and professional football game in the same season.
You highlighted the wrong part.
The parts you should have highlighted was "in the same season", which has nothing to do with a 3 year rule you are claiming.
Furthermore, it said appease, rather than agreement. Although if they were to appease anyone, it was the media.
From the article, I'm more interested in which "selector" they are claiming was going on in the early 20s.
quote:
Several selectors had split the 1923 national championship between Illinois and Michigan after the two undefeated Big Ten teams had not met during the regular season.
As I'm unaware of any such selectors existed at that time.
This post was edited on 7/13/24 at 3:49 pm
Posted on 7/13/24 at 3:56 pm to 3down10
quote:
The parts you should have highlighted was "in the same season", which has nothing to do with a 3 year rule you are claiming.
Yes, I'm giving you the starting point, and showing why the NCAA did, in fact, have leverage.
It's just the start. The NFL instituted a defacto 3-year rule in the 1960s and formalized it in the 1990s. This was all to do exactly what I said: give a free developmental league to the NFL and allow the NCAA to protect their product.
Along the way they fought players every way possible. To pretend otherwise is inexplicable.
Fast forward and the courts are finally siding with the players. Not necessarily liberal ones, as it was Sotomayor that ruled with the NCAA when Maurice Clarett was shut down in the early 2000s.
Posted on 7/13/24 at 3:57 pm to jonnyanony
quote:
Yes, I'm giving you the starting point, and showing why the NCAA did, in fact, have leverage.
The NCAA didn't have anything to do with it.
Posted on 7/13/24 at 8:32 pm to Arkyologist
There’s a saying in the market. Bulls make money. Pigs get slaughtered.
The NCAA had a gold mine but they didn’t keep the students best interest in their mission and primary purpose.
Now we are wondering why they are inept. They’re inept because they never had the right focus to begin with.
The NCAA had a gold mine but they didn’t keep the students best interest in their mission and primary purpose.
Now we are wondering why they are inept. They’re inept because they never had the right focus to begin with.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News