Article about the combined effects of NIL/Portal

[phatcat]

Not a lot new here, and he goes down the rabbit hole of expanded playoffs (hashtag Idontcare), but I like how he crystallizes the combined NIL/Portal effects. I won't backpedal away from my position that the players deserve compensation. They are the entertainment. Nobody buys a ticket to a play to see the Director. However, NIL and Free Agency (oops Portal) essentially sanction what was heretofore illegal behavior - bribery and tampering. The NCAA is a toothless beast that can't do anything, so I don't see it changing. The top programs - i.e., the ones with the most money/boosters, not the winningest programs) will succeed by legally inducing essentially all of the top talent to go play there.

I hear occasionally about NU's "wealthy alums", but very few of them care about sports. In fact, the top programs have the advantage of having 10-50x as many FANS, whether or not they are alums. It doesn't matter if the program is recently successful, a place like Nebraska has a gigantic advantage over us, or any other school with few followers. These enormous programs will (informally) have lists of boosters lined up to sponsor their entire team, and it is an arms race in which we cannot hope to compete. As a former fan of the Cleveland Indians, I am accustomed to following a small market professional team, who had to compete based on better management and player development to compete against the large market teams. Unlike MLB, though, you don't have "control" of a CFB player for any time at all. A kid might have a 400 yard passing game (hypothetically, in Jake's offense) and transfer the next day.

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[FeralFelidae]

I won't backpedal away from my position that the players deserve compensation. They are the entertainment.

I would have played football at NU for a free education.

 

[CaliforniaCat]

...I won't backpedal away from my position that the players deserve compensation. They are the entertainment. ...

Then you don't understand the real purpose of college athletics.

At least not the way it is supposed to be.

And the way it was until recently when greed and money started taking over.

 

[RhabdoWildcat]

Then you don't understand the real purpose of college athletics.

At least not the way it is supposed to be.

And the way it was until recently when greed and money started taking over.

Unless you go back to the pre-WWII days, college football has always been about greed and money.

The way it is supposed to be are club teams with no scholarships playing as an extracurricular.

 

[CaliforniaCat]

Unless you go back to the pre-WWII days, college football has always been about greed and money.

The way it is supposed to be are club teams with no scholarships playing as an extracurricular.

That's simply not true as far as the players are concerned. It has not been about greed and money to them until very recently.

Yes, it is true that TV revenues have brought a lot of money into colleges over the years. But that has not been all bad. Football and basketball help to fund some of the other sports that don't bring in the same kind of money and would suffer without it.

But it is only recently that the players have been submitted to the corruption of being paid beyond their well-deserved scholarships. There is no need for this and nothing good about it.

 

[Bweiny]

Yes, it is true that TV revenues have brought a lot of money into colleges over the years. But that has not been all bad. Football and basketball help to fund some of the other sports that don't bring in the same kind of money and would suffer without it.

I've never understood this argument. Why the hell is it good for underpayment of football players to subsidize the overpayment of other athletes? Non-revenue sports should be funded more by donations, fees and revenue other than surplus football money thanks to an artificial cap on player compensation.

 

[RhabdoWildcat]

That's simply not true as far as the players are concerned. It has not been about greed and money to them until very recently.

Yes, it is true that TV revenues have brought a lot of money into colleges over the years. But that has not been all bad. Football and basketball help to fund some of the other sports that don't bring in the same kind of money and would suffer without it.

But it is only recently that the players have been submitted to the corruption of being paid beyond their well-deserved scholarships. There is no need for this and nothing good about it.

Yes massa.

 

[StreamCat]

Yes massa.

Oh, geez, I don’t recall slaves getting a top-notch education. It was illegal.
Slavery was too onerous to make this ludicrous comparison.

 

[techtim72]

Would there be the same pressure on paying players if coaches' salaries were less in major college football? Seems to me that aside from the coaching salaries the revenues either go into facilities for players, player expenses including tuition, the athletic department or other general operating expenses. To strike a balance, if possible, improving player financial support and capping coaches salaries might be a good compromise to maintain some semblance of the student athlete construct.

 

[FeralFelidae]

Would there be the same pressure on paying players if coaches' salaries were less in major college football? Seems to me that aside from the coaching salaries the revenues either go into facilities for players, player expenses including tuition, the athletic department or other general operating expenses. To strike a balance, if possible, improving player financial support and capping coaches salaries might be a good compromise to maintain some semblance of the student athlete construct.

Since, at least at the public schools, these are state employees, then the states themselves could certainly ask questions about why the highest-paid state employees are football coaches.

 

[KappaKat]

Since, at least at the public schools, these are state employees, then the states themselves could certainly ask questions about why the highest-paid state employees are football coaches.

That was litigated 50 years ago.

 

[CaliforniaCat]

I've never understood this argument. Why the hell is it good for underpayment of football players to subsidize the overpayment of other athletes? Non-revenue sports should be funded more by donations, fees and revenue other than surplus football money thanks to an artificial cap on player compensation.

Underpayment? Artificial cap on player compensation? Are you serious?

Full ride scholarships worth hundreds of thousands of dollars cannot seriously be considered an underpayment for a student to get a complete college education while participating in a sport that he enjoys.

 

[CaliforniaCat]

Yes massa.

Stupid comment.

 

[KappaKat]

That's simply not true as far as the players are concerned. It has not been about greed and money to them until very recently.

Yes, it is true that TV revenues have brought a lot of money into colleges over the years. But that has not been all bad. Football and basketball help to fund some of the other sports that don't bring in the same kind of money and would suffer without it.

But it is only recently that the players have been submitted to the corruption of being paid beyond their well-deserved scholarships. There is no need for this and nothing good about it.

Recently, as in 40 years ago??

 

[Bweiny]

Since, at least at the public schools, these are state employees, then the states themselves could certainly ask questions about why the highest-paid state employees are football coaches.

The state is the employer for usually something like $500k of the total annual compensation, the rest is from booster clubs. So oversight of public spending isn't the threat to coaching salaries it could seem to be.

 

[Bweiny]

Underpayment? Artificial cap on player compensation? Are you serious?

Full ride scholarships worth hundreds of thousands of dollars cannot seriously be considered an underpayment for a student to get a complete college education while participating in a sport that he enjoys.

I'm dead serious. It's per se underpayment since the value they produce far exceeds what is spent on them. It is instead spent subsidizing other sports and a coaching salary market that is inflated by the excess revenue not paid to the players. It's as clear as day.

 

[phatcat]

Scholarships are a scam. NU is generous with aid, and the players put in so much time over the year that a regular job, instead of breaking their bodies, would cover the Estimated Family Contribution.

 

[FeralFelidae]

I'm dead serious. It's per se underpayment since the value they produce far exceeds what is spent on them. It is instead spent subsidizing other sports and a coaching salary market that is inflated by the excess revenue not paid to the players. It's as clear as day.

Should the non-revenue sports not be funded? All those scholarship opportunities for the women go poof?

 

[FeralFelidae]

The state is the employer for usually something like $500k of the total annual compensation, the rest is from booster clubs. So oversight of public spending isn't the threat to coaching salaries it could seem to be.

Who signs their paychecks?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...id-public-employees-in-every-state/114091534/

 

[CaliforniaCat]

Would there be the same pressure on paying players if coaches' salaries were less in major college football? Seems to me that aside from the coaching salaries the revenues either go into facilities for players, player expenses including tuition, the athletic department or other general operating expenses. To strike a balance, if possible, improving player financial support and capping coaches salaries might be a good compromise to maintain some semblance of the student athlete construct.

Why do coaches' salaries have anything at all to do with this?

Coaches are part of the organization, and as such their compensation is whatever the management of that organization sees fit to pay them. Some university employees have special skills that are difficult to match and can garner salaries commensurate with those skills.

Students, whether competing in athletics or not, are part of the customer base for the university. Students are not employees. For most students it is necessary to pay the university for the educational services they receive.

For those that can contribute something extra to the university during their tenure the schools compensate them with scholarships. Free rides.

Now you are going to tell me that due to the talents and participation of some of the athletes, particularly in football and basketball, the university is able to gain significant revenue from ticket sales and TV contracts.

So what? The amount of money doesn't change any of the basic relationships between students, athletes or not, and the university.

 

[CaliforniaCat]

Recently, as in 40 years ago??

I don't recall this being an issue for us until Kain Colter made it one about 10 years ago.

 

[CaliforniaCat]

I'm dead serious. It's per se underpayment since the value they produce far exceeds what is spent on them. It is instead spent subsidizing other sports and a coaching salary market that is inflated by the excess revenue not paid to the players. It's as clear as day.

You don't seem to be able to understand the difference between employees and customers.

Students, varsity athletes or not, are clearly customers of the university. There is no other possible way to categorize them. They are not, and cannot in any way, be categorized as employees.

As in any enterprise, the organization has the ability to treat different customers in different ways. Special customers can receive special consideration. Special deals. It's done all the time. This is no different.

The fact that footballs players are involved in activities that bring extra revenue into the university is immaterial. It doesn't change anything regardless of the amount of that revenue.

 

[kawacko]

I would have played football at NU for a free education.

I did and no regrets.

 

[Bweiny]

Should the non-revenue sports not be funded? All those scholarship opportunities for the women go poof?

If schools value those teams they should get donations and student fees to support most of their budget. A portion should come from revenue sports, but the teams shouldn't exist primarily because there's a pile of football money that has to be spent on anything but additional compensation to football players.

 

[Bweiny]

You don't seem to be able to understand the difference between employees and customers.

We disagree, it's okay. I think your statement has it backwards and that scholarship football players are employees that NU seeks out for their skills so they can help NU achieve a desired goal. They're not customers because that would imply anybody can be one if they chose, but that isn't the case. They're the labor bringing in millions for NU, and their compensation is artificially capped.

 

[CaliforniaCat]

We disagree, it's okay. I think your statement has it backwards and that scholarship football players are employees that NU seeks out for their skills so they can help NU achieve a desired goal. They're not customers because that would imply anybody can be one if they chose, but that isn't the case. They're the labor bringing in millions for NU, and their compensation is artificially capped.

I don't see how you can possibly make the case that a student, any student, varsity athlete or not, is an employee of the university. It defies any reasonable definition of a university.

And students, all students, are very definitely customers. The fact that an enterprise only has a limited amount of room for new customers does not change anything. If you go to a restaurant or a hotel and they are already filled up to capacity with other customers, you can't get in. Same thing here.

 

[Bweiny]

I don't see how you can possibly make the case that a student, any student, varsity athlete or not, is an employee of the university. It defies any reasonable definition of a university.

They're employees of the football team, which falls under the university. They're producers, not consumers in that context.

 

[CaliforniaCat]

They're employees of the football team, which falls under the university. They're producers, not consumers in that context.

That's ridiculous. The football team is not an entity with employees.

Coaches, assistance, trainers, etc., are all employees of the university. That is the entity that pays them. Not the football team.

And student athletes, are students first. They have to be admitted to the school as students and maintain that student status in order to participate in sports.

Nothing could be clearer.

 

[Bweiny]

That's ridiculous. The football team is not an entity with employees.

Coaches, assistance, trainers, etc., are all employees of the university. That is the entity that pays them. Not the football team.

And student athletes, are students first. They have to be admitted to the school as students and maintain that student status in order to participate in sports.

Nothing could be clearer.

The part about the team not being a separate entity for purposes of employment is why I describe them as employees of NU in substance. If they spent the same amount of time on a different wing of the university that generated the amount of money football does and was headed by someone paid as much as Fitz, they would obviously be considered employees.

You're addressing the issue from a position that made sense 30 years ago, but B1G football is too big of a business for "student athlete" to still fly.

 

[CaliforniaCat]

You still don't seem to be able to distinguish between employees and students. And that is the crux of your problem. Unfortunately, money has taken over your thinking on this matter.

Consider this. A student who is an excellent musician receives a full ride scholarship to major in music. The student is expected to play in concerts given by the music school as part of the deal. The music school charges an admittance fee to anyone who attends the concerts.

Should the student get part of that fee on top of the scholarship amount?

And is that student now an employee of the university because a fee was charged to people attending the concert?

 

[Bweiny]

Consider this. A student who is an excellent musician receives a full ride scholarship to major in music. The student is expected to play in concerts given by the music school as part of the deal. The music school charges an admittance fee to anyone who attends the concerts.

Should the student get part of that fee on top of the scholarship amount?

If the performances were organized and televised on the scale of B1G football, they absolutely should receive some of the proceeds from the production. Whether the time and location of their practice is controlled by the school to meet the test of employment vs independent contractor, as we know football is, would be the only thing remaining.

 

[WildcatWillie]

That's ridiculous. The football team is not an entity with employees.

Coaches, assistance, trainers, etc., are all employees of the university. That is the entity that pays them. Not the football team.

And student athletes, are students first. They have to be admitted to the school as students and maintain that student status in order to participate in sports.

Nothing could be clearer.

Couldn't agree more but sadly, that ship has surely long since sailed. And when the history is ultimately written, I suspect Kain Colter will be mentioned as a voice in re-defining the concept of "student athlete."

 

[CaliforniaCat]

If the performances were organized and televised on the scale of B1G football, they absolutely should receive some of the proceeds from the production. Whether the time and location of their practice is controlled by the school to meet the test of employment vs independent contractor, as we know football is, would be the only thing remaining.

So, this whole thing depends on the amount of money. Not on any other criteria or principles.

Let's say that the revenue from a football game just covered the basic costs. Would the players still be entitled to get some additional money beyond their scholarships and living expenses. If so, how much?

Certainly, an employee is entitled to a salary whether the company makes money or not.

And what about smaller schools that don't receive much additional money from their games. Should those football players get paid a salary as well?

 

[RhabdoWildcat]

Stupid comment.

Ok boomer

 

[RhabdoWildcat]

Underpayment? Artificial cap on player compensation? Are you serious?

Full ride scholarships worth hundreds of thousands of dollars cannot seriously be considered an underpayment for a student to get a complete college education while participating in a sport that he enjoys.

Definitely underpayment. They are revenue generating entities and should be compensated fairly.

 

[RhabdoWildcat]

You still don't seem to be able to distinguish between employees and students. And that is the crux of your problem. Unfortunately, money has taken over your thinking on this matter.

Consider this. A student who is an excellent musician receives a full ride scholarship to major in music. The student is expected to play in concerts given by the music school as part of the deal. The music school charges an admittance fee to anyone who attends the concerts.

Should the student get part of that fee on top of the scholarship amount?

And is that student now an employee of the university because a fee was charged to people attending the concert?

Yes. The music student should be compensated. We have allowed universities get away with too much. Free loading tax free entities.

 

[FeralFelidae]

If schools value those teams they should get donations and student fees to support most of their budget. A portion should come from revenue sports, but the teams shouldn't exist primarily because there's a pile of football money that has to be spent on anything but additional compensation to football players.

Student fees? If I'm a customer, as CaliforniaCat points out, forking over tens of thousands per year to pay for my education, why am I being asked to fork over student fees to pay for other people to get scholarships for non-revenue sports?

Universities exist to educate. Athletic scholarships give opportunities to people to earn an education without forking over tens of thousands of dollars. The revenue sports serve the mission of the university, to educate people, by funding opportunities for women in the non-revenue sports.

If college athletics ceases to be about education opportunities, then I have no interest in whatever the remaining professional college athletes are doing. I already have a favorite professional team.

 

[CaliforniaCat]

Yes. The music student should be compensated. We have allowed universities get away with too much. Free loading tax free entities.

So, according to your thinking universities are no longer places of higher education, but instead they are commercial establishments that engage employees to perform for an audience. No different from a New York theater company, or a professional orchestra, for example.

It's this money-based thinking that everything has to be measured in dollars that is truly frightening for the future of this country. It turns priorities completely upside down and destroys what worthwhile values we still have as a society.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

Y

So, according to your thinking universities are no longer places of higher education, but instead they are commercial establishments that engage employees to perform for an audience. No different from a New York theater company, or a professional orchestra, for example.

It's this money-based thinking that everything has to be measured in dollars that is truly frightening for the future of this country. It turns priorities completely upside down and destroys what worthwhile values we still have as a society.

You lecture us every 6 months on this. Like it or not, this isn’t 1970. As a beneficiary of one of those scholarships many many years ago, we even mocked the term “student athletes”. I went to a state school, you are living in the NU bubble. “students” were flat out used for their playing ability then and I suspect it is worse now. Really what they cared about was keeping you eligible, not you actually graduating or if you did they didn’t worry about whether you obtained life’s skills after you left. However, when you are top 20 in D1, you have a lot of old people introducing themselves to you. You are a memory after your eligibility is exhausted. Luckily, I could see how it was 30 days in and knew from the beginning it was up to me to take advantage of the opportunity

What you fail to acknowledge is a scholarship is to close to useless for some of these players. It’s like giving me a Tuba to play in a concert!

I suspect most of the people making your argument have either 1) never been on the inside of a NCAA team or 2) are 60+ years old.

The primary reason I became a NU fan is because I respect that they TRY and do the right by the athletes. No BS classes, no cover up’s, no grade pressure. That doesn’t change the fact that revenue athletes bring in a boatload of money to the school and just importantly can enhance the reputation of said school to the point of increasing donations and applications. There is a reason schools field athletic teams and it’s not to make well rounded students.

 

[StreamCat]

What you fail to acknowledge is a scholarship is to close to useless for some of these players.

Have we really come to this? An education is useless? God help us all.