forums

NCAA To Consider a CFB Salary Cap

the effect of limiting rosters and ICs is to put a premium on evaluations and retaining experienced players. Both of those things benefit Alabama relative to Um.
 
Advertisement
PalyCane said:
OK I think we've gotten to the bottom of it. You would support the elimination of roster sizes, recruiting classes sizes and coaching staff numbers. If that's your view, then yes you would disagree with a proposal to limit total staff size. That's consistent. Got it.

I disagree for the reasons mentioned in earlier posts.
Click to expand...
if you think about it, unlimited roster sizes would be a form of tax. the tax would be paid by other men’s sports at institutions that gave more FB scholarships (because Title IX), and the beneficiaries would be other institutions in those other sports, who would win more titles in those other sports.
 
people here seem to want cfb to go back to the dark ages. why not ban videotape while were at it? let’s go back to the idyllic utopia that never existed.

all this because (a) saban and (b) UM self-immolated.

@PalyCane, can you answer the question of what the competitive issue is that you see, how you define and measure it, and what the causes are, and why your proposed regulation would address it?
 
Tight limits on the sizes and operating costs of coaching staffs and over athletic department personnel, including analysts and "unpaid" volunteers (you know the latter would be used as a get-around) would help restore some balance. It would be to the benefit of the long-term survival of the sport as well, and I don't mean for parity reasons. It will become politically unviable for schools to continue to spend as they have with students paying escalating tuition and not seeing any of the benefits of the luxurious athletic centers being built for the athletes and coaches.
 
The institution that should most want to limit administrative spending is alabama. it would make them that much more profitable, and not cost them competitively.
 
Advertisement
also, limiting staff support would just chase the resources out to consultancy firms. it’s the same as with trying to limit political spending. the money gets spent, just outside the regs. when there's money to be made, there’s money to be spent.

in cfb, you’d see private firms take over some of what saban’s staff does. i actually expect that will start happening anyhow. @LuCane
 
GojiraCane said:
Tight limits on the sizes and operating costs of coaching staffs and over athletic department personnel, including analysts and "unpaid" volunteers (you know the latter would be used as a get-around) would help restore some balance. It would be to the benefit of the long-term survival of the sport as well, and I don't mean for parity reasons. It will become politically unviable for schools to continue to spend as they have with students paying escalating tuition and not seeing any of the benefits of the luxurious athletic centers being built for the athletes and coaches.
Click to expand...
of students don’t want that they’ll vote with their feet.

i still do t understand why people are even talking about staff spending when that’s not the cause of the issues in cfb today.
 
Ethnicsands said:
of students don’t want that they’ll vote with their feet.

i still do t understand why people are even talking about staff spending when that’s not the cause of the issues in cfb today.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but I think it would also be seized upon as a political issue beyond simply students choosing to go to certain schools over others.
 
Number1CanesFan said:
I think a salary cap on the coaching staffs would help in the competitve balance. It is also a realization of the vulnerabilities in revenue that Covid-19 has shown given the guaranteed contracts that coaches have

Theoretically, like the NFL cap on players salaries bring competive balance, College teams like Alabama couldn't stack their coaching staffs and all the "analysts they have." It would also degrage the staff if the hc has a huge contract. It would force some of the athletic departments to make some tough decisions.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%.
Pro teams effectively have a cap on salaries because they all earn about the same revenue. They pay similar salaries to players per the minimum and maximum caps, and they all want to turn a profit. Which leaves only so much money for coaches. Which is why we never hear about a team having a financial advantage as to what its coaches are paid relative to another team. Not that salaries are identical, but all in the same ballpark.
In college you have some teams where the coordinators are paid more than head coaches at other schools. Makes no sense and creates such an imbalance. Talent and ingenuity and hard work aren’t the recipe for success when Bama can just pay more for everything.
 
Advertisement
AtlAtty said:
The NCAA is, amazingly, correct about this. But why now to care? Is it because someone in the organization finally realized that having one team from the southeast play another team from the southeast almost every year in the championship isn’t good for a national sport? If so, you have to do a lot more than limit payments to players. Though its a good place to start (and push those payments right back under the table).
Frankly, I think a salary cap on head coaches would be more impactful But that will never happen because coaches won’t allow it. Just limit what the kids can receive, right?
Click to expand...

only they are 15 years behind on this
 
AtlAtty said:
Agree 100%.
Pro teams effectively have a cap on salaries because they all earn about the same revenue. They pay similar salaries to players per the minimum and maximum caps, and they all want to turn a profit. Which leaves only so much money for coaches. Which is why we never hear about a team having a financial advantage as to what its coaches are paid relative to another team. Not that salaries are identical, but all in the same ballpark.
In college you have some teams where the coordinators are paid more than head coaches at other schools. Makes no sense and creates such an imbalance. Talent and ingenuity and hard work aren’t the recipe for success when Bama can just pay more for everything.
Click to expand...
Why does this make no sense?

The COO of a giant bank makes more than the CEO of a smaller bank. There's a reason.

The brutal thing about success and failure is that some succeed, and others fail.
 
Advertisement
Ethnicsands said:
Why does this make no sense?

The COO of a giant bank makes more than the CEO of a smaller bank. There's a reason.

The brutal thing about success and failure is that some succeed, and others fail.
Click to expand...
Because sports, unlike a traditional free market setting, requires competition to keep the paying public interested.
Amazon can wipe out its completion and most of the paying public could care less because they are happy to buy Amazon products.
But with sports, in order to keep 30 NBA fan bases interested, or in college sports to keep 112 college fan bases interested, there needs to be some belief that each team has a chance to win. Otherwise you end up with pro baseball wherein a Pirates fan like myself lost all connection to the sport when the Pirates could not afford to keep Bonds, Bonilla or Van Slyke; all home grown stars.
Indeed, in pro sports where revenue sharing is part of the CBA, each team NEEDS every other team to be relatively competitive I’ve so that fans go to all the games and watch all the games and Cardinals.
Sports needs competition to be successful on a grand scale. it is a hybrid capitalist/socialist model.
 
AtlAtty said:
Because sports, unlike a traditional free market setting, requires competition to keep the paying public interested.
Amazon can wipe out its completion and most of the paying public could care less because they are happy to buy Amazon products.
But with sports, in order to keep 30 NBA fan bases interested, or in college sports to keep 112 college fan bases interested, there needs to be some belief that each team has a chance to win. Otherwise you end up with pro baseball wherein a Pirates fan like myself lost all connection to the sport when the Pirates could not afford to keep Bonds, Bonilla or Van Slyke; all home grown stars.
Indeed, in pro sports where revenue sharing is part of the CBA, each team NEEDS every other team to be relatively competitive I’ve so that fans go to all the games and watch all the games and Cardinals.
Sports needs competition to be successful on a grand scale. it is a hybrid capitalist/socialist model.
Click to expand...
You are assuming your conclusion. Do you have any basis to claim that the amount some SEC school pays their coordinator has anything to do with whether some other school has success? You don't, is the truth. You're blaming a symptom for the disease.

Secondly, your bigger assumption is unproven also. You say Pirates fans aren't interested, but baseball valuations are high and baseball has various forms of socialism already. You claim that sports can't work without competition, but sports is working pretty well if you judge by market valuations, and outside of the NFL there ain't as much competition as folks claim they want.

The truth is that assets flow to their highest and best use anywhere and everywhere. People who aren't that use will complain, but they can't change the laws of economics any more than they can change the laws of gravity.

Beyond that, you and too many others here seem to just claim some general truth (sports needs competition duh!) as an argument for whatever ****amamie idea you have without any effort to actually connect your proposed 'solution' to an actual problem in a cause and effect and solution perspective. It's the most typical form of dishonest politics. Children are good! So ... give me more of your money in taxes!
 
Advertisement
AtlAtty said:
The NCAA is, amazingly, correct about this. But why now to care? Is it because someone in the organization finally realized that having one team from the southeast play another team from the southeast almost every year in the championship isn’t good for a national sport? If so, you have to do a lot more than limit payments to players. Though its a good place to start (and push those payments right back under the table).
Frankly, I think a salary cap on head coaches would be more impactful But that will never happen because coaches won’t allow it. Just limit what the kids can receive, right?
Click to expand...
Because the undeservings (sic, Miami, etal) are starting to threaten the elites. See the following:
GojiraCane said:
Sources within the offices of Recruiting and Competitive Balance have indicated that the NCAA is prepared to launch a comprehensive study to determine the need for a salary cap. And while the earnings of coaches have indeed escalated, it is not these payments that the NCAA is seeking to investigate and control. Rather. multiple sources within the organization have said that the study will instead review the immense payments by boosters, alumni, coaches, and mentors to college athletes. "The spending has gotten out of control", said one member. "We're now seeing some student athletes making in excess of professional players." Another unnamed official said, "It has the potential of upsetting competitive balance. College football has thrived for years with the familiar brands of Alabama, LSU, Clemson, and Georgia. What's at stake is an undeserving program illicitly spending, leaping ahead of the pillars of our sport and ruining it for everyone."
Click to expand...
Listen to their retarded logic. If more teams became competitive and actually won a championship, it was upset competitive balance and mean fewer championships for Alabama, or LSU, or Notre Dame or insert traditional power.
 
Ethnicsands said:
You are assuming your conclusion. Do you have any basis to claim that the amount some SEC school pays their coordinator has anything to do with whether some other school has success? You don't, is the truth. You're blaming a symptom for the disease.

Secondly, your bigger assumption is unproven also. You say Pirates fans aren't interested, but baseball valuations are high and baseball has various forms of socialism already. You claim that sports can't work without competition, but sports is working pretty well if you judge by market valuations, and outside of the NFL there ain't as much competition as folks claim they want.

The truth is that assets flow to their highest and best use anywhere and everywhere. People who aren't that use will complain, but they can't change the laws of economics any more than they can change the laws of gravity.

Beyond that, you and too many others here seem to just claim some general truth (sports needs competition duh!) as an argument for whatever ****amamie idea you have without any effort to actually connect your proposed 'solution' to an actual problem in a cause and effect and solution perspective. It's the most typical form of dishonest politics. Children are good! So ... give me more of your money in taxes!
Click to expand...
The NFL has changed the so-called “laws of economics” by instituting a hard cap. The most popular and wealthiest team, the Cowboys, has no better chance of winning the SB than the Cardinals or Vikings. And the distribution of athletic and coaching talent keeps 30 fan bases interested all season long. There is a reason that the NFL is the most successful sports business model-profit sharing and hard cap. You can disagree but you can’t contradict my argument about the NFL with logic or facts.
I would rather college football resemble the NFL than MLB. fans in half the MLB cities know the season is over before it starts.
So, would you rather own an NFL team or MLB? I’ll take NFL. Those are the economics that work for me.
 
AtlAtty said:
Otherwise you end up with pro baseball wherein a Pirates fan like myself lost all connection to the sport when the Pirates could not afford to keep Bonds, Bonilla or Van Slyke; all home grown stars.
Click to expand...
Or the Marlins. Roughly the same economics at work. They've been rebuilding for nearly 15 years.
 
AtlAtty said:
The NFL has changed the so-called “laws of economics” by instituting a hard cap. The most popular and wealthiest team, the Cowboys, has no better chance of winning the SB than the Cardinals or Vikings. And the distribution of athletic and coaching talent keeps 30 fan bases interested all season long. There is a reason that the NFL is the most successful sports business model-profit sharing and hard cap. You can disagree but you can’t contradict my argument about the NFL with logic or facts.
I would rather college football resemble the NFL than MLB. fans in half the MLB cities know the season is over before it starts.
So, would you rather own an NFL team or MLB? I’ll take NFL. Those are the economics that work for me.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstand what's tail and what's dog. There are two reasons the NFL can have a hard cap that don't apply to other leagues or situations. The NFL can have a 'hard cap' because of socialized revenues and non-guaranteed contracts. Without socialized revenues, you can't cap costs or you wind up in a downward spiral into the toilet that any economist can explain to you. And you can't socialize revenues in baseball or basketball because local TV and local gate are too important and too variable. Or, anyhow, if you did socialize them, you'd meet that downward spiral I just mentioned. Second, non-guaranteed contracts allow hard caps. Without them, you either wind up with teams in debtor's prison to the past, or you wind up with a loophole you can drive a yacht through.

Also, to my knowledge no pro sports team has tried to limit spending on front office personnel, and I'm relatively sure that would be criminally illegal for them to do (unless they put the front office people into a union, I guess).

So you're just wrong about the what and why re the NFL. Wrong on your logic and your facts, as you put it. But almost everyone when it comes to regulatory discussions ends up doing what you did here, which is starting with the outcome they wish to impose on the world, and using it to justify every crazy scheme they can think of.

And LMAO @ the idea that Alabama is going to share revenues with Tulane. Since they won't, your fantasy of 'nfl-like' mandates falls apart.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top