forums

NCAA To Consider a CFB Salary Cap

I have had this out for YEARS now...

1. Athletic Department spending caps on a per sport basis, set to allow competitive balance and sufficiency (rising proportionally to inflation each year) You get a set amount, so you have to decide how much you pay assistant coaches per annum, how much you pay for recruiting expenses per annum, how much of a new head coach will cost in the out years...Skill, as opposed to bigger schools outspending smaller schools being the deciding factor in championships. Sure, you still will have the taxpayer giving state schools an advantage in real property and pensions, but at least a lot more balanced then what happens now.

2. With spending capped to less of an insane level, the conferences will take a large share of their media rights money and set it aside to provide a post-playing career annuity to college athletes, with annuity value set by each relative sports revenue (Title IX may force a minimum). If an athlete passes before the athlete receives his full annuity, his/her beneficiary gets it. This way you keep the intrinsic student-athlete value that straight pay destroys, while compensating the athlete appropriately for the revenue thay have generated.

3. Because of the Athletic Department spending caps being universal in CFB, teams don't need to spend all of their conference share, so the conferences keep the media/merchandise excess revenue and use it to fund the annuity, on a CFB-wide universal scale. If Conference A has more money than Conference B after the annuity payouts, the remaining money is then evenly divided between Conference A's member schools NON-athletic scholarship funds.
 
Advertisement
GojiraCane said:
NCAA Commission to Study Efficacy of Salary Cap
Indianapolis, IN (UT) - 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...
Amusing: "We're now seeing some student athletes making in excess of professional players."
No wonder Alabama and Clemson get so many players stay for their senior years.
 
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley would would compete more faily for analysts if they had salary caps on employees.
 
Ethnicsands said:
You do not sound smart. Maybe you get your information from CNN.

Your quote: ‘Right now college football is like capitalism. The rich leverage their richness to get richer, make it harder for anyone to reach their level and to not have to abide by the same rules everyone else has to (they don’t get punished the same way).’

That’s your perception of capitalism. You basically describe a corrupt system that doles out power and benefits to selected constituencies. That’s literally socialism, the world over.

Capitalism isn’t what you’ve been brainwashed to think. Capitalism is the opposite of the centrally planned corruption you described.
Click to expand...
Maybe what we see (rich people leveraging their power gained through capitalism to influence policies at the highest level) is not what capitalism is intended to be but that’s the result of it the world over. We are a very capitalistic country snd yet income inequality keeps growing exponentially which by your logic means we are actually a socialist country. Socialism isn’t intended to be what it often becomes in third world countries either but what we see is too often the result of it. Both systems are flawed and that’s why a combo of both is always the best solution. Salary caps, the draft set up, revenue sharing are all socialist policies that have kept the nfl the most competitively balanced sport
 
HamburgerSV said:
Maybe what we see (rich people leveraging their power gained through capitalism to influence policies at the highest level) is not what capitalism is intended to be but that’s the result of it the world over. We are a very capitalistic country snd yet income inequality keeps growing exponentially which by your logic means we are actually a socialist country. Socialism isn’t intended to be what it often becomes in third world countries either but what we see is too often the result of it. Both systems are flawed and that’s why a combo of both is always the best solution. Salary caps, the draft set up, revenue sharing are all socialist policies that have kept the nfl the most competitively balanced sport
Click to expand...
You’re just wrong. You’re applying the label ‘capitalism’ to describe corrupt crony socialism. It’s government control that gives you the corruption. That’s not private behavior that’s central power. You think there isn’t even worse in commie countries? All the things you complain about occur because corrupt government regulators intentionally create the structure for graft because it’s how they profit and control.

We are increasingly less capitalist, as well. That’s really not debatable. More government, more regulations, more handouts, more subsidies. That’s not more capitalism it’s the opposite of that.

Your ‘combo of both’ is the best is the result of brainwashing. This country is a pot of frogs bearing boil and can’t figure out what’s going on.
 
Advertisement
Ethnicsands said:
You’re just wrong. You’re applying the label ‘capitalism’ to describe corrupt crony socialism. It’s government control that gives you the corruption. That’s not private behavior that’s central power. You think there isn’t even worse in commie countries? All the things you complain about occur because corrupt government regulators intentionally create the structure for graft because it’s how they profit and control.

We are increasingly less capitalist, as well. That’s really not debatable. More government, more regulations, more handouts, more subsidies. That’s not more capitalism it’s the opposite of that.

Your ‘combo of both’ is the best is the result of brainwashing. This country is a pot of frogs bearing boil and can’t figure out what’s going on.
Click to expand...
Lmao I know what you’re doing and it’s the same thing “commies” do when their system doesn’t work: blame the shortcomings on the opposite spectrum. You blame the negative effects of capitalism on “that’s actually socialism” and they blame their negative effects on “that’s actually greedy capitalists taking over” it’s all too predictable. Capitalism sounds amazing by definition (as does socialism) but they both get corrupted by those who are winning the game
 
HamburgerSV said:
Lmao I know what you’re doing and it’s the same thing “commies” do when their system doesn’t work: blame the shortcomings on the opposite spectrum. You blame the negative effects of capitalism on “that’s actually socialism” and they blame their negative effects on “that’s actually greedy capitalists taking over” it’s all too predictable. Capitalism sounds amazing by definition (as does socialism) but they both get corrupted by those who are winning the game
Click to expand...
This is false. If you’re going to use a label try harder to understand what it means. The US has been less and less capitalistic for generations. You’re blaming the consequences of creeping socialism on the system it’s seeking to replace. It’s wrong.
 

The latest.... https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/32215334/knight-commission-proposes-distribution-restructure-more-3-billion-annual-revenue-generated-college-sports This is obviously represents a huge sea change for college football if it goes forward. ​



​

Knight Commission proposes restructuring distribution of more than $3 billion in annual revenue generated by college sports​


The Knight Commission on Wednesday released a proposal to require the NCAA, the College Football Playoff and Division I conferences to restructure how they distribute more than $3 billion in annual revenue, a model designed to guide the NCAA as it considers sweeping changes to its current governance structure.

The commission's report, titled "Connecting Athletics Revenues with the Educational Model of College Sports (C.A.R.E.)," aims to curb what it describes as "a runaway financial race that threatens to upend and undermine the educational model of college athletics."

With an expected expansion of the CFP, which is managed separately from the NCAA, and increased media rights for FBS conferences, the Knight Commission estimated that annual distributions are likely to surpass $4.5 billion in the next several years.

"Burgeoning NCAA, CFP, and conference revenues will be spent disproportionately on coaching compensation and athletics facilities, propelling the competitive arms race of Division I college athletics and intensifying the trajectory towards a professional sports model," the report stated.

The commission concluded that systemic change -- not incremental reform -- is necessary. It proposed five core principles of the model -- transparency, independent oversight, gender equity, broad-based sports opportunities and financial responsibility -- to be adopted "in law, regulation, and/or conference rules to guide the financial system."

"Each of these principles is absent, in whole or in part, from the current system," the report stated.

The C.A.R.E. model provided suggestions, not mandates, for the conferences to consider. One example was that conferences could require each Division I institution to spend an amount equal to at least 50% of "shared athletics revenue distributions" on the education, health, safety and well-being of college athletes and/or university academics.

Revenues that are received from the NCAA and/or CFP (either directly or indirectly via their conference), as well as conference-generated revenues from media contracts and conference tournaments, would constitute the "shared athletics revenue distribution" that is subject to the 50% standard. Data in the report shows that most Division I schools already meet that 50% requirement. The schools that don't typically receive significantly higher amounts from shared revenue distributions and would be required to increase educational benefits, add scholarships or sports, or transfer funds to university academics.

Another example suggested was a "luxury tax" system on excessive coaching salaries, allowing for financial penalties for total coaching salaries that exceed a certain limit. The report suggested that the U.S. Congress or the conferences should adopt caps or minimum financial thresholds to limit sport-specific spending, and it recommended that the conference policies be publicly released and approved by a new independent oversight entity.

The report said that the entity should be led by a majority of people who are not employed by the NCAA, CFP, member institutions or media partners and at least one-third should comprise current and former college athletes.

The report specifically referenced the NCAA's "discriminatory gender-based awards" in men's and women's basketball, pointing to the Basketball Performance Fund that currently awards more than $160 million annually for winning tournaments in men's basketball. The C.A.R.E. model would require athletics revenue distribution to be equitable with regard to gender.

In order to create more "broad-based sports opportunities," the model also suggests that financial incentives be established to reward schools for sponsoring more teams than the Division I membership minimums.

"Concrete and meaningful revenue distribution and spending requirements are necessary today because the financial structure and the incentives in Division I college sports are broken," Knight Commission co-chair Nancy Zimpher said in a prepared statement. "The painful truth is that the existing governance at the NCAA, conference, and campus levels has failed to maintain an education-centric financial system."

The C.A.R.E. model could be imposed by the U.S. Congress via legislation or by the individual conferences.

The commission presented its latest report to the NCAA's constitutional committee members on Tuesday. It was also circulated among the top decision-makers in all of college athletics, including Mississippi State president Mark Keenum, who is the chair of the CFP board of managers, the NCAA's board of governors, and the LEAD1 Association, which comprises 131 FBS athletic directors.

The Knight Commission also presented to the constitutional committee its proposal for a new governing entity for the sport of FBS football, one separate from the NCAA. In December, the commission concluded a yearlong study with the concept of having the NCAA govern all sports except football.

"My takeaway is they're very serious about their task," Knight Commission CEO Amy Perko said. "They understand that the last major restructuring of the NCAA that required very significant changes to the constitution was in 1973 when Divisions I, II and III were created. ... They're open to hearing the ideas, and we were impressed with their openness and their questions and their engaging discussion about this issue in terms of revenue distribution changes as well as the bold change we proposed in December with regard to separating FBS football out of the NCAA."
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
Ethnicsands said:
This is false. If you’re going to use a label try harder to understand what it means. The US has been less and less capitalistic for generations. You’re blaming the consequences of creeping socialism on the system it’s seeking to replace. It’s wrong.
Click to expand...
 
"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."

Is this from a satire site?
 
If they had done this and just moved funds to the general scholly fund, we wouldn't be where we are now in CFB
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back
Top