forums

Pac 12 Players Asking for 50% of revenue to play this year

AllAboutTheU said:
Eh, I'm not sure that I agree with that. The talent drives the success at these schools, moreso than anything else, which is why schools with massive amounts of talent are the schools who win national titles each year. You don't replace Trevor Lawrence, Justin Fields, Joe Burrow, etc., relatively easily either. No one who watches these games believe that.

The analogy really isn't a great one when the players make more money than the coaches by large in the NFL. We can look at Bellichick's salary versus Brady. The NCAA prevents players from assessing their value on an open market through the way it operates. The market isn't determining that these guys are worth what you're saying they're worth. It's the NCAA stopping them from either being able to hit the market.
Click to expand...
Sure, but there's also a ready supply of talent willing to take the place of anyone who chooses to leave. Unless you're talking about unionization and collective bargaining. If that ever happens, it will as successful as it was with Eastern Airlines.

Why is Brady worth the money? Because he's a proven commodity relative to the other available options. That's how these price points are determined. That's why there are contract negotiations and offers. If they all had the same value, their salaries would be roughly the same.

If you think these guys would actually be millionaires playing college football, I'll ask you to look at minor league baseball salaries.
 
Advertisement
AllAboutTheU said:
Eh, I'm not sure that I agree with that. The talent drives the success at these schools, moreso than anything else, which is why schools with massive amounts of talent are the schools who win national titles each year. You don't replace Trevor Lawrence, Justin Fields, Joe Burrow, etc., relatively easily either. No one who watches these games believe that.

The analogy really isn't a great one when the players make more money than the coaches by large in the NFL. We can look at Bellichick's salary versus Brady. The NCAA prevents players from assessing their value on an open market through the way it operates. The market isn't determining that these guys are worth what you're saying they're worth. It's the NCAA stopping them from either being able to hit the market.
Click to expand...
The comparison to the NFL does not work at the college level. Every player is gone within 5 years of eligibility. You can't sign them to a 10-year deal. The impact of a single player on a college program pales in comparison to a long-time head coach.

That said, I agree that the NCAA prevents players from exploring their market value. Would love to see it happen.
 
Advertisement
They are making "demands" LMAO......they are also getting scholarships worth $40-50k. Where would they be without that scholarship to play for said school? If they don't want to play someone will gladly take their spot. This is all about lawyers trying to make a buck being sleazy and trying to influence dumb kids who are being sold a bill of goods. How many are really good enough to make it to the NFL? Wake up time. Oh wait, this is Oregon, Wash & Cal where idiots reign supreme. :hammering-head:
 
JD08 said:
If you think these guys would actually be millionaires playing college football, I'll ask you to look at minor league baseball salaries.
Click to expand...
It's not about being millionaires. They're missing out on massive amounts of wealth on the free market. Top players could gross over a million in 3 years. That would in turn deflate the coaches salaries, constant facility upgrades, etc. The problem is we're making all of these determinations on what the players would make without letting the market set that. If you think they'd just fill the rosters with less good players, then that's even more reason to let the market determine that.

5 star prospects would get paid out based on what their perceived value is, 4 stars, etc.
 
Advertisement
AllAboutTheU said:
It's not about being millionaires. They're missing out on massive amounts of wealth on the free market. Top players could gross over a million in 3 years. That would in turn deflate the coaches salaries, constant facility upgrades, etc. The problem is we're making all of these determinations on what the players would make without letting the market set that. If you think they'd just fill the rosters with less good players, then that's even more reason to let the market determine that.

5 star prospects would get paid out based on what their perceived value is, 4 stars, etc.
Click to expand...
Your assuming the system would otherwise stay as it is. There are a great many schools that would move to a model where they don't offer scholarships if they even kept football at all.

Who benefits then?
 
How would this impact title ix? I don’t even know if this would be legal under title ix rules, but I’m definitely not a lawyer. FB and BB revenues are used to fund basically every other scholarship sport. Not sure how that works
 
scrantoncane said:
You don't see the hypocrisy of some schools going totally online in the fall, yet requiring football players to sign Covid waivers? And still not paying them? All while the coaches, administrators and universities make millions.

They treat them as employees, but don't want to pay them. That is BS.
Click to expand...
They don’t have to sign them. If they want, they can sit. Do u think that it makes a sliver of sense to have a school assume responsibility and liability for the health of hundreds of athletes during a global pandemic?
 
Advertisement
jmccomber5 said:
How would this impact title ix? I don’t even know if this would be legal under title ix rules, but I’m definitely not a lawyer. FB and BB revenues are used to fund basically every other scholarship sport. Not sure how that works
Click to expand...

The law of unintended consequences is a very powerful. Decisions often have many unintended repercussions, and there are multiple potential issues here. Title IX is one, but football also pays for almost all mens sports too.

What about income and other taxes? If the players are now professionals, they will not be eligible for scholarships, and they would be taxed on their earnings. That might work for Trevor Lawrence, but what about the long snapper? A tax free scholarship is likely worth much more to him than to the QB.

To clarify, I realize that the players are being taken advantage of, but its not an easy issue to resolve for ALL athletes in ALL sports.
 
JD08 said:
Your assuming the system would otherwise stay as it is. There are a great many schools that would move to a model where they don't offer scholarships if they even kept football at all.

Who benefits then?
Click to expand...

Very true - depending on that outcome, a situation like that could force many schools to drop football altogether.

So while some elite players might make some money, hundreds to thousands of kids who would have been on scholarship and received an education and a chance to show what they have on the field, now have no opportunity.

The NFL is loaded with players who went to small schools or were late bloomers. Many of those guys would lose an opportunity if the system was bucked so hard that many schools were unable to continue with the sport or scholarship system the way it currently stands. It's bad academic students have to pay $20-30k to go to a state school these days, $35-50k to a private. That's just to get a normal job. The less scholarships out there, the less opportunities kids have.
 
jmccomber5 said:
How would this impact title ix? I don’t even know if this would be legal under title ix rules, but I’m definitely not a lawyer. FB and BB revenues are used to fund basically every other scholarship sport. Not sure how that works
Click to expand...
Because if football players get paid, all other athletes, including women athletes, would need to be paid equitably according to title ix
 
Advertisement
Stylie said:
I want half too. Tell these kids to go player another sport if they want to act like *******.
Click to expand...

I wish i could get 1% of the money i save my company when i find/correct errors or improve a broken process and save millions. But that's not how most businesses work.

You can join a union or force the issue by getting everyone to band together.....sometimes with success, often without. Nothing is a guarantee.
 
raincane said:
It will never work becasue most athetoc departments are in the red. The revenue they want, is used to subsidize the money losing sports. Only way for this to work is to cut the money losing sports. However if you do that you end up in violation of title 9. So this can’t ever work. Only way for players to get paid is off endorsement from outside companies. Getting paid by the school isn’t viable. And likely ends up illegal,
Click to expand...

This is what so many people don’t realize.
 
AllAboutTheU said:
It's not about being millionaires. They're missing out on massive amounts of wealth on the free market. Top players could gross over a million in 3 years. That would in turn deflate the coaches salaries, constant facility upgrades, etc. The problem is we're making all of these determinations on what the players would make without letting the market set that. If you think they'd just fill the rosters with less good players, then that's even more reason to let the market determine that.

5 star prospects would get paid out based on what their perceived value is, 4 stars, etc.
Click to expand...

they already approved athletes can make money on their likeness. The schools are paying the athletes, in housing, staff, trainers, coaches, education. Several hundred people are employed just to take care of student athletes. Now players can make money based on the image they create for themselves.
 
Miami[]_[]Smoke said:
They don’t have to sign them. If they want, they can sit. Do u think that it makes a sliver of sense to have a school assume responsibility and liability for the health of hundreds of athletes during a global pandemic?
Click to expand...
Which is why I specifically referenced schools that are going online only for the fall, but asking football players to come back to campus. The schools aren't having students come back for the fall because (i) they think it is unsafe, combined with (ii) the liability concerns.

Am I missing something?
 
Advertisement
Back
Top