FC: So now, the Pac 12 players demand a 50/50 split in revenue.
- Thread starter BUFFALO LION
- Start date
My son was a walk-on...he sweated his nuts off many times and got a lot less than other players....there are inequities everywhere.
His choice.
I never begrudge someone wanting to make more money. Free markets will have their way, eventually. I've got no problem with a kid "wanting" to be paid.
It was his choice and it’s the other players’ choice to play for a scholarship. If they don’t like it, don’t play.
yep...and that is what they are threatening to do; not play unless they get paid. I suspect it will end poorly for them. NW tried to unionize a few years ago. Mo Clarrett sued both NFL and NFLPA and lost.
Yep, there are plenty of other players out there willing to step in and take their place.
Says the guy who probably gets Social Security and Medicare.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
No one will watch terrible players because of school loyalty. If they did, every stadium on every Saturday would be filled. People show up to watch a winning product, or at a minimum, a team with a 'chance to win'. If you think alumni, students, and fans will show up to watch a team of Chris Eberly's and Gerald Filardi's, you're mistaken. Now, if every college program is fielding a team of guys not good enough for the NFL, maybe you get a bigger crowd. But, might want to lower the bar.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
And thus, players have more leverage to squeeze schools. The option is, have a team, or don't. Most of these kids give a sh*t about going to class.
I completely agree that people want to watch a winner, but two things:
1) There is definitely a loyalty factor. PSU's attendance during the dark years was still greater than almost every school in the country. Nebraska sells out despite being mediocre for a decade.
2) If everyone goes to the same model, the playing field is equal (more or less) and your team can still be a winner. I argue that it won't matter if the fasted guy on the field runs a 4.7 (instead of a 4.2) it will still be fun as hell to watch and cheer for.
well, you pay into them so they are more like insurance than welfare
Agree...long term short term play. If you acquiesce, you are screwed. If players get 50% of the revenue that is a HUGE sum of money. I'd let the players walk. As stated, they've really got no place else to go. Canadian league maybe?
I think these kids, and others, would be shocked at how easily Americans could get along without their game. With the nation in unprecedented economic and employment trouble related to a new virus, this wasn't a well thought out request.
I’m not disparaging the man or the programs. I think Social Security and Medicare are great programs that have helped people enjoy old age, and I don’t view them as welfare. I just think it’s ironic that an older person beats up on the “younger generation” for liking social programs.
Anyway, I don’t think it’s a bad thing that college football players are asking for a little extra compensation. They obviously bring value, and I would guess that it’s probably worth more than the cost of tuition at most state schools.
Less revenue from college football gives players more leverage against schools? So does a union negotiating with a company losing money have more leverage than if it were negotiating with a company making record profits?
Can't agree with that one.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
All good. Noting this isn’t an ordinary ‘company’. Field a team of ‘happy to just be playing’ guys and see what happens to the revenue. It’s Ivy League at best and no one will care.
Will any school be able to subsidize other sports if half of the football revenues are given to players? Will any football program make money or will football become the biggest loser and thus the first program to get cut for budgetary considerations?
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Dark years still had Paterno and the promise of getting better. That won’t last. Nebraska has nothing else going for it except college sports; they’re an outlier.
What does "getting better" mean? I assume you mean "more competitive/more wins per year" not "faster 40 times/more players in the NFL", right?
Fans want their team to wins games. If all teams are adopting this "walk on" model, the playing field will be level (or at least no less level than it is now). Maybe PSU can't succeed in this new paradigm and attendance will suffer. But if PSU wins 80% of their games, people are allowed to have fun while tailgating and State College bars continue to serve alcohol, football weekends will be crowded.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
I don't disagree with you. But first, the schools can't pay players unless they get the NCAA in on the game. So it will be across the board or it will be nothing. If it is across the board, you've got a pro league which comes with a whole new set of issues in terms of unionization, collective bargaining and monopoly laws. If it doesn't get approved, the players can walk. But that will only be a short term issue. Since it will be across the board, where can they go? The B1G? the SEC? It will be governed across the NCAA so those conferences can't change it. So the kids either play for a college team until they are eligible under the NFL's collective bargaining agreement with the NFL (meaning, three years removed from high school) or they go play someplace else. Where? I don't know. If they want to get into the NFL, their clear path is the play the three years of college ball and get drafted. There really isn't much of an alternative.
Not that I follow Bernie and AOC that closely, but my understanding of the "socialist model" is that it takes wealth from people that earn/create it (in this case football players) and redistributes it to people that don't (in this case athletes in al of the non-revenue sports). Sounds to me like the "socialist model" is what's in place today. So I'm trying to understand: are you in favor or opposed to socialism?
Two reasons:
1) The schools are smaller. For example, Mt. Union (very successful program) has an enrollment of 2200 students. This not only means fewer students to go to games, but fewer alumni. Last year they had average attendance of 2700 people. Using "advanced maths" (i.e. ratio of student body to attendance) this would be analogous to:
Rutgers: 61K (enrollment 50K, actual avg attendance: 44K)
Maryland: 50K enrollment 41K, actual avg attendance: 41K )
Minnesota: 63K (enrollment 51K, actual avg attendance: 45K )
Ilinois: 61K (enrollment 50K, actual avg attendance: 41K )
Indiana: 52K (enrollment 43K, actual avg attendance: 43K )
Actual attendances based on five year averages from:
https://collegefootballnews.com/201...-no-1-130-2019-cfn-five-year-program-analysis
So you can see on a per student basis, DIII actual outperforms some Big 10 teams in terms of attendance.
2) The tradition isn't there for the surrounding community. If you grow up in central PA and followed college sports, you aren't growing up at Lycoming College fan. That inertia will last a long time.
Post_ShockTherapy_MackDaddy
Well-Known Member
Never could understand the automatic acceptance of the straight lines between football (and men's basketball) and all of the money losing sports. Guessing it's because stupid ninnies like Barbour explain it that way and even stupider ninnies accept it without question.
To me, sorts that don't make money should have other justification. That's how the Ivies, where football does not make money, do it. That's how universities that underwrite extra-curricular activities determine how to allocate funds. Don't understand why a tennis team is so special.
What exactly is there in Title IX that precludes a school from paying it's athletes. If it did, a very good case could be made that those athletes are employees and Title IX would not longer apply to them.
As for the CFL, their rules mirror the NFL's.
It will still be D1 football. About 250 rookies make NFL rosters each year. D1 College Football will be fine without them playing. You may argue that another 250 will be dumb enough to leave school early because they think they can play in the NFL. Yes, college football will be just fine without those 500 or so players or an average of about 4 per team. I didn't even factor in that many that make nfl rosters had exhausted their eligibility.
If athletic competition has so many benefits that go beyond money, it should be easy to put together a request for funding. Organizations like the chess club do it every year. Whether Barbour is capable of putting together a request for funding of between $500k-1mm per sport remains to be seen. Ivy League ADs have to do it every 3-5 years depending on the school.
There are many mediocre to poor teams that still draw a good crowd. And good teams that have down years still draw a good crowd. If a minor league for pro football started, college football would still draw big.
Because the schools and the alumni base aren’t as large. Some D2 and D3 programs pack the stadiums they have.
Most of the kids actually do care about going to class because more of them will never even get a shot at the NFL so they’re using football to get an education. You’re judging the many based on the very few.
That sound like your proposal. Everybody loses with that, because football players wouldn't be getting a free education.
Allow me to clarify. Pay football players and drop all money losing sports.
As for education, the football players pay for it if they want it.
No, chess club members do not get scholarships. They might get some of their travel underwritten by the school, but it's not a whole lot of money.
So why are tennis players given scholarships (and I can't imagine it's because a lot of them need the money)? And why do they travel, extensively in a lot of cases, on the school's dime? Because the school has to have a tennis team?
You seem to take the existence of these money-losing teams as a given. It's not.
College football isn't a given either. PSU could go the Univ of Chicago route and get rid of football completely. But they choose to have football, just like they choose to have tennis. Assuming they can afford to have tennis (which they can), why not have tennis?
A university isn't a for profit venture. If you make boat loads of money on football/basketball and don't spend it on the other sports, what do you propose to do with it? I don't think mingling AD funds with educational funds is a great idea, do you?
Or are your proposing season tickets costs $100/year and all game be aired on PBS for free?
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
FB Recruiting Penn State commit visting Ohio State this weekend- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley