If you need more than 75 people on your team for injury depth, you might be doing something wrong. How is it the NFL gets by with a mere 53+8 without having to resort to double numbering and a sideline that looks like a cloning experiment gone berserk?
Anyway, the point is kind of drifting. Sure, statistically, most athletes on team sports can't or won't turn pro due to the tiny number of pro spots available (which I shall include any that have a minor league system). It still doesn't change the fact that schools are profiting off of their scrub players. To suggest they shouldn't be able to even attempt to earn money for their likeness is absurd. Maybe they couldn't get the same deal Johnny Football could get, but I'm sure they'd take one that paid them $5000 to wear Puma cleats instead of the school mandated (because the coach earned them a $100million contract for it) Nikes.
And frankly, if they aren't helping earn a profit, then why the fuck give them $70,000 in education? If they aren't helping, they're an even bigger money drain.
Also, I would hope that 70k number is a single year of tuition expenses. Because if not, then the AD above is a mega-douche for implying that these kids are guaranteed to finish the full four years.
If you need more than 75 people on your team for injury depth, you might be doing something wrong. How is it the NFL gets by with a mere 53+8 without having to resort to double numbering and a sideline that looks like a cloning experiment gone berserk?
By signing people off the street to replace those on injured reserve. Who usually number about 20 by the end of the year, which is why I say 75 probably doable. They have 53 for any single game, but they'll usually dress 75 or so over the course of a season.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
They kind of have a point, though. If you're an athlete that's NOT a recognizable starter on the football or basketball teams? The value of your scholarship is probably a great deal in terms of compensation vs. the revenue you generate.
A handful of athletes get underpaid, and an even smaller subset get royally, royally fucked over. Honestly, I get of prefer that to the masses of athletes getting nothing while Johnny Football gets to do blow off a hooker's ass in his private limo on the way to practice.
Here's how team sports work, if only the 3 guys who were going to go onto the NFL took the pitch then they would lose. Once you start paying players - no matter what the mechanism is that you use to pay them - the 'little guys' are not going to sit around not being paid. They will gravitate to the schools that are willing to pay them - and there will be paid even if they are not a big star because team sports are team sports. The Big Names will want to go not just to a school that pays them well but to a school with a decent team - and the nly way to get a decent team in a free market is to SHOW ME PLAYERS THE MONEY.
They kind of have a point, though. If you're an athlete that's NOT a recognizable starter on the football or basketball teams? The value of your scholarship is probably a great deal in terms of compensation vs. the revenue you generate.
A handful of athletes get underpaid, and an even smaller subset get royally, royally fucked over. Honestly, I get of prefer that to the masses of athletes getting nothing while Johnny Football gets to do blow off a hooker's ass in his private limo on the way to practice.
I sincerely doubt that. Scholarships do not cost that much (70k/year? Bullshit) and the revenue generating sports bring in a lot of money.
On the face of it, if the revenue sports didn't make money then the schools would not be giving out the scholarships and would not be paying coaches a whole shit tonne of money. They would be discontinuing the revenue sports because revenue sports get in the way of education.
I mean it's pretty simple really. If you have 50 people on your team making $100,000 then that is 5 million in salary a year. Alabamas head coach makes 5.3 million dollars a year, so if he were paid only a respectable .3 million a year you've already found all the revenue you need to give your football players 100 grand stipends in addition to their scholarships. And Nick Sabans salary is going up to [/i]7 million a year[/i]. Sure walk-ons might not get 100 grand but you don't play college football with 1 star and 70 walk-ons.
The idea that the money isn't there is ridiculous. The issue is that when you don't have to pay labor the marginal value of management skyrockets and management tends to like that outcome.
One thing to remember is that the $70k figure is the retail price for the degree. It's like a business claiming $100 loss on a stolen item that they bought for $10, because that's what's on the price tag.
They kind of have a point, though. If you're an athlete that's NOT a recognizable starter on the football or basketball teams? The value of your scholarship is probably a great deal in terms of compensation vs. the revenue you generate.
A handful of athletes get underpaid, and an even smaller subset get royally, royally fucked over. Honestly, I get of prefer that to the masses of athletes getting nothing while Johnny Football gets to do blow off a hooker's ass in his private limo on the way to practice.
I sincerely doubt that. Scholarships do not cost that much (70k/year? Bullshit) and the revenue generating sports bring in a lot of money.
On the face of it, if the revenue sports didn't make money then the schools would not be giving out the scholarships and would not be paying coaches a whole shit tonne of money. They would be discontinuing the revenue sports because revenue sports get in the way of education.
I mean it's pretty simple really. If you have 50 people on your team making $100,000 then that is 5 million in salary a year. Alabamas head coach makes 5.3 million dollars a year, so if he were paid only a respectable .3 million a year you've already found all the revenue you need to give your football players 100 grand stipends in addition to their scholarships. And Nick Sabans salary is going up to [/i]7 million a year[/i]. Sure walk-ons might not get 100 grand but you don't play college football with 1 star and 70 walk-ons.
The idea that the money isn't there is ridiculous. The issue is that when you don't have to pay labor the marginal value of management skyrockets and management tends to like that outcome.
That's a ridiculous model, though. If the 'average' is 100k (which I think is a totally reasonable estimate based on a rough recollection of revenues vs nfl revenues and player profit share) you'll see the vast majority at or around the minimum (which coincidentally enough probably would be right around the $50k of a full cost of attendance scholarship) and then a handful of stars making exponentially more. Because that's the way it ALWAYS works.
I'm not against athletes being compensated in cash and allowed to sell their own likenesses. But "its corrupt, just pay 'em" isn't really a solution. Its the START of a potential solution that basically divorces big time college football and basketball from their institutions and allows them to operate like normal minor leagues. All that infrastructure still needs to be developed, though. And in the interim, the corpse of the old system is going to be horrific and not at all entertaining. And probably buried somewhere on ESPN Ocho: The Pac-16 Football Practices and Curling Network at 11 PM anyway.
I wouldn't be surprised that if the ruling goes the way it's looking like it will, sport scholarships will start working in the same way that wages in service jobs do with tips: We'll pay X% of your tuition, and you'll make up the rest with marketing your image, though (hopefully) we'll pay more if what you get doesn't over a certain amount of money.
Sorry, we can't let players earn money because we are too busy giving back to the community.
I think I need to paraphrase Ebert's legendary barrel quote:
This argument doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel. This argument isn't the bottom of the barrel. This argument isn't below the bottom of the barrel. This argument doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with barrels.
It got better. The same lady suggested the NCCAA (National Christian College Athletic Association) as an alternative to the NCAA for players looking for schools.
Its like the NCAA is purposefully sabotaging their own defense. I think outside of the statistician they called today (who, while using a vague survey didn't say anything that could be used against the NCAA) every witness they've called has made things worse for them.
Its like the NCAA is purposefully sabotaging their own defense. I think outside of the statistician they called today (who, while using a vague survey didn't say anything that could be used against the NCAA) every witness they've called has made things worse for them.
They also only got about 5-10 minutes of cross on Stiroh. The stadium is a public good comment? That came on the direct.
Its like the NCAA is purposefully sabotaging their own defense. I think outside of the statistician they called today (who, while using a vague survey didn't say anything that could be used against the NCAA) every witness they've called has made things worse for them.
No, it's more that the NCAA has been drinking their Flavor-Aid for a long time. I don't think they could comprehend on an institutional level that people would see them as being exploitive.
Its like the NCAA is purposefully sabotaging their own defense. I think outside of the statistician they called today (who, while using a vague survey didn't say anything that could be used against the NCAA) every witness they've called has made things worse for them.
No, it's more that the NCAA has been drinking their Flavor-Aid for a long time. I don't think they could comprehend on an institutional level that people would see them as being exploitive.
You could also make the case that NCAA's lawyers have no goddamn clue about how to successfully argue a case for a bench trial. A lot of the stuff they've done would play well to a dozen average joes on a jury, but simply won't work when who you're trying to convince is the judge, who's seen enough cases to know when you're trying to bullshit her into sympathy.
I would suggest again that the problem is they've got nothing to argue. They've got no case. Not even a bad one.
It's like trying to argue that your client is not a paedophile while he rapes a baby in court at the exact same time. You've got nothing. All that's left is farce.
The NCAA makes shit tons of money while not at all improving lots and lots of indentured servants AND probably actively harming the university system in general.
I like how the general tone of their defense includes 'If we compensate them somehow, then Div. 1-A schools will have to kill off all non-Title IX sports or raise tuition or something!'
Which kind of ignores how schools below 1-A still manage to have reasonably healthy athletic departments and functioning football playoffs.
They kind of have a point, though. If you're an athlete that's NOT a recognizable starter on the football or basketball teams? The value of your scholarship is probably a great deal in terms of compensation vs. the revenue you generate.
A handful of athletes get underpaid, and an even smaller subset get royally, royally fucked over. Honestly, I get of prefer that to the masses of athletes getting nothing while Johnny Football gets to do blow off a hooker's ass in his private limo on the way to practice.
I sincerely doubt that. Scholarships do not cost that much (70k/year? Bullshit) and the revenue generating sports bring in a lot of money.
On the face of it, if the revenue sports didn't make money then the schools would not be giving out the scholarships and would not be paying coaches a whole shit tonne of money. They would be discontinuing the revenue sports because revenue sports get in the way of education.
I mean it's pretty simple really. If you have 50 people on your team making $100,000 then that is 5 million in salary a year. Alabamas head coach makes 5.3 million dollars a year, so if he were paid only a respectable .3 million a year you've already found all the revenue you need to give your football players 100 grand stipends in addition to their scholarships. And Nick Sabans salary is going up to [/i]7 million a year[/i]. Sure walk-ons might not get 100 grand but you don't play college football with 1 star and 70 walk-ons.
The idea that the money isn't there is ridiculous. The issue is that when you don't have to pay labor the marginal value of management skyrockets and management tends to like that outcome.
That's a ridiculous model, though. If the 'average' is 100k (which I think is a totally reasonable estimate based on a rough recollection of revenues vs nfl revenues and player profit share) you'll see the vast majority at or around the minimum (which coincidentally enough probably would be right around the $50k of a full cost of attendance scholarship) and then a handful of stars making exponentially more. Because that's the way it ALWAYS works.
I'm not against athletes being compensated in cash and allowed to sell their own likenesses. But "its corrupt, just pay 'em" isn't really a solution. Its the START of a potential solution that basically divorces big time college football and basketball from their institutions and allows them to operate like normal minor leagues. All that infrastructure still needs to be developed, though. And in the interim, the corpse of the old system is going to be horrific and not at all entertaining. And probably buried somewhere on ESPN Ocho: The Pac-16 Football Practices and Curling Network at 11 PM anyway.
1) That is in addition to the scholarship. That is, if they're currently paying the kids 50k/year in scholarship and other costs then they could be paying them 150k in total no problem.
2) I think that you are seriously underestimating the marginal value of the rest of the team. Even if a few stars make bank, there will be enough money left over to reasonably compensate the rest of the team.
They kind of have a point, though. If you're an athlete that's NOT a recognizable starter on the football or basketball teams? The value of your scholarship is probably a great deal in terms of compensation vs. the revenue you generate.
A handful of athletes get underpaid, and an even smaller subset get royally, royally fucked over. Honestly, I get of prefer that to the masses of athletes getting nothing while Johnny Football gets to do blow off a hooker's ass in his private limo on the way to practice.
I sincerely doubt that. Scholarships do not cost that much (70k/year? Bullshit) and the revenue generating sports bring in a lot of money.
On the face of it, if the revenue sports didn't make money then the schools would not be giving out the scholarships and would not be paying coaches a whole shit tonne of money. They would be discontinuing the revenue sports because revenue sports get in the way of education.
I mean it's pretty simple really. If you have 50 people on your team making $100,000 then that is 5 million in salary a year. Alabamas head coach makes 5.3 million dollars a year, so if he were paid only a respectable .3 million a year you've already found all the revenue you need to give your football players 100 grand stipends in addition to their scholarships. And Nick Sabans salary is going up to [/i]7 million a year[/i]. Sure walk-ons might not get 100 grand but you don't play college football with 1 star and 70 walk-ons.
The idea that the money isn't there is ridiculous. The issue is that when you don't have to pay labor the marginal value of management skyrockets and management tends to like that outcome.
That's a ridiculous model, though. If the 'average' is 100k (which I think is a totally reasonable estimate based on a rough recollection of revenues vs nfl revenues and player profit share) you'll see the vast majority at or around the minimum (which coincidentally enough probably would be right around the $50k of a full cost of attendance scholarship) and then a handful of stars making exponentially more. Because that's the way it ALWAYS works.
I'm not against athletes being compensated in cash and allowed to sell their own likenesses. But "its corrupt, just pay 'em" isn't really a solution. Its the START of a potential solution that basically divorces big time college football and basketball from their institutions and allows them to operate like normal minor leagues. All that infrastructure still needs to be developed, though. And in the interim, the corpse of the old system is going to be horrific and not at all entertaining. And probably buried somewhere on ESPN Ocho: The Pac-16 Football Practices and Curling Network at 11 PM anyway.
1) That is in addition to the scholarship. That is, if they're currently paying the kids 50k/year in scholarship and other costs then they could be paying them 150k in total no problem.
2) I think that you are seriously underestimating the marginal value of the rest of the team. Even if a few stars make bank, there will be enough money left over to reasonably compensate the rest of the team.
And even that is ignoring the fact that this is about the players being able to profit off their own Name, Likeness, and Image, not schools outright paying players. The NCAA should be all fucking for a constrained format where they and the schools get to dictate how the royalties are earned, because fuck, they would make even more money. The NFL makes freaking stupid amounts of money off jersey sales from players switching teams, and just being drafted or retiring in general. In college where you're guaranteed turnover after 3-5 years on your whole roster? The schools should be begging the NCAA to let them monetize that end of things. You give every student athlete nation wide the same deal, and then the Title IX issue is solved. If the women's sports can market and sell their jerseys or memorabilia successfully, they will earn right alone with the guys. Women's Basketball and Volleyball absolutely could at the very least at most schools, and at a lot of others Lacrosse and Soccer I would imagine wouldn't do so poorly. Couple that with a full cost of attendance increase, and this would make the compensation debate a hilarious non-factor. But the NCAA is too caught up in the elitist Victorian bullshit that is the idea of amateurism, that it will burn it's kingdom down in defense of it's ideals.
They already get to market jerseys though, they just don't have to give the person whose image they're using to sell the product any money.
Or you know, it's totally coincidence that say, #20 was the popular jersey around here when I was in school.
(Now it's probably... a #11 basketball jersey; this is still weird to me)
This is actually true in the NFL also, though. Or at least Richard Sherman says so, he was very vocal about how he didn't see an extra dime after his jersey sales spike after the NFC title game.
They already get to market jerseys though, they just don't have to give the person whose image they're using to sell the product any money.
Or you know, it's totally coincidence that say, #20 was the popular jersey around here when I was in school.
(Now it's probably... a #11 basketball jersey; this is still weird to me)
This is actually true in the NFL also, though. Or at least Richard Sherman says so, he was very vocal about how he didn't see an extra dime after his jersey sales spike after the NFC title game.
Yeah, but that's stuff that can be negotiated in the NFLPA. I know that the NFL's cut of the revenue generated by Jersey sales is pooled together and then shared equally among all teams. It wouldn't surprise me if the Player's do the same thing with their cut of the Jersey sales, pool it all together and then divide it equally among all players. If Sherman wants a bigger piece of the pie, he can fight for it as part of the NFLPA.
Meanwhile, the college athletes get no pie at all, and thus can only stare wistfully at it.
One of the interesting things is that the judge was never a big follower of collegiate sports, and as such, she was never steeped in the culture. The result of this is that she is questioning things we tend to take for granted, like booster payments being a bad thing.
Well, bad thing for who? Booster payment or endorsement jobs are pretty great if you have a huge body of roch booster. But I hope you don't give a shit about balance, considering at best they're going to fucking destroy any attempt at a salary cap and we all know how entertaining those kinds of leagues are.
Well, bad thing for who? Booster payment or endorsement jobs are pretty great if you have a huge body of roch booster. But I hope you don't give a shit about balance, considering at best they're going to fucking destroy any attempt at a salary cap and we all know how entertaining those kinds of leagues are.
You don't need a salary cap. If you strictly enforce per year caps, and force schools to honor their scholarships, it takes care of itself.
One of the interesting things is that the judge was never a big follower of collegiate sports, and as such, she was never steeped in the culture. The result of this is that she is questioning things we tend to take for granted, like booster payments being a bad thing.
The issue with booster payments is the lack of transparency. If you legalize them, the very first people who are going to get in on that are gamblers.
Which is more an argument to just pay the kids directly than anything else.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Are we sure that the NCAA isn't employing student-lawyers? Perhaps in some bizarre attempt at performance art? Because these people do not seem to be that good at the whole lawyering thing.
Are we sure that the NCAA isn't employing student-lawyers? Perhaps in some bizarre attempt at performance art? Because these people do not seem to be that good at the whole lawyering thing.
To be fair, a good amount of their strategy would have worked in a jury trial. Furthermore, you have to work with the client you have, not the client you want.
The cartel thing didn't come up unbidden. The attorney was explaining to the judge the difference between two different conceptions of cartel from testimony. Had he tried to mince words to avoid saying cartel, the judge would probably have been unappreciative. Makes for a good twitter post though.
Posts
Anyway, the point is kind of drifting. Sure, statistically, most athletes on team sports can't or won't turn pro due to the tiny number of pro spots available (which I shall include any that have a minor league system). It still doesn't change the fact that schools are profiting off of their scrub players. To suggest they shouldn't be able to even attempt to earn money for their likeness is absurd. Maybe they couldn't get the same deal Johnny Football could get, but I'm sure they'd take one that paid them $5000 to wear Puma cleats instead of the school mandated (because the coach earned them a $100million contract for it) Nikes.
And frankly, if they aren't helping earn a profit, then why the fuck give them $70,000 in education? If they aren't helping, they're an even bigger money drain.
Also, I would hope that 70k number is a single year of tuition expenses. Because if not, then the AD above is a mega-douche for implying that these kids are guaranteed to finish the full four years.
By signing people off the street to replace those on injured reserve. Who usually number about 20 by the end of the year, which is why I say 75 probably doable. They have 53 for any single game, but they'll usually dress 75 or so over the course of a season.
Here's how team sports work, if only the 3 guys who were going to go onto the NFL took the pitch then they would lose. Once you start paying players - no matter what the mechanism is that you use to pay them - the 'little guys' are not going to sit around not being paid. They will gravitate to the schools that are willing to pay them - and there will be paid even if they are not a big star because team sports are team sports. The Big Names will want to go not just to a school that pays them well but to a school with a decent team - and the nly way to get a decent team in a free market is to SHOW ME PLAYERS THE MONEY.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
I sincerely doubt that. Scholarships do not cost that much (70k/year? Bullshit) and the revenue generating sports bring in a lot of money.
On the face of it, if the revenue sports didn't make money then the schools would not be giving out the scholarships and would not be paying coaches a whole shit tonne of money. They would be discontinuing the revenue sports because revenue sports get in the way of education.
I mean it's pretty simple really. If you have 50 people on your team making $100,000 then that is 5 million in salary a year. Alabamas head coach makes 5.3 million dollars a year, so if he were paid only a respectable .3 million a year you've already found all the revenue you need to give your football players 100 grand stipends in addition to their scholarships. And Nick Sabans salary is going up to [/i]7 million a year[/i]. Sure walk-ons might not get 100 grand but you don't play college football with 1 star and 70 walk-ons.
The idea that the money isn't there is ridiculous. The issue is that when you don't have to pay labor the marginal value of management skyrockets and management tends to like that outcome.
This made me laugh/weep.
I'm not against athletes being compensated in cash and allowed to sell their own likenesses. But "its corrupt, just pay 'em" isn't really a solution. Its the START of a potential solution that basically divorces big time college football and basketball from their institutions and allows them to operate like normal minor leagues. All that infrastructure still needs to be developed, though. And in the interim, the corpse of the old system is going to be horrific and not at all entertaining. And probably buried somewhere on ESPN Ocho: The Pac-16 Football Practices and Curling Network at 11 PM anyway.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Sorry, we can't let players earn money because we are too busy giving back to the community.
I think I need to paraphrase Ebert's legendary barrel quote:
They also only got about 5-10 minutes of cross on Stiroh. The stadium is a public good comment? That came on the direct.
No, it's more that the NCAA has been drinking their Flavor-Aid for a long time. I don't think they could comprehend on an institutional level that people would see them as being exploitive.
You could also make the case that NCAA's lawyers have no goddamn clue about how to successfully argue a case for a bench trial. A lot of the stuff they've done would play well to a dozen average joes on a jury, but simply won't work when who you're trying to convince is the judge, who's seen enough cases to know when you're trying to bullshit her into sympathy.
It's like trying to argue that your client is not a paedophile while he rapes a baby in court at the exact same time. You've got nothing. All that's left is farce.
What the fuck are you going to defend?
Which kind of ignores how schools below 1-A still manage to have reasonably healthy athletic departments and functioning football playoffs.
These guys just suck.
1) That is in addition to the scholarship. That is, if they're currently paying the kids 50k/year in scholarship and other costs then they could be paying them 150k in total no problem.
2) I think that you are seriously underestimating the marginal value of the rest of the team. Even if a few stars make bank, there will be enough money left over to reasonably compensate the rest of the team.
And even that is ignoring the fact that this is about the players being able to profit off their own Name, Likeness, and Image, not schools outright paying players. The NCAA should be all fucking for a constrained format where they and the schools get to dictate how the royalties are earned, because fuck, they would make even more money. The NFL makes freaking stupid amounts of money off jersey sales from players switching teams, and just being drafted or retiring in general. In college where you're guaranteed turnover after 3-5 years on your whole roster? The schools should be begging the NCAA to let them monetize that end of things. You give every student athlete nation wide the same deal, and then the Title IX issue is solved. If the women's sports can market and sell their jerseys or memorabilia successfully, they will earn right alone with the guys. Women's Basketball and Volleyball absolutely could at the very least at most schools, and at a lot of others Lacrosse and Soccer I would imagine wouldn't do so poorly. Couple that with a full cost of attendance increase, and this would make the compensation debate a hilarious non-factor. But the NCAA is too caught up in the elitist Victorian bullshit that is the idea of amateurism, that it will burn it's kingdom down in defense of it's ideals.
Or you know, it's totally coincidence that say, #20 was the popular jersey around here when I was in school.
(Now it's probably... a #11 basketball jersey; this is still weird to me)
Yeah, but I imagine you'd see much higher jersey turnover if there were actual names on the back of them.
Yeah, but that's stuff that can be negotiated in the NFLPA. I know that the NFL's cut of the revenue generated by Jersey sales is pooled together and then shared equally among all teams. It wouldn't surprise me if the Player's do the same thing with their cut of the Jersey sales, pool it all together and then divide it equally among all players. If Sherman wants a bigger piece of the pie, he can fight for it as part of the NFLPA.
Meanwhile, the college athletes get no pie at all, and thus can only stare wistfully at it.
You don't need a salary cap. If you strictly enforce per year caps, and force schools to honor their scholarships, it takes care of itself.
The issue with booster payments is the lack of transparency. If you legalize them, the very first people who are going to get in on that are gamblers.
Which is more an argument to just pay the kids directly than anything else.
She may not be breaking out in Wagner quite yet, but the fat lady is warming up.
Wow. Just, fucking wow.
Yeah, there's cutting your throat, and then there's pulling a Steve Buchemi in Fargo.
To be fair, a good amount of their strategy would have worked in a jury trial. Furthermore, you have to work with the client you have, not the client you want.
And let's not forget that this was an NCAA witness.