Athletic: College football may be in danger

Donate To GopherHole








Can anyone say what it was about? I'm not interested in having to add them to my email ignore for just one article. I was able to see something about an Oklahoma player suing because he went undrafted and wants to come back to college ball, I think?
 

Jack jones said:
Why isn’t a $60,000 scholarship enough?
Click to expand...

Why should players settle for scraps when they are the backbone of a sport that takes in billions of dollars every year?

Should coaches, conference executives, media moguls, announcers, etc. all work for less money as well, or is it only the players that are 'overpaid', in your view?
 




CentralGopher said:
I don’t base my wage on how much the company I work for makes. My wage is based on industry standards, qualifications, and performance. Players should be no different.
Click to expand...

If a new employer believes you are worth more than you present employer does and offers you more compensation, better benefits, etc, to come and work for them, you are free to accept the offer and leave your present employer.

The competitive marketplace sets the wage.

That's pretty much what's happening in college football right now. Ask Koi Perich; he can tell you all about it.

It seems as though the age-old argument that college players are students, not employees, hasn't stood the test in various legal challenges.
 

RememberMurray said:
If a new employer believes you are worth more than you present employer does and offers you more compensation, better benefits, etc, to come and work for them, you are free to accept the offer and leave your present employer.

The competitive marketplace sets the wage.

That's pretty much what's happening in college football right now. Ask Koi Perich; he can tell you all about it.

It seems as though the age-old argument that college players are students, not employees, hasn't stood the test in various legal challenges.
Click to expand...
The CSC is looking like it wants to try show its teeth that then if they're employees, they actually have to do work

www.espn.com

Arbitration case could bring change to college sports' 'messy middle'

Why Nebraska's recent challenge could have wide-ranging salary cap implications.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
 

upnorthkid said:
The CSC is looking like it wants to try show its teeth that then if they're employees, they actually have to do work

www.espn.com

Arbitration case could bring change to college sports' 'messy middle'

Why Nebraska's recent challenge could have wide-ranging salary cap implications.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
Click to expand...

They do work. They work quite hard, actually.

There is a large time commitment. They are expected to attend practice, meetings, workouts, do film study and travel to and from games all over the country. Even in the so-called off season they are required to lift weights, attend and participate in captan's practices, train, etc. There are incredibly high expectations placed on college football players. Their work environment is extremely high-risk — just take a look at the number of players on a weekly basis who can't play because of injuries. Players routinely sustain concussions that can lead to dementia. Broken bones, knee injuries, shoulder separations, etc., are all simply routine in college football. They are considered part of the game.
 



RememberMurray said:
They do work. They work quite hard, actually.

There is a large time commitment. They are expected to attend practice, meetings, workouts, do film study and travel to and from games all over the country. Even in the so-called off season they are required to lift weights, attend and participate in captan's practices, train, etc. There are incredibly high expectations placed on college football players. Their work environment is extremely high-risk — just take a look at the number of players on a weekly basis who can't play because of injuries. Players routinely sustain concussions that can lead to dementia. Broken bones, knee injuries, shoulder separations, etc., are all simply routine in college football. They are considered part of the game.
Click to expand...
they certainly do. I'm not the NCAA, CSC, nor advocating for or against their salary. I don't think anyone has said anything about working hard, same as I'd say the guy laying blacktop is working pretty damn hard. Working hard, unfortunately, isn't setting their salary in the current landscape. They're getting that revenue share from the school and I suppose that that can be deemed what they're getting for any of the things you mention.

However the outside NIL money is different and it's nothing to do with attending practice, it's whether or not what they're doing is a "valid business purpose" and absolutely not supposed to be pay for the play on the field, practice they do, or weights they lift but rather for them doing work outside of football/sport.

As per the article
The CSC was launched last July to police how college athletes are paid. Athletes can make money in two ways: through direct payments from their school and via third-party endorsement deals. Both have limits. Each school can spend a little more than $20 million per year in direct payments to athletes. Third-party deals must be for a "valid business purpose," such as endorsing a product, rather than a pay-for-play arrangement.

And my opinion
No one is arguing (in any good faith) they don't deserve part of the revenue share. If anything, it perhaps stands to reason they should be considered for an even bigger part of the pie there. This is a discussion regarding 3rd party deals and NIL and schools gaming the system. I'm all for making them employees of the schools and forcing the schools to pay them and support them long-term with employee protections and contracts.
 


upnorthkid said:
they certainly do. I'm not the NCAA, CSC, nor advocating for or against their salary. I don't think anyone has said anything about working hard, same as I'd say the guy laying blacktop is working pretty damn hard. Working hard, unfortunately, isn't setting their salary in the current landscape. They're getting that revenue share from the school and I suppose that that can be deemed what they're getting for any of the things you mention.

However the outside NIL money is different and it's nothing to do with attending practice, it's whether or not what they're doing is a "valid business purpose" and absolutely not supposed to be pay for the play on the field, practice they do, or weights they lift but rather for them doing work outside of football/sport.

As per the article
The CSC was launched last July to police how college athletes are paid. Athletes can make money in two ways: through direct payments from their school and via third-party endorsement deals. Both have limits. Each school can spend a little more than $20 million per year in direct payments to athletes. Third-party deals must be for a "valid business purpose," such as endorsing a product, rather than a pay-for-play arrangement.

And my opinion
No one is arguing (in any good faith) they don't deserve part of the revenue share. If anything, it perhaps stands to reason they should be considered for an even bigger part of the pie there. This is a discussion regarding 3rd party deals and NIL and schools gaming the system. I'm all for making them employees of the schools and forcing the schools to pay them and support them long-term with employee protections and contracts.
Click to expand...

If a local or national business decides that it wants to support a particular college football program for any reason, who has real authority to place any restrictions on that decision? Who decides what is and what is not a "valid business purpose"? Why not allow the business itself to make that call?
 

RememberMurray said:
If a local or national business decides that it wants to support a particular college football program for any reason, who has real authority to place any restrictions on that decision? Who decides what is and what is not a "valid business purpose"? Why not allow the business itself to make that call?
Click to expand...
if they decide they want to pay them to play, then they should lift the arbitrary limits on eligibility and let the market decide. under your argument, why can't a booster just be a bagman and pay him to play?

it's like you didn't look at the article cited at all?
 
Last edited:

GopherTheJugular said:
Can anyone say what it was about? I'm not interested in having to add them to my email ignore for just one article. I was able to see something about an Oklahoma player suing because he went undrafted and wants to come back to college ball, I think?
Click to expand...
Mandel responding to his mailbag:

Oklahoma linebacker Owen Heinecke’s lawsuit seems like the next logical step in player empowerment. Coaches past and present have advocated for players returning to school if they’re not satisfied with their projections in the pre-draft process. Do you think this the logical next step in player empowerment or it’s not that consequential? — Anonymous

There is no doubt in my mind that come July or August we are going to see at least one player in this draft class file a lawsuit attempting to return to college — importantly, if they have eligibility remaining — because they either went undrafted or got cut in training camp. They’ll argue the NCAA is costing them money they would be able to make from NIL/revenue sharing, and that the rule that keeps players from pulling out of the NFL Draft is “arbitrary and capricious.” After all, basketball players can withdraw from the NBA Draft up until about a month beforehand. (Note: The NFL would also have to change its own rule by which players renounce their remaining eligibility upon entering the draft.)

Whether they would receive a favorable court ruling is hard to say, as the NCAA has won several eligibility challenges lately. Alabama basketball player Charles Bediako initially won a temporary restraining order and played in five games earlier this season before a different judge shut him back down in rejecting his injunction claim. Two big differences in the football scenario, though: Bediako was three years removed from college, not one, and he’d played in G League games, not just gone to training camp.

But I looked at a few seven-round mock drafts. Some early entrants projected to go in the later rounds: Texas tight end Jack Endries, Utah edge Logan Fano and Duke edge Wesley Williams. I wonder if they’ve already been contacted by prospective attorneys.
 

upnorthkid said:
if they decide they want to pay them to play, then they should lift the arbitrary limits on eligibility and let the market decide
Click to expand...

That would be the free market solution, yes.

upnorthkid said:
it's like you didn't look at the article cited at all?

under your argument, why can't a booster just be a bagman and pay him to play?
Click to expand...

Why indeed? That's exactly what I'm asking. And please note: I'm asking, not advocating one way or the other.

If we are going to place any restrictions on free markets, we need to justify those restrictions. I will say that arguing against players getting anything and everything the free market might offer them needs to have justification that is pretty compelling.
 

Also:

You regularly reference college football’s high TV ratings as a sign that the sport is healthy. I would suggest the changes have made the sport more accessible to the casual fan at the expense of us 40-plus-year hardcore fans. History shows (ahem NASCAR) that turning off your base can have long-term detriments. Do college presidents and league commissioners truly care about the sport long-term? — Jared J.

I don’t think there’s any question that’s happening. Conference realignment in particular has mostly been a big middle finger in the face of loyal fans. The USC and UCLA administrations saw big flashing dollar signs in their eyes and jumped at the chance to join the Big Ten without stopping to consider how their own fans would feel about joining a conference where attending their teams’ road games would be virtually impossible. But it’s great for Fox/CBS/NBC — they get to show a USC-Michigan game.

And while I continue to believe NIL and the portal have made college football a better product — more parity, more hope — I fully realize it’s made it much harder for fans to keep up with their teams’ rosters from year to year. And that it may feel like a betrayal when your star player bolts for a bigger paycheck somewhere else.

The NASCAR cautionary tale* comes up a lot, but there’s a significant difference between the two sports: College football fans are inherently more loyal to their schools than motorsports fans are to their favorite drivers. Alabama was playing football long before Jeff Gordon and Dale Earnhardt Jr. began their careers, and Alabama will keep playing football long after they ended. And because of that, the powers-that-be just assume those decades-long attachments will never fray.
 

RememberMurray said:
That would be the free market solution, yes.



Why indeed? That's exactly what I'm asking. And please note: I'm asking, not advocating one way or the other.

If we are going to place any restrictions on free markets, we need to justify those restrictions. I will say that arguing against players getting anything and everything the free market might offer them needs to have justification that is pretty compelling.
Click to expand...
because it's been decided they are students and amateurs, not contracted professionals. If that's the case (that they're professionals), you're going to have to drop eligibility requirements (unless you enter a CBA that includes that in negotiations) or you're going to face lawsuits (we all know they're already coming).

The "college" sports system is broken as it exists. The market is being set right now because its a way to pay for play over the negotiations and try buy titles while the option is there. College QBs are getting larger salaries than rookie deals in the NFL right now. The NCAA only has itself to blame for it
 

CentralGopher said:
I don’t base my wage on how much the company I work for makes. My wage is based on industry standards, qualifications, and performance. Players should be no different.
Click to expand...
What’s the industry standard for a college football player on the open market?
 

GreasyGopher said:
What’s the industry standard for a college football player on the open market?
Click to expand...

That's a great question. It varies widely depending on many factors: the skill level of the player, which position he plays, which schools are recruiting him and how well-funded the schools are, to name a few.

It's quite like the workplace in general. How sought after are you as an employee? It depends on your skill level, what job you do, and the financial situation of any company that wants to hire you.
 

upnorthkid said:
because it's been decided they are students and amateurs, not contracted professionals.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the here and now? This seems like a throwback to the way it used to be, not current reality.

upnorthkid said:
If that's the case (that they're professionals), you're going to have to drop eligibility requirements (unless you enter a CBA that includes that in negotiations) or you're going to face lawsuits (we all know they're already coming).
Click to expand...

Yes. You already stated this in a previous post, and I already agreed with it. I'd go so far as to say that this scenario (having a CBA, dropping eligibility requirements) seems pretty much inevitable.

upnorthkid said:
The "college" sports system is broken as it exists. The market is being set right now because its a way to pay for play over the negotiations and try buy titles while the option is there. College QBs are getting larger salaries than rookie deals in the NFL right now. The NCAA only has itself to blame for it
Click to expand...

The college sports world we grew up with was based on an illusion of amateurism. There were rules in place enforcing this psuedo-amateurism, but those rules were always enforced haphazardly and they were frequently skirted. And now, the rules and restrictions that the illusion depended upon have simply not held up under recent legal scrutiny and/or legal challenges.

If college sports are now 'broken', it's because of that. The house was built un a very shaky foundation.
 

Gophers7NatTitlesBadgers0 said:
Also:

You regularly reference college football’s high TV ratings as a sign that the sport is healthy. I would suggest the changes have made the sport more accessible to the casual fan at the expense of us 40-plus-year hardcore fans. History shows (ahem NASCAR) that turning off your base can have long-term detriments. Do college presidents and league commissioners truly care about the sport long-term? — Jared J.

I don’t think there’s any question that’s happening. Conference realignment in particular has mostly been a big middle finger in the face of loyal fans. The USC and UCLA administrations saw big flashing dollar signs in their eyes and jumped at the chance to join the Big Ten without stopping to consider how their own fans would feel about joining a conference where attending their teams’ road games would be virtually impossible. But it’s great for Fox/CBS/NBC — they get to show a USC-Michigan game.

And while I continue to believe NIL and the portal have made college football a better product — more parity, more hope — I fully realize it’s made it much harder for fans to keep up with their teams’ rosters from year to year. And that it may feel like a betrayal when your star player bolts for a bigger paycheck somewhere else.

The NASCAR cautionary tale* comes up a lot, but there’s a significant difference between the two sports: College football fans are inherently more loyal to their schools than motorsports fans are to their favorite drivers. Alabama was playing football long before Jeff Gordon and Dale Earnhardt Jr. began their careers, and Alabama will keep playing football long after they ended. And because of that, the powers-that-be just assume those decades-long attachments will never fray.
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting these. This question sounds like something I would have asked. I disagree with the response about NASCAR though. I don't think NASCAR fans are loyal to drivers, just like college football fans aren't loyal to players. NASCAR fans just wanna see cars racing, college fb fans just wanna see football.

I think he was purposefully obtuse in trying to give a good rebuttal. For example, Dale Sr. has been dead for over 20 years but his fans are still watching NASCAR races - they didn't stop after he left the sport.
 

My stream of consciousness thought of the day:

How were college football players “paid” in the olden days prior to the existence of “professional” football?

My thinking is it had to be transactional even way back in the day, thus making old school amateur college football really “professional football” after all...
 

RememberMurray said:
Are you talking about the here and now? This seems like a throwback to the way it used to be, not current reality.



Yes. You already stated this in a previous post, and I already agreed with it. I'd go so far as to say that this scenario (having a CBA, dropping eligibility requirements) seems pretty much inevitable.



The college sports world we grew up with was based on an illusion of amateurism. There were rules in place enforcing this psuedo-amateurism, but those rules were always enforced haphazardly and they were frequently skirted. And now, the rules and restrictions that the illusion depended upon have simply not held up under recent legal scrutiny and/or legal challenges.

If college sports are now 'broken', it's because of that. The house was built un a very shaky foundation.
Click to expand...
they (the NCAA) still view them as amateurs.

Hence why getting prize money, signing with a pro team, playing with professionals, getting paid to play sports, and your agent relationship all are looked at by the NCAA before determining your eligibility.

I'm not saying I'm for this or against it, but its how the NCAA has written their handbook as it still exists right now.

Right now, tbh, it would be better if they just got rid of it all as you have people playing by the rules and others who are bending them (that's what the above linked lawsuit was about).

As some have said, putting soft caps and half assed rules in place are worse than no rules and in effect mean there are no rules
 

Who in their right mind is submitting these deals to the schools/CSC?

if it wasn’t happening already the CSC overreach will drive the market underground.
 

RememberMurray said:
Why should players settle for scraps when they are the backbone of a sport that takes in billions of dollars every year?

Should coaches, conference executives, media moguls, announcers, etc. all work for less money as well, or is it only the players that are 'overpaid', in your view?
Click to expand...
Spoken like a true unionist
 

RememberMurray said:
That's a great question. It varies widely depending on many factors: the skill level of the player, which position he plays, which schools are recruiting him and how well-funded the schools are, to name a few.

It's quite like the workplace in general. How sought after are you as an employee? It depends on your skill level, what job you do, and the financial situation of any company that wants to hire you.
Click to expand...
My point is that it’s currently an unknown given the recent changes in college sports. It will probably take a few years to shake out. Also, I’d argue that it’s slightly different than the normal workplace as there’s likely millions of people capable of doing the jobs most people work while there are significantly fewer capable of playing high end college football.

Anyone can make a widget not everyone can play college sports.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom