[Brett McMurphy]Kevin Warren sees Big Ten having 20 members & paying players.

Donate To GopherHole

Wow, that’s a bombshell coming from the Big Ten honcho. He’s describing an entirely different governance model, business model, college athletics funding model.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Wow, that’s a bombshell coming from the Big Ten honcho. He’s describing an entirely different governance model, business model, college athletics funding model.
Click to expand...
I am not surprised that is his vision, but I am surprised he went public with it. I am also curious about the reason for going public with it now. Perhaps he wants to accelerate things, and/or he is trying to show Notre Dame (and other key targets) their opportunity to get onboard is closing.
 

A little surprised by the pay for play idea, but I don't think anyone should be surprised the B1G isnt done expanding.
 

A little surprised by the pay for play idea, but I don't think anyone should be surprised the B1G isnt done expanding.
 


matt said:
I am not surprised that is his vision, but I am surprised he went public with it. I am also curious about the reason for going public with it now. Perhaps he wants to accelerate things, and/or he is trying to show Notre Dame (and other key targets) their opportunity to get onboard is closing.
Click to expand...
It's about closing opportunity. There are 4 Golden tickets left. Get one before it's too late.

Leagues that don't pay players won't get the best players.
 

Will have to watch the episode on Tues.

The wording doesn't necessarily mean they're looking to get to 20 now. This could be talking about a mid-term future of adding Notre Dame and three ACC schools.

But it certainly could be referring to Wash Oregon Stanford and Cal.
 

TruthSeeker said:
It's about closing opportunity. There are 4 Golden tickets left. Get one before it's too late.

Leagues that don't pay players won't get the best players.
Click to expand...
Correct, and the Big Ten will have the most money to pay players.
 




I would say that quote is a little out of context based on the tweet alone
 

Gophers_4life said:
Will have to watch the episode on Tues.

The wording doesn't necessarily mean they're looking to get to 20 now. This could be talking about a mid-term future of adding Notre Dame and three ACC schools.

But it certainly could be referring to Wash Oregon Stanford and Cal.
Click to expand...
Yeah, not going after three ACC teams. Irish for sure...Oregon's chances are slim and behind the other three you listed.
 

Some guy said:
I would say that quote is a little out of context based on the tweet alone
Click to expand...
Yeah they left out the part where McMurphy asked him specifically about 20. He may have had the same answer to 16, 30, 60. Other than paying players there is nothing to see here. He's only going to expand if it adds value.
 

I posted this in the BB which is dead.

I can see a required pay scale for all B1G schools based upon sport. All schools would pay all team members the standard B1G rate.

For example ($ numbers are just a wild guess, maybe raise it each year from Freshman to Senior):

$50K/year for Tier 1 Revenue Sports: Football/Basketball etc..

$20K/year for Tier 2 Revenue Sports: Hockey/Volleyball/Wrestling etc..

$10K/year for Tier 3 Revenue Sports: Baseball/Softball/Soccer/Gymnastics/Swimming etc...

$5K/year for Tier 4 Non-Revenue sports: Rowing/Golf etc..

This is just a rough concept (sports level and $ amount ????) that would be the same across all B1G school.

And of course, NIL would be in addition to this money.
 



alchemy2u said:
I posted this in the BB which is dead.

I can see a required pay scale for all B1G schools based upon sport. All schools would pay all team members the standard B1G rate.

For example ($ numbers are just a wild guess, maybe raise it each year from Freshman to Senior):

$50K/year for Tier 1 Revenue Sports: Football/Basketball etc..

$20K/year for Tier 2 Revenue Sports: Hockey/Volleyball/Wrestling etc..

$10K/year for Tier 3 Revenue Sports: Baseball/Softball/Soccer/Gymnastics/Swimming etc...

$5K/year for Tier 4 Non-Revenue sports: Rowing/Golf etc..

This is just a rough concept (sports level and $ amount ????) that would be the same across all B1G school.

And of course, NIL would be in addition to this money.
Click to expand...
I can definitely see that being the eventual outcome.
 

Interesting thought but have to think would lead to a price spiral with SEC, ACC or whatever entities develop out of this unless they also agree on similar flat rates, otherwise players would be chasing $, bidding wars etc. Legalities of such an arrangement? Would an NFL model, contracts then develop. I don’t know for certain but I also imagine a systematic different tiers of pay not playing well with today‘s college players. Equal pay/work movement. Is it “fair” that a second team punter be paid more than a starting women’s softball or BB player, and so on.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Interesting thought but have to think would lead to a price spiral with SEC, ACC or whatever entities develop out of this unless they also agree on similar flat rates, otherwise players would be chasing $, bidding wars etc. Legalities of such an arrangement? Would an NFL model, contracts then develop. I don’t know for certain but I also imagine a systematic different tiers of pay not playing well with today‘s college players. Equal pay/work movement. Is it “fair” that a second team punter be paid more than a starting women’s softball or BB player, and so on.
Click to expand...
The Title IX implications of paying players is the biggest obstacle to implementing a payment system.
 

TruthSeeker said:
The Title IX implications of paying players is the biggest obstacle to implementing a payment system.
Click to expand...

And economics of it, labor law issues. If sky’s the limit, do you pull funding from “non-rev” or negative revenue programs. Something would have to give.
 

I think a better way to describe it would be "revenue-sharing."

no different than some company that has a revenue-sharing or a stock-purchase plan as an incentive for the employees.

but here's a thought - if the B1G adopts a revenue-sharing program, anyone think that MIGHT have an impact on players deciding to transfer, or not transfer? If the B1G has revenue-sharing, no one is going to transfer out of the B1G for another conference.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Interesting thought but have to think would lead to a price spiral with SEC, ACC or whatever entities develop out of this unless they also agree on similar flat rates, otherwise players would be chasing $, bidding wars etc. Legalities of such an arrangement? Would an NFL model, contracts then develop. I don’t know for certain but I also imagine a systematic different tiers of pay not playing well with today‘s college players. Equal pay/work movement. Is it “fair” that a second team punter be paid more than a starting women’s softball or BB player, and so on.
Click to expand...
They could just handle it as a stipend, like they do for some graduate students
 

TruthSeeker said:
The Title IX implications of paying players is the biggest obstacle to implementing a payment system.
Click to expand...
Not an issue at all. You have to pay all similar sports on that tier the same no matter if it is women's or men's sport or rowing or golf....

They charge the same tuition for class credits no matter the major (excluding lab or other fees, etc...)

It doesn't really have to be that complicated.

All major universities currently pay a stipend and tuition for some graduate students. For example the lab TA for your physics or chemistry lab.

Just set up the program to pay each student a stipend based upon tier sport and maybe year.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
I think a better way to describe it would be "revenue-sharing."

no different than some company that has a revenue-sharing or a stock-purchase plan as an incentive for the employees.

but here's a thought - if the B1G adopts a revenue-sharing program, anyone think that MIGHT have an impact on players deciding to transfer, or not transfer? If the B1G has revenue-sharing, no one is going to transfer out of the B1G for another conference.
Click to expand...
I do not think they want to link it to revenues sharing. That implies that the students have leverage. I think they just want to add it as a way to cover the cost of attending school
 

short ornery norwegian said:
I think a better way to describe it would be "revenue-sharing."

no different than some company that has a revenue-sharing or a stock-purchase plan as an incentive for the employees.

but here's a thought - if the B1G adopts a revenue-sharing program, anyone think that MIGHT have an impact on players deciding to transfer, or not transfer? If the B1G has revenue-sharing, no one is going to transfer out of the B1G for another conference.
Click to expand...
If the Big Ten goes an egalitarian route and say the SEC gives merit-based salary/stipend/bonus to the best players would we see a snowbird-like southern migration? Maybe the major conferences can cooperate on a system that benefits all. Maybe.
 

alchemy2u said:
I do not think they want to link it to revenues sharing. That implies that the students have leverage. I think they just want to add it as a way to cover the cost of attending school
Click to expand...
AFAIK teaching assistants at public schools have collective bargaining rights. I could be wrong. I just don’t see how recognizing athletes as employees, similar to TAs could avoid thorny labor law issues, salary negotiations, challenges from various interested parties. It could get “interesting” once employment status changes. The cost of attendance is already fully covered for football players.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
AFAIK teaching assistants at public schools have collective bargaining rights. I could be wrong. I just don’t see how recognizing athletes as employees, similar to TAs could avoid thorny labor law issues, salary negotiations, challenges from various interested parties. It could get “interesting” once employment status changes. The cost of attendance is already fully covered for football players.
Click to expand...
In think you are right, is has just recently changed. The NLRB in March 2021 withdrew a proposed rule that would have exempted graduate students for being considered employees of the schools (it would have been considered a part of their "training").
 

the reason I say "revenue sharing" is this.

in order to share revenue, there has to be revenue to share.

ergo, the sports that generate revenue would/should offer the most revenue-sharing opportunities.

on the other hand, if you adopt a model where athletes are paid for participation - like a 'regular' employee, then all of the non-revenue sports will expect to get the same as the major revenue sports.

I see it like the difference between a commission and a non-commission employee.

nothing against the 'olympic' sports, but they don't generate any revenue. CBS, NBC and Fox are not shelling out over a Billion dollars to show rowing or track.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
the reason I say "revenue sharing" is this.

in order to share revenue, there has to be revenue to share.

ergo, the sports that generate revenue would/should offer the most revenue-sharing opportunities.

on the other hand, if you adopt a model where athletes are paid for participation - like a 'regular' employee, then all of the non-revenue sports will expect to get the same as the major revenue sports.

I see it like the difference between a commission and a non-commission employee.

nothing against the 'olympic' sports, but they don't generate any revenue. CBS, NBC and Fox are not shelling out over a Billion dollars to show rowing or track.
Click to expand...

Plans have been discussed at the national level and introduced at the state level in CA. Once the numbers are crunched interested parties tend to run for the hills as it would create some interesting budgeting meetings. The CA bill AFAIK is stalled as it would create some “fiscal excitement“ in the UC system.

Here is one person’s discussion of the Booker plan. The CA plan is roughly similar. He appears to include walk-ons in the revenue sharing.




What Might Revenue Sharing Look Like?​

The College Athletes Bill of Rights, which was introduced by Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) in December 2020, states that schools that compete in revenue-generating sports would participate in 50-percent revenue sharing, minus the cost of scholarships.

From Sen. Booker’s website:

For example, Division 1 women’s basketball players will receive 50 percent of the total revenue generated by their play after deducting the cost of scholarships awarded to all Division 1 women’s basketball players.
Click to expand...
The sports that would participate in this proposed revenue sharing would include football, men’s and women’s basketball, and baseball.

In the Pac-12 athletes’ #WeAreUnited statement that was published on The Players’ Tribune in August 2020, the first demand under the “Fair Market Pay, Rights & Freedoms” subheading was “Distribute 50% of each sport’s total conference revenue evenly among athletes in their respective sports.”

The Pac-12 reported $530.4 million in revenue during the 2020 fiscal year, according to USA TODAY, which reported that the figure “does not take into account the equity value of the Pac-12 Networks, the conference’s fully self-owned television and video content provider whose expenses help result in the conference passing less money to its member schools than the other conferences.”

A 50-percent share of the conference’s revenue, not including the value of the Pac-12 Networks, would mean $265.2 million would be earmarked for the conference’s athletes in a hypothetical revenue-sharing model. According to its 2019 Form 990 filing, the Pac-12 distributed more than $386 million to its member schools, which is roughly $32.2 million per school.

Ten of the 12 schools in the Pac-12 are public universities – all but Stanford and USC – and that means their FRS reports are considered public records. We obtained the 2019 FRS for each of the 10 public schools in the Pac-12, since universities are still responding to requests for their 2020 FRS reports. Collectively, those 10 schools reported more than $515 million in football revenue during the 2019 fiscal year. In an effort to calculate a ballpark estimate of a hypothetical 50-percent revenue share, we divided that revenue in half, then divided that amount equally among the total number of football players who were listed on the 2020 football rosters for the 10 public universities in the Pac-12.

The math comes out to $256,052.84 per athlete, which could pass for a lower-end Power 5 football assistant coach’s salary.

Once again, this is just a reference point of what could be an even higher total for the Pac-12’s football-related revenue, when factoring in revenue that flows into the conference office but isn’t distributed. It’s also probably fair to assume USC’s football revenue is in a neighborhood that’s more similar to that of Washington ($84 million in 2019) or Oregon ($72 million) neighborhood rather than Washington Sate ($44 million) or Oregon State ($37 million).

How much would athletes who compete in sports besides football receive in a world where there was 50-percent revenue sharing by sport?

Using the same process used for the football estimates above (adding the sport-related revenue reported by each of the 10 public schools in the Pac-12 in the 2019 fiscal year, cutting it in half, then dividing it by the number of athletes who are listed on those 10 Pac-12 schools’ rosters), the rough estimate of revenue share per Pac-12 men’s basketball athlete would be around $325,000, which is roughly an additional $75,000 per player compared to the hypothetical football revenue share.

If a 50-percent revenue share existed in the Pac-12, an estimate by AthleticDirectorU using the same process showed women’s basketball athletes would receive more than $38,000 per athlete, while female gymnasts and women’s tennis players would receive just over $19,000 per athlete.

College Athletics Spending And The Movement Towards Revenue Sharing

AthleticDirectorU looks at how increasing athletic department revenues are spent and how the revenue sharing required in the proposed College Athletes Bill of Rights would impact spending.
athleticdirectoru.com
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom