Toggle sidebar

The downside of NIL

joelef

Registered User
Nov 22, 2011
1,814
675
KevFu said:
I've had this argument hundreds of times on this site and no one has offered any evidence that even dents it.

The players themselves and who they are and what their talents are don't matter to the equation. People watch college sports because of their attachments to the schools and they want their players to be better than the other teams players.


If you look at just TALENT OF ROSTER, the NBA G-League crushes NCAA basketball in talent. They're basically college All-Stars. Every NBA G-LEAGUE roster is BETTER than EVERY NCAA Basketball team... but more people by NCAA basketball tickets by a vast margin.


#1 G-League attendance is 5840 (Texas). That would be 83rd in NCAA Basketball, between Richmond and Old Dominion.

The G-League average of 2,311 per game would be 175th in the NCAA, between Bellarmine and Furman.

You go same city, and UAB, Hofstra, Univ of Delaware trounce the G-League teams in attendance.

Look at Washington DC. The G-League team is like 9th in the metro area in basketball attendance. They're behind the George Mason University WOMEN in attendance (and the G-League team was 3rd overall, while the GMU women were 16-15.


I like to use the EA Sports player overall ranking system analogy: Attendance doesn't follow the players overall ratings. Davidson averaged 3,500 fans per game before, during and after they had Steph Curry.

If the best players in college sports are only 78 overall, 100,000 fans are going to go to Alabama football games, and 18,000 fans are going to Kentucky basketball games because they usually have THE MOST 78 overall players. They want to see 75 overall Kentucky beat 70 overall Louisville. They don't care about anything more than that.

Syracuse basketball fans will root for Carmelo Anthony regardless of what NBA team he's on. Davidson, NC is probably split 50/50 between Warriors and Hornets fans (or they just root for both).

I love the Islanders and Mets, but they're not listed on my resume, my college IS. If I had $10 billion, I wouldn't buy the Islanders or Mets... I'd bankroll my alma mater to go from a school you've barely heard of to a school that people call "Like Gonzaga on Steroids." I'm getting St. Bonaventure into the Big East via all new athletics facilities, a 5-star hotel and private airline that's free for conference opponents.
Click to expand...
Dosent matter which is more o
Popular we probably wouldn’t have nil or the cab arms race if the pro leagues and Olympic ngb’ s actually did there own development
 
KevFu

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,233
3,460
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
joelef said:
Little league and high school players are underage which means there much more regulations regarding what they can and cannot do i.e labor laws . What college football fans like you do is pay make believe that college students aren’t legal adults and there rights associated with tent.
Click to expand...

You're not even having the same discussion. The comparison to Little League and High School is the financial model for getting revenue.

Compensation is a whole other story. But once again, someone preaching about how how college athletes are exploited based only on P5 football and men's basketball programs while completely ignoring that 80% of Division I schools, and like 95% of college sporting events look a lot more like what you see at a high school game than what you see at NFL or NBA games.
 

joelef

Registered User
Nov 22, 2011
1,814
675
KevFu said:
You're not even having the same discussion. The comparison to Little League and High School is the financial model for getting revenue.

Compensation is a whole other story. But once again, someone preaching about how how college athletes are exploited based only on P5 football and men's basketball programs while completely ignoring that 80% of Division I schools, and like 95% of college sporting events look a lot more like what you see at a high school game than what you see at NFL or NBA games.
Click to expand...
I never said they were exploited just don’t understand why , if you love amateurism, not equally upset about coaches salaries and tv money.
 
KevFu

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,233
3,460
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
joelef said:
I never said they were exploited just don’t understand why , if you love amateurism, not equally upset about coaches salaries and tv money.
Click to expand...

I don't love amateurism. I just see what ALL of college sports is, beyond Top 25/Power 5 football and men's basketball.

The average sports fan looks at "THE TEAM" as the business. The business is ATHLETIC DEPARTMENTS. They're sharing resources -- facilities, support staff, etc. Athletics department employees work for all the teams they have.

If you were to apply a professional CBA to college sports, it's going to come out to about $24,000 per student-athlete, which is actually less than the value of what they're getting now (with the caveat being that so many kids are partial scholarships).

THAT'S the thing we should be upset about. Not that future NFL/NBA players aren't getting paid (well, WEREN'T getting paid. Now they're getting tens of thousands in NIL money).

#1 - Every scholarship should be FULL. And FULL COST OF Attendance. An athlete -- any sports -- shouldn't have to pay a single dime for anything on campus ever.

#2 - I'm absolutely upset about coaches salaries and TV money. I just recognize the real root cause of the issues within college sports economics.
 
KevFu

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,233
3,460
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
It's THE INEQUITY of TV rights and dollars that causes the issues everyone complains about in college sports.

Texas A&M can only buy out a coach for $76 million dollars BECAUSE THEY'RE GETING A $70 MILLION CHECK FROM THE SEC. SWAC teams can't do that because they get something like $250,000 per school in TV money.

Pro sports leagues do not let the AL East sell their own national TV contract for 14 times what NL Central gets. But the NCAA, in their short-sighted reactionary way, let the genie out of the bottle after NCAA vs Oklahoma.

Two NCAA rules could have prevented the out of control nature of college sports today:
- TV revenue sharing. I'd prefer 100% revenue sharing, but at least 50%
- Conferences MUST play a COMPLETE round-robin schedule -- or double or triple -- not to be more than 75% of the total schedule; in every sport.

The first is obvious. Instead of the SEC getting $70m each and the SWAC getting $250k, every Division I school would be getting $9m in TV revenue.


The second part is more of a domino effect: The size of a football schedule means 9 conference games max; full round robin: You can't have more than 10 FBS schools in a conference. When the NCAA lost the TV rights case, no conference had more than 10 members. The Big 10, Pac-10, SEC (and WAC and MAC) would be totally full with 10 members each, and can't expand past that.

There'd be no reason for massive realignment in 100% revenue sharing, there WOULD be a reason in 50%, but it's capped at 10 members per conference. The SWC would break up if it's 50% but not if it's 100%.


Either way, you'd be looking at having NINE major conferences and five or six non-major football conferences.

The Big East could keep it's hybrid with 8-9 FBS schools, plus UConn (who'd eventually switch sides when they add FBS) and the Catholic 5 and Notre Dame playing a 14-16 game basketball round robin schedule.


Massively shrinking the financial inequity between conferences like that would curtail coaches' salaries. Sure, Texas A&M getting $9m in TV money, they'd still have like a $150m athletics budget and Tulsa would be at $55m budget. But they'd be buying out a $35m coach instead if a $75m coach.
 
Voight

Voight

#winning
Feb 8, 2012
40,705
17,089
Mulberry Street
NIL is only going to get "worse" as conference realignment continues. At this point, power is going to be concentrated in one (SEC), maybe two conferences and thus the majority of players will sign there due to more $$$ being available.
 
edog37

edog37

Registered User
Jan 21, 2007
6,097
1,644
Pittsburgh
Voight said:
NIL is only going to get "worse" as conference realignment continues. At this point, power is going to be concentrated in one (SEC), maybe two conferences and thus the majority of players will sign there due to more $$$ being available.
Click to expand...
Yep. And that’ll be the end of college football.
 
KevFu

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,233
3,460
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
Voight said:
NIL is only going to get "worse" as conference realignment continues. At this point, power is going to be concentrated in one (SEC), maybe two conferences and thus the majority of players will sign there due to more $$$ being available.
Click to expand...

I mean, that's kind of HERE already.

It's the SEC and Big Ten. Florida State went undefeated and was told to take a hike and are suing the ACC over the exit fee/GOR situation that locks them in so far behind those other two conferences for a long time.


It's really at the point where everyone outside the SEC/Big Ten need to vote to dissolve their conferences, then make one "best of" league with programs that COULD hang with the "Power 2" and have decent markets
 
PCSPounder

PCSPounder

Stadium Groupie
Apr 12, 2012
2,877
574
The Outskirts of Nutria Nanny
KevFu said:
It's THE INEQUITY of TV rights and dollars that causes the issues everyone complains about in college sports.

Texas A&M can only buy out a coach for $76 million dollars BECAUSE THEY'RE GETING A $70 MILLION CHECK FROM THE SEC. SWAC teams can't do that because they get something like $250,000 per school in TV money.

Pro sports leagues do not let the AL East sell their own national TV contract for 14 times what NL Central gets. But the NCAA, in their short-sighted reactionary way, let the genie out of the bottle after NCAA vs Oklahoma.

Two NCAA rules could have prevented the out of control nature of college sports today:
- TV revenue sharing. I'd prefer 100% revenue sharing, but at least 50%
- Conferences MUST play a COMPLETE round-robin schedule -- or double or triple -- not to be more than 75% of the total schedule; in every sport.

The first is obvious. Instead of the SEC getting $70m each and the SWAC getting $250k, every Division I school would be getting $9m in TV revenue.


The second part is more of a domino effect: The size of a football schedule means 9 conference games max; full round robin: You can't have more than 10 FBS schools in a conference. When the NCAA lost the TV rights case, no conference had more than 10 members. The Big 10, Pac-10, SEC (and WAC and MAC) would be totally full with 10 members each, and can't expand past that.

There'd be no reason for massive realignment in 100% revenue sharing, there WOULD be a reason in 50%, but it's capped at 10 members per conference. The SWC would break up if it's 50% but not if it's 100%.


Either way, you'd be looking at having NINE major conferences and five or six non-major football conferences.

The Big East could keep it's hybrid with 8-9 FBS schools, plus UConn (who'd eventually switch sides when they add FBS) and the Catholic 5 and Notre Dame playing a 14-16 game basketball round robin schedule.


Massively shrinking the financial inequity between conferences like that would curtail coaches' salaries. Sure, Texas A&M getting $9m in TV money, they'd still have like a $150m athletics budget and Tulsa would be at $55m budget. But they'd be buying out a $35m coach instead if a $75m coach.
Click to expand...
Kind of a thrown-together alternate history postulation here…

…if we had conferences capped at 10 schools, the networks would have (1) won a different case against the NCAA, and (2) would eventually concentrate the power schools into two ten-school conferences instead of two with 34 or so schools.

Or the power schools would have left the NCAA if they had lost that case. I have no trouble underestimating the greed of certain people.

One thing of note: I find it interesting that the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act gave control over Olympic sports to the national federations while not regarding the NCAA the way the NCAA wants now. That might be one way in which I guess the fix was always in, so to write.
 
PCSPounder

PCSPounder

Stadium Groupie
Apr 12, 2012
2,877
574
The Outskirts of Nutria Nanny
KevFu said:
I mean, that's kind of HERE already.

It's the SEC and Big Ten. Florida State went undefeated and was told to take a hike and are suing the ACC over the exit fee/GOR situation that locks them in so far behind those other two conferences for a long time.


It's really at the point where everyone outside the SEC/Big Ten need to vote to dissolve their conferences, then make one "best of" league with programs that COULD hang with the "Power 2" and have decent markets
Click to expand...
Ripe for more of a pro-rel scenario than the western proposal (which was apparently Boise State’s offer to the PAC-2) can muster.
 
KevFu

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,233
3,460
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
PCSPounder said:
Kind of a thrown-together alternate history postulation here…

…if we had conferences capped at 10 schools, the networks would have (1) won a different case against the NCAA, and (2) would eventually concentrate the power schools into two ten-school conferences instead of two with 34 or so schools.

Or the power schools would have left the NCAA if they had lost that case. I have no trouble underestimating the greed of certain people.

One thing of note: I find it interesting that the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act gave control over Olympic sports to the national federations while not regarding the NCAA the way the NCAA wants now. That might be one way in which I guess the fix was always in, so to write.
Click to expand...

The court case wasn't TV vs NCAA, it was schools vs NCAA saying the NCAA was limiting fair trade (and they were).

A rule limiting the size of conferences would definitely face a court challenge; but the NCAA has always set the rules on (a) number of games in a season and (b) the rules for what constitutes a conference.

Altering that rule (back in the day) to say a conference must play a balanced schedule in each sport has competitive roots and makes sense. By saying it must be a single, double, triple or quadruple round robin depending on the sport would effectively limit the size of conferences because you COULDN'T have a 14-team conference in football, there's only 12 games.

(Playing a 12-game schedule would mean 6 home games, 6 road games and the power conferences play 7 or 8 home games in football).

The Big East hybrid could be fine, though. They could have had 9 football teams playing an 8-game round robin and 15 basketball teams playing a 14-game round robin.


The real root cause of the TV revenue inequity and conference realignment isn't actually the pursuit of money by the conferences; you can't stop that. It's the fact that ESPN was left unchecked to monopolize college sports TV rights purchasing. The other networks treat sports as Weekend/Event programming. ESPN has THREE 24/7 sports networks for live games, and the other three companies combined have three (CBSSN, FS1, FS2).

PCSPounder said:
Ripe for more of a pro-rel scenario than the western proposal (which was apparently Boise State’s offer to the PAC-2) can muster.
Click to expand...

Eh, that's never gonna happen because there's no reason for a school who's membership is guaranteed now to risk being relegated and lose their spot. No one is voting for that.
 

joelef

Registered User
Nov 22, 2011
1,814
675
Funny child labor laws are being rolled back across the country with silence yet people are worried about 18 year old athletes making money and still calling them kids. Total hypocrites
 
KevFu

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,233
3,460
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
golfortennis1 said:
awfulannouncing.com

We need to stop calling NIL a privilege

In the world of college sports, there are few words that have been weaponized against athletes more than “privilege,” especially with NIL.
awfulannouncing.com

A change in mindset is the first thing that needs to happen IMHO...
Click to expand...

See, here's the issue... this topic is ALWAYS framed like a Labor thing: Management (NCAA) vs Workers (Student-athletes). Anyone against paying players in the NCAA is "pro-management, anti-labor."

Which is completely and 100% wrong.

It's really about the fact that laissez-faire and Darwinist capitalism will destroy over 80% of college athletics, INCLUDING THE LABOR.

It's more of the rich get richer and everyone else gets crushed. People are arguing that raising the minimum wage, companies will raise their prices leading to hyper inflation because the companies WON'T TAKE LESS PROFITS. And that's really the problem: There's no system in place to say "you can't take that much profit at the expense of your workers and customers."

But college sports ACTUALLY HAS the system: College Athletics departments ARE NON-PROFITS. So that money goes to 15 to 30 sports that aren't revenue neutral.

Which are opportunities to pay for college to 300 kids (mostly women), PER SCHOOL in Division I. And 278 schools in D-I can't afford to pay players without slashing their athletic departments in half. That's 84,000 college kids who's opportunities (and the money they do get for schooll) will disappear over night.

There needs to be LESS unchecked capitalism in college sports, not MORE. Because unchecked capitalism ends with ONE or TWO COMPANIES (SEC, Big Ten) controlling everything like Fanatics, or Coke vs Pepsi.


You want the players to GET MORE? I agree. Let's eliminate walk-ons and partial scholarships: Every rostered player in a sport gets a FULL scholarship, including all costs of attendance. Books, food, caps, gowns, etc. You should be able to be a Division I athlete who's well fed, well-clothed, and has a normal college existence and without ever spending a dime on campus.

Stipend for beer money and non-bookstore/team clothes? Sure.

How do we afford that? Revenue sharing. You don't let the Big Ten get $80m in TV money and the SWAC get $100,000 in TV money. You give every DI school $8m in TV money to pay for full cost of attendance for all the kids.

That's also going to make every conference better at sports, and negate the reason for recruits to ONLY want to go to the P5 schools. Which will make TV give more money to all of Division I.
 

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
26,232
9,777
LadyStanley said:
sports.yahoo.com

Myth or reality: Will Caitlin Clark take a pay cut going to the WNBA?

Do top women’s basketball prospects have incentive to remain in college into their mid-20s before leaving for the WNBA?
sports.yahoo.com sports.yahoo.com

Presumptive WNBA #1 pick may take pay cut going pro (than return for another/last season of NCAA WBB).
Click to expand...
Are they not assuming she will continue with those endorsement deals? If they were comparing straight NIL to wnba salary then yes she is taking a pay cut.

No surprise that college sports for women do better than the pros because of the loyalty to the school and being on a college campus vs a big city.

Packed college arena vs half full nba/nhl arenas sets a different atmosphere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom