NIL and Portal ruining College football

[Pregame 291]

47 minutes ago, Blammm said:

Did you pay them a salary to be your classmate?  Because that's where we are headed.

I don't particularly care if the athletics department subsidizes the rest of the university, but we shouldn't be jacking tuition to subsidize the athletics department.  Revenue from 6-7 home football games a year isn't going to stretch far enough to satisfy the creeping costs.  

Are you an accountant for Notre Dame? What are you talking about?
 

Revenue from home games a) easily covers the cost of room and board for not only the football team, but plenty of other athletes as well; and b) is a small part of the ledger as a whole for Notre Dame athletics. 

[soulpatch 149]

17 hours ago, Pregame said:

While this has nothing to do with NIL, I personally think its amazing that kids with no shot at graduating from a college with ANY degree are able to leverage their athletic abilities into a college graduation and a diploma. I know people who likewise wouldn't have gotten into ND in my class had they not been the children of prominent donors, alums, professors, etc. Did I, or anyone in their class, ever give a shit how or why they got to ND? No, not really and their piece of paper says the same thing my piece of paper says at the end of 4 yrs. Life is about taking advantage of your advantage, whatever that may be, and athletes really are no different (and probably more deserving of a shot than some others). 

This is certainly an angle that I hadn't considered but I think where these two paths diverge is what happens post graduation. Neither of them is nearly as likely as traditional students to get an actual education.

The trust-fund-baby with social influence is more likely to land a paying gig because of that social influence. Meanwhile, the football player's only real path is parlaying football into a paying gig and unless they make the pros or become one of the 1-2 players at State U that gain notoriety to become marketable for an alumnus with a business, they're back in the pool of people without a college education.

[ndfanatic78 285]

1 hour ago, Blammm said:

Did you pay them a salary to be your classmate?  Because that's where we are headed.

I don't particularly care if the athletics department subsidizes the rest of the university, but we shouldn't be jacking tuition to subsidize the athletics department.  Revenue from 6-7 home football games a year isn't going to stretch far enough to satisfy the creeping costs.  

All the payments currently are outside the university. The universities are not paying anything but what they have always provided , room and board, tuition, books, training facilities, athletic apparel. All payments to students are coming from companies and boosters. The schools themselves aren’t paying these kids paychecks and that isn’t being talked about happening by anyone.

[Pregame 291]

20 minutes ago, soulpatch said:

This is certainly an angle that I hadn't considered but I think where these two paths diverge is what happens post graduation. Neither of them is nearly as likely as traditional students to get an actual education.

The trust-fund-baby with social influence is more likely to land a paying gig because of that social influence. Meanwhile, the football player's only real path is parlaying football into a paying gig and unless they make the pros or become one of the 1-2 players at State U that gain notoriety to become marketable for an alumnus with a business, they're back in the pool of people without a college education.

I hear what you’re saying, but there are plenty of sales and relationship organizations that value college athletes for their intangible skills. Also, of the alternative being no exposure to higher education and the connections made with college classmates, some kids who can’t or wouldn’t goto college without sports don’t even know about what else is out there. As a vehicle for broadening horizons, I think it’s amazing that sports gives some people opportunities they’d otherwise miss out on. 

Edited January 26, 2022 by Pregame

[Tailgate Approved 248]

30 minutes ago, soulpatch said:

This is certainly an angle that I hadn't considered but I think where these two paths diverge is what happens post graduation. Neither of them is nearly as likely as traditional students to get an actual education.

The trust-fund-baby with social influence is more likely to land a paying gig because of that social influence. Meanwhile, the football player's only real path is parlaying football into a paying gig and unless they make the pros or become one of the 1-2 players at State U that gain notoriety to become marketable for an alumnus with a business, they're back in the pool of people without a college education.

I think you're being unfair to the hypothetical athletes (who in this scenario have only been accepted due to athletics) in assuming they won't get an actual education. Being surrounded by "the best and the brightest" will often have a positive effect, because humans are influenced by the people with whom we spend our time. (This may be a sobering thought for some DD comments, but I digress.)

In my opinion, some sort of bell curve would be appropriate: a small number with thrive, most will be average, and a small number will throw away the opportunity. 

[soulpatch 149]

4 hours ago, Tailgate Approved said:

I think you're being unfair to the hypothetical athletes (who in this scenario have only been accepted due to athletics) in assuming they won't get an actual education. Being surrounded by "the best and the brightest" will often have a positive effect, because humans are influenced by the people with whom we spend our time. (This may be a sobering thought for some DD comments, but I digress.)

In my opinion, some sort of bell curve would be appropriate: a small number with thrive, most will be average, and a small number will throw away the opportunity. 

Or, am I being fair to the system(s) that dictates terms to the players....

Quote

Shortly after Les Miles took over as Oklahoma State's football coach in December 2000, he introduced an exhortation that he would use often at the end of team meetings during his four years in Stillwater. "Academics first," Miles would say. "Football second."

<...>

As Miles said, "Academics first," he would hold up two fingers. And as he said, "Football second," he would hold up one.

 

[Tailgate Approved 248]

9 minutes ago, soulpatch said:

Or, am I being fair to the system(s) that dictates terms to the players....

 

Academics were not exactly the primary focus during my college years. Sure, they were ostensibly why we were all on campus, but they took a backseat to having fun an awful lot of the time.

Nonetheless, I persisted, graduated, and eventually found some success as an employee and person. 

That thin piece of sheepskin (ND are ever the traditionalists) does open a lot of doors, even if it is just a "degree required" item on a job description.

[soulpatch 149]

14 hours ago, Tailgate Approved said:

Academics were not exactly the primary focus during my college years. Sure, they were ostensibly why we were all on campus, but they took a backseat to having fun an awful lot of the time.

Nonetheless, I persisted, graduated, and eventually found some success as an employee and person. 

That thin piece of sheepskin (ND are ever the traditionalists) does open a lot of doors, even if it is just a "degree required" item on a job description.

Well, that's moving the goalposts a little but I'll go with it for a minute. 
Give this a look and tell me what about college's most dominant football conference (the same one that gainfully employed the coach I quoted earlier) suggests it's more/as focused on helping young athletes find some success as employees and people? For me, there is a clear and stark contrast and it proves that the opposite is true. And, taking it back to the central point we're debating here - it is tangible proof that "student" does not have a place next to "athlete" in the current college football system.

And, let me stress, I'm not laying this at the feet of the kids themselves, moreso the many, many other people (coaches, athletic administrations, on-air personalities, sportswear companies, etc.) that actually benefit from this financially. There is ZERO motivation for them to make sure these kids are actually put in a position to improve their lot in life while, on the other hand, there are MILLIONS of reasons (in dollars alone, not to mention stature, influence, ego-stroke, etc.) to minimize the investment in studies/non-athletic growth. So, the cash goes to everybody OFF the field as they suggest they're in it for the wellbeing of the kids ON the field.. ...the ones actually doing the thing that generates the revenue in the first place.

[Tailgate Approved 248]

1 hour ago, soulpatch said:

Well, that's moving the goalposts a little but I'll go with it for a minute. 
Give this a look and tell me what about college's most dominant football conference (the same one that gainfully employed the coach I quoted earlier) suggests it's more/as focused on helping young athletes find some success as employees and people? For me, there is a clear and stark contrast and it proves that the opposite is true. And, taking it back to the central point we're debating here - it is tangible proof that "student" does not have a place next to "athlete" in the current college football system.

And, let me stress, I'm not laying this at the feet of the kids themselves, moreso the many, many other people (coaches, athletic administrations, on-air personalities, sportswear companies, etc.) that actually benefit from this financially. There is ZERO motivation for them to make sure these kids are actually put in a position to improve their lot in life while, on the other hand, there are MILLIONS of reasons (in dollars alone, not to mention stature, influence, ego-stroke, etc.) to minimize the investment in studies/non-athletic growth. So, the cash goes to everybody OFF the field as they suggest they're in it for the wellbeing of the kids ON the field.. ...the ones actually doing the thing that generates the revenue in the first place.

I don't think I moved the goalposts, I think we've been speaking to different issues.

I was suggesting that athletes aren't much different from most students because some will be bad academically, most will be average, and some will be great. My last post was just trying to illustrate that you can be ok even if academics isn't your focus.

I see now that you're speaking to the system effectively forcing these kids to be professional athletes while: 1) not paying them; and, 2) encouraging them not to be students.

In my opinion, you're placing too much weight on anecdotal evidence, but I understand your point. Thanks.

[ndfanatic78 285]

I see both these points and believe both are valid and accurate. Football players and athletes will benefit from their athletic prowess just by being let into institutions they would otherwise have no chance of ever attending based on academic achievement alone.

Now also those same institutions will take advantage of those same athletes to bring in financial wind falls, and care not whether those athletes actually get an education of any kind as long as they win or at least perform as expected.
 

Those same athletes can also benefit from just the act of being athletes at those schools and getting a piece of paper which might actually mean nothing as far what they actually learned at the school but just the fact they were an athlete and graduating from said school will open up opportunities they would otherwise never have had. 

I do believe the access the athletes gain in this situation is still at a major disadvantage compared to what the institutions reap in benefits. Also the advantages these kids gain are not evenly distributed for all athletes and leaves a large amount of these kids undereducated and with no actionable job skills.  

In conclusion many kids definitely get opportunities they would never have qualified for or even been able to afford. On the other hand many of these kids get used up by those institutions with absolutely nothing to show for it but a broken down body and piece of paper that is worthless as far as actually proving they know something. It’s hard to say what the best resolution is in order to make sure that as many young people are properly educated and give opportunities to those that probably never have the chance to meet what would be considered academic success at those secondary institutions.  

[jbrown_9999 1,023]

1 hour ago, ndfanatic78 said:

I see both these points and believe both are valid and accurate. Football players and athletes will benefit from their athletic prowess just by being let into institutions they would otherwise have no chance of ever attending based on academic achievement alone.

Now also those same institutions will take advantage of those same athletes to bring in financial wind falls, and care not whether those athletes actually get an education of any kind as long as they win or at least perform as expected.
 

Those same athletes can also benefit from just the act of being athletes at those schools and getting a piece of paper which might actually mean nothing as far what they actually learned at the school but just the fact they were an athlete and graduating from said school will open up opportunities they would otherwise never have had. 

I do believe the access the athletes gain in this situation is still at a major disadvantage compared to what the institutions reap in benefits. Also the advantages these kids gain are not evenly distributed for all athletes and leaves a large amount of these kids undereducated and with no actionable job skills.  

In conclusion many kids definitely get opportunities they would never have qualified for or even been able to afford. On the other hand many of these kids get used up by those institutions with absolutely nothing to show for it but a broken down body and piece of paper that is worthless as far as actually proving they know something. It’s hard to say what the best resolution is in order to make sure that as many young people are properly educated and give opportunities to those that probably never have the chance to meet what would be considered academic success at those secondary institutions.  

Next door neighbor's daughter wanted to run track at North Carolina (state finalist in the 400m). She also wanted to be pre-med since her mom was a doctor.  NC coach told that she could not do both at NC and would need to take an easier major such as PE. As a result, she did not become a Tar Heel.

Edited January 27, 2022 by jbrown_9999

[Blammm 29]

On 1/26/2022 at 11:14 AM, ndfanatic78 said:

All the payments currently are outside the university. The universities are not paying anything but what they have always provided , room and board, tuition, books, training facilities, athletic apparel. All payments to students are coming from companies and boosters. The schools themselves aren’t paying these kids paychecks and that isn’t being talked about happening by anyone.

Kavanaugh basically wrote in his concurrence in the NIL case that they were going to have to pay them directly as well:

The NCAA Should Be Scared of Justice Kavanaugh’s Concurrence | Time

[ndfanatic78 285]

7 minutes ago, jbrown_9999 said:

Next door neighbor's daughter wanted to run track at North Carolina (state finalist in the 400m). She also wanted to be pre-med since her mom was a doctor.  NC coach told that she could not do both at NC and would need to take an easier major such as PE. As a result, she did not become a Tar Heel.

Very smart choice on her part. She sounds like a person that probably would have been accepted to the school without her athletic ability and on her academic ability alone. Many athletes use their athletic gifts to gain acceptance to schools they might not have had a chance to get into without their participation in a sport.

(My statement is very generalized and there are also many athletes that have the grades and wherewithal to gain acceptance without their extracurricular)

[Blammm 29]

On 1/26/2022 at 10:21 AM, Pregame said:

Are you an accountant for Notre Dame? What are you talking about?
 

Revenue from home games a) easily covers the cost of room and board for not only the football team, but plenty of other athletes as well; and b) is a small part of the ledger as a whole for Notre Dame athletics. 

I'm not talking about room and board.  The NIL decision strongly suggests that direct salary compensation is inevitable under antitrust law.

[ndfanatic78 285]

2 minutes ago, Blammm said:

I'm not talking about room and board.  The NIL decision strongly suggests that direct salary compensation is inevitable under antitrust law.

Not that I don't agree with Kavanaugh's opinion, but he is one man. Also, the money brought in by ND's athletic department would still be able to pay the salaries of the players if that is the way college sports would go. There would still be market principles at hand. Schools would have to choose what is more important to them, but at ND the cost of paying players could definitely be accomplished without compromising the schools academic goals. I still think we are far from actually having universities pay players salaries. Kavanaugh was just saying that the NCAA couldn't stop people from earning a fair market value for their skills. That market would still have to be defined. At some schools they could only be willing to pay the cost of tuition and room and board. At other schools maybe they are willing to pay a salary. Maybe some schools will decide that they want to split off from the other schools that are actually paying salaries. There are so many what ifs right now. I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens. I still don't see any schools or the NCAA talking about allowing direct payments to kids as of yet.

[Blammm 29]

1 hour ago, ndfanatic78 said:

Not that I don't agree with Kavanaugh's opinion, but he is one man. 

You honestly think that Kavanaugh is alone in that position?   At a minimum, the 3 Democrat appointed justices would join him.  

1 hour ago, ndfanatic78 said:

There would still be market principles at hand. 

I never said that they couldn't balance it.  What I said was that non-athlete students would pay the price.  Academic quality will inevitably go down as only rich students will be able to afford the ridiculous tuition that will be needed to finance a professional sports team that serves as a weekday host to some undergraduate classes in its auxiliary buildings./

1 hour ago, ndfanatic78 said:

Kavanaugh was just saying that the NCAA couldn't stop people from earning a fair market value for their skills. 

The NCAA isn't stopping anyone from earning a fair market value for their skills.  The NFL's 3 years out of HS rule is what is.  

[ndfanatic78 285]

You honestly think that Kavanaugh is alone in that position?   At a minimum, the 3 Democrat appointed justices would join him.  

 

I was going by the one article listing who said/wrote what. I do not presume anything.

 

I never said that they couldn't balance it.  What I said was that non-athlete students would pay the price.  Academic quality will inevitably go down as only rich students will be able to afford the ridiculous tuition that will be needed to finance a professional sports team that serves as a weekday host to some undergraduate classes in its auxiliary buildings.

 

I was not putting words in your mouth or trying to insinuate you meant anything just trying to articulate my opinion on the matter. I still do not see why the university could not keep academic standards and support the students the same exact way it is now with out raising tuition any more than they already would. Pro teams pay all the salaries, create facilities, and everything else needed to support a football team and make extraordinary profits. Why would ND be any different with those profits being funneled right back into the school.

 

The NCAA isn't stopping anyone from earning a fair market value for their skills.  The NFL's 3 years out of HS rule is what is.  

 

I was only commenting on Kavanaugh's statement wasn't trying to extrapolate anything else. Maybe Kavanaugh wasn't talking about the NCAA but actually the NFL's policy. Maybe you should write to Kavanaugh and let him know its not the NCAA's fault it's the NFL's fault. All that is beyond what I can say. Your point is valid that the NFL's rule is possibly unconstitutional because it is preventing people from earning their fair market value, but what about those kids that still wouldn't be drafted or signed to a NFL team. They would still go to college and the NCAA would still be preventing them from earning their fair market value. 

Edited January 27, 2022 by ndfanatic78

[soulpatch 149]

1 hour ago, Blammm said:

Academic quality will inevitably go down as only rich students will be able to afford the ridiculous tuition that will be needed to finance a professional sports team that serves as a weekday host to some undergraduate classes in its auxiliary buildings./

That feels like a leap, for two reasons.
First, In what part of our capitalist economy would a university convince students to pay a higher tuition to attend a university that uses this tuition to fund a football program above-and-beyond what its own revenue could fund it (and, even if a university managed to successfully sustain that model, who cares if some idiots convince themselves to spend their tuition on that)?
Secondly, since 1980, tuitions have increased 1200% while inflation has increased 225%. Sooooo, isn't that already a problem? And, if so, doesn't that strongly suggest a few things? Namely 1) academic quality has nothing to do with tuition 2) only rich students can actually afford a university degree and 3) NIL isn't really some strong threat to exacerbate a problem that's already untenable.

[Blammm 29]

1 hour ago, soulpatch said:

 NIL isn't really some strong threat to exacerbate a problem that's already untenable.

I never took issue with NIL. Make as much as you want from sponsors.  But opening it up to schools cutting checks to athletes is going to inevitably become a strain on university budgets.  

[Blammm 29]

2 hours ago, ndfanatic78 said:

Pro teams pay all the salaries, create facilities, and everything else needed to support a football team and make extraordinary profits. Why would ND be any different with those profits being funneled right back into the school.

Pro teams don't have to (1) prioritize anything other than on field performance and, to the extent ownership cares, maximize the owner's profits* and (2) worry about compliance with Title IX which will require football to subsidize equal opportunities in women's sports (which don't generate any net income).  University of Notre Dame Athletics Programs - College Factual

* Note:  Not all sports team owners care enough to make a profit from their sports teams. Some see it as a tax write off or an opportunity to gain fame or feel like a part of it.  The Packers wouldn't be publicly traded if it was all about profit because their ROI is garbage. The Green Bay Packers: Worst Investment EVER (businessinsider.com)