NIL And The Portal-Has College Football Jumped The Shark?

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

It's all good because DOWN GOES KENTUCKY!!! DOWN GOES KENTUCKY!!!

 

[sam_gordon]

I still disagree with NIL. As PP said, athletes were always allowed jobs, just like non-athletic students, but had to be "real" jobs. As far as benefitting off their likeness, the ones who are more likely to get NIL contracts ARE benefitting from their skills. They're getting full ride scholarships, free clothing, and free tutoring. I think NIL is just going to help the "have" schools recruit (because they'll have supporters able and willing to donate to help bring in the recruit) and the "have not" schools will just slide further down the pole.

That being said, I do think NCAA recruiting rules were too strict and should have been modified.

Regarding transferring, I'm wasn't crazy about the "sitting out a year", especially if going to a non-conference school.

 

[spewey]

I still disagree with NIL. As PP said, athletes were always allowed jobs, just like non-athletic students, but had to be "real" jobs. As far as benefitting off their likeness, the ones who are more likely to get NIL contracts ARE benefitting from their skills. They're getting full ride scholarships, free clothing, and free tutoring. I think NIL is just going to help the "have" schools recruit (because they'll have supporters able and willing to donate to help bring in the recruit) and the "have not" schools will just slide further down the pole.

That being said, I do think NCAA recruiting rules were too strict and should have been modified.

Regarding transferring, I'm wasn't crazy about the "sitting out a year", especially if going to a non-conference school.

That's a real fear - the rich get richer. Maybe with some exceptions - Caitlin Clark made bank by staying in Iowa, as a hometown hero, and not having to compete for attention as much.

But to me it's more an issue of fairness. In the past, everyone BUT the athlete could make a buck off their name. Sure, they could work nights at McDonald's (nothing wrong with that, don't get me wrong), while CBS execs fly in private jets while their networks erect billboards with their face on them.

That tuition/room/board? That is in exchange for services rendered. And college administrators offer them mostly to players they think can help them win games, sell tickets, and pay their salaries. And health benefits. Which the players don't get. Tear up your knee on the field? Oops - part of the game.

 

[Brian Noble]

I've been a Michigan season ticket holder for 25 years. I have only one thought about all this:

Pay those boys.

Michigan's athletic department budget is close to $215M. The vast (vast) majority of that is brought in by football. Before NIL, the players got (the opportunity for) a great education, but that would have cost them at most $80K/year. NIL is nice, but that money is not coming from the University, it is coming from donors, fans, etc. There is no reason the DC should make $2.5M guaranteed while the entire 2-deep on the defensive side gets just over half that from the school.

The problem with NIL is not that players are being paid. If there is a problem, it is that it is a market that is chasing short-term gains. Some corners of the Michigan fanbase are very grumpy about the way U-M handles NIL--the strategy has been to use it to reward continuing players rather than recruit new first-year or transfer players. That means they miss out on some top targets, but in exchange the team is a little more cohesive. You could see some evidence for that in how few people transferred out after Harbaugh left.

[Cue OSU fans: "No one left because no one there was worth getting."]

I think in the long run, college football will settle into something like most of the other major sports--collective bargaining that provides a little more roster stability and planning, while still rewarding the people who put themselves physically at risk to do all the earning.

One consequence of where we are heading: there will be a lot less money to support the non-revenue sports. That's a shame, but there are other ways to recruit and support talented students. My son was being recruited by a few D1 teams for soccer. He talked to some of his high school coaches that had been varsity athletes in a couple of different sports at U-M and MSU. After those conversations, he withdrew from the process. He decided he didn't want to spend all of his free time on the pitch, and wanted to be a "regular student" instead.

That was an easy decision for him to make, because he didn't need the scholarship. And, some students definitely do. However, I'd rather donate to a scholarship fund than an NIL collective.

 

[sam_gordon]

That's a real fear - the rich get richer. Maybe with some exceptions - Caitlin Clark made bank by staying in Iowa, as a hometown hero, and not having to compete for attention as much.

But to me it's more an issue of fairness. In the past, everyone BUT the athlete could make a buck off their name. Sure, they could work nights at McDonald's (nothing wrong with that, don't get me wrong), while CBS execs fly in private jets while their networks erect billboards with their face on them.

That tuition/room/board? That is in exchange for services rendered. And college administrators offer them mostly to players they think can help them win games, sell tickets, and pay their salaries. And health benefits. Which the players don't get. Tear up your knee on the field? Oops - part of the game.

I don't understand what CBS execs have to do with anything. You want to complain about coaches making millions, I can sort of get, but let's limit coach's salaries then.

Players DO get health benefits. They have trainers to help with minor issues, they're not billed for treatments from injuries sustained while participating.

And those scholarships? 85 full scholarships for D1 football. 13 for D1 basketball (men). The other sports, not so much. And which athletes do you think are getting NIL money? Pretty sure it's not the cross country runner.

 

[sam_gordon]

Michigan's athletic department budget is close to $215M. The vast (vast) majority of that is brought in by football. Before NIL, the players got (the opportunity for) a great education, but that would have cost them at most $80K/year. NIL is nice, but that money is not coming from the University, it is coming from donors, fans, etc. There is no reason the DC should make $2.5M guaranteed while the entire 2-deep on the defensive side gets just over half that from the school.

You sound like $80k/year is a pittance. Sure, compared to a DC, HC, AD, it looks like it. But look at the disparity between upper management in any company and the "worker bees". D1 football gets 85 scholarships. 11 players at a time on offense, 11 players at a time on defense. Throw in a couple of kickers and a long snapper, That's 25 "starters". So you go THREE deep at EVERY position, and STILL have 10 scholarships left over.

I think the goal should be leveling the playing field between schools. NIL allows the "have" schools to offer more money, elevating their programs even more, leaving the "have nots" in the dust.

 

[Brian Noble]

That disparity does not apply to professional sports. The players on a roster--even those at the bottom of the list--are not making custodian/line cook money. And make no mistake: College football is a professional sport.

Plus, the $80K is a mirage. That assumes full-freight out-of-state tuition, which is more than 3/4ths of the total, and only paid by people from families with means. The "living expenses" included in that budget are less than $15K/year.

"Your scholarship is worth $80K, but we get $62K of that, so, well, good luck living on the rest." Even my daughter, who is paid subsistence wages as a TA at another Big Ten school, makes more than $15K. My son is a TA at a soon-to-be Big Ten school and makes almost twice that, though he also has to pay west-cost living expenses. And he's paid that much only because the graduate student union managed to get them a sizeable increase last year.

They players don't have a union. Yet.

The players are being exploited. Pure and simple. And I work for the exploiter, it's not like I don't get it--that money would have to come from somewhere if they were paid, and that somewhere might come from my take home in some small way.

But, they should be paid. They are the ones putting their bodies (and brains) on the line. But, are you not entertained?

 

[Brian Noble]

As an aside: You will often see reports that the vast majority of athletic departments lose money. Michigan is not one of those, but it is the exception not the rule.

However, that looks only at the athletic department. And, the department treats the tuition component of scholarships as a "cost." However, that's an accounting sleight-of-hand, because the University sees that tuition as revenue. I suppose you can argue whether tuition is revenue-neutral or not. After all, you have to pay for all those classrooms and faculty somehow.

But, it's also the case that--at least at R1 schools--tuition subsidizes research. Michigan Engineering spends more on direct research support than our negotiated indirect cost recovery rate, and that's just the stuff that's easy to measure, like direct cost sharing and utilities for the various research facilities. (It turns out that nanofabrication is not cheap.)

 

[sam_gordon]

That disparity does not apply to professional sports. The players on a roster--even those at the bottom of the list--are not making custodian/line cook money. And make no mistake: College football is a professional sport.

Plus, the $80K is a mirage. That assumes full-freight out-of-state tuition, which is more than 3/4ths of the total, and only paid by people from families with means. The "living expenses" included in that budget are less than $15K/year.

"Your scholarship is worth $80K, but we get $62K of that, so, well, good luck living on the rest." Even my daughter, who is paid subsistence wages as a TA at another Big Ten school, makes more than $15K. My son is a TA at a soon-to-be Big Ten school and makes almost twice that, though he also has to pay west-cost living expenses. And he's paid that much only because the graduate student union managed to get them a sizeable increase last year.

They players don't have a union. Yet.

The players are being exploited. Pure and simple. And I work for the exploiter, it's not like I don't get it--that money would have to come from somewhere if they were paid, and that somewhere might come from my take home in some small way.

But, they should be paid. They are the ones putting their bodies (and brains) on the line. But, are you not entertained?

And I go back to they ARE being paid. Their scholarship is their payment. Their clothing is their payment. Their tutoring is their payment.

Let's do this... do away with scholarships for FB and basketball. Make it all NIL. Then they can "get paid" for what they're doing.

 

[Brian Noble]

Fine. They are being paid subsistence wages* for highly skilled and dangerous work--and that's because they are being exploited by the institution that is profiting from their labor. That isn't changed by the fact that "outside"** entities are willing to give them money for reasons that depend soley on their participation in the enterprise.

"We've established what you are; now we're just haggling over price." The idea that the University (which, remember, is making a few hundred million per year on this) should give them nothing as the answer is ludicrous.

You can disagree if you like, but from where I sit you are wrong. You are welcome to your wrong opinion, and I won't continue to try to convince you otherwise.

------------
*: I mean, I suppose the 80K is not subsitence wages, but the Company Store takes $62K of that.

**: Outside is in the eye of the beholder here.

 

[Brian Noble]

As an aside, as part of our separation, I've offered to let my ex have the season tickets. As much as I enjoy the games, it's come to the point that I think the University of Chicago had it right.
https://vault.si.com/vault/1954/10/18/college-football-is-an-infernal-nuisance

A former U-M President has a very similar opinion.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1108383.Intercollegiate_Athletics_and_the_American_University

 

[Brian Noble]

As another aside: the entire history of the term "student-athlete" is pretty interesting. It was created by the NCAA in part to head off legislation that would treat players as employees.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/10/27/ncaa-student-athlete-1950s/

 

[sam_gordon]

Fine. They are being paid subsistence wages* for highly skilled and dangerous work--and that's because they are being exploited by the institution that is profiting from their labor. That isn't changed by the fact that "outside"** entities are willing to give them money for reasons that depend soley on their participation in the enterprise.

"We've established what you are; now we're just haggling over price." The idea that the University (which, remember, is making a few hundred million per year on this) should give them nothing as the answer is ludicrous.

You can disagree if you like, but from where I sit you are wrong. You are welcome to your wrong opinion, and I won't continue to try to convince you otherwise.

------------
*: I mean, I suppose the 80K is not subsitence wages, but the Company Store takes $62K of that.

**: Outside is in the eye of the beholder here.

So, let's do away with preventing kids from jumping to the pros right out of HS.

IMO, there are a number of ways to change the issue. Paying someone more money other than the full scholarships is not the best way.

Again, IMO, the NCAA should be responsible for keeping the playing floor level for all schools in a division. You think Western Kentucky University is able to raise as much NIL money for football players as Alabama?

 

[WEDWDW]

It's all good because DOWN GOES KENTUCKY!!! DOWN GOES KENTUCKY!!!

I saw on the late news last night that the Oakland dude drained another 3 from the Parking Lot on the way to the bus.

 

[jimmymc]

It's all good because DOWN GOES KENTUCKY!!! DOWN GOES KENTUCKY!!!

I love college sports!

 

[spewey]

I don't understand what CBS execs have to do with anything. You want to complain about coaches making millions, I can sort of get, but let's limit coach's salaries then.

Players DO get health benefits. They have trainers to help with minor issues, they're not billed for treatments from injuries sustained while participating.

And those scholarships? 85 full scholarships for D1 football. 13 for D1 basketball (men). The other sports, not so much. And which athletes do you think are getting NIL money? Pretty sure it's not the cross country runner.

CBS executives are getting rich off the NIL of players. Your argument is NIL revenue is fine - it can just go to anyone BUT the player.

That's patently, blatantly, grossly unfair. I'd be more sympathetic to a system where, if a player can't profit from their image, no one else can either.

Remember, this was pushed along in no small part by Ed O'Bannon's lawsuit. That's where, after he graduated, the NCAA sold his (and many other former college players') likeness to EA Sports for a videogame. He was offered nothing - not a dime. The NCAA and EA making millions off his face, his skills, his sweat. Everybody making money but the person you're paying to see. Seriously?

 

[_19disnA]

I still believe you go to college to get an education. If you are good enough to play a sport/get a scholarship to help pay for your education, you still should be there to attend classes & get a degree. LOTS of stories of top athletes who graduate but are left out in the cold when things don't work out playing pro sports. I believe only a tiny % of college athletes are ever successful in the pros. The others still need a degree to make a living when their college days are over.

NCAA has had their head in the sand all these years, denying there is any problem with how things work. I think there is plenty of blame to go around, but paying a college athlete to play a sport isn't the solution and just creates a series of other issues.

 

[sam_gordon]

CBS executives are getting rich off the NIL of players. Your argument is NIL revenue is fine - it can just go to anyone BUT the player.

That's patently, blatantly, grossly unfair. I'd be more sympathetic to a system where, if a player can't profit from their image, no one else can either.

OK, let's go with that. What would that mean? No commercials for March Madness or whatever upcoming "Big Game"? Selling jerseys just with numbers, no names?

Remember, this was pushed along in no small part by Ed O'Bannon's lawsuit. That's where, after he graduated, the NCAA sold his (and many other former college players') likeness to EA Sports for a videogame. He was offered nothing - not a dime. The NCAA and EA making millions off his face, his skills, his sweat. Everybody making money but the person you're paying to see. Seriously?

That specific example I think is wrong. NCAA shouldn't be able to sell an athlete's image to a video game. The school shouldn't be able to sell an athlete's image to a video game. It USED to be the various video games simulating college events would use fake names (for both schools and athletes). Let's go back to that.

 

[Brian Noble]

paying a college athlete to play a sport isn't the solution and just creates a series of other issues

The problem with this is that it is that in the case of football (and, to a lesser extent, basketball) it is the athlete's skill and labor that is generating $1-billion-with-a-B each year in TV revenue just for the Big Ten. That's before considering the other conferences. It does not include ticket sales. Or concessions. Or logo'd merchandise. Or the CFP. Or the NCAA basketball tournament. Or or or. And that was before they took on the "sinking ships" of Oregon and Washington, which reportedly generated a sweetener from Fox.

They deserve to be compensated for those skills and labor. If we aren't going to pay them, then stop televising the games.

 

[Brian Noble]

I'm reminded of this great bit from South Park.