Unverified Voracity Forgot About That Guy Already
Bad things in East Lansing. This is going to be a bad week for Michigan State.
Tourney sel. chair Mark Hollis has canceled his 2-week CBB road trip due to obligations as Michigan St. AD that require him to be on campus.
— Matt Norlander (@MattNorlander) February 13, 2017
Nothing definitive has been released yet save for MSU's statement that three players and one staffer are under investigation for sexual assault; people seem to be expecting something very bad. Bad enough that point and laugh rivalry stuff is inappropriate.
Solomon aftermath. Georgia fired its DL coach, Tracy Rocker, in the immediate aftermath of Signing Day. A Scout article asserted Rocker got in an argument with Aubrey Solomon's mom in an attempt to offer up an explanation, and recriminations ensued. Jeff Sentrell of Dawgnation* interviewed Sabrina Caldwell to get her side of things, and I have some bad news for Teddy Greenstein:
She said a big reason why Georgia didn’t sign her son centered on coaching decisions and not anything specific in their recruiting relationship.
Caldwell said they were affected by the scholarship that was no longer there for 4-star Texas RB and longtime UGA commit Toneil Carter.
Adding to the confusion: SEC All-Freshman kicker Rodrigo Blankenship was not extended a scholarship offer despite what he did to win games for the Bulldogs last season.
She said that was not her family’s fight but that it was a factor into how they perceived UGA.
“We were concerned with the scholarship issues of those not either receiving (them) or getting it pulled and again (this was) not our fight but it played a factor,” she said.
Michigan won that recruitment in part because it looked like the more stable and straightforward program a year after forcibly decommitting multiple kids late in the cycle. While there was something Michigan needed to get fixed (as I said at the time), fix it they did, and next year's Erik Swenson Is Thriving Despite Being Done Wrong article will have the same impact this year's did: nil.
Caldwell's comments caused some introspection at Georgia-focused Get The Picture. It sounds familiar to anyone who read "Pick Up The Damn Phone" last year:
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by the amount of angst that cropped up in the comments following my post about Jeff Sentell’s interview with Aubrey Solomon’s mother. It’s hard to let go of a gauzy, romantic image that you’re invested in, and for many, the ideal of a football program that doesn’t stoop to making business decisions when it comes to roster management is a powerful one. (As powerful as the ideal that student-athletes are already more than fairly compensated for the privilege of playing. But I digress.)
Anyway, whatever else one might say about the Process, romantic it ain’t. Kirby is being paid to win. In his mind that includes pushing roster management aggressively. The issues with Carter and Blankenship arose because Smart was at the edge, numbers-wise, with the 2017 class before the four underclassmen stepped up to announce they were staying. That decision — and would any of us have preferred that they leave for the NFL? — meant that Smart had to do a lot of re-jiggering on the fly.
I’m not defending the way the Carter situation was handled. Smart botched that by not stepping up and telling the kid himself. But he’s being paid to put together the best roster he can and that’s what he’s trying to do.
For what it's worth, I believe that recruits' publicly stated reasons why they chose school X are almost always post-hoc backfilling after a decision has been made. Georgia wasn't the choice but Rodrigo Blankenship isn't the reason why.
Also: GTP mentions that 100% above-board Mark Richt often slogged through SEC seasons with 70-some scholarship players. That's the choice the current system gives you: nobly waste resources or push the envelope with the detrimental effects to the croots. That's a dumb system.
Michigan is navigating it better than they did last year, and Georgia will probably follow suit.
*[Despite the fact that it sounds like a dot blogspot, Dawgnation is an Atlanta Journal-Constitution-owned UGA site roughly equivalent to a single-team Land Of 10, which is also an AJC property. IE: they got the journalisms.]
The haves split from the other haves. Also spotted on GTP is this article from Jon Wilner detailing the coming revenue split even amongst the Power 5 conferences:
Fiscal year 2015 school distributions (all figures confirmed):
SEC: $32.7 million
Big Ten: $32.4 million
Pac-12: $25.1 millionFiscal year 2016 school distributions
SEC: $40 million (confirmed)
Big Ten: $35 million (approximate)
Pac-12: $27 million (approximate)That looks bad … that is bad … but it’s about to get much worse for the Pac-12.
Remember: The Big Ten’s new Tier 1 deal begins in 2017-18, and it’s also a whopper, averaging $440 million per year.
Which brings us to …
Fiscal year 2017-18 school distributions …
Big Ten: $45 million (estimate)
SEC: $43 million (estimate)
Pac-12: $31 million (estimate)
This is an even bigger gap than it looks because most SEC athletic departments run close to the bare minimum number of sports to qualify as D-I and Big Ten and Pac-12 schools carry up to 12 additional teams under that revenue umbrella.
Not only is paying the players the correct thing to do from a moral, ethical, and free market standpoint; it is a Very Good Thing for the Big Ten as it tries to be good at football. And there can be absolutely no argument that the money is there. As of 2011 the Big Ten's payout was 23 million. By 2018 there will be 22 million dollars a year that did not exist just a few years ago. Half of that is sufficient to pay the revenue sports athletes 100k a year.
In bubble news. (Not that bubble.) Disney CEO and therefore ESPN CEO Bill Iger:
Disney CEO Bob Iger thinks there are too many ads on TV, and he's exploring whether Disney's ESPN and ABC channels should reduce the amount of commercials.
“In general there is probably too much commercial interruption in television,” Iger said during Disney's quarterly earnings call Tuesday, especially when TV is competing with new digital upstarts like Netflix, some of whom don't have ads at all.
Iger said Disney would evaluate the amount of ads aired within programs for its ESPN and ABC TV channels, though he did not say that any cuts to the so-called ad load were looming.
My eyes pop out of my head when my mother voluntarily turns on cable TV programming with ads in it. (It's always HGTV, and they're always building tiny houses for some damn reason.) Live sports has long been the last bulwark against that kind of thing because there are no alternatives, but my God last year was brutal. The number of three-and-outs both preceded and followed by commercial breaks seemed to go up exponentially. At some point you have to balance out the money you're making now with the money your losing down the road by making your product worse, and it's especially grating when the people actually comprising the product are not even compensated.
In bubble news. (That bubble.) Michigan's moved out of the last four in on Lunardi's bracketology. They are one spot behind... Michigan State? The hell?
I mostly look at Kenpom so that's jarring. There MSU is 54th; Michigan 31st. Metrics that are not margin aware, like RPI, have that ranking inversed. MSU is #41 in RPI; Michigan is 61st. MSU's main accomplishment in the eyes of RPI is to have lost to a bunch of good teams.
Insert general scheduling lament here.
The little details. Good rostering continues:
Incredibly honored and blessed to have committed to the University of Michigan. Big thanks to @TheChrisRubio. #goblue pic.twitter.com/iZGV4urXkm
— Matt Baldeck (@MattBaldeck) February 10, 2017
Michigan picks up another longsnapper, Matt Baldeck. Baldeck is making the Threet transfer: enrolling early and then transferring after his first semester. As a walk-on. Who was at Ole Miss.
Etc.: Freddy Canteen transfers to ND, which will be interesting. I expected him to land at a smaller school. Indiana takes from Quinn and Holdin' The Rope. More croot profiles: Brad Robbins, JaRaymond Hall. Not a banner year in the Big Ten.
February 13th, 2017 at 1:02 PM ^
To me, this one makes sense w/r/t academics. If you're not likely to be playing pro ball, and Canteen isn't, then why not pick up a free year at another flagship university?
Not many folks can put "played football at The University of Michigan and Notre Dame University" on ye olde c.v., so there's that, too. I just hope he survives the purple-faced player subvehiculizar's antics - seems like he'd be less fun to play for than some other coaches.
February 13th, 2017 at 1:41 PM ^
Literally nobody can put that on "ye olde c.v."
Notre Dame University?
February 13th, 2017 at 1:57 PM ^
But imagine how much better life would be if you'd have both "The University of Ohio State" and "Notre Dame University" on the same c.v.!
February 13th, 2017 at 1:23 PM ^
Thanks for the roundup Brian. Any word on the status of Asiasi transfering? I apologize if this was already posted somewhere.
February 13th, 2017 at 1:30 PM ^
February 13th, 2017 at 1:37 PM ^
Despite the fact that it sounds like a dot blogspot, Dawgnation is an Atlanta Journal-Constitution-owned UGA site roughly equivalent to a single-team Land Of 10, which is also an AJC property. IE: they got the journalisms.Yesterday we win at Assembly Hall and today, Brian validates a writer because he works for a corporate newspaper. End of days, amigos.
February 13th, 2017 at 2:27 PM ^
things have been unravelling ever since.
Who knew a billy goat's legacy was holding the world together?
February 13th, 2017 at 1:38 PM ^
The weekly "pay the players" rant. Got my eye-rolling out of the way early this week. Thanks BC. You forgot "money cannon (!!!)" if you have time to edit.
February 13th, 2017 at 1:43 PM ^
If only we could have worked in "Spread Offense" into the same sentence.
February 13th, 2017 at 3:56 PM ^
February 14th, 2017 at 8:08 AM ^
Un-fucking-believable that this got 10 upvotes. Who are the readers here? Andrew Puzder acolytes?
February 13th, 2017 at 1:38 PM ^
February 13th, 2017 at 1:44 PM ^
I thought they were for getting recent college grads out of debt.
February 13th, 2017 at 2:09 PM ^
Putting wheels on a house doesn't make it more environmentally and socially responsible. The same thing can be achieved with a regular 'ol small house. Your options are not limited to Earth-killing mansion or glorified RV.
February 13th, 2017 at 3:08 PM ^
I just felt like living in a tiny house didn't allow me to judge people in normal houses with enough intensity and haughtiness for my liking. Now I can look down on everyone in peace.
February 13th, 2017 at 1:40 PM ^
Someone needs to rejigger this video for CFB programs vis a vis the issue of oversigning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=16&v=ZFNstNKgEDI
February 13th, 2017 at 1:45 PM ^
Tiny houses are being built because we've saddled most of a generation with school debt the size of a mortgage only there's no liquid asset behind it and it's not dismissable via bankruptcy. So they can't afford to buy houses because they already effectively have mortgages.
Which leads me to point 2: Scholarship football (and other sport) athletes do not carry this burden. At a place like Michigan they are getting a $250,000+ education in return for playing a game for 3-5 years. So, as a parent paying that money out of pocket and with borrowing, I outright reject the red-herring argument that kids playing sports on scholarship at college and not being compensated. Indeed, they are, and it is a freaking HUGE deal to graduate without debt, even if they don't go on to play sports professionally.
Lastly, I don't see much in the way of improvement of enjoyment of college football as a result of the orders of magnitude increase in money pumped into it the last 25 years: Putting more money into something that already suffers from the problems that accompany massive piles of money in something won't resolve anything. More, more, more, more is not the same as better, better, better, better.
February 13th, 2017 at 2:20 PM ^
Too bad most tiny houses cost about the same as a starter home in a lower middle class neighborhood (most places). Young people are doing the tiny house thing because it's cool, and it makes them feel good, not cost.
Not sure if millenials' parents generation missed the starter home stage somehow, or have forgotten to tell their children.
Yeah, I've never understood how people claim college atheletes aren't being paid, yet also can complain how much college cost them, or their parents. I don't begrudge athletes being paid more than now, but to say they aren't paid, and paid well, right now, is just disingenuous.
February 13th, 2017 at 2:41 PM ^
I think you've got a couple of red herrings in there yourself, my fellow born in A2 Mgoblogger -
The money isn't being piled onto college sports in order to improve either the product or your enjoyment of it, in any way. It's being piled on because we watch it! Religiously! And we watch it LIVE almost exclusively, including the commercial breaks (except when we need to either get a beer or relieve ourselves of one).
Your children - God bless them, congrats on getting them into this Michigan we love - are receiving more value FROM the University than they are contributing to it. (Unless yours are the ones finally finding that cure for cancer, et al.) And if you don't feel they are getting, or will get, the quarter million dollars worth (your quote) of value out of the experience, there are less expensive places for them to matriculate, to be sure!
OTOH - every player Jim Harbaugh deems worthy of receiving a scholarship is worth (in various degrees) 1/85th of the millions of dollars the school is receiving from the networks, our tickets, our M gear, etc etc etc.
They are bringing easily commodified and delineated value to the school. In my mind, they have earned something above the scholarship and other benefits they are currently awarded. HOW MUCH more is a topic for major debate, and will be for years into the future.
But please be assured, it is coming. There're too many people who literally bring NOTHING to the equation currently lining their pockets for it not to.
February 13th, 2017 at 3:08 PM ^
February 13th, 2017 at 3:08 PM ^
February 13th, 2017 at 3:26 PM ^
Completely misunderstood my point there - willfully I'm guessing, based upon some of our previous debates.
Donating money is not the same type of value generation I was addressing. What about an average student's enrollment (aside from the tuition) is bringing value to any University?
If you didn't go, or your child didn't, then another would take that place, and in the case of 99.9% of all students it wouldn't make any difference to the school.
Now if Jabrill Peppers or Aubrey Solomon (or Tom Brady, Charles Woodson, et al) didn't go to Michigan, then that would affect the value of the football team (or Glen Rice, Trey Burke, et al to hoops). Affecting that product would start to cost the school money.
And as for pie in the sky dreams of capping money, etc - I don't see any way that happens except in a free market evolution way where the broadcasters have less money to offer, as in the case of cord cutting that has been discussed ad nauseum here.
Cord cutting clearly isn't reducing the payouts yet, and as long as people keep watching the events live I don't believe it ever will significantly. We may end up having to pay more to eatch the events so that those who aren't interested aren't charged, but pay we will. I will anyway.
I'm watching Michigan play football, the SF Giants play baseball, the NFL & NCAA playoffs, the golf majors. And if I don't have to, I won't pay for the other stuff. I might even come out ahead!
February 13th, 2017 at 3:56 PM ^
that high profile athletes do help contribute (even disproportionately) to Michigan athletics bottom line. I just don't think it's as easy as (total number of millions per year / 85.)
February 13th, 2017 at 3:57 PM ^
of the students you refer to are not receiving a full ride to attend UM and all the perks that go with that when you play football. Many top graduates of UM have done a lot for they school in years after graduating, probably at a higher rate then most athletes have.
February 13th, 2017 at 4:30 PM ^
You say, rightly:
>Now if Jabrill Peppers or Aubrey Solomon (or Tom Brady, Charles Woodson, et al) didn't go to >Michigan, then that would affect the value of the football team (or Glen Rice, Trey Burke, et al >to hoops). Affecting that product would start to cost the school money.
My question is:
What if Ben Braden didn't go to UM? What if Henry Poggi didn't go? Drake Harris? How about Jared Wangler? Drew Dileo? Wilton Speight? How about Derrick Green or Will Campbell? How about Ryan Glasgow?
The answer is probably a bit different for each, and I'd say radically different than the answer about Peppers/Brady/Woodson/Denard. The answer for some varies WILDLY depending on whether it's when you sign them or after the first year, or second...
Do they get paid the same? If not, how much different? When do we decide? The simple answer is..Well, everybody gets the same amount. Do you think Solomon will be happy to get the same money that Kurt Taylor gets? Personally I don't.
Look, this is not a gotcha email (or even an attempt at one). But this ain't easy, not even close to it. Would it be more fair? Yeah, I think it probably would.
That said - I do think these questions (re: once you are calculating the value a student adds, where does it begin and end?) are important. As the father of several of the students that you've deemed worthless to the university, I suspect the money I will pay over the next few decades will probably be at least of some value, even if in your opinion, their presence adds nothing.
Rob
PS - Reading some of your other posts, I think you're being pretty reasonable - I'd really like to hear a fairly aggresssive "pay the players" guy like Brian (in whose opinion, it seems, anyone that disagrees is doing so from the worst kind of motives) put forward a more complete proposal that tries to address some of the serious real world difficulties inherent in this. The crazy part is, I'm not really against paying players - I'm just not clear that any approach I can think of would actually work well. It would be more fair, but in the end, might destroy the thing that created the value in the first place.
February 13th, 2017 at 6:39 PM ^
I understood your point, as well as the logical fallacies included in it.
1) You stated that the 85 players created such great value for the university compared to the rest of the student body. What you should have stated was that they provide great value to the athletic department, but are a relatively small value contribution to the university as a whole. When you compare their value (combined financial as well as in-kind value, such as networking, development, outreach, policy, etc.) they pale in comparison to the various corporate executives, MDs, PhDs, JDs, politicians, engineers, scientists, educators, entrepreneurs, etc. that comprise the bulk of the UM alumni base and affiliates.
The student-athletes are valued and have their place at UM just as any other student, but let's not portray this as the "tail that wags the dog". If revenue sports were to fold up anytime soon (let's say from litigation, regulation, or socio-political pressure), the university would be just fine.
2) You are estimating the value only at this point in time (for the students/players) and not over the span of their careers. This is not only shortsighted, but is contrary to the nature of every educational institution (including public unviersities that happen to have revenue generating sport programs). Investing in the students is that they go on, become successful, and return dividends (tangible and otherwise) back to their alma mater.
February 13th, 2017 at 3:13 PM ^
There're too many people who literally bring NOTHING to the equation currently lining their pockets for it not to.Who, exactly, are those people? The only ones I can think of are people like, say, wrestlers, or swimmers, or tennis players. They do not bring anything into the revenue equation, yet they are "lining their pockets" with unfairly earned scholarships. Unfair, at any rate, if one thinks football players should be paid a "fair share." However, I'm 100% OK with their leeching off the system. In fact, if the price of a fully-supported program of athletic teams is that a tiny handful temporarily receive less compensation than they could make on a theoretical open market, I'm all in favor.
February 13th, 2017 at 3:48 PM ^
I was referring to people who work for the NCAA, the networks, and businesses making profits off college athletics who aren't necessary to the equation. Think Bowl executives.
The last people I was referring to are other athletes, even if their sports are net revenue losers. It made me sick to read that the $EC fields only the minimum number of sports to qualify as D1. I don't even want to play with them anymore! They suck!!
February 13th, 2017 at 6:44 PM ^
Even bowl executives contribute. Those bowls generate billions. The P5 conferences all get $90M and up from the bowls. The networks also pay out billions. The NCAA is kind of necessary in order to have a structure to pay all this money to. The fact that people make a living this way is hardly "lining their pockets." It's almost certainly true that in the whole system, the people who contribute least are in fact the non-revenue athletes. And while I'm 100% in favor of continuing to compensate them as they are now, and further expanding the opportunities there as much as possible, the cold hard fact is that if we're talking about people who contribute nothing yet are disproportionately compensated, that's who it is.
February 13th, 2017 at 3:51 PM ^
You just broke up 100% of the football program revenue between 85 scholarship players. Let's pretend the 2015 number of $158 million in revenue is still accurate and we'll ignore the Nike deal for now because this is just dumb and won't take long. By your model, here's the 2016 distribution of that revenue:
Kareem Walker: $1.8 million
Jordan Glasgow: $0
Michael Jocz: $0
Shane Morris: $1.8 million
Quinn Nordin: $1.8 million
Jim Harbaugh: $0
Rome trip: Not a chance
Recruiting trip to absolutely anywhere: Nope. Maybe try Hudl videos
Steven Spanellis: $1.8 million
Team Bus: Sold. No gas.
Women's field hockey: Folded
Drake Johnson: $1.8 million
Tim Drevno: Broke. Working midnights at Chrysler
Men's Gymnastics: Folded
John O'Korn: $1.8 million
The truth is, if these guys were worth 1/85th of the Michigan Football revenue (or whatever nonsensical value you revise this to), then they could start a semi-pro league right now independent of the NCAA and these money hungry universities. They could rake in ALL of the profits.
Why don't they? Because nobody gives an actual shit about the players themselves. They are the pieces by which we collectively form a team to represent the university. They've tried semi-pro ball before. I believe there's another starting right now. Nobody cares. It's not about the players. It's about the schools.
Brian Cole just spent a season in Butt-F*** Mississippi playing community college football. Where were the TV cameras? If this is about the players, why didn't you or I track him down there and watch his games on TV? (huge suspenseful pause) Because you and I only care about the winged helmet. Michigan earns the money and spends the money because we pay to see Michigan.
If they replaced all FBS rosters and called up all of the FCS players for next season, that'd be really weird, but we'd still sell out the Big House to watch our guys try to beat Ohio State - regardless of who is actually wearing the uniform.
These young men get a free education and they get to audition for a professional sports career. Is that not good enough? Fine. Go do something else. You are under no obligation to hurt your pride in this system. Have you thought about maybe starting up a semi-pro league?
/splashes gasoline all over computer
/lights match
February 13th, 2017 at 5:22 PM ^
Your computer is on fire? No more sanctimonious bullshit like this post polluting an already terrible comment community?
AWESOME.
February 14th, 2017 at 1:36 PM ^
Unfortunately I don't have a job which allows me to read & reply to Mgoposts while working, so I had to wander away from this scintillating debate and get something I get paid for done.
As a result many fine points were made in response to my 1/85 comment, which I was unable to reply to in a timely fashion. I am likely shouting into the void now, as yesterday's posts are yesterday's news. But I'll try to briefly address some of the more interesting disagreements:
Most were reasonable, but as the debate began with a poster decrying the idea that scholarship athletes aren't already well compensated, I can only describe the value gained by a University in relation to the scholarship athletes. Obviously there can be no greater value than a Kovacs or Glasgow, who paid their own way into Michigan for several seasons while contributing at high levels. This does not suggest or even imply that each scholarship football player is entitled to 1/85 of the money the FB team earned. It simply says those players that accepted the football scholarships the University chose to offer have contributed in a measurable way to earning the school that money.
A list of reserve OL etc intended to disprove this point a) willfully disregards the players who were on the field making crucial contributions (no Darboh, no Peppers, no M. Cole); and b) blatanty ignores that I said "1/85 in varying degress," Now THAT'S what Red Herring actually means!
Another continued to attempt to assess how much value graduates contribute to the University for the many years after they stop attending. No debate there, it just isn't the same as trying to compare the average tuition paying student to the student-athlete. One is a replaceable part - the school would not greatly suffer if you, I or our children chose to go elsewhere. There are exponential numbers more applicants than spots in each new class, "next!" But if the players deemed worthy of receiving athletic scholarships choose to go elsewhere, the product of athletics suffers - potentially greatly depending on the athlete.
Then there are the dual questions of how the money brought in by athletics is dispersed - i.e. does it really help the school as a whole?; and what if Michigan just stopped playing high level D-1 athletics, would the school as a whole suffer?
The University of Chicago seems to have survived just such a decision, so I'd say yes to the second part. As for the first, the University should definitely use those millions in such a way as to benefit the school and ALL students, and that could include greater stipends for those earning those monies on the field. BUT it isn't really what we began debating at all, and isn't relevant to the discussion of whether athletes should be granted additional compensation. The AD keeping most of the money only reinforces that point to my view.
And finally, as to the person who says Bowl officials are an important part of this money making machine - FUCK THAT!!! Talk about replaceable parts?! There's a wild amount of cash that could be helping ALL students and student athletes, not lining the pocket of guys wearing ugly blazers!!!
February 13th, 2017 at 3:43 PM ^
February 13th, 2017 at 3:51 PM ^
Now that is an original and useful way to disperse those millions! I'd be for that.
But as of now the Athletic Depts just absorb all that lot and disperse it to staffers, etc. That ain't right! Giving it to athletes is preferable to that...
February 13th, 2017 at 3:53 PM ^
is all any kid deserves for playing a sport in college. Dead set against paying kids. Besides getting a free education, which as been stated, either puts kids in debt or stretches most family beyond their means, these scholarship kids get a lot of extra little perks.
They are basically given an entire wardrobe of t-shirts, shorts, sweat pants, hoodies, jackets, polo's, hats, gloves, shoes. Most have a dedicated building just for athletes to get free tutors and all the assistance they could ever need for their classes. They get training room tables that all other students would kill for to be able to eat. They have access to top doctors and trainers. Get to workout in weight rooms regular students are not allowed to use. When it comes to football anymore they have palaces built for them nicer then most 5* hotels that again other students can't even set foot in. Plus they are given stipens to help with expenses outside of their scholarships.
These kids bust their asses when playing a sport I get that. But, they are compensated just fine for playing that sport, they don't need to be paid on top of it. Bottom line if what they get is not enough then stop playing the sport and be a normal college student like 95% of the rest of the kids on campus.
February 13th, 2017 at 10:08 PM ^
Coaching is the benefit that most people miss. Aside from the very obvious benefit of receiving expert training in the sport you're attempting to go pro at, it's invaluable life training. How much is 4/5 year access to Jim Harbaugh (or Saban / Meyer / Other) worth? What value would those who played under Bo have put on that experience? In at least that part of the equation, the spending on coach's salaries is benefiting the players.
These are all fine reasons as to why the players get enough. They probably do. But fair markets have never been about what's enough, and rather what the market will bear. If millions are coming in because of them, they are entitled to it. But there is a good argument that the school, uniforms, history, traditions, stadium and fan base are more responsible for the millions than the players. There's a middle ground there somewhere that needs to be found.
February 14th, 2017 at 2:42 PM ^
A couple of other things that I always consider when it comes to the athletes:
1) Many of them get a lot of money from marketing deals / draft deals that wouldn't be worth as much without the marketing/publicity/exposure provided by when they play at the universities.
2) If we consider playing a revenue sport in college as more of an "apprenticeship", it is far more relatable to the real world.
3) Looking at the argument from the opposite direction: How many players on the football and basketball team would we pay to see play? Anyone on basketball this year? Maybe a couple on the football squad?
February 13th, 2017 at 1:47 PM ^
You can't just pay the revenue players. Therefore, paying the players won't happen. Unless there are significant changes made to Title IX, there's absolutely zero point in having this discussion.
February 13th, 2017 at 2:55 PM ^
On top of the issue of potentially also having to pay the women athlete's, there is the fact that paying the players makes them employees who would no longer be defined as amateurs. Once they are no longer amateurs, the schools lose the little niche in antitrust laws carved out by the NCAA.
That might sound great at first blush, but now guys that are 22-30 years old that aren't quite good enough for the NFL would be eligible to fill the college teams' ranks. Once being a college football player becomes a paid job, the schools would have to follow fair labor practices and not collude to exclude everybody except 18-22 yo "college kids". Teams that want to win would be filled with these older players.
The only reason pro sports are allowed to collude and limit the job market (e.g., free agency rules; preventing early entry) is because they negotiate with the players' union. The players agree to these limitations due to the large salaries and because it is keeping their replacements out of the league for as long as possible.
I don't see how a college football player union could be formed and keep college football resembling anything like what we watch today. The only way to prevent it becoming a semi-pro league of 26 year old non-NFLers (with a few young prospects/recruits) would be if the players formed a union and then voted to agree to limit their job to last only 5 years and then they would walk away from their job to let others take their place. That doesn't seem likely.
I'm not an labor lawyer, so somebody feel free to show me where I'm wrong.
February 13th, 2017 at 3:09 PM ^
I am not a lawyer, but I do believe there are ways to put money into a pool for athletes to draw from at some point - maybe during their college enrollment, maybe after - that would not be directly equivalent to paying them a salary.
And therefore the entire rest of your doomsday scenario will not be necessary.
I think so anyway...
February 13th, 2017 at 3:28 PM ^
I don't really see how deferred compensation is any different than compensation.
If, for some reason, I agree to work for you for 5 years and then get paid 5 years' salary later, I'm not a non-employee those first five years.
Taking a small scale example: When you start a job, you don't get paid immediately. If you quit or get fired during that time you were still an employee even though the company put your money into a pool for workers to draw from at some point (payday).
February 13th, 2017 at 4:38 PM ^
(and it's a good point Snake Eyes)
but this seems a valid space to throw out my oft-mentioned idea about deferred bonus $ as a type of payment. I think the average player would just like to be paid something or some more. I don't think any player expects 100% compensation, just a little more $ recognition.
Scholarships agreements should/could include clauses that allow for some form of revenue sharing with bonuses tied to longevity/graduation.
1. Get a 4 yr scholarship and you stay out of trouble, & go to class? you'll receive X ammount of $ upon graduation. Call it seed money. Have to quit school? You'll still get the minimum.
2. If you're good enough to sign a fat NFL contract & want to leave early? then you forego a bit and it goes into the pool.
I understand this may be an overly paternalistic idea (sue me, I'm a parent) but tying it to graduation would be more than just lip service to the concept of student athlete, while at the same time keeping locker room/campus chemistry from creating any more a caste system than there already is.
and no Snake Eyes, this dosen't address your deferrment issue at all, other than by the time the $ is released by the university, the players (while previously under contract) would no longer legally be students.
February 13th, 2017 at 5:19 PM ^
I don't see how a college football player union could be formed and keep college football resembling anything like what we watch today.
Why is that a bad thing? Anyone who values their fall Saturday entertainment over their interest in fellow humans' livliehood is a rotten bastard.
February 13th, 2017 at 2:33 PM ^
Instead of changing what happens during the game, start by cutting out so many commercial breaks. Make the breaks between quarters five minutes long for commercials and put 2-minute breaks at the 10:00 and 5:00 mark of each quarter.
February 13th, 2017 at 2:48 PM ^
Wait.... what?!
i honestly didn't understand what it is you're suggesting? Change what that happens during a game? And wouldn't the breaks you're suggesting do exactly that?
or did I miss an /s?
February 13th, 2017 at 3:32 PM ^
Woman: I'm sorry, I thought you were someone else.
Demetri Martin: I am.
February 13th, 2017 at 3:32 PM ^
Not only is paying the players the correct thing to do from a moral, ethical, and free market standpoint; it is a Very Good Thing for the Big Ten as it tries to be good at football. And there can be absolutely no argument that the money is there. As of 2011 the Big Ten's payout was 23 million. By 2018 there will be 22 million dollars a year that did not exist just a few years ago. Half of that is sufficient to pay the revenue sports athletes 100k a year.Brian, two questions here: 1. How could you pay only revenue athletes without running afoul of Title IX? 2. Hasn't it been your contention that this windfall is a temporary one and that the bursting of the cable TV bubble could cause the revenue streams to dry up (at least somewhat) in the future?
February 13th, 2017 at 5:23 PM ^
All the hand wringing and pearl clutching in the world by Brian et al doesn't change the fundamental fact that paying revenue athletes $100k a year will completely destroy the entire college football and basketball landscape as we know it.
Not to mention title IX hurdles which become higher each year, and rightly so.
I just have to laugh when the 'Evil Greedy Athletic Department" set goes all in on "moral fairness to poor downtrodden college football player" argument in one sentence, then claims that paying the players is good for us because we are a rich athletic program so we can outspend everyone else in the same breath.
In your fantasy world where college football players are paid big $$, what happens to all the poor (I mean actually poor - like not having money) college athletes at the non-P5 conference schools who can't afford to pay their players? Their teams fall apart, and those kids don't even get a free eductaion any more. That diploma means WAY more to those kids than the proposed $100k that the kids from Alabama, Michigan, and OSU for 2 or 3 years until they get drafted.
And as keep saying until I am blue in the face - no one is holding a gun to these kids heads and making them play football. They are perfectly able to apply, get aceepted, and pay for their education at 2000+ accredited universities in this great nation of ours.
February 13th, 2017 at 5:16 PM ^
That's the choice the current system gives you: nobly waste resources or push the envelope with the detrimental effects to the croots. That's a dumb system.
Many have always felt this way. Many does not include Brian Cook, who crucified coaches for "processing" and treated it as a very personal issue. Now because Michigan partakes in this (like most of today's powers), the system is the problem more than the coaches. Brian is a hypocrite with selective vision.
February 13th, 2017 at 9:13 PM ^
Isn't calling Netflix an upstart kind of like calling Macauley Culkin a child actor? Made sense in the 90s, now makes you sound like a grandmother.
Comments