Page 7 of 20 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 194
  1. #61
    Supporting Member XUGRAD80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,522
    Who decides what “fair compensation” is? Does this open the door for workers to sue other companies for higher wages because the CEO’s are making millions in compensation? Does this ruling now overturn minimum wage laws? I don’t believe it does.


    I agree with the notion that the NCAA legally shouldn’t place any limits on the amount of compensation a student can get for participation in a sport. However, this doesn’t mean anything more than that the NCAA has to get rid of those limits. It doesn’t mean that the universities MUST turn around and start increasing the compensation though, only that they CAN.

    Let’s wait and see what the market forces bring about.

  2. #62
    Supporting Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,984
    Quote Originally Posted by XUGRAD80 View Post
    Who decides what “fair compensation” is? Does this open the door for workers to sue other companies for higher wages because the CEO’s are making millions in compensation? Does this ruling now overturn minimum wage laws? I don’t believe it does.


    I agree with the notion that the NCAA legally shouldn’t place any limits on the amount of compensation a student can get for participation in a sport. However, this doesn’t mean anything more than that the NCAA has to get rid of those limits. It doesn’t mean that the universities MUST turn around and start increasing the compensation though, only that they CAN.

    Let’s wait and see what the market forces bring about.
    I think for the "fair compensation" piece to come into play, the entity would first have to be considered a monopoly. So I am not really worried about the fallout from that part of the decision.

    As to the schools, the keeping up with the Jones' aspect of this will be interesting. The example given in the opinion of providing the student athlete a car to get to and from class and practice could become outright comical in how schools will justify the expenses (The hill down from the Commons to west entrance can sometime get icy, so I think the players should have brand new Landrovers to make sure they can safely navigate it).
    "If our season was based on A-10 awards, there’d be a lot of empty space up in the rafters of the Cintas Center." - Chris Mack

  3. #63
    Senior Strange Brew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Denver, Co
    Posts
    6,255
    Quote Originally Posted by STL_XUfan View Post
    I think for the "fair compensation" piece to come into play, the entity would first have to be considered a monopoly. So I am not really worried about the fallout from that part of the decision.

    As to the schools, the keeping up with the Jones' aspect of this will be interesting. The example given in the opinion of providing the student athlete a car to get to and from class and practice could become outright comical in how schools will justify the expenses (The hill down from the Commons to west entrance can sometime get icy, so I think the players should have brand new Landrovers to make sure they can safely navigate it).
    Could get interesting and a learning experience for players if compensation is tied to what the average 19 - 23 year old high school graduate makes annually. For thought, I'd imagine in most cases it's less than the value of their tuition and board.

    Also, it could get very tricky with considering the value add of each individual athlete. Do captains get paid more? Seniors vs. freshman? 6 person vs. starter and leading scorer?
    Last edited by Strange Brew; 06-21-2021 at 01:17 PM.

  4. #64
    Supporting Member GoMuskies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    34,313
    If this ends up killing some non-revenue sports programs, that will suck.

  5. #65
    Can we make some assumptions here? These are not exact numbers by any means, but more of my best estimates about the current state.

    - I'd estimate that there about 115 D1 Football programs. I dont think it called "D1", maybe it's FBS or FCS or whatever. I think you know what I mean.
    - There are probably another 150 smaller programs, across lower divisions.
    - I'm guessing 35% of the D1 Programs operate "in the black", with probably 15% of all teams accounting for 80% of the "profit."
    - I'd assume 100% of the lower division teams operate at a loss.
    - There are about 345 D1 Mens Basketball teams. I'd estimate that about 35% of those operate "in the black" as well. And again, about 15% of all D1 teams responsible for about 80% of all the "profit."
    - I think there are maybe 2-3 Women's BBall teams out of 345 that operate in the back.
    - I think there are maybe 2 dozen additional sports offered, and all schools have a mix of these programs but almost never do they have them all. Maybe each school has 8 other sports (on the low end), up to 18 (on the high end). So thousands of other teams out there with rosters of maybe 12 players on average. All these teams operate with a financial loss.

    So lets boil it all down and estimate that maybe 125 sports programs operate in the black, out of maybe 3500 total programs. Lets round that up to 4%.

    When a school has programs operating at a loss, there is one of 2 options: 1) the programs are being "funded" out of the profits of a football or Mens basketball team, thus leading to an "athletic department" that might be running at a profit. or 2) these programs simply run at a loss and are subsidized by a broader university fund.

    Now, lets jump to the scenario where Schools can pay the players. Would any program currently operating at a loss have the ability to pay a player? I would think not. Would a program "in the black" be able to pay players? Yes, I think of course they could, which leads me to the next question. would paying players from profitable programs reduce the ability to those programs to provide funding to programs that operate at a loss? Yes, obviously which leads directly to the decision of the school to retain the programs at the expense of the general fund, or to cut programs due to funding.

    And even ON the teams where a player can be paid, it's gonna be a select few people that earn anything meaningfull. Just because players are ELIGIBLE to be paid, it wont trickle down to 90% (or more) of the players.

    This will not require a "tweak" to fix. This is a "do over" in terms of how College Sports will be administered.

    More downside than upside in my opinion

  6. #66
    Supporting Member MADXSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Finneytown
    Posts
    7,212
    Legalized Bag Drops.
    Balls of Steele!!

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by MHettel View Post
    Can we make some assumptions here? These are not exact numbers by any means, but more of my best estimates about the current state.

    - I'd estimate that there about 115 D1 Football programs. I dont think it called "D1", maybe it's FBS or FCS or whatever. I think you know what I mean.
    - There are probably another 150 smaller programs, across lower divisions.
    - I'm guessing 35% of the D1 Programs operate "in the black", with probably 15% of all teams accounting for 80% of the "profit."
    - I'd assume 100% of the lower division teams operate at a loss.
    - There are about 345 D1 Mens Basketball teams. I'd estimate that about 35% of those operate "in the black" as well. And again, about 15% of all D1 teams responsible for about 80% of all the "profit."
    - I think there are maybe 2-3 Women's BBall teams out of 345 that operate in the back.
    - I think there are maybe 2 dozen additional sports offered, and all schools have a mix of these programs but almost never do they have them all. Maybe each school has 8 other sports (on the low end), up to 18 (on the high end). So thousands of other teams out there with rosters of maybe 12 players on average. All these teams operate with a financial loss.

    So lets boil it all down and estimate that maybe 125 sports programs operate in the black, out of maybe 3500 total programs. Lets round that up to 4%.

    When a school has programs operating at a loss, there is one of 2 options: 1) the programs are being "funded" out of the profits of a football or Mens basketball team, thus leading to an "athletic department" that might be running at a profit. or 2) these programs simply run at a loss and are subsidized by a broader university fund.

    Now, lets jump to the scenario where Schools can pay the players. Would any program currently operating at a loss have the ability to pay a player? I would think not. Would a program "in the black" be able to pay players? Yes, I think of course they could, which leads me to the next question. would paying players from profitable programs reduce the ability to those programs to provide funding to programs that operate at a loss? Yes, obviously which leads directly to the decision of the school to retain the programs at the expense of the general fund, or to cut programs due to funding.

    And even ON the teams where a player can be paid, it's gonna be a select few people that earn anything meaningfull. Just because players are ELIGIBLE to be paid, it wont trickle down to 90% (or more) of the players.

    This will not require a "tweak" to fix. This is a "do over" in terms of how College Sports will be administered.

    More downside than upside in my opinion
    I think sports kind of operates as a "loss leader" of sorts for schools. They lose money on sports, but having the sport brings in more money through increased enrollment, alumni engagement, etc. I have no idea how you'd quantify that (I'm sure someone's done a study at some point, though) but there is some benefit to having sports beyond the simple bottom line for each one.

    I tend to agree with Go that this could spell the end for a lot of the non-revenue sports.

    I wonder how this all will affect/play in with Title IX.

  8. #68
    Supporting Member XUGRAD80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,522
    It’s important to remember that “at this point” the ruling only effects what can be given for “educational” purposes. Of course, first off that’s a pretty fluid and nondescript term at this point. Once again, who decides what is “educational” related and who doesn’t? Certainly not the NCAA anymore, they just lost that power. Secondly, I think this is only a first step (or misstep) down the slope to full payments being made to some athletes.

    Eventually, I see some of the top programs opting to becoming part of a new professional league for college age athletes. Minor leagues, where PART of the compensation programs include room, board, and tuition. While the other colleges choose to stay in programs similar to what they have today and the student-athletes agree to the contracts that limit the compensation voluntarily.

  9. #69
    Supporting Member MADXSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Finneytown
    Posts
    7,212
    So I can easily see the scenario play out...

    Coach: We can guarantee $75k in NIL because we have a booster that really likes you. He'll put your picture on a billboard with his product and you get 50k.

    Kid: Sorry coach but UK is offering 100k and UL is offering 100k plus a hooker.
    Balls of Steele!!

  10. #70
    Supporting Member MADXSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Finneytown
    Posts
    7,212
    Also

    A booster who gives say 100k to the athletic department now is asked to sponsor(NIL) a player. That 100k isn't spread around anymore.

    Also, Also

    The kid now transfers and the 100k is gone. So you'll have signing bonuses plus incentives to keep the kid around. Rosters are going to get crazy. I'm just glad I don't have to deal with it.
    Balls of Steele!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •