FBI Ramification

[HuskerFever]

1 hour ago, Chuck Taylor said:

16 hours ago, HuskerFever said:

If someone is making the argument that these Power 5 schools are making millions of dollars off of these players in exchange for an inadequate amount of compensation, then I'd love for you to come speak to my boss about them making millions off of revenue that our team generates for the company. I can either choose to continue working for the market value I signed up for, move on to something else, or start something of my own. The company's money isn't my money.

That's what the players want too.  

 

And they have those options. They can play in college, play for the NBA, play in the G League, Junior Basketball Association, or play overseas in many different countries for hundreds of different teams.

 

And if getting into the NBA is the goal, the proportion of international players getting drafter versus NCAA collegiate athletes/high school athletes is on the rise. To say these players don't have options would be a stretch.

[Chuck Taylor]

23 hours ago, HuskerFever said:

 

And they have those options. They can play in college, play for the NBA, play in the G League, Junior Basketball Association, or play overseas in many different countries for hundreds of different teams.

 

And if getting into the NBA is the goal, the proportion of international players getting drafter versus NCAA collegiate athletes/high school athletes is on the rise. To say these players don't have options would be a stretch.

But they don't have the options if they play college basketball. The ability to transfer without sitting out, the ability to profit from your own (brand, image, whatever you want to call it), etc. are denied them. 

Look, I'm not advocating a complete free-for-all in college basketball, but the comparison of a student's choices to somebody working guy is spurious. Student athletes obviously don't get an appropriate share of the massive sports revenues (even though they are the product), they can't move freely to better opportunities like the coaches can and they're not allowed to market themselves while the universities can. 

[HuskerFever]

1 hour ago, Chuck Taylor said:

But they don't have the options if they play college basketball. The ability to transfer without sitting out, the ability to profit from your own (brand, image, whatever you want to call it), etc. are denied them. 

Look, I'm not advocating a complete free-for-all in college basketball, but the comparison of a student's choices to somebody working guy is spurious. Student athletes obviously don't get an appropriate share of the massive sports revenues (even though they are the product), they can't move freely to better opportunities like the coaches can and they're not allowed to market themselves while the universities can. 

 

Yeah it's certainly an interesting debate. And with the transfer rules changes in football it makes you wonder how that affects other collegiate sports going forward. In the real world there are non-compete clauses in very limited industries and the same could be said for the way they handle transfers in college. But I'm sure it's much more restrictive for collegiate athletes. As for marketing themselves and also being marketed by the universities who make money off of them, I hadn't put too much thought on that topic. But I think I'm leaning more towards giving individual athletes the ability to make money off of their own likeability, but I'm also okay with the university making their own money off those athletes.

[hhcmatt]

On 10/27/2018 at 9:18 AM, Blindcheck said:

Ok, but if in theory all the 5 star basketball players go to the G league....and only 4 star players are available...I still think the same schools will get those recruits...which tells me that the name on the front is still more important to revenue generation than the name on the back.

 

What will tell us if the players hold the value is if fans start following the G league instead of high end college basketball, because the top players start choosing the G league instead of Duke, Kansas, etc.

 

I personally think the players that go to Duke or Kansas in the end get more from the university than they would get without that showcase.

 

You're right that going to Duke, Kansas, or some other school is probably the best for some star HS players; however it's not the path for all and the point of the G-League is to give an alternative.  Also, the point of giving big contracts to 5 stars in the G-League is to try and get the best talent into the NBA which generates revenue.  Bowen might have been a one-and-done kid on a NBA roster but today he's a kid who didn't play basketball for a year and is currently in Australia.

 

Otherwise not all 5 star kids are looking for a payout. Also, some 3 star kids are.  Once you get all the shoe contract kids out of the way you still have issues you've always had.  

[HuskerFever]

Hot off the press:

 

 

[hskr4life]

1 minute ago, HuskerFever said:

Hot off the press:

 

 

 

Now is a great time for the Simpsons gif where he goes to hide in the bush.

[hhcmatt]

14 minutes ago, hskr4life said:

 

Now is a great time for the Simpsons gif where he goes to hide in the bush.

 

[hhcmatt]

Oh you probably meant this one

 

[hskr4life]

Just now, hhcmatt said:

Oh you probably meant this one

 

 

I don't know... I kind of like the first one now.

[hhcmatt]

Here is what I just read: The Jays were talking to the same guy trying to become Justin Patton's agent and "handling" Brian Bowen.  

 

Also I had no idea Patton has a twin brother.

[Huskerpapa]

So...(and this is an attempt at sarcasm) does everyone still believe that Creighton is going to come out of this clean?

 

[huskerbaseball13]

50 minutes ago, Huskerpapa said:

So...(and this is an attempt at sarcasm) does everyone still believe that Creighton is going to come out of this clean?

 

Clean in regards to the NCAA? Yes....no question in my mind unless they have McDermott or Murphy on tape. Does anybody with half a brain actually think Creighton was clean in their recruitment of Bowen?  Not a chance. 

[Faux Mike Peltz]

Interesting that Greg had such lengthy conversations with Dawkins. I mean, he’s quite the Chatty Cathy on a few of those calls...just discussing the weather, Omaha’s Zoo, that he should try a Runza, and details on the exchange of money. I’d also like to know Greg’s definition of a “lucrative job” you just create a position inside FNB or Union Pacific?? 

[HB]

Yep, it appears that McDermott has gone dirty.  

[wordyginters]

On 10/26/2018 at 5:14 PM, HuskerFever said:

If someone is making the argument that these Power 5 schools are making millions of dollars off of these players in exchange for an inadequate amount of compensation, then I'd love for you to come speak to my boss about them making millions off of revenue that our team generates for the company. I can either choose to continue working for the market value I signed up for, move on to something else, or start something of my own. The company's money isn't my money.

 

I def agree with your first premise.  Although a scholarship is valuable, it is in no way adequate compensation.  NYT article from 2016 says CBS Sports and Turner are paying about a billion a year for rights to tourney thru 2032.  That is just for the big dance.  On top of that, you have a lot of ticket sales, concessions, product sponsor deals, certain benefits and promotional value to UNL, and other multipliers that would be hard to pin down with a great deal of accuracy, but again, I think most agree that room, board, meals, free kicks, access to training staff, facilities, etc... is not just compensation.  Players don't get paid a thin dime in cash.  Allegedly. 

 

Regarding your analogy, I'm assuming your company pays you to work?  The main thing tho is that James Palmer is the product.  He isn't a worker bee or staff or a manager cranking out sales or widgets.  The team/players are the product.  Without players, CBS and Turner aren't paying for anything.  In your analogy, the company or the product is something you work to produce or promote or whatever.  I doubt if TV or radio or people buy tickets to see you work?  What if that were the case?  If people paid to see you work?  Paid to see you perform?  If your company made money off of your abilities and performance?  If TV stations could sell advertisers time during your work day, because they know millions of people will tune in to watch you work?  Not to see what you make or sell, but to watch you perform?  Would you still believe that the company's money isn't your money?   In the NCAA, the team and the players are the product.  And they get zero pay.  The fact that college athletes get jobbed out of even a crumb of that billion dollar pie is outrageous.  Ultimately, I disagree pretty strongly with your analogy.   

[Jugular]

5 hours ago, wordyginters said:

 

I def agree with your first premise.  Although a scholarship is valuable, it is in no way adequate compensation.  NYT article from 2016 says CBS Sports and Turner are paying about a billion a year for rights to tourney thru 2032.  That is just for the big dance.  On top of that, you have a lot of ticket sales, concessions, product sponsor deals, certain benefits and promotional value to UNL, and other multipliers that would be hard to pin down with a great deal of accuracy, but again, I think most agree that room, board, meals, free kicks, access to training staff, facilities, etc... is not just compensation.  Players don't get paid a thin dime in cash.  Allegedly. 

 

Regarding your analogy, I'm assuming your company pays you to work?  The main thing tho is that James Palmer is the product.  He isn't a worker bee or staff or a manager cranking out sales or widgets.  The team/players are the product.  Without players, CBS and Turner aren't paying for anything.  In your analogy, the company or the product is something you work to produce or promote or whatever.  I doubt if TV or radio or people buy tickets to see you work?  What if that were the case?  If people paid to see you work?  Paid to see you perform?  If your company made money off of your abilities and performance?  If TV stations could sell advertisers time during your work day, because they know millions of people will tune in to watch you work?  Not to see what you make or sell, but to watch you perform?  Would you still believe that the company's money isn't your money?   In the NCAA, the team and the players are the product.  And they get zero pay.  The fact that college athletes get jobbed out of even a crumb of that billion dollar pie is outrageous.  Ultimately, I disagree pretty strongly with your analogy.   

 

They actually receive a stipend...originally about $3600. Not sure what it’s at now

[MandRHusker]

6 hours ago, wordyginters said:

 

I def agree with your first premise.  Although a scholarship is valuable, it is in no way adequate compensation.  NYT article from 2016 says CBS Sports and Turner are paying about a billion a year for rights to tourney thru 2032.  That is just for the big dance.  On top of that, you have a lot of ticket sales, concessions, product sponsor deals, certain benefits and promotional value to UNL, and other multipliers that would be hard to pin down with a great deal of accuracy, but again, I think most agree that room, board, meals, free kicks, access to training staff, facilities, etc... is not just compensation.  Players don't get paid a thin dime in cash.  Allegedly. 

 

Regarding your analogy, I'm assuming your company pays you to work?  The main thing tho is that James Palmer is the product.  He isn't a worker bee or staff or a manager cranking out sales or widgets.  The team/players are the product.  Without players, CBS and Turner aren't paying for anything.  In your analogy, the company or the product is something you work to produce or promote or whatever.  I doubt if TV or radio or people buy tickets to see you work?  What if that were the case?  If people paid to see you work?  Paid to see you perform?  If your company made money off of your abilities and performance?  If TV stations could sell advertisers time during your work day, because they know millions of people will tune in to watch you work?  Not to see what you make or sell, but to watch you perform?  Would you still believe that the company's money isn't your money?   In the NCAA, the team and the players are the product.  And they get zero pay.  The fact that college athletes get jobbed out of even a crumb of that billion dollar pie is outrageous.  Ultimately, I disagree pretty strongly with your analogy.   

You do realize that there are only like 10 universities that don’t lose money on their athletics, right? I’d rather shut down college athletics than ask for additional tax dollars to pay amateur athletes more than they are getting today. $100k plus per year in education, room & board should be enough.

[OmahaHusker]

11 hours ago, Huskerpapa said:

So...(and this is an attempt at sarcasm) does everyone still believe that Creighton is going to come out of this clean?

 

 

Yes

[Norm Peterson]

3 hours ago, MandRHusker said:

You do realize that there are only like 10 universities that don’t lose money on their athletics, right? I’d rather shut down college athletics than ask for additional tax dollars to pay amateur athletes more than they are getting today. $100k plus per year in education, room & board should be enough.

 

My problem with paying athletes is that not all athletes and not all sports are created equal. The guys who are paying the bills is a relatively small group of people in an athletic department.  Should the guys on the golf team -- which generates no revenue at all -- get a cut of the athletic department profits off of football?  Few would probably make that argument.

 

Should the back-up long-snapper get as much of a share of football profits as the starting QB?

 

But those are not the places where "profit sharing" is going to cause issues.  The places where "profit sharing" would cause issues is where Title IX comes into play.

[wordyginters]

3 hours ago, MandRHusker said:

You do realize that there are only like 10 universities that don’t lose money on their athletics, right? I’d rather shut down college athletics than ask for additional tax dollars to pay amateur athletes more than they are getting today. $100k plus per year in education, room & board should be enough.

 

CBS/Turner literally pays a billion dollars a year for the NCAA tourney alone.   Louisville hoops made close to 45 million last year.  I don't know what the most equitable way is to set up a potential pay to play version of the NCAA would look like, but it certainly would seem like plenty of money in the pot w/out getting into need for increased taxes.   I'm no expert, but I do know enough to realize there are tons of misconceptions about college athletic financials.  Athletic Depts are non-profit entities.  They aren't created to generate a profit.  They exist to offer opportunities to a wide variety of student athletes.   It's kind of like the Federal Debt.  Most folks think of it like a household budget, when in reality, it's much more complex.   Plus, you see a lot of half-baked alarmist "only 20 schools make money" type of articles out there, that aren't completely factual.  Imagine that.  If you dig a little, a lot more nuance reveals itself.  Same thing with Pub Education.  The Post Office.  And health care costs, fwiw.  But I digress.  Many schools need "direct institutional support" to balance the books, this doesn't necessarily mean that Ath Depts are insolvent.  Plus, that institutional support is often in the form of out of state tuition waivers, Title IX waivers, or lottery money.  Being a big MLB fan as well, I know full well the data available on MLB profits is highly suspect.  I would imagine the college data is somewhat similar.  If an Ath Dept is flush with cash, I assume that would make the fundraising efforts that much more difficult.  

 

To me, I see these players as absolutely getting the raw end of the stick.  Despite the glee I have at seeing Creighton getting caught with dirt on their hands(I've never seen so many tanned and well-dressed fans with sweaters draped around their shoulders at PBA in my life), I don't have any moral outrage at any of these parents/players for figuring out a way to monetize their talent at the collegiate level.    

Edited October 29, 2018 by wordyginters
misspelled word

[atskooc]

12 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

My problem with paying athletes is that not all athletes and not all sports are created equal. The guys who are paying the bills is a relatively small group of people in an athletic department.  Should the guys on the golf team -- which generates no revenue at all -- get a cut of the athletic department profits off of football?  Few would probably make that argument.

 

Should the back-up long-snapper get as much of a share of football profits as the starting QB?

 

But those are not the places where "profit sharing" is going to cause issues.  The places where "profit sharing" would cause issues is where Title IX comes into play.

You're right; I think it gets a bit sticky here.

 

I think, though, the athletes should be able to profit off their image. I know this opens an entirely different can of worms, but I don't see why Adrian Martinez, Mikaela Foecke, Glynn Watson or any other player can't get a check for cutting a commercial for a local restaurant.

 

You know damn well the punter for Bethune-Cookman would be good for an ad or two.

[Norm Peterson]

4 minutes ago, atskooc said:

You're right; I think it gets a bit sticky here.

 

I think, though, the athletes should be able to profit off their image. I know this opens an entirely different can of worms, but I don't see why Adrian Martinez, Mikaela Foecke, Glynn Watson or any other player can't get a check for cutting a commercial for a local restaurant.

 

You know damn well the punter for Bethune-Cookman would be good for an ad or two.

 

True. Very true.

[Norm Peterson]

9 minutes ago, atskooc said:

You're right; I think it gets a bit sticky here.

 

I think, though, the athletes should be able to profit off their image. I know this opens an entirely different can of worms, but I don't see why Adrian Martinez, Mikaela Foecke, Glynn Watson or any other player can't get a check for cutting a commercial for a local restaurant.

 

You know damn well the punter for Bethune-Cookman would be good for an ad or two.

 

He's 5'4".  Not a typo.

 

https://thebiglead.com/2018/10/27/video-bethune-cookman-punter/

[jimmykc]

I think some equitable way to remunerate athletes could be achieved for those who actually want to go to college and also play pro ball. It would necessitate an entirely new set of "amateur" rules however. The NCAA as it now exists is obsolete. Again (as Doc would say) I recommend reading Michael Sokolove's book on Pitino for another viewpoint on the present "scandal". There should be a review of his book in the LJS on Nov.18 for anyone interested in the subject. Meanwhile, how about those Red Sox! (You knew I would get this in somewhere) 

Edited October 29, 2018 by jimmykc

[atskooc]

2 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

He's 5'4".  Not a typo.

 

https://thebiglead.com/2018/10/27/video-bethune-cookman-punter/

I was at the game.  The first time he was on the field he was the talk of everyone around me.

 

Loved his finger guns!