California just voted in favor of killing off the PAC-12

[Deep Creek]

Even with the money being paid into college sports, there are roughly 20 Athletic Departments in college athletics that are actually making a 'profit'.

Trust me. I'm fine with cutting every sport other than Football, Men's Basketball. Wrestling, Baseball, and Women's Volleyball. The rest can fend for themselves in club leagues.

True, but the rest of 'em are trying to keep up with those Jones'.

 

[trojanfan12]

Even with the money being paid into college sports, there are roughly 20 Athletic Departments in college athletics that are actually making a 'profit'.

Trust me. I'm fine with cutting every sport other than Football, Men's Basketball. Wrestling, Baseball, and Women's Volleyball. The rest can fend for themselves in club leagues.

Agree. But the one good thing about this law is that the money wouldn't come from the school. So the other sports wouldn't be affected.

A school wouldn't have to get rid of non-revenue sports to pay football and basketball players.

 

[HuskerOC]

Agree. But the one good thing about this law is that the money wouldn't come from the school. So the other sports wouldn't be affected.

A school wouldn't have to get rid of non-revenue sports to pay football and basketball players.

So again. Going back to who is 'paying'.

It won't be 'boosters'.

It will be 'legitimate' business men paying $millions of $s to college athletes above the table. WTF could possibly go wrong?

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

An I’m telling you it’s wrong. You can’t just buy a television and plug it in and instantly there’s ABC or FOX.

But that’s not the point. The point is they aren’t going to suddenly stop showing college football in California if this law indeed goes through and the schools follow through. So I have a hard time believing corporate sponsorship will decrease to the point that anyone will feel it.

Antenna. $5. Done.

 

[WABLTY]

True, but the rest of 'em are trying to keep up with those Jones'.

And men's hockey. They haven't really had to manage their expenses tightly, but the big schools can make decent money off those.

 

[WABLTY]

Agree. But the one good thing about this law is that the money wouldn't come from the school. So the other sports wouldn't be affected.

A school wouldn't have to get rid of non-revenue sports to pay football and basketball players.

Problem is it creates a culture where the team with the most boosters, or the team in the most marketable area, wins. I understand where this is coming from. I generally agree that high end athletes should be able to profit somehow for their likeness, or marketing ability.

But you also need to at least try to temper it with the attempt at an equal playing field. How in the fuck are Iowa State or West Virginia, let alone the G5's, supposed to compete with USC's and Texas's. On the flipside, it might improve some programs like ASU, Minnesota, Washington, et al that are in major metropolitan areas. Maybe a cap of some sort, or profit sharing. But that's not what's being discussed.

My concern is this turns the NCAA into something more like the NFL, where major markets or groups with massive booster money, essentially become untouchable. They already have a big time advantage. I mean for fuck's sake, what if Stanford alumni decide they want to field a bunch of gladiators? Who can compete with that?

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Problem is it creates a culture where the team with the most boosters, or the team in the most marketable area, wins. I understand where this is coming from. I generally agree that high end athletes should be able to profit somehow for their likeness, or marketing ability.

But you also need to at least try to temper it with the attempt at an equal playing field. How in the fuck are Iowa State or West Virginia, let alone the G5's, supposed to compete with USC's and Texas's. On the flipside, it might improve some programs like ASU, Minnesota, Washington, et al that are in major metropolitan areas. Maybe a cap of some sort, or profit sharing. But that's not what's being discussed.

My concern is this turns the NCAA into something more like the NFL, where major markets or groups with massive booster money, essentially become untouchable. They already have a big time advantage. I mean for fuck's sake, what if Stanford alumni decide they want to field a bunch of gladiators? Who can compete with that?

Oregon will be the biggest winner by far if this shit ever comes to fruition.

1. Nike

 

[WABLTY]

Nah. If an alumni base can just go do whatever they want, and throw money around, it's Stanford. The Trees have more money than Jesus. Legit, Catholics (ND) vs. Trees for supremacy.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Nah. If an alumni base can just go do whatever they want, and throw money around, it's Stanford. The Trees have more money than Jesus. Legit, Catholics (ND) vs. Trees for supremacy.

This ^^ ... only Harvard has a larger endowment than Stanford.

 

[Deep Creek]

Oregon will be the biggest winner by far if this shit ever comes to fruition.

1. Nike

Now that T. Boone has passed away....

Nah. If an alumni base can just go do whatever they want, and throw money around, it's Stanford. The Trees have more money than Jesus. Legit, Catholics (ND) vs. Trees for supremacy.

BYU...aren't there are quite a few wealthy Mormans?

This ^^ ... only Harvard has a larger endowment than Stanford.

Endowments are one thing. But the ability of an AD to make an "ante up phone call" in a moments notice is a source of income that doesn't show up anywhere on the balance sheet.

Example: I was shocked at how quickly the Texas Tech AD was able to get enough money committed from boosters that would keep Beard at Tech after March Madness. Tech isn't known as a "big money" school...but Hocutt came up with the cash very, very quickly. Talked to one of our resident Red Raider donors after it was reported Beard was staying. The donor claims they had the money committed within 24 hours of Hocutt's first phone call. All second hand info but this guy owns a drilling company and does give quite a bit of money to Tech every year.

 

[ralphiewvu]

Antenna. $5. Done.

What antenna cost $5 that allows you to get all those channels? Come on dude, be reasonable.

 

[trojanfan12]

So again. Going back to who is 'paying'.

It won't be 'boosters'.

It will be 'legitimate' business men paying $millions of $s to college athletes above the table. WTF could possibly go wrong?

And that's why I accept that it may not be feasible. No matter what plan they come up with, someone will try to game the system.

I'd just like a serious look at it. If there's a way to do it, great. If not, at least a serious attempt was made and everyone can shut up about it. lol

 

[trojanfan12]

This is the heart of the issue IMO.

Completely agree. Like socaljim said, the scholarship used to be a good deal for the players. But then everyone started making a ton of money except the one's doing the actual work.

 

[trojanfan12]

Problem is it creates a culture where the team with the most boosters, or the team in the most marketable area, wins. I understand where this is coming from. I generally agree that high end athletes should be able to profit somehow for their likeness, or marketing ability.

But you also need to at least try to temper it with the attempt at an equal playing field. How in the fuck are Iowa State or West Virginia, let alone the G5's, supposed to compete with USC's and Texas's. On the flipside, it might improve some programs like ASU, Minnesota, Washington, et al that are in major metropolitan areas. Maybe a cap of some sort, or profit sharing. But that's not what's being discussed.

My concern is this turns the NCAA into something more like the NFL, where major markets or groups with massive booster money, essentially become untouchable. They already have a big time advantage. I mean for fuck's sake, what if Stanford alumni decide they want to field a bunch of gladiators? Who can compete with that?

Agree. These are all valid points.

The bold is an interesting idea. But you still run into coaches sitting in living rooms and saying "We're more profitable than they are, so you'll make more playing for us".

There would have to be some way to remove that market or "name" advantage.

 

[ralphiewvu]

Completely agree. Like socaljim said, the scholarship used to be a good deal for the players. But then everyone started making a ton of money except the one's doing the actual work.

Yes in theory your last sentence sucks. But that’s the way business is done. My bosses make all the money while I do all the work. Like it or not that’s the real world.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

What antenna cost $5 that allows you to get all those channels? Come on dude, be reasonable.

Any antenna...unless you live in a rural area far from any repeaters. Do you even know what over-the-air TV is?

 

[ralphiewvu]

Any antenna...unless you live in a rural area far from any repeaters. Do you even know what over-the-air TV is?

What antenna costs $5 that can get you all those channels? There are none. An those channels aren’t the only ones that show college football.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

What antenna costs $5 that can get you all those channels? There are none. An those channels aren’t the only ones that show college football.

All those channels? They're in the air, just waiting to be picked up by an antenna. You don't have to pay for them.

 

[ralphiewvu]

All those channels? They're in the air, just waiting to be picked up by an antenna. You don't have to pay for them.

Don’t know why I thought that didn’t work anymore. I stand corrected on that.

Still corporate sponsorship won’t go down to noticeable amounts just because USC or UCLA isn’t part of the NC picture.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

Don’t know why I thought that didn’t work anymore. I stand corrected on that.

Still corporate sponsorship won’t go down to noticeable amounts just because USC or UCLA isn’t part of the NC picture.

Glad you argued for 5 posts before realizing you are a dumbass.