NLRB Favors Football Players

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Yeah you keep throwing out these numbers, but I don’t think you understand the college game much.

First off go to a big game. See how many jerseys are in the stands? Huge demand for jerseys. [/quote]
How many of those Jersey’s are new and represent a player on the field at that game?

[quote]H factor wrote:
A DINNER with Johnny football went for 20,000 dollars. Of course he didn’t see a dime of that.
[/quote]

This is one player. ONE. There are how many players on a college football roster?

[quote]H factor wrote:
DEMAND for college jerseys is huge. DEMAND for numbered T-shirts is huge. DEMAND for video games WAS huge (before the lawsuit). Signed memorabilia still is big and is often used at charity events. [/quote]

For a select few players.

[quote]H factor wrote:
You seriously doubt a lot of things, it’s a shame you will never be proven wrong because the NCAA doesn’t want things to change. They don’t want kids to get any money. More for them. [/quote]

Because I’m no where near as emotionally invested in the situation as you are. I think if took a step back you would see what I’m saying, but it’s clear you have blinders on here.

Johnny Football would make some money.

The star on every team would makes some money.

2-5/54 players per team would make peanuts and the rest would make zero. That is reality. No one is paying Stefon Diggs for an autograph, dinner, jersey, etc…
[/quote]

Lol, not emotionally invested? Hell you’ve posted as much as I have. The difference is that I have posted TONS of articles to back up what I’m saying and you’ve relied on your own words and saying things like 99.999% of X wouldn’t happen.

If you READ the articles you would see the pattern. Instead you say things like “well apparently the expenses are huge because they tell me they aren’t making anything.” [/quote]

Posting and being emotionally invested are two different things.

You’re articles talk about the top 20 teams or so, how about the rest of the Division 1 and even D2 & 3 schools that will be affected by change. How much profit does Bowling Green, Rice, or Delaware state make?

I did read your articles and I’ve read articles counter to them. [/quote]

What does Bowling Green’s profit have to do with letting players make money off themselves? You said you were for that, yet you defend the status quo throughout this thread. [/quote]

Most schools do not make money, in fact most school lose money off collegiate sports, which means paying player is out.

I already said I don’t care if players make money off their name, but have pointed out the vast majority will most likely make nothing.

The result is a very small % of players making good/great money, a very small % of players making peanuts, and the vast majority making nothing at all. Except now athletic scholarship don’t exist because Johnny Manziel makes $20MM to play for Texas A&M. No more swimming, no more lacrosse, no more anything other than money making sports.

That’s not an end result I support.

302

I want to go back to another argument I made about College Sports being a method of attracting students. The best college sports programs help bring in A LOT more students. The main revenue source of a university.

Take a quick look at University of Michigan’s financial statements.

Main Operating Revenues
Tuition Revenues LESS Scholarships = $1 Billion
Patient Care Revenues = $2.8 Billion
Student Residency = $0.09 Billion
Federal Grants = $0.9 Billion
Athletic revenues = $0.12 Billion
Other Revenues = $0.05 Billion
Total Operating Revenues (including none material)= $5.3 Billion

Main Operating Expenses
Compensation and benefits = $3.97 Billion
Supplies and Services = $1.56 Billion
Scholarships = $0.12 Billion
Total Operating Expenses (Including none material)=$6.1 Billion

Total OPERATING LOSS = -$0.8 Billion

So tell me again how important the 2.2% of revenues is SSSSOOOO important to the school?

303

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

The NCAA makes money off college swimmers, lacrosse, girls softball, etc…?

I didn’t say he was lying, but he is a hypocrite. [/quote]

You can be rich even if some of the businesses you own aren’t profitable.

Luckily they have a couple of BILLION DOLLAR industries to offset some of those places where they aren’t as profitable.

Industries. Businesses. I’m not against either of these. Let’s just stop pretending it isn’t a business. Let’s quit pretending the student part actually matters in most instances. The NCAA wants you to buy those fairy tales. They want you to think they are just doing the best they can and trying to do the best for everyone. They are protecting their bottom line. And they are losing lawsuit after lawsuit because judges are seeing right through the nonsense they are peddling. [/quote]

Fine, like I suggested detach athletics from the school, make it UBIT, and pay the players like employees.

No money will go to other programs, scholarships, or academics because every penny will go to play Johnny Footballs ludicrous 1 year salary, but at least 1 guy get’s rich out of 1,000s.

304

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The result is a very small % of players making good/great money, a very small % of players making peanuts, and the vast majority making nothing at all. Except now athletic scholarship don’t exist because Johnny Manziel makes $20MM to play for Texas A&M. No more swimming, no more lacrosse, no more anything other than money making sports.

That’s not an end result I support. [/quote]

So athletic scholarships cease to exist because we let players make money? I don’t see this happening.

305

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The result is a very small % of players making good/great money, a very small % of players making peanuts, and the vast majority making nothing at all. Except now athletic scholarship don’t exist because Johnny Manziel makes $20MM to play for Texas A&M. No more swimming, no more lacrosse, no more anything other than money making sports.

That’s not an end result I support. [/quote]

So athletic scholarships cease to exist because we let players make money? I don’t see this happening. [/quote]

No, athletic scholarships cease to exist if players are paid.

306

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

The NCAA makes money off college swimmers, lacrosse, girls softball, etc…?

I didn’t say he was lying, but he is a hypocrite. [/quote]

You can be rich even if some of the businesses you own aren’t profitable.

Luckily they have a couple of BILLION DOLLAR industries to offset some of those places where they aren’t as profitable.

Industries. Businesses. I’m not against either of these. Let’s just stop pretending it isn’t a business. Let’s quit pretending the student part actually matters in most instances. The NCAA wants you to buy those fairy tales. They want you to think they are just doing the best they can and trying to do the best for everyone. They are protecting their bottom line. And they are losing lawsuit after lawsuit because judges are seeing right through the nonsense they are peddling. [/quote]

Fine, like I suggested detach athletics from the school, make it UBIT, and pay the players like employees.

No money will go to other programs, scholarships, or academics because every penny will go to play Johnny Footballs ludicrous 1 year salary, but at least 1 guy get’s rich out of 1,000s.
[/quote]

We already have a system where a few people get rich and you won’t even acknowledge that.

Not to mention what you’re proposing in here is not what anyone has proposed in this thread or in any article I’ve mentioned. We’re talking about letting players have opportunities that they don’t currently have and letting them have a chance to make some money off the gigantic amount of wealth they are generating.

307

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The result is a very small % of players making good/great money, a very small % of players making peanuts, and the vast majority making nothing at all. Except now athletic scholarship don’t exist because Johnny Manziel makes $20MM to play for Texas A&M. No more swimming, no more lacrosse, no more anything other than money making sports.

That’s not an end result I support. [/quote]

So athletic scholarships cease to exist because we let players make money? I don’t see this happening. [/quote]

No, athletic scholarships cease to exist if players are paid.
[/quote]

No they aren’t. Many proposals have been floated with small stipends on top of the athletic scholarship to offset the other costs of college that tuition and books does not cover. Other proposals have been tied letting kids participate in things much like we do with the Olympics.

It’s not an either/or scenario.

308

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
I want to go back to another argument I made about College Sports being a method of attracting students. The best college sports programs help bring in A LOT more students. The main revenue source of a university.

Take a quick look at University of Michigan’s financial statements.

Main Operating Revenues
Tuition Revenues LESS Scholarships = $1 Billion
Patient Care Revenues = $2.8 Billion
Student Residency = $0.09 Billion
Federal Grants = $0.9 Billion
Athletic revenues = $0.12 Billion
Other Revenues = $0.05 Billion
Total Operating Revenues (including none material)= $5.3 Billion

Main Operating Expenses
Compensation and benefits = $3.97 Billion
Supplies and Services = $1.56 Billion
Scholarships = $0.12 Billion
Total Operating Expenses (Including none material)=$6.1 Billion

Total OPERATING LOSS = -$0.8 Billion

So tell me again how important the 2.2% of revenues is SSSSOOOO important to the school?
[/quote]

If it’s not important to the school why are you talking about all the things athletics pays for? Why the conference realignment based on athletics? Why fighting for bigger TV contracts? Why spending all this money on coaches? On flying to recruits houses? On new equipment?

For such a small part everyone sure seems to take it pretty seriously with their wallets.

Wonder why?

309

[quote]H factor wrote:
We already have a system where a few people get rich and you won’t even acknowledge that. [/quote]

Lol, WHUT?

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Yes, for the students the primary purpose is education. Yes for the college educating is their primary purpose. That doesn’t mean I don’t recognize or admit college sports is big business. That doesn’t change a thing in my opinion. [/quote]

Can I get that proof that faculty/admin are making tons and tons of money off collegiate sports?

[quote]H factor wrote:
Not to mention what you’re proposing in here is not what anyone has proposed in this thread or in any article I’ve mentioned. We’re talking about letting players have opportunities that they don’t currently have and letting them have a chance to make some money off the gigantic amount of wealth they are generating. [/quote]

I already said let them sign their name or whatever… Nothing you have said or posted tells me even 1% of college athletes will make money off their name. Not 1%.

310

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The result is a very small % of players making good/great money, a very small % of players making peanuts, and the vast majority making nothing at all. Except now athletic scholarship don’t exist because Johnny Manziel makes $20MM to play for Texas A&M. No more swimming, no more lacrosse, no more anything other than money making sports.

That’s not an end result I support. [/quote]

So athletic scholarships cease to exist because we let players make money? I don’t see this happening. [/quote]

No, athletic scholarships cease to exist if players are paid.
[/quote]

No they aren’t. Many proposals have been floated with small stipends on top of the athletic scholarship to offset the other costs of college that tuition and books does not cover. Other proposals have been tied letting kids participate in things much like we do with the Olympics.

It’s not an either/or scenario. [/quote]

If colleges start paying players, that “football profit” made by the top 25 schools will cease to exist because it will be consumed by player salary expense. 2-5 players will cost $40MM-$70MM. Guy’s like Manziel will sign 1 year $15MM contracts. Where is this “extra” money for scholarships or stipends going to come from?

311

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
I want to go back to another argument I made about College Sports being a method of attracting students. The best college sports programs help bring in A LOT more students. The main revenue source of a university.

Take a quick look at University of Michigan’s financial statements.

Main Operating Revenues
Tuition Revenues LESS Scholarships = $1 Billion
Patient Care Revenues = $2.8 Billion
Student Residency = $0.09 Billion
Federal Grants = $0.9 Billion
Athletic revenues = $0.12 Billion
Other Revenues = $0.05 Billion
Total Operating Revenues (including none material)= $5.3 Billion

Main Operating Expenses
Compensation and benefits = $3.97 Billion
Supplies and Services = $1.56 Billion
Scholarships = $0.12 Billion
Total Operating Expenses (Including none material)=$6.1 Billion

Total OPERATING LOSS = -$0.8 Billion

So tell me again how important the 2.2% of revenues is SSSSOOOO important to the school?
[/quote]

If it’s not important to the school why are you talking about all the things athletics pays for? Why the conference realignment based on athletics? Why fighting for bigger TV contracts? Why spending all this money on coaches? On flying to recruits houses? On new equipment?

For such a small part everyone sure seems to take it pretty seriously with their wallets.

Wonder why? [/quote]

Do you see that big $1 billion number up there? You know, the money they get from having students? All of the federal grants you get for each student you get?

Do you fail to realize how BIG of a recruiting tool college sports is for ALL students? It’s freaking advertising city.

312

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
I want to go back to another argument I made about College Sports being a method of attracting students. The best college sports programs help bring in A LOT more students. The main revenue source of a university.

Take a quick look at University of Michigan’s financial statements.

Main Operating Revenues
Tuition Revenues LESS Scholarships = $1 Billion
Patient Care Revenues = $2.8 Billion
Student Residency = $0.09 Billion
Federal Grants = $0.9 Billion
Athletic revenues = $0.12 Billion
Other Revenues = $0.05 Billion
Total Operating Revenues (including none material)= $5.3 Billion

Main Operating Expenses
Compensation and benefits = $3.97 Billion
Supplies and Services = $1.56 Billion
Scholarships = $0.12 Billion
Total Operating Expenses (Including none material)=$6.1 Billion

Total OPERATING LOSS = -$0.8 Billion

So tell me again how important the 2.2% of revenues is SSSSOOOO important to the school?
[/quote]

If it’s not important to the school why are you talking about all the things athletics pays for? Why the conference realignment based on athletics? Why fighting for bigger TV contracts? Why spending all this money on coaches? On flying to recruits houses? On new equipment?

For such a small part everyone sure seems to take it pretty seriously with their wallets.

Wonder why? [/quote]

Seems to me students take their education way more seriously considering tuition revenue is considerably higher.

313

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

If colleges start paying players, that “football profit” made by the top 25 schools will cease to exist because it will be consumed by player salary expense. 2-5 players will cost $40MM-$70MM. Guy’s like Manziel will sign 1 year $15MM contracts. Where is this “extra” money for scholarships or stipends going to come from? [/quote]

None of the stipends being mentioned talk about guys getting 15 million. They are small amounts to help offset some costs that books/tuition do not cover. This is just one out of a ton of different proposals being talked about. None talk about the system you say like paying Manziel 15 million. No one is talking about that, it’s as relevant as the girl scouts.

Where did the extra money come from with tripling coaching contracts? With building new stadiums? Building new indoor facilities? Increasing AD contracts, strength and conditioning contracts, recruiting, etc? Somehow everyone found “extra” money for that, but a small stipend a player is going to bankrupt everyone?

314

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

If colleges start paying players, that “football profit” made by the top 25 schools will cease to exist because it will be consumed by player salary expense. 2-5 players will cost $40MM-$70MM. Guy’s like Manziel will sign 1 year $15MM contracts. Where is this “extra” money for scholarships or stipends going to come from? [/quote]

None of the stipends being mentioned talk about guys getting 15 million. They are small amounts to help offset some costs that books/tuition do not cover. This is just one out of a ton of different proposals being talked about. None talk about the system you say like paying Manziel 15 million. No one is talking about that, it’s as relevant as the girl scouts.

Where did the extra money come from with tripling coaching contracts? With building new stadiums? Building new indoor facilities? Increasing AD contracts, strength and conditioning contracts, recruiting, etc? Somehow everyone found “extra” money for that, but a small stipend a player is going to bankrupt everyone? [/quote]

I’m not talking about a stipend. I’m talking about players making a salary facilitated through a union. Wasn’t that one of the resent court victories for players? All we have to do is look at the NFL for a guideline on salaries and we will see Heisman trophy QBs will make 10s of MMs, with top level RB & WR slightly behind. There will also be a minimum salary I’m sure.

It’s the next logical step.

There are 50+ players on a team that will soon all be union. That’s a massive increase in salary expense. Not ever school has or is building a new stadium, if so, it’s via a loan. Head coaches make ludicrous amounts of money, but it’s still only 1 person and if I’m not mistaken the average is only like $1.5MM. The assistants aren’t making that. Recruiting has always happened that’s not a new expense.

“A small stipend” Players aren’t going to get just a “small” stipend once they are all union. Johnny Football will make $7.5MM, then Johnny Football 2.0 will make $8.9MM, then Johnny football 3.0 will make $10MM and so on and so forth. Just like the NFL.

315

Nice article discussion the value of college athletics to the entire school

“College Athletics: Necessary, Not Just Nice to Have”

http://www.nacubo.org/Business_Officer_Magazine/Business_Officer_Plus/Bonus_Material/College_Athletics_Necessary_Not_Just_Nice_to_Have.html

316

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

If colleges start paying players, that “football profit” made by the top 25 schools will cease to exist because it will be consumed by player salary expense. 2-5 players will cost $40MM-$70MM. Guy’s like Manziel will sign 1 year $15MM contracts. Where is this “extra” money for scholarships or stipends going to come from? [/quote]

None of the stipends being mentioned talk about guys getting 15 million. They are small amounts to help offset some costs that books/tuition do not cover. This is just one out of a ton of different proposals being talked about. None talk about the system you say like paying Manziel 15 million. No one is talking about that, it’s as relevant as the girl scouts.

Where did the extra money come from with tripling coaching contracts? With building new stadiums? Building new indoor facilities? Increasing AD contracts, strength and conditioning contracts, recruiting, etc? Somehow everyone found “extra” money for that, but a small stipend a player is going to bankrupt everyone? [/quote]

I’m not talking about a stipend. I’m talking about players making a salary facilitated through a union. Wasn’t that one of the resent court victories for players? All we have to do is look at the NFL for a guideline on salaries and we will see Heisman trophy QBs will make 10s of MMs, with top level RB & WR slightly behind. There will also be a minimum salary I’m sure.

It’s the next logical step.

There are 50+ players on a team that will soon all be union. That’s a massive increase in salary expense. Not ever school has or is building a new stadium, if so, it’s via a loan. Head coaches make ludicrous amounts of money, but it’s still only 1 person and if I’m not mistaken the average is only like $1.5MM. The assistants aren’t making that. Recruiting has always happened that’s not a new expense.

“A small stipend” Players aren’t going to get just a “small” stipend once they are all union. Johnny Football will make $7.5MM, then Johnny Football 2.0 will make $8.9MM, then Johnny football 3.0 will make $10MM and so on and so forth. Just like the NFL. [/quote]

This has no chance of happening for a million different reasons. Players may be able to secure some new guarantees, college football is in no danger of becoming the NFL anytime soon. Even though the TV contracts, coaching contracts, and endorsement money are similar to it.

Players and lawsuits are trying to make small changes that may have a chance of passing. You’re turning that into “well soon college football will be the NFL.”

No. It won’t. At least not from the player perspective. The rest of the game has been for awhile. The changes to the status quo that are being talked about are very small in nature and you’re attempting to dismiss arguments by saying “this is where things are headed.”

Actually it’s not. In fact right now it’s more likely that nothing changes than the level you’re talking about.

317

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

Nice article discussion the value of college athletics to the entire school

“College Athletics: Necessary, Not Just Nice to Have”

http://www.nacubo.org/Business_Officer_Magazine/Business_Officer_Plus/Bonus_Material/College_Athletics_Necessary_Not_Just_Nice_to_Have.html[/quote]

So which is Z? Just a small part of the school that is trivial like in your Michigan post or this?

I’m not arguing that college sports isn’t a good thing or that I wish college sports would go away. I’m just laughing at those that pretend that no profits are being made and all these millions of revenue bringing programs are losing money because of all these expenses. It’d be like if I started a non profit that got a billion and paid myself a billion and then said “we’re just breaking even.”

Don’t fall for it.

318

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

If colleges start paying players, that “football profit” made by the top 25 schools will cease to exist because it will be consumed by player salary expense. 2-5 players will cost $40MM-$70MM. Guy’s like Manziel will sign 1 year $15MM contracts. Where is this “extra” money for scholarships or stipends going to come from? [/quote]

None of the stipends being mentioned talk about guys getting 15 million. They are small amounts to help offset some costs that books/tuition do not cover. This is just one out of a ton of different proposals being talked about. None talk about the system you say like paying Manziel 15 million. No one is talking about that, it’s as relevant as the girl scouts.

Where did the extra money come from with tripling coaching contracts? With building new stadiums? Building new indoor facilities? Increasing AD contracts, strength and conditioning contracts, recruiting, etc? Somehow everyone found “extra” money for that, but a small stipend a player is going to bankrupt everyone? [/quote]

I’m not talking about a stipend. I’m talking about players making a salary facilitated through a union. Wasn’t that one of the resent court victories for players? All we have to do is look at the NFL for a guideline on salaries and we will see Heisman trophy QBs will make 10s of MMs, with top level RB & WR slightly behind. There will also be a minimum salary I’m sure.

It’s the next logical step.

There are 50+ players on a team that will soon all be union. That’s a massive increase in salary expense. Not ever school has or is building a new stadium, if so, it’s via a loan. Head coaches make ludicrous amounts of money, but it’s still only 1 person and if I’m not mistaken the average is only like $1.5MM. The assistants aren’t making that. Recruiting has always happened that’s not a new expense.

“A small stipend” Players aren’t going to get just a “small” stipend once they are all union. Johnny Football will make $7.5MM, then Johnny Football 2.0 will make $8.9MM, then Johnny football 3.0 will make $10MM and so on and so forth. Just like the NFL. [/quote]

This has no chance of happening for a million different reasons. Players may be able to secure some new guarantees, college football is in no danger of becoming the NFL anytime soon. Even though the TV contracts, coaching contracts, and endorsement money are similar to it.

Players and lawsuits are trying to make small changes that may have a chance of passing. You’re turning that into “well soon college football will be the NFL.”

No. It won’t. At least not from the player perspective. The rest of the game has been for awhile. The changes to the status quo that are being talked about are very small in nature and you’re attempting to dismiss arguments by saying “this is where things are headed.”

Actually it’s not. In fact right now it’s more likely that nothing changes than the level you’re talking about. [/quote]

Okay, had I known you had a crystal ball I wouldn’t have posted at all.

I’m sure college athletes will just get a $100/week stipend and get to sell some autographs, maybe a jersey. Unions across America don’t succeed in getting their members paid for their work. Unions never get their members paid multiple times above their market value either.