valid point, but why not fix that, instead of completely destroying what was? Ok, destroy might be a strong word, but you get the point.
-
You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
HuskerMax readers can save 50% on Omaha Steaks .
Schools To Directly Pay Players
- Thread starter Mr.Bennett
- Start date
valid point, but why not fix that, instead of completely destroying what was? Ok, destroy might be a strong word, but you get the point.
I want reparations!
Because the NCAA had no interest in fixing that. Think about where we would be right now if, 20 years ago, the NCAA agreed to pay athletes a monthly stipend and made some other changes to the "amateur model". Instead, they continued to be arrogant and stubborn and always shut down any talk of money.
Now that we're at this point, someone needs to step up and take charge of this situation. While I agree with players getting NIL, there needs to be oversight and rules in place. They can't keep it like this.
I fear the reason it kept going was money.. the very issue we are dealing with now, so there won't be encouragement to change that either.
Probably not, and unless something drastically changes, the NCAA as a relevant organization is over. So someone who actually cares about college athletics needs to be put in charge. As much as people don't like the guy, someone like Nick Saban could become the football commissioner, get someone like Coach K as the basketball commissioner, etc.
In the meantime, it's the Wild West out there and as we saw with the Florida QB recruit, players are still getting lied to.
HuskerBred
Recruit
It’s going to be a very interesting and painful process over the next few years. Several issues remain, including whether the athletes are employees (and all the sub-issues related to employer/employee relationships), Title IX issues (including applicability), agreements and “rules” among the participating schools (really the athletic departments), and the policing structure. To me, the last issue is always the most interesting. Rules and parameters will be meaningless unless the institutions subject themselves to a league, organization, affiliation, or whatever that maintains policing of whatever guardrails are established. Without this framework, the whole thing will eat itself. It will become a lesser version of MLB or international soccer.
one thing is for sure, imo anyway, if this isn't reined in, this will eliminate many schools.. and a very good chance NU is one of those. NU can't compete with those bigger schools
I think NU can compete but it will be close. I said this when everything was getting ramped up that most schools would drop out and most non-revenue generating sports would get cut. A few on here said I was crazy.
I hope so, but we shall see... NU football has a good chance, but basketball..... not so sure.
Yeah, we will see a good number of sports being dropped if something isn't done, soon. There will be no choice, they will have to, to be able to pay the players in the sports they do have.
If you think about it, it was always a bit odd that our nation's universities became what are in effect the minor leagues for professional sports. If you were designing a system from scratch, you would never design it that way, and it doesn't work that way in other countries. Athletics in no way forms any part of the identity of Oxford, Cambridge, the Sorbonne or the University of Heidelberg, for example. For some crazy reason, people in those countries think that the focus of universities should be on academics, not sports.
Many of the supposed "students" at U.S. universities who play sports would never have attended college if they weren't there to play sports, and this just puts the nail in the coffin of the whole "student athlete" charade. I'm not sure how this all ends, but I'm pretty sure things will look pretty different in the next few years. Whether it is better or worse for a school like Nebraska remains to be seen.
Many of the supposed "students" at U.S. universities who play sports would never have attended college if they weren't there to play sports, and this just puts the nail in the coffin of the whole "student athlete" charade. I'm not sure how this all ends, but I'm pretty sure things will look pretty different in the next few years. Whether it is better or worse for a school like Nebraska remains to be seen.
Absolutely agree. My fear as a longtime fan is that college sports will stray so far from the model that have made them so attractive over the years that it just won’t have the same sort of appeal that has made it so popular. Part of that comes from watching the schools play constant catch up. Will the system implode or will the schools set up some central authority (which you mentioned) to make it work with equitable rules? That remains to be seen. The additional issues you mentioned - such as athletes being employees and Title IX considerations - are icebergs that the schools are bearing down on. I’m not particularly confident that something will emerge from this that continues to generate the same sort of passion with the fan base. We’ll just have to wait and see.
--NCAA will pay more than $2.7 billion in damages over the next 10 years to current and past athletes (back to 2016).
--Any past NCAA athlete who agrees (settles) forfeits the right to file a future lawsuit against the NCAA.
This feels pretty standard. Of course the NCAA isn't going to open itself up to some 100-year lawsuit where guys like Turner Gill or Tommie Frazier can sue for money decades after they stopped playing.
--Revenue-sharing plan allows each school to share roughly $20 million per year with its athletes.
I'm curious to learn more about the particulars of a revenue-sharing plan. The keyword here is revenue, though, which means that the school's gotta earn that money in the first place. They can't tap into a university endowment or "academic" funding to make this happen. Revenue would seem to indicate that this is money earned by the athletic department.
On that note, Nebraska Athletics (thankfully) is in excellent health, financially. We're one of the few athletic departments in the nation who actually turn a profit. Most run at a deficit and rely on scholarships and donors to keep athletics afloat. Some schools funnel academic-side funding to athletics, because it's basically a big marketing recruitment ad for the university (more tuition from more students, even non-athletes).
NU should be well-positioned here. The Big Ten earns us a pile of money, and we make even more by filling up Memorial Stadium. I can't say that same for Iowa State, Wake Forest, etc. Also note that it's capped at approximately $20m annually. But that's not a massive number when you get $50-60m annually from your TV deal. Schools in the B1G/SEC should be fine. They won't have to decide between paying players -or- building new stadiums. Over time, this will widen the gap, even if the ACC / PAC / XII are too dumb to realize it. Their TV deals hover right around that $20m mark, so it's essentially a wash. They're just left to operate their business off the revenue they make from butts-in-seats. Meanwhile, the B1G/SEC get a free pass to funnel 30% of their TV money to players, keep the remaining 70%, and STILL earn ticket money from fans. If you thought that haves-and-have-nots was bad, just wait 5 years.
According to internet data, Nebraska has about 800 student-athletes. We know the revenue distribution won't be equal (Dylan Raiola will get more than Will Bolt's backup shortstop), but that averages out to just $25k per student, per year. Assuming the guys like Raiola or Tominaga (I know he's graduated) will get more, it probably means the average student athlete would get something like $5k.
It will be interesting to see different school's strategies here. Will Alabama throw all $20m into football? Will Duke throw it all at hoops? What about equal distribution between men / women / Title IX? Is it better to dump a pile of money into a single QB? Or go hire yourself the baddest, fattest, fastest OL in the country?
This adds a completely new angle to strategy - especially at the AD's office. Imagine Rhule, Hoiberg, Bolt, and John Cook all fighting for more cash from Dannen. Will be a totally new dynamic.
--Won't begin until Fall 2025.
--As of now, players will not be considered employees. Probably a 1099 situation for tax purposes.
I can't wait to see the first NCAA player go to jail for tax evasion. Seriously, though, AD Departments will need to start teaching financial literacy to these players. There's a long-established tradition of schools making up useless degree programs and slouch classes for athletes to attend, so we know there's already a portion of student athletes who, frankly, are morons. Vince Young, anyone? The guy scored lower on his Wonderlic than Forest Gump.
In a similar vein, expect a rise in drug use, prostitution, etc. Many student-athletes are serious about their futures, but you have to assume there are some boogers in the bunch. Imagine if Lawrence Phillips got $100k per year in Lincoln. Or if Randy Gregory suddenly had a fat stack of weed money in his pocket. There's yet another angle here in terms of vetting which kids are going to be stupid with their money, and how that reflects on the university. I fully expect schools to have some kind of "honor code" (see: BYU) where kids can forfeit their earnings if they get arrested, make a spectacle of themselves/the school, and so forth.
Brave new world.
--Any past NCAA athlete who agrees (settles) forfeits the right to file a future lawsuit against the NCAA.
This feels pretty standard. Of course the NCAA isn't going to open itself up to some 100-year lawsuit where guys like Turner Gill or Tommie Frazier can sue for money decades after they stopped playing.
--Revenue-sharing plan allows each school to share roughly $20 million per year with its athletes.
I'm curious to learn more about the particulars of a revenue-sharing plan. The keyword here is revenue, though, which means that the school's gotta earn that money in the first place. They can't tap into a university endowment or "academic" funding to make this happen. Revenue would seem to indicate that this is money earned by the athletic department.
On that note, Nebraska Athletics (thankfully) is in excellent health, financially. We're one of the few athletic departments in the nation who actually turn a profit. Most run at a deficit and rely on scholarships and donors to keep athletics afloat. Some schools funnel academic-side funding to athletics, because it's basically a big marketing recruitment ad for the university (more tuition from more students, even non-athletes).
NU should be well-positioned here. The Big Ten earns us a pile of money, and we make even more by filling up Memorial Stadium. I can't say that same for Iowa State, Wake Forest, etc. Also note that it's capped at approximately $20m annually. But that's not a massive number when you get $50-60m annually from your TV deal. Schools in the B1G/SEC should be fine. They won't have to decide between paying players -or- building new stadiums. Over time, this will widen the gap, even if the ACC / PAC / XII are too dumb to realize it. Their TV deals hover right around that $20m mark, so it's essentially a wash. They're just left to operate their business off the revenue they make from butts-in-seats. Meanwhile, the B1G/SEC get a free pass to funnel 30% of their TV money to players, keep the remaining 70%, and STILL earn ticket money from fans. If you thought that haves-and-have-nots was bad, just wait 5 years.
According to internet data, Nebraska has about 800 student-athletes. We know the revenue distribution won't be equal (Dylan Raiola will get more than Will Bolt's backup shortstop), but that averages out to just $25k per student, per year. Assuming the guys like Raiola or Tominaga (I know he's graduated) will get more, it probably means the average student athlete would get something like $5k.
It will be interesting to see different school's strategies here. Will Alabama throw all $20m into football? Will Duke throw it all at hoops? What about equal distribution between men / women / Title IX? Is it better to dump a pile of money into a single QB? Or go hire yourself the baddest, fattest, fastest OL in the country?
This adds a completely new angle to strategy - especially at the AD's office. Imagine Rhule, Hoiberg, Bolt, and John Cook all fighting for more cash from Dannen. Will be a totally new dynamic.
--Won't begin until Fall 2025.
--As of now, players will not be considered employees. Probably a 1099 situation for tax purposes.
I can't wait to see the first NCAA player go to jail for tax evasion. Seriously, though, AD Departments will need to start teaching financial literacy to these players. There's a long-established tradition of schools making up useless degree programs and slouch classes for athletes to attend, so we know there's already a portion of student athletes who, frankly, are morons. Vince Young, anyone? The guy scored lower on his Wonderlic than Forest Gump.
In a similar vein, expect a rise in drug use, prostitution, etc. Many student-athletes are serious about their futures, but you have to assume there are some boogers in the bunch. Imagine if Lawrence Phillips got $100k per year in Lincoln. Or if Randy Gregory suddenly had a fat stack of weed money in his pocket. There's yet another angle here in terms of vetting which kids are going to be stupid with their money, and how that reflects on the university. I fully expect schools to have some kind of "honor code" (see: BYU) where kids can forfeit their earnings if they get arrested, make a spectacle of themselves/the school, and so forth.
Brave new world.
Same.
HuskerBred
Recruit
100%. My fear is that in a decade or so college football will resemble an another pro football league, absorbed contractually or otherwise under the NFL. Obviously it’s a de facto minor leagues now, but any/all of the charm, quirkiness, and pageantry will disappear with NFL control. The NFL is a profit machine with a quality product. But it will stifle everything fun and outside-the-lines about college football. We may get a few more years out of it, but college football as we know it is likely dead.
