Let’s see if something happens with a new commission being proposed to study college sports financing including the impacf of NIL. It’s the Wild Wild West in college sports right now but any “solutions” will probably be constrained by further legal actions. No easy solutions. It just seems like the pendulum has swung too far to give top basketball and football players high salaries before they attempt to go pro. It’s impacting minor sports that can’t produce revenue. Some top minor sports programs have been chopped recently which is a shame.
New NIL commission coming?
- Thread starter WestCoastWildcat
- Start date
Let’s see if something happens with a new commission being proposed to study college sports financing including the impacf of NIL. It’s the Wild Wild West in college sports right now but any “solutions” will probably be constrained by further legal actions. No easy solutions. It just seems like the pendulum has swung too far to give top basketball and football players high salaries before they attempt to go pro. It’s impacting minor sports that can’t produce revenue. Some top minor sports programs have been chopped recently which is a shame.
The pendulum has indeed swung way too far. There is something fundamentally wrong with making an 18-year-old a multi-millionaire just because he is exceptionally good at throwing a football. It's a sad sign on our society.
And what about all the other players who are just as likely to have football related injuries and need money later in life, but don't get millions of dollars as 18-year-olds?
Do you also get upset at college dropouts who found companies that make them millions of dollars, or is your ire simply reserved for athletes?
What minor sports programs have been chopped recently?
You want see to chopping, go back to the late 70’s, early 80’s with the Title IX implications.
Study hard in hs. Enter a trade and work. Or Go to Jr College 2 years then state schools. Take out loans. Get degree. Get job. Pay back loans. Never play football. Live happily ever after....
College dropouts who found companies that make them millions of dollars have done something that creates value, not only for themselves but for many others as well. In most cases, they have contributed something worthwhile to society. Bill Gates, of course, being the prime example.
Paying millions of dollars to an 18-year-old just because he is very good at throwing a football contributes nothing to society. Quite the opposite, in fact, it trivializes the real essence of a worthwhile contribution.
Northwestern University would likely disagree with you, given the 21% increase in applications following the Rose Bowl appearance in 1995, which allowed it to be more selective with who they admit to the student body.
This study from 2013 claims that athletic success translates into a 17.7% increase in applications, so again, I must disagree that good football players contribute nothing to society.
I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why you are only a fan of college sports if the players don't get paid for their contributions.
Bad: 18 year olds who get rich for throwing a football.
Good: 19 year old Americans who get rich from shooting a basketball
Also Good: 17 year old non-Americans who get rich from shooting a basketball
Also Also Good: 20 year old Americans who get rich from throwing a football
I don't see what's hard to understand about this.
The free market has nothing to do with what is good or bad for society.
It's all about the money, which is the essence of the problem here although few of you are willing to recognize it.
Most of you seem to be too enamored with an 18-year-old being given huge rewards before has really accomplished anything. That's the problem.
College scholarship athletes ARE well compensated for their contributions. It costs them nothing to get a degree, which is the primary purpose of a university, and they usually have a generous expense allowance as well. To also reward them with millions of dollars just because they are good at throwing a football is a gross corruption of any reasonable values attributed to a university education that we still have left.
We're treading dangerously into Rant Board territory here, but it is still a fascinating discussion. This is sort of the classic workers versus the bosses argument. Why is an executive at Amazon worth hundreds of millions of dollars, but the driver who actually brings me the product I ordered from them only worth $15 an hour? If a university is making hundreds of millions of dollars, why isn't the actual player on the field worth a couple million? Both situations seem out of whack to me.
There isn't a right answer to any of these questions, but I think most of us sense there is something inherently wrong. By accepting college players making this kind of money, we are basically admitting that college athletics is now another version of professional sports. While you could argue it always has been that way (or at least for the last 25-30 years), we have completely crossed over into full acceptance of that status. The issue now is that even the pro sports leagues are better regulated than this. If a player gets a multi-million dollar contract in pro sports, it is usually for a multi-year contract, so at least the fans get to enjoy that player for a few years. The big paydays combined with the hired guns aspect of college sports these days is ruining any sense of tradition that is so important to so many fans.
I am ok with players getting paid, but it needs to be within the confines of a contract with a salary cap just like most of the pro sports leagues have.
There is nothing in either of these claims that the increase in applications represents students who are a good fit academically for the university.
In fact, quite the opposite could be true. That the increase is from students who are attracted primarily for sports reasons and really don't belong in that school at all.
We have this argument from time to time and it's a Friday so work is light...
The value of an athletic scholarship varies GREATLY and I would argue is not nearly as generous as its curbside appeal suggests, including/especially at Northwestern where a student without means will have all (or nearly all) of their financial need met without the expectation of loans. Anyone who argues that a Northwestern degree is worth $250,000 to anyone besides the millionaire families who pay full freight are either ignorant or lying to themselves and to others. And then there's in-state tuition for state schools, a whole other conversation.
A fair argument could be made that athletics crack the door open for access to Northwestern where there might otherwise be none for a baller with a 3.2 GPA and average ACT/SAT scores, but that hasn't come up in the conversation at all.
I think most Americans would argue that the main purpose of college is not for the acquisition of knowledge (sadly), but rather the acquisition of opportunities and career prospects (aka earning potential). If the adults with all the money can't figure out a better system than to bid on 18-22 year olds to wear their favorite jerseys when they play sports and make them millionaires in the process...I can't begrudge the kids, even if it will eventually lead to my total departure as a college football fan.
I think it is really for both and the two are not mutually exclusive. If fact, quite to the contrary, they complement each other.
The free market has everything to do with what is good or bad for society. It allocates resources, provides incentives, and tends to reward based on how replaceable a skill set is or isn't. It does less well supporting those with less skills or opportunity.
The 18 year olds are getting the amounts that people with the money value them. Musicians and film stars are compensated beyond what they have accomplished. Many CEOs, while not 18 years old, are compensated far more than the college football guys before they accomplish anything for a new firm.
Yes. Thank you. That is exactly the problem. And it's what I have been saying all along.
They are not getting lots of money for anything they have done or any contribution to society.
They are getting it just simply because they are very good at throwing a football. And people with lots of money who are not concerned with what is happening to society are willing, even anxious, to give it to them.
If you can't see the problem with that, I don't know how to help you.
Scholarships are a scam. Nobody pays full price at NU unless they are really wealthy and then, who cares.?
For the sake of simplicity, let's look at state school scholarships. The cost to attend FBS state schools is around 30k a year. You can give me exceptions but I would then say, tough, go to a cheaper FBS school.
So these athletes, ESPECIALLY football players, are risking life and limb for 30k a year, which is fast food wage in many states. It's not equal to the value they create.
I don't believe it for reasons I've stated before, and even if it is true (since tuition has doubled even from my time at NU, so maybe even I would qualify for some grants in today's ridiculous market so I'm "only" paying the amount I paid in the past), I don't think the majority of schools, which aren't super-elite private schools, have made the same "promise" that NU has purportedly made to meet the cost of every student's financial need.
It outright offends me that you call it a scam given all that I and my family had to sacrifice so that I could attend. I'm sick of the entitlement mentality and I'm just about ready to drop out of following the college game. I already did not renew my season tickets this season and I'm right on the cusp of tuning out altogether. It won't take a big push. The joy is gone.
Paying players to play football is an entirely legitimate endeavor.
Operating an educational institution is an entirely legitimate endeavor.
Combining these two activities in the same nonprofit organization is only the result of historical accident and no longer makes any sense.
Operating an educational institution is an entirely legitimate endeavor.
Combining these two activities in the same nonprofit organization is only the result of historical accident and no longer makes any sense.
They are getting money, ostensibly, in exchange for usage of their "name, image, and/or likeness." In reality, they are getting paid by wealthy superfans to play for their favorite team, probably so the superfans can win pissing matches to feed their ego.
But millions of dollars are exchanging hands for something other than the ostensible reason. How is that not fraud? And how is basing a system of payment on an outright lie a good thing for society?
To be clear, I mean ATHLETIC scholarships are a scam, not need based aid. My point is that most of the FBS players on athletic scholarship could earn enough to attend with a normal, full time job. To me, that's the value of the scholarship, about 20-30k a year at most places. And even at NU, many of the kids would get need based aid to drive the cost down to around that of a state school. If you want to argue, maybe it's 10k more. So NU'S scholarship value is the equivalent of a full time job plus 10k a year.
No time for a full time job, you say? I'd assert that this is about how much time a football player devotes to football - practice, games, travel workouts, meetings, game video review, "voluntary " off season workouts. And they are putting their health at risk while not getting actual work experience.
What if there were no athletic scholarships? What percentage of those kids could stay at home, commute to a nearby state school, and work part-time?
The universities, the NCAA and others have been laundering billions for decades, on the backs of the indentured servitude of football players and MBB players.
I may be wrong but I think part of the changes that were made shortly after Kain Colter's attempt to unionize players included lifetime healthcare coverage for college athletes. Is that not correct?
I feel of a lot of you would be much happier if you found something else to do than follow college sports.
Last year I played 18 holes of golf on three straight fall Saturdays for the first time, maybe ever. It was pretty great.
Some of you people need remedial education in basic economics before you continue throwing around terms like Free Market and Created Value. You also need to review how entertainment and amusement create value for people, as proven by the money they'll spend to view it.
I'll give you a pre-Econ 101 discussion prompt: Is the economic value provided by Amazon when they ship me a $40 package of party supplies I intend to use once for my child's birthday party and then throw away greater than the value of my spending $40 on a ticket to attend a concert or sporting event I'll enjoy? What if the item from Amazon is a $40 part to make a cosmetic change to my home that will last for years? What if it's a repair part for my $1000 refrigerator? Discuss...
I'll give you a pre-Econ 101 discussion prompt: Is the economic value provided by Amazon when they ship me a $40 package of party supplies I intend to use once for my child's birthday party and then throw away greater than the value of my spending $40 on a ticket to attend a concert or sporting event I'll enjoy? What if the item from Amazon is a $40 part to make a cosmetic change to my home that will last for years? What if it's a repair part for my $1000 refrigerator? Discuss...
No one needs a remedial education in basic economics to understand that paying an eighteen-year-old millions of dollars simply because he is very good at throwing a football is fundamentally wrong. This is not an economics issue. It is a moral one that is significantly corrupting the values in our society.
I suspect that this is a generational issue as well. For those of us over about 60 years old the idea of receiving something that you really didn't earn is completely foreign.
But many younger people belong to the so called "entitled" generation where rewards are forthcoming, even expected, just because of who you are. Look no further than the ridiculous matter of pre-school children being given graduation parties at 4 years old.
But many younger people belong to the so called "entitled" generation where rewards are forthcoming, even expected, just because of who you are. Look no further than the ridiculous matter of pre-school children being given graduation parties at 4 years old.
If you want to make this a generational argument don’t just put this on an “entitled” generation. your generation may want to take a big ole look in a mirror to see who has been been in charge and at the helm the past 25+ years to enable the situation where we are today.
Well, I'm glad you agree that we are in a situation today where "entitlements" have become a big problem. Unfortunately, not everyone sees it as a problem.
Where to put the blame, however, is not that simple. Society, at least in the US, has changed to put much more focus on children as they are growing up.
I'd be very curious if it is the same in other countries, Europe for example, as it is here.
Where to put the blame, however, is not that simple. Society, at least in the US, has changed to put much more focus on children as they are growing up.
I'd be very curious if it is the same in other countries, Europe for example, as it is here.
It is economics. I agree with you viscerally, but I don’t economically. What the 18 year old is getting is the same as a stock with a high PE ratio. The NIL payer is investiing in future value. It may or may not be realized. If it is, the school gets wins, visibility, TV, ticket sales and teh NIL payer, like any donor, gets the satisfaction of having made it happen. But in the economic end, it’s an inveestment in a hoped for future, no different than a PE of 30 or 40.
Entertainment has moral value. From JS Mill to Singer ethicists have argued that a person should spend their resources to help a disadvantaged person until that spending materially reduces their own well-being. That’s probably the most moral use of one’s money but few of use will quite go there and we probably do overpay for our entertainment in terms of its marginal utility to us. But, that’s life.
And what has the 18-year-old actually done to deserve such a reward?
The answer is nothing. Absolutely nothing except demonstrate that he is very good at throwing a football.
I don't blame the kid for taking the money. He would be foolish not to.
I blame the hyper-sports, hyper-TV, hyper-money rich donors for the problem. And don't leave out the money-making video action game business that I think also has had a big role in this problem.