DMN: TCU athletic director urges Congress to step in as NIL deals upend college sports

[Wexahu]

An argument that's as old as the industrial revolution.

The Big Three automakers have a regulated, statutory right to replace strikers. So far they haven't. That speaks volumes, and again its not the only speaker, to the "toss 'em out; we can hire others" argument.

Not really comparing apples to apples here.

College football and basketball teams completely turn over their rosters every 3-4 years, and on an even more accelerated schedule for a majority of the roster. And yet the beat goes on without a hitch. If the entire labor force of the Big Three Automakers turned over every 3-4 years, it would be chaos and they couldn't effectively make cars. That's part of the point. I would guess the Big 3 aren't replacing the strikers because thus far it isn't cost effective and good business to do so. Making cars is a little more complicated than staging a football game.

Again, you could remove the top 300 college football players from the game and revenue would hardly drop at all. The NCAA basketball tournament these days is more or less a bunch of anonymous players that nobody will give two [ Finebaum ]s about once they take their jerseys off (relative to what it was 30-40 years ago), and how has that affected revenue?

 

[froginaustin]

Not really comparing apples to apples here.

College football and basketball teams completely turn over their rosters every 3-4 years, and on an even more accelerated schedule for a majority of the roster. And yet the beat goes on without a hitch. If the entire labor force of the Big Three Automakers turned over every 3-4 years, it would be chaos and they couldn't effectively make cars. That's part of the point. I would guess the Big 3 aren't replacing the strikers because thus far it isn't cost effective and good business to do so. Making cars is a little more complicated than staging a football game.

Again, you could remove the top 300 college football players from the game and revenue would hardly drop at all. The NCAA basketball tournament these days is more or less a bunch of anonymous players that nobody will give two [ Finebaum ]s about once they take their jerseys off (relative to what it was 30-40 years ago), and how has that affected revenue?

Whose the first prominent college program to thumb its nose at players wanting NIL money? Stanford? I assume the service academies will.

The service academies even with their special attraction are fielding at best G5-level football, and pretty sad, uncompetitive men's basketball (compared to the rest of D1).

Stanford could change it's mind and start paying players and taking more transfers. We'll see where they are in about 10 years, I would guess.

Of course it's "apples to apples". Just fire them all and round up some new ones, according to the theory. Apparently the idea that NIL-demanding players can't effectively be replaced doesn't fit into your theory of college sports; I don't take any satisfaction in that, but I can't bring myself to agree with you on that one.

 

[Endless Purple]

The money to pay football players comes from football revenue, obviously. Any conversation regarding other sports is secondary to "paying the bills" first, be that the coaching staff or, this scenario, the players. Even under Title IX. The idea that you can't pay the people driving the revenue because you have to subsidize other unrelated activities isn't something I think stands up to scrutiny.

I don't agree with this interpretation at all, and I don't think the courts would either. You can already see funding and salary disparities between revenue and non revenue sports in terms of coaching salaries, why then do you think it would violate Title IX to have comparable disparities between player payments.

(And this is without contemplating the elephant in the room which is the idea of divorcing revenue sports from the University / Title IX obligations in some fashion, which remains a possibility)

Wex and I have had this conversation before as well, and I simply disagree with this idea. While you can not discount the revenue a brand brings, going too far to say that the players aren't stars or driving that revenue too. You can't put the Marist football team in a TCU jersey and expect the same revenue long term. College football is based on high quality play, and it's the players and coaches that provide that.

As I pointed out earlier, most schools operate at a loss, that include the football program alone. Only top Power conferences make positive earnings.

Your perspective on Title IX not having an impact will make any further comparison on this impassable.

 

[Endless Purple]

An argument that's as old as the industrial revolution.

The Big Three automakers have a regulated, statutory right to replace strikers. So far they haven't. That speaks volumes, and again its not the only speaker, to the "toss 'em out; we can hire others" argument.

They have reduced the workers and replaced a great deal of them with machines and automation.

 

[Endless Purple]

There needs to be a test case…

I think that would be fascinating to follow.

 

[Endless Purple]

Some info on the court ruling:

“the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision that NCAA restrictions on “education-related benefits” for college athletes violated antitrust law.”

" It (NCAA) was still free to create limits on benefits unrelated to education*.*"

" this case did not take up the issue of pay-for-play that many have advocated for and that typically brings the headlines."

“The NCAA may still enforce any “no Lamborghini” rule, as the court put it, but there are a lot steps between spartan education-related benefits and a Lamborghini.”

“And in many ways, the NCAA is ceding its authority in this area to the individual schools and conferences themselves, especially in states without NIL laws, as if to say, “We wanted to slow play this, but I guess it’s too late. You guys handle it!””
my thought - effectively the NCAA just gave up on fair play.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2021/06/29/business-of-football-supreme-court-unanimous-ruling

 

[NORMLFROG]

Man, the only reason I would go to Washington is to see if I could score a hand job from Rep. Boebert. Otherwise, I would steer clear of the place. It's just a cesspool.

NF

 

[BrewingFrog]

Man, the only reason I would go to Washington is to see if I could score a hand job from Rep. Boebert. Otherwise, I would steer clear of the place. It's just a cesspool.

NF

"I'm sorry, sir. Rep. Bobert is occupied at present. In the meantime, here's Senator Feinstein."