• The KillerFrogs

FWST: ‘Fair-market value’ of a TCU football player? $246,465

BABYFACE

Full Member
The players participate because there is a monopoly and they have no other choices.
Every sport has the choice to go pro out of HS, except FB being a bit different. As for FB, either try to make an arena team and or play at a college that doesn’t award scholarships(walk on only) if you think you are being taken advantage of.

Everyone has a choice. To be a doctor, on has to get an undergrad then go onto medical school. Complete that degree with an internship and residency. There is no apprentice method, so should aspiring doctors being crying about not having another way to become a physician?
 

Double V

Active Member
Also, you can't compare college sports to professional because of the revenue distribution among the different sports within one institution. The NFL doesn't have to subsidize the LPGA, MLS, WNBA, volleyball, softball, equstrian, swimming/diving, rifle, etc. If they were REQUIRED to do so, I guarantee that the players' would get a LOT less than 47% of the revenue. You simply cannot have Title IX and a model where players are getting paid by the University.

As for allowing players to market themselves and make money off magazine covers, shoe deals, video games, etc. I'm all for that in theory. I just don't know how you do that and prevent boosters from abusing it (or if we even need to worry about such a thing).
 
Also, you can't compare college sports to professional because of the revenue distribution among the different sports within one institution. The NFL doesn't have to subsidize the LPGA, MLS, WNBA, volleyball, softball, equstrian, swimming/diving, rifle, etc. If they were REQUIRED to do so, I guarantee that the players' would get a LOT less than 47% of the revenue. You simply cannot have Title IX and a model where players are getting paid by the University.

As for allowing players to market themselves and make money off magazine covers, shoe deals, video games, etc. I'm all for that in theory. I just don't know how you do that and prevent boosters from abusing it (or if we even need to worry about such a thing).
Imagine this...A Bama booster telling a kid he’ll pay him $1 million for his autograph...as long as it’s on a signed letter of intent to attend Bama. Those are the kinds of shenanigans you’d see if the athletes were allowed to market themselves. There would be no limit to the creativity of the boosters and the NCAA wouldn’t be able to do anything about it.
 

Double V

Active Member
Imagine this...A Bama booster telling a kid he’ll pay him $1 million for his autograph...as long as it’s on a signed letter of intent to attend Bama. Those are the kinds of shenanigans you’d see if the athletes were allowed to market themselves. There would be no limit to the creativity of the boosters and the NCAA wouldn’t be able to do anything about it.
Yeah, I know. That's what I can't wrap my head around with regards to how to police it. But at the same time...Bama's probably getting that kid anyway. Also, so what? Do we REALLY care? I mean, if adults want to pay other adults to attend a certain school, so what?
 

Zubaz

Member
Every sport has the choice to go pro out of HS, except FB being a bit different. As for FB, either try to make an arena team and or play at a college that doesn’t award scholarships(walk on only) if you think you are being taken advantage of.

Everyone has a choice. To be a doctor, on has to get an undergrad then go onto medical school. Complete that degree with an internship and residency. There is no apprentice method, so should aspiring doctors being crying about not having another way to become a physician?
To be fair, they also don't kick you out of med school if you decide to sell your wares on the open market.

While I tend to agree with the concept of amateur athletics, it seems weird to also crow about "the market" on the one hand, and then defending literally making it against the rules to compensate players as a booster sees fit on the other.
 

Limp Lizard

Full Member
I guarantee there are many advanced degree scientists who make way, way below her formula. Develop a new drug that makes billions of dollars and you may get a 5-figure bonus and raise to make 5k/year more...maybe.
 
I guarantee there are many advanced degree scientists who make way, way below her formula. Develop a new drug that makes billions of dollars and you may get a 5-figure bonus and raise to make 5k/year more...maybe.
I know the guy who invented Skittles and Starburst. He made a nice living, but M&M Mars kept the billions.

Yeah, I know. That's what I can't wrap my head around with regards to how to police it. But at the same time...Bama's probably getting that kid anyway. Also, so what? Do we REALLY care? I mean, if adults want to pay other adults to attend a certain school, so what?
In principle, I don’t disagree. However, at what point do the boosters not “own” the athlete? If they are paying him outrageous amounts of money, then eventually they will want more and more from the athlete. It would be a terrible precedent and there would be a seedy underside to it that could turn criminal, to say the least.

The amount of regulations and legislation put in place to monitor and control it would overwhelm the system.
 

CountryFrog

Active Member
Allowing boosters, shoe companies, etc. to start paying players would essentially make those people owners of university football teams. The players would become more responsible to those people/companies than they are to the school they attend or even the coaches on the team. A lot of people like to criticize college athletics for using these kids as a means to a financial gain, but I think we'd all rather have those schools helping the kids out than trusting the Nikes and Boone Pickens of the world to look out for each kid's best interests.

At what point will the "student" side of student athlete become a complete farce? The kids may cash in for a couple years but as soon as they no longer present value to the boosters who are paying them then that income will stop. Then what happens? You think that 19 year old kid was making regular investments to his Roth IRA? Now he's out of school without an education and his money has dried up with no pro prospects. Is this better for the kids or does it just make us adults feel better that we're fulfilling the promises of capitalism and the American dream?

Then of course there are boosters and companies who will be paying multiple players on several different teams. And remember, since this is the primary source of income for all of these players instead of their team (like it is in the pros) then you're going to have an insane amount of conflict of interest where the kids are being used and taken advantage of far more than they currently are.

And these are only SOME of the problems. So you'd have to have an organization that is able to closely monitor all of these activities. Anyone think the NCAA is up to this task?

I say all of this as someone who is totally in favor of giving these kids as much as possible. It'll have to be done through the schools, though, and there would essentially have to be some type of salary cap and I just don't know how plausible that all is. I'd love for them to figure out a way to do it, I just don't know what that way is. I don't think allowing the players to "market themselves" is the answer though.
 

Limp Lizard

Full Member
My point is that very, very few people make that kind of percent of the income of the operation. Pro sports and other entertainment are different, I realize, but making the players thinking their input is worth that much is setting them up for disappointment in the "real" world, unless they are the tiny percent that make it to the NFL. And a disservice to the educational institutions.
 

Endless Purple

Full Member
Many good thoughts in this thread regarding the large flaws in the article. Just wanted to add in regards to boosters that an open market would destroy any form of semi-level playing field. Currently there is some within the divisions of P5, G5, FCS, etc. It is also why all pro leagues have some form of salary caps to keep teams somewhat competitive. A full open market would reduce college football and basketball to about 20 teams faster than any other method.
 

Pharm Frog

Full Member
The players participate because there is a monopoly and they have no other choices. The end game of capitalism. No competiton and no wages for the worker.

The choices are damn near infinite at that time in someone's life. FWIW - Your second sentence betrays you and your third sentence finishes the job.
 

Pharm Frog

Full Member
I guarantee there are many advanced degree scientists who make way, way below her formula. Develop a new drug that makes billions of dollars and you may get a 5-figure bonus and raise to make 5k/year more...maybe.

Didn't see her formula and I get your point, But that's a little off on the economics. First, drug development does not work quite that way now. Secondly, discovery and development of targets and pathways is a very lucrative endeavor. Many retain pretty highly compensated positions at research institutions and the ones that "develop" these "billion dollar drugs" are often given executive titles and very nice compensation to keep them from taking their talent elsewhere. The person who is credited for discovering the biggest drug I've launched to this point made more than $5K per talk and way more than that at international conferences. And, the ones that hold patents on the technology that accelerate development after discovery do very well too.
 

Limp Lizard

Full Member
Didn't see her formula and I get your point, But that's a little off on the economics. First, drug development does not work quite that way now. Secondly, discovery and development of targets and pathways is a very lucrative endeavor. Many retain pretty highly compensated positions at research institutions and the ones that "develop" these "billion dollar drugs" are often given executive titles and very nice compensation to keep them from taking their talent elsewhere. The person who is credited for discovering the biggest drug I've launched to this point made more than $5K per talk and way more than that at international conferences. And, the ones that hold patents on the technology that accelerate development after discovery do very well too.

I am the primary inventor of a patent for a giant multinational company. I got paid five dollars. I worked 35 years in the pharma business (and two in the food industry) and did not know anyone making that kind of money, except the vice-presidents or higher. Maybe directors make that much, but pretty rarely. The $245K is for all 85 scholly players, not just the superstars that you refer to. Baker Mayfield I can see that much or more, but third string right guard? That is equivalent to a medium level MS chemist in his mid 20's who makes maybe $70K. Here we are talking about 18-22 year olds.
 

Pharm Frog

Full Member
I am the primary inventor of a patent for a giant multinational company. I got paid five dollars. I worked 35 years in the pharma business (and two in the food industry) and did not know anyone making that kind of money, except the vice-presidents or higher. Maybe directors make that much, but pretty rarely. The $245K is for all 85 scholly players, not just the superstars that you refer to. Baker Mayfield I can see that much or more, but third string right guard? That is equivalent to a medium level MS chemist in his mid 20's who makes maybe $70K. Here we are talking about 18-22 year olds.

I completely agree that anyone who suggests a backup TE is equivalent in value to a starting QB is a lunatic. Didn’t read her article but I can only imagine how many agenda-based assumptions underlying the conclusion.
 

RollToad

Baylor is Trash.
Any chance you could get me a [ steaming pile of Orgeron ] load of each?
diabeetus.jpg
 
Top