Author Topic: VICE Sports: Debunking NCAA's dumbest lie  (Read 1143 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Run49er

  • Moderator
  • Chancellor
  • *****
  • Posts: 12502


ghostofclt

  • Sophomore
  • *
  • Posts: 965
Reply #1 on: June 15, 2017, 08:00:04 am
clt says paying athletes is a slippery slope. Can you imagine how much bama, Texas and appy would pay compared to Charlotte?


NinerAdvocate

  • Guest
Reply #2 on: June 15, 2017, 09:43:50 am
I have discussed this over and over again and no one ever takes my recommendation seriously, and honestly, it bugs me, because it is very well reasoned and a very valid compromise that does not allow the power programs to use paying players as yet another in a near endless line of recruiting advantages. It also expands revenue opportunities for players and the schools, and brings back a well loved video game franchise.

The plan? It's very simple. An agreed upon % of all gross revenues from all division I programs is paid into a player profit sharing pool. For the non-financial types - that's a % of all revenues, no expenses taken out, so it severely limits the schools ability to cook the books. And yes, Alabama will likely pay more than Charlotte, but this is about the players not the programs.

I would then remove the licensing restrictions that have been put in place because of the O'Bannon case, opening up the doors to college video game franchises by EA, 2k, etc and other licensing opportunities. Those revenues would also be included in the profit sharing pool.

There are then two ways that these funds could be distributed:

1) By sport, to all players in good standing / NCAA eligibility. This one is a little dicey because of Title IX, as revenue sports players would of course get huge payouts relative to your average cross country athlete. However, someone will make the argument(s) to do it this way.

2) Even distribution to all mens and womens D1 athletes who are in good standing / NCAA eligibility. I can hear the howls already, but this is the Title IX bulletproof approach.

Its hard to find current revenue data, but this Business Insider article said the following:

Quote
The 231 NCAA Division I schools with data available generated a total of $9.15 billion in revenue during the 2015 fiscal year.

That excludes nearly every private school. There were 345 total D1 programs that year per Wikipedia. And per that Business Insider article, 76% of all programs surveyed generated less than $50Million revenues. So, to proxy the private schools, let's be conservative and say these other 114 schools have average revenues of $18 Million. That would be another $2.05B revenues, for a total of $11.2B.

Per the NCAA website, there were 176,000 athletes participating (scholarship and non scholarship) @ 346 D1 programs participating in sports last year.  Source: https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Recruiting%20Fact%20Sheet%20WEB.pdf

Now, if a mere 5% revenue sharing was passed (and this is before re-opening the licensing doors), that would generate $560M revenue pool, which split between every field hockey player and SEC star quarterback would net out to a $3,182/player profit share. If 5% sounds high, take in these stats taken from a discussion of pro league revenue sharing with players:

Quote
For the NBA I know that figure is 50-51% and from what I can tell from the 2011 CBA restructure, the NFL's is around 46-47%

5%. And then realize that, yes, the haves, the P5 schools, are going to pay in the bulk of this money - so what will likely suffer? My guess, Coaching salaries. And hasn't that been the gripe for years - why are these college coaches making insane salaries, well and above that of their NFL peers? Nick Saban at Alabama is set to be paid $11,125,000 next season. Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/sec/2017/05/02/nick-saban-alabama-contract-extension/101191514/

The reason Alabama can pay him that much is because their employee costs are so low.

(cont'd)


NinerAdvocate

  • Guest
Reply #3 on: June 15, 2017, 09:45:19 am
The other thing that may happen is that facilities will be downgraded from ridiculously opulent to merely stunning at many of the top flight universities. TCF stadium (University of Minnesota), cost $288,500,000 to construct. McLane Stadium (Baylor) cost $266,000,000. Colorado State's new stadium cost $220,000,000. (Source for all of these was Wikipedia - 3 of the more recent stadium builds). And then you have the ridiculously opulent training facilities. Check out this list for just a few examples:

http://www.stack.com/a/expensive-college-athletic-training-facilities

University of Colorado's Proposed Athletic Facility Upgrades - $143 Million
University of Cincinnati's Richard E. Lindner Varsity Village - $105 Million
USC's John McKay Center - $70 Million
University of Oregon's Hatfield-Dowlin Complex - $69 Million
University of Iowa's Campus Recreation and Wellness Center - $69 Million
Ohio State University's Woody Hayes Athletic Center - $66.5 Million
Ithaca College's Athletics and Events Center - $65.5 Million
UCLA's Football Performance Center - $50 Million
University of Tennessee's Anderson Training Center - $45 Million
University of Arkansas's Fred W. Smith Football Center - $40 Million
University of Kansas's Anderson Family Football Complex - $33 Million
University of Kentucky's Joe Craft Center - $30 Million
University of Pittsburgh's UPMC Sports Performance Center - $30 Million
University of Michigan's Al Glick Field House - $26.1 million
Florida State University's Coyle E. Moore Athletic Center - $25 Million
Duke University's Yoh Football Center - $22 Million
Notre Dame's Guglielmino Athletic Complex - $21.25 Million



Note these are just training facilities. These are not $800k indoor hitting facilities for baseball, or a decent locker room for $1M, these are resort level opulent marketing tools to attract players and coaches. No one is saying don't build them, but a weight bench is a weight bench without all the lavish accoutrement.

I think we can find a way to manage budgets to allow for a revenue share without hamstringing the operational budgets of universities. And in case you're freaking out about what a 5% profit share of Charlotte's $33M operational budget would do to us (about $1,650,000), keep in mind that it would also alleviate the need to pay "cost of attendance" to these same athletes. Per CBS, our cost of attendance figures were $2,892 out of state and $2,474 in state, so a slight bump, but within the realm of workable conversation.

Then there are the unseen cost savings - I'm not saying bag men would disappear, etc, but I suspect it would have a limited, but noticeable, effect on leveling the recruiting field across the board. The current system is insane and even disadvantages conference members against each other, even at the P5 level, with little reason why other than a commissioned study to justify a target # the AD probably already had in mind. If a player knows that he can secure the same profit sharing stipend regardless of which program he chooses, it removes that competitive advantage and also allows players some peace of mind to know they can compete anywhere and not have to worry about short changing themselves, or in some cases, not getting enough to eat.

So that's my very simple idea, that frankly, is modeled on the NFL, a league we all seem to love. Before you bring on the hate, keep that in mind.   
« Last Edit: June 15, 2017, 09:57:03 am by NinerAdvocate »


stonecoldken

  • Chancellor
  • ******
  • Posts: 12966
Reply #4 on: June 15, 2017, 10:07:55 am
If a scholarship includes a meal plan, how do all these athletes claim they can't eat?
CHP sold out.  I declare Nick McEntyre our Chancellor-In-Exile!

JFelt quote about CHP.  "Stake your claim.  As long as UNC-CH doesn't want it first."

Taylor Swift, Jewel, Katy Perry, SE Cupp, Jennifer Garner, Gwen Stefani, Jessica Alba, & Eva Mendes are my Baby Mama's.


NinerAdvocate

  • Guest
Reply #5 on: June 15, 2017, 10:18:29 am
I was trying to find some data on what EA sports and 2k sports were paying for licensing fees, but couldn't. Just for giggles though, from the O'bannon settlement:

Quote
A total of 24,819 former college athletes will receive a check for at least $1,600.

$1600. I'd say my plan is a good bit fairer.

Also, keep in mind that the idea would also be to allow you to buy specific player jerseys, and other previously forbidden items.


Nugget

  • Assistant Coach
  • ***
  • Posts: 4624
Reply #6 on: June 15, 2017, 10:53:12 am
I favor the burn it all down approach.  Why are so many of these "student-athletes" complaining because they do not get more money instead of complaining that they do not get more education?  Almost every one of them is going to spend the vast majority of their lives working for a paycheck and they ignore the real key to a great life which is the education.  Can you imagine the actual value of their educational opportunity when you move beyond the free tuition, room and board, books and fees, and cash from the Pell Grants and Cost of Attendance stipends they get?  They have academic support staffs not available to their fellow students.  They have buildings for studying in that are away from distractions others face.  Since most seem to be majoring in their sport, they get private trainers, private coaching sessions, the chance to hone their skills against high quality opponents.  What is that worth when you are trying to turn it into a career?

How about they leave school and apply their skills to the free market?  If you are a baseball player, go see if you can make a Single A team out of high school.  Take a shot at making a living with your skills like I do every day.  That is what is fair.  Basketball has the NBDL and lots of overseas pro teams.  If the athlete doesn't make it then there is always McDonald's--too bad you didn't have a backup plan.  Are you a cross county runner?  Well there really isn't a market for those skills as a pro athlete so you are going to need to go to work.  Good luck finding somebody else that will give you hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of support over the next four years like colleges wanted to.

As fans let's accept this new reality and start minor league teams on campus.  The new 49ers baseball players would earn less than $10,000 for a five month season (because we will pay them like the pros).  We can also cut a player and replace them at any time with a better one.  It might be nice to be able to turn a season around mid-season for once.  Historically we are a hoops school.  Most players we have had were not good enough to play in the NBDL, but I see that you can hire those who are for about $13,000 per season when they start out.  If they are really good--and I mean almost NBA good--they will cost us around $25,000.  I am just starting to see how affordable this really is.  Student athletic fees could be eliminated.  The Charlotte Knights don't ask their fans to make donations, and they show a profit.  That would mean an extra vacation every year for the Nuggets!  If we have to go there, then let's go there.
#unc-CHeatingPays


Tintin

  • Senior
  • **
  • Posts: 2213
Reply #7 on: June 15, 2017, 02:03:48 pm
I honestly could see the "big" schools putting football players on non Olympic sport scholarship i.e. Cross country if they could get them equal pay.
FSL Owner since February 2nd, 2009


 

* Charlotte 49ers News

* State of Charlotte

* Videos