USC, UCLA to join the Big Ten in 2024

Status
Not open for further replies.
#876      

Mr. Tibbs

southeast DuPage
Why are you okay with athletes making a bit of money, but not a lot? Lord knows the NCAA, conferences, and the schools have been making absolutely absurd amounts of money off the athletes' free labor since the dawn of college athletics. Even still, compared to the institutions, the athletes arguably are just scratching the surface of what they are actually worth.

Labor getting paid their worth isn't a bad thing. College athletics have always been a major money-maker, just now it's the people that deserve the money that are finally making it.
Im all about people getting paid what the market will bear. Go pro out of high school like baseball and hockey . Im fine with that

for me, college sports is like NOT professional . Its like the one or two best high school athletes on the field playing one step up against all the other best players at 18-22 years old. Amateurs. I thought NIL was a way to keep them amateur , only not poor and hungry in the off season

The reality of some players getting 1 or 2 million, some getting 250,000 - 500,000, and then a whole bunch getting just 15,000 - 25,000 just changes it for me.
This isnt sustainable. Its become a new pro league for the better players . I just dont like that reality
 
#877      
Im all about people getting paid what the market will bear. Go pro out of high school like baseball and hockey . Im fine with that

for me, college sports is like NOT professional . Its like the one or two best high school athletes on the field playing one step up against all the other best players at 18-22 years old. Amateurs. I thought NIL was a way to keep them amateur , only not poor and hungry in the off season

The reality of some players getting 1 or 2 million, some getting 250,000 - 500,000, and then a whole bunch getting just 15,000 - 25,000 just changes it for me.
This isnt sustainable. Its become a new pro league for the better players . I just dont like that reality
That horse left the barn the second college sports started getting broadcast on tv for a profit. It's been a professional sport for a long time, just look at how much coaches are paid.

Amateur sports is not a league that prints money but denies it to the players. To me it would be amatuerism if the coaches were part time volunteers with full time employment on the university faculty or administration and the games were broadcast locally on public access.
 
#878      

The Galloping Ghost

Washington, DC
Im all about people getting paid what the market will bear. Go pro out of high school like baseball and hockey . Im fine with that

for me, college sports is like NOT professional . Its like the one or two best high school athletes on the field playing one step up against all the other best players at 18-22 years old. Amateurs. I thought NIL was a way to keep them amateur , only not poor and hungry in the off season

The reality of some players getting 1 or 2 million, some getting 250,000 - 500,000, and then a whole bunch getting just 15,000 - 25,000 just changes it for me.
This isnt sustainable. Its become a new pro league for the better players . I just dont like that reality
I think all that's really happened is now you're forced to be aware of something that's always been left mostly unsaid. College athletics are, and have always been, a for-profit endeavor. For the longest time, athletes have been making everybody but themselves absurd amounts of money. The only thing that's changed is now the athletes are actually able to profit.

I get that the idealized version of college athletics seems nice and quaint. Athletes simply playing for the name on their chest and pride. The thing is, that went the heck out the window the second schools started making millions. You're longing for the idea that the NCAA pushed to profit off of free labor. You're longing for a lie that was, frankly, fundamentally bad. Again, the money has always been there. The only difference is the distribution.
 
#879      

Ransom Stoddard

Ordained Dudeist Priest
Bloomington, IL
I think all that's really happened is now you're forced to be aware of something that's always been left mostly unsaid. College athletics are, and have always been, a for-profit endeavor. For the longest time, athletes have been making everybody but themselves absurd amounts of money. The only thing that's changed is now the athletes are actually able to profit.

I get that the idealized version of college athletics seems nice and quaint. Athletes simply playing for the name on their chest and pride. The thing is, that went the heck out the window the second schools started making millions. You're longing for the idea that the NCAA pushed to profit off of free labor. You're longing for a lie that was, frankly, fundamentally bad. Again, the money has always been there. The only difference is the distribution.
That idealized version of "pure" college sports still exists, it's just limited to DII and DIII now.
 
#880      

The Galloping Ghost

Washington, DC
That horse left the barn the second college sports started getting broadcast on tv for a profit. It's been a professional sport for a long time, just look at how much coaches are paid.

Amateur sports is not a league that prints money but denies it to the players. To me it would be amatuerism if the coaches were part time volunteers with full time employment on the university faculty or administration and the games were broadcast locally on public access.
I mean, that has always been the thing that gave the entire game away. In a world where coaches are making over $4 million a year, how are athletes not allowed to make similar, if not more? In pretty much every sports league, the best athletes make significantly more than the coaches, and justifiably so. Again, the athletes are just scratching the surface of what they're actually worth.
 
#881      

Mr. Tibbs

southeast DuPage
I fully understand and appreciate all the comments
Nothing untoward about players making some money legitimately for a change. Yes- under the table stuff been going on since about the early 1960's

I guess the cold slap in the face about players making 2 million in NIL struck me as odd.
I just dont see how Bubba Jones , right guard, can play for 4 years at 25,000 per, while Biff McBain is making 2 million per throwing the ball . its not sustainable
 
#882      

ChiefGritty

Chicago, IL
Yes- under the table stuff been going on since about the early 1960's
Nah, it was really the 70's when it all got going.

By which of course I mean the 1870's.

The reality of some players getting 1 or 2 million, some getting 250,000 - 500,000, and then a whole bunch getting just 15,000 - 25,000 just changes it for me.
This isnt sustainable. Its become a new pro league for the better players .
That's an interesting choice of words, because the reality is that professionalism has proven to be much more sustainable than amateurism as a platform for sports.

As our foremost Luddite I have no leg to stand on telling you you're wrong to get a bad taste in your mouth over this change. But I do think a player's singular connection to a school and their genuine participation as a college student is more fundamental to what makes college sports a uniquely tribal experience than equality of (lack of) payment among the players.

There is going to be collateral damage though, no doubt.
 
#883      
So would the next step be eliminating the granting of scholarships and just letting the players get NIL money instead? This would in turn lead to a new makeup of the team dynamic. First, this would probably just apply to football and basketball programs. And second, there would be two classes of athletes, one would still get scholarships and the other NIL money. For example, Kofi was making money but does someone like Brandon Lieb make anything via NIL? If not, then he would still be on scholarship. The NIL players would not even be required to attend classes anymore and the student/athlete designation becomes moot (in football and basketball). And those who make little or nothing via NIL still get a scholarship and attend classes, etc. So then they (both classes of players) become the basketball team or football team of the University of Illinois. Just like the Bulls are the professional basketball team of Chicago, the Fighting Illini become the basketball and football teams representing the U of I and is made up of NIL and scholarship players. This could also solve the problem of missed classes when Big Ten teams travel to UCLA or USC when they join. It doesn't affect the NIL players because they don't go to classes (not sure what they would spend their free time on though) and the scholarship players could do remote learning and, well whatever else to make up missed classes. Of course NIL players could attend classes if they wanted to get an education but how many do that anymore? Seems rare that a player who is good enough to get NIL money finishes college. Although, granted I don't know the statistics on that.
Okay I am a little all over the place on this but I was just thinking about all the comments about how money has become king in college sports so why give out scholarships anymore except to those who want an education and/or who aren't really good enough or well known enough to get an NIL deal. Just kind of throwing it out there. It certainly would change the job of recruiting. I am sure many will point out the errors of my postulate.
I'm not understanding what the reason to do away with scholarships is. These aren't need based scholarships. Should students who receive academic scholarships and make money with a job on the side, or as social media influencers, be ineligible for academic scholarships?

And NIL has no effect on the academic requirements for participating in NCAA athletics, and I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting a change there. The key concept is this: being a student should not prevent you from being able to earn money. Being a student should continue to be a requirement for representing the school in NCAA competition.
 
#884      
How long until universities really wake up and say "this has absolutely zero in common with our academic mission?".

I can see a couple dozen big universities basically cutting ties with the football programs, making them entirely separate legal entities, and licensing the university's name to what essentially becomes a private football club. Yes, some players...think long snapper, 3rd string WR's and kickers, will actually be on the team and have academic scholarships, but the bulk of the players will be playing under some organized labor umbrella and collecting major salaries.

Oh, and now as a wealthy booster, you can now own a part of the team.
 
Last edited:
#885      

cuillini

San Bernardino, Ca.
Im all about player X and player Y making a little money to pay bills and drive a decent car, and pay for folks to see some games , but 2 million to this guy and 1.5 million to that guy is blowing my mind. I really dont think this is going to work out

I guess I didnt realize what we were up against. This isnt even college athletics anymore.
Im a little disenchanted right now. EVERYTHING has changed for me now
I don't believe NIL was ever intended to be used as a recruiting tool, but that certainly is now the case. Obviously, it's out of control. The question is, will, or can, the NCAA do anything to regulate it?
 
#887      
I live in SoCal. USC is telling donors to redirect donations that used to go direct to USC AA department for paying coaches salaries, scholarships, new facilities etc to NIL funds to pay recruits (like we have Illini Guardians).

Big football programs are viewing NIL as just another expense. Ryan Day told Ohio State boosters he needed $13M NIL per year to stay competitive.



Comments like these from Day and Saban are good examples of NIL threatening the monopoly the top programs have on talent.
 
#889      
Im all about people getting paid what the market will bear. Go pro out of high school like baseball and hockey . Im fine with that

for me, college sports is like NOT professional . Its like the one or two best high school athletes on the field playing one step up against all the other best players at 18-22 years old. Amateurs. I thought NIL was a way to keep them amateur , only not poor and hungry in the off season

The reality of some players getting 1 or 2 million, some getting 250,000 - 500,000, and then a whole bunch getting just 15,000 - 25,000 just changes it for me.
This isnt sustainable. Its become a new pro league for the better players . I just dont like that reality
This makes me laugh because of the baseketball movie quote about Shaq getting rich in college not Orlando
 
#890      
This makes me laugh because of the baseketball movie quote about Shaq getting rich in college not Orlando
I also love the conversation between Remur and the rich guy that sets up that joke.

"Do you think Shaq got rich in Orlando? Hardly. He made his fortune moving to LA. You know how much he makes now?"

"As much as he made playing in college?"

I mean, that movie came out in 1998 and they're joking about a guy getting rich playing in college from 1989-1992. And some of you are out here acting like pre-NIL NCAA was something pure and chaste.
 
#894      
ESPN fighting for their life. During this realignment talk I’ve read a few articles regarding ESPN financials and investor sentiment.

The consensus seems be ESPN collects $10 per month from every single cable subscriber, but only 15% of those subscribers are avid sports fans. Since 2011 ESPN subscribers has fallen from 100 million to 75 million, with a 10% YoY decline last year alone.

I also read their financial model falls apart if they hit 50 million subscribers, and would need to start charging $30 per month to streamers while capturing 15% market share of non-cable subscribers.
 
#895      
Im all about people getting paid what the market will bear. Go pro out of high school like baseball and hockey . Im fine with that

for me, college sports is like NOT professional . Its like the one or two best high school athletes on the field playing one step up against all the other best players at 18-22 years old. Amateurs. I thought NIL was a way to keep them amateur , only not poor and hungry in the off season

The reality of some players getting 1 or 2 million, some getting 250,000 - 500,000, and then a whole bunch getting just 15,000 - 25,000 just changes it for me.
This isnt sustainable. Its become a new pro league for the better players . I just dont like that reality
I had similar sentiments when NIL was formed and executed. I knew it would get out of control real fast but didn't express my concerns because I knew people would respond with with BuT It WaS InEviTablE sorta rhetoric.
 
#896      
I also love the conversation between Remur and the rich guy that sets up that joke.

"Do you think Shaq got rich in Orlando? Hardly. He made his fortune moving to LA. You know how much he makes now?"

"As much as he made playing in college?"

I mean, that movie came out in 1998 and they're joking about a guy getting rich playing in college from 1989-1992. And some of you are out here acting like pre-NIL NCAA was something pure and chaste.
Ever watch the sports movie 'One on One'? Kid shows up for his new 'job' through the athletic department to water a practice field, asks what to do, when the automatic sprinkler system suddenly turns on. Movie came out in '77. Seems quaint watching it now.
 
#897      

ChiefGritty

Chicago, IL
ESPN fighting for their life. During this realignment talk I’ve read a few articles regarding ESPN financials and investor sentiment.

The consensus seems be ESPN collects $10 per month from every single cable subscriber, but only 15% of those subscribers are avid sports fans. Since 2011 ESPN subscribers has fallen from 100 million to 75 million, with a 10% YoY decline last year alone.

I also read their financial model falls apart if they hit 50 million subscribers, and would need to start charging $30 per month to streamers while capturing 15% market share of non-cable subscribers.
Well, ESPN the cable network is subject to the broader trends of the industry. But ESPN the company has properties people want to watch and is attached to Disney, wherever the industry and the technology goes, ESPN will be there even if the death of the cable scam means less revenue.

It's something like the BTN that nobody ever watches but collects $1 a month from a declining subscriber base that's just going to disappear. And then quite how something like NBC Sports Chicago makes the transition is an interesting question. How would they have to price that to maintain even revenue parity let alone growth?

As I've blathered about for years, sports is a bubble and it's starting to pop.

I had similar sentiments when NIL was formed and executed. I knew it would get out of control real fast but didn't express my concerns because I knew people would respond with with BuT It WaS InEviTablE sorta rhetoric.
It's funny how people are talking about NIL "getting out of control fast", as if there was ever control.

The Berlin Wall fell the instant that was let out of the bag. NCAA control of player compensation is in the past.
 
#898      
That idealized version of "pure" college sports still exists, it's just limited to DII and DIII now.
I think the idealized version mostly is still there if you look for it. See the illini club hockey team. The schools collectively (NCAA) know that if the 1000 thousand best basketball players in the country go on strike, players 1001-2000 would still play for free and most fans wouldn't notice much of a difference. We all know the difference between intramural, club, and varsity teams, just now there is so much money and with the NIL floodgates opened there is a new fourth level emerging above varsity called "modern day football and men's basketball". I'd assume one thing holding this back is title IX and the fairness or unfairness of taking the millions the football team makes and giving it equally to men's and women's cross country. There have to be schools willing to pay the football and men's basketball players a lot of money for the competitive advantage it would given them, but they don't want to pay everyone else too.
 
#899      

DReq

Always Illini
Central Illinois
I think the idealized version mostly is still there if you look for it. See the illini club hockey team. The schools collectively (NCAA) know that if the 1000 thousand best basketball players in the country go on strike, players 1001-2000 would still play for free and most fans wouldn't notice much of a difference. We all know the difference between intramural, club, and varsity teams, just now there is so much money and with the NIL floodgates opened there is a new fourth level emerging above varsity called "modern day football and men's basketball". I'd assume one thing holding this back is title IX and the fairness or unfairness of taking the millions the football team makes and giving it equally to men's and women's cross country. There have to be schools willing to pay the football and men's basketball players a lot of money for the competitive advantage it would given them, but they don't want to pay everyone else too.
I am not sure of your use of Title IX but it relates only to institutional spending. There is no such limit on the booster supported and individually generated NIL. Once you invite institutional spending on what is now NIL the Title IX rules come into play. That is certainly one block to institutions funding the payments directly to athletes (although as shown above the athletic directors can suggest to boosters that they shift some of their money to NIL cooperatives). That may be what you were saying there but I was not certain.

I also question your suggestion that fans would not notice the removal of the top 1000 players from college basketball. I cannot cite data and don't know what data would be available for the proposition but we all notice a huge difference between the NBA, the G League and the Summer Leagues. That is certainly fewer than 1000 players at each level but the differences are easy to spot even for a fan without a coaching or even playing background so I believe that skimming off the top 1000 would create a very significant loss of fan interest. That would shift to G League-like professional basketball that would draw away those who watch to see quality basketball. Fans who are simply cheering for their favorite school and are present for the party atmosphere would stay but I question whether that provides the millions that college athletics enjoy today.

It is all a complex system as demonstrated by those on here who have a background in the athletic administration have shown by their diverse opinions. It is all pretty much wide open to whatever new system develops. I doubt the most dire of predictions and the rosiest alike. Systems like this have a habit of finding ways to survive and even thrive in new ways - especially where this much money and enthusiasm is involved. It is at least one of the most interesting times to follow college athletics in my lifetime and I am of the pruman generation so that covers a rather long time. I continue to be intrigued by all of this even when our O&B has struggled and look forward to Josh W leading us fully back into relevance and perhaps - dare I say it - the occasional spotlight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.