College Athletics Enters Revenue Sharing Era

Calvin said:

That strikes me as cherry-picked. It's not the non-revenue sports or overall pool that's making life-changing money. Most of the NIL settlement is going to football and basketball, and most of that is going to players in 4 conferences. Anecdotal, but if I go to 247 sports, look at the top players on their fb recruiting page. It's not remotely close to what you suggest.

Click to expand...

You’re right, thats a better a way to look at it. But I’m not sure that disputes my larger point that the SCORE act is very likely not racially motivated.

Josh Whitman and Bret Bielema are advocates for it. So if it’s racially motivated, that would mean …

Its very different from 10 years ago but Illini football and basketball are thriving

Benefits of new system
1. Player finally getting share of revenue. Before it was schools and coaches getting rich.
2. Player can transfer for better playing time or money. Crazy that any student can do this but not scholarship athletes.
3. No below the table illegal payments. Cheating schools no longer have advantage.

Interesting that under new systems you still have the same football power houses

Alabama, Georgia, Oregon, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Notre Dame .

New winners or climbing back - Texas, Miami
Falling off top tier - Oklahoma, Nebraska, USC, Clemson, Florida, Florida State

LOL. You seriously think Boosters love having to pony up millions every offseason just to *retain* a roster nowadays where in the previous system they didn't have to drop a dime?

Why are you even bringing up the SCORE act, it's a completely different legislative avenue than this EO which you're obviously going out of your way to try not to criticize.

ptgrd23 said:

Its very different from 10 years ago but Illini football and basketball are thriving

Benefits of new system
1. Player finally getting share of revenue. Before it was schools and coaches getting rich.

Click to expand...

Please stop with the "schools were getting rich" misinformation. It is a verifiable fact that ~99% of the schools lose money on their sports programs. Go look at their tax reports. Sports for 99% of the schools are loss leaders. UIUC runs ~30% in the red, and barely breaks even after alumni donations. Yes, the BB/FB coaches are paid silly money. Even if they were paid zero, UIUC would run in the red w/o the donations.

grue2 said:

Please stop with the "schools were getting rich" misinformation. It is a verifiable fact that ~99% of the schools lose money on their sports programs. Go look at their tax reports. Sports for 99% of the schools are loss leaders. UIUC runs ~30% in the red, and barely breaks even after alumni donations. Yes, the BB/FB coaches are paid silly money. Even if they were paid zero, UIUC would run in the red w/o the donations.

Click to expand...

Clarification - football programs are big moneymakers at top 20 schools including Illinois. They pay for all the other sports. Basketball makes money at a few schools but nothing compared to football. If all sports programs had to be self sufficient - Illinois would have only have 2 sports - mens football and mens basketball.

ptgrd23 said:

Its very different from 10 years ago but Illini football and basketball are thriving

Benefits of new system
1. Player finally getting share of revenue. Before it was schools and coaches getting rich.
2. Player can transfer for better playing time or money. Crazy that any student can do this but not scholarship athletes.
3. No below the table illegal payments. Cheating schools no longer have advantage.

Interesting that under new systems you still have the same football power houses

Alabama, Georgia, Oregon, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Notre Dame .

New winners or climbing back - Texas, Miami
Falling off top tier - Oklahoma, Nebraska, USC, Clemson, Florida, Florida State

Click to expand...

Re: #2, under the old rules scholarship athletes could transfer if they didn't mind losing their scholarship. Just like non-athletic scholarship students, who lost their scholarship if they transferred to another school. While theoretically a non-athletic scholarship student could obtain a scholarship from another school, in the real world they didn't. The only thing the athletic scholarship used to lose was the ability to play basketball, they could still be a college student and pay their own way, just like the non-athletic student.

ptgrd23 said:

Clarification - football programs are big moneymakers at top 20 schools including Illinois. They pay for all the other sports. Basketball makes money at a few schools but nothing compared to football. If all sports programs had to be self sufficient - Illinois would have only have 2 sports - mens football and mens basketball.

Click to expand...

I guess there is a definition question. Are you making a profit if one part of your business makes money and another part loses even more? In business the argument would be to cut those losing parts. What if you couldn't because they were required by government regulations? (Title IX)

grue2 said:

I guess there is a definition question. Are you making a profit if one part of your business makes money and another part loses even more? In business the argument would be to cut those losing parts. What if you couldn't because they were required by government regulations? (Title IX)

Click to expand...

Data:
Most profitable teams in '23: Texas ~80M, ND ~50M, OSU/MI/AL/.. high 30's, 20th best ~30M.
The numbers are not pretty once you leave the power 4.

UIUC, getting BIG money, does better than most. If one claims the players are 100% responsible for the profits (debatable), then the profit/player is roughly enough to cover the cost of 3-4 scholarship athletes (including themselves, so 2-3 others). Title IX requires at least a 1:1 balance. That means the athlete is getting roughly a 40% share of what is left after Title IX from just their scholarship.

Question: Is that fair to the 95%+ of the FB players that will not go pro?
To me a full scholarship (room/board/training) seems like fantastically good pay. No one is really there to watch them vs. someone else. The pay certainly beats any job I could get when I was working my way through college.

Question: Is if fair for the few stars?
I don't know. College sports are odd. People watch the school and rarely change allegiances. Once you sell your tickets, being any better on the field doesn't help financially unless you can 1) turn it into merchandising like ND, or 2) raise ticket prices. So maybe the fair answer is the stars are worth a percentage of the delta in ticket sales.

Related Observation: In the last year, some schools passed new rules adding hundreds of dollars in fees/semester to support the new sports program costs. Is that fair the the non-sports student? Some states are passing laws to make those fees illegal.

grue2 said:

Please stop with the "schools were getting rich" misinformation. It is a verifiable fact that ~99% of the schools lose money on their sports programs. Go look at their tax reports. Sports for 99% of the schools are loss leaders. UIUC runs ~30% in the red, and barely breaks even after alumni donations. Yes, the BB/FB coaches are paid silly money. Even if they were paid zero, UIUC would run in the red w/o the donations.

Click to expand...

Sure, college sports aren’t “profitable” (schools aren’t like businesses that have profit, they spend every dollar they make, so if they make more, they must spend more), but they still bring in enormous amounts of revenue. Enough revenue to pay its coaches millions each year, while the athletes responsible for the revenue made zero.

Clearly, there’s enough revenue being brought in that a portion can be re-allocated to the athletes. Because schools are now allowed pay up to ~20% of the average school sport revenue ($100 million) and the U of I chose to allocate the entire amount.

lstewart53x3 said:

The race bait is gross.

Tim Miller obviously doesn’t even understand the situation. It’s not the boosters complaining about NIL. The boosters love it. Allowing unlimited resources to be pumped into the athletic department of your choice is what gives the booster’s team a competitive advantage.

Click to expand...

Maybe some boosters "love it" but I question how many really do. I know a large booster very well. They hate NIL, they hate reseating, they hate everything about the current process. And this is person who has a company that has given millions over the years as well as other perks to the coaching staffs and athletic programs. I know their patience is wearing thin. The impression I get is that an already financial relationship has become somehow even less personal and expectations have replaced appreciation. Will dollars that do go away be replaced? I'm sure temporarily, It's new and people feel important in the process, but if anyone truly believes this is a sustainable system I think they are delusional. You mention unlimited resources but the resources are certainly limited. I just don't see the dollars being paid now being realistic long term. There is breaking point coming and when it hits a school the bottom will drop out completely.

lstewart53x3 said:

Sure, college sports aren’t “profitable” (schools aren’t like businesses that have profit, they spend every dollar they make, so if they make more, they must spend more), but they still bring in enormous amounts of revenue. Enough revenue to pay its coaches millions each year, while the athletes responsible for the revenue made zero

Click to expand...

lstewart53x3 said:

Clearly, there’s enough revenue being brought in that a portion can be re-allocated to the athletes. Because schools are now allowed pay up to ~20% of the average school sport revenue ($100 million) and the U of I chose to allocate the entire amount.

Click to expand...

Would you play basketball for the U of I for a free education only? I would have for sure(still would but I doubt they would want the liability of me playing now!). The point is players were getting a benefit. Was it enough? I don't know. It was good enough for countless kids looking for a scholarship. Kids in our local high schools still strive for a scholarship. I don't hear anyone hoping and dreaming they can get great and go get some NIL. Maybe that speaks to the level of athletes around me, but I think it also speaks to the value of that scholarship. It is 100% not zero. Getting a free education should be the primary motivator for almost all college athletes as it is a temporary activity for the vast majority. The reason that became not enough is because colleges allowed the system to be corrupted by boosters and the AAU system that feeds so many schools became corrupted with just about everyone involved. Once money starts getting thrown at a kid it becomes harder for them to see a scholarship as enough. Especially as the importance of that education is minimized to them. Now we have 19 year olds demanding millions a year. Its insane...and its also 100% not their "true market value" as I've seen people say. Market value is not set by a secretive process funded by corporations, millionaires, and billionaires. Athletes right now should be thrilled because they are reaping the benefits of the current system that appears designed to fail. Either regulations will provide a sustainable structure or the whole process will consume itself and college athletics will disappear. 10 years from now will certainly not resemble what we see today.

IMPE Legend said:

Would you play basketball for the U of I for a free education only? I would have for sure(still would but I doubt they would want the liability of me playing now!). The point is players were getting a benefit. Was it enough? I don't know. It was good enough for countless kids looking for a scholarship. Kids in our local high schools still strive for a scholarship. I don't hear anyone hoping and dreaming they can get great and go get some NIL. Maybe that speaks to the level of athletes around me, but I think it also speaks to the value of that scholarship. It is 100% not zero. Getting a free education should be the primary motivator for almost all college athletes as it is a temporary activity for the vast majority. The reason that became not enough is because colleges allowed the system to be corrupted by boosters and the AAU system that feeds so many schools became corrupted with just about everyone involved. Once money starts getting thrown at a kid it becomes harder for them to see a scholarship as enough. Especially as the importance of that education is minimized to them. Now we have 19 year olds demanding millions a year. Its insane...and its also 100% not their "true market value" as I've seen people say. Market value is not set by a secretive process funded by corporations, millionaires, and billionaires. Athletes right now should be thrilled because they are reaping the benefits of the current system that appears designed to fail. Either regulations will provide a sustainable structure or the whole process will consume itself and college athletics will disappear. 10 years from now will certainly not resemble what we see today.

Click to expand...

Interesting discussion. Lots to unpack on your post and some general thoughts of mine. First the general thoughts:

- It's easy for an entity that is not expected to be profitable to show that it's not profitable. Any D1 school's DIA has every incentive to spend every dime they get. Otherwise, someone (the school itself, or students/professors, etc.) are going to try to come after it. I think it's a major flaw in the system. Universities should require a certain percentage of DIA revenues to come back to the school. It is, after all, why the DIA exists in the first place. But, instead, we have the opposite.

The point is players were getting a benefit. Was it enough? I don't know. It was good enough for countless kids looking for a scholarship

Agree. The notion that kids were being exploited by the DIA defies logic. It's a simple free market system. If you don't feel the work you're putting in as a student athlete was adequately rewarded, then you're free to not do it. But that never happened. Instead, they chose to come either for 1) the free education, 2) the exposure the school provides you in the hopes you can go pro (but probably won't) or 3) professional leagues won't let you go pro due to age requirements. The only one, imo, that's exploitive is (3) and should be done away with. Consistent with that philosophy, I think kids should be able to monetize their NIL, with appropriate guardrails around it. But the idea of athletic departments cutting checks to students makes it a professional league and wholly inconsistent with the mission of the schools themselves.

I don't hear anyone hoping and dreaming they can get great and go get some NIL

IMO, i think you're gonna start hearing it over time once it becomes readily apparent what kind of money is available and kids are brought up knowing that.


and its also 100% not their "true market value" as I've seen people say. Market value is not set by a secretive process funded by corporations, millionaires, and billionaires

imo, it's very much their true market value. I don't think if you opened everything up and put it all out in the open that market values go down. The market is 100x more open than it was 10 years ago when everything was under the table, and market values for athletes hasn't gone down.

With that said, I think the deeper issue is that the market is structured inappropriately and the true market value is, at least partially, a result of that inappropriate structure. Effectively, the current system says that almost all D1 schools have no desire to benefit economically from their DIA programs. yes, they got branding exposure and there's value to that, but is there $100M+/yr value to the University of Illinois for putting a football and basketball team on the field? I don't think so. Said another way, I wouldn't watch UofI football if the jerseys didn't say "Illinois" on them. So the school should be capturing most of the value, not the players, but that's really not how it is.

sbillini said:

Said another way, I wouldn't watch UofI football if the jerseys didn't say "Illinois" on them. So the school should be capturing most of the value, not the players, but that's really not how it is.

Click to expand...

That is a great point that isn't talked about much. The school has a built in fan base. Sure those seats aren't quite as full with a bad team but the devotion is literally based upon the name on the front of the jersey, not the ones on the back. Do you think we'd all be as excited to watch a team full of -ic's if they weren't playing for Illinois? Not a chance. So I definitely agree. The school should be the ones capturing the most value. Too many people seem to jump on board the concept of workers being exploited...even when it doesn't apply like they think it does. A free education is, and never has been, exploitive. And I am definitely on board with eliminating any age restrictions on players going pro. If you are a pro player who deserves millions then get to the NBA as quick as you can, but college sports have never been there to serve that role and cannot survive if that is what they are going to try to be.

News update on an earlier set of comments --it seems the CSC has backed down already from it's attempt to stop deals from collectives...

As part of the agreement, the College Sports Commission is expected to treat collectives or any “school-associated entity” in a similar fashion as other businesses when determining the legitimacy of third-party NIL deals submitted to the CSC’s NIL Go clearinghouse.

This is a change from the CSC’s previously publicized approach.

JMO

Illinois has done very well in transfer portal/NIL era.

Football coming off 10-3 season with bowl win and great recruiting
Basketball coming off 5 consecutive NCAA bids, elite 8 run, #1 seed, and great recruiting

It appears based on Indy's comments that some current big donors like influence they get from funding $NIL acquisitions. Donating large sums in exchange for good seats and parking spaces (my experience in the 80's) is ancient history. Getting to be involved in recruiting and roster construction is the ultimate thrill.

Sure we are going to get outspent by Ohio State, Alabama, Oregon Texas in football and Kentucky, Brigham Young (go figure) Duke in basktball. But we are competitive and in upper tier. At least the spending is above the board as opposed to rampant cheating.

I don't think the $20M limit and CSC will work because cheaters will always cheat and it will not hold up in court until there is a union and labor agreement.

We are lucky to have a couple coaches who have adapted very well to portal and $nil.

ptgrd23 said:

JMO

Illinois has done very well in transfer portal/NIL era.


I don't think the $20M limit and CSC will work because cheaters will always cheat and it will not hold up in court until there is a union and labor agreement.

Click to expand...

Absolutely to the first comment. I'd gotten so used to a basement football team I must be dreaming that after a 10-3 season with a bowl win, the prognosticators are thinking we'll be better this year. Luke returning is the icing on the cake as it feels special to have him and so many others returning in this era of mercenary players.

On the second, the business model in college sports is a long way from settled. The NCAA is very willing to fight anywhere it sees potential for advancing their side, and there's a ton of downstream issues to get tangled up in.

My hunch is the playoff system will get expanded and the BIGTEN will convince the others they need to go to the 4/4/2/2/1/3 model to address the conference scheduling issues. I have no idea what the back-up plan is, but using the committee in a 5+11 seems likely to generate a lot of ill will once teams get left out for subjectivity. The negotiations could get tense since so many details affect how the selections are made. Really interested to see how that plays out.

sbillini said:

Interesting discussion. Lots to unpack on your post and some general thoughts of mine. First the general thoughts:

- It's easy for an entity that is not expected to be profitable to show that it's not profitable. Any D1 school's DIA has every incentive to spend every dime they get. Otherwise, someone (the school itself, or students/professors, etc.) are going to try to come after it. I think it's a major flaw in the system. Universities should require a certain percentage of DIA revenues to come back to the school. It is, after all, why the DIA exists in the first place. But, instead, we have the opposite.

The point is players were getting a benefit. Was it enough? I don't know. It was good enough for countless kids looking for a scholarship

Agree. The notion that kids were being exploited by the DIA defies logic. It's a simple free market system. If you don't feel the work you're putting in as a student athlete was adequately rewarded, then you're free to not do it. But that never happened. Instead, they chose to come either for 1) the free education, 2) the exposure the school provides you in the hopes you can go pro (but probably won't) or 3) professional leagues won't let you go pro due to age requirements. The only one, imo, that's exploitive is (3) and should be done away with. Consistent with that philosophy, I think kids should be able to monetize their NIL, with appropriate guardrails around it. But the idea of athletic departments cutting checks to students makes it a professional league and wholly inconsistent with the mission of the schools themselves.

Click to expand...

FWIW this argument has always applied to things like child labor and sweatshops as well, and plenty have made it in those contexts. Just because it's a "free market" doesn't mean it's actually a free market.

You kind of get at this with your #3 but there's more to it than that. The way the system was set up where the only allowable compensation was a scholarship, the fundamental problem was players could not negotiate. Imagine you are in a certain industry. It's what you were trained to do, it's the skill you have, sure you could do something else but this is the thing you have wanted to do and have studied to do. Then all the companies that hire folks like you get together and say "This is the compensation we offer to everyone. None of you can offer more. If you do, you face strict penalties." Now you don't have any power to negotiate more compensation. You're stuck taking what's on offer, which is the same everywhere and paltry in comparison to what the companies are making, or you have to go figure out a completely different plan for your life. So what do you do? You go and take a job based on which company has the best cafeteria. Is that a free market? It's not, and the actions of those companies is is fundamentally illegal. But that's basically what the system was before NIL.

grue2 said:

Data:
Most profitable teams in '23: Texas ~80M, ND ~50M, OSU/MI/AL/.. high 30's, 20th best ~30M.
The numbers are not pretty once you leave the power 4.

UIUC, getting BIG money, does better than most. If one claims the players are 100% responsible for the profits (debatable), then the profit/player is roughly enough to cover the cost of 3-4 scholarship athletes (including themselves, so 2-3 others). Title IX requires at least a 1:1 balance. That means the athlete is getting roughly a 40% share of what is left after Title IX from just their scholarship.

Question: Is that fair to the 95%+ of the FB players that will not go pro?
To me a full scholarship (room/board/training) seems like fantastically good pay. No one is really there to watch them vs. someone else. The pay certainly beats any job I could get when I was working my way through college.

Question: Is if fair for the few stars?
I don't know. College sports are odd. People watch the school and rarely change allegiances. Once you sell your tickets, being any better on the field doesn't help financially unless you can 1) turn it into merchandising like ND, or 2) raise ticket prices. So maybe the fair answer is the stars are worth a percentage of the delta in ticket sales.

Related Observation: In the last year, some schools passed new rules adding hundreds of dollars in fees/semester to support the new sports program costs. Is that fair the the non-sports student? Some states are passing laws to make those fees illegal.

Click to expand...

Sorry @grue2 but I heard this whole thing like this

ptgrd23 said:

JMO

Illinois has done very well in transfer portal/NIL era.

Football coming off 10-3 season with bowl win and great recruiting
Basketball coming off 5 consecutive NCAA bids, elite 8 run, #1 seed, and great recruiting

It appears based on Indy's comments that some current big donors like influence they get from funding $NIL acquisitions. Donating large sums in exchange for good seats and parking spaces (my experience in the 80's) is ancient history. Getting to be involved in recruiting and roster construction is the ultimate thrill.

Sure we are going to get outspent by Ohio State, Alabama, Oregon Texas in football and Kentucky, Brigham Young (go figure) Duke in basktball. But we are competitive and in upper tier. At least the spending is above the board as opposed to rampant cheating.

I don't think the $20M limit and CSC will work because cheaters will always cheat and it will not hold up in court until there is a union and labor agreement.

We are lucky to have a couple coaches who have adapted very well to portal and $nil.

Click to expand...

I'm confused as to which side you're on, @ptgrd23 . Put me on the side of the bolded, not the highlighted.

the juiceman cometh said:

FWIW this argument has always applied to things like child labor and sweatshops as well, and plenty have made it in those contexts. Just because it's a "free market" doesn't mean it's actually a free market.

You kind of get at this with your #3 but there's more to it than that. The way the system was set up where the only allowable compensation was a scholarship, the fundamental problem was players could not negotiate. Imagine you are in a certain industry. It's what you were trained to do, it's the skill you have, sure you could do something else but this is the thing you have wanted to do and have studied to do. Then all the companies that hire folks like you get together and say "This is the compensation we offer to everyone. None of you can offer more. If you do, you face strict penalties." Now you don't have any power to negotiate more compensation. You're stuck taking what's on offer, which is the same everywhere and paltry in comparison to what the companies are making, or you have to go figure out a completely different plan for your life. So what do you do? You go and take a job based on which company has the best cafeteria. Is that a free market? It's not, and the actions of those companies is is fundamentally illegal. But that's basically what the system was before NIL.

Click to expand...

All scholarships are not equal. A scholarship from Illinois is different than a scholarship from some random Directional State University, but you may really like the coach at DSU, and its close to home so you parents can watch you play. College experiences are not a commodity.

I can't blame football and basketball players from trying to receive as much compensation as possible during their college career as the vast majority of them will not go on to become pros in their sport. Particularly those who come from families who have little to no resources, this is their one chance to help their family and themselves.

Bucktown said:

All scholarships are not equal. A scholarship from Illinois is different than a scholarship from some random Directional State University, but you may really like the coach at DSU, and its close to home so you parents can watch you play. College experiences are not a commodity.

Click to expand...

I hear the Google campus's amenities are amazing. Also a very prestigious place to work. Doesn't mean Google should be allowed to collude with other tech companies to keep employee salary at a given amount.

the juiceman cometh said:

FWIW this argument has always applied to things like child labor and sweatshops as well, and plenty have made it in those contexts. Just because it's a "free market" doesn't mean it's actually a free market.

You kind of get at this with your #3 but there's more to it than that. The way the system was set up where the only allowable compensation was a scholarship, the fundamental problem was players could not negotiate. Imagine you are in a certain industry. It's what you were trained to do, it's the skill you have, sure you could do something else but this is the thing you have wanted to do and have studied to do. Then all the companies that hire folks like you get together and say "This is the compensation we offer to everyone. None of you can offer more. If you do, you face strict penalties." Now you don't have any power to negotiate more compensation. You're stuck taking what's on offer, which is the same everywhere and paltry in comparison to what the companies are making, or you have to go figure out a completely different plan for your life. So what do you do? You go and take a job based on which company has the best cafeteria. Is that a free market? It's not, and the actions of those companies is is fundamentally illegal. But that's basically what the system was before NIL.

Click to expand...

A system of everyone gets the same isn't necessarily unfair to the players. What if each player was given 1B/year? The question is determining what is fair pay, and how to adjust it for outliers. The free market is one way. It comes with its own problems. An equal, very generous pay package (see below), greatly simplifies hiring, and saves a lot of time/money.

I believe that for 95%+ of the FB/BB players, and pretty much all other sport players, a full scholarship is not just fair pay, it is fantastic pay. They are getting (saving) ~60k/year to participate in a hobby. Full US average pay for doing their hobby, something most people pay to do. For the actual stars, yes this is a bit short.

So who counts as a star, and how much are they short? They are getting first class facilities and training toward their future job as well as a general education and exposure to future employers. [Anyone who has run a business knows that exposure is worth a fortune.] To actually move the University income line they probably have to be a 1st round pick. Most fans don't pay enough attention to know people below absolute star level. If IL BB has a profit of ~12M/year (I think this was top 5 in the NCAA), how much do the players deserve? Please take into account the fact that even a middle of the pack IL BB team makes most of that money (so the stars, as a whole contribute at most $3-4M to the bottom line), and that the non-Power 5 teams are mostly taking losses. As a starting point I'll throw out something like 50% of the NBA draft scale as fair value.

Battle89 said:

I'm confused as to which side you're on, @ptgrd23 . Put me on the side of the bolded, not the highlighted.

View attachment 42955

Click to expand...

I miss kids staying 4 years - see Eddie Johnson, Bruce Douglas, Kendall Gill, Dee Brown, TSJ. But we were very unsuccessful 2007 thru 2019 under old rules. Brad was making great progress with Ayo and Kofi then the transfer portal and NIL happened. He has pivoted well. I am happy that we have Brad, Bret Jay and Shauna and am expecting a bright future.

grue2 said:

A system of everyone gets the same isn't necessarily unfair to the players. What if each player was given 1B/year? The question is determining what is fair pay, and how to adjust it for outliers. The free market is one way. It comes with its own problems. An equal, very generous pay package (see below), greatly simplifies hiring, and saves a lot of time/money.

I believe that for 95%+ of the FB/BB players, and pretty much all other sport players, a full scholarship is not just fair pay, it is fantastic pay. They are getting (saving) ~60k/year to participate in a hobby. Full US average pay for doing their hobby, something most people pay to do. For the actual stars, yes this is a bit short.

So who counts as a star, and how much are they short? They are getting first class facilities and training toward their future job as well as a general education and exposure to future employers. [Anyone who has run a business knows that exposure is worth a fortune.] To actually move the University income line they probably have to be a 1st round pick. Most fans don't pay enough attention to know people below absolute star level. If IL BB has a profit of ~12M/year (I think this was top 5 in the NCAA), how much do the players deserve? Please take into account the fact that even a middle of the pack IL BB team makes most of that money (so the stars, as a whole contribute at most $3-4M to the bottom line), and that the non-Power 5 teams are mostly taking losses. As a starting point I'll throw out something like 50% of the NBA draft scale as fair value.

Click to expand...

Revenue matters too, not just profit. Because again, schools spend every dollar they make. They are not aiming for profitability.

Should schools spend a billion dollars on renovations while the players who generate the revenue to pay for those renovations make zero?

Should coaches make millions a year, while the players make zero?