College Sports / Conference Realignment

Status
Not open for further replies.
#26      
Dkayak
Snoopy said:
I worked on a product that returned 10s of billions of dollars in revenue & profit every quarter. The company payed our team members replacement/market cost and maybe a small amount more to avoid too much turnover. Not proportionally to the revenue our product team brought in. The excess was spent subsidizing all sorts of other corporate projects. Many which had no chance of ever producing a positive revenue flow.
Click to expand...
Your business was able to buy talent at the market rate without bumping into a profitability problem. There’s no need to overpay, except maybe offering performance bonuses to boost/share profit even more. Other businesses are forced to incur temporary losses (or eventually fold) because they can’t afford the market rate for the talent they need. The labor market, rather than profitability, sets wages.

NIL is no different than any other business in this respect. It’s all about balancing supply and demand, limited by what the business can afford of course. More NIL will drive wages up as long as there’s a scarce/fixed amount of talent. However, might growing NIL compensation eventually expand the prep school talent pool by drawing athletes from other sports to pursue college football as a career option?
 
#28      
illiniE
I believe people are confusing different sources of payer payment. NIL is private individuals/companies that contribute. For Illinois this is done through ICON. You can choose which sport it goes to. In theory the players are not being paid to play, but for the companies to use their NIL for advertising or showing up at events.

The House settlement is a profit sharing agreement, where the university is the one paying the players. Biden determined that this settlement was subject to Title IX and would have to be shared with women sports. Trump reversed this and says Title IX does not apply and universities can decide where the money goes. In theory 100% of it could go the women's tennis team, but the majority of universities will use it for football and Men's basketball. Maybe baseball for the SEC.

Let me know if this incorrect as I am in no ways a NIL/House expert.
 
#29      
Battle89
illiniE said:
I believe people are confusing different sources of payer payment. NIL is private individuals/companies that contribute. For Illinois this is done through ICON. You can choose which sport it goes to. In theory the players are not being paid to play, but for the companies to use their NIL for advertising or showing up at events.

The House settlement is a profit sharing agreement, where the university is the one paying the players. Biden determined that this settlement was subject to Title IX and would have to be shared with women sports. Trump reversed this and says Title IX does not apply and universities can decide where the money goes. In theory 100% of it could go the women's tennis team, but the majority of universities will use it for football and Men's basketball. Maybe baseball for the SEC.

Let me know if this incorrect as I am in no ways a NIL/House expert.
Click to expand...
I believe you are correct about ICON, but it needs to be a significant donation to get the power to designate a receiving sport.

1739487678105.png


Your second paragraph is the big issue, how can any institution, or athletic department, or staff, or individual players make informed decisions about the future when the allocation of money is at the whim of the party in the White House? There will need to be a suit filed to get judicial clarity on how it must be allocated.

As I said above, I'm not sure why an individual sport, in whatever gender / sex, should not have to justify its own costs. The era of the collegial student athlete is dead and 'pro' sports have to pay for themselves. Cue the Bill Burr WNBA routine...
 
#31      
AZILL
Northern Arizona's deep ties to space research???? I suppose they are talking about this:

www.azcentral.com

Apollo 11 anniversary: How northern Arizona helped put men on the moon

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy issued a challenge to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. Northern Arizona rose to the occasion.
www.azcentral.com

I guess I'll have to research this 'temporary' change. I think that Lumberjacks is more appropriate and maybe this name combo is some sort of a temporary honorary thing?!?!?
 
#35      
ptgrd23
Mr. Tibbs said:
All existing non revenue sports and scholarships associated thereto, really only exist due to mens football and basketball .
If we cant be competitive in those two sports with NIL, we will sink into the bottom 1/3 of the B1G, and at that point we sincerely are at risk of cutting a few mens and womens sports. The athletes in those sports will pay the price - both men and women

we really have no choice but to allocate NIL to each sport on the basis of revenue created by that sport.
Click to expand...
Any school that does not do this will not be able to compete in mens football and basketball. Thats OK - Ivy league and div1A, 2 and 3 play football and basketball. Just not able to compete with top 20 teams. Those schools lucky enough to be in B10 and SEC but want to spend their TV/NIL money on non revenue sports can do it but I am happy nobody is going to force schools to do it.
 
#37      
Mr. Tibbs
ptgrd23 said:
Any school that does not do this will not be able to compete in mens football and basketball. Thats OK - Ivy league and div1A, 2 and 3 play football and basketball. Just not able to compete with top 20 teams. Those schools lucky enough to be in B10 and SEC but want to spend their TV/NIL money on non revenue sports can do it but I am happy nobody is going to force schools to do it.
Click to expand...
I'm really puzzled why some otherwise intelligent posters on here think we can remain competitive in big boy football and basketball, if we give 1/4 or 1/3 of the revenue sharing to girls soccer/swimming and guys cross country/gymnastics.

We literally are "lucky" to field those varsity sports right now and allocate some partial schollies their way. Those varsity sports will literally vanish if we get relegated to junior status in football
 
#38      
ChiefGritty
www.nytimes.com

SEC, Big Ten discussing new formats for football championship weekend

The SEC and Big Ten are both looking at ways to get more teams and fans involved in their championship weekends.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

The most-discussed proposal has been to have the two top seeds meet in the SEC Championship Game as usual, both teams ensured a Playoff bid but playing for a bye, and two play-in games, matching the No. 3 and No. 6 seeds and No. 4 and No. 5 seeds.
But the SEC has discussed a more radical idea: four play-in games, matching No. 1 and No. 8, No. 4 and No. 5, No. 2 and No. 7 and No. 3 and No. 6.
...
The Big Ten’s discussion has swirled around the top two teams playing for a championship, while No. 3 would face No. 6 and No. 4 would play No. 5 in CFP play-in games.
Click to expand...
The key thing to understand here is that the losers of these playoff games would be eligible for, and in many cases receive, at-large bids. The SEC "radical" option is actually quite clever in terms of maximizing the number of bids they get.

The #1 SEC team will always be assured of an at-large bid, giving them less to play for against #8, who would never get in any other way.

“One of the things that we’re going to continue to prioritize is trying to find ways to make our regular season as exciting as we possibly can,” Illinois athletic director Josh Whitman said. “How can we keep as many fan bases engaged into November? How can we create meaningful football games in November? So, any ideas that strike at that are things that are going to be worth having conversations about.”
Click to expand...
Josh, you know I love ya, but these are not the same thing. It's just stealing a fixed pie of interest from one part of the season and sticking it in another, destroying the unique and singular rhythm and stakes which built the sport.

They are destroying our game, I'm genuinely heartbroken by it.
 
Last edited:
#39      
Mr. Tibbs
the entire game and college football is so radically different than it was 5 years ago, I cant even start.
you simply either embrace it as is now, with all the radical changes with portal, NIL, rosters, leagues , game times , etc, or you hate it and stop being a fan.

I will embrace it as long as we can be competitive in it. I will hate it if we arent . thats all

the good ole days were maybe just not all that good anyway. sure werent for us
 
#44      
Illiniguy74
#45      
fuddrules
Illiniguy74 said:
Wait, what?!! Letting millionaires avoid paying taxes for the greater good. The posters in the Boneyard will be pizzed off. :)
Click to expand...
The irony is many of those complaining don't seem to understand the difference between Federal and State taxes. They're clueless on taxes in general so I suppose it's expected.

Someone should though explain to them that there is no state tax in Texas, Florida, Tennessee, Nevada, Washington and a few others. The athletes will figure this out sooner rather than later. It could be a real problem for a place like tax-a-holic California. Georgia and Alabama, not surprisingly, figured it out real quick. You don't get a leg up on their football programs, ever.

Those high income players (looking at Trae Taylor), you know the best of the best, will pay a significant amount in state taxes. For the run of the mill revenue player, probably not such a big deal

Nice to see Illinois making this same commitment.

Edit: A 500k per year player at UCLA will pay about 45k in state taxes. A 900k QB - Over 91k in state taxes, more than 10%. And that is on top of the Feds getting their cut, that will really throw these young players for a loop on what they take home.

900k in Cali. Ouch!
Tax TypeMarginal Tax RateEffective Tax Rate2024 Taxes*
Federal37.00%31.75%$285,784
FICA2.35%3.31%$29,803
State12.30%10.16%$91,395
Local0.00%0.00%$0
Total Income Taxes45.22%$406,982
Income After Taxes$493,018
Retirement Contributions$0
Take-Home Pay$493,018
 
Last edited:
#47      
Bucktown
fuddrules said:
The irony is many of those complaining don't seem to understand the difference between Federal and State taxes. They're clueless on taxes in general so I suppose it's expected.

Someone should though explain to them that there is no state tax in Texas, Florida, Tennessee, Nevada, Washington and a few others. The athletes will figure this out sooner rather than later. It could be a real problem for a place like tax-a-holic California. Georgia and Alabama, not surprisingly, figured it out real quick. You don't get a leg up on their football programs, ever.

Those high income players (looking at Trae Taylor), you know the best of the best, will pay a significant amount in state taxes. For the run of the mill revenue player, probably not such a big deal

Nice to see Illinois making this same commitment.

Edit: A 500k per year player at UCLA will pay about 45k in state taxes.
Click to expand...
The exact same argument can be made for every industry. Why not exempt NFL, MLB, NHL and NBA salaries too? After all our local teams can't apparently can't compete with states with no income tax.
 
#49      
fuddrules
Bucktown said:
The exact same argument can be made for every industry. Why not exempt NFL, MLB, NHL and NBA salaries too? After all our local teams can't apparently can't compete with states with no income tax.
Click to expand...
I don't know or care about any of those. I just know paying at extra 91k in Cali when I could pay 0k in Illinois, I'd look twice at Illinois. Others may not care about that 91k. Choices. Alabama, Georgia and I'm sure a soon to be host of other SEC states agree with me.
 
#50      
Mr. Tibbs
Im wrong as often as Im right on these media revenue things - but I just cant see this growth continuing as this crazy pace (says the guy who waited way too long to finally get into Apple and Amazon)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back