Name, Image, Likeness Rule

#226      
Ever hear of “starving” artists, writers, musicians, actors, etc.? It seems those who have a passion for what they do and may strive for some degree of fame fall into this same category.
Apples and oranges. These athletes are not "starving artists." Their work is profitable to the NCAA. The profit just doesn't trickle down to them. Do you think a musician would be ok with a record label releasing their music, with no monetary compensation? Of course not. The starving artists are the ones who haven't found a market yet. NCAA athletes have a market for what they do, they just aren't allowed to profit from it.
 
#227      
Your point of NCAA making boatloads on recent years is good,...

On a smaller scale, Dan exploits us, including "the juice cometh" as the Illinois Loyalty board is monetized..../s

That said, We love you Dan and your service, and wishing you as much $ you can earn here!
Lol. If my opinions had any monetary value, you better believe I wouldn't be wasting them on a message board.
 
#228      
Apples and oranges. These athletes are not "starving artists." Their work is profitable to the NCAA. The profit just doesn't trickle down to them. Do you think a musician would be ok with a record label releasing their music, with no monetary compensation? Of course not. The starving artists are the ones who haven't found a market yet. NCAA athletes have a market for what they do, they just aren't allowed to profit from it.
Perhaps, but the athletes only have a market because they’re provided (by others) a venue for showcasing their talents.

In the end, like comedians, they’re just entertainers looking for a payday and a spotlight.
 
#229      
Perhaps, but the athletes only have a market because they’re provided (by others) a venue for showcasing their talents.

In the end, like comedians, they’re just entertainers looking for a payday and a spotlight.
Perhaps, but the athletes only have a market because they’re provided (by others) a venue for showcasing their talents.

In the end, like comedians, they’re just entertainers looking for a payday and a spotlight.
That would be the same for any artist. The market is generally provided by someone else, with both sides (in theory) benefitting from the efforts of the other.
 
#230      
I guess my question would be is there any other industry in which the workers receive zero direct monetary compensation for the value they provide? There may well be some examples, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find any with the money involved in NCAA basketball and football.

Once NCAA basketball and football became a big money maker, the idea of these competitors as amateurs or student-athletes became outdated. The responsible thing to do would have been to figure out a system to share some of the profits with the athletes, from the beginning. The NCAA went the other way which is why we got years of shady recruiting, bag men, and now NIL.
You are completely neglecting the purpose of the NCAA. If you cycle the profits back to the players, then sports that don’t make money will be abandoned and no longer receive aid. Do you want think scholarships are just universities waiving tuition and fees? No. The NCAA uses that money earned by the football team to pay for the gymnastics student athlete to go to school on a full ride scholarship
 
#232      
You are completely neglecting the purpose of the NCAA. If you cycle the profits back to the players, then sports that don’t make money will be abandoned and no longer receive aid. Do you want think scholarships are just universities waiving tuition and fees? No. The NCAA uses that money earned by the football team to pay for the gymnastics student athlete to go to school on a full ride scholarship
How can UK afford to field a volleyball team and pay Coach Cal over $9 million a year? How does Alabama afford swim team facilities and Saban's salary, also north of $9 million? This kind of money floating around and there's no way the the NCAA could have worked out any kind of compensation system for the players?
 
#233      
Ordained Dudeist Priest
Johns Creek, GA
You are completely neglecting the purpose of the NCAA. If you cycle the profits back to the players, then sports that don’t make money will be abandoned and no longer receive aid. Do you want think scholarships are just universities waiving tuition and fees? No. The NCAA uses that money earned by the football team to pay for the gymnastics student athlete to go to school on a full ride scholarship
I'm pretty sure the schools' athletic departments fund the scholarships, not the NCAA.

Since there seems to be a lot of confusion about where the NCAA gets its money and what it does with it, perhaps a primary source is in order:


As a nonprofit organization, the NCAA puts its money where its mission is: equipping student-athletes to succeed on the playing field, in the classroom and throughout life.

The NCAA receives most of its annual revenue from two sources: television and marketing rights for the Division I Men’s Basketball Championship and ticket sales for all championships. That money is distributed in more than a dozen ways — almost all of which directly support NCAA schools, conferences and nearly half a million student-athletes.

About 60% of the NCAA’s annual revenue — around $600 million — is annually distributed directly to Division I member schools and conferences, while more than $150 million funds Division I championships. Divisions II and III receive 4.37% and 3.18% of all NCAA revenue, respectively, which both divisions divide to fund their championships and support their membership. The NCAA also funds several services and educational programs for student-athletes and member schools, as well as a number of scholarship, grant and internship programs.

The Board of Governors — the NCAA’s highest governing body, with representatives from all three divisions and public members — oversees the Association’s finances, including distributions.

Then I must have misinterpreted the point made earlier about how much money the ncaa makes off of bowl games sales and tv deals
Ya know, I scoured this thread again just to see if I was wrong, and there's nothing that even insinuates the NCAA makes money off of bowl games.
 
#234      
How can UK afford to field a volleyball team and pay Coach Cal over $9 million a year? How does Alabama afford swim team facilities and Saban's salary, also north of $9 million? This kind of money floating around and there's no way the the NCAA could have worked out any kind of compensation system for the players?

The huge amounts that power conferences pay their head coaches distorts the issue.
- The median pay of a Div I head football coach is just under 1M.
- The average pay of a Div I head basketball coach is under 200k. (Not a typo.)
[Sorry about the median vs. average difference, I didn't find a consistent source. Given what power conferences pay, the median head basketball coach salary is even lower.]

UIUC has a bit over 500 scholarship athletes. I have no idea if this is high or low for a typical division I school.

If a typical football coaches gave up their half their salary (~500k), that would be 1k/player per year, or about $30/wk while school is in session. While nice, this isn't a solution. If a power 5 school, e.g. UI, dropped their head coach salaries for Football and Basketball to 1M each, then that would free about 10k/athlete per year. Most student athletes are not at power 5 schools.

Sample data backing the surprising head basketball coach salary numbers I found: https://www.bozemandailychronicle.c...ble_1c9f31d6-09d2-597b-8e27-b062f593ec73.html
 
#235      
The huge amounts that power conferences pay their head coaches distorts the issue.
- The median pay of a Div I head football coach is just under 1M.
- The average pay of a Div I head basketball coach is under 200k. (Not a typo.)
[Sorry about the median vs. average difference, I didn't find a consistent source. Given what power conferences pay, the median head basketball coach salary is even lower.]

UIUC has a bit over 500 scholarship athletes. I have no idea if this is high or low for a typical division I school.

If a typical football coaches gave up their half their salary (~500k), that would be 1k/player per year, or about $30/wk while school is in session. While nice, this isn't a solution. If a power 5 school, e.g. UI, dropped their head coach salaries for Football and Basketball to 1M each, then that would free about 10k/athlete per year. Most student athletes are not at power 5 schools.

Sample data backing the surprising head basketball coach salary numbers I found: https://www.bozemandailychronicle.c...ble_1c9f31d6-09d2-597b-8e27-b062f593ec73.html

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. Sure, there are sports that don't make any money, and people are free to pursue those if that's their jam. Who cares? That has nothing to do with the fact that certain sports bring in enormous sums of money, and that money is made available only to certain people (e.g. coaches, NCAA brass), in gross violation of anti-trust law. Spreading money around based on averages has nothing to do with how an economy is supposed to work.
 
#236      
I'm pretty sure the schools' athletic departments fund the scholarships, not the NCAA.

Since there seems to be a lot of confusion about where the NCAA gets its money and what it does with it, perhaps a primary source is in order:





Ya know, I scoured this thread again just to see if I was wrong, and there's nothing that even insinuates the NCAA makes money off of bowl games.
Ironically you liked the post claiming bowl games were rolled into tv deals. Do you need me to copy it over for you? It’s actually just up this thread of replies…
 
#237      
I'm pretty sure the schools' athletic departments fund the scholarships, not the NCAA.

Since there seems to be a lot of confusion about where the NCAA gets its money and what it does with it, perhaps a primary source is in order:





Ya know, I scoured this thread again just to see if I was wrong, and there's nothing that even insinuates the NCAA makes money off of bowl games.
Are you also blindly ignoring the part you referenced that literally states “including scholarships”?
 
#238      
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. Sure, there are sports that don't make any money, and people are free to pursue those if that's their jam. Who cares? That has nothing to do with the fact that certain sports bring in enormous sums of money, and that money is made available only to certain people (e.g. coaches, NCAA brass), in gross violation of anti-trust law. Spreading money around based on averages has nothing to do with how an economy is supposed to work.
That’s exactly how point. If we want it to simply be the economy, then the sports that don’t generate a profit will simply not be offered by those schools.

That’s like saying a high school violates anti trust laws because they charge admission to watch the game you play in and you don’t get a cut of the proceeds. Come on now. Think through the big picture instead of suggesting you can simply reallocate funds.

As for the coaches and ncaa officials point - nothing good comes from communism. The ncaa is communism.
 
#239      
The huge amounts that power conferences pay their head coaches distorts the issue.
- The median pay of a Div I head football coach is just under 1M.
- The average pay of a Div I head basketball coach is under 200k. (Not a typo.)
[Sorry about the median vs. average difference, I didn't find a consistent source. Given what power conferences pay, the median head basketball coach salary is even lower.]

UIUC has a bit over 500 scholarship athletes. I have no idea if this is high or low for a typical division I school.

If a typical football coaches gave up their half their salary (~500k), that would be 1k/player per year, or about $30/wk while school is in session. While nice, this isn't a solution. If a power 5 school, e.g. UI, dropped their head coach salaries for Football and Basketball to 1M each, then that would free about 10k/athlete per year. Most student athletes are not at power 5 schools.

Sample data backing the surprising head basketball coach salary numbers I found: https://www.bozemandailychronicle.c...ble_1c9f31d6-09d2-597b-8e27-b062f593ec73.html
Sure, but I don't think anyone is saying every player in every sport should receive the same compensation, or even should receive any compensation. For a sport that does not generate revenue, a scholarship may well be adequate. For a lower tier program, a basketball scholarship may be adequate compensation. For the players major programs bring in, it's not.

And head coach salaries are not the only place these revenues are being diverted. College athletic departments have, in many cases, facilities that rival professional organizations. Some of these facilities are absurd. Sinking money into these facilities has become a kind of recruiting tool. Again, the money is there, and can't go to players, so it goes elsewhere. Not to mention the money being spent under the table by boosters, that could easily be donated directly to the school if player compensation was above-board.
 
#240      
That’s exactly how point. If we want it to simply be the economy, then the sports that don’t generate a profit will simply not be offered by those schools.

That’s like saying a high school violates anti trust laws because they charge admission to watch the game you play in and you don’t get a cut of the proceeds. Come on now. Think through the big picture instead of suggesting you can simply reallocate funds.

As for the coaches and ncaa officials point - nothing good comes from communism. The ncaa is communism.

That's not true at all. They'll be like every other offering at the school. If they sufficiently attract students, they'll be offered. How is it any different from anything else?

The NCAA excluding athletes from revenue streams has been litigated --why do you think the NCAA is changing? It isn't because they suddenly felt generous --it''s because they lost in the Supreme Court.
 
#241      
That's not true at all. They'll be like every other offering at the school. If they sufficiently attract students, they'll be offered. How is it any different from anything else?

The NCAA excluding athletes from revenue streams has been litigated --why do you think the NCAA is changing? It isn't because they suddenly felt generous --it''s because they lost in the Supreme Court.
So if the ncaa no longer funds those other sports, schools will simply lose money on them and keep them going? Even with no national championship or ncaa support? Seriously?
 
#242      
Happily purchased several of the Trent Frazier shirts for family and friends. :)

Generally speaking, just curious do players get proceeds based on number of shirts sold? Or would they get an upfront deal to allow his likeness on a short and now the sales go to the store that sold them?
Not asking for specifics on Trent per se, just wanting to j defy and how this might work.
I def want to support as many Illini as I am able. :)

everyone on my Christmas list is probably going to get some Kofi gear this year. :)
 
#243      
1) My prior note was addressing the specific comment that "with this kind of money [coaches salaries] they should be able to do something."

I was pointing out that the coaches salaries we see are anomalous and are unlikely to be a general solution. I agree that the facilities war is stupid. The universities are not spending their profits on them. They are going debt; U of I athletics is 250M+ in debt as a result of facility upgrades. This is not actually available money that can be rerouted.

2) Some Big10 schools have announced that they are dropping multiple sports as of next year due to funding issues. (See wiki, Big10)

Iowa is dropping men's and women's swimming & diving; and men's gymnastics, and tennis
MSU is dropping men's and women's swimming & diving
MN is dropping men's gymnastics, tennis, indoor track and field

3) Supporting a sport is a lot more expensive than supporting a class, even without scholarships.
U of I pays 150k/scholarship per year on average. (I'd love to see the FB and BB specific numbers.) Dropping a single 10 scholarship sport may pay for a dozen other classes.

Title IX requires parity. If FB and BB generated funds can not be used to support the other scholarships, that parity will likely be men's FB and BB, women's BB, and enough additional women's scholarships to balance men's FB.
 
#244      
1) My prior note was addressing the specific comment that "with this kind of money [coaches salaries] they should be able to do something."

I was pointing out that the coaches salaries we see are anomalous and are unlikely to be a general solution. I agree that the facilities war is stupid. The universities are not spending their profits on them. They are going debt; U of I athletics is 250M+ in debt as a result of facility upgrades. This is not actually available money that can be rerouted.

2) Some Big10 schools have announced that they are dropping multiple sports as of next year due to funding issues. (See wiki, Big10)

Iowa is dropping men's and women's swimming & diving; and men's gymnastics, and tennis
MSU is dropping men's and women's swimming & diving
MN is dropping men's gymnastics, tennis, indoor track and field

3) Supporting a sport is a lot more expensive than supporting a class, even without scholarships.
U of I pays 150k/scholarship per year on average. (I'd love to see the FB and BB specific numbers.) Dropping a single 10 scholarship sport may pay for a dozen other classes.

Title IX requires parity. If FB and BB generated funds can not be used to support the other scholarships, that parity will likely be men's FB and BB, women's BB, and enough additional women's scholarships to balance men's FB.
So a couple things.

On point #1: I intended coaches salaries as evidence of the value provided by basketball and football players, not as a "fix this and you can fix that" solution. And on facilities, yes, the athletic departments do not have hundreds of millions of dollars of cash on hand. But they do have profitable sports teams, and are thus able to pay back the debt plus interest. Otherwise no bank would lend money for these improvements.

#2 - when schools cut nonprofitable programs and raise coaches salaries in profiable ones, doesn't that rebut the argument that we can't pay players because then we'd have to cut other programs? I mean we're not paying players now and we're still cutting those programs anyway?
 
#245      
Happily purchased several of the Trent Frazier shirts for family and friends. :)

Generally speaking, just curious do players get proceeds based on number of shirts sold? Or would they get an upfront deal to allow his likeness on a short and now the sales go to the store that sold them?
Not asking for specifics on Trent per se, just wanting to j defy and how this might work.
I def want to support as many Illini as I am able. :)

everyone on my Christmas list is probably going to get some Kofi gear this year. :)
Yeah...me too. It would be great if there was a list of links to buy Illini player NIL stuff/svc.
 
#246      
So a couple things.

On point #1: I intended coaches salaries as evidence of the value provided by basketball and football players, not as a "fix this and you can fix that" solution. And on facilities, yes, the athletic departments do not have hundreds of millions of dollars of cash on hand. But they do have profitable sports teams, and are thus able to pay back the debt plus interest. Otherwise no bank would lend money for these improvements.

#2 - when schools cut nonprofitable programs and raise coaches salaries in profiable ones, doesn't that rebut the argument that we can't pay players because then we'd have to cut other programs? I mean we're not paying players now and we're still cutting those programs anyway?
Wouldn’t it just mean MORE programs get cut? If the argument is that individual schools should pay based on their profits, are we just going to let the non-power 5 schools fall apart as they don’t pull the profits and thus can’t pay as much (if at all in some cases). There are some extreme issues with the ncaa - as there are with ALL non profits that reach a certain size of cash flow IMHO - but I am not sure what proposed solution is viable that would be “better”. If you have an idea, feel free to state it and we can discuss the pros and cons and we can each form a more informed opinion. We may still disagree, but to suggest it’s a simple fix such as “just pay them some of the profits” negates the entire complexity of the economy of college sports.

You mention the loans for improvements as evidence of profit. Are you saying they should stop spending on improvements? Or, since the improvements help profitability, perhaps where they find those dollars to pay the players AND proceed with improvements is…oh idk, the sports medicine research these schools all fund. The sports doctors and trainers that tend to the players.
 
#247      
Wouldn’t it just mean MORE programs get cut?
No. Head coach salaries in football and basketball are going up at the same time these programs are getting cut. This indicates the money pool is not shrinking (of course not, media deals and ticket prices are only going up) but that athletic departments are already moving money from less profitable programs to more profitable ones. They're operating this thing like a business. Paying players that bring in money won't cause the thing to happen, because it's already happening. Honestly, this was probably inevitable the moment college athletics became a business.

You want an idea, here's my idea, off the top of my head. Make a rule that a certain percentage of revenue generated by any athletic program goes to the student athletes in that program. No idea what that would be without having hard numbers here, but for arguments sake lets say 10%. Scholarships are included, so if that revenue share is less than the cost of scholarships, then those athletes only get their scholarship. Anything left after scholarship cost is taken out is split evenly among the scholarship players on the team. Revenue pool for the athletic department is now approx 10% less. Get it from boosters, cut salaries, use older facilities a little longer, carry Pepsi products instead of Coke in the vending machines....there's tons of ways you can make up the difference. I can't imagine an independent league baseball team, bringing in barely any money, can pay it's players something but NCAA programs with multi-million dollar coaching staffs can't afford to pay their athletes even a couple thousand a month.
 
#248      
No. Head coach salaries in football and basketball are going up at the same time these programs are getting cut. This indicates the money pool is not shrinking (of course not, media deals and ticket prices are only going up) but that athletic departments are already moving money from less profitable programs to more profitable ones. They're operating this thing like a business. Paying players that bring in money won't cause the thing to happen, because it's already happening. Honestly, this was probably inevitable the moment college athletics became a business.

You want an idea, here's my idea, off the top of my head. Make a rule that a certain percentage of revenue generated by any athletic program goes to the student athletes in that program. No idea what that would be without having hard numbers here, but for arguments sake lets say 10%. Scholarships are included, so if that revenue share is less than the cost of scholarships, then those athletes only get their scholarship. Anything left after scholarship cost is taken out is split evenly among the scholarship players on the team. Revenue pool for the athletic department is now approx 10% less. Get it from boosters, cut salaries, use older facilities a little longer, carry Pepsi products instead of Coke in the vending machines....there's tons of ways you can make up the difference. I can't imagine an independent league baseball team, bringing in barely any money, can pay it's players something but NCAA programs with multi-million dollar coaching staffs can't afford to pay their athletes even a couple thousand a month.
So just because programs are being cut (do you have evidence of a cut program and coach salary increase at the same time?) doesn’t mean it can’t INCREASE the number of programs cut.

I’m not saying that the Alabama football revenue helps the Alabama water polo team. I was speaking to ncaa revenue.

As for my concerns with your point - smaller schools will get none of the quality players and they will funnel to even less programs than they do now because those programs will generate a profit. Mediocre teams will dwindle.

Is there a maximum earnings? Or if Duke basketball makes $100m would that get split, say, 10 ways to $1m each? Kinda creates some resentment for the guys earning it vs the reserves no? Paying Connor serven the same as Kofi seems odd if going pay to play
 
#249      
So just because programs are being cut (do you have evidence of a cut program and coach salary increase at the same time?) doesn’t mean it can’t INCREASE the number of programs cut.

I’m not saying that the Alabama football revenue helps the Alabama water polo team. I was speaking to ncaa revenue.

As for my concerns with your point - smaller schools will get none of the quality players and they will funnel to even less programs than they do now because those programs will generate a profit. Mediocre teams will dwindle.

Is there a maximum earnings? Or if Duke basketball makes $100m would that get split, say, 10 ways to $1m each? Kinda creates some resentment for the guys earning it vs the reserves no? Paying Connor serven the same as Kofi seems odd if going pay to play
The worries associated with compensating athletes remind me of the same kind of worries that pop up any time a change to the status quo is suggested. 99.9% of the time those worries are overstated. My "proposal" was not well thought out and off the top of my head, but at a minimum trends towards distribution of some of the wealth generated by college athletes to those same athletes. I'm sure smarter people with access to better information could come up with something better. The only thing lacking is motivation to do so.

As for examples of increasing coach's pay and cutting programs from the same school, at roughly the same time? How about the three programs OP used as examples of schools cutting programs?

Iowa: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.hawkcentral.com/amp/4705769001

MSU: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ml...o-4-million-bonus-in-2022.html?outputType=amp

And Minnesota: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.es...phers-pj-fleck-agree-new-deal-26?platform=amp
 
#250      
No. Head coach salaries in football and basketball are going up at the same time these programs are getting cut. This indicates the money pool is not shrinking
I do not believe this statement is logically true. Suppose a bad coach was hired, the football team is terrible, and the stands are empty. Revenues are dropping. Do you hire the bargain price coach knowing the team is unlikely to improve, or do you hire a more expensive coach who you think might turn it around? If the average ticket price is $30 (a guess) * 65000 seats * 7 games = 13.6M. Merchandising rights are probably worth significantly more for even an average team from a big school. I suspect that winning coaches more than pay for themselves. The problem is the highly paid coach who still doesn't win. (~1/2 the power schools probably fit in this category.)

You want an idea, here's my idea, off the top of my head. Make a rule that a certain percentage of revenue generated by any athletic program goes to the student athletes in that program. No idea what that would be without having hard numbers here, but for arguments sake lets say 10%.
Sure, though revenue is often misleading on thin margin items. Many companies have huge revenues and profits of 1-5%. Revenue sharing works much better in areas with clear large profit margins, where the goal is to prevent owners from hiding wealth in expenses. College athletics do not appear to fit this mold.

UIUC sports revenue was $97M/year before Covid hit. The net profit was ~0. (Plus or minus 1-2M/year) This excludes the new facilities costs which are paid by donors. I think the interest payments (~7.5M/yr?) come from the sports budget . I'm not sure.

Depending on the site you look at, the UIUC athletic costs are all over the map. One site claims 150k/scholarship athlete and 500 athletes. Another site claims 12.5M total on scholarships for 264 athletes in 474 different awards (47k/athlete -- exactly what out of state tuition+board costs). I suspect the actual cost is between 47k and 150k. (10-30% of the revenue)

Athletic department staff costs are ~16M. This includes all of the coaches and support staff.

At this point, I'm not sure where to go with this. What money can be shifted other than staff costs. Reduce the money spent on athletic dorm rooms/food/training equipment to give them cash? I think this comes back to the premise that there are profits to be shared, and that those profits may not exist.