Name, Image, Likeness Rule

#251      
S
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

So let’s clarify one thing. Where should this wealth come from? No athletic department has cash laying around. It gets reinvested in ways that, often, help the students.

Also. Should we just skip the pointless component of even calling them students at that point? Just salary them and make them athletes for hire?
 
#252      
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.)


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.
I’m still concerned with the animosity and tension created when reserves or even redshirt student athletes are making money off of the stars of the team. All of a sudden, players start asking coaches to stop ag 9 scholarship players because they don’t want to split the profits with bench warmers.

And do Walk Ons get any of the profits? Hmm
 
#253      
I’m still concerned with the animosity and tension created when reserves or even redshirt student athletes are making money off of the stars of the team. All of a sudden, players start asking coaches to stop ag 9 scholarship players because they don’t want to split the profits with bench warmers.

And do Walk Ons get any of the profits? Hmm
You're getting bogged down in the details man. Where there is a will there is a way. I believe the players on the court generating hundreds of millions of dollars for athletic departments, conferences, coaches, and yes the NCAA, should get a share of the revenue their unique skills bring in. You don't. That's what it all comes down to.
 
#254      
st petersburg, fl
The regular season tv deals generate quite a bit, but postseason is all individual school based. I could see the argument that the ncaa doesn’t have to spend as much on big football schools that are able to generate revenue for their own program, but to say the ncaa gets money from anything related to bowl games is inaccurate

My point started from your response (when you were responding as 0440tribute) to someone else who said that athletic depts are making hundreds of millions of dollars from football/basketball despite not showing a profit. you responded saying that actually, bowl games don't generate money for the NCAA and that only a few sport championship games are profitable (e.g. lacrosse). You were clearly connecting NCAA with athletic depts and implying that the NCAA, and, thus, athletic departments don't make money on football/basketball since they don't directly receive money from the championship games.

My point remains and as simple - football (and to a lesser extent basketball) is the key monetary driver for both the NCAA and athletic depts for essentially every P5 school in the country. It doesn't matter how the exact accounting works.

Put another way, if all the college football revenue in the US went away tomorrow, the NCAA head office (and most athletic depts) likely lays off half its staff the next day. And many/most of those "profitable" championship games (lacrosse, baseball etc.) go away. That's just the reality of the situation, regardless of what the accounting shows.
 
#255      
My point started from your response (when you were responding as 0440tribute) to someone else who said that athletic depts are making hundreds of millions of dollars from football/basketball despite not showing a profit. you responded saying that actually, bowl games don't generate money for the NCAA and that only a few sport championship games are profitable (e.g. lacrosse). You were clearly connecting NCAA with athletic depts and implying that the NCAA, and, thus, athletic departments don't make money on football/basketball since they don't directly receive money from the championship games.

My point remains and as simple - football (and to a lesser extent basketball) is the key monetary driver for both the NCAA and athletic depts for essentially every P5 school in the country. It doesn't matter how the exact accounting works.

Put another way, if all the college football revenue in the US went away tomorrow, the NCAA head office (and most athletic depts) likely lays off half its staff the next day. And many/most of those "profitable" championship games (lacrosse, baseball etc.) go away. That's just the reality of the situation, regardless of what the accounting shows.
I mean the point I was contesting was about the NCAA making a ton of money off of bowl games.

Issues with how each schools AD handles revenue should be handled by each school.
 
#256      
You're getting bogged down in the details man. Where there is a will there is a way. I believe the players on the court generating hundreds of millions of dollars for athletic departments, conferences, coaches, and yes the NCAA, should get a share of the revenue their unique skills bring in. You don't. That's what it all comes down to.
I believe they get access to top notch doctors, exposure to advance their careers, and access to a free education. Many people pay for college, a lot have to work their way through college. Players going pro will make plenty - 1-4 years of not getting a cut is irrelevant.


For those that DONT go pro, a free education while playing a GAME would 100% be sufficient compensation for me. Pro athletes are sports in general are one of the most overpaid sectors of the economy in the world. There’s no reason to worry about paying the future multi millionaires some money during the few years they play in college.


My personal opinion is that nobody who is projected to make 6 figures per year after graduation should really worry about making money while in college.

And one final point. A lot of the biggest names in college sports (at the school level) have fans REGARDLESS of the team on the field. It’s not about the players on the roster. It’s the tradition, the alumni etc. Texas hasn’t been good in a long time and is by far the most revenue generating football program. It’s not about how good the team on the field is, it’s about the fans and the school. When I go watch a game, I’m watching my TEAM, not any one player that will be gone in, at most, 4 years. That player turnover alone should make it clear it’s the team that generates most of that wealth, not the players on it.

I understand this desire to spread the wealth and give student athletes hundreds of thousands of dollars, but I really just don’t see the point. What expenses do they even have while in college? What do they even need money for?
 
#257      
I understand this desire to spread the wealth and give student athletes hundreds of thousands of dollars, but I really just don’t see the point. What expenses do they even have while in college? What do they even need money for?

There's just so much I disagree with here but I'm going to focus on this one. Does your boss ask for an itemization of your expenses before determining if you deserve a raise or a bonus? No, because it's entirely irrelevant, and even if it were relevant, you don't know the personal circumstances of these athletes or know whether they could use some extra money or not. I'm willing to bet a lot of them have very good uses for some extra money. And honestly, this is the kind of condescending argument that pro-slavery groups made in the early to mid 1800s.

A lot of these players are never going to be millionaires. Some are elite college athletes, but don't fit the professional game. Some of them will get injured playing college ball and never make a dime after playing for free during their best playing years. Some of them will be dealing with medical expenses from sports injuries their whole lives. And it's all kind of irrelevant because at the end of the day the question is whether people should be adequately compensated.
 
#258      
st petersburg, fl
And one final point. A lot of the biggest names in college sports (at the school level) have fans REGARDLESS of the team on the field. It’s not about the players on the roster. It’s the tradition, the alumni etc. Texas hasn’t been good in a long time and is by far the most revenue generating football program. It’s not about how good the team on the field is, it’s about the fans and the school. When I go watch a game, I’m watching my TEAM, not any one player that will be gone in, at most, 4 years. That player turnover alone should make it clear it’s the team that generates most of that wealth, not the players on it.

To me, the above is one of two key points that are all that really matter. The two points are:

1. What is the mission here? - Ultimately, universities and, tangentially, the alums of those universities need to decide what the mission of college sports is. In a more purist point of view, it's an opportunity to provide an avenue for students to capitalize on a talent they've worked hard for to supplement their college education and, in the competition for that talent, universities are willing to give them free tuition (similar to what we see for academic scholarships). Obviously, that's a purist standpoint, and things have evolved beyond that. With the amount of money now flowing through the system, that purist, non-capitalistic model morphs into something decidedly more capitalistic and, i would argue, severely detaches itself from its more purist mission. In my opinion, the way the P5 DIA model has been structured, it's specifically designed to keep money within DIA so the few in the DIA stand to benefit the most. Yes, money is allocated to other sports, but, ultimately, the DIA is keeping all that money in house and deciding how to spread it out. It's a natural and difficult conflict - you have a for-profit structure operating within an officially non-profit mission. As some have mentioned earlier in this thread, it's actually not that different than certain government structures, and the inequities and conflicts it typically creates are inevitable. NIL is an attempt to address this, but, in my opinion, is also without a doubt putting a stamp on "we are officially moving away from our original mission and becoming more capitalistic with our structure." Surprise surprise, NIL allows DIA's to do this without actually touching their own revenue/expense models. What a coincidence!

2. Who brings the value? - This brings me to my second point - now that we're decidedly moving towards a more capitalistic structure, then the question of who benefits and how much they benefit becomes very capitalistic as well. In that case, who benefits is almost entirely about who brings the value, and, more specifically, monetary value. If we took our entire basketball program and called them the Champaign Kingfishers and removed all association with the University, would you still watch them? I know I probably wouldn't. The value lies with the link to the university - the university is the one that brings the value to the end customer. Yes, the university must compete with other schools for the coaches/players, and, thus, there's value assigned there, but the top of the food chain will always be the school - and, thus, should capture the majority of the value. Does that mean the players are being exploited and not capturing the value they deserve? maybe. but if they don't feel like they're being valued at college, then don't go there. Go to another avenue that better reflects your value. As long as the universities and professional leagues (NFL, NBA etc) aren't actively colluding to artificially enhance the NCAA's value (which I would actually they do in some cases - one and done being one of them, but that's gone now. football should go the same way), then it's a free market - treat it as such. We're officially capitalistic now, aren't we?

Bottom line of my long rant - college sports has been inevitably moving more towards a capitalistic model, and NIL is a big jump further in that direction and further detaches from its mission. At that point, why even bother to pretend? Go for a free agent market for football/basketball. Get them contracts. Let the sports that don't pay for themselves fall by the wayside, and pay the university a royalty fee for being able to use their name. And if a basketball/football player feels like he/she isn't being valued, tell them to go somewhere where they are.
 
#259      
There's just so much I disagree with here but I'm going to focus on this one. Does your boss ask for an itemization of your expenses before determining if you deserve a raise or a bonus? No, because it's entirely irrelevant, and even if it were relevant, you don't know the personal circumstances of these athletes or know whether they could use some extra money or not. I'm willing to bet a lot of them have very good uses for some extra money. And honestly, this is the kind of condescending argument that pro-slavery groups made in the early to mid 1800s.

A lot of these players are never going to be millionaires. Some are elite college athletes, but don't fit the professional game. Some of them will get injured playing college ball and never make a dime after playing for free during their best playing years. Some of them will be dealing with medical expenses from sports injuries their whole lives. And it's all kind of irrelevant because at the end of the day the question is whether people should be adequately compensated.
So where’s my paycheck because my game didn’t fit the college game? I love the athletes, but I wouldn’t watch them if they didn’t play for my school. I would watch the team even if they aren’t on it. The team brings the value.

Also - my point was this: athletes in football/basketball at a power 5 school dont have to pay for meals, room, board, free tutoring. There’s nothing they have to pay for.
 
#260      
To me, the above is one of two key points that are all that really matter. The two points are:

1. What is the mission here? - Ultimately, universities and, tangentially, the alums of those universities need to decide what the mission of college sports is. In a more purist point of view, it's an opportunity to provide an avenue for students to capitalize on a talent they've worked hard for to supplement their college education and, in the competition for that talent, universities are willing to give them free tuition (similar to what we see for academic scholarships). Obviously, that's a purist standpoint, and things have evolved beyond that. With the amount of money now flowing through the system, that purist, non-capitalistic model morphs into something decidedly more capitalistic and, i would argue, severely detaches itself from its more purist mission. In my opinion, the way the P5 DIA model has been structured, it's specifically designed to keep money within DIA so the few in the DIA stand to benefit the most. Yes, money is allocated to other sports, but, ultimately, the DIA is keeping all that money in house and deciding how to spread it out. It's a natural and difficult conflict - you have a for-profit structure operating within an officially non-profit mission. As some have mentioned earlier in this thread, it's actually not that different than certain government structures, and the inequities and conflicts it typically creates are inevitable. NIL is an attempt to address this, but, in my opinion, is also without a doubt putting a stamp on "we are officially moving away from our original mission and becoming more capitalistic with our structure." Surprise surprise, NIL allows DIA's to do this without actually touching their own revenue/expense models. What a coincidence!

2. Who brings the value? - This brings me to my second point - now that we're decidedly moving towards a more capitalistic structure, then the question of who benefits and how much they benefit becomes very capitalistic as well. In that case, who benefits is almost entirely about who brings the value, and, more specifically, monetary value. If we took our entire basketball program and called them the Champaign Kingfishers and removed all association with the University, would you still watch them? I know I probably wouldn't. The value lies with the link to the university - the university is the one that brings the value to the end customer. Yes, the university must compete with other schools for the coaches/players, and, thus, there's value assigned there, but the top of the food chain will always be the school - and, thus, should capture the majority of the value. Does that mean the players are being exploited and not capturing the value they deserve? maybe. but if they don't feel like they're being valued at college, then don't go there. Go to another avenue that better reflects your value. As long as the universities and professional leagues (NFL, NBA etc) aren't actively colluding to artificially enhance the NCAA's value (which I would actually they do in some cases - one and done being one of them, but that's gone now. football should go the same way), then it's a free market - treat it as such. We're officially capitalistic now, aren't we?

Bottom line of my long rant - college sports has been inevitably moving more towards a capitalistic model, and NIL is a big jump further in that direction and further detaches from its mission. At that point, why even bother to pretend? Go for a free agent market for football/basketball. Get them contracts. Let the sports that don't pay for themselves fall by the wayside, and pay the university a royalty fee for being able to use their name. And if a basketball/football player feels like he/she isn't being valued, tell them to go somewhere where they are.
Why do we even pretend that these players are student-athletes? Why not just make them employees of the university with salaries? There ya go. Problem solved. The university buys players to show for entertainment. Now we can stop pretending that they academically got into the school (in SOME cases, not all for sure)
 
#261      
Schools don't make 'hundreds of millions of dollars' off of athletics, either. In fact, the vast majority lose money. Per the NCAA only 25 programs finished in the black in 2018-19: https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/finances-intercollegiate-athletics#:~:text=While 29 athletics departments reported positive generated net,$18.8 billion was spent on athletics in 2019.
Illinois wasn't among those 25. In fact, our athletic department has finished in the black only once since 2014: http://cafidatabase.knightcommissio...a-champaign#!quicktabs-tab-institution_data-1
I have no problem with these folks making money off of NIL but it isn't accurate to say that they are being exploited by their schools.
The athletes that would make money are playing revenue generating sports. I did a quick google, didn't spend a lot of time on it, but in 2018, Illinois basketball was the 19th highest revenue generating program in the country, with profits of $15,827,099 (https://www.businessinsider.com/lou...asketballs-biggest-money-maker-in-2016-2018-2). In another article (https://www.wqad.com/article/sports...hool/526-b9adf767-863e-4803-a5f1-5474ff4e8d78), "Illinois made $28.5 million off its football program in fiscal year 2018. The athletic department as a whole netted a profit of $6.4 million. The football program made $29.6 million off of media rights that year as well." This article originally cited a FOIA request, but the link is dead.

I guess I'm a bit confused in this discussion. The NIL allows a player to make money of their likeness. It's not saying the university is paying them to attend, or am I wrong? I'm open to being wrong.
 
Last edited:
#262      
So where’s my paycheck because my game didn’t fit the college game? I love the athletes, but I wouldn’t watch them if they didn’t play for my school. I would watch the team even if they aren’t on it. The team brings the value.

I don't care who my mail carrier is, but I still think he or she deserves to he paid for doing their job.

Also - my point was this: athletes in football/basketball at a power 5 school dont have to pay for meals, room, board, free tutoring. There’s nothing they have to pay for.

Car? Clothing? Night out with friends? Date with a girl? Movie rental? Video game?

If during college you really didnt have anything to spend money on outside of the bare necessities, I genuinely feel bad for you.
 
#263      
Also - my point was this: athletes in football/basketball at a power 5 school dont have to pay for meals, room, board, free tutoring. There’s nothing they have to pay for.
Most athletic scholarships are partial scholarships. They often just cover tuition and fees.

Full scholarships are given in: (I'm not 100% confident about these sources.)
- Men's football, basketball
- Women's basketball, volleyball, tennis and gymnastics

A typical athletic scholarship covers:
- Tuition
- Some of the fees

A full scholarship also covers
- Books
- Room & Board
- School supplies

Neither cover extra food expenses:
- Snacks/soda/coffee/... while studying
- Alcohol [Lets be realistic :-}]
- The occasional meal out with friends

Neither cover extra recreation expenses:
- The occasional movie, or streaming service alternative (netflix et.al.)
- A concert ticket
- Video game

These extras are extras. Imagine doing without them for four years as your friends go without you.

Some students may not have family money to buy:
- Clothes, shoes
- Transportation to/from home some weekends

Do they need to buy a bicycle to get to classes across campus on time?
 
#265      
Why do we even pretend that these players are student-athletes? Why not just make them employees of the university with salaries? There ya go. Problem solved. The university buys players to show for entertainment. Now we can stop pretending that they academically got into the school (in SOME cases, not all for sure)

So please forgive my brief rant here, but have you any idea how idiotic the statements are that continuously insults student athletes?
Yeah, I see you end your comment with: (in SOME cases, not all for sure)
Yes, there are many athletes that attend Colleges and Universities throughout this great country of ours that have no desire to actually take advantage of or prioritize the educational opportunity they are given. But I frankly get sick and tired of the completely distorted and delusional opinion that college athletes are mostly disinterested in education. Those of you that continuously make statements like this don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. The vast majority of college athletes that even have professional sports to transition to in their field is quite limited when you actually look at the amount of scholarship athletes at universities.
For goodness sake, stop with your stereotypes and inaccurate assumptions and recognize that there are far greater percentages of student athletes that rely on their education and the professional opportunities afforded based on the degree than the number of “athletes” that are here solely to “play sports”. It’s a ridiculous, biased, and distorted position that fuels the inaccurate stereotype of most student athletes.
 
#266      
So please forgive my brief rant here, but have you any idea how idiotic the statements are that continuously insults student athletes?
Yeah, I see you end your comment with: (in SOME cases, not all for sure)
Yes, there are many athletes that attend Colleges and Universities throughout this great country of ours that have no desire to actually take advantage of or prioritize the educational opportunity they are given. But I frankly get sick and tired of the completely distorted and delusional opinion that college athletes are mostly disinterested in education. Those of you that continuously make statements like this don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. The vast majority of college athletes that even have professional sports to transition to in their field is quite limited when you actually look at the amount of scholarship athletes at universities.
For goodness sake, stop with your stereotypes and inaccurate assumptions and recognize that there are far greater percentages of student athletes that rely on their education and the professional opportunities afforded based on the degree than the number of “athletes” that are here solely to “play sports”. It’s a ridiculous, biased, and distorted position that fuels the inaccurate stereotype of most student athletes.
Also ignores the fact that there are many students who are also employees of the university. It's not at all ridiculous that student athletes could be paid as employees, in the same way that students working in the library are paid for their work.
 
#267      
Most athletic scholarships are partial scholarships. They often just cover tuition and fees.

Full scholarships are given in: (I'm not 100% confident about these sources.)
- Men's football, basketball
- Women's basketball, volleyball, tennis and gymnastics

A typical athletic scholarship covers:
- Tuition
- Some of the fees

A full scholarship also covers
- Books
- Room & Board
- School supplies

Neither cover extra food expenses:
- Snacks/soda/coffee/... while studying
- Alcohol [Lets be realistic :-}]
- The occasional meal out with friends

Neither cover extra recreation expenses:
- The occasional movie, or streaming service alternative (netflix et.al.)
- A concert ticket
- Video game

These extras are extras. Imagine doing without them for four years as your friends go without you.

Some students may not have family money to buy:
- Clothes, shoes
- Transportation to/from home some weekends

Do they need to buy a bicycle to get to classes across campus on time?

The cost of attendance stipend has been in place since around 2016 -> https://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2015-09-03/cost-attendance-qa

I don't know what Illinois provides, but this article estimated it to be $2,500 / year -> https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/full-cost-of-attendance-explained/
 
#270      
This is a big story. And Texas really loves HS football. My guess is the legislature there decides to make a change so kids in HS can profit from NIL. Less incentive to forego the senior year (but you would make way more at OSU than Carroll Senior, I realize).
 
#271      
Forgottonia
This is a big story. And Texas really loves HS football. My guess is the legislature there decides to make a change so kids in HS can profit from NIL. Less incentive to forego the senior year (but you would make way more at OSU than Carroll Senior, I realize).
Is there really any rule that prohibits HS kids from making money tho? AFAIK they can hold any job and work for anyone. It’s been mentioned on here that IHSA (or Texas equivalent) would not allow it. Of course it’s never been much of an issue in the past either, but it will be in the future. I believe they would have to pass new rules to prevent it and I don’t think that will hold up legally.
 
#272      
Forgottonia
Someone needs to start a web site (maybe they have), just detailing all the NIL deals. I’m guessing there are many many more BIG endorsements we haven’t heard about yet. SkyIdub posted the Jack Sawyer O$U new truck from Mark Wahlburg. I’m sure that’s not Jack or Mark’s only deal.
 
Last edited:
#274      
This one is really awesome
agree ! you can throw out the concept of a 85 man scholarship limit
in todays rules , you still cant offer the walk ons all the benefits of a scholarship , but lets be real, free tuition is a HUGE part of it

1628875466675.png
 
#275      
Forgottonia
agree ! you can throw out the concept of a 85 man scholarship limit
in todays rules , you still cant offer the walk ons all the benefits of a scholarship , but lets be real, free tuition is a HUGE part of it

View attachment 11965
Makes it much easier for guys to stomach walking on at a school they really want to play for.