Name, Image, Likeness. A ruling to allow NCAA athletes to profit off of their N, I, and L. Basically, they can get advertising and sponsorship deals as individuals.
Mmm, no. Pro leagues promote and market star individuals. College level is almost entirely about the team. The fact that you had to take the college argument to the pros to make a point tells me that you're trying to tiptoe around what you know to be the truth. For what reason, I'm not sure. If, as you suggest, and some players like Kyrie have pushed for, a better league develops because players chase better opportunities there, then the equation changes completely.
no when Oregon was losing games in the 70's & 80's while posting year after year of losing records, Autzen stadium was half full and the Ducks were rarely on TV. When they were winning under Bellotti and Chip Kelly, Autzen was sold out every game; SRO. And they were on TV all the time. Viewers turn in to see good teams and buy tickets to see good teams. And good teams require good players. Good players are the other side of the equation from high attendance and TV ratings. That's because a lot more people will show up and tune in to see Marcus Mariotta lead the team to the national championship game than when Norval Turner is leading the Ducks to a 2-9 record
We're not talking about individual teams though; we're talking about the organization as a whole. The NBA G-League has a much higher caliber of player than the college game, yet the NCAA garners far more attention and revenue. Why? Because of the institutions. And, I might also add, the real "stars" in the college game are the coaches. The players, for all intents and purposes, are interchangeable, replaceable, and disposable elements to the college athletics machine.
Regarding NIL deals in high school, I would think that 18 year olds cannot enter into legally binding contracts. Perhaps their parents can on their behalf, but if a kid breaks his contractual obligations, it's not on the kid, it's on the parents. Which is yet another legal grey area. Or, you know, the country could just do away with "amateur athletes" and being tied to educational institutions and create privately-owned Acadamies like other countries do with youth soccer and basketball, where kids are trained and paid while learning and growing.
Good line of thought, but you got the cutoff wrong. 18 is when they can enter into legally binding agreements, so virtually all HS seniors would be in the clear.
I don't agree with this in terms of college athletes at all. Fans root for the teams and whatever people on those teams are having the most success. You have donors paying only for their single school, if they can't pay for player x they pay for player y. Donors only pay for their school. You don't have donors paying for a single player regardless of the school that player chooses, rooting and paying for the player whatever school he goes to. If the best 20 year old players went to the arena league instead of college football your not going to see a big change in revenue of either league.
that's just wrong on a very real level, and you can make the same misleading argument about the pros. How much did attendance drop off for the Blazers when they trotted out lottery teams? This year it's 17,125; in 2018-19 when they won 53 games it was 19,496. That's a 12% drop but that doesn't really tell us anything because of Covid restrictions. In 2016-17 when Portland won 41 games their attendance was 19,318. So, that 2018-19 Blazer team that was 29% better in wins increased attendance by 0.9%. that isn't the full picture either because in 2012-13 when Portland only won 33 games, their attendance was 19,830. But wait!! the next season when Portland won 54 games their attendance dropped to 19,747. Hmmm...sure looks like the players and wins don't matter in the NBA either. And if you argue that Portland is unique because of the pro-sports market then it means that the players, in the Portland part of the NBA at least, "for all intents and purposes, are interchangeable, replaceable, and disposable elements" in other words, it sure looks like you're trying to set different goal posts to gauge the value of college players vs pros. NBA players get what percentage of gross revenue? Is it 50%? "College football generates more than $4 billion in annual revenue for the 65 universities making up the Power 5, according to data provided to Fortune by Patrick Rishe, director of the sports business program at Washington University in St. Louis. Combined, those schools reaped nearly $1.8 billion in profits from their football programs in 2018" did the players get 50% of that 4B+ like the NBA? Did they get 48% of that like players in the NFL? Or the 49% that MLB players get? Hell no they didn't and team loyalty in the pros is the same as school loyalty in college and it's not like the college athletes are suddenly taking a portion of TV revenue, gate receipts, concessions etc. They still don't get any share of that. They have just been allowed to start being compensated for NIL. All that traditional revenue will still be going to all of the greedy shits at the top of the food chain, including all those mercenary coaches you claim are the stars and LOL at the comparison of the G-League to college. Now, why don't you compare the G-League to the NBA?
The NBA does have max contracts, no thats not spelled out by congress, but US law allows the NBA and players to agree to that. Maybe the college player could earn all they like, but in that case over so many millions are required to pay for all their college tuition, room and board, have to pay fees to coaching staff, pay for training, etc. Who knows what the exact legal language or mechanics of it end up being. My point was if there is enough public sentiment against college athletes making basically professional money, its very possible there are rules or laws passed that change this. No changes seem to be imminent though.
If all the best college players leave the NCAA and go to arena league, or JV colleges, or elsewhere there will still be a NCAA team winning national titles. Fans will pay to fill up those stadiums and watch a team win regardless if its the best players in the country or 4th tier athletes. Yes fans want to watch a college team win, but they don't care if the level of play is at a high school or NFL level.
Yes exactly. You put the top 100 college athletes into the G League and the worst walk on athletes into college and you would hardly change the revenue of either college or the G league.
Nobody said an individual teams revenue stays the same regardless of their wins or losses. You are arguing against a strawman.
but it's no different in the pros. Fans root for the teams. Blazer fans root for Portland because they are in or from Portland, or the state of Oregon. I mean, what the fuck is this forum all about? I joined in 2008 and no player on the Blazers then was still on the team after June, 2015...7 years ago. I was a Blazer fan before Walton was a Blazer. I became a Blazer fan because I'm a native Oregonian; I became a Duck fan because I went to school there. There no real difference it's just loopy to try and argue fan loyalty is different in college than it is in the pros. In all cases it's an emotional attachment you guys keep trying to dig up examples of the differences between college and pros. But the motivations of fans, running the scale from rabid to casual, are the same for the pros as for college; and it's those motivations that generate the revenue and it's simply ridiculous, IMO, to try and argue that a CJ McCollum is entitled to 35M/year as a Pro while a Justin Herbert is entitled to nothing as a college player what are you guys even bitching about anyway? It looks like you're saying the players shouldn't be paid?
that is bullshit. If players are "interchangeable and disposable" then revenues and attendance should stay the same no matter if the teams are winning or losing better players will generate more wins and more winning will generate more revenue. That's true in college and it's true in the pros
I think 18 year olds are considered adults so they could enter into binding contracts. But this will see a lot of 17 year olds signing deals so yeah, parents are going to be part of the legal equation during the podcast I linked, Bruce Feldman said the attorney he talked to (who prepared the contract in question) told him he's heard of contracts that the parents of some athletes have signed that have clauses that would allow the entity paying NIL to come back and demand money back from the family, including interest. There is definitely going to be lots of dark side to NIL
I think you are confusing winning and losing and "talent" level. Players don't create wins and losses. Leagues do. People do attend games based on winning and losing, but that is INDEPENDENT of talent outside the league. Like what was already said, if ALL the best basketball talent played in the G-league, would college basketball attendance drop? At all?
Every college game has one winner and one loser regardless of the talent of the players. The last part of your statement is not true if there are rules that apply to all major colleges. Pro's vs college is a totally different dynamic. There are multiple legit professional leagues already established, players would actually have the ability to create a rival league (if teams tried to pay them peanuts). LeBron himself could easily finance the start of an entire 16 team+ league. No it wouldn't earn what the NBA does, but it would earn a hell of a lot of millions. A high school player entering college has none of these options, nor the track record of success, nor the fan interest and dollars. I'm not arguing that college athletes deserve to make nothing; I'm just saying I don't know that they deserve to make multi million professional level money. I suspect there might be many others that share this belief as time passes and we see the results of NIL. Maybe its just something that NIL players can't enjoy the financial benefits of free college scholarships, free room and board, and have to pay a some other fees when they make millions. I'm still developing my opinions on this.
You cherry picked a quote that supports the article's headline but not so much its content... "About half of the public Power 5 athletic departments were self-sustaining in 2017-18, meaning revenue covered expenses without funding from student fees or university support." "Even more remarkable: In a multibillion-dollar industry, fewer than half of FBS athletic departments have financial reserves in place that could be used during this type of crisis" The costs of running a football program are astronomical. All that NCAA revenue that people like to talk about is mostly flushed right down the toilet via expenses. If fewer than half the big programs are breaking even and/or have financial reserves, where is this supposed money coming from to pay the athletes? Most of the actual profit is clustered among a select few schools. The problem with using that article within this context is, it's looking at lost revenue when games aren't played, not the fixed expenses that don't go away during a shutdown.
