If the NCAA is beaten in court what will players cost AU

[ronau57 12]

I believe that the NCAA and the gaming community that uses college athlete likenesses will eventually lose. When this happens what do you think the cost of top tier athletes will be and when will high school players start signing with agents?

[Auctoritas 2,836]

They're going to price themselves out of the market almost immediately. I think if the NCAA loses, colleges stop offering scholarships and just take walk-ons.

These people think they're grabbing a slice of the pie, but there's not going to be a pie to start with.

[tigerbrotha12 2,362]

Ridiculous this issue is even brought up in court. Most college players are on some sort of scholarship, and are thus already payed to play. It is an athlete's decision if he or she wants to walk on to play a sport and if that is what they choose to do because they have not been offered a scholarship to the school they are playing at, they should know the kind of responsibility, financially, academically, and athletically, that they are taking on.

[AU64 10,122]

Ridiculous this issue is even brought up in court. Most college players are on some sort of scholarship, and are thus already payed to play. It is an athlete's decision if he or she wants to walk on to play a sport and if that is what they choose to do because they have not been offered a scholarship to the school they are playing at, they should know the kind of responsibility, financially, academically, and athletically, that they are taking on.

There are hundreds of Div III schools where football players do not get athletic scholarships...in essence, about all of these are "walk-ons". And of course there are a couple hundred + Div I and Div ll schools that give limited numbers of scholarships in many sports and also have many non-scholarship athletes representing their schools.

As for "paying" athletes beyond their scholarships, adoption of that practice IMO, will likely cause most of the smaller (and less wealthy) Div i schools to take another look at their overall programs...and how many sports they will participate in.

[WarEagle2 53]

I think there will be a ton of players who they think they are invaluable to their team/school that will be told what they are actually worth to their school. Money breeds hierarchy and discontent.

[CleCoTiger 1,957]

Don't want players asking for a piece of the pie? Great. Then let's go back to the days of ten dollar tickets, coaches who are not the highest paid public employees in their states and the NCAA and the conferences not getting paid millions (or even billions) for broadcast rights.

I agree with those who say that players are already paid (in the form of scholarships plus all the additional academic/support services they receive.) However, what players receive in proportion to what they help/are responsible for the universities taking in is out of whack. Don't run what's turned into professional sports franchises in this television age and tell the pros that put butts in those high priced seats that they can't have and/or don't deserve a bigger bite.

On edit...

It isn't what the players "cost", it's what they bring in. The OP even mentioned "the markets." Well...either "markets" are free (and really, there is no such thing as a "free market" in big business) or they are something other than markets. Can't have it both ways.

[AU64 10,122]

I think there will be a ton of players who they think they are invaluable to their team/school that will be told what they are actually worth to their school. Money breeds hierarchy and discontent.

Likely...right now FCS schools can award up to 63 football scholarships and Div ll up to 36 which of course is why the Div 1 schools generally wipe they field with them as depth pays off over the period of a game...or a season.

And if scholarships become a lot more expensive for the Div l schools, look for the "processing" of the underachievers to increase. Look at the guys who spend four or 5 years on the bench and are still on full scholarship....boy those days will be over.

Likely the smaller schools will not be able to offer all the amenities and fringe benefits of say Auburn or Bama or whoever..... so the cost of their scholarships will be less...and any kid processed from a major Div l school will see a big drop in his life-style...kind of like being sent back to the minors after a short stretch in the 'Bigs'.

[Weegle777 78]

I agree. A good way to end this would be paying each player based on how good talent-wise they are. Talk about dissention on every team. Players will hate each other. The concept of team will be gone. Big difference between a pro and an 18-22 year old.

[cptau 169]

If that happens, you may see college football return to the 1950s. Like others have said, lower ticket prices and salaries for coaches. But academic standards for players will go up. Universities give many of them a pass on entrance standards that other students must meet.

The NFL will also probably setup it's own minor league teams around the country.

FBS football makes a lot of money for colleges, but is also the most expensive sport to support. Expensive equipment, large numbers of players and staff and the largest most underused building on campus are needed to field a team. Add paying players anything more than minimum wages, and the sport becomes unsupportable.

[doc4aday 1,887]

Give them a card that has a certain amount of cash value. Have places where they can use their cards. Make sure the card will not work in night clubs, or any alcohol purchases. I guess a bit like a W.I.C or whatever

[wdefromtx 3,312]

Increase stipends

Set up a trust fund and give it to them upon graduation.

Of course the problem is equality......obviously it does not make sense financially to pay someone in a sport nobody knows about the same as a football or basketball player.

[cptau 169]

Give them a card that has a certain amount of cash value. Have places where they can use their cards. Make sure the card will not work in night clubs, or any alcohol purchases. I guess a bit like a W.I.C or whatever

Sounds like EBT cards. Some students already have them.

When they first started allowing EBT card use at fast food places I was approached a couple of times by people that want to buy me a hamburger, etc. with their EBT card. They wanted me to give them cash in exchange so they could buy gas, they claimed. It's a scam that I've refused to help with. If players get cards like that, they'll be trading purchases of food, etc to get cash. Then they'll hit the clubs or buy what the card will not buy.

[PatBoCamRob 30]

It will cost the university nothing. It will mean, however, that we will be paying nfl prices for tickets.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

Don't want players asking for a piece of the pie? Great. Then let's go back to the days of ten dollar tickets, coaches who are not the highest paid public employees in their states and the NCAA and the conferences not getting paid millions (or even billions) for broadcast rights.

I agree with those who say that players are already paid (in the form of scholarships plus all the additional academic/support services they receive.) However, what players receive in proportion to what they help/are responsible for the universities taking in is out of whack. Don't run what's turned into professional sports franchises in this television age and tell the pros that put butts in those high priced seats that they can't have and/or don't deserve a bigger bite.

On edit...

It isn't what the players "cost", it's what they bring in. The OP even mentioned "the markets." Well...either "markets" are free (and really, there is no such thing as a "free market" in big business) or they are something other than markets. Can't have it both ways.

Excellent points. ESPN turned college football into a huge business. Players make that possible.

[Auctoritas 2,836]

It's big business for ESPN. The schools are non-profits, and all of their money goes back into the school for improvements - improvements which those students benefit from. Do I think it's over the top? absolutely. But lets not pretend like the school is sitting on piles of cash thumbing their noses at the players.

I have around $80,000 in student loan debt. If I had an opportunity to have had that paid for, then I don't think I'd be complaining about compensation (although, a stipend would be nice). The fact that schools make money off of sales, or that ESPN (who is NOT a party to this, however much at fault they are) makes money off this is immaterial. A company that turns a big profit doesn't automatically scale everyone's compensation because now they're making a lot of money. A production worker probably makes just as much, in value, as kids getting full rides to colleges.

I'll say it again: These kids are turning an inch into a yard. The endgame for this, as has been noted in this thread, is that CFB goes back to the 1950s and the exceptionally skilled kids go to an NFL minor league...where they will probably make the same amount of money as the value of the scholarships they're getting now, but they aren't getting the degree for it.

Do things need to change? I won't argue otherwise. My point is that it needs to be done deliberately and with great foresight, or these kids who want compensation are going to destroy the entire mechanism that would compensate them.

[dp4au 2]

It's big business for ESPN. The schools are non-profits, and all of their money goes back into the school for improvements - improvements which those students benefit from. Do I think it's over the top? absolutely. But lets not pretend like the school is sitting on piles of cash thumbing their noses at the players.

I have around $80,000 in student loan debt. If I had an opportunity to have had that paid for, then I don't think I'd be complaining about compensation (although, a stipend would be nice). The fact that schools make money off of sales, or that ESPN (who is NOT a party to this, however much at fault they are) makes money off this is immaterial. A company that turns a big profit doesn't automatically scale everyone's compensation because now they're making a lot of money. A production worker probably makes just as much, in value, as kids getting full rides to colleges.

I'll say it again: These kids are turning an inch into a yard. The endgame for this, as has been noted in this thread, is that CFB goes back to the 1950s and the exceptionally skilled kids go to an NFL minor league...where they will probably make the same amount of money as the value of the scholarships they're getting now, but they aren't getting the degree for it.

Do things need to change? I won't argue otherwise. My point is that it needs to be done deliberately and with great foresight, or these kids who want compensation are going to destroy the entire mechanism that would compensate them.

Well said. One of my fears is the effect this type of change will have on the rest of the campus. Revenue losses due to player payments, lost endorsement, etc. WILL have an impact elsewhere. At what point does it hit tuition and fees.Will fewer students will be allowed to attend games as seats represent revenue .( we know that ticket prices will rise).

I fear that the 1950's brand of football will not meet the fan and ESPN expectations. Result lower TV contracts. What happens then.

[AU64 10,122]

Don't want players asking for a piece of the pie? Great. Then let's go back to the days of ten dollar tickets, coaches who are not the highest paid public employees in their states and the NCAA and the conferences not getting paid millions (or even billions) for broadcast rights.

I agree with those who say that players are already paid (in the form of scholarships plus all the additional academic/support services they receive.) However, what players receive in proportion to what they help/are responsible for the universities taking in is out of whack. Don't run what's turned into professional sports franchises in this television age and tell the pros that put butts in those high priced seats that they can't have and/or don't deserve a bigger bite.

On edit...

It isn't what the players "cost", it's what they bring in. The OP even mentioned "the markets." Well...either "markets" are free (and really, there is no such thing as a "free market" in big business) or they are something other than markets. Can't have it both ways.

Excellent points. ESPN turned college football into a huge business. Players make that possible.

Gotta disagree here. The schools and alums make it a big business and made ESPN a force in the sports world. Players come and go, some get hurt and many don't perform as expected and most leave school never to play serous football again. ...and yet Bama , LSU and Ohio State draw 100,000 each home game no matter who the players are.

Players are a part of the deal of course but the reason that some guys play in front of 100,000 people and others (about as good) play in front of 5000 is because of the coaches/schools and alums. Check the number of small school players that are in the NFL and never played on national TV or even in front of more than 10,000 fans. If the players" made" the game, Jerry Rice would have been on national TV every week while he was at Mississippi Valley instead of playing in out of the way small towns in front of a few thousand people.

And then look at the thousands of players that played for Div i schools and never started their entire careers and then left school with a degree to find a non-athletic job. Who got the most benefit?...the player or the school that paid for his education?

I'm just saying that this player worship thing is over-blown....and IMO, taken as a whole, the members of the Auburn football team (or any other Div i team) have a very good deal....and some folks are giving bad advice that has an excellent potential to seriously damage the sport and reduce opportunities for kids still in high school or junior high.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

Don't want players asking for a piece of the pie? Great. Then let's go back to the days of ten dollar tickets, coaches who are not the highest paid public employees in their states and the NCAA and the conferences not getting paid millions (or even billions) for broadcast rights.

I agree with those who say that players are already paid (in the form of scholarships plus all the additional academic/support services they receive.) However, what players receive in proportion to what they help/are responsible for the universities taking in is out of whack. Don't run what's turned into professional sports franchises in this television age and tell the pros that put butts in those high priced seats that they can't have and/or don't deserve a bigger bite.

On edit...

It isn't what the players "cost", it's what they bring in. The OP even mentioned "the markets." Well...either "markets" are free (and really, there is no such thing as a "free market" in big business) or they are something other than markets. Can't have it both ways.

Excellent points. ESPN turned college football into a huge business. Players make that possible.

Gotta disagree here. The schools and alums make it a big business and made ESPN a force in the sports world. Players come and go, some get hurt and many don't perform as expected and most leave school never to play serous football again. ...and yet Bama , LSU and Ohio State draw 100,000 each home game no matter who the players are.

Players are a part of the deal of course but the reason that some guys play in front of 100,000 people and others (about as good) play in front of 5000 is because of the coaches/schools and alums. Check the number of small school players that are in the NFL and never played on national TV or even in front of more than 10,000 fans. If the players" made" the game, Jerry Rice would have been on national TV every week while he was at Mississippi Valley instead of playing in out of the way small towns in front of a few thousand people.

And then look at the thousands of players that played for Div i schools and never started their entire careers and then left school with a degree to find a non-athletic job. Who got the most benefit?...the player or the school that paid for his education?

I'm just saying that this player worship thing is over-blown....and IMO, taken as a whole, the members of the Auburn football team (or any other Div i team) have a very good deal....and some folks are giving bad advice that has an excellent potential to seriously damage the sport and reduce opportunities for kids still in high school or junior high.

You miss my point. First of all, beyond the very valuable scholarship they receive, the main additional "compensation" I would favor would be a trust fund established for further education and for long-term medical issues. That said, the argument for compensating players is fueled by the big dollars involved and saying ESPN is the primary beneficiary understates the issue. The top coaches have multi-million dollar contracts based on how well players perform on the field. Saying players are interchangeable doesn't alter that basic premise.

40 years ago Auburn was rarely on TV and Shug made a nice, but not excessive, salary. Tickets were $7 and no one seriously thought players should be paid. Those players got a fair deal, IMO. It's harder to make that argument these days.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

It's fine and dandy to claim "schools are non-profits" that aren't "sitting on piles of cash", but many of the people within the non-profit structure are cleaning house. For example, Ellis Johnson (fourth highest paid assistant in the SEC in 2013 behind Smart, Chavis, and Grantham) makes $800K/year.

Auburn University may be non-profit, but Ellis Johnson is a highly skilled employee working at a market wage even compared to his for-profit brethren in the NFL.

I think this is a tough issue with positive and negative implications no matter what you pick (staying exactly the same clearly has drawbacks, paying market rates has very different and severe issues, and everything in-between has its plus and minus). Let's just not act like this is something less than a billion-dollar industry just because it's housed inside a non-profit entity. Jay Jacobs makes a fortune. Cam Newton (even if there was a bagman) did not.

[autigeremt 6,970]

I think it's a precursor to the end of the college athletics as we have known it our entire lives. It could be a good thing, but I'm not so sure. Acting as though these young men are getting the "shaft" when it's the university who has the risk is a little slight of hand. A college degree program at most Div. I universities will run $50,000-$125,000 depending on the university. There's also food, room and board, and clothing allowances.

I do think the players deserve a stipend and some benefit in exchange for their ability to perform, but not every Div. I program is in the black. Most of them rely on football to support their other sports. What happens to those university programs? Do we end up with 20-30 market driven teams and the rest become a part of a lessor division? College football is big business, no doubt. But the money it brings in allows each program to offset the cost of supporting the rest of their sports programs in a lot of cases. You have some enormous budgets to move athletes around within a given year. Will college football help to kill off track, swimming and diving, etc.? It may. Or it might do what some have said and create a backwards trend in the quality of college football.

[autigeremt 6,970]

It's fine and dandy to claim "schools are non-profits" that aren't "sitting on piles of cash", but many of the people within the non-profit structure are cleaning house. For example, Ellis Johnson (fourth highest paid assistant in the SEC in 2013 behind Smart, Chavis, and Grantham) makes $800K/year.

Auburn University may be non-profit, but Ellis Johnson is a highly skilled employee working at a market wage even compared to his for-profit brethren in the NFL.

I think this is a tough issue with positive and negative implications no matter what you pick (staying exactly the same clearly has drawbacks, paying market rates has very different and severe issues, and everything in-between has its plus and minus). Let's just not act like this is something less than a billion-dollar industry just because it's housed inside a non-profit entity. Jay Jacobs makes a fortune. Cam Newton (even if there was a bagman) did not.

Cam did, however, benefit from playing on a team that highlighted his potential and gave him the shot he needed to get the millions he is earning today. Just .02.

[Auctoritas 2,836]

It's fine and dandy to claim "schools are non-profits" that aren't "sitting on piles of cash", but many of the people within the non-profit structure are cleaning house. For example, Ellis Johnson (fourth highest paid assistant in the SEC in 2013 behind Smart, Chavis, and Grantham) makes $800K/year.

Auburn University may be non-profit, but Ellis Johnson is a highly skilled employee working at a market wage even compared to his for-profit brethren in the NFL.

I think this is a tough issue with positive and negative implications no matter what you pick (staying exactly the same clearly has drawbacks, paying market rates has very different and severe issues, and everything in-between has its plus and minus). Let's just not act like this is something less than a billion-dollar industry just because it's housed inside a non-profit entity. Jay Jacobs makes a fortune. Cam Newton (even if there was a bagman) did not.

Then the issue you have is not compensation for the players, the issue you have is that we pay coaches too much. You are entirely right, colleges have enormous revenue streams from sports - which they turn around and put back into the school (and paying a coach counts in that structure - and most of the money they make goes to pay off debt from renovations). I don't know how free agency (as the OP started the thread with) will fix that particular gripe.

I'm not going to argue that coaches make too much. However, the median CEO pay just went over 10 million dollars - I don't think it's out of the realm of reasonable that an AD overseeing a budget of $47 Million (most of which, by the way, goes back into paying off debt from renovations) to make $615,000.

[CircleDrill 178]

There's an easy fix to this: NCAA football goes to a draft. Drafted players get free tuition, food, housing. End of discussion.

[AU64 10,122]

As for the players "making the game"....I submit it is the coaches that make a school successful. For example, if you listen to recruits talk about why they select Bama or other schools, it's because they think Nick and his staff will help them get to the NFL....and basketball players look to Coach K or Calipari to get them to the NBA.

Like everything else in college football there are the haves and have-nots. Coaches at AU and the big time Div l schools indeed make big salaries but have zero job security so some folks might consider that a trade-off. That aside, Gus and his staff are at the very peak (top 1% or higher) of an employment pyramid that consists of about 10,000 college coaches at schools of all sizes...many making modest salaries, yet working just as hard as Gus.

Most of the commentary on this site is about wealthy athletic departments, high paid coaches, etc and is focused on just a handful of schools and individuals..... and those decrying those circumstances seem to be oblivious of the rest of the college sports world.....where schools lose millions every year subsidizing their sports programs and assistant coaches make far less than 100K per year.

Gus, Nick, Miles,....these are the rock star coaches and they get paid like rock stars.....but they are by far the exception in the sport and their staffs are by far the exception in the coaching business as far as their salaries are concerned. Just about every WAC, MAC, Sun Belt, etc head coach makes in the $250-350K range for example.....and their assistants are well below that.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

As for the players "making the game"....I submit it is the coaches that make a school successful. For example, if you listen to recruits talk about why they select Bama or other schools, it's because they think Nick and his staff will help them get to the NFL....and basketball players look to Coach K or Calipari to get them to the NBA.

Like everything else in college football there are the haves and have-nots. Coaches at AU and the big time Div l schools indeed make big salaries but have zero job security so some folks might consider that a trade-off. That aside, Gus and his staff are at the very peak (top 1% or higher) of an employment pyramid that consists of about 10,000 college coaches at schools of all sizes...many making modest salaries, yet working just as hard as Gus.

Most of the commentary on this site is about wealthy athletic departments, high paid coaches, etc and is focused on just a handful of schools and individuals..... and those decrying those circumstances seem to be oblivious of the rest of the college sports world.....where schools lose millions every year subsidizing their sports programs and assistant coaches make far less than 100K per year.

Gus, Nick, Miles,....these are the rock star coaches and they get paid like rock stars.....but they are by far the exception in the sport and their staffs are by far the exception in the coaching business as far as their salaries are concerned. Just about every WAC, MAC, Sun Belt, etc head coach makes in the $250-350K range for example.....and their assistants are well below that.

You have a point you want to insist on and are oblivious to everything else . I don't want to pay players. I agree the impact on smaller sports and smaller programs could be devastating. All that said, major college football has become a much, much bigger business than it used to be and that fact opens it up to more possible scrutiny and being treated as such. It's not something I'm advocating but rather recognizing.

Btw, Nick Saban wasn't winning titles at MSU. His coaching is greatly aided by having some of the best talent in the country. Have him trade talent with the coach of North Dakota State and see how those respective programs fare.