Emmert Gets a Raise

[80Tiger 899]

My two cents. The issue is with the professional leagues and their rules for when an athlete can join their ranks. Both football and basketball utilize college athletics to be their minor leagues.

Eliminate any rules associated with when someone can join a professional league. Each sport would need a rookie league or training league of some type. If a player wanted to go to college instead, they could do that, but at least they had the opportunity to go ahead and be paid for their services if they were good enough.

Baseball has this figured out. Players that are good enough have the opportunity to choose between professional or college coming out of high school. Football and basketball should have that same option. If a player goes to college, then it was either his choice to or he was not good enough to be paid for his services from a professional standpoint.

This argument for player payment could at the college level could be toned down and the value of the scholarship could be "compensation" that they receive.

[McLoofus 35,182]

3 minutes ago, 80Tiger said:

My two cents. The issue is with the professional leagues and their rules for when an athlete can join their ranks. Both football and basketball utilize college athletics to be their minor leagues.

Eliminate any rules associated with when someone can join a professional league. Each sport would need a rookie league or training league of some type. If a player wanted to go to college instead, they could do that, but at least they had the opportunity to go ahead and be paid for their services if they were good enough.

Baseball has this figured out. Players that are good enough have the opportunity to choose between professional or college coming out of high school. Football and basketball should have that same option. If a player goes to college, then it was either his choice to or he was not good enough to be paid for his services from a professional standpoint.

This argument for player payment could at the college level could be toned down and the value of the scholarship could be "compensation" that they receive.

Interesting that the two college sports that make big money have these rules in place...

[McLoofus 35,182]

27 minutes ago, Tiger said:

Scared of change is about the only way you can describe it. And that is at it's best. At it's worst it's got a much uglier face behind the mask of wanting to keep thing as is.

Preach.

[cole256 17,077]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

And why do these people even care? What does Joe Fanatic lose? Almost none of these pearl clutchers have any skin in the game whatsoever. It's just like the transfer thing. Just being afraid of change for the sake of it, I guess.

Actually, some of the more vocal opponents to both- funny how it's always the same people opposing any enhanced benefits for the players (while simultaneously blaming them for all of our problems on the field instead of their head coach)- would also rather plan on losing 4-5 games every year than risk a coaching change. This, despite the fact that we've shown every single time that we immediately get much better after coaching changes. 

Not sure why they are so opposed to making things better for the players and so reluctant to hold the head coach accountable for his mistakes. I can only guess. 

That's the big question...why would they care, would it limit their capacity to watch sports....no, some don't like the very THOUGHT of a person breaking the chains. When I was talking and getting tag teamed I couldn't help but notice the suggestion that athletes don't get their degrees and they aren't qualified for leadership. When you see the state of some minds it just reinforces to me the uphill struggle to fix what's in place. I don't deserve the money but I don't want you to have it! What sense does that make?

[AuburnArch13 185]

10 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Interesting that the two college sports that make big money have these rules in place...

Sure, but can you really go after the NCAA for that? If there is a villain to be had in those instances, I’d argued that it’s the NFL and NBA whose ownerships benefit from the smaller payrolls that having an outside “farm league” creates. And personally, I do think that the NBA and particularly the NFL are taking advantage of these kids greatly through their anti-competitive practices. But I’m not sure where this is the NCAA’s responsibility, or even in their capacity, to fix.

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 hour ago, AuburnArch13 said:

Sure, but can you really go after the NCAA for that? If there is a villain to be had in those instances, I’d argued that it’s the NFL and NBA whose ownerships benefit from the smaller payrolls that having an outside “farm league” creates. And personally, I do think that the NBA and particularly the NFL are taking advantage of these kids greatly through their anti-competitive practices. But I’m not sure where this is the NCAA’s responsibility, or even in their capacity, to fix.

Fair point. I was all ready to retort but I don't honestly know that the NFL (or NBA) doesn't dictate those circumstances.

However, due to the other things discussed I still have a hard time believing that the NCAA doesn't prioritize profit over amateurism and academics. 

[AuburnArch13 185]

On 5/29/2019 at 6:33 AM, McLoofus said:

All good points, but the real issue isn't that Emmert gets paid a lot. He probably earns his money as much as any CEO does. The issue is that the NCAA and membership institutions are profiting off of many of the athletes far beyond what those athletes are receiving in return.

So why is Emmert's raise news? Because there are a lot of people making up a lot of reasons why players should not receive any additional benefits while everyone else in the industry- all of them less essential to sports actually being played- makes more and more money every year. I don't know that anybody really has a problem with somebody of Emmert's station making a lot of money.

Worst of all, perhaps, those athletes are not allowed to profit off of their own name or likeness. And the NCAA works tirelessly to make sure that it remains a monopoly and that athletes have no other legitimate path to earning a living using their talents. That's where talk of slavery comes in and why it is not unreasonable at all. 

The raise comes across as hypocritical. 

Loof, I’ll preface this by saying that I think that we agree about more than we disagree in general and in this discussion. Specifically, I think we both find the fetishism of “amateurism” that many folks around here seem to have to be odd. Also, I think we both take to heart the idea that these kids should be able to use their talents to their own benefits in as unencumbered of a manner as possible.  

With that said I do bristle a little bit when I hear the accusation that the NCAA or member institutions are making massive ‘profits’ off of the student athletes. It is certainly true that they generate quite a bit of revenue, but that isn’t the same thing. The NCAA and its constituents are non-profit organizations after all. That may seem like a pedantic distinction but I think it is an important thing to remember in this discussion that the excess revenue that the NCAA generates does go back to supporting the student athletes. It’s not as if there is some cabal of greedy shareholders that are squeezing these kids for every last dime. Sure there are paid employees at the NCAA, some of whom make quite nice salaries, but administration costs as a whole tally less than 5% of total revenue, with salaries being only a part of that. That’s quite efficient all things considered, and supports the idea that even the largest salaries there are probably money well spent. 

As for the revenue itself, I think it’s important to talk about that in context. Last year, the NCAA brought in about a billion dollars in revenue. It’s a big number for sure, but it starts to look smaller when you consider that there are 460,000 student athletes that fall under the NCAA umbrella. So per capita, each student is bringing in just under $2,200 in revenue to the NCAA. That’s not all that surprising when you consider that most of the revenue is generated by only a small portion of the athletes in football and men’s and women’s basketball. But in a way, that’s kind of the point, that even if some how you were able to run the NCAA cost free, and return all of the revenue back to the students you’d be be forced to choose between giving a relative modest (though not negligible) amount of money to everyone, or be faced with having to further prioritize the few revenue generating sports. 

I think it’s also important to consider where that billion dollars does go currently. Right now, about half of it goes back into hard costs, funding the tournaments, propping up non-revenue generating sports and revenue generating sports and non-revenue generating school, legal and consulting fees, etc. about 5% goes back into admin, as previously discussed, and the other ~45% does go back to the students in targeted ways such as scholarships, grants, insurance, and other programs. To me, that seems like probably a good idea. If your only talking about having about $1,000 to spend per student at that point, setting up a way to target that money toward the students that need it the most makes more sense than trying to create some athlete salary system with it.

After saying all this, I’ll acknowledge that I do realize that a lot of your beef with the NCAA comes not from the fact that they aren’t paying students salaries, but from the rules they create that don’t allow students to make money for themselves. I’ve got some issues there myself, and while it’d be fun to flesh out where we might agree and disagree there, that would make this an even longer post than it is. So maybe that becomes another post for tomorrow’s lunch break.

[McLoofus 35,182]

3 minutes ago, AuburnArch13 said:

Loof, I’ll preface this by saying that I think that we agree about more than we disagree in general and in this discussion. Specifically, I think we both find the fetishism of “amateurism” that many folks around here seem to have to be odd. Also, I think we both take to heart the idea that these kids should be able to use their talents to their own benefits in as unencumbered of a manner as possible.  

With that said I do bristle a little bit when I hear the accusation that the NCAA or member institutions are making massive ‘profits’ off of the student athletes. It is certainly true that they generate quite a bit of revenue, but that isn’t the same thing. The NCAA and its constituents are non-profit organizations after all. That may seem like a pedantic distinction but I think it is an important thing to remember in this discussion that the excess revenue that the NCAA generates does go back to supporting the student athletes. It’s not as if there is some cabal of greedy shareholders that are squeezing these kids for every last dime. Sure there are paid employees at the NCAA, some of whom make quite nice salaries, but administration costs as a whole tally less than 5% of total revenue, with salaries being only a part of that. That’s quite efficient all things considered, and supports the idea that even the largest salaries there are probably money well spent. 

As for the revenue itself, I think it’s important to talk about that in context. Last year, the NCAA brought in about a billion dollars in revenue. It’s a big number for sure, but it starts to look smaller when you consider that there are 460,000 student athletes that fall under the NCAA umbrella. So per capita, each student is bringing in just under $2,200 in revenue to the NCAA. That’s not all that surprising when you consider that most of the revenue is generated by only a small portion of the athletes in football and men’s and women’s basketball. But in a way, that’s kind of the point, that even if some how you were able to run the NCAA cost free, and return all of the revenue back to the students you’d be be forced to choose between giving a relative modest (though not negligible) amount of money to everyone, or be faced with having to further prioritize the few revenue generating sports. 

I think it’s also important to consider where that billion dollars does go currently. Right now, about half of it goes back into hard costs, funding the tournaments, propping up non-revenue generating sports and revenue generating sports and non-revenue generating school, legal and consulting fees, etc. about 5% goes back into admin, as previously discussed, and the other ~45% does go back to the students in targeted ways such as scholarships, grants, insurance, and other programs. To me, that seems like probably a good idea. If your only talking about having about $1,000 to spend per student at that point, setting up a way to target that money toward the students that need it the most makes more sense than trying to create some athlete salary system with it.

After saying all this, I’ll acknowledge that I do realize that a lot of your beef with the NCAA comes not from the fact that they aren’t paying students salaries, but from the rules they create that don’t allow students to make money for themselves. I’ve got some issues there myself, and while it’d be fun to flesh out where we might agree and disagree there, that would make this an even longer post than it is. So maybe that becomes another post for tomorrow’s lunch break.

I have received a lesson! Seriously, thanks for this info. 

I did slip up earlier and allow the idea that I was suggesting the NCAA itself pay players. That was not my intent. I do think the universities could reinvest some of their profits. I do not have the answers. It does become an emotional and somewhat irrational thing for me when fans say we shouldn't at least try, and that the players should just shut up and be grateful for the scholarships that- in at least one case- the most accomplished coach in history literally danced for the opportunity to give them. 

[AU64 10,122]

9 minutes ago, AuburnArch13 said:

I’ll acknowledge that I do realize that a lot of your beef with the NCAA comes not from the fact that they aren’t paying students salaries, but from the rules they create that don’t allow students to make money for themselves.

Lots of folks on here apparently don't remember why that rule got made.   Back in the day, I think it was at Oklahoma, football players were being hired around the community ….car dealers and the like and being paid outrageous "salaries" for pretty much doing nothing.   Stuff like that went on during summers and the jobs were just a way for boosters to funnel money to players. There was more than that of course but I happen to recall that a number of years ago. 

It's easy to not like the rule....but at least consider the consequences of open hiring in a state like Alabama where belle's favorite booster group the REC could buy any player they wanted. It's bad enough already I hear but make it legal and then what?   Nice little piece in of all places....a bama site...

https://tdalabamamag.com/2019/05/18/why-letting-college-players-get-paid-for-likeness-or-more-could-be-bad/

[McLoofus 35,182]

11 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Lots of folks on here apparently don't remember why that rule got made.   Back in the day, I think it was at Oklahoma, football players were being hired around the community ….car dealers and the like and being paid outrageous "salaries" for pretty much doing nothing.   Stuff like that went on during summers and the jobs were just a way for boosters to funnel money to players. There was more than that of course but I happen to recall that a number of years ago. 

It's easy to not like the rule....but at least consider the consequences of open hiring in a state like Alabama where belle's favorite booster group the REC could buy any player they wanted. It's bad enough already I hear but make it legal and then what?   Nice little piece in of all places....a bama site...

https://tdalabamamag.com/2019/05/18/why-letting-college-players-get-paid-for-likeness-or-more-could-be-bad/

Man. Imagine what could be accomplished if people put this much effort into finding a better solution instead of trying to shoot down each one brought forth. 

So are you in favor of a salary cap on coaches? I mean, only the biggest programs can afford the best coaches, right? What about facilities? There should be a hard cap on how much a university is allowed to spend on each sport, period, right? Like your article says that bama players eat amazing food. Do you think Northern Illinois players eat as well? Do they have equal locker rooms and training facilities? If that's what you're suggesting- that all schools should have a fixed budget equal to that of the least profitable member institution- then I have no beef with your stance. I just haven't heard you voice any objection to Gus's contract or anything else other than every single rule that benefits the players. 

[cole256 17,077]

https://www.timesdaily.com/news/education/florence-high-student-tops-billboard-pop-chart/article_819971e3-dc67-5e37-8444-cd3d71d4de97.html#utm_campaign=blox&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

 

When other kids have special talents.....

[AU64 10,122]

On ‎5‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 4:06 PM, McLoofus said:

Man. Imagine what could be accomplished if people put this much effort into finding a better solution instead of trying to shoot down each one brought forth. 

So are you in favor of a salary cap on coaches? I mean, only the biggest programs can afford the best coaches, right? What about facilities? There should be a hard cap on how much a university is allowed to spend on each sport, period, right? Like your article says that bama players eat amazing food. Do you think Northern Illinois players eat as well? Do they have equal locker rooms and training facilities? If that's what you're suggesting- that all schools should have a fixed budget equal to that of the least profitable member institution- then I have no beef with your stance. I just haven't heard you voice any objection to Gus's contract or anything else other than every single rule that benefits the players. 

I guess you can make those arguments but generally , the NCAA is a big socialist bureaucracy with the objective of leveling the playing field by taking money from the rich and profitable programs and sharing it with small programs.     Without about a billion dollars in NCAA subsidies there would probably be about half the number of schools playing Div 1 and Div 11 sports other than football.   Likely without NCAA subsidies, those Northern Illinois players (and thousands of others) you worry about would not even be on scholarship...and working at some entry level job somewhere.  

But of course if you want real equality ....might have a rule that no school can have more than one 5* player every other year and two 4* players per class and 40% of all each team's scholarships would have to go to unrated players...….to make sure that Troy and UAB get their share of star talent too, 

[McLoofus 35,182]

On 6/1/2019 at 1:17 PM, AU64 said:

But of course if you want real equality

I didn't say that I did. It seemed that you, however, were saying you support the rule against letting players earn money on their own because programs supported by groups like the REC could pay more. Did I misunderstand you?

[Mikey 16,600]

Players can earn money on their own, but their pay has to be within reason for similar jobs held by non-athletes. If they are allowed to trade on their athletic accomplishments then amateurism is over for college athletes. $5,000 for each autograph will become the low end of autograph sales.

[McLoofus 35,182]

21 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Players can earn money on their own, but their pay has to be within reason for similar jobs held by non-athletes. If they are allowed to trade on their athletic accomplishments then amateurism is over for college athletes. $5,000 for each autograph will become the low end of autograph sales.

And the problem with this is... ?

[Mikey 16,600]

9 hours ago, McLoofus said:

And the problem with this is... ?

A lot of problems with this. Auburn folks could get together and offer Tua $500,000 for one autograph if he transfers to Auburn. Gator fans can promise D. Brown $500,000 for one autograph if he transfers to UF. On and on. If you don't see a problem with that your eyes are closed.

[McLoofus 35,182]

13 hours ago, Mikey said:

A lot of problems with this. Auburn folks could get together and offer Tua $500,000 for one autograph if he transfers to Auburn. Gator fans can promise D. Brown $500,000 for one autograph if he transfers to UF. On and on. If you don't see a problem with that your eyes are closed.

No, I don't see a problem with that, and my eyes aren't closed. 

And I won't accuse you of having your eyes closed, but it is painfully obvious that you lack peripheral vision. 

If this actually became a problem- boosters buying players off of other teams- then it would be easy enough to revert some of the relaxed transfer restrictions and such. See, there are ways forward if you just think about it instead of exhausting yourself trying to come up with excuses to maintain the status quo! That's why we have nice things like hot food and medicine! Progress is fun!

[Mikey 16,600]

17 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

No, I don't see a problem with that, and my eyes aren't closed. 

Then I suggest that you schedule a visit to your  favorite optometrist. It hasn't been that long since UAT boosters paid high school coaches in Memphis $250,000 to steer a prospect, Albert Means, to Tuscaloser. As I said above, opening these floodgates will be the end of amateur college sports. 

Current limits on financial aid to scholarship players can be raised if it's determined that the players are suffering. This maintains balance while helping the players and not upsetting the apple cart.

Do you think an Auburn  booster paying Seth Williams $250,000 for an autograph and slipping Spencer Nigh $100 out of pity is a good idea? Things like that will happen within the space of a few weeks.

The schools producing the most the doctors, lawyers and bankers will buy the best teams available and the Mississippi States of the world will simply close up shop. If you think reducing the number of players getting college scholarships by 90% is a good thing I suggest that you re-think this. The law of unintended consequences is ready to pounce all over this idea of letting college players market their athletic accomplishments.

[aujeff11 6,243]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

this actually became a problem- boosters buying players off of other teams- then it would be easy enough to revert some of the relaxed transfer restrictions and such

But you also advocate for total free agency.  See below

On 5/30/2019 at 3:06 PM, McLoofus said:

 Imagine what could be accomplished if people put this much effort into finding a better solution instead of trying to shoot down each one brought forth.

Simply put: those ideas are trash. I don’t care to have players making 5,000 on autographs in college while the rest of his hard working teammates are not. Don’t care for free agency either. If Asa gets a waiver, we are about to watch Miami turn right around over night and that kind of volatility can go either way. Stability matters. 

My idea for compensation: There could be a team pool of resources. Could be a million dollars maybe even ten million dollars  just sitting there in an Auburn bank account drawing interest and capable of being divided amongst the scholarship players. If the players are “hungry” like the sensationalists say, let them dip into their funds. If the players never dip into it,  they can collect after their collegiate athletic eligibility is up, or simply roll it over into an IRA. If a player transfers, the new school eats the fund. If he drops out of school completely, he doesn’t collect.  

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

44 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Then I suggest that you schedule a visit to your  favorite optometrist. It hasn't been that long since UAT boosters paid high school coaches in Memphis $250,000 to steer a prospect, Albert Means, to Tuscaloser. As I said above, opening these floodgates will be the end of amateur college sports. 

Current limits on financial aid to scholarship players can be raised if it's determined that the players are suffering. This maintains balance while helping the players and not upsetting the apple cart.

Do you think an Auburn  booster paying Seth Williams $250,000 for an autograph and slipping Spencer Nigh $100 out of pity is a good idea? Things like that will happen within the space of a few weeks.

The schools producing the most the doctors, lawyers and bankers will buy the best teams available and the Mississippi States of the world will simply close up shop. If you think reducing the number of players getting college scholarships by 90% is a good thing I suggest that you re-think this. The law of unintended consequences is ready to pounce all over this idea of letting college players market their athletic accomplishments.

So I'll ask you the same thing I asked 64, which he completely avoided answering. Are you in favor of putting a total budget cap on college football programs? To include how much they can spend on coaches, facilities, marketing, etc? I mean, we are already in a have and have-not situation and the only ones who aren't making more money from that are the people who, you know, actually play the game. 

[Mikey 16,600]

14 hours ago, McLoofus said:

So I'll ask you the same thing I asked 64, which he completely avoided answering. Are you in favor of putting a total budget cap on college football programs?

I haven't thought about that. I can see why that question wasn't answered, it has nothing to do with athletes being able to sell their signatures for Big Bucks while they are in college. Start another thread if you want to attract posters who care about budget caps.

My on-point comment is that the idea of allowing players to profit from their popularity as athletes while in college is a horrible idea, because of the consequences I outlined above.

[McLoofus 35,182]

8 hours ago, Mikey said:

I haven't thought about that. I can see why that question wasn't answered, it has nothing to do with athletes being able to sell their signatures for Big Bucks while they are in college. Start another thread if you want to attract posters who care about budget caps.

My on-point comment is that the idea of allowing players to profit from their popularity as athletes while in college is a horrible idea, because of the consequences I outlined above.

Least surprising response possible. You only care about certain teams having an unfair competitive advantage when it benefits the athletes. You haven't even considered the possibility of putting all teams on a level playing field when it comes to compensating the coaches. Thank you for explicitly stating it. 

[Mikey 16,600]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

Least surprising response possible. You only care about certain teams having an unfair competitive advantage when it benefits the athletes. You haven't even considered the possibility of putting all teams on a level playing field when it comes to compensating the coaches. Thank you for explicitly stating it. 

You are welcome. I assume from your remarks that you believe the coach at Birmingham Southern should be paid the same as the coach at Auburn. I don't believe that, but to each his own.

[McLoofus 35,182]

5 minutes ago, Mikey said:

You are welcome. I assume from your remarks that you believe the coach at Birmingham Southern should be paid the same as the coach at Auburn. I don't believe that, but to each his own.

Your assumption is inaccurate and would actually be bizarre if anyone else had made it. 

Just in case anyone is following this- I sure hope they aren't, for their own sake- Mikey has confirmed that some schools being able to afford superior resources to others isn't a problem... until the kids who actually put their bodies on the line for the sport benefit from it. 

 

[cole256 17,077]

1 hour ago, Mikey said:

You are welcome. I assume from your remarks that you believe the coach at Birmingham Southern should be paid the same as the coach at Auburn. I don't believe that, but to each his own.

Here goes the patented Mikey make up something to argue against himself maneuver. It's quite bizarre, like watching a snake eat itself