OK...the financials for college football are beyond stupid.

[Tulsa Tom]

In one year the SEC network went from just beginning to a nearly 5 billion dollar enterprise. That amount of money is insane. I can only imagine what the schools "cut" will be in the future. Frankly, what will they do with all that money? Seriously, isn't there some point where you say to Nick Saban, "I think 20 million dollars a year is enough."

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/08/how_the_sec_network_became_a_n.html

 

[anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi]

In one year the SEC network went from just beginning to a nearly 5 billion dollar enterprise. That amount of money is insane. I can only imagine what the schools "cut" will be in the future. Frankly, what will they do with all that money? Seriously, isn't there some point where you say to Nick Saban, "I think 20 million dollars a year is enough."

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/08/how_the_sec_network_became_a_n.html

We can choose to be holier than thou, but for years as we have stated here, it is a business. The biggest joke is the NCAA claims to be "non-profit". Schools are welcome to start their own division and pay coaches 30 grand a year. Should be a great product.

 

[Tulsa Tom]

We can choose to be holier than thou, but for years as we have stated here, it is a business. The biggest joke is the NCAA claims to be "non-profit". Schools are welcome to start their own division and pay coaches 30 grand a year. Should be a great product.

If it is a business...then pay the ones on the field who make the money. IF the SEC can have it's TV network grow by 5 billion in a year there is plenty of money around. The argument that the players "are getting enough with a scholarship" is growing lamer by the minute.

 

[anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi]

If it is a business...then pay the ones on the field who make the money. IF the SEC can have it's TV network grow by 5 billion in a year there is plenty of money around. The argument that the players "are getting enough with a scholarship" is growing lamer by the minute.

Agree, but someone besides the NCAA needs to be in charge to regulate it. Power 5 should agree on pay for scholarship players. No more 4-year guaranteed nonsense either

 

[B1G RED RULES]

If it is a business...then pay the ones on the field who make the money. IF the SEC can have it's TV network grow by 5 billion in a year there is plenty of money around. The argument that the players "are getting enough with a scholarship" is growing lamer by the minute.

Okay, so you say the players needs to be paid. I disagree. They walk into a ready made system. They do not design the plays, they do not design the strength program, they do not arrange the TV contracts, they do not market the brand, etc. They simply come in and follow a very detailed system that has been designed by somebody else. And this system is successful - before they step foot into campus and after the walk off go good. They simply walk into the assembly line and do their assigned task.

Does a coach make a difference? Well - how were the Huskers doing before Devaney? How did Solich do after TO handed him the keys to a custom made Harley? A coach plays a huge part in putting asses in the seats and helping the fans determine if they are going to fork out their hard earned money for products. Look at how Miami fills the stands these days.

Many would agree Saban is worth every dollar - he has had overwhelming success most everywhere he has went. That is not an accident.

 

[LBremser]

If it is a business...then pay the ones on the field who make the money. IF the SEC can have it's TV network grow by 5 billion in a year there is plenty of money around. The argument that the players "are getting enough with a scholarship" is growing lamer by the minute.

1. if you pay the football players, you are going to have to pay all of the athletes, especially the women, or title IX suits will fly
2. only about 10-12% of college athletic departments are currently self-sufficient, paying college athletes for the remaining 80% will require additional subsidies from the university
3. who sets the pay amount? do all scholarship players get paid, even if they aren't playing? what about walk-ons?
4. what happens to recruiting for the less fortunate conferences who can't afford to pay?

I'm all for giving student athletes some stipend money to cover additional living expenses, but paying them would be the first step to minor leagues for football.

 

[redfanusa]

All I know is that I like the "NFL Lite" less every year.

 

[puddinhead0404]

Okay, so you say the players needs to be paid. I disagree. They walk into a ready made system. They do not design the plays, they do not design the strength program, they do not arrange the TV contracts, they do not market the brand, etc. They simply come in and follow a very detailed system that has been designed by somebody else. And this system is successful - before they step foot into campus and after the walk off go good. They simply walk into the assembly line and do their assigned task.

Does a coach make a difference? Well - how were the Huskers doing before Devaney? How did Solich do after TO handed him the keys to a custom made Harley? A coach plays a huge part in putting asses in the seats and helping the fans determine if they are going to fork out their hard earned money for products. Look at how Miami fills the stands these days.

Many would agree Saban is worth every dollar - he has had overwhelming success most everywhere he has went. That is not an accident.

Dang, if I would have known it was so easy to step in and just be a football player I would have played for Nebraska. Probably too late for me now.

 

[Tulsa Tom]

Okay, so you say the players needs to be paid. I disagree. They walk into a ready made system. They do not design the plays, they do not design the strength program, they do not arrange the TV contracts, they do not market the brand, etc. They simply come in and follow a very detailed system that has been designed by somebody else. And this system is successful - before they step foot into campus and after the walk off go good. They simply walk into the assembly line and do their assigned task.

Does a coach make a difference? Well - how were the Huskers doing before Devaney? How did Solich do after TO handed him the keys to a custom made Harley? A coach plays a huge part in putting asses in the seats and helping the fans determine if they are going to fork out their hard earned money for products. Look at how Miami fills the stands these days.

Many would agree Saban is worth every dollar - he has had overwhelming success most everywhere he has went. That is not an accident.

You cannot be serious. Go check out the salaries of players in the NFL and those of NFL coaches. The NFL knows that good football is mostly the result of good players. If coaches were so important then they would be the highest paid person on the team.

In good college programs some coaches make more than virtually ALL of the players combined. (And before you talk about what universities scholarship players, please know that the scholarship may say it is worth $20,000 a year, but you and I both know it doesn't cost the college the full $20,000 to house and educate the player). To say that Mike Riley has more to do with the success of the program than all the players on the team is ludicrous.

 

[Tulsa Tom]

1. if you pay the football players, you are going to have to pay all of the athletes, especially the women, or title IX suits will fly
2. only about 10-12% of college athletic departments are currently self-sufficient, paying college athletes for the remaining 80% will require additional subsidies from the university
3. who sets the pay amount? do all scholarship players get paid, even if they aren't playing? what about walk-ons?
4. what happens to recruiting for the less fortunate conferences who can't afford to pay?

I'm all for giving student athletes some stipend money to cover additional living expenses, but paying them would be the first step to minor leagues for football.

If we are intent on limiting football players from reaping the fruits of the monies they created because it is not fair to other athletes, why don't we say the same thing about coaches? When billions of dollars are entering the system and we refuse to give the athletes any increase other than some chump change, it won't be long before coaches and AD's are making tens of millions of dollars.

In the end people argue for "free enterprise" for coaches and ADs while they argue against the principle of "to each according to his ability" for players.

 

[anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi]

If we are intent on limiting football players from reaping the fruits of the monies they created because it is not fair to other athletes, why don't we say the same thing about coaches? When billions of dollars are entering the system and we refuse to give the athletes any increase other than some chump change, it won't be long before coaches and AD's are making tens of millions of dollars.

In the end people argue for "free enterprise" for coaches and ADs while they argue against the principle of "to each according to his ability" for players.

People by-in-large would likely agree with your stance. But I am guessing by your liberal posting history, that you support the "lesser" athletes that these programs support (title 9). Do they get nothing or do we ignore that lawsuits would be coming like crazy, and would cripple about 90 percent of athletic departments?

 

[NikkiSixx]

on a related note, i wonder what happens when more and more people cut their cable and satellite tv.. how will the networks pay those big sports contracts? With declining subscribers and then reduced advertising revenue, it could cause some trouble. TV of the future is going to change, and most consumers will be okay with that, but will advertisers be willing to pay a higher premium to market to fewer numbers of people?

 

[LBremser]

If we are intent on limiting football players from reaping the fruits of the monies they created because it is not fair to other athletes, why don't we say the same thing about coaches? When billions of dollars are entering the system and we refuse to give the athletes any increase other than some chump change, it won't be long before coaches and AD's are making tens of millions of dollars.

In the end people argue for "free enterprise" for coaches and ADs while they argue against the principle of "to each according to his ability" for players.

I"m not happy about funneling the increasing revenues into coaches salaries, paying ADs far more than they are worth, builiding lavish athletic facilities, etc. either. I just dont' think paying college student/athletes is the answer. If I were king for a day, I would require schools to set aside money to allow athletes to go to school for free for a couple of years after their eligibility runs out to finish up a degree or get a degree in a major that is marketable. I think that would be a lot more beneficial over a lifetime than some extra money thrown at them that would go immediately to a new car.

 

[Tulsa Tom]

People by-in-large would likely agree with your stance. But I am guessing by your liberal posting history, that you support the "lesser" athletes that these programs support (title 9). Do they get nothing or do we ignore that lawsuits would be coming like crazy, and would cripple about 90 percent of athletic departments?

I don't see why the other athletes would have a change. If this is really a business, then pay the football players and don't call them student-athletes. This would solve most of the issue.

 

[bigboxes]

All I know is that I like the "NFL Lite" less every year.

That's exactly what I said would happen if we moved to a playoff. It just gets worse each year. First, the tv networks covered what was out there. Then they drove the change in conference realignment. After messing up all the tradition that had built up for a century they pushed for a playoff. Hard. You had the tradition folks finally agreeing with the playoff folks because it was so far changed that you may as well rip the bandaid off and get over with it. It wasn't like Nebraska was playing OU every year. Texas wasn't playing A&M. More money, more games, a playoff was absolutely necessary. Don't get me wrong. Last year's "playoffs" were great. However, the season becomes less exciting as we go down that road. Regional rivalries become less important than money. Coverage increases but meaning decreases. Sad.

 

[anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi]

I don't see why the other athletes would have a change. If this is really a business, then pay the football players and don't call them student-athletes. This would solve most of the issue.

That is truly a head-in-the-sand stance. This sue-happy culture that the country is in (as a direct result of "how dare I be offended" stances) would have a field day with that.

 

[Tulsa Tom]

Walter Byers had a lot of regrets over what he did to the landscape of college sports.

"Usually the inventor knows his creation best. Walter Byers, who became the first executive director of the NCAA in 1951, turned a toothless organization into one that controls college sports. He grew disenchanted with his creation, however, writing in his 1995 memoir that the NCAA is 'firmly committed to the neoplantation belief that the enormous proceeds from games belong to the overseers (the administrators) and supervisors (coaches). The plantation workers performing in the arena may receive only those benefits authorized by the overseers.'"

This is from the best article on the subject that I have seen written.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120071/ncaa-college-sports-arent-slavery-theyre-jim-crow

 

[littleton tiger]

The top 80 programs should break away from the NCAA and start regulating and policing themselves. The remaining 1-A schools can go back to 1-AA. Using a simple business model if your program makes sufficient profit, pay the players a share. If the program doesn't make enough money the players don't get paid. Simple.

 

[bigboxes]

The top 80 programs should break away from the NCAA and start regulating and policing themselves. The remaining 1-A schools can go back to 1-AA. Using a simple business model if your program makes sufficient profit, pay the players a share. If the program doesn't make enough money the players don't get paid. Simple.

My prediction was 30. NFL Lite here we come!

 

[anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi]

Walter Byers had a lot of regrets over what he did to the landscape of college sports.

"Usually the inventor knows his creation best. Walter Byers, who became the first executive director of the NCAA in 1951, turned a toothless organization into one that controls college sports. He grew disenchanted with his creation, however, writing in his 1995 memoir that the NCAA is 'firmly committed to the neoplantation belief that the enormous proceeds from games belong to the overseers (the administrators) and supervisors (coaches). The plantation workers performing in the arena may receive only those benefits authorized by the overseers.'"

This is from the best article on the subject that I have seen written.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120071/ncaa-college-sports-arent-slavery-theyre-jim-crow

Do you have full-blown A.D.D.? It seems you can never follow a threads path and discussion.

 

[Nebraska Fan]

In one year the SEC network went from just beginning to a nearly 5 billion dollar enterprise. That amount of money is insane. I can only imagine what the schools "cut" will be in the future. Frankly, what will they do with all that money? Seriously, isn't there some point where you say to Nick Saban, "I think 20 million dollars a year is enough."

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/08/how_the_sec_network_became_a_n.html

Honestly I would take away the tax breaks on tv revenue for the power 5. They keep finding ways to piss it away.

 

[Tulsa Tom]

Boxes...I agree with you completely. We have seen the turning to NFL Lite and the product is becoming worse all the time. I wish there was a way to put this all back in the box called pre 1985 but this will never happen.

IMO greed is what brought all of this on. Colleges began chasing the dollar...doing whatever it takes to get the biggest TV contracts...chasing after huge profits from sneaker companies...pricing people out of the stadiums...etc. However, I still think the whole facade could have withstood a few more decades if the universities would take the money and spread it across not only the athletic department but the university as a whole. Once coaches start making seven million dollar salaries and AD's start making more than a million dollars themselves...once stadiums and locker rooms become plush palaces...once video screens start covering half a field...it's hard to say to players, "You will keep taking this scholarship, shut up, and play for the love of the game."

 

[Tulsa Tom]

Do you have full-blown A.D.D.? It seems you can never follow a threads path and discussion.

Nahhh...I started the thread. I don't have to take the thread the way you want it to go.

However, it seems like you want a response to your question about the practicalities of letting the players enjoy the fruit of their profit without the universities getting sued because of Title IX. It's simple. Just do one of two things:

1. Let the athletes unionize and treat them as employees. Basically reverse Walter Byer's made up notion of student-athlete. Or...

2. Take the monies and spread them across the whole university. Make athletic spending per athlete equal across the whole university, and make coaches salaries equal across the whole university...and equal to professor's pay.

As long as a Jim Crow-like situation continues to exist where coaches and administrators reap much of the profits at the expense of athletes, and do so at absurd levels, there will also be lawsuits.

 

[jimbosc]

I like eggs.....I looooovvveeeee eggs!

 

[littleton tiger]

I kinda agree with Tom except that I would pay all athletes the same percentage of profits generated by their sport. I absolutely would not pay someone if their sport didn't generate a positive cash flow.

 

[anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi]

I kinda agree with Tom except that I would pay all athletes the same percentage of profits generated by their sport. I absolutely would not pay someone if their sport didn't generate a positive cash flow.

In a vacuum, that would be great! I totally agree. To think that it would be feasible in the hyper-sensitive culture the libtards have created is just not realistic.

 

[HuskerTimOmaha]

To say that Mike Riley has more to do with the success of the program than all the players on the team is ludicrous.

Bill Callahan and Ndamukong Suh agree!

I do agree players should get a stipend, not sure how much though. Currently, for an out-of-state (football) student-athlete scholarship player, the athletic department pays around $30,000 per year to the University and in-state (football) scholarship player, the athletic department pays around $20,000 per year to the University

 

[scottym800]

Okay, so you say the players needs to be paid. I disagree. They walk into a ready made system. They do not design the plays, they do not design the strength program, they do not arrange the TV contracts, they do not market the brand, etc. They simply come in and follow a very detailed system that has been designed by somebody else. And this system is successful - before they step foot into campus and after the walk off go good. They simply walk into the assembly line and do their assigned task.

Does a coach make a difference? Well - how were the Huskers doing before Devaney? How did Solich do after TO handed him the keys to a custom made Harley? A coach plays a huge part in putting asses in the seats and helping the fans determine if they are going to fork out their hard earned money for products. Look at how Miami fills the stands these days.

Many would agree Saban is worth every dollar - he has had overwhelming success most everywhere he has went. That is not an accident.

This argument would apply to the NFL as well. So really it is no argument at all.

 

[B1G RED RULES]

In one year the SEC network went from just beginning to a nearly 5 billion dollar enterprise. That amount of money is insane. I can only imagine what the schools "cut" will be in the future. Frankly, what will they do with all that money? Seriously, isn't there some point where you say to Nick Saban, "I think 20 million dollars a year is enough."

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/08/how_the_sec_network_became_a_n.html

Tom - you focus a lot about what other people make. That is a tough way to go through life - coveting your neighbor. It never ends - somebody will always have more than you. You are going to be frustrated till the day you die. That is too bad.

I'm happy to be able to watch my favorite team play every week on TV. I don't get wrapped up in all the other BS. If I have a problem, I quit spending money on it. If enough people feel the same way, changes will happen.

 

[Tulsa Tom]

Big Red Rules...then why do you care whether or not athletes get paid for what they produce? You have gone on record saying that athletes get plenty. If you don't care what people make, then you should be fine with athletes getting a piece of the multi-billion dollar pie.

As far as myself coveting what others make...I think you would find yourself sadly mistaken if you looked at my life and seen what I have chosen to make versus what I could have made.

 

[anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi]

Big Red Rules...then why do you care whether or not athletes get paid for what they produce? You have gone on record saying that athletes get plenty. If you don't care what people make, then you should be fine with athletes getting a piece of the multi-billion dollar pie.

As far as myself coveting what others make...I think you would find yourself sadly mistaken if you looked at my life and seen what I have chosen to make versus what I could have made.

Woe is you

 

[nebcountry]

Long read. Don't read it if you're gonna be a whiney baby over the length.

Paying just the football players really does open a can of worms. Not from a student-athlete perspective, but from a business/financial perspective. Straight from the UNL funding page:

The chart on the left is 1990 data, right is 2010 data on where funding comes from for the university system (not just athletics). As a taxpayer (I would guess I'm not alone), it would be hard to stomach paying kids to play a game when UNL is receiving over 40% of it's funding from taxes.

Okay, so let's look at this from just the athletic department's viewpoint. UNL athletics is fortunate to take in more money than it spends. There are more athletic dept's spending more than they make. According to one writer for SBN, 20 athletic dept's made money in 2013. I can't link the graphic showing the financials, so here's a link to the page: SBN article. So what will all the other schools not making money do? Cut out any sports teams not making money? Allocate more tax subsidies to pay the football players? Will conferences remove requirements on minimum participation requirements?

So let's treat the athletics department (AD) as a stand-alone business. Who pays for facility maintenance, upgrades, and operating costs = The AD. Who pays for the cost of tuition, room & board = The AD. BTW, the AD will need to buy all of the athletic dorms, the arena, indoor practice facility, the stadium, etc. Who pays for coaches, trainers, physicians, equipment managers, the person who cuts the effin' grass = The AD.

This argument of paying college football players needs to be well thought out, otherwise it's just ernie chambers rhetoric.

 

[anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi]

Long read. Don't read it if you're gonna be a whiney baby over the length.

Paying just the football players really does open a can of worms. Not from a student-athlete perspective, but from a business/financial perspective. Straight from the UNL funding page:

The chart on the left is 1990 data, right is 2010 data on where funding comes from for the university system (not just athletics). As a taxpayer (I would guess I'm not alone), it would be hard to stomach paying kids to play a game when UNL is receiving over 40% of it's funding from taxes.

Okay, so let's look at this from just the athletic department's viewpoint. UNL athletics is fortunate to take in more money than it spends. There are more athletic dept's spending more than they make. According to one writer for SBN, 20 athletic dept's made money in 2013. I can't link the graphic showing the financials, so here's a link to the page: SBN article. So what will all the other schools not making money do? Cut out any sports teams not making money? Allocate more tax subsidies to pay the football players? Will conferences remove requirements on minimum participation requirements?

So let's treat the athletics department (AD) as a stand-alone business. Who pays for facility maintenance, upgrades, and operating costs = The AD. Who pays for the cost of tuition, room & board = The AD. BTW, the AD will need to buy all of the athletic dorms, the arena, indoor practice facility, the stadium, etc. Who pays for coaches, trainers, physicians, equipment managers, the person who cuts the effin' grass = The AD.

This argument of paying college football players needs to be well thought out, otherwise it's just ernie chambers rhetoric.

#Boom. You mean it is more than just petty hurt feelings because an individual buys the conspiracies and hates the administration? You mean the sheep are possibly wrong?

 

[Tulsa Tom]

Long read. Don't read it if you're gonna be a whiney baby over the length.

Paying just the football players really does open a can of worms. Not from a student-athlete perspective, but from a business/financial perspective. Straight from the UNL funding page:

The chart on the left is 1990 data, right is 2010 data on where funding comes from for the university system (not just athletics). As a taxpayer (I would guess I'm not alone), it would be hard to stomach paying kids to play a game when UNL is receiving over 40% of it's funding from taxes.

Okay, so let's look at this from just the athletic department's viewpoint. UNL athletics is fortunate to take in more money than it spends. There are more athletic dept's spending more than they make. According to one writer for SBN, 20 athletic dept's made money in 2013. I can't link the graphic showing the financials, so here's a link to the page: SBN article. So what will all the other schools not making money do? Cut out any sports teams not making money? Allocate more tax subsidies to pay the football players? Will conferences remove requirements on minimum participation requirements?

So let's treat the athletics department (AD) as a stand-alone business. Who pays for facility maintenance, upgrades, and operating costs = The AD. Who pays for the cost of tuition, room & board = The AD. BTW, the AD will need to buy all of the athletic dorms, the arena, indoor practice facility, the stadium, etc. Who pays for coaches, trainers, physicians, equipment managers, the person who cuts the effin' grass = The AD.

This argument of paying college football players needs to be well thought out, otherwise it's just ernie chambers rhetoric.

Really good stuff here. There are real costs that must be taken into account. You say it would be hard to stomach paying players. Is it also hard to stomach paying coaches and an AD millions...like eight times more than the Chancellor?

 

[WestCoastCornhusker]

If Notre Dame doesn't join a conference their revenue stream will be tiny compared to Purdue's and Vanderbilt's.

 

[anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi]

If Notre Dame doesn't join a conference their revenue stream will be tiny compared to Purdue's and Vanderbilt's.

Huh?

 

[nebcountry]

Really good stuff here. There are real costs that must be taken into account. You say it would be hard to stomach paying players. Is it also hard to stomach paying coaches and an AD millions...like eight times more than the Chancellor?

Tom, I'm not being a smart aleck here. For the majority of college football players, football won't be career for them. When it's all said and done they are students. I'm not willing to pay every kid to go take a biology class, art class, etc. But, I have no problem paying the professors/instructors, just like I have no problem paying coaches. Are the coaches paid too much, that's up to personal opinion. Athletics in an academic settings are to serve a higher purpose other than just winning games. Does that "higher purpose" justify the coaching pay, I would say no, but it's set by market value.

While a university is like a business, it's not a business. It's an institution set up for the greater good. It costs money to run a university. Paying college football players is not for the greater good.

 

[Tulsa Tom]

Tom, I'm not being a smart aleck here. For the majority of college football players, football won't be career for them. When it's all said and done they are students. I'm not willing to pay every kid to go take a biology class, art class, etc. But, I have no problem paying the professors/instructors, just like I have no problem paying coaches. Are the coaches paid too much, that's up to personal opinion. Athletics in an academic settings are to serve a higher purpose other than just winning games. Does that "higher purpose" justify the coaching pay, I would say no, but it's set by market value.

While a university is like a business, it's not a business. It's an institution set up for the greater good. It costs money to run a university. Paying college football players is not for the greater good.

I appreciate the perspective. I don't have a problem with saying football players (or professors) should be in it for the greater good. But we should say the same about football coaches too. This whole system was insipidly put together by Walter Byers and the NCAA starting in the '50's. Just as this 40-year President of the NCAA sought to change this corrupt system, so should we.

 

[WestCoastCornhusker]

Huh?

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/colleg...-comparing-tv-revenue-to-the-sec-and-big-ten/

 

[anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi]

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/colleg...-comparing-tv-revenue-to-the-sec-and-big-ten/

The domers can command whatever they please for TV rights. Like it or not that school is backed by more money than any.