Regarding the NFL playing games on Saturday's Google the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961. You will see that the act basically by law prohibits the NFL from playing games on Friday and Saturday. The law prevents the NFL from playing games on Friday and Saturday during the regular seasons of high school and college football. This is why the NFL has Thursday night football as opposed to Friday. It is also why during the NFL playoffs there are some games in Saturday (college football is no longer in its regular season).

beelzebear;842301412 said:

---

Cal like most schools have student-employees on work study, PT. It's not a stretch to consider revenue sports student-athletes get paid something along the lines of other work study students: hourly for practice and future medical considerations.

---

Your argument is faulty. Every other student is hired for work-study only after going through the admission process and getting chosen out of the pool of the other 70,000 applicants.
If we accept your analogy, in the case of recruits the student is hired as a player then given priority in admission ahead of the other 70,000 students.

The recruit not only given a free education for which the other accepted applicants must pay tuition, room, board and books totaling at least $20,000 - $30,000 per year.
BUT MORE IMPORTANT he is guaranteed a slot among the chosen few admittees. That is worth a heck a of a lot. I would be willing to bet that a large number of well-heeled Cal alums would be willing to pay a healthy bonus to Cal to guaranty their kids a place in the entering Freshman class.

careful, once you move away from a truly free market, you have to start to make value judgements about what is 'fair'

the problem with that is different people have different opinions of what is fair

it's clear there is going to be change, and there should be, but the rhetoric around this issue is irritating

KevBear;842301433 said:

---

You'll note that I am not generally referring to a "free" market. I generally refer to a "fair" market, which is a market that is regulated to curtail practices that result in inefficiency or threaten individual commercial rights. I'm aware that "free" markets are unicorns.

---

HoopDreams;842301496 said:

---

careful, once you move away from a truly free market, you have to start to make value judgements about what is 'fair'

the problem with that is different people have different opinions of what is fair

---

Of course you do. What's the alternative?

Cal hasn't been there in my lifetime. Assuming the Rose Bowl remains a big game nationally, and assuming Cal does not seriously compete now for the Rose Bowl (this is not a jab at Sonny, it's about Cal's half century futility), and assuming Cal will not be able or willing to pay for players who can get Cal to the Rose Bowl, what does Cal play for going forward?

KevBear;842301429 said:

---

This doesn't make much sense to me. Why do college teams lose any source of infrastructure funding if some proposal that augments the player's compensation is adopted?

---

If you look at stadium financing deals for pro teams, most if not all of the stadiums are financed using a majority of public funding and tax breaks for the franchise. This makes sense based on the amount of revenue the games bring to the local cities as the argument is that the city receives increased tax revenue as a result. I don't necessarily agree with these arguments as if people weren't out watching the local team play, most of them would still probably be out watching other teams play and still drinking/eating, or doing other activities that contribute to tax revenue... but I'm sure these are based on at least a few studies on the subject.

The problem comes that, colleges do not necessarily get such broad funding windfalls for their stadiums/facilities. While public universities do get some public funding generally, this isn't typically to be used for large stadium financing (see Memorial upgrades). Even worse, I feel that if athletes are employees and the AD transitions into a for-profit division of the public universities, then even less public financing will be available for the AD. In other words, college ADs will have to pay for their facilities where the pro sports teams of the area do not (this is a large cost that eats into your profit figures above). While this doesn't really affect the current cost structure of the NCAA institutions, I am simply saying that you can't compare the financials of the pro teams with the financials of NCAA teams because they will be fundamentally different.

Furthermore, even if you think that the colleges could make the same claim to receiving public funds as the pro teams, you would be wrong, because the same budget can't handle the large increase in the number of stadiums that the politicians might like to fund.

1979bear;842301531 said:

---

Cal hasn't been there in my lifetime. Assuming the Rose Bowl remains a big game nationally, and assuming Cal does not seriously compete now for the Rose Bowl (this is not a jab at Sonny, it's about Cal's half century futility), and assuming Cal will not be able or willing to pay for players who can get Cal to the Rose Bowl, what does Cal play for going forward?

---

That is the Division II championship game. KevBear's discussion is entertaining theoretically, but my interest is in what his world would look like. My guess is that Division I competition would be limited to schools in places where there's no professional sports competition, and therefore the fan base goes well beyond students and alumni, providing the revenue to give players a larger piece of the pie. Think Kansas and the Tobacco Road area in basketball, Alabama, Columbus, Ohio and Ann Arbor, Michigan and Los Angeles in football. That doesn't describe Northwestern (Chicago) or Cal (Bay Area) for example. I would guess those schools leave Division I in revenue sports, and require top-level non-revenue sports to support themselves through contributions. Title IX women's sports would take a huge hit as well.

I actually could live with this, because I think in KevBear's world, the idea of student-athletes in football and basketball becomes even more farcical than it is now. That's where I get off the bus.

Jeff82;842301576 said:

---

That is the Division II championship game. KevBear's discussion is entertaining theoretically, but my interest is in what his world would look like. My guess is that Division I competition would be limited to schools in places where there's no professional sports competition, and therefore the fan base goes well beyond students and alumni, providing the revenue to give players a larger piece of the pie. Think Kansas and the Tobacco Road area in basketball, Alabama, Columbus, Ohio and Ann Arbor, Michigan and Los Angeles in football. That doesn't describe Northwestern (Chicago) or Cal (Bay Area) for example. I would guess those schools leave Division I in revenue sports, and require top-level non-revenue sports to support themselves through contributions. Title IX women's sports would take a huge hit as well.

I actually could live with this, because I think in KevBear's world, the idea of student-athletes in football and basketball becomes even more farcical than it is now. That's where I get off the bus.

---

i agree, in the pay for play world, the big schools with big fanbases and large revenue streams will benefit. Cal is not one of those schools. I dont believe that its in Cal's best interest that this happens

gobears725;842301599 said:

---

i agree, in the pay for play world, the big schools with big fanbases and large revenue streams will benefit. Cal is not one of those schools. I dont believe that its in Cal's best interest that this happens

---

I only want to root for players if I think there's some semblance of a connection between their experience in college and mine. I'm not sure that's likely in the pay-for-play world, so in that case I might be just as happy to root for Cal to win at a less-pressurized level of competition.

The bright side might be football games that start at 12:30 every Saturday, basketball games on Friday and Saturday nights, like they used to be, and an end to ceaseless promotions at every timeout. The only downside would probably be having to listen to road games only on the radio, or not hear them at all.

GivemTheAxe;842301489 said:

---

Your argument is faulty. Every other student is hired for work-study only after going through the admission process and getting chosen out of the pool of the other 70,000 applicants.
If we accept your analogy, in the case of recruits the student is hired as a player then given priority in admission ahead of the other 70,000 students.

The recruit not only given a free education for which the other accepted applicants must pay tuition, room, board and books totaling at least $20,000 - $30,000 per year.
BUT MORE IMPORTANT he is guaranteed a slot among the chosen few admittees. That is worth a heck a of a lot. I would be willing to bet that a large number of well-heeled Cal alums would be willing to pay a healthy bonus to Cal to guaranty their kids a place in the entering Freshman class.

---

So how are you going to pay the players? See that is going to happen, not if, but when. So how are colleges going to pay D1 revenue sports players who collectively make the NCAA a net profit of $1billion+ per year.

Work study isn't ideal but at least it gets to the core issue within the conventional context currently ready.

I'm not trying to argue one outcome or another
What I am trying to do is have a reasonable debate without all the riot words.
My original post was trying to point out that the negotiation should be based on value not cost, and one of the costs I don't see talked about was of the professional national marketing platform and campaign provided to players

Others want to argue theoretical free market concepts, but I was simply pointing out that there are few truly free markets operating, and so we will ultimately be back to making value judgements

Now how these are often worked out is negotiations between the parties. However even this is extremely difficult for many reasons. Example: not all parties are in the negotiation... The NFL and NBA

I don't see the same problem in college baseball. Why not?

Bottom line is I don't know what the alternative is. Many people smarter than me are trying to figure that out

KevBear;842301497 said:

---

Of course you do. What's the alternative?

---

briloker;842301556 said:

---

If you look at stadium financing deals for pro teams, most if not all of the stadiums are financed using a majority of public funding and tax breaks for the franchise. This makes sense based on the amount of revenue the games bring to the local cities as the argument is that the city receives increased tax revenue as a result. I don't necessarily agree with these arguments as if people weren't out watching the local team play, most of them would still probably be out watching other teams play and still drinking/eating, or doing other activities that contribute to tax revenue... but I'm sure these are based on at least a few studies on the subject.

The problem comes that, colleges do not necessarily get such broad funding windfalls for their stadiums/facilities. While public universities do get some public funding generally, this isn't typically to be used for large stadium financing (see Memorial upgrades). Even worse, I feel that if athletes are employees and the AD transitions into a for-profit division of the public universities, then even less public financing will be available for the AD. In other words, college ADs will have to pay for their facilities where the pro sports teams of the area do not (this is a large cost that eats into your profit figures above). While this doesn't really affect the current cost structure of the NCAA institutions, I am simply saying that you can't compare the financials of the pro teams with the financials of NCAA teams because they will be fundamentally different.

Furthermore, even if you think that the colleges could make the same claim to receiving public funds as the pro teams, you would be wrong, because the same budget can't handle the large increase in the number of stadiums that the politicians might like to fund.

---

No, you miss understand me. I'm asking, why would college teams lose their current sources of infrastructure funding? College teams get things built now without access to the same volume of public funds that pro teams do. Why does this change in a world where we give the players more money?

KevBear;842301676 said:

---

No, you miss understand me. I'm asking, why would college teams lose their current sources of infrastructure funding? College teams get things built now without access to the same volume of public funds that pro teams do. Why does this change in a world where we give the players more money?

---

If college players are deemed professionals and not student athletes, my guess would be that athletics would no longer be considered part of the educational mission. I would guess that the money earmarked for athletics (including capital projects) would get diverted back to the school and academics. I also doubt that the state and city/county would be willing to divert funding to support another professional team. There's already pushback in the NFL, NBA and MLB and they're the highest level.

slider643;842301713 said:

---

If college players are deemed professionals and not student athletes, my guess would be that athletics would no longer be considered part of the educational mission. I would guess that the money earmarked for athletics (including capital projects) would get diverted back to the school and academics. I also doubt that the state and city/county would be willing to divert funding to support another professional team. There's already pushback in the NFL, NBA and MLB and they're the highest level.

---

What about the donors we depend on now. .. I'm guessing some of those sources would dry up as well

SRBear;842301740 said:

---

What about the donors we depend on now. .. I'm guessing some of those sources would dry up as well

---

That is another elephant in the room. Nobody donates to the local minor league baseball team stadium fund or pays them for a PSL. The players union won't be buying ESP seats or picking up the tab for a $400 million stadium.

KevBear;842301676 said:

---

No, you miss understand me. I'm asking, why would college teams lose their current sources of infrastructure funding? College teams get things built now without access to the same volume of public funds that pro teams do. Why does this change in a world where we give the players more money?

---

I'm not saying they would necessarily lose such funding (they might when the university decides that the ADS have to support themselves and won't give them any subsidies), just that you can't really make a fair comparison between the economics of professional teams giving players 30-50% of revenue and potential college teams doing the same since the cost structure of the teams will be different.

beelzebear;842301607 said:

---

So how are you going to pay the players? See that is going to happen, not if, but when. So how are colleges going to pay D1 revenue sports players who collectively make the NCAA a net profit of $1billion+ per year.

Work study isn't ideal but at least it gets to the core issue within the conventional context currently ready.

---

As HoopDreams and other posters above have pointed out, the players are at present already receiving compensation for playing:
What the player gets:
1. scholarship
2. room and board
3. professional level skill development in their sport
4. professional level training (e.g. weight training, nutrition, etc)
5. developing and growing players brand
6. national exposure, PR, advertising
7. assistance with obtaining the 'interview' with future potential employers

In addition they are getting (i) guaranteed admission to universities where they would have little chance of admission without their football skills and (ii) personalized tutoring at a level that is not available to other students.

All of this should be taken into account in balancing the scales.

To a limited extent I can sympathize with the players when they are asking for continued scholarship/academic/health care support from the university if they get injured and cannot play.

But any greater compensation has (as has been mentioned by others) the potential for (i) allowing the BIG DOGS (teams with greater access to money) to pay more than the rest of the NCAA and to cement their status at the top of the heap.
(ii) destroying college football as we know it.

68great;842301958 said:

---

As HoopDreams and other posters above have pointed out, the players are at present already receiving compensation for playing:
What the player gets:
1. scholarship
2. room and board
3. professional level skill development in their sport
4. professional level training (e.g. weight training, nutrition, etc)
5. developing and growing players brand
6. national exposure, PR, advertising
7. assistance with obtaining the 'interview' with future potential employers

In addition they are getting (i) guaranteed admission to universities where they would have little chance of admission without their football skills and (ii) personalized tutoring at a level that is not available to other students.

All of this should be taken into account in balancing the scales.

To a limited extent I can sympathize with the players when they are asking for continued scholarship/academic/health care support from the university if they get injured and cannot play.

But any greater compensation has (as has been mentioned by others) the potential for (i) allowing the BIG DOGS (teams with greater access to money) to pay more than the rest of the NCAA and to cement their status at the top of the heap.
(ii) destroying college football as we know it.

---

III) first choice of classes. It took me an extra semester to graduate just because in my first three years i struggled to get into all the classes i needed to satisfy my breath requirements.

IV) athletes are also introduced into a social network of other athletes, counselors and other support that regular students dont have that makes it easier for them. I know a good advisor posts on this board and hes a fantastic advisor. I never knew this good advisor until my junior year. How things probably could have been easier had i known someone like him earlier, but im sure athletes are introduced to him very early on when they get to campus

Interesting take on all this in the latest Newsweek:


http://www.newsweek.com/what-uconns-victory-says-about-slave-catchers-245207

SonOfCalVa;842301340 said:

---

Reading, writing, critical thinking ... necessary at good to excellent academic schools to get a degree. For many, if not most, players, getting a scholarship is the only means to attend Cal or any decent university.
Without question, football requires a lot of time, including getting to and from the stadium and, after practice, recovering from fatigue and dings and diving back into the books and papers to write.

Why? I'd love to see a decent study with a huge sample asking just two questions:
1) How important is it to you to get to the NFL?
2) How important is it to you to get a good education and a degree?
Brazinski (as demonstrated) would have scored the first question low, the second question high. Alex Mack would have scored both questions high.
Most SEC players would probably score the first high and probably wouldn't understand the second (maybe even writing in "WTF").

So, how realistic is the NFL as a goal? This chart was on a Yenser tweet. Probably used by most or all of our coaches in recruiting.
_____________________________________
Football Recruiting by the numbers

High School Football Players 1,086,627
High School Football Seniors 310,465
NCAA Football Players 70,147
NCAA Freshman Players 20,042
% of Players HS to NCAA 6.5%
NCAA Senior playing 15,588
Players Scouted by NFL 6,500
Players Invited to Combine 350
Players Drafted 256
Rookies Making NFL Team 300
% of Players NCAA to NFL 1.6%
NFL Players reaching Year 4 150
2014 NFL Minimum Salary $420,000
Income After Taxes (est.) $252,000

So, if you're lucky enough to be one of the 6.5% to become a college football player, and one of the 1.5% of that group to make it to the NFL, you'll be lucky to get three years out of it. At a minimum salary, you won't make enough to live on for the rest of your life.
What's going to provide you and your family after football is over?
Your college education!

---

Many people seem to think that every athlete is only using college to make it to the pros. As witnessed by the numbers above, only a small fraction of those that go to ANY college will ever have spend a single day in the NFL, much less make a career out of it. Hopefully, these kids will realize the ultimate value of the college experience is the diploma. Yes, my teammates that went to the NFL made more money than me for the first couple of years. However, those of us who graduated got the last laugh. We are making much more money with our diplomas than any of them made playing in the NFL. Plus, we are continuing to earn 20+ years later. Think big picture kids.

Son-of-California;842302085 said:

---

Many people seem to think that every athlete is only using college to make it to the pros. As witnessed by the numbers above, only a small fraction of those that go to ANY college will ever have spend a single day in the NFL, much less make a career out of it. Hopefully, these kids will realize the ultimate value of the college experience is the diploma. Yes, my teammates that went to the NFL made more money than me for the first couple of years. However, those of us who graduated got the last laugh. We are making much more money with our diplomas than any of them made playing in the NFL. Plus, we are continuing to earn 20+ years later. Think big picture kids.

---

Interesting. I didn't realize the NFL didn't accept college graduates.

This is a classic debate on the rights of a few being trampled on in a system that benefits the vast majority.

And a free market with free flowing capital tend to create monopolies and oligopolies. They are not mutually exclusive.

TheAdvisingBear;842302062 said:

---

Interesting take on all this in the latest Newsweek:


http://www.newsweek.com/what-uconns-victory-says-about-slave-catchers-245207

---

i didnt see a reason to go after Nantz. Yes his job is to cover sporting events for CBS and the Masters is one of the events that he covers. I thought that was pretty much irrelevent, a bit classless and weakened the article. unfortunately we may not have all the answers as to the solution to this pay for play movement and the article is correct in that it isnt fair to the athletes, but i do believe that moving away from the student-athlete title towards an employee title makes this a lot more complicated than what the players want. In their striving toward equity and justice, they also cant destroy the goose egg as well, if they do, then there wont be any money to argue about.

JSML;842302183 said:

---

And a free market with free flowing capital tend to create monopolies and oligopolies. They are not mutually exclusive.

---

That's true. It's one of the reasons you have regulation, to combat monopolies and oligopolies when they become abusive.

if this was the choice what which would you choose

A ) no help ever ... starve them ( you know they sometime can not afford food) some players now on scholly @ CAL are in this boat **** is real

or B) help them out a little bit ( share the pie) and perhaps we can hold on to a few JRs instead of them going pro to get paid

going4roses;842302319 said:

---

if this was the choice what which would you choose

A ) no help ever ... starve them ( you know they sometime can not afford food) some players now on scholly @ CAL are in this boat **** is real

or B) help them out a little bit ( share the pie) and perhaps we can hold on to a few JRs instead of them going pro to get paid

---

i have no problem with them getting a little more to make sure that they cover their expenses. I do have a problem with how the players are approaching the problem and i believe that its because the players are so poorly organized in the effort to attack the problem. It is my opinion that it was never in the players best interests to be recognized as employees rather than student athletes and that they are riding a very slippery slope and have to tread very carefully in order to not lose even bigger in the grand scheme of things.

going4roses;842302319 said:

---

if this was the choice what which would you choose

A ) no help ever ... starve them ( you know they sometime can not afford food) some players now on scholly @ CAL are in this boat **** is real

or B) help them out a little bit ( share the pie) and perhaps we can hold on to a few JRs instead of them going pro to get paid

---

Can you please explain exactly what is and is not provided to football players at Cal that would cause them to starve? Is there no stipend at all?

on ESPN radio yesterday there was an interview with an NBA exec (didn't hear who)

He said that he thinks the NBA will raise the age requirement to 20, which means most players would need to stay 2 years, not 1.

When asked if the NBA would also allow a player to skip college and go straight to the NBA out of HS (the baseball rule), he said probably not, because that would put NBA scouts back in the HS gyms, and they didn't want to do that.

He said that the NBA may even contribute to the players in college, providing them perhaps a stipend to cover the 'entire cost of attending college'

He said the NBA Players Union is the org that requires the players to stay in school one year, not the NBA. He said the NBA would have to negotiate the 2 and done with the Player Union in collective bargaining

Sounds like the NBA is watching closely what's happening on the college level, and is considering changing things to maintain the 'college minor leagues' system they take advantage of

oski003;842302457 said:

---

Can you please explain exactly what is and is not provided to football players at Cal that would cause them to starve? Is there no stipend at all?

---

what if they are not at school ? visiting home ? cost of living/trans/etc = broke

im not saying they should all be able to by cars ... with a check that is crazy never said anything close to that

200- 500 extra per semester ? now the profit of name/brand can be tricky with the snakes that exist in the that part of the business world

still can not believe john football is still dealing with the guy that almost got him in serious trouble .. my thinking

vote http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/71101/poll-college-football-union

i voted and the i am in the majority ... and my next thought is who else gets money beside players ???

HoopDreams;842302776 said:

---

on ESPN radio yesterday there was an interview with an NBA exec (didn't hear who)

He said that he thinks the NBA will raise the age requirement to 20, which means most players would need to stay 2 years, not 1.

When asked if the NBA would also allow a player to skip college and go straight to the NBA out of HS (the baseball rule), he said probably not, because that would put NBA scouts back in the HS gyms, and they didn't want to do that.

He said that the NBA may even contribute to the players in college, providing them perhaps a stipend to cover the 'entire cost of attending college'

He said the NBA Players Union is the org that requires the players to stay in school one year, not the NBA. He said the NBA would have to negotiate the 2 and done with the Player Union in collective bargaining

Sounds like the NBA is watching closely what's happening on the college level, and is considering changing things to maintain the 'college minor leagues' system they take advantage of

---

itd be a heck of a smart move by the NBA to do that if the NCAA wont get their sh#t together.

The average professional athlete makes $49000 per year. Or about the average price of a scholarship to a D1 school.

Clearly lots make more than that - the major leagues, etc. But if you add in all those giant salaries, it is clear that the developmental league players make significantly less than that salary, and that is what the colleges are.

If this were the market, some players would get paid more that 50 grand. But most would get significantly less, and have to pay to play. As you all know, only about 5 - 10 athletic departments are fully profitable, and none are profitable without donor contributions (which would essentially be eliminated in a for profit enterprise, which is what college athletics would become).

I think the people who think there is a ton of money to be made in athletics are crazy. The revenue pie is just not that big, compared to the number of people they are supporting.

Like any other athletics league, there would be a salary cap to ensure balance. There would be a NCAA limit on what could be paid to players. I just do not think there is that much to gain here for the players, frankly.

going4roses;842303471 said:

---

what if they are not at school ? visiting home ? cost of living/trans/etc = broke

im not saying they should all be able to by cars ... with a check that is crazy never said anything close to that

200- 500 extra per semester ? now the profit of name/brand can be tricky with the snakes that exist in the that part of the business world

still can not believe john football is still dealing with the guy that almost got him in serious trouble .. my thinking

vote http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/71101/poll-college-football-union

i voted and the i am in the majority ... and my next thought is who else gets money beside players ???

---

Everything you said above may or may not be true and, to be honest, I have not formed an opinion on either side of the debate. However, you didn't answer my question.

What exactly are they provided?

For example, are they provided reasonable transportation money to and from home for Christmas? ...that sort of thing.

Back in the day, about 30 years ago, you could get the dorm plan or the cash equivalent for an apartment and food. When I left the dorms, I believe my check was just under $300/mo. There was training table for dinner only during the season. We also had an 'charge account' at the book store for textbooks. No money can be provided for 'trips home' or any other incidentals.