General manager Herm Edwards
10,133 Views |
61 Replies |
Last: 8 yr ago by Cal84
CFB, now with an NFL model, and $10M golden parachutes, but players are still amateurs.
Ehhhh....socaliganbear said:
CFB, now with an NFL model, and $10M golden parachutes, but players are still amateurs.
I know what I paid for my kids College education.
It wasn't free. Total tuition/living costs can be anywhere from $150,000 to $300,000 at P5 Schools.
So there is that "payday" that they get; the opportunity to take advantage of something they would normally pay for.
And the biggest point people tend to ignore is that the vast majority of kids playing football likely would not qualify for entrance into those schools if it were not for their athletic prowess.
They're getting paid significant value in my mind. Shame on those for failing to take full advantage and graduate.
Let's offer coaches family plan scholarships as compensation. I know how much tuition and room & board costs so that's potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars!
The whole thing sounds a little wacky. Can't wait to see how it works out. I read that Anderson reached out to Greg Roman in the fall but he wasn't interested in the job. So he pretty much made up his mind before the season unfolded. Didn't really matter how many games they won. And in the end Edwards was the only serious candidate; the only one Anderson interviewed. No search committee, no drawn out process. The bar is set pretty high. He expects to compete to conference championships. Good luck.
Another overlooked aspect of the college model: many players would play without a scholarship if none were available. I acknowledge that many of those currently on scholarship would do something else...get a job, opt for pro baseball or some other pro sport that would let them in if a union didn't block entry... and the quality of the college game would suffer.Alkiadt said:Ehhhh....socaliganbear said:
CFB, now with an NFL model, and $10M golden parachutes, but players are still amateurs.
I know what I paid for my kids College education.
It wasn't free. Total tuition/living costs can be anywhere from $150,000 to $300,000 at P5 Schools.
So there is that "payday" that they get; the opportunity to take advantage of something they would normally pay for.
And the biggest point people tend to ignore is that the vast majority of kids playing football likely would not qualify for entrance into those schools if it were not for their athletic prowess.
They're getting paid significant value in my mind. Shame on those for failing to take full advantage and graduate.
ASU - trying so hard to be smart but still so very, very... VERY stupid.
Uthaithani said:
ASU - trying so hard to be smart but still so very, very... VERY stupid.
Hey, wait. I had this idea. Except I don't want my coach being the GM. I'd like to see Cal hire a football GM AND an AD for all the other sports. Hell, football is bigger than all the other sports and it is absolutely critical to the other sports that it thrive at least at the D1 level. I think ASU is on the right track but I think it is just semantics with their process. They need two guys neither of which is probably Herm.
So are they hiring another coach to be the on field HC and then pay him HC money? I don't quite get it, but I didn't go to the ASU Honors College.
Quick, someone from the UAW needs to head to Tempe and organize an ASU players union.socaliganbear said:
CFB, now with an NFL model, and $10M golden parachutes, but players are still amateurs.
I understand why people are making fun of this, but I've always said this about CFB head coaches; their most important 2 functions are recruiting and putting together a staff. Because all the real coaching is handled by the coordinators and assistants anyways.
On paper, Herm should be able to recruit and put together a staff. And it looks like he's going to give his coordinators full authority.
If this is the structure that ASU wants to institute, then it actually makes some sense to hire Herm.
At the very least, its going to be an interesting experiment. One that I'm glad we are not conducting but can just look at the results from afar.
On paper, Herm should be able to recruit and put together a staff. And it looks like he's going to give his coordinators full authority.
If this is the structure that ASU wants to institute, then it actually makes some sense to hire Herm.
At the very least, its going to be an interesting experiment. One that I'm glad we are not conducting but can just look at the results from afar.
You work? What would you say if your boss said, "Instead of paying you a 'salary', we're going to pay you by giving you room and board, plus allow you to attend a local university, and you might not be able to pick your major, or your classes, because it can't interfere with your job."Alkiadt said:Ehhhh....socaliganbear said:
CFB, now with an NFL model, and $10M golden parachutes, but players are still amateurs.
I know what I paid for my kids College education.
It wasn't free. Total tuition/living costs can be anywhere from $150,000 to $300,000 at P5 Schools.
So there is that "payday" that they get; the opportunity to take advantage of something they would normally pay for.
And the biggest point people tend to ignore is that the vast majority of kids playing football likely would not qualify for entrance into those schools if it were not for their athletic prowess.
They're getting paid significant value in my mind. Shame on those for failing to take full advantage and graduate.
Would you stick around? I sure as hell doubt it. The players, of course, can leave, too. Well, I think the day will soon come when college players organize, or simply find other routes to get paid (NFL Europe/CFL/Arena). College football and basketball are broken, and if we want to keep them, they need to be re-structured. Players getting tuition and room and board is ludicrous.
What is ludicrous? Is it that there should be no limit beyond market forces on what the schools should pay athletes or do you believe that there should be limits but that the limits are too low? And if we remove the limits on what student-athletes can be paid to the top football players (with less scholarship available for the non-stars under an finite resource assumption), I suppose we would then be OK with removing opportunities for other underprivileged student-athletes to attend school. Otherwise, where would the money come from for schools like Cal where we are struggling anyway to fund the non-revenue generating sports? Maybe we should put a limit on what public schools can pay coaches?GMP said:You work? What would you say if your boss said, "Instead of paying you a 'salary', we're going to pay you by giving you room and board, plus allow you to attend a local university, and you might not be able to pick your major, or your classes, because it can't interfere with your job."Alkiadt said:Ehhhh....socaliganbear said:
CFB, now with an NFL model, and $10M golden parachutes, but players are still amateurs.
I know what I paid for my kids College education.
It wasn't free. Total tuition/living costs can be anywhere from $150,000 to $300,000 at P5 Schools.
So there is that "payday" that they get; the opportunity to take advantage of something they would normally pay for.
And the biggest point people tend to ignore is that the vast majority of kids playing football likely would not qualify for entrance into those schools if it were not for their athletic prowess.
They're getting paid significant value in my mind. Shame on those for failing to take full advantage and graduate.
Would you stick around? I sure as hell doubt it. The players, of course, can leave, too. Well, I think the day will soon come when college players organize, or simply find other routes to get paid (NFL Europe/CFL/Arena). College football and basketball are broken, and if we want to keep them, they need to be re-structured. Players getting tuition and room and board is ludicrous.
I am fine with removing all limits, but I would say that claiming that the limits are too low seems arbitrary and a variable opinion. Who decides what is enough other than market forces? Based on what? And if we remove all limits, then I guess programs like Cal's FB will just have to go the way of Ivy League. That will at least give me more time on Saturdays. But I am not sure that it would serve the common interest or serve the interest of the less privileged student-athletes. And it would just create more of an income gap between the haves and the have-nots among the athletes.
Let's face it. P5 football has already spun out of control financially. It's really a substitute for professional sports in parts of the country without pro teams. I even look at the Chip Kelly hire as an UnderArmour move to support their $280M UC Los Angeles deal. Aside from Oregon, it's the first time I can attribute such a massive pay upgrade to an apparel or other licensing deal that in many ways shifts the culture to more of an SEC ethos. I read on this board that Shaw makes close to $6M now which is chump change for Furd. As for the Herm hire, I s*** on ASU as much as the next guy, but I admire the president for being innovative. Their online program enables thousands of people who need to work full-time to get an education and while the AD/CEO description sounds wonky, the underlying point is that Herm will hire the best assistants he can and let them do their jobs. I'm guessing he'll still make game-time decisions like when to punt or go for it on 4th down. Finally, for all those folks who hate the idea of not paying student athletes, the ugly truth in California is that under Prop 187, one of the best ways to help bolster minority enrollment is thru athletics. It's a really sad state of affairs when elite schools like Cal and UC Los Angeles need to resort to athletic admissions as a Hail Mary to enroll a trifling number of black students.socaliganbear said:
CFB, now with an NFL model, and $10M golden parachutes, but players are still amateurs.
As I said in another post, college athletics is a subset of the American sports industry which in turn is a subset of the international media industry.GMP said:You work? What would you say if your boss said, "Instead of paying you a 'salary', we're going to pay you by giving you room and board, plus allow you to attend a local university, and you might not be able to pick your major, or your classes, because it can't interfere with your job."Alkiadt said:Ehhhh....socaliganbear said:
CFB, now with an NFL model, and $10M golden parachutes, but players are still amateurs.
I know what I paid for my kids College education.
It wasn't free. Total tuition/living costs can be anywhere from $150,000 to $300,000 at P5 Schools.
So there is that "payday" that they get; the opportunity to take advantage of something they would normally pay for.
And the biggest point people tend to ignore is that the vast majority of kids playing football likely would not qualify for entrance into those schools if it were not for their athletic prowess.
They're getting paid significant value in my mind. Shame on those for failing to take full advantage and graduate.
Would you stick around? I sure as hell doubt it. The players, of course, can leave, too. Well, I think the day will soon come when college players organize, or simply find other routes to get paid (NFL Europe/CFL/Arena). College football and basketball are broken, and if we want to keep them, they need to be re-structured. Players getting tuition and room and board is ludicrous.
It is time that college athletes are paid for their efforts. Why should management receive $7.5 million/year and the workers receive nothing? The quaint notion of saying the workers receive the value of a college education is long past. It died when the media completed their hostile takeover of the industry.
Pay the athlete's a salary, make them responsible for paying there own tuition and housing. Fire them if they don't perform.
What would be the salary? Would it be driven by market (i.e., recruits can go to the highest bidder, with top athletes getting the most money, with less money available for lower ranked recruits)? Fire them at will? How is this better for the athletes?ayetee11 said:
Pay the athlete's a salary, make them responsible for paying there own tuition and housing. Fire them if they don't perform.
How far are you willing to take this? Can athletes leave at will and join another program that is willing to pay more during mid-season? Why not? And how does this help the less talented athletes who might get even less than now? Are you generally for market forces and everyone gets to keep what someone else is willing to pay without any concern for income equality, income distribution, etc.?71Bear said:As I said in another post, college athletics is a subset of the American sports industry which in turn is a subset of the international media industry.GMP said:You work? What would you say if your boss said, "Instead of paying you a 'salary', we're going to pay you by giving you room and board, plus allow you to attend a local university, and you might not be able to pick your major, or your classes, because it can't interfere with your job."Alkiadt said:Ehhhh....socaliganbear said:
CFB, now with an NFL model, and $10M golden parachutes, but players are still amateurs.
I know what I paid for my kids College education.
It wasn't free. Total tuition/living costs can be anywhere from $150,000 to $300,000 at P5 Schools.
So there is that "payday" that they get; the opportunity to take advantage of something they would normally pay for.
And the biggest point people tend to ignore is that the vast majority of kids playing football likely would not qualify for entrance into those schools if it were not for their athletic prowess.
They're getting paid significant value in my mind. Shame on those for failing to take full advantage and graduate.
Would you stick around? I sure as hell doubt it. The players, of course, can leave, too. Well, I think the day will soon come when college players organize, or simply find other routes to get paid (NFL Europe/CFL/Arena). College football and basketball are broken, and if we want to keep them, they need to be re-structured. Players getting tuition and room and board is ludicrous.
It is time that college athletes are paid for their efforts. Why should management receive $7.5 million/year and the workers receive nothing? The quaint notion of saying the workers receive the value of a college education is long past. It died when the media completed their hostile takeover of the industry.
How would this mesh with Title IX? Since football basically pays for all the other sports how would the money be distributed?
Assuming that there are finite resources and assuming that what is being advocated on these boards (e.g., higher salary for the football players), then there will be less funds for the non-revenue sports. We would need to to cut more sports and have less scholarship available generally so that the top football players and maybe basketball players can get paid in a bidding war. I am just not seeing how this would be a good result.SRBear said:
How would this mesh with Title IX? Since football basically pays for all the other sports how would the money be distributed?
calbear93 said:How far are you willing to take this? Can athletes leave at will and join another program that is willing to pay more during mid-season? Why not? And how does this help the less talented athletes who might get even less than now? Are you generally for market forces and everyone gets to keep what someone else is willing to pay without any concern for income equality, income distribution, etc.?71Bear said:As I said in another post, college athletics is a subset of the American sports industry which in turn is a subset of the international media industry.GMP said:You work? What would you say if your boss said, "Instead of paying you a 'salary', we're going to pay you by giving you room and board, plus allow you to attend a local university, and you might not be able to pick your major, or your classes, because it can't interfere with your job."Alkiadt said:Ehhhh....socaliganbear said:
CFB, now with an NFL model, and $10M golden parachutes, but players are still amateurs.
I know what I paid for my kids College education.
It wasn't free. Total tuition/living costs can be anywhere from $150,000 to $300,000 at P5 Schools.
So there is that "payday" that they get; the opportunity to take advantage of something they would normally pay for.
And the biggest point people tend to ignore is that the vast majority of kids playing football likely would not qualify for entrance into those schools if it were not for their athletic prowess.
They're getting paid significant value in my mind. Shame on those for failing to take full advantage and graduate.
Would you stick around? I sure as hell doubt it. The players, of course, can leave, too. Well, I think the day will soon come when college players organize, or simply find other routes to get paid (NFL Europe/CFL/Arena). College football and basketball are broken, and if we want to keep them, they need to be re-structured. Players getting tuition and room and board is ludicrous.
It is time that college athletes are paid for their efforts. Why should management receive $7.5 million/year and the workers receive nothing? The quaint notion of saying the workers receive the value of a college education is long past. It died when the media completed their hostile takeover of the industry.
How can you ask these questions when the model is already in place in multiple professional sports? Players would sign contracts (single year? multi year?) just as they do in the NFL. Players (collectively) would be guaranteed a specified percentage of revenue, just as they are in the NFL. I'm not sure how you'd set pay for each player - teams would have a salary cap and would probably need to determine pay per player themselves, with the most pay going to the best players. Or perhaps you divide by 85 and give each player an even amount. Plenty of details to work out, but they can be worked out - and there's no reason to throw up our hands and say we can't fix this.
You could also solve a lot of the concerns some have about competitive balance by pooling revenue, and distributing evenly, as they do in the professional sports leagues (though I'm not sure the bigger schools would appreciate that). Perhaps you could limit that to TV money, but allow teams to keep money they raise through donations and ticket sales.
As for what this does for non-revenue sports, I don't have the answer for that. But why should football players and basketball players have to forego income in order to subsidize another group of employee who does not bring in revenue?
As noted in a later post, Title IX is another concern. I think you could convince Congress to create a carve-out. Or, you could possibly segregate athletics from the university completely, with a licensing agreement, as many others have suggested. Again, not easy solutions, but there are ways to solve this.
calbear93 said:Assuming that there are finite resources and assuming that what is being advocated on these boards (e.g., higher salary for the football players), then there will be less funds for the non-revenue sports. We would need to to cut more sports and have less scholarship available generally so that the top football players and maybe basketball players can get paid in a bidding war. I am just not seeing how this would be a good result.SRBear said:
How would this mesh with Title IX? Since football basically pays for all the other sports how would the money be distributed?
How about no scholarships... just roster slots and access to market rate coaching and facilities for all athletes.
Then, if there are media rights associated with the sport, work out a pass through payment only in those sports that make money. Figure out a legal way to do this so they are not employees of the school and all rights payments are evenly distributed within a conference.
Percentage of what revenue? You mean have a salary cap based on the revenue of all of college football? Get Texas to pool revenues with Boise State? How would you do that? We wouldn't pool revenues with Fresno State and UC Davis. And how would you make sure that teams are getting what they are paying for? Have a draft and take away even more freedom from college students where they can't choose where to study? If you want to play football, you may be forced to go to Boise State even if you could get into Cal or Stanford? You would ask a 17 year old to sign a multi-year contract? The reason I ask that question when the "model" is in place in multiple professional sports is that it doesn't translate to college football. It isn't as if we just had a collective epiphany that maybe the NFL model works for college football.GMP said:calbear93 said:How far are you willing to take this? Can athletes leave at will and join another program that is willing to pay more during mid-season? Why not? And how does this help the less talented athletes who might get even less than now? Are you generally for market forces and everyone gets to keep what someone else is willing to pay without any concern for income equality, income distribution, etc.?71Bear said:As I said in another post, college athletics is a subset of the American sports industry which in turn is a subset of the international media industry.GMP said:You work? What would you say if your boss said, "Instead of paying you a 'salary', we're going to pay you by giving you room and board, plus allow you to attend a local university, and you might not be able to pick your major, or your classes, because it can't interfere with your job."Alkiadt said:Ehhhh....socaliganbear said:
CFB, now with an NFL model, and $10M golden parachutes, but players are still amateurs.
I know what I paid for my kids College education.
It wasn't free. Total tuition/living costs can be anywhere from $150,000 to $300,000 at P5 Schools.
So there is that "payday" that they get; the opportunity to take advantage of something they would normally pay for.
And the biggest point people tend to ignore is that the vast majority of kids playing football likely would not qualify for entrance into those schools if it were not for their athletic prowess.
They're getting paid significant value in my mind. Shame on those for failing to take full advantage and graduate.
Would you stick around? I sure as hell doubt it. The players, of course, can leave, too. Well, I think the day will soon come when college players organize, or simply find other routes to get paid (NFL Europe/CFL/Arena). College football and basketball are broken, and if we want to keep them, they need to be re-structured. Players getting tuition and room and board is ludicrous.
It is time that college athletes are paid for their efforts. Why should management receive $7.5 million/year and the workers receive nothing? The quaint notion of saying the workers receive the value of a college education is long past. It died when the media completed their hostile takeover of the industry.
How can you ask these questions when the model is already in place in multiple professional sports? Players would sign contracts (single year? multi year?) just as they do in the NFL. Players (collectively) would be guaranteed a specified percentage of revenue, just as they are in the NFL. I'm not sure how you'd set pay for each player - teams would have a salary cap and would probably need to determine pay per player themselves, with the most pay going to the best players. Or perhaps you divide by 85 and give each player an even amount. Plenty of details to work out, but they can be worked out - and there's no reason to throw up our hands and say we can't fix this.
You could also solve a lot of the concerns some have about competitive balance by pooling revenue, and distributing evenly, as they do in the professional sports leagues (though I'm not sure the bigger schools would appreciate that). Perhaps you could limit that to TV money, but allow teams to keep money they raise through donations and ticket sales.
As for what this does for non-revenue sports, I don't have the answer for that. But why should football players and basketball players have to forego income in order to subsidize another group of employee who does not bring in revenue?
Title IX would be an issue since most of the pass through money would be to male sports. Also, I would think that, since many schools have an athletic department running a deficit, this would end up with student athletes getting even less (I assume they will be required to pay for tuition since you wouldn't want non-students playing for the team).ColoradoBear said:calbear93 said:Assuming that there are finite resources and assuming that what is being advocated on these boards (e.g., higher salary for the football players), then there will be less funds for the non-revenue sports. We would need to to cut more sports and have less scholarship available generally so that the top football players and maybe basketball players can get paid in a bidding war. I am just not seeing how this would be a good result.SRBear said:
How would this mesh with Title IX? Since football basically pays for all the other sports how would the money be distributed?
How about no scholarships... just roster slots and access to market rate coaching and facilities for all athletes.
Then, if there are media rights associated with the sport, work out a pass through payment only in those sports that make money. Figure out a legal way to do this so they are not employees of the school and all rights payments are evenly distributed within a conference.
I don't think it would work.SRBear said:
How would this mesh with Title IX? Since football basically pays for all the other sports how would the money be distributed?
These would be details to hammer out. But, again, just because there are details to hammer out does not mean throw up our hands and keep the same broken system.calbear93 said:Percentage of what revenue? You mean have a salary cap based on the revenue of all of college football? Get Texas to pool revenues with Boise State? How would you do that? We wouldn't pool revenues with Fresno State and UC Davis. And how would you make sure that teams are getting what they are paying for? Have a draft and take away even more freedom from college students where they can't choose where to study? If you want to play football, you may be forced to go to Boise State even if you could get into Cal or Stanford? You would ask a 17 year old to sign a multi-year contract? The reason I ask that question when the "model" is in place in multiple professional sports is that it doesn't translate to college football. It isn't as if we just had a collective epiphany that maybe the NFL model works for college football.GMP said:calbear93 said:How far are you willing to take this? Can athletes leave at will and join another program that is willing to pay more during mid-season? Why not? And how does this help the less talented athletes who might get even less than now? Are you generally for market forces and everyone gets to keep what someone else is willing to pay without any concern for income equality, income distribution, etc.?71Bear said:As I said in another post, college athletics is a subset of the American sports industry which in turn is a subset of the international media industry.GMP said:You work? What would you say if your boss said, "Instead of paying you a 'salary', we're going to pay you by giving you room and board, plus allow you to attend a local university, and you might not be able to pick your major, or your classes, because it can't interfere with your job."Alkiadt said:Ehhhh....socaliganbear said:
CFB, now with an NFL model, and $10M golden parachutes, but players are still amateurs.
I know what I paid for my kids College education.
It wasn't free. Total tuition/living costs can be anywhere from $150,000 to $300,000 at P5 Schools.
So there is that "payday" that they get; the opportunity to take advantage of something they would normally pay for.
And the biggest point people tend to ignore is that the vast majority of kids playing football likely would not qualify for entrance into those schools if it were not for their athletic prowess.
They're getting paid significant value in my mind. Shame on those for failing to take full advantage and graduate.
Would you stick around? I sure as hell doubt it. The players, of course, can leave, too. Well, I think the day will soon come when college players organize, or simply find other routes to get paid (NFL Europe/CFL/Arena). College football and basketball are broken, and if we want to keep them, they need to be re-structured. Players getting tuition and room and board is ludicrous.
It is time that college athletes are paid for their efforts. Why should management receive $7.5 million/year and the workers receive nothing? The quaint notion of saying the workers receive the value of a college education is long past. It died when the media completed their hostile takeover of the industry.
How can you ask these questions when the model is already in place in multiple professional sports? Players would sign contracts (single year? multi year?) just as they do in the NFL. Players (collectively) would be guaranteed a specified percentage of revenue, just as they are in the NFL. I'm not sure how you'd set pay for each player - teams would have a salary cap and would probably need to determine pay per player themselves, with the most pay going to the best players. Or perhaps you divide by 85 and give each player an even amount. Plenty of details to work out, but they can be worked out - and there's no reason to throw up our hands and say we can't fix this.
You could also solve a lot of the concerns some have about competitive balance by pooling revenue, and distributing evenly, as they do in the professional sports leagues (though I'm not sure the bigger schools would appreciate that). Perhaps you could limit that to TV money, but allow teams to keep money they raise through donations and ticket sales.
As for what this does for non-revenue sports, I don't have the answer for that. But why should football players and basketball players have to forego income in order to subsidize another group of employee who does not bring in revenue?
Come on. Those are not details. Those are fundamental issues that would be absolute barriers to paying college athletes. You would end up breaking the system and, in an effort to make lives better for athletes, you would make it worse. It's like saying our tax system doesn't work. Let's cut rates for everyone, and we will work out the details later.GMP said:These would be details to hammer out. But, again, just because there are details to hammer out does not mean throw up our hands and keep the same broken system.calbear93 said:Percentage of what revenue? You mean have a salary cap based on the revenue of all of college football? Get Texas to pool revenues with Boise State? How would you do that? We wouldn't pool revenues with Fresno State and UC Davis. And how would you make sure that teams are getting what they are paying for? Have a draft and take away even more freedom from college students where they can't choose where to study? If you want to play football, you may be forced to go to Boise State even if you could get into Cal or Stanford? You would ask a 17 year old to sign a multi-year contract? The reason I ask that question when the "model" is in place in multiple professional sports is that it doesn't translate to college football. It isn't as if we just had a collective epiphany that maybe the NFL model works for college football.GMP said:calbear93 said:How far are you willing to take this? Can athletes leave at will and join another program that is willing to pay more during mid-season? Why not? And how does this help the less talented athletes who might get even less than now? Are you generally for market forces and everyone gets to keep what someone else is willing to pay without any concern for income equality, income distribution, etc.?71Bear said:As I said in another post, college athletics is a subset of the American sports industry which in turn is a subset of the international media industry.GMP said:You work? What would you say if your boss said, "Instead of paying you a 'salary', we're going to pay you by giving you room and board, plus allow you to attend a local university, and you might not be able to pick your major, or your classes, because it can't interfere with your job."Alkiadt said:Ehhhh....socaliganbear said:
CFB, now with an NFL model, and $10M golden parachutes, but players are still amateurs.
I know what I paid for my kids College education.
It wasn't free. Total tuition/living costs can be anywhere from $150,000 to $300,000 at P5 Schools.
So there is that "payday" that they get; the opportunity to take advantage of something they would normally pay for.
And the biggest point people tend to ignore is that the vast majority of kids playing football likely would not qualify for entrance into those schools if it were not for their athletic prowess.
They're getting paid significant value in my mind. Shame on those for failing to take full advantage and graduate.
Would you stick around? I sure as hell doubt it. The players, of course, can leave, too. Well, I think the day will soon come when college players organize, or simply find other routes to get paid (NFL Europe/CFL/Arena). College football and basketball are broken, and if we want to keep them, they need to be re-structured. Players getting tuition and room and board is ludicrous.
It is time that college athletes are paid for their efforts. Why should management receive $7.5 million/year and the workers receive nothing? The quaint notion of saying the workers receive the value of a college education is long past. It died when the media completed their hostile takeover of the industry.
How can you ask these questions when the model is already in place in multiple professional sports? Players would sign contracts (single year? multi year?) just as they do in the NFL. Players (collectively) would be guaranteed a specified percentage of revenue, just as they are in the NFL. I'm not sure how you'd set pay for each player - teams would have a salary cap and would probably need to determine pay per player themselves, with the most pay going to the best players. Or perhaps you divide by 85 and give each player an even amount. Plenty of details to work out, but they can be worked out - and there's no reason to throw up our hands and say we can't fix this.
You could also solve a lot of the concerns some have about competitive balance by pooling revenue, and distributing evenly, as they do in the professional sports leagues (though I'm not sure the bigger schools would appreciate that). Perhaps you could limit that to TV money, but allow teams to keep money they raise through donations and ticket sales.
As for what this does for non-revenue sports, I don't have the answer for that. But why should football players and basketball players have to forego income in order to subsidize another group of employee who does not bring in revenue?
Your analogy is poor. What I am actually suggesting is like saying, "Our tax system doesn't work. Let's all get together and figure out a way to fix it before we implement any changes." Yes, there are issues to work out. They are details. They may be big details, or small details.calbear93 said:Come on. Those are not details. Those are fundamental issues that would be absolute barriers to paying college athletes. You would end up breaking the system and, in an effort to make lives better for athletes, you would make it worse. It's like saying our tax system doesn't work. Let's cut rates for everyone, and we will work out the details later.GMP said:These would be details to hammer out. But, again, just because there are details to hammer out does not mean throw up our hands and keep the same broken system.calbear93 said:Percentage of what revenue? You mean have a salary cap based on the revenue of all of college football? Get Texas to pool revenues with Boise State? How would you do that? We wouldn't pool revenues with Fresno State and UC Davis. And how would you make sure that teams are getting what they are paying for? Have a draft and take away even more freedom from college students where they can't choose where to study? If you want to play football, you may be forced to go to Boise State even if you could get into Cal or Stanford? You would ask a 17 year old to sign a multi-year contract? The reason I ask that question when the "model" is in place in multiple professional sports is that it doesn't translate to college football. It isn't as if we just had a collective epiphany that maybe the NFL model works for college football.GMP said:calbear93 said:How far are you willing to take this? Can athletes leave at will and join another program that is willing to pay more during mid-season? Why not? And how does this help the less talented athletes who might get even less than now? Are you generally for market forces and everyone gets to keep what someone else is willing to pay without any concern for income equality, income distribution, etc.?71Bear said:As I said in another post, college athletics is a subset of the American sports industry which in turn is a subset of the international media industry.GMP said:You work? What would you say if your boss said, "Instead of paying you a 'salary', we're going to pay you by giving you room and board, plus allow you to attend a local university, and you might not be able to pick your major, or your classes, because it can't interfere with your job."Alkiadt said:Ehhhh....socaliganbear said:
CFB, now with an NFL model, and $10M golden parachutes, but players are still amateurs.
I know what I paid for my kids College education.
It wasn't free. Total tuition/living costs can be anywhere from $150,000 to $300,000 at P5 Schools.
So there is that "payday" that they get; the opportunity to take advantage of something they would normally pay for.
And the biggest point people tend to ignore is that the vast majority of kids playing football likely would not qualify for entrance into those schools if it were not for their athletic prowess.
They're getting paid significant value in my mind. Shame on those for failing to take full advantage and graduate.
Would you stick around? I sure as hell doubt it. The players, of course, can leave, too. Well, I think the day will soon come when college players organize, or simply find other routes to get paid (NFL Europe/CFL/Arena). College football and basketball are broken, and if we want to keep them, they need to be re-structured. Players getting tuition and room and board is ludicrous.
It is time that college athletes are paid for their efforts. Why should management receive $7.5 million/year and the workers receive nothing? The quaint notion of saying the workers receive the value of a college education is long past. It died when the media completed their hostile takeover of the industry.
How can you ask these questions when the model is already in place in multiple professional sports? Players would sign contracts (single year? multi year?) just as they do in the NFL. Players (collectively) would be guaranteed a specified percentage of revenue, just as they are in the NFL. I'm not sure how you'd set pay for each player - teams would have a salary cap and would probably need to determine pay per player themselves, with the most pay going to the best players. Or perhaps you divide by 85 and give each player an even amount. Plenty of details to work out, but they can be worked out - and there's no reason to throw up our hands and say we can't fix this.
You could also solve a lot of the concerns some have about competitive balance by pooling revenue, and distributing evenly, as they do in the professional sports leagues (though I'm not sure the bigger schools would appreciate that). Perhaps you could limit that to TV money, but allow teams to keep money they raise through donations and ticket sales.
As for what this does for non-revenue sports, I don't have the answer for that. But why should football players and basketball players have to forego income in order to subsidize another group of employee who does not bring in revenue?
The first step is the NCAA, and the member institutions, must acknowledge that players should be paid. Once we get over that hurdle, they can start to discuss how.
How would you get the NCAA to agree to pay student athletes? The big revenue schools would be all for it but be against revenue sharing, but small revenue schools would be against it without revenue sharing. Your tax analogy wouldn't work because it would be like saying Democrats who want to raise taxes and Republicans who want to lower taxes should get together and work it out to fix it. Well, when the idea of what is broken and what needs to be fixed is different, you are not going to get any progress on working on a fix.GMP said:Your analogy is poor. What I am actually suggesting is like saying, "Our tax system doesn't work. Let's all get together and figure out a way to fix it before we implement any changes." Yes, there are issues to work out. They are details. They may be big details, or small details.calbear93 said:Come on. Those are not details. Those are fundamental issues that would be absolute barriers to paying college athletes. You would end up breaking the system and, in an effort to make lives better for athletes, you would make it worse. It's like saying our tax system doesn't work. Let's cut rates for everyone, and we will work out the details later.GMP said:These would be details to hammer out. But, again, just because there are details to hammer out does not mean throw up our hands and keep the same broken system.calbear93 said:Percentage of what revenue? You mean have a salary cap based on the revenue of all of college football? Get Texas to pool revenues with Boise State? How would you do that? We wouldn't pool revenues with Fresno State and UC Davis. And how would you make sure that teams are getting what they are paying for? Have a draft and take away even more freedom from college students where they can't choose where to study? If you want to play football, you may be forced to go to Boise State even if you could get into Cal or Stanford? You would ask a 17 year old to sign a multi-year contract? The reason I ask that question when the "model" is in place in multiple professional sports is that it doesn't translate to college football. It isn't as if we just had a collective epiphany that maybe the NFL model works for college football.GMP said:calbear93 said:How far are you willing to take this? Can athletes leave at will and join another program that is willing to pay more during mid-season? Why not? And how does this help the less talented athletes who might get even less than now? Are you generally for market forces and everyone gets to keep what someone else is willing to pay without any concern for income equality, income distribution, etc.?71Bear said:As I said in another post, college athletics is a subset of the American sports industry which in turn is a subset of the international media industry.GMP said:You work? What would you say if your boss said, "Instead of paying you a 'salary', we're going to pay you by giving you room and board, plus allow you to attend a local university, and you might not be able to pick your major, or your classes, because it can't interfere with your job."Alkiadt said:Ehhhh....socaliganbear said:
CFB, now with an NFL model, and $10M golden parachutes, but players are still amateurs.
I know what I paid for my kids College education.
It wasn't free. Total tuition/living costs can be anywhere from $150,000 to $300,000 at P5 Schools.
So there is that "payday" that they get; the opportunity to take advantage of something they would normally pay for.
And the biggest point people tend to ignore is that the vast majority of kids playing football likely would not qualify for entrance into those schools if it were not for their athletic prowess.
They're getting paid significant value in my mind. Shame on those for failing to take full advantage and graduate.
Would you stick around? I sure as hell doubt it. The players, of course, can leave, too. Well, I think the day will soon come when college players organize, or simply find other routes to get paid (NFL Europe/CFL/Arena). College football and basketball are broken, and if we want to keep them, they need to be re-structured. Players getting tuition and room and board is ludicrous.
It is time that college athletes are paid for their efforts. Why should management receive $7.5 million/year and the workers receive nothing? The quaint notion of saying the workers receive the value of a college education is long past. It died when the media completed their hostile takeover of the industry.
How can you ask these questions when the model is already in place in multiple professional sports? Players would sign contracts (single year? multi year?) just as they do in the NFL. Players (collectively) would be guaranteed a specified percentage of revenue, just as they are in the NFL. I'm not sure how you'd set pay for each player - teams would have a salary cap and would probably need to determine pay per player themselves, with the most pay going to the best players. Or perhaps you divide by 85 and give each player an even amount. Plenty of details to work out, but they can be worked out - and there's no reason to throw up our hands and say we can't fix this.
You could also solve a lot of the concerns some have about competitive balance by pooling revenue, and distributing evenly, as they do in the professional sports leagues (though I'm not sure the bigger schools would appreciate that). Perhaps you could limit that to TV money, but allow teams to keep money they raise through donations and ticket sales.
As for what this does for non-revenue sports, I don't have the answer for that. But why should football players and basketball players have to forego income in order to subsidize another group of employee who does not bring in revenue?
The first step is the NCAA, and the member institutions, must acknowledge that players should be paid. Once we get over that hurdle, they can start to discuss how.
Players would sign contracts that would stipulate uniform rules of engagement for each level of college football. This would address the issues you raised.calbear93 said:How far are you willing to take this? Can athletes leave at will and join another program that is willing to pay more during mid-season? Why not? And how does this help the less talented athletes who might get even less than now? Are you generally for market forces and everyone gets to keep what someone else is willing to pay without any concern for income equality, income distribution, etc.?71Bear said:As I said in another post, college athletics is a subset of the American sports industry which in turn is a subset of the international media industry.GMP said:You work? What would you say if your boss said, "Instead of paying you a 'salary', we're going to pay you by giving you room and board, plus allow you to attend a local university, and you might not be able to pick your major, or your classes, because it can't interfere with your job."Alkiadt said:Ehhhh....socaliganbear said:
CFB, now with an NFL model, and $10M golden parachutes, but players are still amateurs.
I know what I paid for my kids College education.
It wasn't free. Total tuition/living costs can be anywhere from $150,000 to $300,000 at P5 Schools.
So there is that "payday" that they get; the opportunity to take advantage of something they would normally pay for.
And the biggest point people tend to ignore is that the vast majority of kids playing football likely would not qualify for entrance into those schools if it were not for their athletic prowess.
They're getting paid significant value in my mind. Shame on those for failing to take full advantage and graduate.
Would you stick around? I sure as hell doubt it. The players, of course, can leave, too. Well, I think the day will soon come when college players organize, or simply find other routes to get paid (NFL Europe/CFL/Arena). College football and basketball are broken, and if we want to keep them, they need to be re-structured. Players getting tuition and room and board is ludicrous.
It is time that college athletes are paid for their efforts. Why should management receive $7.5 million/year and the workers receive nothing? The quaint notion of saying the workers receive the value of a college education is long past. It died when the media completed their hostile takeover of the industry.
As someone else noted...
...this is such a stupid hire that it will probably work.
...this is such a stupid hire that it will probably work.
Good luck with that, Herm. The more complicated, the easier it is to gum up the works.
Preface ... I like Herm ... Seems like a good dude. Not sure about the hire but whatever
Curious... one post said there were no other candidates interviewed or considered SO where are the people saying stuff about including a wide range of individuals so that they weren't limited or narrow minded in their search ....
Just thinking out loud
Curious... one post said there were no other candidates interviewed or considered SO where are the people saying stuff about including a wide range of individuals so that they weren't limited or narrow minded in their search ....
Just thinking out loud
It's just a lot of jargon to cover for yet another AD hiring a crony for a job rather than trying to find the most qualified person to do the job. This won't end well for them and it's already started badly.
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Make Splash in the Big Apple
by Bear Insider
Cal Falls In First Round Of ACC Championship
by Cal Athletics
Eddy, Kenady Named All-ACC
by Cal Athletics