BearSD said:
calumnus said:
Oski87 said:
BearSD said:
socaltownie said:
BearSD said:
HoopDreams said:
but competitive balance is important ... that's why there are salary caps, collective bargaining, player contracts, drafts in pro sports
these things are in place because the pro sports understand that without them the number of teams would shrink to the point that the market for them would also shrink. That's not good for anyone.
Can't analogize college sports to pro sports. The team owners in NFL, NBA, etc. are in business together with the other owners in their own league. The teams compete on the field, but off the field the 49ers and Rams and all the other NFL teams are partners in a multi-billion-dollar business.
USC and San Diego State are not in business together. To a much lesser extent than the NFL or NBA, the members of a single conference are in business together, but that's as far as it goes.
It is not important to Ohio State that Kent State or Minnesota be able to compete toe-to-toe with the Buckeyes. In fact, Ohio State benefits from having a huge pool of teams that claim to be at the same level but are there for Ohio State to beat in football at least 9,999 times out of 10,000. The entire business model of college football "franchises" like Ohio State or Alabama is to rake in the money by hopefully winning at least 10 games every year, and it's much easier to do that if, like those teams, you play 4 games against teams you beat pretty much every time, 6 games against teams you beat 90% of the time, and 2 games that you win 50-75% of the time.
No but.....
The real problem is NOT Kent state vs. tOSU. It is Cal vs. USC. The real issue is whether this mirrors the issues that emerged during the 1960s and 1970s - a time when the NCAA was weaker on the enforcement front (as well as no scholarship limits) and USC would routinely beat Cal by 7 or 8 TDs and the Bears would not score a point.
Now Cal getting crushed is of little concern. But if Oregon and USC are the ONLY Pac-12 teams that play this game (which is NOT an unlikely situation) what sort of product is put out on the field when you do not have compelling TV - when you have either blow outs (which is the likely product that is TV'ed) or games featuring the "other guys".
Then factor in that BETTING is a huge driver of TV viewership and games with lines of -35 just are not attractive bets.
That is the real danger - that NILs create deep gaps WITHIN conferences and make for less interesting TV (and gate) and that this, in turn, exacerbates AD deficits and forces real questions about revenue sports and colleges.
1) I mentioned Minnesota above -- they're in the same position wrt Ohio State that Cal is in wrt USC. Really almost everyone in the Big Ten is. Since the Big Ten started east/west divisions in football, Ohio State has won 93% of its games against the seven west division teams. That won't change, because those teams can't keep up with Buckeye boosters using NIL to get better football players to Columbus.
2) If the Pac-12 has 2 or 3 teams that out-NIL the rest, then the same is likely to happen in the Big Ten. Maybe the SEC will have half a dozen teams that go big on NIL. The ACC will have 2 or 3 at most, and their conference would suffer most because they have the most number of really weak football teams.
3) Having said all of that, I don't think the win-loss outcomes will be much different than today. USC, when they have a really good coaching staff and not a bumbling staff, is going to have a much higher average talent level than Cal with or without NIL. Same for Ohio State over Minnesota, Alabama over Missouri, etc., etc. The same group of elite recruits are going to end up at the same small group of teams, only they'll get paid something above the table now.
This is all really interesting. Michigan probably has bigger boosters than Ohio State. Same with Wisconsin. They just choose to not cheat as much and pay as much for players as Ohio State did.
Cal has just as many rich guys as USC. More, probably. But lets face it - we just think that paying for players has been sleazy and we did not want to do it - it was beneath us (most of the time).
People are stunned about these numbers coming out. Oh No - we are DOOMED!
But when you think about it - all it is really doing is telling us WHAT THE MARKET ALREADY WAS! Reggie Bush was given about half a million back then...15 years ago. Under the table. Who else was? Do we really think that this stuff was not going on before and in much larger amounts than you can believe? It was not cash in a cup - that was just standard walking around money. It was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to the players or their families...building the SEC.
Now it is above board. Now - Cal alum can participate in an honest manner. Yes, there will be a Cal collective. You can all participate. It will be small donors and large donors and it will be a lot of money. It may not be 25 million per year...but it will be a lot of money and at least enough to compete. And at the end of the day, we can all rest easy in that if it is not enough to compete - it is because of us - one of the richest and largest alumni bases in the world.
Yeah, that is largely the way I see it. The caveat being that Cal can always manage to screw it up somehow. Mismanagement by Knowlton is the greatest impediment. It is tough to get boosters to chip in money for players for last place teams. "With your $millions we can get out of the cellar and achieve .500 in conference" is not quite as compelling as being on the verge of a championship.
Maybe someone should email Knowlton that article about the Wichita State AD getting fired because Wichita's boosters were not giving NIL deals to Wichita's basketball players and recruits.
I just don't buy that Cal Wealthy alumni = NIL potential......I would LOVE to see someone with someone with actual Atheltic department development experience chime in but it feels like you got three market segments....
1) Passionate sport nut wealthy sports nut alumni who are willing to spend on sports the same way that other wealthy people give 500,000 to ensure that this year the LA opera produces something by Verdi or that there is an exhibit by artist X at the local art museum. Lots of smoozing, donor development and parting the rich from their $ through philanthropy.
Note that a challenge for Cal is that this canabalizing efforts to part that $ for ACEDEMIC departments which are in a much better position ("lets endow a chair so we can retain a Nobel Laurette) than good old Alabama.....
Simply put most students at Cal over the past 30 years are decidly NOT REVENUE sports nuts - with limited exposure to great sports programs while they were at school or to a campus culture that promotes athletics.
There are supporters of Olympic sports that fit into this category - many who participated in such sport during their formative years.
2) Local supporters who financially benefit with the Horsehoe is filled to the brim on a Saturday.
This isn't cal. It is the local bar owner in Tuscalusa.
3) The ticket purchaser who is donating to get something other than endzone tixs.
THis is the Bear Backer program and its ilk. However, with Cal football or basketball not being a tough tix to grab the incentives to essentially but a PSL (cause that is kinda what it is) is low and the rent that can be extracted is low. I assume this is not really the same $$ as the NIL pool - though it will be interesting to see if the NCAA starts dining boosters for getting "credit" (formal or informal) for their NIL contributions and thus access to premium seating.
