• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Conference Expansion: Stanford, California and SMU Join the ACC

DownEastDeac said:
[/B]

And I'd propose a 3rd division: schools that could afford to pay their players semi-pro salaries, but instead have the guts to call b.s. on the whole thing and say "thanks, but we'll pass".
Click to expand...

Call BS on what? Paying those who are creating the revenue? Any school dumb enough to do that effectively pulls itself out of realistic competition an pushes them into the second division.
 
guitardeac said:
I think the players will unionize relatively soon and demand a much bigger share of the money - and get it. You're going to have college programs bringing in money not far from some NFL teams. That money will to some large extent end up in the athletes' hands and you won't have anything even resembling college sports anymore, not that you do now .
Click to expand...

I don't see it. College football players aren't a like-minded class that would benefit from unionization. The interests of Bama, tOSU or A&M players is a lot different than the interests of players at UMASS or Miami (o). Even within each conference and each program the interests of the players are different, some are happy with a scholarship, and others want $millions. This isn't like Starbucks workers with the same interests seeking to raise hourly wages and benefits. The way things are going, a college football players union might be the best chance for those hoping to impose NIL salary limits on players, but I don't see the players ever going for that. Sports are so star driven, that it's just not in the stars' interest to try to create uniform pay rules. They are kicking ass in the present system.
 
It's never taken "guts" to not pay labor.
 
PhDeac said:
It's never taken "guts" to not pay labor.
Click to expand...

Get the "labor" claim with the Power V conferences, but is it "labor" when the program isn't a money-making enterprise? Is it "labor" for the Ivies? Is it "labor" for D3? How about HS?
 
I agree that player’s interest in NIL are diverse. Plus, there may only be 100-200 players each class that might be worth paying anything to. My estimation is that players value is going to be a complicated calculation and probably is overstated at this point. Most players will have a hard time commanding much money.
 
I know plenty of high schools in Texas where football generates a good deal of money. Not sure I have heard of any efforts to get players paid, but someone has to have had the idea.
 
KennyRogersRoast said:
I know plenty of high schools in Texas where football generates a good deal of money. Not sure I have heard of any efforts to get players paid, but someone has to have had the idea.
Click to expand...

It's a state by state issue. Some states allow HS players to receive NIL income some do not.

HSMap_061622-980x551.jpg
 
Pilchard said:
I don't see it. College football players aren't a like-minded class that would benefit from unionization. The interests of Bama, tOSU or A&M players is a lot different than the interests of players at UMASS or Miami (o). Even within each conference and each program the interests of the players are different, some are happy with a scholarship, and others want $millions. This isn't like Starbucks workers with the same interests seeking to raise hourly wages and benefits. The way things are going, a college football players union might be the best chance for those hoping to impose NIL salary limits on players, but I don't see the players ever going for that. Sports are so star driven, that it's just not in the stars' interest to try to create uniform pay rules. They are kicking ass in the present system.
Click to expand...

Pilchard, is we what you mean. And it’s true. But it also true I think that if the opportunity to make more money doing the exact same thing you are now is available, the vast majority would do it. Thus, unions.
 
guitardeac said:
Pilchard, is we what you mean. And it’s true. But it also true I think that if the opportunity to make more money doing the exact same thing you are now is available, the vast majority would do it. Thus, unions.
Click to expand...

Some are going to sign up to be fourth or fifth string (and try to beat out the first stringers) at the big schools. But there are also going to be players who are going to bet on themselves by taking a lower NIL deal (or no NIL deal) at a school so that they can get more playing time to try to make the pros.

Especially when you're talking about a sport with so many athletes looking for so many different kinds of developmental environments, there is not going to be one path that the "vast majority" take
 
PhDeac said:
It's never taken "guts" to not pay labor.
Click to expand...

What's the proper role of free market capitalism in college athletics? That's a question that all these schools, any governing body, and the courts will have to sort out at some point. Historically, there hasn't been much role, but I sense a shifting sentiment. The old model was very much a top-down controlled economy. "Wages" were capped tuition, books, room, and board. The amount of "paid positions" was limited and uniform for each school by limited scholarships. Finally, there were employment minimums and forced equality with Title IX. Simply put, historically, college athletics hasn't had much use for free market capitalism.

For those that want to see the players be compensated, are you ready for broader adoption of free market principals? Title IX goes, why limit the scholarship positions, when player comp arrives, will non-compete agreements be enforceable (ending the transfer portal)? There are plenty of people quick to criticize athletic departments for their greed in not paying football and basketball players, but far fewer invoke market forces when it comes to having to field whichever women's non-revenue sports to balance the scholarship count.
 
Last edited:
BiffTannen said:
Those schools don't make any real money on football.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. Schools that are making money off of players, should rightfully be paying players. I knew players who were genuinely struggling when I was in school. Meanwhile the university was making big money off of them. A scholarship is great, but when you don’t have money for basic stuff like clothes or going to a bar, etc, but the university is selling your jersey, that’s just wrong.

A separate issue is people who may want Wake to be second tier in sports. That’s fine, but not my preference in any way. I went to Wake specifically because it’s a great school that had tier 1 sports. Otherwise I could have selected a ton of other small liberal arts schools in New England. I know some people don’t put a lot of weight into that, but I’m not the only one.
 
Sco Deac said:
What's the proper role of free market capitalism in college athletics? That's a question that all these schools, any governing body, and the courts will have to sort out at some point. Historically, there hasn't been much role, but I sense a shifting sentiment. The old model was very much a top-down controlled economy. "Wages" were capped tuition, books, room, and board. The amount of "paid positions" was limited and uniform for each school by limited scholarships. Finally, there were employment minimums and forced equality with Title IX. Simply put, historically, college athletics hasn't had much use for free market capitalism.

For those that want to see the players be compensated, are you ready for broader adoption of free market principals? Title IX goes, why limit the scholarship positions, when player comp arrives, will non-compete agreements be enforceable (ending the transfer portal)? There are plenty of people quick to criticize athletic departments for their greed in not paying football and basketball players, but far fewer invoke market forces when it comes to having to field whichever women's non-revenue sports to balance the scholarship count.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely right. NCAA sports have not been based on capitalism and the free market, and in my opinion, that's OK. Capitalism does not work well with for all systems - medicine is another example.
 
It doesn't have to be free market capitalism for workers to be paid. Actually fair wages aren't really a feature of free market capitalism.
 
PhDeac said:
It doesn't have to be free market capitalism for workers to be paid. Actually fair wages aren't really a feature of free market capitalism.
Click to expand...

What is a fair wage? Can't be set in relation to revenue generated and must be uniform for the long snapper the same as the quarterback, or take it even further and say the same for the quarterback as it is for the 3d string setter on the volleyball team. Otherwise, you are inviting free market capitalism into the discussion.
 
Rafi said:
This is absolutely right. NCAA sports have not been based on capitalism and the free market, and in my opinion, that's OK. Capitalism does not work well with for all systems - medicine is another example.
Click to expand...
Capitalism is ever changing. Monopolists are good at it. We get what we allow. SEC/Big Whatever is Exxon Mobil. An horrendous example of anything goes.
 
Sco Deac said:
With a similar comment from the Big 10, we could relax a little. ESPN doesn't want to cannibalize the ACC to move teams to the SEC. The nearer term issue is whether the Big10 comes calling for and ACC school. Realistically, everything will be in a holding pattern until something moves with Notre Dame.
Click to expand...

There was a comment from the Iowa president saying that a few days ago. I posted the link a few pages back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top