(12-17-2019 10:41 PM)chester Wrote:  

Quote:Earlier this month, Senators Chris Murphy (D – Conn) and Mitt Romney (R – Utah) formed a bipartisan working group to review issues related to student-athlete economic rights. A potential result of their work is legislation to provide a national framework for name, image, and likeness compensation.

This article outlines the benefits that would accrue to college athletics if lawmakers also developed federal legislation to limit excessive spending on salaries and facilities...

Quote:...It is almost always in the personal job-security interest of athletics directors to pay highly popular coaches whatever it takes to retain them, lest they be blamed by influential constituents for allowing a beloved coach to get away...

Blue's ADU piece reminds me of something Bowlsby said last week. (5:00) He said the underbelly of the NIL discussion is the comparison of coaches' salaries to what players get, acknowledging that "commissioners make a lot of money too". He said "The escalation of salaries is real" and "if we don't find a way to slow it down and maybe slow down the proliferation of expansive facilities, we're going to find ourselves with a $20M coach before long..." He added that "ADs and presidents are really not capable of saying 'no' to a popular coach."

Bowlsby did not specify how they might achieve that but...I doubt Blue is the only one who wants what he proposes.

I think administrators are becoming very concerned that the coaching salary thing has escalated to the point that its become very difficult to argue that players should receive no compensation above their educational benefit while coaches are routinely getting 4-10 million a year (or more).