new-york-senate-bill-to-require-student-athletes-to-share-university-ticket-revenue

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/new...et-revenue

Interesting concept there honestly.

I’d say that will make it even harder for some schools to recruit. Even some of the big boys. Because you’d have recruits vying for the locations with the very best, and largest attendances.
And you’d have to compare that to the number of sports sponsored to get the breakdown average per athlete. This would even trickle down to say, volleyball recruiting. Would a recruit go to Penn St, Ohio St, etc, over say Florida State? Because those venues and tickets sold are higher for football?

How does that effect the overall athletic department and the ADs deciding to keep losing football and basketball coaches due to high buy-outs, when all the student-athletes want the coach gone because the attendance is down? Do the ones in football and basketball adjust their play to lose more to get the coach fired so they’ll make more money with increased fan support? Or will it make them play harder to get fans more excited to come to games?

And lastly, is it fair that women’s softball players share equally with football players? Or even men’s basketball and football, since this bill is attendance related? Which will also vary by institution.

Just some thoughts I doubt they've considered at all.

I'm not sure what road will be taken, whether this bill from N.Y., or California's which isn't tied to ticket sales, or whether some other case heretofore unknown gets us there, but we are headed toward the death of amateurism (which has been dead in all ways except name only). The only one trying to save "amateurism" is the NCAA which hovers over its corpse like an overzealous EMT trainee with defibrillators charged and in hand ready to make the body jump with another jolt so that they can keep bilking the schools and athletes out of 70 million plus dollars a year which goes into their over 1 Billion dollar endowment.

Meanwhile they are getting ready to hammer 5 or 6 schools over basketball for corporate sponsorship involvement. While they have recently overlooked the major offenses of cash cows supportive of their structure.

It's past time for all of this hypocrisy to end!

So count me as one who doesn't care what the vehicle is that gets us there but the kids should receive compensation for putting their bodies on the line, and their likenesses should be their own.

While we shouldn't look at schools as solely professional sports arrangement they should at least be treated as the hybrids they are.

A lot of revenue from ticket sales and all that is to help the schools to stay Title 9 compliant. I just can' t see if this would go down well when you start doing this. You have to look at the cost of all sports, the cost of travel on the road and other expenses. Pay players from these funds would start hurting schools including the P5. This could lead a shift of conferences to go mega by adding schools inside their footprint to ease the cost of travel. This could actually tear the AAC, SBC and C.-USA apart to get them into better footprints. This could actually send waivers to make 10,000 seat stadiums the maxed to get some D1 schools come into compliance. I could see that Big Sky with MWC plus Dixie State, Colorado Mesa, Azusa Pacific, West Texas A&M and Angelo State while some of the top MWC schools get picked for the PAC 12. This could also hurt non-football schools because they need to add football or move to another conference. That would mean UTA, Little Rock and Wichita State needs to add football or downgrade to Southland Conference.

(09-22-2019 02:32 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  A lot of revenue from ticket sales and all that is to help the schools to stay Title 9 compliant. I just can' t see if this would go down well when you start doing this. You have to look at the cost of all sports, the cost of travel on the road and other expenses. Pay players from these funds would start hurting schools including the P5. This could lead a shift of conferences to go mega by adding schools inside their footprint to ease the cost of travel. This could actually tear the AAC, SBC and C.-USA apart to get them into better footprints. This could actually send waivers to make 10,000 seat stadiums the maxed to get some D1 schools come into compliance. I could see that Big Sky with MWC plus Dixie State, Colorado Mesa, Azusa Pacific, West Texas A&M and Angelo State while some of the top MWC schools get picked for the PAC 12. This could also hurt non-football schools because they need to add football or move to another conference. That would mean UTA, Little Rock and Wichita State needs to add football or downgrade to Southland Conference.

While I agree it will have an impact on Title IX in as much as paid players aren't necessarily scholarship players, it would have a much different impact upon realignment than the one you assume. What you might wind up with are leagues of schools who do not share revenue, act essentially as independents, and only join a league for scheduling purposes.

The end result of this is fewer schools sponsoring college athletics, and fewer kids playing sports. That's not a desirable outcome.

Just end it all. No athletic scholarships, no perks. Go full ivy league model. Let the NFL form it's own farm league and get colleges out of semi pro athletics

I’m almost to the point where I am done with P5 college sports, with the exception of hockey. The collegiate model has ceased to be about developing well rounded college athletes into educated, productive, employed adults in the given fields that they have chosen to pursue. At the top tier what we have now are a handful of universities running a side business in big dollar athletics. Then you have the players—they are no longer grateful for the opportunity to receive a free education from a great university. They want more than that. They demand to be pampered and treated like rock stars. They don’t care about the classes or value the career paths that their educations can open to them. Players do not need paid.

(09-22-2019 03:52 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m almost to the point where I am done with P5 college sports, with the exception of hockey. The collegiate model has ceased to be about developing well rounded college athletes into educated, productive, employed adults in the given fields that they have chosen to pursue. At the top tier what we have now are a handful of universities running a side business in big dollar athletics. Then you have the players—they are no longer grateful for the opportunity to receive a free education from a great university. They want more than that. They demand to be pampered and treated like rock stars. They don’t care about the classes or value the career paths that their educations can open to them. Players do not need paid.

I agree. The politicians fighting the NCAA don’t realize that what attracts many fans to college sports are the ideals of amateurism and a level playing field, even if those ideals are imperfectly implemented.

These fans value recruiting and playoff participation rules that limit the advantages conferred by institutional size and wealth, and thereby give any school a chance to excel on any given day if the coaches and players can out-smart and out-work the competition. These fans are motivated to buy tickets, make donations and attend games at least in part because they view those things as enabling amateur student-athletes to be successful in both the classroom and on the field. These fans believe the kids are doing their best to represent their university and community in exchange for the opportunity to earn a degree from the same school many of the fans did, and they love them for it.

If the politicians kill amateurism in collegiate athletics most of these fans will just melt away. They won’t spend money to support university-sponsored pro sports leagues where outcomes are predetermined by whichever school’s boosters have the most cash to invest in elite talent. They won’t dig into their pockets to support a system where kids whose motives they used to admire are mainly in it for the paycheck.

The likely outcome is that the thousands of educational opportunities for non-elite athletes created by the current system will be diminished. Much of the cash that pays their way into the classroom as well as onto the field will dry up. And once again the law of unintended consequences will have prevailed.

(09-22-2019 05:24 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 03:52 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m almost to the point where I am done with P5 college sports, with the exception of hockey. The collegiate model has ceased to be about developing well rounded college athletes into educated, productive, employed adults in the given fields that they have chosen to pursue. At the top tier what we have now are a handful of universities running a side business in big dollar athletics. Then you have the players—they are no longer grateful for the opportunity to receive a free education from a great university. They want more than that. They demand to be pampered and treated like rock stars. They don’t care about the classes or value the career paths that their educations can open to them. Players do not need paid.

I agree. The politicians fighting the NCAA don’t realize that what attracts many fans to college sports are the ideals of amateurism and a level playing field, even if those ideals are imperfectly implemented.

These fans value recruiting and playoff participation rules that limit the advantages conferred by institutional size and wealth, and thereby give any school a chance to excel on any given day if the coaches and players can out-smart and out-work the competition. These fans are motivated to buy tickets, make donations and attend games at least in part because they view those things as enabling amateur student-athletes to be successful in both the classroom and on the field. These fans believe the kids are doing their best to represent their university and community in exchange for the opportunity to earn a degree from the same school many of the fans did, and they love them for it.

If the politicians kill amateurism in collegiate athletics most of these fans will just melt away. They won’t spend money to support university-sponsored pro sports leagues where outcomes are predetermined by whichever school’s boosters have the most cash to invest in elite talent. They won’t dig into their pockets to support a system where kids whose motives they used to admire are mainly in it for the paycheck.

The likely outcome is that the thousands of educational opportunities for non-elite athletes created by the current system will be diminished. Much of the cash that pays their way into the classroom as well as onto the field will dry up. And once again the law of unintended consequences will have prevailed.

I disagree with both these posts on two fronts. First, college athletics has never really been about producing well rounded students. From the very beginning schools were using ringers, some of whom were dumb as rocks but could carry that rock down the field with the best of them.

Secondly, I take exception to the notion that amateurism was ever an ideal. Schools have done a great job of marketing that bogus notion, but it has never been true. The concept of the "amateur" originated with Baron de Coubertin, whose purpose in the revival of the Olympic games was to provide a recreational outlet for the idle rich of Europe without requiring that they sully themselves by having to compete against the hoi polloi. Those games were intended to be for men whose status and inherited wealth meant they didn't have to work for a living.

They never meant for people like Jim Thorpe to be able to participate, and they quickly and ruthlessly put him in his place for having taken a few measly bucks as a "semi-pro" athlete.

Throughout history and across all cultures athletes have always been revered and handsomely rewarded for their prowess. It's only recently, and for the basest of motives, that organizations like the NCAA have draped themseves in the hypocrisy of amateurism as some sort of ideal. We would all be better served - athletes and spectators alike - if we rid ourselves of that hypocrisy once and for all.

(09-22-2019 03:07 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The end result of this is fewer schools sponsoring college athletics, and fewer kids playing sports. That's not a desirable outcome.

Agreed. And the sports it will hurt most of all are the ones that are actually dominated by true students (ie everything but football and basketball).

The end result of this seems to be the NCAA governing the sports that don't pay for themselves-all but football and basketball. Football and basketball would be governed by a new organization with perhaps a different conference alignment. At least for Division I. Division II and III might stay intact, but the NCAA probably loses the NCAA tourney and most of its revenues.

(09-22-2019 05:24 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 03:52 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m almost to the point where I am done with P5 college sports, with the exception of hockey. The collegiate model has ceased to be about developing well rounded college athletes into educated, productive, employed adults in the given fields that they have chosen to pursue. At the top tier what we have now are a handful of universities running a side business in big dollar athletics. Then you have the players—they are no longer grateful for the opportunity to receive a free education from a great university. They want more than that. They demand to be pampered and treated like rock stars. They don’t care about the classes or value the career paths that their educations can open to them. Players do not need paid.

I agree. The politicians fighting the NCAA don’t realize that what attracts many fans to college sports are the ideals of amateurism and a level playing field, even if those ideals are imperfectly implemented.

These fans value recruiting and playoff participation rules that limit the advantages conferred by institutional size and wealth, and thereby give any school a chance to excel on any given day if the coaches and players can out-smart and out-work the competition. These fans are motivated to buy tickets, make donations and attend games at least in part because they view those things as enabling amateur student-athletes to be successful in both the classroom and on the field. These fans believe the kids are doing their best to represent their university and community in exchange for the opportunity to earn a degree from the same school many of the fans did, and they love them for it.

If the politicians kill amateurism in collegiate athletics most of these fans will just melt away. They won’t spend money to support university-sponsored pro sports leagues where outcomes are predetermined by whichever school’s boosters have the most cash to invest in elite talent. They won’t dig into their pockets to support a system where kids whose motives they used to admire are mainly in it for the paycheck.

The likely outcome is that the thousands of educational opportunities for non-elite athletes created by the current system will be diminished. Much of the cash that pays their way into the classroom as well as onto the field will dry up. And once again the law of unintended consequences will have prevailed.

The reality is that few athletes even in the top programs go pro. How popular is minor league baseball? Or minor league basketball?

Most athletes are overpaid for their value now. The ones who are worth more wouldn't get full value. The only advantage of any sort of pay system is that money is given to the athletes instead of spending it making their training facilities 5 star.

If players want to go pro, they have options in every sport but football.