These kids are idiots. CFB players aren’t getting $250-350k to play.
Let them sit. Next person up. Good luck playing in the CFL to try to get noticed by the NFL.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/02/p...-and-more/

(08-02-2020 07:00 PM)ThunderDent Wrote:  These kids are idiots. CFB players aren’t getting $250-350k to play.
Let them sit. Next person up. Good luck playing in the CFL to try to get noticed by the NFL.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/02/p...-and-more/

You don't think the conferences will cave? They always give in to these schmucks.

In ten years the number of athletic scholarships available will be half today limiting opportunities. All in the name of progress.

"We wish them well in their future endeavors."

Cancel the season and expel the ringleaders

The establishment had better hope the boycott doesn't spread to the other conferences. The fans aren't going to tune in to watch FCS replacements.

(08-02-2020 08:50 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  The establishment had better hope the boycott doesn't spread to the other conferences. The fans aren't going to tune in to watch FCS replacements.

I will.

(08-02-2020 07:00 PM)ThunderDent Wrote:  These kids are idiots. CFB players aren’t getting $250-350k to play.
Let them sit. Next person up. Good luck playing in the CFL to try to get noticed by the NFL.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/02/p...-and-more/

So long as the schools are asking them to risk their ability to be fit enough to play in the NFL, asking for the quan up front in case it's the last time you are capable of playing football at such a high level has a certain logic to it. For a lot of people, some degree of heart damage from the 'rona can be adjusted to without a lot of problem, but substantial damage to the cardiovascular system is going to affect whether someone will be an NFL level athlete.

(08-03-2020 01:43 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-02-2020 07:00 PM)ThunderDent Wrote:  These kids are idiots. CFB players aren’t getting $250-350k to play.
Let them sit. Next person up. Good luck playing in the CFL to try to get noticed by the NFL.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/02/p...-and-more/

So long as the schools are asking them to risk their ability to be fit enough to play in the NFL, asking for the quan up front in case it's the last time you are capable of playing football at such a high level has a certain logic to it. For a lot of people, some degree of heart damage from the 'rona can be adjusted to without a lot of problem, but substantial damage to the cardiovascular system is going to affect whether someone will be an NFL level athlete.

How do you prove where a player gets exposed though? What if one or two players break the rules, don't tell anyone, and bring Covid into the locker room? Why should the school be liable especially if the school/conference allows players to opt out for a year?

Unless these 18-22 year old players are quarantining in a secluded location, avoiding all friends and all members of the opposite sex, all parties—-basically avoiding any human interaction period—-they are just as likely to get the virus as anyone else out there. There reality is their specific age group is primarily responsible for the spikes in Covid cases we currently are seeing.

Not going to be a problem this year, FB season is already dead and buried.

Some of their ideas are good, others are misguided, and others are downright impossible. Covering their health costs and voiding the liability shields, allowing a "free" opt out, allowing additional freedom to come back to school if students go undrafted in pro leagues, and giving the student control of the NLI rights are all good ideas. Reinstating sports that have been cut due to the pandemic with endowment money is a good sentiment, but misguided given that endowments are earmarked for specific departments, causes, etc. Getting 50% of the revenue? Never gonna happen, but A for Effort I guess.

The S-A's at these schools feel they have some leverage. Good on them for using it.

1. I agree that some of these points are worthwhile, especially health costs.

2. Let's play this out:

In theory, this would have to be instituted on a conference level. If it is:

The good is that all of a sudden the PAC-12 can recruit with the best of them. The other conferences would be left behind because why play in the SEC and not earn 50% of the revenue when you can play in the PAC and earn it.

The bad is: The PAC made 32.2 million per school in 2018-2019 year. Half would be 16.1, divided by 85 full scholarships times 12 schools, or 1,020. That's only about $15,784 per player (I know there are other sources of revenue that I am not counting, but I am using this number to make the case).

Meanwhile, the conference itself and therefore the school is only taking in 16.1 million, compared to the SEC/Big 10's 60 million and the Big 12's 38 million.

Suddenly, the PAC-12 is 20 million a year behind the next conferences, and more than 40 million behind the SEC/Big 10.

And so all of a sudden the Big 12 expands with 4 PAC schools. Say its Arizona/Arizona St., USC and UCLA. The Big 10 takes Colorado and Washington or Colorado and Oregon.

The PAC can't rescind this deal. They have to reexpand with Boise, BYU, San Diego St. to have a 9 team conference, but they are still well behind the others schools and not competitive.

Due to low revenues, other sports are being cut. All of a sudden, Title IX issues come into play and now PAC-12 women's softball and basketball are asking for the same thing.

More sports get cut.

(08-03-2020 09:18 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  1. I agree that some of these points are worthwhile, especially health costs.

2. Let's play this out:

In theory, this would have to be instituted on a conference level. If it is:

The good is that all of a sudden the PAC-12 can recruit with the best of them. The other conferences would be left behind because why play in the SEC and not earn 50% of the revenue when you can play in the PAC and earn it.

The bad is: The PAC made 32.2 million per school in 2018-2019 year. Half would be 16.1, divided by 85 full scholarships times 12 schools, or 1,020. That's only about $15,784 per player (I know there are other sources of revenue that I am not counting, but I am using this number to make the case).

Meanwhile, the conference itself and therefore the school is only taking in 16.1 million, compared to the SEC/Big 10's 60 million and the Big 12's 38 million.

Suddenly, the PAC-12 is 20 million a year behind the next conferences, and more than 40 million behind the SEC/Big 10.

And so all of a sudden the Big 12 expands with 4 PAC schools. Say its Arizona/Arizona St., USC and UCLA. The Big 10 takes Colorado and Washington or Colorado and Oregon.

The PAC can't rescind this deal. They have to reexpand with Boise, BYU, San Diego St. to have a 9 team conference, but they are still well behind the others schools and not competitive.

Due to low revenues, other sports are being cut. All of a sudden, Title IX issues come into play and now PAC-12 women's softball and basketball are asking for the same thing.

More sports get cut.

Title IX is a thing. Wouldn't schools have to give equal treatment to all sports? How does it work if your sport operates in the red (most programs out there)?

(08-03-2020 09:28 AM)f1do Wrote:  

(08-03-2020 09:18 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  1. I agree that some of these points are worthwhile, especially health costs.

2. Let's play this out:

In theory, this would have to be instituted on a conference level. If it is:

The good is that all of a sudden the PAC-12 can recruit with the best of them. The other conferences would be left behind because why play in the SEC and not earn 50% of the revenue when you can play in the PAC and earn it.

The bad is: The PAC made 32.2 million per school in 2018-2019 year. Half would be 16.1, divided by 85 full scholarships times 12 schools, or 1,020. That's only about $15,784 per player (I know there are other sources of revenue that I am not counting, but I am using this number to make the case).

Meanwhile, the conference itself and therefore the school is only taking in 16.1 million, compared to the SEC/Big 10's 60 million and the Big 12's 38 million.

Suddenly, the PAC-12 is 20 million a year behind the next conferences, and more than 40 million behind the SEC/Big 10.

And so all of a sudden the Big 12 expands with 4 PAC schools. Say its Arizona/Arizona St., USC and UCLA. The Big 10 takes Colorado and Washington or Colorado and Oregon.

The PAC can't rescind this deal. They have to reexpand with Boise, BYU, San Diego St. to have a 9 team conference, but they are still well behind the others schools and not competitive.

Due to low revenues, other sports are being cut. All of a sudden, Title IX issues come into play and now PAC-12 women's softball and basketball are asking for the same thing.

More sports get cut.

Title IX is a thing. Wouldn't schools have to give equal treatment to all sports? How does it work if your sport operates in the red (most programs out there)?

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

If I am reading this correctly, the only schools that make money off football (i.e, more revenue then expenses) in the PAC are the Arizona schools, Washington and Utah?

Repost from the other thread:
I'm going to break down my thoughts item by item in what I'm sure will take multiple posts. I'm sure this is the thing you've spent your whole week waiting for:

Quote:I. Health & Safety Protections
COVID-19 Protections
1. Allow option not to play during the pandemic without losing athletics
eligibility or spot on our team’s roster.
2. Prohibit/void COVID-19 agreements that waive liability.
Mandatory Safety Standards, Including COVID-19 Measures
1. Player-approved health and safety standards enforced by a third party
selected by players to address COVID-19, as well as serious injury, abuse
and death.

This all seems reasonable. We're asking them to take on significant risks, perhaps more so than their professional counterparts, and we're asking them to do what we're not requiring their non-athlete classmates to do. If they have reason to not want to play, then they should be allowed to redshirt without it counting against their 5-to-play-4 standard. If the schools feel the need to add another layer of liability protection, perhaps that's a sign that they shouldn't be engaging in this activity at all. At the very least, they should not have to accept greater responsibility than non-athlete students, many of whom aren't going to be on campus for some or all of the fall semester anyway.

Quote:II. Protect All Sports
Preserve All Existing Sports by Eliminating Excessive Expenditures
1. Larry Scott, administrators, and coaches to voluntarily and drastically
reduce excessive pay.

This is tricky because excessive is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not sure how you determine what "excessive" is. Excessive compared to national-level programs? conference programs? All of D1? The school faculty?

That being said, it also casts a harsh light on this disturbing inconsistency we have with college athletics, where we preach the Gospel of the Free Market to coaches, admins, boosters and fans while preaching the Gospel of Amateurism to the athletes. You cannot serve two gods. If you're insistent on not giving your athletes anything other than the scholarship that allows them to make money for you without having to pay for the privilege of doing so, then you need to stop acting like you're a professional sports franchise when it comes to the coaches and the AD and the stadium.

Either pay your players/let them get paid or treat the rest of the program like you would the rest of the school. Not both, and certainly not neither.

Quote: 2. End performance/academic bonuses.

Reasonable. It's weird that we'll pay coaches and ADs for the wins, awards and academic achievements earned in large part by the players who get nothing more than the warm glow of satisfaction from them.

Quote: 3. End lavish facility expenditures and use some endowment funds to
preserve all sports.*
*As an example, Stanford University should reinstate all sports discontinued
by tapping into their $27.7 billion endowment.

As mentioned, touching the endowment is an absolute nonstarter. It's not a rainy-day fund or found money in the couch cushions, and most of it is earmarked for specific purposes. You can't take money endowed to Stanford medicine to spend on reviving Stanford field hockey.

The facility expenditures point hinges on what happens with player compensation. If you're not going to pay them, then yeah, stop spending so much money to benefit other parts of the school or the fans. If you are, then they should be on board with this because the more money those high-life boosters drop on the luxury suite and big-donor room at the basketball game is more money for you. (I also presume the "lavish facility expenditures" aren't about athletics-specific spending, because I can't imagine they'd want to ax a new IPF or basketball practice facility improvements.)

Quote:III. End Racial Injustice in College Sports and Society
1. Form a permanent civic-engagement task force made up of our leaders,
experts of our choice, and university and conference administrators to address
outstanding issues such as racial injustice in college sports and in society.
2. In partnership with the Pac-12, 2% of conference revenue would be directed
by players to support financial aid for low-income Black students, community
initiatives, and development programs for college athletes on each campus.
3. Form annual Pac-12 Black College Athlete Summit with guaranteed
representation of at least three athletes of our choice from every school.

None of this seems out of line. I'm sure some here will bristle/are bristling about the funding of financial aid for low-income Black students, but I'm also guessing most if not all schools are doing something like that anyway, so this just gooses an already-existing pot.

And now the fun stuff:

Quote:IV. Economic Freedom and Equity
Guaranteed Medical Expense Coverage
1. Medical insurance selected by players for sports-related medical
conditions, including COVID- 19 illness, to cover six years after college
athletics eligibility ends.

Again, reasonable given the risks we want them to take.

Quote: Name, Image, and Likeness Rights & Representation
1. The freedom to secure representation, receive basic necessities from any
third party, and earn money for use of our name, image, and likeness
rights.

This has bipartisan political support and for good cause. Quite frankly, it's un-American to tell someone that they don't have the right to do with their name and likeness as they please. You wouldn't want it as an adult, you probably wouldn't want it for your non-athlete college child, so why should we hold athletes to a standard we wouldn't tolerate for ourselves. Their name, their image, their likeness, their choice.

Quote: Fair Market Pay, Rights, & Freedoms
1. Distribute 50% of each sport’s total conference revenue evenly among
athletes in their respective sports.

Off hand, that seems high, but I haven't really thought much about the amounts, just the broader-picture stuff.

The bigger issue is to what degree the schools should be involved in paying athletes. There's two points of contention that come up: a) athletes that contribute meaningfully to a financially successful program should directly benefit from that, and b) all athletes should be treated fairly and equally, regardless of whether their program makes money or not. By having the school do most of the heavy lifting, you can't really satisfy both concerns. If everyone gets the same money and that's that, then the star football or basketball player gets the same payout as a swimmer or tennis player that never sees action, and that's not right. But if you make it contingent on individual and/or program performance, you've got significant inequity issues there (plus Title IX concerns, given that the preponderance of the money would be going to men's football and basketball athletes).

Solution: Semester athletic stipend distributed equally to all, then let the athletes make money on their own (see the name/image/likeness discussion). With some oversight, of course, because you can see where paying a football player for an appearance at a booster's Mazda-Audi dealership might open the door for that booster paying an attractive women's soccer player for an appearance at his mountain cabin for the weekend.

Quote: 2. Six-year athletic scholarships to foster undergraduate and graduate degree
completion.

Probably too difficult to pull off; do you still get the six years if you leave for the draft? Does responsibility transfer to the new school if you do? Is it perpetual or is there a statute of limitations? Nice idea, probably too big a lift in practice.

Quote: 3. Elimination of all policies and practices restricting or deterring our freedom
of speech, our ability to fully participate in charitable work, and our
freedom to participate in campus activities outside of mandatory athletics
participation.

Largely agree, but with caveats. They should have the same rights as professional athletes, who are given wide latitude but also are confined by their representing the organization. Otherwise, they're college students, let them act like college students.

Quote: 4. Ability of players of all sports to transfer one time without punishment, and
additionally in cases of abuse or serious negligence.

Works for me. Yeah, it advantages the power programs, but EVERYTHING advantages the power programs and we're not rolling those back. I assume "without punishment" means "not having to sit out a year."

Quote: 5. Ability to complete eligibility after participating in a pro draft if player goes
undrafted and foregoes professional participation within seven days of the
draft.
6. Due process rights

Ditto. Most of the athletes who leave for the draft will either a) know they're placing well and stay or b) probably know they won't be drafted but their Plan B is pursuing other pro sports avenues and not coming back to school. For those who do want to come back, they should be allowed, and this is a reasonable constraint.

(08-02-2020 07:19 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(08-02-2020 07:00 PM)ThunderDent Wrote:  These kids are idiots. CFB players aren’t getting $250-350k to play.
Let them sit. Next person up. Good luck playing in the CFL to try to get noticed by the NFL.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/02/p...-and-more/

You don't think the conferences will cave? They always give in to these schmucks.

They aren't giving in on agents and they aren't giving in on pay for play without a big fight.

The point everyone is forgetting is that college football is not minor league football.

The universities offer tuition, room, board, and books (valued at well over $100,000) in exchange for the services of an athlete.

If players don’t like that arrangement then they shouldn’t agree to play collegiate football. Go play overseas or in some arena league. It’s not Washington State University’s fault that the NFL refuses to invest in its own minor league nor is it their fault that no one else seems to be able to find a way to operate an unaffiliated minor league in the black.

Regarding NIL—that’s between players and the those third parties but these endorsements should not be including the name of the schools or any images or logos owned by the school. All these deals should be ran by the school first and they should have the ability to nix deals that are unsavory (no endorsing strip clubs, underage players shouldn’t endorse alcohol, etc). Those 3rd parties should be issuing 1099s to the athletes so they can claim that income on their taxes.

I have always maintained that fans of college sports don't care about specific players. If non-scholarship students at Ohio State play non-scholarship students at Michigan, fans will show up. Universities should scrap athletic scholarships completely. Waste of money. Universities should only offer academic scholarships and financial aid. NCAA should require all students must be blindly admitted to University, without any consideration as to athletic ability, gender, race, religion, finances, etc. Students play students. Fans would still show up for Auburn-Alabama, Army-Navy, etc.