JonDMiller
Publisher/Founder
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_b0L7xGRmA]YouTube - Paying College Athletes‏[/ame]
Miller & Deace: 9 Reasons Why College Athletes WONT Get Paid
- Thread starter JonDMiller
- Start date
Of course Delany is talking about ALL athletes.
The level of stupidity it would take to think he could say they're only paying football & men's basketball players would be beyond anything we've ever seen!
Seriously guys, Delany would basically be signing his own pink slip, he'd never work again, anywhere. People in Ames even know this.
I believe what we're seeing here is simply an attempt to price out the little guy.
By my estimation, we'd be left with roughly 50-60 programs that would become the new upper division of college athletics. No more TCU's or Boise St's to share their Rose Bowl with or any BCS game that those programs didn't have any history developing.
People say that's too much money to pay, I say the opposite, its chump change.
Why?
Because what happens to the TV contracts if there are only 60 programs left in the top division of football particularly? We've seen that they are quadrupling NOW, just imagine if the content is cut in half. These networks HAVE TO fill their time slots, by my estimation those TV contracts are going to grow ten-fold.
Delany has said it himself, that this isn't going to pass an ncaa vote. He acknowledged that. So why did he bring it up? Because its part of the process, its another notch he will use to leave the ncaa. People have this misconception that the ncaa is at the top of the food chain here. They're not. They work FOR these universities. Ultimately, Delany is creating a "no confidence" type scenario enabling him to leave the ncaa & govern his own version.
And don't think for a minute the B1G is the only one working on this, comments from the ACC commish, Pac12 & even the SEC's Mike Slive lead me to believe this is likely a collaboration between those leagues. Which makes sense, since they will benefit the most.
The level of stupidity it would take to think he could say they're only paying football & men's basketball players would be beyond anything we've ever seen!
Seriously guys, Delany would basically be signing his own pink slip, he'd never work again, anywhere. People in Ames even know this.
I believe what we're seeing here is simply an attempt to price out the little guy.
By my estimation, we'd be left with roughly 50-60 programs that would become the new upper division of college athletics. No more TCU's or Boise St's to share their Rose Bowl with or any BCS game that those programs didn't have any history developing.
People say that's too much money to pay, I say the opposite, its chump change.
Why?
Because what happens to the TV contracts if there are only 60 programs left in the top division of football particularly? We've seen that they are quadrupling NOW, just imagine if the content is cut in half. These networks HAVE TO fill their time slots, by my estimation those TV contracts are going to grow ten-fold.
Delany has said it himself, that this isn't going to pass an ncaa vote. He acknowledged that. So why did he bring it up? Because its part of the process, its another notch he will use to leave the ncaa. People have this misconception that the ncaa is at the top of the food chain here. They're not. They work FOR these universities. Ultimately, Delany is creating a "no confidence" type scenario enabling him to leave the ncaa & govern his own version.
And don't think for a minute the B1G is the only one working on this, comments from the ACC commish, Pac12 & even the SEC's Mike Slive lead me to believe this is likely a collaboration between those leagues. Which makes sense, since they will benefit the most.
PJHawk
Well-Known Member
Jon this is already set in motion with the major conferences and is now just a matter of ironing out the details. Also keep in mind this is being cleverly done not under the auspices of "paying athletes" but providing "full cost scholarships". To prevent a class action Title IX lawsuit it will happen for every scholarship athlete on campus. The ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Big East, Pac-12 and SEC would have little trouble providing a full cost of attendance scholarship. For most of those schools if the annual scholarship expenditure rose from $15.5 million to $17.5 million administrators could tweak a few other budget items and sail along, especially with record money coming in from media deals. The problem will come from conferences like the Sun Belt and the WAC where the need to spend an additional million or two could cripple an athletic department but do you really think Jim Delaney cares about the Sun Belt conferences of the world?
Billso
Well-Known Member
LOL...
hawkeyemark
Well-Known Member
I have started to develop a deep dislike for Jim Delaney and it started with the division alignment in football and the fiasco with the division names. This notion that we at least partly added Nebraska because of their research and academic reputation now looks like a sham. That doesn't exactly help the reputation of the conference but Delaney could not care less after adding a plum football school to the mix.
This indeed does look like a power play by the major conferences to squeeze the little guys. Paying college atheletes opens up a Pandora's box full of Title 9 implications. You can't do it without paying the female atheletes and the male atheletes in the non-revenue sports. You do that and you start taking heat from the people pushing this absurd idea that we exploit college atheletes helping produce the ever growing stream of revenues and that they deserve a bigger piece of the pie. This seems like a rocky road to me and it pains me to see the Big Ten paving the way.
This indeed does look like a power play by the major conferences to squeeze the little guys. Paying college atheletes opens up a Pandora's box full of Title 9 implications. You can't do it without paying the female atheletes and the male atheletes in the non-revenue sports. You do that and you start taking heat from the people pushing this absurd idea that we exploit college atheletes helping produce the ever growing stream of revenues and that they deserve a bigger piece of the pie. This seems like a rocky road to me and it pains me to see the Big Ten paving the way.
hawkeyemark
Well-Known Member
They will have to pay all atheletes equally or this idea never gets off the ground if it even gets past Big Ten university presidents and administrators who have broader considerations to weigh. You open this door and what stops college football or mens basketball players or their advocates from arguing that they deserve more because they produce the revenues in college sports? From there you wade right into Title IX issues.
So the Big Ten with the advent of the BTN and now this along with the other haves in the college sports world want to separate themselves from the have nots and possibly leave the NCAA. Does this represent a positive trend for college sports?
You are correct, they have to pay equally both in numbers & dollars.
Which is what they want to do.
Whether this is good for college sports depends on who your school is.
As an Iowa fan, this is good for Iowa.
If I were an Iowa St fan, I'd be very worried.
hawkeyemark
Well-Known Member
We see the Title IX aspects the same way. I just find it disheartening to see college atheletics devolve into such a cutthroat business model. I lost my idealism long ago but still think college sports should represent something more than maximizing revenue by whatever means that it takes. The extent that atheletics at the collegiate level differentiates from the pros in this regard makes college sports special for many people.
Full cost is a more fair way to go for the student athletes. They used to get laundry money....not anymore. They used to be able to work in the summer,not anymore.
All the new revenues have gone to the schools,not to the athletes,to this point. Is it really fair to keep upping revenues,and keep the players at the same level?
I have always been against paying the players,as I put a lot of value on an education,but this is not really ''paying'' them...it is covering expenses,which I feel is justified. The horse is out of the barn on de-emphasizing college sports,with huge investments in facilities to fund,so a minor additional expense of covering living expenses for the players is not contributing to the boom much.
In a real world it should be profit generating sports only...but probably not realistic. I think they should do it based on the demands of the sport. Do crew members put in the hours of training that football players do? If so, fine,but otherwise,football should get more.
All the new revenues have gone to the schools,not to the athletes,to this point. Is it really fair to keep upping revenues,and keep the players at the same level?
I have always been against paying the players,as I put a lot of value on an education,but this is not really ''paying'' them...it is covering expenses,which I feel is justified. The horse is out of the barn on de-emphasizing college sports,with huge investments in facilities to fund,so a minor additional expense of covering living expenses for the players is not contributing to the boom much.
In a real world it should be profit generating sports only...but probably not realistic. I think they should do it based on the demands of the sport. Do crew members put in the hours of training that football players do? If so, fine,but otherwise,football should get more.
hawkeyemark
Well-Known Member
"In a real world it should be profit generating sports only...but probably not realistic. I think they should do it based on the demands of the sport. Do crew members put in the hours of training that football players do? If so, fine,but otherwise,football should get more. "
I can assure you that if we start paying full cost scholarships and let the horse out of the barn that people will forcefully make this argument. It represents why IMO this idea has way more Title IX implications than appear on the surface.
I can assure you that if we start paying full cost scholarships and let the horse out of the barn that people will forcefully make this argument. It represents why IMO this idea has way more Title IX implications than appear on the surface.
People can & probably will argue this, however, there is nothing legally that they can do about it. Basically, if they don't like it, leave and go somewhere that doesn't pay anything.
That's the only option available because compliance to title ix WILL always be maintained.
Even in a crazy scenario that the powers that be WANT to pay revenue generating athletes more, they can't, they'll get sued by every lawyer in the country. They could potentially be criminally prosecuted. There is literally a better chance that I line up opening day as Iowa's starting QB than title ix being compromised.
