Players Sharing Revenue

[HuckFinn]

Interview parents of current players and recruits. Here is the question: “On a scale of 1-10, where do you rank getting a degree as important for your daughter or son?”

I, as a parent, would say 10 without hesitation.

Let’s not get sidetracked with the claim that not everyone needs a college degree. I know that and agree. A degree is what scholarship athlete signed up for, so let’s focus on that.

 

[Fryowa]

Interview parents of current players and recruits. Here is the question: “On a scale of 1-10, where do you rank getting a degree as important for your daughter or son?”

I, as a parent, would say 10 without hesitation.

Let’s not get sidetracked with the claim that not everyone needs a college degree. I know that and agree. A degree is what scholarship athlete signed up for, so let’s focus on that.

If I were a parent of anyone with potential for a 1-31 pick, it'd be a zero on a scale of 1-10.

The 31st pick is guaranteed $12.75 million fully. That's about $7 million cash money in your pocket after Uncle Sam and enough to set you for life. Even if you blew your knee out the first day of camp and never even made the team, you are done worrying about money ever again unless you're stupid, in which case a college degree wouldn't have helped you anyway.

$7 million in the bank is enough to buy a nice house and two nice vehicles outright, and the interest on the rest is enough to live on VERY comfortably for the rest of your and your family's lives. You can pay for your kids to go to any private school, whatever college they want, medical insurance, and any reasonable living expense you could ever come across. That kind of money allows you to have the freedom to experience life the way everyone dreams of experiencing, without the worries and stress most people have. Anyone who says money can't make you happy hasn't lived in a poor household or themselves wondered how their next meal was going to be paid for. I have.

 

[HuckFinn]

I don’t disagree that a kid who may go in the first round would likely have parents who are not concerned about the completion of a degree. However, how would those parents know if their son/daughter would succeed at that level early on, with a lifetime of income that would serve them well? Probably not until the kid is a junior or senior in college, and risk factors would still be in play.

Furthermore, never underestimate the $ value of a Bachelor’s degree, let alone an MA or PhD.
The data there is clear.

I would also argue that the value of an academic experience at the college level provides an opportunity to grow, mature, experiment, hear from many sources a variety of important messages. Pursuit of a degree also is proof of commitment to a goal that is no small task. Just ask employers.


In short, I would advise even the most talented athletes to complete a degree, and be proud of their accomplishment. The foundation of an athletic scholarship is provision of payment to a gifted athlete for completion of an academic degree. If we do not honor that foundation, then no longer should we pay room, board, and tuition to athletes. That would be very sad.

 

[Fryowa]

I don’t disagree that a kid who may go in the first round would likely have parents who are not concerned about the completion of a degree. However, how would those parents know if their son/daughter would succeed at that level early on, with a lifetime of income that would serve them well? Probably not until the kid is a junior or senior in college, and risk factors would still be in play.

Furthermore, never underestimate the $ value of a Bachelor’s degree, let alone an MA or PhD.
The data there is clear.

The thing is that money is 100% guaranteed. You sign on that dotted line and it’s yours. You’d have to work decades at even the most lucrative job with a bachelors degree to make that money and none is guaranteed.

Being clear, the only time I’d say not getting your degree is preferable is if you’re a clear first or second rounder. You can’t risk injury or a fall back in performance with that kind of coin on the table.

 

[Fryowa]

However, how would those parents know if their son/daughter would succeed at that level early on, with a lifetime of income that would serve them well?

First round money is more than a lifetime of income for almost everyone on the planet, and it’s guaranteed.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

To your second point, forcing people to do something just because it is in their best interest never seems to go over. Perhaps there is some way to incentivize the college education rather than just making it mandatory for eligibility in the league?

To your first point, I agree that there is something different about these players being your classmates (for student fans), or knowing they sit in the same classrooms that you once sat in (for alums). Knowing that they love your school, and that they are not mere employees of your school.

We probably would lose something. It just seems that forcing a marriage between a billion dollar sports industry and higher ed leads to lots of shady shit and a whole bunch of disingenuous concern about amateurism and sanctity of the sport, so maybe the tradeoff is worth it?

I guess here is where I land. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. While the athletes make up the product on the field, the truth is that each school "owns" its program. Just like Jerry Jones owns the Cowboys. Iowa can do anything it wants to as long as it follows the law. Iowa could absolutely require its players to sign a contract agreeing to attend classes, to forgo NIL collective money, and require a repayment of money earned if they transfer, all in exchange for a 50,000 salary and free tuition. That is a bargained for exchange and if a given kid does not like the deal, said given kid does not have to accept the offered deal and can do whatever he wants in life.

Where the system breaks down is when the schools band together and all have the same rules. It implicates antitrust concerns. You either need an exemption from Congress or some form of collective bargaining.

This is not an easy path, but the sport must head towards some form of control and uniformity or it risks becoming not legitimate.

Personally, my mendoza line is schools moving away from college age student athletes. I am out. Its not CFB anymore. As Fry noted, the sport is free to do that, but I am free to not ever watch again.

I think the powers that be know that the kids in the helmets have to stay student athletes, but they can be paid a reasonable salary for their efforts, the system can be regulated, and frankly, everyone can be relatively happy. Getting there is the challenge.

But, whatever the outcome, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. You don't like the system, don't participate. Whether that be colleges, players or fans.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

I fully admit that I personally don't like the changes happening to college football. Recruiting is almost impossible now for a school like Iowa and fans can't get interested in recruiting because there's no such thing as a commitment. I would love it if schools organized into super conferences like you said and mandated either a one transfer rule or a sit-a-year after your second transfer rule. Mandating equal pay is not something I'd be in favor of. A player's demand should determine their pay rate just like any other job.

I also know that even though I don't like the changes taking place, I'd be a hypocrite if I said they shouldn't be paid or that the portal shouldn't exist. None of the players, coaches, universities, or organizations affect me in any way materially so it isn't up to me to decide if or to what degree they're getting paid, nor whether they can transfer. What is up to me is to decide is whether I want to consume the product, and that's all I can and will do.

This is the first post I remember you saying that you do not personally like the changes to CFB. I appreciate you saying that. But I also respect the nuance that you don't think it is your place to tell others what they should or should not get paid because that is their business, and that does not affect you. Very good point.

Here is another way to consider it though. It does affect you, in the sense that you and I could both stop watching Iowa football if the product turns illigitimate in our personal opinions. So, I think it is okay for you to wish for changes to the current posture of the game. I mean, honestly, none of us have any say in what happens other than the small amount we can contribute monetarily as fans, or choose to withhold as fans.

Piggybacking on my last post, sometimes change to something static has to come with a big crashing wave, and that is what NIL, portal, and conference realignment have done. But, large scale systemic change typically has the pendulum swing back the other way. I believe in the next year or so, the system will rebalance itself. There will be reasonable rules in place that allow players to make appropriate money (whatever that means) while still protecting competitive balance. Most everyone (except maybe the players) does not believe that the current system and direction of the system is sustainable for the long term good of the sport.

 

[Will C]

I am a life-long sports fan but Iowa is foremost a school and that should be our primary emphasis. There has to be a way to structure NIL to fit this. It would be a boon to all schools. The pros do not need to get underclassmen and women. They all have nearly full rosters going into each draft. Go back to restricting the drafts to seniors. If someone wants to play professionally after high school then skip college.

 

[Will C]

If you are a college athlete and decide you want to be a pro then flunk out.

 

[HuckFinn]

I am a life-long sports fan but Iowa is foremost a school and that should be our primary emphasis. There has to be a way to structure NIL to fit this. It would be a boon to all schools. The pros do not need to get underclassmen and women. They all have nearly full rosters going into each draft. Go back to restricting the drafts to seniors. If someone wants to play professionally after high school then skip college.

I really like your comment about structuring NIL to do the “fit” not so much the foundation, which is the “school.” Right now, it’s tail wagging the dog.

 

[kicker22]

Interview parents of current players and recruits. Here is the question: “On a scale of 1-10, where do you rank getting a degree as important for your daughter or son?”

I, as a parent, would say 10 without hesitation.

Let’s not get sidetracked with the claim that not everyone needs a college degree. I know that and agree. A degree is what scholarship athlete signed up for, so let’s focus on that.

I think your 100% accurate that as parents we would say a 10 without hesitation. But at the same time we have to take into consideration that what the parents want and what their kids want often aren't the same thing. The other side is, we all know plenty of people that have college degrees but lack any common sense and are dumb as a rock. The degree is a piece of paper the education is what they get out of it and actually retain. The reality is that even with a degree there's no guarantee that they really got an education.

 

[Fryowa]

If someone wants to play professionally after high school then skip college.

That's a ridiculous argument. There are zero NFL-ready players coming out of high school--physically or mentally--but there are a whole lot of juniors.

Your argument is like when people caught selling drugs get a charge of "Failure to affix drug stamp" as an add on charge to get them in more trouble. There's no way for a person to get a drug stamp in the first place. I'm not advocating for drug traffickers here...but penalizing someone for not doing something that's literally impossible is a petty way for the government to increase the punishment.

Just like your statement of..."If you don't like it skip college" is bullshit. High schoolers aren't capable of it, and there's no other alternative path but college.

Why don't you just come out and say that you want kids to play 4 years because you're old and crotchety and don't like change? At least I can respect someone coming out and being truthful

 

[HuckFinn]

I think your 100% accurate that as parents we would say a 10 without hesitation. But at the same time we have to take into consideration that what the parents want and what their kids want often aren't the same thing. The other side is, we all know plenty of people that have college degrees but lack any common sense and are dumb as a rock. The degree is a piece of paper the education is what they get out of it and actually retain. The reality is that even with a degree there's no guarantee that they really got an education.

This “lack common sense” charge is a foolish, rather mystical, generalization that is the favorite of those who have not pursued education opportunities and I guess think they have something to prove. Most people I know have great respect for highly educated people. That piece of paper is pretty strong evidence that the owner has marched through quite a few difficult challenges.

I have seen far too many people who have failed to continue as life long learners find themselves in antiquated jobs that have disappeared. College degree, Technical Ed, military service, all have serious benefits. I grew up in a family that would come down on you with both feet if you disrespected what someone did for a living.

 

[HuckFinn]

That's a ridiculous argument. There are zero NFL-ready players coming out of high school--physically or mentally--but there are a whole lot of juniors.

Your argument is like when people caught selling drugs get a charge of "Failure to affix drug stamp" as an add on charge to get them in more trouble. There's no way for a person to get a drug stamp in the first place. I'm not advocating for drug traffickers here...but penalizing someone for not doing something that's literally impossible is a petty way for the government to increase the punishment.

Just like your statement of..."If you don't like it skip college" is bullshit. High schoolers aren't capable of it, and there's no other alternative path but college.

Why don't you just come out and say that you want kids to play 4 years because you're old and crotchety and don't like change? At least I can respect someone coming out and being truthful

Fry, will you please stop with the degrading remarks based on a person’s age? “Old and crotchety and don’t like change“ do not come automatically with age and experience. I could provide you with a long list of people I know who are young and crotchety and don’t like change. The other long list is comprised of “changes” that have been a disaster.

 

[Fryowa]

Fry, will you please stop with the degrading remarks based on a person’s age? “Old and crotchety and don’t like change“ do not come automatically with age and experience. I could provide you with a long list of people I know who are young and crotchety and don’t like change. The other long list is comprised of “changes” that have been a disaster.

The majority of people against NIL and transferring, are in fact old aged. It is what it is. They want the old days of amateurism and unpaid players to continue because they have this notion from decades ago that players get tuition and that's enough, and they don't deserve to get paid, and blah blah blah because that's the way football was in the 60's and 70's. The letter jacket and pennant waving crowd wants the old days to continue because it's what they're comfortable with, not because there's a good reason. If it was fat people or bald people or tall people, I'd say the same thing. But it isn't. It's old people.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

The majority of people against NIL and transferring, are in fact old aged. It is what it is. They want the old days of amateurism and unpaid players to continue because they have this notion from decades ago that players get tuition and that's enough, and they don't deserve to get paid, and blah blah blah because that's the way football was in the 60's and 70's. The letter jacket and pennant waving crowd wants the old days to continue because it's what they're comfortable with, not because there's a good reason. If it was fat people or bald people or tall people, I'd say the same thing. But it isn't. It's old people.

Fry, with respect, you are fighting a straw man you invented in your head and now have cast as the villain in nearly every post you offer.

First, most everyone on here is old. You are old. I am old. People under 30 don't frequent message boards, which is why they are dying.

I have been active on this board before and after NIL became legal. I don't recall much, if any, posts from declared old people that they don't want these young hooligans to get any money. Maybe there has been a stray post here and there to that effect, but that is not the message anyone is selling here that I have seen, old or young, at least in recent times.

What I have heard by lots of voices is that allowing the players to have a piece of the pie is long overdue, but that many reasonable minds would like to see guardrails in place to keep the game in line with what allowed it to grow into a billion dollar business it is in the first place. There are disagreements as to how to accomplish both paying players and putting rules into place, but I just don't see a lot of arguments on here saying anything close to what you are saying above. Who are these alleged old white voices on here that are advocating that players should only receive scholarships?

Seems to me that you are boxing at shadows on this repeated argument that everybody who does not like the current NIL/transfer system wants to return to the 60s. There is middle ground between your concocted strawman and the current system. I think most posters are firmly in that middle ground.

 

[HuckFinn]

The majority of people against NIL and transferring, are in fact old aged. It is what it is. They want the old days of amateurism and unpaid players to continue because they have this notion from decades ago that players get tuition and that's enough, and they don't deserve to get paid, and blah blah blah because that's the way football was in the 60's and 70's. The letter jacket and pennant waving crowd wants the old days to continue because it's what they're comfortable with, not because there's a good reason. If it was fat people or bald people or tall people, I'd say the same thing. But it isn't. It's old people.

Nope.

 

[Will C]

That's a ridiculous argument. There are zero NFL-ready players coming out of high school--physically or mentally--but there are a whole lot of juniors.

Your argument is like when people caught selling drugs get a charge of "Failure to affix drug stamp" as an add on charge to get them in more trouble. There's no way for a person to get a drug stamp in the first place. I'm not advocating for drug traffickers here...but penalizing someone for not doing something that's literally impossible is a petty way for the government to increase the punishment.

Just like your statement of..."If you don't like it skip college" is bullshit. High schoolers aren't capable of it, and there's no other alternative path but college.

Why don't you just come out and say that you want kids to play 4 years because you're old and crotchety and don't like change? At least I can respect someone coming out and being truthful

Because I don't feel old and crotchety and NIL is a problem that needs fixing.

 

[Teddy]

This might be the most intelligent thread I have read on a sports board, ever.

Fry, not liking this particular change does not mean old people don't understand and want change because not all change is good. For example, outside of a few ultra wealthy bankers does anyone think the banking industry is either safe or solid in the US, and frankly most Western/Middle Eastern nations? I'd like repeal Dodd-Frank and Gram Leach Bliley. Return to Glass Steagall, from 1933 and the New Deal-and I'm a Republican.

Or smaller issues. I'd like to see a four-square block new arena starting where Book & Supply and working toward Burlington. That's big change.

Old White men have seen a lot in the world. We've been sold on "change" countless times and it turned out to be change for the worse.

 

[HuckFinn]

This might be the most intelligent thread I have read on a sports board, ever.

Fry, not liking this particular change does not mean old people don't understand and want change because not all change is good. For example, outside of a few ultra wealthy bankers does anyone think the banking industry is either safe or solid in the US, and frankly most Western/Middle Eastern nations? I'd like repeal Dodd-Frank and Gram Leach Bliley. Return to Glass Steagall, from 1933 and the New Deal-and I'm a Republican.

Or smaller issues. I'd like to see a four-square block new arena starting where Book & Supply and working toward Burlington. That's big change.

Old White men have seen a lot in the world. We've been sold on "change" countless times and it turned out to be change for the worse.

Could not have said it better. And, I am a Democrat. So there!