Story: NFL Far from A.J. Epenesa's Mind

[CP87]

That's the gamble. While it would be great for memories to come back for your senior year, if you are considered amongst the top talents in the draft, the risk of a career-ending injury in the day and age of multi-million dollar contracts for rookies just isn't worth it. Now, if he was, say, projected as a mid-rounder or later, you could argue that the risk is worth it (both for the memories and to potentially improve the draft stock). It all depends upon individual priorities and what level of risk you are willing to accept.

I think the mid-round guy is risking more than the likely first-rounder. If Ben Niemann had been injured in the Pinstripe bowl, he likely would have never gotten a shot at the NFL (the Drew Ott example pretty much proves this is true). As it is, he will be a multi-year pro who will likely make several million.

The examples that everyone likes to use of players who lost big are Jaylon Smith and Jake Butt. They both had multi-million dollar insurance policies to cover them in the event they could never play pro football, as well as in the case that their draft stock dropped. So they got hurt, their insurance compensated them, and they both were drafted anyway based upon their prodigious talent. Smith will end up earning tens of millions in his career. Butt signed a 4 year, $2.7 million contract. Not sure how much Butt will actually get (he tore his ACL a 3rd time last year, after also tearing ACLs during his Freshman year at Michigan and during his senior bowl game).

So Smith will end up makings tens of millions, Butt will end up making at least a million. And those are pretty much worst case scenarios. Had Butt not gotten hurt, maybe he goes 1st round and gets $5-10 million guaranteed before tearing his ACL as a pro.

So who is risking more, Butt, who could have gotten $10 million, but was pretty much guaranteed at least $1 million no matter what? Or Niemann, who will end up making several million, and would have gotten bupkus had he gotten hurt? I would say Reynolds and Render were in a very similar boat this year, although it is looking less likely that Render gets drafted following pedestrian pro day numbers.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

I think the mid-round guy is risking more than the likely first-rounder. If Ben Niemann had been injured in the Pinstripe bowl, he likely would have never gotten a shot at the NFL (the Drew Ott example pretty much proves this is true). As it is, he will be a multi-year pro who will likely make several million.

The examples that everyone likes to use of players who lost big are Jaylon Smith and Jake Butt. They both had multi-million dollar insurance policies to cover them in the event they could never play pro football, as well as in the case that their draft stock dropped. So they got hurt, their insurance compensated them, and they both were drafted anyway based upon their prodigious talent. Smith will end up earning tens of millions in his career. Butt signed a 4 year, $2.7 million contract. Not sure how much Butt will actually get (he tore his ACL a 3rd time last year, after also tearing ACLs during his Freshman year at Michigan and during his senior bowl game).

So Smith will end up makings tens of millions, Butt will end up making at least a million. And those are pretty much worst case scenarios. Had Butt not gotten hurt, maybe he goes 1st round and gets $5-10 million guaranteed before tearing his ACL as a pro.

So who is risking more, Butt, who could have gotten $10 million, but was pretty much guaranteed at least $1 million no matter what? Or Niemann, who will end up making several million, and would have gotten bupkus had he gotten hurt? I would say Reynolds and Render were in a very similar boat this year, although it is looking less likely that Render gets drafted following pedestrian pro day numbers.

Those are good points, but, ultimately, risk is risk. There are innumerable ways to stratify it and also spin it.

Obviously, a lot depends upon how significant the injury is. Strictly in dollar terms based upon the CBA rookie pay scale, a potential top ten pick is risking significantly more playing his senior year. Yes, mid round guys run the risk of losing that initial exposure - which potentially could be parlayed into that coveted second contract if they're good enough- but, achieving that second contract is a risk no matter where you are taken. Additionally, for every mid-round guy that earns that second contract, there's probably 20 that don't. It's a wash. In accrued dollar amounts, the potential top ten player ultimately loses much more.

Smith is a good example both ways. He missed out on a potential top ten contract due to his injury. The Cowboys gambled and won, but, what if that injury had been career ending? He would have made enough with his signing bonus and guaranteed portion to (probably) to pay off the exorbitant Lloyd's of London insurance premium and potentially his medical bills, then be right back where he started.

 

[Adam]

his signing bonus and guaranteed portion to (probably) to pay off the exorbitant Lords of London insurance premium and potentially his medical bills, then be right back where he started.

Lol it's Lloyd's of London. Imagine if they really called themselves Lords of London. The Windsor's might not like that.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

Lol it's Lloyd's of London. Imagine if they really called themselves Lords of London. The Windsor's might not like that.

Yes are absolutely correct. I was typing fast at work and didn't catch it. Original post now corrected.

 

[Adam]

Yes are absolutely correct. I was typing fast at work and didn't catch it. Original post now corrected.

Sorry for being that guy, but I mostly thought it was funny. Calling them Lords of London is interesting and could even be a social commentary peeking from the subconscious. They definitely do insurance alot different over there.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

Sorry for being that guy, but I mostly thought it was funny. Calling them Lords of London is interesting and could even be a social commentary peeking from the subconscious. They definitely do insurance alot different over there.

Yeah, I'm not sure if it was a brain fart or the auto-correct. One thing I do know is that those premiums are through the roof, which begs the question as to how a college student with limited resources could take out that kind of policy.

 

[RobHowe]

Yeah, I'm not sure if it was a brain fart or the auto-correct. One thing I do know is that those premiums are through the roof, which begs the question as to how a college student with limited resources could take out that kind of policy.

I think the colleges can pay for insurance.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

I think the colleges can pay for insurance.

Really? I'm surprised by that.

You would think that financial benefits outside of tuition and R&B, such as personalized insurance premiums, would have to be offered to all scholarship athletes in that case. That opens up quite the can of worms.

 

[RobHowe]

I thought I remembered hearing Duke paid for Zion. It did:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndic...-policy-revealed-after-injury-vs-unc.amp.html

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

I thought I remembered hearing Duke paid for Zion. It did:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndic...-policy-revealed-after-injury-vs-unc.amp.html

Makes you wonder how much Nike was involved in that. There's plenty more coming with that situation.

 

[Adam]

Really? I'm surprised by that.

You would think that financial benefits outside of tuition and R&B, such as personalized insurance premiums, would have to be offered to all scholarship athletes in that case. That opens up quite the can of worms.

It is not an immediate monetary benefit. Insurance is meant to help the insured compensate losses. There should be no NCAA regulation on the topic. It honestly should be the societal norm. The elite college players that can recieve privatized underwriting should be automatically enrolled in these policies helping to expand the insured pool and therefore reducing the overall policy costs. There should be a nation wide University Co-op to establish a mutual fund for all other collegiate athletes. That falls more in line with basic fairness and compassion.

The hard counter is the reality of direct financial impact to Universities for funding such an endeavor. I think it is possible for the leaders of higher education to adapt to such an impact, but it surely would make their job harder. I would estimate it would take about 2 million a year per University to fund the insured pool. Some of the smaller Universities would probably need equal and additional Federal funding to cover their portion.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

It is not an immediate monetary benefit. Insurance is meant to help the insured compensate losses. There should be no NCAA regulation on the topic. It honestly should be the societal norm. The elite college players that can recieve privatized underwriting should be automatically enrolled in these policies helping to expand the insured pool and therefore reducing the overall policy costs. There should be a nation wide University Co-op to establish a mutual fund for all other collegiate athletes. That falls more in line with basic fairness and compassion.

The hard counter is the reality of direct financial impact to Universities for funding such an endeavor. I think it is possible for the leaders of higher education to adapt to such an impact, but it surely would make their job harder. I would estimate it would take about 2 million a year per University to fund the insured pool. Some of the smaller Universities would probably need equal and additional Federal funding to cover their portion.

I agree that it makes sense for colleges to include insurance policies as part of the recruitment package. It's not an unreasonable thought at all, and would mitigate somewhat the call for paying student athletes a stipend.

I don't agree that it's not a monetary benefit. It absolutely is, as the university is basically paying a bill (the premium) that would normally go to the athlete. Whether the policy is paid out or not is irrelevant; the university is financially picking up the tab, and the majority of those specialized injury plans have very pricey premiums. An analogy would be the university purchasing lottery tickets for players. There's a cost involved whether they win or not.

 

[Adam]

I agree that it makes sense for colleges to include insurance policies as part of the recruitment package. It's not an unreasonable thought at all, and would mitigate somewhat the call for paying student athletes a stipend.

I don't agree that it's not a monetary benefit. It absolutely is, as the university is basically paying a bill (the premium) that would normally go to the athlete. Whether the policy is paid out or not is irrelevant; the university is financially picking up the tab, and the majority of those specialized injury plans have very pricey premiums. An analogy would be the university purchasing lottery tickets for players. There's a cost involved whether they win or not.

Yes I understand your thoughts. I don't disagree that it is a hard river to navigate. I do stand by my claim though. I do not believe that the insurance policy is a benefit at all. You can only receive money from the policy if you are badly hurt. On principle this can not be a benefit. The goal here is indemnity. That simply means protection against a financial hardship. These policies aren't going to restore the student athletes physical condition. There is no chance that they come out ahead from a policy payout. It is something that should be done out of basic fairness. Many around this nation already consider college sports a form of indentured servitude. This is a basic decency act that could help bridge the gap of the already extremely lopsided monetization of college sports.

 

[4thngoal]

Well you can't play scared.
Get the insurance and do whatever you want to do.
You don't not drive to work because you could get in a car accident do you? Which is probably statistically more probable then a career-ending injury in your senior year.