FWIW, I feel that coaches are vastly overpaid too. I'd be all for some sort of cap for head coach compensation in the NCAA. Of course, that will never happen so long as the big boys are writing their own rules.

Not going to get in a back-and-forth with Sense of Shame, we are firmly in opposite camps (as is typically the case). But two points I'll toss out:

1. I'm most on the side of college athletes at the MAC level and below, 99% of which will never sniff the pros and deserve to have a great college experience playing sports. Rules that are titled to benefit the behemoths (like player endorsements) don't help those guys or the fans/students/alumni of schools like Ohio.

2. Almost every school that sponsors college athletics loses money on it. A TON of money on it. If there's one thing that I wish you could see eye-to-eye with me, it's the fact that college athletics is a money-loser for all but a small handful of programs. The "poor athlete" you talk about is probably costing his university $50,000 a year in student fees.

FWIW, I feel that coaches are vastly overpaid too. I'd be all for some sort of cap for head coach compensation in the NCAA. Of course, that will never happen so long as the big boys are writing their own rules.

Not going to get in a back-and-forth with Sense of Shame, we are firmly in opposite camps (as is typically the case). But two points I'll toss out:

1. I'm most on the side of college athletes at the MAC level and below, 99% of which will never sniff the pros and deserve to have a great college experience playing sports. Rules that are titled to benefit the behemoths (like player endorsements) don't help those guys or the fans/students/alumni of schools like Ohio.

2. Almost every school that sponsors college athletics loses money on it. A TON of money on it. If there's one thing that I wish you could see eye-to-eye with me, it's the fact that college athletics is a money-loser for all but a small handful of programs. The "poor athlete" you talk about is probably costing his university $50,000 a year in student fees.

I’ve pointed this out before, but I’ll bring it up again as it shows where we are with coaches compensation and revenue. I took my first job after graduation in Ann Arbor in 1981. Bo Schembechler, the Nick Saban of his day, made 100k in salary. If you inflate that number by 3.5% each year, that number would be 385k now. Harbaugh makes 9M. Players are still getting tuition, room and board.

I’ve pointed this out before, but I’ll bring it up again as it shows where we are with coaches compensation and revenue. I took my first job after graduation in Ann Arbor in 1981. Bo Schembechler, the Nick Saban of his day, made 100k in salary. If you inflate that number by 3.5% each year, that number would be 385k now. Harbaugh makes 9M. Players are still getting tuition, room and board.

2. Almost every school that sponsors college athletics loses money on it. A TON of money on it. If there's one thing that I wish you could see eye-to-eye with me, it's the fact that college athletics is a money-loser for all but a small handful of programs. The "poor athlete" you talk about is probably costing his university $50,000 a year in student fees.

His players also get free week long trips to Europe. There are other avenues where money is put into these pockets from within the rules, especially at the larger programs.

And people would be amazed at what these big programs are able to funnel to their student athletes in legal manners. Like, after the big bowl game having the choice of riding the team charter home, or getting the maximum allowable per diem to find your own way home, even if you ride with your parents. Can be a couple G's right there. Play that game over break when dorms are closed and hello, nice fat check for "expenses". Student Athlete from a poor background, Pell Grants and other Aid is given to them in the form of reimbursement checks that does not need paid back. Scholarships to the big boys are cut on the highest level of rooming, find off campus housing and pocket another couple of thousand. Get back from your game, the big boys will not only make sure you got off the bus with a full belly, but also with maximum allowable meal money.

And not to be over looked but the exposure they are getting is what is making them eventually marketable and of value.

Where it gets interesting is that both sides want to have their cake and eat it, too. For example, if you are going to open up the high end, and let the better athletes be compensated more, to balance things, you also need to open the low end, and let the worse athletes be compensated less. Thus, if you wanted to create an entirely new, free market system to replace the current one, you would eliminate the requirement that people get full scholarships, and also make them non-renewable, and subject to revocation if they arrive on campus injured. Then you'd have a whole range of free market compensation. The stars could get a scholarship, plus endorsements, plus additional benefits, and the backups might get 1/3 of a scholarship, and no benefits. Would that be a system you'd like better?

In the end, if "college football" ends up divorced from colleges, and ends up as a farm league for the NFL, that's probably about what you'd get. Everyone would get at least minimum wage. Most players would probably make about $25-30,000, so about half to a third what they get now, but they would get it in cash (and it would be taxable), not in terms of a deferred benefit (i.e. an education). The stars would make closer to the NFL minimum, and leave once they are good enough to actually make the NFL.

Where it gets interesting is that both sides want to have their cake and eat it, too. For example, if you are going to open up the high end, and let the better athletes be compensated more, to balance things, you also need to open the low end, and let the worse athletes be compensated less. Thus, if you wanted to create an entirely new, free market system to replace the current one, you would eliminate the requirement that people get full scholarships, and also make them non-renewable, and subject to revocation if they arrive on campus injured. Then you'd have a whole range of free market compensation. The stars could get a scholarship, plus endorsements, plus additional benefits, and the backups might get 1/2 of a scholarship, and no benefits. Would that be a system you'd like better?
[/QUOTE]I don't understand why you'd have to do that. In fact, I don't think you'd have to do that. Honestly, you'd barely have to change anything at all.

All you'd have to do is eliminate restrictions on outside earnings and endorsement money. Schools could still compensate players with scholarships in the exact manner they do so. The only difference would be that players who accepted endorsement deals or money from some booster wouldn't be breaking any by-laws. They'd just have more money.

Why would all the other stuff have to change? It's not at all clear to me why opening up the "high end" and the "low end" are different things. You just lift the restrictions across the board, and let human beings earn money on their talents if they can figure out a way to do so.

I honestly don't know why this is so complicated.

[QUOTE=L.C.]
In the end, if "college football" ends up divorced from colleges, and ends up as a farm league for the NFL, that's probably about what you'd get. Everyone would get at least minimum wage. Most players would probably make $31-50,000 (which is typical in arena football), so about half what they get now, but they would get it in cash (and it would be taxable), not in terms of a deferred benefit (i.e. an education). The stars would make closer to the NFL minimum, and leave once they are good enough to actually make the NFL.

I don't understand why you'd have to do that. In fact, I don't think you'd have to do that. Honestly, you'd barely have to change anything at all. ...
[/quote]
Ah, I see. You just want a partial solution. That could work. I thought you wanted to allow them to get more benefits from the University. If the University had to "pay" them more, they'd have to either increase their budget, which I don't see as possible, or decrease their "pay" to someone else.


Never is a long time. I agree that in the short run, it won't happen.

[QUOTE=Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame]Universities can admit whoever they want. Football's not a necessary part of that equation.

Sense of shame, I completely agree with all of your posts. Dabo, signed an 8 year 54M deal last year. Why doesn't he just give a few mill per year to his players? He wouldn't.

Insurance on players is a specialty line and only sold by someone like Lloyd's of London. Very, very expensive.

This sham will only change if guys like Lawrence start to walk away.