Go Back  The Hull Truth - Boating and Fishing Forum > BOATING FORUMS > Dockside Chat
Reload this Page >

Northwestern University football players can unionize, federal agency says

Notices

Northwestern University football players can unionize, federal agency says

Old 03-27-2014, 11:06 AM
  #61  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 5,509
Default

Thank you for making every one of my points, although it is relatively clear they were over your head.
chrispnet is offline  
Old 03-27-2014, 11:06 AM
  #62  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,854
Default

Originally Posted by Ronn Burgandy View Post
Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, all with 18-32 billion dollar endowments.

Clearly this comes from D1 sports.
They also don't offer athletic scholarships, and haven't been athletically relevant since WW2.
N2theblue is offline  
Old 03-27-2014, 11:06 AM
  #63  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Cherry Hill/LBI
Posts: 2,166
Default

Originally Posted by chrispnet View Post
The vast, vast majority (I'm talking VAST) of scholarship recipients produce no income for their schools, and are student athletes in the tradition of student athletes.
.
I am sure you are right, but can you present some figures, so we can all catch up with you. Here is what I found:

for 2,068 institutions of higher education, intercollegiate athletes receive payments-in-kind, via athletic scholarships, that constitute less than 22 percent of total athletic department revenues.

https://www.ilr.cornell.edu/cheri/up...ri_wp155-2.pdf

Am I misinterpreting the data, or does these mean that students in total generate far more in revenue than they receive in "compensation?"
NJLorelei is offline  
Old 03-27-2014, 11:07 AM
  #64  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,854
Default

Originally Posted by chrispnet View Post
Thank you for making every one of my points, although it is relatively clear they were over your head.
How did I make them, since your points were so clearly erroneous.
N2theblue is offline  
Old 03-27-2014, 11:08 AM
  #65  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 5,509
Default

Originally Posted by Ronn Burgandy View Post
Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, all with 18-32 billion dollar endowments.

Clearly this comes from D1 sports.
Baylor football revenue $14 million
Baylor grants from NIH (one source) for the same year $48 mllion

People have no idea what really comprises a University because their perspectives are driven by the imbecile tube.
chrispnet is offline  
Old 03-27-2014, 11:09 AM
  #66  
Admirals Club
 
Ronn Burgandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Where the wild things are
Posts: 15,114
Default

Originally Posted by N2theblue View Post
A football player brings in more money than any other single student when you count television rights etc.
Originally Posted by Ronn Burgandy View Post
Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, all with 18-32 billion dollar endowments.

Clearly this comes from D1 sports.
Originally Posted by N2theblue View Post
They also don't offer athletic scholarships, and haven't been athletically relevant since WW2.
Originally Posted by chrispnet View Post
Thank you for making every one of my points, although it is relatively clear they were over your head.
X2 Crispy.
Ronn Burgandy is offline  
Old 03-27-2014, 11:14 AM
  #67  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,854
Default

Originally Posted by Ronn Burgandy View Post
X2 Crispy.
Yes cause the Ivy League has such a big television contract.

Cherry Picking exceptions doesn't make your point, it actually detracts from it.

Also your Baylor example is clearly wrong since they received 22 million just from the Big 12 conference in television and bowl revenues. That does not count any revenues for tier three media rights, merchandising, etc.
N2theblue is offline  
Old 03-27-2014, 11:16 AM
  #68  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 5,509
Default

Originally Posted by NJLorelei View Post
I am sure you are right, but can you present some figures, so we can all catch up with you. Here is what I found:

for 2,068 institutions of higher education, intercollegiate athletes receive payments-in-kind, via athletic scholarships, that constitute less than 22 percent of total athletic department revenues.

https://www.ilr.cornell.edu/cheri/up...ri_wp155-2.pdf

Am I misinterpreting the data, or does these mean that students in total generate far more in revenue than they receive in "compensation?"
I believe you are misinterpreting my statement.

You might also be misinterpreting the data.

Further, you might want to include the actual expenses of an athletic program in your analysis.

Finally, the valuation of the "in-kind" payment is a fascinating concept.
Is that done against the standard tuition rates, the needs based tuition rates, the cost of delivery or what?
chrispnet is offline  
Old 03-27-2014, 11:19 AM
  #69  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Cherry Hill/LBI
Posts: 2,166
Default

Originally Posted by chrispnet View Post
Baylor football revenue $14 million
Baylor grants from NIH (one source) for the same year $48 mllion

People have no idea what really comprises a University because their perspectives are driven by the imbecile tube.
Baylor did do too badly at $14m, but certainly some of the other TX Big 12, made alot more:

In Texas, college football is not only a favorite state tradition, but also a big money maker and a great business. In the 2009 school year alone, the Texas Longhorns generated more than $90 million in gross revenues, making them the most profitable college football team in the country. In the same year, the Texas A&M Aggies brought in revenue of $42 million, ranking at number four most profitable in the Big-12.
NJLorelei is offline  
Old 03-27-2014, 11:26 AM
  #70  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,854
Default

Oh and by the way. I do not believe paying players is necessarily the solution. But the way schools and the NCAA treat then is broken and shameful.

Players injuries while playing for the school should be paid for even if the student loses the ability to recover and continue playing as a result of that injury.

The Student part of student athlete should be put back into it. They should be encouraged to take majors that will actually prepare then for life after athletics. Very few end up going pro or getting into coaching.

Full cost of attendance scholarships should be granted.

And finally, the biggest one, they should be allowed to make money from their own image. If a local car dealership wants to give the football WR $5,000 to appear on his commercial he should be able to. If Johnny Manziel wants to sell autographs he should be able to. Etc.
N2theblue is offline  
Old 03-27-2014, 11:27 AM
  #71  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,292
Default

Originally Posted by chrispnet View Post
The "employees" involved in that business are the plethora of athletic directors, administrators, coaches, assistant coaches, trainers, statisticians, groundskeepers, janitors, etc. involved in that pursuit.
They are the ones who derive income from their relationship to the sport.
The student is invited to attend the University gratis with the stipulation that they play their sport.
The vast, vast majority (I'm talking VAST) of scholarship recipients produce no income for their schools, and are student athletes in the tradition of student athletes.

The student athletes are students athletes, not employees.

Please compare the revenue generated by standard tuition, grants, publishing and other academic pursuits to football.
All football pays for is the other non-spectator sports.

The NCAA is hosed up, but this decision has nothing to do with the NCAA.
They are not a party to the action.
No apology necessary in a spirited discussion. Twice now you have parsed terminology that supports the NCAA position on the role of athletes in the business of college sports. I believe that only further supports the smoke screen that the status quo represents. You are correct that all types of jobs above are employees in the traditional sense. None of these would exist without the athlete. Not to get into a chicken/egg discussion as it distracts from the core of the discussion. The athlete has only one chance to establish market value in college world. They are recruited, often voraciously, promises are made and they choose a school based on that promise. Once that happens they enter into a virtual indentured servitude. The NCAA takes away any feasible ability to re-enter the marketplace. The schools use the players presence to generate huge revenue both directly through ticket and souvenir sales, but also through fundraising activities. Regardless of the degree of financial benefit that an athlete brings to the university, their wages are capped.
If you think for a minute that the priority for student athletes in the profit generating sports is anything other than performance, you would be wrong. The athletic departments have their own academic system that insures the "student-athlete" maintains eligibility. They don't care about the quality of the degree or even if they do graduate.
The real screams will come from all those who have found ways to profit from the existing system, both in the university world and those on the outside that live on public's blind support.
txj33p is offline  
Old 03-27-2014, 11:28 AM
  #72  
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,130
Default

Originally Posted by NJLorelei View Post
I can see your are strougling mightily to quantify the situation. So, let's break it down. For the top 10 football (for dramatic effect). If we are to assume a 50 percent revenue split (nfl style) the average player would receive $418,768 per year. This compares to an average scholorship of $23,325. Does the current situation sound like a better deal for the school or the player? Who is using who?

You suggest that currently the player has a choice. No not for most of them there is no choice it is a no brainier. But, in the future, colleges may have a choice to make: pay the players what they are "worth" or scrap the top tier program. But again I would argue for these "schools" it will still be a no brainier they will pay. Too many $ at stake. It will be interesting anyway.

Yes I do agree with Ron that many smaller schools will rethink their programs. But not the penn states of the world. What became clear to me with the Sandusky situation is that "colleges" like these are football businesses that happen to be located on college campuses, not institutions of higher learning that happen to have a football program.
The players most certainly have a choice. They can go to school for free, be coached by some of the greatest coaches in football, and have the opportunity to advance their athletic career. Or they can not play ball, get a job, or go to school and pay for it. Nobody forces them to play football, nobody, it is a decision thst they make.

Originally Posted by N2theblue View Post
Also don't forget that college is the ONLY choice for athletes wanting a chance to play in the NFL. There is no NFL developmental league and the NFL mandates being out of high school 3 years before being draft eligible. The NBA mandates 1 year and Europe or the developmental league are available but not the preferred path from an NBA teams point of view.
Don't want to bide your time in college, don't play football.

Originally Posted by txj33p View Post
Clearly you value education and that is a good thing. The top caliber athletes factor education into their decisions as probably the least important factor. If you have/had a recruited child you will find that the decision on which school to attend is primarily and exercise in business practice. The atheletes test their market value by auctioning off their skills,and in many cases their health, to competing universities. They factor in all the offers, above board and under handed, and then aanalyze which university program offers them the best opportunity to go pro ( if the sport has a pro outlet) with the highest earning potential. Even those who choose a school for emotional reasons bargain their attendance with the athletic department.
Absolutely right. Nothing to argue with there. The NFL should address that problem. A likely reason their is no farm league is because semi pro sports are generally not huge revenue generators. Colleges are, why? Because of the alumni base. If their was a farm league players would have another choice, play football for minimum pay for the nfl with maybe a few thousand in a attendance. And even lower name recognizabilty, or play at a college in front of 100,000 and a national tv audience, for the compensation package of a free degree.

Originally Posted by NJLorelei View Post
Great point, except for the fact that it is just not true: For the 2012 Rookie Roster "only one player did not to go to college at all and that was Aussie punter Sav Rocca (not sure a punter counts anyway).

So, yes you really have no choice but to play college ball if you hope to have a shot at the NFL.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...lent-come-from
If you hope to have a shot at the NFL you have to play college ball. Arguably if you expect to have a fruitful career with a large company, you have to attend college, if you expect to win a marathon, better start running. You guys kill me with what you think these athletes are entitled to. I realize I probably come across as anti college athlete, that is not the case at all. However I believe that considering them employees and unions being able to dictate reasonable compensation levels with be eventual death of college sports. And I would hate to see that.
JCM 1420 is offline  
Old 03-27-2014, 11:36 AM
  #73  
Admirals Club
 
Ronn Burgandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Where the wild things are
Posts: 15,114
Default

Originally Posted by N2theblue View Post
Yes cause the Ivy League has such a big television contract.

Cherry Picking exceptions doesn't make your point, it actually detracts from it.

Also your Baylor example is clearly wrong since they received 22 million just from the Big 12 conference in television and bowl revenues. That does not count any revenues for tier three media rights, merchandising, etc.
Those aren't cherry picked. They are the schools with the largest endowments in the nation, far exceeding many of those with "premier" D1 sports. In fact, of the 75 or so that have an endowment > $1b, there are very few D1 schools, and of those that are there, most are state schools with multiple campuses. The data simply doesn't support your belief.

It was not my Baylor example.
Ronn Burgandy is offline  
Old 03-27-2014, 11:36 AM
  #74  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,854
Default

Originally Posted by JCM 1420 View Post
The players most certainly have a choice. They can go to school for free, be coached by some of the greatest coaches in football, and have the opportunity to advance their athletic career. Or they can not play ball, get a job, or go to school and pay for it. Nobody forces them to play football, nobody, it is a decision thst they make.



Don't want to bide your time in college, don't play football.



Absolutely right. Nothing to argue with there. The NFL should address that problem. A likely reason their is no farm league is because semi pro sports are generally not huge revenue generators. Colleges are, why? Because of the alumni base. If their was a farm league players would have another choice, play football for minimum pay for the nfl with maybe a few thousand in a attendance. And even lower name recognizabilty, or play at a college in front of 100,000 and a national tv audience, for the compensation package of a free degree.



If you hope to have a shot at the NFL you have to play college ball. Arguably if you expect to have a fruitful career with a large company, you have to attend college, if you expect to win a marathon, better start running. You guys kill me with what you think these athletes are entitled to. I realize I probably come across as anti college athlete, that is not the case at all. However I believe that considering them employees and unions being able to dictate reasonable compensation levels with be eventual death of college sports. And I would hate to see that.
I wouldn't mind it if it means they aren't exploiting them anymore. I would love to see the NFL have to start a developmental league. The more I learn about college athletics the more disillusioned I get.

We would be infinitely better off if schools were schools, not glorified minor leagues and the Pro leagues adopted the European system.
N2theblue is offline  
Old 03-27-2014, 11:39 AM
  #75  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Cherry Hill/LBI
Posts: 2,166
Default

These guys are already being paid (in the form of a scholarship). Now we are just debating how much they should be paid.
NJLorelei is offline  
Old 03-27-2014, 11:40 AM
  #76  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,854
Default

Originally Posted by Ronn Burgandy View Post
Those aren't cherry picked. They are the schools with the largest endowments in the nation, far exceeding many of those with "premier" D1 sports. In fact, of the 75 or so that have an endowment > $1b, there are very few D1 schools, and of those that are there, most are state schools with multiple campuses. The data simply doesn't support your belief.

It was not my Baylor example.
That's what cherry picking is, choosing a few things that appear to support your argument. You picked schools that aren't even applicable to the discussion by your own admission in the quote above. They aren't D1, they don't have revenue generating sports. Your comparing apples to rutabagas.
N2theblue is offline  
Old 03-27-2014, 11:46 AM
  #77  
Admirals Club
 
Ronn Burgandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Where the wild things are
Posts: 15,114
Default

Originally Posted by N2theblue View Post
That's what cherry picking is, choosing a few things that appear to support your argument. You picked schools that aren't even applicable to the discussion by your own admission in the quote above. They aren't D1, they don't have revenue generating sports. Your comparing apples to rutabagas.
I'm comparing schools to schools. The schools without D1 sports seemingly have more money available to them via endowments. A LOT more. Like billions more. Endowments typically come from previous students.

This would, in a sane and rational world, appear to refute your statement that "A football player brings in more money than any other single student when you count television rights etc."

I get it though, you don't get it. You can move along now.
Ronn Burgandy is offline  
Old 03-27-2014, 11:55 AM
  #78  
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,130
Default

Originally Posted by N2theblue View Post
I wouldn't mind it if it means they aren't exploiting them anymore. I would love to see the NFL have to start a developmental league. The more I learn about college athletics the more disillusioned I get.

We would be infinitely better off if schools were schools, not glorified minor leagues and the Pro leagues adopted the European system.
And away goes the money that we are arguing about in the first place. Minor league nfl teams will not generate near the revenue that college teams do. Especially not in this part of the country.
JCM 1420 is offline  
Old 03-27-2014, 11:59 AM
  #79  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,854
Default

Originally Posted by Ronn Burgandy View Post
I'm comparing schools to schools. The schools without D1 sports seemingly have more money available to them via endowments. A LOT more. Like billions more. Endowments typically come from previous students.

This would, in a sane and rational world, appear to refute your statement that "A football player brings in more money than any other single student when you count television rights etc."

I get it though, you don't get it. You can move along now.
I guess I have to qualify what I thought was an easily understood statement. Compared to another student at the same school, a football player generates more revenue. Obviously that's not the case at an Ivy League school that doesn't even play football. I was not comparing a football player at Wofford to somebody with a rich daddy who's going to donate a million bucks to Harvard.

A football player at Baylor (to use chrispnix' example from earlier) is going to bring in more revenue than the average business or engineering student at Baylor. They're going to bring in enough to pay the coach over 10 times what the college president gets paid. (5+ mil vs 400,00+)

So who is more valuable by that metric the president or football?

Like I said. Apples to Rutabagas.
N2theblue is offline  
Old 03-27-2014, 12:01 PM
  #80  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,854
Default

Originally Posted by JCM 1420 View Post
And away goes the money that we are arguing about in the first place. Minor league nfl teams will not generate near the revenue that college teams do. Especially not in this part of the country.
I would have no problem with that happening. The NFl would still have to develop players for their league in some fashion, and those players would be part of the NFLPA just like baseball players in the minors are part of the MLBPA.
N2theblue is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.