Colin Cowherd with a good point

[esplanade91]

Spewing some truth right now on this union thing. Gave some data on how NFL/NBA players make 50% of the league's profits each year, and that teams who don't produce or have All-Star players make less. While LeBron is an irreplaceable brand equal to a machine that prints money for the Miami Heat front office, AJ McCarron will be replaced next year.

Researchers show that college basketball and football teams from major conferences or major programs make about as much money (donations, merchandise sales, tickets) on a bad year as a good year. While there is an uptick in those during cinderella runs (Manziel a good example), it comes out in the wash on a bad year (likely A&M in '14). Fans in college aren't as fickle (alumni, lifelong fans not being able to switch teams, fond memories of yesteryear... not typically same qualities in pro sports).

So... Do college football players have a claim that they deserve 50% of the profits (equal to what NFL/NBA players make) from the NCAA when in reality fans are actually cheering for the jersey... and will likely be replaced by a better freshman somewhere in 2-3 years of their arrival (NEXT YEAR IF YOU'RE A REBEL, HE PROMISED!)?

Players deserve more than they're getting... but this push to pay players is ridonkulous.

[jumbo]

TJ Moe's twitter rant the other day was pretty good as well. Talking about the negatives of unionizing.

Also I saw on Twitter that A&M only made like $60k in jersey sales

[smootness]

The interesting thing is going to be whether or not this has an effect on schools themselves. If they deem players to be employees who have a right to a % of profits, then they pretty much have to do away with the university's non-profit status.

Could get interesting.

[codeDawg]

Spewing some truth right now on this union thing. Gave some data on how NFL/NBA players make 50% of the league's profits each year, and that teams who don't produce or have All-Star players make less. While LeBron is an irreplaceable brand equal to a machine that prints money for the Miami Heat front office, AJ McCarron will be replaced next year.

Researchers show that college basketball and football teams from major conferences or major programs make about as much money (donations, merchandise sales, tickets) on a bad year as a good year. While there is an uptick in those during cinderella runs (Manziel a good example), it comes out in the wash on a bad year (likely A&M in '14). Fans in college aren't as fickle (alumni, lifelong fans not being able to switch teams, fond memories of yesteryear... not typically same qualities in pro sports).

So... Do college football players have a claim that they deserve 50% of the profits (equal to what NFL/NBA players make) from the NCAA when in reality fans are actually cheering for the jersey... and will likely be replaced by a better freshman somewhere in 2-3 years of their arrival (NEXT YEAR IF YOU'RE A REBEL, HE PROMISED!)?

Players deserve more than they're getting... but this push to pay players is ridonkulous.

Nobody with an active case is asking for 50% of profits. Arguing about things that people are not asking for is stupid. People that are against these kids being able to negotiate the terms they play under are selfish losers fearful that the the world is going to change not realizing it already has.

[codeDawg]

The interesting thing is going to be whether or not this has an effect on schools themselves. If they deem players to be employees who have a right to a % of profits, then they pretty much have to do away with the university's non-profit status.

Could get interesting.

Why would they have to do that?

[Political Hack]

50% is pretty steep considering the university is the major investor (despite it being other people's money they're "investing")

I keep waiting for facility related bonds to slowly morph into full fledged college athletics IPOs. I'm going to by some quick stock in about a dozen teams... the home town favorite of course will not be one of them under current management.

[Political Hack]

Why would they have to do that?

they wouldn't. most revenue heavy Ath departments separate the athletics department from the university already.

[esplanade91]

50% is pretty steep considering the university is the major investor (despite it being other people's money they're "investing")

I keep waiting for facility related bonds to slowly morph into full fledged college athletics IPOs. I'm going to by some quick stock in about a dozen teams... the home town favorite of course will not be one of them under current management.

Well sure, 50% is steep... But that's not the important part. For the sake or the conversation it could be 10, 15, 25, or any amount really. Do football players deserve a percent of profits when 99% of the people there and spending money on "them" would be there regardless?

Again, I think football players should be given a better shake... But calling them employees and giving them union status is ridiculous. Giving 18 year olds union status who only are members for 4 or 5 seasons running the 2nd biggest money league in the country behind the NFL is irresponsible and doomed to fail. Instead of paying them, cover 100% of expenses. 100%.

[codeDawg]

Well sure, 50% is steep... But that's not the important part. For the sake or the conversation it could be 10, 15, 25, or any amount really. Do football players deserve a percent of profits when 99% of the people there and spending money on "them" would be there regardless?

Again, I think football players should be given a better shake... But calling them employees and giving them union status is ridiculous. Giving 18 year olds union status who only are members for 4 or 5 seasons running the 2nd biggest money league in the country behind the NFL is irresponsible and doomed to fail. Instead of paying them, cover 100% of expenses. 100%.

They deserve whatever the NCAA is willing to negotiate, and what the schools are willing to pay. Unionization gives them a seat at the table to negotiate. Arguing over specifics right now is ridiculous.

[LiterallyPolice]

Nobody with an active case is asking for 50% of profits. Arguing about things that people are not asking for is stupid. People that are against these kids being able to negotiate the terms they play under are selfish losers fearful that the the world is going to change not realizing it already has.

This. It really is ridiculous... the kids want to unionize, and the ridiculous/flat-out-false statements come out of the woodworks.

College Players want 50% of Profits!
Non-profits can't pay employees!
All women's sports will be doomed because, uh, Title IX or something!

I'm convinced it's just a knee-jerk reaction by folks who consider themselves anti-union.

[LiterallyPolice]

Well sure, 50% is steep... But that's not the important part. For the sake or the conversation it could be 10, 15, 25, or any amount really. Do football players deserve a percent of profits when 99% of the people there and spending money on "them" would be there regardless?

Again, I think football players should be given a better shake... But calling them employees and giving them union status is ridiculous. Giving 18 year olds union status who only are members for 4 or 5 seasons running the 2nd biggest money league in the country behind the NFL is irresponsible and doomed to fail. Instead of paying them, cover 100% of expenses. 100%.

People come to college sports regardless of players/performance? That's news to me. For the most part... ALL sports are the same: you have some die-hards and some fair-weather fans. There may be a slight difference between pro and college... but not enough to tip the scales in this argument.

Again, it just seems like people are reaching for reasons to tear down the union idea.

[scottycameron]

The interesting thing is going to be whether or not this has an effect on schools themselves. If they deem players to be employees who have a right to a % of profits, then they pretty much have to do away with the university's non-profit status.

Could get interesting.

I doubt that has anything to do with anything. You can makes tons of profits and be a non-profit. Most non-profits do just that. Hell, the NFL is a non-profit and they are making money hand over fist. Goodell made 40 something million last year but it's still a non-profit, lol.

[smootness]

Of course nonprofits pay their employees. But the argument is that these kids are the labor and there are a bunch of people somewhere getting fat off of it. The argument for paying players or players as employees is essentially an argument that schools are currently not nonprofits. The sense is that excess revenue is being distributed on some level as profit.

Of course in many cases this is not true. The schools are the ones raking in the money, and they are distributing it throughout the organization; they are putting it back into the school, which is the definition of a nonprofit.

In order for someone to be able to argue that there is a pot of 'profits' that players are entitled to, you have to get rid of the nonprofit status and keep the schools from putting it back into the organization.

In order to retain the nonprofit status, it would have to just be a stipend that many would still argue isn't relative to the amount of value the players are providing.

[Political Hack]

I'm not really sure what to tell you or mr coward if y'all think the system survives without the players. not sure how many games get played that way.

[smootness]

I'm not really sure what to tell you or mr coward if y'all think the system survives without the players. not sure how many games get played that way.

Of course it doesn't survive without 'the players,' meaning no one plays.

But I've always believed that the popularity of college athletics in general is far more about the school than it is the individuals who make up the team. People will go watch a college tennis match. Tell them there are some ok tennis players playing tennis against each other at the tennis complex down the road and see how many show up.

In the same way, though clearly on a different scale, people love watching college football because they love watching their school compete. I promise you that if you took the exact same players and stripped them of the school connection and had them playing against each other in some minor league or semi-pro league, nobody would go watch because nobody would care.

But strip the school of those players, and fill them with other players, and the popularity stays the same. More people come when you win, sure, so on some level better players means you make more money. But there is a lot of money coming in no matter of what - the level of talent isn't nearly the factor the school they represent is.

[codeDawg]

Of course nonprofits pay their employees. But the argument is that these kids are the labor and there are a bunch of people somewhere getting fat off of it. The argument for paying players or players as employees is essentially an argument that schools are currently not nonprofits. The sense is that excess revenue is being distributed on some level as profit.

Of course in many cases this is not true. The schools are the ones raking in the money, and they are distributing it throughout the organization; they are putting it back into the school, which is the definition of a nonprofit.

In order for someone to be able to argue that there is a pot of 'profits' that players are entitled to, you have to get rid of the nonprofit status and keep the schools from putting it back into the organization.

In order to retain the nonprofit status, it would have to just be a stipend that many would still argue isn't relative to the amount of value the players are providing.

Your homework assignment for today is to research what does and does not qualify for non-profit status and find some examples of companies in the sports world that are not for profit organizations. You will probably be surprised. Also, you are getting hung up on minor things that are not issues.

[codeDawg]

Of course it doesn't survive without 'the players,' meaning no one plays.

But I've always believed that the popularity of college athletics in general is far more about the school than it is the individuals who make up the team. People will go watch a college tennis match. Tell them there are some ok tennis players playing tennis against each other at the tennis complex down the road and see how many show up.

In the same way, though clearly on a different scale, people love watching college football because they love watching their school compete. I promise you that if you took the exact same players and stripped them of the school connection and had them playing against each other in some minor league or semi-pro league, nobody would go watch because nobody would car tttgg

But strip the school of those players, and fill them with other players, and the popularity stays the same. More people come when you win, sure, so on some level better players means you make more money. But there is a lot of money coming in no matter of what - the level of talent isn't nearly the factor the school they represent is.

This is probably, mostly true, and if the schools feel that they can do without players negotiating for something they find is unreasonable, they will play with players that they do find reasonable if they feel they are suitable substitutes. Remember, you don't have to join a union even if a union is established in your organization.

Added to your homework, take an economics class. You might not like what MSU chooses to "be" when this is over, but it will all work itself out.

[Political Hack]

This is probably, mostly true, and if the schools feel that they can do without players negotiating for something they find is unreasonable, they will play with players that they do find reasonable if they feel they are suitable substitutes. Remember, you don't have to join a union even if a union is established in your organization.

Added to your homework, take an economics class. You might not like what MSU chooses to "be" when this is over, but it will all work itself out.

y'all know what a union is.

No player. No game. All the players band together. Replacement SEC football players will be great, but those preseason magazines, jersey sales, TV viewership, etc... may take a little bit of a hit if Johnny Backup replaces Johnny Football.

[smootness]

Your homework assignment for today is to research what does and does not qualify for non-profit status and find some examples of companies in the sports world that are not for profit organizations. You will probably be surprised. Also, you are getting hung up on minor things that are not issues.

The NFL is a nonprofit. But the teams are not. There is no one directly employed by the NFL that gets a share of revenues, and the NFL has no owners who get any of the excess revenues as profit. That can only happen, as far as I understand it, if you are working for a for-profit business.

[smootness]

This is probably, mostly true, and if the schools feel that they can do without players negotiating for something they find is unreasonable, they will play with players that they do find reasonable if they feel they are suitable substitutes. Remember, you don't have to join a union even if a union is established in your organization.

Added to your homework, take an economics class. You might not like what MSU chooses to "be" when this is over, but it will all work itself out.

Don't be a douche.

And I have no idea if these schools would have to lose their nonprofit status. But I'm trying to take things to their logical end, and that seems like a possibility to me. And all I'm saying is that if that were ever the case, it would have far-reaching consequences.

My solution is to pay them all X amount as a stipend (it won't be nearly what some probably think it would be) and hope they stop with what they have.

[Johnson85]

My solution is to pay them all X amount as a stipend (it won't be nearly what some probably think it would be) and hope they stop with what they have.

Don't think you can do that because it will raise Title IX issues. They are either going to have to lobby to get some exceptions/clarifications for Title IX enforcement, or are going to have to wait until their hand is forced by a court.

[Johnson85]

The NFL is a nonprofit. But the teams are not. There is no one directly employed by the NFL that gets a share of revenues, and the NFL has no owners who get any of the excess revenues as profit. That can only happen, as far as I understand it, if you are working for a for-profit business.

Not sure how the NFL is set up, but this is probably wrong. There are non-profit organizations that do distribute 'profits' back to its members. They just don't call them profits because they a re non-profits. I think you're local farmers co-op, if you have one, operates this way. NFL would be different, but I'm assuming all the licensing money goes through the NFL and is distributed down to the teams.

[Political Hack]

there's a million things to figure out. What kills me is making an excuse to crap on players because "it's complicated."

Not saying that's your stance 85, but a lot of people say "no" while trying to justify "no" with hypothetical spin off problems. The fact remains that 85 young men playing football at SEC schools work their asses off for next to 0% of the financial pie. it kills me to think about the slime ball administrators, commissioners, TV moguls, etc... that are making MILLIONS each off of the product while the kids who work the hardest get left in the dust after being babysat for 2-5 years.

Step 1: Admit and commit to correcting the problem.
Step 2: Figure out how to make it work.

[smootness]

Not sure how the NFL is set up, but this is probably wrong. There are non-profit organizations that do distribute 'profits' back to its members. They just don't call them profits because they a re non-profits. I think you're local farmers co-op, if you have one, operates this way.

If what they are doing is actually distributing excess revenues, then they are breaking the law if they are nonprofits.

The NFL league office is considered a nonprofit. Each NFL team is a for-profit business that pays taxes like any other business. People hear 'the NFL is a nonprofit' and think the entire league is set up as some kind of scam nonprofit. It is only the league office that does not have an owner and does not distribute excess revenues.

[smootness]

there's a million things to figure out. What kills me is making an excuse to crap on players because "it's complicated."

Not saying that's your stance 85, but a lot of people say "no" while trying to justify "no" with hypothetical spin off problems. The fact remains that 85 young men playing football at SEC schools work their asses off for next to 0% of the financial pie. it kills me to think about the slime ball administrators, commissioners, TV moguls, etc... that are making MILLIONS each off of the product while the kids who work the hardest get left in the dust after being babysat for 2-5 years.

Step 1: Admit and commit to correcting the problem.
Step 2: Figure out how to make it work.

I agree with this on some level, but it's not a large one. TV will make their money regardless; you aren't getting a slice of that pie. The players' money would have to come from what the schools and conferences make.

But there's a large part of me that says if you are a high-level college football player and you 'get left in the dust', then it's on you. Everything is set up for you to be able to breeze through (I know they're working hard, just talking about the academic aspect) and be set up pretty well for the rest of your life. If you squander that opportunity and allow the system to leave you in the dust, that's on you.

[Johnson85]

there's a million things to figure out. What kills me is making an excuse to crap on players because "it's complicated."

Not saying that's your stance 85, but a lot of people say "no" while trying to justify "no" with hypothetical spin off problems. The fact remains that 85 young men playing football at SEC schools work their asses off for next to 0% of the financial pie. it kills me to think about the slime ball administrators, commissioners, TV moguls, etc... that are making MILLIONS each off of the product while the kids who work the hardest get left in the dust after being babysat for 2-5 years.

My stance is a not that they shouldn't be paid because it's complicated.

My stance is that I like the system the way it is and I'm not sure I'm going to like the result if players start being treated fairly. That said, while I am happy to support college football through buying tickets, watching tv, etc. while players are being treated unfairly, I'm not getting enough benefit out of the current system that I would be able to actually advocate that the players should be treated unfairly or to take any affirmative steps to ensure they continue to be treated unfairly. But if I had a cush job in a college athletics department, or was a college coach and hadn't made enough to retire yet, you'd probably hear me preaching about the virtue of amateurism and how it would ruin the integrity of college sports to allow players to negotiate for wages.

[ckDOG]

there's a million things to figure out. What kills me is making an excuse to crap on players because "it's complicated."

Not saying that's your stance 85, but a lot of people say "no" while trying to justify "no" with hypothetical spin off problems. The fact remains that 85 young men playing football at SEC schools work their asses off for next to 0% of the financial pie. it kills me to think about the slime ball administrators, commissioners, TV moguls, etc... that are making MILLIONS each off of the product while the kids who work the hardest get left in the dust after being babysat for 2-5 years.

Step 1: Admit and commit to correcting the problem.
Step 2: Figure out how to make it work.

Your ideal is respectable, but I don't think you or the players are going to be very thrilled with the compensation setup if a system is developed that will work. What's the best case scenario? You manage to comp a kid 30-40k each year in a salary capped system. Okay, great. Tax that. Use it to pay for your tuition and living expenses. It might work out, but I think most folks will quickly realize that the tuition, room, and board setup wasn't that bad after all.

I think it's a bad way to go, but the silver lining for us if we participate is cheap tuition and cost of living. We would inherently be more competitive in that system.

[smootness]

In all honesty, part of my hesitation to just start paying them is that I believe there will be repercussions that we can't see yet, and I believe a lot of those will be negative for the players.

That said, if there's a way to keep the system mostly as it is in regard to current benefits players are getting, while paying them a little extra in addition, I'm all for it.

[esplanade91]

People come to college sports regardless of players/performance? That's news to me. For the most part... ALL sports are the same: you have some die-hards and some fair-weather fans. There may be a slight difference between pro and college... but not enough to tip the scales in this argument.

Again, it just seems like people are reaching for reasons to tear down the union idea.
The report showed that while there are die-hards in both college and pros, college sports see a ridiculous amount of revenue regardless of anything else going on, whereas X has a lot more to do with Y in professional sports.

Of course less people show up when the product sucks even in college (MSU basketball). We still sold out OVER capacity in football this year with a losing record. The Islanders couldn't give away tickets, sponsorship, or apparel if they tried... but last year when they were decent people were proudly rockin' Tavares jerseys like no one's business.

I'm not trying to reach for a reason to say college athletes shouldn't change anything, I just think this whole thing is stupid. These guys DO get something already. It just needs to be adjusted to reflect 2014.

[smootness]

Your ideal is respectable, but I don't think you or the players are going to be very thrilled with the compensation setup if a system is developed that will work. What's the best case scenario? You manage to comp a kid 30-40k each year in a salary capped system. Okay, great. Tax that. Use it to pay for your tuition and living expenses. It might work out, but I think most folks will quickly realize that the tuition, room, and board setup wasn't that bad after all.

And this is where I believe it may essentially be forced to separate itself from the academics, which will change the sport entirely and could reduce its appeal greatly, thus reducing any potential gain the players would be getting anyway.

[Johnson85]

If what they are doing is actually distributing excess revenues, then they are breaking the law if they are nonprofits.

The NFL league office is considered a nonprofit. Each NFL team is a for-profit business that pays taxes like any other business. People hear 'the NFL is a nonprofit' and think the entire league is set up as some kind of scam nonprofit. It is only the league office that does not have an owner and does not distribute excess revenues.

I think this is probably incorrect. The NFL licenses football as a league. I don't think their TV partners cut separate checks to every team. I'm guessing they cut one check to the NFL, maybe acting as an agent of each of its members or maybe the association is allowed to at on its own behalf and the IRS allows it to distribute revenues to its members. Either way, it's basically the same thing. Lots of non-profits could organize as for-profits and it wouldn't change that much, because they basically adjust their spending to where they won't ever have any significant profits. All that to say non-profit doesn't mean they aren't making somebody a lot of money and for-profit doesn't mean they are.

[ckDOG]

And this is where I believe it may essentially be forced to separate itself from the academics, which will change the sport entirely and could reduce its appeal greatly, thus reducing any potential gain the players would be getting anyway.

That's my worry too. I see compensated/employee college football down two paths:

1) A tightly regulated system that gets some of the cash into the players hands, but not enough where people and the players aren't constantly asking themselves "why the hell did we do this?"

Or

2) a low regulation spending spree that only a dozen or so programs can afford and WANT to participate in. Basically, the precursor to the NFL farm league. Alabama Crimson Tide would remain for a while until it became the Tuscaloosa Falcons.

[MagnificentBastard]

One thing to remember through all of this is that players at public universities do not fall under the jurisdiction of the NLRB. So even a national ruling means nothing to 13 of the 14 members of the SEC and the vast majority of the Div 1 members of the NCAA. Furthermore, just because a union negotiates a contract doesn't mean that school is no longer bound by the rules of the NCAA. This is really much ado about nothing.

[ckDOG]

No doubt, but it's still fun to speculate.

[codeDawg]

The report showed that while there are die-hards in both college and pros, college sports see a ridiculous amount of revenue regardless of anything else going on, whereas X has a lot more to do with Y in professional sports.

Of course less people show up when the product sucks even in college (MSU basketball). We still sold out OVER capacity in football this year with a losing record. The Islanders couldn't give away tickets, sponsorship, or apparel if they tried... but last year when they were decent people were proudly rockin' Tavares jerseys like no one's business.

I'm not trying to reach for a reason to say college athletes shouldn't change anything, I just think this whole thing is stupid. These guys DO get something already. It just needs to be adjusted to reflect 2014.

All that tells me is that the schools have a stronger negotiating position. It does not say that players will not have some say, just that it will not be as strong.

I agree with you on the last part, and the NCAA has had ample time to correct it. I've been in seminars in a "big company" where the goal is to teach managers how to keep unions out. The point of the whole thing was that people start to organize when they feel like they are being treated unfairly or not being listened to. What happened here? The NCAA didn't listen to the kids who thought they were being treated unfairly.

We are where we are because the NCAA is incompetent and rather than managing the problem when it was a complaint, the results will be dictated to them to a certain extent.

[Political Hack]

personally I like the idea of deferred compensation contributions. almost like a "retirement package" but given to the player after they graduate from college. kids who go pro early don't need it, and if it doesn't work out, they can come back and finish to get their compensation. I think stipends should be increased a decent bit, but I don't think paying a college kid 30k a year is a wise investment for them or for the schools. Ultimately, deferred revenue would place the funds in a more mature person's hands and allow them to keep their status as amateurs during their time on campus. I also think the deferred compensation should be capped and kept the same amongst schools within the same conferences, and maybe even the same divisions. You can't have Alabama paying 250k while State pays 25k.

[ckDOG]

personally I like the idea of deferred compensation contributions. almost like a "retirement package" but given to the player after they graduate from college. kids who go pro early don't need it, and if it doesn't work out, they can come back and finish to get their compensation. I think stipends should be increased a decent bit, but I don't think paying a college kid 30k a year is a wise investment for them or for the schools. Ultimately, deferred revenue would place the funds in a more mature person's hands and allow them to keep their status as amateurs during their time on campus. I also think the deferred compensation should be capped and kept the same amongst schools within the same conferences, and maybe even the same divisions. You can't have Alabama paying 250k while State pays 25k.

That's an idea that would actually have a chance at working - assuming the payout you are envisioning would pass the test of public opinion. It would provide incentive for desired behavior (graduate). Id also like to see the fund include some sort of access to the University health insurance pool. Some sort of investment that can be used to help get these guys access to decent insurance premiums. Not suggesting free insurance for life or anything, just some sort of access to reasonable coverage should they ever be in a position where they can't get it through their employee or purchasing on their own isn't a good option. Maybe something like that already exists...just speculating here.

[Maroonthirteen]

These guys get a free education to get a real job at some point in their life. They also get
Training and stage in which to perform for the possibility of having one of the most glamorous high paying jobs on earth. If that isn't enough.... Let them unionize. I hope they strike. Walk out and never return. Then maybe the college teams will hold tryouts for students who decided to attend the school without recruitment and college athletics can be what it was 50-60 years ago.

[esplanade91]

These guys get a free education to get a real job at some point in their life. They also get
Training and stage in which to perform for the possibility of having one of the most glamorous high paying jobs on earth. If that isn't enough.... Let them unionize. I hope they strike. Walk out and never return. Then maybe the college teams will hold tryouts for students who decided to attend the school without recruitment and college athletics can be what it was 50-60 years ago.

100%. What a lot of people forget is that guys who go to college to become ____ get showcased at college too. Sports aren't the only people at this table. Graduate assistants in say the ECO car department who get paid to come to MSU to only spend time doing that come to mind. I realize they get a stipend... But it's the same concept... And I'm advocating football players get one too.

Let's not act like the research engineer majors do doesn't make the university money too. Everyone gets screwed one way or another by their alma mater, but there's this sense of pride and accomplishment with others...

People put a lot of hours and thought into our turf patents that they're not getting compensated for because MSU owns the rights. Those same people are somewhere out there making a lot of money on their inside knowledge... And in reality they kind of got screwed. Athletes should get the same stipend these guys got.