I have no interest in it. College sports are supposed to mean something more than hired mercenaries. Its absurd.
Lane Kiffin-NIL
- Thread starter rucker4
- Start date
I don’t think it’s that simple. Division 1 and 2 have much lower recruiting budgets and recruit more regionally. They also don’t play and travel nationally like division 1. Many do not have football programs that are very costly to maintain. Also division 3 doesn’t pay scholarships and they generally only travel on weekends for regional games.
But caps have nothing to do with endorsements. Counselor, I have all the respect in the world for your legal expertise but now you're stepping into business and you're already stumbling.
This, the most valuable reason for collegiate sports is to offer scholarships to those with athletic talent that otherwise do not have the means to attend college for an education.
Smaller schools will fold and I predict 1000’s of scholarships will be eliminated in the near future as money shifts to marquee players at larger more highly populated schools or smaller schools players themselves and away from the 100’s of universities directly.
As always the most disadvantaged will be the ones to suffer the most.
But by all means pay amateur athletes that get an education, room board and a stipen who signed up for it on their own free will because of how unfair everything is for them.
Look closely at the fallout, it will be catastrophic for the underprivileged. It will not be noticed anyway.
In many respects, the way that the lower divisions recruit and operate today is not that far removed from how Division 1 operated 30-40 years ago. D1 budgets have ballooned almost in lockstep with growth in TV revenues, and frankly, much of that spending is not necessary.
That said, you’ve missed my broader point. Which is simply that athletics departments at all D2 and D3 schools operate entirely in the red, receive essentially no significant revenue from TV, ticket sales or other merchandise and essentially rely solely on institutional support from schools that have budgets and endowments that are a fraction of those as D1 schools.
If D2 and D3 schools can still manage to sponsor nearly 20 sports per school under those types of constraints, then D1 schools earning millions in TV revenue and supported by schools with multi-billion dollar budgets will be able to do the same.
The common refrain that we can’t do something because most departments are in the red is a bit of joke, and always has been.
I was responding to Hack’s post. You might want to re-read that and then you’ll understand.
I understood your point. I just don’t agree. If division 1 programs who operate in the red run their athletic programs like division 2 or 3, they might as well drop down and compete in those divisions because they won’t be competitive against other division 1 schools.
Somehow I doubt that. Otherwise, you’d understand that your reply was non-sensical.
So coaches don't voluntarily decide to coach at a school? Aren't they both Americans? You are talking about billions of $$$ being made while the people who are the product make zero. How about, at your job, the boss says "Im not going to pay you but I will put you up in a small bedroom with a communal bathroom and pay for you to eat".... You down? Or would you like negotiate based on your production in a free market? Go to the ole widget factory. If you produce 12 widgets and everyone else is making 8... you good with making the same exact amount with no opportunity to get your fair market wage?
SEC rakes in $527.4 million in first year of CFP and SEC Network
The SEC reported $527.4 million in revenue during the first year of the College Football Playoff and the SEC Network in 2014-15, a 62-percent increase from the previous year.
www.cbssports.com
The SEC reported $527.4 million in revenue during the first year of the College Football Playoff and the SEC Network in 2014-15, a 62-percent increase from the previous year.
I would concur some smaller schools will probably not survive as the resources center more towards bigger schools And some football programs will fold….but can’t we argue this is just a market behavior?
ivd often argued in Tn why we need not just Tennessee and vsndy. But also Etsu, Memphis ,Austin peay, Tennessee Martin , Tennessee Chattanooga, Tennessee state, Tennessee tech and MTSU
I guess the question is do we need all of them and yes kids getting schollies will miss those opportunities to go to college for free. But I’d thr demand isn’t there…isn’t that just the way it is?
Market behavior is based on how the system is set up and without the proper structure or guidance from the ncaa and/or the federal government the number of casualties could be avoided….but yeah why do you need the 450 some odd scholarships at those little insignificant schools you listed. Of course with money flowing away from schools and directly to the players I’m not listing the amount of scholarships at the other sports that would be cut as well.
Ok, do you understand how little money that is? There are 14 schools in the SEC with 85 scholarship football players and 13 scholarship basketball players on each team. How much will be spent on new positions of management and support? How much goes to non-revenue sports? How much were you thinking they should be paid?SEC rakes in $527.4 million in first year of CFP and SEC Network
The SEC reported $527.4 million in revenue during the first year of the College Football Playoff and the SEC Network in 2014-15, a 62-percent increase from the previous year.
The SEC reported $527.4 million in revenue during the first year of the College Football Playoff and the SEC Network in 2014-15, a 62-percent increase from the previous year.
No, yours was. Hack was responding to me. We were originally talking about NIL caps which have nothing to do with salary caps.
Just when UK starts to be competitive in football this NIL stuff hits. UK could be better off than 100 other schools - but that still puts UK at a severe disadvantage when trying to climb the ladder. If you think coaching is what has made Saban the best coach- then you haven't looked at his rosters! Not saying he isn't a great coach - but give him Kentucky's roster and how many championships do you think he would have won? It's always been about the Jimmies and Joes!Can't disagree with Lane here. He's in the same boat as schools like Kentucky and Iowa (my school) are when it comes to this stuff.
Kiffin: NIL deals have created college 'salary caps'
Despite a strong recruiting class, and a crop of talented players headed to Ole Miss via the transfer portal, Rebels coach Lane Kiffin expressed concern for college football in the NIL era, saying programs are now "dealing with different salary caps."www.espn.com
Can't disagree with Lane here. He's in the same boat as schools like Kentucky and Iowa (my school) are when it comes to this stuff.
Kiffin: NIL deals have created college 'salary caps'
Despite a strong recruiting class, and a crop of talented players headed to Ole Miss via the transfer portal, Rebels coach Lane Kiffin expressed concern for college football in the NIL era, saying programs are now "dealing with different salary caps."
Players being bought has been happening for the last 75 years in reality. Call it whatever you want- I remember being in college 50 years ago when athletes had summer jobs making $10K sitting behind a desk for a company owned by a booster - don't tell me it didn't happen - lol! We may see some changes who goes to the top but basically it will always be the same - in both football and basketball! The NCAA has basically looked the other way forever, thats why it became such a joke - take them to court - their inconsistency handling these issues is what caused the mess to begin with. Coaches making $10 million a year- challenge that as well.
College sports are entertainment venues - for years I have watched them and not the pros - because the college game was for the fans and not for the dollars - so I thought - lol! I will support my team. I will go to football games because it is fun to see our fans as well as our team. But to go thinking we are going to win the National Championship - well - thats a dream that ended completely with NIL. Texas and Texas A & M will simply buy the best players available. Why - how many of you know that those Universities are truly oil reach- and it has nothing to do with boosters? The Texas universities were given hundreds of thousands of acres of oil rich land. They can use that money anyway they want in reality.
Did anyone notice how great this year's Texas class is also? Tell me it would be that way based on the last 10 years of Texas football - tell me how great of a coaching job Steve Sarkanian did this past year? Yeah, it was great recruiting - lol! Texas is a huge football state with many great high school players for sure - but those players used to go to other schools - just look at how many of them stayed home this year - compared to the past. Every asset in the state of Kentucky would not even be blip compared to those assets. It is what it is.
Go Big Blue!
I'm not arguing that players shouldn't be able to make NIL money, although I think it needs to be regulated so schools can't essentially pay players to attend their school. I'm arguing that a coach and a college player are two completely different situations. A coach is a paid employee. Students are not. Sports are extra curricular activities for students. Students participate in college sports on a voluntary basis knowing the rules ahead of time. If it wasn't worth it to participate, they wouldn't do it, meaning if they weren't getting something of great value from participating, they would play some where else, or not play at all. No one forces them to participate. They choose to participate because they believe they get something of value from doing it.
Yep, the analogy just fails to recognize free college education as a benefit. As someone who oversees a teaching program that consistently sees students with loans of $250K, free college education shouldn't be dismissed as "no benefit".
If a college athlete majors in something useless thus not taking advantage of the benefit, that doesn't mean the benefit didn't exist. People constantly misuse benefits such as paychecks, insurance etc, too, but misuse of a benefit doesn't mean it wasn't benefits.
Not buying the reasons in question why Saban isn't a great coach and has deserved the championships he gets at Alabama.
You think all these years recruits just go to play for him because they are getting money? He's got an All-Star lineup most years and he does because of the program he built has made it very attractive to go to. MANY previous coaches at Alabama have had marginal success so it's not the school or the conference necessarily that's given him this success.
Great point. The "in the red" could also be as reported against a financial forecast or some other budgetary tool. When Barnhart was quoted as saying UK was fighting for its financial life it was a bit odd that he and others were awarded raises. I can't say it with any verifiable certainty but it would appear there is plenty of money over there. 🤑
Last edited:
Actually he was discussing the manner in which the cap was structured.
He was suggesting that since a NIL earnings cap at the individual level wouldn’t work, then perhaps you could approach it in aggregate at the team level, similar to how pro salaries are capped at the team level and not the individual level.
So I simply responded to point out that the structuring of the cap wasn’t the issue. It was the one-sided nature and lack of negotiation with the players that would cause anti-trust issues.
Whether the cap was specific to salaries or NIL earnings is irrelevant to the fundamental point he was making. Hence my response.
Until I can see (which I'll never get to) a full breakdown of both revenue and expenses, suggesting that one could easily make adjustments has little merit. Could Saban get rid of a couple million in recruiting expenses and staff salaries? Probably but that doesn't accomplish much and we're talking about an outlier. Is Mississippi State over staffed? I doubt it. What about in the Athletic Department itself. Is it grossly over staffed or over paid? Probably not.
Fair enough. Like you said, we won't ever see the complete financials so its all conjecture at this point.
Main thing I hope for is that the game itself continues, and that I can spend an occasional Saturday experiencing a great atmosphere and a great football contest like I got to during the Florida and LSU games this past year.
You’d start by adjusting coach’s salaries, recruiting budgets, support staff roles and debt service. When TV revenues exploded, the money went to those areas and spending became pretty lavish.
For example, Florida’s athletics budget in 1996 was $33.5M and Spurrier got a huge raise to $2M to be the highest paid college football coach. If that spending simply increased at the rate of inflation, UF’s budget would’ve been $54.5M in 2019 and the highest paid coach would’ve earned $3.3M. In reality, UF’s budget was nearly $160M and Dabo’s salary was about $9.2M. So budgets and coach’s salaries grew at nearly 3x the rate of inflation.
And many of the things that folks bemoan about college sports today is a result of this spending. All of those annoying Twitter photos / videos that recruits are posting are being paid for by the universities. Do we really need athletics departments hiring graphic designers to create social media content on behalf of recruits? Do we really need coach’s chartering helicopters to fly to high school football games to fawn over recruits? That type of spending is lavish.
As far as school’s absorbing things, here’s a hypothetical situation for UK. Let’s say that men’s basketball and football players ended up getting classified as employees (which is by no means guaranteed to happen), and that the amount of compensation they receive (combination of tuition and salary) equals what a Drexel study estimated they were worth a few years ago ($137K per football player; $290K per basketball player). That would create an incremental $10M in expense annually for UK, which represents 0.19% of the University’s total budget.
The athletics department could absorb that simply by reducing the amount they pay the university to cover athlete’s tuition, which isn’t a true expense any way. It’s simply a transfer of athletics revenue dollars from the UK athletics P&L to the university P&L. It shows up in the athletics budget as an expense, but there’s no cash outlay involved from the university perspective; it’s simply the right hand paying the left hand.
I like your point about the social media stuff.. one has to wonder if it really is needed or not. FWIW, I also think "Lavish" is a great word choice in describing certain spending that is occurring. Guess it is what it is and I's be better off not even allowing myself to think about it and just try to enjoy the games. 😎
Hmm, you're a highly intelligent man so I think you know you're being a bit disingenuous. The cost to attend a public university in that same time period has increased over 200%. That's pretty much in line with your salary increases.
As for your hypothetical with UK, you aren't even scratching the surface.
Players as employees? High costs of college football union is in millions
Jeremy Fowler says schools could incur serious expenses to fulfill player needs under a union model.
www.cbssports.com
The cost to attend schools has increased coincidentally for completely unrelated reasons.Hmm, you're a highly intelligent man so I think you know you're being a bit disingenuous. The cost to attend a public university in that same time period has increased over 200%. That's pretty much in line with your salary increases.
As for your hypothetical with UK, you aren't even scratching the surface.
Players as employees? High costs of college football union is in millions
Jeremy Fowler says schools could incur serious expenses to fulfill player needs under a union model.
Tuition increases have been a function of reduced state funding of schools following the financial crisis coupled with Federal policy making student loans easy to get and the push to send everyone to college. The easy access to loans in particular has distorted the market by changing the price elasticity for college tuition and making tuition more inelastic.
Schools figured out pretty quickly that they could continually raise tuition to replace lost state funding and see no negative impact to demand. But if you want to believe that tuition hikes are the reason that coaches are now making $10M a year, go right ahead.
What I'm saying is the expenses around them are also increasing. They are responsible for huge sums of money at this point, I don't really have an issue with their salaries. If capitalism works for the players it works for the coaches. Were you suggesting some sort of pay cap for coaches earlier?
As long as the kind of money is being made off college football that is being made, the players should absolutely get a cut. But the money will dry up if the fans lose interest. It remains to be seen if the fans lose interest in seeing basically semi-pro players that aren't really that relatable to the schools they are playing for.
Do I think Jimbo is a snake oil salesman? Yes I do. Do I believe he thinks everything he said in that video? Yes I do. He has a valid point although he is probably breaking that valid point
I don’t have an issue with high levels of executive compensation either. However, what I’m saying for athletics is that the level of coach compensation and spend in some areas is inflated because the pool of funds from which they could draw was artificially high. Which means that if the cost structure of the athletics department were to change (i.e., athletes deemed employees), then there is fat that can be trimmed in order to adjust.
As an analogy, let’s say there is a mature market for widgets consisting of 4 manufacturers with similar metrics (e.g., margin, COGS as % revenue, SG&A as % revenue). Then a new competitor enters with a widget that’s slightly higher quality and slightly lower COGS. More importantly, this new company found a legal loophole that enabled them to staff their manufacturing lines entirely with unpaid interns.
If all 5 companies have similar management structures, then I would expect compensation of management roles to be pretty similar for the 4 original companies. But because the new company has significantly lower labor costs in the factory, then you’ll likely see management salaries that are also significantly inflated relative to their peers because they have the luxury of over paying to attract talent without negatively impacting their profitability.
Now if the IRS suddenly tells this new company that their intern idea is breaking the law and they need to be treated as employees, that doesn’t mean that the business is no longer viable. The still have good revenue, a better product, lower COGS, etc. Their issue is simply that their SG&A is too high for their industry and they’ll need to restructure their costs to manage the fact that they now have to pay wages to the factory workers.
There will likely be a transition period that will be a bit painful as the new company resets pay bands for management, but the company will be fine once they do that and get past a period of employee turnover.
Similarly, if by some chance student athletes are deemed employees, then athletics departments will simply have to adjust how they allocate their funds and restructure their costs. And this doesn’t mean capping coaches’ salaries.
There may be a painful transition period, but there are ways that schools could manage through this without the world ending.
The biggest issue is the NCAA drug their feet for years thinking this would go away if they didn’t make changes. If they would have stepped in 10 years ago with a system where athletes could benefit from their NIL with some restrictions/perimeters around it, we might now be where we are, or maybe have a little bit of control.
The idea that the NCAA made Jeremy Bloom ineligible in college football because he was making money from his ski career is all you need to know about how bad the NCAA was with all of this.
The idea that the NCAA made Jeremy Bloom ineligible in college football because he was making money from his ski career is all you need to know about how bad the NCAA was with all of this.
I understand your point though I don't necessarily agree with the analogy. The few million you're talking about, here and there, which likely doesn't even exist in many P5 schools, isn't going very far. You will have an offset of new management teams needed, new payroll programs to fund, I'm not sure you can even get workers comp not to mention insurance cost. What do you think the universities current employees insurance plans would do if athletes, particularly football players, were added to the plan? The incremental costs would be enormous and no one is stopping at the revenue sports. All the sports would want some type of share. There simply isn't enough money in the system to support it.
Then we get into the ugly part of business which is conform and perform or be cast out. No more walk-ons either. Would we go from 85 scholarships to 65 just to help with the cost? If so how many thousands of kids around the country will no longer have an opportunity for an education. This entire thought process is beyond Pandora's Box, it's insanity.
I’d say they did a bit more than drag their feet; they actively fought against this, spending significant sums on legal fees in the process.
But they had nearly 40 years to get ahead of this, so it’s hard to have sympathy for the school presidents and NCAA leaders. The head of the NCAA saw the direction things were headed and proposed the creation of a semi-professional open division for the big schools that would permit things like NIL endorsements. And that occurred back in 1983. If you were to read the 1984 Sports Illustrated article that referenced this, you would think it was an interview from just a couple of years ago.
The university presidents wanted no part of his suggestion and they ultimately forced him out a couple of years later. But imagine where we might be today if they had taken some action back in the late 80s.
Yep. They may be book smart and educated but their utter lack of common sense makes them seem moronic. It's like, hello, HELLO, HELLO, don't you see the neon sign blinking DANGER AHEAD!!
I sort of remember that. I was at UK at the time. But to take things to the point of true semi-pro teams, would we lose what it really means to have college football? It's starting to feel like we're losing it now anyway with NIL doing just as I expected it would, so maybe it doesn't matter.
