The cost of college football
- Thread starter Caveman Catfan
- Start date
I thought Nico Iamagonnaleava had some $8mil NIL deal to go to UT. Guess not?
Those are all really high and obviously the Colorado kids are stupid high, but after that, it's about what I figured for high profile athletes. Seems like some of the Basketball players are getting those kinds of deals or bigger in some cases.
Those are all really high and obviously the Colorado kids are stupid high, but after that, it's about what I figured for high profile athletes. Seems like some of the Basketball players are getting those kinds of deals or bigger in some cases.
Honestly that's not bad, and maybe even cheap all things considered. Just look at the money the individual programs are making, and conferences are collectively. Then you have the money the media conglomerates are making via the ads, and companies running said ads are making off the products they're advertising.
If I were a college athlete, I'd be forming a union to collectively bargain not how much athletic departments owe, but how much multi-national conglomerates should slice off.
I don't want a slice of UK's 100-million-dollar budget...or whatever it is. I want a slice of that Comcast, Disney, GM, Ford, Verizon, Eli Lilly heart, psoriasis, depression medication...money.
Sanders...Buffs were on the brink of falling into the abyss. The amount of money he and pops have made that school. He's probably worth more.
If I were a college athlete, I'd be forming a union to collectively bargain not how much athletic departments owe, but how much multi-national conglomerates should slice off.
I don't want a slice of UK's 100-million-dollar budget...or whatever it is. I want a slice of that Comcast, Disney, GM, Ford, Verizon, Eli Lilly heart, psoriasis, depression medication...money.
Sanders...Buffs were on the brink of falling into the abyss. The amount of money he and pops have made that school. He's probably worth more.
These numbers emphasize the disparity in pay between players and teams. When you play with a kid who makes 1.5 million and you look to make $30-50k, if that, things might get a little difficult.
Imo Sanders is the only one worth it. As you stated, he increased the Colorado brand exponentially.
The rest are overpaid imo. Manning is the only one arguable, again for branding, and he doesn't even start.
Would Tennessee or Texas be less valuable as a brand without their top earning QBs? No. Does dart increase the ole miss brand by that much? No (although I think he's a very underrated player).
I fully get the argument for spending for competition sake, but in terms of return on investment - it's a very rare thing.
I wouldn't trust those On3 numbers with a 100 yard pole
NIL deals ain't publicly available boys. Independent deals between athletes and outside non university entities. A lot of the numbers thrown around are bullspit bragging. And several kids find out they don't get paid what was promised (hello Louisville).
Does anyone really believe On3 knows how much Joe Craft is paying Deon Walker & Brock Vandagriff?
NIL deals ain't publicly available boys. Independent deals between athletes and outside non university entities. A lot of the numbers thrown around are bullspit bragging. And several kids find out they don't get paid what was promised (hello Louisville).
Does anyone really believe On3 knows how much Joe Craft is paying Deon Walker & Brock Vandagriff?
I agree for the most part...the only thing I would argue is that it isn't "just" branding as far as return on investment in a lot of cases.
Does Ole Miss likely make a significantly better bowl game with him as QB as opposed to someone else?
With that in mind... If a school thinks player ____ will potentially get them over the hump as far as wins, better bowl game, etc, then they may be worth a major investment.
Which, again, brings me back to agreeing with most of what you said... Do most of the guys on that list do that (Manning, TN QB, etc)? Probably not, so I'd agree they are definitely overpaid.
I'm not sure Manning or Ewers is overrpaid.
Ewers has brought Texas back to national relevancy and into playoff/national title conversations. That program went dormant for a bit. Longhorns being back and culturally relevant. What that's worth in terms of local media deals alone is insane.
Manning, throw that last name on top of a resurgent Longhorn program, now in the SEC... underpaid. He's going to take over a program in great shape, possibly coming off an SEC title, and consecutive play-offs runs, and he won't be a wide-eyed freshman or sophomore. He'll be 3 years in and ready, most likely a Heisman candidate and surrounded by a squad that's done the above-mentioned things.
ESPN/SEC network doing a Manning Cast special from Austin with Arch...folks come on now. Ya'll saw those ratings vs Bama the past few years...throw the manning legacy into that mix...
They better lock that price in now, because it's going to skyrocket...2.4 million is chump change...every home game has a 100K people drinking multiple $10 beers.
Ewers has brought Texas back to national relevancy and into playoff/national title conversations. That program went dormant for a bit. Longhorns being back and culturally relevant. What that's worth in terms of local media deals alone is insane.
Manning, throw that last name on top of a resurgent Longhorn program, now in the SEC... underpaid. He's going to take over a program in great shape, possibly coming off an SEC title, and consecutive play-offs runs, and he won't be a wide-eyed freshman or sophomore. He'll be 3 years in and ready, most likely a Heisman candidate and surrounded by a squad that's done the above-mentioned things.
ESPN/SEC network doing a Manning Cast special from Austin with Arch...folks come on now. Ya'll saw those ratings vs Bama the past few years...throw the manning legacy into that mix...
They better lock that price in now, because it's going to skyrocket...2.4 million is chump change...every home game has a 100K people drinking multiple $10 beers.
I definitely think dart makes a difference. I really like him as a player. I think Lane will always have a very effective qb. That plus after the bowl share split I don't think he is a good return on investment.
Jmo but I think ewers is the weakest part of that offensive unit. Let's look at specifically this year: is there any doubt manning would do at least as good?
All 100K are drinking multiple beers? bit of an exaggeration there is it not? lol. just bustin' yer chops.
If Manning goes into season 3 of his career as a Heisman candidate only playing garbage minutes for two years, then he's on that list for his name alone. That's not to say he won't excel and put his name on the list as the season goes on, but in no way should he be a pre-season favorite with little experience. I mean Brock Vandagriff was a top High School five star prospect who played two years of garbage minutes, Should he be on the list this year?
I believe it was $8mm if he stays all 4 years, so it is back loaded. They weren't going to pay him $2mm while he redshirted.
Life is tough in a capitalist country. You're either a revenue producer or a cost center. Stars get paid, staff has less value, but doesn't mean they aren't important, just means they are easier to find, so demand less money.
25 college athletes have a valuation of $1 million or more in the On3 rankings. Here they are by sport:
College football - 17
Men's basketball - 5
Women's basketball - 2
Women's gymnastics - 1
The biggest difference in the sports is that of the 5 college basketball players, only Bronny James and Hansel Emmanuel (I had to look him up) has played a college game. The other 3 are HS recruits.
In college football, all but 1 have played a college game.
College football - 17
Men's basketball - 5
Women's basketball - 2
Women's gymnastics - 1
The biggest difference in the sports is that of the 5 college basketball players, only Bronny James and Hansel Emmanuel (I had to look him up) has played a college game. The other 3 are HS recruits.
In college football, all but 1 have played a college game.
How much of the athletic budgets go towards facilities (operations, maintenance, repair, upgrades, and staffing), recruiting (travel, meals, facilities, lodging), away games (travel, meals, lodging, staffing, equipment), medical (equipment, supplies, staffing), marketing, training, scholarships, tutoring, meals, lodging, travel, etc? That money is already spent and increasing at about a 7-10% clip these days.
How much is profit? Surplus? How much surplus do they need this year just to make the budget next year?
These programs aren't "making" (netting) what people think they are. If the NIL costs balloon as some expect, the sport is done. It will be a semi-pro league, and those don't last long, while the number of programs competing will dwindle. When that happens, you will see fewer and fewer young athletes committing to the sport, instead choosing better options for their education and entertainment, as many already are.
This hurts college football, but also the NFL itself. The proverbial "biting the hand that feeds you" comes to mind. Greed doesn't care though. "Move along" (and people will).
Schools won't be producing players like UK's Josh Allen. Today's 2 stars and many 3 stars won't be getting scholarships at all. The good news is that baseball and basketball will flourish as they have. I'm ok with it. The NCAA admin was bullsht anyway. Needs to go
UK Athletics’ operating margin is about 17%. That’s the same as the average operating margin for the S&P 500. That operating margin is then shifted back to the university via transfer payments recorded as expenses for the athletics department so that revenues and expenses essentially end up netting out.
The power 5 schools are making plenty of money, and that’s before considering the fact that athletics departments’ expenditures are bloated in some areas due to the fact that:
- They’ve never been forced to share revenue with athletes
- Schools have never held an athletics department accountable for showing a profit (ie, they’re told to basically spend every dollar they earn)
The schools don’t show a profit because they’ve chosen not to show a profit through excess spending in a lot of areas. Many of those expense categories you mentioned simply aren’t big ticket items. UK spent just 0.6% of revenue on medical expenses. Recruiting expenses were only 1.9% of revenues.
Where we do spend an awful lot, like other Power 5 schools, is on coaching/staff salaries and opulent facility upgrades, and it’s reasonable to question if too much money is going towards those things.
We we're real close to paying a coach 30 million to kick rocks. Don't have to pay his retirement now, which was about a million a year until he died.
I don't disagree with any of your logic on most of the profits being spoken for in terms of expenses, facilities etc...
But every company and organization is like that. They make and spend. Cost of labor goes up, cost of capital increases, cost of this and that goes up...they figure it out. Generally, they raise the price of whatever they're selling.
Those TV contracts are going to be more expensive. Conferences and athletic departments are going to the table right now and saying "folks, we're gonna have to pay 400-500 student athletes something..."
There will be some haggling and crowing but the big conglomerates will ultimately pay up. Then they'll go to Eli Lilly and say the price for the psoriasis pill commercial just went up. Lilly will crow, but pay it because they make multi billions off of it, then Lilly will raise the price of Skyrizi, their customers will pay it, along with whatever the price of their weight loss drug will be...
Price of tickets, beer, merchandise, etc...all going up.
I do foresee some belt tightening and most likely thinning out in some areas. Team chefs, massage therapists, nutritionists, chiropractors, doctors performance staffs, analytics, coaching staffs, etc...all 75-100 k plus a year gigs.
The days of million dollar "recruiting coordinators", and other outrageous coaching staff costs, are over.
That begs an entirely different question and convo on whether or not schools should have to recruit now. We're paying them. They need to be lining up and interviewing/trying out like professionals.
There's some bloat in athletics departments like most institutions, and it will get curbed, shifted around.
That's mainly for the big 40ish or so D1 P5 programs that share in big TV revenue, have big fanbases and donor bases that will support it.
I do think what you're talking about will apply more to everyone else and especially the lower divisions. What happens with everyone outside of big multi-billion BCS/P5 remains to be seen.
It wouldn't surprise me if there is some sort of non-profit/charitable like exemption for a vast majority of all the other schools who can show that they don't make the necessary amount of money.
Crazy is right. NIL $ is a subject local media rarely discusses here in Austin.
Weird that they would choose an operating margin similar to what successful businesses would run. That sounds really greedy and inappropriate. They shouldn't have capital reserves nor should they share any they might have with the university. That just seems wrong. The university should have to pay their own way.
Why should a business or system, built up over a century suddenly be forced to share revenue with those that are already being compensated for what they provide? Is this China? Are we going to force McDonald's to share revenue with employees that are making money off of the McDonald's franchise, brand, and proprietary recipes and systems established and made successful for over 70 years?
Now, if the athletes decide to create a players union and negotiate terms legally, and the athletic depts agree to share revenue, then no one is being "forced" to do anything. That's how it should be. And then they will be employees, as they should be. Then all of the revenue they receive even from NIL while wearing that athletic depts gear should have a percentage taken out for them using the program's brand in their NIL.
Why would schools, that are unaccountable themselves, just like govt entities, hold or need to hold an athletic dept "accountable" when that dept is financially solvent without depending on the state or students, as the university does?
Interesting. You're saying it's easy to spend money. That is fascinating. Gonna grab a notepad.... give me a second to find a pen.
Of course they aren't all big ticket items. Never said they were. They are part of the underlying expenses, and the list wasn't meant to be intensive. Just examples of things already built into the system.
What's funny is that, once again, everyone is like you dismissing everything that came before this to create what college football is now, is dismissing the fact that without these "opulent" expenditures on both coaches and facilities upgrades, and without the system in place they wouldn't be going or attracted to go anywhere AND THEY ALL KNOW IT. They are just keeping their mouths shut and their heads buried in the sand that there are reasons these programs operate as they do.
Talking out of both sides of their mouths, they WANT their coach to be the highest paid, WANT those facilities they will frequent to be opulent, and WANT that program they choose to be solvent. They WANT to be associated with ALL OF THAT.
That's has always been one of the biggest benefits of signing with an Alabama, or a Notre Dame, or USC. Those 5 star guys going to Alabama aren't signing with Southern Illinois for any amount of money. SIU wouldn't even get a visit even if they opened up their pocketbooks.
Let's take it a step further. No 5 star, sure fire, first round, draft pick QB is going to go to a school WITHOUT A STELLAR or at least GOOD offensive line and some great receivers for $XM. So the whole thing is a farce, no matter how programmed someone is about the "injustice" of the system (lol).
To be fair, the whole system is a fantasy land that needs to come crashing down anyway, if that's how foolishly people choose to look at it, and they clearly do. Each school rushing to pay athletes other people's money before they've earned any of it is pretty foolish anyway. As if the programs offer nothing in terms of prestige and branding..... lmao
Facilities decay. Competition does not. If you're not upgrading you're falling behind. Yes, there are people that make their living parasitically off of the entire system that also talk down about it. Welcome to modern America. It's endemic at this point no matter where you turn. What has driven ALL of this are those very same parasites. Lawyers/agents, Shoe/apparel/equipmemt companies, media, pharma, sports medicine, and THE SCHOOLS themselves. (Donations to and enrollment in many schools follows their athletic successes and tradition. There's no doubt about that. A much much smaller % attend solely based on academic criteria.)
Athletic depts operate at the levels they do because those revenue levels still fluctuate and expenditures for major upgrades and repairs come with or without success. To act like they don't is not just disingenuous, it is petty and likely just influenced by jealousy. It's what greed does.
If they are forced to pay the players from revenue, I don't care. I don't contribute enough to have any input, and I don't make any money off of it either way, so it doesn't really matter. I'm just tired of the propaganda both directions. It's just a stupid game. It's a game I loved once because I was naive and enjoyed playing it. I was great at it. Officials, coaches, administrators, and media have ruined that now, so it doesn't matter anymore.
"I hope those poor players get some more benefits for all of their suffering" and brand building on Insta and TicTac. Lmao. I'm not buying the repeated "slave labor" BS that everyone is shoveling. I'd still go out there and play for free just to play again, if the game was what it could be again.
You can spin all you want to minimize the expense and operations side of things, UKnCincy, but I'm not a naive and bitter wage earner who will gobble it up. I don't begrudge a company or program running a surplus hedge against future expenses and economic downturns. That's just good business sense. If they can do it, they should. Not every program can, and losing the ones that can't is disappointing to a fan of the sport. That's the end result of all of this.
