PAC 12 players threaten to sit unless demands met
And here we go! Finally using their leverage!
Pull those scholarships and there will be hell to pay...
Those schools would be burning some serious bridges and suffer a PR nightmare. I mean what high end talent is going to what to go to a school that does this? What parent of that talent is going to want to see their sons play in this conference? And HS coaches all across the west would be pissed to see their former players treated this way.
You need to broaden your perspective.
Pay. These. Men. Their. Money.
They do - it's called tuition, room, board, books, living stipend, professional physical training/development, etc. Depending on the school, this total value can range from $50k to $100k+ per year... not bad for kids with only a high school degree and little/no experience.
Obviously bad considering we know they would get significantly more on the open market!
The players create a lot of value. What's the compelling argument for giving most of that value to ADs / coaches?
Since, despite what people like to claim, it is not a job. It is an after-school activity fundamentally no different than any other student sport or performance activity sponsored by the school. They should not be paid for doing it (on top of the highly generous compensation they already receive) - let alone the Title IX issues raised.
You're presuming the conclusion -- just saying "it is not a job" doesn't make it not a job. If you've got an argument to make, make it. Similarly, just saying "they should not be paid for playing football" isn't an argument for not paying them.
Again: the players generate the vast majority of CFB's value -- and CFB is enormously valuable. That value has to go somewhere, and a very small amount of it goes to the players. I think that the people who generate the value (and whose enormous efforts are required to generate that value) deserve the value they create. Why do you think the people who work incredibly hard to create CFB and produce most of its value shouldn't get that value, and that it should instead accrue to ADs or coaches or media rights consultants or whatever?
Of course it's not a job. If it were a job, they'd be getting paid.
You assume that the revenue is generated because of the "high talent" players and that it would dry up if they were replaced by "lower value" players such as backups and walk-ons. This is patently untrue in college sports since the demand (in relative terms) has been proven strong long before even the advent of athletic scholarships. College football fans (especially for the non blue-blood teams) watch because they have an affinity to the school program, not the caliber of athletic play... they would watch teams of walk-ons compete just as much as teams of 5 stars.
The explosion of revenue coming is has been absurd and is probably worthy of investigation and/or corrections - especially considering that almost all of these ADS are part of public universities that are taxpayer supported. That doesn't mean that scholarship-supprted students should be simultaneously treated as high value employees... especially considering that these "positions" are not subject to the various hiring rules as other positions in a public university would be.
- What makes you think demand was proven before athletic scholarships? Asking genuinely, I don't know the history here, but I feel like athletic scholarships were around well before TV money came on the scene. (Anyways, I'm calling you out: I 100% do not believe you without evidence.)
- Demand is not strong when you lose all the time. Weird that M couldn't fill seats at the end of the Dave Brandon era, that Miami couldn't fill seats during the Al Golden years, that nobody roots for Rutgers! If you have no high talent players and are a 3-9 team, nobody will care.
I think an interesting question for this whole thesis is why NFL players make so much money. I mean, you could make the same arguments, right? People watch the Lions and Browns and whatever not because they know and care about the swing tackle, but for the jersey. Yet the NFL pays players tremendously! Nobody would say that NFL ownership want to spend a cent more than they have to -- so, if you were right, why wouldn't they just bring out a bunch of scrubs and pay them like 10 grand a game>
August 1st, 2020 at 10:29 PM ^
The explosive growth of college football in the first half of the 20th century alone (let alone the last few decades of the 19th century) is evidence to the strong demand to watch the games. Much of this predates the use of athletic scholarships and practically of it predates the significant generation of revenue from media broadcast of the games. You can "call me out" if you like, but all the supporting info is out there to find regarding attendance figures, newspaper headlines, and other methods to gauge national interest in the events.
You are partially correct to say that on field performance influences demand, but a substantial (maybe majority) of the demand is by those who will watch the team regardless of the "product" on the field (even Rutgers still gets tens of thousands of fans per game). Also, you conveniently overlook that factor of cost of attendance - which is almost as strong of a factor in attendance (more true now than ever considering how easy it is to watch games on TV in high quality images). Had Dave Brandon adjusted tickets prices in response to the team's performance, attendance would not have suffered as much. The inflation-adjusted ticket prices today are much higher than in living memory.
The comparison to the NFL is a misleading analogy: the players are fully trained and experienced professionals that have been selected to fill a very small number of positions (in total nationally), operating as full-time employees within for-profit companies, not being given generous stipends and scholarships to cover full time academic costs, and they are bound to contracts that behold them to their employers (whereas college athletes are free to stop playing or transfer whenever they want).
1.) But by saying that Brandon would have to adjust prices because Michigan was bad, you're admitting that demand is a function of team quality. Anyways, Brandon did make tickets functionally free -- you don't remember the coke promotion? We still couldn't fill seats.
2.) My point was that the NFL recognizes that talent drives value, because if they didn't think so, they wouldn't pay the players anything -- let alone get into regular bidding wars, etc. (Again, the owners are greedy assholes!) I'm not sure what anything you said had to do with your point earlier re: whether CFB players generate value.
Also people can retire from the NFL without owing money damages like 99% of the time, are you suggesting that the NFL is some form of indentured servitude where the owners can force the players to work?
One of the problems with your argument of the plsyers not being fairly conpensated their "value" is how to assign this "value" to each individual... and when? This is a team sport with the aggregate operation being important and not so much the individual. And, unlike the NFL, the schools are dealing with (almost exclusively) undeveloped kids that have no market for their athletic services (whereas the NFL get highly trained, vetted, and experienced athletes with a known "market value" by that point). For the most part, if they would want to jump into the NFL own their own they would need to spend the time and money (of their own) on independent training and development to give them the skills and physique needed to enter the league - and the general public would not know who they were since they never got the media exposure. Or, they could make the agreement to invest in themselves by choosing the development (and region/national exposure) afforded to them at the university programs (which are there as a fringe benefit of being a student at those universities and created to be open to anyone in the student body) even though it does not provide significant direct cash compensation (aside from the stipends and the whole tuition/room/board/books & supplies/tutoring/etc.) From the outset of their entry into the program as a scholarship athlete, they are receiving a mixture of non-cash (majority) and cash (small amount) compensation (potentially valued at up to $100k+ per year, depending on the school and residency status) despite that fact that their "market value" at that point in the program is very little, if any. That compensation is also a guarantee for their eligible years as long as they don't do anything to get themselves kicked off the team (regardless of performance results) - as well as having the opportunity to pursue a full academic education in parallel. It is true that a select few develop their skills and gain sufficient exposure to grow their "market value" such that it is worth multi-million dollar salaries, yet they do not do this alone - the school programs (and their teammates) invested the time, effort, and money to get those "star" performers to that position as well. It could be argued that the NFL players owe a personal debt to the university after leaving (which is one reason why there is a tradition for many past players have "given back" to their alma maters over the last 50+ years during/after their NFL days).
If it was such a bad deal, why do do many tens of thousands of high school students students compete for this opportunity every year, despite most never making it to full-ride scholarship and even fewer as a starter - let alone the very small fraction that go all they way to professional player? Perhaps because it is not so bad of a deal.
Also, my point about NFL contracts was not about owing money to the team - in college the players are perpetually free agents and transfer at any time to anywhere they please. NFL does not permit that.
the “if it’s such a bad deal...” argument is facetious at best. they take the deal because
- they’re children, being told that the deal will take care of them for the rest of their lives, be it the nfl or an education that many of them are not prepared to take advantage of, either by lack of college prep at the high school level, or because the time constraints on a college football player can preclude them from doing so to their full ability. being a player is a full-time job, as you are well aware. very, very few “average” kids (let alone kids who are recruited primarily for their athletic ability) are driven enough in the classroom to have a full-time job AND excel in the classroom.
- more importantly, they “take the deal” because it’s the only venue available for an elite player that thinks they can make a career in the nfl. you can dismiss the backups all you like, and the fact that they once harbored nfl dreams, but those dreams were absolutely real when they took that deal. they bought in. they deserve to be taken care of better than they currently are.
Who is telling them that this will "take care of them for the rest of their lives"? What in life is certain aside from death? All I claim is that these kids are presented with an incredible opportunity, which can (but not necessarily will) help them find success either on the field or off of it. The opportunity to be successful is all anyone can ask in this country - and this is an amazing opportunity that very few kids will ever have.
You also imply they are helpless children without care or guidance - yet you choose to omit that in vast majority of cases they are heavily influenced by parents, guardians, coaches, councilors, and other adults within their lives trying to help them make the best decision (as well as other forces in their ear, such as agents and media). At the end of the day, they are still (mostly) of legal age when they actually make any binding commitments... not to mention that they can always go in different directions (such as transfer) if they believe their first decision was not the best.
Being a school sport player is not a full time job either - whether at the university level or before that. There are countless examples, across all sports, where the students were fully able to manage both academics and athletics. If the person chooses to prioritize sports to the point of it consuming the majority of their time, that is their prerogative.
I don't know where you are getting this notion of "dismissing backups" - the backups and walk-ons are those that should be most admired since they put in just as much time as the starters yet do not get the recognition (and the walk-ons are doing so paying out of pocket). The scholarship backups are the ones benefiting the most from this arrangement - unlikely to be good enough for the pros yet still getting a full ride and free education (not to mention at least the chance to see if they can make the pros). For each scholarship athlete that doesn't like the deal, there are numerous walk-ons (that work just as hard if not more) waiting and willing to take their place.
The only truly defensible argument for this being an "unfair" opportunity is about long term health impacts (which should also apply legally to every school sponsored activity - why should it matter if it was done in a revenue sport or not?) This is where the absurd tv/merchandise revenue should go instead of ridiculous coaching and administrative salaries and facilities that dwarf the capabilites of entire nations.
August 2nd, 2020 at 10:09 AM ^
“who is telling them that it will set them up?” seriously? the coaches that recruit them. i absolutely guarantee you that they are told that school x will prepare them for the nfl, or they will still have that school x degree, by every. single. coach.
August 2nd, 2020 at 10:15 AM ^
There is a difference between "can" and "will". If you are saying that all coaches are unscrupulously promising outcomes they can't guarantee and legal adults are not to be trusted with making the decision, then perhaps it is time to strengthen regulatory oversight.
Either that or I can discuss with you some beautiful lakefront property for sale.
"there's a difference between can and will" is your response. fucking whatever, man. keep being willfully obtuse and ignorant.
coach: "if you come to our school, we'll put you in position to take the next step. and if you don't make it, you'll still have a degree from old state u that will serve you for the rest of your life."
crg: "STRENGTHEN REGULATORY OVERSIGHT!"
Now you've changed your argument - you originally said that coaches stated outright (or heavily implied) that going their route would take care of them for the rest of their lives, ie a guarantee of success and income. That is a very different claim than saying that if a player comes to a school, they can still earn a degree even if they don't pan out in football... which is true for any student (but is a key benefit to the opportunity of being a scholarship athlete - they get that education for free while most every one else has to pay).
Your descent into ad hominems does not help your argument either.
sheesh. again, the "can vs will" argument. i've never been in a room with a coach and a recruit, but pretending that they dance around those terms is an insult to both of our intelligences. you're obviously smarter than that, which is why i suggested you're being obtuse.
but you're right about one thing. i should have just left it at "whatever."
August 3rd, 2020 at 12:27 PM ^
I just think you not are giving enough credit to the players and their families/councilors/guardians/support network and their ability to make well informed and rational decisions. Look at how long these recruitment processes take - these people are (in general) being very deliberate about making these decisions and rightfully so. And we know from other accounts that coaches/programs that are "trailing" in recruitment of a player advise them on the benefit of taking their time and giving full consideration to the ramifications of their decision. That, along with the omnipresence of media and information resources, gives these kids& family more prior knowledge than ever going into this decision.
Thank you for keeping the conversation civil. This shouldn't be an issue to take personally and it doesn't need to become anything negative. We have a difference of opinion on this issue and present our arguments accordingly - no big deal. We still support our school and our team and should not lose sight if that.
agreed.
i do respect you and your opinion, for whatever that's worth on a message board. you're obviously an extremely thoughtful, intelligent person, and - despite my earlier dismissiveness - i agree with some of your points.
for my part, i'd almost go beyond some of what you say - i think the military-industrial complex that is current college football goes against the very notion of capital-u University. in my perfect world, there would be 200 regional minor league professional football clubs, completely unaffiliated with universities on any level. i think i'd be every bit as rabid about the grand rapids tackmen as i am about the michigan wolverines, and i wouldn't have to do these mental gymnastics, deciding whether i think it's a good use of educational resources to serve as a phony-baloney "amateur" enterprise that puts good kids in danger of long-term brain injuries or worse.
grant newsome almost gave his leg. he's lucky he was at michigan, and was gifted enough as a student to come out the other side in one piece. how many hundreds of others haven't been so lucky? how many others chased the dream, put aside academics in favor of its pursuit, and were left by the wayside - without a scholarship or the ability to continue their education - after a bad practice injury?
this is where the argument of "well, they get a free education" just doesn't get it for me...so many of these kids get spit out once they're not useful to the enterprise. there are absolutely kids that lose their scholarship when they get hurt, and it's shameful. in the absence of real, actual paychecks (which, by the way, ALSO goes against the notion of a University), i'm all for giving these kids whatever we can give them. i think they deserve whatever they can get.
I, too, have enjoyed this discussion. As long as people can keep a level head and thoughtful perspective (difficult for an anonymous message board, let alone something actually important like politics) - these discussions can be very interesting.
The source of all this problem is, of course, the money... and with no good way to solve it that the relevant parties will actually accept. Personally, I believe that since these sports are almost exclusively performed by public universities, the broadcasts should be freely available to the public and free of advertisements by for-profit companies (essentially removing most of the outside money). No one will go for it of course, but it's something to consider. In the same vein, the idea of athletic scholarships is wrong on a fundamental level: why should the payment for an academic institution have any reliance on physical athleticism? As a practical matter, it does help many kids from low income households pay for school that would otherwise be very difficult to do (but not impossible) - the obvious solution being to make most scholarships based primarily on economic need (this should be where the massive AD revenue goes - and not just for athletes but all accepted students in need).
I still 100% maintain that a full ride athletic scholarship is amazing opportunity - almost like a gift, yet it is also earned by hard work done on the field. I just think it is a shame that so many of these "student-athletes" take it for granted... with class being an inconvenient obligation taking time away from the field/gym/bar/club/whatever (I don't have any numbers to support what proportion this is compared to the athletes that do take school seriously, but there is enough anecdotal info out there to say it isn't a trivial percentage). I also get that not all coaches and staff give proper emphasis to the academic side, but these "kids" are still adults by this point and need to keep themselves on task to some extent (this is where that additional regulation would come in handy... what the NCAA is *supposed * to do). As with anything in life, a college education is what you make of it - these kids can get so much out of it *if they want it*... although they may need to proverbially and literally work their a**es off to do it (and people have - UM alone has so many great examples from decades past).
Grant Newsome was a good example - I was at that game and saw it happen live. He limped off (with help) and it looked as though he would be OK in general - probably just out a few weeks. When the severity of the injury was made public, that was tough to hear just as a casual fan - thoughts and prayers went out to him and his family. One of the nice things about the NCAA rules (it does happen occasionally) is that kids in that position are prevented from losing their scholarships - in fact the use of "medical redshirts" allow kids who must medically retire from sports to keep their full 4yr scholarship without it counting against the total team number - thus eliminating the incentive for coaches to cut their scholarships. This is the one area where I do say that the student-athlete benefits are lacking: health care support for long term effects. I think there is strong momentum in that direction, but it also raises a question of where to draw that line? Football players is the start, but what about other revenue sports... and non revenue contact sports... and the other non revenue sports... and other injury prone student activities (eg marching band)... and then maybe just all student activities. Likely to be a "can of worms" when it is opened, but it's do-able (again, this can be where that TV money actually goes).
I understand the concern about the injuries and that a playing career can end at any time - which is why the kids need to use their head more than any other part of their bodies. In a way, it's an advantage: they know their athletic career is fleeting and can start making their Plan B arrangements early (and paid for by someone else). Not all career paths have that luxury. I just don't see this as an explotation of these kids by the schools. If you look at the origins of the "athletic scholarship", you find it was done by the universities to bring in "ringers" that would have otherwise have never considered college - and this was before the start of professional football, so the college education was the only career value gained (and well worth it).
Team pro sports have no particular problem assigning value! Shit, most-if not all-businesses are fundamentally team efforts, yet we come to salaries.
I again think you're sort of talking past me. My point is that these guys generate huge amounts of value, and they get a remarkably small percentage of it. (Your point that their market value is very little is strange: bagmen pay players because they have market value!)
Re: taking the deal, because it is the best deal available because the NCAA is a cartel that agrees to set a wage limit.
August 2nd, 2020 at 10:09 AM ^
And you missed the detail about team sports. Using the NFL as an example, the "value" of the player can be assessed reasonably by that point in their career - they have developed about as much as they ever will as a physical player, relatively speaking. This is far, far from true coming out of high school (especially for football players)... which could be one of the reasons why a professional football minor league (an alternative for playing at the university) has not successfully developed for this sport to the extent it has for just about every other revenue sport. The universities are forced to take on greater risk in offering these opportunities than their counterparts in the NFL.
Again, *which* guys are generating this "value" and not getting their "fair share"... considering that all the scholarship players are receiving the benefit, including even the "star" players back when they first came to campus and might not have actually been contributing to that "value"?
You think of it as a wage limit when a better assessment is that it is a shared risk arrangement: the universities commit the resources early on without knowing who will pan out (how many 4 and 5 stars have we seen fizzle out) and the student-athletes develop (with a small number having to defer their full market value towards the end of their college careers, even though they normally go to their next career stage at that point anyway).
I don't care if schools write checks to the players. I want the players to be able to cash in on their talent and hard work.
And idk about you, but the product on the field definitely makes a difference. I know the period of my life where I gained a lot of perspective about how important (or unimportant, rather) Michigan football is to me coincides with a time when we were really not good at it. I don't think that's a coincidence. If we'd been winning national championships every couple years for the last decade (or even beating OSU) I'd probably be more of a die-hard fan.
I also wouldn't expect players at non-blue-blood teams to make as much, because they're generally not as good at their job as those 5 stars at major programs.
August 2nd, 2020 at 12:23 PM ^
Then coaches shouldn't be paid either. They should all be volunteers who show up to coach after they finish their work at their job.
yes, because it's just an "after school activity," according to crg.
And how is it fundamentally different than basketball, hockey, lacrosse, volleyball, wrestling, marching band, and a host of other time-demanding school-sponsored student activities that are done outside of any curriculum or course? It should not matter if the activity is not revenue positive or negative to the university... the official status as an extra-curricular activity is still the same.
This doesn't mean that the school is precluded from hiring dedicated personnel for that activity (although most universities used to require that coaches/mentors also teach courses - and some still do) - that is their prerogative.
August 1st, 2020 at 10:03 PM ^
They don't have to enter into that contract with the school. They choose to. Let them go earn their keep on the open market. Then see how bad they really have it on full scholarship. Look, could there be improvements to the system? Absolutely. But you're kidding yourselves if you think these kids have it so bad. Oh, poor scholarship football or basketball player.
The NCAA is literally a cartel that precludes the players from getting their open market value. It's a group of schools (read: employers) who have agreed to limit the compensation they will provide to their students (read: employees).
The other side of that argument is that the NCAA helped these student-athletes to create their market value. Without the schools, they would just be kids who were good in sports in high school. The schools provide a great opportunity for them in addition to a full college education in almost practically any field they choose (yes, some are more difficult to pull off while doing sports, but not impossible - all up to the individual student)... which is the actual purpose of a university.
... what does any of this have to do with not giving players a fair share of the value they generate?
August 2nd, 2020 at 11:36 AM ^
The argument is that the athletes are already given a very fair share - and they get to partake of it before they even make their own contributions towards it. Also that only some players will become "high value" contributors and the rest will be "lower value" according to the "market" - yet all are given the same guarantee of benefit at the outset of their time at the university. A shared commitment for a shared benefit... almost like it was a "team effort". Who would have thought that?
But you're presuming the whole argument -- I do not think they're given a fair share! You see, I think, $100k in non-cash benefits, and think, oh $100k, that's a lot! (Not unreasonably, either.) I see, oh, 5-10% of revenue, that's a very small amount. I think that's like ~80% of our beef.
You are entitled to your opinion as well. At the end of the day, these legal adults agree to this arrangement. They would not do so if it was absurdly unfair.
I’m good with them using their leverage and sitting if they don’t feel they are being treated right.
I’m also good with the schools pulling their scholarships and going a different direction if they feel like that’s what needs to be done.
I just hope people don’t complain if that’s what the schools do... am I asking too much?
Yeah, asking people not to complain if school's pull scholarships because a student expressed free speech is a lot to ask. While they are free to do so, they are not free from complaint.
With that, I seriously doubt this will lead to anything more than a good talk and the promise of action. The conference will listen, may implement some common sense, easy-to-do things (if any are expressed in detail), and will agree to make progress towards some of the bigger, multi-state/federal type changes (forms of equitable compensation across the country).
First, no one cares much about the PAC-12. Second, threatening to sit out a season that will most likely not be played is an empty threat. Third, there are plenty of other players willing to step in and play for you.
That was my first reaction. The PAC-12 is the least relevant Power 5 conference in football. They could replace the holdouts with backups and it wouldn't make much difference. They would be doing more harm to their futures if they followed through with it.
These players have the delusion that they are irreplaceable. There will always be another player ready to snatch that privilege of playing college football away from you.
Is it really a privilege if their short-term and long-term safety is in question, with minimal post-graduation medical and financial support from the schools?
I mean, we‘ve seen how the negative effects of football can linger long after college.
Not to mention the issues with playing in a racially insensitive atmosphere.
Other kids may indeed take their spots for awhile, until those kids also figure out it’s not worth the risk either and that the system is rigged against them.
I can’t wait for a developmental paid football league where the talents of these kids have a definite $ amount, and most of all they will have negotiating power for support and services.
Unless these colleges and universities really take these issues into account, Football will eventually go the way of the G-League and it’ll be a good thing for these young athletes.
It’s ultimately their choice to play football. They know the risks involved when they signed up.
The full amount of risk is still being studied. So, no, nobody understands the risk of playing football.
Your comment is like saying coal miners knew the risks involved in coal mining before the 1950s. There was always somebody to take their jobs if they quit too, but that’s not the point, is it?
Not to mention, as a collective these athletes are bringing in large amounts of money for their schools, and they just want some of that, as detailed in the demands, for the correct reasons, like healthcare, a positive environment, and some economic power.
I mean, why would you want to preserve the current system, really? Unless you’re an AD or a well-paid employee of the AD’s office? Or a short-sighted CFB purist? Or something worse?
It’s risks are very obvious and front and center: a possibility for severe injuries or concussions with the potential for brain injury.
They get paid in the form of a scholarship and mo they stipend, as well as other benefits such as training and coaching to maximize one’s potential.
I would be fine with setting up a G-league for football. If they were ever to compensate players it should be in the form of a trust that they cannot use until a certain age. You know why they wouldn’t like that? No immediate gratification.
All three of your points are baseless and incredibly senseless. I would elaborate on each topic on how emphatically wrong they are, but will forgo that exercise in futility and instead a lend some constructive pointers.
“lol it’s only the pac-12” is a some weak sauce.
if you think a) that this can’t happen, or won’t, in another conference you’re not paying attention. this isn’t much different than chris hinton’s parents speaking up. and b) you can bet that big time players are already considering taking this season off (if it happens) in the interest of personal safety. trevor lawrence would be insane to play this year.
That's all well and good for a handful of major football teams. Maybe this will drive the inevitable separation of football and basketball in the 40-50 programs that actually make money from the rest of college sports. Maybe they have to sit out a year or two to realize these gains.
I do find myself caring less and less, unfortunately. I don't watch sports to gain political insights. If the players feel strongly that the relationship is unfair and that they are being exploited (racial or otherwise), I understand and wish them the best. I do not want to gain enjoyment from watching people exploited.
Given the current virus situation, I don't see how we'll have fall college sports. Certainly not with enough fans to give even those 40-50 programs financial incentive to run them. Probably best for the Pac-12 just to shut it down now. No one seems to be feeling good about sports right now.
If the scholarship players want to sit (in general, not for covid), then fine - let the walk-ons play instead. They put in just as much time (and actually go to class and care about academics since they aren't getting a full ride to play sports)... they deserve the recognition and the chance to be seen.
Even if there is not football the next couple of months will still be interesting. I think many people are starting to find other things to do and may not return to their old viewing habits if sports eventually do return. Couple that with insane ticket prices and the crappy economy and the gravy train may start to run out for these leagues.
the college sports we know probably is going to end soon. As it grows less and less with the educational mission of the colleges and universities in past decades, i have no problem seeing athletic department get defunded from the general fund, which means death for most D1 programs.