Higdon has opted to skip the Peach Bowl. [Patrick Barron]

This Week's Obsession: Skipping the Bowl Comment Count

Seth December 20th, 2018 at 10:12 AM

The Sponsor:

Nick Hopwood, our MGoFinancial Planner from Peak Wealth Management. If you haven't listened to Nick's podcast, Finding True Wealth, yet, head over there because his latest episode is an interview with our own Brian Cook about the past and future of MGoBlog. Nick also has a neat new tool which has a different spin on figuring out which level of risk is appropriate for your portfolio in these volatile times.

Legal disclosure in wee itty bitty font: Calling Nick our official financial planner is not intended as financial advice; Nick is an advertiser who financially supports MGoBlog. MGoBlog is not responsible for any advice or other communication provided to an investor by any financial advisor, and makes no representations or warranties as to the suitability of any particular financial advisor and/or investment for a specific investor.

-------------------------------

Nick's Question:

Michigan will be without Rashan Gary, Devin Bush, and Karan Higdon for the Peach Bowl. What should be done (besides the obvious) and what do you think will be done?

Brian: What's the obvious?

Seth: Pay the players.

Brian: Okay and what else could possibly give the NCAA leverage in these situations?

Seth: Short of voiding their scholarships pretty much nothing.

Brian: I don't think there are even scholarships to void in these situations. Most guys headed for the draft leave school to do full-time prep.

The Mathlete: The leverage here is on the games becoming meaningful, which means the solution to this problem is...expand the playoff.

Brian: One thing that's totally crazy is that two years ago Danny Kanell was coming up with insane conspiracy theories about Jabrill Peppers skipping the bowl game by faking an injury and the next NY6 bowl Michigan plays in is going to be skipped by anyone the NFL might take in the mid-rounds.

And everyone's like "yup!"

Seth: Expanding the playoff changes things for a few teams. They would have to go back to when they do have leverage. Start with the new freshman class and a new rider to their letters-of-intent: If you leave your team early you owe your school the cost of all of your schooling. Schools obviously could forgive that.

To be clear I am not advocating this.

The Mathlete: Would schools ever enforce that?

Brian: There is absolutely no way that would fly in the current environment where trying to restrict a transfer to a team you're going to play causes vast outrage. Public opinion has shifted so hard against the schools that even stuff I'm fine with--restricting transfers from teams you play--is no longer tenable.

The Mathlete: And could you imagine Michigan going to Rashan Gary right now asking for their scholarship money back?

Brian: That would really perk up recruiting.

[After THE JUMP: We don't really have any answers but there are perspectives]

-------------------------------

Seth: It would be the NCAA. No one school or conference is going to put themselves out there like that, but I don't think it's a stretch to see the NCAA passing something that screws the players to protect their business partners.

The Mathlete: Is there any evidence that this actually affects the interest of the games?

Seth: Anecdotal.

Brian: It's affecting my interest.

image

Interest level: somebody else playing NCAA 2014 [Upchurch]

Alex: What can the NCAA actually do though?

Alex: Offer money for bowl game participants? For a guy like Rashan Gary, a $10K check is not worth the risk to his draft stock.

Brian: Hypothetically they could if they wanted to blow up all their amateurism arguments in court.

Alex: And “offering money to players” is pretty antithetical to the NCAA’s entire raison d’être. If they’re dead set against offering carrots, all they have is to threaten with sticks.

Brian: But they don't even have any sticks.

Alex: Exactly. All they can do is tut tut about how this is Bad For The Sport and how the Players Are Being Selfish.

Seth: It is a quite perfect rebuke to amateurism.

Adam: They might want to drop that angle and push these games as a preview of your favorite team’s future. It’s like a spring game but against different jerseys and, in our case, probably not snowing or sleeting.

Brian: It is bad for the sport. The exhibitions aren't even glorified anymore.

BiSB: Is there any change here that wouldn’t create more problems than it would solve?

Brian: Other than paying the players, no.

BiSB: Even then. We’re talking about a very narrow group of players in a very narrow set of good-enough-to-care-but-not-playoff bowls.

Seth: They faced this kind of thing the first time in the 1970s after the NFL got its feet under it and the AFL increased the demand for players. Their answer was to get the pro league to make a three-and-done rule.

BiSB: Adding a “bowl bonus” or something like that would create a huge set of headaches and precedent problems for the NCAA. (FTR: pay the players)

Brian: Those are only problems from the perspective of a class of parasitic managers on top of the sport.

BiSB: But even if you go to a full “pay the players” model, is one extra paycheck worth the potential hit to their draft stock?

Brian: Once you have real contracts you can do things with them to ensure participation, and at that point it's not even gross.

Seth: Yeah. For example if an NFL player about to be a free agent on a team eliminated from the playoffs decides to sit out the last week, he gets fined more than the cost of one game.

BiSB: That’s fair. But then it comes back to the schools to enforce those deals. And then “Michigan made John Doe play when he didn’t want to and cost him 80% of his rookie contract” becomes a thing.

Seth: Again, they'd all agree to do it through the NCAA. And it's a big step for a player to go from "I'm going to sit out the last game of my forced amateurism career" to "I'm going to breach a contract." It's a "what would we do if people ignored stop signs?" problem.

BiSB: Wait, is the NCAA going to be the employer in these pay-the-players plans?

Seth: We're getting into the weeds but the more I've thought about it the answer has to be yes, or at least the NCAA will set the standards.

Brian: Uh, no. Jim Harbaugh isn't an NCAA employee. This is orthogonal to our discussion anyway.

image

Operative theory: The people who sponsor the games are vastly more important to the NCAA than those who play in them. [Adam Glanzman]

Alex: There’s no chance the schools will blow up their whole business model to get like a total of maybe a few dozen players to play in a meaningless exhibition when they otherwise wouldn’t.

Seth: So...there's shaming. When you ask former players about this, they're livid at guys who abandon their teammates.

Alex: They won’t even let an FBI investigation into obvious malfeasance in college hoops recruiting impact that sport in a meaningful way.

Shaming people for looking out for their best interests is bad, imo.

Brian: Yeah, Alex is right. The NCAA can't do anything about this without blowing it all up and so they won't.

Seth: Team sports shame people out of their best interests all the time.

BiSB: I do think this is somewhat a byproduct of the playoff. The more games that “matter,” the less people are going to care about the RedBox bowl.

Alex: They can get “the media” to do the shaming (or “the media” will do the shaming of their own accord) but there’s nothing else they can do.

BiSB: Expanding the playoff to 8 will ensure that those players play, but further who-cares midmajor bowls

Brian: If I was a 22-year-old black man with no money and a kid and some rich middle aged white dude tried to shame me, as a couple of former players did on Rivals, I'd laugh in their face.

Alex: I think it’s also a byproduct of bowls being a weird anachronism that puts an exhibition at the end of the season instead of the beginning.

Seth: Fwiw the middle aged white dude here is Tom Brady.

BiSB: Yeah, like Tom Brady never does stuff that makes him seem somewhat punchable.

(Love you, Tom)

Seth: I have the takes from guys who played with Tom Brady and directly after. The general sentiment from Lloyd Player X is "You are abandoning your teammates and missing out on the last chance of your lifetime to play for a team you chose to be on."

slackbot: LLOYD TAKE OFF YOUR CLOTHES // LLOYD GET NAKED

BiSB: How do those guys feel about Jake Butt?

Alex: If I’m someone (say, Rashan Gary) who watched his teammate (say, Jake Butt) significantly harm his earning potential by playing in a game that didn’t matter for anything, and somebody (say, former players) wants to criticize me for sitting out the bowl game, I’d probably want to tell them to fuck off.

Brian: It is way different now because it is obvious to anyone that college football is a relentlessly capitalist enterprise that chooses to screw their players.

Seth: Tragic, and when he came back for a game last year I went to the former players tailgate and guys way more famous than Butt were coming up to shake his hand.

It is. And I bet you the guys who played for Lloyd are not representative of the players even of their age.

slackbot: LLOYD TAKE OFF YOUR CLOTHES // LLOYD GET NAKED

Seth: Hi slackbot.

Brian: Back before the revenue explosion it was much easier to argue for The Team The Team The Team without being a big dumb sap who's just funneling more money into Jim Delany's pockets.

Adam: I feel like current players’ sentiment is “secure the bag” based on Instagram comments but I could be wrong

Brian: And in that they are merely following the example of their elders. "Secure the bag" was literally the only thought behind putting Maryland and Rutgers in this league.

slackbot: I think you mean Rutger

Seth: I don't think the sentiment changed overnight and isn't universal. You'll get very different takes from Randy Moss and Charles Woodson.

image

I forgot that was literally a show.

BiSB: How dare you guys besmirch the sanctity of the Bad Boy Mower Gasparilla Bowl?

Seth: So that's another thing: it's a solid rebuke to the idea of "New Years Six" bowls. If the Peach Bowl was called the Rose Bowl and played in Pasadena, would more guys play?

BiSB: This is Very Important Stuff and in no way one great big racket designed to enrichen the already enrichened.

Alex: It’s almost like the existence of this very profitable system is fundamentally reliant on the exploitation of labor. And it’s almost like whenever labor exercises some semblance agency (sitting out a bowl, transferring, whatever), people get real mad.

Brian: That's the NCAA's theory in court. Literally.

Seth: I'm for paying the players, but I also like college football because I bought into the idea--maybe foolishly--that it's way more fun to watch a student wearing the winged helmet because he wants to than whoever's currently being forced to wear a cartoon lion because that's where his job assigned him. The NCAA started it by taking "The Team, The Team, The Team" to its most cynical extreme, and that has invited the most cynical personal interests to strike at what's best about the sport.

Brian: Yes. The lion's share of my attention goes to college sports because at some level I do buy into all the rah rah rah. But when the thing is run like a company, what do you expect? You don't get to play it both ways.

The Mathlete: And that's the crux of major college sports right. There is a legitimate ideal that on Earth 7 college football never got excessively monetized, the bowls still mattered and there was a realistic claim that forgoing a bowl for an NFL payday was a massive violation of the unwritten contract with team. That is not the reality of this Earth and half-measures to go back don't get you any further back, but typically come at the expense of the players who are making rational decision based on the field before them.

Alex: I have way more of a connection to my alma mater than I could possibly have to any pro sports franchise, but at the same time, I feel like it’s important to be clear-eyed about the industry, how it works, and what it does to people.

They run it like a corporation to squeeze every cent they can out of bodies they see as disposable and then try all that rah rah shit whenever that dynamic is interrogated.

It’s not bad to enjoy watching Michigan play football. It’s bad that Michigan and other schools have colluded to prevent their workers from receiving fair compensation. It’s bad that Dim Jelany makes a bajillion dollars.

Brian: "Those are fleeting, four-year relationships" -Hunter Lochmann

BiSB: #ForTheLoveOfTheGame

Brian: Anyway

  1. it sucks that it makes sense for players to skip the bowl
  2. it is bad for my interest in said bowl
  3. nothing will be done to fix it
  4. let's go Shawne Alston Lawsuit

Seth: I don't have a list of players skipping. Are there schools getting hit worse than Michigan this year? We seem to be right in the sweet spot of "Had the best possible season with the most NFL picks that got in the biggest bowl that is the least interesting."

BiSB: Also, they're playing Florida. Again.

Brian: TBH I'm envious they get to skip playing Florida

BiSB: We could have had Coach O interviews.

imagev

Comments

pescadero

December 20th, 2018 at 3:08 PM ^

I'm more talking C-suite types when I say execs - but yes, the Peach Bowl staff of 14 has a couple black men and a few women.

 

...but that is largely irrelevant to the point that the bowl game isn't meaningless. It was a joke pointing out that to many people (for example bowl executives for whom this is their livelihood) the bowl absolutely DOES have meaning.

ST3

December 20th, 2018 at 10:31 AM ^

For the sake of argument, suppose the NCAA makes $1B on the Bowl games. How about they take one penny off of that dollar and insure any senior (projected to go in the first 3-5 rounds) against injury?

Alton

December 20th, 2018 at 10:56 AM ^

"The NCAA" (assuming from context that you mean the organization) makes almost $0 from bowl games.  They get some licensing fees but compared to the basketball tournament the money rounds to 0.  It certainly isn't $1 billion, and it certainly isn't $100 million, and it isn't even $10 million.

There just isn't that much money in the non-playoff bowl system, with the possible exception of the Rose Bowl.  It really seems to be some kind of weird Nash equilibrium perpetuating the system.

ST3

December 20th, 2018 at 6:51 PM ^

OK, I was wrong (not the first time.)

All bowls combined last season to pay about $622 million to conferences and schools, including $441 million from the Playoff. After $105 million in bowl expenses, conferences and schools combined for $517 million in bowl profit, according the NCAA financial records.

So replace "NCAA" with "conferences and schools" in my original comment. The argument is the same. Do the right thing, protect the players.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2017/12/14/college-football-bowl-game-revenue-sharing/952646001/

You Only Live Twice

December 20th, 2018 at 10:32 AM ^

The insurance idea makes sense.  It's the established system for anything that involves risk of injury.

albapepper

December 20th, 2018 at 10:35 AM ^

Skip the bowl. Maybe it’s just my generation but I’ve never really been interested much in the bowl games. 

 

Add the playoffs and now I really don’t care. It means barely more than the spring game to me. 

 

After what happened to both Jake Butt and Jalen Smith, you’d have to be crazy not to skip the bowl game if you think you’re a first round guy. 

 

That said, I’m all about expanding the playoff. It definitely would give more to the bowl games. 

ak47

December 20th, 2018 at 10:38 AM ^

I also don't get how the playoffs impacted what people think of bowls. In any given year pre bcs maybe 2-3 bowl games would include teams who could still claim a national title. With the bcs generally only 1 game sometimes 2 involved teams that could make a claim. Now with the playoffs we get 3 games that matter for a national title. Its the exact same way its always been where if you aren't in one of those 1-3 games your game means nothing.

DM2009

December 20th, 2018 at 10:46 AM ^

To be the old man yells at cloud for a moment, the real reason behind this is that bowls aren't special anymore. With the playoff and the proliferation of bowl games, anything outside of the playoff isn't special. Players and fans don't care about a bowl game that much anymore.

Even into the late 1990s, going to a bowl game was still pretty special. In the 1998-99 season, only 5 Big Ten teams made bowl games. This year, there are 9 Big Ten teams that made bowl games. When every .500 team (and some teams under .500) make a bowl, it's pretty expected for every player to make a couple of bowl games in his career. For Michigan, the players expect to make bowls every year. It's a big who cares when it happens now.

The other thing is that the playoff has made it even more apparent that the rest of the bowl games don't matter. The former BCS bowl games had some cache in the BCS-era. That's dead now. I didn't even know the Peach Bowl was a "big" bowl until we got placed in it. Going further, I don't even know which bowls are NY6 bowls now. I can still name the BCS bowls. 

So, every bowl outside of the playoffs has been devalued. Of course players are going to skip them. Fans were already skipping a lot of bowls; that will probably get worse.

Incidentally, this is probably one of the reasons playoff expansion happens. The bowls are money makers for the people running them, and that's probably threatened right now.

LeCheezus

December 20th, 2018 at 10:53 AM ^

I've always wondered if everyone could meet somewhere in the middle in terms of paying players.  My idea - Is it possible to set up deferred compensation for players, such as Federal max contributions into an HSA and/or an IRA/401k that they would only receive or have access to after leaving school?   I feel like maybe that would placate the "WE CAN'T PAY PLAYERS IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE AMETEURISM" people to some extent.  There would need to be some tax laws changed since I don't think you can make those contributions without certain level of minimum income, but it doesn't seem impossible to put an exception in for a few thousand D-1 athletes.

crg

December 20th, 2018 at 10:54 AM ^

The MGoStaff can contort their arguments however they want, but if the schools resort to paying the players I certainly would not feel obligated to watch/attend this sport anymore than the Lions or any other franchise team.  Just my opinion and it may not matter to anyone else, but there it is.

OwenGoBlue

December 20th, 2018 at 11:17 AM ^

Does rapidly rising compensation for coaches, support staff explosion, rampant facilities spending, or the general commercialization of the sport stop you from watching? 

Not trying to relitigate amateurism (we do that plenty) but I'm curious as to why those don't seem to be dealbreakers generally (not speaking for you). 

To me, P5 football is just the NFL except the players don't get paid and presumably go to class. 

ijohnb

December 20th, 2018 at 11:51 AM ^

Then P5 teams should affiliate with NFL teams and have it be a legitimate "minor league." 

The counter-argument to "pay the players" is not generally that the players should not be paid (although I think a good argument can be made that they are compensated enough), it is that you cannot simply add the element of "paying the players a salary" to the existing infrastructure of what college football is and have it be anything close to the same product.  

If you have a bowl of soup in front of you that you are about to eat and then somebody walks by and drops a bunch of strawberries in it, you still have some edible food in front of you but you might no longer want to eat it.

OwenGoBlue

December 20th, 2018 at 1:15 PM ^

If everything else is professionalized and everyone else (coaches, administrators, facility construction and management, private scouting services, local bowl committees, broadcast partners, sponsors) is capitalizing on it, I don't see how increasing the compensation due to the players changes the product.

I get that's a personal viewpoint and others are valid.

There are other ways that could make things better for players without going full "salary" that may be more palatable for fans. Would you feel the product was different if they did things like the below?

  • Extend health insurance coverage beyond playing days
  • Provide Jake Butt-style loss-of-value insurance for draft-eligible prospects
  • Increase food/housing stipends significantly
  • Provide travel benefits for players' families

pescadero

December 20th, 2018 at 11:54 AM ^

" Does rapidly rising compensation for coaches, support staff explosion, rampant facilities spending, or the general commercialization of the sport stop you from watching?  "

 

Not yet - but I am moving along the continuum.

 

I watch less sports in general than I used to - but college football has seen, by far, the biggest percentage reduction over the years.

crg

December 20th, 2018 at 3:45 PM ^

Let's be real here for a moment.  The blog's (i.e. Brian's) real motivation for "paying the players" is not about some notion of employment justice or fair compensation.  Who in their right mind is going to say that a person - getting a free ride to the University of Michigan (regardless of residency status), playing for an internationally-followed football team (with the benefit of NFL-caliber training and development) along with the additional benefit of all the perquisites that entails - is getting a bad deal?  Keep in mind that, if there was a strong market for these players as they are while in college, they would likely forgo attending.

No.  This quest is really about opening the door so the Michigan can legally open up their wallet and pay players like the SEC (and many others) are already doing and outbid them with the MGoMoneyCannon(r).  Just because it could help Michigan football in be more competitive does not make it right.

kevbo1

December 20th, 2018 at 10:55 AM ^

You are so wrong about paying the players.  You could pay the all the players for playing college football but the school and coach still can't make them play in the bowl.  Also, if you pay players it doesn't stop bagmen from giving them more.

Alton

December 20th, 2018 at 11:03 AM ^

Well, if you don't send their last check until after the bowl game (and include bowl participation in the contract somehow), then I think you would get much better participation rates than you are getting now.

Also, why don't the Lions have bagmen?  Okay, sure, but why don't the Patriots have bagmen?

GoBlue1990

December 20th, 2018 at 10:57 AM ^

I would like the NCAA to have the bowls provide insurance policies for those that will be eligible for the NFL draft.  This would be in the bowls best interest, since more people would be willing to watch in person or on TV if the best players actually played.

crg

December 20th, 2018 at 10:57 AM ^

If Higdon (or others) is simply not going to the game, that's not sitting out - it's quitting.  Teammates are at least standing next to their guys, cherring them and giving help as they can.

crg

December 20th, 2018 at 4:21 PM ^

I would say it makes it difference to the guys they were mentoring.  Plus, what is the harm in simply being on the sidelines?  If he doesn't want to play, he doesn't have to - but there is a difference.  Bush is also not playing, but not by choice.  The impact on the depth chart is the same, but you can be certain some people are taking not in the difference in principles.

Hab

December 20th, 2018 at 10:57 AM ^

This is NOT the existential crisis you guys are making it out to be.  Players sitting out of a bowl game to get ready for the NFL is not a problem that the NCAA needs to worry about.  Such decisions will likely impact only a handful of teams and, "Alex: ... a total of maybe a few dozen players....'  Michigan happens to be one of those teams.  C'est la vie.  If the old guard wants to grumble about the team, so be it, that's also life.

But let's be honest, does the fact that Gary, Bush, and Higdon aren't playing really diminish your interest in the Peach Bowl?  Or is it perhaps yet another manifestation of the BPONE?  Personally, yet another matchup with Florida and the shellacking we took in Columbus have had a greater effect upon my interest in bowl season than any player leaving.  I'd have to care more about the game before I cared about our chances of winning it.  The fact that some are presuming that we'll lose based upon the loss of some of our draft-eligible talent is peak BPONE.  I'm not going to ascribe moral or ethical failure to a kid who is trying to set up their future.  I wouldn't make that choice myself, but I also don't have the possibility of an immediate payday before me either.  

So let the NFL guys do what they're going to do and let the rest of the team enjoy the bowl game.  Most of them will be "graduating with a degree in something other than football" anyway. 

 

 

BornInA2

December 20th, 2018 at 11:23 AM ^

It's not the old guard grumbling. It's the hypocrisy of some of the players going on about their brothers on the team and supporting and yadda and then skipping out of games.

And yes, having three or more of the best players on the team, including a captain, does make this game less interesting for me.

mgobleu

December 20th, 2018 at 11:04 AM ^

Meta: I don't know what the hell the slackbot thing is all about. Obviously it's some running gag that I missed the first time but I haven't cared enough to investigate its origin and it's just weird. 

Billy

December 20th, 2018 at 11:05 AM ^

The players are being compensated by being given scholarships that are worth six figures.  They are given a serious leg up on those of us who had to pay for school.  The day the NCAA starts paying players is the day the sport dies in my eyes

BornInA2

December 20th, 2018 at 11:20 AM ^

You'll get negged for this, but I 100% agree. I'd wager that most of the people who don't get this either had someone else pay for their college costs, or their kid's costs, or haven't had to pay for their kid's college yet. Suggesting that they aren't getting something of immense value for participating in a playground game is utter nonsense.

albapepper

December 20th, 2018 at 11:46 AM ^

Are the athletes getting something valuable for their performance? Yes. 

 

The biggest distinction though IMO is that FBS athletes bring in immense amounts of money for the schools. The athletic departments at D1 schools are essentially for-profit entities. 

 

Students on academic scholarship don’t bring money in for the school, by in large. 

 

I paid for my college (by wracking up student debt lol). I paid for a service. Athletes are paying for the same service in a different way, but the disparity between the monetary value they receiver versus what the school receives is huge. 

 

Let’s not turn a blind eye to the “illegal” benefits basically all FBS football players receive. Get it out in the open and pay them. Regulate it so that the big schools can’t just Yankees everyone. But pay them. 

pescadero

December 20th, 2018 at 11:58 AM ^

" Athletes are paying for the same service in a different way, but the disparity between the monetary value they receiver versus what the school receives is huge.  "

 

For about 20-30 players in all of FBS.

For another 100 or so players - the disparity is small.

For the other 95% of FBS players the disparity between the monetary value they receiver versus what the school receives is huge... in favor of the player.

michgoblue

December 20th, 2018 at 12:42 PM ^

This is a really fantastic point.  The "vast disparity" only exists for a small number of players.  In addition, the fact that an entry level person brings in more value than the amount of their compensation is kind of the norm in all careers.  For those who excel at their entry position (college FB), they can go on to more lucrative opportunities (NFL).  Again, this happens in all careers.

By example, when I graduated law school, I was paid a relatively nice salary at a large firm, but if you multiplied the hourly rate that the firm charged clients for my time by my hours, the revenue to the firm was many times what I was getting paid.  I worked hard, did well, and after a number of years, had the opportunity to become a partner where the financial rewards were far greater.  But, I could not become a partner without putting in the time being (relatively, again) under-compensated for my first position.  Same for doctors.  Hospitals pay intern / fellow doctors a pittance in the first few years.  Those interns / fellows work 70+ hours a week, including most major holidays.  The fees that the hospitals earn for their services are massive (especially for surgical fellows).  The young doctor has to deal with this because once he gets through it, he can join an established practice or start his own and make serious money.  

I fail to see how the plight of the players (even the few who are under-compensated relative to the revenue generated) is any different.  It's an entry level job, and if they excel, they have a chance to make megabucks in the NFL.  

albapepper

December 20th, 2018 at 1:01 PM ^

I disagree. Let's look at UM alone.  

 

https://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/university-michigan/2018/06/28/michigan-wolverines-athletics-total-revenue/742981002/

 

UM had a total revenue of $185,173,187 and total expenses of $175,425,392. That gave them a surplus of $9,747,795. I would be willing to bet that there could be found more room in there to compensate players if it gave us a greater advantage on the field.

 

NCAA rules allow for 105 players to be rostered.  With just using the surplus and not budgeting in player salaries, that would allow an average yearly salary of $92,800.

 

Tax that income. What better way to prepare a young man for the real world than to give them a working income and teach them how to manage it?

 

If Michigan is bringing in $185,000,000 in revenue it's going to be tough to convince me that 20-30 players in the entire FBS bring in more value than what they're receiving in scholarships. 

pescadero

December 20th, 2018 at 2:17 PM ^

Michigan, and a small set of other P5 schools, are outliers. Significant outliers.

 

Somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 out of 130 FBS programs LOSE money.

 

Michigan brings in a lot of money - but a lot of that money is spent on the program with the players getting some of the benefit of that cash.

 

At a rough estimate - players at Michigan are being compensated with something worth slightly over $100,000 per year.

What percentage of players on the Michigan football team do you believe generate that much value added OVER what a random replacement player would generate?

 

IMO - if the NFL started a minor league tomorrow, and every NFL quality player quit playing college football... you'd see very little change in revenue. College football fans are chearing (and spending) for the name on the front of the jersey, not the name on the back.

 

albapepper

December 20th, 2018 at 4:23 PM ^

I'm not aware of any FBS schools losing money on their football programs so I can't speak to that.

 

However, the NCAA brought in $821,386,522 in television and marketing rights alone. http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016-17NCAAFin_FinancialStatement_20180129.pdf

 

Let's say you allocate just the TV and marketing NCAA income to the 130 FBS schools for player yearly salaries. If you value your football team over your basketball team, great, put your money there. Let's say you're capped at giving out 10m a year (less than the combined football coaching staff salaries right now) for your program.

 

We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars here.  We can't even give the one who are delivering the product a piece of that?

 

It evens the playing field immensely, keeps the college sports market thriving, and the players who put themselves at risk are getting rewarded. Let's face it, most of them are not going to be professionals in their sport. Why not let them generate some wealth and educate them on how to manage it while they're driving revenue for their school?

 

Everyone knows that the cost of a college degree is insanely inflated. No one should be spending 100k a year for a BA degree. I don't buy the tuition as a valid counter argument to paying players.

 

The NFL doesn't want a minor league. The NFL loves the NCAA because it let's them have 3 years of scouting before a player can even enter the league. 

 

pescadero

December 21st, 2018 at 12:49 PM ^

I'm not aware of any FBS schools losing money on their football programs so I can't speak to that.

"Only 24 FBS schools generated more revenue than they spent in 2014, according to the NCAA Revenues and Expenses of Division I Intercollegiate Athletics Programs Report. That figure jumped from 20 schools in 2013, but it has remained relatively consistent through the past decade."

 

Let's say you allocate just the TV and marketing NCAA income to the 130 FBS schools for player yearly salaries.

The schools already get that money... and even with that money ~107 of 131 FBS schools are still in the red. That money is already spent.

 

No one should be spending 100k a year for a BA degree. I don't buy the tuition as a valid counter argument to paying players.

It isn't just tuition.

 

It's tuition, and books, and room and board, and private tutors, and training table, and access to world class coaches, and a monthly stipend.

 

Across FBS most schools spent 2x tuition on total awarded financial assistance.

Across all D1 sports schools awarded $2.6 billion in scholarships and $2.7 billion in other financial assistance to athletes in 2017.

pescadero

December 20th, 2018 at 2:19 PM ^

" NCAA rules allow for 105 players to be rostered.  With just using the surplus and not budgeting in player salaries, that would allow an average yearly salary of $92,800. "

 

Ok... I would be ok for that... but then they are employees.

 

They can be fired for poor performance. They have to pay their tuition out of their income. They have to provide their own health insurance. SSI/FICA/Income taxes.

 

If we make them employees - then they are employees, and we treat them as such. Just like the UM bus driver or lecturer.

albapepper

December 20th, 2018 at 4:30 PM ^

I worked my college's cafeteria when I was working on my degree. Same thing here. Pay them for what they can provide the institution outside the classroom and you can fire them if they don't perform to your standards.

 

And I'm 100% on board with making them take care of their insurance and taxes. Give students some guidance when it comes to handling finances. Teach them how to be effective operators in society. I wish I had that kind of guidance in college instead of being thrown to the wolves after.