Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 80

Thread: Withers: Zags & the NIL issue

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZagDad84 View Post
    As has been mentioned numerous times in the various threads on this issue.

    Yes the NCAA brings in about a $1 billion dollars a year mostly from Mbb, but it is also true that they return about 96% of the revenue back to the member institutions.

    The NCAA is not awash in cash like some posters continue to believe.

    The member institutions as a whole make approximately 10 times the amount of money that the NCAA does and they keep the money.



    So, as a whole, a full ride scholarship, a year of coaching, nutritionist, trainer, etc. has been estimated to be worth approximately $100,000 per year. exactly how many Mbb players are getting the "shaft" by not being able to make additional money off their name, likeness or image? How many of the 13 scholarship players on last year's GU squad do you think came out on the short end of the stick? Rui? anybody else? 1 out of 13?

    ZagDad
    The NCAA is a member organization. That is like saying the NBA doesn't make any money, it sends it all back to the teams. The point is big time schools, including Gonzaga, make over 15 million in revenue and the players can only be compensated with a scholarship. Please name another industry where company revenues increase astronomically, but the cost of labor does not increase? If I buy tickets, watch the game, or buy a jersey all that money comes back to Gonzaga, but very little of it comes back to the player. In most North American professional sports, players get around 50 percent of all revenue. This percentage is even higher in Europe. Why can't college players get their piece of the pie?

  2. #27
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,655

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ladyzag12 View Post
    The NCAA is a member organization. That is like saying the NBA doesn't make any money, it sends it all back to the teams. The point is big time schools, including Gonzaga, make over 15 million in revenue and the players can only be compensated with a scholarship. Please name another industry where company revenues increase astronomically, but the cost of labor does not increase? If I buy tickets, watch the game, or buy a jersey all that money comes back to Gonzaga, but very little of it comes back to the player. In most North American professional sports, players get around 50 percent of all revenue. This percentage is even higher in Europe. Why can't college players get their piece of the pie?
    You say Gonzaga brings in $15M in revenue, but you don't outline the costs involved to run an athletic department. What do those scholarships cost, travel, operating expenses, facilities, and everything else run? Not to mention that the majority of the revenue is generated by Men's Basketball at Gonzaga, which then is used to fund non revenue sports. Players should not be compensated financially by the Universities, they are not the cash cows you make them out to be. In fact, the majority of college programs make very little net income and many lose money.

    One last thing, you make a statement about "professional sports players make about 50 percent of revenues", this is not professional sports. The issue with this argument is that it only focuses on the 1% that will be professionals and ignores the 99% that are getting an great opportunity with a paid for college degree. It's not a situation of the poor college athlete being victimized.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,774

    Default

    Yes, but start naming industries that lose money, expect to lose money for any sort of forward forecast, and still exist. Iím speaking to the other 90 percent of college sports teams which are subsidized.

    The fact is, itís not a traditional business and you canít compare it to one. Should athletes get paid? I donít know, but doing it in a fractured manner like the Cali governor did is not conducive to a reasoned, well-structured policy.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Edgewood, WA
    Posts
    1,451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Vulture View Post
    The issue with this argument is that it only focuses on the 1% that will be professionals and ignores the 99% that are getting an great opportunity with a paid for college degree. It's not a situation of the poor college athlete being victimized.
    This is the logic that allows me to look out over a restaurant full of people, see one choking, and decide to do nothing about it because, I mean, it's just 1%.

    Why should those 1% be forced to subsidies every other college sport and athlete? If the Universities want to subsidize endeavors that don't make money, good for them. If the Universities want to take the profits generated from the 1% and pay a state employee (in most cases) millions of dollars a year, good for them. But the 1% still have a gripe.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Edgewood, WA
    Posts
    1,451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZagsObserver View Post
    Yes, but start naming industries that lose money, expect to lose money for any sort of forward forecast, and still exist. I’m speaking to the other 90 percent of college sports teams which are subsidized.

    The fact is, it’s not a traditional business and you can’t compare it to one. Should athletes get paid? I don’t know, but doing it in a fractured manner like the Cali governor did is not conducive to a reasoned, well-structured policy.
    California's governor signed a bill passed by an elected legislature. The focus is on the governor, but I'm not really sure why. Shouldn't the focus be on the NCAA and its member institutions that have litigated this issue for over a decade without doing much of anything to actually address the underlying issue? How long should California wait before giving a nudge to the NCAA to get their act together and do something? They waited a couple decades and then passed a law that gives the NCAA 4 more years to do something to address the issue. Is this the first example in my life of government going too fast? Maybe they should have waited thirty or forty years and then gave them another ten years to come up with a fix.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Opportunity, WA
    Posts
    1,755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Vulture View Post
    You say Gonzaga brings in $15M in revenue, but you don't outline the costs involved to run an athletic department. What do those scholarships cost, travel, operating expenses, facilities, and everything else run? Not to mention that the majority of the revenue is generated by Men's Basketball at Gonzaga, which then is used to fund non revenue sports. Players should not be compensated financially by the Universities, they are not the cash cows you make them out to be. In fact, the majority of college programs make very little net income and many lose money.

    One last thing, you make a statement about "professional sports players make about 50 percent of revenues", this is not professional sports. The issue with this argument is that it only focuses on the 1% that will be professionals and ignores the 99% that are getting an great opportunity with a paid for college degree. It's not a situation of the poor college athlete being victimized.
    These are good points, but in a scenario where student althletes can profit from their NIL, they wouldn't be compensated directly by the universities. In fact, I don't think any of the revenue streams that currently support college athletics would be much affected.

    A couple years ago, I saw Kelly Olynyk and Rob Sacre in a tv ad for a local car company. If you imagine that current Zags could be hired to make about the same amount of money as those former Zags got for that gig, you can see how that doesn't really affect the money flow to the NCAA or its member institutions. It's not taking the place of a donation to the program. It's just money that a business wants to spend on a celebrity endorsement (which indirectly promotes Gonzaga basketball, if anything).
    Agent provocateur

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    744

    Default

    Brandon Clarke can sell a video post to any of us for $50 (or whatever he wants to charge) now that he's out of college, based on the fact that we like him and want him to say things to people we like, who we think will enjoy receiving a message from Brandon Clarke. https://www.cameo.com/bclarke15

    Why should current Gonzaga basketball players (or an EWU tennis player or a UW gymnast) be prohibited from doing this? Please explain.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CB4 View Post
    Brandon Clarke can sell a video post to any of us for $50 (or whatever he wants to charge) now that he's out of college, based on the fact that we like him and want him to say things to people we like, who we think will enjoy receiving a message from Brandon Clarke. https://www.cameo.com/bclarke15

    Why should current Gonzaga basketball players (or an EWU tennis player or a UW gymnast) be prohibited from doing this? Please explain.
    The problem comes in when someone says I'll give you $50,000 for a video post if you go to this university.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bdmiller7 View Post
    The problem comes in when someone says I'll give you $50,000 for a video post if you go to this university.
    Agree! Assume I could waive a magic wand and eliminate that problem - so that it never happens - I just wonder who is still going to argue that the athletes should be prohibited from profiting from their NIL.

    Your concern, which I agree with, is real. But a lot of the argument I'm seeing again and again is along the lines of (a) the NCAA doesn't make much money, (b) it costs a lot to run athletics programs, (c) the athletes already get enough via nutritionists, trainers, tuition, etc., (d) the athletes don't need more money, (e) wait until you're pro, (f) some athletes will make more than others,etc... All of these things seem irrelevant to me.

    The major issue, which you address, is endorsements becoming a backdoor way to professional, paid athletes. In some ways, this seems inevitable. Surely, the NCAA can implement and enforce rules to prevent quid pro quo recruiting arrangements of this nature. But if a coal company in West Virginia decides that they're going to pay every player on WVU $85,000 per year to appear in two or three oil commercials, do we prevent this from happening... knowing that this isn't truly a quid pro quo but any recruit will know that if they go to WVU they're going to make $85,000? Where does it end? That's the concern and it's an interesting argument.

    I just think the other arguments aren't really worth discussing any more. The athletes deserve to capitalize on their NIL. How do we do this in a way that makes sense? Or do we just accept that this quasi-amateur/NBA farm system that is the T25 of NCAA basketball needs to be blown up? Or do we just prohibit endorsements all together and force our top athletes to go play in Spain or Greece or Australia? Do they drop out early and move from LA to Croatia at age 16 to play basketball there if they want to make money? I don't know. It just seems silly that we can't figure out a way that makes sense and compensates people for their services in a meaningful way that is somewhat market based.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,655

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mgadfly View Post
    This is the logic that allows me to look out over a restaurant full of people, see one choking, and decide to do nothing about it because, I mean, it's just 1%.

    Why should those 1% be forced to subsidies every other college sport and athlete? If the Universities want to subsidize endeavors that don't make money, good for them. If the Universities want to take the profits generated from the 1% and pay a state employee (in most cases) millions of dollars a year, good for them. But the 1% still have a gripe.
    First off, I'm not even talking about NLI. I was talking about revenue sharing with the athletes. As for "subsidizing" endeavors that don't make money as a choice isn't all that accurate. There are requirements to participate in leagues and therefore you also have to have equal opportunities in other non revenue sports(Title IX) to meet the rules.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    744

    Default

    What if colleges could pay their players, play exhibition or non-conference games against other NCAA teams, and then play in a separate year end tournament? That way, you have two tiers of college basketball. One, the "amateur route" (which allows endorsements subject to reasonable restrictions) leading to the NCAA Tournament. And a higher tier where the players are paid (with no endorsement restrictions) leading to a year end playoff series.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,655

    Default

    To be clear, I am not arguing against NLI, I was responding to points made in a specific post. I do believe NLI's will need to be limited/regulated in some way though my points had nothing to do with that.

    My issue with the post I responded to was how they portrayed that all this money is available to share with the athletes, which is not the case. In fact, I specifically was discussing the revenue costs and requirements of the University. I DO NOT believe that college athletes should be monetarily compensated by the University beyond what is already being provided. Again, not talking about NLI...

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ladyzag12 View Post
    The NCAA is a member organization. That is like saying the NBA doesn't make any money, it sends it all back to the teams. The point is big time schools, including Gonzaga, make over 15 million in revenue and the players can only be compensated with a scholarship. Please name another industry where company revenues increase astronomically, but the cost of labor does not increase? If I buy tickets, watch the game, or buy a jersey all that money comes back to Gonzaga, but very little of it comes back to the player. In most North American professional sports, players get around 50 percent of all revenue. This percentage is even higher in Europe. Why can't college players get their piece of the pie?
    You cant compare the NCAA to the NBA or the NFL. The NCAA made 1 billion that gets divided among 1000 NCAA schools supporting up to 24 sports and 450,000 athletes. The NFL and NBA each make about 8 billion in national revenue that gets divided among 30 - 32 teams. In the NFL's example that's about 250 million per team, plus each NFL team makes about 150 million in local revenue. That's 400 million per team, almost 1/2 what the NCAA makes total, to support 1 NFL team of about 50+ players. If these college players are going to make money, based on the California bill and others like it, it will come from sources outside of the universities. That's where you're going to run into shady people and unfair advantages for specific schools and universities.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    149

    Default

    Why should basketball and football have to pay for nonrevenue sports? The NCAA makes almost a billion from the tournament. That doesn't include individual team revenue. Split that up amongst 68 teams who provide the product and players are losing a ton of money.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ladyzag12 View Post
    Why should basketball and football have to pay for nonrevenue sports? The NCAA makes almost a billion from the tournament. That doesn't include individual team revenue. Split that up amongst 68 teams who provide the product and players are losing a ton of money.
    Title IX. If they dont pay for the womens sports they cant have the 2 men's sports that produce the revenue to run the other 22 non-revenue sports.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bdmiller7 View Post
    Title IX. If they dont pay for the womens sports they cant have the 2 men's sports that produce the revenue to run the other 22 non-revenue sports.
    I meant from an ethical distribution standpoint, not a legal standpoint.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ladyzag12 View Post
    The NCAA is a member organization. That is like saying the NBA doesn't make any money, it sends it all back to the teams. The point is big time schools, including Gonzaga, make over 15 million in revenue and the players can only be compensated with a scholarship. Please name another industry where company revenues increase astronomically, but the cost of labor does not increase? If I buy tickets, watch the game, or buy a jersey all that money comes back to Gonzaga, but very little of it comes back to the player. In most North American professional sports, players get around 50 percent of all revenue. This percentage is even higher in Europe. Why can't college players get their piece of the pie?
    Health Care. Ya pays your money for subpar health care and they get rich.
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    11,988

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CB4 View Post
    Brandon Clarke can sell a video post to any of us for $50 (or whatever he wants to charge) now that he's out of college, based on the fact that we like him and want him to say things to people we like, who we think will enjoy receiving a message from Brandon Clarke. https://www.cameo.com/bclarke15

    Why should current Gonzaga basketball players (or an EWU tennis player or a UW gymnast) be prohibited from doing this? Please explain.
    He can! Just not both. To all of this the option is to do a “just say NO”! You are free to make Choices and you can go to California and play for that championship.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MDABE80 View Post
    He can! Just not both. To all of this the option is to do a “just say NO”! You are free to make Choices and you can go to California and play for that championship.
    There was an implication, in a statement by the Pac 12 commissioner, that while the legislation can make any in state educational institution allow their athletes to profit from their name and likeness, the legislature cannot require the institutions to allow those student athletes to be permitted to be on the team.

    That commissioner sees a very real battle that the NCAA will fight, that schools, and conferences, have entered into a binding agreement whereby in exchange for operating under the auspices of the by-laws of the NCAA, they also reap the rewards. That failure to do so would/could result in expulsion from the NCAA and not be allowed in any NCAA sanctioned events and/or tournaments.

    A conundrum, to be sure.
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    11,988

    Default

    Will it's designed to be trouble. That's the point of all things in CA with Gavin Gov. It's the "new" way of thinking. I was sorta serious. I'd let everyone who want the extra goodies enroll in Ca as the NCAA surely will be fighting this in court for ages. I'd get serious and simply shut it down. Those who want the extra money, etc.... should play for the CA college championship. Isolate them, just say NO, and let it wind it's way where it's bound to go. At least the mayhem generated by the Gov will be contained and we can get on with the seasons. This is deliberate on CA part. SO let em reap their rewards while the rest of the country gets on with tradition.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Vulture View Post
    To be clear, I am not arguing against NLI, I was responding to points made in a specific post. I do believe NLI's will need to be limited/regulated in some way though my points had nothing to do with that.

    My issue with the post I responded to was how they portrayed that all this money is available to share with the athletes, which is not the case. In fact, I specifically was discussing the revenue costs and requirements of the University. I DO NOT believe that college athletes should be monetarily compensated by the University beyond what is already being provided. Again, not talking about NLI...
    Its not that the money is just sitting there and available to share with the athletes.

    Its the sheer amount of revenue generated creating this large industry that is profiting off the backs of the athletes.

    And the money I brought up earlier was just the NCAA's revenue.
    That doesn't take into consideration each individual teams revenues, each leagues revenues. It doesn't take into consideration what the media companies are making, what the apparel companies are making, etc.

    You can look at Gonzaga and the impact the MBB Team has had on the growth of the University itself.

    https://www.spokesman.com/stories/20...success-fuels/
    https://www.espn.com/blog/collegebas...rsity-flourish

    The Men's Basketball team has earned their scholarships just by upping enrollment at the school.
    In 1998 the freshman enrollment was 550 students.
    In 2017 the freshman class was 1,200.

    If tuition for the 17/18 school year was $40,540, that's an additional $26,351,000 in tuition coming from the incoming freshman class.
    https://www.collegesimply.com/colleg...versity/price/

    You tell me what a difference of 650 freshman is worth.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Irving, TX
    Posts
    8,448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asoc View Post
    Its not that the money is just sitting there and available to share with the athletes.

    Its the sheer amount of revenue generated creating this large industry that is profiting off the backs of the athletes.

    And the money I brought up earlier was just the NCAA's revenue.
    That doesn't take into consideration each individual teams revenues, each leagues revenues. It doesn't take into consideration what the media companies are making, what the apparel companies are making, etc.

    You can look at Gonzaga and the impact the MBB Team has had on the growth of the University itself.

    https://www.spokesman.com/stories/20...success-fuels/
    https://www.espn.com/blog/collegebas...rsity-flourish

    The Men's Basketball team has earned their scholarships just by upping enrollment at the school.
    In 1998 the freshman enrollment was 550 students.
    In 2017 the freshman class was 1,200.

    If tuition for the 17/18 school year was $40,540, that's an additional $26,351,000 in tuition coming from the incoming freshman class.
    https://www.collegesimply.com/colleg...versity/price/

    You tell me what a difference of 650 freshman is worth.
    I take great exception to your phrase
    profiting off the backs of the athletes
    .There's a direct implication of indentured servitude, when it couldn't be farther from the truth. These student athletes were not forced to sign an LOI to Gonzaga, they chose to from their own free will.

    No doubt the University has benefited greatly from the exposure generated by those early teams 20 years ago. I would argue the student body has benefited as a whole from the greatly superior facilities now in use at Gonzaga. I attended GU from 72-76, when the Crosby Student Center housed the Crosby Library. I've been in the new library, and seen the other facilities built over the past 20 years.

    It wouldn't surprise me if you took a jab at those of us who attended Gonzaga on an ROTC scholarship. In exchange for 4 years of the Army paying for my books, tuition, lab fees, etc. I agreed to serve 4 years on active duty. It was one of the best decisions of my life, taking advantage of that scholarship to matriculate at Gonzaga. It was the springboard to experiences I never could have imagined as a teenager.

    IMO, you are giving little or no weight or consideration to the value of the scholarships these athletes receive. There is more to attending Gonzaga than just the sheer money value of that scholarship, the intangible benefits are enormous.

    If it's just about money, let these players take their skills overseas or in the NBA's developmental leagues. The NCAA does need to step up and adjust the system, but to scrap the system for less than 5% of student athletes is not a solution.

  23. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasZagFan View Post
    I take great exception to your phrase .There's a direct implication of indentured servitude, when it couldn't be farther from the truth. These student athletes were not forced to sign an LOI to Gonzaga, they chose to from their own free will.

    No doubt the University has benefited greatly from the exposure generated by those early teams 20 years ago. I would argue the student body has benefited as a whole from the greatly superior facilities now in use at Gonzaga. I attended GU from 72-76, when the Crosby Student Center housed the Crosby Library. I've been in the new library, and seen the other facilities built over the past 20 years.

    It wouldn't surprise me if you took a jab at those of us who attended Gonzaga on an ROTC scholarship. In exchange for 4 years of the Army paying for my books, tuition, lab fees, etc. I agreed to serve 4 years on active duty. It was one of the best decisions of my life, taking advantage of that scholarship to matriculate at Gonzaga. It was the springboard to experiences I never could have imagined as a teenager.

    IMO, you are giving little or no weight or consideration to the value of the scholarships these athletes receive. There is more to attending Gonzaga than just the sheer money value of that scholarship, the intangible benefits are enormous.

    If it's just about money, let these players take their skills overseas or in the NBA's developmental leagues. The NCAA does need to step up and adjust the system, but to scrap the system for less than 5% of student athletes is not a solution.
    Exactly! Some seem to have forgotten kids have the freedom not to attend college and to pursue making money off their talents elsewhere (if they're actually developed enough to do so). And they have the opportunity to receive a degree in exchange for the university "profiting" from their talents (hardly the university's fault if a player decides for whatever reason to leave college before they earn that degree).

  24. #49
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,655

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ladyzag12 View Post
    I meant from an ethical distribution standpoint, not a legal standpoint.
    How are they being unethical? They are providing an education, housing, training tables, medical coverage, athletic training, and even exposure. There is not this huge amount of money you are thinking that there is. It's not a legal standpoint, its a requirement to compete therefore you have to pay for Title IX. There is no way that players should be paid directly by the NCAA and/or the school outside of what they already get.

    The entire issue is NLI and how to implement it within a controllable model to keep big money booster from essentially "buying" players. To me, they could potentially look at a cap of what a player can earn per year while retaining the "student athlete" designation. What that amount would be, how to regulate, or any of the other things that would come up is up to those that write the laws.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chattaroy, WA
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MDABE80 View Post
    Will it's designed to be trouble. That's the point of all things in CA with Gavin Gov. It's the "new" way of thinking. I was sorta serious. I'd let everyone who want the extra goodies enroll in Ca as the NCAA surely will be fighting this in court for ages. I'd get serious and simply shut it down. Those who want the extra money, etc.... should play for the CA college championship. Isolate them, just say NO, and let it wind it's way where it's bound to go. At least the mayhem generated by the Gov will be contained and we can get on with the seasons. This is deliberate on CA part. SO let em reap their rewards while the rest of the country gets on with tradition.
    +1 The only problem is that GU and Portland would have to look for a new league to join. MWC?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •