Jump to content
Billikens.com Message Board
Sign in to follow this  
Schasz

NCAA and One and Done

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, 3star_recruit said:

The gargantuan money exists in college athletics because it was a business built on professional talent that wasn't paid anything.  Corporate media paid big money to broadcast games featuring that professional talent because it attracts a ton of eyeballs.  The money that should have been shared with that professional talent went solely to athletic departments and coaches.  

Suppose those kids went directly to the pros.  Instead of the top-shelf talent being 18-19 year old future NBA all-stars, Duke and Kentucky's best players are instead Carsen Edwards and  Rui Hachimura.  You think the networks will continue to pay at the levels they are now to broadcast that talent?  Without those multi-billion dollar broadcast deals, the motivation to pay the 45th best high school player a million bucks to hawk cars goes away.

I agree with Roy that you need to get the rent-a-pros out of the game in order to pay the college kids a modest salary.  The NBA players union, by lowering the minimum age from 19 to 18, will soon remove that impediment.  

You're jumping from finding a kid endorsement deals that in effect pay him to paying the 45th best HS player a million bucks.  I don't for a second believe the NCAA's revenues would go down if we get rid of one and done athletes. Duke fans will still love and watch Duke. They won't lose fans in fact as KShoe stated they may gain fans because players will stick around. UK fans will still love and follow UK, the same goes for Kansas, and UNC, etc …. Fans love the school, the love for the player is the result of the player attending the school and knocking the level of player down 10-15 players won't make any difference. 

I do believe schools will find a way to legally outbid rival schools for players. There will still be a best player, a 10th, best player, a 50th best player. Schools know that winning is what makes them money and lots of it. How much more revenue does the Mizzou basketball program make in NCAA money, gate, donations, etc … if they make 2 sweet 16's in a row than if they finish ranked 95th and 123rd for 2 years? The difference is in the millions, so if offering a couple of players 50k endorsement deals filtered through boosters gets them there, they'll do it. There is absolutely no chance they wouldn't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, brianstl said:

How much money do you guys think boosters at schools like Mizzou and Illinois have to sign endorsement deals with 13 basketball players and 85 football players while still paying the basketball head coach, the football head coach and to donating for facilities every year?  

More than SLU. I don't think it'll need to be millions of dollars. Look at the Adidas situation it wasn't millions of dollars. It was 10k, 30k, etc... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

More than SLU. I don't think it'll need to be millions of dollars. Look at the Adidas situation it wasn't millions of dollars. It was 10k, 30k, etc... 

At an average of just 10k a player, you are talking a million dollars a year at schools with FBS football.  Do you think Alabama boosters will direct a million dollars of their money to keeping Nick Saban or some to getting a commercial deal with a bunch of players?

What is more likely to happen than boosters paying these kids endorsements is shoe companies endorsing these kids and directing them where to go.  That wouldn't be much different than the situation for the last couple of decades.  Shoe companies will want to spread their top players out.  They won't want one of their top kids sitting behind another one of their top kids.  They will want a player that can be a star everywhere they can sell shoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

speaking only from slu's perspective (frankly that's all i care about) we dont have the athletic budget to take care of our non revenue sports and facilities now.   what makes anyone think we would ever pony up the dollars that this discussion/debate is throwing around?   now if the ncaa is peeling off like $ for each school and none of it comes out of slu's coffers, fine.   (honestly my guess is that the blue bloods will find someway to take the lions share of that and give the rest of us pittance shares)  but there is never going to be athletes paid at slu.   in fact i would go as far as think out loud that if it came to that and the schools were given permission to pay athletes, slu would drop out of D1 along with most  of the rest of the D1 schools.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please understand that my knowledge about the NCAA is very limited. That said, I think the NCAA will be rather reluctant, to put it mildly, to part with enough money to fund payments to players. This is not based on my knowledge of the NCAA but upon my knowledge of corporate management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, brianstl said:

At an average of just 10k a player, you are talking a million dollars a year at schools with FBS football.  Do you think Alabama boosters will direct a million dollars of their money to keeping Nick Saban or some to getting a commercial deal with a bunch of players?

What is more likely to happen than boosters paying these kids endorsements is shoe companies endorsing these kids and directing them where to go.  That wouldn't be much different than the situation for the last couple of decades.  Shoe companies will want to spread their top players out.  They won't want one of their top kids sitting behind another one of their top kids.  They will want a player that can be a star everywhere they can sell shoes.

Do you think boosters would pay kids now to go to their school? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

Do you think boosters would pay kids now to go to their school? 

I think some boosters already do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, brianstl said:

I think some boosters already do

and with what's being talked about it'd become much easier and possibly legal. Do you suppose it might become more prevalent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, billiken_roy said:

speaking only from slu's perspective (frankly that's all i care about) we dont have the athletic budget to take care of our non revenue sports and facilities now.   what makes anyone think we would ever pony up the dollars that this discussion/debate is throwing around?   now if the ncaa is peeling off like $ for each school and none of it comes out of slu's coffers, fine.   (honestly my guess is that the blue bloods will find someway to take the lions share of that and give the rest of us pittance shares)  but there is never going to be athletes paid at slu.   in fact i would go as far as think out loud that if it came to that and the schools were given permission to pay athletes, slu would drop out of D1 along with most  of the rest of the D1 schools.   

 

A few years ago when this came up Bernadette said the A10 would provide stipends. I can't imagine she decided that on her own. These kids are doing work for SLU. Pay them something, just make sure it's the same for every team/player., If it's left up to the school to come up with figure, we're effed along w/ about 250 other D1 schools. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cheeseman ---- yes, I am saying that the NCAA pot is one option to find the money to pay some sort of stipend over and above current payments.  Good with that plus scholarship?  Locked in for three years.  Not good?  Find another route to your riches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To understand just how much money is being funneled to college coaches, check out the article below. This article is three years old so the situation is even worse now:

https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/11/news/companies/college-coaches-pay-players-scholarships/

The head coaches in the five major college athletic conferences earn more than their schools spend on all athletic scholarships combined, 

The 535 coaches for men's sports collected a total of $440 million in salary, an average of $823,000 per full-time position during the 2014-2015 school year. That includes the football and basketball coaches, who generally earn millions of dollars, as well as more modestly paid lacrosse, swimming or wrestling coaches.

Meanwhile, those same 65 schools paid out a total of $426 million in student aid to roughly 20,000 of male athletes on their teams - or an average of just over $20,000 per athlete.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

To understand just how much money is being funneled to college coaches, check out the article below. This article is three years old so the situation is even worse now:

https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/11/news/companies/college-coaches-pay-players-scholarships/

The head coaches in the five major college athletic conferences earn more than their schools spend on all athletic scholarships combined, 

The 535 coaches for men's sports collected a total of $440 million in salary, an average of $823,000 per full-time position during the 2014-2015 school year. That includes the football and basketball coaches, who generally earn millions of dollars, as well as more modestly paid lacrosse, swimming or wrestling coaches.

Meanwhile, those same 65 schools paid out a total of $426 million in student aid to roughly 20,000 of male athletes on their teams - or an average of just over $20,000 per athlete.

 

 

The schools and NCAA play somewhat of a numbers/ accounting game here too. 

What is the actual “cost of a scholarship” to a school and athletic department? In the context of a university with 10k+ students, a full ride—while undoubtedly of some commercial value— is essentially a seat in a classroom that is going to take place at these schools with or without these athletes. If you “give” 10 full rides away to a basketball team, the school can easily make that up by admitting 10 lay students who are willing to pay the full bill. In sum, the scholarships cost the schools nothing.

I’ll concede that there are some added costs associated with the educational experience athletes get (designated counseling staff, travel tutors, room and board etc.), but that is nickels on the dollar when you look at the value assigned to the full-tuition scholarship that most point to when evaluating the “costs” schools have to operate an athletic department. 

 

Meanwhile, the athletic department writes this tuition cost off as a loss (crying “we have no profit”), and that money funnels directly back to ... the school itself. 

Main point being that there’s definitely more money to go around than the balance sheets can make it appear. Just my two cents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...