No you’re entitled to your salary. Do you guys have any understanding of
(1) what a business is and how it works and
(2) the fact that athletic departments are not businesses
NIL allocation
- Thread starter dark_check
- Start date
No you’re entitled to your salary. Do you guys have any understanding of
(1) what a business is and how it works and
(2) the fact that athletic departments are not businesses
Regarding people not wanting to watch - again you said that not me.
That's your argument. Not mine.
Also, dropping athletics as in moving down from FBS (the "****** minor league").
Last edited:
If ADs are not businesses then why the concern over profit and revenue?
Players already receive a percentage of revenue. Do you agree?
Players are ppaid via scholarships from AD revenue.
Same as HC Schiano gets a percentage of AD revenue paid via salary.
Agree?
Now it's level of compensation.
If HC Schiano (and all other AD expenses) increase based on revenue increases, then player compensation would raise as well.
It's not the players fault the AD runs a terrible business model ans keeps raising compensation/expenses based on revenue and not profit.
Holy ******* Christ.
YOU ARE THE ONE WITH A CONCERN OVER PROFIT AND REVENUE. YOU WANT TO PAY PLAYERS BECAUSE THEY “GENERATE REVENUE”
The athletes are taking advantage of a service the university offers. If they want to get paid to play they should become ******* professional athletes.
No, are you ******* joking?
Schiano is not getting paid a percentage of revenue for ***** sake, unless you literally just mean that his compensation can in theory be expressed as a percentage if you do the math.
The level of Schiano’s salary has nothing to do with the revenue.
The cost of an ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIP has even less than nothing to do with revenue. What are you even talking about?
Last edited:
The athletic department is something that is run at a net deficit in order to provide athletics as part of a well rounded educational institution. Some athletic activities generate some revenue that offsets some of that deficit. I am okay with running a net deficit. I am not okay with spinning off whatever random corner of the department earns revenue, paying that revenue out to college kids for no particular reason, and thus increasing the overall deficit of the activity. The increase is not “the cost of athletics” it’s the cost of the stupid payment I made to the college kids.
And yes for the record a man getting paid $5m per year or whatever to produce a mediocre amateur football team is also absurd.
And yes for the record a man getting paid $5m per year or whatever to produce a mediocre amateur football team is also absurd.
Take a breathe
The AD receives revenue from various sources (tickets, merch, advertising, conference payout, "mandatory" donations, R Fund ).
Right?
Then the AD pays out expenses from that revenue (coaching salaries, flights, food, athletic scholarships, facilities maintenance, etc)
Right?
That results in a profit or loss.
Currently and for many years, its been a loss.
HC Schiano is paid out from the "Revenue" bucket and not the "Profit" bucket.
If he was paid out of the profit - his salary would be zero since there is no profit.
Similarly, other expenses from the revenue bucket has increased.
An argument is being made that "player compensation" expense should also increase.
Same as "coaching compensation" should and has also been increasing.
There is no financial argument against it.
Just like saying "HC Schiano shouldn't get a raise because the AD has no profit" is a dumb argument. He isn't the reason for the lack of profit and the AD has never considered profit when evaluating compensation or any other expenses.
That is why it's "revenue" and not "profit" that is the unit of measure.
The only argument against increasing player compensation is moral (these are students and kids playing a game).
At the risk of sounding too idealistic, I don't believe a sport like women's field hockey was ever intended to make money - probably to attract students and develop character and leadership skills. The government, in fact, at one time saw college football as a means of teaching leadership, working together as a team, and preparing young men for war. I'm pretty sure Rutgers did not originate as a money making venture, and without state support probably loses money everywhere. Is developing character and leadership skills as important as some academic disciplines? Do we have a responsibility here?
I agree with the last paragraph.
But take results out of it for a second.
Is any football coach making g $5m per year absurd?
I would say no. The program (I believe) is profitable. So the level of compensation isn't absurd. It's the results.
Even if the AD overall is a deficit, that segment is profitable so the compensation level is justified.
Some would say any CFB coach making $5m is absurd if the AD overall is losing money.
Just like paying players $10m is absurd if the overall AD is losing money. I'd also disagree.
At the end of the day I guess it depends on what the mission of the athletic department is.
I edited the insult out of that post but it seems like you got to it before I did so
(1) sorry
(2) this is a very calm and reasoned response to a post that was not really that way so, kudos
So, you're going to give a 105 man roster $13 mil. or $12,380 per man and a basketball 15 man roster $6 mil. or $400,000 per man? Football brings in the most money and you're going to give them the least amount to work with? Your bias is showing.
The Big East is projecting $80M per YEAR for their conference from this new $480M TV deal they signed.
The B1G is projected 80M per YEAR for each TEAM from their TV deal.
Maybe they go out and raise money to stay on par but not sure how long that will last. If hoops drove the bus then we would have seen that play out the last 10-15 years.
I don’t think we need to be paying 105 football players or 15 basketball players, probably more like 80 and 12 will be getting paid, respectively. I also think the money goes further in football (you can get a really good player for $50k) whereas in basketball you probably need at least $250k to get a contributor. I’d just like to maximize the competitiveness of both programs.
And that's unfortunate. It applies in some people's minds but in not enough. We're no longer driven by many things that really matter. Most everything has become about money.
Last edited:
College football and basketball freshmen cannot become as you say "****ing professional athletes." Keep up with the rules.
Well I think they could but not in the NFL or NBA.
But regardless, you are correct and I don't really agree with those rules.
Ok. What did they cost and more importantly who paid for it?
Prior to "Big time college atheltics", if the small programs had $10k in expenses - how did that get paid.
And why can't whoever paid for it then pay for it now?
Why so?
I think I agree, but have not dug in too deep. But just a quick glance at Title IX, and tagging @retired711 for his thoughts:
"Title IX states:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
.......
A recipient institution that receives Department funds must operate its education program or activity in a nondiscriminatory manner free of discrimination based on sex, including sexual orientation and gender identity. Some key issue areas in which recipients have Title IX obligations are: recruitment, admissions, and counseling; financial assistance; athletics;"
Preliminary thought- can see the argument holding some water that women will claim they are being denied benefits and financial assistance that men's sports are receiving. Not saying I agree, just saying. . . . .
I won't pretend to know the answers. FWIW, here is the Department of Education's guidance on athletic scholarships. It says that financial aid must be proportionately distributed between male and female athletes. Will direct compensation be treated differently? We'll see. The amount of revenue a sport brings in seems to be irrelevant in determining the allocation between male and female athletes. https://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/bowlgrn.html#bowlgrn1
Keep in mind that this letter is just guidance. It doesn't have the force of law. So a school can't be punished just for violating the terms of the letter. Instead the Department of Education would have to show that violating the guidance amounts to a violation of the terms of Title IX. All the same, it's certainly understandable that schools pay a lot of attention to guidance because the guidance helps them understand when the Department would or would not go after them.
BTW, the Trump administration can change the Department of Education's approach -- but there is no guarantee that the change would be upheld if challenged in court as in violation of the text of Title IX. There is also a question of who can go to court to challenge any change in the guidance.
It all will be very interesting.
Last edited:
Because nothing ever stays the same and too much money is involved now, of which women's sports had nothing to do with generating said money other than probably a small fraction. They should get maybe 2% of the TV revenue or whatever they actually generate.
Maybe some for a wrestler or a star pitcher in baseball otherwise 0 and that includes soccer and Lacrosse
NIL should be based on gross revenue and with the exception of maybe basketball the women’s sports don’t make enough
I totally agree with you and see the point. But when lawyers (I'm kind of one, but don't think of myself as "one of them" because I work only on patents and don't do litigation) and judges get involved, look out, the sky is the limit with all sorts of wild claims of what anyone and everyone is "entitled to."
Something that will have to be reconciled with Title IX and the "NIL environment" is that in the new world order of college athletics, this is business tied to media rights and the money generated by certain sports. I quoted "NIL environment" because people are not being precise with that phrase "Name Image Likeness." That may also have to involve parsing out true NIL deals paid directly to athletes for their name, image and likeness, and the money allocated by Universities for paying players from their media rights "income" to retain or attract them to play for each school At least these two things are not one in the same, but wtf do I know?
That is a problem with modern society and lawyers--words and phrases take on new meanings and get stretched, and we get ridiculous results. But staying on point, some precision on what the specific payments being made to athletes will be needed. If the argument that these are "benefits" being paid to athletes, that will cause problems for Universities and non-revenue sports. I don't agree with that logic.
It turns out that the Department of Education has made regulations to carry out Title IX. (Strictly speaking, these regulations were made by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare before there was a Department of Education, and the latter just took them over.) Here's what they say about athletic scholarships (34 C.F.R. 86.37)
"(1) To the extent that a recipient awards athletic scholarships or grants-in-aid, it must provide reasonable opportunities for such
awards for members of each sex in proportion to the number of students of each sex participating in interscholastic or
intercollegiate athletics.
"(2) Separate athletic scholarships or grants-in-aid for members of each sex may be provided as part of separate athletic teams for members of each sex to the extent consistent with this paragraph and § 86.41 of this part." (86.41 doesn't say anything that important to this issue.)
These rules appear intended to be more than guidance; they seem meant rather to set out binding requirements. But only a court could decide how these rules would apply to direct compensation. The Department is sure to have a view, but it will be subject to review by the courts.
Let's keep in mind that this document from the Department of Education is being issued five days before the Biden Administration leaves office. As might be expected, the Biden Administration is pushing everything possible out the door before President Trump is inaugurated on Monday. Do not be stunned if the Department alters its position after that.
does TitleIX have anything to say about all this?
edit: ah.. just saw posts above this one. it is as I figured/feared... luckily Dept. of Ed may be going away.. Go DOGE!
Department of Education... well, the education element is scholarships.. and they get balanced.. so are they now the Department of Equal Pay for every athlete? Does a trans athlete's pay count against the men's or women's pay balance? Or is it to the divided by 3 now.. men, women, other?
I would not hold my breath about the Department going away. That would require an act of Congress. What is more likely is that the Department will change the position it just announced.
But in the last analysis it's going to be the courts who decide how Title IX applies in the world of revenue sharing. Will the courts think that Title IX requires proportional allocation of revenue sharing? We'll see.
Let's let the women share the revenue they generate.. then blame women fans for not supporting their teams and help generate revenue that they can later share
But if the rules distribute the money for every program the same the net net will be the same. I'd just hate it if Big Ten programs or even just woke Us like Rutgers insist on equity while SEC and big name programs just give the money to football and mens basketball and reap the benefits of that.
Not against female athletes being paid (any more than I am male athletes.. which I am).. I just don't want to lose ground to other programs who don't care about equity.