CA college athletes can now get paid$$

jpeter said:
My son says show me the money! although might be a junior by then

Jerry%2BMaguire%2BGIF-downsized_large.gif
Click to expand...

Tell your son that unless he is in the Heisman race or a superstar basketball player on a perennial Elite 8 team to not hold his breath. Practically, this will not affect any other college athlete ... unless Madden 2023 - College Edition plans to give all the NCAA D1 Athletes $20 for use of their name and likeness.
 
I heard that several of the conferences will no longer be looking to play games against PAC 12 schools for fear that they get roped into some sort of litigation by playing teams from California.
 
MWN said:
I tend to agree with @oh canada on this point. There is a "finite" amount of money that advertisers are willing to spend on college athletics to gain exposure and goodwill for their products. Everything is related to eyeballs. Under-armor pays UCLA $18.6M dollars/year because its men's basketball team and football team are on t.v. X amount of times with an average viewership of Y, meaning its paying Z dollars for each eyeball or impression.

The school gets $18.6M/year from UnderArmor, 29.5M from the PAC 12 tv deals. Note, almost every college (excluding Notre Dame) receives TV deal revenue from the conference (SEC, ACC, PAC12, etc.). Ticket revenues tend to be break even after accounting for costs to operate the stadium. That money is then allocated to the programs that generate the money (football and basketball) to prop those sports up, and then distributed to the other sports to subsidize those sports.

Some conferences like the SEC have virtually eliminated non-money "mens" sports, such as soccer due to Title IX requirements that force an equal number of scholarships for women. Since the men's money sports are not going away (football and basketball), programs like mens soccer have too. (see this article for an explanation, http://www.uatrav.com/sports/article_8f3a7294-b193-11e8-95a8-cf2116b75693.html)

This law will only benefit the superstars. The blue-chip, 4 star recruits.

Its a finite pool every year with only so many marketing dollars in the hands of the potential sponsors. The only people that are going to benefit are the superstar college quarterbacks, running backs, and basketball players, which will cause the schools to receive less sponsorship dollars and create hardships for the non-money sports.
Click to expand...
Good post. The only part you lost me on was the last part. How will the local buffet in Eugene OR paying the O Linemen to appear in a commercial affect the Ducks bottom line?
 
Multi Sport said:
Good post. The only part you lost me on was the last part. How will the local buffet in Eugene OR paying the O Linemen to appear in a commercial affect the Ducks bottom line?
Click to expand...

If we are talking local advertisers paying the Ducks O Line to appear in a commercial, it won't and the money at stake will be insignificant, because the local restaurant is not a factor in the Ducks bottom line.

What we likely will see given the past history of boosters is money will be funneled to athletes through this new loop hole that legitimizes play for XYZ school and our boosters will pay you ... through appearing in a stupid commercial hocking "pot stickers" or "used cars."

Its the real money from Nike, Gatorade, Adidas, where potential millions could be shed from the school to individual athletes, which will also put the fringe schools further on the fringe and cause impacted schools to look toward cutting the non-money sports further. Athletes that are the blue chippers are the only ones who will potentially benefit.
 
MWN said:
If we are talking local advertisers paying the Ducks O Line to appear in a commercial, it won't and the money at stake will be insignificant, because the local restaurant is not a factor in the Ducks bottom line.

What we likely will see given the past history of boosters is money will be funneled to athletes through this new loop hole that legitimizes play for XYZ school and our boosters will pay you ... through appearing in a stupid commercial hocking "pot stickers" or "used cars."

Its the real money from Nike, Gatorade, Adidas, where potential millions could be shed from the school to individual athletes, which will also put the fringe schools further on the fringe and cause impacted schools to look toward cutting the non-money sports further. Athletes that are the blue chippers are the only ones who will potentially benefit.
Click to expand...
I think that is a version that could happen. Since we are a few years out before implementation I'm guessing we can expect some tweaking to occur.

If it does go down the way your outlined then the ones whe would benefit the most would be the schools with no football team. NAIA schools could be the benefactors.
 
Multi Sport said:
I think that is a version that could happen. Since we are a few years out before implementation I'm guessing we can expect some tweaking to occur.

If it does go down the way your outlined then the ones whe would benefit the most would be the schools with no football team. NAIA schools could be the benefactors.
Click to expand...

How? NAIA school don't get much in the way of sponsorship dollars and rarely operate money ball programs.
 
MWN said:
If we are talking local advertisers paying the Ducks O Line to appear in a commercial, it won't and the money at stake will be insignificant, because the local restaurant is not a factor in the Ducks bottom line.

What we likely will see given the past history of boosters is money will be funneled to athletes through this new loop hole that legitimizes play for XYZ school and our boosters will pay you ... through appearing in a stupid commercial hocking "pot stickers" or "used cars."

Its the real money from Nike, Gatorade, Adidas, where potential millions could be shed from the school to individual athletes, which will also put the fringe schools further on the fringe and cause impacted schools to look toward cutting the non-money sports further. Athletes that are the blue chippers are the only ones who will potentially benefit.
Click to expand...

Research has shown that, outside of the successful FBS schools in conferences with lucrative TV deals, most athletics programs (and their football programs on a stand-alone basis) have expenses that exceed revenues, and are subsidized by the schools. For D2 schools, total athletic losses are typically greater with football than without. The research is from the O'Bannon case, and available online. A loss of revenues requiring an increase in these subsidies (expenses) will not go over well with administrations, faculty and most students.

So while the larger, Power 5 conference, FBS schools will be inclined to drop other sports, the first "non-money" sport budget at risk at other colleges (if that is defined as sports that loses money for the school), will likely be football. Most administrations and college professors would seize on any opportunity to get rid of football and its outsized number of scholarships. An increasing number of students feel the same way or are apathetic. Active alumni groups and Trustees may save some programs, but I would not count on that being the norm.

Just one possible outcome. This is just the beginning of what might lead to significant changes to college athletics.
 
Dos Equis said:
Research has shown that, outside of the successful FBS schools in conferences with lucrative TV deals, most athletics programs (and their football programs on a stand-alone basis) have expenses that exceed revenues, and are subsidized by the schools. For D2 schools, total athletic losses are typically greater with football than without. The research is from the O'Bannon case, and available online. A loss of revenues requiring an increase in these subsidies (expenses) will not go over well with administrations, faculty and most students.

So while the larger, Power 5 conference, FBS schools will be inclined to drop other sports, the first "non-money" sport budget at risk at other colleges (if that is defined as sports that loses money for the school), will likely be football. Most administrations and college professors would seize on any opportunity to get rid of football and its outsized number of scholarships. An increasing number of students feel the same way or are apathetic. Active alumni groups and Trustees may save some programs, but I would not count on that being the norm.

Just one possible outcome. This is just the beginning of what might lead to significant changes to college athletics.
Click to expand...
And if football is eliminated along with its 50+ scholarships, schools would also eliminate 50+ scholarships on the female side because of the Title 9 = scholarship requirement.

I can see how this could be a "win" for Ivy League athletes, however (currently no athletic scholarships awarded).
 
MicPaPa said:
Wouldn't standing up for female athletics be easier...not to mention the right thing to do?
Click to expand...

You're the guy that thinks 10 year old girls shouldn't form a novelty team (Goats FC) at "nationally prestigious" tournaments for 5th graders. I'm supposed to look to you for moral guidance when you can't even get that right? Go back to the U11 boards.

For the record, yes, ladies go and get your money.
 
oh canada said:
And if football is eliminated along with its 50+ scholarships, schools would also eliminate 50+ scholarships on the female side because of the Title 9 = scholarship requirement.

I can see how this could be a "win" for Ivy League athletes, however (currently no athletic scholarships awarded).
Click to expand...

There is no fixed scholarship parity requirement. Most D1 football schools (with 85 football scholarships) have about 25-40 more scholarships for male athletes than females. There are usually more women's sports, and generally more scholarships for the same sports for women, but the overall resources dedicated to the "money sports" is still heavily in favor of men's sports. That may face further scrutiny as well.

But none of this happens in a vacuum, and I think this may have an impact on not just athletic scholarships, but preferential admissions policies for athletes, and academic requirements as well. Everything will likely be on the table.
 
oh canada said:
And if football is eliminated along with its 50+ scholarships, schools would also eliminate 50+ scholarships on the female side because of the Title 9 = scholarship requirement.

I can see how this could be a "win" for Ivy League athletes, however (currently no athletic scholarships awarded).
Click to expand...

There are no scholarships at all in the Ivy League - only need based aid.
 
MWN said:
How? NAIA school don't get much in the way of sponsorship dollars and rarely operate money ball programs.
Click to expand...
If D1 schools drop programs like soccer the players will need a place to play. I guess some of the D2,3 schools will also benefit.
 
Dos Equis said:
There is no fixed scholarship parity requirement. Most D1 football schools (with 85 football scholarships) have about 25-40 more scholarships for male athletes than females. There are usually more women's sports, and generally more scholarships for the same sports for women, but the overall resources dedicated to the "money sports" is still heavily in favor of men's sports. That may face further scrutiny as well.

But none of this happens in a vacuum, and I think this may have an impact on not just athletic scholarships, but preferential admissions policies for athletes, and academic requirements as well. Everything will likely be on the table.
Click to expand...
Point taken, because we're talking about football and women don't play football so there isn't an exactly equal setoff, but you would concede the college could eliminate a significant number of female sport scholarships if eliminating football? Pretty sure if we're talking basketball, and a school is offering 15 scholarships to men they have to also offer 15 scholarships to women, no?

Glen said:
There are no scholarships at all in the Ivy League - only need based aid.
Click to expand...
Correct. So if the CA law is applied throughout NCAA and including the Ivy League, that would provide Ivy student athletes with an added potential $ stream. i.e., presently, if Joe Stud hockey player is deciding between Harvard and U. of Michgan, if he comes from an upper middle class family he is likely going to have to pay his entire way at Harvard (or most of it) whereas U.ofM can offer him a free education. Under the 2023 law, if Joe can pick up some endorsement deals from Nike or Bauer or Boston hockey boosters, he might be able to get through Harvard debt free. Levels the playing ice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top