We probably agree a lot on the topic of NIL. It disgusts me, but... your MYTH 1 argument is faulty. Your premise seems to be that players are undeserving of payment because the value of their contribution A) is unknowable; B) is not commensurate with the value of fluctuating program revenues.
You couch this all as being a matter of Facts, not Emotion. While you may be citing facts, you are also drawing conclusions, which are not supported by those facts.
I'm not going to delve into roots and causes of Nebraska income. But, supposing a new tv contract were introduced, paying Nebraska twice as much as before. If one could argue that Nebraska making 100 million is reasonable, and the players on that team contribute to that value, just because the value of that contract doubles without a commensurate performance increase does not mean those players contribute to ZERO, simply because we can't draw an association curve. It simply means the value changed. Does it mean those players 'deserve' to be paid twice as much? No. Unless the rest of the market dictates that's what must be done in order to preserve a roster.
"The quality of our players have [sic] almost nothing to do with the revenue generated by the school." Well, that's not a statement that validates your 'thesis statement.' Ignoring the oversimplification of revenues and not discussing losses/expenses, you still need to consider what happens if you don't pay. I'm not even sure what you're arguing on that front. That individual schools decide not to? Then they field uncompetitive teams and their revenues shrink, no? That the entire NCAA change to go against court rulings? What?
Even in your opening salvo, you represent that the two examples are at " opposite ends of the spectrum." So, obviously you accept that there would be two (or more) examples that invalidate your argument. Does the math have to be 1:1 for every program in order for the model to be valid?
Isn't it more true to say that: Teams have revenues. Players are contributors to that revenue, because without them there would be no revenue. If, back to Nebraska, you accept that the 100 million is 'true' value and 200 million is not, how do you wipe away the 100 million, just because your personal Win/Share calculations don't compute easily? Isn't this all just a 'business decision' for each individual program? If Nebraska had been fine with paying each player 50k when they were making 100 million, or if they decided to hold at 50k because the team still sucked even though they had more money in the coffers, or if they decided to pay 100k because they wanted the team to not suck anymore, isn't that just 'business?'
Another inconsistency in your post concerns your immediate exclusion of "a big state school in the SEC or Big Ten." That's a lot of programs to exclude from a 'fact-only argument.' The economic levels may be different there, but the way math works is still the same.
Myth 2: You are conflating value of a player in one circumstance with the value of that same 'person' in a different circumstance. Bacot can very easily be 'worth' 2 million to North Carolina and $40,000 to a G league team. Apples to Oranges. His contribution to a Memphis G League teams cannot be compared to his contribution and impact to the Carolina college team. You cannot apply those numbers across leagues. You may as well be arguing that an actor in a blockbuster film doesn't deserve $15million for the film because he only makes $100k in a Broadway play.
I'm going to (mostly) ignore the crack about the "ticket out of the ghetto." [Who on our team is from the ghetto?]
Other Myths: A "great deal" should be a clue that you're not really speaking about 'just the facts, m'am.' That's highly editorial. Lebron getting only 10 million instead of 60 could be regarded as still being a "great deal" unless the system could support the 60 million. Unfortunately, the systems are supporting the astronomical money, because consumers have been manipulated into paying for it all.
Yes, NIL is a disaster. Yes, "NIL" is inappropriately named at this point. Yes, i agree that college athletics should be about a collegiate experience, and that the players only build their NBA/pro value on the shoulders of the schools. But, that ship has sailed, and if we're going to make cogent, sound arguments to support that "emotion," it should be with a higher level of logic. Even then, though... again, the ship has sailed.
I appreciate your points. And none of this is black and white, and some of it certainly has merit. Some of it is “which came first the chicken or the egg”, did players build the brands? Or did players choose “brands“ built from fan support, or what no name players accomplished 100 years ago?
The “ticket out of the ghetto” was not a “crack” It is a statement that been used a million times by a million people. I’m surprised you never heard it. That’s just the fact that several kids who would not get to go to college, get to go to college because of their athletic ability. We have several players on our teams that come from economically challenged situations just like every other school. Of all the points you argue, I’m not sure why that is even in there. We are building our football team with a coach from Camden and several players from Camden, one of the most economically depressed places in the country. Ask them how many of their classmates who can’t play football, would love to go to Syracuse for free If they could.
I said in my original post, I am not opposed to NIL for what it was supposed to be but now it is absurd. Teams that bring in 50 or $60 million in total athletic department revenue are now supposed to pay $20 million or get left behind? Non Revenue Sports are already getting cut. The female gymnast or male bowler who would love to get a partial scholarship will not have that available because their sports will get cut . There will be fewer scholarships and fewer opportunities for non revenue generating sports. A few athletes will get more. Many will get Nothing, and lose their scholarship opportunity.
I don’t get your analogy about LeBron James. The NBA system does support “astronomical money”, because Lebron making $60 million works because the team turns a profit after paying him. Most ncaa football schools don’t turn a profit and certainly cannot afford another $20 million on top of that. It is proof that this is a broken system. Consumers aren’t “getting manipulated“ into paying for anything here. Taxpayers who don’t go to these schools are subsidizing it, and students who go to the schools are paying for it with their increased student fees, or schools like Rutgers are just kicking the can down the road, an option that private schools don’t have.. but you make a lot of nuanced arguments so I suppose you would be right by saying that just by the fact of paying tuition, and choosing to go to that university, you are being manipulated into paying for everything that happens there. or you could choose go elsewhere.
your analogy about an actor making $100,000 or 15 million happens because they can choose what they want to do even if they’re a huge actor. Your argument proves my point. The play can not afford $15,000,000 the Actor would otherwise get. The actor working for less chooses to do that, and does not affect their movie market value. Once college is done though, these players no longer have a choice. They no longer have the choice to make $2 million hanging around college. They have to make $40,000 in the G league or go overseas. If they had a choice to stay for six or seven years and continue to make huge money, they would take it.
College athletics was never meant to be professional athletics. athletes who are good enough can go to go straight to the pros.
it is not really what the players are worth to the colleges, because no group of players will raise revenue by $20,000,000. In reality it’s how much debt are the colleges willing to take on today (to be passed on to someone else later) to stay in division 1, And who has the richest sports fan alumni. Not exactly good reasons to be paying athletes astronomical money for what they would be more than happy to do for what it always was.
we are killing the golden goose, whistling past the graveyard, whatever analogy you want to make. But I do appreciate you post. Lots of good content.
finally, the reason that no one goes to see GREAT players that are BETTER than college players on the Memphis Hustle, is that they don’t play in the INSTITUTION that is college basketball.
We probably agree a lot on the topic of NIL. It disgusts me, but... your MYTH 1 argument is faulty. Your premise seems to be that players are undeserving of payment because the value of their contribution A) is unknowable; B) is not commensurate with the value of fluctuating program revenues.
You couch this all as being a matter of Facts, not Emotion. While you may be citing facts, you are also drawing conclusions, which are not supported by those facts.
I'm not going to delve into roots and causes of Nebraska income. But, supposing a new tv contract were introduced, paying Nebraska twice as much as before. If one could argue that Nebraska making 100 million is reasonable, and the players on that team contribute to that value, just because the value of that contract doubles without a commensurate performance increase does not mean those players contribute to ZERO, simply because we can't draw an association curve. It simply means the value changed. Does it mean those players 'deserve' to be paid twice as much? No. Unless the rest of the market dictates that's what must be done in order to preserve a roster.
"The quality of our players have [sic] almost nothing to do with the revenue generated by the school." Well, that's not a statement that validates your 'thesis statement.' Ignoring the oversimplification of revenues and not discussing losses/expenses, you still need to consider what happens if you don't pay. I'm not even sure what you're arguing on that front. That individual schools decide not to? Then they field uncompetitive teams and their revenues shrink, no? That the entire NCAA change to go against court rulings? What?
Even in your opening salvo, you represent that the two examples are at " opposite ends of the spectrum." So, obviously you accept that there would be two (or more) examples that invalidate your argument. Does the math have to be 1:1 for every program in order for the model to be valid?
Isn't it more true to say that: Teams have revenues. Players are contributors to that revenue, because without them there would be no revenue. If, back to Nebraska, you accept that the 100 million is 'true' value and 200 million is not, how do you wipe away the 100 million, just because your personal Win/Share calculations don't compute easily? Isn't this all just a 'business decision' for each individual program? If Nebraska had been fine with paying each player 50k when they were making 100 million, or if they decided to hold at 50k because the team still sucked even though they had more money in the coffers, or if they decided to pay 100k because they wanted the team to not suck anymore, isn't that just 'business?'
Another inconsistency in your post concerns your immediate exclusion of "a big state school in the SEC or Big Ten." That's a lot of programs to exclude from a 'fact-only argument.' The economic levels may be different there, but the way math works is still the same.
Myth 2: You are conflating value of a player in one circumstance with the value of that same 'person' in a different circumstance. Bacot can very easily be 'worth' 2 million to North Carolina and $40,000 to a G league team. Apples to Oranges. His contribution to a Memphis G League teams cannot be compared to his contribution and impact to the Carolina college team. You cannot apply those numbers across leagues. You may as well be arguing that an actor in a blockbuster film doesn't deserve $15million for the film because he only makes $100k in a Broadway play.
I'm going to (mostly) ignore the crack about the "ticket out of the ghetto." [Who on our team is from the ghetto?]
Other Myths: A "great deal" should be a clue that you're not really speaking about 'just the facts, m'am.' That's highly editorial. Lebron getting only 10 million instead of 60 could be regarded as still being a "great deal" unless the system could support the 60 million. Unfortunately, the systems are supporting the astronomical money, because consumers have been manipulated into paying for it all.
Yes, NIL is a disaster. Yes, "NIL" is inappropriately named at this point. Yes, i agree that college athletics should be about a collegiate experience, and that the players only build their NBA/pro value on the shoulders of the schools. But, that ship has sailed, and if we're going to make cogent, sound arguments to support that "emotion," it should be with a higher level of logic. Even then, though... again, the ship has sailed.
I was probably supposed to take more away from this but what I hear you saying is Elijah Moore is the problem and that someone is going to give him more money to transfer and its not PT he's looking for?
Personally I'd love to have Elijah back, he'll be setting 3 point records somewhere the next couple years. But I think he realized he's stuck behind JJ and neither is a good enough ball handler to be on the court together. If he's getting more bucks also, good for him.
I actually said that I was for the transfer portal because I think it’s fair. Leaving for playing time is fair. Elijah is only taking advantage of the rules as they currently exist. I do not blame him for anything. Nor did I ever say I blame any of the players for this. All I’m saying is that his (and others) market value is being set by who has the “richest alumni that donate to basketball” . Not by how much value he actually brings to the institution, it’s how much value he brings to that particular rich Alumni (or group of alumni). No other sport operates unbalanced like this except for baseball, and in baseball it’s 10 rich teams that compete, and 20 that dont. Even though we’re opting in, Texas, Ohio State, etc. will still have lots more N IL money from donors, and players will leave for more money. If the $20 million was the rule, and no other money was allowed, then we would be making a business decision whether to pay him or not. The problem is everyone is making a decision based on different parameters. I would prefer that college sports don’t go in that direction. And as I said in the previous post, it is my personal opinion that we are whistling past the graveyard. I hope that’s not the case because I don’t really care much about pro sports Until playoffs. Watching Syracuse and cheering for their teams at the highest level has been a 50 year thing for me, And I fear it’s going away. There’s a reason I went to Syracuse and not Albany. I don’t want to be Albany.
