Dino's Week 6 Pitt Press Conference Notes / Depth Chart

[bnoro]

I'm not sure I understand. My biggest problem is that the value of education is so discounted when this topic is raised.

My second biggest problem is presumption that the individual players drive the income. In fact, it is the program - the brand itself - that drives the income.

But that is another discussion.

Suppose it is decided that college players should be paid.

Do we eliminate scholarships and require the player to pay tuition?

If not, does the walk-on player who gets no scholarship get paid?

What about the scholarship player who does not play/letter - should he get paid?

Should a spot player be paid the same amount as a star player?

Should there be a salary cap?

Do all college athletes get paid?

It may have visceral appeal but the application would seem unworkable.

They deserve to be able to profit off their likeness, regardless if the school is paying them to do so or if they're making that money on their own through jersey sales.

 

[Cheriehoop]

They deserve to be able to profit off their likeness, regardless if the school is paying them to do so or if they're making that money on their own through jersey sales.

Except for the very top players in the country, is there really a market for college players' likenesses? I know that SU gives away posters that have players' likeness and advertises games using a different player's likeness each game etc. are these really moneymakers?

The only moneymaker I can think of (brain might not be working) are signed team posters , team balls etc that are auctioned for charity but I don't see them usually for sale, retail wise. Is the market just the few auctions that benefit SU itself? Maybe I'm just drawing a blank here. Or is this a proposal for a new market people want - having players get paid by fans for autographs and posters they normally gave away? Or get a piece of the money earned for program's sold at games?

 

[orangezen]

wheres my Barry Baker bobblehead ?

 

[bnoro]

Except for the very top players in the country, is there really a market for college players' likenesses? I know that SU gives away posters that have players' likeness and advertises games using a different player's likeness each game etc. are these really moneymakers?

The only moneymaker I can think of (brain might not be working) are signed team posters , team balls etc that are auctioned for charity but I don't see them usually for sale, retail wise. Is the market just the few auctions that benefit SU itself? Maybe I'm just drawing a blank here. Or is this a proposal for a new market people want - having players get paid by fans for autographs and posters they normally gave away? Or get a piece of the money earned for program's sold at games?

There may not be a market but what's the harm in trying to quantify what these players bring to the schools?

 

[RMH44]

There may not be a market but what's the harm in trying to quantify what these players bring to the schools?

Can schools sell jerseys with player names on them? Honestly, I don't know the answer...but it's my understanding that they can't. I think fans pay extra to have the name plates added.

 

[Bayside44]

There may not be a market but what's the harm in trying to quantify what these players bring to the schools?

They don't sell the names, and big school boosters can easily sweep up thousands of jerseys for any kid they want.

 

[RandomGuy]

For those curious as to how much revenue can be attributed to each college football player - when based on the nflpa's contract... Looks like a Texas player generates about $1.4 million. Average fbs player generates about $350k.

The average University of Texas football player is now worth more than $670,000 per year

 

[upperdeck]

revenue has gone up but so has costs.. 30-40 years ago when revenue for sports was way down colleges had more money to give 10-15 raises every year, now its 1-2-3%. the money isnt just going into a pot, its being spent on other things so way more kids can play and new dorms, and perks for players, lock the coaches salaries down to some number like 1 million, even that 5 million spread out over 100 players doesn equal the value of a scholie.

 

[SUskibum]

I'm not sure I understand. My biggest problem is that the value of education is so discounted when this topic is raised.

My second biggest problem is presumption that the individual players drive the income. In fact, it is the program - the brand itself - that drives the income.

But that is another discussion.

Suppose it is decided that college players should be paid.

Do we eliminate scholarships and require the player to pay tuition? NO

If not, does the walk-on player who gets no scholarship get paid? NO

What about the scholarship player who does not play/letter - should he get paid? YES

Should a spot player be paid the same amount as a star player? YES (but the right to market your likeness will result in the star player getting more secondary revenue which is ok, even thought the money paid by school/conference/P5 group is the same)

Should there be a salary cap? Some agreement between the P5 schools as the amount to paid to each athlete. No salary cap on marketing your likeness

Do all college athletes get paid? No, only in sports that generate revenue (football/basketball)

It may have visceral appeal but the application would seem unworkable. Even a flawed payment system is better than no payment system.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I like where this analogy is going...

How about guys who are giving fish to kids illegally in bags? Fish runners. Seafood racketeers.

Ha. Fish bag.

I love it.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I'm not sure I understand. My biggest problem is that the value of education is so discounted when this topic is raised.

My second biggest problem is presumption that the individual players drive the income. In fact, it is the program - the brand itself - that drives the income.

But that is another discussion.

Suppose it is decided that college players should be paid.

Do we eliminate scholarships and require the player to pay tuition?

If not, does the walk-on player who gets no scholarship get paid?

What about the scholarship player who does not play/letter - should he get paid?

Should a spot player be paid the same amount as a star player?

Should there be a salary cap?

Do all college athletes get paid?

It may have visceral appeal but the application would seem unworkable.

Or, we can make all of those questions obsolete by simply not restricting any student-athletes from profiting from their own name and likeness.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Except for the very top players in the country, is there really a market for college players' likenesses? I know that SU gives away posters that have players' likeness and advertises games using a different player's likeness each game etc. are these really moneymakers?

The only moneymaker I can think of (brain might not be working) are signed team posters , team balls etc that are auctioned for charity but I don't see them usually for sale, retail wise. Is the market just the few auctions that benefit SU itself? Maybe I'm just drawing a blank here. Or is this a proposal for a new market people want - having players get paid by fans for autographs and posters they normally gave away? Or get a piece of the money earned for program's sold at games?

I think there would actually be a TON more market if student-athletes were able to profit from their name and likeness.

Let me give you an example - I work in tech, people are all hot and bothered about diversity in tech. My company does all kinds of community stuff to support women in tech, for example.

Now, suppose a decent performing female athlete at one of the local colleges in softball, or basketball, or gymnastics has a declared major in computer science. I could 100% see my company reaching out to that type of student with an offer to make a little bit of side money to show up to one of the events we sponsor to talk with the kids a little bit and sign autographs and stuff.

 

[SUskibum]

They don't sell the names, and big school boosters can easily sweep up thousands of jerseys for any kid they want.

That’s better than big school boosters spending 9 figures on amenities like nap zones.

Money going directly to students > Money going through a long inefficient process to indirectly benefit the students

 

[OttoinGrotto]

That’s better than big school boosters spending 9 figures on amenities like nap zones.

Money going directly to students > Money going through a long inefficient process to indirectly benefit the students

PREACH ON

 

[TexanMark]

wheres my Barry Baker bobblehead ?

I heard from a friend of a friend he has another year eligibility.

 

[Entropic]

if kids get paid and are attending a public university, that's tax payer money. Additionally, are they also getting state health insurance, state pensions, etc? States have enough problems financially right now. It's hard enough for Syracuse to get top talent they certainly won't be able to compete if money is involved to a greater extent. Lastly, the hundred thousand plus in tuition, free insurance, free food, lodging, and stipend should suffice. You can graduate with a degree and no debt while simultaneously having fun while playing a game. My main concern is that the school should eat the cost of tuition if a student is injured on scholarship and is unable to continue playing. The kid should be able to finish out their schooling for free.

 

[SUFan44]

I think there would actually be a TON more market if student-athletes were able to profit from their name and likeness.

Let me give you an example - I work in tech, people are all hot and bothered about diversity in tech. My company does all kinds of community stuff to support women in tech, for example.

Now, suppose a decent performing female athlete at one of the local colleges in softball, or basketball, or gymnastics has a declared major in computer science. I could 100% see my company reaching out to that type of student with an offer to make a little bit of side money to show up to one of the events we sponsor to talk with the kids a little bit and sign autographs and stuff.

Small potatoes. And very hypothetical.

Outside of the top 1% of all college athletes, there is next to zero marketability. The top men's lacrosse players at Syracuse or any other top school have limited endorsement potential. Heck, they have limited earning potential at the pro level in their sport because there is such little interest.

Let's go down the list of NCAA Division I sports that are handing out scholarships to kids who inevitably are not going to be professionals. And are getting greater value from a free education that could lead to potential opportunities in the workplace than their sport ever will.

You think the #8-13 scholarships on the men's basketball team are going to be marketable figures and make money that is worth more than the free education they receive? Plus perks (full meal plan, team meals, travel, gear, access to tutors, etc.).

Let's take a look at the entire women's basketball team. Syracuse has had a couple pros that play in the WNBA lately, but those women benefit greatly from receiving a degree from their scholarship. I don't think you'll hear much complaining from them about the system.

And the rub is that without a compensation structure that makes sense for ALL student-athletes who receive aid, then how would it work? You pay a certain number of them but not the other segment of the group? What happens when a kid like Jermaine Pierce is ruled medically unable to perform? Or Steven Clark? Do you say "OK, well you're no good to us now -- we won't pay you and since you were paid you won't have a scholarship either?"

Essentially, that is what it would boil down to. There would be no remorse for anybody that wasn't good enough. The kids that didn't perform would be cut and not paid, and it would create utter chaos. But because some talking heads think it should be the way it is, and there is a profit being made for the upper 1%, then of course kids should get paid.

The system isn't perfect but the people crying that kids should get paid need to think about the ramifications and consider all of the elements that go into the decisions. Not just the 1% scenarios.

 

[Bayside44]

That’s better than big school boosters spending 9 figures on amenities like nap zones.

Money going directly to students > Money going through a long inefficient process to indirectly benefit the students

So schools should set up a passthrough with Nike and UA and Adidas? Like they're doing now?

In the history of this site SU had less than 5 kids that would've made any decent money off their jerseys.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Small potatoes. And very hypothetical.

Outside of the top 1% of all college athletes, there is next to zero marketability. The top men's lacrosse players at Syracuse or any other top school have limited endorsement potential. Heck, they have limited earning potential at the pro level in their sport because there is such little interest.

Let's go down the list of NCAA Division I sports that are handing out scholarships to kids who inevitably are not going to be professionals. And are getting greater value from a free education that could lead to potential opportunities in the workplace than their sport ever will.

You think the #8-13 scholarships on the men's basketball team are going to be marketable figures and make money that is worth more than the free education they receive? Plus perks (full meal plan, team meals, travel, gear, access to tutors, etc.).

Let's take a look at the entire women's basketball team. Syracuse has had a couple pros that play in the WNBA lately, but those women benefit greatly from receiving a degree from their scholarship. I don't think you'll hear much complaining from them about the system.

And the rub is that without a compensation structure that makes sense for ALL student-athletes who receive aid, then how would it work? You pay a certain number of them but not the other segment of the group? What happens when a kid like Jermaine Pierce is ruled medically unable to perform? Or Steven Clark? Do you say "OK, well you're no good to us now -- we won't pay you and since you were paid you won't have a scholarship either?"

Essentially, that is what it would boil down to. There would be no remorse for anybody that wasn't good enough. The kids that didn't perform would be cut and not paid, and it would create utter chaos. But because some talking heads think it should be the way it is, and there is a profit being made for the upper 1%, then of course kids should get paid.

The system isn't perfect but the people crying that kids should get paid need to think about the ramifications and consider all of the elements that go into the decisions. Not just the 1% scenarios.

No. Stop with the doomsday.

It's very simple.

The schools continue to provide full scholarships to student-athletes as their budgets and regulations permit. They do not pay the athletes.

Then the student-athlete is not prohibited from profiting from their own name and likeness.

For a 5 star defensive end, that means an overeager booster gives him $200k to enroll at the U of Wiscy.

For a junior women's softball player that plays third base at a small school in Ohio, the local ma and pa pizza shop pays her $200 one weekend for a special "have your pizza delivered by a star softball player" promotion, and sends her home with some pies, wings and bread sticks.

You know what's great about both scenarios? Each kid has more money than they would have been allowed to have before. Some student-athletes will make no money from this arrangement - which is fine, that's no different than how it works for them now.

There are certain problems you don't have to solve:

You don't have to solve to make it equal for all athletes. No, Title IX does not apply. The student-athlete isn't provided any extra benefit. They are simply not restricted from making money. They're just like any other student. Not every student gets a job or internship. Not every student-athlete gets endorsements.

You don't have to solve for competitive balance. That's an illusion anyway. Plus, so what if rich alumni want to waste their money foolishly on the student-athletes? If it's a bad investment, they'll stop.

You don't have to solve for Syracuse's athletic future. This issue (in the digital age, name and likeness ie identity is an ENORMOUS right) is bigger than any one school. Plus, trust that kids will want different things - not everybody is going to want to take cash to sit the bench at a factory school.

Just permit the student-athlete to profit from their own name and likeness and the world gets better for them. They're the people that matter.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

In the history of this site SU had less than 5 kids that would've made any decent money off their jerseys.

I just don't see the horror in letting those less than 5 kids make decent money off their jerseys.

 

[SUFan44]

No. Stop with the doomsday.

It's very simple.

The schools continue to provide full scholarships to student-athletes as their budgets and regulations permit. They do not pay the athletes.

Then the student-athlete is not prohibited from profiting from their own name and likeness.

For a 5 star defensive end, that means an overeager booster gives him $200k to enroll at the U of Wiscy.

For a junior women's softball player that plays third base at a small school in Ohio, the local ma and pa pizza shop pays her $200 one weekend for a special "have your pizza delivered by a star softball player" promotion, and sends her home with some pies, wings and bread sticks.

You know what's great about both scenarios? Each kid has more money than they would have been allowed to have before. Some student-athletes will make no money from this arrangement - which is fine, that's no different than how it works for them now.

There are certain problems you don't have to solve:

You don't have to solve to make it equal for all athletes. No, Title IX does not apply. The student-athlete isn't provided any extra benefit. They are simply not restricted from making money. They're just like any other student. Not every student gets a job or internship. Not every student-athlete gets endorsements.

You don't have to solve for competitive balance. That's an illusion anyway. Plus, so what if rich alumni want to waste their money foolishly on the student-athletes? If it's a bad investment, they'll stop.

You don't have to solve for Syracuse's athletic future. This issue (in the digital age, name and likeness ie identity is an ENORMOUS right) is bigger than any one school. Plus, trust that kids will want different things - not everybody is going to want to take cash to sit the bench at a factory school.

Just permit the student-athlete to profit from their own name and likeness and the world gets better for them. They're the people that matter.

Fine. Let's allow that to happen.

Then consider this -- that 5-star DE who took the booster money or is accepting money for their "likeness" is not an amateur anymore.

What that means is they have to pay taxes on all of that money, have to pay for the education they would have been given (in order to keep a level playing field, those that do not accept extra benefits are able to accept the full scholarship in your scenario).

So let's again take a look at the 18-year old who needs an accountant now to help him (paid by him), needs to find housing on his own, needs to figure out how to pay for the food he would have had for free and must pay for all the gear he would have otherwise been given for free, too.

Wanna know how far that $200k goes? My guess isn't too far. And once that kid tears an ACL, his ability to get a free education goes out the window. And his earning potential that the booster saw as so high goes down the tubes.

Your scenario where schools still provide scholarships to those that accept outside money is fantasy because it simply isn't fair and isn't the deal. If you want to argue that the NFL and NBA should be allowed to sign these kids out of high school, I might agree. But that's not the argument.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Fine. Let's allow that to happen.

Then consider this -- that 5-star DE who took the booster money or is accepting money for their "likeness" is not an amateur anymore.

What that means is they have to pay taxes on all of that money, have to pay for the education they would have been given (in order to keep a level playing field, those that do not accept extra benefits are able to accept the full scholarship in your scenario).

So let's again take a look at the 18-year old who needs an accountant now to help him (paid by him), needs to find housing on his own, needs to figure out how to pay for the food he would have had for free and must pay for all the gear he would have otherwise been given for free, too.

Wanna know how far that $200k goes? My guess isn't too far. And once that kid tears an ACL, his ability to get a free education goes out the window. And his earning potential that the booster saw as so high goes down the tubes.

Your scenario where schools still provide scholarships to those that accept outside money is fantasy because it simply isn't fair and isn't the deal. If you want to argue that the NFL and NBA should be allowed to sign these kids out of high school, I might agree. But that's not the argument.

What are you talking about? Why on Earth can't the kid receive the scholarship? And yes, of course they'd pay taxes. This is a good thing that helps keep things above board.

 

[CarolinaCuse]

I just don't see the horror in letting those less than 5 kids make decent money off their jerseys.

I’m curious as to which player you think should get money from Cuse selling the 44 jersey?

Should the player who is currently wearing the number be the only one to make money from the sale of the jersey or should a cut go to all the previous wearers?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I’m curious as to which player you think should get money from Cuse selling the 44 jersey?

Should the player who is currently wearing the number be the only one to make money from the sale of the jersey or should a cut go to all the previous wearers?

Well, obviously you place all profits in a trust established for all former, current and future athletes that have worn 44 and pay them an annuity.

Obviously.

 

[CuseOnly]

Except for the very top players in the country, is there really a market for college players' likenesses? I know that SU gives away posters that have players' likeness and advertises games using a different player's likeness each game etc. are these really moneymakers?

The only moneymaker I can think of (brain might not be working) are signed team posters , team balls etc that are auctioned for charity but I don't see them usually for sale, retail wise. Is the market just the few auctions that benefit SU itself? Maybe I'm just drawing a blank here. Or is this a proposal for a new market people want - having players get paid by fans for autographs and posters they normally gave away? Or get a piece of the money earned for program's sold at games?

You are forgetting about the revenue from things like video games and the like where all players are included in each of the rosters for every team.

There was a study done on what the Heisman was worth to the school that has the Heisman winner. The conservative estimate over I think it was a 4 year time frame was about $200 million dollars.