Possible news: NCAA split and Pac12 players strike

  • Fanatics -

    Thank you for your patience today and welcome to the newest version of Cyclone Fanatic!

    Most of the changes we have made are very simple, but will greatly improve your user experience while visiting the website.

    We have upgraded our forum software to speed things up. Our homepage is much cleaner and should be even more mobile friendly than before.

    We appreciate your loyalty and are committed to not only keeping Cyclone Fanatic in tip-top shape, but continuing to build this community for the next decade and beyond.

    We ask that if you are experiences any glitches to let us know in this thread . Will will be diligently working on the site all day.

    Thanks again.

    Chris Williams - Publisher

BCClone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
Sep 4, 2011
30,169
22,198
113
North Iowa
It's dumb because people and I assume players strike to negotiate and return to the "jobs". Are you that clueless on strikes? They didn't "quit".
You obviously don’t understand strikes and especially this environment now. What do employers do once people go on strike, they stop paying them, because the employee has decided to not perform the tasks agreed upon, which means they quit their jobs, at least temporarily. You don’t want people who aren’t working wondering around the facility bothering those who are working. Usually those employees aren’t paid, these athletes are getting to keep their scholarships per most articles, schools are being nice in that regard. If the school treated them as typical strikers, their scholarship would have been halted.

We have this thing called Covid today also. If you have players that are not going to participate, you don’t want them near the team or facility, too much risk with the fine line we are walking. Not a time to be a Karen with college football.

So you have an athlete who was signed paperwork that outlines a plan to strike, which means you are not going to play or practice, the coach lets them keep their scholarship, but tells them to clean out their locker. If the players are on strike, they won’t need their locker. So that is why it doesn’t really matter if they are considered on the tram since they are striking because as long as they get a scholarship, the school can’t give it to someone else so they are per NCAA part of the team. They are choosing not to perform so what difference does it make if they aren’t part of the team now. This environment says the coach can’t have spare people wandering around.
 

ISUTex

Well-Known Member
May 25, 2012
2,907
1,877
113
Rural U.S.A.
I'm not against giving players a nice stipend and letting them make money off of their name/jersey, but these demands are crazy. They don't appreciate the close to 100k they get every year in free tuition, food, clothes, training, tutoring, travel, connections, on the job training, travel money for family, room/board etc. Seriously, if they don't like it, they can get a freaking job and pay their own way. Nobody is making them play college sports.
 
Last edited:

Cloneon

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2015
611
624
93
West Virginia
If they want 50% of the revenue, they better plan for losing other amenities to offset that. Even if an AD could afford that, it's going to mean the players losing their scholarship and paying tuition out of their own pocket. Plus, all those practice facilities and special dorms and rent subsidies are gone.

It isn't like the AD's are just pocketing this money. They're distributing a huge amount back to those players.
And, if I recall correctly, a study was done in the mid 2000s citing a school's donation rate (to the entire school; not just the AD) sharply increases with the success of its sports programs. So, in essence, you're also saying "I don't care if university endowments go down." These athletes may work darned hard, but they need a bit more financial prowess.
 

agcy68

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2007
2,153
1,120
113
73
Iowa
Some of their other demands (if you didn't read the article)...
- Larry Scott, administrators, and coaches to voluntarily and drastically reduce excessive pay.

- An accompanying study sets the fair market value of a single player for one season, broken down by conference.

ACC: $250,312 (per player)
Big 12: $346,323
Big ten: $412,099
Pac-12: $274,454
SEC: $392,534

- End lavish facility expenditures and use some endowment funds to preserve all sports*
*As an example, Stanford University should reinstate all sports discontinued by tapping into their 27.7 Billion dollar endowment​
 

Clonehomer

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
12,827
5,491
113
Some of their other demands (if you didn't read the article)...
- Larry Scott, administrators, and coaches to voluntarily and drastically reduce excessive pay.

- An accompanying study sets the fair market value of a single player for one season, broken down by conference.

ACC: $250,312 (per player)
Big 12: $346,323
Big ten: $412,099
Pac-12: $274,454
SEC: $392,534

- End lavish facility expenditures and use some endowment funds to preserve all sports*
*As an example, Stanford University should reinstate all sports discontinued by tapping into their 27.7 Billion dollar endowment​
If that's truly what they're asking for, WSU did the right thing and just drop these guys. There's no need for a conversation when their starting point is that they want $30M per football team and not cut anything else. Not a lot of thinkers in that group.
 

Cyclonetrombone

Well-Known Member
Aug 25, 2010
1,192
201
63
Madison, Wisconsin
So if FB players are going to get 50% of the FB revenue, does that mean that the soccer athletes have to pay in at the end of every year? Because they sure don't make any money. Pretty obvious that FB is paying the bills for all of the other sports outside of MBB. Some of these demands are not very well thought out.
Thats the kicker. It only ever works as a profit share not a renevue share. Revenue the income before expenses. Profit is the way a company shares gains. The issue then becomes these schools acting like the non profits many are suppose to be and zeroing out that margin. This probably has a dramatic affect on the tax classification of these schools which would all but eliminate donations. And schools like Iowa State and others outside of Texas arent building due to profit. These stadiums have huge benefactors that would need to be replaced by corporate sponsors.

You have to break up Title 9 as has been said. Many schools can only have those sports because of the revenue from football.
 

Jeremy

CF Founder
Staff member
Bookie
Feb 28, 2006
15,755
5,982
10,030
Waukee, IA
If we start paying players, I think scholarships should go away. Even the worst athlete (above a walk on) is given a free education that many would never have the means to afford otherwise. That education can be worth upwards of 20-50K per year. 99% of those athletes wouldn’t make 20K playing their sport outside of college.

I understand players help drive revenues, but there is no revenue if you start paying players in addition to scholarships. And then fans start ******** because stadiums aren’t competitive, uniforms don’t change frequently, etc.

Either go pro or get an education and play ball. This argument is so stupid in my mind.
 

rochclone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jan 28, 2009
3,053
2,370
113
Some of their other demands (if you didn't read the article)...
- Larry Scott, administrators, and coaches to voluntarily and drastically reduce excessive pay.

- An accompanying study sets the fair market value of a single player for one season, broken down by conference.

ACC: $250,312 (per player)
Big 12: $346,323
Big ten: $412,099
Pac-12: $274,454
SEC: $392,534

- End lavish facility expenditures and use some endowment funds to preserve all sports*
*As an example, Stanford University should reinstate all sports discontinued by tapping into their 27.7 Billion dollar endowment​
That study is absolutely bogus. Instead of using the average they should use the median. It is skewed because someone values Zion Williamson at $20,000,000. If you give players name image and likeness but make them pay their own way (no scholarship room/board) 85-90% of athletes (football/basketball) would do worse in that situation.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding about why people watch college sports. They watch because it is their school not because of the individual athlete.
 

isutrevman

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jan 30, 2007
4,718
4,797
113
33
Ames, IA
It seems like they want free market pay for athletes that bring in a lot of money (starting football players and men's basketball players) but still want the colleges to pay for tuition, stipends, housing, healthcare etc for athletes in sports that lose money (all other sports). Those demands completely contradict one another.

Is it actually possible to pay athletes in one sport more than another sport given Title IX? From my understanding, that isn't even possible. Allowing athletes to make money on their name, image and likeness was a no brainer that should have been done years ago, because it doesn't involve the University. But paying football players more than volleyball players, or women's tennis players isn't even legal, is it?
 

CycloneDaddy

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2006
4,146
1,788
113
Johnston
That study is absolutely bogus. Instead of using the average they should use the median. It is skewed because someone values Zion Williamson at $20,000,000. If you give players name image and likeness but make them pay their own way (no scholarship room/board) 85-90% of athletes (football/basketball) would do worse in that situation.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding about why people watch college sports. They watch because it is their school not because of the individual athlete.
Are u saying T Butler for Standford who will be a 5th year Sr and has recorded a total of 3 tackles in 20 games as a CB isnt worth as much as he thinks he is? He is the kind of player who would be hurt if Schools had to pay players because they would have fired him by now.
 

ArgentCy

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2010
20,267
11,139
113
If we start paying players, I think scholarships should go away. Even the worst athlete (above a walk on) is given a free education that many would never have the means to afford otherwise. That education can be worth upwards of 20-50K per year. 99% of those athletes wouldn’t make 20K playing their sport outside of college.

I understand players help drive revenues, but there is no revenue if you start paying players in addition to scholarships. And then fans start ******** because stadiums aren’t competitive, uniforms don’t change frequently, etc.

Either go pro or get an education and play ball. This argument is so stupid in my mind.
Price and value are NOT the same thing. These educations are not worth much to the average athlete. Plus they hide the real price by offering all kinds of rebates (called scholarships for schools) and other discounts.
 

ArgentCy

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2010
20,267
11,139
113
It seems like they want free market pay for athletes that bring in a lot of money (starting football players and men's basketball players) but still want the colleges to pay for tuition, stipends, housing, healthcare etc for athletes in sports that lose money (all other sports). Those demands completely contradict one another.

Is it actually possible to pay athletes in one sport more than another sport given Title IX? From my understanding, that isn't even possible. Allowing athletes to make money on their name, image and likeness was a no brainer that should have been done years ago, because it doesn't involve the University. But paying football players more than volleyball players, or women's tennis players isn't even legal, is it?
Perhaps Title IX is not feasible. Probably not even legal if viewing the players as athletes.
 

isufbcurt

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2006
17,731
19,661
113
41
Newton
WSU players just learned an important life lesson. “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”
Fans are seldom fans of the individual players but rather the schools.
I am sure other schools will gladly bring them in.
 

BCClone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
Sep 4, 2011
30,169
22,198
113
North Iowa
Are u saying T Butler for Standford who will be a 5th year Sr and has recorded a total of 3 tackles in 20 games as a CB isnt worth as much as he thinks he is? He is the kind of player who would be hurt if Schools had to pay players because they would have fired him by now.
Yeah, they aren’t thinking really far ahead with this reasoning. If they get even 10% of revenue, it would only take a year or two before the bigger names demand an larger cut and the 2nd stringer ends up with 5 grand, no scholarship, and a lot worse shape than just being a regular student.
 

isufbcurt

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2006
17,731
19,661
113
41
Newton
Thats the kicker. It only ever works as a profit share not a renevue share. Revenue the income before expenses. Profit is the way a company shares gains. The issue then becomes these schools acting like the non profits many are suppose to be and zeroing out that margin. This probably has a dramatic affect on the tax classification of these schools which would all but eliminate donations. And schools like Iowa State and others outside of Texas arent building due to profit. These stadiums have huge benefactors that would need to be replaced by corporate sponsors.

You have to break up Title 9 as has been said. Many schools can only have those sports because of the revenue from football.
For the 1000th time Not-for profits can have profit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
17,547
20,946
113
Washington, DC
- End lavish facility expenditures and use some endowment funds to preserve all sports*
*As an example, Stanford University should reinstate all sports discontinued by tapping into their 27.7 Billion dollar endowment​
I have said this before, but there are plenty of universities out there that are basically large tax-free hedge funds with a small educational and athletics apparatus attached to them so they can notionally be a "nonprofit organization" on tax forms.



A couple of large religious organizations are running the same racket really, only their justification for nonprofit is a slightly different one than the above.

Yale could use an international airport.

(The newest large-scale international airport that I can think of in the United States is Denver International Airport, which was like $5 billion. So they can afford it.)
 

BMWallace

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
Sep 11, 2011
516
586
93
Buffalo, NY
If we start paying players, I think scholarships should go away. Even the worst athlete (above a walk on) is given a free education that many would never have the means to afford otherwise. That education can be worth upwards of 20-50K per year. 99% of those athletes wouldn’t make 20K playing their sport outside of college.

I understand players help drive revenues, but there is no revenue if you start paying players in addition to scholarships. And then fans start ******** because stadiums aren’t competitive, uniforms don’t change frequently, etc.

Either go pro or get an education and play ball. This argument is so stupid in my mind.
This whole issue hinges on the fact that the scholarship and all of the other benefits that college football (and to a lesser extent basketball) players are being given does not equal that revenue that they generate for the institutions that they play for.

Since the explosion of the TV revenue in college sports starting in the 90s, and ballooning over the last 3 decades, the compensation that the players are receiving doesn't match up with what their hard work brings in. Meanwhile, coaching salaries and athletics department budgets have grown to absurd levels, to the point that in 40 states the highest paid government employee is a college football or basketball coach. (https://fanbuzz.com/national/highest-paid-state-employees/)

And not only are the players not compensated fairly for the value they bring, they assume a high degree of risk to do so. More and more information about CTE and long term brain injuries is coming to light every year. They risk life long joint and soft tissue damage. While not receiving anything for taking on that risk.

Many of these players also come from poorer, single income homes. Often these young men are responsible for putting food on the table, or helping to raise siblings before they go to college. And they are being asked to stop supporting their families for 4 years, and the only compensation is the potential of a degree at the end of that time. This is often where the dark money in college sports comes in. Sure, there are the bidding wars for the likes of Cam and Zion, but many times a guy just needs a few hundred dollars to help his mom keep the lights on at home for a few months. (https://www.bannersociety.com/2014/4/10/20703758/bag-man-paying-college-football-players)

That was all true before Covid. Now, the athletes are being asked to take on the additional risk of a potentially life-threatening or life-altering illness. One that also has the potential to take away the very scholarship that they are being asked to play for.

This is a labor dispute, just like teacher or auto workers strike. The disparity in value of labor versus the compensation offered has reached a critical point. Either the controlling powers offer more to the labor force, or the laborers must ban together and hit those in control by affecting the product being offered.