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

cyfan92

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2011
1,865
2,368
113
Augusta National Golf Club
When someone brings up using the colleges endowment as a source for funds for athletics. You should immediately disregard everything they say until they educate themselves on what is an endowment and how those funds get appropriated.

https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Understanding-Endowments-White-Paper.pdf

Also, if you want to change the rules on how endowment funds are used. Athletics should be really **ckin low on the priority lists. I'd rather see lower tuition, addressing maintenance backlogs for exisiting properties, heavier investments into research. Using those funds to pay athletes is dumb..

Plain and simple. 99% of all college athletes aren't worth a cent individually. Sports media and talking heads only like to reference the Zion's of the world. When we should let them play professionally first. At the end of the day. Professional leagues are using college athletics as a training ground for these 1% athletes who will end up driving the ship
 

rochclone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jan 28, 2009
3,053
2,370
113
Good for these kids. Hopefully they get more players behind them.
It’s a terrific idea. It’s like someone in mid-management asking for 3X pay raises when the company is on the eve of bankruptcy.
 

isutrevman

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jan 30, 2007
4,718
4,797
113
33
Ames, IA
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.
What about athletes in non-revenue sports? You suggest football and basketball players should be compensated more since they bring in more revenue than they receive in tuition, board, stipends, tutors, food, facilities, etc. Tennis players and golfers cost the athletic department more than they create in revenue. So, do you think they shouldn't be given scholarships, and maybe even have to pay extra to play their sport? Either we're going for the all-in capitalist free-market approach, or we're not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Acylum

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
17,547
20,946
113
Washington, DC
Plain and simple. 99% of all college athletes aren't worth a cent individually. Sports media and talking heads only like to reference the Zion's of the world. When we should let them play professionally first. At the end of the day. Professional leagues are using college athletics as a training ground for these 1% athletes who will end up driving the ship
Imagine this scenario --

All the football players coming out of high school with serious ambitions and a serious chance of a lucrative NFL career enter into private football academies run by the NFL teams and/or a development league. How about we call that the XFL.

All the basketball players coming out of high school or prep school on the same tier (so roughly high-4* and 5* recruits) would go the same route. They are drafted directly by NBA teams and put into their D-League system, brought right to the NBA (for the rare few who are ready), and the remainder who draw interest but not enough to land an NBA contract right away can go to Europe or Australia. They make good money in the meantime, and hopefully play themselves back to the United States at some future date.

Would losing that tier of guys decrease the valuation of Alabama football, Kentucky basketball, or our collective interest in Iowa State sports?

Not one bit.

We are not in it for the players -- we are in it for the laundry that happens to have our alma mater's name on it. Is it absurd we just want the jersey? Probably, but that is the way of the system. I would rather the professional leagues and colleges collectively step up and give the guys who have that Zion value another avenue to monetizing themselves early outside of the NCAA system, and those who remain as college players are kind of understood as the "next tier down" but genuinely interested in being student-athletes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cypher

ArgentCy

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2010
20,267
11,139
113
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.)
What, you don't think they want to spend that on some athletes....? Shocking.
 

dualthreat

Well-Known Member
Oct 8, 2008
10,379
2,788
113
When someone brings up using the colleges endowment as a source for funds for athletics. You should immediately disregard everything they say until they educate themselves on what is an endowment and how those funds get appropriated.

https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Understanding-Endowments-White-Paper.pdf

Also, if you want to change the rules on how endowment funds are used. Athletics should be really **ckin low on the priority lists. I'd rather see lower tuition, addressing maintenance backlogs for exisiting properties, heavier investments into research. Using those funds to pay athletes is dumb..

Plain and simple. 99% of all college athletes aren't worth a cent individually. Sports media and talking heads only like to reference the Zion's of the world. When we should let them play professionally first. At the end of the day. Professional leagues are using college athletics as a training ground for these 1% athletes who will end up driving the ship
What incentive does a school have to lower tuition? None of the big schools are hurting.

Continue to jack up the price and kids will fork it over
 

ArgentCy

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2010
20,267
11,139
113
It’s a terrific idea. It’s like someone in mid-management asking for 3X pay raises when the company is on the eve of bankruptcy.
I guess none of these players had taken any business classes.
 

SpokaneCY

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 11, 2006
12,847
7,979
113
Spokane, WA
We thought 2024 was supposed to be the big year for the future of college athletics. But whatever comes out of 2020 may turn out to be far more consequential.
It's either the dawning of a new, and better era in college sports, or this is the death rattle of the golden goose.

I see coffin nails...
 

Gorm

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jul 6, 2010
3,030
1,390
113
Amana, IA
Those Pac-12 players demanding 50 percent of revenue clearly have never heard of Title 9.
 

Clonehomer

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
12,827
5,491
113
My somewhat more realistic solution: Take the $1.3B annual TV deal from the NCAA tournament and spread that across all 460,000 student athletes. That gives approximately $2,800 per student athlete per year in the NCAA. Add to that any future contract deals for video games or other likeness. Maybe phase this in over time to let conferences deal with the loss of revenue? But the point is that you provide a stipend to all athletes based on the revenue from the NCAA and not the ticket sales and conference TV deals that vary significantly from school to school.
 

BCClone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
Sep 4, 2011
30,169
22,198
113
North Iowa
My somewhat more realistic solution: Take the $1.3B annual TV deal from the NCAA tournament and spread that across all 460,000 student athletes. That gives approximately $2,800 per student athlete per year in the NCAA. Add to that any future contract deals for video games or other likeness. Maybe phase this in over time to let conferences deal with the loss of revenue? But the point is that you provide a stipend to all athletes based on the revenue from the NCAA and not the ticket sales and conference TV deals that vary significantly from school to school.

Wasn't it decided by several schools to provide a 2k stipend in the future? Wouldn't that be about the same? Your proposal would hurt the UNIs of the world more than the ISUs because they would have to come up with the money to attend the tourney if they make it, since the conference or school would not receive any revenue to assist them with. I remember them bailing on a BB tourney several years ago because their payout was not enough for them to travel and the budget would not support it.
 

CTTB78

Well-Known Member
Apr 7, 2006
9,540
4,490
113
It's either the dawning of a new, and better era in college sports, or this is the death rattle of the golden goose.
I see coffin nails...
I see a bunch of entitled college kids who have been watching a little too much TV.
 

CTTB78

Well-Known Member
Apr 7, 2006
9,540
4,490
113
Meanwhile I see a bunch greedy TV execs and college administrators who are exploiting the labor of young men for their own personal benefit.
Don't forget about all those young women athletes who benefit.
 

BMWallace

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
Sep 11, 2011
516
586
93
Buffalo, NY
What about athletes in non-revenue sports? You suggest football and basketball players should be compensated more since they bring in more revenue than they receive in tuition, board, stipends, tutors, food, facilities, etc. Tennis players and golfers cost the athletic department more than they create in revenue. So, do you think they shouldn't be given scholarships, and maybe even have to pay extra to play their sport? Either we're going for the all-in capitalist free-market approach, or we're not.
Yes, sports like golf, tennis, gymnastics, wrestling, etc. all cost the athletics departments more money than they bring in. And if given the opportunity, I wholeheartedly believe there are administrators who would happily cut those sports if they were allowed to. But in order to be eligible as a D1, the school must have 14 scholarship sports: 7 mens and 7 womens, or 6 mens and 8 womens. Of those at least 2 of them must be team sports for each gender.

The main reason schools hold on to sports like swimming and cross country is to maintain their status as D1, and ensure they can keep bringing in the money from football and basketball. The athletes in these sports bring value to the schools, even if that value isn't from direct revenue. As such they should still be compensated.
 

Clonehomer

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
12,827
5,491
113
Meanwhile I see a bunch greedy TV execs and college administrators who are exploiting the labor of young men for their own personal benefit.
Devil's advocate: So why do they sign the LOI's if they're being exploited? For 98% of student athletes, they're getting more benefit than they're bringing in TV and gate revenue. For the other 2%, they're getting exploited by the collective bargaining agreements in the NBA and NFL, not the NCAA.