NIL, the AD, and where does the line get drawn (Hoosier Hysterics)

[NotIThatLives]

2 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

Well now that's something to consider.  I definitely would prefer keeping a great college player around longer if it helps the team and program. 

But my whole argument is that the university is now preparing to bring in 80 mil just from tv not to mention sales and everything else.  So probably north of 100 million a year and the athletic department budget is over 55 million or something like that and the majority is salary then operations.  So the athletic department could actually afford to pay revenue generating players.  

[mrflynn03]

Something I thought of that I'd like to point out.  These tv deals essentially give the athletes free advertising that they can use to help monetize themselves.  If these tv deals didn't exist and they didn't get the level of exposure they do then nobody would have any name recognition.  So it isn't like they're not benefiting from these tv contracts. 

Social media also makes it much easier to make side money. 

[tdhoosier]

15 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

Something I thought of that I'd like to point out.  These tv deals essentially give the athletes free advertising that they can use to help monetize themselves.  If these tv deals didn't exist and they didn't get the level of exposure they do then nobody would have any name recognition.  So it isn't like they're not benefiting from these tv contracts. 

Social media also makes it much easier to make side money. 

And good athletes make these TV deals attractive to the networks. Just saying that this is mutually beneficial relationship between the athletes, universities and networks no matter how you cut it. One of those parties barely has a seat at the table, if any seat. I just find it funny we are acting like these athletes are getting a fair shake in this billion dollar game because they are getting a scholarship that maybe costs the university $20k and perhaps a little exposure that they’ve only recently been able to monetize off of. 

If this were anything other than sports and young adults the exploitation would make our heads spin. 

Edited December 15, 2022 by tdhoosier

[btownqb]

17 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

Something I thought of that I'd like to point out.  These tv deals essentially give the athletes free advertising that they can use to help monetize themselves.  If these tv deals didn't exist and they didn't get the level of exposure they do then nobody would have any name recognition.  So it isn't like they're not benefiting from these tv contracts. 

Social media also makes it much easier to make side money. 

They should have to give a portion of that money back to the schools and networks that allow them to showcase their talents. Should give some back to Twitter too. 

[btownqb]

3 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

And good athletes make these TV deals attractive to the networks. Just saying that this is mutually beneficial relationship between the athletes, universities and networks no matter how you cut it. One of those parties barely has a seat at the table, if any seat. I just find it funny we are acting like these athletes are getting a fair shake in this billion dollar game because they are getting a scholarship that maybe costs the university $20k and perhaps a little exposure that they’ve only recently been able to monetize off of. 

If this were anything other than sports and young adults the exploitation would make our heads spin. 

20K is such a crazy low number. 

But.. that's fine. Make them employees, give them health insurance... put them on a contract. Make it incentive based, hell idc.... but if they don't meet those expectations or they are arrested or whatever... they are told to take a hike. 

[Indykev]

old news but didnt see it any where. Glad to see shoe companies out in the open...lol

[Kdug]

29 minutes ago, IUCrazy2 said:

The rest of that money is spent on the athletes too though.  It pays for the lovely practice facilities they use, the employees (tutors, food services, etc.) that dote over them.  The equipment they train on that must be regularly updated.  The buildings and fields they play on.  I think McRobbie used money to build one academic building but the majority of athletic money at every school goes right back to the athletes either directly or indirectly.

Agreed, schools still indirectly spend a lot of money on athletes, but that's because it's still extremely profitable to do so and the existing rules prevent them from paying players directly, or they absolutely would pay them. There's a reason a lot of the top college football programs have nicer facilities than the NFL. It's because they make a ton of money and don't have to pay the players who are generating that revenue, so over the top facilities are how schools gain a competitive advantage vs other schools.

I just can't see how this doesn't end up with schools directly paying players now that the TV deals alone are bringing in $100M per school per year.

[Kdug]

4 minutes ago, btownqb said:

20K is such a crazy low number. 

But.. that's fine. Make them employees, give them health insurance... put them on a contract. Make it incentive based, hell idc.... but if they don't meet those expectations or they are arrested or whatever... they are told to take a hike. 

Doesn't that already happen? Players get kicked off for legal issues all the time and back in the Tom Crean days, "Creaning" was a common phrase of players being over-recruited and pushed to transfer. Heck, even this last year we had more players committed for this year than we had scholarships available before several of IU's lower end players on the team transferred out.

[btownqb]

1 minute ago, Kdug said:

Doesn't that already happen? Players get kicked off for legal issues all the time and back in the Tom Crean days, "Creaning" was a common phrase of players being over-recruited and pushed to transfer. Heck, even this last year we had more players committed for this year than we had scholarships available before several of IU's lower end players on the team transferred out.

Creaning was incredibly over blown/wasn't a big deal. But yes, it is.. you're correct. But regulate it. It's the wild f'ing west right now. 

[NotIThatLives]

29 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

Something I thought of that I'd like to point out.  These tv deals essentially give the athletes free advertising that they can use to help monetize themselves.  If these tv deals didn't exist and they didn't get the level of exposure they do then nobody would have any name recognition.  So it isn't like they're not benefiting from these tv contracts. 

Social media also makes it much easier to make side money. 

But that is nothing new and the money coming in is more than the Universities can even spend fast enough.  Why would it not be shared with the revenue makers?  I don't  understand the hang up.  

[mrflynn03]

15 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

And good athletes make these TV deals attractive to the networks. Just saying that this is mutually beneficial relationship between the athletes, universities and networks no matter how you cut it. One of those parties barely has a seat at the table, if any seat. I just find it funny we are acting like these athletes are getting a fair shake in this billion dollar game because they are getting a scholarship that maybe costs the university $20k and perhaps a little exposure that they’ve only recently been able to monetize off of. 

If this were anything other than sports and young adults the exploitation would make our heads spin. 

They could be 18 and working at a place like Jasper Engines starting out at $18.25 /hr. Jasper engines made $681 million in 2021.  Is that exploitation?

I'm just saying these athletes are part of a business model and happen to be at the bottom of the totem pole. It's just life and they are experiencing the same stratification everyone else does. 

By all means they should fight for what they think is right and what they think they deserve. But they're not going to get everything they ask for. 

 

[NotIThatLives]

3 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

They could be 18 and working at a place like Jasper Engines starting out at $18.25 /hr. Jasper engines made $681 million in 2021.  Is that exploitation?

I'm just saying these athletes are part of a business model and happen to be at the bottom of the totem pole. It's just life and they are experiencing the same stratification everyone else does. 

By all means they should fight for what they think is right and what they think they deserve. But they're not going to get everything they ask for. 

 

Why are you against sharing the estimated 50 million dollar profits per year going forward with the revenue makers?  

For and anti government, anti socialism/communism guy, I don't understand your line of thought here?  Did Jasper engines profit 681 million?  

 

[NotIThatLives]

Because they are 18 their earning potential should be capped?  

[tdhoosier]

15 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

They could be 18 and working at a place like Jasper Engines starting out at $18.25 /hr. Jasper engines made $681 million in 2021.  Is that exploitation?

I'm just saying these athletes are part of a business model and happen to be at the bottom of the totem pole. It's just life and they are experiencing the same stratification everyone else does. 

By all means they should fight for what they think is right and what they think they deserve. But they're not going to get everything they ask for. 

 

But some athletes have more value and earning potential than employees at Jasper Engines. I know that sucks, but this is the culture we live in. This is not an apples to oranges comparison either . And I don’t know how many employees Jasper engines has and what their expenses are and what their profit is. I know nothing about the company.

But we’re getting in the weeds.

Most importantly, there’s no law or rule that says an employee at Jasper Engines (JE) salary is capped. Or a rule that says they can’t get paid at all.

A more accurate analogy would be that the JE workers shouldn’t get paid at all because they are receiving on the job training that will be beneficial to them later in life. 

Edited December 15, 2022 by tdhoosier

[mrflynn03]

14 minutes ago, NotIThatLives said:

But that is nothing new and the money coming in is more than the Universities can even spend fast enough.  Why would it not be shared with the revenue makers?  I don't  understand the hang up.  

Because they already receive scholarships which are paid for with institutional subsidies and athletoc fees that every student has to pay.  If they want a peice of this revenue then take the scholarships out of the equation. 

[Purdue7]

27 minutes ago, Kdug said:

Agreed, schools still indirectly spend a lot of money on athletes, but that's because it's still extremely profitable to do so and the existing rules prevent them from paying players directly, or they absolutely would pay them. There's a reason a lot of the top college football programs have nicer facilities than the NFL. It's because they make a ton of money and don't have to pay the players who are generating that revenue, so over the top facilities are how schools gain a competitive advantage vs other schools.

I just can't see how this doesn't end up with schools directly paying players now that the TV deals alone are bringing in $100M per school per year.

It’s why schools got crushed by Covid 

they don’t save revenue from previous year or you could argue that could be used to pay players 

instead they rebuild 5 year old recruiting complexes for football 

[NotIThatLives]

Just now, mrflynn03 said:

Because they already receive scholarships which are paid for with institutional subsidies and athletoc fees that every student has to pay.  If they want a peice of this revenue then take the scholarships out of the equation. 

We already discussed this.  Across the entire athletic department, if there are 300 fully scholly athletes, that's only 15 mil out of the at the very least 100 million that is coming in with a budget of only 55 mil dollars.  You want bureaucrats and academic elites to have the other 50 million?  I'm sure if you asked Trayce, would you pay your own in state tuition for your fair share of the revenue?  And the answer would be hell yes by about 5 million dollars.  

[tdhoosier]

3 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

Because they already receive scholarships which are paid for with institutional subsidies and athletoc fees that every student has to pay.  If they want a peice of this revenue then take the scholarships out of the equation. 

I’m sure every athlete with earning potential would be fine with that. But that’d kill the competitiveness of high tuition universities like Norte Dame, Northwestern, USC, etc. 

[Kdug]

Just now, NotIThatLives said:

We already discussed this.  Across the entire athletic department, if there are 300 fully scholly athletes, that's only 15 mil out of the at the very least 100 million that is coming in with a budget of only 55 mil dollars.  You want bureaucrats and academic elites to have the other 50 million?  I'm sure if you asked Trayce, would you pay your own in state tuition for your fair share of the revenue?  And the answer would be hell yes by about 5 million dollars.  

The two articles below talking about revenue and profit clearly outline the issue to me. Green Bay makes roughly $580M in revenue and $80M in profit, or around a 10% profit margin. Ohio State makes around $132M in revenue and $75M in profit, or around a 55% profit margin. Vastly different revenues, but very similar profits.

Article about Green Bay Packers financials: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/one-nfl-revenue-stat-shows-why-billionaires-buy-sports-teams-191055562.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAB9St3y7KtO8yLEh4HYqSK3H3aSOgGiweu30ZUHo78W73-10cDyOUmQDvBNJlCyN3zkdg8IKVUXt4SBsi1r70KdVM_0twu-zpc0i15M_fpd_iVMaPiaIOfTyWrV9oTCZZkO5UDUx2PCnI4e69dLIvQUBX84ZGkI5CKF_iXJv7uA9

Article about college football financials: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2019/09/12/college-football-most-valuable-clemson-texas-am/?sh=804a795a2e7e

[tdhoosier]

2 minutes ago, Kdug said:

The two articles below talking about revenue and profit clearly outline the issue to me. Green Bay makes roughly $580M in revenue and $80M in profit, or around a 10% profit margin. Ohio State makes around $132M in revenue and $75M in profit, or around a 55% profit margin. Vastly different revenues, but very similar profits.

Article about Green Bay Packers financials: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/one-nfl-revenue-stat-shows-why-billionaires-buy-sports-teams-191055562.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAB9St3y7KtO8yLEh4HYqSK3H3aSOgGiweu30ZUHo78W73-10cDyOUmQDvBNJlCyN3zkdg8IKVUXt4SBsi1r70KdVM_0twu-zpc0i15M_fpd_iVMaPiaIOfTyWrV9oTCZZkO5UDUx2PCnI4e69dLIvQUBX84ZGkI5CKF_iXJv7uA9

Article about college football financials: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2019/09/12/college-football-most-valuable-clemson-texas-am/?sh=804a795a2e7e

And OSU is non for profit. 🤦‍♂️ 

[Maedhros]

Just now, mrflynn03 said:

Because they already receive scholarships which are paid for with institutional subsidies and athletoc fees that every student has to pay.  If they want a peice of this revenue then take the scholarships out of the equation. 

Why? College athletics are a billion dollar industry. What should a $50K write off matter at all?

In the resistance to NIL, I've always wondered: is there an argument for players not receiving money that isn't just some variation of "that's how it's always been"? If we were building it all from scratch, would anyone actually suggest Trayce Jackson-Davis play for a coach making several millions of dollars, at an organization that signed a media rights deal for over a billion dollars, and think it fair that he be compensated only in tuition, room and board? Anyone judging that structure would think it corrupt as hell. But because that's how we started it'll take change to get to something better, and change is hard for some.

For myself, I truly don't understand the problem some have with Trayce Jackson-Davis receiving the money other people want to give him. If the NCAA had never made it a rule, would there be an issue at all? We all know the NCAA sucks, and post about it often, except for in this one area. The only reason for such support seems to be because it's the status quo, and the status quo is comfortable.

[mrflynn03]

10 minutes ago, NotIThatLives said:

We already discussed this.  Across the entire athletic department, if there are 300 fully scholly athletes, that's only 15 mil out of the at the very least 100 million that is coming in with a budget of only 55 mil dollars.  You want bureaucrats and academic elites to have the other 50 million?  I'm sure if you asked Trayce, would you pay your own in state tuition for your fair share of the revenue?  And the answer would be hell yes by about 5 million dollars.  

I guess what pisses me off so much about all this is we have a student loan crisis with all this revenue coming in and the average non-scholarship student still has to pay ever increasing tuition costs. This money should benefit the entire university and student body not just athletes and the athletic department.  

The athletes get a free ride and should appreciate that. 

[NotIThatLives]

16 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

And OSU is non for profit. 🤦‍♂️ 

And so is the NFL.  How insane.

[tdhoosier]

3 minutes ago, NotIThatLives said:

And so is the NFL.  How insane.

Really? I didn’t know that. Ridiculous.

Nohting drives me more crazy than when cities subsidize their stadiums. 

[NotIThatLives]

17 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

I guess what pisses me off so much about all this is we have a student loan crisis with all this revenue coming in and the average non-scholarship student still has to pay ever increasing tuition costs. This money should benefit the entire university and student body not just athletes and the athletic department.  

The athletes get a free ride and should appreciate that. 

I mean @Maedhros just killed it.  If we started over from scratch, the billions would get shared with the revenue makers.  Student loans is a personal decision.  If we want the government involved in it, which we don't, then we should start with educating people what they are signing up for.  I had no clue what so ever.  I now attempt to educate my nieces and nephews and even my brother and in laws.  But what have they done so far?   Sign all the kids up for student loans.  Just blows my mind to cripple a young person in debt before they even have a job.  

 

Edited December 15, 2022 by NotIThatLives