Posted by GWRising 6/06/2024 12:09 pm | #21 |
danjsport wrote:
So what you’re saying is, now that schools may actually have to pay cash to players, coaches won’t do as well financially?? When you have to pay the talent (with dollars), the other people can’t benefit off their “free education” quite the same way….
No, I am saying coaches won't do as well financially when schools de-emphasize sports and drop to a lower conference or lower Division. A school is not paying MM salaries when they are competing in LM or D3 conferences. And, student-athletes won't do as well either as the number of athletics scholarships will also drop or be eliminated at a school that drops. Seems like a lose-lose to me except for the P5 schools.
Posted by GWRising 6/06/2024 12:12 pm | #22 |
danjsport wrote:
Why does everybody assume that the free transfer rule is going to stick around? I suspect that we are looking at a future with contracts for players. If the schools are directly paying the players, they can negotiate contracts that extend beyond one year? Don’t want a player to transfer-pay them. Want four years to build around guys—four year contract! Think a guy will only fill a need for a year? One year contract! The free transfer rule comes from the fact that these players were being forced out of playing solely because they wanted to leave. Now, I suspect those critical 13, 14, and 15 bench spots will be a lot less necessary if the school has to pay players. And football rosters may magically shrink. But the concept that the transfer rule will still be on the table seems misguided, to me.
Everyone assumes it because the NCAA settled a court case and consented to the free transfer rule. Doubt they are going back up that tree anytime soon. Any attempt to limit the transfer rule by contract (either through restriction or poison pill) may be challenged as well.
Posted by DC Native 6/06/2024 1:19 pm | #23 |
GWRising wrote:
danjsport wrote:
So what you’re saying is, now that schools may actually have to pay cash to players, coaches won’t do as well financially?? When you have to pay the talent (with dollars), the other people can’t benefit off their “free education” quite the same way….
No, I am saying coaches won't do as well financially when schools de-emphasize sports and drop to a lower conference or lower Division. A school is not paying MM salaries when they are competing in LM or D3 conferences. And, student-athletes won't do as well either as the number of athletics scholarships will also drop or be eliminated at a school that drops. Seems like a lose-lose to me except for the P5 schools.
I really appreciate the insight and insider information that you bring to this board, GWRising, but I just don't get the logic here. How can every university outside of the P5 drop down to a lower conference or division? Who will be replacing them in conferences like the A10, MWC, CUSA, and WAC? If there are no schools to replace them, what is the point of dropping down? There are and will always be a finite number of P5 schools, and thus scholarships at those P5 schools. There will also always be schools and conferences outside of the P5 that will do better than others at getting the best players that are not quite good enough to get a P5 scholarship. I can see the argument for the gap to widen in the coming years between P5 and non-P5 schools, but the idea that GW will have to drop down from the A10 because that will be the case for all non-P5 schools doesn't make logical sense to me. Am I missing something here?
Posted by Gwmayhem 6/06/2024 1:33 pm | #24 |
DC Native wrote:
GWRising wrote:
danjsport wrote:
So what you’re saying is, now that schools may actually have to pay cash to players, coaches won’t do as well financially?? When you have to pay the talent (with dollars), the other people can’t benefit off their “free education” quite the same way….
No, I am saying coaches won't do as well financially when schools de-emphasize sports and drop to a lower conference or lower Division. A school is not paying MM salaries when they are competing in LM or D3 conferences. And, student-athletes won't do as well either as the number of athletics scholarships will also drop or be eliminated at a school that drops. Seems like a lose-lose to me except for the P5 schools.
I really appreciate the insight and insider information that you bring to this board, GWRising, but I just don't get the logic here. How can every university outside of the P5 drop down to a lower conference or division? Who will be replacing them in conferences like the A10, MWC, CUSA, and WAC? If there are no schools to replace them, what is the point of dropping down? There are and will always be a finite number of P5 schools, and thus scholarships at those P5 schools. There will also always be schools and conferences outside of the P5 that will do better than others at getting the best players that are not quite good enough to get a P5 scholarship. I can see the argument for the gap to widen in the coming years between P5 and non-P5 schools, but the idea that GW will have to drop down from the A10 because that will be the case for all non-P5 schools doesn't make logical sense to me. Am I missing something here?
I'll offer my interpretation here DC Native. It's not so much that a majority of schools will be moving to lower conferences (or out of D1 altogether) but it's that the financial compensation which mid-major and lower level conferences will be receiving is about to be radically reduced. This in turn will change the perception of these conference member schools. D1 sports will consist of haves and have nots, period, until the day comes when the have nots are shown the door.
To illustrate, we know that in most seasons, the second best team in the A10 could give the 8th best team in a P5 conference a run for the money which explains why we are so prone to displaying a persecution complex when analyzing at large bids. Where this is headed is that in most seasons, the starting five of that 8th place team will each be earning 6 figures annually, while the second place A10 team will only be able to pay its starters a small fraction of this. Not to mention that the top 1-3 players of that A10 team will be getting paid the following season by a P5 school. (I am counting the Big East in my P5 though it's unclear where their fate lies.)
So until the little guys are shown the door once and for all, don't expect very many Cinderella upsets. The little guys might be more motivated than ever but the gap in talent will have never been wider.
Posted by GWRising 6/06/2024 1:45 pm | #25 |
DC Native wrote:
GWRising wrote:
danjsport wrote:
So what you’re saying is, now that schools may actually have to pay cash to players, coaches won’t do as well financially?? When you have to pay the talent (with dollars), the other people can’t benefit off their “free education” quite the same way….
No, I am saying coaches won't do as well financially when schools de-emphasize sports and drop to a lower conference or lower Division. A school is not paying MM salaries when they are competing in LM or D3 conferences. And, student-athletes won't do as well either as the number of athletics scholarships will also drop or be eliminated at a school that drops. Seems like a lose-lose to me except for the P5 schools.
I really appreciate the insight and insider information that you bring to this board, GWRising, but I just don't get the logic here. How can every university outside of the P5 drop down to a lower conference or division? Who will be replacing them in conferences like the A10, MWC, CUSA, and WAC? If there are no schools to replace them, what is the point of dropping down? There are and will always be a finite number of P5 schools, and thus scholarships at those P5 schools. There will also always be schools and conferences outside of the P5 that will do better than others at getting the best players that are not quite good enough to get a P5 scholarship. I can see the argument for the gap to widen in the coming years between P5 and non-P5 schools, but the idea that GW will have to drop down from the A10 because that will be the case for all non-P5 schools doesn't make logical sense to me. Am I missing something here?
Yes, as the majority of schools will become more in the have not category, the P5 will at some point determine that they bring nothing to the table. At the same time, the have nots will see their own revenues shrinking as they become less and less relevant leading to more economic losses from athletics. This will lead to a schism of sorts and a different division for all the have nots. GW likely being a have not in this scenario will de facto be placed in another division - a lower division. This is how D3 was formed except there it had to do with scholarships. IMHO, this is exactly how all of this will play out. It's not IF it's WHEN. Now there could be an interim phase where GW drops to a lower conference. I give it 10 years maximum before the schism.
Posted by danjsport 6/06/2024 1:50 pm | #26 |
We agree here, Rising. Across college athletics, there will be a reckoning about why the schools offer athletics. Is it to make money? Is it to provide brand recognition for the school and give students something to root for? Is it a loss leader for the brand of the school’s benefit?
Schools did not have to wrestle with this quite as much when they didn’t have to worry about paying players—and held a fairly tight grasp on what the player could do about leaving. Now, they will have to actually decide.
NCAA wanted this to be a business run on the back of labor that did not make dollars. Now that the labor may make dollars, NCAA has to rethink its business model
Posted by jf Online! 6/06/2024 2:17 pm | #27 |
Treating "student-athletes" decently is one thing. Would argue they already are, but their labor
could be rewarded in a number of personal and community ways that wouldn't be as crazy as the
unfettered nonsense we are going through now courtesy of the NCAA and the big schools.
By the way, Joe Bamisile is the reason for some, though hardly all, of this. Joe might be able to keep up with the academics, but many probably can't handle such change, and no doubt lose credits in any case. What does "college" mean to any marketable athlete anymore?
For the vast, vast majority of college athletes, including the now highly compensated basketball and football players, going pro is not an option. Even for the lucky very few who do, their working life is many years after they leave the sport.
College could and should serve a function, both in career development and frankly, personal growth. For the lucky ones who can attend, it is four years largely shielded from the responsibilities of life, spent with people your age, learning independence and especially for this generation, how to relate to people.
Changing schools for a better contract or a more prominent role every year--or even more than once, doesn't really allow one to develop a non-athletic life. Or quite possibly, even your athletic potential.
At GW, you get a $400,000+ package with expenses covered, plus an NIL salary for really talented players, you travel by charter, you're lionized in giant posters and elsewhere, and you have the ability to get a great education in the capital of the world.
And by the way, if you're really good and want to develop, we sent three players to the NBA in three years. And they got their degrees.
We don't make real significant money off our sports programs, including basketball, if we aren't in the red.
This seems like a pretty reasonable and attractive package for a pleasant experience with great potential for lifetime opportunity.
The shame is that is not enough. And college athletics become anything but what it is supposed to
be.
Posted by DC Native 6/06/2024 3:27 pm | #28 |
Gwmayhem wrote:
DC Native wrote:
GWRising wrote:
No, I am saying coaches won't do as well financially when schools de-emphasize sports and drop to a lower conference or lower Division. A school is not paying MM salaries when they are competing in LM or D3 conferences. And, student-athletes won't do as well either as the number of athletics scholarships will also drop or be eliminated at a school that drops. Seems like a lose-lose to me except for the P5 schools.I really appreciate the insight and insider information that you bring to this board, GWRising, but I just don't get the logic here. How can every university outside of the P5 drop down to a lower conference or division? Who will be replacing them in conferences like the A10, MWC, CUSA, and WAC? If there are no schools to replace them, what is the point of dropping down? There are and will always be a finite number of P5 schools, and thus scholarships at those P5 schools. There will also always be schools and conferences outside of the P5 that will do better than others at getting the best players that are not quite good enough to get a P5 scholarship. I can see the argument for the gap to widen in the coming years between P5 and non-P5 schools, but the idea that GW will have to drop down from the A10 because that will be the case for all non-P5 schools doesn't make logical sense to me. Am I missing something here?
I'll offer my interpretation here DC Native. It's not so much that a majority of schools will be moving to lower conferences (or out of D1 altogether) but it's that the financial compensation which mid-major and lower level conferences will be receiving is about to be radically reduced. This in turn will change the perception of these conference member schools. D1 sports will consist of haves and have nots, period, until the day comes when the have nots are shown the door.
To illustrate, we know that in most seasons, the second best team in the A10 could give the 8th best team in a P5 conference a run for the money which explains why we are so prone to displaying a persecution complex when analyzing at large bids. Where this is headed is that in most seasons, the starting five of that 8th place team will each be earning 6 figures annually, while the second place A10 team will only be able to pay its starters a small fraction of this. Not to mention that the top 1-3 players of that A10 team will be getting paid the following season by a P5 school. (I am counting the Big East in my P5 though it's unclear where their fate lies.)
So until the little guys are shown the door once and for all, don't expect very many Cinderella upsets. The little guys might be more motivated than ever but the gap in talent will have never been wider.
This makes more sense to me. I agree that as a result of what has happened, the gap between the P5 and non-P5 schools will grow. In the past, an athlete might get scholarship offers from bottom-feeder P5 schools and better mid-major schools and choose the latter. But due to pay disparities, in the future they will always choose the bottom-feeder P5 schools. I also agree that at some point, the P5 conferences will try to separate from the rest of D1, effectively making mid-majors like GW part of a lower division. And I agree that some of the top A10 schools may be able to move to a P5 conference, as has happened in the past. What I disagree with, however, is that all of the non-P5 schools and conferences will be the same at that point. Some schools and conferences will still be better at getting the best athletes that are not quite good enough for the P5 schools. And I also don't get why GW would ever leave the A10 under this scenario. Yes, the A10 will be diminished due to all of this, and may even be relegated to a lower division. But GW would still be better off in this A10 than in the CAA or some other low major conference, imo.
Posted by danjsport 6/06/2024 9:45 pm | #29 |
jf wrote:
Treating "student-athletes" decently is one thing. Would argue they already are, but their labor
could be rewarded in a number of personal and community ways that wouldn't be as crazy as the
unfettered nonsense we are going through now courtesy of the NCAA and the big schools.
By the way, Joe Bamisile is the reason for some, though hardly all, of this. Joe might be able to keep up with the academics, but many probably can't handle such change, and no doubt lose credits in any case. What does "college" mean to any marketable athlete anymore?
For the vast, vast majority of college athletes, including the now highly compensated basketball and football players, going pro is not an option. Even for the lucky very few who do, their working life is many years after they leave the sport.
College could and should serve a function, both in career development and frankly, personal growth. For the lucky ones who can attend, it is four years largely shielded from the responsibilities of life, spent with people your age, learning independence and especially for this generation, how to relate to people.
Changing schools for a better contract or a more prominent role every year--or even more than once, doesn't really allow one to develop a non-athletic life. Or quite possibly, even your athletic potential.
At GW, you get a $400,000+ package with expenses covered, plus an NIL salary for really talented players, you travel by charter, you're lionized in giant posters and elsewhere, and you have the ability to get a great education in the capital of the world.
And by the way, if you're really good and want to develop, we sent three players to the NBA in three years. And they got their degrees.
We don't make real significant money off our sports programs, including basketball, if we aren't in the red.
This seems like a pretty reasonable and attractive package for a pleasant experience with great potential for lifetime opportunity.
The shame is that is not enough. And college athletics become anything but what it is supposed to
be.
Imagine if Amazon bought a bunch of apartment complexes and said to their workers for the first three years that they would “pay for” their housing, and provide them mentorship from the top minds in the field while really helping these individuals develop their skills so that they could either become mentors themselves or move on to a different career path three years later. The consultant and coaching time they’d get would typically cost 120k per year, but Amazon will
Provide that for free! All in exchange for hard work, a commitment to stick with Amazon for three years, and to make sure to talk about how great the opportunity is at every chance you get. Or maybe they will only offer this to kids leaving high school who don’t need a degree. So they should really be thankful for the chance.
Would anybody go for this? Think it’s a good deal for the kid?
Posted by Gwmayhem 6/07/2024 11:45 am | #30 |
danjsport wrote:
jf wrote:
Treating "student-athletes" decently is one thing. Would argue they already are, but their labor
could be rewarded in a number of personal and community ways that wouldn't be as crazy as the
unfettered nonsense we are going through now courtesy of the NCAA and the big schools.
By the way, Joe Bamisile is the reason for some, though hardly all, of this. Joe might be able to keep up with the academics, but many probably can't handle such change, and no doubt lose credits in any case. What does "college" mean to any marketable athlete anymore?
For the vast, vast majority of college athletes, including the now highly compensated basketball and football players, going pro is not an option. Even for the lucky very few who do, their working life is many years after they leave the sport.
College could and should serve a function, both in career development and frankly, personal growth. For the lucky ones who can attend, it is four years largely shielded from the responsibilities of life, spent with people your age, learning independence and especially for this generation, how to relate to people.
Changing schools for a better contract or a more prominent role every year--or even more than once, doesn't really allow one to develop a non-athletic life. Or quite possibly, even your athletic potential.
At GW, you get a $400,000+ package with expenses covered, plus an NIL salary for really talented players, you travel by charter, you're lionized in giant posters and elsewhere, and you have the ability to get a great education in the capital of the world.
And by the way, if you're really good and want to develop, we sent three players to the NBA in three years. And they got their degrees.
We don't make real significant money off our sports programs, including basketball, if we aren't in the red.
This seems like a pretty reasonable and attractive package for a pleasant experience with great potential for lifetime opportunity.
The shame is that is not enough. And college athletics become anything but what it is supposed to
be.Imagine if Amazon bought a bunch of apartment complexes and said to their workers for the first three years that they would “pay for” their housing, and provide them mentorship from the top minds in the field while really helping these individuals develop their skills so that they could either become mentors themselves or move on to a different career path three years later. The consultant and coaching time they’d get would typically cost 120k per year, but Amazon will
Provide that for free! All in exchange for hard work, a commitment to stick with Amazon for three years, and to make sure to talk about how great the opportunity is at every chance you get. Or maybe they will only offer this to kids leaving high school who don’t need a degree. So they should really be thankful for the chance.
Would anybody go for this? Think it’s a good deal for the kid?
Danj, you've got me starting to feel very ripped off. After all, I received two academic degrees and in all the time I was in school, nobody paid me a salary to attend. I mean, I was the schmuck who got by on accepting the value of an education and enjoyment of my college experience without receiving a penny for this. Sure, it's true that I did not help generate revenue for the school by playing a sport, but doesn't tuition and cost of attendance count for something? And, I did have a job my senior year, otherwise known as an internship, which afforded me 6 school credits but not a single dime in my pocket. Since I drove to and from that internship, I had to pay for gas and clearly lost money on that deal. I guess GW was happy enough to have you back in the day that your attendance was more than compensated for with a nice salary. In retrospect, I really wish I had negotiated my deal a bit more aggressively.
And as for your Amazon example, you have to look no further than Chris Caputo who broke into the coaching profession by working for free under Jim Larranaga. Over time, he would receive a tiny stipend that one could not live on by himself. I hope you'll agree that things have worked out for him financially, due somewhat in part to the early sacrifices he made.
Posted by danjsport 6/08/2024 7:31 am | #31 |
Gwmayhem wrote:
danjsport wrote:
jf wrote:
Treating "student-athletes" decently is one thing. Would argue they already are, but their labor
could be rewarded in a number of personal and community ways that wouldn't be as crazy as the
unfettered nonsense we are going through now courtesy of the NCAA and the big schools.
By the way, Joe Bamisile is the reason for some, though hardly all, of this. Joe might be able to keep up with the academics, but many probably can't handle such change, and no doubt lose credits in any case. What does "college" mean to any marketable athlete anymore?
For the vast, vast majority of college athletes, including the now highly compensated basketball and football players, going pro is not an option. Even for the lucky very few who do, their working life is many years after they leave the sport.
College could and should serve a function, both in career development and frankly, personal growth. For the lucky ones who can attend, it is four years largely shielded from the responsibilities of life, spent with people your age, learning independence and especially for this generation, how to relate to people.
Changing schools for a better contract or a more prominent role every year--or even more than once, doesn't really allow one to develop a non-athletic life. Or quite possibly, even your athletic potential.
At GW, you get a $400,000+ package with expenses covered, plus an NIL salary for really talented players, you travel by charter, you're lionized in giant posters and elsewhere, and you have the ability to get a great education in the capital of the world.
And by the way, if you're really good and want to develop, we sent three players to the NBA in three years. And they got their degrees.
We don't make real significant money off our sports programs, including basketball, if we aren't in the red.
This seems like a pretty reasonable and attractive package for a pleasant experience with great potential for lifetime opportunity.
The shame is that is not enough. And college athletics become anything but what it is supposed to
be.Imagine if Amazon bought a bunch of apartment complexes and said to their workers for the first three years that they would “pay for” their housing, and provide them mentorship from the top minds in the field while really helping these individuals develop their skills so that they could either become mentors themselves or move on to a different career path three years later. The consultant and coaching time they’d get would typically cost 120k per year, but Amazon will
Provide that for free! All in exchange for hard work, a commitment to stick with Amazon for three years, and to make sure to talk about how great the opportunity is at every chance you get. Or maybe they will only offer this to kids leaving high school who don’t need a degree. So they should really be thankful for the chance.
Would anybody go for this? Think it’s a good deal for the kid?Danj, you've got me starting to feel very ripped off. After all, I received two academic degrees and in all the time I was in school, nobody paid me a salary to attend. I mean, I was the schmuck who got by on accepting the value of an education and enjoyment of my college experience without receiving a penny for this. Sure, it's true that I did not help generate revenue for the school by playing a sport, but doesn't tuition and cost of attendance count for something? And, I did have a job my senior year, otherwise known as an internship, which afforded me 6 school credits but not a single dime in my pocket. Since I drove to and from that internship, I had to pay for gas and clearly lost money on that deal. I guess GW was happy enough to have you back in the day that your attendance was more than compensated for with a nice salary. In retrospect, I really wish I had negotiated my deal a bit more aggressively.
And as for your Amazon example, you have to look no further than Chris Caputo who broke into the coaching profession by working for free under Jim Larranaga. Over time, he would receive a tiny stipend that one could not live on by himself. I hope you'll agree that things have worked out for him financially, due somewhat in part to the early sacrifices he made.
You paid for a service, and did not raise money for the school. These kids are revenue generators and not being paid money for it. Yes-an education counts for something. But until somebody can tell me the actual dollars it costs the school for those kids, I suspect the numbers are not that high. This creates a bigger education and cost of education conversation not meant for today.
As far as you working for credits and CC working for free, my opinion here is consistent. I don’t think that should have happened. I think that the ability to work for free rests largely on people who have money in the family, allowing them to work for free; or people who are taken advantage of with the prospect of a potential future. For every CC there is a kid who couldn’t make it, racked up gambling debt, drug addiction, or lost everything.
I don’t think internships should come without pay. I don’t think people should be asked to make other people money without being compensated with money.
Posted by FredD 6/08/2024 9:17 am | #32 |
Lots of interesting points and discussion. Guess I’m a simpleton, but if every other person and institution has freedom movement and is making cash that they can whatever they want with than the folks than we tune in/buy tickets to watch should to.
If amateurism didn't rest solely on the youngest most powerless in this whole equation I’d be sympathetic.
Seems like in so many instances it’s the powerful who appeal for help saying what’s merely ok from them is a boon to the greater good. Seems to me the pre-NIL/, pre-unlimited transfers suffered from the same lie too.