Sam Ehlinger

[South Austin 52561]

6 minutes ago, hornian said:

It's an easy, two part fix.

First, set up a NCAA wide fund that TV revenue goes into. Each athlete gets a certain $ figure per semester they are an athlete. You can even give bonuses for graduating in 5 years or less or each semester they maintain a certain GPA to reward those athletes who take the "student" part more seriously than others. Make it an NCAA operated fund, not operated by the schools.

Next, allow players to profit off of their likeness. Again, that doesn't come from the school - that comes from the third party. Apparel companies, etc. To make sure that there are rules in place, there would need to be only certain companies that have a contact with the NCAA to do this, rather than allowing Red McCombs to make all 85 scholarship football players "paid spokesmen" or to keep Papa John from paying the entire Louisville basketball team to be "brand ambassadors" or the like. But again, this doesn't need to come from the schools themselves. 

 

Some thoughts:

The idea of schools and conferences agreeing to put their TV revenue into one pot for all to equally share is a good one for this purpose, but wildly optimistic (in other words, never happening).

You say "each athlete gets a certain $ figure."  All athletes, including women's soccer players and men's golfers?  Or just football and men's basketball players?  If all athletes in all sports for every FBS/Division 1 program, and if all of them are paid equally, then that requires a shitload of money for any kind of meaningful payment. 

I think the third-party endorsements is a fair idea.  If Nike wants to start selling some No. 11 jerseys with Sam Ehlinger's name on it, give Sam a cut.  It leaves out a lot of the population of athletes who might not profit as much (or at all) from this kind of arrangement, but still have a good argument that the University of Texas still makes a shitload of money off the Texas football program as a whole--of which they are a part--without regarding to any one or two particular players.

[hornian 5222]

3 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

So youreasy fix is to take revenue away from college athletics programs—many of which are already in the negative due to floating other sports programs by federal mandate—without lowering their expenses, and also put all that money into a fund operated by one of the worst run organizations in the country? 

My easy fix isn't to take revenue away from college football programs. 

The NCAA makes most of its money off of the NCAA Tournament, right? This year, they make $879 million from the basketball TV deals alone. That does up each year (it'll be north of $900 million next year and just keep rising - see this link: https://www.statista.com/statistics/219608/ncaa-revenue-from-television-rights-agreement/)There's where you get your fund right there. 

I never said it had to be ALL of the TV revenue. And I'm not saying pay them ludicrous amounts of money. For football, Let's say it's $10,000 per semester. Throw in a $2.5K bonus for maintaining above a 3.5 GPA, and throw in a $5K bonus if you graduate on time. You can even limit it to Scholarship players, so you aren't paying all the walk ons, and you don't pay during the summer semester. Only Fall and Spring. 

An athlete who graduates in 5 years would get a maximum of $20K per year, plus a $5K bonus in the year he graduates. 

There are currently 129 NCAA football teams, and let's assume they all have their 85 man roster full every years. That's 10,965 athletes. And lets just assume 1 quarter of those graduate each year (they don't, but let's assume they do). That's 2,741 graduates.

10,965 * $20,000 =$219.3 million

2,741 * $5,000 = $13.7 millon

Total = $233 million

Sure, that sounds like a lot, but it's only 26.5% of the TV revenue from the basketball TV deals alone. 

Even if you pay the basketball players, there's still plenty to go around.

And other sports probably wouldn't qualify for as much. Lacrosse? We'll give $2K a semester instead of $20K. Women's rowing? We'll give you best buy coupons (I kid). 

Anyway, the money is there. What isn't is the will among the NCAA, the conferences, and the schools to do it. 

[Valmy77 13269]

2 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Some thoughts:

The idea of schools and conferences agreeing to put their TV revenue into one pot for all to equally share is a good one for this purpose, but wildly optimistic (in other words, never happening).

You say "each athlete gets a certain $ figure."  All athletes, including women's soccer players and men's golfers?  Or just football and men's basketball players?  If all athletes in all sports for every FBS/Division 1 program, and if all of them are paid equally, then that requires a shitload of money for any kind of meaningful payment. 

I think the third-party endorsements is a fair idea.  If Nike wants to start selling some No. 11 jerseys with Sam Ehlinger's name on it, give Sam a cut.  It leaves out a lot of the population of athletes who might not profit as much (or at all) from this kind of arrangement, but still have a good argument that the University of Texas still makes a shitload of money off the Texas football program as a whole--of which they are a part--without regarding to any one or two particular players.

Yeah any pay from the schools to the football or basketball players is probably illegal unless it applies to everybody. That is probably a Title IX violation...but granted I am no attorney.

But third party payments for using a players image...that could work. Maybe the players could have a union-ish organization, like the NFL players do, and licensees would pay this organization which could then pass the money onto the players in some agreed-upon fashion.

[hornian 5222]

5 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Some thoughts:

The idea of schools and conferences agreeing to put their TV revenue into one pot for all to equally share is a good one for this purpose, but wildly optimistic (in other words, never happening).

You say "each athlete gets a certain $ figure."  All athletes, including women's soccer players and men's golfers?  Or just football and men's basketball players?  If all athletes in all sports for every FBS/Division 1 program, and if all of them are paid equally, then that requires a shitload of money for any kind of meaningful payment. 

I think the third-party endorsements is a fair idea.  If Nike wants to start selling some No. 11 jerseys with Sam Ehlinger's name on it, give Sam a cut.  It leaves out a lot of the population of athletes who might not profit as much (or at all) from this kind of arrangement, but still have a good argument that the University of Texas still makes a shitload of money off the Texas football program as a whole--of which they are a part--without regarding to any one or two particular players.

Answered some of your questions in my last post. 

I wouldn't say you pay everyone the same. Football and Basketball would get paid the most, since they drive most of the revenue. And you can have tiers - FBS gets the most, FCS less, etc.

 

[Zavala 1384]

4 minutes ago, hornian said:

My easy fix isn't to take revenue away from college football programs. 

The NCAA makes most of its money off of the NCAA Tournament, right? This year, they make $879 million from the basketball TV deals alone. That does up each year (it'll be north of $900 million next year and just keep rising - see this link: https://www.statista.com/statistics/219608/ncaa-revenue-from-television-rights-agreement/)There's where you get your fund right there. 

I never said it had to be ALL of the TV revenue. And I'm not saying pay them ludicrous amounts of money. For football, Let's say it's $10,000 per semester. Throw in a $2.5K bonus for maintaining above a 3.5 GPA, and throw in a $5K bonus if you graduate on time. You can even limit it to Scholarship players, so you aren't paying all the walk ons, and you don't pay during the summer semester. Only Fall and Spring. 

An athlete who graduates in 5 years would get a maximum of $20K per year, plus a $5K bonus in the year he graduates. 

There are currently 129 NCAA football teams, and let's assume they all have their 85 man roster full every years. That's 10,965 athletes. And lets just assume 1 quarter of those graduate each year (they don't, but let's assume they do). That's 2,741 graduates.

10,965 * $20,000 =$219.3 million

2,741 * $5,000 = $13.7 millon

Total = $233 million

Sure, that sounds like a lot, but it's only 26.5% of the TV revenue from the basketball TV deals alone. 

Even if you pay the basketball players, there's still plenty to go around.

And other sports probably wouldn't qualify for as much. Lacrosse? We'll give $2K a semester instead of $20K. Women's rowing? We'll give you best buy coupons (I kid). 

Anyway, the money is there. What isn't is the will among the NCAA, the conferences, and the schools to do it. 

They ain't going to do any of this shit because title 9 says everything has to be fair and equal. Meaning you have to pay Women's rowing team equal to the sports that bring in $$$ to the university. 

[hornian 5222]

2 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

Yeah any pay from the schools to the football or basketball players is probably illegal unless it applies to everybody. That is probably a Title IX violation...but granted I am no attorney.

But third party payments for using a players image...that could work. Maybe the players could have a union-ish organization, like the NFL players do, and licensees would pay this organization which could then pass the money onto the players in some agreed-upon fashion.

I'm saying you pay everyone, just not everyone the same. Base it on the revenue generated by each sport, with some baseline minimum for all athletes, and you get around Title IX.

[hornian 5222]

2 minutes ago, Zavala said:

They ain't going to do any of this shit because title 9 says everything has to be fair and equal. Meaning you have to pay Women's rowing team equal to the sports that bring in $$$ to the university. 

That's a way too simplified reading of Title IX.,. And if every athletes has a baseline (call it X) and then you can use a multiple of X based on revenue generated by that sport, Title IX should be satisfied. 

Edited March 8, 2019 by hornian

[South Austin 52561]

Just now, Zavala said:

They ain't going to do any of this shit because title 9 says everything has to be fair and equal. Meaning you have to pay Women's rowing team equal to the sports that bring in $$$ to the university. 

I'm no Title IX expert, but it doesn't seem like Title IX prevents the schools from funding all sports on an equal basis, as its obvious that the money going into the Texas football program (facilities, equipment, coaching salaries, marketing, etc.) dwarfs that of the women's programs.  So would the players all have to be paid the same?  Serious question, and I'll hang up and listen.

[hornian 5222]

1 minute ago, South Austin said:

I'm no Title IX expert, but it doesn't seem like Title IX prevents the schools from funding all sports on an equal basis, as its obvious that the money going into the Texas football program (facilities, equipment, coaching salaries, marketing, etc.) dwarfs that of the women's programs.  So would the players all have to be paid the same?  Serious question, and I'll hang up and listen.

No.

Here's my laymen's understanding of Title IX as it applies to scholarships - there has to be roughly equal number of Men's and Women's scholarships. But there doesn't have to be exactly the same payment per athlete.

If a university gives 100 mens scholarships, they must give 100 women's scholarships.

But the university can break up those scholarships, so that some athletes qualify for a partial scholarship. 

You can have 300 athletes sharing those scholarships. Full rides only to revenue producing sports, partial scholarships to non-revenue producing sports, still satisfies Title IX.You don't have to give one full ride for every full ride, you just have to make the same $$ for scholarships available for each gender. The $$ can be divided however the schools see fit at that point.

Therefore, if you have a baseline NCAA athlete payment that everyone qualifies for, that's fine. Then you add on a revenue multiplayer - that is gender neutral - and apply it to the athletes in the revenue producing sports. 

[Gene Parmesan 4013]

Are the stipends given to all scholarship athletes?

Edited March 8, 2019 by Gene Parmesan

[hornian 5222]

3 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

Are the stipends given to all scholarship athletes?

Yes.

Here's a way that makes sense, to me at least.

Have a baseline # per scholarship. If an athlete gets a full ride, they get the full number. If the athlete gets a partial scholarship, they only get part of it. That makes it gender neutral (there's a lot of partial scholarship athletes on men's sports teams as well as women's sports teams).

This is just me spitballing an idea that makes sense to me. And I did it in a few minutes. If someone was really serious about it, it would get done. But none of the powers want to upset the status quo that has made the administrators/coaches/etc. wealthy.

Edited March 8, 2019 by hornian

[HtownHorn 14761]

33 minutes ago, pacman said:

What do you think it ends up being hourly at Texas?

Remember, these guys put a ton of hours in to keep that scholarship. Gameday, travel, practices, film, recovery, team events, weight room, conditioning, agility, tutoring, class, studying (all to stay eligible, remember a 15 hour schedule, by rule of thumb, is basically a 45 hour a week job), hosting other players, etc.....

Collegiate sports was never meant to support a billion dollar industry.

About $59 an hour.

Estimating that their benefits equal about 200K a year.

and they average about 65 hours of work a week over the entire year.

[RollLeft 5045]

1 hour ago, Keef said:

I have never heard a single decent argument why the players shouldn’t be able to profit from their likeness. Johnny Manziel made A&M millions of dollars. Why is that all the schools money? 

One argument is that it is not in the best interest for the going concern of all programs though revenues are high the margin is not.  90% of programs are at a net loss leaving 10% of programs with some margin. 

If the gates are lifted for some athletes to be paid, what was once a level playing field (in terms of $ allowed to be used), becomes a becomes a bidding war for the top recruits or ever-growing transfer portal of players.   

All it would take is for many boosters is to offer to buy whatever merchandise has their likeness.  Whether it be EA games or jerseys.  They can afford to buy more therefore they get that player.  

This is bad for 90% -95% of schools.  I'd venture to bet that the top schools, like Texas, probably care little if they have to pay.  They are profitable and have big boosters.  It's the other 90% of schools, who already lose money, that are the ones voting no.  They don't want to and can't compete as is, this worsens the arguably unfair imbalance of power.  So in their mind the poor will only get poorer and the rich richer. 

In conclusion, most schools argue it is not in the best interest of most of college football, most programs and most athletes will not benefit.   So why change?   

Personally, I think there are ways to do something but it shouldn't be primarily to pay each player.  It should go to National champion participants, big bowl participants, national award participants and a few named by the NCAA who are considered to have impacted the sport.  There is no point in regulating the merchandiser because they can't regulate the sale(from boosters).  So, in the end, what you can do is put the merchandised money and a % of profits in a pot and let the NCAA give the money to players and teams who again have highly impacted the sport that year the most.  Also distribute it when that player leaves school or graduates.  Jmo.

Edited March 8, 2019 by RollLeft

[Gene Parmesan 4013]

With scholarship limits how does that further the imbalance?  The recruiting of players is already as lopsided as it can get.  Nobody chooses Texas State over Texas in the current system.  So these programs that can't churn a profit wouldn't be any more out of contention.  The big programs already get all the best players. 

[RollLeft 5045]

21 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

With scholarship limits how does that further the imbalance?  The recruiting of players is already as lopsided as it can get.  Nobody chooses Texas State over Texas in the current system.  So these programs that can't churn a profit wouldn't be any more out of contention.  The big programs already get all the best players. 

You mean to say the top players already choose the big programs.  That only is cemented if big programs are allowed to pay their top players directly and cherry pick the good ones from smaller schools.   

At least by preserving the money for impact team participants, not necessarily the winners, every school has a shot.  Its not perfect but it doesnt close the door either.  Also the NCAA would have some discretion to pay out a smaller school impact players if they had players participate in national awards.    Its a merit based payment.  

The alternative of paying everyone equal is like starting social security in 2019.  How do you pay for it? We also all know its not sustainable for 90% of schools.  We've learned you can never unstart welfare.  They will never do it.  

Edited March 8, 2019 by RollLeft

[pacman 7369]

1 hour ago, HtownHorn said:

About $59 an hour.

Estimating that their benefits equal about 200K a year.

and they average about 65 hours of work a week over the entire year.

200k a year? Can you break that down?

[HtownHorn 14761]

35 minutes ago, pacman said:

200k a year? Can you break that down?

Room and board

Tuition

Gym membership

Personal training

Medical

Apparel and gear

Tutors

Marketing

Travel

Bowl game gifts

 

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

 

[Llano Estacado 1257]

 

 

Which one of you is this? aggy?

 

[Valmy77 13269]

Man people get butthurt on twitter.

[pacman 7369]

51 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

Room and board

Tuition

Gym membership

Personal training

Medical

Apparel and gear

Tutors

Marketing

Travel

Bowl game gifts

 

This is a generous list....

 

Room and Board/Tuition at UT is $25k per website. Basic medical is covered here. Student athlete medical/insurance is too unknown for me to comment, though injury recovery and rehab I would call part of a "job requirement" as they are limited to selecting the University chosen doctor.

Marketing - disagree. that is to the benefit of the university.

gym membership, personal training - disagree. that is a "job requirement". athlete could not elect to go elsewhere and have it paid for by the university.

gifts/apparel - okay, if they make a bowl and assuming they want apparel. $1000 tops?

Travel is a job requirement. 

Tutors - I guess you could say so, though this seems more like a job requirement. Part of the issue we have with understanding the argument, is most of us wanted to go to college and see that as our next step to a career. That is not the case for most football players, especially when you consider how poorly these universities take the responsibility of educating the football players.

 

I see $40k tops, which puts them at under $12 per hour using your time spent calculation.

[totallynotabuttpirate 5403]

1 hour ago, pacman said:

200k a year? Can you break that down?

$160k a year for all the top grade sniz he gets for free at UT. 

$40k for insurance, tuition, room/board. 

Edited March 8, 2019 by totallynotabuttpirate

[tokamak 6433]

4 hours ago, Valmy77 said:

Personally I just wish everything was like baseball and the people who want to be paid can just go pro and the people who want to "play school" can come here.

The baseball model is pretty good but it would never work for football. Baseball has legitimate developmental leagues for players who have good potential but aren't ready yet (the minors). Football is even more physically demanding than baseball. Even the best pro prospects are not physically ready when they are 18 years old, so they have to do something to develop. Currently the only real option is the NCAA. The answer would be for someone (the NFL?) to create a professional league for 18-22 year olds. It'd have a hell of a time competing with the NCAA for fans though.

4 hours ago, TriStone said:

I was replying directly to drifter's comment, "These kids put their bodies and in some cases their lives on the line for those things and your entertainment."  As if it's some bloodsport they're forced into playing.  To your point, the vast majority of these kids sign on to the deal knowing full well they have ZERO shot at the NFL, but they play anyway.  They're playing it because they love to play.

I disagree with the bolded part. At the lower levels, you're probably right, but I'd bet that pretty much every high school senior that signs with a major D1 program has the NFL in mind. Individual experiences once they get in college might change things, but if you're a 4* badass that wrecks high school competition (like pretty much everyone that signs with Texas, OU, Bama, etc), why would you NOT be thinking about your NFL potential?

Granted it's a sample size of 1, but I have a buddy that played at a G5 program. Even at that relatively lower level, he said that he knew if he played well enough, he could get a shot at the NFL.

[pacman 7369]

Agree there toka. You see it on these threads all the time. People think today's athletes are overly humble and realistic. Bullshit.

Most athletes think they are going to the NFL, that is the dream anyway. Most athletes think they will change the school's fortunes, that is the dream anyway. Mookie Cooper isn't considering Illinois because it will be a 3 win school. He thinks he will get there,a long with friends and others, and make it a 9 or 10 win school.

Bottom line, NCAA sports were never meant to be a billion dollar industry. Now that two of them are, there is nothing collegiate about them.

Edited March 8, 2019 by pacman

[Llano Estacado 1257]

Marketing - disagree. that is to the benefit of the university.

Missed the point on that one.

How many steakhouses are you aware of that are named after Madison HS QBs? Is it in Houston near that campus? Nashville?

Earl didn’t start selling sausage in Ralph’s on the west coast.

You know anyone that can name the past years Kerrville Tivy QB, how much does he charge for an autograph?

[Valmy77 13269]

1 minute ago, tokamak said:

The answer would be for someone (the NFL?) to create a professional league for 18-22 year olds. It'd have a hell of a time competing with the NCAA for fans though.

The NFL would create it so clubs could own contractual rights to players from an early age and directly manage their skill set and development, not so they could compete with the NCAA for fans. I mean if they get any fans it would be a bonus, like the NBA D-League.

[HtownHorn 14761]

6 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

The NFL would create it so clubs could own contractual rights to players from an early age and directly manage their skill set and development, not so they could compete with the NCAA for fans. I mean if they get any fans it would be a bonus, like the NBA D-League.

The NFL gets that for free now, I would say the last thing they would want to do is create a new league. How many minor league football leagues have to fail before people will learn that is there is little to no interest/market for football outside college and the NFL.

[HtownHorn 14761]

38 minutes ago, pacman said:

This is a generous list....

 

Room and Board/Tuition at UT is $25k per website. Basic medical is covered here. Student athlete medical/insurance is too unknown for me to comment, though injury recovery and rehab I would call part of a "job requirement" as they are limited to selecting the University chosen doctor.

Marketing - disagree. that is to the benefit of the university.

gym membership, personal training - disagree. that is a "job requirement". athlete could not elect to go elsewhere and have it paid for by the university.

gifts/apparel - okay, if they make a bowl and assuming they want apparel. $1000 tops?

Travel is a job requirement. 

Tutors - I guess you could say so, though this seems more like a job requirement. Part of the issue we have with understanding the argument, is most of us wanted to go to college and see that as our next step to a career. That is not the case for most football players, especially when you consider how poorly these universities take the responsibility of educating the football players.

 

I see $40k tops, which puts them at under $12 per hour using your time spent calculation.

Tell me what company gives an intern those perks as part of the "job requirement". 

[Pam Cummings 9654]

5 hours ago, TriStone said:

I was replying directly to drifter's comment, "These kids put their bodies and in some cases their lives on the line for those things and your entertainment."  As if it's some bloodsport they're forced into playing.  To your point, the vast majority of these kids sign on to the deal knowing full well they have ZERO shot at the NFL, but they play anyway.  They're playing it because they love to play.

Nah. It's the same reason people buy lottery tickets. Everyone thinks they have a chance. 

[HtownHorn 14761]

2 hours ago, Llano Estacado said:

 

Missed the point on that one.

How many steakhouses are you aware of that are named after Madison HS QBs? Is it in Houston near that campus? Nashville?

Earl didn’t start selling sausage in Ralph’s on the west coast.

You know anyone that can name the past years Kerrville Tivy QB, how much does he charge for an autograph?

 

Yep.

Being #11 at Texas compared to being #11 at Texas State. No one is going to give a shit if Vitt puts up a sophomore season like Ehlinger did at Texas.

[Bigbend1812 12927]

3 hours ago, Llano Estacado said:

 

 

 

Which one of you is this? aggy?

 

Twitter is full of cunt-stains. 

[ChingoHorns 115]

3 hours ago, Llano Estacado said:

 

 

 

Which one of you is this? aggy?

 

Sam or some other football player either stole/fucked or a combination of both his gf/bf/lover or whatever the fuck and now Sensitive Seven has his feelings hurt like a bitch. 

[Jkwellborn 6723]

That is not the case for most football players, especially when you consider how poorly these universities take the responsibility of educating the football players.

Let’s not act like most football players are Rhodes Scholars. Most wouldn’t have an opportunity for an education without athletics.

[Kyle 207]

9 hours ago, TriStone said:

The "but free stuff" argument has a lot more merit than the "zomg they're being exploited!" argument.  I don't have a problem with them getting a taste of the profits being made off of their likeness, but give me a fucking break with the "they put their bodies and lives on the line for your entertainment" horseshit.  They're putting their bodies on the line because they LOVE playing this game.  They're free at any time to quit playing and head down to the bursar's office with their checkbook.

That's where I fall. Let's be honest - Title IX will forever make paying college athletics impossible. I thought the same thing as you: their payment is their free education and all the perks (housing, food, etc.) but feels reasonable to give them a percentage of jersey sales, etc. But Title IX will squash that too most likely.

[Jkwellborn 6723]

Couldn’t they put all the money made off of likeness and individual jersey sales into one account and then divide it up equally between every player?

[BradInATX 9208]

6 hours ago, HtownHorn said:

Room and board

Tuition

Gym membership

Personal training

Medical

Apparel and gear

Tutors

Marketing

Travel

Bowl game gifts

 

ITT people don't understand the difference between a perk and compensation. If the IRS wouldn't tax it, it's not compensation, it's a perk. It would not be considered part of your income or mine, so it's disingenuous to add it in to some sort of compensation calculation for athletes. And obviously it's ridiculous to include job requirements like their uniform and travel as "compensation".

Room and board - Okay
Tuition - Okay
Gym membership - Both a perk and a job requirement
Personal training - Perk/requirement
Medical - Job requirement
Apparel and gear - Job requirement (your Chili's server isn't taxed on the shitty polo shirt they make him wear)
Tutors - Perk and job requirement
Marketing - This one is a reach. Just about every professional job increases your marketability and earnings potential in future jobs. This isn't a form of compensation
Travel - LOL. Obviously this is a job requirement
Bowl game gifts - Okay.

 

So you're left with Room/board/a bag of bowl swag. How do the numbers look once you throw out everything that isn't actually compensation?

I'm not advocating either way for paying players, I'm on the fence about it. But let's start the discussion with some intellectual honesty.

Edited March 9, 2019 by BradInATX

[Johnny Sack 8397]

If all schools suddenly had to rely on nothing but two or three stars who had no pro prospects because all the four and five stars decided to play AAF, XFL or some other minor league system the revenue drop off would be minimal.  Because the name on the front matters, not the name on the back.  

D league teams would kick the shit out of the best college teams.  Guess which one has the revenue?

[HtownHorn 14761]

50 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

ITT people don't understand the difference between a perk and compensation. If the IRS wouldn't tax it, it's not compensation, it's a perk. It would not be considered part of your income or mine, so it's disingenuous to add it in to some sort of compensation calculation for athletes. And obviously it's ridiculous to include job requirements like their uniform and travel as "compensation".

Room and board - Okay
Tuition - Okay
Gym membership - Both a perk and a job requirement
Personal training - Perk/requirement
Medical - Job requirement
Apparel and gear - Job requirement (your Chili's server isn't taxed on the shitty polo shirt they make him wear)
Tutors - Perk and job requirement
Marketing - This one is a reach. Just about every professional job increases your marketability and earnings potential in future jobs. This isn't a form of compensation
Travel - LOL. Obviously this is a job requirement
Bowl game gifts - Okay.

 

So you're left with Room/board/a bag of bowl swag. How do the numbers look once you throw out everything that isn't actually compensation?

I'm not advocating either way for paying players, I'm on the fence about it. But let's start the discussion with some intellectual honesty.

If it is something the normal student would have to pay for then it should be included, because again the comparison is to an intern, not a high level employee.

[HtownHorn 14761]

25 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

If all schools suddenly had to rely on nothing but two or three stars who had no pro prospects because all the four and five stars decided to play AAF, XFL or some other minor league system the revenue drop off would be minimal.  Because the name on the front matters, not the name on the back.  

D league teams would kick the shit out of the best college teams.  Guess which one has the revenue?

Correct, these dumb asses can't comprehend that Texas QB Sam Ehlinger is in a completely different ball park than Texas State QB Sam Ehlinger.

[BradInATX 9208]

If it is something the normal student would have to pay for then it should be included, because again the comparison is to an intern, not a high level employee.

You're just making up arbitrary rules. You're trying to assign compensation to athletes in the same way that you would a Joe Schmo who has a normal job. But you're using different rules for the athletes than you are a "normal" worker. It's transparent and dishonest and weak sauce.

 

Why would they be compared to an intern or student? Do interns and students generate billions in revenue?

 

And regardless of any of that, interns would still be subject to the same guidelines i laid out.

 

So you are wrong in every way possible.

 

[HtownHorn 14761]

9 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

16 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

If it is something the normal student would have to pay for then it should be included, because again the comparison is to an intern, not a high level employee.

You're just making up arbitrary rules. You're trying to assign compensation to athletes in the same way that you would a Joe Schmo who has a normal job. But you're using different rules for the athletes than you are a "normal" worker. It's transparent and dishonest and weak sauce.

No, I'm comparing athletes to an intern, because that was the comparison Sam made. Please tell me what companies provide all these things for an intern. I also contend that athletes are compensated more than room, board, and tuition compared to the average college student and those extra benefits should be considered when discussing this topic. Without a football team, Ehlinger would not have his room, meals, tuition, expert training, state of the art work out facility, clothes and gear (not talking about his uniform you fucking tard), travel to and from games, bowl game prizes, medical care, and hosts of other things. To chalk them up to "job requirement" is hilarious, someone is paying for it. You must be a fan of Cortez, and believe that Del Conte can wave his magic wand and all this shit just appears.

Edited March 9, 2019 by HtownHorn

[TornACL 7722]

7 hours ago, Valmy77 said:

Man people get butthurt on twitter.

I don't understand the people who get furious over the "pay or don't pay" debate. 

It's certainly a worthy topic of healthy debate, but I don't understand alums or outsiders getting so petty and angry when players voice their opinion. 

[BradInATX 9208]

No, I'm comparing athletes to an intern, because that was the comparison Sam made. Please tell me what companies provide all these things for an intern. I also contend that athletes are compensated more than room, board, and tuition compared to the average college student and those extra benefits should be considered when discussing this topic. Without a football team, Ehlinger would not have his room, meals, tuition, expert training, state of the art work out facility, clothes and gear (not talking about his uniform you fucking tard), travel to and from games, bowl game prizes, medical care, and hosts of other things. To chalk them up to "job requirement" is hilarious, someone is paying for it. You must be a fan of Cortez, and believe that Del Conte can wave his magic wand and all this shit just appears.

If the interns needed those things as part of their job, the company would provide them.

This isn't difficult.

[Helobious 9464]

3 hours ago, HtownHorn said:

No, I'm comparing athletes to an intern, because that was the comparison Sam made. Please tell me what companies provide all these things for an intern. I also contend that athletes are compensated more than room, board, and tuition compared to the average college student and those extra benefits should be considered when discussing this topic. Without a football team, Ehlinger would not have his room, meals, tuition, expert training, state of the art work out facility, clothes and gear (not talking about his uniform you fucking tard), travel to and from games, bowl game prizes, medical care, and hosts of other things. To chalk them up to "job requirement" is hilarious, someone is paying for it. You must be a fan of Cortez, and believe that Del Conte can wave his magic wand and all this shit just appears.

Fuck off with your cloak room bullshit. 

[Burt Macklin 19038]

4 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

If all schools suddenly had to rely on nothing but two or three stars who had no pro prospects because all the four and five stars decided to play AAF, XFL or some other minor league system the revenue drop off would be minimal.  Because the name on the front matters, not the name on the back.  

D league teams would kick the shit out of the best college teams.  Guess which one has the revenue?

That’s a really good comparison. Can you remind me which D league team Zion is playing for this year?

If guys like Zion went to the D league, Duke’s revenue would decrease dramatically. It’s not that complicated to understand. To act as if all the revenue comes from the university’s name is ridiculous.

[HtownHorn 14761]

44 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

That’s a really good comparison. Can you remind me which D league team Zion is playing for this year?

If guys like Zion went to the D league, Duke’s revenue would decrease dramatically. It’s not that complicated to understand. To act as if all the revenue comes from the university’s name is ridiculous.

He's talking about football. A Developmental football league, not basketball. Your point is meaningless anyway, because Zion Williams would be in the NBA and not the DLeague, and no Duke's revenues would not decrease dramatically. They would still be on TV just as much as they are on now, and some other kids jersey would be selling with the Duke name on the front.

 

Despite going through a shitty stretch of bad to abysmal football, Texas has consistently led the way in apparel sales. So if the names on the back are changing every 3-5 years, yet Texas is still making a shit load of money in merchandise, it may just be the name on the front.

Edited March 9, 2019 by HtownHorn

[Jkwellborn 6723]

That’s a really good comparison. Can you remind me which D league team Zion is playing for this year?
If guys like Zion went to the D league, Duke’s revenue would decrease dramatically. It’s not that complicated to understand. To act as if all the revenue comes from the university’s name is ridiculous.

Lol no.

[Awlready 9]

https://texas.forums.rivals.com/threads/sam-be-very-careful-my-friend.415016/page-2

[texasstrong12 4668]

Maybe I'm a biased homer but seems like Ehlinger should have better odds than several of the players listed here. I don't get why Fields and Martinez are valued where they are. 

 

[Slacks 6848]

Maybe I'm a biased homer but seems like Ehlinger should have better odds than several of the players listed here. I don't get why Fields and Martinez are valued where they are. 
 

Have you watched our offense? It is not 'Most Outstanding' player grounds.