(05-03-2022 01:18 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-03-2022 01:10 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  To be clear, when we talk about bad contract, we are not referring to 2013 or since; we are referring to the 2010 contract, which locked the ACC into a lowball rate long term. Every contract since 2010 has been an attempt to fix that bad deal, which some of us knew was bad the day it was announced.

So why wasn't it torn up and redrawn when Notre Dame, Syracuse, and Pitt joined?

It's a lot easier to blame one figure that stands out than fifteen figures most fans don't even know.

Why would ESPN want to do that? Each new contract has added games at the current market price - but kept the original number of games at the old price and just averaged them in. The ACC is essentially getting the same rate as the SEC for a few games, but getting 2010 rates for other games.

COULD a better negotiator for the ACC side have gotten a better deal in 2013? IDK, but I'm 100% certain they could've done better in 2010.

(04-28-2022 09:42 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-28-2022 06:24 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Here is the giant elephant in every room.

What happens if/when the U.S. Supreme Court rules that all "student-athletes" are direct employees of the universities like the students working in the library or President's offices (which I think is coming down the Pike)...

If that happens, those paychecks will be on top of scholarships and room/board, not in substitution of them.

Schools will have to compete with each other for players, that means higher pay rates, not lower compensation...

If all schools must pay their athletes directly, that will require more revenues to do so and to compete, unless coaches and AD's and other AD employees take massive pay cuts to shift the money to the players.

(What if college athletic unions are organized and the athletes collectively bargain with the universities?)

EXCELLENT POST.

Just a few more things to think about, if I may add on...

1. If players become employees, why must they be students at all? Are the cooks in the cafeteria? I could see that being the next big SEC/B1G battle - the SEC wanting to hire players who can't get into college, the B1G fighting it...

2. Yes, a bidding war could lead to HUGE payrolls for national championship teams. The best and, maybe, the only truly viable way to address this is for the players to unionize and sign a collective bargaining agreement which includes a salary cap.

3. In light of #2, I think schools would want to do the same thing with coaching staff. Pay your head coach what you want, but balance it by reducing what you spend on assistants!

A salary-capped world would be a wide-open competitive world, where the BEST RUN and the SMARTEST programs win championships (think New England Patriots or Golden State Warriors, rather than a never-ending series of Dallas Cowboys and Los Angeles Lakers titles).

I was thinking the same about salary cap or even if somehow NIL money was put into a pot that rewarded all football/basketball players collectively. I really don't think it is going to increase the popularity of the sport for a bidding war among players like we see in MLB instead of a managed sport like the NFL.

Sure fans like to see talent, but college football gets ratings because fans have an association with the game and if you are going to make it so top heavy or try and reduce the teams to such a small number I think the overall number of college football fans will decline.

I'm in a college football state and have always been a fan but I watch less and less cfb every year and instead I buy the NFL Sunday Ticket. It started with the pointless nature of cfb's post season and the joke bowl games are played well after a season. But turn this into a sport where the number of teams are limited or only a few have a real chance to compete, and forget watching any of it. Those teams always had advantages but if you make this a NY Yankees spending spree on players among the top 10 booster backed programs forget it I'm done for good except for tuning into games from a team from my state.

(05-05-2022 03:38 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(04-28-2022 09:42 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-28-2022 06:24 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Here is the giant elephant in every room.

What happens if/when the U.S. Supreme Court rules that all "student-athletes" are direct employees of the universities like the students working in the library or President's offices (which I think is coming down the Pike)...

If that happens, those paychecks will be on top of scholarships and room/board, not in substitution of them.

Schools will have to compete with each other for players, that means higher pay rates, not lower compensation...

If all schools must pay their athletes directly, that will require more revenues to do so and to compete, unless coaches and AD's and other AD employees take massive pay cuts to shift the money to the players.

(What if college athletic unions are organized and the athletes collectively bargain with the universities?)

EXCELLENT POST.

Just a few more things to think about, if I may add on...

1. If players become employees, why must they be students at all? Are the cooks in the cafeteria? I could see that being the next big SEC/B1G battle - the SEC wanting to hire players who can't get into college, the B1G fighting it...

2. Yes, a bidding war could lead to HUGE payrolls for national championship teams. The best and, maybe, the only truly viable way to address this is for the players to unionize and sign a collective bargaining agreement which includes a salary cap.

3. In light of #2, I think schools would want to do the same thing with coaching staff. Pay your head coach what you want, but balance it by reducing what you spend on assistants!

A salary-capped world would be a wide-open competitive world, where the BEST RUN and the SMARTEST programs win championships (think New England Patriots or Golden State Warriors, rather than a never-ending series of Dallas Cowboys and Los Angeles Lakers titles).

I was thinking the same about salary cap or even if somehow NIL money was put into a pot that rewarded all football/basketball players collectively. I really don't think it is going to increase the popularity of the sport for a bidding war among players like we see in MLB instead of a managed sport like the NFL.

Sure fans like to see talent, but college football gets ratings because fans have an association with the game and if you are going to make it so top heavy or try and reduce the teams to such a small number I think the overall number of college football fans will decline.

I'm in a college football state and have always been a fan but I watch less and less cfb every year and instead I buy the NFL Sunday Ticket. It started with the pointless nature of cfb's post season and the joke bowl games are played well after a season. But turn this into a sport where the number of teams are limited or only a few have a real chance to compete, and forget watching any of it. Those teams always had advantages but if you make this a NY Yankees spending spree on players among the top 10 booster backed programs forget it I'm done for good except for tuning into games from a team from my state.

kavanaugh concurrence in unanimous decision ...

NCAA (NATIONAL COMMUNISTS AGAINST ATHLETES)