Fournette & McCaffrey 2.0/The Pacific Pro League

[Oriole8159 86]

being as how we had such a stirring conversation in this other thread, I was curious what your thoughts were on this new Pacific Pro League; a new developmental league that is being tested to launch next year. No affiliation it sounds like with either the NFL or NCAA, but looking to address the market I guess for players that don't prefer the current progression schedule.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2686412-pacific-pro-football-league-details-announced-for-non-nfl-eligible-players

 

 

The Pacific Pro Football League announced Wednesday its intention to begin play next winter. The development program for players who graduated high school but aren't currently playing in college is expected to feature four teams playing under professional rules.

ESPN.com reported information provided by the league, which includes former NFL wide receiver Ed McCaffrey as well as Tom Brady's agent, Don Yee, among the founders, stated the average salary will be around $50,000, with 50 players on each roster.

Tom Pelissero of USA Today noted any player four years or fewer removed from high school would be eligible. And while the league doesn't intend to directly compete with the NCAA, its ability to pay players could make it an option for some.

"It'll make sense for a lot of young men and a lot of families," McCaffrey said. "We're hoping to provide them with that choice."

Yee confirmed to USA Today that any player who signs a Pac Pro contract would immediately become ineligible to play traditional college football. So the high-profile agent wants athletes to make a "well-informed" decision, but he thinks there's a niche for this type of league.

"We believe that the business environment is good for a project like this," Yee said. "We believe that the players are ready for a choice, and we think we can be a good supplement to other football products that are out there."

At a minimum, it could appeal to players who aren't able to play in college, whether it's due to academic reasons or otherwise. The league will focus on pro-style offenses to get them ready for the NFL once they pass the three-year waiting period the league requires after high school.

Former NFL head coach Mike Shanahan, who serves on the new league's advisory board, is convinced it will better prepare athletes for what they'll experience in terms of pro schemes. He told Dan Wetzel of Yahoo Sports that getting the right training out of high school is crucial.

"Pro football is a specialized game," Shanahan said. "It demands precise techniques and a certain mental approach."

 

In December, Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk noted a separate venture is expected to launch this spring with a similar four-team structure. The "Spring League" is expected to focus on NFL free agents who are looking to showcase themselves.

All told, the newest development league faces a lot of hurdles as it looks to establish itself within the football landscape. The most pressing of which will be financial, with a price tag in the millions, according to the USA Today report: "Salaries, insurance, medical expenses, equipment—it all adds up."

The intrigue will come in if it's successful in establishing a firm foundation. That's when legitimate NFL prospects could decide to seriously consider Pac Pro, and the salary it would provide, rather than going the standard route through the NCAA.

 

 

 

At least they're trying something in my opinion. Who knows if it will work out, but I'm just so sick of the complaining with nobody coming up with a solution. There is obviously a problem here, so kudos to them for at least taking initiative to try to address it.

 

[Marshall 98]

It sounds like a great idea. College is not an option for many and hopefully this would help fill that gap.

[TBayXXXVII 2,116]

So, for the kids who play in this league, at what point do they stop playing so not to risk injury? Seriously though, I think this will actually help the NCAA and eliminate the "these kids should get paid" argument. Virtually every college scholarship athlete is getting about $50k in college money (plus small meal stipends). If you give these kids $50k, watch how fast they spend it all. I'm guessing that league is not giving them any food money or any other subsides. I also want to see who's paying for surgery and rehab when these kids do get hurt. I think this league may start out as a popular option, but end up being the wrong choice by the significant masses.

[ralphster 274]

I love the idea and hope it succeeds. The NCAA and college in general is ripe for disruption.

[TBayXXXVII 2,116]

I love the idea and hope it succeeds. The NCAA and college in general is ripe for disruption.

 

That's right. Those evil greedy people... all they do is supply the country with entertainment, supply the students with a good education at a reduced cost, and give them a chance to show off their skills to potential future employers. Those terrible and evil people!! Down with those pigs!

[Pecos Rattlers 5]

Evil is definitely a stretch, but also a strawman. There are a number of reasons that having NCAA football (or other sports) be huge money isn't necessarily a good thing:

 

• Are the athletes actually getting a good education? Or are they getting a second tier set of classes designed to just let them play football?
• Is the focus of college being diluted by having sports be big money and a big deal? I am not saying I don't like sports ( I do ) but college should be about academics, experimentation & self development. Not entertainment. Being on the team is definitely more than entertainment, but most college students are not on the team.
• Is the cost of college going up because colleges feel the need to compete over stadiums and gyms and all that to attract students? If so, this doesn't sound like a great return on investment for most college students.
• Are the college athletes actually well served by their experience? How many graduate and then use that degree to earn their living?
• By getting a free ride rather than getting $ and having to manage their own money are getting well prepared for managing their finances post college sports? Maybe making $50k in a league like this would actually serve them better?

[TBayXXXVII 2,116]

 

Evil is definitely a stretch, but also a strawman. There are a number of reasons that having NCAA football (or other sports) be huge money isn't necessarily a good thing:

 

• Are the athletes actually getting a good education? Or are they getting a second tier set of classes designed to just let them play football?
• Is the focus of college being diluted by having sports be big money and a big deal? I am not saying I don't like sports ( I do ) but college should be about academics, experimentation & self development. Not entertainment. Being on the team is definitely more than entertainment, but most college students are not on the team.
• Is the cost of college going up because colleges feel the need to compete over stadiums and gyms and all that to attract students? If so, this doesn't sound like a great return on investment for most college students.
• Are the college athletes actually well served by their experience? How many graduate and then use that degree to earn their living?
• By getting a free ride rather than getting $ and having to manage their own money are getting well prepared for managing their finances post college sports? Maybe making $50k in a league like this would actually serve them better?

 

• If they're not getting a good education, that's the person's fault for not taking advantage of the opportunity... not the college's or NCAA's.
• You're completely right, my point on the entertainment was more focused to the fan watching, not the kids.
• Yes, it's very possible that, in part, is the reason that the cost of college is going up. General inflation, educator pay raises, transportation for students and student athletes, as well as food costs are also a big part of it as well. You do realize that when gas prices go up, dairy costs go up, technology costs go up... all of the colleges foot those increases too, right? Do you realize that the every single woman's sports program in the country, aside from UConn and Tennessee women's basketball, loses money every year? Do you realize that only 2/3 of men's sports at worst, break even? There are tons of extracurricular activities (including sports), that force the schools to hemorrhage money. Heck, I'd be shocked if half the schools even make money off of football.
• If that's the case, then that's the students fault, not the school or NCAA
• Just because they're getting a full ride, doesn't mean they have no money... it's really just an excuse. ALL student athletes are allowed to have jobs. Granted, the scholarship athletes do have hour limits. They're also limited on how many hours they're allowed to participate in their sport, i.e. practice, workouts, and games. They're learning how to budget their time and life. If they don't have a job and money, that's their fault, not the school or NCAA's fault.
• Giving 18-22 year olds $50k with no education on how to manage their money is like pouring water down the drain. I know tons of kids in that age group. They'd spend that money so fast it's crazy. One thing I think this league should do is force these kids to go to college. They don't need to go to Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, or Washington, they can simply just go to Podunk Community College. That would be the best case scenario in my opinion.

[TimHauck 1,799]

Giving 18-22 year olds $50k with no education on how to manage their money is like pouring water down the drain. I know tons of kids in that age group. They'd spend that money so fast it's crazy. One thing I think this league should do is force these kids to go to college. They don't need to go to Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, or Washington, they can simply just go to Podunk Community College. That would be the best case scenario in my opinion.

This for sure. Otherwise I think this league is a terrible idea unless the salaries are much higher. First off as you mentioned between free housing plus food money when on the road, that alone is probably worth $15k or so, plus of course the education, so after taxes $50k isn't going to be a whole lot more. But give 18 year olds a choice and a lot would likely take that $50K, but once those 4 years are up and they don't make the NFL then they're pretty screwed.

[Marshall 98]

But give 18 year olds a choice and a lot would likely take that $50K, but once those 4 years are up and they don't make the NFL then they're pretty screwed.

 

How so?

 

Are you saying that 18 year-olds who pull down 8 or 9K a year by waiting tables are somehow better off?

[loadedbrewer 0]

I don't think it is such a bad idea. There are a lot of players who try the college route only to find the school part isn't for them and drop (or fail) out in 1-2 years. And a lot more who play division 3 where there are no scholarships or are wanted by division 3 programs but don't have the financial backing to be able to go.

 

This league would fill that void as well as providing an option for other kids who already know that they aren't cut out for college.

 

A free college education would be a better option, but this is better than a low paying dead end job with no college education.

[TimHauck 1,799]

 

How so?

 

Are you saying that 18 year-olds who pull down 8 or 9K a year by waiting tables are somehow better off?

Huh? I'm saying getting a full college scholarship with most of your living expenses covered is better than making $50k for 4 years without really being able to improve your job prospects after that. Make it $500k+ and I think you've got a debate.

[nobody 2,037]

Huh? I'm saying getting a full college scholarship with most of your living expenses covered is better than making $50k for 4 years without really being able to improve your job prospects after that. Make it $500k+ and I think you've got a debate.

Yep. 50k is chump change, but it's a fair wage since they will be playing in a fledgling league that won't turn a profit for at least 10 or 15 years.

 

A scholarship on the other hand is not a fair wage for superstar athletes making schools billions of dollars. All they really have to do is eliminate the endorsement restrictions.

 

And yes I know some people will say, " but what about university XYZ. They won't be able to hook players up with sweet endorsements." And to that I say who cares. That school probably has a shítty football program anyway.

[Oriole8159 86]

This for sure. Otherwise I think this league is a terrible idea unless the salaries are much higher. First off as you mentioned between free housing plus food money when on the road, that alone is probably worth $15k or so, plus of course the education, so after taxes $50k isn't going to be a whole lot more. But give 18 year olds a choice and a lot would likely take that $50K, but once those 4 years are up and they don't make the NFL then they're pretty screwed.

 

the league may not ultimately work, but I would argue the "terrible idea" is just sitting back and everyone doing nothing even though everybody knows there's a problem here. I'm getting frustrated hearing excuse after excuse about why nothing can be done, and all that attitude does is breed even more disconnect. (Not necessarily implying that's your attitude specifically, so please don't take personally.)

 

at least these guys are trying. let's see if the market embraces it, and even if it fails, then you still get some valuable information about player tendencies and values that can be applied back to the NCAA, or a to a future league.

[TimHauck 1,799]

Yep. 50k is chump change, but it's a fair wage since they will be playing in a fledgling league that won't turn a profit for at least 10 or 15 years.

 

A scholarship on the other hand is not a fair wage for superstar athletes making schools billions of dollars. All they really have to do is eliminate the endorsement restrictions.

 

And yes I know some people will say, " but what about university XYZ. They won't be able to hook players up with sweet endorsements." And to that I say who cares. That school probably has a shítty football program anyway.

I think neither is a fair wage. If there wasn't a 4-year limit, it wouldn't be as bad since someone could potentially play in the league for 20 years and actually build up some savings.

 

 

the league may not ultimately work, but I would argue the "terrible idea" is just sitting back and everyone doing nothing even though everybody knows there's a problem here. I'm getting frustrated hearing excuse after excuse about why nothing can be done, and all that attitude does is breed even more disconnect. (Not necessarily implying that's your attitude specifically, so please don't take personally.)

 

at least these guys are trying. let's see if the market embraces it, and even if it fails, then you still get some valuable information about player tendencies and values that can be applied back to the NCAA, or a to a future league.

Yeah I think there's something that can be done. I feel like the best solution is for them to get paid in some form by the colleges. How much and how exactly that would work of course is the tricky part.

[Oriole8159 86]

I think one angle that's being under discussed here is that they're only going to be running pro style systems here, which could be extra enticing for certain players at positions/schools that don't run pro style systems.

 

There's been a big problem the past couple years with offensive lineman specifically having never played in a pro style system. I could see interest in a senior o-lineman that's maybe a Day 3 prospect but without much room to rise higher because he's at a school that runs a spread offense, so he could be a candidate to take off his senior year and do this league, make $50k, and get more experience in a pro style offense. That could theoretically help raise his stock even more than just staying for his senior year.

 

So it's not just intended for guys that don't want to go to class.

[TBayXXXVII 2,116]

 

the league may not ultimately work, but I would argue the "terrible idea" is just sitting back and everyone doing nothing even though everybody knows there's a problem here. I'm getting frustrated hearing excuse after excuse about why nothing can be done, and all that attitude does is breed even more disconnect. (Not necessarily implying that's your attitude specifically, so please don't take personally.)

 

at least these guys are trying. let's see if the market embraces it, and even if it fails, then you still get some valuable information about player tendencies and values that can be applied back to the NCAA, or a to a future league.

 

Personally, I think the current system works just fine. Let's be honest here... most of you guys are talking about trashing an entire system for literally 25-30 football players a year. That's utterly ridiculous.

[Oriole8159 86]

 

Personally, I think the current system works just fine. Let's be honest here... most of you guys are talking about trashing an entire system for literally 25-30 football players a year. That's utterly ridiculous.

 

what about players being able to profit on their own likeness; them not being able to do that is included in the current system?

 

I'm not advocating for whole large changes here, but even small things from the NCAA like that could extinguish a lot of this conversation. But when the NCAA continuously shuts down a dialogue, then other people will take actions into their own hands.

[Oriole8159 86]

 

Personally, I think the current system works just fine. Let's be honest here... most of you guys are talking about trashing an entire system for literally 25-30 football players a year. That's utterly ridiculous.

 

and this isn't just about the top rated players that are afraid to play in certain unimportant games for fear of getting hurt, and hurting their draft stock, so there's more than 25-30 players here.

this league has a lot of respected people backing it, so you presume they did their due diligence and spoke with hundreds of players on multiple levels to gauge their thoughts on the current NCAA system and if there would be interested in an alternative developmental league.

[TBayXXXVII 2,116]

 

what about players being able to profit on their own likeness; them not being able to do that is included in the current system?

 

I'm not advocating for whole large changes here, but even small things from the NCAA like that could extinguish a lot of this conversation. But when the NCAA continuously shuts down a dialogue, then other people will take actions into their own hands.

 

What about it? I have no problem with it. The kids enrolled in that college on their own free will. No one forced them to go there. You want to blame someone, blame the NFL. They're the ones who collectively bargained away the rights of 18-21 year old's from entering the NFL draft. Now you, people like you, entitled punks, and greedy parents now want the NCAA to pay for it. Bull crap. No one is forcing these kids to take scholarships. Tell them that if they want more pocket money, all they have to do is forego the scholarship and go get a 30 hour/week $10/hour (or whatever min wage is these days), job. How about that?

 

The kids that are on billboards saying 'Come to Arizona St', are getting jack squat for that. Yet, there's no out cry for them getting paid for it. It's only because of a few greedy people. They feel that not only are they "entitled" to a free education, free food, free housing, and free self promotion. Now they want to get paid? G.T.F.O.H.

[TBayXXXVII 2,116]

 

and this isn't just about the top rated players that are afraid to play in certain unimportant games for fear of getting hurt, and hurting their draft stock, so there's more than 25-30 players here.

this league has a lot of respected people backing it, so you presume they did their due diligence and spoke with hundreds of players on multiple levels to gauge their thoughts on the current NCAA system and if there would be interested in an alternative developmental league.

 

I don't care who the "respected people" are nor how many. They have ONE motivation for this league, and it's money. The fact that they're willing to pay the kids ONLY $50k per year is proof of it. A 4-year job at $50k per year is not helping ANY of these kids. I'm telling you, almost all of them are going to go broke and complain they need more money. Then what? Then all of you cry babies are going to sit on these boards (or the kids on tv), are going to say that this developmental league should raise their salaries to $100k.

[Oriole8159 86]

 

I don't care who the "respected people" are nor how many. They have ONE motivation for this league, and it's money. The fact that they're willing to pay the kids ONLY $50k per year is proof of it. A 4-year job at $50k per year is not helping ANY of these kids. I'm telling you, almost all of them are going to go broke and complain they need more money. Then what? Then all of you cry babies are going to sit on these boards (or the kids on tv), are going to say that this developmental league should raise their salaries to $100k.

 

first off, every entrepreneur is motivated by money so that's not a knock on them at all. That doesn't mean them being motivated by money can't also be beneficial for others though.

 

and it's $50k for an 8 game schedule so that probably leaves open 8-9 months still for them to have other employment while they train for either next year's season or to enter the draft. nobody's saying they should be sitting on their ass the rest of the year not making money.

And if they $50k price point doesn't work, then adjust accordingly. But you'd only be looking to adjust up if the league is a huge success and the league is making exponentially more than anticipated. And my opinions on how much they're getting has nothing to do with if they end up broke; it just has to do with their pay being in line with the value they're producing. After that point if they still end up broke, then that's on them.

 

 

And I think you're the cry baby to be honest. There's literally tons of reasons to not like the NCAA (players can't profit on their own likeness, teams can pull scholarships through no fault of the players, weak health insurance for the players, too many bowl games, coaches free to leave after regular season yet players get flack for wanting to sit out, players inability to unionize) and all we're trying to do is having a cordial debate, but you're the first one that resorted to attitude and being short with people. Read through this thread and tell me I'm wrong.

[Oriole8159 86]

 

What about it? I have no problem with it. The kids enrolled in that college on their own free will. No one forced them to go there. You want to blame someone, blame the NFL. They're the ones who collectively bargained away the rights of 18-21 year old's from entering the NFL draft. Now you, people like you, entitled punks, and greedy parents now want the NCAA to pay for it. Bull crap. No one is forcing these kids to take scholarships. Tell them that if they want more pocket money, all they have to do is forego the scholarship and go get a 30 hour/week $10/hour (or whatever min wage is these days), job. How about that?

 

The kids that are on billboards saying 'Come to Arizona St', are getting jack squat for that. Yet, there's no out cry for them getting paid for it. It's only because of a few greedy people. They feel that not only are they "entitled" to a free education, free food, free housing, and free self promotion. Now they want to get paid? G.T.F.O.H.

 

Do you idiot not just realize that you made the argument for this league?

 

The NFL has collectively bargained away these 18-21 year olds rights and yet there is a monopolistic amateur league that is essentially telling these kids to bend over and take what they give you with no ability to fight for themselves. You just literally identified the market for why we're having this exact discussion. "No one is forcing these kids to take these scholarships," as you say and "tell them if they want to make more pocket money, all they have to do is forego the scholarship and go get a 30 hour/week $10/hr job." No, they can make their own league is a perfectly viable 3rd option.

 

Let's see if football is actually big enough to support a minor league system, and let the market take over. When the market takes over, you expect to have some winners and losers, but we'll at least know then if change is possible.

 

And don't be calling me an "entitled punk," I'm a 36 year old Republican and I make a ton in business. And this "entitlement" you speak of from players exist because they're the workers in a multi multi billion dollar industry; this isn't club rowing we're talking about here.

 

Are you incapable of having a debate without name calling either? That's generally the sign of low intelligence.

[Maulers1973 117]

I don't think there is a market for this product. Same thing that befell the XFL. It's doomed from the start.

[Oriole8159 86]

Did just see in another article that the league will also pay for tuition and books at local community colleges, so that's something too.

 

Obviously community college not the same as major university, but it's at least some education, especially for guys not smart enough to take advantage of their scholarship education.

 

"Pac Pro's concept of 'education' is expansive. Every team will have a counselor to help players develop their interests academically and/or vocationally, and assist with coordinating meaningful internships in their fields of interest," Yee said in a statement. (Yee in this case being Don Yee, Tom Brady's agent and co-founder.)

[Oriole8159 86]

I don't think there is a market for this product. Same thing that befell the XFL. It's doomed from the start.

maybe, but one (of many) things that went wrong for XFL was them trying to time their season right after the Super Bowl, which eventually meant they'd have to compete against NCAA basketball and hockey/basketball playoffs.

this league will be playing in the spring/summer, which means they're only competing with baseball. plus we've shown now that people have an interest in offseason football as things like the Combine, Draft, Free Agency, OTAs, etc. do get TV coverage, so maybe that interest will filter over to this.

 

I'm not trying to say it will or won't work, and to be honest I don't really care even though I'm the one that started this thread, but it will be an interesting case study to watch.

[ralphster 274]

 

And I think you're the cry baby to be honest. There's literally tons of reasons to not like the NCAA (players can't profit on their own likeness, teams can pull scholarships through no fault of the players, weak health insurance for the players, too many bowl games, coaches free to leave after regular season yet players get flack for wanting to sit out, players inability to unionize) and all we're trying to do is having a cordial debate, but you're the first one that resorted to attitude and being short with people. Read through this thread and tell me I'm wrong.

 

Quoted for truth. We were having a civilized discussion on the merits of players sitting out and a new type of dev league when the tbag waded in and started using pejoratives. Obviously the college system worked for him, so it should work for everyone else and anyone thinking different is weak/entitled/not making America great again.

[Oriole8159 86]

 

Quoted for truth. We were having a civilized discussion on the merits of players sitting out and a new type of dev league when the tbag waded in and started using pejoratives. Obviously the college system worked for him, so it should work for everyone else and anyone thinking different is weak/entitled/not making America great again.

 

thanks

[TBayXXXVII 2,116]

 

Do you idiot not just realize that you made the argument for this league?

 

The NFL has collectively bargained away these 18-21 year olds rights and yet there is a monopolistic amateur league that is essentially telling these kids to bend over and take what they give you with no ability to fight for themselves. You just literally identified the market for why we're having this exact discussion. "No one is forcing these kids to take these scholarships," as you say and "tell them if they want to make more pocket money, all they have to do is forego the scholarship and go get a 30 hour/week $10/hr job." No, they can make their own league is a perfectly viable 3rd option.

 

Let's see if football is actually big enough to support a minor league system, and let the market take over. When the market takes over, you expect to have some winners and losers, but we'll at least know then if change is possible.

 

And don't be calling me an "entitled punk," I'm a 36 year old Republican and I make a ton in business. And this "entitlement" you speak of from players exist because they're the workers in a multi multi billion dollar industry; this isn't club rowing we're talking about here.

 

Are you incapable of having a debate without name calling either? That's generally the sign of low intelligence.

 

You are misunderstanding. I'm not calling you an "entitled punk", I'm calling the 18-21(I guess 22), year olds entitled punks. The student athletes who believe they should be paid that is. You just happen to agree with them.

Secondly, I do find it interesting how you are a Republican Businessman (which I don't doubt... I don't know you - I'm willing to take your word for it), but yet you have a bleeding heart liberal point of view on this. But, I digress...

Anyway, I never said I had a problem with the league. I don't think it'll work, but it doesn't mean I'm against it. I've stated my reasons why I don't think it will work, so there's no need restate everything. But look above to post #7. I stated at the end that I believe that they league should force the kids to go to college anyway. Essentially, it would be what you apparently think the NCAA should be. So, as you can see I'm not against it.

All that said, what I'm opposed to is the negativity towards the NCAA. I think you guys are way off base. You are a business man right? Go read my post #7. Tell me how the things I stated in my 3rd bullet point is out of whack. Too many people say that the kids should be paid, yet I never hear "how". Where's the money coming from? Like I noted in that bullet point, the schools use that money to keep other sports funded, to keep the school as modern as possible, to keep general tuition down, as well as many other costs. Also, how are you going to pay them? Just the football team? Good luck trying to get that passed Title IX. You're opening Pandora's Box. Once you pay one sport, the other's are going to come calling. Where's all that money coming from?

Let's say you miraculously get this past Title IX and only pay the football team (oh, and heads up you'll end up having to pay men's basketball too). Something else to consider, how are the schools going to pay the kids, a flat rate? Meaning, all scholarship student atheletes make $100 (arbitrary amount) a week? Ok. So guys like Leonard Fournette are going to get the same amount as a random RB for Troy St? On that note, Troy St loses money every year on football. Where are they going to come up with the money? Are you going to tell me now that only certain caliber of player should be paid? Yeah, good luck with getting that one passed. Or, are you going to tell me that different schools can pay different amounts? Ok, so now you're going to basically kill at least 50% of the college football programs now because they're not paying like the top schools are. Before you poo poo this, go read this article (a quick heads up, only 20 FBS schools make money from football): http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/08/ncaa_study_finds_all_but_20_fb.html

[Oriole8159 86]

In regards to my own personal Republicanism and this very perceived liberal viewpoint, I disagree of the liberalism because I don't want this to be confused with every entitled 18-21 that was raised in the "participation trophies and everyone's special" generation. Those kids are not special, but these football players are in contrast the producers in a multi billion dollar industry. They're world class athletes, so they deserve compensation that reflects that. That's not "entitlement."

 

So please don't confuse this with the debate around minimum wage increase for instance as that is all involving zero/low skill workers that are incapable of producing above a replacement level worker; as I would never advocate for those owners taking money out of their own pockets to increase those people's wages when the market has dictated that it's not deserved. But players are different though as they are highly sought after commodities, but stuck between a rock and a hard place essentially because the only option currently is the NCAA's monopoly.

 

In regards to "the how," I don't have answers for that. Every point you brought up makes sense, but my response to that is that's the same excuse I've been hearing now for almost 20 years because the NCAA has never felt a reason to investigate. Right off the top of my head though, as a businessman myself who knows how to comb through a P&L and balance sheet, start going through expenses and weed some of those out. I've seen the tours of some of these athletic facilities, and there's no reason they need to be so extravagant. But being as how the universities need to spend money in order to lower that taxable revenue number, I've seen many schools "invest" in state of the art equipment regularly like any other business owner similarly does when they want to lower their taxable revenue, even though they may not "need" it. That's real money though that could be funneled to players.

I also think you could make the case that college coaches are overpaid. Now as a Republican I never want to give the impression that people don't deserve what they're getting paid, but I think you could make the case that the entire coaching salary structure is overinflated because they don't have to pay the players. Again, the money has to be paid out somewhere.

 

I'm a fan though, so it's ultimately not my job to figure out "the how." I just believe there has to be a way to do "something" as there's far too many intelligent people involved here (and far too much money involved) to just tow that line that there's nothing the NCAA can do; but the NCAA has never had a reason to even investigate because nobody has ever had leverage to make them. One of the benefits of running a monopoly and no ability for your workforce to unionize; you don't need to bow to public criticism.

 

Well, when you refuse to acknowledge people's complaints, then you open up the doors for competitors to come in and test the free market, which is the epitome of free enterprise. That's what this league is trying to challenge, and I think that type of ingenuity should be celebrated.

 

And I personally have never said I think the players should get paid; just that I think "something" needs to be done to acknowledge that the production that they're involved in exceeds what they're receiving in most cases. If you really don't think there's a way for the schools to pay them, then why not as a concession allow them to profit off their likeness? If other students (including other non athletic scholarship students) can profit off their likeness, why shouldn't star athletes be afforded the same privilege? There's no money out of the NCAA's pockets, and it would be a nice concession to show the players that they value the star qualities they bring to the table. That would make sticking around longer and playing in "meaningless" bowl games more palatable if they knew they had that added financial ability. In regards to the NCAA's fear on how they can regulate it; again, figure it out.

 

Or do a 3rd league like this that tries to tap into the pool of 18-21 year old producers that are growing dismayed with the monopolistic tendencies of the NCAA, and see if there's a market for a semi pro league. If the NCAA doesn't want to pay them and doesn't want to allow them to profit off their likeness, then it's arrogant of them to think that nobody would step up and challenge their authority; and now the NCAA loses their ability to control the narrative. If this other league succeeds, then I'm sure the NCAA would quickly come up with a response to try to win back their market share, which means there probably has been a reasonable solution this entire time. They've just never had a reason to pursue it.

 

Again, for me personally, I just want something, and this is something. Whether this ends up working or not, who knows, but it's pushing the status quo and it's progressing the dialogue and that's an important first step. A step that the NCAA would never have done voluntarily on their own though.

[Marshall 98]

I am fascinated yet confused by the introduction of politics into this discussion.

 

I think I need more coffee.

[ralphster 274]

And I personally have never said I think the players should get paid; just that I think "something" needs to be done to acknowledge that the production that they're involved in exceeds what they're receiving in most cases. If you really don't think there's a way for the schools to pay them, then why not as a concession allow them to profit off their likeness?

 

This is where I think the compromise lies. The colleges can't pay every athlete, yet they're making solid bank off a few elite players performances. So if you open up the likeness, then the 'top talent' players have an avenue to get paid, while lesser players still can get a lil bit, and the colleges make a little less when it comes to jersey sales. Regardless of amount, the NCAA *has* to find a way to compensate super star players else they risk someone else poaching them.

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

In regards to my own personal Republicanism and this very perceived liberal viewpoint, I disagree of the liberalism because I don't want this to be confused with every entitled 18-21 that was raised in the "participation trophies and everyone's special" generation. Those kids are not special, but these football players are in contrast the producers in a multi billion dollar industry. They're world class athletes, so they deserve compensation that reflects that. That's not "entitlement."

 

So please don't confuse this with the debate around minimum wage increase for instance as that is all involving zero/low skill workers that are incapable of producing above a replacement level worker; as I would never advocate for those owners taking money out of their own pockets to increase those people's wages when the market has dictated that it's not deserved. But players are different though as they are highly sought after commodities, but stuck between a rock and a hard place essentially because the only option currently is the NCAA's monopoly.

 

In regards to "the how," I don't have answers for that. Every point you brought up makes sense, but my response to that is that's the same excuse I've been hearing now for almost 20 years because the NCAA has never felt a reason to investigate. Right off the top of my head though, as a businessman myself who knows how to comb through a P&L and balance sheet, start going through expenses and weed some of those out. I've seen the tours of some of these athletic facilities, and there's no reason they need to be so extravagant. But being as how the universities need to spend money in order to lower that taxable revenue number, I've seen many schools "invest" in state of the art equipment regularly like any other business owner similarly does when they want to lower their taxable revenue, even though they may not "need" it. That's real money though that could be funneled to players.

I also think you could make the case that college coaches are overpaid. Now as a Republican I never want to give the impression that people don't deserve what they're getting paid, but I think you could make the case that the entire coaching salary structure is overinflated because they don't have to pay the players. Again, the money has to be paid out somewhere.

 

I'm a fan though, so it's ultimately not my job to figure out "the how." I just believe there has to be a way to do "something" as there's far too many intelligent people involved here (and far too much money involved) to just tow that line that there's nothing the NCAA can do; but the NCAA has never had a reason to even investigate because nobody has ever had leverage to make them. One of the benefits of running a monopoly and no ability for your workforce to unionize; you don't need to bow to public criticism.

 

Well, when you refuse to acknowledge people's complaints, then you open up the doors for competitors to come in and test the free market, which is the epitome of free enterprise. That's what this league is trying to challenge, and I think that type of ingenuity should be celebrated.

 

And I personally have never said I think the players should get paid; just that I think "something" needs to be done to acknowledge that the production that they're involved in exceeds what they're receiving in most cases. If you really don't think there's a way for the schools to pay them, then why not as a concession allow them to profit off their likeness? If other students (including other non athletic scholarship students) can profit off their likeness, why shouldn't star athletes be afforded the same privilege? There's no money out of the NCAA's pockets, and it would be a nice concession to show the players that they value the star qualities they bring to the table. That would make sticking around longer and playing in "meaningless" bowl games more palatable if they knew they had that added financial ability. In regards to the NCAA's fear on how they can regulate it; again, figure it out.

 

Or do a 3rd league like this that tries to tap into the pool of 18-21 year old producers that are growing dismayed with the monopolistic tendencies of the NCAA, and see if there's a market for a semi pro league. If the NCAA doesn't want to pay them and doesn't want to allow them to profit off their likeness, then it's arrogant of them to think that nobody would step up and challenge their authority; and now the NCAA loses their ability to control the narrative. If this other league succeeds, then I'm sure the NCAA would quickly come up with a response to try to win back their market share, which means there probably has been a reasonable solution this entire time. They've just never had a reason to pursue it.

 

Again, for me personally, I just want something, and this is something. Whether this ends up working or not, who knows, but it's pushing the status quo and it's progressing the dialogue and that's an important first step. A step that the NCAA would never have done voluntarily on their own though.

Don't want to get too political here, but the unfortunate part of the market as its referred to in this instance is its now global. So the term "market" could mean it's now affordable to pay someone in a third world country $2 an hour instead of someone at home. It's a little more complicated than just allowing the market to take care of it like it used to.

[Oriole8159 86]

Don't want to get too political here, but the unfortunate part of the market as its referred to in this instance is its now global. So the term "market" could mean it's now affordable to pay someone in a third world country $2 an hour instead of someone at home. It's a little more complicated than just allowing the market to take care of it like it used to.

 

I'm not sure I'm following you here based on the examples I have referenced.

 

*The minimum wage increase debates I was referencing were related to service industry jobs like fast food or retail. There's not global competition for local service jobs though; the market adjustment would be though the introduction of more automated customer service machines to eliminate these zero/low skill jobs if they're forced to raise the minimum wage.

 

*And I don't know of a global competitor to American amateur football if that's what you were going for either. Not sure the NCAA would ever fear that as an alternative even if the popularity of the sport started expanding globally anyway. As a comparison, global basketball is huge right now and yet the NCAA has only lost 3 highly rated American prospects (that I can think of off the top of my head) to skip college and go play pro ball overseas, and it's been questionable still if those were the right calls by the players. Brandon Jennings fell to 10th in his draft, Emmanuel Mudiay fell to 7th, and Jeremy Tyler fell to 39th and has become a colossal bust. Being as how football is still such an American sport, I can't see an international league becoming comparable enough for a prospect to choose that over the NCAA.

 

I'd definitely agree with you on manufacturing jobs though, hard to argue there's not a global demand for labor in that industry. But am I missing something though about the examples in my statement specifically that you were referencing?

[TBayXXXVII 2,116]

But players are different though as they are highly sought after commodities, but stuck between a rock and a hard place essentially because the only option currently is the NCAA's monopoly.

 

Again... that's not the NCAA's fault or doing. The NFL Players caused this to happen. It's not the NCAA's responsibility to pay for it. Hence, their system isn't broke so they don't have to fix it.

 

As I said above, the other league is a novel idea because it give all kids another option as opposed to college and I'm all for it, but I don't think it will work.

[Oriole8159 86]

 

Again... that's not the NCAA's fault or doing. The NFL Players caused this to happen. It's not the NCAA's responsibility to pay for it. Hence, their system isn't broke so they don't have to fix it.

 

As I said above, the other league is a novel idea because it give all kids another option as opposed to college and I'm all for it, but I don't think it will work.

 

fair enough; I won't disagree with that.

My only response would be we've now seen the Ed O'Bannon case, Northwestern players petitioning for union rights, first wave of players sitting out "meaningless" bowl games, and now the start of a potential competitor league.

 

You're right that the NCAA doesn't "have" to do anything, but one could argue that giving some small concessions now could end up being cheaper for them in the long run as players now become more and more activist, and more self aware of their power. I know its' not related to the topic here, but just look at Missouri football this year; threatening to boycott a game if the chancellor/president didn't step down, and then within the week they do. Now I don't agree with that stance, but I just brought up to show that players are not afraid to use their leverage for causes that they think are important to them, and I think the NCAA should be concerned about that.

 

These things are not going to be going away.

That's all I got; enjoy the games today.

[TBayXXXVII 2,116]

 

fair enough; I won't disagree with that.

My only response would be we've now seen the Ed O'Bannon case, Northwestern players petitioning for union rights, first wave of players sitting out "meaningless" bowl games, and now the start of a potential competitor league.

 

You're right that the NCAA doesn't "have" to do anything, but one could argue that giving some small concessions now could end up being cheaper for them in the long run as players now become more and more activist, and more self aware of their power. I know its' not related to the topic here, but just look at Missouri football this year; threatening to boycott a game if the chancellor/president didn't step down, and then within the week they do. Now I don't agree with that stance, but I just brought up to show that players are not afraid to use their leverage for causes that they think are important to them, and I think the NCAA should be concerned about that.

 

These things are not going to be going away.

That's all I got; enjoy the games today.

 

Well, that's not completely true (or false)... a part of that ruling only affected student athletes prior to 2003, because the NCAA changed the way the players are portrayed in the game. Also, in the appeal, the court ruled that student athletes can not be paid.

 

As for the Northwestern kids, while they won the right to unionize, they realized that doing so would make things exponentially worse for themselves. That's why they didn't do it and why no one else is even going to try.

 

In the end, because there's no other recourse left for the student athletes, this other league is formed. These kids will soon find out that if this league does get established, it will end up being a bad decision.

 

Those games blew. As a Bucs fan, I hate the Falcons. As a football fan, I'm tired of the Patriots. Makes for the worst Super Bowl of all time. I won't be watching this year. That's ok, because it's been baseball season for me since December 26th (after the Bucs had no shot at the playoffs).

[Oriole8159 86]

 

Well, that's not completely true (or false)... a part of that ruling only affected student athletes prior to 2003, because the NCAA changed the way the players are portrayed in the game. Also, in the appeal, the court ruled that student athletes can not be paid.

 

As for the Northwestern kids, while they won the right to unionize, they realized that doing so would make things exponentially worse for themselves. That's why they didn't do it and why no one else is even going to try.

 

In the end, because there's no other recourse left for the student athletes, this other league is formed. These kids will soon find out that if this league does get established, it will end up being a bad decision.

 

Those games blew. As a Bucs fan, I hate the Falcons. As a football fan, I'm tired of the Patriots. Makes for the worst Super Bowl of all time. I won't be watching this year. That's ok, because it's been baseball season for me since December 26th (after the Bucs had no shot at the playoffs).

 

They weren't intended to be perfect examples as perfect examples don't exist yet. I just wanted to establish a pattern though of challenges, similar to any other large scale grassroots activities like workers challenging previously for Fair Work/unionization status, or Voter's Rights. This would be a process similarly.

I personally happen to think something should be done, but I respect that you don't. Your last two responses though were well written and concise, and I couldn't argue your basis other than just saying I share a different opinion.

 

And I'm a Vikes fan, so I was totally fine with seeing the Packers get beat up. But yeah even that got old after about halfway through the 3rd and it just morphed into a bad game that we knew was over. I do think it could be a good SB though, as I think Atl actually matches up pretty well against NE. Can definitely see how that could be rough for you though being a Bucs fan. At least you guys have one though; my Vikes still working on that first and I've personally seen more playoff meltdowns in the past 15 years than I think is fair.

All I'm asking for is a good game, and I think it has a high likelihood of being.

 

Take care.