|
|
Post by newposter on Dec 17, 2020 18:33:04 GMT -5
If this passes bye bye to all sports. Proposes 50% revenue sharing. Its the revenue that pays for all the other sports. Title IX was hard on non revenue mens sports, this will have all sports gone except for those that can support themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by atlutd17 on Dec 17, 2020 18:48:13 GMT -5
It looks that way if it passes. It can kill D1 soccer and maybe D2 but can also cause a huge talent shift to MLS and USL Academies for ages between 15 and 24. Going to year round soccer etc etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by newposter on Dec 17, 2020 19:10:43 GMT -5
Typical big government - legislate everything. Eventually that business will be gone. Hate it for all the student-athletes negatively affected by this stupidity.
|
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Dec 17, 2020 19:18:41 GMT -5
The health care makes sense, they're basically employees. But the scholarships are usually done anyways. I think the colleges will have to change their model though.
But I don't see how this affects Title IX though. College men's soccer is dying anyways.
The idea that any revenue after paying scholarships being put into a pool to pay players is NONSENSE. I don't see any way it passes. It reeks of socialism. That revenue pays for athletic dorms, athletic facilities, etc. Better facilities at the schools that make more money. Plus, why should Temple players make money off the work of Alabama players. Its short-sighted like the congressmen who proposed it. Plus, if they can do endorsement deals, why are the schools paying them at all???
|
|
|
|
Post by newposter on Dec 17, 2020 20:22:07 GMT -5
Not talking just soccer. It will kill all non revenue sports both mens and womens. There are only 3 or 4 sports that are self sustaining or revenue positive namely football, mens and womens basketball and occasionally baseball. The rest rely on football for funds.
|
|
|
|
Post by DunwoodySoccerDad on Dec 18, 2020 8:48:30 GMT -5
I look at the 50% proposal like a negotiating tactic, a starting point that will land them somewhere in the 10-20% range. Because like you said, that type of % will kill non-revenue sports, likewise killing a pretty large number of kids getting college scholarships, who might otherwise not be able to afford college (or at least the college they would have been able to attend with an athletic scholarship).
While I agree that major reforms are necessary for college sports, this proposal goes too far, IMO. And the unintended consequences could be painful for many.
|
|
|
|
Post by mistergrinch on Dec 18, 2020 9:28:30 GMT -5
The idea that any revenue after paying scholarships being put into a pool to pay players is NONSENSE. I don't see any way it passes. It reeks of socialism. That revenue pays for athletic dorms, athletic facilities, etc. Better facilities at the schools that make more money. Plus, why should Temple players make money off the work of Alabama players. Its short-sighted like the congressmen who proposed it. Plus, if they can do endorsement deals, why are the schools paying them at all??? You realize that this is how the NFL works, right? Yeah, the good ol' socialist NFL shares revenue - about 60%. |
|
|
|
Post by bogan on Dec 18, 2020 9:39:16 GMT -5
If enacted, either programs will get cut or college is about to get a lot more expensive. Athletic fee-$15,000...
Probably will be some combination of the two.
|
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Dec 18, 2020 10:15:59 GMT -5
NFL has a vested interest in parity, college football as a whole does not. If NFL franchises die it hurts the league. There haven't been many colleges who left D1 in the past half-century, and its not like anyone would care if they did.
Money shouldn't go from the top football schools to pay for the players at the lower football schools. Alabama/Clemson don't have a vested interest in keeping Western Michigan afloat. In college football the revenue-sharing is within the conferences and with TV money and a 30% share of bowl monies, which makes sense. To the SEC all that matters is the SEC, to the ACC all that matters is the ACC. We saw it this fall with COVID.
|
|
|
|
Post by DunwoodySoccerDad on Dec 18, 2020 10:43:46 GMT -5
NFL has a vested interest in parity, college football as a whole does not. If NFL franchises die it hurts the league. There haven't been many colleges who left D1 in the past half-century, and its not like anyone would care if they did. Money shouldn't go from the top football schools to pay for the players at the lower football schools. Alabama/Clemson don't have a vested interest in keeping Western Michigan afloat. In college football the revenue-sharing is within the conferences and with TV money and a 30% share of bowl monies, which makes sense. To the SEC all that matters is the SEC, to the ACC all that matters is the ACC. We saw it this fall with COVID. One byproduct of all of this may be the P5 conferences plus a few other big names like Notre Dame just breaking away altogether from the other conferences. I know it probably would never happen but college FB would very interesting under a pro/rel system. Vandy would have been kicked to the curb a long time ago and, quite frankly, I think most of their fans/alums wouldn't care. In fact, they might actually enjoy FB a little more if they weren't having to play an SEC schedule every year but instead were playing Sun Belt/Conf USA types. |
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Dec 18, 2020 11:30:50 GMT -5
Vandy should be playing other academically focused schools IMO (Duke, GA Tech, Ivy League, Stanford, etc).
I think power-5 college football needs to stop being about student athletes/scholarships and simply become an NFL farm-system that acts as a fundraising arm of the universities. Then its all about cost/benefit as to which players you recruit/sign. The people who consider college scholarships worthless win, the people who want college football win, and we cast off the sham of the football student-athlete (for many). I think the idea of a lifetime scholarship applies better IMO, because they were never students to begin with.
|
|
|
|
Post by newposter on Dec 18, 2020 13:39:26 GMT -5
Money doesnt flow from D1 schools to DII or DIII. It flows from football at the universities to the other non revenue sports at said universities. If this passes, there will only be football and basketball period. No baseball softball, cross country,track, gymbastics, bowling, golf, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by mistergrinch on Dec 18, 2020 14:09:58 GMT -5
Money doesnt flow from D1 schools to DII or DIII. It flows from football at the universities to the other non revenue sports at said universities. If this passes, there will only be football and basketball period. No baseball softball, cross country,track, gymbastics, bowling, golf, etc. or they'd just not be able to drop $60MM on a new facility so football players can have a private mini golf course, bowling alley and wiffle ball diamond.
Here's just a few that come to mind
fanbuzz.com/college-football/sec/texas-am/texas-am-football-facilities/
|
|
|
|
Post by bogan on Dec 18, 2020 14:38:57 GMT -5
Money doesnt flow from D1 schools to DII or DIII. It flows from football at the universities to the other non revenue sports at said universities. If this passes, there will only be football and basketball period. No baseball softball, cross country,track, gymbastics, bowling, golf, etc. or they'd just not be able to drop $60MM on a new facility so football players can have a private mini golf course, bowling alley and wiffle ball diamond.
Here's just a few that come to mind
fanbuzz.com/college-football/sec/texas-am/texas-am-football-facilities/
Now come on! You can’t take away the wiffle ball diamond!!! That’s a bridge too far...😆 |
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Dec 18, 2020 15:09:41 GMT -5
100% of that stuff is built for RECRUITING. Its been an arms (facilities) race for the past 20 years. Yep, they're modern slaves alright, not pampered at all for the experience of playing in front of tens of thousands of fans and a highlight-reel builder. Those fans who will be cheering on the next guy once that guy leaves.
I think we simply need a minor league pro football system (like USL) and those who are actually interested in getting a college education just get scholarships toward that purpose.
|
|
|
|
Post by soccerparent02 on Dec 18, 2020 17:52:04 GMT -5
Boosters pay for a lot of the flash. Profits from bowls, ticket sales, merchandise sales and souvenirs pay for the other sports. If you take 50% of that away, those other programs die. My question is...will the athletes pay the college to use their copyrighted logos. Colleges can solve the issie. Print jerseys with only jersey numbers and no names. Therefore no one has to be paid for their name rights. Its not difficult.
|
|
|
|
Post by ball2futbol on Dec 19, 2020 11:58:47 GMT -5
The health care makes sense, they're basically employees. But the scholarships are usually done anyways. I think the colleges will have to change their model though. But I don't see how this affects Title IX though. College men's soccer is dying anyways. The idea that any revenue after paying scholarships being put into a pool to pay players is NONSENSE. I don't see any way it passes. It reeks of socialism. That revenue pays for athletic dorms, athletic facilities, etc. Better facilities at the schools that make more money. Plus, why should Temple players make money off the work of Alabama players. Its short-sighted like the congressmen who proposed it. Plus, if they can do endorsement deals, why are the schools paying them at all??? I don't agree with the legislation as proposed. But let me make sure I understand this statement and for that matter the majority of this thread correctly. So a proposal to pool resources to then distribute said resources to other schools or athletes is NONSENSE and defined as 'Socialism'. But the current practice of say, the Univ of Alabama Football programs revenue should continue to be pooled, re-distributed and allocated across the department to support other athletes playing for example gymnastics, cross country and by all means soccer at Alabama, is not socialism?? LOL! And if that process is disrupted to any degree, collegiate athletics is doomed as so is little Suzy's shot at a partial scholarship? SMH sorry for the interruption, as you were. |
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Dec 19, 2020 23:16:34 GMT -5
Title IX will barely be affected. But they might cancel track, swimming, etc which will have repurcussions on men's and women's side. But they will still have to find space for minimum 85 women's scholarships.
And as for the quip about intra l-university sports funding being socialism...well thats entirely up to that univeraity to FREELY decide. They can cut all nom-revenue sports, give 85 female scholarships and call it a day. It wouldnt be decided by governmental decree to take from one university and give to another.
|
|
|
|
Post by newposter on Dec 20, 2020 10:53:16 GMT -5
Looking at scholarship offers now, womens programs likely would lose over half. A quick count of scholarship numbers over 230 all to ensure football players are paid. Do like baseball, soccer, tennis, golf and the like. If they are good enough out of high school, let them go pro. App State dropped 3 mens programs including soccer. Im sure more colleges will follow suit. scholarshipstats.com/ncaalimits |
|
