OFFICIAL 2021-2022 COLLEGE FOOTBALL THREAD

Status
Not open for further replies.
iamjusayn said:
This Boston Celtics coach gotta be working under Dr. Fauci of the CDC in some capacity! The inside of all of these black face masks gotta smell worse than a pubescent male teen’s earbacks!
Click to expand...

Was it another "news to me" tweet like he did before he left Bama? :lol:
 
N41D N41D ThaxbyChamblis ThaxbyChamblis Texas mod Jeff Howe said that the Agiye thing is a lot of nothing:

"Texas updated the roster before spring practice and won’t again until Big 12 media days. Since I’ve been on the beat, no matter who the head coach is, that’s they way they’ve always done it. He’s liked multiple Texas posts and quote tweeted a post Mike made in the time since his accounts showed up like that."

Chip Brown says he'll be enrolled at the end of the month.
 
nako xl said:
CA-SB 1401 will change college football forever (if it passes)

"Senate Bill 1401, named the “College Athlete Race and Gender Equity Act,” cuts right to the heart of the collegiate model and the ideals of amateurism. SB 1401 would require California schools to share 50% of annual revenues in football and men’s and women’s basketball with the athletes, initiating a new era of “pay for play” — and what college sports leaders fear would be a doomsday scenario for athletic departments that currently use profits from revenue sports to fund their non-revenue sports programs.

The bill has passed through the Senate education and judiciary committees and now sits with the appropriations committee, which will weigh its budgetary impacts before deciding whether it will move onto the Senate floor or die. That announcement will come Thursday at the committee’s annual “suspense hearing” — a fitting name because anyone plugged into the college sports industry should be watching the result closely." -J. Brady McCullough, LA Times

Football and Basketball players would be given a fund that would be fed with a percentage of half of their sport's income at the end of the financial year. These athletes would have access to a maximum of $25k of this fund per year with the rest being made available once the athlete finishes their degree. If an athlete does not finish their degree within 6 years of enrolling at a California university, the remaining money is forfeit. Because the money is directly tied to rewarding a pursuit of higher education, California schools would NOT forfeit their amateur status and would remain NCAA eligible.

This bill would be a life raft for underperforming programs like Cal, Stanford, and UCLA, a leg up for programs like SDSU, SJSU, and Fresno State, and a throne for USC.

If this bill passes, the average USC player stands to make approximately $800k after finishing their degree (about $200k per year) and would immediately forfeit that money if they transferred out of state.

Recruits will be offered financial security in exchange for the academic cooperation, transfers will be HEAVILY incentivised to remain in California, players that aren't guaranteed first round NFL money will want to stay and finish their degrees, and, despite what jealous programs will say, it would be 100% ethical and in the pursuit of a noble cause (raising graduation rates in the state).

https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2022-05-16/nil-college-sports-california-bill-ncaa
Click to expand...

This sounds incredibly ambitious. Can California afford this? Seems like this would be a death sentence for most athletic programs
 


It would be awesome if he stayed at Cal. They've got a great recruiting staff so it's not impossible.
 
atlsfinest said:
This sounds incredibly ambitious. Can California afford this? Seems like this would be a death sentence for most athletic programs
Click to expand...
By California do you mean the state or the school?

The schools can afford it. It would mean less money for the non revenue, head count, sports but... I mean I don't think the football players care about sponsoring sports mostly played by well off white kids. It could possibly mean less money for random stadium renovations, but a lot of those building projects (and salaries) were stupid spend downs anyway to maintain that non-profit status.
 
nako xl said:


Ramogi Huma, director of the NCPA on the Cali revenue sharing bill.
Click to expand...


What is the fair market value for athletes that aren't in revenue generating sports? I would imagine it's close to zero.

He asks how D2 and D3 schools exist. I can answer that question for him, D2 and D3 athletic programs that don't generate revenue fund themselves through athletic fees that are part of tuition.
 
atlsfinest said:
What is the fair market value for athletes that aren't in revenue generating sports? I would imagine it's close to zero.

He asks how D2 and D3 schools exist. I can answer that question for him, D2 and D3 athletic programs that don't generate revenue fund themselves through athletic fees that are part of tuition.
Click to expand...
Right, but his point with D2 and D3 sports is that schools don't overspend what they don't have. Salaries and facilities aren't excessive because there's no incentive to overspend. In FBS the schools HAVE to spend that money or draw the attention of the IRS. Then you get $3M/year assistant coach salaries and lockers with built in sleep pods, playstations, and barber chairs.

---

As far as the fair market value, I think it depends.

Gymnastics and cheerleading for instance aren't revenue generating but we've seen from shows like Cheer and from the money those kids make in NIL that there's a market. Same with volleyball, golf, tennis and some other sports. They don't make much money for the school but if you're good and can market yourself there's value. And I think Stanford would agree it was worth funding a travel golf team if only to be associated with Tiger.

We live in a social media era but I feel like people keep thinking of this like it's the year 2000.
 
nako xl said:
Right, but his point with D2 and D3 sports is that schools don't overspend what they don't have. Salaries and facilities aren't excessive because there's no incentive to overspend. In FBS the schools HAVE to spend that money or draw the attention of the IRS. Then you get $3M/year assistant coach salaries and lockers with built in sleep pods, playstations, and barber chairs.

---

As far as the fair market value, I think it depends.

Gymnastics and cheerleading for instance aren't revenue generating but we've seen from shows like Cheer and from the money those kids make in NIL that there's a market. Same with volleyball, golf, tennis and some other sports. They don't make much money for the school but if you're good and can market yourself there's value. And I think Stanford would agree it was worth funding a travel golf team if only to be associated with Tiger.

We live in a social media era but I feel like people keep thinking of this like it's the year 2000.
Click to expand...

I think you're talking about a relatively small number of schools though. Yes, Ohio state, Georgia, USC, Texas A&M and Alabama could easily curtail their outrageous facilities and salary spending in order to compensate all of their student athletes. But what about San Jose State? What about Long Beach Poly?

We tend to hyper focus on the relatively small number of schools who are raking in tens of millions of dollars annually but this rule would apply to every school in the state.
 
atlsfinest said:
I think you're talking about a relatively small number of schools though. Yes, Ohio state, Georgia, USC, Texas A&M and Alabama could easily curtail their outrageous facilities and salary spending in order to compensate all of their student athletes. But what about San Jose State? What about Long Beach Poly?

We tend to hyper focus on the relatively small number of schools who are raking in tens of millions of dollars annually but this rule would apply to every school in the state.
Click to expand...
The weird thing though is the bill was designed specifically to help schools like San Jose State.

San Jose State football made $8,512,268 in revenue. They have an annual total athletics budget of $25M. They're paying Brent Brennan $855,000 annually. Why are they paying one staff member over 3% of their total athletics budget when the players get nothing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

nako xl
OFFICIAL 2023-2024 COLLEGE FOOTBALL OFFSEASON THREAD *THE START OF THE MICHIGAN WOLVERINE DYNASTY; UPDATE 1/24/2024: THE END OF THE MICHIGAN DYNASTY*
656 657 658
Replies
16K
Views
602K
  • Poll
CP1708
C

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom