Stick a fork in it?

Well first of all, most athletic departments are non-profit so there is no "definition" of profit so revenue is the only defined metric.

But to demand any percentage of revenue implies a profit motive which has no place in the business context of a non-profit so the proposition itself is a pretty naive cash grab.
 
I think the sports that do not have a "bubble" will eventually decide not to attempt to play.
 
These kids should realize the value of college teams is the name on the front, not the name on the back. If they push enough I foresee the universities cutting bait with the boycotters and making due with remaining rosters. The schools will early enroll as many as possible and bring in 25 (or more) next recruiting cycle depending if NCAA relaxes the limit due to extenuating circumstances. The end result will be the boycotters getting kicked out of a school they wouldn't have been able to get into via academic routes and be left with nothing.
 
ThisIsAtlanta said:
Not really. If the pac 12 has to replace its entire two deep with scrubs who are just happy to be there, it'll be cheaper for the schools. Always something to consider in negotiations.

The players do have some power here, but it isn't nearly 50%.
Click to expand...
Obviously you're gonna start high. Its unclear to me how much talent and ability contribute to revenue. In the NFL I think you can generally say most of the revenue is driven purely by people wanting to watch the best players on the planet play football, and they are around 50% revenue.

College is less clear, because there is a lot of our interest tied to the school, and not just how good the players on the field are. I guess baseball revenue might be a good place to analyze the data to see what the players impact on the bottom line is, perhaps some sort of normalized comparison of college baseball revenue and mlb revenue, and also a college football and NFL comparison. Then see what the drop-off difference is from pro to college in each sport
 
Wouldn’t they be ineligible to play if the Pac12 started to openly pay players?
 
All of the revenue is already spent. Every dollar. Most AA's have already spent money they don't yet have and are counting on future revenues to pay their debts.

What is left to "share" with the students who happen to be athletes?

If this becomes reality will the AA's start to lower the salaries of coaches and staffs to set aside money for the students who happen to be athletes? Will the AA's stop updating facilities?

Will we get new yearly initiatives from the A-T Fund asking for the money needed to pay the students who happen to be athletes? Oops, missed the goal so our new 4 star QB won't get paid (and therefore not play, missing a year of his eligibility?)

How will Title IX impact this?


I cannot imagine that bored 18-22 year old students who happen to be athletes have thought about how this all works out before hitting send on their twitter app.
 
ClydeBrick said:
All of the revenue is already spent. Every dollar. Most AA's have already spent money they don't yet have and are counting on future revenues to pay their debts.

What is left to "share" with the students who happen to be athletes?
Click to expand...

If heard theories that first line was done to justify the second.
 
Woo hoo. Open tryouts coming on college campus near you. Do you want to play some football? If CGC can talk sense into his players we could become a top 10 team this year!!! If we get to play that is.
 
OldGold1968 said:
Since the 2020 season is toast it's time to consider if we will have any ball nextr season. Scientist are saying now that the antibodies only last a few weeks after having the virus. From what I have read the same holds true for the vaccines currently in trial. One thing nobody knows is long term effects of the virus. I am thinking this virus may be the end of football. How long will colleges pay staffs? Future of the sport looks very bleak I am afraid.
Click to expand...
There will probably be “heard immunity” and dozens of “highly effective medicines” around the second week of November, 2020.
 
I think it should come down to two questions:
1. How many lives would the season cost?
2. How many lives are worth sacrificing for a college football season?

Personally I'd say a hundred or so (given that Covid disproportionately affects elderly).

Of course no one talks about it in such candid terms.
 
Tampa Jacket said:
There will probably be “heard immunity” and dozens of “highly effective medicines” around the second week of November, 2020.
Click to expand...
This smells like politics on the football board.
 
RussianOffense said:
I think it should come down to two questions:
1. How many lives would the season cost?
2. How many lives are worth sacrificing for a college football season?

Personally I'd say a hundred or so (given that Covid disproportionately affects elderly).

Of course no one talks about it in such candid terms.
Click to expand...
The football gods must be appeased.
525868BE-7E00-4B0D-8C2E-ED71F2E70A0F.jpeg
 
G776T said:
Not sure what the issue is, 50% of revenue seems like a fairly reasonable starting point for negotiations
Click to expand...
Ridiculous. You’re withholding money from the athletic department that’s used to fund other sports.

Most athletic departments lose money. So half of what?
 
Last edited:
BigDanT said:
Ridiculous. You’re withholding money from the athletic department that’s used to fun other sports.

Most athletic departments lose money. So half of what?
Click to expand...
I wasn't making any sort of comment on the overall merits or the resultant impact that their proposal would have.
 
G776T said:
I wasn't making any sort of comment on the overall merits or the resultant impact that their proposal would have.
Click to expand...
I’m speaking directly to their line of reasoning thinking that taking half is fair on their part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top