If I were running the NFL, I'd be pushing HARD for the NCAA to pay athletes.

[youngosu]

3 minutes ago, cddolphin said:

If all the other obstacles (unionization, etc) were cleared, I think they could just follow the NFL model: tie the player compensation to the league revenue. In the NCAA's case it would be TV advertising deals, radio deals, apparel sales, etc. Therefore you should be able to seperate revenue streams by sport. The volleyball team wouldn't be paid nearly as much (if at all) in that case.

No they can't. Doing this would violate Title IX. 

 

Now, what they could do is lift the ban on players getting endorsements but they can't pay football players directly without also paying volleyball players an equivalent amount. The law is pretty clear on this. 

Its also ignores that the NCAA doesn't control that money, the conferences do so would every conference pay differently? 

[cddolphin]

1 minute ago, youngosu said:

No they can't. Doing this would violate Title IX. 

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

 

Nobody would be excluded, denied benefits, or discriminated against though. It's not about gender, it's about revenue.

"Any athlete, regardless of sport or gender, will be entitled to an equal share of the revenue brought in by the program they are a part of." That's the exact opposite of discrimination, that's an equal playing field for all participants. Nobody is being excluded. Nobody is being denied benefits.

[cddolphin]

8 minutes ago, youngosu said:

Its also ignores that the NCAA doesn't control that money, the conferences do so would every conference pay differently? 

Yes, my original idea from the first page is posted below:

16 hours ago, cddolphin said:

Sort by conference, determine advertising revenue for each conference's media deals, determine a % of that revenue that would be required to go to players. On every team, each player who accrues a season is guaranteed a certain minimum amount, with any increase based solely on snap count (not position).

 

[cddolphin]

9 minutes ago, youngosu said:

Now, what they could do is lift the ban on players getting endorsements but they can't pay football players directly without also paying volleyball players an equivalent amount. The law is pretty clear on this.

It doesn't seem all that clear to me, tbh. If all athletes, men and women, from all sports, operated under the same revenue-sharing system. I could understand it being technically illegal; what I don't understand, is how anybody could call it unfair. It seems like an over-reaching interpretation to me, a layman. And a selective one at that considering the cherry-picking use of the word "discrimination"; do basketball teams discriminate based on height? Jumping ability? I also don't see any men / women suiting up for the opposite gender's sports team, isn't that gender-based discrimination? In short I just don't see how Title IX could be used to nix this, not logically anyway.

[youngosu]

31 minutes ago, cddolphin said:

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

 

Nobody would be excluded, denied benefits, or discriminated against though. It's not about gender, it's about revenue.

"Any athlete, regardless of sport or gender, will be entitled to an equal share of the revenue brought in by the program they are a part of." That's the exact opposite of discrimination, that's an equal playing field for all participants. Nobody is being excluded. Nobody is being denied benefits.

I posted a link earlier discussing this. Its a violation of title IX, just because you don't think it is doesn't mean the courts agree with you. The courts have been clear and they've said if you pay football players you have to also pay volleyball players. 

I guess you can hire some lawyers to argue the law again and hope the courts change the precedent but as of now Title IX would require pay for all if you pay any.

[youngosu]

31 minutes ago, cddolphin said:

Yes, my original idea from the first page is posted below:

 

So players in the PAC 12 would earn less than players in the SEC? How would that work out? How would that benefit the NFL? 

[cddolphin]

4 minutes ago, youngosu said:

I posted a link earlier discussing this. Its a violation of title IX, just because you don't think it is doesn't mean the courts agree with you. The courts have been clear and they've said if you pay football players you have to also pay volleyball players. 

So a too-broadly written law getting in it's own way when potential solutions are presented. Doesn't really surprise me.

3 minutes ago, youngosu said:

So players in the PAC 12 would earn less than players in the SEC? How would that work out? How would that benefit the NFL? 

Yes. Although since not all conferences are profitable I could see problems with this approach. I'm sort of spit-balling. The NFL would benefit from any program or policy that increased NCAA participation, as adding compensation likely would.

[youngosu]

14 minutes ago, cddolphin said:

Yes. Although since not all conferences are profitable I could see problems with this approach. I'm sort of spit-balling. The NFL would benefit from any program or policy that increased NCAA participation, as adding compensation likely would.

I disagree, I think it would actually decrease participation because entire conferences (including some big ones like most of the PAC 12, Big Ten, and ACC) would likely go to the Ivy League model and stop even offering athletic scholarships at all simply out of principle. I know many don't believe it but despite the money these conferences make on football many people within such universities (a majority at most I'd say) would have no issue supporting a move away from athletic scholarships. Universities have plenty of other avenues to earn prestige and athletics are really a loss leader at most universities already. 

The small conferences would have no chance. 

And I'd like to point out that what benefits the NFL really isn't the NCAA's problem. 

[lancerman]

3 hours ago, cddolphin said:

It doesn't seem all that clear to me, tbh. If all athletes, men and women, from all sports, operated under the same revenue-sharing system. I could understand it being technically illegal; what I don't understand, is how anybody could call it unfair. It seems like an over-reaching interpretation to me, a layman. And a selective one at that considering the cherry-picking use of the word "discrimination"; do basketball teams discriminate based on height? Jumping ability? I also don't see any men / women suiting up for the opposite gender's sports team, isn't that gender-based discrimination? In short I just don't see how Title IX could be used to nix this, not logically anyway.

The idea was total equality. That is the presumption Title IX is built under and it’s been ruled that way consistently. 

Even beyond Title IX, if it never existed, once you  list any student athletes as employees, you have to list them all as employees. Once you do that, you have to pay them the state and federal minimum wage at a minimum. 

It just becomes a mess in the end. The football programs just won’t offset the costs for most schools. Or they’ll make it to the point where it becomes non competitive. 

[lancerman]

2 hours ago, youngosu said:

I disagree, I think it would actually decrease participation because entire conferences (including some big ones like most of the PAC 12, Big Ten, and ACC) would likely go to the Ivy League model and stop even offering athletic scholarships at all simply out of principle. I know many don't believe it but despite the money these conferences make on football many people within such universities (a majority at most I'd say) would have no issue supporting a move away from athletic scholarships. Universities have plenty of other avenues to earn prestige and athletics are really a loss leader at most universities already. 

The small conferences would have no chance. 

And I'd like to point out that what benefits the NFL really isn't the NCAA's problem. 

This is a big one. Maybe the SEC would do it. But other conferences would go under to a point where it would contrain the entire industry. It’s not good for college football for only the big schools to be able to pay the athletes and be the only ones that exist or are competitive. By proxy that is also not good for the NFL. 

[TheKillerNacho]

I honestly think college players should be able to hire agents & use their name for endorsements and the like, but the NCAA paying them a salary? Nah.

[MookieMonstah]

On 4/4/2018 at 7:09 PM, iknowcool said:

I always figured each could take a % of what the football program makes and split it equally among the players.  You could use the numbers from the last 5 years to decide the next 5 years or something along those lines.  For example, a quick Google search says Bama made around $46 million last year.  If you only pulled 5% of that into the pool, it would be around 27K each player (assuming Alabama had the full 85 man roster).  

I'm not super knowledgeable about the situation so I don't know how feasible that is, but it would be one route they could take.  

And then when every small program is completely destroyed because players would make 4-5K there instead of close to 30K at Bama we will all complain about parity in college football.

Paying college athletes isn't realistic and it's never going to happen. The NFL should create some sort of "D-League" where high school athletes can go to develop instead of college.

[MookieMonstah]

3 hours ago, TheKillerNacho said:

I honestly think college players should be able to hire agents & use their name for endorsements and the like, but the NCAA paying them a salary? Nah.

This is the easiest fix. The NCAA is greedy as eff. Just let college kids sign autographs and make appearances to earn money, it makes no sense not to allow them to do that.

[iknowcool]

1 hour ago, MookieMonster said:

And then when every small program is completely destroyed because players would make 4-5K there instead of close to 30K at Bama we will all complain about parity in college football.

Yea, because there is so much parity in college football as is. 

[MookieMonstah]

16 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

Yea, because there is so much parity in college football as is. 

Think this would help?