Pollard on Deadspin

[bringmagicback]

Because I'm currently talking about ISU with local potential recruits here in TX. And, yes, those recruits read this stuff.

So you know some high school kids and they read it? What's your point. Say pals, lets not go to ISU, their AD is against paying players because he uses logic. Lets not go there. Stop reaching. And if that was you that posted that on his twitter, you are an idiot.

 

[im4cyclones]

So schools make millions on the athletes? Don't they also spend this money on the athletes with facilities, scholarships, everything else it takes to run an athletic department. As far as I remember, ISU only recently got the the point where the athletic department wasn't LOSING money. Yet we are led to believe the school is just rolling in money earned by the players? Saying that "Schools" make money off players is stupidly vague. Who exactly is making the money? The coaches? Athletic directors maybe? That would seem to be about it.

This pay for play thing seems to be directed at about 10-15 schools that have huge athletic budgets. What about the approximately 100 other schools that are just trying to break even with athletics? This reminds me of everyone getting excited about conference realignment that only benefits a few schools.

What happens when you get a raise and make more money? You spend more money. So your net profit may not change but only because you increased expenses. Keep expenses the same and your net increases. As you said, look at the facilities ISU has upgraded lately and yet it still manages to make money. The problem is that college sports has become an arms race - an expensive one.

I think the players should get a percentage of TV revenue they generate. Divide it equally amongst the players on the team or who play that sport. I don't like it but I think it is fair.

 

[johnnydugouts]

Except for the $24 million they spent in 2008 on administration, the $26 million in unspent revenue in 2008 and the $350+ million in investments. An association's primary function is to ensure the survival of the association. So don't think they spent or distribute every dollar they make. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it was spent wisely, ethically, or to further its mission.

Again, I don't like the idea of paying players but college athletics isn't about amateurism any more (if it ever was). It isn't about student-athletes. It is about money. Lots of it. What else was realignment all about??

They brought this on themselves. The NCAA, it's conferences, and their schools.

so what? is it hurting someone by having the money there? all its doing to is ensuring the future sustainability of the entity. $350mm is a drop in the bucket.

your insurance company could refund part of premiums ever year back to you and carry no investments on their books. so how would you feel when a catastrophe hits and they went bankrupt, leaving you high and dry?

 

[alarson]

Except for the $24 million they spent in 2008 on administration, the $26 million in unspent revenue in 2008 and the $350+ million in investments. An association's primary function is to ensure the survival of the association. So don't think they spent or distribute every dollar they make. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it was spent wisely, ethically, or to further its mission.

Again, I don't like the idea of paying players but college athletics isn't about amateurism any more (if it ever was). It isn't about student-athletes. It is about money. Lots of it. What else was realignment all about??

They brought this on themselves. The NCAA, it's conferences, and their schools.

Yes, there's a ton of money going around.

That doesnt mean the athletes are being treated below market value though.

There are MILLIONS of athletes that would take the deal these athletes are given in a heartbeat. The top 1000 athletes could all unionize and say 'pay us or we dont play' and the schools could reach down and find another 10,000 willing to take their spots. Millions of kids grow up dreaming of playing for their local team.

 

[im4cyclones]

so what? is it hurting someone by having the money there? all its doing to is ensuring the future sustainability of the entity. $350mm is a drop in the bucket.

your insurance company could refund part of premiums ever year back to you and carry no investments on their books. so how would you feel when a catastrophe hits and they went bankrupt, leaving you high and dry?

Insurance is for-profit. And they pay employees market value and dividens to shareholders.

 

[3TrueFans]

Yes, there's a ton of money going around.

That doesnt mean the athletes are being treated below market value though.

There are MILLIONS of athletes that would take the deal these athletes are given in a heartbeat. The top 1000 athletes could all unionize and say 'pay us or we dont play' and the schools could reach down and find another 10,000 willing to take their spots. Millions of kids grow up dreaming of playing for their local team.

Surely you don't think things would stay the same if we took out the top 1,000 players and replaced them with FCS and DII players.

 

[alarson]

Surely you don't think things would stay the same if we took out the top 1,000 players and replaced them with FCS and DII players.

They largely would stay the same. Overall talent would go down but the effect would be negligible. The top talent remaining would still filter to the top schools and the disparities between top and bottom (and in between) would largely remain about the same, just with a different peak level of talent. Fans would still show up for the same reason they always have- because they are fans of that team (and they are fans of that team because they have a connection to that team usually spanning much longer than a single player)

 

[CyArob]

Surely you don't think things would stay the same if we took out the top 1,000 players and replaced them with FCS and DII players.

People would still pay to watch games. Plus that's only 8 players per team in FBS.

 

[TXCyclones]

So you know some high school kids and they read it? What's your point. Say pals, lets not go to ISU, their AD is against paying players because he uses logic. Lets not go there. Stop reaching. And if that was you that posted that on his twitter, you are an idiot.

JP was an idiot for posting to start with. I love the guy and think he's done wonders for ISU. But this was just a dumb move. And you think you're any less of an idiot? Hardly. Yes, I know some high school kids who are prospects because I work with several DFW area coaches trying to help them guide their kids/prospects toward ISU. These kids are watching this stuff with interest. They anticipate that several D1 schools will be left out of the new division, or chose not to join the new division. We currently wonder why a kid would choose UNI or NDSU over an ISU at times. Should ISU choose not to move into this new division we'll be relegated for competing with those schools on all prospects as the top tier prospects will choose only those in the new division (even if it is only for an additional $2k per year). Kids looking at ISU now would receive the additional money starting in their second year if it happens.

That's really what sucks about this. All of this airing publicly for just $2k per kid. Twitter is not the place to argue a point using so few characters to express the concerns. This hasn't all been worked out among the AD's or even the conferences yet. So JP needs to be discussing it with those select few; not on Twitter where kids are following their prospective school choices in the middle of the season (especially considering our rough start). I see the merits of both sides of the argument. But this was neither the time, place, or venue for discourse about it.

 

[alarson]

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany sounds off on pay-for-play issue - ESPN

I cant say i disagree with anything Delany is saying here.

 

[im4cyclones]

Yes, there's a ton of money going around.

That doesnt mean the athletes are being treated below market value though.

There are MILLIONS of athletes that would take the deal these athletes are given in a heartbeat. The top 1000 athletes could all unionize and say 'pay us or we dont play' and the schools could reach down and find another 10,000 willing to take their spots. Millions of kids grow up dreaming of playing for their local team.

Hard to determine market value when it isnt an open market.

It would be interesting to see the dollar-value of a football scholarship in 1973, coaches salary in 1973 and athletic department revenue in 1973 all compared to 2013.

I don't like it and don't want to see it. But the ADs made this bed. They can't have it both ways - it is amateurism and student-athletes but then schools WVU is sending their teams 100s of miles farther than they did in the Big East on a weeknight for women's basketball. Why exactly?

 

[3TrueFans]

People would still pay to watch games. Plus that's only 8 players per team in FBS.

The top 1,000 would not be spread evenly across the entire league. And yes, some people would still pay, just like some people pay to watch FCS and DII now.

The idea that the level of talent doesn't have an effect on the success of the sport is laughable. Probably why so many people watch the D-league, Minor League Baseball, and the AHL.

 

[scyclonekid]

I agree with Jamie, and if they were paid an amount most would spend it on blingy crap and demand more. I think it's horse **** they want paid. I also think coaches are paid to much as well wish I was paid millions to be 0-2. It's all gonna come to a head and when it does college sports will never be what it used to be. Oh we'll **** it let it happen. Anyway when I went to college the athletes didn't do **** in class, but somehow passed.

 

[im4cyclones]

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany sounds off on pay-for-play issue - ESPN

I cant say i disagree with anything Delany is saying here.

I don't either. But then he goes and adds Maryland and Rutgers to the B10. Why exactly? To provide more academic opportunities for his "students"?

It is either big business or it isn't. But you can't have it both ways.

 

[Bret44]

JP was an idiot for posting to start with. I love the guy and think he's done wonders for ISU. But this was just a dumb move. And you think you're any less of an idiot? Hardly. Yes, I know some high school kids who are prospects because I work with several DFW area coaches trying to help them guide their kids/prospects toward ISU. These kids are watching this stuff with interest. They anticipate that several D1 schools will be left out of the new division, or chose not to join the new division. We currently wonder why a kid would choose UNI or NDSU over an ISU at times. Should ISU choose not to move into this new division we'll be relegated for competing with those schools on all prospects as the top tier prospects will choose only those in the new division (even if it is only for an additional $2k per year). Kids looking at ISU now would receive the additional money starting in their second year if it happens.

That's really what sucks about this. All of this airing publicly for just $2k per kid. Twitter is not the place to argue a point using so few characters to express the concerns. This hasn't all been worked out among the AD's or even the conferences yet. So JP needs to be discussing it with those select few; not on Twitter where kids are following their prospective school choices in the middle of the season (especially considering our rough start). I see the merits of both sides of the argument. But this was neither the time, place, or venue for discourse about it.

Your mistake was tweeting him. You really should have sent an email.

 

[bringmagicback]

JP was an idiot for posting to start with. I love the guy and think he's done wonders for ISU. But this was just a dumb move. And you think you're any less of an idiot? Hardly. Yes, I know some high school kids who are prospects because I work with several DFW area coaches trying to help them guide their kids/prospects toward ISU. These kids are watching this stuff with interest. They anticipate that several D1 schools will be left out of the new division, or chose not to join the new division. We currently wonder why a kid would choose UNI or NDSU over an ISU at times. Should ISU choose not to move into this new division we'll be relegated for competing with those schools on all prospects as the top tier prospects will choose only those in the new division (even if it is only for an additional $2k per year). Kids looking at ISU now would receive the additional money starting in their second year if it happens.

That's really what sucks about this. All of this airing publicly for just $2k per kid. Twitter is not the place to argue a point using so few characters to express the concerns. This hasn't all been worked out among the AD's or even the conferences yet. So JP needs to be discussing it with those select few; not on Twitter where kids are following their prospective school choices in the middle of the season (especially considering our rough start). I see the merits of both sides of the argument. But this was neither the time, place, or venue for discourse about it.

Wellllll ****, I would like to say thanks for all youve done recruiting wise. I hope CPR knows about your accomplishments in the state of Texas. I take back what I said, feel free to publicly advise JP on how to run his business. I hope you let him know of your position in the state of texas so he takes what you say seriously.

 

[scyclonekid]

I don't either. But then he goes and adds Maryland and Rutgers to the B10. Why exactly? To provide more academic opportunities for his "students"?

It is either big business or it isn't. But you can't have it both ways.

it's big business and nothing else, they are all good public speakers nothing more.

 

[alarson]

Hard to determine market value when it isnt an open market.

But yet it is. Athletes could play in minor leagues or overseas. Take it up with the NFL or NBA as to their minimum age limits.

It would be interesting to see the dollar-value of a football scholarship in 1973, coaches salary in 1973 and athletic department revenue in 1973 all compared to 2013.

You'd also have to compare other variables- for example, you'd have to look at pro coaching salaries in 2013 and compare them to pro coaching salaries today. If the NCAA went and capped all coaching salaries at say, 250k or a million, it wouldnt be long before you saw an exodus of top coaching talent to the professional leagues that can pay more. In this case, coaches are being paid market value.

I don't like it and don't want to see it. But the ADs made this bed. They can't have it both ways - it is amateurism and student-athletes but then schools WVU is sending their teams 100s of miles farther than they did in the Big East on a weeknight for women's basketball. Why exactly?

Why does going long distances suddenly make things not amateur? Plenty of amateur sports compete on a national and global level because the best want to play the best. Thats a benefit to the players as much as it is the schools.

 

[alarson]

I don't either. But then he goes and adds Maryland and Rutgers to the B10. Why exactly? To provide more academic opportunities for his "students"?

It is either big business or it isn't. But you can't have it both ways.

Just because its big business doesnt mean the athletes have a right to it.

These are brands that have been built, as delany notes, over more than 100 years. TV isnt paying the big 12 and big 10 and SEC big bucks because they land certain recruits. Tv is paying those conferences big bucks because they have fanbases theyve built (a large portion of which are alumni and those who have lived near the schools) that those schools can use to say 'if you pay us, our tv rights will get you enough views that your advertisers will pay you very, very well'.

Whatever small portion a player contributes to that is well matched in their existing compensation.

 

[3TrueFans]

Just because its big business doesnt mean the athletes have a right to it.

These are brands that have been built, as delany notes, over more than 100 years. TV isnt paying the big 12 and big 10 and SEC big bucks because they land certain recruits. Tv is paying those conferences big bucks because they have fanbases theyve built (a large portion of which are alumni and those who have lived near the schools) that those schools can use to say 'if you pay us, our tv rights will get you enough views that your advertisers will pay you very, very well'.

Whatever small portion a player contributes to that is well matched in their existing compensation.

A single player plays a small role, and his compensation even with a stipend would be small compared to basically anyone else involved, but the total contribution of all players over the years is by far the largest contribution out of anyone. There is literally no product without them.