- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 1/17/25 at 11:53 am to Earnest_P
quote:
It’s a group of nonprofits.
The cognitive dissonance on this topic is wild
Posted on 1/17/25 at 12:07 pm to InkStainedWretch
Who cares how much they generate?
Posted on 1/17/25 at 12:12 pm to chalmetteowl
quote:
Who cares how much they generate?
They do, as they should
This post was edited on 1/17/25 at 12:12 pm
Posted on 1/17/25 at 12:14 pm to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
"must be made proportionately available to male and female athletes”
I wonder how this will be interpreted.
Proportionate to what? Overall athletic revenue generated or sport specific revenue generated?
Posted on 1/17/25 at 12:20 pm to Mingo Was His NameO
It amazes me how frickin’ personally college football fans are taking all this stuff. Although again, IMO it’s because the illusion they have clung to for decades has been dashed by reality.
The height of silliness is fans (and some coaches for that matter) thinking some all-powerful college football commissioner is going to come in and single-handedly restore what was, not understanding that person would be bound by and subject to the court rulings in place now.
The height of silliness is fans (and some coaches for that matter) thinking some all-powerful college football commissioner is going to come in and single-handedly restore what was, not understanding that person would be bound by and subject to the court rulings in place now.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 12:31 pm to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:Take everyone off of power 5 rosters and replace with NAIA rosters and the stadiums are still sold out. In 5 years the Donor fatigue will at critical mass.
They both generate value, which is the point. What an absurd statement
Posted on 1/17/25 at 12:38 pm to Voldemortnose
We quickly went from players getting paid for their name, image, likeness to wanting a piece of school revenue.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 12:47 pm to InkStainedWretch
quote:
That generates billions of dollars.
So the NCAA would be fine as a purely amateur athletic organization just so long as it didn’t get too popular? That’s a defensible position in your opinion?
Posted on 1/17/25 at 1:02 pm to Marciano1
quote:
We quickly went from players getting paid for their name, image, likeness to wanting a piece of school revenue
It's not "school" revenue. It's athletic dept revenue. And are the players not playing a BIG role in generating that revenue? I don't think 90k fans are paying a ton of money to sit in the stadium to watch Brian Kelly, Kirby Smart, or any other HC walk up an down the sideline by themselves on an empty field. Same for the TV networks.
NFL teams generate revenue largely through three different sources. In person attendance (ticket sales); TV contracts; licensing of their trademarks. College programs generate millions of dollars through the EXACT same streams.
The players in the NFL share in the revenue they help generate. So why shouldn't college players be able to share in the revenue they help generate?
Posted on 1/17/25 at 1:20 pm to Earnest_P
We are going around in circles here.
You seem philosophically opposed to college players being compensated for their efforts beyond a scholarship, etc.
I have zero issues with that and think the bigger issue is reining in the portal so we don’t have constant free agency. Of course that would take sitting down at the table with players and hashing out an agreement, which would further smash the illusion and would probably be opposed by folks like you and the guy who started a thread the other day who actually said in his subject line that restraint of movement should be “imposed” on players.
We can agree to disagree.
You seem philosophically opposed to college players being compensated for their efforts beyond a scholarship, etc.
I have zero issues with that and think the bigger issue is reining in the portal so we don’t have constant free agency. Of course that would take sitting down at the table with players and hashing out an agreement, which would further smash the illusion and would probably be opposed by folks like you and the guy who started a thread the other day who actually said in his subject line that restraint of movement should be “imposed” on players.
We can agree to disagree.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 1:27 pm to Alt26
quote:
So why shouldn't college players be able to share in the revenue they help generate?
They shouldn’t if they agreed not to as a condition of playing college football
Posted on 1/17/25 at 1:33 pm to tigerskin
Females who normally got scholarships won’t be. Thats what title 9 in this application will do. End all women sports and men’s sports outside football baseball basketball and the 1 women’s sport each school is know for…. Everything else will end.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 1:50 pm to chalmetteowl
Those conditions are no longer operative. S**t changes.
This is a business and barring an antitrust exemption … which ain’t happening, people have regretted giving MLB one for 100 years … college football is subject to the same restrictions and regulations as any other business.
This is a business and barring an antitrust exemption … which ain’t happening, people have regretted giving MLB one for 100 years … college football is subject to the same restrictions and regulations as any other business.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 1:53 pm to HangmanPage1
quote:
Take everyone off of power 5 rosters and replace with NAIA rosters and the stadiums are still sold out.
I disagree, and stadiums aren’t what is generating the most money. The product on the field absolutely matters. You’ll have the same posters that say shite like this say they don’t watch anymore because the players are different than they were pre NIL. It can’t be both
This post was edited on 1/17/25 at 1:55 pm
Posted on 1/17/25 at 1:56 pm to Earnest_P
quote:
So the NCAA would be fine as a purely amateur athletic organization just so long as it didn’t get too popular?
Yes
quote:
That’s a defensible position in your opinion?
Of course, participants is an organization or activity that makes money should get part of that money. Participants in activities that don’t make money, don’t get any money and are at the mercy of the benefactor that supports it. That is pretty simple
Posted on 1/17/25 at 1:57 pm to Alt26
quote:
The players in the NFL share in the revenue they help generate. So why shouldn't college players be able to share in the revenue they help generate?
the NFL generates around $20 billion a year and only has around 1,700 players on 32 teams.
only about half of those teams own, operate, and maintain their own stadiums
the NCAA generates a total of $1.3 Billion per year.
365 schools with around 190,000 athletes just at the D1 level.
and each of those schools own, operate and maintain multiple stadiums for multiple sports.
if the players got 100% of the revenue (which they won't get anywhere close to that) and it's divided up "proportionately" to all athletes in all sports, each kid gets about $3 grand.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 1:58 pm to chalmetteowl
quote:
They shouldn’t if they agreed not to as a condition of playing college football
Great we agree. The players didn’t agree to that, it was imposed on them
Posted on 1/17/25 at 1:59 pm to Mingo Was His NameO
People have gotten utterly crazed over the players not having to be peons anymore. It’s like “How dare they?” It’s like they think something has literally been taken away from them because players are being properly compensated and have freedom of movement.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 2:05 pm to GeauxtigersMs36
quote:
Females who normally got scholarships won’t be. Thats what title 9 in this application will do. End all women sports and men’s sports outside football baseball basketball and the 1 women’s sport each school is know for…
These things are not mutually exclusive. Which I’m not sure why that is so hard to understand. One can see the value in providing athletic opportunities to athletes in sports that do not generate revenue and share the revenue with sports that do.
And frankly, I’m fine if any school does not want to continue to support sports that do not at least pay for themselves. That’s totally their prerogative. I can philosophically disagree with that, but it’s an understandable position
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News