Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell. | Page 337 | The Boneyard

Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell.

businesslawyer said:
Don’t disagree with the second part. That’s a different discussion.
Expand ...

Yes, the term used was extraction which certainly implies removal of certain programs and not necessarily share reductions. Will be interesting to see.
 
businesslawyer said:
No, it doesn’t. There is a reason the Harlem Globetrotters tour with the Washington Generals. Michigan isn’t Michigan without guaranteed wins against the Indianas and Northwesterns of the world. If you have a conference without deadbeats, then good teams struggle to finish above .500 and no one cares about them any more.
Expand ...
What's nice is that even good programs already become deadbeats. This year's roster included Florida, Auburn, TAMU, Nebraska, Miami, Oklahoma
 
I wonder if we eventually see the rights fees split by X for appearance on broadcast (ABC/CBS, etc) Y for appearance on national primary cable (ESPN) and so on down to Z for streamed games. Maybe the conference creates a floor for each school and then they get the ‘bonus’ based on content selected from each school.
 
So this begs the question, won't the B1G eventually succumb to the market realities of the cord cutters? I get the cord maybe far "stronger" in the midwest, but surely in the coming years the B1G will have some negative news to report on the B1G network- .....right?!
 
.-.
Husky25 said:
That was already the case, if I'm not mistaken.
Expand ...
That's correct. It goes away with the Longhorns move to the SEC. Also the pending layoffs were announced back in February (whenever they did their earnings call).. so nothing really new there (I did see some reporting hinting that the 7000 announced in February was actually 4000 people + 3000 open positions being eliminated)
 
I don't think it will be an either-or move (linear or direct to consumer) in the short term....over time, ESPN will migrate away from linear programming to a streaming only model....

But streaming is the future for sports subscribers....in a way, that helps the heavy weights. Linear bundles are like a conference bundle...you watch Bama but pay for Vanderbilt too...Streaming could end up being favorable to brands that people will watch and less favorable for those with lower numbers of viewers.
 
Waquoit said:
You're saying he doesn't? And that our "university brass" does? That's a big leap. And my quick take is that he's correct. Fix your own mess NCAA.
Expand ...
Yeah, your right- Benedict wants a straight employment deal with the athletes. In our current environment where anyone and everyone sues over wrongful terminations- our Universities running sports as paid labor will really go very well. How fast can we turn a 50m annual deficit to 100m- probably 24 months. But paying players will do one thing immediately- result in a steady reduction in coaches and coach salaries as there will be no room for the excesses we currently have there.
 
Exit 4 said:
Yeah, your right- Benedict wants a straight employment deal with the athletes. In our current environment where anyone and everyone sues over wrongful terminations- our Universities running sports as paid labor will really go very well. How fast can we turn a 50m annual deficit to 100m- probably 24 months. But paying players will do one thing immediately- result in a steady reduction in coaches and coach salaries as there will be no room for the excesses we currently have there.
Expand ...
The thing that no one talks about is that paying players ultimately will severely reduce or eliminate non-revenue sports. There’s only so much money to go around in an athletic department. If you have to pay the players of revenue sports, it forces universities to make hard decisions about the sports that do not earn the money. Every time basketball and football take a bigger slice of the remaining pie available for nonrevenue sports is reduced until it is ultimately eliminated.
 
.-.
What might happen is conferences have the option to pay players. The B1G and SEC will have the money to do this. All the top recruits will flock to these conferences if it happens.

B1G will split its revenue into 17 shares - the 16 members and the conference itself get equal shares. Imagine if they make it split into 18 shares, with the additional share of revenue divided among the players as a salary. This would be on top of any NIL deals players might receive.

Also, imagine a scenario where conferences form exclusive partnerships for NIL deals. Major companies will want to associate with either the B1G or SEC teams in this type of arrangement.

In these examples the P2 will be able to offer a higher base salary and better NIL deals to its membership, thus ensuring all top recruits end up on a team in one conference or the other. Imagine Clemson or Florida State missing out on a 5 star recruit because Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers, Vanderbilt, Missouri or Ole Miss could offer them more money. Same story with basketball and the Olympic sports.
 
CL82 said:
The thing that no one talks about is that paying players ultimately will severely reduce or eliminate non-revenue sports. There’s only so much money to go around in an athletic department. If you have to pay the players of revenue sports, it forces universities to make hard decisions about the sports that do not earn the money. Every time basketball and football take a bigger slice of the remaining pie available for nonrevenue sports is reduced until it is ultimately eliminated.
Expand ...
I agree with your point, but why should anyone care? What does the football coach make vs the field hockey coach and why? A lot of people get rich off the revenue producing sports and it isn't the players. Read this week Ohio State is paying 5 assistants over 1.5 million this year.

I do not disagree with your overall point, money is killing what were two wonderful sports, CFB and CBB. But that money is only getting bigger and flowing toward the top. The NCAA has had no control over this and made matters worse by handing over more power, to THE POWER 5 or Autonomy 5. At some point they are going to have to tell them to break off because they are not competing on level playing fields and its getting worse.

Maybe the NCAA could just assume oversight of the non revenue producing sports. They have no control over the revenue sports. Bill Self threatening to sue the NCAA over recruiting violations a couple years back was lol funny.
 
noeynox said:
I agree with your point, but why should anyone care?
Expand ...
Because the pie is finite. So when people talk about oh let’s pay the players, what they’re missing, in my opinion, is that the end result of that is you’re going to disenfranchise a lot of other athletes. That’s the question I would like to see put to Dodd. “The endgame of your proposal to pay players in revenue sports is likely that that there won’t be adequate funds for non-revenue sports in most universities. Did you intend for that result or did you just not think the issue through before opining on it?”
 
.-.
.-.
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,202
Messages
4,556,635
Members
10,442
Latest member
Virginiafan


Top Bottom