Brian Kelly speaks out against buying players.

[Dave H]

I mean nobody in this thread has outright said players shouldn't be paid, but people have said "I don't like the way they're being paid", or "they should get paid but not too much", which are basically roundabout ways of wanting to limit players' ability to capitalize on their talents.

No it is not, unless you lack the ability to put context into an argument. Maybe RM can't do that but I assume you can.

I personally think this system sucks and needs reform but I also realize that the players for the most part got the shaft for a very long time. I think it is ridiculous that coaches basically can do what they want and players were stuck with their dicks in their hand. It made zero sense that players could not make any money off their NIL but the schools sure could. The fix to that though is not lack of any rules whatsoever.

There were ways to get to a place where the players were treated fairly that aren't this. I mean football can kind of handle this...basketball is just a 4 alarm fire right now. The players are taking advantage as they should, but the sport will choke itself to death if we don't find a better way.

Brian Kelly though is not the guy who should be lecturing anyone on the proper way to do anything. His platitudes are as fake as his accent.

 

[Out State Gopher]

Is there coruption in college football programs? Glad we have PJ, our Minnesota treasure. Culture matters.

 

[1983]

Regarding pay for play: Why is it okay for certain people to profit from college football, but not okay for the players to get paid?

Nobody here has answered that particular question.

They are getting paid to learn something to use for when the game is over. I am guessing the cost of carrying an Athlete at the U is about up to 300K if redshirted plus you sleep inside and free food! That's more than alot of cops and teachers make. I think they are getting a great deal at 18 years old. Beats slinging burgers ar bagging groceries. Make it count and you might make the NFL or at least get a nice job. Its OK for some to make big bucks because they are making it possible for this College sports thing, they screw up and they are fired. Most scholarship kids don't play much but still get that 300K value. I applaud coaches who are taking a line on this absurd NIL variant.

 

[MNVCGUY]

No it is not, unless you lack the ability to put context into an argument. Maybe RM can't do that but I assume you can.

I personally think this system sucks and needs reform but I also realize that the players for the most part got the shaft for a very long time. I think it is ridiculous that coaches basically can do what they want and players were stuck with their dicks in their hand. It made zero sense that players could not make any money off their NIL but the schools sure could. The fix to that though is not lack of any rules whatsoever.

There were ways to get to a place where the players were treated fairly that aren't this. I mean football can kind of handle this...basketball is just a 4 alarm fire right now. The players are taking advantage as they should, but the sport will choke itself to death if we don't find a better way.

Brian Kelly though is not the guy who should be lecturing anyone on the proper way to do anything. His platitudes are as fake as his accent.

Well said. Some act like if you voice an opposition to players getting whatever they want it means you somehow don't want them to get paid.

 

[RememberMurray]

Are College Athletes Employees of Their Schools?: The Kiplinger Letter

A recent ruling has ramifications for labor relations and the unionization of student athletes.

www.kiplinger.com

 

[Gophers1992]

No it is not, unless you lack the ability to put context into an argument. Maybe RM can't do that but I assume you can.

I personally think this system sucks and needs reform but I also realize that the players for the most part got the shaft for a very long time. I think it is ridiculous that coaches basically can do what they want and players were stuck with their dicks in their hand. It made zero sense that players could not make any money off their NIL but the schools sure could. The fix to that though is not lack of any rules whatsoever.

There were ways to get to a place where the players were treated fairly that aren't this. I mean football can kind of handle this...basketball is just a 4 alarm fire right now. The players are taking advantage as they should, but the sport will choke itself to death if we don't find a better way.

Brian Kelly though is not the guy who should be lecturing anyone on the proper way to do anything. His platitudes are as fake as his accent.

Thank you - even if I don't agree with all of your points I appreciate a logical, well thought out response. And FWIW I am not against reform to the system (more specifically the transfer rules), I just hear a lot of bad suggestions for reform, although I'll admit I don't have the perfect solution either.

 

[60's Guy]

So where's the line on what is "too much too fast"? And who gets to decide that? Why should everybody get paid?

I'm sure glad there are no artificial rules that stop me for getting paid for my abilities in my line of work.

"no artificial rules that stop me for getting paid for my abilities at work"....this is selectively true depending who you are and what you choose to do. Women in many workplaces are not paid the same as men. I was thinking more main stream workforce but WNBA vs NBA as one example.

If you are a saleman you probably have no restraints as to how much you can make.
If you start your own company, you determine how much you make.
If you work in a corporate setting you need promotions to make more money...somebody else decides if you get paid more....not you. Your performance can influence it but there are no guarantees.
Lots of ways your statement is true but just as many it isn't.

Everybody should get paid because it is a team and we are at the core supposed to be educating young people. Call it the right thing to do...versus a 20 page paper why?

Who gets to decide? Somebody needs to be in charge....there needs to be some guidelines....a framework to work within. NCAA, new czar, somebody needs to be in overall control. Right now, nobody is.

 

[Gophers1992]

"no artificial rules that stop me for getting paid for my abilities at work"....this is selectively true depending who you are and what you choose to do. Women in many workplaces are not paid the same as men. I was thinking more main stream workforce but WNBA vs NBA as one example.

If you are a saleman you probably have no restraints as to how much you can make.
If you start your own company, you determine how much you make.
If you work in a corporate setting you need promotions to make more money...somebody else decides if you get paid more....not you. Your performance can influence it but there are no guarantees.
Lots of ways your statement is true but just as many it isn't.

Everybody should get paid because it is a team and we are at the core supposed to be educating young people. Call it the right thing to do...versus a 20 page paper why?

Who gets to decide? Somebody needs to be in charge....there needs to be some guidelines....a framework to work within. NCAA, new czar, somebody needs to be in overall control. Right now, nobody is.

The market is in control. If we go back to the average working man analogy, if I was a really talented machinist and someone wanted to pay me $1M a year for my skills, no governing body is coming in and saying "whoa we can't pay you that much and only pay the janitor minimum wage".

Now, if the players, schools, conferences, whoever want to go through some collective bargaining process and agree to some sort of limits like the NFL and other pro sports have, fine. But I have a hard time realistically seeing that happen.

 

[GVLCGopherFan]

They had recruiting advantages because they are/were proven great coaches who put a lot of players into the NFL. Jimbo Fisher has always had advantages too, but he has proven to be a

It makes no difference why they have an advantage. My point was NIL has the potential to undermine it because other teams can simply purchase players.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

I asked a very simple question. The only answer I received was some nonsense about how it had already been answered.

People love the free market, as long as it works to their advantage. When it becomes inconvenient, they want to limit it.

Honestly can’t tell if you’re being tongue in cheek with this thread but MN benefits mightily from a non-free market. We exist in a socialized revenue-sharing system. If each school ate what they killed Ohio State, Michigan, USC would get a lot richer overnight - and MN a lot poorer.

The rationale, I suppose, behind this welfare system is the desire to create a more level playing field and enable a watchable, fun product.

The “socialized” compensation of cost of attendance doled out for each player similarly is meant to keep a more level playing field. Going down the “free market” rabbit hole will very likely have very bad collateral side effects for athletic department staff and players while yes, benefitting some players.

 

[Dave H]

Thank you - even if I don't agree with all of your points I appreciate a logical, well thought out response. And FWIW I am not against reform to the system (more specifically the transfer rules), I just hear a lot of bad suggestions for reform, although I'll admit I don't have the perfect solution either.

Right now I am not sure there is one. The problem is the college system is not built to handle this so there is no way to implement anything that will be fair to the players but also not ruin the experience for fans. This seems like a long term rebuild from the ground up and I just wonder whether a lot of fans will stick around to watch NFL LITE.

What sucks is this was inevitable. Back when the original expansion and re-alignments started happening lots of people predicted "Pay for Play" was coming even before the O'Bannon case. (and especially after) The NCAA could have been proactive in setting up ways to deal with it...they just kept kicking the can down the road though assuming either the courts or Congress would always protect their status...until it didn't. Even then they still just looked the other way hoping the leagues and teams could figure something out. Now here we are...

The Gophers are the team I am most loyal to in any sport. I will always support them...but the sports are becoming harder and harder to watch because of how things are playing out thanks to the willful blindness of the NCAA. I mean we now have an 18 team league that the Gophers have .00001% chance of ever winning and even if they had the athletes on the squad to do it, they have no mechanism to keep them around if Michigan wants to offer more money than we can hope to offer. Even if hope is fleeting you need to have some hope to cling to when you are a second or third tier team. Until now it was "we can win the division and play for the title!" and before that it was "hey maybe we catch lightning in a bottle and win it in a down year!" or something like that. Now? I got nothing...so its I guess "well we can be the best of the rest in our league". Yeah that sure inspires me to want to pay for season tickets. Worked real well for the WCHA...only in this case the league won't break up because the money is ridiculous. (unlike the WCHA where few teams made money outside of Minnesota, Wisconsin and UND...except if they played those teams at home which were guaranteed sellouts)

All this to say, I think what you are seeing in these arguments is more of a generalized frustration with the way things are that is kind of being projected on the players because they are the most visible change and the one that gets touted the most. I don't think most really care that they make money or even go mercenary on the bit (I never see people mad at the transfers in just the transfers out) its just that the few things we as fans of a non-helmet school can cling to are eroding fast and it is painful to watch.

 

[Dave H]

Honestly can’t tell if you’re being tongue in cheek with this thread but MN benefits mightily from a non-free market. We exist in a socialized revenue-sharing system. If each school ate what they killed Ohio State, Michigan, USC would get a lot richer overnight - and MN a lot poorer.

The rationale, I suppose, behind this welfare system is the desire to create a more level playing field and enable a watchable, fun product.

The “socialized” compensation of cost of attendance doled out for each player similarly is meant to keep a more level playing field. Going down the “free market” rabbit hole will very likely have very bad collateral side effects for athletic department staff and players while yes, benefitting some players.

There is a reason why the NFL is always growing and MLB is struggling. In the NFL the salary cap and the CBA restrictions allow for the hope that any offseason a bad team can become a good team. The amount of teams that change each year in the playoff chase makes the sport worth watching even if you are a fan of a historically bad team. (ask Detroit) MLB on the other hand lets teams spend whatever and however they want. It fosters a feeling of imbalance and while "smaller" teams can make a run here or there (and "bigger" teams can still suck if the chemistry is off) we can guess with relative certainty who will likely win their divisions and who the real contenders for the World Series are.

The Big Infinity has always been about equality in this regard because of the academic side anyways and I would assume they realized that if they want to keep teams like Northwestern or Minnesota or Indiana to stick around despite underperforming most years (you could include Wisconsin before Barry) they need to be able to keep the AD in the black. If they doled out money based on performance the results would have been disastrous.

 

[Gophers1992]

Right now I am not sure there is one. The problem is the college system is not built to handle this so there is no way to implement anything that will be fair to the players but also not ruin the experience for fans. This seems like a long term rebuild from the ground up and I just wonder whether a lot of fans will stick around to watch NFL LITE.

What sucks is this was inevitable. Back when the original expansion and re-alignments started happening lots of people predicted "Pay for Play" was coming even before the O'Bannon case. (and especially after) The NCAA could have been proactive in setting up ways to deal with it...they just kept kicking the can down the road though assuming either the courts or Congress would always protect their status...until it didn't. Even then they still just looked the other way hoping the leagues and teams could figure something out. Now here we are...

The Gophers are the team I am most loyal to in any sport. I will always support them...but the sports are becoming harder and harder to watch because of how things are playing out thanks to the willful blindness of the NCAA. I mean we now have an 18 team league that the Gophers have .00001% chance of ever winning and even if they had the athletes on the squad to do it, they have no mechanism to keep them around if Michigan wants to offer more money than we can hope to offer. Even if hope is fleeting you need to have some hope to cling to when you are a second or third tier team. Until now it was "we can win the division and play for the title!" and before that it was "hey maybe we catch lightning in a bottle and win it in a down year!" or something like that. Now? I got nothing...so its I guess "well we can be the best of the rest in our league". Yeah that sure inspires me to want to pay for season tickets. Worked real well for the WCHA...only in this case the league won't break up because the money is ridiculous. (unlike the WCHA where few teams made money outside of Minnesota, Wisconsin and UND...except if they played those teams at home which were guaranteed sellouts)

All this to say, I think what you are seeing in these arguments is more of a generalized frustration with the way things are that is kind of being projected on the players because they are the most visible change and the one that gets touted the most. I don't think most really care that they make money or even go mercenary on the bit (I never see people mad at the transfers in just the transfers out) its just that the few things we as fans of a non-helmet school can cling to are eroding fast and it is painful to watch.

This basically sums up my feelings completely. What's right and fair isn't necessarily better for the game, but artificially suppressing earning power in the name of "parity" (which has never existed in CFB) is not the answer.

 

[Gophers1992]

There is a reason why the NFL is always growing and MLB is struggling. In the NFL the salary cap and the CBA restrictions allow for the hope that any offseason a bad team can become a good team. The amount of teams that change each year in the playoff chase makes the sport worth watching even if you are a fan of a historically bad team. (ask Detroit) MLB on the other hand lets teams spend whatever and however they want. It fosters a feeling of imbalance and while "smaller" teams can make a run here or there (and "bigger" teams can still suck if the chemistry is off) we can guess with relative certainty who will likely win their divisions and who the real contenders for the World Series are.

The Big Infinity has always been about equality in this regard because of the academic side anyways and I would assume they realized that if they want to keep teams like Northwestern or Minnesota or Indiana to stick around despite underperforming most years (you could include Wisconsin before Barry) they need to be able to keep the AD in the black. If they doled out money based on performance the results would have been disastrous.

The MLB has had more competitive balance than the NFL has. People need to stop pushing this myth.

 

[Word]

The MLB has had more competitive balance than the MLB has. People need to stop pushing this myth.

Teams that spend more tend to do better in the MLB. Yes there are exceptions, but if you want to be consistently good, having a high payroll helps greatly. Good read: https://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2...f-payroll-and-performance-in-the-mlb-and-nba/

 

[disco]

Right now I am not sure there is one. The problem is the college system is not built to handle this so there is no way to implement anything that will be fair to the players but also not ruin the experience for fans. This seems like a long term rebuild from the ground up and I just wonder whether a lot of fans will stick around to watch NFL LITE.

They will. Look at the ratings for meaningless bowl games.

 

[MNVCGUY]

Teams that spend more tend to do better in the MLB. Yes there are exceptions, but if you want to be consistently good, having a high payroll helps greatly. Good read: https://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2...f-payroll-and-performance-in-the-mlb-and-nba/

Me looking at that graph.....

 

[Gophers1992]

Teams that spend more tend to do better in the MLB. Yes there are exceptions, but if you want to be consistently good, having a high payroll helps greatly. Good read: https://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2...f-payroll-and-performance-in-the-mlb-and-nba/

Fair enough, and I'm not at all disputing the idea that spending more generally = winning more, but the MLB has arguably had more variety in competitiveness than the NFL has. The issue with the NFL is that the league has basically become a haves vs have nots depending on whether you have a top QB or not. San Francisco and others provide occasional exceptions, but my overall point is that the idea that the NFL is so much more competitive than MLB doesn't really reflect in the on-field results.

 

[Word]

Fair enough, and I'm not at all disputing the idea that spending more generally = winning more, but the MLB has arguably had more variety in competitiveness than the NFL has. The issue with the NFL is that the league has basically become a haves vs have nots depending on whether you have a top QB or not. San Francisco and others provide occasional exceptions, but my overall point is that the idea that the NFL is so much more competitive than MLB doesn't really reflect in the on-field results.

For sure - NFL so dependent on a QB. NBA can depend on a couple star players also.

 

[Dave H]

They will. Look at the ratings for meaningless bowl games.

They arent meaningless to those teams most of the time so the fans of the squads tend to watch. I fear the NCAA is going to lose the actual fans of the teams. It is hard to care for a team that will be 75% different next year unless you are one of the few who will thrive. It will take a while but people will stop caring...we see fan apathy all the time.

 

[Dave H]

Fair enough, and I'm not at all disputing the idea that spending more generally = winning more, but the MLB has arguably had more variety in competitiveness than the NFL has. The issue with the NFL is that the league has basically become a haves vs have nots depending on whether you have a top QB or not. San Francisco and others provide occasional exceptions, but my overall point is that the idea that the NFL is so much more competitive than MLB doesn't really reflect in the on-field results.

If you are looking at the Super Bowl you are correct, but the playoffs have a significant amount of change year to year...or at least they did until recently. Part of that is the NFL deciding to make defense optional which exasperates your correct point about the QB. But in the eyes of the fans it doesn't take much to turn things around. That is why the NFL Draft gets better ratings than the NBA Finals...or its close.

MLB is kind of in a renaissance period because some teams are spending so ridiculously (Padres and LA for starters) that most teams have no shot to spend so they have gone back to building long term and letting the rich buy out all of the high priced talent. Teams like Baltimore or the Twins are in a much better position because the talent is less spread out. But if I was a betting man I would never put money on the Twins or Baltimore to win the Series.

 

[GopherTheJugular]

They will. Look at the ratings for meaningless bowl games.

I'm not so sure that's a fair comparison. A lot of those games are on TV when people are off work for the holiday and live sports makes better background noise than mid-afternoon sitcom reruns from the 80's.

Last year was the first I ever remember where I didn't have any type of cable or streaming package for the college football season. I just don't care enough anymore, whereas I used to watch from the start of Gameday until around midnight. Now I decided I wasn't going to pay anything but I'd watch whatever was on broadcast. Pretty soon that'll go by the wayside too, the way things are going (not just NIL/unlimited transfers, but also ESPN hogging the good games and leaving pittance for broadcast).

I doubt I'm alone on this. I could see it being like the EPL over here where a few people are super into it and most don't even know it's on TV.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

The Athletic has a very long article with coaches, agents and players giving anonymous comments on how the portal system and NIL are working - or not working. as I said, a long read but very interesting.

College football portal confidential: How tampering, NIL deals and portal chaos happen

What is the transfer portal really like in the NIL age? We surveyed coaches, players, agents, NIL collectives and more to find out.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Bobek]

Honestly can’t tell if you’re being tongue in cheek with this thread but MN benefits mightily from a non-free market. We exist in a socialized revenue-sharing system. If each school ate what they killed Ohio State, Michigan, USC would get a lot richer overnight - and MN a lot poorer.

The rationale, I suppose, behind this welfare system is the desire to create a more level playing field and enable a watchable, fun product.

The “socialized” compensation of cost of attendance doled out for each player similarly is meant to keep a more level playing field. Going down the “free market” rabbit hole will very likely have very bad collateral side effects for athletic department staff and players while yes, benefitting some players.

Revenue sharing (AKA socialism) is the same concept used by the NFL to keep a competitive balance. Without that the NY, LA and Dallas markets would own the league and fans elsewhere would lose interest, costing the teams revenue. MLB is in the dark ages on this concept, except for the amateur draft.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Revenue sharing (AKA socialism) is the same concept used by the NFL to keep a competitive balance. Without that the NY, LA and Dallas markets would own the league and fans elsewhere would lose interest, costing the teams revenue. MLB is in the dark ages on this concept, except for the amateur

Yep the NFL CBA is also far from the “free market…” . However that’s defined. Somewhere between anarchy and communism.

 

[Holy Man]

Revenue sharing (AKA socialism) is the same concept used by the NFL to keep a competitive balance. Without that the NY, LA and Dallas markets would own the league and fans elsewhere would lose interest, costing the teams revenue. MLB is in the dark ages on this concept, except for the amateur draft.

Since none of the actors involved are the government, it’s not socialism. Of course you know that. If the teams making up the league agree to the rules, it’s called a contract not a takeover or ownership by the government. If you want to argue about government excess involvement, argue the corporate welfare that wastes taxpayer money subsidizing private business real estate in the form of stadiums.

Regardless of what you think of the pro sports industry especially the NFL, you must admit their systems maintain some semblance of competitive balance unlike the chaos in college sports now.

 

[MNVCGUY]

The Athletic has a very long article with coaches, agents and players giving anonymous comments on how the portal system and NIL are working - or not working. as I said, a long read but very interesting.

College football portal confidential: How tampering, NIL deals and portal chaos happen

What is the transfer portal really like in the NIL age? We surveyed coaches, players, agents, NIL collectives and more to find out.

www.nytimes.com

Good read, thanks for sharing, I really need to take more advantage of my Athletic subscription.

It is interesting to see the different perspectives about the whole thing, especially the tampering part. I would be curious to see this same article written for basketball because I have a feeling the overall picture would be much more chaotic.

 

[LesBolstad]

Teams that spend more tend to do better in the MLB. Yes there are exceptions, but if you want to be consistently good, having a high payroll helps greatly. Good read: https://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2...f-payroll-and-performance-in-the-mlb-and-nba/

lies, damn lies, and....graphs?

 

[GophersInIowa]

I still don't understand why people care about this distinction. If some crazy rich guy wants to pay a kid to play for his favorite team, it shouldn't be restricted just because some people think that is "too much".

I don't necessarily care how much players are getting. I just think a system where there really are no rules is not a good one. MLB has not salary cap but they have contracts. Seeing rosters, more so in basketball, completely turn over just about every year isn't a good thing IMO.

 

[Gophers1992]

I don't necessarily care how much players are getting. I just think a system where there really are no rules is not a good one. MLB has not salary cap but they have contracts. Seeing rosters, more so in basketball, completely turn over just about every year isn't a good thing IMO.

Agree completely, I just don't think the money itself, and however it is being paid, is the issue. If roster movement can be stabilized in some way, the money becomes a non-issue IMO.