Fascinating to see that the SEC $ are nearly triple what the Big12 ($3.3M), the ACC, and even the B1G ($5.2M) pay.- The starting offense/defense for an ACC football team is $4.6M. For an SEC team it's $14.4M.
In College Sports’ Big Money Era, Here’s Where the Dollars Go
On average, $1 million for S.E.C. quarterbacks; guards who earn a quarter of that: The New York Times examined the so-called Black Book, a kind of Zillow for college sports, that details athletes’ expected annual pay.www.nytimes.com
Name, Image, Likeness
- Thread starter -jk
- Start date
Phredd3
Member
Interesting that the wankerizer cannot be bypassed, even if the offending URL is attached to non-wanker text. The wankerizer will remove the link.
LeadingEdge
Member
That New York Times article is vague and perhaps misleading, maybe deliberately so. It says in various places that you must rank in the top 10 or 25 or 50 at a position to count. It does not say whether that’s in the country or in a conference or on your own team.A fascinating article in the NYT today with lots of detailed data on NIL costs by sport and by conference. Some key nuggets:
- 80% of NIL is getting paid out of collectives
- The starting 5 for a top 25 basketball team will average $3.3M in NIL
- The starting offense/defense for an ACC football team is $4.6M. For an SEC team it's $14.4M.
- The article confirms that if the settlement holds up, schools will be able to spend $20M directly each year on NIL starting in the Fall of 2025.
I think there's still a lot of guesswork with Opendorse and the Black Book, but this data is probably directionally accurate.
It probably points to the Duke collective spending $5-6M on the full basketball roster. I can't even guess on football...
In College Sports’ Big Money Era, Here’s Where the Dollars Go
On average, $1 million for S.E.C. quarterbacks; guards who earn a quarter of that: The New York Times examined the so-called Black Book, a kind of Zillow for college sports, that details athletes’ expected annual pay.
Also, by only considering the top X number, it shows top-of-market value, but doesn’t show marketplace value for an average power four starting player. I wonder if Opendorse structured this disclose this way to push up in NIL payments. It may have a self interest in doing so.
SkyBrickey
Member
Agreed there's a lot of vagueness. I think it's because they are working with incomplete data.
But at least on the basketball side, it seems in line with other bits of data. With top big man transfers seeking $2M deals and now a guy like AJ Dybansta reportedly seeking a $3M deal, it's not surprising to me that a top-25 team starting 5 would average $3.3M.
MChambers
Member
NPR story on college football, with the author of a new book, "The Price: What It Takes to Win in College Football's Era of Chaos."
This could go in the realignment thread, too, I think.
"Right now, there are no rules. And when that happens, the two things that are really driving college football right now - and they're not great - it's wanton greed and complete self-interest. And so I think if you're trying to figure out what the future of college football's going to look like, I don't think anybody knows right now. That crystal ball is really cloudy. It could be catastrophic in a lot of ways, particularly to the nonrevenue sports, as these schools try to figure out how they're going to balance their budgets."
This could go in the realignment thread, too, I think.
"Right now, there are no rules. And when that happens, the two things that are really driving college football right now - and they're not great - it's wanton greed and complete self-interest. And so I think if you're trying to figure out what the future of college football's going to look like, I don't think anybody knows right now. That crystal ball is really cloudy. It could be catastrophic in a lot of ways, particularly to the nonrevenue sports, as these schools try to figure out how they're going to balance their budgets."
House NCAA settlement questioned by presiding Judge. Links to articles below, but issues which seem to bother the Judge include:
-Restriction on NIL earnings (this always has seemed like an anti-trust issue which penalizes athletes)
-Future athletes being bound to cap on revenue sharing for a ten year terms (again anti-trust issue which ordinarily only can be resolved through collective bargaining)
Interesting comments from some Plaintiff attorneys that they are okay with removing NIL restrictions, with NCAA claiming such limits are essential part of the deal. Further, despite Kessler in the past having claimed that as the atty who has sued the NCAA the most he could not imagine any future anti trust litigation if this settlement was approved, today he stated that if future players did not like the deal they could opt out and sue for anti-trust. That begs the question of just how bad are the attys for the NCAA as it appears NIL is not brought under regulation and they will not truly have bought their peace so the benefits are not what was promised other than capping past damages.
The Judge sent them back to the bargaining table to work out a better deal.
sports.yahoo.com
www.espn.com
-Restriction on NIL earnings (this always has seemed like an anti-trust issue which penalizes athletes)
-Future athletes being bound to cap on revenue sharing for a ten year terms (again anti-trust issue which ordinarily only can be resolved through collective bargaining)
Interesting comments from some Plaintiff attorneys that they are okay with removing NIL restrictions, with NCAA claiming such limits are essential part of the deal. Further, despite Kessler in the past having claimed that as the atty who has sued the NCAA the most he could not imagine any future anti trust litigation if this settlement was approved, today he stated that if future players did not like the deal they could opt out and sue for anti-trust. That begs the question of just how bad are the attys for the NCAA as it appears NIL is not brought under regulation and they will not truly have bought their peace so the benefits are not what was promised other than capping past damages.
The Judge sent them back to the bargaining table to work out a better deal.
'Go back to the drawing board' — House-NCAA settlement in danger after judge slams agreement
The judge questioned the portion of the settlement that specifically prohibits school boosters from compensating athletes through endorsement deals.
sports.yahoo.com
NCAA settlement on hold as judge urges revisions
A federal judge declined to grant preliminary approval to the House v. NCAA antitrust settlement Thursday, citing concerns with multiple parts of the terms of the deal.
JasonEvans
Host, The Duke Basketball Roundup
Indoor66
Well-known member
Just another monstrous can of worms in this age of endless entitlement.
From ambulance chasers I’m sure.
scottdude8
Moderator, front page and podcast contributor
In contrast to some of the initial reactions to this news, I'm 100% for this. The NCAA's exploitative behavior towards student athletes doesn't have a cut-off date, even if the monetary value of it has skyrocketed more recently. Braylon Edwards and Denard Robinson in particular are two legendary Michigan players whose highlights get played on repeat on places like BTN... BTN (and in turn B1G schools) rakes in advertising dollars while those two guys see nothing. I don't see how that's fair.
The $50 million dollar figure is obviously staggering, but I imagine it's meant to be as an initial position. I imagine the actual monetary value will be much more reasonable, but still something that every collegiate athlete should be entitled to. As the NCAA likes to say, "Most athletes go pro in something other than sports," but the more real slogan should be "not all our athletes succeed in their professional athletics endeavors." Both Edwards and Robinson (relatively) disappointed in the NFL, which makes the NIL income they lost out on all the more impactful.
I'm trying to sift through the annoying legal nonsense in these type of stories (which I imagine we'll see a bunch more of) and instead think about the people. And I don't see why we should begrudge this human beings getting some reasonable compensation for their efforts as collegiate athletes, even if it's decades late.
Indoor66
Well-known member
There is the question of where does the money come from? Tuition increase? The money is spent each year. There is no pile of it in Richy Rich's safe..
scottdude8
Moderator, front page and podcast contributor
Oh, 100% agreed. If any of this NIL money comes from anything not related to the athletic department at any university, that would be unconscionable. But saying that, "Hey, if we're now setting aside 40% of our TV deals for current student athletes, we have to add another 5% to go to former student athletes as well (in small amounts over time, most likely" seems pretty reasonable to me...
Indoor66
Well-known member
Reasonable to you but that 45% is already committed to the support of the totality of the Athletic Department. It isn't, again, a pot of money over in the corner. If you want to set that aside, where does the additional funding come from or do you cut out all the rest of the supported sports? Platitudes and generalities only go so far. Then you have to pay the bills.
scottdude8
Moderator, front page and podcast contributor
I think we have a slightly different understanding of the state of athletic department budgets, due in part to how purposefully opaque they are... yes, many athletic departments barely "break even," but my understanding is that is often a somewhat artificial consequence of them purposefully making sure to use every last penny to maintain that appearance, often on inconsequential endeavors like slight modifications to facilities. I say the above acknowledging wholeheartedly that that could be entirely wrong, or (more likely) could be true for some but not all institutions... I looked into this more deeply when I was at The Chronicle, but that was a long time ago now.
But let's go with your premise that all the money in existing TV deals is accounted for. How's this for a creative, reasonable solution: past college athletes get paid "royalties" just like actors do for syndicated shows and movies. BTN wants to replay the great Michigan v. Michigan State game where Braylon Edwards carried Michigan to an OT victory? Great, but on top of their current deal with the conference, there must be a new deal that compensates the players who participated in that game. BTN wants to use a clip of Denard Robinson in a promo? Same deal. In all likelihood those sums would be much more reasonable, just like royalties in other entertainment venues are, but it would come from the network itself rather than the athletic department.
I think that might thread the needle, no?
Indoor66
Well-known member
Possibly, but you moved the goalposts andI think we have a slightly different understanding of the state of athletic department budgets, due in part to how purposefully opaque they are... yes, many athletic departments barely "break even," but my understanding is that is often a somewhat artificial consequence of them purposefully making sure to use every last penny to maintain that appearance, often on inconsequential endeavors like slight modifications to facilities. I say the above acknowledging wholeheartedly that that could be entirely wrong, or (more likely) could be true for some but not all institutions... I looked into this more deeply when I was at The Chronicle, but that was a long time ago now.
But let's go with your premise that all the money in existing TV deals is accounted for. How's this for a creative, reasonable solution: past college athletes get paid "royalties" just like actors do for syndicated shows and movies. BTN wants to replay the great Michigan v. Michigan State game where Braylon Edwards carried Michigan to an OT victory? Great, but on top of their current deal with the conference, there must be a new deal that compensates the players who participated in that game. BTN wants to use a clip of Denard Robinson in a promo? Same deal. In all likelihood those sums would be much more reasonable, just like royalties in other entertainment venues are, but it would come from the network itself rather than the athletic department.
I think that might thread the needle, no?
injected an additional revenue stream. Would the networks be willing to pay again to show a portion of what they already paid for? I doubt it.
scottdude8
Moderator, front page and podcast contributor
Well, one could argue that the agreements the networks made were pre-NIL and might updating... but that's a legal question I'm not qualified to assess. It's not like this is without precedent, though: Netflix and other streamers had to change how they paid royalties on shows they already "paid for" after the recent writers' and actors' strikes. Yes, there were some unforeseen consequences (shows that were dropped from services, etc.), but it seems like those were noisy exceptions rather than the norm.
Here's the sincere question (and I say that honestly, even though that's hard to express in text on a message board, haha): Are you poking holes in these hypotheticals because you believe addressing these issues is going to be extremely challenging, or because you don't believe we should be looking for a solution at all? Because those are two very different conversations for obvious reasons.
Indoor66
Well-known member
Addressing the issue is extremely challenging, if not almost impossible, to address.
scottdude8
Moderator, front page and podcast contributor
Fair enough. IMHO doesn't mean we shouldn't try though