Toggle sidebar

The downside of NIL

The issue with NIL is that nothing is really disclosed and it's quite shady. And, the numbers that often get quoted are basically best-case scenarios if certain incentives are hit.

And, yeah, I don't blame the kid for backing out of his commitment if he was indeed promised that type of money and then asked to re-negotiate once he already signed his NLI. Now, he's going to a program where he likely starts off the bat. And, if he's close to the hype people attached to him early on in the recruiting process, he can likely transfer in a year and get a massive NIL elsewhere. Has NIL's and the immediate ability to transfer (and within the conference too) taken away some of the charm of college football, probably, but it's much better to see these kids actually getting paid close to their worth rather than them losing eligibility for selling a jersey or accepting a mustang from a booster. Obviously, this might end up being a massive advantage for programs with insanely rich boosters and war chests for days (Longhorns being the obvious example, but Georgia, Michigan, tOSU, Bama, A&M, USC, etc), but it's not like Florida doesn't have its own massive financial backing with big boosters, this isn't some small program being ripped off because they can't compete financially.

I don't see it as a kid who couldn't stand the pressure. I see it as a group of rogue boosters making promises they couldn't cash, and then throwing a kids recruiting into a tailspin (most NCAA programs build there class around QB, and they tend to be an early commitment that helps them close with other recruits, Manning and Nelson were both locked into Texas and USC respectively in the summer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DatsyukToZetterberg, DaveG and Voight
93LEAFS said:
The issue with NIL is that nothing is really disclosed and it's quite shady.
Click to expand...

The real issue with NIL is that the players aren't getting it from being "(THEIR NAME)'s talent is worth $_______." It's literally a recruiting slush fund, where "(TEAM'S TOP QB RECRUIT) gets $______" and the schools and boosters are trying to fill the slot with the best recruit they can get there.


Which is exactly what I've been saying for decades on this site.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaveG
KevFu said:
The real issue with NIL is that the players aren't getting it from being "(THEIR NAME)'s talent is worth $_______." It's literally a recruiting slush fund, where "(TEAM'S TOP QB RECRUIT) gets $______" and the schools and boosters are trying to fill the slot with the best recruit they can get there.


Which is exactly what I've been saying for decades on this site.
Click to expand...
They already to that

KevFu said:
The real issue with NIL is that the players aren't getting it from being "(THEIR NAME)'s talent is worth $_______." It's literally a recruiting slush fund, where "(TEAM'S TOP QB RECRUIT) gets $______" and the schools and boosters are trying to fill the slot with the best recruit they can get there.


Which is exactly what I've been saying for decades on this site.
Click to expand...
This is going way before nil
 
NIL was supposed to reward the kids who are sophomores to seniors who had played a year at least and their play on the field warranted them getting compensated for their NIL.

Now it’s been used primarily as a HS recruiting tool and transfer portal tool.
 
Probably not a good idea to sign a contract that says the other side can tear it up whenever they feel like it.
 
StreetHawk said:
NIL was supposed to reward the kids who are sophomores to seniors who had played a year at least and their play on the field warranted them getting compensated for their NIL.

Now it’s been used primarily as a HS recruiting tool and transfer portal tool.
Click to expand...
Building pro style facilities and lazy rivers was stool to
 
I’m circling back to a group of Bayern Munich analysts who came to America to try to determine how- and from where- they could better recruit Americans to their youth program. They considered not just the current soccer-playing youth, but what value could be derived from kids playing other sports.

Two of the conclusions:

- There just wasn’t enough value in American football.
- Kids on scholarship are professional athletes.

Every time I have thought, in the last 5 years, that the college athletics industry in the USA could overcome all these pressures launched against it, I find myself overstating their power. Individual schools certainly have power… but not the collective, and the NCAA is left crying in a fetal position in the warmest corner of an abandoned suburban office complex.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaveG
PCSPounder said:
I’m circling back to a group of Bayern Munich analysts who came to America to try to determine how- and from where- they could better recruit Americans to their youth program. They considered not just the current soccer-playing youth, but what value could be derived from kids playing other sports.

Two of the conclusions:

- There just wasn’t enough value in American football.
- Kids on scholarship are professional athletes.

Every time I have thought, in the last 5 years, that the college athletics industry in the USA could overcome all these pressures launched against it, I find myself overstating their power. Individual schools certainly have power… but not the collective, and the NCAA is left crying in a fetal position in the warmest corner of an abandoned suburban office complex.
Click to expand...
The problem is college sports are trying to have their cake and eat it too. College football has all the bells and whistles of pro sports but then want to pretend they were somehow just like a beer league. Also the American sport system is absolutely garbage for development and for smaller sports
 
  • Like
Reactions: oknazevad and DaveG
joelef said:
The problem is college sports are trying to have their cake and eat it too. College football has all the bells and whistles of pro sports but then want to pretend they were somehow just like a beer league. Also the American sport system is absolutely garbage for development and for smaller sports
Click to expand...
The older I get, the more I question why sports are so tied to schools. Messes up so many incentives and benefits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: joelef
PCSPounder said:
I’m circling back to a group of Bayern Munich analysts who came to America to try to determine how- and from where- they could better recruit Americans to their youth program. They considered not just the current soccer-playing youth, but what value could be derived from kids playing other sports.

Two of the conclusions:

- There just wasn’t enough value in American football.
- Kids on scholarship are professional athletes.

Every time I have thought, in the last 5 years, that the college athletics industry in the USA could overcome all these pressures launched against it, I find myself overstating their power. Individual schools certainly have power… but not the collective, and the NCAA is left crying in a fetal position in the warmest corner of an abandoned suburban office complex.
Click to expand...
not wrong, though speaking from experience on the soccer front it's a much different environment now than it was 10-15 years ago, which is WILDLY different than it was when I was coming up as a pretty serious prospect 25-30 years ago.

25-30 years ago it was largely regional or town based leagues (depending on the size of the area) with the elite players playing in travel teams before being recruited into various top high school feeder programs that would get them on the track to an NCAA scholarship. US prospects going overseas to top development programs to turn pro before they went through the NCAA ranks was virtually unheard of, though a few players were going over to lower tier sides in Europe instead and even I got into a handful of conversations with scouts from clubs in lower tiers in Belgium, Norway, and Denmark about trialing once I was over 16 (for visa reasons) before I blew out my ACL and MCL.

By the time I graduated college it had changed completely and these pay for play academies that had just started getting off the ground were the new feeder programs for the NCAA level. This was prettymuch the dark period for US soccer developmentally. Top young players were now getting legitimate chances in Europe though, especially if they were able to play games with their visa status like Howard and Rossi were able to.

Now you have MLS clubs with their own academies that are producing legitimate prospects and for the most part the pay to play academies are becoming a secondary option, with more prospects than ever going over to play. The inroads that Bayern would have had to try to make would have had to be nearly 2 decades ago now for them to be successful, they're better off letting the MLS clubs develop prospects and letting the top prospects come to them. FWIW I have no idea what the financials are like to be in one of the MLS academy programs though I can't imagine it's as much as the pay to play places like IMG where it cost more per year to attend than bottom tier players are making in MLS.
 
DaveG said:
not wrong, though speaking from experience on the soccer front it's a much different environment now than it was 10-15 years ago, which is WILDLY different than it was when I was coming up as a pretty serious prospect 25-30 years ago.

25-30 years ago it was largely regional or town based leagues (depending on the size of the area) with the elite players playing in travel teams before being recruited into various top high school feeder programs that would get them on the track to an NCAA scholarship. US prospects going overseas to top development programs to turn pro before they went through the NCAA ranks was virtually unheard of, though a few players were going over to lower tier sides in Europe instead and even I got into a handful of conversations with scouts from clubs in lower tiers in Belgium, Norway, and Denmark about trialing once I was over 16 (for visa reasons) before I blew out my ACL and MCL.

By the time I graduated college it had changed completely and these pay for play academies that had just started getting off the ground were the new feeder programs for the NCAA level. This was prettymuch the dark period for US soccer developmentally. Top young players were now getting legitimate chances in Europe though, especially if they were able to play games with their visa status like Howard and Rossi were able to.

Now you have MLS clubs with their own academies that are producing legitimate prospects and for the most part the pay to play academies are becoming a secondary option, with more prospects than ever going over to play. The inroads that Bayern would have had to try to make would have had to be nearly 2 decades ago now for them to be successful, they're better off letting the MLS clubs develop prospects and letting the top prospects come to them. FWIW I have no idea what the financials are like to be in one of the MLS academy programs though I can't imagine it's as much as the pay to play places like IMG where it cost more per year to attend than bottom tier players are making in MLS.
Click to expand...
Even before that soccer youth team were mostly ethnic social clubs
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaveG
DaveG said:
not wrong, though speaking from experience on the soccer front it's a much different environment now than it was 10-15 years ago, which is WILDLY different than it was when I was coming up as a pretty serious prospect 25-30 years ago.

25-30 years ago it was largely regional or town based leagues (depending on the size of the area) with the elite players playing in travel teams before being recruited into various top high school feeder programs that would get them on the track to an NCAA scholarship. US prospects going overseas to top development programs to turn pro before they went through the NCAA ranks was virtually unheard of, though a few players were going over to lower tier sides in Europe instead and even I got into a handful of conversations with scouts from clubs in lower tiers in Belgium, Norway, and Denmark about trialing once I was over 16 (for visa reasons) before I blew out my ACL and MCL.

By the time I graduated college it had changed completely and these pay for play academies that had just started getting off the ground were the new feeder programs for the NCAA level. This was prettymuch the dark period for US soccer developmentally. Top young players were now getting legitimate chances in Europe though, especially if they were able to play games with their visa status like Howard and Rossi were able to.

Now you have MLS clubs with their own academies that are producing legitimate prospects and for the most part the pay to play academies are becoming a secondary option, with more prospects than ever going over to play. The inroads that Bayern would have had to try to make would have had to be nearly 2 decades ago now for them to be successful, they're better off letting the MLS clubs develop prospects and letting the top prospects come to them. FWIW I have no idea what the financials are like to be in one of the MLS academy programs though I can't imagine it's as much as the pay to play places like IMG where it cost more per year to attend than bottom tier players are making in MLS.
Click to expand...
It kinda reminds me of what happened with American billiards. We used to dominate and you find billiards anywhere . You didn’t need a youth system or a development system because so many people were interested. Then the European federations started building academies and investing into youth and started dominating while the USA rotted on a vine. There’s just this weird thing where sports teams/organizations don’t want to invest into youth. They’ll start women team and leagues and even beach or some other variant but youth teams seem to far unless someone outside the organization does their own thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaveG
joelef said:
The problem is college sports are trying to have their cake and eat it too. College football has all the bells and whistles of pro sports but then want to pretend they were somehow just like a beer league. Also the American sport system is absolutely garbage for development and for smaller sports
Click to expand...

100%. Although, the caveat to college sports is that YES, football and basketball have all the bells and whistles of pro sports... but the NFL and NBA aren't also running 12 other sports that each bring in revenue of like $0 to $5000, like cross country and field hockey.

I mean, us business of sports folks talk about how the WNBA teams can't "stand on their own without the NBA's subsidies" ... but it's mandated than FBS schools subsidize 12 other sports teams, and non-football Division I schools subsidize 13 others.

Most people think that college sports should just become a pro league and would welcome that, and I agree with the principles, but am generally against it because of what "The Split" means. they're not going to do it in a way that makes things better for EVERYONE, but in a way that makes things better for a select few.

What separates college from pros is REVENUE SHARING. The 32 teams in a pro league are EQUALS and share the TV money evenly.

The 32 Division I Conferences DON'T share TV money equally. So "The Great Split" would about those with the money permanently leaving behind everyone else. That's incredibly bad for anyone who's not in the cartel. Which is 290 schools of 363 in Division I.



golfortennis1 said:
The older I get, the more I question why sports are so tied to schools. Messes up so many incentives and benefits.
Click to expand...

The NCAA has always been reactive and not pro-active. They make changes based on "how do we deal with what's happening now?" instead of "what can we do to make this the best model possible?"

College sports isn't "tied to schools" because someone had this great idea to create a business of college sports, it evolved very much like the "athletic club" system in Europe:

- You have a group of people with something in common in one place: They are sports fans at a college, or a European gym.
- They say their school/gym is better than the other local gym, and the other school/gym says "no way" so they decide each school/gym will send their best players to play each other.
- The rest of the school/gym shows up to watch.
- The loser wants to play again.
- The school/gym says "all those people who showed up to watch? If they paid us a buck each to watch, we could buy matching uniforms for our team and even if we lost, we'd look better than them!"
- Now people are paying to watch, but how do you keep non-paying people from watching? You put a fence and a gate around the playing field!
- Then the school/gym is like "we need to get better players if we want to win, what would entice the better players to come here? Let's use our ticket money for THAT!"
- And it evolves until finally, TV gets involved and instead of a few bucks for tickets and concessions, the money gets freaking huge.


The economic model for college sports is NO DIFFERENT than the economic model for Little League or high school sports. No one thinks it's shady to not pay high school kids or little league players... but there's still tickets and concession revenue. It's just tens of dollars instead of tens of millions of dollars.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaveG
KevFu said:
100%. Although, the caveat to college sports is that YES, football and basketball have all the bells and whistles of pro sports... but the NFL and NBA aren't also running 12 other sports that each bring in revenue of like $0 to $5000, like cross country and field hockey.

I mean, us business of sports folks talk about how the WNBA teams can't "stand on their own without the NBA's subsidies" ... but it's mandated than FBS schools subsidize 12 other sports teams, and non-football Division I schools subsidize 13 others.

Most people think that college sports should just become a pro league and would welcome that, and I agree with the principles, but am generally against it because of what "The Split" means. they're not going to do it in a way that makes things better for EVERYONE, but in a way that makes things better for a select few.

What separates college from pros is REVENUE SHARING. The 32 teams in a pro league are EQUALS and share the TV money evenly.

The 32 Division I Conferences DON'T share TV money equally. So "The Great Split" would about those with the money permanently leaving behind everyone else. That's incredibly bad for anyone who's not in the cartel. Which is 290 schools of 363 in Division I.





The NCAA has always been reactive and not pro-active. They make changes based on "how do we deal with what's happening now?" instead of "what can we do to make this the best model possible?"

College sports isn't "tied to schools" because someone had this great idea to create a business of college sports, it evolved very much like the "athletic club" system in Europe:

- You have a group of people with something in common in one place: They are sports fans at a college, or a European gym.
- They say their school/gym is better than the other local gym, and the other school/gym says "no way" so they decide each school/gym will send their best players to play each other.
- The rest of the school/gym shows up to watch.
- The loser wants to play again.
- The school/gym says "all those people who showed up to watch? If they paid us a buck each to watch, we could buy matching uniforms for our team and even if we lost, we'd look better than them!"
- Now people are paying to watch, but how do you keep non-paying people from watching? You put a fence and a gate around the playing field!
- Then the school/gym is like "we need to get better players if we want to win, what would entice the better players to come here? Let's use our ticket money for THAT!"
- And it evolves until finally, TV gets involved and instead of a few bucks for tickets and concessions, the money gets freaking huge.


The economic model for college sports is NO DIFFERENT than the economic model for Little League or high school sports. No one thinks it's shady to not pay high school kids or little league players... but there's still tickets and concession revenue. It's just tens of dollars instead of tens of millions of dollars.
Click to expand...
Little league and high school coaches are usually volunteers who do it in their spare time. College coaches are making millions and flying around in private jets. That’s the difference
 
joelef said:
Little league and high school coaches are usually volunteers who do it in their spare time. College coaches are making millions and flying around in private jets. That’s the difference
Click to expand...

Right, you're proving my point though: The MODEL is the same, it's just the dollar amounts that are different.

What stops a town Little League from paying a coach $4 million per season?

Only the fact that if you add up all the people watching that team and how much money they'll contribute to watch that team and have them win, that it's no where near the amount needed to have a $4 million coach.

But if that Little League team had 8 million fans contributing $200 million to the team, that Little League team would look a lot like Ohio State, Texas A&M, Alabama, etc.
 
KevFu said:
The NCAA has always been reactive and not pro-active. They make changes based on "how do we deal with what's happening now?" instead of "what can we do to make this the best model possible?"

College sports isn't "tied to schools" because someone had this great idea to create a business of college sports, it evolved very much like the "athletic club" system in Europe:

- You have a group of people with something in common in one place: They are sports fans at a college, or a European gym.
- They say their school/gym is better than the other local gym, and the other school/gym says "no way" so they decide each school/gym will send their best players to play each other.
- The rest of the school/gym shows up to watch.
- The loser wants to play again.
- The school/gym says "all those people who showed up to watch? If they paid us a buck each to watch, we could buy matching uniforms for our team and even if we lost, we'd look better than them!"
- Now people are paying to watch, but how do you keep non-paying people from watching? You put a fence and a gate around the playing field!
- Then the school/gym is like "we need to get better players if we want to win, what would entice the better players to come here? Let's use our ticket money for THAT!"
- And it evolves until finally, TV gets involved and instead of a few bucks for tickets and concessions, the money gets freaking huge.


The economic model for college sports is NO DIFFERENT than the economic model for Little League or high school sports. No one thinks it's shady to not pay high school kids or little league players... but there's still tickets and concession revenue. It's just tens of dollars instead of tens of millions of dollars.
Click to expand...

The academy system would build their own facilities, pay their own bills, and not eat up such a portion of school budgets. If there were a football league where the Ann Arbor Wolverines played the Columbus Buckeyes and there was no attachment to either of the schools, but everything else was exactly the same, fine. Operate like a business. High schools I am a bit more ambivalent on, as they are conceivably accessible to everyone, but even there, the football fields, gyms, baseball fields, tracks.... that's money that could be put to better use at a school.

But the whole fact of the matter is, with the exception of maybe hockey, any kid with athletic prowess gets asked "where are you going to play in college?" Screw that. Colleges have their role, and creating, sustaining athletic pipe dreams is not one of them. If the pro leagues want a development system, they can develop it and look after it. Colleges should not be using the resources they do for facilities etc. that are only accessible by less than 2% of the student body.

If you can play, and someone wants you to play for them, and possibly pay you, great. But your SAT score or whether you missed 3rd period Science should not factor into it, nor should you have to go through a calculus charade just because you can get to a QB.

Sports academies can handle sports, let schools do what they are supposed to do.

KevFu said:
Right, you're proving my point though: The MODEL is the same, it's just the dollar amounts that are different.

What stops a town Little League from paying a coach $4 million per season?

Only the fact that if you add up all the people watching that team and how much money they'll contribute to watch that team and have them win, that it's no where near the amount needed to have a $4 million coach.

But if that Little League team had 8 million fans contributing $200 million to the team, that Little League team would look a lot like Ohio State, Texas A&M, Alabama, etc.
Click to expand...

Little League isn't tied to a school. No need to go further than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: joelef
golfortennis1 said:
The academy system would build their own facilities, pay their own bills, and not eat up such a portion of school budgets. If there were a football league where the Ann Arbor Wolverines played the Columbus Buckeyes and there was no attachment to either of the schools, but everything else was exactly the same, fine. Operate like a business. High schools I am a bit more ambivalent on, as they are conceivably accessible to everyone, but even there, the football fields, gyms, baseball fields, tracks.... that's money that could be put to better use at a school.

But the whole fact of the matter is, with the exception of maybe hockey, any kid with athletic prowess gets asked "where are you going to play in college?" Screw that. Colleges have their role, and creating, sustaining athletic pipe dreams is not one of them. If the pro leagues want a development system, they can develop it and look after it. Colleges should not be using the resources they do for facilities etc. that are only accessible by less than 2% of the student body.

If you can play, and someone wants you to play for them, and possibly pay you, great. But your SAT score or whether you missed 3rd period Science should not factor into it, nor should you have to go through a calculus charade just because you can get to a QB.

Sports academies can handle sports, let schools do what they are supposed to do.



Little League isn't tied to a school. No need to go further than that.
Click to expand...

The second part is the shortest, so I'll address that first: the fact that Little League isn't tied to a school doesn't matter, it's the same model: Kids who live in a place, playing kids who live in another place. The kids need things like uniforms and orange slices to do that, and because some amount of people want to watch the games they play and are willing to contribute some money to fund that endeavor... all teams pay for a combination of what they deem "necessary" to compete vs what they can afford.

The only difference is dollar amounts. (And Little League even has a TV contract roughly the same size as the Big East!)



The reason the US doesn't have an academy system** isn't on the colleges; it's on the PROS.

The academy system is just straight up BETTER for developing players than what the NHL, NBA, MLB and NFL, which is essentially NOTHING.

There's no reason for those leagues to take on the expense of development because with only 30-32 teams in the best leagues in the world at those sports, they can simply take the Top 0.01% of players who develop themselves in into elite players.

There's well more than 25,000 college football players. The NFL drafts 224 per year. (.0090%)
There's 500,000 high school and college baseball players. MLB drafts 600 per year (.0012%), plus the foreign players not subject to the draft.
There's 5000 college basketball players, the NBA drafts 60 players (.0118%) plus the rest of the world contributing players.
There's 8000 Junior Hockey/NCAA players, the NHL drafts 224 (.028%) plus the rest of the world)


Soccer on the other hand, totally DOES need to create players, because England alone has like 760 pro teams. MLS relied on the "North American Draft system" and it got them no where.

(That was my ** from before: MLS has an academy system now, because it was totally necessary to raise the quality of American players for US Soccer, and for MLS teams to export players from their academies to better leagues for cash).

If you're a male college soccer player, it's too late for you to be a US National Team player.

But pretend for a second that all the pro teams in NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL actually had an academy system. What would change in college sports? From a business sense, NOTHING.

There'd be less elite players in the NCAA. That's it. No one would care... because there's ALREADY less elite players in the NCAA than before. NBA Lottery picks rarely play 3+ years of college basketball anymore anyway. Larry Bird and Michael Jordan played 3 years of NCAA basketball, and LeBron and Kobe played NONE.

College sports fans are NOT watching for WHO THE PLAYERS ARE. They're watching because of the school they went to/root for, and they want THEIR PLAYERS to be better than the OTHER SCHOOL'S PLAYERS. That's it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaveG and Summer Rose
I've had this argument hundreds of times on this site and no one has offered any evidence that even dents it.

The players themselves and who they are and what their talents are don't matter to the equation. People watch college sports because of their attachments to the schools and they want their players to be better than the other teams players.


If you look at just TALENT OF ROSTER, the NBA G-League crushes NCAA basketball in talent. They're basically college All-Stars. Every NBA G-LEAGUE roster is BETTER than EVERY NCAA Basketball team... but more people by NCAA basketball tickets by a vast margin.


#1 G-League attendance is 5840 (Texas). That would be 83rd in NCAA Basketball, between Richmond and Old Dominion.

The G-League average of 2,311 per game would be 175th in the NCAA, between Bellarmine and Furman.

You go same city, and UAB, Hofstra, Univ of Delaware trounce the G-League teams in attendance.

Look at Washington DC. The G-League team is like 9th in the metro area in basketball attendance. They're behind the George Mason University WOMEN in attendance (and the G-League team was 3rd overall, while the GMU women were 16-15.


I like to use the EA Sports player overall ranking system analogy: Attendance doesn't follow the players overall ratings. Davidson averaged 3,500 fans per game before, during and after they had Steph Curry.

If the best players in college sports are only 78 overall, 100,000 fans are going to go to Alabama football games, and 18,000 fans are going to Kentucky basketball games because they usually have THE MOST 78 overall players. They want to see 75 overall Kentucky beat 70 overall Louisville. They don't care about anything more than that.

Syracuse basketball fans will root for Carmelo Anthony regardless of what NBA team he's on. Davidson, NC is probably split 50/50 between Warriors and Hornets fans (or they just root for both).

I love the Islanders and Mets, but they're not listed on my resume, my college IS. If I had $10 billion, I wouldn't buy the Islanders or Mets... I'd bankroll my alma mater to go from a school you've barely heard of to a school that people call "Like Gonzaga on Steroids." I'm getting St. Bonaventure into the Big East via all new athletics facilities, a 5-star hotel and private airline that's free for conference opponents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaveG and Summer Rose
Pay them like pros and they’ll be treated like pros. You take the good with the bad.

It’ll be interesting to see where all this ends up ~20 years from now. P5 is going to do away with whatever remaining “amateur” charade still remains sooner rather than later. G5 can’t afford to. Many of them are in the red already. If they’re able to put the toothpaste back in the tube to some extent, maybe they can be what college football was in the 90’s but with some minor NIL that more closely adheres to the intent of the rule. I doubt P5 will be playing G5 at that point and that kinda sucks. The big upsets are part of what make college sports fun.
 
KevFu said:
Right, you're proving my point though: The MODEL is the same, it's just the dollar amounts that are different.

What stops a town Little League from paying a coach $4 million per season?

Only the fact that if you add up all the people watching that team and how much money they'll contribute to watch that team and have them win, that it's no where near the amount needed to have a $4 million coach.

But if that Little League team had 8 million fans contributing $200 million to the team, that Little League team would look a lot like Ohio State, Texas A&M, Alabama, etc.
Click to expand...
Little league and high school players are underage which means there much more regulations regarding what they can and cannot do i.e labor laws . What college football fans like you do is pay make believe that college students aren’t legal adults and there rights associated with tent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom