Worried About Evolution of College Football.....

[ml wave]

You use LSU there. They are one of the very few schools who actually make a profit off their entire athletic program every year. Though they will lose $80 million this year. The rest lose money. So you want to play players more than what they already get. Remember it will be the fans paying higher prices to afford that. As to the players NO ONE is forcing them to play in college. They are very well compensated. They get full scholarships. Many in this country would love not to have their school loan debt. They get a roof over their head. They get good meals every day. They get medical care. They get thousands in stipends. If that's not enough sue the NFL to be allowed to play at 18. It's an NFL problem not an NCAA problem.

Schools build lazy rivers and sleep pods and pay their coaches > NFL salaries because they don't know what to do with all the money they have. Heck, now they're paying out >$20MM in the depths of a pandemic for coaches not to coach. Any P5 athletic department can show a profit if they wanted to. It's also a myth that fans will pay higher prices if players are paid...tickets are priced to demand not to expenses. Sure, players get scholarships and that's great. Many in this country would love to have 3 square meals a day, does that mean your employer should pay you in chickens? Medical care is a great point...do you know that the medical care stops when they're out of school? Many football players have knee/hip/back problems for life (not to mention CTE) as a result of thousands of collisions and they're covering that on their own dime.

I believe LSU is the only one with a lazy river. The schools do lose money supporting all those non-revenue sports. As I said above no one forces them to play. If its so horrible let them pay their own way and just go to school or go get a a job.You're kidding yourself if you don't think ticket prices and seat fees won't go up.

Many schools have their lazy river equivalent, and them losing money in the aggregate due to non-revenue sports is a lie they tell to try to keep their free labor (to use your point, no one forces them to have these non-revenue sports)...if you think schools are capable of charging higher prices but are choosing not to because they aren't paying players then you are the one kidding yourself. Note that pay to players has been basically zero forever yet ticket prices have somehow managed to continue to increase.

Cast all the aspersions you want but the fact is they lose money. They will be forced to charge higher prices when they take on the significant cost of paying a few hundred athletes. The cost will be passed on. It's folly to think otherwise.

Oh, oh, twist my arm...force me to charge higher prices! That's not how business works. They will charge as high of a price as they can to maximize revenues regardless of their expenses.

[Rotorooter]

I'm all for changing the system if someone can tell me how it would work and how it would eliminate cheating the system. Until then, I am in Roller's camp. ESPN, Fox, CBS and ABC are largely responsible for the mess we are in, as noted by Pete's notation of paying one conference $3B. Makes the NFL look almost angelic by comparison (almost).

This is totally backwards thinking. College football players have been getting paid since before TV was invented. TV networks are paying for programming that they can then sell to advertisers/subscribers...are they just supposed to say "no thanks" and not pay for college sports in order to preserve some sort of facade of "purity"? What will they tell their shareholders? What would that really accomplish anyway? LSU makes $4MM+ per home game, there would still be plenty of money to make it egregious not to compensate players.

You want to (largely) eliminate cheating? Remove the artificial restrictions on players' ability to earn money. There you go!

It's the details of the payments I want you to discuss. Of course it has all been under the table. But you cannot change one system without telling me what the new system will look like and expect me to go along with it. So, with that...your turn. Details. And don't just say, "pay the players." I want specifics. Do not forget to take into account pay by position, reserve vs. starter, transfers, graduate students, course requirements, etc., etc.

I don't think it needs to be that complicated. Again, remove all artificial restrictions on players' ability to earn money. Nike wants to pay Trevor Lawrence, go ahead. We've all seen the reports of kids having to shut down their business selling t-shirts or whatever because they're on athletic scholarship--that's absurd. Let them monetize their social media followings...etc.

Surely you are not that naive. Or, maybe you are. Everybody wants CHANGE; to FIX THINGS. Any sane person wants to know a plan, a process and a goal before implementing anything. Otherwise, the cure can be worse than the disease. I didn't think you would come up with an answer; just more fist-banging about a change. Just pay 'em and don't worry.

CFB is THE most inequitable sport, collegiate or professional, that we have today. We have 125 or so teams, only 30 of which can feasibly win the National Championship. As someone rightly pointed out earlier, we have 3 teams that are in it every year and everyone else is playing for fun (it's actually more like 6). Paying players willy-nilly, which is your position, will mean the number will go from 30 to about 12. And oh, by the way, if there are no educational standards, then why should a team be connected to a University? If it is not connected to a University, then why shouldn't be subject to anti-trust laws and/or corporate income taxes? What you end up having is the semi-pro leagues, or minor leagues if you like. If you are comfortable with that, then say it. But to think that, in your scenario, current "Big" programs won't dwarf everyone else is just folly. Sure, it happens today, unless a bad coaching hire is made (Herman at UT, DuBose at 'Bama, Shannon at Miami), but you are all but guaranteeing it. Wellington Mara understood that to have a competitive NFL, you had to level the playing field with the TV money, or else people would get bored watching the same team(s) vie for titles every year. By contrast, CFB is the Wild West, and only the strong will survive. In this arms race, there are not many that will be able to keep up.

[wavedom]

You use LSU there. They are one of the very few schools who actually make a profit off their entire athletic program every year. Though they will lose $80 million this year. The rest lose money. So you want to play players more than what they already get. Remember it will be the fans paying higher prices to afford that. As to the players NO ONE is forcing them to play in college. They are very well compensated. They get full scholarships. Many in this country would love not to have their school loan debt. They get a roof over their head. They get good meals every day. They get medical care. They get thousands in stipends. If that's not enough sue the NFL to be allowed to play at 18. It's an NFL problem not an NCAA problem.

Schools build lazy rivers and sleep pods and pay their coaches > NFL salaries because they don't know what to do with all the money they have. Heck, now they're paying out >$20MM in the depths of a pandemic for coaches not to coach. Any P5 athletic department can show a profit if they wanted to. It's also a myth that fans will pay higher prices if players are paid...tickets are priced to demand not to expenses. Sure, players get scholarships and that's great. Many in this country would love to have 3 square meals a day, does that mean your employer should pay you in chickens? Medical care is a great point...do you know that the medical care stops when they're out of school? Many football players have knee/hip/back problems for life (not to mention CTE) as a result of thousands of collisions and they're covering that on their own dime.

I believe LSU is the only one with a lazy river. The schools do lose money supporting all those non-revenue sports. As I said above no one forces them to play. If its so horrible let them pay their own way and just go to school or go get a a job.You're kidding yourself if you don't think ticket prices and seat fees won't go up.

Many schools have their lazy river equivalent, and them losing money in the aggregate due to non-revenue sports is a lie they tell to try to keep their free labor (to use your point, no one forces them to have these non-revenue sports)...if you think schools are capable of charging higher prices but are choosing not to because they aren't paying players then you are the one kidding yourself. Note that pay to players has been basically zero forever yet ticket prices have somehow managed to continue to increase.

Cast all the aspersions you want but the fact is they lose money. They will be forced to charge higher prices when they take on the significant cost of paying a few hundred athletes. The cost will be passed on. It's folly to think otherwise.

Oh, oh, twist my arm...force me to charge higher prices! That's not how business works. They will charge as high of a price as they can to maximize revenues regardless of their expenses.

You can be as delusional as you like but the fact is they will be taking on an immense cost and that cost will be passes on.

[wavedom]

I'm all for changing the system if someone can tell me how it would work and how it would eliminate cheating the system. Until then, I am in Roller's camp. ESPN, Fox, CBS and ABC are largely responsible for the mess we are in, as noted by Pete's notation of paying one conference $3B. Makes the NFL look almost angelic by comparison (almost).

This is totally backwards thinking. College football players have been getting paid since before TV was invented. TV networks are paying for programming that they can then sell to advertisers/subscribers...are they just supposed to say "no thanks" and not pay for college sports in order to preserve some sort of facade of "purity"? What will they tell their shareholders? What would that really accomplish anyway? LSU makes $4MM+ per home game, there would still be plenty of money to make it egregious not to compensate players.

You want to (largely) eliminate cheating? Remove the artificial restrictions on players' ability to earn money. There you go!

It's the details of the payments I want you to discuss. Of course it has all been under the table. But you cannot change one system without telling me what the new system will look like and expect me to go along with it. So, with that...your turn. Details. And don't just say, "pay the players." I want specifics. Do not forget to take into account pay by position, reserve vs. starter, transfers, graduate students, course requirements, etc., etc.

I don't think it needs to be that complicated. Again, remove all artificial restrictions on players' ability to earn money. Nike wants to pay Trevor Lawrence, go ahead. We've all seen the reports of kids having to shut down their business selling t-shirts or whatever because they're on athletic scholarship--that's absurd. Let them monetize their social media followings...etc.

Surely you are not that naive. Or, maybe you are. Everybody wants CHANGE; to FIX THINGS. Any sane person wants to know a plan, a process and a goal before implementing anything. Otherwise, the cure can be worse than the disease. I didn't think you would come up with an answer; just more fist-banging about a change. Just pay 'em and don't worry.

CFB is THE most inequitable sport, collegiate or professional, that we have today. We have 125 or so teams, only 30 of which can feasibly win the National Championship. As someone rightly pointed out earlier, we have 3 teams that are in it every year and everyone else is playing for fun (it's actually more like 6). Paying players willy-nilly, which is your position, will mean the number will go from 30 to about 12. And oh, by the way, if there are no educational standards, then why should a team be connected to a University? If it is not connected to a University, then why shouldn't be subject to anti-trust laws and/or corporate income taxes? What you end up having is the semi-pro leagues, or minor leagues if you like. If you are comfortable with that, then say it. But to think that, in your scenario, current "Big" programs won't dwarf everyone else is just folly. Sure, it happens today, unless a bad coaching hire is made (Herman at UT, DuBose at 'Bama, Shannon at Miami), but you are all but guaranteeing it. Wellington Mara understood that to have a competitive NFL, you had to level the playing field with the TV money, or else people would get bored watching the same team(s) vie for titles every year. By contrast, CFB is the Wild West, and only the strong will survive. In this arms race, there are not many that will be able to keep up.

You're exactly right. He can't come up with an answer. He just wants to bang his fist on the table .

[ml wave]

I'm all for changing the system if someone can tell me how it would work and how it would eliminate cheating the system. Until then, I am in Roller's camp. ESPN, Fox, CBS and ABC are largely responsible for the mess we are in, as noted by Pete's notation of paying one conference $3B. Makes the NFL look almost angelic by comparison (almost).

This is totally backwards thinking. College football players have been getting paid since before TV was invented. TV networks are paying for programming that they can then sell to advertisers/subscribers...are they just supposed to say "no thanks" and not pay for college sports in order to preserve some sort of facade of "purity"? What will they tell their shareholders? What would that really accomplish anyway? LSU makes $4MM+ per home game, there would still be plenty of money to make it egregious not to compensate players.

You want to (largely) eliminate cheating? Remove the artificial restrictions on players' ability to earn money. There you go!

It's the details of the payments I want you to discuss. Of course it has all been under the table. But you cannot change one system without telling me what the new system will look like and expect me to go along with it. So, with that...your turn. Details. And don't just say, "pay the players." I want specifics. Do not forget to take into account pay by position, reserve vs. starter, transfers, graduate students, course requirements, etc., etc.

I don't think it needs to be that complicated. Again, remove all artificial restrictions on players' ability to earn money. Nike wants to pay Trevor Lawrence, go ahead. We've all seen the reports of kids having to shut down their business selling t-shirts or whatever because they're on athletic scholarship--that's absurd. Let them monetize their social media followings...etc.

Surely you are not that naive. Or, maybe you are. Everybody wants CHANGE; to FIX THINGS. Any sane person wants to know a plan, a process and a goal before implementing anything. Otherwise, the cure can be worse than the disease. I didn't think you would come up with an answer; just more fist-banging about a change. Just pay 'em and don't worry.

CFB is THE most inequitable sport, collegiate or professional, that we have today. We have 125 or so teams, only 30 of which can feasibly win the National Championship. As someone rightly pointed out earlier, we have 3 teams that are in it every year and everyone else is playing for fun (it's actually more like 6). Paying players willy-nilly, which is your position, will mean the number will go from 30 to about 12. And oh, by the way, if there are no educational standards, then why should a team be connected to a University? If it is not connected to a University, then why shouldn't be subject to anti-trust laws and/or corporate income taxes? What you end up having is the semi-pro leagues, or minor leagues if you like. If you are comfortable with that, then say it. But to think that, in your scenario, current "Big" programs won't dwarf everyone else is just folly. Sure, it happens today, unless a bad coaching hire is made (Herman at UT, DuBose at 'Bama, Shannon at Miami), but you are all but guaranteeing it. Wellington Mara understood that to have a competitive NFL, you had to level the playing field with the TV money, or else people would get bored watching the same team(s) vie for titles every year. By contrast, CFB is the Wild West, and only the strong will survive. In this arms race, there are not many that will be able to keep up.

I did answer your question, I clearly said that players shouldn't be restricted from the ability to earn money. The music prodigy in school can give lessons for cash, the science genius can monetize some medical discovery, the business student can start his own business...but not if they're a student athlete. This is dumb and wrong and should change.

These are some crazy leaps you're making here. Who said anything about educational standards or not being connected to a University? What does parity on the field have to do with this discussion? That's not the players' responsibility and who exactly in some actual position of power is in favor of/pushing for parity? Certainly not the ones benefitting from the current system. It's great that the NFL shares their TV money, it would be great if CFB did the same, but that's not the reality.

[ml wave]

You use LSU there. They are one of the very few schools who actually make a profit off their entire athletic program every year. Though they will lose $80 million this year. The rest lose money. So you want to play players more than what they already get. Remember it will be the fans paying higher prices to afford that. As to the players NO ONE is forcing them to play in college. They are very well compensated. They get full scholarships. Many in this country would love not to have their school loan debt. They get a roof over their head. They get good meals every day. They get medical care. They get thousands in stipends. If that's not enough sue the NFL to be allowed to play at 18. It's an NFL problem not an NCAA problem.

Schools build lazy rivers and sleep pods and pay their coaches > NFL salaries because they don't know what to do with all the money they have. Heck, now they're paying out >$20MM in the depths of a pandemic for coaches not to coach. Any P5 athletic department can show a profit if they wanted to. It's also a myth that fans will pay higher prices if players are paid...tickets are priced to demand not to expenses. Sure, players get scholarships and that's great. Many in this country would love to have 3 square meals a day, does that mean your employer should pay you in chickens? Medical care is a great point...do you know that the medical care stops when they're out of school? Many football players have knee/hip/back problems for life (not to mention CTE) as a result of thousands of collisions and they're covering that on their own dime.

I believe LSU is the only one with a lazy river. The schools do lose money supporting all those non-revenue sports. As I said above no one forces them to play. If its so horrible let them pay their own way and just go to school or go get a a job.You're kidding yourself if you don't think ticket prices and seat fees won't go up.

Many schools have their lazy river equivalent, and them losing money in the aggregate due to non-revenue sports is a lie they tell to try to keep their free labor (to use your point, no one forces them to have these non-revenue sports)...if you think schools are capable of charging higher prices but are choosing not to because they aren't paying players then you are the one kidding yourself. Note that pay to players has been basically zero forever yet ticket prices have somehow managed to continue to increase.

Cast all the aspersions you want but the fact is they lose money. They will be forced to charge higher prices when they take on the significant cost of paying a few hundred athletes. The cost will be passed on. It's folly to think otherwise.

Oh, oh, twist my arm...force me to charge higher prices! That's not how business works. They will charge as high of a price as they can to maximize revenues regardless of their expenses.

You can be as delusional as you like but the fact is they will be taking on an immense cost and that cost will be passes on.

Ok, laws of supply and demand totally don't apply, will file that away.

[wavedom]

You use LSU there. They are one of the very few schools who actually make a profit off their entire athletic program every year. Though they will lose $80 million this year. The rest lose money. So you want to play players more than what they already get. Remember it will be the fans paying higher prices to afford that. As to the players NO ONE is forcing them to play in college. They are very well compensated. They get full scholarships. Many in this country would love not to have their school loan debt. They get a roof over their head. They get good meals every day. They get medical care. They get thousands in stipends. If that's not enough sue the NFL to be allowed to play at 18. It's an NFL problem not an NCAA problem.

Schools build lazy rivers and sleep pods and pay their coaches > NFL salaries because they don't know what to do with all the money they have. Heck, now they're paying out >$20MM in the depths of a pandemic for coaches not to coach. Any P5 athletic department can show a profit if they wanted to. It's also a myth that fans will pay higher prices if players are paid...tickets are priced to demand not to expenses. Sure, players get scholarships and that's great. Many in this country would love to have 3 square meals a day, does that mean your employer should pay you in chickens? Medical care is a great point...do you know that the medical care stops when they're out of school? Many football players have knee/hip/back problems for life (not to mention CTE) as a result of thousands of collisions and they're covering that on their own dime.

I believe LSU is the only one with a lazy river. The schools do lose money supporting all those non-revenue sports. As I said above no one forces them to play. If its so horrible let them pay their own way and just go to school or go get a a job.You're kidding yourself if you don't think ticket prices and seat fees won't go up.

Many schools have their lazy river equivalent, and them losing money in the aggregate due to non-revenue sports is a lie they tell to try to keep their free labor (to use your point, no one forces them to have these non-revenue sports)...if you think schools are capable of charging higher prices but are choosing not to because they aren't paying players then you are the one kidding yourself. Note that pay to players has been basically zero forever yet ticket prices have somehow managed to continue to increase.

Cast all the aspersions you want but the fact is they lose money. They will be forced to charge higher prices when they take on the significant cost of paying a few hundred athletes. The cost will be passed on. It's folly to think otherwise.

Oh, oh, twist my arm...force me to charge higher prices! That's not how business works. They will charge as high of a price as they can to maximize revenues regardless of their expenses.

You can be as delusional as you like but the fact is they will be taking on an immense cost and that cost will be passes on.

Ok, laws of supply and demand totally don't apply, will file that away.

And when the cost of doing business go up businesses don't pass them on. Delusional.

[ml wave]

If there's demand, sure. Basically any business will be happy to find any excuse to raise their prices if they can get away with it but the cost of doing business going up does not increase demand.

[wavedom]

If there's demand, sure. Basically any business will be happy to find any excuse to raise their prices if they can get away with it but the cost of doing business going up does not increase demand.

LOL. Sure they are just going to absorb the immense cost of paying over 300 athletes and not pass it on. Delusional.

[tulaneoutlaw]

If people will pay increased costs then that's the definition of demand. Typically with increased costs, whether taxes or some other shock both producer and consumer bear part of the increase. That's text book econ 101.

But yes, let's die on the anti free market hill that takes advantage of young men.

[wavedom]

They are handsomely compensated. No one is being taken advantage of. No one forces them to play college ball. They want to be paid even more then sue the NFL for entry at the conclusion of HS.

[ml wave]

If there's demand, sure. Basically any business will be happy to find any excuse to raise their prices if they can get away with it but the cost of doing business going up does not increase demand.

LOL. Sure they are just going to absorb the immense cost of paying over 300 athletes and not pass it on. Delusional.

So do you think raising the price of tickets has any effect on the amount of tickets that are sold?

If only schools had some sort of captive population that they could tap into to help defray these costs. They could call it something like an "activity fee" so no one realizes what it's paying for or even that it goes to the athletic department. Would be even better if the money to pay for this fee was largely subsidized by the federal government.

[ml wave]

They are handsomely compensated. No one is being taken advantage of. No one forces them to play college ball. They want to be paid even more then sue the NFL for entry at the conclusion of HS.

No one forces colleges to have football teams either.

[Poseidon]

If there's demand, sure. Basically any business will be happy to find any excuse to raise their prices if they can get away with it but the cost of doing business going up does not increase demand.

LOL. Sure they are just going to absorb the immense cost of paying over 300 athletes and not pass it on. Delusional.

So do you think raising the price of tickets has any effect on the amount of tickets that are sold?

If only schools had some sort of captive population that they could tap into to help defray these costs. They could call it something like an "activity fee" so no one realizes what it's paying for or even that it goes to the athletic department. Would be even better if the money to pay for this fee was largely subsidized by the federal government.

Both of yall are correct for the most part.

There is a lot of talk about "being taken advantage of." How about we actually ask people who were in college football programs. I was for two seasons at ULL, before dropping because of injuries. I wasn't taken advantage of. I appreciated the chance to play and still do. I didn't even want to play there I wanted to play at Tulane. My experience as athlete and then as a regular student were very different. As an athlete I had class schedule priority, dorm priority, parking privileges and the school usually put us first in line for anything. Our professors knew we were athletes and showed us the attention t that you had to ask and ask for if you were a regular student. Most of those around me appeared to feel the same way. Only those who didn't care about school felt differently. Which is why I say the NFL not allowing those who don't wan to go to school to try out for the NFL is the problem.

[Rotorooter]

They are handsomely compensated. No one is being taken advantage of. No one forces them to play college ball. They want to be paid even more then sue the NFL for entry at the conclusion of HS.

No one forces colleges to have football teams either.

And there is the point. Only the richest programs will survive a market-based, pay the players without restrictions, arms race. You looking at shrinking college football to a fraction of the number of teams that we have today. Do you really think Tulane will be one of those teams to survive? I don't.

To say these players do not get compensated is ridiculous. They get a free education, excellent facilities to workout in, free tutoring, three hots and a cot and an opportunity to make more money than they (or many of us) dreamed possible. Nobody is making them stay on the team. Are there some arcane rules that need to be re-vamped? You betcha. Am I opposed to paying them stipends or some such? Nope. But there has to be some limits or we are going to be watching the same teams over and over and one of them won't be wearing Olive Green and Sky Blue.

Is the answer a minor league? Maybe. But there are very few programs that can generate money to get top flight talent and not compete or impact the rest of their athletic programs.

[wavedom]

If there's demand, sure. Basically any business will be happy to find any excuse to raise their prices if they can get away with it but the cost of doing business going up does not increase demand.

LOL. Sure they are just going to absorb the immense cost of paying over 300 athletes and not pass it on. Delusional.

So do you think raising the price of tickets has any effect on the amount of tickets that are sold?

If only schools had some sort of captive population that they could tap into to help defray these costs. They could call it something like an "activity fee" so no one realizes what it's paying for or even that it goes to the athletic department. Would be even better if the money to pay for this fee was largely subsidized by the federal government.

LOL. You're really embarrassing yourself here. When a business takes on a significant cost it gets passed on to the customer. If that's not clear to you I can't help you.

[wavedom]

They are handsomely compensated. No one is being taken advantage of. No one forces them to play college ball. They want to be paid even more then sue the NFL for entry at the conclusion of HS.

No one forces colleges to have football teams either.

Great response.

[ml wave]

They are handsomely compensated. No one is being taken advantage of. No one forces them to play college ball. They want to be paid even more then sue the NFL for entry at the conclusion of HS.

No one forces colleges to have football teams either.

Great response.

Lol, it's literally your argument.

[Johnny4]

If there's demand, sure. Basically any business will be happy to find any excuse to raise their prices if they can get away with it but the cost of doing business going up does not increase demand.

LOL. Sure they are just going to absorb the immense cost of paying over 300 athletes and not pass it on. Delusional.

So do you think raising the price of tickets has any effect on the amount of tickets that are sold?

If only schools had some sort of captive population that they could tap into to help defray these costs. They could call it something like an "activity fee" so no one realizes what it's paying for or even that it goes to the athletic department. Would be even better if the money to pay for this fee was largely subsidized by the federal government.

LOL. You're really embarrassing yourself here. When a business takes on a significant cost it gets passed on to the customer. If that's not clear to you I can't help you.

Company A and Company B both make widgets. The both have a cost of $0.50 and sell the widgets for $1.00. They both have 50% market share.
Company B's cost increases to $0.75. Should company B increase their sales price to $1.25?
No. If company B increases the sales price, consumers will choose to buy the $1.00 widgets from company A.

Companies should charge the highest possible price they can to maximize revenue. cost is only relevant to the extent that a company should choose to enter or leave a market and how much volume to produce.

Let's say Widget A is college football tickets and Widget B is NFL tickets (or some other entertainment option). If consumers are willing to pay more for college football tickets and purchase the same volume, then why aren't the colleges already charging more for the tickets?

Certainly arguments to made as to why that might be the case... larger attendance (lower priced tickets) increases school spirit, likelihood of a win, etc. which may produce greater long-term benefit than a single-game's ticket sales revenue.

[Johnny4]

They are handsomely compensated. No one is being taken advantage of. No one forces them to play college ball. They want to be paid even more then sue the NFL for entry at the conclusion of HS.

Maurice Clarrett won a lawsuit against the NFL, but it was overturned by the second circuit court of appeals (New York).

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1111241.html

Basically, no evidence that the NFL and NFLPA have conspired to drive competitors out of the market place. Thus the collective bargaining agreement, which requires players to be three years removed from high school, cannot be invalidated by the courts.

[DCGreenie]

They are handsomely compensated. No one is being taken advantage of. No one forces them to play college ball. They want to be paid even more then sue the NFL for entry at the conclusion of HS.

No one forces colleges to have football teams either.

Great response.

No one is being taken advantage of?.... Let's go back to a (partial) baseline here: The majority of our current -- and probably prospective -- players are taking crap majors that provide them no real knowledge and skills for long-term, professional occupations. Some unknown, but significant, percentage suffer uncorrected injuries, some of which only appear years later and can be debilitating to a greater or lesser extent. Tulane tried to resist this "student-athlete" ethos for a long, long time, but finally capitulated to the Health and Wellness, Kinesiology, etc., crap majors just to get the stronger FB players to come to Tulane. Almost none get to play in the NFL. and even then, the usual outcome is a short career, often spent mostly on the bench, and the opportunity to garner even more injuries.
And later? Track a bunch of these players who were recruited not to get an academic or professional education, but simply to play FB, after they are out of college for 10 or 20 or 30 years. Selling carpeting and outboard motors, working in their uncle's restaurant, driving 18-wheelers, etc. And there are a lot sadder stories. Is this what going to Tulane produces? Remember when we had prospective MDs going to Tulane (Roch Hontas); and biologists; and physicists. Yep, those days are gone. But what we have now is worse -- its is exploitative and there is no way to rationalize it as an ethical stance for Tulane. And don't give me the lame argument that many of these kids would either go to a worse school (to learn what? to benefit how?) or would have no college at all.
And, BTW, I can practice advocacy on the "other side" of this argument just as well. I did that for decades in Washington, DC.

[ml wave]

They are handsomely compensated. No one is being taken advantage of. No one forces them to play college ball. They want to be paid even more then sue the NFL for entry at the conclusion of HS.

No one forces colleges to have football teams either.

And there is the point. Only the richest programs will survive a market-based, pay the players without restrictions, arms race. You looking at shrinking college football to a fraction of the number of teams that we have today. Do you really think Tulane will be one of those teams to survive? I don't.

To say these players do not get compensated is ridiculous. They get a free education, excellent facilities to workout in, free tutoring, three hots and a cot and an opportunity to make more money than they (or many of us) dreamed possible. Nobody is making them stay on the team. Are there some arcane rules that need to be re-vamped? You betcha. Am I opposed to paying them stipends or some such? Nope. But there has to be some limits or we are going to be watching the same teams over and over and one of them won't be wearing Olive Green and Sky Blue.

Is the answer a minor league? Maybe. But there are very few programs that can generate money to get top flight talent and not compete or impact the rest of their athletic programs.

"an opportunity to make...money" is not compensation. If you or I have a gym membership through work, it's a nice perk...for the players it's not a perk but a mandate of their job. Coaches routinely make millions of dollars/yr with quite a few making more than NFL coaches, and it's ok because as of a couple years ago at least the players aren't going hungry anymore? This is silly. An education is great and hopefully as many players as possible are taking full advantage of it.

As for shrinking the number of teams...I doubt it. There's not going to be any less players, and there's only a fixed number that the "rich" teams can take.

[wavedom]

They are handsomely compensated. No one is being taken advantage of. No one forces them to play college ball. They want to be paid even more then sue the NFL for entry at the conclusion of HS.

No one forces colleges to have football teams either.

Great response.

Lol, it's literally your argument.

I was being sarcastic.

[wavedom]

If there's demand, sure. Basically any business will be happy to find any excuse to raise their prices if they can get away with it but the cost of doing business going up does not increase demand.

LOL. Sure they are just going to absorb the immense cost of paying over 300 athletes and not pass it on. Delusional.

So do you think raising the price of tickets has any effect on the amount of tickets that are sold?

If only schools had some sort of captive population that they could tap into to help defray these costs. They could call it something like an "activity fee" so no one realizes what it's paying for or even that it goes to the athletic department. Would be even better if the money to pay for this fee was largely subsidized by the federal government.

LOL. You're really embarrassing yourself here. When a business takes on a significant cost it gets passed on to the customer. If that's not clear to you I can't help you.

Company A and Company B both make widgets. The both have a cost of $0.50 and sell the widgets for $1.00. They both have 50% market share.
Company B's cost increases to $0.75. Should company B increase their sales price to $1.25?
No. If company B increases the sales price, consumers will choose to buy the $1.00 widgets from company A.

Companies should charge the highest possible price they can to maximize revenue. cost is only relevant to the extent that a company should choose to enter or leave a market and how much volume to produce.

Let's say Widget A is college football tickets and Widget B is NFL tickets (or some other entertainment option). If consumers are willing to pay more for college football tickets and purchase the same volume, then why aren't the colleges already charging more for the tickets?

Certainly arguments to made as to why that might be the case... larger attendance (lower priced tickets) increases school spirit, likelihood of a win, etc. which may produce greater long-term benefit than a single-game's ticket sales revenue.

In this case all will be paying the increased cost. And again it's really sad that some here don't understand how taking on such a costly expense is going to be passed on.

[wavedom]

They are handsomely compensated. No one is being taken advantage of. No one forces them to play college ball. They want to be paid even more then sue the NFL for entry at the conclusion of HS.

Maurice Clarrett won a lawsuit against the NFL, but it was overturned by the second circuit court of appeals (New York).

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1111241.html

Basically, no evidence that the NFL and NFLPA have conspired to drive competitors out of the market place. Thus the collective bargaining agreement, which requires players to be three years removed from high school, cannot be invalidated by the courts.

Different times. They can take a different tact. Bottom line is no one is forcing them to play college ball. And the fact still is that they are handsomely paid.