As I said, this is Swarbrick trying to control the public talking points. He is trying to portray the story as being one of only having two very extreme solutions. That in itself is false. So that is how I know this is talk connected to negotiations going on. He is trying to strong arm someone. Who that is, I don't know but he is definitely doing that. People like Swarbrick use the media because investigative journalism is a thing of the past. Media folks wont dare question his word because then they know he wont come calling. That is why such statements end up mistaken as truths.

So, with that in mind, there isn't much for me to respond to in your post because you seem to be taking Swarbrick completely at his word. Are you trying to say Gee is the only one that tells two different stories? I really don't get it.

(03-18-2015 08:39 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  As I said, this is Swarbrick trying to control the public talking points. He is trying to portray the story as being one of only having two very extreme solutions. That in itself is false. So that is how I know this is talk connected to negotiations going on. He is trying to strong arm someone. Who that is, I don't know but he is definitely doing that. People like Swarbrick use the media because investigative journalism is a thing of the past. Media folks wont dare question his word because then they know he wont come calling. That is why such statements end up mistaken as truths.

So, with that in mind, there isn't much for me to respond to in your post because you seem to be taking Swarbrick completely at his word. Are you trying to say Gee is the only one that tells two different stories? I really don't get it.

My post will stand on its merit.

So funny to see schools that invented how to make HUGE money from college athletics turn around and complain about huge money in college athletics.


My guess is they were fine with it until the SEC figured out how to join the party and take advantage of geographic advantages......now they want to scream about ethics.


I don't know the answers......but I do know there is some hypocrisy here.

(03-18-2015 04:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Not at all. I've been very consistent on this issue both here and on my blog: every school and conference should be able to maximize their athletic revenue, whether it's through TV revenue, ticket sales or realignment. I have ZERO problem with that. I just believe that it's intellectually consistent that players are able to maximize their own revenue, as well. Let the money flow to everyone.

Yes, they will absolutely notice because they know that a superior alternative product exists. People don't watch sports in a vacuum without context. That's why we don't fill out brackets for the D-II and D-III basketball tournaments. That's why the crappiest FBS bowl games draw more viewers than the FCS playoffs. That's why the 5 power conferences get 90% of the football revenue while the other 5 G5 leagues get comparatively little. Being at the top level absolutely matters because people know full well that it's a scarlet letter that depresses interest when your program isn't at that top level. Just ask all of the G5 fans on this board (much less those that are cheering for D-II or D-III schools).

I don't quite understand what you're saying. Are you asking whether Michigan can get some players by offering less than full market value for their services simply because it's Michigan? Maybe in individual cases. However, at a macroeconomic level, the top talent generally follows where they get the best compensation. Michigan still had to pay Jim Harbaugh a salary that was more than what he received from the 49ers even with him being a "Michigan Man". Why should Michigan expect its players to take a financial haircut compared to its competitors when it's certainly paying its coach top dollar? It's not a great business plan to assume that people won't rationally follow their economic interests the vast majority of the time.

- So if a DIII team (say Wisconsin-Whitewater) suddenly starting pulling in millions of dollars of revenue (invent any hypothetical scenario you want) - then you'd also advocate for those DIII players earning a piece of the pie?

In other words, for you -- the only thing that enables your sympathy for players not "earning their piece of the pie" is the size of the pie? So how big does the pie have to get before this sentiment is turned on? Or is it completely linear, such that for example you think Eastern Michigan players should be getting paychecks for $1.28 per game? After all, EMU has some non-zero sized pie of football revenue. Aren't their players entitled to some slice of that?

- Actually, I think the DII and DIII basketball tournament proves my point. Think about this: some people do fill out brackets for those tournaments. Not a lot of people, but some do.

However, if your hypothesis was correct then all of those people would be quitting the DII/DIII tournaments and coming over to March Madness. Yet we know that isn't the case.

Therefore, I contend that people are very much indeed capable of watching a game between players they know to be inferior athletes. Hence, they're watch because of pride for the school or other reasons.

Shouldn't be any different for B1G schools. The difference is just that they have so many fans right now. They've hit the critical mass that can self-sustain without constant input of unrelated fans (non-alumni, non-local residents, etc.).

- Michigan players wouldn't be taking a haircut. They'd continue to receive the FCoA scholarships they had been receiving.

Top recruits will want to play for Harbaugh and want to play in Michigan Stadium, for that tradition. And a FCoA scholarship to one of the best public schools in the nation will be plenty of compensation to do that, until they can get to the NFL.

I'm not saying there will be no players who would rather just get a paycheck. I'm saying that the B1G and schools like that will continue to be able to get the players they need to be nationally competitive, as they're doing now.

(03-18-2015 04:27 PM)ODUChm Wrote:  Well if one group is playing players to play, and another group is giving players scholarships with all the stipulations and restriction that comes with it, wont the top quality players head to the former group, leaving the latter group with the leftovers who werent good enough to get a spot in the former?

I don't see any reason to automatically assume that all players will choose a paycheck over a FCoA scholarship to a top public university, to play for a tradition and a great coach.

Maybe some will.

Also, your definition of "top quality" might vary.

(03-18-2015 04:42 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The whole thing is a fun hypothetical but:

Most FBS schools are state institutions and specifically exempted from the Federal laws regarding the right to form unions. There are some states that have state laws that would protect those rights but the SEC isn't in those states.

Crossing the line from full cost of attendance to free market compensation is a huge leap for even the wealthiest of programs. Just a toenail over the line and you trigger wage and hour protection, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, tax matching, and eligibility for benefits like paid vacations and retirement contributions and in many states job protection regulations that could trigger the issue of limiting players to only four years of eligibility.

Full cost is here and most schools will interpret as liberally as possible but none want to crossover into an employee-employer relationship.

This is a great post!

However, just to play devil's advocate: there are undergrad students at every B1G university who are also employees.

The mechanics to enable such a thing must therefore be in place ...

(03-18-2015 05:17 PM)bullet Wrote:  The Tshirt fans pretty much all go away. That means the bulk of the $ go away. Alums go less and give a whole lot less.

I don't think any of your assumptions are correct. Nor do I see a causal relationship from one to the next.

(03-18-2015 06:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That's not where the big question is. The big question if this is an employee relationship is---son, youre not getting it done. Your fired. Pickup up last check and see registration about your spring semester options.

Schools are already signing up for full term scholarships, even for players who stop contributing to the team.

I doubt that schools are going to turn 180 and go completely cutthroat if player paychecks show up.


However ... if it somehow became that players were purely employees (and not students), then maybe yes.

(03-18-2015 07:00 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I'm not buying this post one bit. If the B1G decides to not to pay players and joins some of the schools that aren't able to it'll cause a ton of problems. Picture Ohio State & PSU losing recruits to Cincinnati & Pitt due to this. Players will want to play for the schools that pay & to the ones that will give them exposure. That drop in competition level would no longer provide the B1G that exposure. Coaches wouldn't want to go to those schools due the lack of a chance to play for national championships and the hindrance to recruiting. I'm sorry, there is zero chance that the B1G relegates itself to 2nd tier status like the Ivy League did. And there's zero chance a historical powerhouse like Notre Dame will as well. The school presidents and AD's wouldn't make it off campus alive if they went that route.

Yes, I'm calling the B1G's and Swarbrick's bluff.

Ohio State will be paying its players ... a FCoA scholarship there will be worth something like $30k a year. And they get a diploma on top of it (assuming they don't leave for the NFL early).

And the exposure they get playing for Ohio State will be much higher than they'll receive playing for Cincinnati.


The only zero chance in this equation is the doomsday fantasy you describe.

I'm calling your bluff.

(03-18-2015 08:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Whatever the top tier becomes the SEC will be there with the top brands from everywhere, large middle brand schools, and small schools with the funding to do it.

But I don't take this as anything but so much hot air. I somehow just don't think that NBC would honor their contract if such were to be the case.

I have no doubt that the SEC would not only agree to stitch those "NFL-D League" patches on their uniforms, they'd be proud to do it!

At that point, why not just hire players strictly as employees of the school? In other words, they wouldn't be students. They'd just be employees.

Like a janitor or a building maintenance technician.

(03-19-2015 11:09 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 04:42 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The whole thing is a fun hypothetical but:

Most FBS schools are state institutions and specifically exempted from the Federal laws regarding the right to form unions. There are some states that have state laws that would protect those rights but the SEC isn't in those states.

Crossing the line from full cost of attendance to free market compensation is a huge leap for even the wealthiest of programs. Just a toenail over the line and you trigger wage and hour protection, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, tax matching, and eligibility for benefits like paid vacations and retirement contributions and in many states job protection regulations that could trigger the issue of limiting players to only four years of eligibility.

Full cost is here and most schools will interpret as liberally as possible but none want to crossover into an employee-employer relationship.

This is a great post!

However, just to play devil's advocate: there are undergrad students at every B1G university who are also employees.

The mechanics to enable such a thing must therefore be in place ...

Got think worker's comp carrier would want to rerate the premium if athletes come on board.

(03-19-2015 11:16 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Got think worker's comp carrier would want to rerate the premium if athletes come on board.

Schools have insurance for athletes now. ACL surgery isn't cheap.