Our local paper >>

http://www.commercialappeal.com/sports/c...y_90514254


...What’s the right answer?

The Olympic model. Let individual athletes market themselves. That way, there can be neutral rules that still take into account market realities. Everyone has an equal right to go out and sign endorsement deals. But the athletes that bring the most to the university will also get the most lucrative deals. Don’t make Tom Bowen or any other administrator decide how much athletes are worth. Let the market take care of that.

There is absolutely no chance of that happening, right?

Absolutely no chance at all.

So by next year, Memphis is going to have to find $5,373 for every single athlete, no matter how much money the particular athlete generates?

That is correct. And totally nuts.

(08-25-2015 08:51 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Our local paper >>

http://www.commercialappeal.com/sports/c...y_90514254


[i]...What’s the right answer?

The Olympic model. Let individual athletes market themselves. That way, there can be neutral rules that still take into account market realities. Everyone has an equal right to go out and sign endorsement deals. But the athletes that bring the most to the university will also get the most lucrative deals. Don’t make Tom Bowen or any other administrator decide how much athletes are worth. Let the market take care of that.

Alabama Booster(s) will pay $50,000 for ONE autograph from of every OL recruit.

Alabama Booster(s) will pay $75,000 for ONE autograph for every DL/LB/DB recruit.

Alabama Booster(s) will pay $100,000 for ONE autograph for every RB/WR recruit.

Alabama Booster(s) will pay $250,000 for ONE autograph for every QB recruit.

Univ of Alabama can just say that their boosters/fans are diehards and that is the fair value for autographs that Bama fans will pay.

What our local sports columnist does not get is that UofM JUMPED on the COA situation as an opportunity to boost future recruiting. It will do exactly that and the money will be found. I expect that is true at most, if not all AAC schools. The "P5" aren't the only ones seeking "separation".

(08-26-2015 09:52 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(08-25-2015 08:51 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Our local paper >>

http://www.commercialappeal.com/sports/c...y_90514254


[i]...What’s the right answer?

The Olympic model. Let individual athletes market themselves. That way, there can be neutral rules that still take into account market realities. Everyone has an equal right to go out and sign endorsement deals. But the athletes that bring the most to the university will also get the most lucrative deals. Don’t make Tom Bowen or any other administrator decide how much athletes are worth. Let the market take care of that.

Alabama Booster(s) will pay $50,000 for ONE autograph from of every OL recruit.

Alabama Booster(s) will pay $75,000 for ONE autograph for every DL/LB/DB recruit.

Alabama Booster(s) will pay $100,000 for ONE autograph for every RB/WR recruit.

Alabama Booster(s) will pay $250,000 for ONE autograph for every QB recruit.

Univ of Alabama can just say that their boosters/fans are diehards and that is the fair value for autographs that Bama fans will pay.

Yup. That would spin out of control fast as alums get involved with autographs and endorsement deals.

By the way, a form of what he is advocating is coming (sort of). Once the case is fully decided, athletes will begin receiving a share of name and likeness income. That means t-shirt sales, video game sales, as well as other forms of merchandise related to name and likeness. The current court order would require schools to pay a minimum of 5K per athlete for this with the money going into a trust fund that will be distributed to the kid when he completes his college playing career. But the kids going to schools with higher merchandise sales will see more. So kids at Alabama and Texas will receive more than those with lower merchandise sales like Idaho or Rice.

I think that's his point ... open this up to the market. Drop the pretense.

(08-26-2015 10:10 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  What our local sports columnist does not get is that UofM JUMPED on the COA situation as an opportunity to boost future recruiting. It will do exactly that and the money will be found. I expect that is true at most, if not all AAC schools. The "P5" aren't the only ones seeking "separation".

I think he knows that. I think everyone knows that. Memphis is providing $5,373 to the men's basketball players and football players because it's those teams that could help us in future realignment. What he IS saying is that because of Title IX we're ALSO having to fund three women's teams that have NO influence on whether we get a Big 12 invite or not.... women's basketball, tennis and volleyball.

The cost of attendance is the straw that will break the back of college football and send it spiraling into the realm of professional sports. NFL Jr. anyone?

(08-26-2015 11:31 AM)Juan Tibonya Wrote:  The cost of attendance is the straw that will break the back of college football and send it spiraling into the realm of professional sports. NFL Jr. anyone?

I disagree. I think cost of attendance scholarships are a good thing, but I also think they're going about it all wrong. It should never have been up to the school decide how much is fair. There should be a metric that all schools should use and the maximum that schools can pay scholarship athletes should be based on that metric.

One possibility would be cost of living. Why can't CoA payments be pegged to the cost of living in a city. Let's say the baseline payment is $3,500.

Akron, Ohio is 100.2% of the average cost of living in the US, so the school can give athletes UP TO $3,507 (3,500 x 100.2%).

Tuscaloosa, Alabama is 94.6% of the average, so the school can give UP TO $3,311.

Los Angeles, California is 136.4% of the average, so the school can give UP TO $4,774.

It doesn't have to be cost of living and the base doesn't have to be $3,500. It can be whatever is determined to be the most fair, but it needs to be a specific metric that the schools can't control. That is the way that seems to be the most reasonable to me.

(08-26-2015 12:12 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 11:31 AM)Juan Tibonya Wrote:  The cost of attendance is the straw that will break the back of college football and send it spiraling into the realm of professional sports. NFL Jr. anyone?

I disagree. I think cost of attendance scholarships are a good thing, but I also think they're going about it all wrong. It should never have been up to the school decide how much is fair. There should be a metric that all schools should use and the maximum that schools can pay scholarship athletes should be based on that metric.

One possibility would be cost of living. Why can't CoA payments be pegged to the cost of living in a city. Let's say the baseline payment is $3,500.

Akron, Ohio is 100.2% of the average cost of living in the US, so the school can give athletes UP TO $3,507 (3,500 x 100.2%).

Tuscaloosa, Alabama is 94.6% of the average, so the school can give UP TO $3,311.

Los Angeles, California is 136.4% of the average, so the school can give UP TO $4,774.

It doesn't have to be cost of living and the base doesn't have to be $3,500. It can be whatever is determined to be the most fair, but it needs to be a specific metric that the schools can't control. That is the way that seems to be the most reasonable to me.

The Department of Education is 'suppose' to oversee all of this. The decisions related to amounts of the CoA are suppose to be made outside of the control or concerns of the athletic departments .... and apply to all students where issuing federal money / grants are concerned. Any sharp increases in CoA is suppose to create a red flag for review by the DOE and all costs have to show justifications. So there are 'supposed' to be controls. And considering how much and how many this impacts, it should be working just like you described above.

(08-25-2015 08:51 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  So by next year, Memphis is going to have to find $5,373 for every single athlete, no matter how much money the particular athlete generates?

That is correct. And totally nuts.[/i]

Has UM or the AAC made any announcements about who gets FCOA? Particularly athletes in non-revenue sports?

(Not that a million or two for stipends for the volleyball and baseball teams are going to break UM, it's just a question.)

(08-26-2015 02:03 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Has UM or the AAC made any announcements about who gets FCOA? Particularly athletes in non-revenue sports?...

MEN: FCOA ($5,373) for Football and Basketball

WOMEN: FCOA for Basketball, Volleyball and Tennis

But the players get more than the Tennessee players right?

Memphis will come back to earth this year a bit...still be good but the delusions of grandeur will all be snuffed out by the last week.

COA is a joke...huge discrepancies between schools.

(08-26-2015 08:40 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  COA is a joke...huge discrepancies between schools.

College revenue sports are a joke.

(08-26-2015 08:02 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  But the players get more than the Tennessee players right?

Are you asking if The University of Memphis athletes are getting more than University of Tennessee athletes?

If so, the answer is TENN looks like an additional $5666 according to this.

So TENN is almost $300 higher.

(08-26-2015 08:03 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Memphis will come back to earth this year a bit...still be good but the delusions of grandeur will all be snuffed out by the last week.

Still hurtin' from that 41-17 whoopin', huh? Or the 19-13 all-time series edge for Memphis? lol

Seriously, you could be right. We might back up a little from last year, but I don't think it will be as far as those who cite the loss of 8 defensive starters think. Assuming Paxton Lynch stays for his senior year, next year will be our year to shine again.

As for delusions of grandeur, I think you have the wrong school. We might have a stray message board troll or three, but the great majority of our fan base is still in shock over last year, and just hoping we're not a one-year flash, or that Fuente will bolt soon, and we'll fall back.

That's why they play the games, and why they are fun.

(08-26-2015 11:02 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 10:10 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  What our local sports columnist does not get is that UofM JUMPED on the COA situation as an opportunity to boost future recruiting. It will do exactly that and the money will be found. I expect that is true at most, if not all AAC schools. The "P5" aren't the only ones seeking "separation".

I think he knows that. I think everyone knows that. Memphis is providing $5,373 to the men's basketball players and football players because it's those teams that could help us in future realignment. What he IS saying is that because of Title IX we're ALSO having to fund three women's teams that have NO influence on whether we get a Big 12 invite or not.... women's basketball, tennis and volleyball.

If that was his primary message, the title should have been "Title IX Is Lunacy".

(08-26-2015 11:31 AM)Juan Tibonya Wrote:  The cost of attendance is the straw that will break the back of college football and send it spiraling into the realm of professional sports. NFL Jr. anyone?

If you consider inflation, cost of attendance isn't significantly worse than the standard $25 per week "laundry money" which the NCAA allowed back in the 60's. Of course, there was no "Title IX" back then.

(08-26-2015 08:40 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  COA is a joke...huge discrepancies between schools.

It's a power conference rule. We don't have to follow their rule. We're ALL just going because we ALL want to be like them.