ADVERTISEMENT

It's okay for a school to pay a coach $5-10 million a year...

82hoosier

All-American
Sep 7, 2001
9,669
8,105
113
And it's okay for players to be paid millions of dollars but...

The player money cannot be paid directly by the school. Essentially that money has to come from alumni.

None of that player salary can come from the hundreds of millions of dollars of television revenues that the schools are getting.

This sounds like cement construction contracts and the mafia. Not institutions of higher learning.
 
And it's okay for players to be paid millions of dollars but...

The player money cannot be paid directly by the school. Essentially that money has to come from alumni.

None of that player salary can come from the hundreds of millions of dollars of television revenues that the schools are getting.

This sounds like cement construction contracts and the mafia. Not institutions of higher learning.

Excuse me 82 but,...

While true, I believe IU is more in the waste management business than they are into construction.

You're welcome, Tony S.
 
Last edited:
And it's okay for players to be paid millions of dollars but...

The player money cannot be paid directly by the school. Essentially that money has to come from alumni.

None of that player salary can come from the hundreds of millions of dollars of television revenues that the schools are getting.

This sounds like cement construction contracts and the mafia. Not institutions of higher learning.
So the players get room, board, tuition, free books, ipads computers medical, nutrition counseling 24 hour food, clothing, per diem on road trips tickets, money. Ithink they are doing ok
 
So the players get room, board, tuition, free books, ipads computers medical, nutrition counseling 24 hour food, clothing, per diem on road trips tickets, money. Ithink they are doing ok

This has always been my argument:
These guys are getting paid already with free education and all of the perks that come with it.
By adding pay on top of it, it’s just essentially semi-pro ball anymore.
 
This has always been my argument:
These guys are getting paid already with free education and all of the perks that come with it.
By adding pay on top of it, it’s just essentially semi-pro ball anymore.
I used to think like that. Then the money got too out of control for me to justify it any more. If that many people can get rich off of their work, it doesn’t offend me any more for them to get a cut.
 
This has always been my argument:
These guys are getting paid already with free education and all of the perks that come with it.
By adding pay on top of it, it’s just essentially semi-pro ball anymore.

No essentially about it - they are pro players!
When you are paid for doing something, isn't that the definition of being a professional?
 
I used to think like that. Then the money got too out of control for me to justify it any more. If that many people can get rich off of their work, it doesn’t offend me any more for them to get a cut.

But why can't the schools pay them?
Seems kind of ass backwards. Since it is the schools and the BT that is racking in millions.
Doesn't this next contract bring 80 - 100 mill per school?
 
Yeah, that’s where it’s going next.

There ain’t gonna be any winners in the arms race. Even if your top 32 schools willing to break off into their mini-NFL do so and bring in crazy dollars to do so, about 20 of them won’t take too kindly to being the worst of the best.

The powers that be need to figure something out before the system implodes.
 
So the players get room, board, tuition, free books, ipads computers medical, nutrition counseling 24 hour food, clothing, per diem on road trips tickets, money. Ithink they are doing ok
So are you okay with the University paying its employees millions of dollars from a big 10 Network contract but they can only use your money to pay the players? That is an interesting concept of revenue sharing. The athletic departments are saying players you are welcome to make money but you can't have any of ours. Oh, and by the way, if it wasn't for the players there would be no revenues to share
 
So are you okay with the University paying its employees millions of dollars from a big 10 Network contract but they can only use your money to pay the players? That is an interesting concept of revenue sharing. The athletic departments are saying players you are welcome to make money but you can't have any of ours. Oh, and by the way, if it wasn't for the players there would be no revenues to share

The athletic departments and saying NOTHING. It is the courts that are driving this!
 
I thought the courts just said you couldn't prevent players from making money on the side.

I doubt they said anything about not being able to pay the players directly.

That is correct... the courts don't care where the money comes from as long as players can be paid without penalty.

It's the NCAA and the schools that put in the rule that they cannot pay the players directly... The schools love this because it gets them off the hook yet leaves the door open for players to get paid, if they can find a way..... big IF for many of them.

It's BS...

Once a player uses up their free transfers they are more strapped down at a school than any coach who wishes to break his contract.

It's still a Pig-F***C...

As long as coaches are allowed to move at will, so should the players....
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: vesuvius13
I was just reading an article about how NIL was conceived. When it was originally structured. the key was that these were personal service contracts where there was a quid pro quo. The athletes were to earn the money that they were being paid. I doubt that that is remotely related to the reality. And that's probably because all of the NCAA and school Representatives work clearly clueless as to what this was actually going to look like.
 
Last edited:
Indiana should be on the hook to fund NIL. 80 million dollar TV deals should guarantee that. The fan having to find couch change to fund NIL is ludicrous.
Once you start paying from the TV revenue, you will be slowly slicing the throat on your non-revenue programs. And I 100% guarantee if that happens, there will be a hue and cry to pay an equal amount of women in women's sports (Title XVIII?). WNBA, anybody?
 
Once you start paying from the TV revenue, you will be slowly slicing the throat on your non-revenue programs. And I 100% guarantee if that happens, there will be a hue and cry to pay an equal amount of women in women's sports (Title XVIII?). WNBA, anybody?

That's why you need salary caps and a draft. Have players stay 3 years and then they can transfer afterwards. similar to rookie contracts in the NFL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vesuvius13
That is correct... the courts don't care where the money comes from as long as players can by paid without penalty.

It's the NCAA and the schools that put in the rule that they cannot pay the players directly... The schools love this because it gets them off the hook yet leaves the door open for players to get paid, if they can find a way..... big IF for many of them.

It's BS...

Once a player uses up their free transfers they are more strapped down at a school than any coach who wishes to break his contract.

It's still a Pig-F***C...

As long as coaches are allowed to move at will, so should the players....
And the Coaches love it. All that money rolling in; you can only build a new stadium or workout facility every so many years; that leaves $millions to dispose of and coaches more than willing to help out.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT