Should the NFL Play at all in 2020? RBF

[Amherstcavsfan]

It's not like the variations of viral influenza's have been around for oh, thousands of years now.

Again, they have the option to opt out. I think they know what's best for them more than YOU know what's best for them. They're all adults and can make their own decisions.

The players have the power to decide if they want to go down that path or not. In the end, they're at an extremely, extremely low risk of coming across any harm if they even contract the virus.

I agree with most of this, and it is the player's decision. Ultimately, they are in a career where they risk their lives and health by simply stepping on the field, so COVID isn't a new threat to some of them.

What I DO think is a problem is saying they have an extremely low risk of coming across any harm. It's an easily transmitted disease that can cause long term problems other than someone dies. Von Miller caught it and had breathing problems for months.

That being said, the players have decided that their money is more important than getting COVID, which is their decision and their right. I don't have a problem with what the players are doing.

I do think the NFL needs to protect themselves and say there should not be any fans at any games, but I suppose if they want to open themselves to a lawsuit, go ahead.

Anyway, I don't think downplaying the virus is necessary when you have an argument that is strong enough to say "the players want this so it doesn't really matter."

 

[Wrathe]

Boosters generally are paying money -- the only thing they're making money-wise is from whatever benefit they get attracting more customers because they're a booster. And networks also are paying money to schools. That's the revenue. So the question is what schools do with all that.

There's been a ton of studies on this, but very few athletic departments overall make money for their school. Here's one that actually agrees with you that athletes are getting screwed, and it says about only a dozen or so schools actually have athletic departments that generate net revenue:

https://www.murphy.senate.gov/download/madness-inc#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20as%20few%20as,on%20staff%20salaries%20and%20facilities

.

So sure, lots of coaches, administrators, facilities maintenance, etc. people make money off sports because they're employees, and that's their job. They're not going to do it unless they get paid. So, you could argue that all those coaches, administrators, facilities maintenance people, trainers, etc., in all those other sports essentially are making their livings off the backs of the football and men's basketball players, and that should end. The money should go to the players in those sports rather than to the coaches, administrators, etc., people in all those non-revenue producing sports that are subsidized by football and basketball.



Well, given that the NCAA already has filed their appeal to the Supreme Court on that issue, it's pretty clear that they're willing to role the dice against semi-pro/minor leagues.

I wouldn't mind a return to the actual student athlete era of college sports as opposed to the minor leagues they tend to be today.

 

[Huber.]

Has anyone been able to come up with a plan on how to play college athletes that doesn't end up creating more victims of unfairness?

 

[Wrathe]

I agree with most of this, and it is the player's decision. Ultimately, they are in a career where they risk their lives and health by simply stepping on the field, so COVID isn't a new threat to some of them.

What I DO think is a problem is saying they have an extremely low risk of coming across any harm. It's an easily transmitted disease that can cause long term problems other than someone dies. Von Miller caught it and had breathing problems for months.

That being said, the players have decided that their money is more important than getting COVID, which is their decision and their right. I don't have a problem with what the players are doing.

I do think the NFL needs to protect themselves and say there should not be any fans at any games, but I suppose if they want to open themselves to a lawsuit, go ahead.

Anyway, I don't think downplaying the virus is necessary when you have an argument that is strong enough to say "the players want this so it doesn't really matter."

I wonder what's more likely, CTE issues or long term CV damage?
No sarcasm, legit wonder which is more likely.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Sometimes boosters will utilize universities to put their cash through in order to take advantage of tax breaks.

You mean boosters will donate money so they can get a write-off? And that's how they "make money" off the schools?

They've been peddling this line for years. Do you really believe that the NCAA would spend decades expanding sports and the business of collegiate athletics if it were not wholly profitable for universities to do so?

Yes. It is not "profitable" by definition. Look, try thinking about it this way -- why do the overwhelming majority of schools have athletic departments that are a net negative for overall revenue? So even if you take the non-profit aspect out of it and just speak colloquially, why do the vast majority of schools have athletic departments that lose money?

They manipulate revenues and expenses at will to continue the false narrative that they aren't making money.

Do you have any actual evidence of that? I cited above a report that agrees with your argument that athletes should get paid, and even that report says that maybe a dozen of the literally thousands of schools actually make net revenue from athletics. On top of that, the finances of public universities are actually public, and can be checked pretty easily. The contracts are all public, etc..

To boot, there is nothing that says athletic departments need to be profitable in order for athletes to earn a share of wages, especially considering what they pay coaches and administrators in a true FREE market.

That's completely true -- nothing says they have to have net positive revenue to pay those athletes. But this goes right back to the point I made initially -- if you want schools to pay football players "what they're worth", how far in the red do you think schools will be willing to go? Or will they just do the smart thing and cancel a ton of sports that are net negatives for revenue? That choice has always been there, and we've just now started to see a few schools cancel some non-revenue producing sports because of an expectation of less football revenue. So if even more of that football revenue no longer goes to finance other sports, but to the athletes instead, isn't it likely that schools will start cancelling those other sports?

Maybe that is the "fair" result. But it's worth noting that excess revenues from football overwhelmingly go to finance other sports, not into the pockets of shareholders because...there aren't any.

Other problems with the revenue/expense reports include:
1. Over-reporting of the value of scholarships, which certainly don't cost the universities the full amount that a non-athletic department student would pay in tuition and expenses. While this undoubtedly costs something, they include this to make it appear less profitable.

2. Lottery funds, Title IX & OOS tuition waivers

3. Merchandise splitting between university departments.

4. League media rights deals.

5. Under-reported "gifts" to the university because of sports

6. Subsidies

Nowhere were some of these issues more present then UAB, where they cancelled their football program due to perceived budget shortfalls, only to have a sports economist call out their shady practices which debunked the narrative.

The UAB situation is interesting. Different economists reached different opinions about whether or not the program (not the athletic department overall) was operating in the red or black. But one thing the critics of the shutdown said was that UAB should have been spending more money on the football problem. Not on players, but on things like a bunch of money for high-profile coach Jimbo Fisher, and for a new stadium.

Why UAB died and came back, explained in 2 minutes

The story is political as well as financial.

www.sbnation.com

The next best alternative is to pool these revenues at an NCAA level and distribute accordingly as a fund.

Next best alternative for who, exactly? I can't imagine that would be good for the coaches or players at the big-time schools, because in essence, they'd be funding all the non-football sports at all those schools that lose money on athletic.

If only 27 college athletics departments were profitable, do you think we'd be making this much effort to overcome a deadly pandemic to play through it?

Yes, absolutely.

I mean, ask yourself why some schools have crew teams, which basically bring in zero revenue. Or why schools have all those other sports that clearly can't cover their own costs. The reason those sports still exist despite their financial burden is part of the reason those same schools want football.

 

[N7RobBob]

Can definitely see this a possibility especially since we don't know long term affects that it has on the different parts of our body. Could be linked to complications later in our lives

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I wouldn't mind a return to the actual student athlete era of college sports as opposed to the minor leagues they tend to be today.

That would basically mean having tighter academic standards, and that isn't going to happen on a large scale.

 

[Vee-Rex]

If you have health issues opt out.

I responding to you saying "What's it matter if someone in the NFL catches COVID-19" and "These guys are not at risk of dying".

That's objectively false, and I explained why it DOES matter if someone catches COVID-19. Responding by saying, "they should opt out" is silly and fails to address the point.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Has anyone been able to come up with a plan on how to play college athletes that doesn't end up creating more victims of unfairness?

So much depends on your definition of "fairness."

The core problem is the disconnect as to why college football is able to make so much money. The top players believe it is because of their individual talent, for which they want to be compensated. The schools disagree, and believe it is more their individual "brand" and alumni/state fan bases that markets football for them. Players come and go, but the school tradition is forever.

To tell the truth, I don't think the NCAA would mind there being "minor league" football independent of the NCAA. They'd keep the vast majority of college football players who aren't pro caliber and who want the education that comes with a scholarship. And fans of Ohio State -- for example -- aren't going to stop being fans of Ohio State simply because the top 1 % of players are playing in some minor leagues. That's probably why Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delaney has advocated for the NFL to create minor leagues.

Creating a minor league for football and basketball could save college athletics. Here's why.

Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany said last week that football and basketball might work better if they had minor leagues, so players who didn’t want to…

www.michiganradio.org

The real question is what percentage of top -- let's say first three round prospects -- would forego college completely to play instead in the minor leagues? They'd have to weigh the value of whatever check they'd earn against 1) whether playing in the minor leagues would give them the same degree of exposure they'd get with a major college football program, and 2) whatever value they may attach to the college experience/education.

No idea what the answer to that would be. I suppose a third factor is that football teams are large, and made up overwhelmingly of guys who have no reasonable pro aspirations. They're the ones who are going to stay in college. So even if the 100 or so guys who are the top in college football but aren't yet ready to play in the NFL decide to go minor leagues...how good are the players going to be who fill out the rest of that roster, and are those the kind of players with whom the top ones are going to want to play alongside?

Maybe the XFL revival by The Rock will be the minor leagues for which some have been advocating. I think that would be a good thing all around, including for the colleges themselves.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

What I DO think is a problem is saying they have an extremely low risk of coming across any harm. It's an easily transmitted disease that can cause long term problems other than someone dies. Von Miller caught it and had breathing problems for months.

"Extremely low risk" isn't "no risk". Some players are going to get more severe cases with more severe repercussions. The question is what percentage.

 

[Triplethreat]

"Extremely low risk" isn't "no risk". Some players are going to get more severe cases with more severe repercussions. The question is what percentage.

An extremely low percentage.

My 59 year old out of shape father who works in healthcare had the virus and never had as much as a single symptom.

Young, professional athletes in peak shape will have far less of an issue than pretty much the majority for he population

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

An extremely low percentage.

My 59 year old out of shape father who works in healthcare had the virus and never had as much as a single symptom.

Young, professional athletes in peak shape will have far less of an issue than pretty much the majority for he population

I think the issue is that there isn't solid, reliable data. Lots of anecdotal stuff, like Von Miller. But I personally haven't seen global data on the number of athletes who have tested positive, and what percentage of them had severe cases/lasting repercussions. It may well be out there -- I just haven't seen it myself.

 

[AZ_]

You mean boosters will donate money so they can get a write-off? And that's how they "make money" off the schools?

That's just one example of the financial benefit, they'll also get access and other things with monetary value from the school as well. As I said, feel free to not include them, but they're taking advantage of the system and providing themselves a financial gain.

Yes. It is not "profitable" by definition. Look, try thinking about it this way -- why do the overwhelming majority of schools have athletic departments that are a net negative for overall revenue? So even if you take the non-profit aspect out of it and just speak colloquially, why do the vast majority of schools have athletic departments that lose money?

As explained earlier, its likely that if they weren't able to show losses for the financial benefit, we would more accurately see the monetary benefits.

There are a number of ways they do this, some of which I explained.

Do you have any actual evidence of that? I cited above a report that agrees with your argument that athletes should get paid, and even that report says that maybe a dozen of the literally thousands of schools actually make net revenue from athletics. On top of that, the finances of public universities are actually public, and can be checked pretty easily. The contracts are all public, etc..

Sure, people have called out this process forever.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
Link 5
Link 6

That's completely true -- nothing says they have to have net positive revenue to pay those athletes. But this goes right back to the point I made initially -- if you want schools to pay football players "what they're worth", how far in the red do you think schools will be willing to go? Or will they just do the smart thing and cancel a ton of sports that are net negatives for revenue? That choice has always been there, and we've just now started to see a few schools cancel some non-revenue producing sports because of an expectation of less football revenue. So if even more of that football revenue no longer goes to finance other sports, but to the athletes instead, isn't it likely that schools will start cancelling those other sports?

Maybe that is the "fair" result. But it's worth noting that excess revenues from football overwhelmingly go to finance other sports, not into the pockets of shareholders because...there aren't any.

But there are stakeholders, as I've pointed out, who are making hundreds of millions off this labor.

None of this is an excuse to deny players the economic rights they're entitled to by law, instead of being suppressed under the bunk concept of amateurism.

The UAB situation is interesting. Different economists reached different opinions about whether or not the program (not the athletic department overall) was operating in the red or black. But one thing the critics of the shutdown said was that UAB should have been spending more money on the football problem. Not on players, but on things like a bunch of money for high-profile coach Jimbo Fisher, and for a new stadium.

Why UAB died and came back, explained in 2 minutes

The story is political as well as financial.

www.sbnation.com

Fair.

Next best alternative for who, exactly? I can't imagine that would be good for the coaches or players at the big-time schools, because in essence, they'd be funding all the non-football sports at all those schools that lose money on athletic.

Holding other sports hostage because of the failed efforts to monatize wildly popular sports is not the fault of the students who labor to play them.

Yes, absolutely.

I mean, ask yourself why some schools have crew teams, which basically bring in zero revenue. Or why schools have all those other sports that clearly can't cover their own costs. The reason those sports still exist despite their financial burden is part of the reason those same schools want football.

This is an assumption that doesn't always carry weight.

My fiance rode and coached crew for the majority of her life, and those on her high school team got scholarships from schools because of the Title IX & OOS tuition waivers which provide the school even more money and opportunity to fund these sports. One of her girls got offered by schools like Marquette and St. Joe's, who don't even have a serious football team which funds their efforts.


Once again, the market doesn't lie. Schools are exploding payrolls and facilities and then trying to claim that they don't have the funds to continue playing athletics even after one year without fans. Its nonsense, and we haven't even BEGUN to discuss the multi-million, and in some cases BILLION dollar endowments these universities have to continue providing opportunities in athletics for their universities.

 

[Surge]

Just had the 61st player opt-out. Looks like they were expecting around 60.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

None of this is an excuse to deny players the economic rights they're entitled to by law, instead of being suppressed under the bunk concept of amateurism. .

By what current law, specifically, are players entitled to money they are not receiving? You'd figure if there was some current law already on the books that mandated what you claim, there would have been all sorts of lawsuits filed in which players would have cashed in on that legal entitlement. I'm not aware of any. There was one non-binding opinion by the National Labor Relations Board holding that student athletes were employees entitled to minimum wage, but that was tossed almost immediately by the Court of Appeals.

You're advocating for a change to current law -- it's not what current law actually is. If you want to make it so that college scholarship athletes are legally considered "employees" under the Fair Labor Standards Act, you need to change that law.

Holding other sports hostage because of the failed efforts to monetize wildly popular sports is not the fault of the students who labor to play them.

I agree -it isn't their fault. I'm just saying that's the reality of the financial situation. If you force schools to take that football income over expenses and pay it out to football players as cash, that same money cannot be used to fund other sports. And that makes it very likely some of those sports disappear. That will be the reality, regardless of fault. It's already happening now because those schools are not willing to go further into the red to fund non-revenue producing sports when revenues are down because of the pandemic.

It's also relevant to look at that in terms of the argument that colleges are making huge "profits" off of athletes. Well, not exactly. They're using a huge chunk of that money to fund the athletic activities of other college students. That's not quite as greedy/nefarious as you're making it out to be.

My fiance rode and coached crew for the majority of her life, and those on her high school team got scholarships from schools because of the Title IX & OOS tuition waivers which provide the school even more money and opportunity to fund these sports. One of her girls got offered by schools like Marquette and St. Joe's, who don't even have a serious football team which funds their efforts.

Title IX will ensure that some small number of women's sports exist to offset the number of guys playing football. But if guys want to play a sport other than football or basketball, they may be out of luck. As will be a lot of women's sports not necessary to meet Title IX requirements.

Once again, the market doesn't lie.

On this, we absolutely agree.

So you have to ask the question -- if big-time college athletes are the true revenue drivers for college football, why hasn't a "minor league" for football that can take advantage of their economic value while paying them at the same time been able to survive? If colleges are simply exploiting them, then the most logical thing for them to do is leave ,and just become professionals elsewhere. That's why I'm a big fan of something like the XFL giving these guys an alternative to college football. It'd be an interesting market experiment as to who is more likely to survive and thrive -- college football without those players who demand to be paid, or the individual players without the support of the college system.

Maybe the best thing would be a player-owned league, like a co-op. That way, there are no team owners or administrators profiting off the labor of the players. Just the players running their own league, and keeping all the money for themselves. Maybe instead of paying expensive coaches salaries, the teams are all player-coached. Why not?

Let the market decide! Bonus is that because it would be an employee-owned league, they could cancel the season because of Covid-like concerns without having anyone tell them that they have to play.