🏈 A Brief Breakdown...Well, Not So Brief, About What's Coming on HBO Tonight...

[planomateo]

All involved have said they weren't paid for an intereview. Kremer has gone as far as mentioning where she had other "sources" in this story they wanted to interview and then air. That person asked to be paid.

"We don't pay for interviews at HBO" - Kremer

hows this for a spin... HBO is making money for this show in subscribers and advertisers, all the reporters are making money for their "journalism"...but the guys they are reporting about aren't making money?

kinda ironic huh?

 

[UAgrad93]

Saw where Kremer was wanting to add Newton to the group but he or someone affiliated with him requested an interview fee. The plug was pulled on it, because as stated earlier, "We don't pay for interviews!"

 

['65 Cobra]

Two things came to mind for me.
1. They mentioned "boosters" but could this be the tip of the organized iceberg run by Dye, Lowder, McGregor and Co.? Could these "boosters" be funneled $$$ by the these Big Three and instructed as to how much and to whom it should be delivered? Statute of Limitations goes out the window if there is even suspicion of ongoing activity in this regard and the Cam case would at least provide a basis for that.
2. In recruiting this year, Auburn came out of nowhere on at least 4 players - landing two of them. Players that weren't even remotely considering Auburn until they were convinced to take the visit, usually through some other connection. In the cases of Frazier and Westerman, both were considered locks elsewhere (Westerman actually had to de-commit to commit to AU). In the cases of Calloway and CK, both eventually came to Bama, but for each of them, the presence of AU in the running was very sudden and very urgent and in both cases connected to campus visits. As I recall, both sets of parents played heavily in both players' decisions to back off of AU. Makes you wonder if the parents sniffed some funny business going on. Isn't this also the year that an AU recruit was showing off the new iPhone he received?

I don't doubt that alot of this goes on in many places. I like to thing that the Bama nation is smart enough, having been stung so hard in the past, to just steer clear of that crap now. But even if there is the odd case here and there on other campuses, if I were an Auburn fan, I would be concerned about the likelihood of an organized, systemic process for this kind of thing at AU possibly involving the Big Three mentioned above. I don't think this is going away any time soon and I guess it will eventually all come out in the wash.

Either way, at the end of the day - as another poster said - I think the NCAA is about to make an example of somebody. They took a big hit on how Cam's eligibility was handled and how the OSU scandal was handled (being too lenient) and I think the effect of the HBO special is going to be alot of added pressure to clean up. To do that, someone is going to have to take a fall. Look out.

 

[planomateo]

Either way, at the end of the day - as another poster said - I think the NCAA is about to make an example of somebody. They took a big hit on how Cam's eligibility was handled and how the OSU scandal was handled (being too lenient) and I think the effect of the HBO special is going to be alot of added pressure to clean up. To do that, someone is going to have to take a fall. Look out.

agree, someone gonna get it.

 

[planomateo]

Either way, at the end of the day - as another poster said - I think the NCAA is about to make an example of somebody. They took a big hit on how Cam's eligibility was handled and how the OSU scandal was handled (being too lenient) and I think the effect of the HBO special is going to be alot of added pressure to clean up. To do that, someone is going to have to take a fall. Look out.

agree, someones gonna get it.

 

[psychojoe]

While it is easy to sympathize with the players whose exploits earn millions for their school yet do not get compensated for it, lat's not forget that most D-1 football programs operate at a loss. Even among those who show a profit have those profits diverted to fund other sports which are either non revenue or small revenue. So how many athletic programs actually operate at a profit?

If you consider college sports big business (and certain aspects of it are) think about this: at Alabama football makes a big profit, men's basketball and gymnastics show some profit, probably softball and baseball at least break even. The rest lose money. If this were actually a business we'd pull the plug on track, tennis, golf, swimming, etc. Title IX prevents us from doing that.

I'd love to see us be able to give our athletes enough that they wouldn't qualify for Pell Grants, or even have the need for them. I think we could afford it. How about, say Southern Miss, to pull a name out of the air. They certainly don't have the revenue, from attendance, concessions, or TV, that we do. If they could afford a stipend for athletes at all it would be much less than ours. The haves would have a hige advantage here. The NCAA would never go along with such a plan because of the additional advantage it would offer to the already big money programs.

 

[TerryP]

Quick question if you please. What do you think the university made when Bama won the championship?

There's really no way to judge that. The revenue end of our Ath. Dept. has grown exponentially since our hiring of Saban.

We led the SEC last year in revenue by just around a million dollars. Georgia came in second, LSU and then Florida...the rest are a good 10MM behind.


.

 

[TerryP]

Howard, softball and gymnastics do more than pay for themselves. Basketball does as well...and that profit margin will grow next season.

UT, UK and Arkansas all surpassed us in revenue in the '09-'10 reporting periods. UK about 6MM, Arkansas about 5MM, UT about 3MM.

Last year. The reports on this past season will be out in a few months.

 

[psychojoe]

Howard, softball and gymnastics do more than pay for themselves. Basketball does as well...and that profit margin will grow next season.

UT, UK and Arkansas all surpassed us in revenue in the '09-'10 reporting periods. UK about 6MM, Arkansas about 5MM, UT about 3MM.

Last year. The reports on this past season will be out in a few months.

My point is that many schools do operate at a loss. SEC schools have a big advantage because of both the TV revenue and the enthusiasm brought about by success at high levels. The idea of compensating players though raises issues that would be difficult to resolve. UAB takes a bath in red ink in football every year. They already depend on subsidies from various governing bodies around here. If we were to compensate players from the millions that football produced for the school they wouldn't give their players a dime. The NCAA would never allow a system like that.

 

[TerryP]

My point is that many schools do operate at a loss. SEC schools have a big advantage because of both the TV revenue and the enthusiasm brought about by success at high levels. The idea of compensating players though raises issues that would be difficult to resolve. UAB takes a bath in red ink in football every year. They already depend on subsidies from various governing bodies around here. If we were to compensate players from the millions that football produced for the school they wouldn't give their players a dime. The NCAA would never allow a system like that.

Agreed. It's not going to work. Period.

 

[Brandon Van de Graaff]

If they were to ever implement a payment plan for athletes, the money would have to come from the NCAA's pot, not the schools'. It would have to be a chunk from licensing sales or some such... I don't see it ever happening though... At least not to the degree that would satisfy those that want to be paid.

 

[UAgrad93]

If they were to ever implement a payment plan for athletes, the money would have to come from the NCAA's pot, not the schools'. It would have to be a chunk from licensing sales or some such... I don't see it ever happening though... At least not to the degree that would satisfy those that want to be paid.

There is the key word right there guys!!! Satisfy!! Some will always think they are worth more and the cycle would be continuous. Skill guys would think they are worth more and linemen would think otherwise. Kickers and punters would get pissed because they wouldn't get the payment that the others get because of their position.

 

[JoshB]

I agree that paying players a salary just isnt feasible. Thats not going to happen nor should it but Jason Whitlock from the show had an interesting idea of putting an incentive in place for players that graduate. That I could see and that would be a good idea imo. Also, the licensing thing, players should most definitely see some of that profit from sales of their pictures, highlights, being in video games, etc. especially after they've graduated and those things are still being used.

 

[4th-and-1]

There is the key word right there guys!!! Satisfy!! Some will always think they are worth more and the cycle would be continuous. Skill guys would think they are worth more and linemen would think otherwise. Kickers and punters would get pissed because they wouldn't get the payment that the others get because of their position.

could you imagine having a college football lock out?

 

[BamaDelta]

Status quo isn't always the best idea. Just because we've never done something before doesn't mean it might not need tweaking. This whole issue deserves much more time and research. To say it wouldn't work isn't fair to anyone. Just like a football playoff system is "discussed" some sort of pay or incentives should be discussed and kicked around as well. The NCAA has dumb rules in play for athletes and institutions while they sit back and lick up every dime. I don't have the "answer", but I do feel very strongly that it's past time for some updates in this flawed system.

 

[srollins]

I've been a season ticket holder for years, if college football players were going to start getting paid on top of what their scholarships give them: tuition, books, room and board, transportation, tutoring, opportunity to play for the program you chose, exposure to NFL scouts that you otherwise wouldn't have, as well as the lifetime of adoration from your fan base... I don't think I would continue to purchase my season tickets. I think I'm not alone in that my lifetime love of college football would be destroyed.

This would cause the NCAA and the member schools to lose a lot of the money that so many people are complaining that the schools make by "exploiting" the student athletes.

I wish I would have been "exploited" like that.

I will never forget what Tyrone Prothro did at Alabama. His plays will live in the memories of Alabama fans all over the nation. However, he knew that there was no "salary" that went along with his scholarship when he signed his letter of intent to UA. As far as I know, his scholarship was honored until he graduated with a degree from UA. I can't find anything wrong with him not being paid. Don't get me wrong, I would love to know that he was financially secure for life because of what he accomplished at Alabama, but his future is no more guaranteed than any other UA graduate. Sometimes things happen that are unfair, but that is life. I feel like Tyrone will do well in life, because of the kind of young man he is.

 

[foshman]

If they were to ever implement a payment plan for athletes, the money would have to come from the NCAA's pot, not the schools'. It would have to be a chunk from licensing sales or some such... I don't see it ever happening though... At least not to the degree that would satisfy those that want to be paid.

I agree that it would have to come from the NCAA, otherwise it would be an unfair advantage. There is also n way that college athletes will ever be paid what some think they are worth.

Closing scholarship gaps (which exist and are sizeable,) allowing "books" to cover all required classroom items, and providing 100% room and board so that players don't have to worry about meals ever would be a good start. A modest stipend, equal to say $1500-2000 each academic year would remove the athletes temptation, or at least remove the defense of living in near poverty.

The trick would be is it done in all sports or just revenue generating sports?

I don't see how it's going to happen but I still think it should be addressed in some capacity.

 

[foshman]

I've been a season ticket holder for years, if college football players were going to start getting paid on top of what their scholarships give them: tuition, books, room and board, transportation, tutoring, opportunity to play for the program you chose, exposure to NFL scouts that you otherwise wouldn't have, as well as the lifetime of adoration from your fan base... I don't think I would continue to purchase my season tickets. I think I'm not alone in that my lifetime love of college football would be destroyed.

I admire your vigilance but of what you just listed tuition, books, room and board are all covered partially.

How exactly is transportation provided?

This would cause the NCAA and the member schools to lose a lot of the money that so many people are complaining that the schools make by "exploiting" the student athletes.

I wish I would have been "exploited" like that.
.

1. your season tickets would be snatched up by someone else in a New York minute. There would be no loss there.
2. We can agree to disagree on this point but while athletic scholarships are beneficial to the player they are heavily slanted towards the University. The extra restrictions put on the athletes vs academic or merit scholars as well as the money being made and kept by the university feels unethical to me.

Assuming a scholarship value of $35K, which is a deliberate overestimate, in 2007-08 Alabama spent $2.975 million on its players. The football team had revenues of $54 million. The ratio there is 5.5% given back to the players.

Can you think of any other labor dependent industry with such a low percentage of revenue being spent on labor? The only ones that I can think of are considered sweatshops and labeled as unethical.

Would you really like to be exploited that way?

I make, salary plus benefits, about 8% of the total revenue that I am responsible for and I'm WAY underpaid. I am not necessarily being taken advantage of but I openly refuse to take on certain tasks and responsibilities when asked because I am not compensated fairly for them. I consider myself lucky to have a boss that understands....though I would be luckier to have a boss that increased my salary.

 

['65 Cobra]

I admire your vigilance but of what you just listed tuition, books, room and board are all covered partially.

How exactly is transportation provided?



1. your season tickets would be snatched up by someone else in a New York minute. There would be no loss there.
2. We can agree to disagree on this point but while athletic scholarships are beneficial to the player they are heavily slanted towards the University. The extra restrictions put on the athletes vs academic or merit scholars as well as the money being made and kept by the university feels unethical to me.

Assuming a scholarship value of $35K, which is a deliberate overestimate, in 2007-08 Alabama spent $2.975 million on its players. The football team had revenues of $54 million. The ratio there is 5.5% given back to the players.

Can you think of any other labor dependent industry with such a low percentage of revenue being spent on labor? The only ones that I can think of are considered sweatshops and labeled as unethical.

Would you really like to be exploited that way?

I make, salary plus benefits, about 8% of the total revenue that I am responsible for and I'm WAY underpaid. I am not necessarily being taken advantage of but I openly refuse to take on certain tasks and responsibilities when asked because I am not compensated fairly for them. I consider myself lucky to have a boss that understands....though I would be luckier to have a boss that increased my salary.

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that students aren't employees of their respective universities, nor are they "labor." No matter how much anyone wants to force-feed parallels and comparisons, it just isn't true. Further, your assessment of 5.5% fails to include the other student-athletes and their entire programs that the $54 million in football revenues support outside of football. Lastly, the benefit to the student isn't just in cost of tuition which you estimate to be $35k. It is also in the increase in salaries one can expect to receive as an individual with a college education and the access to certain career fields provided by that degree that aren't available to those without a degree - of course, this doesn't even consider pro sports (and the access big-time college programs give these athletes to those pro teams). That increased salary base, plus raises, promotions, job movement, etc. which all experience x% increases from a higher base add up to 100s of thousands of dollars if not more over a lifetime. If a student-athlete chooses to major in basket-weaving instead of engineering or some other high-paying field (some football players do successfully major in engineering or other difficult but high-paying fields), that's their mistake. If the student-athlete chooses to forego senior year and graduation to try the pros and they fail, it's their fault.

I think the whole management/labor argument is just way off-base. It's a non-starter because it just isn't true, but it also a flawed comparison. Student-athletes choose where they go to college, they choose what to major in, and they choose whether to cut their education short to try the pros. If they go to a college that pressures them to major in zeppelin-watching or grass-mowing, then they should transfer to a college that will support their goals. It is incumbent upon the student-athlete and their family to keep in mind that their athletic scholarship is giving them access to a "free" education first and foremost and that precious few actually make it to the pro level. I realize they are just teenagers, but too many of them - and their families - get blinded by the delusion of big $$$$ too quickly.

 

[srollins]

I guess my biggest problem with your argument is that its even taking place.

Let me explain: Why do (or should) student athletes care about their school's revenues. In my opinion, if I was athletically gifted enough to be on scholarship at a D-1 school and got a full ride on tuition and most of my classroom expenses I would have the attitude "hey, I'm getting a hell of an opportunity here that is a lot more than what well over 99% of the people in this country are getting. I appreciate it and I sure am glad to get the opportunity to play for a great school and showcase my talents and character in a way that might get me noticed by NFL scouts. Where else would I get all of this and an education too?"

I'm disappointed that less and less people feel the same way every year.

Would you really like to be exploited that way?

I make, salary plus benefits, about 8% of the total revenue that I am responsible for and I'm WAY underpaid. I am not necessarily being taken advantage of but I openly refuse to take on certain tasks and responsibilities when asked because I am not compensated fairly for them. I consider myself lucky to have a boss that understands....though I would be luckier to have a boss that increased my salary.

Yes.

These student athletes are only "exploited" for 3 or 4 years while they get all of the aforementioned benefits. This, is during a time in their life that others their age are getting as much or less on average than they are. Then, if they are truly gifted, they literally hit the friggin' lottery as far as salary is concerned. I have no compunction with this whatsoever.