Will the Big East be able to keep up with the P5 long-term?

[alduflux]

If there is no cap on paying players, that's fine for us. We are talking about 10 kids. Let's be real, the paying players is not going to be in the millions per player. $100k would be a huge number for Cheick Diallo type freshman. There are only 10-12 players on a basketball roster, so you are only talking about a million dollars per basketball school. And considering our FOX promotion and large markets, we would be able to market these kids.

At the other end of the spectrum, football would be paying 60 or so kids. That will get expensive. And are the F5 schools going to be paying the hoops kids more than they pay their football stars? Maybe Kentucky, Louisville, Kansas, Duke, Cuse and UNC, but otherwise the answer would be no way. So the hoops salaries would not sky rocket.

If paying players becomes a reality, the Big East is poised to really take advantage of that type of change. Probably moreso than any other conference. This is actually the type of landscape shift that could vault the big East from a current top 3 conference into THE premiere hoops conference in the nation.

I'm wondering why you think a team roster would only be around 1 mil if there is no cap? That number is extremely low.

Consider this. Of the major pro sports only MLB has no player or team cap, although it does have a luxury tax which may help suppress top end team payroll. What do all the pro sports have in common? In every instance the coach makes less then the highest paid players and most cases less money then half the team roster. In a free market the players are much more valuable then coaches. Why would college sport be any different? Additionally, coaches salaries would take a big hit. College coaches in all sports are currently overpaid in large part because the players are underpaid. Pro sports show that players are much more valuable then coaches.

If pay for play had no cap player payroll would be in the range of 40-50% of total expense as it is for most professional sports.

Unrestricted pay for play would devastate the Big East.

[marquette]

If there is no cap on paying players, that's fine for us. We are talking about 10 kids. Let's be real, the paying players is not going to be in the millions per player. $100k would be a huge number for Cheick Diallo type freshman. There are only 10-12 players on a basketball roster, so you are only talking about a million dollars per basketball school. And considering our FOX promotion and large markets, we would be able to market these kids.

At the other end of the spectrum, football would be paying 60 or so kids. That will get expensive. And are the F5 schools going to be paying the hoops kids more than they pay their football stars? Maybe Kentucky, Louisville, Kansas, Duke, Cuse and UNC, but otherwise the answer would be no way. So the hoops salaries would not sky rocket.

If paying players becomes a reality, the Big East is poised to really take advantage of that type of change. Probably moreso than any other conference. This is actually the type of landscape shift that could vault the big East from a current top 3 conference into THE premiere hoops conference in the nation.

I'm wondering why you think a team roster would only be around 1 mil if there is no cap? That number is extremely low.

Consider this. Of the major pro sports only MLB has no player or team cap, although it does have a luxury tax which may help suppress top end team payroll. What do all the pro sports have in common? In every instance the coach makes less then the highest paid players and most cases less money then half the team roster. In a free market the players are much more valuable then coaches. Why would college sport be any different? Additionally, coaches salaries would take a big hit. College coaches in all sports are currently overpaid in large part because the players are underpaid. Pro sports show that players are much more valuable then coaches.

If pay for play had no cap player payroll would be in the range of 40-50% of total expense as it is for most professional sports.

Unrestricted pay for play would devastate the Big East.

Wow, you are assuming some pretty far-fetched facts. College coaches are more valuable than the players because 1. They will be with the program more than 4 years. 2. The best players will be on one year contracts because they want to jump to the NBA 3. The players who stay in college are looking at $100k salaries overseas, not the millions that NBA players make. 4. The revenue is not there. Combined football/basketball tv revenue is a small fraction of what even NHL teams make, so paying players that much money is simply out of the question. Football schools will have to use this limited revenue to pay every football player and every basketball player. $1 million seems kind of high to me for a basketball team.


EDIT: I'd also like to add that in my opinion paying players would destroy the atmosphere of collegiate sports as students no longer view the team as fellow students sharing the experience. That's something that the F5 will probably have to consider.

[alduflux]

Wow, you are assuming some pretty far-fetched facts. College coaches are more valuable than the players because 1. They will be with the program more than 4 years. 2. The best players will be on one year contracts because they want to jump to the NBA 3. The players who stay in college are looking at $100k salaries overseas, not the millions that NBA players make. 4. The revenue is not there. Combined football/basketball tv revenue is a small fraction of what even NHL teams make, so paying players that much money is simply out of the question. Football schools will have to use this limited revenue to pay every football player and every basketball player. $1 million seems kind of high to me for a basketball team.


EDIT: I'd also like to add that in my opinion paying players would destroy the atmosphere of collegiate sports as students no longer view the team as fellow students sharing the experience. That's something that the F5 will probably have to consider.

In a free market the payroll of a college team will represent a similar percent of total expense as a part of revenue as the pro teams experience.

The reason coaches are valuable in college is because they have a direct impact on which players choose to attend that school. When players start getting paid, the coach isn't valuable anymore because the pay determines where the player goes instead of the coach.

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/04/12/whats-a- ... arket.html

That article projects the average college basketball player value at 375,000 and that article was two years old, before the B!G and SEC get their huge pay raises.

..

[marquette]

Wow, you are assuming some pretty far-fetched facts. College coaches are more valuable than the players because 1. They will be with the program more than 4 years. 2. The best players will be on one year contracts because they want to jump to the NBA 3. The players who stay in college are looking at $100k salaries overseas, not the millions that NBA players make. 4. The revenue is not there. Combined football/basketball tv revenue is a small fraction of what even NHL teams make, so paying players that much money is simply out of the question. Football schools will have to use this limited revenue to pay every football player and every basketball player. $1 million seems kind of high to me for a basketball team.


EDIT: I'd also like to add that in my opinion paying players would destroy the atmosphere of collegiate sports as students no longer view the team as fellow students sharing the experience. That's something that the F5 will probably have to consider.

In a free market the payroll of a college team will represent a similar percent of total expense as a part of revenue as the pro teams experience.

The reason coaches are valuable in college is because they have a direct impact on which players choose to attend that school. When players start getting paid, the coach isn't valuable anymore because the pay determines where the player goes instead of the coach.

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/04/12/whats-a- ... arket.html

That article projects the average college basketball player value at 375,000 and that article was two years old, before the B!G and SEC get their huge pay raises.

..

From a basic common sense perspective that can't be true. These same players are worth $15,000-$100,000 on the open market currently (Low end D-League to mid-high Europe). The number of players who make millions on the open market (the NBA) is minuscule. If anything it is the school brand that is worth money. Furthermore, to say the average player is worth that much when you have 13 players per each of the 350+ teams in D1, and most of the athletic departments sell their return games to fund their athletic departments. Very few teams currently turn the $4.9 million dollars that average salary would require. I don't know who this Drexel professor is but there are way too many "might be" and "could be worth" statements in that report to call it anything resembling a solid source. Furthermore, using NBA and NFL revenue sharing agreements when there are Title IX implications in one and not the other is like comparing apples to black holes.

That article also relies on the assumption that Northwestern players were going to unionize. That didn't happen, and as I understand it only players at private schools even have that option. It was also prior to FCOA, which has addressed many of the common player complaints that paying players sought to fix.

[alduflux]

From a basic common sense perspective that can't be true. These same players are worth $15,000-$100,000 on the open market currently (Low end D-League to mid-high Europe). The number of players who make millions on the open market (the NBA) is minuscule. If anything it is the school brand that is worth money. Furthermore, to say the average player is worth that much when you have 13 players per each of the 350+ teams in D1, and most of the athletic departments sell their return games to fund their athletic departments. Very few teams currently turn the $4.9 million dollars that average salary would require. I don't know who this Drexel professor is but there are way too many "might be" and "could be worth" statements in that report to call it anything resembling a solid source. Furthermore, using NBA and NFL revenue sharing agreements when there are Title IX implications in one and not the other is like comparing apples to black holes.

That article also relies on the assumption that Northwestern players were going to unionize. That didn't happen, and as I understand it only players at private schools even have that option. It was also prior to FCOA, which has addressed many of the common player complaints that paying players sought to fix.

Why do you act like the D league is worth more then the NCAA? It is not. Those same players playing in the NCAA are worth more to the NCAA then they are to the D league. An NBA player is worth more in the NBA then they are in Europe, just like a Premier league player is worth more in the Premier league then he is in MLS.

Look at the revenue. If NCAA basketball teams with 20 mil plus revenues (B1G schools, Louisville, UK etc..) can play players an arms race will ensue and player salaries will approach the 40-50% of team revenue threshold as they do in the pro sports. You will have team payrolls for some teams in the 10 mil range.

Do you really think Johnny Manziel is worth more to the NFL then he was to Texas A@M?

[marquette]

You've made my point for me. Players aren't worth more because they play in a better league, they play in a better league because they are worth more. A player who has exhausted his 4 years doesn't suddenly become worth less, and yet the team they play for brings in significantly less revenue than many D1 schools. What does that tell you about the value of the player vs the value of the school?

The moment players unionize and decide to start bargaining, the NCAA and schools would get together and throw around the open market figures. The very few players who are worth those kinds of numbers have no bargaining power because they leave after one year so they don't want to be tied to a long term contract. Other players wouldn't want to have long term contracts because they all have hopes of making the jump. The NBA isn't going to stop players from signing 4 year contracts because the more footage they have on them the better. That won't help the players' bargaining positions. It's honestly a crap shoot once you stop having the players be amateurs. The NBA/NFL take away their bargaining power and going overseas or to the D League gives players less visibility and honestly a lower value for their efforts. The NFL is even worse because they already require players to wait 3 years before signing.

As far as I know, the 4 year eligibility rule would still be in place and Title IX, which is federal regulation and therefore you can't get around, eats up a significant portion of that revenue anyway. Maybe if every school cuts every program except football and basketball (not allowed in the NCAA) there might be a chance to see salaries that vaguely approach those numbers. However, if you destroy the collegiate aspect of college sports then you destroy the brands, brand loyalty goes out the window, feeling of unity with students is gone, and ultimately much of the value is gone once again depressing salaries to a level far short of those numbers.

Some final notes on the study, you can't compare shares from the NBA and NFL with the NCAA. There aren't owners and players and that's it. There are other athletes who, as long as the program is associated with the university, would also be due compensation. Also, if you visit the actual organization page it's pretty clear they have an ax to grind.

[DudeAnon]

The debate about what payers will get paid is really irrelevant. If the Big East maintains revenues similar to the P-5 than it can keep up with the arms race.

Personally, if the free market were to ensue I think players would get paid low 6 figures. Most p5 coaches are paid 1-3 million dollars. 50% of that is split among 10 scholarship players is around 100-150k. I have no problem with either.

Ultimately, I think what makes the Big East different is that we can't rely on our extensive alumni numbers for ratings. What we have to counter that is a presence in almost every major Midwest/East Coast city. I really think winning will determine whether or not we can keep up. If Georgetown were winning D.C. would be all over them. And that goes for St. John's, DePaul etc. So I think we have 9 years left with good money to turn our major market teams into winners. If that doesn't happen, the next negotiation may be a hard sell.

[stever20]

The debate about what payers will get paid is really irrelevant. If the Big East maintains revenues similar to the P-5 than it can keep up with the arms race.

Personally, if the free market were to ensue I think players would get paid low 6 figures. Most p5 coaches are paid 1-3 million dollars. 50% of that is split among 10 scholarship players is around 100-150k. I have no problem with either.

Ultimately, I think what makes the Big East different is that we can't rely on our extensive alumni numbers for ratings. What we have to counter that is a presence in almost every major Midwest/East Coast city. I really think winning will determine whether or not we can keep up. If Georgetown were winning D.C. would be all over them. And that goes for St. John's, DePaul etc. So I think we have 9 years left with good money to turn our major market teams into winners. If that doesn't happen, the next negotiation may be a hard sell.

really it's less than 9 years. It's more like about 6-7 because the new contract stuff would start up about this time 7 years from now.

one major difference next time is when the Big East is up for negotiation, the Big 12, Big 10, SEC tier 1, and Pac 12 will all be going up for bids as well. That wasn't the case a few years ago, when Big East was one of only a few properties overall that was up. That's going to be really interesting to see if that impacts things at all.

To me, BE fans should be rooting for as many properties to be extended before their deals come up. scarcity would help the Big East out a lot I feel.

[NJRedman]

Okay, for arguments sake lets say the P5 in FB decide to split off from the NCAA and start their own sports league and BBall tournament. They say we can come too. But all of their conferences are at 16 teams and they say we have to expand as well to add more teams to the BBall participant pool if we want to join them. Who would you add from all the left behinds (G5/A10/WCC) to get up to that #?

I would add UConn, Gonzaga, VCU, Dayton, UMass, Saint Mary's and Saint Louis.

[gtmoBlue]

Okay, for arguments sake lets say the P5 in FB decide to split off from the NCAA and start their own sports league and BBall tournament. They say we can come too. But all of their conferences are at 16 teams and they say we have to expand as well to add more teams to the BBall participant pool if we want to join them. Who would you add from all the left behinds (G5/A10/WCC) to get up to that #?

I would add UConn, Gonzaga, VCU, Dayton, UMass, Saint Mary's and Saint Louis.

I'll play along... The BEast stays in the NCAA with the other 25 conferences, the old Div 1 or new Div 1A (or 1AA) whatever it would be called. Add Gonzaga and St. Bonaventure.

In the HIGHLY unlikely event of a split and we are invited as the odd conference out, add UConn, Gonzaga, VCU, BYU, Holy Cross, and St. Bonaventure.