Oso planning to go pro
Well, if that's a straw man, so is the assertion that teams "cheer for the name on the front" regardless of who fills the uniform.
Are you sure about that 25 percent figure?Anyhow, DePaul men's basketball raked in a whopping $5.5 million in revenue, according to the most recent figures I could find. The Fox contract is worth $4.16 million a year per team. So, it's actually pretty pathetic that the program can only generate a little more than $1.3 million from all its revenues outside of TV (i.e. sponsorships, ticket sales, merchandise, etc.) and it doesn't speak highly of their brand value.DePauls fortunate inclusion in the Big East is because of the league's desire to be in the Chicago market. It has nothing to do with the value of its brand or brand loyalty.Some more facts on DePaul's brand loyalty:"14 Blue Demons home games this year have drawn an average of 1,824 people. That's down 24 percent from last season's final average and on pace to mark the first attendance dip for the program in three years. This year saw more sparsely-attended games than normal, according to Allstate Arena ticket records obtained by Crain's. Seven DePaul games saw attendance of less than 1,000 people, including two games attended by fewer than 600 people."http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20170303/BLOGS04/170309946/basketball-attendance-sinking-as-depaul-heads-downtownThis is a program that 30 years ago was averaging 12,000 at its home games. Now it's lucky to get 1/10th of that, and you think there's still brand loyalty, and that the players matter less than the uniform?
Well, if that's a straw man, so is the assertion that teams "cheer for the name on the front" regardless of who fills the uniform. Are you sure about that 25 percent figure?Anyhow, DePaul men's basketball raked in a whopping $5.5 million in revenue, according to the most recent figures I could find. The Fox contract is worth $4.16 million a year per team. So, it's actually pretty pathetic that the program can only generate a little more than $1.3 million from all its revenues outside of TV (i.e. sponsorships, ticket sales, merchandise, etc.) and it doesn't speak highly of their brand value.DePauls fortunate inclusion in the Big East is because of the league's desire to be in the Chicago market. It has nothing to do with the value of its brand or brand loyalty.Some more facts on DePaul's brand loyalty:"14 Blue Demons home games this year have drawn an average of 1,824 people. That's down 24 percent from last season's final average and on pace to mark the first attendance dip for the program in three years. This year saw more sparsely-attended games than normal, according to Allstate Arena ticket records obtained by Crain's. Seven DePaul games saw attendance of less than 1,000 people, including two games attended by fewer than 600 people."http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20170303/BLOGS04/170309946/basketball-attendance-sinking-as-depaul-heads-downtownThis is a program that 30 years ago was averaging 12,000 at its home games. Now it's lucky to get 1/10th of that, and you think there's still brand loyalty, and that the players matter less than the uniform?
Actually schools don't *need* to enter these arms races. They generally choose to do so because athletic departments are normally run by paranoid administrators who look at every shiny new object that another school has and think they have to incorporate it immediately.On top of that, they have the fiscal discipline of a crackhead in a drug house.
You are right, they don't *need* to enter these arms races. They could choose to just be at a competitive disadvantage and field lower quality teams. Here is the crux of it, where do the funds for the "arms races" come from? That answer is simple, donations. Donors are willing to donate large sums of money for fancier facilities, and new stadiums, locker rooms. They will not pony up the same type of dollars for an athletes salary. They want big shiny tangible objects that they can boast about to their friends. That is why administrators look at those object, that is what they can get donations for, and through the donations boast their profile and ranking. The problem is that they need to still pay coaches salaries, scholarships, infrastructure costs, travel expenses and many others. Those cost as much, and often more than the actual revenue generated by the sports. So they get creative. Let's say all apparel sold with the university name is solely because of athletics...that will make our athletic loses more palatable. Let's assign the tutors, educational facilities, and substantial infrastructure costs to the university to make the loses appear less. If you pay athletes the costs will be incurred by the general University budget and will take funds away from education.Also, the athletes would most definitely be employees then, and would incur many other problems that they don't currently have to deal with.
I think you're making tons of assumptions here that not only are unsupported, but often contradicted.NCAA history is rife with examples of donors paying athletes in violation of the rules. Why do you believe donors now would be unwilling to make such contributions within the rules? What makes you certain that a donor would rather shell out $10,000 for a locker room stall, but not a 5-star power forward? My guess is that one might prefer boasting about how his contribution helped land that kid who just put up 22 and 10, more so than the place that kid changes his socks. I remain unconvinced that the revenues to pay kids aren't there. Again, FBS raked in $3.4 billion last year. Paying every FBS scholarship athlete a $10K salary would cost about 3 percent of that revenue. Are you really suggesting the average FBS athletic department couldn't find 3 percent in their budgets?Whata re some of the problems athletes would incur if paid, and how do they outweigh the benefits (i.e. salaries, workers comp, labor protections, etc.)?
In a nutshell, this is where I'm coming from (although, I suppose I'd end with "unnecessary" instead of "unfair"). Even though the players, as a group, are essential to drive revenue, it's the brand that keeps the money flowing in. Most players are essentially fungible, with a few transcendent players able to really move the needle. What I see is that the players, as a group, are more than happy with what they're getting for their efforts and it's even pretty rare to see the superstars complain. My concern is that if they open things up and allow it to be a negotiation, a fairly limited number of players will receive a lot more money, but most of the players will receive less. College recruiting -- even in low profile, non-revenue sports -- is a bit like dealing with used car salesmen where they're trying to pitch you. It's already slimy when everyone is offering pretty much the same thing. I just really don't like the idea of professional recruiters/salesmen negotiating with tens of thousands of children and seeing how cheaply they can buy the commitment (in order to save enough money to pay for the superstars). I envision a situation where the top few players on a basketball team and maybe the top 10-20 players on the football roster get paid more (and even then, only in big conferences) and everyone else gets the best partial scholarship he can negotiate. Even though it's slimy now, at least the athlete -- generally speaking a child (in some sports often as young as 15-16 years old) with limited bargaining power -- knows what he or she is getting. At the end of the day, I just think they'd be changing a system under which tens of thousands of kids obtain a free education in order to increase the compensation of a handful of players who are going to be playing as professionals anyway.I honestly bristle at the claim that I'm siding with the huge schools in taking this position. I think that no matter the system, the big schools are going to come out fine. I genuinely feel like I'm taking the side of the little guys -- the athletes who are benefiting from the current system who I believe will lose under a pay-for-play system. If people think it's unfair to have the Dwyane Wades of the world to subsidize the rest, I can appreciate that argument even if I generally disagree. But I think it's misguided to characterize moving to pay-for-play as looking out for the little guy. To me, it kind of feels like fighting for higher pay for up and coming mid-level executives in Fortune 100 companies.I think there are two better solutions. First, as mentioned above, let those transcendent players capitalize on their name and make money. Second, allow those players to go directly to the professional leagues and avoid the issue entirely.
Fans buy tickets based on the perceived/expected value of that purchase. That perceived value is based on an unspoken promise that Marquette will do its best year in and year out to field a competitive, entertaining team. Fielding a competitive, entertaining team requires recruiting and developing talented, in-demand players.So, yes, fans do buy their tickets based on who's playing for the team. Not any specific individual, but on a group of talented players.The notion that fans are spending money simply to "cheer for the name on the front" is simply not accurate. They're spending money with an expectation of that the players wearing the name on the front will produce at a certain level. Stop meeting those expectations, and the fans will go away (again, see: DePaul).
It seems we've gone far afield of the original transfer rule topic in this thread, but the discussion has nonetheless been interesting. I'm not convinced that there is a role for academic institutions to run "professional" sports teams, where players are considered employees and get paid for their services. Nor do I care for the NBA to force kids who are good enough to be paid for their work to spend a year playing unpaid before they are eligible to join the league. I think eventually we will see changes here for the very elite - either they will be allowed to go directly to the draft, or the draft could expand to include a number of players that the NBA wants to have on their G-League teams; kind of like baseball, with a fully developed farm system where players get paid for their work and advance as their talents allow. We may see more kids going to Europe for a year instead of bothering with classes and all that stuff in order to play ball.Realistically, only a small percentage of players in D-1 basketball ever get any time in the NBA. Why disrupt the whole system for that privileged few when there are other solutions for how to deal with the few? Would college basketball become less interesting without those "superstars" in the game? I doubt it. There will still be a high level of play, competitive teams and the best single elimination tournament in the US every March. We will still look for our coaches to put together a talented group of individuals and mold them into a team. There will be the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. I'd argue that it would be a better approach than paying the players.I believe in college athletics and student athletes. It is a privilege to compete for your university and in exchange, receive a higher education that so many other young adults and families are struggling to pay for. An April 3, 2017 study by the NCAA notes that 99.2% of student athletes "go pro" in something other than sports. That includes not just the swimmers and runners and lacrosse players, it also includes the large majority of football and basketball players. Yes, MBB and football bring in the large share of revenues, and those can be very large with the TV contracts offered by too many sports outlets looking to fill airtime. But it's not as though those dollars are being stuffed in the pockets by greedy administrators (that we know of); they are being spread throughout the non-profit institutions to support other student athletics and even general institutional needs. If you want to spend a large part of that on a top-notch coach that will enhance your chances of recruiting better talent and winning, thus potentially increasing student and alumni pride and increasing donations, nothing wrong with that as long as it is self-supported by the program. Shame on any university that forces the general student population to fund a multi-million dollar coach's salary. But there is so much more to college athletics, and being a student athlete, than we see on our screens at home.I think that there needs to be a relaxation of eligibility requirements. Why shouldn't high school seniors be allowed to enter the NBA draft, and attend college if they aren't drafted? Foreign players sometimes start playing professionally at a very young age - should they be allowed to join college teams in a certain age range? Should NBA teams be allowed to draft kids out of high school and then allow the kid to go to college for a couple (no less than two) years, like the NHL does? Seems to me that a lot of the requirements, except for the minimum grades and test scores, are a little silly for some of these athletes.And finally, while I don't support paying players, I do believe that they should receive a reasonable stipend as part of their room and board. It seems there are too many players who arrive with a full scholarship but don't have enough money in their pocket to order a pizza or buy a movie ticket. That's part of college, too, and it would go a long way toward keeping players focused on their many other responsibilities if they are not concerned about that.
I honestly bristle at the claim that I'm siding with the huge schools in taking this position. I think that no matter the system, the big schools are going to come out fine. I genuinely feel like I'm taking the side of the little guys -- the athletes who are benefiting from the current system who I believe will lose under a pay-for-play system. If people think it's unfair to have the Dwyane Wades of the world to subsidize the rest, I can appreciate that argument even if I generally disagree. But I think it's misguided to characterize moving to pay-for-play as looking out for the little guy. To me, it kind of feels like fighting for higher pay for up and coming mid-level executives in Fortune 100 companies.
This.
Personally, I find it absolutely remarkable that after two decades of being a dumpster fire, DePaul can still generate enough revenue to rank in the top 25% of basketball programs. I understand that the fans have abandoned the program, but the brand still manages to hold onto a spot in the Big East and generate millions. While it has certainly deteriorated, its the DePaul name that is bringing in that money, not the players. There are other schools in Chicago, but the Big East doesn't send them checks. If you think the Big East is sending checks because of those players, I guess we just disagree.
DePaul is considered the anchor tenant of Wintrust Arena. But the Chicago Sky of the WNBA also signed a deal to relocate from Allstate Arena and play at the new arena. The Sky set a franchise attendance record last season, averaging more than 7,000 fans a game.Authorities are counting on a dramatic attendance boost for DePaul in the arena's inaugural season. Even tripling last year's attendance would still leave about half the seats empty. It'll be interesting to see what happens.http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/ct-sky-home-games-wintrust-arena-20170725-story.htmlhttp://www.wnba.com/news/record-breaking-attendance-five-years-digital-social-retail/
Are they playing more home games against Marquette this year?
The Big East is sending them checks because they are a member of the conference. The Big East wanted a Chicago presence and DePaul was the best of mostly poor options. If DePaul and their history were in Dayton, and the University of Dayton with its history was in Chicago, UD would be a member of the BE.
This.DePaul's basketball brand is broken. Maybe not irreparably so; we'll have to see about that. But it is broken.
All it takes is a few good players, a new arena, and they can start their way back. The chances of coming all the way back are near zero, but this is not surprising as MU hasn't come all the way back either. For that matter, neither has UCLA or UNLV or any number of dozens of other programs. Basketball is a sport that doesn't take much to turn the corner to respectability.
Yep. If a school like Loyola could resurrect its program, DePaul would be totally expendable. Unfortunately - and remarkably - DePaul is the best Chicago has...