Why not have professional college football?

[Ken D]

With all of the scandals surrounding college football, you would think that university presidents would want to do something to make their lives easier, and let them concentrate on education, not athletics. The problems largely follow the money, and most of the money is concentrated in a relatively small number of schools.

Millions of people around the country love college football (and basketball) and don't want to see it change much from the product they watch avidly every season. I think it could be changed radically, and at the same time not much at all. I know that sounds self-contradictory. And without some cooperation by congress, it probably would be.

I think the major universities, the ones who might legitimately compete for a true national championship, should stop pretending they are playing amateur football. And don't just tweak the current rules by throwing a few bucks in spending money to players over and above their scholarships. I mean be all-out, overtly professional. Break away from the NCAA and create a new professional league. Pay the players a salary, in the open and above the table. Do it through for-profit corporations that are subsidiaries of their sponsor schools.

But first, get congress to pass some enabling legislation that makes the tax consequences fair to everybody. Allow these subsidiaries to donate to their parent schools without limitation. Nobody is looking for a tax grab that would take money away from non-revenue sports. But make boosters pay fair price for their premium seats and other perks. If their donation gives them any perks at all, the donations aren't tax deductible.

If you took 64 of the major programs and formed a professional league, those schools would have the combined clout to negotiate a TV deal that would pay all 64 schools in the neighborhood of $15-20 million a year. Bowl revenues would add another $5 million. Share all those revenues equally, without regard to conference or won-lost records. Throw in their gate receipts (all these schools have high average attendance) and even the poorest of these schools would have a budget of more than $35 million.

Impose a roster limit (the current 85 scholarship limit is adequate) and salary caps ($6 million for players, $7 million for coaches) and have only two eligibility requirements: high school diploma, and not over 24 years old. Have a minimum player salary of $50,000. Allow players to be students, if they want to, at a reduced tuition rate that wouldn't be subject to tax. Require boosters who pay players to report those payments to the IRS as income to the players (which would be subject to the overall salary cap). But just like a salary a fatcat pays to his housekeeper, it would be taxable to the recipient but not deductible by the payer.

At any given time, those schools would employ over 5,400 players. Fewer than 1,000 of them will end up in the NFL, but even fewer will reach the NFL through the NCAA. Most of the top players will opt for the salary over just a scholarship, especially if they can also get a bargain education if they want it and are academically qualified for it.

As for recruiting, if a school wants to spend most of its salary cap on a few players, they will suffer on the depth chart. The free market should help achieve far more parity than is now the case. And with no academic eligibility requirements, schools don't have to create faux courses that are the bane of every faculty's existence. Let's stop the pretense. Let's play professional college football.

[Tizu]

Very interesting take, indeed. This would sort of be a "minor league" for the NFL. Players above the age of 24 either have to go to NFL or move on with life with potentially millions in the bank. Not a bad idea at all.

The logistics, legal ramifications, etc. would probably be the killer of this idea.

[Ken D]

As I said, there would have to be legislative changes to make this feasible. Right now, a corporation can only donate 5% of its pretax income to a qualifying charity. That limit would have to be removed for these corporations. Also, there would have to be a statutory exemption whereby athletes who choose to take advantage of the reduced tuition won't have to pay income tax on imputed income equal to the amount of the tuition reduction (which would vary from school to school).

And, there would have to be some provision where schools not invited to the "big league" formed by the majors are allowed to form their own league to avoid antitrust/monopoly implications. But I think these are doable, and the benefit - separating athletics from academics - would be well worth it. The big drawback would be that fatcat donors who currently get a tax subsidy to sit on the fifty yard line and park right by the entrance will have to buy their premium seats the same way they would for Panther games. I imagine they'll put up a fight to keep their subsidy.

[Tizu]

Good stuff Ken, as always. You should start the league!

[Ken D]

I believe if schools did this for football, it wouldn't take long for them to do the same thing with basketball. You would have to expand the size of the basketball league to include the "mid-majors", but I believe the definition of that term wouldn't include schools like Quinnipiac, or Central Connecticut State. The George Masons and VCUs of the basketball world would be more than welcome.

I wonder if the NCAA lost the tournament whether that would be their death knell. They need the power schools a lot more than those schools need the NCAA.

[Marty Da Hungry Wolf]

To the title of the thread:

We already do - it's called "The Southeastern Conference".

[mattncsu02]

Apr 22, 2013 17:33:36 GMT -5 Marty Da Hungry Wolf said:

To the title of the thread:

We already do - it's called "The Southeastern Conference".

Amen to that Marty!

[jgunn]

Great idea, Ken. May as well make it official, because let's face it, the SEC and other big time programs are basically semi-pro now.

[Marty Da Hungry Wolf]

While I think the idea of "amateurism" as I and others remember it is probably gone for good, there still is a case to be made regarding what benefits these kids get out of a free college education (or, at least, access to such - whether they take full advantage of it or not is up to them). The problem is, it gets harder and harder with the passage of time to continue to make that argument, given that the schools and the NCAA are raking in money hand over fist on the performance of these kids on the fields and courts.

Can't for the life of me figure out what took so long for the NCAA to get out of the apparel selling business; for crying out loud a burgundy jersey or shirt with white trim that has 'Texas A&M' across the top of the chest, with '2' front and back, and 'Football' across the shoulders was obviously a Johnny Manziel shirt; it's proper for Texas A&M and the NCAA to get a cut out of that shirt but not the very person that wears it on the actual field? That is the main reason I've never wanted to get a State jersey (even a replica jersey), I know the player it most closely represents isn't getting a cent out of it, I don't think it's right for NC State/the ACC/the NCAA to get anything out of it.

Now, I don't know why trust funds couldn't be set up for these kids, with money from apparel sales or, yes, even autograph sessions, deposited into the trust accounts for the players to get in full AFTER their eligibility is expired, above board, no skulking about, problem solved. Obviously it wouldn't be that simple to implement (what about non-football and non-basketball players?), but at least then the NCAA could go back to just presenting one face.

[Ken D]

When I first posted this, I picked 64 as the number of teams for this new pro league. That wasn't entirely random, as there will be, after the realignment dust settles, 64 schools in the five power conferences. Thinking it would be nice if there were some objective way to determine who gets to play in the big leagues and who doesn't, I looked at 2012 average attendance data. That told me I was in the right ballpark.

If you divide the FBS into schools that average more than 40,000 fans per game and those who average below 40,000 you can see a major reason in the disparity between the haves and have nots of college football. There are 60 schools above 40K, and they have a combined average of 64,000 fans per game. The remaining 66 schools average only about 23,000. I doubt any of these schools athletic departments operate in the black. As a group, they average at least $12 million each less per year in ticket revenue alone, and probably at least $20 million more in TV and bowl money.

Those 60 big schools produce about 80% of all players drafted by the NFL. There is no way to justify on a competitive basis their playing in the same division as the other 66.

Of course, while 40,000 is a nice round number for a dividing line, it means there are casualties. If there were 66 schools in what's left of the BCS (including independents Notre Dame and BYU), and only 60 schools over the attendance threshold, some long time conference members would be left out of the party. There are eight, to be precise, and not all of them would go willingly into the lower division. Maybe none of them.

They are, in order of their attendance from highest to lowest: Syracuse (37,953), Vanderbilt, Boston College, Maryland, Northwestern, Washington State, Wake Forest and Duke (28,170).

Two schools from outside the power conferences make the cut: East Carolina (47K) and South Florida (44K).

If the eight losers were allowed to continue to be members of their respective conferences for all other sports, I wonder whether they would welcome the chance to get out of the football arms race. And if not, I wonder how strongly their current conferences would go to bat for them to be included, knowing this would open the door to a lot of other schools. It wouldn't be long before we are right back to where we are now when it comes to competitive issues. Maybe the answer is let everybody in who is willing and/or able to meet the payroll requirements.

As you can probably tell, I am really anxious for actual football to start up again soon. All this speculating is making my head hurt.

[Ken D]

For the record, putting the 60 teams into rational divisions isn't as easy as it sounds. I broke them down into four conferences, with 15 teams each. That causes a problem right away, as you have 7 teams in one division and 8 in the other. But conferences have been dealing with this for years, so I just pressed on.

My Western Conference has a Pacific Division, with USC, UCLA, Cal Stanford, Oregon, Oregon St and Washington. Its Southwest Division includes Arizona, Arizona St, BYU, Utah, Colorado, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St.

The Southern Conference has a Western Division that consists of Texas, Texas A&M, TCU, Baylor, Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss and Mississippi St. The Eastern Division has Alabama, Auburn, Florida, South Florida, Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina.

The Eastern Conference (otherwise known as "the good guys") includes Florida St, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, UNC and ECU in its Southern Division. In the Northern Division are Virginia, Va Tech, Rutgers, Kentucky, Louisville, West Virginia, Pitt and Penn State.

And finally, the Northern Conference has an Eastern Division consisting of Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Indiana, Purdue and Illinois. Its Western (or Prairie) Division has Iowa, Iowa State, Missouri, Kansas, Kansas St, Nebraska, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

That lineup preserves (or renews), as much as possible, traditional rivalries. It allows for each conference to send four teams to a playoff, with the first round immediately after the regular season using home fields. Then, the two winners from each conference go to one of the four traditional New Year's Day bowls for the quarterfinal round.

I believe this would generate, through TV, Bowls and Playoffs, roughly $30 million per year per school, dividing the pie into equal slices for all.

You're welcome, East Carolina.

[Ken D]

Aug 13, 2013 19:16:05 GMT -5 Marty Da Hungry Wolf said:

While I think the idea of "amateurism" as I and others remember it is probably gone for good, there still is a case to be made regarding what benefits these kids get out of a free college education (or, at least, access to such - whether they take full advantage of it or not is up to them). The problem is, it gets harder and harder with the passage of time to continue to make that argument, given that the schools and the NCAA are raking in money hand over fist on the performance of these kids on the fields and courts.

Can't for the life of me figure out what took so long for the NCAA to get out of the apparel selling business; for crying out loud a burgundy jersey or shirt with white trim that has 'Texas A&M' across the top of the chest, with '2' front and back, and 'Football' across the shoulders was obviously a Johnny Manziel shirt; it's proper for Texas A&M and the NCAA to get a cut out of that shirt but not the very person that wears it on the actual field? That is the main reason I've never wanted to get a State jersey (even a replica jersey), I know the player it most closely represents isn't getting a cent out of it, I don't think it's right for NC State/the ACC/the NCAA to get anything out of it.

Now, I don't know why trust funds couldn't be set up for these kids, with money from apparel sales or, yes, even autograph sessions, deposited into the trust accounts for the players to get in full AFTER their eligibility is expired, above board, no skulking about, problem solved. Obviously it wouldn't be that simple to implement (what about non-football and non-basketball players?), but at least then the NCAA could go back to just presenting one face.

I saw today where Dan Wetzel, of Yahoo.com sports, suggested that Little League players should get paid if they make it to Williamsport. His argument was basically the same as for college sports - somebody is making money off them, and they're not getting their share. With 12 year olds, I think the trust fund idea makes sense (not that I agree with paying them it in the first place - just that they shouldn't get cash.)

For the college athlete, I think trust funds miss the point. These kids need cash now if their parents can't afford to give it to them.

What I would like to see is a system that rewards the athletes who are also legitimate students. Give the players enough cash to live on without being impoverished. Then, if they want to take advantage of the education, let them attend for free. If they don't want to, don't make them. But if they don't want to, don't allow them their fourth year of eligibility. Instead, let those who are legitimate students have a fifth, or even sixth year of eligibility.

History has shown clearly and repeatedly that if you force schools to find ways to keep athletes eligible who shouldn't be in college (or don't want to be), they will compromise their academic standards. There are only three schools in the country I'm aware of where this is not the case - Army, Navy and Air Force.

I think if you offered college presidents a way to avoid having to face this dilemma (satisfying boosters or satisfying faculty) they would jump on it.

[Tizu]

I agree with you (again). It does raise and interesting point. Schools often lower their standards for athletes admission. Is that not in and of itself an impermissible benefit in the eyes of the NCAA? I mean, they are giving the athletes admission because they are good at a sport, but don't lower the standards for a student who is not involved in any sport. I think that's the very definition of hypocrisy. The NCAA deliberately ignores this as they know if the schools didn't do this, they (The NCAA) would be out of business.

Dan Wetzel's idea of paying the little league players. I'm all for that as well. You have ESPN and all the sponsors, etc. making tons of money off the players and they see nothing for it but a little bit of TV time.

Pay them...pay them all!

[Ken D]

Not only do they lower their admission standards, but then they have elaborate tutoring programs (for athletes only, and most of them football or basketball players) which acknowledges that they don't expect these "students" to succeed academically on their own, even when taking courses that are of minimal educational value to begin with.

These policies are rewarding the wrong things. Reward legitimate academic success instead.

[Tizu]

Absolutely.