I understand all of that, but no one is organizing any bowl game without the NCAA permitting its teams to play in those games, which means they can negotiate whatever piece of the pie they want from these committees.
The NCAA could, for example, say “we want to see your books,” and if it determines the committees are generating ridiculous sums of money and paying their personnel absurd salaries, it could just demand a greater share of the revenue up front. Sure, you can’t ultimately dictate how these committees allocate their profits, but you can make them less profitable (and less likely to pay their members crazy salaries).
It’s like the government, and Medicare. They can’t dictate how much medical groups pay themselves. But they can say, “We’re only going to pay X for this procedure,” which reduces the amount of money coming to the medical group in the first place.
The NCAA could easily say, “We want 75% of your television rights revenue for the Rose Bowl.” I’ll bet they still play the game. Kinda like how boxers negotiate for a certain (and usually pretty high) percentage of the pay-per-view gate, and yet it’s still really profitable for HBO and others to show pay-per-view fights.
The NCAA gets zero revenue from bowl games now. TV deals are made between the bowl committees and broadcasters. Like conference TV contracts, they are long term deals. Conferences and in some cases. schools, negotiate their take with the bowl committees. I don’t think any of the parties want the NCAA taking a cut.
The NCAA has zero independent power to prevent schools from playing in bowl games they qualify for. All decisions like that are made by a vote of the member schools. They don’t like ceding any control of their finances to the NCAA. As it stands, if say the Big Ten doesn’t like their share of the revenue from a bowl, they can drop their tie in to it and try to negotiate a better deal.
Interesting, I didn’t realize that’s how it was set up. It makes sense to cut out the NCAA. It is still a shame that the players don’t get any of the revenue while some “chair” of the bowl committee takes home an absurd salary. That seems like about as plum of a job as one could have.
I wasn’t aware that’s how it was setup either. Interesting. I wonder if that’s a route for players to start to demand some compensation instead of it coming from the NCAA. Obviously only a football option but maybe it would encourage the top players to play in these games which makes for a better product on the field which helps the sponsoring entity. Would that skirt title IV perhaps?
Not sure there would be a basketball equivalent though.
Sorry Dylan, maybe not for this thread but it was heading this way already.
It isn’t that players need to be compensated by the NCAA (or even member schools), it is that players need the NCAA rules to state that they are allowed to be compensated.
Great. Now the NCAA will throw up its hands and say, see we tried. I don’t get why the government would prohibit access here. Any info related protected sources or ongoing investigations could be redacted out.
The process is broken when you can’t properly prevent corruption and cheating within your organization. Hiring the FBI to mange such matters is beyond my point of comprehension.
The FBI has subpoena power whereas the NCAA does not. In other words, it is possible to completely stonewall the NCAA regardless of what actually took place. This is precisely what’s driving the inability to prevent corruption and cheating, though I kind of suspect the NCAA is in on the corruption at this point.
Overall, this is an important part of why I advocate getting rid of rules that the org is incapable of properly enforcing.
Here’s a quote from Michael Avenetti and an article from the local paper about his recent accusations and Duke’s response. He may be unprincipled, but I wouldn’t want him coming after Michigan.
“The documents and the hard evidence do not lie. Zion Williamson was paid to attend Duke. Coach K has made and facilitated payments to players for years. And when the truth comes out -and eventually it will- Coach K and Duke’s reputation will be forever and rightfully tarnished.”
It may be a different sort of corruption, but Krzyzewski lecturing Dillon Brooks and then lying about it when asked was too quickly forgotten by the college basketball world. The first bit was in the heat of the moment after a Tournament loss, but he essentially called an opposing player a liar in the post-game press conference when he was the one who was lying, as caught on video/audio.
I would say he’s not trustworthy, but that’s not the same thing. No one is just going to take his word for anything, but when he says he has hard evidence I think there’s a fair chance that he does. Maybe 50% credibility.
My point wasn’t that Avenatti is 100% wrong. It is that he has said so much BS that no one can take his word seriously af this point. It is like Canseco and steroids. Jose ended up being right, but no one believed him until there was a mountain of other evidence because Canseco was a nut job.
