A "salary cap" for college football?

[royalfan5]

As many Big XII schools and others around the nation are pouring money into their football programs at an increasing rate, I was wondering how people would feel about the NCAA imposing a " Salary Cap" of sorts on schools by placing a limitation on the amount of money a school could spend on football. It is clear the disparity between the haves and have not's is going to become wider, and that could be bad for the game if it erodes competition. I'm just curious how people would feel about this kind of intitiative.

[1991SOONER]

(crickets chirping in background)

[Big Red Ron]

Salary caps are for socialists.

[crimson&cream]

As many Big XII schools and others around the nation are pouring money into their football programs at an increasing rate, I was wondering how people would feel about the NCAA imposing a " Salary Cap" of sorts on schools by placing a limitation on the amount of money a school could spend on football. It is clear the disparity between the haves and have not's is going to become wider, and that could be bad for the game if it erodes competition. I'm just curious how people would feel about this kind of intitiative.
I've gave that some thought myself, it's like it's kinda getting outta hand who can build the most and best facilites then some. There was a letter in the Tulsa World today about that and what has been taking place at lOSUr that was pretty interesting- final conclusion was because of whats taking place in Stoolwater lOSUR will never be mistaken for Yale. You can bet you'll never see Ivy league schools do what taking place at Stoolwater and elsewhere.
Phil Knight/Nike has practically built Oregon into a showcase for athletic facilities, they say the stadium although not large is better than most or all NFL team facilities. Where does the crayzness end. Some schools will never be able to complete if this keeps up, and that would be a shame.
Just this past yr NSU built an indoor practice/weightroom facility so it's even dripping down to DivII. High Schools are next I guess.

[crimson&cream]

Salary caps are for socialists.
And stingy greed is for Conservatives!

[royalfan5]

Salary caps are for socialists.
And work spectacularly well for the NFL and NBA. The NCAA is a cartel anyway, so why shouldn't they act like one?

[Big Red Ron]

And work spectacularly well for the NFL and NBA. The NCAA is a cartel anyway, so why shouldn't they act like one?The NCAA is communistic. I would argue that Caps have ruined the NFL. I used to care but, I really don't like the NFL anymore. What salary cap allowed Jordan to get paid 50 mil for one season?

[Big Red Ron]

And stingy greed is for Conservatives!WOW, you're a "follower" of the highest order. I doubt a cogent argument would even sink in with you.

[royalfan5]

The NCAA is communistic. I would argue that Caps have ruined the NFL. I used to care but, I really don't like the NFL anymore. What salary cap allowed Jordan to get paid 50 mil for one season?
The NFL has a ton of comeptive balance though, and has no problem generating a ton of cash for it's owners. NFL franchise values have tripled in the very recent past. Something is working for those guys. Also the NBA cap has been reformed since Jordan got paid that much under the soft cap. Their are hard caps on indivdual player salaries now.

[Readyfor8]

The NCAA is communistic. I would argue that Caps have ruined the NFL. I used to care but, I really don't like the NFL anymore. What salary cap allowed Jordan to get paid 50 mil for one season?

Argue the same thing for the MLB... bro salary caps make a sport not break it. College Sports are more about parity now than they have ever been, if you impose Salary Caps you make it so that the little guys are just going to stay that much farther behind.

Imagine if there was a 5 mil cap per year on improvements which may or may not be enough but seems in the ballpark. How long would it take for Rustoleum to get upgraded to what it is now, while we just added what 14 mil on our stadium it was just an upperdeck it would have only taken 3 years to their what 4-5 or 6? They could have 3 different coaches in that time.

If there was a cap you just make it so the people who need big renovations (the smaller schools) take longer to get those renovations while the people who dont need renovations are just that much farther behind.

[Big Red Ron]

The NFL as a product isn't anything close to as good as it was before caps. The increase in profit for owners is BECAUSE of CAPS. Who in the heck do you think wanted caps?

[royalfan5]

The NFL as a product isn't anything close to as good as it was before caps. The increase in profit for owners is BECAUSE of CAPS. Who in the heck do you think wanted caps?
That's capitalism, the shareholders deserve maximum profit. The NFL isn't a charitable venture to provide quality football for the masses. Also before caps, the NFL's reserve clause was brutally unfair to players.

[Big Red Ron]

Caps are not capitalism. They are a function of monopolism. Thirty guys telling thousands of guys that earn the money for said thirty, you can only make so much. That is not capitolism.

Capitalism is MLB. See the Yankees and Royals.

[royalfan5]

Caps are not capitolism. They are a function of monopolism. Thirty guys telling thousands of guys that earn the money for said thirty, you can only make so much. That is not capitolism.

Capitolism is MLB. See the Yankees and Royals.
There are limits on how much monoplist can make, the NFL maximizes that for the benefit of it's shareholders. Also I would charge that the NFL isn't a monoply because it's competing against a wide variety of other businesses for your entertainment dollar. The NFL exists to provide profit for the owners, and players have agreed to the system. How is the NFL pay scales any different that a factory that caps wages for it's workers? MLB also has revunue sharing that helps function as a soft salary cap. The Royals turned a profit last year, the Yankees didn't. That's capitalism.

[Big Red Ron]

Dude, you have some serious socialistic tendencies. I guess it somewhat depends on one's perspective. The Royals suck and are in the smallest market and have no "All Star" players because they simply cannot afford one and field a whole team.

Players work, practice, sacrifice everything for $$$ not to make owners rich or make money for shareholders.

The NFL is a Monopoly because Vince Young cannot go anywhere else and make millions to play football. Even if the millions he earnes is less than he would make were there no caps.

[rhombic21]

I disagree with the idea.

I don't care about the have nots. It's not my fault that they have a small fan base and can't generate revenue. I don't care if they can compete or not. It's not my problem, and it shouldn't be.

[royalfan5]

Dude, you have some serious socialistic tendencies. I guess it somewhat depends on one's perspective. The Royals suck and are in the smallest market and have no "All Star" players because they simply cannot afford one and field a whole team.

Players work, practice, sacrifice everything for $$$ not to make owners rich or make money for shareholders.

The NFL is a Monopoly because Vince Young cannot go anywhere else and make millions to play football. Even if the millions he earnes is less than he would make were there no caps.
I'm the socialist when your the one arguing against profit for shareholders, the only reason they get to be football players is to create wealth for the owners(which is the way it should be) The Royals are terrible because they were poorly run for many years prior to Dayton Moore taking over. The Florida Marlins won a World Title with fewer financial resources than Kansas City. Market size is used a crutch for sheer incompetence far too often. Also there is no reason for professional sports leagues not to be monoplies, if there were competing pro football leagues, the owners of the said leagues would make less money because of dilution. That would decrease the incentive for people to invest in the sports leagues and drive down the players wages and provide a lower quality product. I'm not socialist, I just think monoplies are unfairly slandered by people. Legislation of competetion for the sake of competition is far more socialist than a natural monopoly. The NFL adopted their model because it makes economic sense for them, and that should be their only consideration.

[FroggyStyle22]

I disagree with the idea.

I don't care about the have nots. It's not my fault that they have a small fan base and can't generate revenue. I don't care if they can compete or not. It's not my problem, and it shouldn't be.

A systems that rewaerds a team like Baylor for getting their @sses kicked in the big 12 and screws over good teams that don't belong to BCS conferences is unjust. It gives an unfair recruiting advantage to an inferior team. A team should have to EARN the money they get.

[Big Red Ron]

Sorry Bugeater you're way way off on this one. Let's just move on.

BTW, the Marlins spent a crapload on plyers the year they won it all and then turned around and sold off the talent.

I didn't say you are a socialist but public education tends to teach socialistic dogma shadowed in other stuff. Many times some youngun's these days don't even understand that they've been brain washed.

[royalfan5]

Sorry Bugeater you're way way off on this one. Let's just move on.

BTW, the Marlins spent a crapload on plyers the year they won it all and then turned around and sold off the talent.

I didn't say you are a socialist but public education tends to teach socialistic dogma shadowed in other stuff. Many times some youngun's these days don't even understand that they've been brain washed.
The second time the Marlins one was with a small payroll and players they developed in house, the first title was the one Huzienga bought. If I'm a socialist, I am probably the only anti-union, extra enthusiatic supporter of free trade. I also never said I supported the salary cap idea for college football, just through it out there for discussion. Personally, I have no problem with the poorer schools being left behind, but if the profit returned to the schools started to suffer because of too many have-nots, I don't see a problem with schools colluding to maximize the return on their investment by imposing spending limits because deteriorating quality causes a lower return on investment for the big schools. Unless the schools are in this soley to **** money away, then more power to them.

[rhombic21]

A systems that rewaerds a team like Baylor for getting their @sses kicked in the big 12 and screws over good teams that don't belong to BCS conferences is unjust. It gives an unfair recruiting advantage to an inferior team. A team should have to EARN the money they get.
I don't get what this has to do with a proposed salaray cap.

[Scott D]

The NCAA has a system in place already. Scholarship limits, and there is a maximum amount now that a school can spend on it's media guide, which has doubled as a recruiting tool for some of the bigtime programs.

[FroggyStyle22]

I don't get what this has to do with a proposed salaray cap.

It was a response to your statement.

I don't think their should be a cap but I think more should be done to allow access to BCS money.

[HarrisTubbsFan]

It would end up with a law suit because of title IX and then pretty soon all sports programs would be getting paid ridiculous amounts even though they don't deserve it. Football players are students. If you are good enough to make it in some pro league then you'll get paid. Probably about 90% college players never end up getting paid for playing football.

[rhombic21]

It was a response to your statement.

I don't think their should be a cap but I think more should be done to allow access to BCS money.
I apply my logic of the BCS that I did with the salary cap.

I don't care about the non-BCS conferences. It's not my fault that those teams are in bad conferences. I don't care, and I shouldn't have to.

[royalfan5]

I apply my logic of the BCS that I did with the salary cap.

I don't care about the non-BCS conferences. It's not my fault that those teams are in bad conferences. I don't care, and I shouldn't have to.
The general health of the non-BCS football programs is important to BCS schools though because if non-BCS schools were to take their ball and go home because they are tired of losing money on football, where are the BCS schools going to find the East Popcorn States that add a ton of money to their bottom line.

[Big Red Ron]

where are the BCS schools going to find the East Popcorn States that add a ton of money to their bottom line.Oh, the WAC, Big XII North, Mountain West, Big East, etc...

[royalfan5]

Oh, the WAC, Big XII North, Mountain West, Big East, etc...
If those schools get tired of losing money on football, and start dropping programs it will change the landscape. San Jose State probably isn't very far away from dropping their program. The 12th game is basically an attempt to subsidize those non-performing programs by giving them an extra big paycheck, as well as subsidizing every other NCAA sport besides football and Men's basketball at the Big Schools. The problem with the NCAA being non-profit is that there is no incentive for the schools to worry about cost controls. I believe that College Football would be a much better product if the football programs and their governing bodies were sold to private investors and were not used to subsidize money losing programs, many of which soak up tax payers money. Outsourcing is often a profitable strategy.

[rhombic21]

The general health of the non-BCS football programs is important to BCS schools though because if non-BCS schools were to take their ball and go home because they are tired of losing money on football, where are the BCS schools going to find the East Popcorn States that add a ton of money to their bottom line.
Come on man, nobody is taking their ball and going anywhere. Non-BCS schools are spending more money on football now than ever.

For every SJSU and Tulane you have a Boise State and Utah, or a team like FAU that's putting a ton of money into buidling their program.

[royalfan5]

Come on man, nobody is taking their ball and going anywhere. Non-BCS schools are spending more money on football now than ever.

For every SJSU and Tulane you have a Boise State and Utah, or a team like FAU that's putting a ton of money into buidling their program.
Because they get subsidized by the current system. Many of the schools that are pouring money into their programs will never turn a profit on it, and the athletic department will be an albatross on the financial situations at those schools. Most athletic departments can exist because people like T. Boone are okay with ****ing money away to satisfy their egos. They aren't run like the businesses they are, and that's a poor example to set for the kids.

[mrowl]

no.

The cap has ruined some of the NFL. If your franchise is having trouble making money, guess what, maybe you should move.

[rhombic21]

So now football stadiums and weight training facilities are supposed to set some sort of example for kids?

[rhombic21]

And college athletic departments are not run purely for profit. If they were, almost nobody would have a girls volleyball team, or any of the other non-profit sports.

[royalfan5]

So now football stadiums and weight training facilities are supposed to set some sort of example for kids?
Throwing away money on something that doesn't return on it's investment is a bad example. Some schools will see an intial return on their investment, but if the overall cost scale makes it impossible for all but a few schools to compete the entire system will suffer. Eventually people get tired of subsidizing losses, and then changes will be forced. Pointless deficet spending is a bad example to set.

[rhombic21]

Throwing away money on something that doesn't return on it's investment is a bad example. Some schools will see an intial return on their investment, but if the overall cost scale makes it impossible for all but a few schools to compete the entire system will suffer. Eventually people get tired of subsidizing losses, and then changes will be forced. Pointless deficet spending is a bad example to set.
In that case, Title 9 should be done away with, because it forces Universities to spend a bunch of money on sports that don't make any money. What a terrible example Title 9 sets for our poor young children.

Give me a break.

[royalfan5]

And college athletic departments are not run purely for profit. If they were, almost nobody would have a girls volleyball team, or any of the other non-profit sports.
They should be run for profit though. The non-revenue producing sports should be offered a much smaller scale, where they can add value to the schools bottom line by enticing students with oppurtunties. The profitable ventures should be used to maximize return on their investments for the schools. High Level Collegiate football isn't some feel good endevaour, it is a big business and should be ran as such.

[royalfan5]

In that case, Title 9 should be done away with, because it forces Universities to spend a bunch of money on sports that don't make any money. What a terrible example Title 9 sets for our poor young children.

Give me a break.
Legislated equality should be done away with, if has shown to be ineffectual. What kind of example is set by schools dropping programs to achieve some legislated ideal, which is mostly what Title IX has wrought. It has merely redistrubuted oppurtunity, not created it.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Lowering the number of scholarships each team has would have more of an impact than restricting money in my opinion!

[crimson&cream]

WOW, you're a "follower" of the highest order. I doubt a cogent argument would even sink in with you.\
Probably, I have a heart and some empathy that cons don't seem to have. And of course your quite the sexual intellectual.:texan:

[Sooner47]

Salary caps are for socialists.

You rang...........

http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/6691/kerrytedkennedy8so.jpg

[crimson&cream]

Sorry Bugeater you're way way off on this one. Let's just move on.

BTW, the Marlins spent a crapload on plyers the year they won it all and then turned around and sold off the talent.

I didn't say you are a socialist but public education tends to teach socialistic dogma shadowed in other stuff. Many times some youngun's these days don't even understand that they've been brain washed.
Well when it comes time for you to retire be sure and turn down that socialistic retirement ck called Social Security Income as we wouldn't want you to be a hypocrite.
You probably beileve Bushwackes lies that insolvency is just around the corner tho. A couple of simple tweaks can fix it, and not by putting it in the hands of greedy Wall Streeter's as another terrorist attack would wipe it out then what.

[rhombic21]

This conversation just turned into a debate about social security.

I'm out.

[Big Red Ron]

Well when it comes time for you to retire be sure and turn down that socialistic retirement ck called Social Security Income as we wouldn't want you to be a hypocrite.
You probably beileve Bushwackes lies that insolvency is just around the corner tho. A couple of simple tweaks can fix it, and not by putting it in the hands of greedy Wall Streeter's as another terrorist attack would wipe it out then what.I'd be more than happy to opt out of paying social security taxes so I can invest the money and gain a higher yield, in return for NOTHING from the Government. I wish someone would propose such a wonderful idea...wait.

[MamaMia]

Since the price of things vary from state to state, I dont think having one set amount that each school could spend would be fair.

[royalfan5]

Since the price of things vary from state to state, I dont think having one set amount that each school could spend would be fair.
What if the University of Texas were eliminated? Perhaps that would make folks happy.

[Frozen Sooner]

Dude, you have some serious socialistic tendencies. I guess it somewhat depends on one's perspective. The Royals suck and are in the smallest market and have no "All Star" players because they simply cannot afford one and field a whole team.

Players work, practice, sacrifice everything for $$$ not to make owners rich or make money for shareholders.

The NFL is a Monopoly because Vince Young cannot go anywhere else and make millions to play football. Even if the millions he earnes is less than he would make were there no caps.

The actual term for this is a monopsony, not a monopoly. It's what happens when there is only one employer for a certain labor market.

[Ike]

MLB also has revunue sharing that helps function as a soft salary cap. The Royals turned a profit last year, the Yankees didn't. That's capitalism.


No, thats your socialistic revenue sharing program. Before the XX million dollars the Yanks paid out in revenue sharing, they turn a profit...And I'll bet that before the YY million dollars the royals recieved in revenue sharing, they didn't.


Capitalism doesn't shell out to keep failing companies afloat.

[royalfan5]

No, thats your socialistic revenue sharing program. Before the XX million dollars the Yanks paid out in revenue sharing, they turn a profit...And I'll bet that before the YY million dollars the royals recieved in revenue sharing, they didn't.


Capitalism doesn't shell out to keep failing companies afloat.
They would of broke even without revenue sharing last year. I wasn't the one who claimed MLB as the paragon of capitialism first, I used it sarcasitically. I just don't believe in smilies.

[Big Red Ron]

The actual term for this is a monopsony, not a monopoly. It's what happens when there is only one employer for a certain labor market.Close, a monopsony is a situation in which there is only one customer for a company's product, also called buyer's monopoly. But why split hairs? The point's the same, right?

[Frozen Sooner]

I was actually trying to help out by letting you know what the proper term for what you were describing is.

Yes, monopsony is more broadly defined as only one buyer in a market.

Which is what occurs when there is only one employer for a skill set. I doubt you'll find many definitions of monopsony that don't include labor markets.

Thus, the NFL has a monopsony on football players.

[Big Red Ron]

Monopsony AKA "Buyer's Monopoly."

You realize, this isn't a board room. I generally try and type in terms that the average joe can keep up.

I'll let you know when I need some help, though, this isn't one of them.

[Frozen Sooner]

OK, skipper.

Like I said, just trying to help you out with the correct terminology. Considering that you tried to claim that a monopsony wasn't the correct term when it actually is, I'm going to go ahead and assume that it wasn't that you were trying to type for the average joe but just didn't know that was the proper term for what you were describing. I guess there's two choices when someone tries to help you out. You went with the road less travelled. :rolleyes:

[Vaevictis]

Actually, if you think about it a bit, the employment situation with the NFL is both a monopsony and a monopoly.

The NFL has a monopsony, but conversely, the NFLPA has a monopoly also.

In case you hadn't noticed, the salary cap is the result of a CBA between the NFLPA and the NFL. Keyword there is "agreement." Either side is quite capable of taking their business/services elsewhere, it's just that both sides know that they'll make more money with the other, so they come to an agreement both are willing to accept.

Employees who are guaranteed a minimum salary of $275,000-$810,000 per year just aren't being abused, and are certainly not subject to the true power of a monopsony. If they were, the minimum salaries definately wouldn't be that high.

[Big Red Ron]

OK, skipper.

Like I said, just trying to help you out with the correct terminology. Considering that you tried to claim that a monopsony wasn't the correct term when it actually is, I'm going to go ahead and assume that it wasn't that you were trying to type for the average joe but just didn't know that was the proper term for what you were describing. I guess there's two choices when someone tries to help you out. You went with the road less travelled. :rolleyes:I was trying to point out that my use of the term was valid not necessarily that it was incorrect on your part but thanks.

[Frozen Sooner]

That's a good point, Vaevictus, and it highlights one of the reasons unions exist in the first place. Unions create monopoly power in labor to counteract the bargaining advantages that large employers enjoy.

Which doesn't mean that unions don't abuse that power from time to time or are all sweetness and light. Just highlighting why they exist in the first place.

[Frozen Sooner]

I was trying to point out that my use of the term was valid not necessarily that it was incorrect on your part but thanks.

See?

Thank you isn't so hard to say. :D

[crimson&cream]

I'd be more than happy to opt out of paying social security taxes so I can invest the money and gain a higher yield, in return for NOTHING from the Government. I wish someone would propose such a wonderful idea...wait.
Yep and I'll be visiting you down at John 3:16.
But, your attitude is understandable being a CEO, eveybody should pull themselves up by the bootstrap and there's no such things as making to much money. I'll bet the employees of Enron & World Comm plus other's would like to 2nd guess their investments. Ken Lay,Enron and the CEO's of World Com, Global Crossing, Tyco and the list goes on,and is a fine coterie your a part of- fine upstanding and ethical. What bewilder's me is CEO's making 10/20 million or whatever plus perks in line for raise of several million is money spent well in your minds rather than giving those at the bottom of the company a raise which would have a beneficial positive effect on many instead of one or a few who are already living to the hilt.
You guys surely don't believe in what Jesus said " If you will not help the least among you neither will I help you." Of course he was kinda liberal and thats just not you all's cup of tea.
But, then again you can sure be like my once richer Uncle, invest all your money on Wall Street then when another terrorist attack occurs and the market crashes like it did then, and all is lost, just remember to pull yourself up by the bootstraps. In my opinion Big Business and CEO's are the biggest criminals in the world. So go suck on your cigar and feel full of yourself in your F***ing Status Quo world of false reality. You don't have a clue how the majority struggles or care. We could also do away with taxes and you can build your own damn roads, bridges, public works etc etc etc. I'm sorry what little taxes I do pay may end benefiting ***holes like you in even the smallest way.Forgive me Lord for I have just sinned, but these CEO cigar smoking high almighty better than thou pukes make me sick.It's like they think their $*** don't stink.

[Big Red Ron]

Yep and I'll be visiting you down at John 3:16.
But, your attitude is understandable being a CEO, eveybody should pull themselves up by the bootstrap and there's no such things as making to much money. A CEO making 10/20 million or whatever plus perks in line for raise of several million is money spent well rather than giving those a the bottom of the company a raise which would effect many instead of one or a few who are already living to the hilt.
You guys surely don't believe in what Jesus said " If you will not help the least among you neither will I help you." Of course he was kinda liberal and thats just not you all's cup of tea.
But, then again you can sure be like my once richer Uncle, invest all your money on Wall Street then when another terrorist attack occurs and the market crashes like it did then, and all is lost, just remember to pull yourself up by the bootstraps. In my opinion Big Business and CEO's are the biggest criminals in the world. So go suck on your cigar and feel full of yourself in your F***ing Status Quo world of false reality. We could also do away with taxes and you can build your own damn roads, bridges, public works etc etc etc. I'm sorry what little taxes I do pay may end benefiting ***holes like you in even the smallest way.I'm sorry that I worked hard in school, worked three jobs while in school and paid every dime for my own education then somehow became successful in life. I do however donate quite a bit of money and time to charities such as; The Boys and Girls Club, Birth Choice, United Way, etc...

Don't hate the player hate the game.

Government isn't the answer. Just ask JFK.

BTW, I am in favor of a means test for all social programs. And will likely donate all of my social security (if there is any money left when I retire) to charity.

Feel free to add me to your ignore list.

[MiccoMacey]

The famed British economist John Stanley Harkwell once argued that the inverse ratio of capitalism is actually the inverse ratio of socialism as well, meaning that the difference between the two is equally proportioned.

Of course, I just made that up to sound smart.

Carry on.