Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Apparently the marketing/media exposure value of the 2017 season was 46 million. A chunk of this has to be articles and draft buzz form Josh Allen.
This part is key:
based on how much that exposure would cost in the open market if purchased at current advertising rates.
That part I get. The question is: what is the outcome or impact of that? If I'm selling ice to Alaskans in January and spend 100 million on advertisement, that isn't value.
Like I said, I love WYO athletics and glad we have them. I just don't buy the narrative that they are a great benefit to the University as a whole by any real measurable statistic. Without athletics, I doubt enrollment would drop, grant dollars down, endowments down, etc. at least by any statistically significant measure.
Athletics are a great experience for student athletes, many students, alumni, etc. but the reach of impact is limited imo.
I’d agree with this. To me, athletics is a quality of life enhancement similar to a bike path or skate park. It doesn’t generate revenue per se but does provide some incentive to stay and live in the community/school. This is why paying players doesn’t make sense to me,
; it takes donor money that might go toward better seats, better kid experience, better fan experience and puts it in the hand of 18-22 year olds to spend at their whims.
OrediggerPoke wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 6:31 pm
I’d agree with this. To me, athletics is a quality of life enhancement similar to a bike path or skate park. It doesn’t generate revenue per se but does provide some incentive to stay and live in the community/school. This is why paying players doesn’t make sense to me,
; it takes donor money that might go toward better seats, better kid experience, better fan experience and puts it in the hand of 18-22 year olds to spend at their whims.
I think you are getting at the reasons why somebody would donate to NIL vs quality of life (QOL) infrastructure improvements. Your reasons for preferring one donation over another make sense to me but those are your preferences and they are not shared by everybody. I bet a lot of fans could care less about "gameday experience" and just want to win....Would that fan not be better served by donating money to, as you say," the hand of 18-22 year olds to spend at their whims" if it means the best of them will stay and win? How much money did that fan donate toward QOL type causes before NIL?
I still don't believe that infrastructure or QOL spending is going to suffer from NIL money going to players...generally. In the power conferences...the $$ will only go up...both for QOL and NIL. For programs like Wyoming....There will but little to no change in traditional donations and NIL will always be a pittance...at least that is my prediction.
I’d agree with this. To me, athletics is a quality of life enhancement similar to a bike path or skate park. It doesn’t generate revenue per se but does provide some incentive to stay and live in the community/school.
I agree with you 100% that it is a quality of life enhancement. Where I possibly differ is that players are more important to winning than coaches or facilities. Wyoming is paying our coach well in comparison to the conference. We have great facilities. Paying the players is a new strategy. I personally don’t think it will work if that is all that happened (risking all to pay players).
However paying players combined with facilities and coaching could. We have a window right now on two of those areas, can we raise the money to keep and draw talent?
I’d agree with this. To me, athletics is a quality of life enhancement similar to a bike path or skate park. It doesn’t generate revenue per se but does provide some incentive to stay and live in the community/school.
I agree with you 100% that it is a quality of life enhancement. Where I possibly differ is that players are more important to winning than coaches or facilities. Wyoming is paying our coach well in comparison to the conference. We have great facilities. Paying the players is a new strategy. I personally don’t think it will work if that is all that happened (risking all to pay players).
However paying players combined with facilities and coaching could. We have a window right now on two of those areas, can we raise the money to keep and draw talent?
agreed....all eggs in facilities/coach/QOL basket gets us to about where where we have gotten now. If you shift all of those eggs to NIL payments to players, we probably keep a lot more talent in the short term but I agree with Oredigger that it's a poor long term strategy without the side benefits of upgrading infrastructure in Laramie. I would point out...that having the most amazing "game-day experience" probably has a lot to do with the quality of the product on the field. Wyoming getting the crap kicked out of them on a sunny fall day in front of gorgeous facilities with great parking, delicious concessions with all the beer you can drink is nobodies Idea of a good time.
Ultimately...the best programs will do both and everybody else will have to pick and choose where to put resources...pretty much the way it is now.
The whole problem is that wyoming had nothing. Does Wyoming have to match these big programs? We can't and we won't. But if its the difference between working your ass off as a college athlete and being broke making $0 and transferring to another college and making a good chunk, that's a no brainer. 0 and $500k is an easy choice. Maybe we could have gotten Ike $100k? Hell, that's way less than what we waste on philosophy and women's study professors. Ike has a little more thinking with SOME money. He gets to be not poor and stay with his coach and team.
laxwyo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 5:27 am
The whole problem is that wyoming had nothing. Does Wyoming have to match these big programs? We can't and we won't. But if its the difference between working your ass off as a college athlete and being broke making $0 and transferring to another college and making a good chunk, that's a no brainer. 0 and $500k is an easy choice. Maybe we could have gotten Ike $100k? Hell, that's way less than what we waste on philosophy and women's study professors. Ike has a little more thinking with SOME money. He gets to be not poor and stay with his coach and team.
It's still against the rules for colleges to compensate athletes monetarily. NIL $ will never (well...maybe not never) come from tuition or the pot of money that legislators set aside for universities. It comes from fans who may want to directly support players or from businesses that want some visibility..... Both of those categories have some overlap (imagine the car dealership owner in Lincoln that loves the huskers and can now pay the QB for an ad spot).
This is a huge problem for Wyoming because if colleges were allowed to directly compensate athletes, there would be more oversight and probably some sort of flattened profit sharing that could have been achieved.... But now it's the wild west and if it requires a bucket of money to keep an athlete at a school.... Well I think we know how that will end for Wyoming.
It'll take an act of Congress to fix it or at least attempt to make it better. As much as I hate what NIL has done to college athletics, I also support the Athletes' right to make money on the side off of their nil. I haven't thought of a rational argument against it (looking at it from an individual rights perspective).
Unfortunately, protecting Athletes' rights comes with the loophole which is destroying athletics.
I don't think there's a good answer.
WYO1016 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am
I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 9:13 am
It'll take an act of Congress to fix it or at least attempt to make it better. As much as I hate what NIL has done to college athletics, I also support the Athletes' right to make money on the side off of their nil. I haven't thought of a rational argument against it (looking at it from an individual rights perspective).
Unfortunately, protecting Athletes' rights comes with the loophole which is destroying athletics.
I don't think there's a good answer.
somebody did an analysis of this as it relates to how the NBA does it. I don't remember the specifics but the overall point was that the highest NBA stars are very underpaid when you consider what they are worth to the franchise they play for....but the players union and the league, despite their differences, have decided that it is better overall to bring up the median pay at the expense of what you can give the stars. In an unregulated market...you almost can't pay guys like steph or Lebron too much when you look at what they bring in but the competitive product suffers. There is a balance to seek there....I agree that it would take congressional action to go in that direction in college athletics though.
ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 9:13 am
It'll take an act of Congress to fix it or at least attempt to make it better. As much as I hate what NIL has done to college athletics, I also support the Athletes' right to make money on the side off of their nil. I haven't thought of a rational argument against it (looking at it from an individual rights perspective).
Unfortunately, protecting Athletes' rights comes with the loophole which is destroying athletics.
I don't think there's a good answer.
somebody did an analysis of this as it relates to how the NBA does it. I don't remember the specifics but the overall point was that the highest NBA stars are very underpaid when you consider what they are worth to the franchise they play for....but the players union and the league, despite their differences, have decided that it is better overall to bring up the median pay at the expense of what you can give the stars. In an unregulated market...you almost can't pay guys like steph or Lebron too much when you look at what they bring in but the competitive product suffers. There is a balance to seek there....I agree that it would take congressional action to go in that direction in college athletics though.
Imo, the pro analogies are not the same. Pro sports cap salaries but players are free to earn whatever they can on the side. The NBA doesn't regulate what Nike (for example) pays players (at least as far as I know).
WYO1016 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am
I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
somebody did an analysis of this as it relates to how the NBA does it. I don't remember the specifics but the overall point was that the highest NBA stars are very underpaid when you consider what they are worth to the franchise they play for....but the players union and the league, despite their differences, have decided that it is better overall to bring up the median pay at the expense of what you can give the stars. In an unregulated market...you almost can't pay guys like steph or Lebron too much when you look at what they bring in but the competitive product suffers. There is a balance to seek there....I agree that it would take congressional action to go in that direction in college athletics though.
Imo, the pro analogies are not the same. Pro sports cap salaries but players are free to earn whatever they can on the side. The NBA doesn't regulate what Nike (for example) pays players (at least as far as I know).
Exactly.... Free to earn on the side is pretty much what the NIL stuff comes down to.... In the absence of a salary, the determining factor for high talent players will be determined by NIL possibilities. The NBA depressed the salaries of the top players so they can pay their non stars more than they can make in NIL so the teams can compete on somewhat even economic terms with one another.
laxwyo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 5:27 am
The whole problem is that wyoming had nothing. Does Wyoming have to match these big programs? We can't and we won't. But if its the difference between working your ass off as a college athlete and being broke making $0 and transferring to another college and making a good chunk, that's a no brainer. 0 and $500k is an easy choice. Maybe we could have gotten Ike $100k? Hell, that's way less than what we waste on philosophy and women's study professors. Ike has a little more thinking with SOME money. He gets to be not poor and stay with his coach and team.
What makes you think Ike wasn’t being paid pretty darn well last year to ‘play’ for Wyoming? Do you believe Ike’s appearance at the boys and girls club shortly before departing was unrelated to NIL obligations he may have had?
Imo, the pro analogies are not the same. Pro sports cap salaries but players are free to earn whatever they can on the side. The NBA doesn't regulate what Nike (for example) pays players (at least as far as I know).
Exactly.... Free to earn on the side is pretty much what the NIL stuff comes down to.... In the absence of a salary, the determining factor for high talent players will be determined by NIL possibilities. The NBA depressed the salaries of the top players so they can pay their non stars more than they can make in NIL so the teams can compete on somewhat even economic terms with one another.
College athletes as state employees? The pro league is a private enterprise. I'm not sure the model can be applied to most college teams except private institutions.
WYO1016 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am
I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
Exactly.... Free to earn on the side is pretty much what the NIL stuff comes down to.... In the absence of a salary, the determining factor for high talent players will be determined by NIL possibilities. The NBA depressed the salaries of the top players so they can pay their non stars more than they can make in NIL so the teams can compete on somewhat even economic terms with one another.
College athletes as state employees? The pro league is a private enterprise. I'm not sure the model can be applied to most college teams except private institutions.
I'm not really for or against however they want to slice it....I'm just trying to view this through an economic lens instead of just as a Wyoming fan who sees that every move in the college athletics landscape has made it harder and harder to be relevant.
The idea of the athletes being college employees has all sorts of drawbacks...is it different if they are independent contractors? What if the NCAA were the "employer" in this scenario....I just don't see a way that this gets more even as long as it is every NIL collective for themselves and they are the primary way that players get compensated. If it is impossible...then it's impossible.
Man...everybody hates NIL the way it is currently functioning. Even Lane Kiffen wants some change.....some of his quotes:
We've got professional sports," except with no salary cap or luxury tax, and the result is myriad "issues
That's the world we live in, But at the same time, I don't think that's really good for college football. These massive overhauls of rosters every year really is not in the best interest of college football
There's kind of your state of union on the situation of what all coaches are dealing with around the country -- really, a poor system that isn't getting better and now is going to get worse. Because again, now we just look at recruiting rankings and you're going to see that they're usually going to follow this donor base and what schools are going to decide to give the most money to the players. So it is what it is. We'll deal with it like we do with everything else, but somehow it's got to get fixed because there's no system around it.
307bball wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 11:11 am
Man...everybody hates NIL the way it is currently functioning. Even Lane Kiffen wants some change.....some of his quotes:
We've got professional sports," except with no salary cap or luxury tax, and the result is myriad "issues
That's the world we live in, But at the same time, I don't think that's really good for college football. These massive overhauls of rosters every year really is not in the best interest of college football
There's kind of your state of union on the situation of what all coaches are dealing with around the country -- really, a poor system that isn't getting better and now is going to get worse. Because again, now we just look at recruiting rankings and you're going to see that they're usually going to follow this donor base and what schools are going to decide to give the most money to the players. So it is what it is. We'll deal with it like we do with everything else, but somehow it's got to get fixed because there's no system around it.
So how much money have the athletes received from this? Check out what the Utah collective did. Every scholarship player received a new leased Ram pickup.
ZapPoke wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 2:47 pm
So how much money have the athletes received from this? Check out what the Utah collective did. Every scholarship player received a new leased Ram pickup.
ZapPoke wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 2:47 pm
So how much money have the athletes received from this? Check out what the Utah collective did. Every scholarship player received a new leased Ram pickup.
