Athletic article: how much NIL to assemble a winning team?

[Bosler]

Here's the link -- https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/61...ootball-transfer-portal-confidential-coaches/ -- but I bet it's behind a paywall. I subscribe to The Athletic, because I think it is by far and away the best site for sports.

The article gives the results of (anonymous) interviews with college position coaches and general managers about where things are and what they're seeing. One discussion is about what they think about total payroll necessary to assemble a competitive roster in the league they're in. The G5 guys think about $3-5 million. The power conference guys think $10-15 million to be competitive and $20 million-plus to be elite.

There's a lot of other fascinating stuff, too: prices for various positions, boldest demands they've received, etc.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Interesting. I see ND announced they wouldn't buy into all the NIL stuff. We'll see if that's true and if that lasts. Maybe they won't but their boosters will?

Honestly, I thought the payroll would have to be a bit higher. I wonder if there is opportunity to spend strategically? Our overall NIL is low but ol NIL is best in g6, for example.

 

[Bosler]

Interesting. I see ND announced they wouldn't buy into all the NIL stuff. We'll see if that's true and if that lasts. Maybe they won't but their boosters will?

I didn't see their announcement but: A) Yes, Notre Dame has indeed done things differently over the years. It's a point of pride with them. So they'll undoubtedly pick and choose how they participate in this new world. B) As you indicate, their community and boosters won't tolerate their sports dropping below the top tier. So someone's going to be paying players. You'll note last year's season...playing for national championship with a $1mm quarterback brought in from Duke.

 

[cowpokeguy]

Most the coaches in the article were talking about P5, championship level rosters at $15MM plus. Here's the two coaches from G5s when asked what it would take to assemble a competitive roster:

Coach 4: The goal is to always be in the top three (NIL-wise in our G5 conference). Next year I think that’s $4 million or $5 million. You’re looking at $5 million for G5s moving forward like, “Hey, if you want to be in the game, this is where you’ve got to be.”
Coach 10: In a post-House settlement world, the floor to being competitive in our (G5) league is probably in the $3-5 million range. Some schools will be higher, but in our conference, most of the schools will be in that range on an annual basis.

 

[car tune]

I doubt that UW or even the boosters could even pony up $25K

College sports as we know it has died. Time for UW to step it on down 2 or 3 grades

 

[McPeachy]

I doubt that UW or even the boosters could even pony up $25K

College sports as we know it has died. Time for UW to step it on down 2 or 3 grades

Well, you are wrong. They have ponied up about $1,000,000 at this point.

And yes, college sports has died, as we knew it. We need to stay with our peers, which we can and will.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

It'd be interesting to know the roi for good, mediocre, and poor teams. I've always thought nfl franchises have this info and some determine the best roi isn't necessarily a championship caliber team (obvious exception for the dynasties)

 

[Bosler]

It'd be interesting to know the roi for good, mediocre, and poor teams. I've always thought nfl franchises have this info and some determine the best roi isn't necessarily a championship caliber team (obvious exception for the dynasties)

Complicated question.

For the NFL, it appears it's less about ROI in a standard sense than about what you have to do just to keep people coming to the games -- the Detroit Lions did it for 60 years, amazingly enough -- and not get kicked out of the league. The NFL is a state-sanctioned monopoly and the value of an NFL team doubles every 5-10 years no matter what they do.

Different issues in college. Almost all college football teams lose money, but they have it in their heads it's going to hurt the school if they don't have happy fall Saturday afternoon shows with bands and young guys running into each other while carrying a ball. Maybe they're right, I don't know. Would UW applications or attendance drop even more if they scaled back on the entertainment? Maybe, maybe not. If so, by how much? All that makes ROI extremely hard, if not impossible, to calculate.

 

[307bball]

Complicated question.

For the NFL, it appears it's less about ROI in a standard sense than about what you have to do just to keep people coming to the games -- the Detroit Lions did it for 60 years, amazingly enough -- and not get kicked out of the league. The NFL is a state-sanctioned monopoly and the value of an NFL team doubles every 5-10 years no matter what they do.

Different issues in college. Almost all college football teams lose money, but they have it in their heads it's going to hurt the school if they don't have happy fall Saturday afternoon shows with bands and young guys running into each other while carrying a ball. Maybe they're right, I don't know. Would UW applications or attendance drop even more if they scaled back on the entertainment? Maybe, maybe not. If so, by how much? All that makes ROI extremely hard, if not impossible, to calculate.

There really is not a return in the classic sense...It's not like a buying a rental property or a stock. Those are investment vehicles that return about the same on a per dollar basis (roughly). It's more like backing hollywood movies or an exploratory mining operation. There is a threshold below which it's really just throwing money into a black hole because the odds of any single "investment" hitting are incredibly low but the ones that hit end up making up for the rest. This is not a perfect analogy...but raw ROI is just the wrong way to look at college athletics...probably true for any entertainment industry "investment".

 

[ragtimejoe1]

There really is not a return in the classic sense...It's not like a buying a rental property or a stock. Those are investment vehicles that return about the same on a per dollar basis (roughly). It's more like backing hollywood movies or an exploratory mining operation. There is a threshold below which it's really just throwing money into a black hole because the odds of any single "investment" hitting are incredibly low but the ones that hit end up making up for the rest. This is not a perfect analogy...but raw ROI is just the wrong way to look at college athletics...probably true for any entertainment industry "investment".

There has to be a return of some type. As Bosler mentioned, student enrollment or something.

The MWC is discussing a floor for revenue sharing. UW athletics' revenue is supported by tax dollars and student fees. Not unique to UW for sure. However, unless the taxpayer and student contribution is 0, then money is being taken from 1 student to hire another. Same for taxpayers. Taking money to hire athletes.

Athletics will likely need to a better answer for roi. Other student jobs can probably be justified through fulfilling the core mission as mandated by the state. Athletic scholarships could as well imo. Direct revenue sharing for an "elective activity" is another beast especially when that revenue comes from taxes and student fees. Unless the ad has a better answer for roi, I think it will face severe criticism from taxpayers. If the legislature somehow votes and the duly elected give it the stamp of approval, then obviously it's a non-starter. The student fees would still feel dirty.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

‘Revenue sharing’ from legislative funds and student fees should only occur if athletics runs in the black. Very unlikely to occur.

Any dollars to pay athletes should come from private dollars IMO. And under this model, I’m not interested in sharing my dollars to pay athletes.

 

[307bball]

There has to be a return of some type. As Bosler mentioned, student enrollment or something.

The MWC is discussing a floor for revenue sharing. UW athletics' revenue is supported by tax dollars and student fees. Not unique to UW for sure. However, unless the taxpayer and student contribution is 0, then money is being taken from 1 student to hire another. Same for taxpayers. Taking money to hire athletes.

Athletics will likely need to a better answer for roi. Other student jobs can probably be justified through fulfilling the core mission as mandated by the state. Athletic scholarships could as well imo. Direct revenue sharing for an "elective activity" is another beast especially when that revenue comes from taxes and student fees. Unless the ad has a better answer for roi, I think it will face severe criticism from taxpayers. If the legislature somehow votes and the duly elected give it the stamp of approval, then obviously it's a non-starter. The student fees would still feel dirty.

I think this is correct...From a University perspective, athletics is firmly into the "marketing" category. Analysis of what you get when you pay for a marketing product are very controversial...Take super bowl ad spending. Is it worth it? Seems like a lot of money but the market for that is pretty established. Agencies try to quantify what "eyeballs" are worth but it seems like funny money to me.