Fair Market Value of CFB Players

[Mavric]

The chart below shows us how much college football players might be worth at the top programs if they were able to play in a free market system and receive compensation in a manner similar to that of the NFL.

 

We calculated the Fair Market Value of college football players at the 20 most profitable programs using data provided by the Department of Education. Using the NFL's most recent collective bargaining agreement in which the players receive a minimum of 47% of all revenue, each school's football revenue was split between the school and the athletes with the players' share divided evenly among the 85 scholarship players.

 

Using this method, we can estimate that the average college football player at the University of Texas is worth $671,173 per year (up from $622,104 last year) based on the program's $121.4 million in annual football revenue. That is more than $130,000 ahead of any other school, with the University of Alabama second, at $536,485 per year. Overall, the average Football Bowl Subdivision (Division I-A) player is worth $163,869 per year (up from $149,569 a year ago) with the average football team taking in more than $29 million in revenue each year.

Link

 

[Landlord]

Interesting idea, but I want to know how much of the annual football revenue goes straight back towards football expenses? it's not monetary value, but there are a lot of added benefits and privileges of being a student athlete that don't show up in a quantifiable number, such as access to the best tutors, nutrition programs, gear, access to locker rooms/weight rooms/etc.

 

 

The number the came to for the average D1 player is really fascinating though, as it's not even close to being as grossly higher than the actual value of what they receive as people like to spout off.

[NUance]

each school's football revenue was split between the school and the athletes with the players' share divided evenly among the 85 scholarship players.

 

Once again the walk-ons don't get a seat at the table.

[HuskerMav11]

I'm confused. So based on the calculation, each player is worth about 1/180th of the revenue?

[84HuskerLaw]

I'm confused. So based on the calculation, each player is worth about 1/180th of the revenue?

That is roughly what the author of the article is trying to say but I don't see a real comparison between the college players and the pros. The pro teams have a small number of players as compared to college players and of course the obvious comparison is to suggest that somehow literally tens of thousands of college players are somehow comparable in value to the small 1500 or so professional caliber players. The suggestion is that somehow all of the amateur players of college are equal in value to the top few percent of the players. The very best at anything are typically worth multiples of the rest, residue and remainder.

I would think you may want to be thinking college players would be worth about 10% of the revenues if you are saying pros are worth 47%. But the 'fair market value' is not what the 47% revenue sharing - collective bargaining agreement says really. That is a way for the handful of players are to share in the gross revenues. It is not a fair market value concept in my view.

[Nebfanatic]

 

 

I'm confused. So based on the calculation, each player is worth about 1/180th of the revenue?

That is roughly what the author of the article is trying to say but I don't see a real comparison between the college players and the pros. The pro teams have a small number of players as compared to college players and of course the obvious comparison is to suggest that somehow literally tens of thousands of college players are somehow comparable in value to the small 1500 or so professional caliber players. The suggestion is that somehow all of the amateur players of college are equal in value to the top few percent of the players. The very best at anything are typically worth multiples of the rest, residue and remainder.

I would think you may want to be thinking college players would be worth about 10% of the revenues if you are saying pros are worth 47%. But the 'fair market value' is not what the 47% revenue sharing - collective bargaining agreement says really. That is a way for the handful of players are to share in the gross revenues. It is not a fair market value concept in my view.

I don't think they are taking player caliber into consideration. Author basically is just taking the NFL CBA applying that same percentage to the college revenue then dividing it evenly among the players on the roster.

 

So yes, it's not really giving you any fair market value

[Kiyoat Husker]

Interesting idea, but I want to know how much of the annual football revenue goes straight back towards football expenses? it's not monetary value, but there are a lot of added benefits and privileges of being a student athlete that don't show up in a quantifiable number, such as access to the best tutors, nutrition programs, gear, access to locker rooms/weight rooms/etc.

 

 

Yeah, that's the first thing that came to my mind, too. Even with the incredibly high football revenue, athletic departments spend a great deal on coaches salaries, competitive facilities, and all of the non-revenue generating sports. Many athletic departments operate in the red.

 

Surprising numbers, though. College football in the power conferences has become a beast of a business.

[junior4949]

Does it really matter how much of the funds go back towards football expenses? It's not as though NFL teams don't have football expenses as well. They have to pay for travel, lodging, facilities, etc. They also have to pay for practice squad players and such. I don't see how it matters if a college athletic department is running in the red. A little accountability has to be taken by those who run so many money losing other sports. Why should the football department fund almost the entire athletic budget for colleges?

 

Considering the amount of potential physical damage college football players put themselves through just to get an education, it would seem to me they are not being fairly compensated. It appears to me that college football is becoming a lot like pro baseball. Those who spend the most on coaches and facilities spend most of their time near the top. Those who spend most of their time near the top typically get the best talent. Out of the top 20 schools listed above, has there been a NC in the past decade that isn't included in those schools?

[Elf]

Considering the amount of potential physical damage college football players put themselves through just to get an education, it would seem to me they are not being fairly compensated.

All D-1 football players that are on full ride scholarships are being compensated quite well.

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1094781-so-whats-a-college-football-scholarship-worth-anyway

 

Most athletic departments operate in the red, so how would we give these football players more compensation?

[RunMickeyRun02]

First take, it makes me kind of ill. "A college football player is worth X among of money....." they are still human beings right?

 

Second take, they lumped everyone else into an average, I'd like to see whose players are "worth" the least. Even typing that last part of that last sentence makes me feel a bit icky.

[RunMickeyRun02]

 

Interesting idea, but I want to know how much of the annual football revenue goes straight back towards football expenses? it's not monetary value, but there are a lot of added benefits and privileges of being a student athlete that don't show up in a quantifiable number, such as access to the best tutors, nutrition programs, gear, access to locker rooms/weight rooms/etc.

 

 

Yeah, that's the first thing that came to my mind, too. Even with the incredibly high football revenue, athletic departments spend a great deal on coaches salaries, competitive facilities, and all of the non-revenue generating sports. Many athletic departments operate in the red.

 

Surprising numbers, though. College football in the power conferences has become a beast of a business.

 

That was another thought, if any schools players were worth negative per player money.

 

Edit: And if so how much.

[Landlord]

 

Considering the amount of potential physical damage college football players put themselves through just to get an education, it would seem to me they are not being fairly compensated.

All D-1 football players that are on full ride scholarships are being compensated quite well.

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1094781-so-whats-a-college-football-scholarship-worth-anyway

 

Most athletic departments operate in the red, so how would we give these football players more compensation?

 

 

 

I'd say there's a good argument at least from limiting the ability for coaches to be making 5, 6, 7+ million dollars coaching in this game, personally.

[Moiraine]

Does it really matter how much of the funds go back towards football expenses? It's not as though NFL teams don't have football expenses as well. They have to pay for travel, lodging, facilities, etc. They also have to pay for practice squad players and such. I don't see how it matters if a college athletic department is running in the red. A little accountability has to be taken by those who run so many money losing other sports. Why should the football department fund almost the entire athletic budget for colleges?

 

Considering the amount of potential physical damage college football players put themselves through just to get an education, it would seem to me they are not being fairly compensated. It appears to me that college football is becoming a lot like pro baseball. Those who spend the most on coaches and facilities spend most of their time near the top. Those who spend most of their time near the top typically get the best talent. Out of the top 20 schools listed above, has there been a NC in the past decade that isn't included in those schools?

The only expenses that matter are the ones that go back to the student althletes. For the rest you're right.

[Kiyoat Husker]

 

 

 

 

Interesting idea, but I want to know how much of the annual football revenue goes straight back towards football expenses? it's not monetary value, but there are a lot of added benefits and privileges of being a student athlete that don't show up in a quantifiable number, such as access to the best tutors, nutrition programs, gear, access to locker rooms/weight rooms/etc.

 

Yeah, that's the first thing that came to my mind, too. Even with the incredibly high football revenue, athletic departments spend a great deal on coaches salaries, competitive facilities, and all of the non-revenue generating sports. Many athletic departments operate in the red.

 

Surprising numbers, though. College football in the power conferences has become a beast of a business.

That was another thought, if any schools players were worth negative per player money.

 

Edit: And if so how much.

Right, so if applying the same model to non revenue sports produces a negative value, the formula would need to be tweaked. Football doesn't exist in a vacuum.

 

For a more realistic number of what players actually could be paid, start with a minimum amount for all athletes, subtract that from the total department revenue, and go from there.

 

I wonder what our volleyball athletes are worth with this formula?

[Moiraine]

I'm okay with talking about a set amount. But unless we want there to be a huge disparity in talent, where the teams with money can just buy players, having it so teams like Nebraska can pay 10x what Iowa State can won't work. The only option I can see is having a pool of $ from all schools. It could be something each team pays in order to be a part of the NCAA. That could be used to pay all players who see the field each year.