A developmental league for the NFL?

[Prime Time]

Troy Vincent wants to explore a developmental league
Posted by Mike Florio on April 27, 2014

AP

Recently, NFL defensive back turned NFL draft expert Corey Chavous and yours truly spent some time talking about the need for a developmental league.

NFL defensive back turned NFL director of football operations Troy Vincent may agree.

“We need to keep the pipeline of talent flowing, and that means for all areas of our game: players, coaches, scouts, game officials,” Vincent told the Associated Press. “I am responsible to look at whatever the Competition Committee looks at, and that includes a developmental league.

“For all this football talent around, we have to create another platform for developing it. Maybe it’s an academy — what would it look like? Maybe it’s a spring league; we’ll look to see if there is an appetite for it.”

Ideally, the NFL would launch a true, in-season NFL minor league, with players being called up and sent down and getting real game reps while playing in mid-level markets not currently served by the NFL.

The NFL previously had a developmental league in Europe, but it went defunct after nearly a generation of operation. Since then, the NFL has had nothing to supplement the free farm system known as college football.

And since the free farm system known as college football may not be free much longer, especially once the labor costs increase, the NFL may need to create its own way to develop young players.

 

[Rams and Gators]

Maybe put on in Europe, oh no Goodell killed that.

 

[LesBaker]

Well since they killed Europe because it wasn't working they may as well go after Arena ball, now that it's proven to be popular enough to make money on the NFL will step into other markets and make money too. Why not right.

 

[V3]

They need to get sports out of college and have that be the developmental league. The schools can still be associated with the teams for school spirit but they should be entirely separate entities. All the money they generate currently just goes right back into the program or to support other sports. It has nothing to do with education. Universities need to get back to why they are there and figure out how to make education affordable for people again. Let the sports that can support themselves become the developmental leagues that pay their players so we can finally end this stupid debate and schools no longer have to worry about phony "student athletes" or spending more money on the teams then they make. If universities were to license their school to the teams, they could actually generate money that could go directly back into making school more affordable. I get that there are many other reasons college has become crazy expensive but sports do not help at all and just create a ton of issues like the current debate that won't go away. It's a major reason european universities don't have sports teams like America and I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Sum1]

They need to get sports out of college and have that be the developmental league. The schools can still be associated with the teams for school spirit but they should be entirely separate entities. All the money they generate currently just goes right back into the program or to support other sports. It has nothing to do with education. Universities need to get back to why they are there and figure out how to make education affordable for people again. Let the sports that can support themselves become the developmental leagues that pay their players so we can finally end this stupid debate and schools no longer have to worry about phony "student athletes" or spending more money on the teams then they make. If universities were to license their school to the teams, they could actually generate money that could go directly back into making school more affordable. I get that there are many other reasons college has become crazy expensive but sports do not help at all and just create a ton of issues like the current debate that won't go away. It's a major reason european universities don't have sports teams like America and I agree wholeheartedly.

So you are saying take away one of the biggest revenue generating programs (sports) from universities and that will make education affordable again?

 

[V3]

So you are saying take away one of the biggest revenue generating programs (sports) from universities and that will make education affordable again?

Hate to break it to you, but most universities don't make much, if any, money on sports. You're probably just looking at football and/or basketball. You have to look at EVERYTHING.

 

[V3]

So you are saying take away one of the biggest revenue generating programs (sports) from universities and that will make education affordable again?

I'll also reiterate that if those programs are generating so much money, they can easily be spun off into private corporations where the schools license their name/logo and still make a profit. When did school become about who has the best sports team that makes the most money? It started as a way to educate people. That's been in decline for a while now. I get that people are passionate about their school's teams but with what I'm suggesting, you most likely will still have your team, the school will still make money, students will be there for one purpose, and athletes will be properly compensated.

 

[Sum1]

Hate to break it to you, but most universities don't make much, if any, money on sports. You're probably just looking at football and/or basketball. You have to look at EVERYTHING.

Yes, football and basketball make enough individually to make it worth it.

I sell products that make more than others. Those that break even are only worth it because they are part of a package with those that make the real money. Same logic here.

 

[Sum1]

I'll also reiterate that if those programs are generating so much money, they can easily be spun off into private corporations where the schools license their name/logo and still make a profit. When did school become about who has the best sports team that makes the most money? It started as a way to educate people. That's been in decline for a while now. I get that people are passionate about their school's teams but with what I'm suggesting, you most likely will still have your team, the school will still make money, students will be there for one purpose, and athletes will be properly compensated.

That's a nice theory.

 

[V3]

That's a nice theory.

It's a better theory than the status quo where a small percentage of athletic departments make enough to break even:

http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Myth-College-Sports-Are-a-Cash-Cow2.aspx

The Chronicle of Higher Education recently estimated that college athletics is a $10-billion marketplace. What sets UGA athletics apart is that it can pay for its expenses without turning to the university for help.
Only seven other athletics programs at public universities broke even or had net operating income on athletics each year from 2005-2009, according to data provided by USA Today to the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics (for which I consult). The others were Louisiana State University, The Pennsylvania State University, and the universities of Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas at Austin.

Like these peers, Georgia’s athletics department is flush because it can depend on donations, ticket sales, royalties from rights fees and sponsorships, and distributions from lucrative television contracts. It is no surprise that the other members of this elite fraternity belong to the Southeastern Conference, the Big Ten, and (at the time these data were collected) the Big 12.

For almost every other university, sports is a money-losing proposition. Only big-time college football has a chance of generating enough net revenue to cover not only its own costs but those of “Olympic” sports like field hockey, gymnastics, and swimming. Not even men’s basketball at places like Duke University or the University of Kansas can generate enough revenue to make programs profitable.

As a result, most colleges and universities rely on what the NCAA calls “allocated revenue.” This includes direct and indirect support from general funds, student fees, and government appropriations. In other words, most colleges subsidize their athletics programs, sometimes to startling degrees.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...tics-cost-colleges-students-millions/2814455/

The Knight Commission says Division I schools with football spent $91,936 per athlete in 2010, seven times the spending per student of $13,628. Division I universities without football spent $39,201 per athlete, more than triple the average student spending.

Nearly every university loses money on sports. Even after private donations and ticket sales, they fill the gap by tapping students paying tuition or state taxpayers.

http://blogs.democratandchronicle.com/watchdog/?p=2249

But it’s the great lie of college sports — that high profile programs generate income. The vast majority of them lose money and have to be subsidized, either through exorbitant student fees or, more often, with money pulled out of the school’s general coffers.

Of the 227 public schools that compete at the Division I level, only 22 have athletic programs that bring in more money than they spend.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/

Just 23 of 228 athletics departments at NCAA Division I public schools generated enough money on their own to cover their expenses in 2012. Of that group, 16 also received some type of subsidy — and 10 of those 16 athletics departments received more subsidy money in 2012 than they did in 2011.

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1111/how-much-revenue-do-college-sports-produce.aspx

Both NCAA basketball and football tend to average modest gains, compared to their professional sport brothers. In general, college sports are a losing cause when it comes to business. Almost every other college sports program, other than football and basketball, generates losses. This, in turn, creates an overall loss for many schools.

etc.

I'm not saying get rid of sports. I'm saying that there are better ways to make sure the players are getting proper compensation, the schools still make money and have unifying events, schools stay focused on education, that education should be more affordable, the professional sports have their developmental leagues, etc.

The current system isn't working.

 

[Sum1]

It's a better theory than the status quo where a small percentage of athletic departments make enough to break even:

http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Myth-College-Sports-Are-a-Cash-Cow2.aspx


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...tics-cost-colleges-students-millions/2814455/


http://blogs.democratandchronicle.com/watchdog/?p=2249


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/


http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1111/how-much-revenue-do-college-sports-produce.aspx


etc.

I'm not saying get rid of sports. I'm saying that there are better ways to make sure the players are getting proper compensation, the schools still make money and have unifying events, schools stay focused on education, that education should be more affordable, the professional sports have their developmental leagues, etc.

The current system isn't working.

Cool. I have absolutely no passion for this discussion.

I just don't see how taking sports away from universities makes education more affordable. Seems like two different topics to me.

I also don't believe for a second that schools are losing money because of sports. Perhaps the actual operations of the sports aren't generating the capital, but through all the other avenues it is. Otherwise you wouldn't see these schools giving out mega contracts to coaches and getting kids to come on scholarship.
Perhaps your idea of associating separate entities would generate some of that same capital and still bring in students for the same reasons...but all you are doing is creating the old 'pay attention to my left hand while I take your wallet with my right hand' routine.

 

[Sum1]

I guess I was in the minority, but I actually enjoyed NFL Europe.

I really think that with all the juniors declaring more and more that some late blooming players are getting cut and both the player and team are missing out on would be talents. A developmental league could be a nice asset.

 

[LesBaker]

It's a better theory than the status quo where a small percentage of athletic departments make enough to break even:

http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Myth-College-Sports-Are-a-Cash-Cow2.aspx


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...tics-cost-colleges-students-millions/2814455/


http://blogs.democratandchronicle.com/watchdog/?p=2249


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/


http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1111/how-much-revenue-do-college-sports-produce.aspx


etc.

I'm not saying get rid of sports. I'm saying that there are better ways to make sure the players are getting proper compensation, the schools still make money and have unifying events, schools stay focused on education, that education should be more affordable, the professional sports have their developmental leagues, etc.

The current system isn't working.

When players in college start asking, or actually getting money to play then this is going to really come to the surface. Most people assume that sports pours money into a schools coffers when in fact it almost never does. Well it does, but other sports suck it back out and then some.

Both of my parents were in academia and one held the position of Dean of arts and sciences at two schools, one that is very well known. So I've heard this stuff firsthand.

 

[V3]

When players in college start asking, or actually getting money to play then this is going to really come to the surface. Most people assume that sports pours money into a schools coffers when in fact it almost never does. Well it does, but other sports suck it back out and then some.

Both of my parents were in academia and one held the position of Dean of arts and sciences at two schools, one that is very well known. So I've heard this stuff firsthand.

Same here. My aunt is a professor at Rutgers and has been on pay freeze(plus reduced benefits) for years. I'll just say she absolutely HATES college sports and when you hear the stories she's seen firsthand and then couple them with the money figures(where only the biggest make money), you start to wonder.

 

[Zombie Slayer]

I've always wanted the NFL to do something like this. I think it would work. People love football and will watch it if its on. I say just start off with about 6-8 teams. Have all of the rules the exact same as in the NFL. Then have this developmental league have their season when the NFL is in their offseason. It would allow for college, arena and canadian football players to play in this league where they could play and possibly get a chance to make an NFL roster someday. I would watch it. You could also have some of these teams in places where they don't have an NFL team. People can't get enough of football and if it is all set up exactly like NFL games I'm sure people would watch it.