Originally Posted by Scrap Irony
Not if they're making millions, Logan, for the university.
And what is the "scholarship" really costing the university?
Half a room, some food, and a seat in a few classes.
Put it this way: colleges and universities are making money hand over fist and it costs them only what they pay for coaches and travel.
They're not only baking the cake and eating it, they're raising the ingredients and re-heating the cake so it lasts the entire year.
But the players? No cake. Or, if you really think that scholarship means much, perhaps a couple crumbs they should be happy with.
Well there's a few problems with the theory Scrap.
1) The people come to see the names on the front of the jersey as much as the names on the back. So are those players necessarily adding to the amount of revenue being brought in? If UK brings in $50 million with John Wall, would it bring in $0 if he didn't come? The value John Wall provides isn't the amount of revenue the team brings in, but rather how much more revenue they could bring in with John Wall then without.
2) It doesn't matter what it costs the university to provide the scholarships, it's about the value that the athletes receive for it.(In other words, what would they have to pay to receive 1)full room and board, 2)World class training and marketing if they decide to play professionally, and 3) WORLD CLASS MARKETING if they decide not to play professionally. Do you think the members of Kentucky's 93 team have an easier or harder time trying to move into sales positions around the state?
All in all the value provided by the player probably exceeds the value provided by the university, but it's a contract each player enters into willingly.