Paying College Athletes

[bucksfan2]

There has been a lot of debate about paying college athletes. This has come even more into the forefront with Reggie Bush and also the numerous college football players who have missed time this season already.

Here is an interesting take by Darren Rovell in the amount of money, or lack there of, if athletes were given a take of their jersey sales. Apparently it isn't much. http://www.cnbc.com/id/39099125

[sonny]

They do get paid. Free school, free room and board. Free books. That stuff is expensive. As far as the Universities making money on the athletes, yep, they sure do. The same way My employees make millions off of whatever I and the rest of my fellow employees do.

Hi ho hi ho hi ho!

[Hoosier Red]

I tend to think ESPN's Gregg Easterbrook has the most logical take on this. He was talking about the Georgia player who was suspended four games for selling his jersey on Ebay.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print...magesPrint=off

TMQ doesn't think NCAA athletes should be paid. My key point is that a small number of star players come out behind by performing as amateurs, but they create the value that allows large numbers of student-athletes who are not stars to get a college education either free or at reduced cost. But though college athletes shouldn't be paid, the persecution of them for slight misjudgments should stop.

It's not as if the Athletic Departments are turning a profit.
Where I think the departments fail is in paying $1 million or so to average to just above average coaches and athletic directors. If you cut the "wasteful" spending like this in half, you'd be able to give out even more in financial scholarships.

[Sea Ray]

I think the CNBC guy is severely underestimating the sales of college jerseys but I don't think the player should get any of it. First of all, aren't the college jerseys for sale nameless? I don't think they can sell the jerseys with names on them.

I could go on and on about why this is a bad idea but I'll give just one:

Competitive balance.

If players can profit from sales of their jerseys and all, then that gives a huge advantage to the powerhouse schools like USC, ND and Ohio State. A player can expect to make a lot more selling his ND jerseys in the Chicago market or USC in the LA market than a guy from Auburn. There are a ton of unintended consequences to doing this

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

I think the CNBC guy is severely underestimating the sales of college jerseys but I don't think the player should get any of it. First of all, aren't the college jerseys for sale nameless? I don't think they can sell the jerseys with names on them.

I could go on and on about why this is a bad idea but I'll give just one:

Competitive balance.

If players can profit from sales of their jerseys and all, then that gives a huge advantage to the powerhouse schools like USC, ND and Ohio State. A player can expect to make a lot more selling his ND jerseys in the Chicago market or USC in the LA market than a guy from Auburn. There are a ton of unintended consequences to doing this

Yep College jerseys are nameless. That would prove to be especially difficult to determine equitable money being paid for a #1 Michigan jersey. Are you buying a #1 because of the current WR, or because of a former WR? And it's not like all players get a chance to sell their jersey, so in reality you'd be splitting the pot among all players on the team. Or you could split it among all the athletes at a school, or all NCAA licensed jerseys could be split among all NCAA athletes. If you did that I'm going to guess the total amount would end up being less than the stipend athletes already get.

[reds1869]

The bigger issue is agreements between the NFL, NBA and MLB that limit a young player's ability to play pro ball right out of high school. MLB allows draftees to play affiliated ball upon HS graduation but makes them attend college for a few years if they choose to play in the NCAA. The NFL and NBA all but force kids to briefly attend college. So, in essence, the pro leagues have agreements with the NCAA that protect their business interests while limiting the options of talented young players.

[Boston Red]

Paying players is a great idea if your goal is to completely destroy intercollegiate athletics.

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

I think the CNBC guy is severely underestimating the sales of college jerseys but I don't think the player should get any of it. First of all, aren't the college jerseys for sale nameless? I don't think they can sell the jerseys with names on them.

I could go on and on about why this is a bad idea but I'll give just one:

Competitive balance.

If players can profit from sales of their jerseys and all, then that gives a huge advantage to the powerhouse schools like USC, ND and Ohio State. A player can expect to make a lot more selling his ND jerseys in the Chicago market or USC in the LA market than a guy from Auburn. There are a ton of unintended consequences to doing this

Don't know. Rovell does a pretty good job here. I guess what I thought was interesting is the small amount of money they would actually make if they were paid for the jersey. Often people forget about all of the cost in the supply chain and also the risk that your individual stores take in selling the jersey. It would interesting to see if a guy like Green would be willing to take the risk in buying up a large quantity of his jerseys to be sold?

[Scrap Irony]

Originally Posted by sonny

They do get paid. Free school, free room and board. Free books. That stuff is expensive. As far as the Universities making money on the athletes, yep, they sure do. The same way My employees make millions off of whatever I and the rest of my fellow employees do.

Hi ho hi ho hi ho!

The reason the universities make billions (with a B, friends and neighbors) is directly related to the performance of these kids.

It's eminently fair to give the kids money. It's the right thing to do. This is, after all, a billion dollar pie and the kids get squat, other than a seat that costs nothing to the university, a dorm room that costs little, and food that costs less than that.

The problem is that the implementation of the money is impossible to figure out, especially considering how much programs already cheat.

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by Scrap Irony

The reason the universities make billions (with a B, friends and neighbors) is directly related to the performance of these kids.

It's eminently fair to give the kids money. It's the right thing to do. This is, after all, a billion dollar pie and the kids get squat, other than a seat that costs nothing to the university, a dorm room that costs little, and food that costs less than that.

The problem is that the implementation of the money is impossible to figure out, especially considering how much programs already cheat.

True, All of the revenues are derived from the kids' performance. However the Universities don't make money(unless the University of Phoenix is starting a basketball program.)

How those revenues get redistributed is a fair question, but it's not as if each university is sucking down huge amounts of profit. In fact just the opposite as in many cases the University has to pay to keep the Athletic Department out of the Red.

The actual costs are slightly more complex as well. The universities pay for all the fields where the athletes perform and practice, they pay for all the travel, the insurance and the administration of the sports. No one is making the athletes play college athletics, so it's important to note that they only do so if it makes economic sense for them.

Again, I have questions about how much they should pay the administrators and the coaches, but it's inaccurate to say the university or the athletic department is "making money."

[Captain13]

Who gets paid? Superstars only? All football and basketball players? Only players on teams that make money? All scholarship athletes? All athletes on Varsity teams (walk-ons included)? Letterwinners? Cheerleaders? That dude that dots the i in "Ohio"? Too many questions, too few answers.

[reds1869]

Originally Posted by Hoosier Red

No one is making the athletes play college athletics, so it's important to note that they only do so if it makes economic sense for them.

Except they are. As I mentioned above, the NFL and NBA effectively force kids to play college ball. They can rationalize all they want but it really boils down to an "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" deal with the NCAA. Except for baseball and non-revenue sports athletes, those kids don't have the choice of jumping straight into their athletic profession.

I don't really favor paying the athletes. What I do favor is allowing them to live by the same rules as everyone else. I attended college on a full scholarship and was allowed to work all the way through; athletes can't do so without breaking the rules. That needs to change.

[redhawkfish]

The problem you will run into is with the Olympic sports(non-revenue sports which is most college sports). How can you tell a college baseball player he doesn't get paid , but a 4th stringer in football does because their sport makes money?

[Roy Tucker]

I used to think they should pay college athletes but now I don't think so.

The price tag for a full-ride scholarship is somewhere between $30k-60k. Pretty good money for 18-22 yr. olds. I sure as heck didn't make that flipping burgers all though school. Plus they should (not necessarily will) get a degree out of it.

Yes, there may be some elite athletes that can go pro right out of high school but they are in the vast minority (and they suffer under the existing NFL/NBA setups). Probably 98-99% never go above college athletics and go into being regular citizens.

The only quibble I have is spending money for athletes. They need some pocket money for whatever floats their boats.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/...s+the+money+go

[New York Red]

It could never work, mostly because some schools have a much, much bigger budget with which to pay players. Check out the athletics department budget - and their yearly profit - for schools like Texas and Ohio State sometime, and several other football powers. It would be like the New York Yankees payroll vs the Kansas City Royals payroll, except much more glaring. That doesn't even include the size of a school's alumni base, where more money to pay recruits can be drawn.

And in a lot of cases we're talking about kids who grow up in very low-income families, so they'd be more likely to choose the school with the most $$ to offer them. There would be such an uneven playing field in college football, it would be a joke. You'd have the same top ten or so every year, playing at a similar level, and then the rest of D-1 playing at a level far below the top ten. It would completely ruin a great sport.

As for the players thinking they should get paid, let them start paying for five years of out-of-state college, or even in-state if they want to stay home. Then ask them if they think that free education, tutition, books, housing, meals, etc they're getting now is worth anything.