Paying College Athletes

[mlh1981]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

It would probably be only licensed Nike jersey's.

How many people buy jersey's on a yearly basis? I have a #2 OSU jersey that was bought about 7-8 years ago that has nothing to do with Pryor.

Mike Doss

[reds1869]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

That's not an issue at all. The courts have decided it's perfectly legal. Just ask Maurice Clarrett.

There's nothing wrong with a business demanding a minimum age or a certain degree of education before being hired.

If you want to start the Reds1869 Football League and you want to admit kids of any age, you are free to do so. There are other football and baseball leagues and all of them can set their own rules

It's a non issue

Legal does not always equal right. Segregation and slavery were both legal at one point, too. Women were denied the vote for a very long time. Baseball had the odious reserve clause for most of the sport's history; does that make it right? You and I both know that the argument of "there are other leagues" is silly. Of course there are...let's not pretend the UFL is the same as the NFL. What the NCAA and major leagues do to control the labor pool is collusion in the purest form.

[Scrap Irony]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

That's not really true. The truth is very few athletics make money. In some cases basketball and football make money but the other 18 or so sports lose money. Are you saying that if you are in one of the few sports that makes money that you deserve a cut and the others do not?

I'm sorry, I thought we were using common sense here.

In 2001 (the last year I have notes for), Western Kentucky's basketball program made upwards of $24 million for the school. The only reason that $24-ish million was in the school coffers was because of those 13 guys on that team.

Are you telling me you think it's okay that the school take all that cash, let the kid make the $15,000 (room and board, plus scholarship in that era) he "earned", and call everything honky dory?

Really?

Kentucky's licensing agreement is a million dollar money-maker for the school. (And thats just the merchandise. We're not talking about games tickets or anything else.) It's not because people like the dentistry program.

Louisville's School of Medicine didn't make the school $52 million. But its sports programs did.



When I was a kid, my Dad worked for L&N Railroad. At one point, he had to travel the rails of three states, supporting bridges, cutting ties, et al. The Railroad paid for his travel, his room, and his board.

By your logic, that should be enough to satisfy that worker.

[CTA513]

Start paying college athletes and you'll go from going to school for an education to going to school for sports and I'm not talking about just the college level.

[IslandRed]

Originally Posted by Scrap Irony

By your logic, that should be enough to satisfy that worker.

Well, at that point we're teetering on the philosophical precipice of college athletics -- a kid cannot simultaneously be an amateur athlete and a professional athlete/worker.

Well, okay, he can, but not for the same sport at the same time!

[Yachtzee]

Originally Posted by Scrap Irony

I'm sorry, I thought we were using common sense here.

In 2001 (the last year I have notes for), Western Kentucky's basketball program made upwards of $24 million for the school. The only reason that $24-ish million was in the school coffers was because of those 13 guys on that team.

Are you telling me you think it's okay that the school take all that cash, let the kid make the $15,000 (room and board, plus scholarship in that era) he "earned", and call everything honky dory?

Really?

Kentucky's licensing agreement is a million dollar money-maker for the school. (And thats just the merchandise. We're not talking about games tickets or anything else.) It's not because people like the dentistry program.

Louisville's School of Medicine didn't make the school $52 million. But its sports programs did.



When I was a kid, my Dad worked for L&N Railroad. At one point, he had to travel the rails of three states, supporting bridges, cutting ties, et al. The Railroad paid for his travel, his room, and his board.

By your logic, that should be enough to satisfy that worker.

If you look at what a person makes with a college education against what someone makes without one over their lifetime, a free ride (and not having to pay back the massive student loans most kids have to take out) is a tremendous economic benefit to the student athlete. If they don't want to take advantage of it, that's their problem. Sometimes I feel like they should just turn some sports into semi-pro teams. Basketball and football become divorced from their universities, but still maintain a relationship with the school, where they rent the use of the athletic facilities and pay the school a licensing fee for the use of the school name, colors, and mascot if they wish to market to the school's alumni. Then give the players a choice, the team can pay their way through college or pay them the equivalent amount as salary. That way it allows those who want a college education get one and keeps the ones who just want to play sports from becoming a nuisance. If these athletes then complain years down the road about their financial problems, they can look back on how they chose money over an education and have no one but themselves to blame.

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by Scrap Irony

I'm sorry, I thought we were using common sense here.

In 2001 (the last year I have notes for), Western Kentucky's basketball program made upwards of $24 million for the school. The only reason that $24-ish million was in the school coffers was because of those 13 guys on that team.

Are you telling me you think it's okay that the school take all that cash, let the kid make the $15,000 (room and board, plus scholarship in that era) he "earned", and call everything honky dory?

Really?

Kentucky's licensing agreement is a million dollar money-maker for the school. (And thats just the merchandise. We're not talking about games tickets or anything else.) It's not because people like the dentistry program.

Louisville's School of Medicine didn't make the school $52 million. But its sports programs did.

When I was a kid, my Dad worked for L&N Railroad. At one point, he had to travel the rails of three states, supporting bridges, cutting ties, et al. The Railroad paid for his travel, his room, and his board.

By your logic, that should be enough to satisfy that worker.

Louisville's school of medicine didn't cost $52 million either. I'm guessing their sports programs did.
If basketball players want to take the money made from the soccer players, swimmers, and wrestlers, that's the alternative.
Very few athletic departments MAKE money. THey take in revenues, they spend more than they take in and the University in many cases has to pay to keep them back in the black.

[Scrap Irony]

Universities don't have to keep up with a sports program either. No one makes them put out non-revenue sports.

They do it for the same reason they sponsor other programs.

It's attractive to other prospective students and contributes to "the college experience".

Wrestling, golf, swimming, any non-revenue sport is much like that drama class you took in school. It's "educational".

Golf has nothing to do with football which has nothing to do with basketball.

Were I AD of a major Division I sports program, I'd really, really consider doing away with all sports that make no money. (I'd hope to find a women's program that at least break even. I'd still have to keep one or two because of Title IX.) That would put my program in the black every year.

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by Scrap Irony

Universities don't have to keep up with a sports program either. No one makes them put out non-revenue sports.

They do it for the same reason they sponsor other programs.

It's attractive to other prospective students and contributes to "the college experience".

Wrestling, golf, swimming, any non-revenue sport is much like that drama class you took in school. It's "educational".

Golf has nothing to do with football which has nothing to do with basketball.

Were I AD of a major Division I sports program, I'd really, really consider doing away with all sports that make no money. (I'd hope to find a women's program that at least break even. I'd still have to keep one or two because of Title IX.) That would put my program in the black every year.

Yeah but what would you do with the additional money? Pay the Football and Basketball coaches even more? I suppose you'd say you can pay the athletes, but as of now you can't and I honestly can't see it happening anytime soon. So what's the point of collecting additional revenue. There is no such thing as a "for profit" athletic department.

[Scrap Irony]

I'm saying don't confuse football with golf, that's all. For the sole reason of basketball, Kentuckians spend hundreds of millions of dollars. It's not because of the educational facility. (Most UK fans can't spell either of those two words. )

Those guys deserve to be paid something for that. They deserve to be paid rather substantially, too.

Don't tell me you can't do that because of athletes in golf. It doesn't ring true.

Now, I don't think it's possible to do it. I think too many colleges and universities would take advantage. I'm just saying they deserve to get paid. A lot.

[LoganBuck]

Originally Posted by Scrap Irony

I'm saying don't confuse football with golf, that's all. For the sole reason of basketball, Kentuckians spend hundreds of millions of dollars. It's not because of the educational facility. (Most UK fans can't spell either of those two words. )

Those guys deserve to be paid something for that. They deserve to be paid rather substantially, too.

Don't tell me you can't do that because of athletes in golf. It doesn't ring true.

Now, I don't think it's possible to do it. I think too many colleges and universities would take advantage. I'm just saying they deserve to get paid. A lot.

So what do you think a full ride scholarship, with all the perks of being a scholarship athlete, is worth? 4-5 years of education, room and board, etc, etc easily exceeds $100,000 today. Isn't that enough?

[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.

That's it.

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.

[Hoosier Red]

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.

That's it.

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.

[Boston Red]

Originally Posted by Scrap Irony

And what is the "scholarship" really costing the university?

The tuition and room and board that would have been paid by the person who otherwise would have been sitting in the scholarship athlete's seat in classrooms and sleeping in his bed.

[Scrap Irony]

Originally Posted by Boston Red

The tuition and room and board that would have been paid by the person who otherwise would have been sitting in the scholarship athlete's seat in classrooms and sleeping in his bed.

12 kids
$50,000 tuition, room, and board (generous)

$600,000

UK's basketball team made how much money last year?

Who wouldn't make that deal?

(Of course, Kentucky could always kick 12 kids off campus, claiming they have a housing shortage. Not that that ever happens. Then, they could make both the hundreds of thousands and the hundreds of millions. But no university would ever stoop so low as to do that, would they?)