NCAA a "house of cards"?

[Assembly Hall]

I found this to be a very interesting read.......

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25152596/big-ten-ncaa-sports-is-house-of-cards-if-education-cant-be-defended

[Hoosier Red]

It's an interesting thought, almost as if he foresee's the top stars plying their trade elsewhere as opposed to playing in college for free and is trying to re-position the NCAA's entertainment value ahead of that.

The actual proposal will never fly, which also makes me wonder if there's some other goal here.

[Assembly Hall]

It's an interesting thought, almost as if he foresee's the top stars plying their trade elsewhere as opposed to playing in college for free and is trying to re-position the NCAA's entertainment value ahead of that.

The actual proposal will never fly, which also makes me wonder if there's some other goal here.

I really didnt know what to take away from the article. Sounds like an Al Gore kind of thing to me. The NCAA is broke and certain people are looking at how to fix it.

[Hoosier Red]

Of course on the flip side, one of the NCAA's arguments against paying it's "student-athletes" is that the athletes receive value in marketing themselves to potential employers. So as a potential fix this certainly strikes me as tone deaf.

[improbus]

Of course on the flip side, one of the NCAA's arguments against paying it's "student-athletes" is that the athletes receive value in marketing themselves to potential employers. So as a potential fix this certainly strikes me as tone deaf.
That applies to the 1-2% that go on to professional sports. That is like claiming that being Valedictorian is the only way to have a valuable education.

[Hoosier Red]

The argument's pretty weak. But it's one the NCAA goes back to often.

I'd also argue that players who "go pro in fields other than sports" derive some benefit from the notoriety they attain from being on a college sports team. Certainly not enough to bridge the gap, but its not nothing.

[Assembly Hall]

I concur with that.

[M2]

One idea I used to think was crazy that I kind of like now is why not let players major in football or basketball (or insert your sport here)? They have dance majors and exercise training majors. The time commitment for college sports is insane. They're doing a ton of work and getting no (college) credit for it. Fix that.

On top of that I'd give players the freedom to market their name and likeness, and pay them a stipend equal to whatever grad assistants are getting (at least in money-making sports).

[dougdirt]

One idea I used to think was crazy that I kind of like now is why not let players major in football or basketball (or insert your sport here)? They have dance majors and exercise training majors. The time commitment for college sports is insane. They're doing a ton of work and getting no (college) credit for it. Fix that.

On top of that I'd give players the freedom to market their name and likeness, and pay them a stipend equal to whatever grad assistants are getting (at least in money-making sports).

"Money making sports" is a bit of a misnomer. Plenty of places are making money, but working the books. The football programs "lose money" by "handing out scholarships". On a campus with 15,000 students, you aren't losing money by having 85 kids going there for free - the the school is claiming a loss of $2M+ every year on those, as if they are actually spending that money because those kids are on scholarship. Then of course, like a lot of business do, rather than report your profits, you just find a way to spend that money so the profit isn't there.

Now, if you simply meant money making sports in terms of basketball and football - I'm on board there. But if it's coming down to schools that actually make profit - they will almost all find a way to "not make a profit".

[M2]

Now, if you simply meant money making sports in terms of basketball and football - I'm on board there. But if it's coming down to schools that actually make profit - they will almost all find a way to "not make a profit".

Good point. I wouldn't leave it up to accountants. Should have said "big money" sports. Baseball and hockey might qualify as well.

[Hoosier Red]

Good point. I wouldn't leave it up to accountants. Should have said "big money" sports. Baseball and hockey might qualify as well.

I definitely think that's an idea worth pursuing.
And screw it, if they want to major in "Water Polo" and the school has no issue churning out a degree in that, then why should the NCAA care?

The vast majority of Non-Revenue athletes won't be interested in majoring in the sport because they realize it won't have any benefit after college. But for those who truly just want to play the sport and see if they can make a living out of it, God bless em.

At Indiana, much like many universities of similar size and stature, they have a program called Sports Communication which acts as a de facto clearinghouse for athletes majoring in their sport anyway.

[Chip R]

It's not that I mind paying these players or having them get a cut of the merchandise sales made off their likenesses but this really affects only about 60 teams. I don't think they can expect a school like NKU or Bowling Green to play by the same rules tOSU or Alabama are. And do the women get paid too? It's really a slippery slope.

[Assembly Hall]

"Money making sports" is a bit of a misnomer. Plenty of places are making money, but working the books. The football programs "lose money" by "handing out scholarships". On a campus with 15,000 students, you aren't losing money by having 85 kids going there for free - the the school is claiming a loss of $2M+ every year on those, as if they are actually spending that money because those kids are on scholarship. Then of course, like a lot of business do, rather than report your profits, you just find a way to spend that money so the profit isn't there.

Now, if you simply meant money making sports in terms of basketball and football - I'm on board there. But if it's coming down to schools that actually make profit - they will almost all find a way to "not make a profit".

I found this...it is a little old

http://espn.go.com/ncaa/revenue

[Assembly Hall]

It's not that I mind paying these players or having them get a cut of the merchandise sales made off their likenesses but this really affects only about 60 teams. I don't think they can expect a school like NKU or Bowling Green to play by the same rules tOSU or Alabama are. And do the women get paid too? It's really a slippery slope.

Basically there are 2 money making sports at most schools...football and men's basketball. I would assume that those 2 sports pay for everything else.

[M2]

It's not that I mind paying these players or having them get a cut of the merchandise sales made off their likenesses but this really affects only about 60 teams. I don't think they can expect a school like NKU or Bowling Green to play by the same rules tOSU or Alabama are. And do the women get paid too? It's really a slippery slope.

It would probably affect football far more than basketball. D1 basketball schools can only dish out 13 scholarships. The average graduate assistantship is $20k a year. Most schools could find a way to swing $260k. Yet the cost to pay football players would stretch into the millions. That might cause smaller programs to drop out of D1, which would be fine by me. In Boston, one of the colleges became the regional football power (BC, thanks to Doug Flutie) and two others dropped their football programs (BU and Northeastern). The market sorts itself out on stuff like this.

[Sea Ray]

Basically there are 2 money making sports at most schools...football and men's basketball. I would assume that those 2 sports pay for everything else.

Sure but you can't just pay the teams that make money. If you pay the OSU football team, you'll also have to pay the women's lacrosse team

[Assembly Hall]

Sure but you can't just pay the teams that make money. If you pay the OSU football team, you'll also have to pay the women's lacrosse team

Why can't you? I don't recall any NCAA guidelines...............yet!

[cumberlandreds]

Why can't you? I don't recall any NCAA guidelines...............yet!

If you don't pay the women then the Title 9 folks will be knocking on your door in a heartbeat. If you pay one or two groups then you will have to pay all. That's were the problem comes.

[medford]

That applies to the 1-2% that go on to professional sports. That is like claiming that being Valedictorian is the only way to have a valuable education.

In a "sane" world, I would agree, but college sports, especially football, is often an insane world. If athletes were allowed to make money for their marketability, I have little doubt that the Ohio States, Alabamas, Tennessees, Michigans, etc... of the world would find boosters who all of a sudden would find that 3 star project to be "highly marketable" to the extent that the NCAA would allow. If they could accept money for signing autographs, all of a sudden every car dealer in Columbus would need a 1,000 copies of every football players autograph, you know just in case that walk-on punter makes it big.

[Hoosier Red]

If you don't pay the women then the Title 9 folks will be knocking on your door in a heartbeat. If you pay one or two groups then you will have to pay all. That's were the problem comes.

I'm not sure that's the case. So long as the "educational opportunities" <Read: Scholarships> are the same, there'd be little case. It's not as though Title IX mandates the same amount of money is spent on marketing or promotions between the men's and women's teams. There certainly are no regulations regarding equality in coaching salaries between the big 2 sports and everything else.

So it's not as though there isn't already a huge divide in the money spent on the revenue sports vs non-revenue sports.

[Sea Ray]

Why can't you? I don't recall any NCAA guidelines...............yet!


If you don't pay the women then the Title 9 folks will be knocking on your door in a heartbeat. If you pay one or two groups then you will have to pay all. That's were the problem comes.

Yes, what he said...

[Sea Ray]

I'm not sure that's the case. So long as the "educational opportunities" <Read: Scholarships> are the same, there'd be little case. It's not as though Title IX mandates the same amount of money is spent on marketing or promotions between the men's and women's teams. There certainly are no regulations regarding equality in coaching salaries between the big 2 sports and everything else.

So it's not as though there isn't already a huge divide in the money spent on the revenue sports vs non-revenue sports.

As I understand it, Title IX is all about the money. Lawyers will have a field day with this.

[improbus]

In a "sane" world, I would agree, but college sports, especially football, is often an insane world. If athletes were allowed to make money for their marketability, I have little doubt that the Ohio States, Alabamas, Tennessees, Michigans, etc... of the world would find boosters who all of a sudden would find that 3 star project to be "highly marketable" to the extent that the NCAA would allow. If they could accept money for signing autographs, all of a sudden every car dealer in Columbus would need a 1,000 copies of every football players autograph, you know just in case that walk-on punter makes it big.

I suppose, but don't most fans already think that the players are getting piles of illegal fringe benefits? Ask most fans about UK basketball and they just assume the worst.

All of this is pretty basic economics. The players worth is artificially suppressed, and so the market (which has valued them at a much higher number) is filling in the gaps with these side benefits. There is a huge "black market" of benefits (cars, tattoos, bag men, etc...) that exists in high level college sports and it only exists because the players are under-compensated.

[Assembly Hall]

As I understand it, Title IX is all about the money. Lawyers will have a field day with this.

You better google it then.

[Sea Ray]

You better google it then.

Oh wonderful. It's the Google it post. Assembly, that really doesn't get us very far. If you have a source that supports your point of view, please post it. That's exactly what I'm going to do here:


Any of these suits could upend the collegiate sports business model. For this reason, athletic directors keep raising one supposedly insurmountable problem: Title IX, the ban on sex discrimination at educational institutions that accept federal funds. The argument is that colleges can’t pay male players because they would also have to pay female players, which would be ruinous financially.

That’s an exaggeration. The less dramatic reality is that, if forced to compensate players, colleges would need to accommodate Title IX as part of a larger budgetary reorganization.

Under Title IX, the total amount of financial aid available to male and female athletes must be “substantially proportionate” to their overall participation rates. Paychecks would presumably be held to the same standard. If, for instance, a court ordered a university to give a share of its television revenue to male players, an equitable percentage would have to flow to female athletes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/opinion/sunday/pay-for-play-and-title-ix.html?_r=0

I agree with this author that the TV revenue made by certain men's sports is not the property of those athletes. That money would have to be shared with all the other athletes.

Paychecks are a part of the financial aid package and the women would have to be compensated accordingly

[dougdirt]

Have to love a system where the people that make the money can't be paid because the people who COST money would also have to be paid. What a screwed up situation. College sports are the freaking worst.

[Sea Ray]

Have to love a system where the people that make the money can't be paid because the people who COST money would also have to be paid. What a screwed up situation. College sports are the freaking worst.

It's kind of like Democracy...it's the worst system except for all the others

[Hoosier Red]

As I understand it, Title IX is all about the money. Lawyers will have a field day with this.

Rather than subjecting myself to a tsk tsk from Sea Ray's school of posting etiquette.
Perhaps it would be be better to tell us what you do understand of the law than? Saying it's all about the money could mean a lot of different things.

I have no doubt that many lawyers would attempt to sue for equal pay between mens and women's teams. I simply don't think Title IX backs that up.
Admittedly its just my opinion but as I discussed, Title IX deals with the educational opportunities. Assuming the balance between mens and women's scholarships was maintained, I'd be hard pressed to see an avenue for anyone to sue.

In terms of total dollars spent, I'm willing to guess, the revenue producing sports already receive a lion's share of the coaching salaries, travel expenses, marketing dollars, etc etc...

Do you think the women's soccer team spends the night before a home game at an off campus hotel?
Do you think the men's swimming and diving team spends multi-million dollars on the head coach, much less the top assistants?

[Sea Ray]

Rather than subjecting myself to a tsk tsk from Sea Ray's school of posting etiquette.
Perhaps it would be be better to tell us what you do understand of the law than? Saying it's all about the money could mean a lot of different things.

I have no doubt that many lawyers would attempt to sue for equal pay between mens and women's teams. I simply don't think Title IX backs that up.
Admittedly its just my opinion but as I discussed, Title IX deals with the educational opportunities. Assuming the balance between mens and women's scholarships was maintained, I'd be hard pressed to see an avenue for anyone to sue.

In terms of total dollars spent, I'm willing to guess, the revenue producing sports already receive a lion's share of the coaching salaries, travel expenses, marketing dollars, etc etc...

Do you think the women's soccer team spends the night before a home game at an off campus hotel?
Do you think the men's swimming and diving team spends multi-million dollars on the head coach, much less the top assistants?

I just told you what I understand about the law. It says that financial aid to the students must be equal. So if any men's athletes get an extra $100mill thrown their way in the form of cash or whatever then the female athletes would need an extra $100mill thrown into their side of the ledger too. Your examples at the end of your post don't have to do with financial aid to the students. Of course the head coach of the basketball team will generally be more for the men than the women but that's not what Title IX is about. It's about money to the students such as scholarships, books, room and board etc

[Hoosier Red]

I just told you what I understand about the law. It says that financial aid to the students must be equal. So if any men's athletes get an extra $100mill thrown their way in the form of cash or whatever then the female athletes would need an extra $100mill thrown into their side of the ledger too. Your examples at the end of your post don't have to do with financial aid to the students. Of course the head coach of the basketball team will generally be more for the men than the women but that's not what Title IX is about. It's about money to the students such as scholarships, books, room and board etc

But you see, that's just it. Being "all about the money" could be interpreted many different ways. I simply like to better understand what it is you're discussing.

If what you're saying is specific to financial aid then it's an easy fix. There must be equal amounts spent on men's and women's programs with regard to financial aid. That uses a cost of attendance calculation which has already been established and accepted by everyone involved.

Anything above and beyond that Cost of attendance financial aid is salary paid to the players in whatever sport they'd like.

Also, on a side note, the argument that any payment system will encourage lawsuits is somewhat beside the point. The current (non) payment of athletes in revenue producing sports is producing lawsuits.

[improbus]

It's kind of like Democracy...it's the worst system except for all the others

Except that this is communism...

[Sea Ray]

But you see, that's just it. Being "all about the money" could be interpreted many different ways. I simply like to better understand what it is you're discussing.

If what you're saying is specific to financial aid then it's an easy fix. There must be equal amounts spent on men's and women's programs with regard to financial aid. That uses a cost of attendance calculation which has already been established and accepted by everyone involved.

Anything above and beyond that Cost of attendance financial aid is salary paid to the players in whatever sport they'd like.

Also, on a side note, the argument that any payment system will encourage lawsuits is somewhat beside the point. The current (non) payment of athletes in revenue producing sports is producing lawsuits.

Let me simplify it for you. Let's assume that every school is currently in compliance and that equal amount of $$ is spent on financial aid to men's student athletes and to women. Now you're going to start paying some men a stipend. That means that now the men are getting more money coming their way and there is again an imbalance. How are you going to balance that payment to the women so that the numbers are equal once again?

[Assembly Hall]

Let me simplify it for you. Let's assume that every school is currently in compliance and that equal amount of $$ is spent on financial aid to men's student athletes and to women. Now you're going to start paying some men a stipend. That means that now the men are getting more money coming their way and there is again an imbalance. How are you going to balance that payment to the women so that the numbers are equal once again?

Title IX has nothing to do with paying athletes at the collegiate level.

[Hoosier Red]

Let me simplify it for you. Let's assume that every school is currently in compliance and that equal amount of $$ is spent on financial aid to men's student athletes and to women. Now you're going to start paying some men a stipend. That means that now the men are getting more money coming their way and there is again an imbalance. How are you going to balance that payment to the women so that the numbers are equal once again?

I appreciate you simplifying it but again I think you're missing my point.

There's an established amount of money/student athlete that is considered financial aid for a university. Anything paid above that amount to any student athlete is no longer part of a financial aid(scholarship) package.

Now there are other ramifications that would have to be worked out, but Title IX isn't really relevant.

[Sea Ray]

I appreciate you simplifying it but again I think you're missing my point.

There's an established amount of money/student athlete that is considered financial aid for a university. Anything paid above that amount to any student athlete is no longer part of a financial aid(scholarship) package.

Now there are other ramifications that would have to be worked out, but Title IX isn't really relevant.

No, we're just not agreeing. As per that NY Times article I posted:


Under Title IX, the total amount of financial aid available to male and female athletes must be “substantially proportionate” to their overall participation rates. Paychecks would presumably be held to the same standard


Title IX has nothing to do with paying athletes at the collegiate level.


We have a gentlemen's disagreement. I am of the opinion that stipends would be part of Title IX; you say it does not

[Assembly Hall]

SR.........the rule/law does not apply to paying college athletes as it is written for stipends. I understand it can be a can of worms if the NCAA allowed such payments to happen. I really dont know what the answer/answers are, it is just conjecture on my part. It is unchartered water. Another thing to think about is there are schools out there that have more than 2 big money making sports that probably make bunches of money. I am sure the UConn's women's b-ball team does quite well as does the Minnesota hockey team. All factors to consider.

[improbus]

There are a ton of articles that talk about Title IX being an obstacle, but I found the one below interesting. It was written by a lawyer using actual case histories. It isn't definitive by any stretch, but it brings up some interesting case law.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2014/02/04/when-it-comes-to-paying-college-athletes-is-title-ix-more-of-a-red-herring-than-a-pink-elephant/

[Sea Ray]

SR.........the rule/law does not apply to paying college athletes as it is written for stipends. I understand it can be a can of worms if the NCAA allowed such payments to happen. I really dont know what the answer/answers are, it is just conjecture on my part. It is unchartered water. Another thing to think about is there are schools out there that have more than 2 big money making sports that probably make bunches of money. I am sure the UConn's women's b-ball team does quite well as does the Minnesota hockey team. All factors to consider.

Are you making a distinction between a salary and a stipend?

How does the U Conn women's team get paid and not their opponents? I haven't seen any workable system that's better than what we have.

[Assembly Hall]

How does the U Conn women's team get paid and not their opponents? I haven't seen any workable system that's better than what we have.

No, I am just saying there are schools out there that have sports that generate revenue other than football or men's basketball.

[Sea Ray]

No, I am just saying there are schools out there that have sports that generate revenue other than football or men's basketball.

No doubt. That fact complicates things and helps the cause of the status quo folks.

I don't think athletes need any more pay than their current benefits. A few stars get screwed but many more benefit. Sure it's communism to a certain extent but it's only a few yrs. Getting around this is just too complicated and opens up too many unintended consequences

[improbus]

No doubt. That fact complicates things and helps the cause of the status quo folks.

I don't think athletes need any more pay than their current benefits. A few stars get screwed but many more benefit. Sure it's communism to a certain extent but it's only a few yrs. Getting around this is just too complicated and opens up too many unintended consequences

What makes it wrong is that the coaches and AD's (the adults) are making out like bandits. If it had the financial structure of high school sports (or even earlier college sports), it would be different.

Every other industry in the world has figured out some way to compensate their employess. I'm sure big smart universities could do the same.

[Assembly Hall]

Every other industry in the world has figured out some way to compensate their employess. I'm sure big smart universities could do the same.

You would like to think so.....but this is a slippery slope. It could open up bidding wars for potential athletes and who is gonna monitor it?

[improbus]

You would like to think so.....but this is a slippery slope. It could open up bidding wars for potential athletes and who is gonna monitor it?

Why does someone have to monitor it? Markets work themselves out.

I'm yet to hear a good argument on how this will negatively impact the product on the field.

[Assembly Hall]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25170025/ncaa-conferences-scholarships-would-be-cut-if-players-are-paid-

[improbus]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25170025/ncaa-conferences-scholarships-would-be-cut-if-players-are-paid-

I don't particularly trust the NCAA's view on this specific issue. Of course the owner of the sweat shop will claim that the world will end if they have to give their employees raises.

[improbus]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25170025/ncaa-conferences-scholarships-would-be-cut-if-players-are-paid-

Also, what will end up happening is that the power dynamic in college sports will change along with the allocation of money. As it stands, the coaches are ultra-powerful because they hold the keys to everything. Coaches are the number one reason that athletes pick a particular school. When money enters the equation, the coaches strangle-hold over that will diminish, as will their value. So, the massive payouts going to coaches will begin to be redistributed towards the kids. Alabama won't have to pay Nick Saban that much money because they can just pay to get the best players more directly.

I for one would be happy to end the reign of the dictator/coach.

[Sea Ray]

What makes it wrong is that the coaches and AD's (the adults) are making out like bandits. If it had the financial structure of high school sports (or even earlier college sports), it would be different.

Every other industry in the world has figured out some way to compensate their employess. I'm sure big smart universities could do the same.

The coaches and ADs making big bucks doesn't bother me. There's a lot of good coming from this as well. For example mens' football and basketball pretty much pay the freight for all the other sports as well. That enables kids to go to school on a lacross or tennis scholarship. On some campuses where the sports program is particularly lucrative, the money will go towards other things such as a new library. That's what my school was doing while I was a student at the U of Tenn. There are a few stars that you might say are coming out on the short end of the stick in this deal but by in large it's a pretty good deal for 90% of the student athletes

[Assembly Hall]

Also, what will end up happening is that the power dynamic in college sports will change along with the allocation of money. As it stands, the coaches are ultra-powerful because they hold the keys to everything. Coaches are the number one reason that athletes pick a particular school. When money enters the equation, the coaches strangle-hold over that will diminish, as will their value. So, the massive payouts going to coaches will begin to be redistributed towards the kids. Alabama won't have to pay Nick Saban that much money because they can just pay to get the best players more directly.

I for one would be happy to end the reign of the dictator/coach.

I tend to agree with that. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

[improbus]

I tend to agree with that. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

I tend to get frustrated with the "it's too complicated to fix" argument to most of anything.

[Assembly Hall]

I tend to get frustrated with the "it's too complicated to fix" argument to most of anything.

You mean like a college football play-off? LOL

[Sea Ray]

I tend to get frustrated with the "it's too complicated to fix" argument to most of anything.

OK, let's start with defining the problem. What problem here needs to be fixed? I understand the NCAA BB tourney makes lots of money and you want some of it to go to the players. Do the backend guys get a check? How 'bout the walk ons?

[Assembly Hall]

OK, let's start with defining the problem. What problem here needs to be fixed? I understand the NCAA BB tourney makes lots of money and you want some of it to go to the players. Do the backend guys get a check? How 'bout the walk ons?

To me the problem is the "in-mates", so to speak, are starting to want to run the asylum. These kids are starting to want to get money for their services, the full ride scholorship aint enough anymore in their minds. Check this article out.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25170166/wisconsins-nigel-hayes-let-schools-decide-how-much-to-pay-players

[Sea Ray]

To me the problem is the "in-mates", so to speak, are starting to want to run the asylum. These kids are starting to want to get money for their services, the full ride scholorship aint enough anymore in their minds. Check this article out.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25170166/wisconsins-nigel-hayes-let-schools-decide-how-much-to-pay-players

Nigel Hayes' proposition is insane. If we let the schools pay their athletes whatever they want then it'd be like the NFL without roster limits or a salary cap.

Do you have anything more plausible to present?

Honestly, who cares if Nigel Hayes wants money? The answer's no and move on. That's how I was raised

[redrum]

Nigel Hayes' proposition is insane. If we let the schools pay their athletes whatever they want then it'd be like the NFL without roster limits or a salary cap.

Do you have anything more plausible to present?

Honestly, who cares if Nigel Hayes wants money? The answer's no and move on. That's how I was raised

As I see it the problems all stem from the fact that athletes have limited choices, take all the risks when deciding to turn pro, and on top of that do not have access to unbiased advice when making their decisions.

Here are a few random ideas to kick around:
- Remove draft restrictions. Athletes don't have to declare for the draft and are eligible as soon as their HS class graduates. Simply being drafted does not make them ineligible for college.
- Even if an athlete signs a pro contract allow them to participate in collegiate athletics up to the point they are added to a professional roster. This means they can sign a contract, train with the team and if they are not ready to play professionally they can return/attend college. They would not be on scholarship - the contract with the professional team would presumably cover all college costs.
- Have the NCAA fund an independent counseling service to provide guidance to college and incoming college athletes - so they do not need to deal with agents (at least right away).

[Sea Ray]

As I see it the problems all stem from the fact that athletes have limited choices, take all the risks when deciding to turn pro, and on top of that do not have access to unbiased advice when making their decisions.

Here are a few random ideas to kick around:
- Remove draft restrictions. Athletes don't have to declare for the draft and are eligible as soon as their HS class graduates. Simply being drafted does not make them ineligible for college.
- Even if an athlete signs a pro contract allow them to participate in collegiate athletics up to the point they are added to a professional roster. This means they can sign a contract, train with the team and if they are not ready to play professionally they can return/attend college. They would not be on scholarship - the contract with the professional team would presumably cover all college costs.
- Have the NCAA fund an independent counseling service to provide guidance to college and incoming college athletes - so they do not need to deal with agents (at least right away).

The first one has nothing to do with the NCAA. It's the pro leagues that set up the draft rules. As for the other two, fine. But I don't know what we've solved. Only the elite of the elite gets a pro contract and your proposals won't change anything for most of them.

[redrum]

The first one has nothing to do with the NCAA. It's the pro leagues that set up the draft rules. As for the other two, fine. But I don't know what we've solved. Only the elite of the elite gets a pro contract and your proposals won't change anything for most of them.

Certainly true that the pro leagues set up the draft rules, but the NCAA controls the eligibility requirements. Even if the NCAA allowed drafted players to maintain their eligibility at least until they signed a contract I bet the NBA and NFL would be looking for some sort of compromise. If the NCAA is going to be a developmental league for the NBA and NFL then they should be pitching in for that development.

The players being exploited are the elite. They are the ones that drive the NCAA revenue. They are the ones that should be compensated above and beyond a scholarship. In my opinion the athletes that have no shot of playing professionally should be happy with a free education.

Now I agree that the NCAA is profiting enormously, but I think that money could be put to better use than paying student athletes anything more than a scholarship and perhaps a modest stipend.

[dougdirt]

If you don't want to pay college athletes in revenue generating sports, you're a communist and you should go back to Mother Russia.

[improbus]

The coaches and ADs making big bucks doesn't bother me. There's a lot of good coming from this as well. For example mens' football and basketball pretty much pay the freight for all the other sports as well. That enables kids to go to school on a lacross or tennis scholarship. On some campuses where the sports program is particularly lucrative, the money will go towards other things such as a new library. That's what my school was doing while I was a student at the U of Tenn. There are a few stars that you might say are coming out on the short end of the stick in this deal but by in large it's a pretty good deal for 90% of the student athletes
Can you explain why the coaches and AD's making big bucks "doesn't bother you"?

- - - Updated - - -


If you don't want to pay college athletes in revenue generating sports, you're a communist and you should go back to Mother Russia.

That is so 70's, Doug. It's North Korea these days, my friend.

[Yachtzee]

Just make College football and basketball teams go pro. No more scholarships, but athletes no longer have to waste time going to class. Teams could still make use of the school name and colors if they paying a licensing fee. They can also use university facilities (stadia and training facilities, provided they pay rent. Since the players are no longer student-athletes, players can negotiate whatever compensation package with the team as they can agree upon.

[Assembly Hall]

The players being exploited are the elite. They are the ones that drive the NCAA revenue. They are the ones that should be compensated above and beyond a scholarship. In my opinion the athletes that have no shot of playing professionally should be happy with a free education.

It is of my opinion that the kids that will not have a shot at the next level are the ones that want the money. Just sayin'

[Sea Ray]

Can you explain why the coaches and AD's making big bucks "doesn't bother you"?



Sure. I don't think about the money other people make. It doesn't matter to me. I think it's nuts that those boxers last weekend made somewhere in the 100s of millions but it doesn't bother me. I didn't care about the fight and I sure didn't pony up for the PPV. In fact as I think of this, I don't even know what the ADs make. What does UC's AD make? I don't know

[Sea Ray]

It is of my opinion that the kids that will not have a shot at the next level are the ones that want the money. Just sayin'

I agree. Surely there isn't a lot of sympathy for guys like Jameis Winston. That's not what this is all about

[Hoosier Red]

Sure. I don't think about the money other people make. It doesn't matter to me. I think it's nuts that those boxers last weekend made somewhere in the 100s of millions but it doesn't bother me. I didn't care about the fight and I sure didn't pony up for the PPV. In fact as I think of this, I don't even know what the ADs make. What does UC's AD make? I don't know


No doubt. That fact complicates things and helps the cause of the status quo folks.

I don't think athletes need any more pay than their current benefits. A few stars get screwed but many more benefit. Sure it's communism to a certain extent but it's only a few yrs. Getting around this is just too complicated and opens up too many unintended consequences


The coaches and ADs making big bucks doesn't bother me. There's a lot of good coming from this as well. For example mens' football and basketball pretty much pay the freight for all the other sports as well. That enables kids to go to school on a lacross or tennis scholarship. On some campuses where the sports program is particularly lucrative, the money will go towards other things such as a new library. That's what my school was doing while I was a student at the U of Tenn. There are a few stars that you might say are coming out on the short end of the stick in this deal but by in large it's a pretty good deal for 90% of the student athletes


If you don't care what other people make, what difference would it be if the cash got redistributed from the Presidents/ADs/Head Coaches on down to the players?

[Sea Ray]

If you don't care what other people make, what difference would it be if the cash got redistributed from the Presidents/ADs/Head Coaches on down to the players?

'Cause it'd disturb the competitive balance and that's everything to a sports fan. I don't want college sports to become the NFL without a salary cap. I think I made that clear earlier

[Hoosier Red]

'Cause it'd disturb the competitive balance and that's everything to a sports fan. I don't want college sports to become the NFL without a salary cap. I think I made that clear earlier

You'd certainly acknowledge there isn't competitive balance today.

Even though THE Ohio State University and East Carolina are theoretically paying their players the same, there's no question that they aren't truly recruiting the same player.

What I don't understand is why paying the players would disturb the "competitive balance" so much more than spending additional millions on facilities, recruiting, coaching, training, etc...

[dougdirt]

'Cause it'd disturb the competitive balance and that's everything to a sports fan. I don't want college sports to become the NFL without a salary cap. I think I made that clear earlier

Yeah, there's a real competitive balance right now in college basketball and football.

Last five champs in each sport: Ohio State, Florida State, Alabama, Alabama, Auburn in football. Duke, UCONN, Louisville, Kentucky, UCONN in basketball.

Heck, who was the last non-big school to win a national title? Can we call Maryland a non-big school? Otherwise do we have to go back to Arkansas in 1994? Does that even count? Otherwise it's UNLV 25 years ago.

There's absolutely no competitive balance in college basketball or football. The elite teams have been winning for 25+ years now.

Pay the kids what they are worth. Right now, a lot of them are worth a whole heck of a lot more than their scholarship is.

[Sea Ray]

You'd certainly acknowledge there isn't competitive balance today.

Even though THE Ohio State University and East Carolina are theoretically paying their players the same, there's no question that they aren't truly recruiting the same player.

What I don't understand is why paying the players would disturb the "competitive balance" so much more than spending additional millions on facilities, recruiting, coaching, training, etc...

You're correct that it could be more competitive but I think it is much better than it used to be. Growing up it was Ohio State, MI and no one else. You didn't have Appalachian St capable of beating Michigan. If schools are allowed to pay their players then a guy who might choose to start at UC will choose OSU due to the paycheck. This is particularly true if players were allowed to pursue endorsements. That'd be a huge advantage for the traditional powers

[Sea Ray]

Yeah, there's a real competitive balance right now in college basketball and football.

Last five champs in each sport: Ohio State, Florida State, Alabama, Alabama, Auburn in football. Duke, UCONN, Louisville, Kentucky, UCONN in basketball.

Heck, who was the last non-big school to win a national title? Can we call Maryland a non-big school? Otherwise do we have to go back to Arkansas in 1994? Does that even count? Otherwise it's UNLV 25 years ago.

There's absolutely no competitive balance in college basketball or football. The elite teams have been winning for 25+ years now.

Pay the kids what they are worth. Right now, a lot of them are worth a whole heck of a lot more than their scholarship is.

So you want to make that problem worse? Why? You'll see a lot more blowouts and what's the fun in that? When you watch UC play OSU don't you want UC to have a chance?

[Hoosier Red]

You're correct that it could be more competitive but I think it is much better than it used to be. Growing up it was Ohio State, MI and no one else. You didn't have Appalachian St capable of beating Michigan. If schools are allowed to pay their players then a guy who might choose to start at UC will choose OSU due to the paycheck. This is particularly true if players were allowed to pursue endorsements. That'd be a huge advantage for the traditional powers

Although I'd argue that the Appalachian St game (from 9 years ago) is simply a very rare exception that proves the rule. I'll agree that the gap has closed from the 60's and 70's to now. But that actually proves my point.
The $ gap spent between the top and bottom programs today is much wider than it was 40 years ago. And yet the competitive gap(according to you) is much closer than it was 30 or 40 years ago.

Further, I'm not sure spending on players would increase the dollars spent on a programs so much as it would take much of the current spending and re-allocate it to the players' stipend/salary.

[Hoosier Red]

So you want to make that problem worse? Why? You'll see a lot more blowouts and what's the fun in that? When you watch UC play OSU don't you want UC to have a chance?

I disagree with your premise that it would make the problem worse.

[dougdirt]

So you want to make that problem worse? Why? You'll see a lot more blowouts and what's the fun in that? When you watch UC play OSU don't you want UC to have a chance?

Why? Because I believe that people should be paid a fair value for their skills and right now that isn't close to happening. If UC can't get the players to compete with OSU, that is on them. Just like it's on Mount St. Joe for not being able to get the players to compete with UC (you know, like they can't right now). Pay the kids what they're worth.

[Sea Ray]

Why? Because I believe that people should be paid a fair value for their skills and right now that isn't close to happening. If UC can't get the players to compete with OSU, that is on them. Just like it's on Mount St. Joe for not being able to get the players to compete with UC (you know, like they can't right now). Pay the kids what they're worth.

I respect your thoughts. At least you're up front and straight about the whole thing. Unlike others who say that paying players will not separate UC from OSU, you say "thems the breaks".


I disagree with your premise that it would make the problem worse.

[REDREAD]

What makes it wrong is that the coaches and AD's (the adults) are making out like bandits. If it had the financial structure of high school sports (or even earlier college sports), it would be different.

Every other industry in the world has figured out some way to compensate their employess. I'm sure big smart universities could do the same.

Except the student athletes are not employees of the college.
They voluntarily agree to play sports in exchange for a full or partial scholarship.
They can walk away at any time.
If anything, the pro sports need to be reformed to make it easier for a kid to bypass college if he doesn't want to go.
But that's not the university's problem.

Think about it this way.. My son just graduated. He agreed to do a 1 year unpaid internship because it might help him get a better job in a year.
No one held a gun to his head. No guarantee that he will get a better job. And he's not getting paid either, although his employer certainly is going
to benefit from having an unpaid intern for a year doing work that he'd otherwise have to pay someone to do.

The point is, the athletes volunteer to be exploited by the colleges. And there's no shortage of kids that want to do it.
So why should we feel sorry for them?
Why not feel sorry for the regular students that have to pay their own way through college and have to work fast food instead of playing a game?

- - - Updated - - -


What makes it wrong is that the coaches and AD's (the adults) are making out like bandits. If it had the financial structure of high school sports (or even earlier college sports), it would be different.

Every other industry in the world has figured out some way to compensate their employess. I'm sure big smart universities could do the same.

Except the student athletes are not employees of the college.
They voluntarily agree to play sports in exchange for a full or partial scholarship.
They can walk away at any time.
If anything, the pro sports need to be reformed to make it easier for a kid to bypass college if he doesn't want to go.
But that's not the university's problem.

Think about it this way.. My son just graduated. He agreed to do a 1 year unpaid internship because it might help him get a better job in a year.
No one held a gun to his head. No guarantee that he will get a better job. And he's not getting paid either, although his employer certainly is going
to benefit from having an unpaid intern for a year doing work that he'd otherwise have to pay someone to do.

The point is, the athletes volunteer to be exploited by the colleges. And there's no shortage of kids that want to do it.
So why should we feel sorry for them?
Why not feel sorry for the regular students that have to pay their own way through college and have to work fast food instead of playing a game?

[REDREAD]

Why? Because I believe that people should be paid a fair value for their skills and right now that isn't close to happening. If UC can't get the players to compete with OSU, that is on them. Just like it's on Mount St. Joe for not being able to get the players to compete with UC (you know, like they can't right now). Pay the kids what they're worth.

But the problem is, they are getting paid what they are worth.
Their worth is a scholarship, TV exposure, free coaching, etc.
If they were worth more than that, how come there is no alternative?

The NBA decided that it no longer wanted kids right out of high school, due to problems such as high wash out rate, lack of maturity, etc.

If these kids were worth more, how come no one has started a minor league system that is recruiting them out of high school?

Again, hard to feel sorry for these kids. They are getting a free ride (or at least a partial free ride) to play a freaking game.
They can quit at any time and live life like a regular college student if they want to.

[puca]

But the problem is, they are getting paid what they are worth.
Their worth is a scholarship, TV exposure, free coaching, etc.
If they were worth more than that, how come there is no alternative?

The NBA decided that it no longer wanted kids right out of high school, due to problems such as high wash out rate, lack of maturity, etc.

If these kids were worth more, how come no one has started a minor league system that is recruiting them out of high school?

Again, hard to feel sorry for these kids. They are getting a free ride (or at least a partial free ride) to play a freaking game.
They can quit at any time and live life like a regular college student if they want to.

I agree with this take.

Not to be cliche, but the drawing power is the names on the front of the jersey, not the names on the back. If there were profit to be made by paying these players 100K then surely the NBA and NFL would have a minor league system. Seems to me that a college scholarship is worth at least as much as the salary of an average minor league baseball player.

I would be behind the NCAA setting aside a pool of money for hardship cases - where their families cannot afford to help with expenses over and beyond that which the scholarship provides (maybe they already do)

Other than that, I would dearly like to see the NCAA pour money back into the primary school systems, so that more athletes are prepared to take advantage of their time in college.

[Hoosier Red]

Except the student athletes are not employees of the college.
They voluntarily agree to play sports in exchange for a full or partial scholarship.
They can walk away at any time.
If anything, the pro sports need to be reformed to make it easier for a kid to bypass college if he doesn't want to go.
But that's not the university's problem.

Think about it this way.. My son just graduated. He agreed to do a 1 year unpaid internship because it might help him get a better job in a year.
No one held a gun to his head. No guarantee that he will get a better job. And he's not getting paid either, although his employer certainly is going
to benefit from having an unpaid intern for a year doing work that he'd otherwise have to pay someone to do.

The point is, the athletes volunteer to be exploited by the colleges. And there's no shortage of kids that want to do it.
So why should we feel sorry for them?
Why not feel sorry for the regular students that have to pay their own way through college and have to work fast food instead of playing a game?



If they are truly getting their market value, then there shouldn't be any resistance to switching to a system where schools can pay athletes and athletes can go to the highest bidder for their services.
If your theory is correct, the vast majority of schools and student athletes will not change from their current status quo.

Prior to the recognition of MLB player's rights to Free Agency, would you have said that MLB players were being paid their true market value? After all, there were certainly many people who would switch spots with them, and players entered into the contracts willingly.

But that doesn't make it a true market value.

With regards to your son, it's rare for an unpaid internship to pass legal muster.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2013/04/19/6-legal-requirements-for-unpaid-internship-programs/

Your son could sue for his wages if he wanted, but obviously other considerations may take precedent.

I think this gets to one point where we often talk past each other. I think there needs to be a distinction between what is morally right, what is legally correct, and what we want.

Obviously, we'd like to think we want all three. But I don't think there's any shame in saying that we prefer the current set up for College athletics even though it may not fit within the current legal framework.

We might be against the players working for no pay on an ethical level but recognize that it may be legally permissible.

[dougdirt]

But the problem is, they are getting paid what they are worth.
Their worth is a scholarship, TV exposure, free coaching, etc.
If they were worth more than that, how come there is no alternative?

The NBA decided that it no longer wanted kids right out of high school, due to problems such as high wash out rate, lack of maturity, etc.

If these kids were worth more, how come no one has started a minor league system that is recruiting them out of high school?

Again, hard to feel sorry for these kids. They are getting a free ride (or at least a partial free ride) to play a freaking game.
They can quit at any time and live life like a regular college student if they want to.

The University of Texas Football team PROFITS $100,000,000 a year. PROFITS. Those kids aren't being paid their worth and if you think they are, you are out of your mind.

[Sea Ray]

The University of Texas Football team PROFITS $100,000,000 a year. PROFITS. Those kids aren't being paid their worth and if you think they are, you are out of your mind.

Seeing as the team on the field wasn't very good, I'd argue that this example supports the thinking that it's the name on their uniform that matters and not so much the student-athlete inside

[dougdirt]

Seeing as the team on the field wasn't very good, I'd argue that this example supports the thinking that it's the name on their uniform that matters and not so much the student-athlete inside

I think it tells you that all of the past players who didn't get paid, should have.

[Assembly Hall]

God, I love this thread. So many takes and opinions. Damn good discussion.

[improbus]

Except the student athletes are not employees of the college.
They voluntarily agree to play sports in exchange for a full or partial scholarship.
They can walk away at any time.
If anything, the pro sports need to be reformed to make it easier for a kid to bypass college if he doesn't want to go.
But that's not the university's problem.

Think about it this way.. My son just graduated. He agreed to do a 1 year unpaid internship because it might help him get a better job in a year.
No one held a gun to his head. No guarantee that he will get a better job. And he's not getting paid either, although his employer certainly is going
to benefit from having an unpaid intern for a year doing work that he'd otherwise have to pay someone to do.

The point is, the athletes volunteer to be exploited by the colleges. And there's no shortage of kids that want to do it.
So why should we feel sorry for them?
Why not feel sorry for the regular students that have to pay their own way through college and have to work fast food instead of playing a game?

A few things.

The National Labor Relations board concluded that the athletes are in fact employees based on all of the criteria that applies to employees.
http://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/nlrb-director-region-13-issues-decision-northwestern-university-athletes

Also, it is a false equivalent to equate your sons internship with that of an NCAA football or basketball player. I sincerely doubt that your son is THE source of the income generated by the business he works for (unless his company is an intern based blood-sport fighting ring....)

You are right, the players do not have to go to college to play basketball or football, but what is their reasonable alternative? Basketball players can go to Europe or China? Is that what you would want your kid to do? The precedent has been set that kids go to play NCAA sports. It reminds me of the Alcohol vs. Marijuana. If we started society over today and had to choose what would be our publicly legal and more acceptable intoxicant, based on the net negative effects, I bet that we would choose pot. But, alcohol has filled that role no for thousands of years and will continue to, not because it is the better or more logical choice, but because it is the choice we made. We have chosen college sports and will continue to do it for our young adults for the foreseeable future.

[improbus]

Also, you guys act like the NCAA won't come up with a zillion rules to police the payments to the players. They will. They are the same organization that wrote a George R.R. Martin like tome covering the thousands or reasons that adults can't buy basketball players tacos.

As for the "competitive balance" argument, I think professionalizing the players would have a net positive effect. I think it will increase the parity between the top 75 schools. The top players won't all be able to go to UK anymore. There will be bidding wars and slightly smaller schools (in the NC State range) will overpay some of the stars to come play for them.

Also, it will cement the differences between the lower divisions and upper divisions of college sports, which will be very positive for the quality of the product overall. Wouldn't OSU fans be happy to stop paying to see OSU play Bowling Green and Ohio? How would that be a net negative?

[IslandRed]

A few random thoughts:

1. I'll give ground on the "amateur" before I'll give ground on the "student." You can't have real college sports without college students. That, not amateurism, is the tie that binds it all together. Cut that tie and college sports will slowly die, starting at the roots (campus) and going out from there.

2. The NCAA's primary problem is that, if and when players are deemed to be professionals (once and for all, appeals exhausted), they're suddenly operating a cartel. Other sports leagues do, too, which is why the existence of collective bargaining agreements is the only reason they can do certain things that would be totally illegal if other industries did them (e.g. the draft, salary caps). So you'll continue to see the power conferences push for autonomy and be agreeable to giving the players better deals; anything to appease them as long as possible and avoid a finish fight in the courts. As with the baseball owners and Messersmith, one loss and the whole structure is at risk.

3. I have no idea what a post-professional college athletics landscape would look like.

[improbus]

This hasn't been posted in this particular thread, but Taylor Branch (a noted Civil Rights writer) wrote this excellent assessment of the history of the NCAA.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/

[puca]

I think it tells you that all of the past players who didn't get paid, should have.

Two years ago my son went off to college at a non-power school. He cared very little about college athletics throughout high school. He did not chose the school based on athletics, but he now attends home football, basketball and even soccer games. His interest is not only limited to his school, he followed the NCAA tournament and football playoffs much closer than I did. His Christmas wish list included a replica football jersey. Our conversations now often center around college football and basketball. This epiphany began when he started college. My guess is he has become a fan for life.

My wife is another case study. She cares nothing about sports and never watches it, except when her alma mater is involved. She probably couldn't name 10 players on the football team, but roots for them avidly.

I'm telling you many, many people root for the laundry - especially when it comes to college athletics.

If it really was the 18 and 19 year old athletes that were driving the NCAA bus, and there was $100,000,000 on the line you can bet the NBA and NFL would not be sitting on the sidelines.

The solution isn't to open up college athletics to free-agency, it is to provide athletes with more choices outside of college.

[dougdirt]

Two years ago my son went off to college at a non-power school. He cared very little about college athletics throughout high school. He did not chose the school based on athletics, but he now attends home football, basketball and even soccer games. His interest is not only limited to his school, he followed the NCAA tournament and football playoffs much closer than I did. His Christmas wish list included a replica football jersey. Our conversations now often center around college football and basketball. This epiphany began when he started college. My guess is he has become a fan for life.

My wife is another case study. She cares nothing about sports and never watches it, except when her alma mater is involved. She probably couldn't name 10 players on the football team, but roots for them avidly.

I'm telling you many, many people root for the laundry - especially when it comes to college athletics.

If it really was the 18 and 19 year old athletes that were driving the NCAA bus, and there was $100,000,000 on the line you can bet the NBA and NFL would not be sitting on the sidelines.

The solution isn't to open up college athletics to free-agency, it is to provide athletes with more choices outside of college.

There's a reason Power schools have 100,000 seat stadiums and the have nots have problems selling 20,000 seats and it's not the laundry, it's the history of winning, by the players.

College athletics are already opened up to free agency - they just aren't getting paid.

[Sea Ray]

Although I'd argue that the Appalachian St game (from 9 years ago) is simply a very rare exception that proves the rule. I'll agree that the gap has closed from the 60's and 70's to now. But that actually proves my point.
The $ gap spent between the top and bottom programs today is much wider than it was 40 years ago. And yet the competitive gap(according to you) is much closer than it was 30 or 40 years ago.

Further, I'm not sure spending on players would increase the dollars spent on a programs so much as it would take much of the current spending and re-allocate it to the players' stipend/salary.

C'mon Hoosier you're smarter than that. You know full well that the time period you describe above to 2015 included several changes to the number of scholarships allowed per school:


1973 brought about the first limitations on football scholarships in order to free up money for women's sports after Title IX was passed by Congress in 1972 as part of the Equal Opportunity in Education Act. This caused the NCAA schools' presidents and athletic directors to push through a limit of 105 football scholarships. Additional reductions were made in 1978 (95) and again in 1992 which brought the limit to its present number of 85 and 63 for Division I-AA.

Yet you ignore that and merely say that the fact that there's a money disparity now that didn't exist before (although you didn't back that up) and there's more parity now that this disproves my point.

Well do you think the limits on scholarships maybe had a significant effect on that as well? Prior to Title IX there were no scholarship limits. If you allow schools to bid for players and pay them "what they're worth" then essentially you're advocating going back to the 60s where schools like Ohio State can gobble up all everyone they want and UC is left to Div 2 status. My family had season tx to UC games back then. I can tell you that the discrepancy in play between the two schools was huge in football.

[Sea Ray]

There's a reason Power schools have 100,000 seat stadiums and the have nots have problems selling 20,000 seats and it's not the laundry, it's the history of winning, by the players.

College athletics are already opened up to free agency - they just aren't getting paid.Let's not make it worse by paying them

[Assembly Hall]

Let's not make it worse by paying them

I agree SR.

I am one that did receive an athletic scholorship. It was in Track. But anyhow the general student body got 3 meals a day M-F. Only 2 on Sat.(Breakfast, Lunch) and 1 on Sunday(Dinner). This was hard on a lot of the students during the week-end, especially the ones that didnt have any money. But the athletes got their 3 squares Sat. and Sunday. We ate in a completely different area and were housed seperately. My Coach would come by all the time and ask each and everyone of us if we needed anything. If someone spoke up, they had it. Sometimes it was a team request, that is how we got a pool table, ping pong table, and numerous pinball machines in our "lounge". Hell, we asked for beer and we got it.

I know it was 30 years ago, but we were compensated quite well without drawing a pay check. I imagine these kids are today as well in their own way without cash involved.

[Hoosier Red]

C'mon Hoosier you're smarter than that. You know full well that the time period you describe above to 2015 included several changes to the number of scholarships allowed per school:



Yet you ignore that and merely say that the fact that there's a money disparity now that didn't exist before (although you didn't back that up) and there's more parity now that this disproves my point.

Well do you think the limits on scholarships maybe had a significant effect on that as well? Prior to Title IX there were no scholarship limits. If you allow schools to bid for players and pay them "what they're worth" then essentially you're advocating going back to the 60s where schools like Ohio State can gobble up all everyone they want and UC is left to Div 2 status. My family had season tx to UC games back then. I can tell you that the discrepancy in play between the two schools was huge in football.

I agree with both your points here. I'm not sure how this helps you and not me though.

My point is that despite disparity in money spent on football and basketball growing larger, the overall competitive balance has gotten slightly better. I think this is a fair proxy for what would happen in the event the Money being spent on Football and Basketball suddenly started going to the players as opposed to the coach, facilities etc...

Clearly there are other forces at work here that have had a bigger impact on the competitive balance than the money spent around the program.
Title IX may be one of the largest forces that's led to this, but I don't think you'll see football programs suddenly allow larger rosters. And again, I don't think Title IX's going away, so even if players are allowed to be paid a salary on top of scholarship, I don't envision a scenario where all of a sudden The Ohio State University is paying 200 different players.

[improbus]

The "competitive balance" you are talking about seems more like confirmation bias than anything else. We simply see more schools and more games on TV than we ever did, so it feels like the balance is greater. Look at the National Championship lists and you will see the same variety (if not less).

[dougdirt]

I agree SR.

I am one that did receive an athletic scholorship. It was in Track. But anyhow the general student body got 3 meals a day M-F. Only 2 on Sat.(Breakfast, Lunch) and 1 on Sunday(Dinner). This was hard on a lot of the students during the week-end, especially the ones that didnt have any money. But the athletes got their 3 squares Sat. and Sunday. We ate in a completely different area and were housed seperately. My Coach would come by all the time and ask each and everyone of us if we needed anything. If someone spoke up, they had it. Sometimes it was a team request, that is how we got a pool table, ping pong table, and numerous pinball machines in our "lounge". Hell, we asked for beer and we got it.

I know it was 30 years ago, but we were compensated quite well without drawing a pay check. I imagine these kids are today as well in their own way without cash involved.

So the track guy, who costs his school money since no one shows up to watch him perform, should be compensated the same as the football guy who is a part of a team that brings his school tens upon tens of millions of dollars in profit every year?

What business on the planet runs like this? And don't get it confused, it's a business.

[dougdirt]

Let's not make it worse by paying them

I honestly can't believe that we are having a conversation where NOT PAYING PEOPLE THEIR WORTH is an acceptable answer to anything. Seriously. I can't comprehend that kind of thinking.

[Yachtzee]

So the track guy, who costs his school money since no one shows up to watch him perform, should be compensated the same as the football guy who is a part of a team that brings his school tens upon tens of millions of dollars in profit every year?

What business on the planet runs like this? And don't get it confused, it's a business.

Really, by your logic, only certain schools in certain major conferences should be allowed to pay their players since those schools have profitable teams. The vast majority of college players should get nothing because their football and basketball teams don't make money. People who think players should be paid like to point to the cash cows like Ohio State and Texas. But really only maybe the top 20 schools in revenues actually make more than they spend on football. The vast majority of schools take money from their schools' general fund because, even though football is popular, it also expensive to run a program, more so if you don't have big TV dollars coming in from the Big Ten Network or the SEC Network.

Since you equate colleges, universities, and their sports programs with a business, what is your solution to programs that don't make money? Should all but the 20 best programs dump sports since they don't make money? Maybe add another 10 close to breaking even to the 20 that remain and make one super conference or we could call it a league. Pay the players a salary too. And since their performance on the field is important for revenues, they shouldn't have to go to classes because it cuts into valuable training time. But if your saying pay players based on their monetary value, there are only so many schools where you have players on teams that actually bring in more money than they cost. Should players on college teams that lose money have to pay to play? Quite frankly, my college team was so bad when I was there that they should have paid the students to come to the games. For most college athletes, football players included, getting a free education without having to go $100,000 in debt is very adequate compensation.

I think in reality what you really want to see is that the star players, the players who could actually make a lot of money on their fame as a top player be able to cash in on that fame. Because really, the players that aren't good enough play on one of the elite few money makers or to go pro are just using up school resources like the women's field hockey team.

Personally I wish the top college football and basketball programs would go pro, become self sufficient, and then maybe colleges could focus on using their money to bring down the cost of higher education rather than all that spending on stadiums, arenas, and field houses.

[REDREAD]

If they are truly getting their market value, then there shouldn't be any resistance to switching to a system where schools can pay athletes and athletes can go to the highest bidder for their services.
If your theory is correct, the vast majority of schools and student athletes will not change from their current status quo.

Prior to the recognition of MLB player's rights to Free Agency, would you have said that MLB players were being paid their true market value? After all, there were certainly many people who would switch spots with them, and players entered into the contracts willingly.

But that doesn't make it a true market value.

With regards to your son, it's rare for an unpaid internship to pass legal muster.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2013/04/19/6-legal-requirements-for-unpaid-internship-programs/

Your son could sue for his wages if he wanted, but obviously other considerations may take precedent.

I think this gets to one point where we often talk past each other. I think there needs to be a distinction between what is morally right, what is legally correct, and what we want.

Obviously, we'd like to think we want all three. But I don't think there's any shame in saying that we prefer the current set up for College athletics even though it may not fit within the current legal framework.

We might be against the players working for no pay on an ethical level but recognize that it may be legally permissible.

But there are analogies other places too.
I am not an expert in manufacturing by any means, but there's a rule of thumb that says something like.. in order to justify hiring another worker on the line, he has to make the company 3 or 4 times his salary.. So if you pay him 10/hour, he needs to make the company 40/hour. Now those are not exact numbers, but you get the point. It's easy to say that a star college player could potentially make the school a million dollars (or whatever).. so the star player is getting screwed.
But what about the hundreds of other players that make the school no money?

In my opinion, it's kind of irrelevant how much money the schools make off of basketball and football. The athletes voluntarily agree to do it in exchange for a scholarship.
Why do I object to paying the players?

1. The athletes are already getting a sweet deal compared to other students. (I don't resent them, but that is a nice perk for playing a game)
2. If you pay the athletes, that is going to hurt the rest of the universities (cash drain).
3. It's just not possible to only pay the revenue athletes, you will have to pay the woman's golf team as well (for example). There will be lawsuits.
4. Do we really want college athletics to become a pro sport? I don't really want to read about the bidding war that OSU and Alabama have over a recruit, for example.
5. The poorer schools will not be able to compete at all.

I am actually in favor of letting kids major in basketball like M2 (?) suggested. To me, that's more productive than creating joke classes for the athletes to take.

[REDREAD]

The University of Texas Football team PROFITS $100,000,000 a year. PROFITS. Those kids aren't being paid their worth and if you think they are, you are out of your mind.

It's no different than any other corporation.
When I first started work, I was hired out by my company to another company for consulting.
My company charged the other company a billing rate that was 15 times more than they paid me.
That's just the way it works.
Honestly, it is immaterial how much Texas profits.

Suppose the Texas football team went on strike and refused to play unless they got paid. And suppose Texas could pay them.
Would they? Doubtful. They'd just bring in the next group of recruits that were willing to play for free.
They might have a down year or two, but a big program like that can always recover.
Look at how quick the big programs recover from NCAA penalties. Most don't even miss a beat.

[REDREAD]

A few things.

The National Labor Relations board concluded that the athletes are in fact employees based on all of the criteria that applies to employees.
http://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/nlrb-director-region-13-issues-decision-northwestern-university-athletes

Also, it is a false equivalent to equate your sons internship with that of an NCAA football or basketball player. I sincerely doubt that your son is THE source of the income generated by the business he works for (unless his company is an intern based blood-sport fighting ring....)

You are right, the players do not have to go to college to play basketball or football, but what is their reasonable alternative? Basketball players can go to Europe or China? Is that what you would want your kid to do? The precedent has been set that kids go to play NCAA sports. It reminds me of the Alcohol vs. Marijuana. If we started society over today and had to choose what would be our publicly legal and more acceptable intoxicant, based on the net negative effects, I bet that we would choose pot. But, alcohol has filled that role no for thousands of years and will continue to, not because it is the better or more logical choice, but because it is the choice we made. We have chosen college sports and will continue to do it for our young adults for the foreseeable future.


Well, in a way you are right, because my son does not get any monetary benefit.
The kids on scholarship get free tuition and possibly other aid too (I am not an expert)

I did click on your link, but I am not a lawyer, so I am not sure what it means.
If the courts ruled that student athletes are employees, then they are getting paid with tuition, then I don't see the problem.

You say my son is not THE source of income for the business. I disagree.
He is performing tasks necessary for the business to function.
Just like the people that produce the TV programming for the college sports, maintain the stadium, etc are also part of the income stream associated with the game. In fact, the guy running the TV camera is probably more important that the redshirt guy sitting on the bench (whom you want to be paid, I assume)
Look at it this way.. college basketball survived without Kobe Bryant and LeBron James playing.. All these athletes at the college level are replaceable.
In the old days, most athletes played 3-4 years before going pro. Now the good players are one and done.. And it hasn't hurt the TV ratings one bit.

I don't see why we have to give the players an alternative to going to college.
Suppose you want to be a doctor or lawyer, but you don't want to go to undergrad first.
Because honestly, we could make the argument that undergrad education is kind of a waste for a doctor. A doctor learns what he needs to learn in
med school.. But people aren't crying there is no alternative for people that don't want to go to undergrad.

The NBA used to let kids come right out of HS and go into the draft. Outside of a few success stories, most of the guys flopped. It just didn't work.
Why should the NBA accomodate players that don't want to go to college?

[improbus]

I think you guys are operating under a number of fallacies. First, you are assuming that the revenue streams of these institutions will remain static and that the schools spending patterns will remain the same. University athletic departments will alter their spending patterns, because the "recruiting" benefits won't be in building Taj Mahal like locker rooms, workout facilities, and Harvard professor level coaches offices. That money will go more and more towards the players. Also, once paying players is on the table, these same athletic departments will most likely very easily find new revenue streams. You think the T. Boone Pickens types are going to sit around and watch their rivals sweep up all of the best players?

The financial structure of the game will change in the same way that it did in baseball when the Reserve Clause went away. The owners cried poor until they all realized, "Hey, can I have Reggie Jackson on my team?" And the money went out and flowed back to the owners in record numbers. The same will almost certainly happen in college sports.

[improbus]

As for the "the players don't matter, the uniforms do" argument. I do believe that there is a nugget of truth to that, but only a nugget. What matters to Ohio State fans may not be that they have NFL level players, but it does matter that they are better than Michigan State's players. So, the players they choose do have a value. It might not be the difference in the value between Tom Brady and Andy Dalton, but it is still a significant difference. Ask an OSU fan if they would be okay trading their roster for Purdue's roster. That is value, so don't call them worthless and interchangeable.

[Hoosier Red]

Really, by your logic, only certain schools in certain major conferences should be allowed to pay their players since those schools have profitable teams. The vast majority of college players should get nothing because their football and basketball teams don't make money. People who think players should be paid like to point to the cash cows like Ohio State and Texas. But really only maybe the top 20 schools in revenues actually make more than they spend on football. The vast majority of schools take money from their schools' general fund because, even though football is popular, it also expensive to run a program, more so if you don't have big TV dollars coming in from the Big Ten Network or the SEC Network.

Since you equate colleges, universities, and their sports programs with a business, what is your solution to programs that don't make money? Should all but the 20 best programs dump sports since they don't make money? Maybe add another 10 close to breaking even to the 20 that remain and make one super conference or we could call it a league. Pay the players a salary too. And since their performance on the field is important for revenues, they shouldn't have to go to classes because it cuts into valuable training time. But if your saying pay players based on their monetary value, there are only so many schools where you have players on teams that actually bring in more money than they cost. Should players on college teams that lose money have to pay to play? Quite frankly, my college team was so bad when I was there that they should have paid the students to come to the games. For most college athletes, football players included, getting a free education without having to go $100,000 in debt is very adequate compensation.

I think in reality what you really want to see is that the star players, the players who could actually make a lot of money on their fame as a top player be able to cash in on that fame. Because really, the players that aren't good enough play on one of the elite few money makers or to go pro are just using up school resources like the women's field hockey team.

Personally I wish the top college football and basketball programs would go pro, become self sufficient, and then maybe colleges could focus on using their money to bring down the cost of higher education rather than all that spending on stadiums, arenas, and field houses.

That's if you believe the athletic departments when they say they're losing money.

[improbus]

1. The athletes are already getting a sweet deal compared to other students. (I don't resent them, but that is a nice perk for playing a game)
2. If you pay the athletes, that is going to hurt the rest of the universities (cash drain).
3. It's just not possible to only pay the revenue athletes, you will have to pay the woman's golf team as well (for example). There will be lawsuits.
4. Do we really want college athletics to become a pro sport? I don't really want to read about the bidding war that OSU and Alabama have over a recruit, for example.
5. The poorer schools will not be able to compete at all.

I am actually in favor of letting kids major in basketball like M2 (?) suggested. To me, that's more productive than creating joke classes for the athletes to take.

1. This argument always feels patronizing to me.
2. Don't believe it.
3. The universities haven't had a problem paying Urban Meyer millions and the Women's golf coach very little. That should extend to the players.
4. Did you stop watching the Olympics? Have you followed recruiting?
5. They already don't.

[REDREAD]

I think you guys are operating under a number of fallacies. First, you are assuming that the revenue streams of these institutions will remain static and that the schools spending patterns will remain the same. University athletic departments will alter their spending patterns, because the "recruiting" benefits won't be in building Taj Mahal like locker rooms, workout facilities, and Harvard professor level coaches offices. That money will go more and more towards the players. Also, once paying players is on the table, these same athletic departments will most likely very easily find new revenue streams. You think the T. Boone Pickens types are going to sit around and watch their rivals sweep up all of the best players?

The financial structure of the game will change in the same way that it did in baseball when the Reserve Clause went away. The owners cried poor until they all realized, "Hey, can I have Reggie Jackson on my team?" And the money went out and flowed back to the owners in record numbers. The same will almost certainly happen in college sports.

I guess I'm more cynical. Like no offense to people that follow college sports, but it's already out of hand.
Let's assume that they allow players to be paid.. Do you think people would really have a problem if OSU lost 4 million/year on their football team, as long as they still dominated? (Note, just a hypothetical example, I'm not saying OSU would definitely lose money)

I can point to an example.. I am old enough to remember when they built the Dean Dome in Chapel Hill. There was all this talk about how great it would be, how they could have concerts, etc.. A big cash cow.. Well, the reality is that the Dean Dome had a net loss. I think it was on the order of 100k/year. Maybe that's not the exact number, but it was significant. So, that's an example that shows the college is willing to take a financial loss to support sports.

More than likely, if athletes were allowed to get paid, the alumni would get hit up for even bigger donations, and more often.
I could easily see a telemarketing campaign by my alma mater "Hey, we Can get Super Joe for Quarterback, if you are willing to kick in $100".. I don't want any more calls like that. I get enough fund raising calls as it is. If a free education is not good enough for Super Joe, he's free to explore other options.

I'm not sure that your comparison to Baseball's reserve clause is accurate. The TV contracts got huge. That's why baseball is so rich now.
Chances are (we will never know for sure) is that if the reserve clause was never overturned, the TV money would have still exploded, the owners would've just been able to keep a bigger piece of the pie.. Point is, it is not a cause and effect relationship. I do agree with you though that the owner's crying poor was a lie.

I still don't see why a scholarship/aid package worth roughly 40-100+k (depending on what school you go to) is not enough compensation to play a sport at the amateur level.

[REDREAD]

1. This argument always feels patronizing to me.
2. Don't believe it.
3. The universities haven't had a problem paying Urban Meyer millions and the Women's golf coach very little. That should extend to the players.
4. Did you stop watching the Olympics? Have you followed recruiting?
5. They already don't.

I guess this addresses Doug's argument more than yours.
But there's a greater supply of potential college athletes than there are scholarships.
Seems like that is setting the market value of these guys.
All that's necessary is to offer them a scholarship.

And what about the superstar kids that could play pro out of high school but get hosed by the NBA?
Complain to the NBA about that. It's not the NCAA rule that forces those kids to go to college for a year.

Considering the low percentage of college athletes that actually become pro, it's a pretty good deal.

And you think #1 is patronizing, I disagree. The purpose of the university should be to educate students, not train pro atheletes.
Athletes get enough perks and special treatment (like special tutoring, etc)

[improbus]

And you think #1 is patronizing, I disagree. The purpose of the university should be to educate students, not train pro atheletes.
Athletes get enough perks and special treatment (like special tutoring, etc)
The "special treatment" they get (like tutoring) is an attempt by the university to make up for the fact that the players can't be normal university students based on their sport and to ensure that they are eligible for the next big game as much as they are to benefit the kids. That is the cost of doing business for the university.

How many weeknight road games do basketball players play? What about the football teams that play on Wednesdays and Thursdays? Certainly, those games are net academic positives? Right?

[IslandRed]

But there's a greater supply of potential college athletes than there are scholarships.
Seems like that is setting the market value of these guys.
All that's necessary is to offer them a scholarship.


You're right, there's an endless supply of people willing to get a free education in exchange for playing a sport. But that's like saying there's an endless supply of guys willing to take the minimum salary of a half a million bucks to sit on the end of an NBA bench. It's completely true, but it's only relevant if you don't care how good the players are. If you want to win championships, you need stars. There isn't an endless supply of those and their market value isn't what the guy on the end of the bench gets.

[Assembly Hall]

So the track guy, who costs his school money since no one shows up to watch him perform, should be compensated the same as the football guy who is a part of a team that brings his school tens upon tens of millions of dollars in profit every year?

What business on the planet runs like this? And don't get it confused, it's a business.

Well there Mr. Dirt, I was just giving my example. And FYI, my school didnt have football. And we drew quite well for a track meet. So I have missed your point here. Are you saying that big schools are different than small schools? Hmmmmmmm. Or are you just stating your "un-biased" opinion?

And as far as businesses......check out McDonald's.

[Yachtzee]

That's if you believe the athletic departments when they say they're losing money.

I don't doubt they're losing money, not one bit. You see, I live down the road from one Division I school and work around the block from another. I've been to plenty of football and basketball games at both schools and neither one has ever sold out a game from what I've seen. I was at a game once at the one school where there were more people on the field than there were in the stands. And for the other school I was there when they had a football game and a soccer game the same night and the soccer game outdrew the football game. Of course these are mid-major schools who don't have the big tv deals to rake in the big bucks. Their games are shown on mediocre regional sports channels like Time Warner Sportsnet if at all. The only time during the year when they have a single game that turns a profit is when they travel to a major conference school for their annual butt kicking. There are, what, at least 8 universities that play Division I football and basketball in the State of Ohio. Do you honestly believe any of the ones not named The Ohio State University are actually making money? Maybe UC might have had a profitable year or two before they had the Big East rug pulled out from under them.

The reality is that none of the Ohio schools that play Division I sports and aren't the Buckeyes are likely to have a shot at a National Championship in football. In basketball, you have 3 teams from Ohio that regularly make the NCAA tournament, but the rest are happy if they get a bid once a decade and that's only when they happen to win their conference tournament because there's no way their getting at large bid. But then for most schools, college sports are used primarily as entertainment for the students to improve campus life and get the school's name in the paper or on the news on a regular basis. Aside from the occasional standout player that gets drafted, 99.9% of the players at those schools aren't playing after college. If you compare what the school gives those players in the way of free education with room and board included, it's more than likely better than what they'd make if paid for their services like minor league baseball and hockey players are.

And for all the talk about how much money Urban Meyer makes, only one school in Ohio is paying him millions of dollars and it's not Bowling Green.

[dougdirt]

Well there Mr. Dirt, I was just giving my example. And FYI, my school didnt have football. And we drew quite well for a track meet. So I have missed your point here. Are you saying that big schools are different than small schools? Hmmmmmmm. Or are you just stating your "un-biased" opinion?

And as far as businesses......check out McDonald's.

Of course big schools are different than small schools, just like Apple is different from the company that makes cheap RAM for your $79 ACER tablet.

Who is the guy working at McDonalds that makes McDonalds tens of millions of dollars (like say, Johnny Manziel made Texas A&M) that makes the same $8 an hour that the guy working the register makes? I'll hang up and listen for the answer.

[improbus]

I don't doubt they're losing money, not one bit. You see, I live down the road from one Division I school and work around the block from another. I've been to plenty of football and basketball games at both schools and neither one has ever sold out a game from what I've seen. I was at a game once at the one school where there were more people on the field than there were in the stands. And for the other school I was there when they had a football game and a soccer game the same night and the soccer game outdrew the football game. Of course these are mid-major schools who don't have the big tv deals to rake in the big bucks. Their games are shown on mediocre regional sports channels like Time Warner Sportsnet if at all. The only time during the year when they have a single game that turns a profit is when they travel to a major conference school for their annual butt kicking. There are, what, at least 8 universities that play Division I football and basketball in the State of Ohio. Do you honestly believe any of the ones not named The Ohio State University are actually making money? Maybe UC might have had a profitable year or two before they had the Big East rug pulled out from under them.

The reality is that none of the Ohio schools that play Division I sports and aren't the Buckeyes are likely to have a shot at a National Championship in football. In basketball, you have 3 teams from Ohio that regularly make the NCAA tournament, but the rest are happy if they get a bid once a decade and that's only when they happen to win their conference tournament because there's no way their getting at large bid. But then for most schools, college sports are used primarily as entertainment for the students to improve campus life and get the school's name in the paper or on the news on a regular basis. Aside from the occasional standout player that gets drafted, 99.9% of the players at those schools aren't playing after college. If you compare what the school gives those players in the way of free education with room and board included, it's more than likely better than what they'd make if paid for their services like minor league baseball and hockey players are.

And for all the talk about how much money Urban Meyer makes, only one school in Ohio is paying him millions of dollars and it's not Bowling Green.

And so maybe it is time to officially separate them. Why should OSU and their players have to play by the same rules as Akron? Seems kinda dumb.

Also, why should schools like Akron be running huge deficits to keep up with the OSU's?

[redrum]

Of course big schools are different than small schools, just like Apple is different from the company that makes cheap RAM for your $79 ACER tablet.

Who is the guy working at McDonalds that makes McDonalds tens of millions of dollars (like say, Johnny Manziel made Texas A&M) that makes the same $8 an hour that the guy working the register makes? I'll hang up and listen for the answer.

Would Johnny have been a first round pick if he had not attended college, or not gone to a division I school and won the Heisman? Would he have had endorsements lined up before he threw his first professional pass? It seems to me like the training, opportunity and exposure that Texas A&M provided was quite valuable to him.

[Yachtzee]

And so maybe it is time to officially separate them. Why should OSU and their players have to play by the same rules as Akron? Seems kinda dumb.

Also, why should schools like Akron be running huge deficits to keep up with the OSU's?

I don't think Akron is trying to keep up with OSU. I think Akron is just trying to keep up with other MAC schools.

I'm actually fine with Ohio State and other big football/basketball schools going off on their own from other schools, as long as their programs are self sufficient. Maybe this is venturing into political discussion, but I'm not a fan of public tax dollars earmarked for education being used to subsidize college sports. So I really don't like the idea of schools pulling even more money out of their general fund or jacking up tuition to chase after blue chip players. If college football and basketball are businesses, treat them as a business and make them survive on their own instead of a public good subsidized by state tax dollars and federal student loan dollars.

[Hoosier Red]

I don't doubt they're losing money, not one bit. You see, I live down the road from one Division I school and work around the block from another. I've been to plenty of football and basketball games at both schools and neither one has ever sold out a game from what I've seen. I was at a game once at the one school where there were more people on the field than there were in the stands. And for the other school I was there when they had a football game and a soccer game the same night and the soccer game outdrew the football game. Of course these are mid-major schools who don't have the big tv deals to rake in the big bucks. Their games are shown on mediocre regional sports channels like Time Warner Sportsnet if at all. The only time during the year when they have a single game that turns a profit is when they travel to a major conference school for their annual butt kicking. There are, what, at least 8 universities that play Division I football and basketball in the State of Ohio. Do you honestly believe any of the ones not named The Ohio State University are actually making money? Maybe UC might have had a profitable year or two before they had the Big East rug pulled out from under them.

The reality is that none of the Ohio schools that play Division I sports and aren't the Buckeyes are likely to have a shot at a National Championship in football. In basketball, you have 3 teams from Ohio that regularly make the NCAA tournament, but the rest are happy if they get a bid once a decade and that's only when they happen to win their conference tournament because there's no way their getting at large bid. But then for most schools, college sports are used primarily as entertainment for the students to improve campus life and get the school's name in the paper or on the news on a regular basis. Aside from the occasional standout player that gets drafted, 99.9% of the players at those schools aren't playing after college. If you compare what the school gives those players in the way of free education with room and board included, it's more than likely better than what they'd make if paid for their services like minor league baseball and hockey players are.

And for all the talk about how much money Urban Meyer makes, only one school in Ohio is paying him millions of dollars and it's not Bowling Green.

Therin lies the rub. It doesn't cost the Universities anything to provide education for the athletes.
Unless they're at capacity for students(and thus displacing a student who would pay his or her own way) or the athletes require additional teachers for classes, the actual cost of the athletes is pretty much limited to housing and food. So even schools with mediocre attendance and a mediocre regional cable deal will still easily break even from athletics. Let's not forget how much money the NCAA doles out to each university as its cut from the various championships.

If universities were truly losing as much money as they say, why do you suppose so many universities would be applying to move to Division 1?

Now, that doesn't mean you're incorrect wrt to the value most players will command. Most of the players that MAC schools are recruiting won't command much more than a scholarship, and therefore the ability for universities to pay their scholarship athletes won't have any impact on the MAC. The ability to pay athletes is much different than a requirement to pay the athletes.

[Assembly Hall]

Of course big schools are different than small schools, just like Apple is different from the company that makes cheap RAM for your $79 ACER tablet.

Who is the guy working at McDonalds that makes McDonalds tens of millions of dollars (like say, Johnny Manziel made Texas A&M) that makes the same $8 an hour that the guy working the register makes? I'll hang up and listen for the answer.

Doug, how much money did A&M make post Manziel? My point is that McDonald's makes money no matter who is flipping burgers. It is a money making machine. Michigan will make money, tOSU will make money, Texas A&M will make money.........no matter who the "employees" are.

[Hoosier Red]

Doug, how much money did A&M make post Manziel? My point is that McDonald's makes money no matter who is flipping burgers. It is a money making machine. Michigan will make money, tOSU will make money, Texas A&M will make money.........no matter who the "employees" are.

So why do Universities spend such huge amounts of time, energy, and money recruiting the players they want? If the specific players don't matter to a University, they'll simply refuse to pay above the standard scholarship rate and call it a day.

[dougdirt]

This conversation is mind numbing.

I really hope none of you guys work in jobs that treat you like you want to treat college football and basketball players.

[puca]

So why do Universities spend such huge amounts of time, energy, and money recruiting the players they want? If the specific players don't matter to a University, they'll simply refuse to pay above the standard scholarship rate and call it a day.

Why do so many high school athletes want to attend the top programs? Why wouldn't the 4-star recruit just go somewhere he was sure to start instead of battling it out with other 4/5 star recruits? Athletes get far more than scholarship money for attending Alabama or OSU, they get exposure playing in the SEC or B1G. Johnny Manziel would sure not won a Heisman trophy or even been a first round draft pick if he attended North Texas or even Rice. Even at Rutgers or Vanderbilt he would not have been surrounded by the same type of talent and probably would not have gotten the type of attention he received.

[puca]

This conversation is mind numbing.

I really hope none of you guys work in jobs that treat you like you want to treat college football and basketball players.

In my job I could be laid off tomorrow (especially if I keep visiting this thread). :)

Seriously at 18 I would have loved to have a guaranteed 4 year commitment from an employer, even if it only covered education costs. And guess what, if something better comes along they are free to leave.

[Assembly Hall]

So why do Universities spend such huge amounts of time, energy, and money recruiting the players they want? If the specific players don't matter to a University, they'll simply refuse to pay above the standard scholarship rate and call it a day.

At the end of the day it is still McDonald's.

[Assembly Hall]

This conversation is mind numbing.

I really hope none of you guys work in jobs that treat you like you want to treat college football and basketball players.

Well, you need to figure out whether school is school. Do you advocate paying HS players?

[puca]

Well, you need to figure out whether school is school. Do you advocate paying HS players?

I don't see how doug could argue otherwise. High school football in Texas is big business.

[dougdirt]

In my job I could be laid off tomorrow (especially if I keep visiting this thread). :)

Seriously at 18 I would have loved to have a guaranteed 4 year commitment from an employer, even if it only covered education costs. And guess what, if something better comes along they are free to leave.

Except you aren't guaranteed four years. It's a year to year thing.

And frankly, what you would have loved is completely irrelevant to the argument.

- - - Updated - - -


Well, you need to figure out whether school is school. Do you advocate paying HS players?

Why not? Are they producing money for the school?

[Hoosier Red]

At the end of the day it is still McDonald's.
I'm not sure I understand.

[dougdirt]

Well, you need to figure out whether school is school. Do you advocate paying HS players?

Also, college sports aren't about school. They haven't been for quite a long time now. They are about money. If they were about school, there wouldn't be athletic scholarships.

[puca]

[QUOTE=dougdirt;3270542]Except you aren't guaranteed four years. It's a year to year thing.

And frankly, what you would have loved is completely irrelevant to the argument.

- - - Updated - - -



True, it is year to year. But revoking a scholarship is not that common - it is usually academic or behavior based and the player being revoked is entitled to a hearing. I'm sure players are pressured to transfer much more than we know, and that is an issue that should be addressed. Anyways, the guys you are arguing should be paid are not the ones that get their scholarship revoked. If you are concerned about the players that are making the university money getting a piece of the pie why not simply give players a bonus at the end of the year based on their actual contribution. If you go to a school that does not make money - you're out of luck.

Even at year to year, that is much more security than the normal 'job'.

They are not forced to go to college, but the truth is that outside of the context of the NCAA they have little value as underdeveloped, untested athletes. The NBA and NFL understand this. Those talented enough use college as a springboard to the professional leagues. Those that make that jump received an enormous benefit way above and beyond their academic costs. Those not talented enough probably weren't selling the tickets anyhow.

[Hoosier Red]

[QUOTE=dougdirt;3270542]Except you aren't guaranteed four years. It's a year to year thing.

And frankly, what you would have loved is completely irrelevant to the argument.

- - - Updated - - -



True, it is year to year. But revoking a scholarship is not that common - it is usually academic or behavior based and the player being revoked is entitled to a hearing. I'm sure players are pressured to transfer much more than we know, and that is an issue that should be addressed. Anyways, the guys you are arguing should be paid are not the ones that get their scholarship revoked. If you are concerned about the players that are making the university money getting a piece of the pie why not simply give players a bonus at the end of the year based on their actual contribution. If you go to a school that does not make money - you're out of luck.


Two reasons I would reject that, 1) I wouldn't trust the school's accounting of whether they "made money" and 2) Why make it more complicated than a professional system? The players don't have control over how the school utilizes their performance to make money, they can only control their performance. The best way to evaluate the "value" of that performance is to let each school pay as much (or as little) as they believe the player is worth.

[puca]

[QUOTE=puca;3270562]

Two reasons I would reject that, 1) I wouldn't trust the school's accounting of whether they "made money" and 2) Why make it more complicated than a professional system? The players don't have control over how the school utilizes their performance to make money, they can only control their performance. The best way to evaluate the "value" of that performance is to let each school pay as much (or as little) as they believe the player is worth.

The professional leagues don't even have the type of free-agency being advocated here, and for good reason.

[Hoosier Red]

[QUOTE=Hoosier Red;3270569]

The professional leagues don't even have the type of free-agency being advocated here, and for good reason.

I'm not sure what type of free-agency's being advocated here, there have been plenty of suggestions for how to structure it.
Also, the "good reason" the professional leagues have limitations on player movement is that they collectively bargained with the players for them.

[puca]

[QUOTE=puca;3270598]

I'm not sure what type of free-agency's being advocated here, there have been plenty of suggestions for how to structure it.
Also, the "good reason" the professional leagues have limitations on player movement is that they collectively bargained with the players for them.

Specifically I was talking about the entry level draft.

[Hoosier Red]

[QUOTE=Hoosier Red;3270628]

Specifically I was talking about the entry level draft.

And again, whether it's something good, bad, or indifferent, that is something the players had a say in during collective bargaining.

College recruiting today is much closer to complete and total free agency then anything the professional leagues take part in. As Doug said, they already have Free Agency, the players just aren't paid anything.

[puca]

[QUOTE=puca;3270644]

And again, whether it's something good, bad, or indifferent, that is something the players had a say in during collective bargaining.

College recruiting today is much closer to complete and total free agency then anything the professional leagues take part in. As Doug said, they already have Free Agency, the players just aren't paid anything.

And that is where we disagree. They not only get paid in tuition, room-and-board, the receive training, exposure, fame and memorabilia.

I'm all for adding a stipend for athletes so that they have reasonable amount of spending money. I'm all for helping the families of those in need. I'm all for letting the players market themselves and collect endorsements while in school. I'm all for letting them sell their game jerseys or trading them for tattoos. I'm against the players negotiating and drawing salary from the university. While you don't trust the university to properly report earnings, I don't trust the university to not dip into general funds to pay athletes.

The NCAA is a cesspool. I have no love for the institution or of big time college athletics. I would be happiest if the NBA and NFL would set up a minor league system and kids not interested in an education were free to pursue their career right out of high school. The reason they don't is because it wouldn't generate revenue. I wish there were strict academic requirements for student athletes to make sure they are indeed students as well as athletes. Those are the issues that need to be addressed.

[Assembly Hall]

Also, college sports aren't about school. They haven't been for quite a long time now. They are about money. If they were about school, there wouldn't be athletic scholarships.

Or entry requirements, right?

[Assembly Hall]

I'm not sure I understand.

McDonald's will get their people.

[Hoosier Red]

[QUOTE=Hoosier Red;3270651]

And that is where we disagree. They not only get paid in tuition, room-and-board, the receive training, exposure, fame and memorabilia.

I'm all for adding a stipend for athletes so that they have reasonable amount of spending money. I'm all for helping the families of those in need. I'm all for letting the players market themselves and collect endorsements while in school. I'm all for letting them sell their game jerseys or trading them for tattoos. I'm against the players negotiating and drawing salary from the university. While you don't trust the university to properly report earnings, I don't trust the university to not dip into general funds to pay athletes.

The NCAA is a cesspool. I have no love for the institution or of big time college athletics. I would be happiest if the NBA and NFL would set up a minor league system and kids not interested in an education were free to pursue their career right out of high school. The reason they don't is because it wouldn't generate revenue. I wish there were strict academic requirements for student athletes to make sure they are indeed students as well as athletes. Those are the issues that need to be addressed.

So athletes shouldn't get paid their true value because university presidents and Athletic directors can't be trusted with the multimillion dollar funds they manage?
It would seem the easier solution is to hire ethical leaders. No wait cancel that. The better solution is to hire ethical leaders.

[Yachtzee]

Also, college sports aren't about school. They haven't been for quite a long time now. They are about money. If they were about school, there wouldn't be athletic scholarships.

If they were about money, there wouldn't be athletic scholarships at all for sports not called football and basketball, and even then, only at schools in the major power conferences. Do you honestly believe that wrestling, water polo, or field hockey bring in money for schools? And yet they offer athletic scholarships. For most college sports, it has nothing to do with money and only to do with school pride. The only reason most college sports exist is to give people a reason to say, at least in one sport or another, "My school is better than your school."

I actually got an email from one of my alma maters offering me a deal. I could get a season ticket to all sports, including football (reserved seating no less), men's and women's basketball, men's and women's soccer, and women's volleyball, plus parking passes and concessions vouchers for football games and a special edition soccer scarf, all for the low, low price of $175. Most of my OSU Buckeyes alumni friends drop more than that to go to a single football game.

[Hoosier Red]

If they were about money, there wouldn't be athletic scholarships at all for sports not called football and basketball, and even then, only at schools in the major power conferences. Do you honestly believe that wrestling, water polo, or field hockey bring in money for schools? And yet they offer athletic scholarships. For most college sports, it has nothing to do with money and only to do with school pride. The only reason most college sports exist is to give people a reason to say, at least in one sport or another, "My school is better than your school."

I actually got an email from one of my alma maters offering me a deal. I could get a season ticket to all sports, including football (reserved seating no less), men's and women's basketball, men's and women's soccer, and women's volleyball, plus parking passes and concessions vouchers for football games and a special edition soccer scarf, all for the low, low price of $175. Most of my OSU Buckeyes alumni friends drop more than that to go to a single football game.

The other sports at a school function as public relations for the Athletic Dept. as a whole. If people talk about how the Football team or Basketball team is all about the money, they can point to all the other sports(where the players are usually on half or no scholarship) and say, "But what about these players?"
It becomes a bit of circular reasoning, but it gives athletes an opportunity to continue competing(and some money for college), gives athletic directors a chance to pad their staffing and prestige, and gives the department as a whole some positive public relations.

[Assembly Hall]

The other sports at a school function as public relations for the Athletic Dept. as a whole. If people talk about how the Football team or Basketball team is all about the money, they can point to all the other sports(where the players are usually on half or no scholarship) and say, "But what about these players?"
It becomes a bit of circular reasoning, but it gives athletes an opportunity to continue competing(and some money for college), gives athletic directors a chance to pad their staffing and prestige, and gives the department as a whole some positive public relations.

And where does Title IX fit into all of that public relations stuff?

[Hoosier Red]

And where does Title IX fit into all of that public relations stuff?

That's part of it too for sure.
Providing scholarship opportunities for women certainly keeps the athletic departments and universities on the right side of the law.
But if schools were ONLY concerned with keeping their costs down, they could create just enough women's sports to have 98 scholarships and then have men's basketball and football.

Obviously, that would give the appearance of a 2nd rate athletic dept. Something none of these Universities wish to look like. So we have to assume they derive some benefit from having a robust athletic department with baseball, wrestling and men's tennis.

[Chip R]

Except you aren't guaranteed four years. It's a year to year thing.

Actually, more and more schools/conferences are giving out 4 year scholarships.

[Assembly Hall]

Actually, more and more schools/conferences are giving out 4 year scholarships.

Indiana gives 4 year scholorships as long as the kid stays at IU.

[improbus]

If they were about money, there wouldn't be athletic scholarships at all for sports not called football and basketball, and even then, only at schools in the major power conferences. Do you honestly believe that wrestling, water polo, or field hockey bring in money for schools? And yet they offer athletic scholarships. For most college sports, it has nothing to do with money and only to do with school pride. The only reason most college sports exist is to give people a reason to say, at least in one sport or another, "My school is better than your school."

I actually got an email from one of my alma maters offering me a deal. I could get a season ticket to all sports, including football (reserved seating no less), men's and women's basketball, men's and women's soccer, and women's volleyball, plus parking passes and concessions vouchers for football games and a special edition soccer scarf, all for the low, low price of $175. Most of my OSU Buckeyes alumni friends drop more than that to go to a single football game.

I think it has less to do with the competition in the sport itself as with the competition between rival schools for more and more prestige as a university. Schools are constantly fighting and jockeying to improve their overall profile and having a large variety of sports is one way to do that. It is the same reason that they drop millions on palatial student unions and other attractive add-ons. It seems like it is part of what it means to be a major university.

But, I went to Ohio and I don't think I ever went to any varsity sport that wasn't football or basketball, and we even went to those sports sparingly.

[improbus]

Actually, more and more schools/conferences are giving out 4 year scholarships.

Because they see where this whole thing is headed. They understand that they are going to need to give more and more as they take more and more.

[IslandRed]

I think it has less to do with the competition in the sport itself as with the competition between rival schools for more and more prestige as a university. Schools are constantly fighting and jockeying to improve their overall profile and having a large variety of sports is one way to do that.

Long before the money got huge, athletic scholarships came about for the same reason academic scholarships did. Attract the best, enhance the prestige, and then hopefully success feeds on itself. Most academic full rides probably can't be justified on a micro-accounting level, either. But reputation is priceless.

[Assembly Hall]

Because they see where this whole thing is headed. They understand that they are going to need to give more and more as they take more and more.

They may be part of it, but it also allows the schools to weed out players that cant cut the mustard on the floor as well. Basically what I am saying is that your scholorship is guaranteed for four years, but your spot on the team isn't.

[improbus]

Long before the money got huge, athletic scholarships came about for the same reason academic scholarships did. Attract the best, enhance the prestige, and then hopefully success feeds on itself. Most academic full rides probably can't be justified on a micro-accounting level, either. But reputation is priceless.

But, a math scholarship to a university seems much more logical than a diving scholarship. It is also more financially justifiable at an institution of higher learning.

Why don't they offer scholarships for Chess, or Call of Duty, or Monopoly? Those seem just as "academic" as diving, or track, or football.

[Assembly Hall]

But, a math scholarship to a university seems much more logical than a diving scholarship. It is also more financially justifiable at an institution of higher learning.

Why don't they offer scholarships for Chess, or Call of Duty, or Monopoly? Those seem just as "academic" as diving, or track, or football.

I think they are out there, just not with the examples you presented. My former step-son received a scholarship for choir at a mid-major.

[IslandRed]

But, a math scholarship to a university seems much more logical than a diving scholarship. It is also more financially justifiable at an institution of higher learning.

Why don't they offer scholarships for Chess, or Call of Duty, or Monopoly? Those seem just as "academic" as diving, or track, or football.

If chess, COD or Monopoly ever turn into intercollegiate competitions where winning schools see a marked jump in prestige or brand awareness, with a corresponding jump in the quality and quantity of student applicants, they will.

[Yachtzee]

I think they are out there, just not with the examples you presented. My former step-son received a scholarship for choir at a mid-major.

My wife's cousin had a "voice" scholarship. He was an opera major.

[Assembly Hall]

My wife's cousin had a "voice" scholarship. He was an opera major.

Yes it is amazing. My step-son ended up traveling around with what they called the "varsity singers". And on another note, I worked with a guy whose son got a bowling scholarship.

[improbus]

My wife's cousin had a "voice" scholarship. He was an opera major.

My room mate did as well. But he was a music major in the College of Music. That isn't the same as an athletic scholarship.

[Assembly Hall]

If chess, COD or Monopoly ever turn into intercollegiate competitions where winning schools see a marked jump in prestige or brand awareness, with a corresponding jump in the quality and quantity of student applicants, they will.

Maybe along the lines of something like this?

http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~pubass/

[Assembly Hall]

And maybe we wont have to worry about it on the basketball side of things?

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2015-05-11/las-vegas-dealers-basketball-skip-college-mcdonalds-all-americans?eadid=SOC/Twi/SNMain

[puca]

And maybe we wont have to worry about it on the basketball side of things?

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2015-05-11/las-vegas-dealers-basketball-skip-college-mcdonalds-all-americans?eadid=SOC/Twi/SNMain

I hope it works. I doubt it will. If they can't lure high school players at 700K a year, will it mean players believe they are getting much more out of college than a just scholarship?

[Assembly Hall]

I hope it works. I doubt it will. If they can't lure high school players at 700K a year, will it mean players believe they are getting much more out of college than a just scholarship?

Bingo. It will be interesting to say the least.

[improbus]

There just isn't enough money to pay the kids....

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12974161/southeastern-conference-distribute-record-435m-revenue-member-schools