Paying College Athletes

[bucksfan2]

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

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

[sonny]

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

Hi ho hi ho hi ho!

[Hoosier Red]

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

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=5568911&type=Story&imagesPrint=off

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

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

[Sea Ray]

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

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

Competitive balance.

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

[Hoosier Red]

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

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

Competitive balance.

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

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

[reds1869]

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

[Boston Red]

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

[bucksfan2]

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

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

Competitive balance.

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

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

[Scrap Irony]

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

Hi ho hi ho hi ho!

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

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

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

[Hoosier Red]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Captain13]

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

[reds1869]

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

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

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

[redhawkfish]

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

[Roy Tucker]

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

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

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

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

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/answers/where+does+the+money+go

[New York Red]

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

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

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

[LoganBuck]

Title IX comes into play here. You have to pay the womens synchronized swimming team members the same amount the football team members get. That is why I vote no. The amount of money on the whole would be huge, the benefit to the individual athlete would be small. Probably below "pocket money" for the semester/quarter.

[bucksfan2]

Title IX comes into play here. You have to pay the womens synchronized swimming team members the same amount the football team members get. That is why I vote no. The amount of money on the whole would be huge, the benefit to the individual athlete would be small. Probably below "pocket money" for the semester/quarter.

In essence college athletes are paid. Not only are they given a free education in tuition but also with room and board and books and the absence of any kind of loans.

Also what is the value of a four year bachlor's degree over a lifetime? What is the value of being able to perform on a football stage for 4 years? What is the value of an opportunity at education? Lets be honest here there are a lot of athletes who would not qualify to attend the university without their athletic skills.

Don't get me wrong big time college athletes bring a lot into the university, but lets not forget that if they take advantage of what the university is offering they stand to benefit greatly.

[Sea Ray]

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

You think only 300 #9 jerseys will be in the stands of any home Ga Bulldog game? I think they sell much much more than that especially when you include the many retail outlets

[Sea Ray]

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

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

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

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

It's a non issue

[Sea Ray]

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

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

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

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

[Hoosier Red]

You think only 300 #9 jerseys will be in the stands of any home Ga Bulldog game? I think they sell much much more than that especially when you include the many retail outlets

Well he said only 300 this year, which still seems low. Maybe 300 through the bookstore?

[Sea Ray]

Well he said only 300 this year, which still seems low. Maybe 300 through the bookstore?

If he only included the bookstore then it was lazy reporting

[bucksfan2]

If he only included the bookstore then it was lazy reporting

It would probably be only licensed Nike jersey's.

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

[oneupper]

nm

[Hoosier Red]

If he only included the bookstore then it was lazy reporting

nm Bucksfan nailed it.

And he's right, especially at schools like Michigan, Penn State, and Syracuse, where the top player at a position is given a specific number. There's no reason to purchase a jersey every year.

[Hoosier Red]

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

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

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

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

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/answers/where+does+the+money+go

They do get spending money to be fair. They get a housing and food stipend that would cover enough for them to live by themselves. If you have four guys room in a $800/month apartment off campus, that's $750-$800 to spend per month on food. And remember, they eat a lot of meals at the football complex for free.

[Chip R]

Title IX comes into play here. You have to pay the womens synchronized swimming team members the same amount the football team members get. That is why I vote no. The amount of money on the whole would be huge, the benefit to the individual athlete would be small. Probably below "pocket money" for the semester/quarter.


Title IX would have nothing to do with it. All that says is that women must have an equal opportunity to compete.

[Sea Ray]

It would probably be only licensed Nike jersey's.

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

I'm pretty sure that retail outlets at my local malls have licensed jerseys. Why make the distinction?

[Sea Ray]

Title IX would have nothing to do with it. All that says is that women must have an equal opportunity to compete.

No, I don't think you're right about that.

Title IX:


No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance...

The "benefits of" would refer to stipends. You can't pay the football players something and not the swim team

[LoganBuck]

No, I don't think you're right about that.

Title IX:



The "benefits of" would refer to stipends. You can't pay the football players something and not the swim team

To further expound on this, walk ons are excluded from some of the perks of being scholarship athletes. For example, meals at the football facilities. At Ohio State, backup QB Joe Bauserman was originally listed as a preferred walkon, because the Pittsburgh Pirates were paying his tuition. He was not allowed to participate in scholarship dining, and his access to programs for scholarship athletes put a wall up between him and the team. Which is not good for a key member of your football team, so Jim Tressel put him on scholarship. If those services were offered to all walkons the NCAA would see that as extra benefits.

Where do you draw the line, do walk ons(or non scholarship athletes), or athletes in non revenue sports with split scholarships get money?

It isn't so simple.

[mlh1981]

It would probably be only licensed Nike jersey's.

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

Mike Doss :D

[reds1869]

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

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

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

It's a non issue

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

[Scrap Irony]

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

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

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

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

Really?

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

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



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

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

[CTA513]

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

[IslandRed]

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

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

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

[Yachtzee]

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

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

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

Really?

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

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



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

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

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

[Hoosier Red]

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

[Scrap Irony]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Hoosier Red]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Scrap Irony]

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

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

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

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

[LoganBuck]

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

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

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

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

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

[Scrap Irony]

Not if they're making millions, Logan, for the university.

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

Half a room, some food, and a seat in a few classes.

Put it this way: colleges and universities are making money hand over fist and it costs them only what they pay for coaches and travel.

That's it.

They're not only baking the cake and eating it, they're raising the ingredients and re-heating the cake so it lasts the entire year.

But the players? No cake. Or, if you really think that scholarship means much, perhaps a couple crumbs they should be happy with.

[Hoosier Red]

Not if they're making millions, Logan, for the university.

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

Half a room, some food, and a seat in a few classes.

Put it this way: colleges and universities are making money hand over fist and it costs them only what they pay for coaches and travel.

That's it.

They're not only baking the cake and eating it, they're raising the ingredients and re-heating the cake so it lasts the entire year.

But the players? No cake. Or, if you really think that scholarship means much, perhaps a couple crumbs they should be happy with.

Well there's a few problems with the theory Scrap.
1) The people come to see the names on the front of the jersey as much as the names on the back. So are those players necessarily adding to the amount of revenue being brought in? If UK brings in $50 million with John Wall, would it bring in $0 if he didn't come? The value John Wall provides isn't the amount of revenue the team brings in, but rather how much more revenue they could bring in with John Wall then without.

2) It doesn't matter what it costs the university to provide the scholarships, it's about the value that the athletes receive for it.(In other words, what would they have to pay to receive 1)full room and board, 2)World class training and marketing if they decide to play professionally, and 3) WORLD CLASS MARKETING if they decide not to play professionally. Do you think the members of Kentucky's 93 team have an easier or harder time trying to move into sales positions around the state?

All in all the value provided by the player probably exceeds the value provided by the university, but it's a contract each player enters into willingly.

[Boston Red]

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



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

[Scrap Irony]

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

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

$600,000

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

Who wouldn't make that deal?

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

[Scrap Irony]

Well there's a few problems with the theory Scrap.
1) The people come to see the names on the front of the jersey as much as the names on the back. So are those players necessarily adding to the amount of revenue being brought in? If UK brings in $50 million with John Wall, would it bring in $0 if he didn't come? The value John Wall provides isn't the amount of revenue the team brings in, but rather how much more revenue they could bring in with John Wall then without.

2) It doesn't matter what it costs the university to provide the scholarships, it's about the value that the athletes receive for it.(In other words, what would they have to pay to receive 1)full room and board, 2)World class training and marketing if they decide to play professionally, and 3) WORLD CLASS MARKETING if they decide not to play professionally. Do you think the members of Kentucky's 93 team have an easier or harder time trying to move into sales positions around the state?

All in all the value provided by the player probably exceeds the value provided by the university, but it's a contract each player enters into willingly.

1) If they threw a basketball party and no players came, would it still be a basketball party? I don't care if John Wall makes a dime. I'm saying ALL Kentucky players deserve to be paid.

2) Value is commesurate to how much cash is made overall. If UofL makes $52 million in a year (and it did), the players should receive a large portion of that. I don't care that they MIGHT make money at the next level, I don't care the pittance colleges give to student-athletes. I don't care about marketing. It's about the value of the service provided. Without all those man-child, glass-eating, quarterback-spearing, full-court diving behemoths, there is no game for the school to make money on.

Would it blur the line between amateur and professional? Sure.

So what?

That line's been blurred so far that it's hardly recognizeable as a line anymore. Private high schools offer tens of thousands for 14-year-olds to play. Colleges offer mad money already. It's all a matter of degrees.

[Sea Ray]

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

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

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

Really?

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

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



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

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

Your analogy of comparing a business (railroad) with amateur athletics defies "common sense" as you put it.

Let's use your Western Ky example. So do you think the Hilltopper basketball team deserves a paycheck but the girls team does not?

[Scrap Irony]

The girls' team made $4.5 million that year.

[Sea Ray]

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


Who are you to say what's right and wrong? Don't be so elitest as to say "it's right" like it's a fact or something. What's right is highly debatable.

I say it's right for the professional leagues to set age standards. I think they ought to demand a certain amount of maturity from its athletes. Do you think the NBA should have been allowed to sign LeBron James out of 10th grade? That's nuts.

[Scrap Irony]

Your analogy of comparing a business (railroad) with amateur athletics defies "common sense" as you put it.

Let's use your Western Ky example. So do you think the Hilltopper basketball team deserves a paycheck but the girls team does not?

NCAA sports is a billion dollar industry.

I'd call that a fairly large business.

The only difference is that the railroad has to pay its workers a fair wage.

[Sea Ray]

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


As AD I assume you'd have a football team and a men's basketball team. Combined you're looking at about 100 male scholarship athletes. At that point due to Title IX, you'd be obligated to come up with enough women's sports (all of which will likely lose money) to fill 100 roster spots. That would add up to far more than "one or two."

Get real...

[CTA513]

If student athletes get paid to play then other students should get to take classes for next to nothing.

[Sea Ray]

NCAA sports is a billion dollar industry.

I'd call that a fairly large business.

The only difference is that the railroad has to pay its workers a fair wage.

The big difference is in college they don't have to pay the athletes any wage

[Scrap Irony]

The big difference is in college they don't have to pay the athletes any wage

You're absolutely right. But they ought to.

[Sea Ray]

You're absolutely right. But they ought to.

Nahh. They're students and 99% of them are not stars worthy of anything more than a scholarship. Making exceptions for the other 1% makes no practical sense. Guys like Reggie Bush will eventually get their payday. I'm not worried about him

[Scrap Irony]

As AD I assume you'd have a football team and a men's basketball team. Combined you're looking at about 100 male scholarship athletes. At that point due to Title IX, you'd be obligated to come up with enough women's sports (all of which will likely lose money) to fill 100 roster spots. That would add up to far more than "one or two."

Get real...

Girls' basketball teams can make money. UofL's made serious bank two years ago. WKU operated in the black for more than 20 years. Vandy does. So does UT.

UConn's WBB team is a cash cow.

If done properly, a women's team can make bank.

But if it doesn't, I'd find the cheapest teams to bankroll and do that. Golf is incredibly cheap to subsidize. So is cross country. Add those to volleyball and you've covered Title IX fairy easily. If you cut corners on teams that don't make money by hiring coaches as cheaply as possible and limiting travel to only necessary trips (and those with busses rather than air travel), you could limit the damage a team may inflict on your bottom line.

In other words, give me a Division I program in football and basketball and I'd give you a sports program that continually ran in the black. A program that would make its university money. The best team money could buy.

Or at least two out of five would be.

[LoganBuck]

Girls' basketball teams can make money. UofL's made serious bank two years ago. WKU operated in the black for more than 20 years. Vandy does. So does UT.

UConn's WBB team is a cash cow.

If done properly, a women's team can make bank.

But if it doesn't, I'd find the cheapest teams to bankroll and do that. Golf is incredibly cheap to subsidize. So is cross country. Add those to volleyball and you've covered Title IX fairy easily. If you cut corners on teams that don't make money by hiring coaches as cheaply as possible and limiting travel to only necessary trips (and those with busses rather than air travel), you could limit the damage a team may inflict on your bottom line.

In other words, give me a Division I program in football and basketball and I'd give you a sports program that continually ran in the black. A program that would make its university money. The best team money could buy.

Or at least two out of five would be.

The thing is Title IX applies to travel, as well. The football team can't fly chartered trips, and stay in the best hotels, while the women's lacrosse team rides in 15 passenger vans, staying at Motel 6. We live in the 21st century, what you propose turns back the clock on gender equality, to the 1950s.

[Roy Tucker]

NCAA sports is a billion dollar industry.

I'd call that a fairly large business.

The only difference is that the railroad has to pay its workers a fair wage.

$10.5B from what I've read.

But all that money gets plowed back into the universities. Either to provide a world-class programs like OSU football or Duke basketball and/or to fund all the other sports.

For the NCAA (the recipient of TV contract and other moneys), 96% of the money goes back to schools, either directly or indirectly.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/answers/nine+points+to+consider_one

[bucksfan2]

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

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

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

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

Without the University of Kentucky there isn't a basketball program. Without the University of Kentucky a guy like Eric Bledsoe doesn't get to perform on a platform that gets him drafted. Without the University of Kentucky Eric Bledsoe and his low GPA is probably working minimum wage jobs instead of singing a multi-million dollar NBA contract.

You could also say that without the other teams in the SEC there isn't a basketball program. Or without the other teams in college basketball who play UK there isn't a basketball program. You aren't going to have a multi-million dollar program and the contracts and attendance if they are just scrimmaging themselves.

[Yachtzee]

NCAA sports is a billion dollar industry.

I'd call that a fairly large business.

The only difference is that the railroad has to pay its workers a fair wage.

There are a few problems with your logic.

1. You fail to include the value of the education itself. Studies show that a person with a college education stands to make far more money over their career over someone with only a high school diploma. Starting salaries alone are almost double and many fields requiire a degree as necessary for a job. Many will make millions over what they would have made without a degree.

2. Aside from the few elite players, most of these student athletes will never play pro ball. That makes their free education all the more valuable.

3. Outside the big programs, few D1 football and basketball programs make money. At best its a break even proposition. If schools had to pay their football and basketball players, you'd see a lot fewer programs than there are now. That would mean a lot fewer opportunities to get a college degree for kids from poor backgrounds.

[reds1869]

Who are you to say what's right and wrong? Don't be so elitest as to say "it's right" like it's a fact or something. What's right is highly debatable.

I say it's right for the professional leagues to set age standards. I think they ought to demand a certain amount of maturity from its athletes. Do you think the NBA should have been allowed to sign LeBron James out of 10th grade? That's nuts.

I have just as much a right to say what is right or wrong as you do. Right or wrong is a very subjective thing. I love it when the "elitist" tag is busted out. What is this, cincinnati.com? I'm an elitist for stating my opinion but you are somehow above such designations?

[Chip R]

There are a few problems with your logic.

1. You fail to include the value of the education itself. Studies show that a person with a college education stands to make far more money over their career over someone with only a high school diploma. Starting salaries alone are almost double and many fields requiire a degree as necessary for a job. Many will make millions over what they would have made without a degree.

2. Aside from the few elite players, most of these student athletes will never play pro ball. That makes their free education all the more valuable.

3. Outside the big programs, few D1 football and basketball programs make money. At best its a break even proposition. If schools had to pay their football and basketball players, you'd see a lot fewer programs than there are now. That would mean a lot fewer opportunities to get a college degree for kids from poor backgrounds.

Lots of valid points in this thread. I don't think there are any easy answers here. Pay them and don't pay them are too simplistic. One thing that we need to remember is that while the scholarship athletes are getting free room, board and tuition (and in some casesd, a small stipend) they are (for the most part) attending classes and practices for their extra curricular activity. You hear of athletes getting up before sunrise to lift weights or run. Then there is the practice and - in some cases - film study. And that's not only during the season either.

It's not easy money for most schools either. Programs around the country are cutting non-revenue sports. The big schools make money hand over fist thanks to football and basketball but they are the exception rather than the rule. It has gotten so bad that the state of Iowa has told Iowa State University and (my alma mater) the University of Northern Iowa that they can't take any more money from the state general fund for athletics (The University of Iowa has been self-sufficient for a few years thanks to the Big Ten Network). UNI's president has said that they may have to drop out of Division I if not drop athletics period. What do you say to the track and field coach when you drop his program so the football and basketball teams get paid?

More and more I seem to think that college athletics have got too complicated. How big do the football stadiums have to be? How much money do the coaches have to be paid? How many athletes who can't read at a 6th grade level do you admit because they are elite athletes? How much of your soul do you have to sell to get these players and keep the alumni and the athletic department happy? How many rules do you have to skirt - much less break - to keep these kids eligible?

[Sea Ray]

I have just as much a right to say what is right or wrong as you do. Right or wrong is a very subjective thing. I love it when the "elitist" tag is busted out. What is this, cincinnati.com? I'm an elitist for stating my opinion but you are somehow above such designations?

You make my point beautifully. Neither of us can say what's right or wrong, so why did you do it? Only an elitest would flatly say "this is the right thing to do".

As for my being above such designations if I say flatly this is right or this is wrong then I'm being an elitest. No one cares what I say is right.

Just preface it with "in my opinion" because as you correctly say, it is very subjective.

[reds1869]

Just preface it with "in my opinion" because as you correctly say, it is very subjective.

I assumed that went without saying in a discussion like this. Internet message boards are full of opinion; unless someone on RZ states something as a hard fact I will always assume it is their opinion. In essence, we come here to trade our ideas.

We agree that the matter is subjective. But I don't see how stating my belief that something is right or wrong makes me an "elitist." Of course I'm used to that tag as a veteran of many political campaigns. Both sides always use the label for the other. :)

[Boston Red]

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

$600,000

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

Who wouldn't make that deal?

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

Sure, it's a good deal for the university. But it really does cost them $600k. So the 12 kids really are given a scholarship worth $50k per year. It's not essentially free for the university as you suggested.

[IslandRed]

Here's the fundamental problem, as I alluded in an earlier post:

1. The NCAA is an amateur sports organization.

2. The kids playing college athletics are supposed to be amateurs. Professionals are excluded.

3. Kids do get "paid" in the form of scholarships, but scholarships -- be they academic or athletic -- have always been a means of attracting students to the school, and a method of helping cover the expenses of the education. The scholarship has never been viewed (by the NCAA or the colleges themselves) as compensation for work.

4. Start paying players wages for playing sports, and they are no longer amateurs, they are professionals.

5. See points 1 and 2.

So I'm not sure what can be done about it, short of a core group of schools breaking away from the NCAA and making their own rules. I occasionally see suggestions about suing the NCAA to allow athletes to be paid, but I have a hard time seeing how that could succeed, because it's essentially based on the argument that an amateur sports organization has no right to enforce amateurism.

[Sea Ray]

I assumed that went without saying in a discussion like this. Internet message boards are full of opinion; unless someone on RZ states something as a hard fact I will always assume it is their opinion. In essence, we come here to trade our ideas.

We agree that the matter is subjective. But I don't see how stating my belief that something is right or wrong makes me an "elitist." Of course I'm used to that tag as a veteran of many political campaigns. Both sides always use the label for the other. :)

I'll give you an example of a popular media guy who's guilty of this.

Harken back to the Augusta Country Club controversy about whether they should admit female members. This comes up from time to time when the Masters Golf event comes around. Jim Rome said on his radio show that "they ought to admit females because it's the right thing to do."

Well who's he to tell that club what's the right thing to do? He is an elitist that thinks that he knows better than a bunch of hicks from South Carolina.

[Yachtzee]

Here's the fundamental problem, as I alluded in an earlier post:

1. The NCAA is an amateur sports organization.

2. The kids playing college athletics are supposed to be amateurs. Professionals are excluded.

3. Kids do get "paid" in the form of scholarships, but scholarships -- be they academic or athletic -- have always been a means of attracting students to the school, and a method of helping cover the expenses of the education. The scholarship has never been viewed (by the NCAA or the colleges themselves) as compensation for work.

4. Start paying players wages for playing sports, and they are no longer amateurs, they are professionals.



5. See points 1 and 2.

So I'm not sure what can be done about it, short of a core group of schools breaking away from the NCAA and making their own rules. I occasionally see suggestions about suing the NCAA to allow athletes to be paid, but I have a hard time seeing how that could succeed, because it's essentially based on the argument that an amateur sports organization has no right to enforce amateurism.

People who support paying college athlete have no concept of the value of the education they receive. I suppose if you just did away with athletic scholarships, paid the players, then made them pay tuition, room and board like the rest of the kids on campus, they might learn to appreciate it more. Or maybe if you just divorced the teams from the schools and took them full professional, where there wasn't even a requirement to go to school, maybe they'd wish for that scholarship when they're out of the game without making the NFL or NBA and they're struggling to make minimum wage.

I bet if you asked most college athletes ten years after they graduate whether they would prefer free college or getting paid to play, the vast majority would say take the scholarship because the free education was worth way more than what they would have been paid.

[Scrap Irony]

Personally, I think you undervalue how much NCAA programs make on basketball and football.

Sure, a scholarship can be a good deal, but, really, is it that good a deal when we're talking billions?

It's similar, IMO, to the MLB, in that the salaries are out of whack because the money is out of whack. Does Albert Pujols deserve $20 million a year? Of course not. But if the Cardinals make $500 million, he should make at least that much.

Now, I'm sure you're saying that would destroy amateur athletics. My reponse is that it's professional in all but name only right now. So blow it up. Blow it up real good.

Paying those players a salary for their work, especially considering the amount of money they bring in to the school, is only right. Sure, it would make amateur athletics a thing of the past. (It already is.) Sure, it would be a nightmare to check.

But it's the right thing to do.

And you should always try to do the right thing, no matter the cost.

[Boston Red]

Except that if you blow up college athletics, you also probably blow up these kids' opportunity to profit anyway. If the best college basketball players represented some AAA clubs for NBA teams, how many people would watch? People are so passionate about it because of their allegiances to the colleges and universities.

[Roy Tucker]

Personally, I think you undervalue how much NCAA programs make on basketball and football.

Sure, a scholarship can be a good deal, but, really, is it that good a deal when we're talking billions?



Yeah, I've worked for companies that make billions and I've never gotten paid at the level of a professional athlete. Many people have gotten rich by the proverbial sweat of my brow. I sure as heck haven't.

A scholarship worth $30k-$60k a year plus special focused training is decent compensation for 18-22 yr, old entry-level budding pro players.

How much do single A and AA minor league baseball players make on average?

[LoganBuck]

Personally, I think you undervalue how much NCAA programs make on basketball and football.

Sure, a scholarship can be a good deal, but, really, is it that good a deal when we're talking billions?

It's similar, IMO, to the MLB, in that the salaries are out of whack because the money is out of whack. Does Albert Pujols deserve $20 million a year? Of course not. But if the Cardinals make $500 million, he should make at least that much.

Now, I'm sure you're saying that would destroy amateur athletics. My reponse is that it's professional in all but name only right now. So blow it up. Blow it up real good.

Paying those players a salary for their work, especially considering the amount of money they bring in to the school, is only right. Sure, it would make amateur athletics a thing of the past. (It already is.) Sure, it would be a nightmare to check.

But it's the right thing to do.

And you should always try to do the right thing, no matter the cost.

When I was in school at Ohio State, 10 years ago, an organization that promotes a commodity produced in the state of Ohio, came to our marketing class. We had a class assignment to come up with a product based on that product, and then a marketing plan. The winning team would be receiving $2000 in scholarships. Most people came up with a some replacement product for existing products, like a substitution for petroleum. I came up with the idea to produce a version of Playdough. Working as part of a group of 4 students we actually were able to produce a working product with actual real world ingredients purchased at Kroger. People snickered during our presentation about how silly it was to make a product like this for children. We got an A on the project, and won the competition.

This company gives away our product as a promotional item at trade shows, and promotional events to this day.

Was $2000 a fair price to pay for my work? Probably not.
Did I appreciate the value of $500 in scholarship money. Definitely.

[Roy Tucker]

Having said all this, I think NCAA Div. 1 sports are totally out of whack. Entirely too much money flows through all this. It borders on the obscene.

I'd be perfectly happy with a Div. 3 set-up with no scholarships playing because you love the game. Those games can be very enjoyable to watch.

But I think that's how college sports started and the money just escalated it all. And I don't see the escalation stopping.

SI had a couple good stories on this...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/george_dohrmann/09/16/college.agents/index.html
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/stewart_mandel/09/16/ncaa-agents/index.html

[Yachtzee]

Personally, I think you undervalue how much NCAA programs make on basketball and football.

Sure, a scholarship can be a good deal, but, really, is it that good a deal when we're talking billions?

It's similar, IMO, to the MLB, in that the salaries are out of whack because the money is out of whack. Does Albert Pujols deserve $20 million a year? Of course not. But if the Cardinals make $500 million, he should make at least that much.

Now, I'm sure you're saying that would destroy amateur athletics. My reponse is that it's professional in all but name only right now. So blow it up. Blow it up real good.

Paying those players a salary for their work, especially considering the amount of money they bring in to the school, is only right. Sure, it would make amateur athletics a thing of the past. (It already is.) Sure, it would be a nightmare to check.

But it's the right thing to do.

And you should always try to do the right thing, no matter the cost.

You overestimate the money brought in by these schools. Sure Ohio State rakes in the money, but do you think Kent State or Akron or Bowling Green makes huge piles of cash getting 15,000 a game @ $5 to $20 a pop and many getting in for free on a student ID? Season ticket holders at Akron pay something like $60 for the whole season.

If D1 schools had to pay players for football and basketball, because those are the sports that people think should pay players, I would bet you'd see a lot more schools either dropping to D3 with pure amatuers and no scholarships or moving scholarships to sports like soccer so they wouldn't have to pay players. The end result would be fewer scholarships for kids from poor backgrounds, who reap the benefits of athletic scholarships way beyond their proportion of the general population, or more kids choosing soccer or other sports over football and basketball for the chance to go to college. Because other than major conference schools and a few well-situated mid-majors, I don't think most of these schools could afford to support a fully professional sports teams. Even some that could might drop those sports when their boards of trustees decide that running an openly professional sports team does not fit within the school's mission (think Stanford or Cal).