i've completely flipped on the paying players thing

[OttoinGrotto]

But isn't there already a solution to that? I mean, the part I don't understand is that there is absolutely nothing requiring these kids to play college hoops. Brandon Jennings not only went abroad but got to play in a pretty sick location (Rome) and made $3.2M ($1.2 guaranteed from the club, $2M from Under Armour to wear UA). Then he was still selected in the first round, averaged at least 15 ppg until this year and has made close to $26M in career earnings. Things have worked out pretty well. I wonder why more guys don't follow that route?

I agree that route could work for more guys. I wonder if the Euroteams aren't as interested in doing that.

 

[Briancuse]

Why wouldn't Syracuse and Villanova get the same recruits that they do today? SU basketball is one of the most profitable in the country, with some of the best facilities. Where does that money come from? Donors and a big fanbase. I call BS on your view.

Because people like college basketball, which is why it generates so much money. They don't like development leagues - which is why those games are empty and get no national coverage whatsoever.

And there are kids out there who actually like playing college basketball.

 

[billsin01]

I'm not against development leagues or farm systems. I do think it would hurt the college game simply because there would be less talent competing among the college programs. But regardless of that, the NBA should be able to do what it deems beneficial to itself as long as its workers are treated fairly.

I think you missed my point. People who don't want college players getting paid often point to development leagues as some sort of solution. But the presence of a minor league basketball system doesn't eliminate the fact that college football and basketball players are being exploited and remain uncompensated for their labor that results in the generation of billions of dollars.

I like this post but would still be largely in disagreement here. For one, I'm not even sure it would hurt college hoops that much. If you told me that the top 75 high school players would be drafted into an NBA farm system each year, but the players who went to college would need to stay for three years (a setup somewhat similar to MLB), I'm not sure the quality of basketball would actually dip all that much. Talent level? Yes. Quality of basketball with teams that actually have some potential to stick together for multiple years and talent that is actually allowed to develop? I think that actually improves over what we're generally seeing.

I used to cover the really good summer leagues down here in the DC/Balt. area and you always loved seeing the big prospects come out and do their thing. But the teams that actually won those summer leagues and often played the best basketball, quite often didn't have the top stars. Same thing in high school football in this area -- from a public school standpoint PG county has some phenomenal athletes but they'd run into Urbana or Linganore from Frederick County and get absolutely smacked.

Anyway, that's neither here nor there. The second point I disagree with is the not being compensated. If you actually value the education (not saying you have to, simply saying that if you do value it), you're talking about not only however many thousands of dollars it's worth, but the future value as well (the 2008 census data said the individual with a college diploma made an average of nearly $58K, while one with a high school diploma was around $34K). Add to that the cache of being a celebrity on campus and all the networking that potentially comes with being tied to a big time program like that ...

Anyway, point is, it may not be all the compensation these kids are entitled to (I'd argue it is for most players) but it's a pretty fair amount of compensation all told.

 

[billsin01]

What about the players who don't have that option? The players who are good enough to help their teams and in turn the NCAA generate billions of dollars they'll never see, yet not quite good enough to play pro out of high school and maybe not even out of college. Do their hard work and sacrifices not matter?

But, dude, if you're not good enough to play in the league or in europe or in the d-league, can you really complain about the deal you're getting from a really solid university? You can also not play in college and play in an outside league I suppose or just quit hoops if you're that offended by the free education thing.

I really think this poor old exploited athlete routine is not only inaccurate but almost farcical.

 

[Hoo's That]

I guess you folks are not tuned into the amount of resentment that is building toward college sports by the non-participants. The Canadian posters can correct me if I'm wrong, but no other university system in the world has a sports program anywhere in the same galaxy as the US. In Japan, we used to see a collegiate sport game of the week on TV. It usually was Keio v. Waseda, the Japanese equivalent of Harvard v. Yale. The National HS baseball tournament was on TV, but that was it for school-connected sports. Everything else was the pros. A growing number of people want collegiate sports scaled back to, at best, the D-3 level, if not the club sport level. Money is the cause. A $240,000 education (the 4-year cost of attendance at most private schools) for free is not enough? There are a lot of kids who don't need special admission standards, babysittters, tutors, etc., who would jump at the chance for that. The demographics of the athletes who are most visible at wanting the money make the resentment even worse. The current male/female ratio of college attendance is a time bomb that could easily destroy the financial structure currently in place. The D-1 schools are going to run out of sugar daddies to pay for sports and the increasing number of sugar mommies may not be willing to pay for the same things.

 

[AZOrange]

A college like Villanova would never be able to compete in a system like you describe. And neither would SU. They don't have the donor base to pay the big money to players for their "endorsements". You would end up with a league of 20 schools like UCLA, OSU, Michigan, Alabama etc. and everyone else would be D3. If you don't call that an effect on parity than I don't know what else to say. Why not push for the NBA to open up their draft to 18 year olds. And the developmental league as well. Then a player could get paid if they feel they are worth more compensation than a scholarship.

So under this theory Harvard and Stanford would get all the best guys because their alums are the richest? We'd compete just fine.

 

[maxxyz]

So under this theory Harvard and Stanford would get all the best guys because their alums are the richest? We'd compete just fine.

They have little in the way of donations for athletics. Their alums donate to the law school or the business school or the drama school. Not so much to the basketball team.

If your allowing players to sign endorsement contracts, a school in a large metropolitan area is going to have an enormous advantage because the marketing impact within the immediate area hits more people, which makes it worth more. If your Michigan you graduate more people every year than attend SU at all levels. Way more opportunities. It's not as simple as "just pay the kids some money".

 

[AZOrange]

They have little in the way of donations for athletics. Their alums donate to the law school or the business school or the drama school. Not so much to the basketball team. If your allowing players to sign endorsement contracts, a school in a large metropolitan area is going to have an enormous advantage because the marketing impact within the immediate area hits more people, which makes it worth more. If your Michigan you graduate more people every year than attend SU at all levels. Way more opportunities. It's not as simple as "just pay the kids some money".

I bet John Arrillaga has given more to Stanford athletics than many of thes public universities combined. If the money was going to come from the schools themselves there are plenty of rich grads from each place that could pool money. But that's not really the plan being proposed here.

 

[billsin01]

So because no one is forcing them to play, that means the NCAA should be allowed to exploit their labor without paying them a share of the billions they generate? Trust me, I used to say this until one day I realized how awful an argument it is.

We should be encouraging kids to play basketball and promoting the health of the sport. Not tricking them then telling them with shrugged shoulders "Hey, if ya don't like it, then don't play."

As for the research dollars argument - those students aren't restricted from having jobs or generating wealth independently.

Dude, the research dollars argument is a perfect analogy b/c these schools make every bit as much money and probably more (when you consider that prestige is worth it's weight in gold) off of those kids. In fact, even a general grad student is pushed to certain professions and employers b/c it is important in terms of the grad school's ranking.

And the whole thing about exploiting labor without a share of billions along with tricking little kids playing sports? It's really, really melodramatic, IMO. If you want players paid b/c they can make money off their likenesses with endorsement/marketing money, fine. If you feel that they put so much effort in that they deserve to be compensated with some form of a stipend, fine. If you feel universities should provide full rides (so tuition but also books, food plans, room and board, etc.), fine.

But to say we're lying to kids and that poor kids wearing dre beats headphones with 96 tattoos can't buy a pizza on a thursday night is not only flat out wrong, but it's really melodramatic. Don't forget that a lot of these dudes are going to schools they never would have qualified for without basketball or football. That alone is a HUGE ticket out of wherever they grew up (for the population that comes from crappy areas). There are a TON of advantages to being a big time college athlete.

 

[billsin01]

They have little in the way of donations for athletics. Their alums donate to the law school or the business school or the drama school. Not so much to the basketball team.

If your allowing players to sign endorsement contracts, a school in a large metropolitan area is going to have an enormous advantage because the marketing impact within the immediate area hits more people, which makes it worth more. If your Michigan you graduate more people every year than attend SU at all levels. Way more opportunities. It's not as simple as "just pay the kids some money".

I don't know that this is true. I doubt BC would have many local businesses looking to pay BC athletes. Boston doesn't actually even remember that BC has a football or basketball team most years. Notre Dame, meanwhile, in the middle of east bumblef*@k would probably do ok.

 

[shandeezy7]

So under this theory Harvard and Stanford would get all the best guys because their alums are the richest? We'd compete just fine.

The Ivy's have a little "problem" there known as higher Admissions standards.

 

[SWC75]

While I more or less agree with the cost of living stipend, I don't think football players wanting tattoos is a good example for cost of living.

I just used that example because even high school kids get tatoos but Ohio State football players didn't have the money to pay for them?

 

[Rage4CUSE]

But isn't there already a solution to that? I mean, the part I don't understand is that there is absolutely nothing requiring these kids to play college hoops. Brandon Jennings not only went abroad but got to play in a pretty sick location (Rome) and made $3.2M ($1.2 guaranteed from the club, $2M from Under Armour to wear UA). Then he was still selected in the first round, averaged at least 15 ppg until this year and has made close to $26M in career earnings. Things have worked out pretty well. I wonder why more guys don't follow that route?

Have You seen Brandon Jennings talk about his time in Italy? Italy as a whole is almost as bad, or even worse racists then KKK members in the South.

You should read some stories about black soccer players there.

 

[billsin01]

Have You seen Brandon Jennings talk about his time in Italy? Italy as a whole is almost as bad, or even worse racists then KKK members in the South.

You should read some stories about black soccer players there.

Interesting -- I wasn't aware of that. Too bad -- I love Rome and Italy in general. But point taken. Obviously it's less than ideal but the opportunity to go abroad (perhaps italy is a bad example) is there.

 

[orangenirvana]

I haven't gone through this whole thread so this may have already been posted, but this is an article containing thoughts from the man who sold me on this subject...

http://www.complex.com/sports/2015/12/jay-bilas-interview/nobody-would-put-up-with-this

Excerpts...

7 Common Sense Reasons Why College Athletes Should Be Paid (According to Jay Bilas)

1. It’s a multi-billion dollar business where the only people who are restricted in their earnings, in any way, are the athletes.

2. Nobody would put up with this in any other walk of life.

"Think about what the scholarship is. The scholarship is a dollar amount that is transferred from the athletic department to the school. So it’s the school paying itself. It’s like me paying myself for rent for my kids in my house. And then claiming I don’t have any money left because I paid myself rent for them."

3. "It'll ruin the game" doomsday scenarios are ridiculous.

"Like in baseball when the reserve clause was in place and when the players battled to get rid of that. And Curt Flood took MLB to the Supreme Court and lost. And then free agency came in the '70s when I was a kid. People said, 'Baseball is going to be ruined.' It’s doing just fine. It’s making more money than it ever made. More eyeballs are on it. Same thing about the Olympics. When we let pros play in the Olympics, people said 'It’s over.' And now it’s more popular than ever."

4. Other sports will not be canceled because some players are being paid.

“'Boy, we pay the athletes and all of a sudden everybody is going to drop every sport.' So that’s riding on the athletes too. 'I better take less, otherwise the rowing program is going to go away.' Or, 'Nobody will be able to wrestle in college anymore.'

"That’s a lie. It’s all a lie. They are not going to cancel these programs if it’s in their interest to have them. They will continue to do it.

"Then they claim the scholarship is enough. Well if the scholarship is enough, let’s test that out in the marketplace. If it’s enough, then the marketplace will confirm that. And they know it’s not true. The players are worth a ton. And schools would compete for them the same way they compete for any athlete of university life."

5. Implementing a new system is much easier than those in charge want you to believe.

6. It won't dramatically change the quality of the top teams.

"Now would Kansas be able to spend more money? Absolutely—they have more money. But the big schools are getting 95% of the Top 100 players right now. Maybe more than that. And they are getting 100% of the football players. So we aren’t going to see any difference in that. But we are going to see more of a difference if the smaller schools would be allowed to compete, because they are getting priced out anyways. They can’t afford the facilities or to pay their coaches that much. They don’t have the same amount of money."

7. Good players would stay in school longer.

 

[Ward]

I don't know that this is true. I doubt BC would have many local businesses looking to pay BC athletes. Boston doesn't actually even remember that BC has a football or basketball team most years. Notre Dame, meanwhile, in the middle of east bumblef*@k would probably do ok.

Living in Boston and I can tell you that unless Duke, UNC, Syracuse, UVA, Lousiville are playing at the Conte you can go to a BC basketball game for $5-10. The thing seats like 8k and usually has about 2k maybe in there so you can move around and sit wherever you want like its general admission at a high school game.

 

[Ward]

I haven't gone through this whole thread so this may have already been posted, but this is an article containing thoughts from the man who sold me on this subject...

http://www.complex.com/sports/2015/12/jay-bilas-interview/nobody-would-put-up-with-this

Excerpts...

7 Common Sense Reasons Why College Athletes Should Be Paid (According to Jay Bilas)

1. It’s a multi-billion dollar business where the only people who are restricted in their earnings, in any way, are the athletes.

2. Nobody would put up with this in any other walk of life.

"Think about what the scholarship is. The scholarship is a dollar amount that is transferred from the athletic department to the school. So it’s the school paying itself. It’s like me paying myself for rent for my kids in my house. And then claiming I don’t have any money left because I paid myself rent for them."

3. "It'll ruin the game" doomsday scenarios are ridiculous.

"Like in baseball when the reserve clause was in place and when the players battled to get rid of that. And Curt Flood took MLB to the Supreme Court and lost. And then free agency came in the '70s when I was a kid. People said, 'Baseball is going to be ruined.' It’s doing just fine. It’s making more money than it ever made. More eyeballs are on it. Same thing about the Olympics. When we let pros play in the Olympics, people said 'It’s over.' And now it’s more popular than ever."

4. Other sports will not be canceled because some players are being paid.

“'Boy, we pay the athletes and all of a sudden everybody is going to drop every sport.' So that’s riding on the athletes too. 'I better take less, otherwise the rowing program is going to go away.' Or, 'Nobody will be able to wrestle in college anymore.'

"That’s a lie. It’s all a lie. They are not going to cancel these programs if it’s in their interest to have them. They will continue to do it.

"Then they claim the scholarship is enough. Well if the scholarship is enough, let’s test that out in the marketplace. If it’s enough, then the marketplace will confirm that. And they know it’s not true. The players are worth a ton. And schools would compete for them the same way they compete for any athlete of university life."

5. Implementing a new system is much easier than those in charge want you to believe.

6. It won't dramatically change the quality of the top teams.

"Now would Kansas be able to spend more money? Absolutely—they have more money. But the big schools are getting 95% of the Top 100 players right now. Maybe more than that. And they are getting 100% of the football players. So we aren’t going to see any difference in that. But we are going to see more of a difference if the smaller schools would be allowed to compete, because they are getting priced out anyways. They can’t afford the facilities or to pay their coaches that much. They don’t have the same amount of money."

7. Good players would stay in school longer.

Number 5 to me is a GREAT point. Figuring out a a few options to compensate the players is probably a pretty simple thing for most labor economists if they decided to put any effort into it. Like I mentioned in a previous post, my guess is most of them are affiliated with a university and they most likely don't really welcome those types of research publications.

I know we won't agree on point 6 and I respect your opinion on that. That's what discussion in these threads is for. What would be really interesting is what would happen once you saw Nike, UA, Adidas get involved in a system like that? They could pretty much decide who they wanted to be elite and who they didn't want to "back".

Big time football programs are crazy about what they do to get recruits now, and that's just with "underground fundraising". They bid ~$300k for players to sign on NSD, pay $5-10k to have a kid visit their school, pay kids ~$10k to NOT visit a school, make 6 figure donations to a recruits family church, it's nuts. And that doesn't even take a bucket out of the ocean in terms of being able to upgrade facilities as they please. So I guess I just think when you start telling them they don't even have to hide it or show discretion when recruiting donors to pitch in it would snowball pretty quickly.

 

[maxxyz]

Number 5 to me is a GREAT point. Figuring out a a few options to compensate the players is probably a pretty simple thing for most labor economists if they decided to put any effort into it. Like I mentioned in a previous post, my guess is most of them are affiliated with a university and they most likely don't really welcome those types of research publications.

I think its much harder than you think. The amount of groups that must agree on all aspects (NCAA, the conferences, networks, Title IX, individual colleges) will take years just to agree to start a conversation. And if your paying athletes, are they employees and will their scholarships be taxable income?

Why not eliminate scholar/athletes and just make the teams professional? Hire players, pay them a salary, eliminate scholarships and budget it as a school marketing expense. This would remove Title IX requirements, admissions issues, endorsement restrictions, the NCAA etc.

 

[orangenirvana]

I know we won't agree on point 6 and I respect your opinion on that. That's what discussion in these threads is for. What would be really interesting is what would happen once you saw Nike, UA, Adidas get involved in a system like that? They could pretty much decide who they wanted to be elite and who they didn't want to "back".

Why would those corporations care who is elite and who isn't? Do they decide who is elite in the professional sports? If no, then why would college sports be different?

Big time football programs are crazy about what they do to get recruits now, and that's just with "underground fundraising". They bid ~$300k for players to sign on NSD, pay $5-10k to have a kid visit their school, pay kids ~$10k to NOT visit a school, make 6 figure donations to a recruits family church, it's nuts. And that doesn't even take a bucket out of the ocean in terms of being able to upgrade facilities as they please. So I guess I just think when you start telling them they don't even have to hide it or show discretion when recruiting donors to pitch in it would snowball pretty quickly.

I just don't see how paying the players would change how the big-time football programs recruit. The big-time football programs get the best players now. "Yeah but they'd really get the best players if they get paid. Because then those donors would really donate." I just don't buy it.

 

[Hoo's That]

2. Nobody would put up with this in any other walk of life.

"Think about what the scholarship is. The scholarship is a dollar amount that is transferred from the athletic department to the school. So it’s the school paying itself. It’s like me paying myself for rent for my kids in my house. And then claiming I don’t have any money left because I paid myself rent for them."

6. It won't dramatically change the quality of the top teams.

"Now would Kansas be able to spend more money? Absolutely—they have more money. But the big schools are getting 95% of the Top 100 players right now. Maybe more than that. And they are getting 100% of the football players. So we aren’t going to see any difference in that. But we are going to see more of a difference if the smaller schools would be allowed to compete, because they are getting priced out anyways. They can’t afford the facilities or to pay their coaches that much. They don’t have the same amount of money."

Please remember, all of this really isn't about the money. It is about requiring fb and bball players to go through the motions of attending class. The number of non-rev athletes who would avail themselves of, let alone benefit from, not being required to go to class is very, very small. And there are way more non-rev athletes.

While #2 may be true about private schools it is not true about most every public school. Virginia has a law which prohibits state financial aid money from being used for athletes. Every semester the UVa Bursar's office sends a bill to the Athletic Department for the tuition and fees for the scholarship athletes and the Virginia Athletics Foundation, the private fund-raising arm of the Athletic Department, writes a check to cover it. Same thing happens at VPI, James Madison, George Mason, VCU, Longwood, William & Mary, Virginia State, Christopher Newport, and Old Dominion. (I may have forgotten a couple.)

While #6 is probably true, there will be fewer of the "top teams". Bilas has argued for a long time for not requiring fb and bball players to go to class; that colleges sponsor teams of non-students to wear their colors, etc., and play in their name. The Universities in Mexico City and Nuevo Leon sponsor teams in that manner in the Mexican Soccer League (the Pumas and Tigres, respectively). A significant number of name schools will drop to whatever level is necessary to have their athletes be required to attend class. ND will be one of them. (I would hope UVa would be another.) Even the most passionate proponents on their board of what Bilas advocates acknowledge that the ND administration will require all athletes regardless of sport to attend classes. And that it's non-negotiable.

 

[Ward]

Why would those corporations care who is elite and who isn't? Do they decide who is elite in the professional sports? If no, then why would college sports be different?


I just don't see how paying the players would change how the big-time football programs recruit. The big-time football programs get the best players now. "Yeah but they'd really get the best players if they get paid. Because then those donors would really donate." I just don't buy it.

Their primary goal as a corporation is to make money. If I'm Nike do I sell more jerseys, hoodies, t-shirts, etc. if Michigan with an enrollment of ~43k, Ohio State enrollment of ~64k, UT-Austin enrollment of ~50k becomes a powerhouse or Villanova with an enrollment of ~10k, Syracuse of ~15k etc. So now you would in theory not only have alumni and fan bases that dwarf others but you also have corporations that pad that cushion even further because they see a higher potential for them to boost sales if you have success.

Professional sports is completely different. Corporations can't really decide which teams are elite because of the draft, salary cap space, etc. It actually supports my line of thinking because free agency in NFL and NBA is set up that your current team is able to pay you more as that often times is enough of an incentive for guys to stay put.

 

[Rage4CUSE]

Their primary goal as a corporation is to make money. If I'm Nike do I sell more jerseys, hoodies, t-shirts, etc. if Michigan with an enrollment of ~43k, Ohio State enrollment of ~64k, UT-Austin enrollment of ~50k becomes a powerhouse or Villanova with an enrollment of ~10k, Syracuse of ~15k etc. So now you would in theory not only have alumni and fan bases that dwarf others but you also have corporations that pad that cushion even further because they see a higher potential for them to boost sales if you have success.

Professional sports is completely different. Corporations can't really decide which teams are elite because of the draft, salary cap space, etc. It actually supports my line of thinking because free agency in NFL and NBA is set up that your current team is able to pay you more as that often times is enough of an incentive for guys to stay put.

Umm corporation's can decide NBA a NFL a more then you think. Because off endorsement deals the athletes can sign in said city. That's why LA believes it always the top destination for Free Agents.

 

[mayselc]

To play devil's advocate, no one is forcing them to play college sports. What about all of the students who help generate millions and millions of research dollars for their universities? They sacrifice a lot and don't see a dime of it.

That is completely untrue. Many schools give students complete ownership of inventions and patents created in school and most provide at least some level of profit sharing for revenue from licensing or purchase of technology created by students.

 

[Ward]

Umm corporation's can decide NBA a NFL a more then you think. Because off endorsement deals the athletes can sign in said city. That's why LA believes it always the top destination for Free Agents.

Yea, I agree and you hear that all the time in free agency that so and so wants to go to a bigger market when they're a free agent. Then Durant comes out and says he's been able to get plenty of endorsements and be a star playing in OKC. I was saying more so how big corporations I don't think can control if Tim Duncan gets drafted by the Spurs, or Wiggins and Towns both go to Minnesota, Durant to OKC. Then once they're there it's set up that their initial team can compensate them much more than they would get from other teams, or the Lakers and Knicks don't have the salary cap space to even enter the bidding discussion. Not sure how this will change with the wild west we'll see in the coming free agency periods though.

If guys in college were able to pick which pro team they signed with instead of the draft set up you absolutely would see them try to steer the best young players to the bigger markets.

 

[mayselc]

It doesn't really. Coaches are already allowed to have disparate compensation in college sports.

AZOrange is correct. Unequal spending on men"s/women"s or revenue/nonrevenue sports isn't a violation of Title IX. As long as the underlying opportunity and access to facilities/academic support are equal.

This is right from the Title IX regulations.
"Unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but the Assistant Secretary may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex."