Paying college players

[Knicks411]

OK, so about that...

A lot of money changes hands due to college athletics, and we hear all the time about the NCAA doing things for the money.

The question nobody ever seems to be able to answer for me - where does that money end up? Who ends up profiting? With this much money changing hands, somebody has to end up with fat pockets - who is it?

Gotta start with the coaches, right?

And then cue the UK jokes about how it goes to the players anyway

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Gotta start with the coaches, right?

And then cue the UK jokes about how it goes to the players anyway

No, I'm talking bigger than that. The coaches aren't getting money directly from broadcast sales, I don't think.

Who at the NCAA actually ends up with the $$$?

 

[Knicks411]

No, I'm talking bigger than that. The coaches aren't getting money directly from broadcast sales, I don't think.

Who at the NCAA actually ends up with the $$$?

I got it. Definitely don't know that one

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I got it. Definitely don't know that one

It's honestly one of the great mysteries of American sports. At least with the pro leagues you have a good idea who the owners and league personnel are. Somebody at the NCAA is getting paid, but how, for what and who isn't something I've ever heard anybody talk about.

 

[jncuse]

Does SC Upstate and Alcorn St also have to pay these amounts? I am thinking they don't have $300,000 lying around to support payroll for a sport that is hardly revenue generating for them.

 

[armory]

they are paid. it's called tuition and board. and it's a goodly sum.

Giving people things they don't want or need for free =/= paying them. One and done players have absolutely no use for college, let alone a single year of it.

 

[jncuse]

Giving people things they don't want or need for free =/= paying them. One and done players have absolutely no use for college, let alone a single year of it.

The Motel 6, buses, and Denny's awaits them in the NBDL.

 

[Eric15]

Your thoughts, good or bad for NCAA D1 if players got the following? And would this incentivize more players to actually stay in school longer?

1st year players get $1500 per mo. for 6 months.
2nd year players get $3000 per mo. for 6 months.
3rd year players get $4500 per mo. for 6 months.
4th year players get $6000 per mo. for 6 months.

*This is of course above and beyond any current athletic scholarship benefits

I think your idea is well-intentioned, but I don't see how it could ever legally hold up to Title IX if you're only paying male basketball players.

 

[SBU72]

Not sure it would really make a difference considering they'd still get paid far less than they would in the NBA, and not sure it's really fair either. I get that players are making money for these universities and whatnot, but they're already getting a free education. I'm not sure it's really fair that an athlete gets paid on top of it while an excellent scholar doesn't.

I feel like that's kind of the unpopular opinion at this point, but I don't mind the way the system currently is.

Actually there are a lot of other students who get free or at least partically free eduction who don't earn a ton of money for their universities. Many schools offer free or reduced tuition to childern of employees. Full and partial scholarships are given to many for their talents or knowledge. AND some are allowed to earn money with their talents while in school! (classic example is the tuba player who dots the I in OHIO may get a scholarship but can go play in a band on the same night he dotted the I.) So football and basketball players bring in more than their cost to the school. And since they can not earn money outside of school playing football or basketball, why not pay them something. I thing $1500 a month and more is a little much but a $100 a week maybe.

 

[RF2044]

Giving people things they don't want or need for free =/= paying them. One and done players have absolutely no use for college, let alone a single year of it.

Which gets back to what I've believed all along: the NBA rule mandating that players need to be a year out of high school is arbitrary and pointless. Let kids go right out of HS if they are able to get drafted--solves a lot of the problems right away without creating unnecessary complexity / unintended consequences. Especially when a segment of the HS population just goes to college for that one year because they're forced to.

 

[All4SU]

Good point, I meant college D1 basketball, wasn't considering football at this point, mainly because football players have to stay 3 years anyway. No way non-money makers should good this. This is a capitalist country for goodness sakes. Admittedly, the real solution to getting players to stay longer is the NBA changing the rule to the same way it is in football, but short of that, possibly marginal players might be convinced to stay another year if the money were there? Think a player like a Donte Green would be swayed to stay? What about Flynn? Any possibility? Maybe the answer is a definitive no, but I'd have to think it would be another point of consideration at least. I suppose a real on the fence type would be someone like CJ or Vander Blue from MU. Would those guys be swayed?

Nice to meet you. I am the guy at the complete 180-degree opposite view from you on this issue.

 

[Eric15]

Which gets back to what I've believed all along: the NBA rule mandating that players need to be a year out of high school is arbitrary and pointless. Let kids go right out of HS if they are able to get drafted--solves a lot of the problems right away without creating unnecessary complexity / unintended consequences. Especially when a segment of the HS population just goes to college for that one year because they're forced to.

I completely agree - arbitrary rules that prevent an American citizen from earning a living when they have the skill set to do so makes me uncomfortable.

 

[RandygoCuse]

I would consider paying players if an argument could be made they deserve it. But it would take a lot more money to incentivize ones to stay.

 

[armory]

Here's a question for the board ...

What if there were a HS senior wishing to enter the draft that wasn't receiving a full scholarship anywhere? What if the only scholarships came from schools with no academic programs of their interest?

That player would essentially be forced by the NCAA/NBA to either dole out $30k+ or spend that mandatory year of college someplace that doesn't offer any programs they are looking for. Sure, it may be a relatively unlikely hypothetical scenario, but its most certainly possible and without a universal justification of the rule it falls apart.

But, still, the most hypocritical aspect of this stupid rule is the fact that the NCAA justifies the rule by citing a "free education" for players... while regulating the players under a standard that they be treated no different than average students. Newsflash: average students aren't getting full scholarships or being forced to attend.

I completely agree - arbitrary rules that prevent an American citizen from earning a living when they have the skill set to do so makes me uncomfortable.

I keep clicking "like" but it only lets me give one.

To play devil's advocate ... the NCAA/NBA are also private organizations and they can make rules however they see fit. That said, I think this rule goes a bit too far and crosses the line dividing rules that govern standards and rules that govern lifestyles. There is nothing beneficial to the NBA about having players that took a calculus course, but the NCAA/NBA collusion wants you to think there is. Also there's the whole "the actual employers are the NBA teams and they would hire HS players if they could" argument that pretty much nullifies it.

 

[RandygoCuse]

Here's a question for the board ...


To play devil's advocate ... the NCAA/NBA are also private organizations and they can make rules however they see fit. That said, I think this rule goes a bit too far and crosses the line dividing governing employers rules and governing applicants lifestyles. Also there's the whole "the actual employers are the NBA teams and they would hire HS players if they could" argument that pretty much nullifies it.

I think David Stern would reply that making kids wait a year to play in the NBA is better for the NBA. His concern is what is in the best interest of the league, not the players. And yes, this means he is protecting teams from themselves in that they are the ones who are/would be actually drafting the players.

 

[armory]

Except the NBA is not employing the players, the teams are. The teams don't like the rule, the NBA does. This is as much a question of the relevancy of the NBA's authority as it is the NCAA's.

yes, this means he is protecting teams from themselves

That's fine if you're OK with that... but I have never and will never accept that as justification for anything concerning consenting adults. The implied arrogance is enraging.

 

[Knicks411]

The NBA would definitely argue that there is a benefit to not drafting players fresh out of high school. You get more time to evaluate players before drafting them, players get to go to college for a year and build up more of a following and a brand (I hate using that phrase but there it is). The NCAA has nothing to do with it, it's an issue collectively bargained by the players and the NBA. I do agree that there is a part of me that doesn't like the fact that they are actively keeping players from playing in the NBA, but it is their decision.

Except the NBA is not employing the players, the teams are. The teams don't like the rule, the NBA does. This is as much a question of the relevancy of the NBA's authority as it is the NCAA's.

I'm not sure I follow. The rule was agreed to by the NBA and the players. Who was negotiating it on the league side if not the owners? Stern is the commish, he works for the owners. (Well, in theory. He obviously has a lot of power). If the owners didn't want it to be a rule, than the only way it gets in there is as a concession to the players. But I'm sure the owners were in favor of it because who else brings it up in t he first place?

The interesting thing would be if there was a rival league started, and they had the money to try and lure some of the top high school talent away.

 

[armory]

The NBA would definitely argue that there is a benefit to not drafting players fresh out of high school.

The NBA might, the NBA teams would not.

I'm sure the players' union has a lot to do with it too ... like every other absurd regulation, the main reason is usually to prevent competition.

 

[Knicks411]

The NBA might, the NBA teams would not.

I'm sure the players' union has a lot to do with it too ... like every other absurd regulation, the main reason is usually to prevent competition.

How do you know that? Are there team owners speaking out about not liking the age rule? And if so, why did they agree to it in the labor negotiations?

The CBA was just up to be re-negotiated last year; I really don't remember anyone on either side making any kind of an issue of the age rule.

Edit: I agree on the players union, since the players in the union are obviously already in the league they don't need to worry about the rule, so a concession to the other side when they aren't really giving anything up is a nice thing to have in a negotiation.

 

[armory]

Every pro team in every sport always adds value to youth - look at european soccer where players are signed in their early teens and wind up superstars dominating the sport before they hit the age of 20... dyou really believe those teams would prefer a mildly educated, far less skilled version of that player? Not to mention getting an additional year of development as a pro player both physically and as a player. Also avoids having to undo any habits college coaches may have embedded in them. I have never heard of a team drafting a player they would rather have stayed another year in college... they just don't draft them.

 

[Knicks411]

Every pro team in every sport always adds value to youth, not to mention getting an additional year of development as a pro player both physically and as a player. Also avoids having to undo any habits college coaches may have embedded in them. I have never heard of a team drafting a player they would rather have stayed another year in college... they just don't draft them.

Problem is it's a catch 22. You don't want to miss out on Kobe Bryant or Dwight Howard or whoever, and if the other teams are going to take them...

I'm sure there have been plenty of high school players who NBA teams would have rather seen another year or two of tape on, especially against higher level competition, but felt they couldn't pass on the possible upside. (I agree with the first point, for sure teams there is a lot of value added in having a player in an NBA system, learning from the best coaches and without having to pretend to be a student)

I really haven't heard a lot of people in the NBA affiliated with teams speaking out against the age rule. I'm sure there are some who are against it, just based on the sheer numbers, but if the opinion is prevalent, it's being hid well.

 

[TDTOrange]

It's honestly one of the great mysteries of American sports. At least with the pro leagues you have a good idea who the owners and league personnel are. Somebody at the NCAA is getting paid, but how, for what and who isn't something I've ever heard anybody talk about.

I think people see the big TV contract the NCAA gets for the basketball tournament and think they must be swimming in money. But the thing I don't think most understand is that is basically the NCAA's only revenue stream. With that money they have to put on all of their sponsored tournaments (for all sports, in all divisions), run their organization (not well I might add), and redistribute a lot of money to schools and conferences.

That said, there are still a few executives there that make a pretty good living, but I guess that's the good thing about being an executive.

 

[MonsterGame]

Nice to meet you. I am the guy at the complete 180-degree opposite view from you on this issue.

Nice to meet you too. To clarify, your viewpoint must be: I only care about my own opinion. What other people think and their viewpoints are pointless. Because my post was done to elicit other individual viewpoints on a hypothetical scenario for paying NCAA D1 college basketball players. I didn't post that what I felt about it one way or the other. I just wanted discussion about it.

Some things I've gleaned so far:

1) Title 9 seems like an impossible roadblock. (Is this true? Can rules/laws be changed or is this a God-like set in stone type commandment?)

2) Some schools don't make an athletics program profit or possibly even a basketball program profit so can't be done. (Hmm, pony up or move to D2/D3? My understanding is that certain schools want to get into D1 because they feel they can profit by it. Shouldn't this be like any other business, no profit means go out of business? If the school's fan base isn't large enough to support the program is it ok to say tough cookies and goodbye?)

3) Total cost of education initiative. (If I understood the poster correctly, this initiative will allow for providing schools the ability to cover some stipend to help cover out of pocket expenses. Sounds good to me, but I'd love to know the details.)

The one thing that seems to synthesize for me is that one and done is not good for the college game. I'd like to see some way of keeping players for at least 3 years that commit to college so there is more stability to the team and we see a better brand of basketball played. Freshman, even the good/high potential ones, too often go through a learning curve that dilutes the game. That or the "studs" are just trying to showcase themselves. Maybe throw this pay the players stuff out and let the ones that can get guaranteed money in the 1st round of the draft leave straight from high school and the ones that can't have to commit to college for three years? (The major problem with this I see is that how does a coaching staff decide who to recruit? The staff ends up spending 2, 3 or 4 years recruiting a player that blossoms his HS senior year and gets a guaranteed NBA contract. Is there no win-win in all this?)

 

[Moontan]

3) Total cost of education initiative. (If I understood the poster correctly, this initiative will allow for providing schools the ability to cover some stipend to help cover out of pocket expenses. Sounds good to me, but I'd love to know the details.)

Schools typically publish a "Total Cost of Attendance" figure for incoming students. This figure includes the usual tuition, room, board and estimates for books, fees, etc..


You can find Syracuse University's estimate here.

An athletics scholarship typically takes care of tuition, room, board and fees. I'm not sure about books, but would expect those to be provided as well. From SU's estimate, that still leaves supplies, transportation and personal expenses. Using SU as an example, that still leaves about $2,000 that is typically spent by students for their basic needs.

The "Total Cost of Attendance" scholarship proposal is a means whereby scholarship students can be provided with a stipend to address most, or all, of those remaining expenses.

From an ESPN article on the matter:
"The board approved a measure allowing conferences to vote on providing up to $2,000 in spending money, or what the NCAA calls the full cost-of-attendance. "

Some have argued that the amount should be $3,000 or $4,000.
The NCAA has an article on the subject. You can read about it here.
They use a $3,000 figure for their examples, which show that for a Division 1 football program it would cost an extra $255,000 per year. $39,000 for men's basketball, $45,000 for women's basketball, etc..

A $3,000 stipend would equate to a $300 subsidy to scholarship athletes when they're in school.

 

[All4SU]

Nice to meet you too. To clarify, your viewpoint must be: I only care about my own opinion. What other people think and their viewpoints are pointless. Because my post was done to elicit other individual viewpoints on a hypothetical scenario for paying NCAA D1 college basketball players. I didn't post that what I felt about it one way or the other. I just wanted discussion about it.

Not at all. I am almost always open to discussion, and welcome the opportunity to hear/read others' points of view. It's just that I've read/discussed this topic on this board so many times.

But you know what? It doesn't matter. Because in a relatively short time college players will be paid. Not all college players, mind you. Just the ones who bring in the bucks. Everyone else can go pound salt. No one cares if things are tough for a college tennis player. Then FINALLY, all of these billions of dollars will be "distributed" to players, who "will get their share." Then you know what? Players won't care a dime about an education. It will all be about the money. Show me the money. D1 football and basketball will no longer be about the schools, it will ONLY be about the players. They will unionize. They will strike. They will find more and more ways to get their share. And you know what? I will no longer be watching, or buying tickets to go to games. All of the efforts by well-intentioned folks over the years to help kids improve their lot in life through athletics -- You remember that concept, right? "Use your athletic ability, kid. It will be your ticket to college, to get an education and improve your life, and the lives of your kids." -- That concept will be gone. It will just be about the paycheck today. "Gimme what's mine. Gimme!"

And when kids get that money, and blow it all on bling and rides, they'll have nothing. Most of them will never make it in the NBA. Most of them will not have saved a dime from their glory days in college, and we will be discussing how we can create a trust fund for these players who somehow fell between the cracks -- who were important players, who made lots of money in college, but somehow still failed in their chosen career -- sports. It will NEVER end. We will have de-emphasized an education to the point of insignificance. It won't matter if you are smart, or get good grades, or can get into college to get an education. All that will matter is, "Did you get your fair share?" And what have we really done for kids at that point? Anything good?

We are already pretty far down that slippery slope, and people like me are trying to slow the fall. People like you are trying to grease the skids. (Please don't get my wrong, I'm sure you're a swell guy. I don't mean it personally. I just disagree with you on this topic.) There is no getting the genie back in the bottle. Tighten your chin strap, boys. We're in for a hell of a fight. Yeah Team!