Discussion: % Based Pay for Athletes

[UnknownOrange]

For the people who believe college athletes in revenue generating sports should be paid - here is my process.

I think there is a way for students to make $ of their image and likeness but I believe that paying student athletes with a percentage of revenue may make the most sense. Maybe it makes the worst sense. You tell me.

D1 Scholarships = 13

For programs who generate $10,000,000 or less the student-athletes will get a pool of 2.5% to divide up (AD, Coach, or maybe DOBO can split the divide) among all 13 scholarships. This means a max of $250,000 divided between those scholarships means $19,230/athlete.

For programs generating $10,000,001 to $19,999,999 athletes will get a pool of 2% to divide up for a max of (rounding up) $400,000 or $30,769/athlete

For programs generating $20,000,000 to $30,000,000 athletes will get a pool of 1.5% to divide up for a max of $450,000 or $34,615/athlete.

*EDIT - Obviously my quick math just made me realize for schools that make $22M for example, the student would be paid less then a school making $19.9M.

Basically what I'd want is for the athlete to make a % that his program generates. The more the program generates, the more the athlete can make.*

For programs making above $30M (Duke, L'ville) the dollar amount from $30M on will be 1% divided up between ALL scholarship athletes after the MBB team has been paid. So for Louisville that would be $15,000,000 or $150,000 for those athletes (I'm not sure how many they have without MBB or FB)

These payments will be started in the summer (July 1, start of new fiscal) and run to October 27th (17 weeks straight on every friday). For Freshman they can borrow up to $5,000 until July 1 following their freshman season.

For early departures: If a player leaves after his...

Freshman Year: Athletes pays program back 75% of the earnings made in that season
Sophomore Year: Athlete pays program back 50% of earnings made in his sophomore-only season
Junior Year: Athlete pays program back 25% of the earnings made in his junior-only season
Senior Year: N/A

Just an idea I am working on here. Football would also have similar rules but to make the $ amounts make sense.

Let me know what you guys think!

 

[Briancuse]

The problem with paying athletes and why it won't happen anytime soon is title nine, you can't just pay the football team and mens bball team, you have to pay all of your athletes, the third sting goalie on the soccer team is going to get paid.

 

[UnknownOrange]

The problem with paying athletes and why it won't happen anytime soon is title nine, you can't just pay the football team and mens bball team, you have to pay all of your athletes, the third sting goalie on the soccer team is going to get paid.

Yeah see I thought the same thing. Then I thought about it this way (which maybe cruel) but if you don't produce revenue, why should you earn any? I know that there is nothing student athletes can really do to draw interest to get people to pay to see them play, but unfortunately that's just how it is. I support our WBB team. I watch the games, I go to a few, and know many of my old STH's. However it's like how I was a paid employee and we had interns. Both very important but one creates revenue and one does not.

It's a solid point by you though.

 

[HSPORANGE]

For the people who believe college athletes in revenue generating sports should be paid - here is my process.

I think there is a way for students to make $ of their image and likeness but I believe that paying student athletes with a percentage of revenue may make the most sense. Maybe it makes the worst sense. You tell me.

D1 Scholarships = 13

For programs who generate $10,000,000 or less the student-athletes will get a pool of 2.5% to divide up (AD, Coach, or maybe DOBO can split the divide) among all 13 scholarships. This means a max of $250,000 divided between those scholarships means $19,230/athlete.

For programs generating $10,000,001 to $19,999,999 athletes will get a pool of 2% to divide up for a max of (rounding up) $400,000 or $30,769/athlete

For programs generating $20,000,000 to $30,000,000 athletes will get a pool of 1.5% to divide up for a max of $450,000 or $34,615/athlete.

*EDIT - Obviously my quick math just made me realize for schools that make $22M for example, the student would be paid less then a school making $19.9M.

Basically what I'd want is for the athlete to make a % that his program generates. The more the program generates, the more the athlete can make.*

For programs making above $30M (Duke, L'ville) the dollar amount from $30M on will be 1% divided up between ALL scholarship athletes after the MBB team has been paid. So for Louisville that would be $15,000,000 or $150,000 for those athletes (I'm not sure how many they have without MBB or FB)

These payments will be started in the summer (July 1, start of new fiscal) and run to October 27th (17 weeks straight on every friday). For Freshman they can borrow up to $5,000 until July 1 following their freshman season.

For early departures: If a player leaves after his...

Freshman Year: Athletes pays program back 75% of the earnings made in that season
Sophomore Year: Athlete pays program back 50% of earnings made in his sophomore-only season
Junior Year: Athlete pays program back 25% of the earnings made in his junior-only season
Senior Year: N/A

Just an idea I am working on here. Football would also have similar rules but to make the $ amounts make sense.

Let me know what you guys think!

I like the idea of paying revenue generating athletes (football and basketball). I don't think I'm in favor of the doing it as a percentage of what the program generates though as it will give the big revenue generating programs a huge advantage. If I'm a top player in HS and I have the chance to go to Duke and make 50k or Seton Hall and make 15k per a season, I'm choosing Duke and the money.

I'm more in favor of a communist style system where the ncaa distributes equal money/benefits to all DI athletes based on the sport.

 

[billsin01]

Yeah see I thought the same thing. Then I thought about it this way (which maybe cruel) but if you don't produce revenue, why should you earn any? I know that there is nothing student athletes can really do to draw interest to get people to pay to see them play, but unfortunately that's just how it is. I support our WBB team. I watch the games, I go to a few, and know many of my old STH's. However it's like how I was a paid employee and we had interns. Both very important but one creates revenue and one does not.

It's a solid point by you though.

I think a tricky part of this is who creates revenue? Did Sean Riley generate revenue for the university in any way, shape or form this year? And I'm not picking on Sean Riley and we'll see where his career goes, but I think it's a worthwhile question to ask. I mean, the football team generated revenue, but which players?

And then you also get into the discussion that there is absolutely no way it would be more 'fair' to college athletes to A) only pay cash to those who play football and basketball when I'm assuming the point is that they are working really hard, but, for that matter, so is every single athlete on campus (except maybe a tennis or golf player who's smoking a ton of weed and mostly hanging out j/k.). and B) pay the same amount to a backup kicker as you do to Dungey. I think the point with guys who are marketable makes sense but the vast majority of these guys are getting a lot out of this experience -- nice facilities, access to good coaches (insert GRob joke here), an education (if they care about it at all) and presumably progress toward a pro career if they have that type of ability.

The other point to make here is sports where there are actually true developmental leagues -- primarily MLB -- basically pay those kids nothing. Waaaayyyy less than the value of a scholarship. So even if you started minor league, pay-for-play football, most of these kids are way better off in college. Obviously the same holds true for the D League.

To me the answer is to let any athlete -- high school or otherwise -- that wants to go pro, go pro. If you choose to stay, maybe the answer is a full ride that is essentially all expenses paid and then some sort of small per semester stipend (say $350 or some such figure) that should be tied to at least moderately successful academic performance. How would that be a raw deal for anyone?

 

[UnknownOrange]

I think a tricky part of this is who creates revenue? Did Sean Riley generate revenue for the university in any way, shape or form this year? And I'm not picking on Sean Riley and we'll see where his career goes, but I think it's a worthwhile question to ask. I mean, the football team generated revenue, but which players?

And then you also get into the discussion that there is absolutely no way it would be more 'fair' to college athletes to A) only pay cash to those who play football and basketball when I'm assuming the point is that they are working really hard, but, for that matter, so is every single athlete on campus (except maybe a tennis or golf player who's smoking a ton of weed and mostly hanging out j/k.). and B) pay the same amount to a backup kicker as you do to Dungey. I think the point with guys who are marketable makes sense but the vast majority of these guys are getting a lot out of this experience -- nice facilities, access to good coaches (insert GRob joke here), an education (if they care about it at all) and presumably progress toward a pro career if they have that type of ability.

The other point to make here is sports where there are actually true developmental leagues -- primarily MLB -- basically pay those kids nothing. Waaaayyyy less than the value of a scholarship. So even if you started minor league, pay-for-play football, most of these kids are way better off in college. Obviously the same holds true for the D League.

To me the answer is to let any athlete -- high school or otherwise -- that wants to go pro, go pro. If you choose to stay, maybe the answer is a full ride that is essentially all expenses paid and then some sort of small per semester stipend (say $350 or some such figure) that should be tied to at least moderately successful academic performance. How would that be a raw deal for anyone?

Also great points. I think for basketball there should be no rule. Out of high school just go if you believe you're ready.

Football is where it gets tricky because every once in a while you get guys like Fournette who could have gone after his 2nd year.

There's just SOOOOOOOO much money being made. Something should change

 

[UnknownOrange]

I like the idea of paying revenue generating athletes (football and basketball). I don't think I'm in favor of the doing it as a percentage of what the program generates though as it will give the big revenue generating programs a huge advantage. If I'm a top player in HS and I have the chance to go to Duke and make 50k or Seton Hall and make 15k per a season, I'm choosing Duke and the money.

I'm more in favor of a communist style system where the ncaa distributes equal money/benefits to all DI athletes based on the sport.

This is why I wanted the percentage to work in reverse so the gap in pay between Northwestern and Louisville isn't all that much. Obviously the bigger revenue producing schools already have an advantage but I am not trying to level that playing field, I just don't want to make it even wider.

 

[orangefog]

This is why I wanted the percentage to work in reverse so the gap in pay between Northwestern and Louisville isn't all that much. Obviously the bigger revenue producing schools already have an advantage but I am not trying to level that playing field, I just don't want to make it even wider.

How about all the schools pay a "tax" and it goes into a pool and then gets distributed to all the players on all the teams evenly?

 

[UnknownOrange]

How about all the schools pay a "tax" and it goes into a pool and then gets distributed to all the players on all the teams evenly?

Well that that point you just say everyone with a D1 MBB or FB scholarship gets $x

 

[orangefog]

Well that that point you just say everyone with a D1 MBB or FB scholarship gets $x

Yes, otherwise a team gains an advantage furthering the divide between the haves and the have nots. If the motivation is allowing the players money because they have helped earn it as well as maintaining fair play, you have to keep it even, no? If the pay is not even, then it will allow for manipulation. Does a kid that goes to a lower D1 school work less hard than a kid that goes to Michigan?

 

[UnknownOrange]

Yes, otherwise a team gains an advantage furthering the divide between the haves and the have nots. If the motivation is allowing the players money because they have helped earn it as well as maintaining fair play, you have to keep it even, no? If the pay is not even, then it will allow for manipulation. Does a kid that goes to a lower D1 school work less hard than a kid that goes to Michigan?

I know what you're saying but there are jobs all over the country that guy A works just as hard if not harder than guy B and the pay is different.

 

[billsin01]

Yes, otherwise a team gains an advantage furthering the divide between the haves and the have nots. If the motivation is allowing the players money because they have helped earn it as well as maintaining fair play, you have to keep it even, no? If the pay is not even, then it will allow for manipulation. Does a kid that goes to a lower D1 school work less hard than a kid that goes to Michigan?

There's obviously no clean answer here, IMO, b/c the real issue is do these kids have marketability. If you have no market value then it becomes a fairly simple decision -- do you want to play football/basketball in college in return for a scholarship and potentially some development that leads to a pro career or do you just not want to play in college?

I think the bigger issue is how do you compensate those with market value? It would be easy in the case of a video game b/c to me you let them use the players name and then give each kid included in the game some form of (rather minimal) payout. It's like the voice actors on the simpsons -- they have value but could also be replaced, so it hurts their bargaining position a bit. So the way they compensate them is to pay them a really heavy salary per show ($300,000) but they don't own any part of the show and get a really minimal sliver of merchandising.

But in terms of letting players capitalize on jersey sales/merchandise, autographs, etc., I agree that a really popular athlete should be allowed to profit from it, but I don't know how to monitor that b/c it seems like a really, really easy way for a football factory to start using wealthy supporters to essentially pay kids huge salaries.

 

[orangefog]

I know what you're saying but there are jobs all over the country that guy A works just as hard if not harder than guy B and the pay is different.

That's true. But, paying players cannot become another thing that schools can manipulate in order to gain an advantage.

 

[cuse10]

Regarding jersey sales, some schools have skirted around a player's likeness being sold. They produce a jersey with a generic number such as Florida and #1.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

I'm going to call myself a "purist."
College is college.
You go to college to prepare for professionalism. College gives you a VERY EXPENSIVE education. Room and board. Training. Facilities. Exposure. The Thrills. Adulation. Chicks... That's not worth nothing. If you graduate and never play a minute of pro ball, you have a degree, if you take advantage of the offer. Playing ball towards earning future ball contracts is another benefit.

If everyone is so upset about 18 year olds not being able to earn more than the value of the scholarship, start a real independent, jr. pro 'prep' league. See what the audience would be for kids not yet at the NBA level, and who haven't established any significant brand identity because College is the best platform for developing that. If a Tyler Lydon, for example, had never come to syracuse, but instead wanted to get paid out of high school, he'd try out for the Albany Moon Dogs. He'd play in small, empty gyms along the east coast. Get paid. Develop a little, under noob coaches also auditioning for jobs, and then the NBA might come sniffing. No one would really care who Tyler Lydon was, because no one would have any investment in him/his brand.

I'm not averse to a payment to ALL athletes, directly from the NCAA, at an amount that roughly corresponds to what an 'student-academic' might earn in a Work/Study program. Consider sports a 'university job.' So, like an egg head who gets a full academic scholarship and also chooses to work for spending money.

I don't subscribe to the belief that everyone 'working' for a highly profitable enterprise is entitled to revenue sharing. Players have already been compensated, at a level beyond 99% of their 'colleagues.' An education/degree has a value. That's why everyone goes into so much debt to acquire one. Just because they don't expect to use it is irrelevant. My car insurance has a value, and i don't expect to use it, either.

 

[UnknownOrange]

I'm going to call myself a "purist."
College is college.
You go to college to prepare for professionalism. College gives you a VERY EXPENSIVE education. Room and board. Training. Facilities. Exposure. The Thrills. Adulation. Chicks... That's not worth nothing. If you graduate and never play a minute of pro ball, you have a degree, if you take advantage of the offer. Playing ball towards earning future ball contracts is another benefit.

If everyone is so upset about 18 year olds not being able to earn more than the value of the scholarship, start a real independent, jr. pro 'prep' league. See what the audience would be for kids not yet at the NBA level, and who haven't established any significant brand identity because College is the best platform for developing that. If a Tyler Lydon, for example, had never come to syracuse, but instead wanted to get paid out of high school, he'd try out for the Albany Moon Dogs. He'd play in small, empty gyms along the east coast. Get paid. Develop a little, under noob coaches also auditioning for jobs, and then the NBA might come sniffing. No one would really care who Tyler Lydon was, because no one would have any investment in him/his brand.

I'm not averse to a payment to ALL athletes, directly from the NCAA, at an amount that roughly corresponds to what an 'student-academic' might earn in a Work/Study program. Consider sports a 'university job.' So, like an egg head who gets a full academic scholarship and also chooses to work for spending money.

I don't subscribe to the belief that everyone 'working' for a highly profitable enterprise is entitled to revenue sharing. Players have already been compensated, at a level beyond 99% of their 'colleagues.' An education/degree has a value. That's why everyone goes into so much debt to acquire one. Just because they don't expect to use it is irrelevant. My car insurance has a value, and i don't expect to use it, either.

Agree with a lot of this but also I think it's interesting to note how much more money is made these days as opposed to when title 9 started