FBI arrests Assistant Basketball Coaches in Corruption Scheme

[reedny]

Whose bargain? The schools and the coaches (and the NCAA) are the ones pulling down the big bucks. The students have the terms of their agreement dictated to them.

Their choice is to enter college and receive a free education. The Universities making big bucks are (at least the legitimate ones) putting every dollar back into faculty, programs, scholarships and facilities. They’re NFP, like the NCAA. Do I like how the system is run? No. But if you’re crying for scholarship athletes who get a free ride in scho0l, don’t. Those that stay will be using their degrees soon enough.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Their choice is to enter college and receive a free education. The Universities making big bucks are (at least the legitimate ones) putting every dollar back into faculty, programs, scholarships and facilities. They’re NFP, like the NCAA. Do I like how the system is run? No. But if you’re crying for scholarship athletes who get a free ride in scho0l, don’t. Those that stay will be using their degrees soon enough.

African American studies. Women's studies. Rhetorical studies. Those types of degrees?
Huge demand for that training in the work force.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Their choice is to enter college and receive a free education. The Universities making big bucks are (at least the legitimate ones) putting every dollar back into faculty, programs, scholarships and facilities. They’re NFP, like the NCAA. Do I like how the system is run? No. But if you’re crying for scholarship athletes who get a free ride in scho0l, don’t. Those that stay will be using their degrees soon enough.

I hate this accepted myth that the education is free. The requirements upon a D-1 scholarship student athlete to obtain the education, which is to work 20-40 hours a week, essentially year round, render the benefit anything but free. That does not even consider the physical risks to, and toll upon, the body. Plus, the room and board portion of the scholarship is taxable. It's not free.

There is an exchange. The question is, given the devaluing of the bargained for return (a degree) by both the institutions, which shuffle many of them off into useless majors, and by the market, where everyone is encouraged to have a degree, is the bargain still a fair one?

 

[reedny]

African American studies. Women's studies. Rhetorical studies. Those types of degrees?
Huge demand for that training in the work force.

I hate this accepted myth that the education is free. The requirements upon a D-1 scholarship student athlete to obtain the education, which is to work 20-40 hours a week, essentially year round, render the benefit anything but free. That does not even consider the physical risks to, and toll upon, the body. Plus, the room and board portion of the scholarship is taxable. It's not free.

There is an exchange. The question is, given the devaluing of the bargained for return (a degree) by both the institutions, which shuffle many of them off into useless majors, and by the market, where everyone is encouraged to have a degree, is the bargain still a fair one?

"Those types of degrees?"
All the more reason why classes shouldn't be shams. Kids need an education ... they're a knee or a practice squad away from real life.

"... to work 20-40 hours a week ..."
As far as your part-time work argument, it's a sport they choose to play, just like in HS. It's not "labor". And even if you believe it is (I don't), the bargain they struck is playing a sport in exchange for being a student athlete. We all know they'll need the education for life after ball (you're conveniently forgetting that). And meanwhile, they want to play a sport, maybe even have a chance at the pros. They play because they love the game and like to compete. If they're not up for it, go to community college. No one's forcing them to accept a scholarship at an elite private school.

I think we've spent enough time on this subject.

 

[maxxyz]

I hate this accepted myth that the education is free. The requirements upon a D-1 scholarship student athlete to obtain the education, which is to work 20-40 hours a week, essentially year round, render the benefit anything but free. That does not even consider the physical risks to, and toll upon, the body. Plus, the room and board portion of the scholarship is taxable. It's not free.

You are correct, it is not free. $50,000 per year (ignoring that they get an extra summer semester of benefits) for 1000 hours of their time annually.

For the 3% of college football players that are drafted, it might be undercompensation, but for the rest of the team, its a very good deal.

 

[Waltdods]

For the 3% of college football players that are drafted, it might be undercompensation, but for the rest of the team, its a very good deal.

But it's not a very good deal. How do we know? Because if it weren't for the NCAA rules, they'd be getting a much better deal. Nobody really doubts this, right? Everyone agrees that if the NCAA didn't prohibit schools or boosters from paying players, players would get paid. Even with the prohibition, players still get paid. So they aren't getting a good deal; they are (almost by definition) being undercompensated.

There are literally billions of dollars sloshing around college sports. No one says the athletic directors, or the coaches, or the t-shirt hawkers, or CBS, or Coca-Cola, or etc. should content themselves with the value of an education. It's only the players whose compensation is fixed. This is why the system is unfair - because there is a ton of money going into it, and it goes out to any number of people, all of who are allowed to freely dip their hands in, except for the players who are told you'll take your payment in kind and like it.

. And even if you believe it is (I don't), the bargain they struck is playing a sport in exchange for being a student athlete. We all know they'll need the education for life after ball (you're conveniently forgetting that). And meanwhile, they want to play a sport, maybe even have a chance at the pros. They play because they love the game and like to compete. If they're not up for it, go to community college.

They accept this deal because it is the only one offered them, because everyone else in the system colludes against them.

Imagine the NCAA passed a rule that said head coaches cannot make more than $1 million. (That would be a ton of money! And a massive pay cut.) The fact that many coaches would still take the job doesn't prove that $1 million is fair compensation, it just proves that that's what the rule is. (I mean, it proves a little more than that, but the economics get tricky quick.)

 

[dasher]

Seems we have a system where players can get paid whatever they are worth. It's called pro basketball.

 

[maxxyz]

But it's not a very good deal. How do we know? Because if it weren't for the NCAA rules, they'd be getting a much better deal.

They accept this deal because it is the only one offered them, because everyone else in the system colludes against them.

Not saying that the NCAA is a perfect system, but as required by law every athlete has to get equal compensation. You must treat football, basketball, volleyball, golf, track, etc exactly the same.

I would be entirely supportive if kids could go pro right out of high school, then they could get paid what the market will bear. As little or as much as that would be.

 

[Hoo's That]

Isn't it funny how nobody says stuff like this about the D-3 players?

 

[Waltdods]

Isn't it funny how nobody says stuff like this about the D-3 players?

Right. Because if you removed all the NCAA rules d-3 players wouldn't receive any more than they do now.

 

[reedny]

They accept this deal because it is the only one offered them, because everyone else in the system colludes against them.

Imagine the NCAA passed a rule that said head coaches cannot make more than $1 million. (That would be a ton of money! And a massive pay cut.) The fact that many coaches would still take the job doesn't prove that $1 million is fair compensation, it just proves that that's what the rule is. (I mean, it proves a little more than that, but the economics get tricky quick.)[/QUOTE]

"[C]ollusion" sounds like conspiracy. Between whom, ESPN and the NCAA? The shoe companies? The NFL and NBA? The Boosters? The agents? Sounds a little far fetched, although I agree that the system is unclean and the influence of P5 schools in the NCAA rule-making process is perverse. The options are, clean up the cheating or create a new system. I'm not sure where you stand, but your post doesn't mention that:

1. The educational bargain is not only a "good deal", it's worth its weight in gold for 97-98% of college (full or partial) scholarship athletes;
2. Even for the few pro-level kids for whom you want to recast the whole system, they're a knee/rotation cut away from real life;
3. A college education (or some technical training) is a minimum requirement for a decent job in this economy;
4. Tuition, room and board at elite private schools like SU easily tops a quarter million dollars in "value", to say nothing of the personal, intellectual and social growth that goes on;
5. Even the few budding pros you focus on use college to showcase and develop their skills with high-level coaching and training, in cavernous facilities that cost a fortune to build and maintain.

Anyway, since the amateur model works so well for so many, what exceptions would you create for a few hundred pro-level athletes every year? The NBA (CBA) requires age 19 or a year removed from HS. If a kid's THAT good out of HS, he can play for pay in Europe and enter the draft the second year. Prospects from Europe dot the NBA draft board every year. You've posted that you don't like the baseball rule, so what about the FB draft-eligibility rule? How would you change things?

Are you arguing that kids who enter college should be paid a percentage if they have pro potential? Who decides what they're worth? Percentage of what? Most Universities use FB/BB proceeds to run Title IX programs and pay coaches' salaries. Do we scrap those programs and pay the athletes in 1 or 2 revenue sports?

Should scholarship athletes be required to take legitimate courses, or just skate though using the pseudo-education offered at UK/Bama/OSU?

And what about the other examples of education-for-service in the NFP arena ... like hospitals? They make hundreds of millions too. Should we make Medical schools pay all volunteers their "market" rate"? Should we get rid of residency? What about Universities with grad assistants doing research? Research brings in hundreds of millions. Should we give lab assistants a "percentage" too? What about cost of their training, and the U equipment and facilities they use?

 

[RandygoCuse]

It's important to remember that these kids do not play in a free market. The NCAA has a disproportionate share of the best coaches, facilities, and TV market. In any other industry, they would not be allowed to dominate as much as they do and players would be in a much better position to negotiate.

I'm also reminded of a job I had where I met a kid that played football for a Division 1 school. He got injured playing and they took away his scholarship. This kid sacrificed his body for the school and was not entitled to any workers comp because the he was not an employee. Yes, they can get a loan for an insurance policy but this is hardly the same thing. I think the NCAA knows exactly what it's doing and that it's time for a change.

 

[reedny]

It's important to remember that these kids do not play in a free market. The NCAA has a disproportionate share of the best coaches, facilities, and TV market. In any other industry, they would not be allowed to dominate as much as they do and players would be in a much better position to negotiate.

I'm also reminded of a job I had where I met a kid that played football for a Division 1 school. He got injured playing and they took away his scholarship. This kid sacrificed his body for the school and was not entitled to any workers comp because the he was not an employee. Yes, they can get a loan for an insurance policy but this is hardly the same thing. I think the NCAA knows exactly what it's doing and that it's time for a change.

Your example is exactly why kids need an education ... along with their sports. It's Plan A for most kids, even on scholarship. But it should be Plan B for the kids going pro, IMO.

As far as "giving his knee" to the school, he's getting educated and there are risks to his sport. The U probably provided him with free medical treatment. This happens at all levels ... kids are injured in middle school sports, travel hockey/soccer, HS sports of all kinds. Just because they might go pro one day doesn't mean they should be considered employees.

 

[RandygoCuse]

Your example is exactly why kids need an education ... along with their sports. It's Plan A for most kids, even on scholarship. But it should be Plan B for the kids going pro, IMO.

As far as "giving his knee" to the school, he's getting educated and there are risks to his sport. The U probably provided him with free medical treatment. This happens at all levels ... kids are injured in middle school sports, travel hockey/soccer, HS sports of all kinds. Just because they might go pro one day doesn't mean they should be considered employees.

Your points are valid. However, I think if the NCAA is going to profit off of these kids (as well as third parties such as shoe companies) I think the athletes are entitled to monetary compensation. Yes, kids get injured at all levels. But most kids in high school don't have put in as much time as athletes at this level - nor are the high schools making money off of them.

 

[reedny]

Your points are valid. However, I think if the NCAA is going to profit off of these kids (as well as third parties such as shoe companies) I think the athletes are entitled to monetary compensation. Yes, kids get injured at all levels. But most kids in high school don't have put in as much time as athletes at this level - nor are the high schools making money off of them.

Well money comes in, but there can't be any "profit". Even HS's have some revenue -- as they may charge for attendance at a FB or BB game. The money goes back to the district to offset expenses. In the same way, Universities and the NCAA, as NFP corporations, have to put every dime they receive back into salaries, scholarships, programs and facilities. As far as SU, it's not hard to see where the money goes ... lots of it supports Title IX programs. Same with the NCAA. Here's where the money goes (Linkage bel0w).

Schlabach: Following the NCAA money

 

[RandygoCuse]

Well money comes in, but there can't be any "profit". Even HS's have some revenue -- as they may charge for attendance at a FB or BB game. The money goes back to the district to offset expenses. In the same way, Universities and the NCAA, as NFP corporations, have to put every dime they receive back into salaries, scholarships, programs and facilities. As far as SU, it's not hard to see where the money goes ... lots of it is back to Title IX programs. Same with the NCAA. Here's where the money goes (Linkage bel0w).

Schlabach: Following the NCAA money

Sure, granted it's arbitrary, but I consider the NCAA "Big Business" and feel that players should be compensated as such.

 

[Hoo's That]

Sure, granted it's arbitrary, but I consider the NCAA "Big Business" and feel that players should be compensated as such.

Well I don't so they should just get scholarships, to be just as arbitrary.

 

[RandygoCuse]

Well I don't so they should just get scholarships, to be just as arbitrary.

fair enough - but I feel there is a general consensus that the NCAA is Big Business. Look at TV ratings, revenues, jersey sales among other things. I used the term arbitrary to indicate that there is not one set dollar amount when something goes from Not Big Business, to Big Business. Others disagree, I can respect that.

 

[Waltdods]

Are you arguing that kids who enter college should be paid a percentage if they have pro potential? Who decides what they're worth? Percentage of what? Most Universities use FB/BB proceeds to run Title IX programs and pay coaches' salaries. Do we scrap those programs and pay the athletes in 1 or 2 revenue sports?

Should scholarship athletes be required to take legitimate courses, or just skate though using the pseudo-education offered at UK/Bama/OSU?

And what about the other examples of education-for-service in the NFP arena ... like hospitals? They make hundreds of millions too. Should we make Medical schools pay all volunteers their "market" rate"? Should we get rid of residency? What about Universities with grad assistants doing research? Research brings in hundreds of millions. Should we give lab assistants a "percentage" too? What about cost of their training, and the U equipment and facilities they use?

I'm not arguing for a "percentage" (of what?). The market should decide what they're worth, just as it does for me and for you, and for the coaches, and the athletic directors, and the guy selling #11 Tyler Ennis jerseys that don't say Ennis on the back. Given Title IX, there may (or may not, I tend to think the pro-status quo people over-read Title IX) be reasons the schools themselves can't pay the students. But there is no reason that Tyler Ennis should not be able to profit from his likeness. There is no good reason that Shirt World should be able to make money off of Eric Dungey jerseys but Eric Dungey shouldn't.

(I think the residency system should also be dramatically reformed, for many of the same reasons. It's crazy that we treat every graduating doctor as essentially an indentured servant for years.)

 

[Jake]

Jim Larranaga admits he believes he is Coach -3 in FBI report.

Which means the FBI believes he knew about 150k arrangement to pay Nassir Little.

I would assume they can prove it...which makes Laranagga's denial a bit dicey.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

They accept this deal because it is the only one offered them, because everyone else in the system colludes against them.

Imagine the NCAA passed a rule that said head coaches cannot make more than $1 million. (That would be a ton of money! And a massive pay cut.) The fact that many coaches would still take the job doesn't prove that $1 million is fair compensation, it just proves that that's what the rule is. (I mean, it proves a little more than that, but the economics get tricky quick.)

"[C]ollusion" sounds like conspiracy. Between whom, ESPN and the NCAA? The shoe companies? The NFL and NBA? The Boosters? The agents? Sounds a little far fetched, although I agree that the system is unclean and the influence of P5 schools in the NCAA rule-making process is perverse. The options are, clean up the cheating or create a new system. I'm not sure where you stand, but your post doesn't mention that:

1. The educational bargain is not only a "good deal", it's worth its weight in gold for 97-98% of college (full or partial) scholarship athletes;
2. Even for the few pro-level kids for whom you want to recast the whole system, they're a knee/rotation cut away from real life;
3. A college education (or some technical training) is a minimum requirement for a decent job in this economy;
4. Tuition, room and board at elite private schools like SU easily tops a quarter million dollars in "value", to say nothing of the personal, intellectual and social growth that goes on;
5. Even the few budding pros you focus on use college to showcase and develop their skills with high-level coaching and training.

Therefore, since the amateur model works so well for so many, what exceptions would you create for a few hundred pro-level athletes every year? The NBA (CBA) requires age 19 or a year removed from HS. If a kid's THAT good out of HS, he can play for pay in Europe and enter the draft the second year. Prospects from Europe dot the NBA draft board every year. You've posted that you don't like the baseball rule, so what about the FB draft-eligibility rule? How would you change things?

Are you arguing that kids who enter college should be paid a percentage if they have pro potential? Who decides what they're worth? Percentage of what? Most Universities use FB/BB proceeds to run Title IX programs and pay coaches' salaries. Do we scrap those programs and pay the athletes in 1 or 2 revenue sports?

Should scholarship athletes be required to take legitimate courses, or just skate though using the pseudo-education offered at UK/Bama/OSU?

And what about the other examples of education-for-service in the NFP arena ... like hospitals? They make hundreds of millions too. Should we make Medical schools pay all volunteers their "market" rate"? Should we get rid of residency? What about Universities with grad assistants doing research? Research brings in hundreds of millions. Should we give lab assistants a "percentage" too? What about cost of their training, and the U equipment and facilities they use?[/QUOTE]
You should not have to leave America to pursue a field that is available here.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

"[C]ollusion" sounds like conspiracy. Between whom, ESPN and the NCAA? The shoe companies? The NFL and NBA? The Boosters? The agents? Sounds a little far fetched, although I agree that the system is unclean and the influence of P5 schools in the NCAA rule-making process is perverse. The options are, clean up the cheating or create a new system. I'm not sure where you stand, but your post doesn't mention that:

1. The educational bargain is not only a "good deal", it's worth its weight in gold for 97-98% of college (full or partial) scholarship athletes;
2. Even for the few pro-level kids for whom you want to recast the whole system, they're a knee/rotation cut away from real life;
3. A college education (or some technical training) is a minimum requirement for a decent job in this economy;
4. Tuition, room and board at elite private schools like SU easily tops a quarter million dollars in "value", to say nothing of the personal, intellectual and social growth that goes on;
5. Even the few budding pros you focus on use college to showcase and develop their skills with high-level coaching and training.

Therefore, since the amateur model works so well for so many, what exceptions would you create for a few hundred pro-level athletes every year? The NBA (CBA) requires age 19 or a year removed from HS. If a kid's THAT good out of HS, he can play for pay in Europe and enter the draft the second year. Prospects from Europe dot the NBA draft board every year. You've posted that you don't like the baseball rule, so what about the FB draft-eligibility rule? How would you change things?

Are you arguing that kids who enter college should be paid a percentage if they have pro potential? Who decides what they're worth? Percentage of what? Most Universities use FB/BB proceeds to run Title IX programs and pay coaches' salaries. Do we scrap those programs and pay the athletes in 1 or 2 revenue sports?

Should scholarship athletes be required to take legitimate courses, or just skate though using the pseudo-education offered at UK/Bama/OSU?

And what about the other examples of education-for-service in the NFP arena ... like hospitals? They make hundreds of millions too. Should we make Medical schools pay all volunteers their "market" rate"? Should we get rid of residency? What about Universities with grad assistants doing research? Research brings in hundreds of millions. Should we give lab assistants a "percentage" too? What about cost of their training, and the U equipment and facilities they use?

You should not have to leave America to pursue a field that is available here.[/QUOTE]
I think residents get education, training, AND money!!!! Ding, ding, ding.

 

[reedny]

I'm not arguing for a "percentage" (of what?). The market should decide what they're worth, just as it does for me and for you, and for the coaches, and the athletic directors, and the guy selling #11 Tyler Ennis jerseys that don't say Ennis on the back. Given Title IX, there may (or may not, I tend to think the pro-status quo people over-read Title IX) be reasons the schools themselves can't pay the students. But there is no reason that Tyler Ennis should not be able to profit from his likeness. There is no good reason that Shirt World should be able to make money off of Eric Dungey jerseys but Eric Dungey shouldn't.

(I think the residency system should also be dramatically reformed, for many of the same reasons. It's crazy that we treat every graduating doctor as essentially an indentured servant for years.)

In a perfect world, you might have a point in some of these areas. In the real world, as you concede, it would be very difficult to recast all these systems. For example:

1. Pretty much impossible for Colleges to pay "market rate" for a few athletes and still fund T-IX programs on top of the cost to shelter, educate, train and coach all of them. Also, how do you separate each athlete's "value", and determine what part of the team's success is attributable to them and/or where on the developmental curve each athlete is performing at a given time?;
2. If all hospital volunteers were "paid" and residents fully compensated, this would change the hospital economic model;
3. NFP charities use volunteers extensively, from the Red Cross to Hospice care. Are all those volunteers underpaid "employees"?
4. University research laboratories use graduate assistants extensively but keep all the proceeds of their labors and intellectual discoveries. If each was paid for a piece of every patent and discovery, research would probably stop as we know it;
5. There are vastly underpaid "interns" in many segments of the economy. They work summers, or part-time, usually for free or minimum wage. On your model, every single business using interns would have to pay them as full-time employees even though they might not be fully educated or credentialed (see non CPA accountants or non-bar qualified law candidates).

In the college arena, the only (legitimate) funding source I can think of is sponsorships. Shoe companies could pay college athletes, but they'd have to put the money in trust and also get around the Sports Agency Law. That's probably going on now under the table. This would also require some major rule changes to work under the NCAA umbrella.

 

[maxxyz]

I'm not arguing for a "percentage" (of what?). The market should decide what they're worth, just as it does for me and for you, and for the coaches, and the athletic directors, and the guy selling #11 Tyler Ennis jerseys that don't say Ennis on the back. Given Title IX, there may (or may not, I tend to think the pro-status quo people over-read Title IX) be reasons the schools themselves can't pay the students. But there is no reason that Tyler Ennis should not be able to profit from his likeness. There is no good reason that Shirt World should be able to make money off of Eric Dungey jerseys but Eric Dungey shouldn't.

(I think the residency system should also be dramatically reformed, for many of the same reasons. It's crazy that we treat every graduating doctor as essentially an indentured servant for years.)

So many things in this post.

Right now a college football player’s market value is a college scholarship for tuition, room, board and a stipend. There isn’t a Euro league. Can they play in Canada? Or on a practice squad? There beef is with the NFL which puts an age restriction on players, which by the way the Players union approves.

Title IX in a nutshell - if you pay 85 college football players $25,000 to play, you have to also pay the same to 85 female college athletes at that school the same amount.

People buy jerseys with a players name on it, but they buy because of the team as well. Let players try and sell a generic jersey with his name but no SU colors or logo. Chicken vs egg argument.

Within the NCAA as it is now there is no good way to pay players. Especially football players. They should get rid of the ‘student athlete’ designation and just have a team made up of professionals under the age of 24 that are non-students, pay there own rent and can be fired for not achieving performance goals. They would be a part of the marketing department of the college, which is what they are in the first place - a way to market the college outside of the immediate region.

Sorry - I’m off the soap box now.

 

[Waltdods]

People buy jerseys with a players name on it, but they buy because of the team as well. Let players try and sell a generic jersey with his name but no SU colors or logo. Chicken vs egg argument.

Within the NCAA as it is now there is no good way to pay players. Especially football players. They should get rid of the ‘student athlete’ designation and just have a team made up of professionals under the age of 24 that are non-students, pay there own rent and can be fired for not achieving performance goals. They would be a part of the marketing department of the college, which is what they are in the first place - a way to market the college outside of the immediate region.

Sorry - I’m off the soap box now.

I'm obviously fine with the proposal in your second paragraph quoted above.

Re the first one - ok, let them try that. They aren't allowed to even do that. Tyler Ennis couldn't sell a shirt that said Ennis 11. My extended family probably owns 10 tee shirts addressing Gerry McNamara more or less directly ("overrated", 3, etc.). Some of these don't have a Syracuse logo anywhere to be found. Mannys made money off of each of them; Gerry didn't make a dime.