Interesting NCAA Column in NYT

[triplethrea]

NCAA basketball and football pretty much are professional sports. Frankly, I don't care if the kids attend classes, especially in this day and age when any idiot can get into college. I just want the kids to be paid what they work so hard for.

The NCAA is so sleazy I can't even look at the logo. Claiming their incredibly valuable employees are "student athletes" and then telling them they should be lucky to have some crappy scholarship for sociology or whatever. I want to puke.

 

[All4SU]

NCAA basketball and football pretty much are professional sports. Frankly, I don't care if the kids attend classes, especially in this day and age when any idiot can get into college. I just want the kids to be paid what they work so hard for.

The NCAA is so sleazy I can't even look at the logo. Claiming their incredibly valuable employees are "student athletes" and then telling them they should be lucky to have some crappy scholarship for sociology or whatever. I want to puke.

Let me ask you this. Given the fact that thousands of student/athletes compete at the highest level in sports like swimming, wrestling, gymnastics, track, cross country, not to earn a living while in college (or to move on to any professional league), but rather to get a degree, why is that same degree of no value to kids who play basketball and football?

 

[pfister1]

Let me ask you this. Given the fact that thousands of student/athletes compete at the highest level in sports like swimming, wrestling, gymnastics, track, cross country, not to earn a living while in college (or to move on to any professional league), but rather to get a degree, why is that same degree of no value to kids who play basketball and football?

I'm going to make an overly broad generalization, but here goes...because the kids that are being recruited to play football and basketball largely have no interest in attending college, but for the fact that it is a necessary step in trying to advance to a pro career in these two sports.

The kids that are playing non-revenue generating sports in college are attending college because they want to get a degree and advance on to a career of some sort. Athletics is either a way to dfray the cost of that degree (scholarship or partial scholarship) or it is a diversion from academics same as participating in a service organization or joining a fraternity - albeit with a bit greater investment of time.

Maybe this was intended to be a rhetorical question....

 

[All4SU]

Maybe this was intended to be a rhetorical question....

No, a sincere question intended to direct eman into a slightly different tangent of the discussion.

 

[triplethrea]

No, a sincere question intended to direct eman into a slightly different tangent of the discussion.

What pfister said. I don't think it's difficult to understand my viewpoint if you try.

What you brought up is completely different. Swimming does not generate the money basketball and football do. If it generates any profits from television, etc. I do believe the kids should be able to have some of it.

The degrees are valuable to a degree, of course. Maybe you get the impression that I think a college degree is worthless. I don't. I do believe it is less valuable than the people who claim "the kids should be happy with that". And it is getting less valuable as time goes by. Regardless of how valuable a scholarship is, if the player is worth more to the team than that scholarship, I believe the player should be entitled to more. Even if the scholarship is worth $1 million, if the player is worth $2 million to the team, he should get his cut.

If Syracuse generates $20 million more in profits this year than last year, and the difference being that this year we are #1, who is responsible for that added revenue? I say the players. Yet last year the players made 1 scholarship, and this year they get no raise, and stay at 1 scholarship. Where does that extra money go? You feel me? It's a dirty dirty dirty business. The fact that they hide behind morals like "purity of the student athlete" makes me sick.

 

[Moontan]

If Syracuse generates $20 million more in profits this year than last year, and the difference being that this year we are #1, who is responsible for that added revenue? I say the players. Yet last year the players made 1 scholarship, and this year they get no raise, and stay at 1 scholarship. Where does that extra money go?

$20M ? Really? From where?

2,000 avg attendance increase? 2,000 * 15 games * $25/ticket = $750,000
5,000 avg attendance increase? 5,000 * 15 games * $25/ticket = $1,875,000

Costs rise. Coaches expect raises. Everyone expects better facilities.

The players are solely responsible? Really? Without the current coaches, facilities and fan base, the players don't even consider coming to the Hill. If basketball on-court performance drops, resulting in a decrease in attendance and revenues, would you cut players' "salaries"?

Your "example", just as your entire attempt at an argument, is way off base.

On to the issue at hand...

I'm OK with a Cost of Attendance Stipend, or basing the stipend on the practice time (20 hours per week?) and the work-study pay rate.

However, if you do that, then it should apply to all scholarship athletes. I'd even go one better and apply the stipend to all student athletes (including walk-ons for all sports). In Syracuse's case (based on 2010 figures) that's on the order of 613 * $2,000 = $1,226,000. That's in addition to the $11M that was paid for student aid on behalf of student athletes.

 

[triplethrea]

$20M ? Really? From where?

2,000 avg attendance increase? 2,000 * 15 games * $25/ticket = $750,000
5,000 avg attendance increase? 5,000 * 15 games * $25/ticket = $1,875,000

Costs rise. Coaches expect raises. Everyone expects better facilities.

The players are solely responsible? Really? Without the current coaches, facilities and fan base, the players don't even consider coming to the Hill. If basketball on-court performance drops, resulting in a decrease in attendance and revenues, would you cut players' "salaries"?

Your "example", just as your entire attempt at an argument, is way off base.

On to the issue at hand...

I'm OK with a Cost of Attendance Stipend, or basing the stipend on the practice time (20 hours per week?) and the work-study pay rate.

However, if you do that, then it should apply to all scholarship athletes. I'd even go one better and apply the stipend to all student athletes (including walk-ons for all sports). In Syracuse's case (based on 2010 figures) that's on the order of 613 * $2,000 = $1,226,000. That's in addition to the $11M that was paid for student aid on behalf of student athletes.

I thought I made it clear $20 million was a clean cut example.

OK, costs rise. Coaches expect raises? Why do they get to expect raises and the players don't? See what I mean? Where does the money go? Coaches, facilities. It goes everywhere except the players. Every one expects raises and better facilities because the money is not going to the players. Some people are going to need to learn to pass on the dessert next time they're eating out.

You're right that without the current coaches, facilities, fans, etc. the players don't come. That is because they don't get paid so that is all we can offer them. If you want the good players you're going to need to give them a paycheck. As for cutting player's salaries, that is entirely up to whatever agreement the university comes up with. I frankly don't care, since even with pay cuts they will be getting more than they are getting now.

Your work-study idea is the lamest thing I have ever seen. Why do field hockey players get paid the same amount as the guys playing for the team pulling tens of millions of dollars in revenue. This isn't an "everybody is a winner, everybody gets a ribbon" type thing. Two sports are bringing in the revenue that lets the athletics directors drive their nice SUVs. Not anybody else.

Anthony Davis asks for $250,000 and nobody balks at the price, just the fact that he asked for it. Are you telling me Dion Waiters and Kris Joseph are worth to the team the same amount that the student usher is getting? This is a game of millions of dollars. College basketball and football are not a joke. The players should be treated like adults, not like children getting their allowance.

 

[Moontan]

I thought I made it clear $20 million was a clean cut example.

No it wasn't... it was pure fiction. Something akin to "what if the moon was red and made of cheese?".

OK, costs rise. Coaches expect raises? Why do they get to expect raises and the players don't? See what I mean? Where does the money go? Coaches, facilities. It goes everywhere except the players. Every one expects raises and better facilities because the money is not going to the players.

Tuition, room and board have price increases every year. The current rate at Syracuse University is over $53,000 per year. Hint, next year it will be more.

Your work-study idea is the lamest thing I have ever seen.

No, it's not. It actually addresses the issue at hand. The example that is generally raised is: "A student from a family of limited means that receives an academic scholarship is able to work to earn money to pay for additional expenses (clothes, eating out, going to a movie, etc.) yet a similar student who receives an athletic scholarship is not allowed to earn such money, why?".

Why do field hockey players get paid the same amount as the guys playing for the team pulling tens of millions of dollars in revenue.

The living expenses of field hockey players are similar to those of a basketball player. AFAIK, the Varsity charges the same for a slice of pizza no matter who orders it.

This isn't an "everybody is a winner, everybody gets a ribbon" type thing.
Two sports are bringing in the revenue that lets the athletics directors drive their nice SUVs. Not anybody else.

This isn't professional sports, either.

There are other benefits as well. Without the other sports at Manley, Donovan McNabb wouldn't have met his current wife.

The players should be treated like adults, not like children getting their allowance.

They are. They do not have to accept the athletic scholarships.

Basketball players can go to the NBDL or Europe. Hockey and baseball players already have their options. NFL players and executives have indicated that high school players are not ready for the NFL. Perhaps you should set up a league where high school players can go before they go to the NFL. If you think there's enough money to do that, good luck. I'm a bit skeptical myself. Many would argue that the 90+% of players at FBS programs that do not make it to the NFL are already being treated "better" than non-athlete students.

If the players really feel that they're getting a bum deal, then they (e.g. their predecessors currently playing in the NFL & NBA) should be working with their respective leagues to set up something different. Perhaps you can get the UFL to fill that role, or have today's college prep schools also serve to feed the NFL directly. I'm sure the TV contracts to support that will be very generous. After all, who wouldn't want to watch 4 or 6 glorified high school teams play each other in quadruple round-robin action?

 

[All4SU]

What pfister said. I don't think it's difficult to understand my viewpoint if you try.

What you brought up is completely different. Swimming does not generate the money basketball and football do. If it generates any profits from television, etc. I do believe the kids should be able to have some of it.

The degrees are valuable to a degree, of course. Maybe you get the impression that I think a college degree is worthless. I don't. I do believe it is less valuable than the people who claim "the kids should be happy with that". And it is getting less valuable as time goes by. Regardless of how valuable a scholarship is, if the player is worth more to the team than that scholarship, I believe the player should be entitled to more. Even if the scholarship is worth $1 million, if the player is worth $2 million to the team, he should get his cut.

If Syracuse generates $20 million more in profits this year than last year, and the difference being that this year we are #1, who is responsible for that added revenue? I say the players. Yet last year the players made 1 scholarship, and this year they get no raise, and stay at 1 scholarship. Where does that extra money go? You feel me? It's a dirty dirty dirty business. The fact that they hide behind morals like "purity of the student athlete" makes me sick.

And if a program loses money, should the players kick something in? Maybe pay part of their scholarships? I mean if the players are the key, and the fans aren't turning out, or the team isn't getting on TV or getting to the NCAA tournament, then the players must be doing something wrong, right? So shouldn't they pay their fair share?

 

[All4SU]

Jurrie - good post. I won't copy the whole thing. But well done.

And I will add...
98% of all of these players will NEVER play professionally. One additional benefit they receive is coaching. Almost no one is capable of stepping out of HS and into pro football or pro basketball. The number is ridiculously small. Without coaching, even most of the rest would never be good enough. Simply, they need to improve. College gives them that.

And then there is the exposure aspect. What is that worth?

 

[rrlbees]

I thought I made it clear $20 million was a clean cut example.

$20M? How many schools make that? 3-4? Only 14 schools made money 2 years ago.

 

[MonsterGame]

Paying college players should not be done. Has nothing to do with racism or schools just using their leverage to make millions in profits over college players who are in a situation where they have to take what they get. It has everything to do with if college players start getting paid for the value they bring to their team, parity in college sports will be gone. Completely and forever. Universities that can afford to pay the most will have the top talent and therefore best teams forever. Wait you say, just implement a salary cap. Huh, how is that different than what is happening now? Tuitions, room, board, eating stipends ect. are allowed for and still many schools at best break even financial but the financial stipends should be higher? I say start looking at the numbers for the vast majority of schools and start smelling the coffee. Paying salaries to college players would be a huge mistake.

 

[orangecuse]

And if a program loses money, should the players kick something in? Maybe pay part of their scholarships? I mean if the players are the key, and the fans aren't turning out, or the team isn't getting on TV or getting to the NCAA tournament, then the players must be doing something wrong, right? So shouldn't they pay their fair share?

Agree...was thinking the same thing while reading along in the thread. Additionally, talk about the rich getting richer. How does a small private school or any smaller school for that matter compete and come up with the funds that larger state funded schools may have at their disposal, etc. to compensate their players...

 

[Moontan]

Agree...was thinking the same thing while reading along in the thread. Additionally, talk about the rich getting richer. How does a small private school or any smaller school for that matter compete and come up with the funds that larger state funded schools may have at their disposal, etc. to compensate their players...

S/he doesn't. S/he apparently wants to end collegiate athletics and have all post high school athletics operate separately, just as it's done in other parts of the world. That's fine, it's just different than the system that we're used to. I believe s/he'll have a hard time convincing the universities (and their alumni), the sponsors, the NCAA, the bowls and the networks that that is the way it should be.

 

[cusetiger10]

Paying student athletes...interesting concept. Maybe we should look at how many of these student-athletes would actually be admitted under the "normal" admission standards-I'm fairly certain one Carmelo Anthony wouldn't have attended Syracuse University. The problem is that sports and athletes are put on such a pedestal its ridiculous. 75% of these kids shouldn't even be in college to begin with, let alone get paid after receiving a free education? I have a solution, instead of having donations that can be sent to whatever sport you want to support, how about all donations go into a general university fund and they use the money as they see fit to improve the school in areas that are needed. Researching cancer and developing new ideas etc...is a heck of a lot more important than putting a ball through a basket, but I guess thats just reality in this country...sad priorities.

 

[Moontan]

I'm fairly certain one Carmelo Anthony wouldn't have attended Syracuse University. The problem is that sports and athletes are put on such a pedestal its ridiculous. 75% of these kids shouldn't even be in college to begin with, let alone get paid after receiving a free education?

Or one could look at it another way... athletics gives these people a chance at an education. Athletic departments invest a lot of resources in providing tutoring and other support for student athletes. Skeptics would claim this is just to keep athletes eligible, others will point out that it allows motivated student athletes to actually mature, learn and obtain a meaningful education. The reality is that both situations occur. There are many examples of student athletes who have benefited greatly in life, and academically, by having athletic ability.

I have a solution, instead of having donations that can be sent to whatever sport you want to support, how about all donations go into a general university fund and they use the money as they see fit to improve the school in areas that are needed. Researching cancer and developing new ideas etc...is a heck of a lot more important than putting a ball through a basket, but I guess thats just reality in this country...sad priorities.

All major universities allow one to donate how one sees fit. I donate to Syracuse University both academically (partially to the general fund, partially to school which houses my major of study, and partially to a particular scholarship fund) and athletically (mostly to the general fund and occasionally to a particular sport or fund raising goal). I suspect I'm not the only one. Oh, and in case you're interested, my academic donations outweigh my athletic donations.

 

[triplethrea]

$20M? How many schools make that? 3-4? Only 14 schools made money 2 years ago.

BS. http://sportsgeekonomics.tumblr.com...-paying-players-will-mean-that-schools-cannot

Even when we keep the focus on the six BCS AQ conferences, the NCAA still wants to obscure the debate. Mark Emmert, NCAA president, has said that only fourteen NCAA schools make money on sports and so most schools can’t afford to pay their athletes.[6] That seems hard to believe given that the seventy-three schools in the AQ conferences earned $1.4 billion in aggregate. But the trick is that the NCAA is throwing in all of the non-revenue sports, and then asking you to believe that when college football players get paid, so too will college wrestlers, even though football players are bringing in over a billion dollars and wrestlers aren’t bringing in anything. That’s just not how markets work.

You keep dropping myth after myth. I suggest reading through the website I linked.

 

[triplethrea]

And if a program loses money, should the players kick something in? Maybe pay part of their scholarships? I mean if the players are the key, and the fans aren't turning out, or the team isn't getting on TV or getting to the NCAA tournament, then the players must be doing something wrong, right? So shouldn't they pay their fair share?

You're reaching. The players get paid according to the agreement that is made. If that means offering them less money then the players are free to go elsewhere and transfer. Nobody will make them pay tuition since there are 300 other schools that will pay their full tuition for them. Everything works itself out. Nobody said it wouldn't be complex, but it beats the status quo and that is the only thing I care about.

And I will add...
98% of all of these players will NEVER play professionally. One additional benefit they receive is coaching. Almost no one is capable of stepping out of HS and into pro football or pro basketball. The number is ridiculously small. Without coaching, even most of the rest would never be good enough. Simply, they need to improve. College gives them that.

And then there is the exposure aspect. What is that worth?

Doesn't matter if they don't play professional. If they are making money for the college why do they have to turn professional before they make money? Completely miss the point.

The university uses their name and profits off their exposure. It's not just the athlete that benefits. The difference is the university can profit and the student can't. That is not right.

Or one could look at it another way... athletics gives these people a chance at an education. Athletic departments invest a lot of resources in providing tutoring and other support for student athletes. Skeptics would claim this is just to keep athletes eligible, others will point out that it allows motivated student athletes to actually mature, learn and obtain a meaningful education. The reality is that both situations occur. There are many examples of student athletes who have benefited greatly in life, and academically, by having athletic ability

They can benefit and learn in life until they fall over. Why not give them that and then on top of it a piece of the money they help bring in, even if it's $1.

 

[triplethrea]

Paying college players should not be done. Has nothing to do with racism or schools just using their leverage to make millions in profits over college players who are in a situation where they have to take what they get. It has everything to do with if college players start getting paid for the value they bring to their team, parity in college sports will be gone. Completely and forever. Universities that can afford to pay the most will have the top talent and therefore best teams forever. Wait you say, just implement a salary cap. Huh, how is that different than what is happening now? Tuitions, room, board, eating stipends ect. are allowed for and still many schools at best break even financial but the financial stipends should be higher? I say start looking at the numbers for the vast majority of schools and start smelling the coffee. Paying salaries to college players would be a huge mistake.

Agree...was thinking the same thing while reading along in the thread. Additionally, talk about the rich getting richer. How does a small private school or any smaller school for that matter compete and come up with the funds that larger state funded schools may have at their disposal, etc. to compensate their players...

How does a school like Eastern Michigan ever get to the level of Duke or Syracuse with the system currently in place since they do not have the funds to build facilities or bring in top notch coaches, etc. What parity is there now? You're kidding yourself if you see parity in recruiting. Please read this http://sportsgeekonomics.tumblr.com...if-we-set-up-a-system-where-rich-schools-make

Kentucky started its 2010-2011 men’s basketball season against Eastern Tennessee State University (“ETSU”). I would like to see evidence that Eastern Tennessee State has ever successfully recruited an athlete who was also offered a scholarship by Kentucky. Alabama started its 2010 football season against San Jose State and will start the 2011 season against Kent State, but what top recruit would spurn an offer from Alabama to attend San Jose or Kent?

The current collusive cap on wages has not in any way created a level playing field with respect to the distribution of talent. We don’t need to speculate; the proof is in the numbers. Over the last ten years, more than 99% of the Top 100 high school prospects chose BCS AQs.

 

[triplethrea]

One more thing. I want to link this since I'm sick of answering questions of how the market will work. I am much more concerned about the kids actually getting paid then about how they will be paid.

http://sportsgeekonomics.tumblr.com...its-too-hard-to-figure-out-how-to-pay-players

At first it might be a little messy, just as when a firm prices its stock in an IPO. The initial price may end up higher or lower than the right value, but the company picks a price, sells its stock, and then the market adjusts. For example, Linked-In went public on May 19, 2011 and closed up 107% from its initial offering after two days of trading.[2] The following month, Pandora went public but closed down 20% two days after its launch.[3] Opening up the market for student-athletes would not be much different. At first, many schools might continue to offer the Grant in Aid (“GIA”) package without additional cash. A few programs might want to set the gold standard and offer $10,000 stipends. A few up-and-comers might make a play for some talent and offer $25,000 to see if they could jump-start their programs at a higher level. The following year, maybe a few more schools would up the ante, and maybe some of the Old Guard might start matching offers to avoid losing talent. Just as water finds its own level, so too do prices in a liquid market. A decade in, everyone would have a great sense of what a blue chipper is worth to a program and what it takes to land him. Problem solved.

Please do not reply to me about how we will pay them unless you have at least read that quote.

 

[rrlbees]

BS. http://sportsgeekonomics.tumblr.com...-paying-players-will-mean-that-schools-cannot

You keep dropping myth after myth. I suggest reading through the website I linked.

Thanks for the link. That guy sure is a dumbass. He uses a lot of his own opinion, asks some stupid questions that can easily be answered and then tosses out a table with some numbers that he completely misuses and doesn't understand what it says. Brilliant. The things he misses are that it is fact that in 2008 22 FBS athletic departments made money, in 2009 it went down to 14 and in 2011 it went up a little but I forget the number. Every other one of the 120 schools lost money on athletics. It is also a fact that football and sometimes basketball to an extent, funds every other sport in an atletic department, men and women. Since he wants to only look at profit of a football/basketball program and say "SEE", he must be proposing that schools drop all other sports. The dumbass doesn't even realize that EVERY single school of the 300+ he mentions lost money if they did not have a football program. 100%. I wonder what idiotic agenda that idiot has.

I've got an idea that will make the guy happy without paying anyone. Lets make going to college what is was intended to be. Lets have the same exact admission standards for everyone, lets not allow any recruiting, get rid of boosters, lets dump all the TV contracts and outrageous facilities and then lets just have tryouts at the school each year just like HS. The coaches would be the phys ed teachers (or equivalent) with a little extra compensation. For any kid that has no interest in an education, let them declare right out of HS for the NFL and NBA. If you want to be a college student and get an education, go to college. If you don't, don't. Problem solved.

 

[triplethrea]

Thanks for the link. That guy sure is a dumbass. He uses a lot of his own opinion, asks some stupid questions that can easily be answered and then tosses out a table with some numbers that he completely misuses and doesn't understand what it says. Brilliant. The things he misses are that it is fact that in 2008 22 FBS athletic departments made money, in 2009 it went down to 14 and in 2011 it went up a little but I forget the number. Every other one of the 120 schools lost money on athletics. It is also a fact that football and sometimes basketball to an extent, funds every other sport in an atletic department, men and women. Since he wants to only look at profit of a football/basketball program and say "SEE", he must be proposing that schools drop all other sports. The dumbass doesn't even realize that EVERY single school of the 300+ he mentions lost money if they did not have a football program. 100%. I wonder what idiotic agenda that idiot has.

I've got an idea that will make the guy happy without paying anyone. Lets make going to college what is was intended to be. Lets have the same exact admission standards for everyone, lets not allow any recruiting, get rid of boosters, lets dump all the TV contracts and outrageous facilities and then lets just have tryouts at the school each year just like HS. The coaches would be the phys ed teachers (or equivalent) with a little extra compensation. For any kid that has no interest in an education, let them declare right out of HS for the NFL and NBA. If you want to be a college student and get an education, go to college. If you don't, don't. Problem solved.

That guy put more into this topic of discussion than anybody I have read. And unlike you he cites where he gets his numbers from. If you consider him an "idiot" and a "dumbass", instead of respectfully disagreeing, then I know all I need to know about your willingness to listen to other sides of a discussion. And your 2nd paragraph told me why you're unwilling to listen. I will no longer be replying to your posts.

P.S.
Here's the response to your "drop other sports" argument: http://sportsgeekonomics.tumblr.com...-we-cant-pay-them-or-else-well-have-to-cancel

 

[rrlbees]

And your 2nd paragraph told me why you're unwilling to listen. I will no longer be replying to your posts.

Thanks!

NCAA

 

[rrlbees]

How does a school like Eastern Michigan ever get to the level of Duke or Syracuse with the system currently in place since they do not have the funds to build facilities or bring in top notch coaches, etc. What parity is there now? You're kidding yourself if you see parity in recruiting. Please read this http://sportsgeekonomics.tumblr.com...if-we-set-up-a-system-where-rich-schools-make

Another dumbass article. Of course there are haves and have nots. But if players go to the highest bidder, that list of haves becomes significantly smaller and the rest of the haves become have not's while the current have not's becomes have nothings.

 

[rrlbees]

P.S.
Here's the response to your "drop other sports" argument: http://sportsgeekonomics.tumblr.com...-we-cant-pay-them-or-else-well-have-to-cancel

PS; He states in the very beginning that to pay football players other sports would have to be cut. Brilliant.

When will he address the myth that kids who go to college for 4 years will make on average $1M more than kids that don't?