My Story about how the NCAA are crooks

Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
35
Likes
232
Not denying the validity of these articles, or things you’ve heard from others, but when I was at SU in the 90’s, every student ID was also a debit card tied to a meal plan. That money was free to be used anywhere on campus that it was accepted. This included the late night Kimmel Center where any student could engorge on Taco Bell at 2 am. I freely acknowledge that isn’t likely a part of a nutrition plan, but it was available to all students including athletes. A meal in a dining hall was bottomless. You swiped a meal off your card (or the value of that meal if all you had was money on your card as your meal plan) and ate until you were full. To the reference above, my roommate probably drank half a gallon of chocolate milk with each meal.
My roommate was a revenue scholarship athlete, and he was given something like $2100 per semester on that card. He bought me food. We always had boxes of nutritional supplements (MetRX) in our apartment provided by the school or team.
He had a car and had most of his parking tickets taken care of by the AD legal counsel. Parking on campus during class hours was all but impossible, so yes, we too took the bus from South Campus. Every so often, an assistant coach would drive by and offer us a ride to campus. Along the lines of what Tyler was saying about his tutors, the coach couldn’t drive my roommate unless I went along, so it couldn’t be said that the athlete got special treatment.
He was 7’ tall, and I believe he had his own bed. He was fortunate enough to have that, and to have it shipped.
I believe he got $100/day as a stipend when on the road. He was told they would give more if allowed by the NCAA. Most players pocketed this in order to play blackjack on the bus or plane. This could have something to do with hunger or computer stealing stories we hear.
great point on the meal plan. I agree we get a great meal plan. the problem is in season we cannot use it as often as we would like. Ernie would close before we could use the bus to get there. In the offseason however it was awesome. I wish we could have converted it to a cash plan for inseason to order grub hub or something but we could not. At least under Shafer (no offense to him) he just did not want us to because of the off season. Which who knows what would have happened from on-off season times
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
930
Likes
1,563
So if slavery was legal, plantation owners would not be wrong?

You come across as so uninformed. The ncaa is the member institutions. That includes syracuse. Stop blaming the boogie man.
Uninformed? You've made numerous analogies to athletes as employees in this thread. That is extremely uninformed and a classification the NCAA and it's member institutions have fought against repeatedly for financial reasons.

Sorry, just bothersome when someone calls a former D-1 athlete uninformed when they don't seem to grasp the economic and legal issues themselves.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
930
Likes
1,563
Pay every NCAA athlete or every Scholarship football and Basketball player? Huge difference in the number.
460,000 vs 30,000 or just the 20-40 colleges that sports programs make money
How about a free market approach. Let the market determine their worth. Free market makes allowance for an employer and employee to negotiate said pay and contract in lieu of the scholarship. If it's a track athlete, field hockey player or a football player makes no difference in this model.

If said athlete has little economic value to the school then offer them a scholarship as a choice.

If the NCAA didn't ban said practice (as a monopoly I may add) it would be the model used right now imo.
 

jgeorge322

All American
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
5,148
Likes
6,510
Uninformed? You've made numerous analogies to athletes as employees in this thread. That is extremely uninformed and a classification the NCAA and it's member institutions have fought against repeatedly for financial reasons.

Sorry, just bothersome when someone calls a former D-1 athlete uninformed when they don't seem to grasp the economic and legal issues themselves.
Im sorry you cannot understand my point.
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2017
Messages
1,338
Likes
2,201
I find the notion that only a few programs are profitable, or could be profitable, completely laughable. They've realized their profits through excess compensation, creative book keeping, and lavish facilities.

If spending had followed inflation, through the years, they would have absurd amounts of "profit". In 1982 the shocking salary of $250k was paid to the Texas head coach. Equates to $611,000 in 2014 dollars. The profits have been taken.

If a private industry had revenues increase by ten fold, and cried poverty, you'd all laugh. Corporate mansions, private Jets, $10,000 desks for all the unpaid interns could easily "prove" their position. Don't forget the massive amount of budget, dedicated to sports gambling, with the hope of winning some bets. It's the stuff that excess greed documentaries are made of.

I don't even care if players get paid. I just find the opposing argument to be beyond hypocritical.
 

maxxyz

2nd String
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
718
Likes
1,052
I find the notion that only a few programs are profitable, or could be profitable, completely laughable. They've realized their profits through excess compensation, creative book keeping, and lavish facilities.

If spending had followed inflation, through the years, they would have absurd amounts of "profit". In 1982 the shocking salary of $250k was paid to the Texas head coach. Equates to $611,000 in 2014 dollars. The profits have been taken.

If a private industry had revenues increase by ten fold, and cried poverty, you'd all laugh. Corporate mansions, private Jets, $10,000 desks for all the unpaid interns could easily "prove" their position. Don't forget the massive amount of budget, dedicated to sports gambling, with the hope of winning some bets. It's the stuff that excess greed documentaries are made of.

I don't even care if players get paid. I just find the opposing argument to be beyond hypocritical.
Haven't the "expenses" of running an college athletics department risen exponentially since 1980? From the internets :) - Title IX has had an enormous impact on expenses as the number of women's teams has jumped since it's enactment in 1972. Since the enactment of Title IX, women’s participation in sports has grown exponentially. In college, the number has grown from 30,000 to more than 150,000. Wouldn't that have an impact on expenses?

No question that colleges are listing profits as low as possible. But it appears entirely possible that few D1 schools make money on their athletics overall.
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2017
Messages
1,338
Likes
2,201
I like title IX.

Saban's salary is 18 times the inflation adjusted 1982 highest salary. Just the difference in salary, is enough to pay all 85 Alabama players $123,400. The 25th highest salary is 6 times the 1982 #. $35,000 per scholly player. That's just 1 coach, per team.

Add support staff, AD's, and their monetary gains, reckless spending on lavish facilities, creative book keeping, etc. There has been massive profit taking, and the schools will never give it back.

For me, the title ix argument, is a threat. The schools don't want to tap into the massive increases they've given themselves, so they'll hide behind it. "Don't you love women's sports?". Yes. Yes we do. Even more than the huge increase in salaries you've given yourself. Even more than the teams mini golf course. Even more than the $14 million jumbotron thats glow can be seen from 25 miles away.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Messages
1,670
Likes
1,549
I like title IX.

Saban's salary is 18 times the inflation adjusted 1982 highest salary. Just the difference in salary, is enough to pay all 85 Alabama players $123,400. The 25th highest salary is 6 times the 1982 #. $35,000 per scholly player. That's just 1 coach, per team.

Add support staff, AD's, and their monetary gains, reckless spending on lavish facilities, creative book keeping, etc. There has been massive profit taking, and the schools will never give it back. That's the increase in expenses.

For me, the title ix argument, is a threat. The schools don't want to tap into the massive increases they've given themselves, so they'll hide behind it. "Don't you love women's sports?". Yes. Yes we do. Even more than the the huge increase in salaries you've given yourself. Even more than the teams mini golf course. Even more than the $20 million jumbotron thats glow can be seen from 25 miles away.
But who is 'the school?' It's not some inhuman entity/structure. Amongst other things, it's a collection of students and organizations to help students. Schools also often have significant components that produce research to benefit society as a whole.

What you're saying won't unlock money from greedy football coaches (Saban would still make a comparable salary). Instead, it would shift resources from academics to athletes. That move may or may not be correct. I can see arguments going both ways. But it's the move that would be made.

It's also worth noting that the lavish expenses like jumbotrons are made because, at least in theory, they bring in more money than they cost.
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2017
Messages
1,338
Likes
2,201
I agree with you. The whole system is completely messed up, due to the influx of $$. The amateur model shifted to a profit model, many years ago, imo, for everyone, but the athlete.

If schools had held themselves accountable, to their own stated principles of amateurism, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead, they sold their souls to sneaker companies, and television networks.

All that profit could have been used for research grants, improved higher learning, academic scholarships, etc... Instead, it's all used for trying to win games, and increase profit.

In a generation or two, I think we will all look back on it, and say "What the hell were we thinking."
 

Sudano

Scout Team
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
469
Likes
368
How about a free market approach. Let the market determine their worth. Free market makes allowance for an employer and employee to negotiate said pay and contract in lieu of the scholarship. If it's a track athlete, field hockey player or a football player makes no difference in this model.

If said athlete has little economic value to the school then offer them a scholarship as a choice.

If the NCAA didn't ban said practice (as a monopoly I may add) it would be the model used right now imo.
That can be done outside the realm of educational institutions. Start up private leagues that do that instead of forcing colleges who have many other priorities to balance. I just don't see why colleges would want to balance educational pursuits of non athletes, non-revenue sports, Title IX pressures, along with picking and choosing a few men athletes to pay what, how much, when, and such. I know that if that starts, women via Title IX directives will keep it in the courts for decades.
Athletic Financial Assistance The Department’s Title IX regulations specify that if a recipient awards athletic financial assistance, including athletic scholarships or grants-in-aid, it must provide reasonable opportunities for such awards for members of each s e x in substantial proportion to the number of students of each s e x participating in interscholastic or intercollegiate athletics
 

tipphill

All Conference
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
2,246
Likes
1,368
No offense intended but you premise is pretty flawed. Just to start with, the idea that each player is the only entity that has a value ( what about coaches, staff, administrators, cheerleaders) and that there are apparently no expenses in your football world (the dome utility bill alone is millions annually) so your numbers are inflated.

And there are many businesses that have 5-10 % labor costs. Not unusual for 10 engineers to be working on a $100,000,000 contract. There are plenty of grad assistants at research universities working on huge research projects for a scholarship and a stipend. But it’s all moot anyways because football and basketball pays for all the other sports. You can’t look at an individual team in a vacuum.

Maybe things should change. Maybe the revenue sports should stand alone. Maybe there will be a huge wave of new legislation and Title IX laws will be repealed. But if the NCAA was disbanded and colleges created a professional league to market themselves (because that’s why colleges do athletics in the first place) the players average salary would likely be less than $50,000 at a school like SU. Any players that deserved more would be under contract with an NFL team. And have a work environment similar to A & AA baseball. Maybe AAA in some places. Take a look at your local minor league baseball franchise. Is that what you want your teams to have?

Let the kids who have the talent go pro immediately and make what the market will bear. Let the pro leagues develop their own talent in their own minor league system. Let college be amateur athletics.
i am in favor of a baseball like model of minor leagues. it will stop the schools from cheating, it will take the pressure off kids to achieve academically that should not be there in the first place. it will give those kids an avenue to try to achieve to their greatest athletic potential, rather being forced to cheat right along with the universities.
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2017
Messages
1,338
Likes
2,201
My best friend Michael Lasker was in the midst of having his dad pass away. He was then unable to get some money from his family every two weeks as an allowance. Most players do not have the opportunity.

FAFSA does give players some money if their family is completely unable to support them. But that money goes to the University to support the athletic scholarship. So in real time that means that their scholarship just hurts the school less. The players see none of that. If their scholarship is then deemed free by the government they get to use about $500 towards stuff like being able to use a University printer more, or get to borrow a calculator for a semester if they have a math class...

I think that if a player has a government scholarship and athletic scholarship it should be more towards a cash stipend. Not saying the whole 65k that Cuse doles out. Maybe 2k a semester.

I also think that athletes should be able to accept benefits from people outside the program. If a bar/ restaurant wants to give us a free meal. That is on their bottom line. Not the program. I mean it was tough when I was across campus doing tutoring, and someone offered me a ride to practice but they could not because it was an NCAA violation. Just seems kinda petty. But what do I know.
Thanks.

Giving someone a ride is an NCAA violation.

Getting fed, in season CAN be a problem.

FAFSA mostly goes to the school. If they do get anything, it has to go to things like printing, or calculators, through the University. Not any unforseen living expenses. Is that correct? (I'm guessing that's why some kids have to save their COA/food $$ to buy things, like a bed that fits them)

Knew that a free meal was a violation, and that seems silly to me.

If a kid gets full government assistance, because of his economic situation, the University saves the scholly $$, and the kid may get $500 a month, for bare essentials not provided by the University. Is my understanding correct?

If so, that works out great for the University. That would put a premium on seeking out the poorest kids possible, to maximize profit. Really hope I misunderstood you. Get 20 of em, and you can give yourself a million dollar plus raise. You know, and then say how dirty it would be to pay players.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 19, 2017
Messages
1,338
Likes
2,201
Can someone with knowledge, please chime in on how the FAFSA /government assistance $$ is handled? If Tyler's understanding is correct, this whole thing is beyond sinister. I want to believe that my interpretation of what he said is 100% wrong.

I found a stat, tonight, that said 86% of D1 athletes are below the poverty line. It's the internet. It needs to be verified.

If either is remotely correct? Wow.
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2017
Messages
1,338
Likes
2,201
In his memoir, 30 year NCAA head, Walter Byers admitted that "student athlete" was a tool of propaganda, designed to draw attention away from a paid to play system. I believe the man that invented it.

In a speech:

"Each generation of young persons come along and all they ask is, 'Coach, give me a chance, I can do it.' And it's a disservice to these young people that the management of intercollegiate athletics stays in place committed to an outmoded code of amateurism.


And I attribute that to, quite frankly, to the neo-plantation mentality that exists on the campuses of our country and in the conference offices and in the NCAA. The coach owns the athlete's feet, the college owns the athlete's body and the athlete's mind is supposed to comprehend a rulebook that I challenge Dave Berst, who's sitting down in this audience, to explain in rational terms to you inside of eight hours."
 

HtownOrange

All American
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
5,783
Likes
5,732
I like title IX.

Saban's salary is 18 times the inflation adjusted 1982 highest salary. Just the difference in salary, is enough to pay all 85 Alabama players $123,400. The 25th highest salary is 6 times the 1982 #. $35,000 per scholly player. That's just 1 coach, per team.

Add support staff, AD's, and their monetary gains, reckless spending on lavish facilities, creative book keeping, etc. There has been massive profit taking, and the schools will never give it back.

For me, the title ix argument, is a threat. The schools don't want to tap into the massive increases they've given themselves, so they'll hide behind it. "Don't you love women's sports?". Yes. Yes we do. Even more than the huge increase in salaries you've given yourself. Even more than the teams mini golf course. Even more than the $14 million jumbotron thats glow can be seen from 25 miles away.
In addition to NZM's comments, most coaches get a school salary with the balance paid by boosters and/or other revenue streams that simply would not be inmplace if there was no team.

Yes, I agree his pay is exorbitant in lieu of what other state employees and other University personnel make. However, there are only a handful of elite coaches and Alabama has agreed to pay him because they place more value on wins with kids who are not necessarily academic minded over certaily academic minded kids. That is their choice. The kids and families will suffer in the long run and the market will correct itself but until then, it is what it is.

As for the players, they are still walking away with more than a quarter.million dollars in education, experiences and other benefits if they take school seriously. And, yes, the field hockey team is riding g their coat tails but that is the governmentally imposed system. If you don't like it, write your senators and your congressman.
 
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
35
Likes
232
Can someone with knowledge, please chime in on how the FAFSA /government assistance $$ is handled? If Tyler's understanding is correct, this whole thing is beyond sinister. I want to believe that my interpretation of what he said is 100% wrong.

I found a stat, tonight, that said 86% of D1 athletes are below the poverty line. It's the internet. It needs to be verified.

If either is remotely correct? Wow.
well im not lying.. or trying to get anyone riled up just saying what i saw
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2017
Messages
1,338
Likes
2,201
well im not lying.. or trying to get anyone riled up just saying what i saw
Didn't think you were.

If 86% of players are below the poverty line, it sounds like the government is supporting a large part of their education. The scholly $$, we all think they're getting, is subsidized, and the schools labor force cost is far less than we previously thought. For full assistance, the school is giving them nothing. Great.
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2017
Messages
1,338
Likes
2,201
I hope the current FBI scandal ends with 100% regulation of college sports.

It'll never happen, but hold the schools to their "amateur" statements. Strict limits on compensation, spending, and book keeping. End the arms race. After the spending insanity hangover, the p5 would be flush with cash.

Pay the professor coaches like professors. It's amateur sports, after all. Their 4 year professor coach contracts should be more than enough. They should be thankful for the opportunity. They are professors in amateur sports, and they should also be protected from commercial explotation, on and off the field. With title ix concerns, there is no justification for giving these professor coaches, staff, AD's any more than their 4 year professor contracts.

If the schools want to change it? Have the same rules for professor coaches, higher learning sports teams, and student athletes.

Yeah, right.

*I personally don't care. I just think it's filled with double standards and hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:

Sudano

Scout Team
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
469
Likes
368
Can someone with knowledge, please chime in on how the FAFSA /government assistance $$ is handled? If Tyler's understanding is correct, this whole thing is beyond sinister. I want to believe that my interpretation of what he said is 100% wrong.

I found a stat, tonight, that said 86% of D1 athletes are below the poverty line. It's the internet. It needs to be verified.

If either is remotely correct? Wow.
Link? To put that in comparison '95% of all college students live below the poverty line'
 

Capt. Tuttle

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 22, 2011
Messages
14,253
Likes
14,389
Link? To put that in comparison 95% of all college students live below the poverty line'
That is not true, because I would bet that 95% of college students have a home to go to, & have money sent to them, from time to time, and they have housing and food provided to them, or available to them. They all have health insurance. You can't just look at income, especially because they are forgoing work for education.
 
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Messages
1,670
Likes
1,549
That is not true, because I would bet that 95% of college students have a home to go to, & have money sent to them, from time to time, and they have housing and food provided to them, or available to them. They all have health insurance. You can't just look at income, especially because they are forgoing work for education.
That's his point. The numbers could be misleading. You could say the same thing about many DI athletes.
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2017
Messages
1,338
Likes
2,201
Lots of info in this 2010 study(33 page PDF):
National College Players Association

My issue is that the entire debate seems to be framed around misinformation, assumptions, and propaganda. Not about responsibility.

Folks assume the students have it great. Perhaps they do, but getting food, and bare necessities CAN be an issue, and it seems mostly ignored. The 43 hour work week is ignored. Inability to get a job - to pay for those necessities- ignored, and so on.

The head of the NCAA, for 30 years, admits that the term "student athlete" was coined as a term of propaganda to not pay the athletes. Yet,folks gladly argue the propaganda. If a soldier in the WW2 Pacific theater argued the words of Tokyo Rose, what would you think of that? I won't argue it, because the man who came up with it, said it was a lie.

Folks argue profitability, and title ix. The only reason this comes up, is because of the massive irresponsible spending, and profit taking by the programs. Remember, the average p5 program earned an extra $400 million in the last 10 years. Profit taking and wins are more important to more folks, than being responsible stewards, or being fair and equitable.

I think the framing of the argument is rife with logical fallacies, in order to protect profits. The former head of the NCAA admitted it. I don't think the discussion should be based on those fallacies, but it still is.
 

Sudano

Scout Team
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
469
Likes
368
That is not true, because I would bet that 95% of college students have a home to go to, & have money sent to them, from time to time, and they have housing and food provided to them, or available to them. They all have health insurance. You can't just look at income, especially because they are forgoing work for education.
NZM136 got my point. I obviously made up the number to make my point. Most college students are poor, hence the saying 'poor college student'. Now you say that 86% of athletes are homeless, have no resources from home but are worse off despite having a full tuition, room and board paid for. That's a stretch.
 

Ozcuse

All American
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
4,130
Likes
5,830
NZM136 got my point. I obviously made up the number to make my point. Most college students are poor, hence the saying 'poor college student'. Now you say that 86% of athletes are homeless, have no resources from home but are worse off despite having a full tuition, room and board paid for. That's a stretch.
There is a big difference between being the under the poverty line and homeless.

The poverty line for a family of 4 is $25,100 to be eligible for many federal programs such as housing assistance, SNAP, etc. Many states have a higher poverty line for state programs due to cost of living index.
 


3
Top Bottom