Wendell Carter's mom is cuckoo for cocoa puffs

[JoeSU]

If the university decides to add 12 new students and filter them across programs, it does not cost the university $600,000 to do that. (assuming tuition is $50K).

This logic is faulty on several levels. For starters, members of the basketball team can't be treated any differently than other athletes who are on scholarship, including women's teams covered under Title IX. I don't know how many total athletes would be involved, but now you're talking some serious lost tuition revenue to the university, which can only be made-up by raising tuition for all of the other students.

 

[Hoo's That]

So I read the entire story and aside from being disgusted with the slavery comparison, I had a few other thoughts:

1. The point that education is clearly a secondary concern not only for the coaches and programs but for the universities is valid. I've long argued that one thing these schools should do is try and push for a complete collegiate experience. Try to get these kids an opportunity to travel (I don't know why the NCAA wouldn't allow these teams to do an international trip every summer, for example. why not?) Allow/encourage the kids to do paid internships within their chosen field of study. Do away with admissions requirements in exchange for actually trying to work with whatever kids you bring in to make as much academic progress as they can toward a college degree. Anyway, whatever those changes are, it would seem to be a good thing. The issue, of course, is not everyone would ever get on board with that.

2. Her broader point of it being a system that is set up to take advantage of the players, particularly black players, but not necessarily in terms of paying players, is hard to understand, IMO. It would seem to me that some of that is on the player to take advantage of the opportunity and education he's being presented with.

3. If her major concern is the education her son is leaving behind, why didn't he just stay and try to knock out the degree in three years? I mean, we all know it would be a strange financial decision but it's a legitimate option, right?

Regarding your point on international travel, the NCAA has a rule that you're only allowed a preseason international trip every X years to limit the number of trips the "haves" can make. IIRC, the number is set up so that every player who stays for 4 years of eligibility will get an international trip at some point while they are in school.

 

[reedny]

If the university decides to add 12 new students and filter them across programs, it does not cost the university $600,000 to do that. (assuming tuition is $50K).

Again, the numbers don't lie. You spread out the cost of faculty, maintenance, facilities, utilities, scholarships etc ... it balances against the tuition they're charging, and the net is zero. They don't pull tuition out of thin air. If you subtract students (and their tuition), you have the same costs. Unless you cut some of those costs (or take from the endowment), tuition would have to rise. If they add students, they have added revenue, but then the costs go up proportionately ... there's more food to supply, more utilities, fewer rooms available ... etc... It's balanced budget with no profit.

 

[sufandu]

If a lot of people got raises, then a lot of retirees would get less money, because many have their retirement funds invested in mutual funds and other accounts, or stocks themselves, which rely on stock dividends. There is no one size fits all.

Not if it comes out of the profit that they generate. At keast that's how executives see it when they give themselves ginourmous bonuses. How is what I said different than the argument being made for the athletes? In most businesses it's the people at the bottom that generally make the product/provide the service that generate profit. All the layers of management take from that as they are nonproductive personnel. Substitute management for coaches and workers for players and the arguments are exactly the same. When people decide to fight as hard for regular working stiffs as they want to for college athletes, I'll care more about the athete "hardships." I'm pretty sure I won't ever have to worry about that because our culture cares more about entertainment than anything else.

 

[rrlbees]

You cannot be serious.


Unless my education was revisionist history and slaves went on to obtain degrees and some, if fortunate like Wendel, multimillion dollar careers.

He is

 

[OrangeDW]

I hate when people compare things to slavery. It’s insensitive. Nothing is like slavery. Especially when it’s about the NCAA or the NFL combine. Nah, that’s not what slavery was like. You can leave. You can choose not to participate.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

First, the title of this thread is embarrassing. It should be changed and this should be moved to the OT board.

I'm not going to expound on this topic because it's shaping up to be one of the more embarrassing for this board.

excellent contribution to the dialogue here.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

It's as if Kanye West was right. If this is slavery, then you are choosing to be a slave

 

[shantydaze]

The NCAA makes billions off these kids on the tournament and gives them nothing.
The schools atleast give them scholarships and provides for them.
What does the NCAA do for the players?
Except have figure head jobs that pay people hundreds of thousand of dollars or millions that are pointless.

I am always amazed and disappointed when I see this false argument bandied about on the various college message boards. It is almost like an urban legend that refuses to die: Where Does the Money Go?

A lot of the revenue generated by the NCAA is returned to the schools and conferences (who then also funnel a large portion back to the schools). While we can complain about the staffing costs of the NCAA, it is approximately 4% of its annual revenue.

So, lets look at Emmert's salary and compare it to similar for-profit positions:

NCAA - Mark Emmert - $1.9 Million
NBA - Adam Silver - $20 Million
MLB - Rob Manfred - $11 Million
NHL - Gary Bettman - $9.6 Million
NFL - Roger Goodell - $40 Million
MLS - Don Garber - $5 Million

The NCAA, as I have seen with other large non-profit organizations, pays its executives/executive directors a substantial salary. However, when comparing their salary to equivalent for profit positions (organizations with similar revenue, etc.), it is generally lower than what could be commanded in the for-profit world.

Here is an interesting Washington Post article about the salaries of the P5 Conference commissioners, all of which earn more than Emmert.

I get a little salty during the "exploitation of college athlete" arguments as I am still writing a monthly check for my Syracuse education (well to be fair, I am not writing a check, I am hitting a bunch of buttons on a keyboard). There is value to a cost of attendance scholarship. I wish there was an alternative so kids who do not want an education or college experience do not have to go to college. The fact there is not such an alternative is not the NCAA's fault. It is the fault of the NBA (both management and players) placing age restrictions on rookies and consumers for not supporting an alternative.

 

[Briancuse]

The NCAA makes billions off these kids on the tournament and gives them nothing.
The schools atleast give them scholarships and provides for them.
What does the NCAA do for the players?
Except have figure head jobs that pay people hundreds of thousand of dollars or millions that are pointless.

Why? These kids have it to good. Free education free food. Free clothes and shoes what more can you ask for. I'm getting so tired of the complaining. If they don't like it go get a job at McDonald's.

 

[MSOrange]

I hate when people compare things to slavery. It’s insensitive. Nothing is like slavery. Especially when it’s about the NCAA or the NFL combine. Nah, that’s not what slavery was like. You can leave. You can choose not to participate.

Agreed. She had some good points but when you make the comparison to slavery, you've just lost perspective.

 

[Alsacs]

I am always amazed and disappointed when I see this false argument bandied about on the various college message boards. It is almost like an urban legend that refuses to die: Where Does the Money Go?

A lot of the revenue generated by the NCAA is returned to the schools and conferences (who then also funnel a large portion back to the schools). While we can complain about the staffing costs of the NCAA, it is approximately 4% of its annual revenue.

So, lets look at Emmert's salary and compare it to similar for-profit positions:

NCAA - Mark Emmert - $1.9 Million
NBA - Adam Silver - $20 Million
MLB - Rob Manfred - $11 Million
NHL - Gary Bettman - $9.6 Million
NFL - Roger Goodell - $40 Million
MLS - Don Garber - $5 Million

The NCAA, as I have seen with other large non-profit organizations, pays its executives/executive directors a substantial salary. However, when comparing their salary to equivalent for profit positions (organizations with similar revenue, etc.), it is generally lower than what could be commanded in the for-profit world.

Here is an interesting Washington Post article about the salaries of the P5 Conference commissioners, all of which earn more than Emmert.

I get a little salty during the "exploitation of college athlete" arguments as I am still writing a monthly check for my Syracuse education (well to be fair, I am not writing a check, I am hitting a bunch of buttons on a keyboard). There is value to a cost of attendance scholarship. I wish there was an alternative so kids who do not want an education or college experience do not have to go to college. The fact there is not such an alternative is not the NCAA's fault. It is the fault of the NBA (both management and players) placing age restrictions on rookies and consumers for not supporting an alternative.

I don’t have to give this a proper response but I will say 1.9 million dollars for Mark Emmert is a joke. He does not deserve that.
His organization makes millions on amateur athletes and the athletes from the revenue sports don’t get anything from the NCAA.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Not if it comes out of the profit that they generate. At keast that's how executives see it when they give themselves ginourmous bonuses. How is what I said different than the argument being made for the athletes? In most businesses it's the people at the bottom that generally make the product/provide the service that generate profit. All the layers of management take from that as they are nonproductive personnel. Substitute management for coaches and workers for players and the arguments are exactly the same. When people decide to fight as hard for regular working stiffs as they want to for college athletes, I'll care more about the athete "hardships." I'm pretty sure I won't ever have to worry about that because our culture cares more about entertainment than anything else.

Profit = dividends = payment to stock holders.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

I don’t have to give this a proper response but I will say 1.9 million dollars for Mark Emmert is a joke. He does not deserve that.
His organization makes millions on amateur athletes and the athletes from the revenue sports don’t get anything from the NCAA.

An individual's performance aside, running a multi-billion dollar enterprise merits a high salary. $2 million doesn't seem out of line to me.

 

[PoppyHart]

His education did not cost the University $72,710, nor are students subsidizing that cost as you had said recently. If they had paid cash of $72,710 that is compensation.

The real cost to the university of adding 13 additional people to the university is a mere fraction of $72K per student. The variable costs of adding a student to the campus are not that large.

That being said while I am anti NCAA when it comes to certain matters it is not slavery either and it is absurd to compare it to slavery. Doesn't mean it is fair, but not slavery.

If you want compare it to something that frightens some Americans, it is communism. All student athletes receive the same thing no matter what they generate for a university,

Using that logic, I want to attend Harvard. I mean, the variable cost is negligible. I love how everything for economists occurs "at the margins".

 

[PoppyHart]

I don't think that's correct. SU is NFP. The costs and revenue each year add up to zero ... with the tuition at current levels. You may not place that value on an SU education .. that's a different issue. But the numbers are what they are.

+ 1,000.

 

[djmlaw]

I don’t know why people are going down the money hole. Unless she’s lying she said it wasn’t about paying players. She went on and on about education support and what sounded like educating players about the one and done process.

Exactly! It seems everyone just read the headline. If they read the entire transcript of what she said they'd realize it was one of the most intelligent analysis I have read in many, many years. She wanted him to go to Harvard.

 

[PoppyHart]

Slaves got free food... free room and board... free education and the like. not so very different

Free sneakers?

 

[FRANKIEFAN]

Well not sure I completely agree with this lady minor leagues don't pay much and free college and all the benefits they get aren't bad deals BUT I am still waiting to hear a rational explanation for why hockey players can enter the draft, get drafted, and continue to play NCAAs but football and basketball can't. The only explanation I can think of is along the lines of what Mrs Carter is saying.

 

[pfister1]

I am so sick of this argument.

(1) The players are compensated, they receive the opportunity to get a free education.

(2) Noone forces any athlete to go to college. If you want to be compensated differently than an education you have the option of doing that, it just isn't viewed as ultimately rewarding as the college path.

(3) the participants themselves are telling us that the value is at least greater than $26,000 salary available in the G League.

(4) The one and done phenomenon has pretty much proven out that the money made on college athletics is not about the athletes, its about the laundry and the competition. If all teams in college were playing high school caliber basketball, but at the same relative levels as they are now (ie. Duke, UK etc. were still a cut above; Rutgers was still trash) people would still watch and would still come to games.

I'm not convinced that college athletics is all that different than operating a huge call center. Companies can make lots of money doing it and pay minimum wage to those employees because they just need bodies to to answer the phones. Those bodies are easily replaceable.

(5) College athletes are not by and large being mistreated.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Not if it comes out of the profit that they generate. At keast that's how executives see it when they give themselves ginourmous bonuses. How is what I said different than the argument being made for the athletes? In most businesses it's the people at the bottom that generally make the product/provide the service that generate profit. All the layers of management take from that as they are nonproductive personnel. Substitute management for coaches and workers for players and the arguments are exactly the same. When people decide to fight as hard for regular working stiffs as they want to for college athletes, I'll care more about the athete "hardships." I'm pretty sure I won't ever have to worry about that because our culture cares more about entertainment than anything else.

Boards of directors give bonuses.

 

[Hoo's That]

Boards of directors, the vast majority of whom are chosen by the CEOs, give bonuses.

FIFY. I believe the most frequently seen descriptions are "mutual admiration society" and "self-licking ice cream cone."

 

[OttoMets]

...
(5) College athletes are not by and large being mistreated.

Agree completely with all your points. Although on #5, stuff like sending players to conference media days during the school week and having players go to the Final Four early to record those ridiculous TV promos is in very, very poor taste. If the schools and the leagues would come to their senses and button up that kind of exploitation (not trying to be provocative, I just don't think there's a better word to describe it), they'd better insulate themselves from this criticism.

 

[20Plus]

Here is a solution to idiots like this,who only see things in terms of slavery and race. Pay the players, then withhold the cost of attending Duke (or school X) and attending classes, as that is a requirement of you getting paid. Also, be sure to withhold federal, state and local taxes, as well as workers' comp and disability. Whatever is left is their compensation.
Then, build in a fine system for not doing well in class, as that impacts APR, which impacts the ability to give scholarships. Build in a fine system for missed classes and assignments, as well as actions which reflect badly upon your employer.

This is a great post

 

[sufandu]

Profit = dividends = payment to stock holders.

Boards of directors give bonuses.

I get how it works. I'm not stupid. It is interesting when companies that claim to lose money have executives that get bonuses while rank and file get pay cuts, though.

Regardless, that's not the point of what I've been talking about and you know that.