Wisconsin Nigel Hates suing NCAA for player pay

[orangenirvana]

The issue is not specifically whether SU would benefit or suffer from such a change, rather it is whether the NCAA's attempt (in theory) to have a level playing field for all of its member schools should be thrown out the window.

The playing field isn't even close to level. And that's not the NCAA's intention.

 

[kirbivore]

Don't pay them. Just remove the barriers to players generating their own income from their name and likeness.

Put the likeness money in an escrow account they can take with them when they leave.

 

[Brooky03]

The NCAA doesn't "make" money in the traditional sense. It is a non-profit organization that distributes its net profits to the member schools through a variety of programs. The NCAA will never pay players, it would be the responsibility of the schools. Some of the money will come through the NCAA distributions, to be sure, but it will require the universities to make hard decisions as to which sports to take money away from to pay the players.

Would have replied sooner, but bans are a price you pay for loving freedom and America.

Anyway, was the explanation that the NCAA is a non-profit necessary? Who doesn't know that the NCAA is a non-profit?

 

[Hoo's That]

Would have replied sooner, but bans are a price you pay for loving freedom and America.

Anyway, was the explanation that the NCAA is a non-profit necessary? Who doesn't know that the NCAA is a non-profit?

Maybe a lot of the people who talk about "all that money" the NCAA gets from the CBS contract? They all talk about how much comes in, but they rarely, if ever, talk about where it goes out. I'm sure that the senior people working in India-noplace aren't starved for cash, but it's not like they all drive Lamborghinis to work. but when you read some columnists, they sure make it seem like they sure are, and this poor, starving, innocent, "doesn't have enough money to buy his friends a pizza" kid, plucked from The Inner City and dropped into a world he couldn't have imagined existed, is the one doing all the work. {Did I miss any of the clichés?}

 

[Waltdods]

Maybe a lot of the people who talk about "all that money" the NCAA gets from the CBS contract? They all talk about how much comes in, but they rarely, if ever, talk about where it goes out. I'm sure that the senior people working in India-noplace aren't starved for cash, but it's not like they all drive Lamborghinis to work. but when you read some columnists, they sure make it seem like they sure are, and this poor, starving, innocent, "doesn't have enough money to buy his friends a pizza" kid, plucked from The Inner City and dropped into a world he couldn't have imagined existed, is the one doing all the work. {Did I miss any of the clichés?}

Tony Bennet makes roughly $3 million a year. UVa could take half of that, distribute a share to each of the players on the team, and all those players would have a six-figure income. But Bennett gets to sell his services in a free market, and the players don't.

There is a ton of money sloshing around this system. Rules have been set up that allow that money to go literally everywhere except the players. So it gets pushed to coaches, or to practice facilities, or to dorms, or to hiring a dozen different hangers-on for a program with 12 players, or to recruiting trips, or to any number of other ways that make many people rich.

 

[Brooky03]

Maybe a lot of the people who talk about "all that money" the NCAA gets from the CBS contract? They all talk about how much comes in, but they rarely, if ever, talk about where it goes out. I'm sure that the senior people working in India-noplace aren't starved for cash, but it's not like they all drive Lamborghinis to work. but when you read some columnists, they sure make it seem like they sure are, and this poor, starving, innocent, "doesn't have enough money to buy his friends a pizza" kid, plucked from The Inner City and dropped into a world he couldn't have imagined existed, is the one doing all the work. {Did I miss any of the clichés?}

So are you arguing the money belongs with the schools more than it belongs with the players? The schools deserve 90% of NCAA revenue (or whatever the split is) while the players get essentially 0? Or, if we want to count the scholarships, about .0000001%?

 

[UnknownOrange]

The amount of money that is made from college basketball now, compared to 10, 20, 30, 60 years ago is unbelievable.

Yet one constant remains the same; scholarships.

Imagine working at Apple from the jump. Steve Jobs gives you $10 an hour. You grind away and bust your ass to make Apple become what it is today. Fast forward to now and Apple is one of the most successful companies around worth over $700 Billion, and you're still making $10 an hour.

 

[Hoo's That]

Yes, there's a lot of money in the collegiate sports system, but ...

It's not the money from the CBS contract for the D-1 basketball championship and a lot of people point to that contract specifically as a reason why the NCAA is rolling in cash and players should be paid.

There has always been a lot of legitimate and illegitimate money from donors going into athletics. I'm not versed enough in economics to say, for example, what Ben Schwarzwalder's (sp) contract would be worth in 2016 dollars to compare it to Dino Babers' or to compare the donations of Sugar Daddies from then to now. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if either salaries or donations or both have increased in real terms. A good part of the extra money comes from the change in the structure of the TV contracts for football and regular season bball of then to now. Regardless, Schwarzwalder and Babers got/get a heckUVa lot more money than their players got/get. The demographic changes in the teams is the elephant sitting in the corner everyone chooses to ignore.

Does paying the players become the "last straw" that makes the academics change everything to the D-3 model? I don't think it's news to anyone that the resentment is there. When does (not "could") it go beyond the complaints of just one bearded professor here and there?

 

[Waltdods]

Yes, there's a lot of money in the collegiate sports system, but ...

It's not the money from the CBS contract for the D-1 basketball championship and a lot of people point to that contract specifically as a reason why the NCAA is rolling in cash and players should be paid.

There has always been a lot of legitimate and illegitimate money from donors going into athletics. I'm not versed enough in economics to say, for example, what Ben Schwarzwalder's (sp) contract would be worth in 2016 dollars to compare it to Dino Babers' or to compare the donations of Sugar Daddies from then to now. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if either salaries or donations or both have increased in real terms. A good part of the extra money comes from the change in the structure of the TV contracts for football and regular season bball of then to now. Regardless, Schwarzwalder and Babers got/get a heckUVa lot more money than their players got/get. The demographic changes in the teams is the elephant sitting in the corner everyone chooses to ignore.

Does paying the players become the "last straw" that makes the academics change everything to the D-3 model? I don't think it's news to anyone that the resentment is there. When does (not "could") it go beyond the complaints of just one bearded professor here and there?

I don't understand why the source of the money matters. That seems like a completely tangential point that is an obvious distraction from the actual question. There is a lot of money, it comes from many places, and it goes to many places, but carefully avoids the actual players. But obviously there is a ton more money in the system now than there was 30 or 50 years ago. There might be one game a week on television in the '70s; now there are hundreds!

I also don't understand the demographic point you seem to want to make without saying. What do the demographics have to do with anything? The point is that everyone in this system gets to make money off it, except for the players. That's true whatever the color or wealth of the player.

I think your last point is the most valid one, though I'd phrase it a little differently. There is something about the image of the scholar-athlete that makes college sports in the United States something more meaningful than minor-league baseball. And there is a risk that we upset the apple cart by admitting that "scholar-athlete" is an illusion. I would agree that this militates against just opening things up for whatever sort of payments you want. But the players already live a life that has virtually nothing in common with their classmates. Allowing them to also make several thousand dollars a year doesn't seem to be a difference in kind. It's just an argument that we need a line somewhere, not a particularly cogent one about where that line should be. And when, on the other side, is the systematic screwing of thousands of young people to the benefit of a bunch of wealthy entrenched interests, this seems like an easy question.

 

[NYCSUGrad]

Yes, there's a lot of money in the collegiate sports system, but ...

It's not the money from the CBS contract for the D-1 basketball championship and a lot of people point to that contract specifically as a reason why the NCAA is rolling in cash and players should be paid.

There has always been a lot of legitimate and illegitimate money from donors going into athletics. I'm not versed enough in economics to say, for example, what Ben Schwarzwalder's (sp) contract would be worth in 2016 dollars to compare it to Dino Babers' or to compare the donations of Sugar Daddies from then to now. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if either salaries or donations or both have increased in real terms. A good part of the extra money comes from the change in the structure of the TV contracts for football and regular season bball of then to now. Regardless, Schwarzwalder and Babers got/get a heckUVa lot more money than their players got/get. The demographic changes in the teams is the elephant sitting in the corner everyone chooses to ignore.

Does paying the players become the "last straw" that makes the academics change everything to the D-3 model? I don't think it's news to anyone that the resentment is there. When does (not "could") it go beyond the complaints of just one bearded professor here and there?

It's not even necessary to pay the players as others have pointed out but not to exploit them.

If you are middle class or better on scholarship your parents can supply you with an allowance. If you are genuinely poor, and you slip through the cracks like the UConn player who described being really hungry at times, why SHOULD THAT BE? There was a thread here which described how SU basketball players had unlimited bagels at their training center and/or dorms but no cream cheese for them. Jelly maybe. Something ludicrous.

And that jerseys and other items are sold that the players get no $ from again constitutes theft. The schools get around it by leaving the player's name off now. But every fan knows which players wear each number and they buy their current or all time favorites.

And don't try to EARN $ during the season like the SU player who kept score at the Y did!

 

[UnknownOrange]

Yes, there's a lot of money in the collegiate sports system, but ...

It's not the money from the CBS contract for the D-1 basketball championship and a lot of people point to that contract specifically as a reason why the NCAA is rolling in cash and players should be paid.

There has always been a lot of legitimate and illegitimate money from donors going into athletics. I'm not versed enough in economics to say, for example, what Ben Schwarzwalder's (sp) contract would be worth in 2016 dollars to compare it to Dino Babers' or to compare the donations of Sugar Daddies from then to now. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if either salaries or donations or both have increased in real terms. A good part of the extra money comes from the change in the structure of the TV contracts for football and regular season bball of then to now. Regardless, Schwarzwalder and Babers got/get a heckUVa lot more money than their players got/get. The demographic changes in the teams is the elephant sitting in the corner everyone chooses to ignore.

Does paying the players become the "last straw" that makes the academics change everything to the D-3 model? I don't think it's news to anyone that the resentment is there. When does (not "could") it go beyond the complaints of just one bearded professor here and there?

Bear Bryant while at Texas A&M made $15,000 per year with 1% on ticket sales. Translates to about $135K in today's dollars.

Here are some of the ASSISTANTS who make around that today. The far left column (664-673) is their rank for pay.

 

[shantydaze]

The amount of money that is made from college basketball now, compared to 10, 20, 30, 60 years ago is unbelievable.

Yet one constant remains the same; scholarships.

Imagine working at Apple from the jump. Steve Jobs gives you $10 an hour. You grind away and bust your ass to make Apple become what it is today. Fast forward to now and Apple is one of the most successful companies around worth over $700 Billion, and you're still making $10 an hour.

The problem with this analogy is it assumes the value of a scholarship has not also risen in that time. Currently tuition, by itself at SU, is more than the entire cost of attendance when I was there in the late 90s. The cost of attending college and coaches' salaries might two of the few things that have increased by more than inflation.

 

[UnknownOrange]

The problem with this analogy is it assumes the value of a scholarship has not also risen in that time. Currently tuition, by itself at SU, is more than the entire cost of attendance when I was there in the late 90s. The cost of attending college and coaches' salaries might two of the few things that have increased by more than inflation.

Okay so inflation affects everything obviously. SU tuition has certainly gone up and would need to be adjusted for inflation. It is still not coming anywhere close to coaching salary increases, tv money, sponsorships, etc.

 

[shantydaze]

Tony Bennet makes roughly $3 million a year. UVa could take half of that, distribute a share to each of the players on the team, and all those players would have a six-figure income. But Bennett gets to sell his services in a free market, and the players don't.

There is a ton of money sloshing around this system. Rules have been set up that allow that money to go literally everywhere except the players. So it gets pushed to coaches, or to practice facilities, or to dorms, or to hiring a dozen different hangers-on for a program with 12 players, or to recruiting trips, or to any number of other ways that make many people rich.

If there is a gripe over this, it should not be directed at colleges, but the NBA and NBA players who agreed in the collective bargaining agreement that a player be at least 19 and one year removed from high school to be drafted in the NBA.

In addition, nothing stops a player from taking the Brandon Jennings route to the NBA. Rather than go to college, he agreed to play in Europe for $1.65 million and a $2 million shoe deal. The issue for many high school players is they are not physically mature enough or need better coaching to be able to play professionally. After one year in college, nothing stops a player from leaving college to sell his services on the free market to play professionally in the NBA (to be fair, it is not really the free market until free agency). What gets lost in the conversation so often is that the vast majority of players are not good enough to sell their services to the NBA, and, therefore, voluntarily return to college where they can exploit the school's free coaching, facilities, etc. until they are attractive enough to play professionally or graduate with a degree and connections to find employment in a different field. This is the free market at work.

 

[JoeySimz]

Okay so inflation affects everything obviously. SU tuition has certainly gone up and would need to be adjusted for inflation. It is still not coming anywhere close to coaching salary increases, tv money, sponsorships, etc.

Exactly. I would add that the debate shouldn't even be about intuition or the "value of an education".

This is a billion dollar industry. They don't make mere millions. We're talking billions. Coaches salaries/tv contracts/sponsorships have all risen astronomically. Everyone including the people who run this non-profit NCAA make bank. They don't get paid in free tuition or classes. They get paid in money.

 

[UnknownOrange]

If there is a gripe over this, it should not be directed at colleges, but the NBA and NBA players who agreed in the collective bargaining agreement that a player be at least 19 and one year removed from high school to be drafted in the NBA.

In addition, nothing stops a player from taking the Brandon Jennings route to the NBA. Rather than go to college, he agreed to play in Europe for $1.65 million and a $2 million shoe deal. The issue for many high school players is they are not physically mature enough or need better coaching to be able to play professionally. After one year in college, nothing stops a player from leaving college to sell his services on the free market to play professionally in the NBA (to be fair, it is not really the free market until free agency). What gets lost in the conversation so often is that the vast majority of players are not good enough to sell their services to the NBA, and, therefore, voluntarily return to college where they can exploit the school's free coaching, facilities, etc. until they are attractive enough to play professionally or graduate with a degree and connections to find employment in a different field. This is the free market at work.

But it isn't. You're right because the NBA & Players put the rule in you need to be a year removed from highschool.

You should be able to go right from high school to the NBA. Yes, maybe some aren't ready. There is 1 LeBron James in every 100 Jonathan Bender's.

However, you should still be able to go if someone wants to pay you. There is currently a restriction so I wouldn't exactly call it a 'free' market, but I get your point.

I think another fear for high school kids is going to play in a foreign country at 17.

 

[Waltdods]

If there is a gripe over this, it should not be directed at colleges, but the NBA and NBA players who agreed in the collective bargaining agreement that a player be at least 19 and one year removed from high school to be drafted in the NBA.

In addition, nothing stops a player from taking the Brandon Jennings route to the NBA. Rather than go to college, he agreed to play in Europe for $1.65 million and a $2 million shoe deal. The issue for many high school players is they are not physically mature enough or need better coaching to be able to play professionally. After one year in college, nothing stops a player from leaving college to sell his services on the free market to play professionally in the NBA (to be fair, it is not really the free market until free agency). What gets lost in the conversation so often is that the vast majority of players are not good enough to sell their services to the NBA, and, therefore, voluntarily return to college where they can exploit the school's free coaching, facilities, etc. until they are attractive enough to play professionally or graduate with a degree and connections to find employment in a different field. This is the free market at work.

The NBA rules are a restriction. They have effects. The NCAA rules are different restrictions. They also have effects. I don't see how the existence of the first eliminates the second.

Given the current constraints, it makes sense (obviously) for a lot of people to play college sports, and for a lot of kids to play 2, 3, or 4 years of college sports, and to do so for the compensation offered. There's no question about that. But these decisions are being heavily constrained and limited by NCAA rules. And that's leading a lot of people to have a lot less than they otherwise would, and a lot of other people to have a lot more.

 

[billsin01]

The amount of money that is made from college basketball now, compared to 10, 20, 30, 60 years ago is unbelievable.

Yet one constant remains the same; scholarships.

Imagine working at Apple from the jump. Steve Jobs gives you $10 an hour. You grind away and bust your ass to make Apple become what it is today. Fast forward to now and Apple is one of the most successful companies around worth over $700 Billion, and you're still making $10 an hour.

Except that in your example college tuition as least tripled since the 1980s. If you want to count tuition as less than what these players should receive, that's fine and a slightly different argument, but at least in this instance you'd be making three times what you were making when you started working at apple. We can argue whether or not that's fair compensation but your analogy is disingenuous.

 

[texascpa]

Tony Bennet makes roughly $3 million a year. UVa could take half of that, distribute a share to each of the players on the team, and all those players would have a six-figure income. But Bennett gets to sell his services in a free market, and the players don't.

There is a ton of money sloshing around this system. Rules have been set up that allow that money to go literally everywhere except the players. So it gets pushed to coaches, or to practice facilities, or to dorms, or to hiring a dozen different hangers-on for a program with 12 players, or to recruiting trips, or to any number of other ways that make many people rich.

And Tony Bennett wouldn't be working there then. And the players certainly can sell their service, they aren't required to go to college. They can try to make it straight in the NBA or go play internationally. Oh, wait, their skills aren't up to par you say? Well, then sell your services to the school that will provide you the education you want. No one forces these kids to play. No one.

And you say a ton, yet so many schools show losses, so many schools are taking money out of their general funds to pay for athletics. Maybe there isn't a big of a slosh as you think.

 

[texascpa]

The amount of money that is made from college basketball now, compared to 10, 20, 30, 60 years ago is unbelievable.

Yet one constant remains the same; scholarships.

Imagine working at Apple from the jump. Steve Jobs gives you $10 an hour. You grind away and bust your ass to make Apple become what it is today. Fast forward to now and Apple is one of the most successful companies around worth over $700 Billion, and you're still making $10 an hour.

Then you're an idiot for staying there for 30 years at that rate. That's on you, not on Apple or Steve Jobs.

 

[billsin01]

If there is a gripe over this, it should not be directed at colleges, but the NBA and NBA players who agreed in the collective bargaining agreement that a player be at least 19 and one year removed from high school to be drafted in the NBA.

In addition, nothing stops a player from taking the Brandon Jennings route to the NBA. Rather than go to college, he agreed to play in Europe for $1.65 million and a $2 million shoe deal. The issue for many high school players is they are not physically mature enough or need better coaching to be able to play professionally. After one year in college, nothing stops a player from leaving college to sell his services on the free market to play professionally in the NBA (to be fair, it is not really the free market until free agency). What gets lost in the conversation so often is that the vast majority of players are not good enough to sell their services to the NBA, and, therefore, voluntarily return to college where they can exploit the school's free coaching, facilities, etc. until they are attractive enough to play professionally or graduate with a degree and connections to find employment in a different field. This is the free market at work.

The major flaw in people's arguments on this subject is that they tend to really oversimplify the matter. As in, 'all the coaches are rich fat cats and the universities sit on huge endowments while the poor players starve' or 'It's not fair to players that everyone else is rich and they don't see a dime.'

I'll preface my counterarguments by saying that I have zero problem with any of three things that might eliminate or at least drastically reduce the perceived problem:

1) Schools offering all-inclusive scholarships to players in revenue-generating sports. i.e. pay for all expenses and for a per-semester stipend of some nominal amount ($250 or so? Little more or less?) that I would argue should be tied to the player being academically eligible.

2) No rule from pro leagues requiring kids to go to college

3) Allowing kids whose jerseys are being sold to participate in the profits at some level (that is a bit harder to determine since this would be a rule that dramatically favors big-time programs in hoops/football.

But, to me, the idea of paying players is a really difficult one to figure for a bunch of reasons:

1) Discounting a scholarship and -- perhaps even more importantly -- entry into premier academic institutions as no value is insane. Pretty much anything these guys want to do after their playing careers will require a college education -- including coaching basketball -- and in many cases these guys are gaining admission to schools they would have zero ability to get into were it not for their chosen sport. Therefore the value of the education (estimated at roughly $2M over those with no college diploma over a lifetime) absolutely is worth something more than a nominal value. Ask anyone who has to pay for three kids to go to college. For those that graduate in 3 years or four and take a redshirt, they also get to work toward an advanced degree, which is valuable as well. Add in the fact that many of these guys would never be at Syracuse or Duke or Carolina, etc., and insinuating that this is slave labor in some way is disingenuous and/or misguided.

2) There is inherent value in the programs that currently exist. If you took the top 20 players in the high school game and organized a couple of travel teams that went around the country playing games, you could probably make some money. But without uniforms with those schools' names across the front, these guys would not be clearing much cash at all (given all the costs of running such a league). And, these schools with big revenues also pay hefty costs for the programs -- state of the art training facilities, recruiting costs, quality coaches, facilities costs, etc. I'm not saying they don't make plenty of money, but dividing up revenues doesn't give an accurate picture of the money these schools are actually pocketing. If you look at 2010 numbers, Cuse basketball generated ~$16M but spent roughly ~$7M.

3) I often hear the argument that players should be paid for all the time they put in, but players in non-revenue sports often put in at least close to as much time and often don't have full tuition scholarships. If you're basing pay on the amount of time and effort required, you could argue that those in non-revenue generating sports may actually be getting an even rawer deal.

4) How do you determine the amount a player generates? Cutting players in on general merchandising is not something I necessarily have a problem with but unless you're talking about specific jersey sales or something, it's really tough to tell how much a player is truly worth. Obviously marquis guys have value and shouldn't those guys earn more? But how do you reconcile a situation like Frank Howard vs. Tyus Battle heading into next season? And, as a comparison, the average minor league baseball player -- most of whom won't see the majors much like the majority of athletes palying hoops or football won't see the NFL/NBA -- earns less than a fast-food worker. Somewhere on the order of $7,500. Now many want to see that system changed and it probably should be but they run into the same argument -- if you're a non-prospect playing AA baseball, what is your actual market value? I think that's really hard to figure.

5) How do you pay players in such a way that it's fair to the players (i.e. you get paid according to your market value) but not in a way that makes it even tougher for schools outside the elite group to compete? Tough to do, IMO.

So what would I like to see happen?

-- I think professional leagues should be open to whomever is good enough to go there. I think if players are desperate to be paid and/or have no interest in college classes and/or they feel slighted by the system -- they should be allowed to turn professional and collect what they can. If a player wants to avoid college, then play in the D League or move on to Europe. I know it's a culture shock for some of these guys but even if they only do it for a year, a la brandon jennings, they can make up to whatever -- $3M? I mean, I know it wasn't a great experience for Jennings, but that kind of coin makes up for a lot.

-- I think schools should consider all-expenses (for the most part) paid scholarships and allow players to work to earn cash (maybe even encourage off-season study abroad type experiences).

-- Schools should stop using players' likenesses on apparel or, cut those players in for some of the revenue, though I'm not entirely sure how they would do that (to be fair).

To me those solve a lot of the issues that plague college sports and they do so in a way that makes some sort of logical sense. If a guy like Waiters or Melo or whomever sees no value in college, let him move directly to the NBA. I really think it's the only way to gauge your true market value, IMO.

 

[jec1521]

I thinking paying them open's up way too many complications. Just let them go make money however they like. For instance, I see zero reason why ncaa players shouldnt be able to sign autographs for money if people are willing to pay for them. Let the market dictate what each player is worth.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

I support paying the players a healthy stipend and/or allowing them to profit as OttoinGrotto mentioned. But I don't support this guy's lawsuit. He knew what the deal was when he signed up.

Rosa Parks knew the deal when she got on the bus.

 

[Brooky03]

Hey, star quarterback, you alone earned Alabama $4 million this year between the revenue for the bowl game we wouldn't have won without you and the profit we made selling stuff with your number and picture on it. Here's $60k in the form of a roof, food, and a couple classes and access to the weight room. Thanks a bunch, don't go signing your name on pictures of you wearing your jersey for money.

 

[NYCSUGrad]

But it isn't. You're right because the NBA & Players put the rule in you need to be a year removed from highschool.

You should be able to go right from high school to the NBA. Yes, maybe some aren't ready. There is 1 LeBron James in every 100 Jonathan Bender's.

However, you should still be able to go if someone wants to pay you. There is currently a restriction so I wouldn't exactly call it a 'free' market, but I get your point.

I think another fear for high school kids is going to play in a foreign country at 17.

Brandon Jennings might have gotten a better education that one year in Europe than he would have avoiding classes at Whatsamatta U!

If he chose to and/or he had teammates who looked out for him.