Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="billsin01, post: 2160436, member: 837"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?