MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: ChitownSpaceForRent on September 05, 2017, 06:44:52 PM
-
Sounds like this could actually happen. Hope it does for the sake of the athletes.
http://247sports.com/Article/Sources-Major-Potential-Shift-In-NCAA-Transfer-Rules-107001121
-
Better not. This would be awful for all.
-
Better not. This would be awful for all.
+1.
-
Love it! Now they just have to get rid of the GPA requirement.
-
Better not. This would be awful for all.
Fine, then make coaches sit out a year for leaving for a better opportunity. Especially since they leave later than athletes do.
-
Love it! Now they just have to get rid of the GPA requirement.
well, they do need to be eligible.
-
well, they do need to be eligible.
Yep. As long as they are eligible, they should be able to play.
-
Fine, then make coaches sit out a year for leaving for a better opportunity. Especially since they leave later than athletes do.
Why? Two completely different roles.
-
Fine, then make coaches sit out a year for leaving for a better opportunity. Especially since they leave later than athletes do.
No, that's stupid. Coaches & SA's are not the same.
-
No, that's stupid. Coaches & SA's are not the same.
Okay, then if all student athletes are the same, how is it fair that Volleyball, soccer, track and field, and athletes from pretty much every other sport is allowed to transfer without restrictions but basketball and football players are not?
Why punish a few select group of athletes?
-
I could see some schools not releasing the player from their LOI.
-
Okay, then if all student athletes are the same, how is it fair that Volleyball, soccer, track and field, and athletes from pretty much every other sport is allowed to transfer without restrictions but basketball and football players are not?
Why punish a few select group of athletes?
Do those other sports offer full ride scholarships?
-
So if his team doesn't make the tournament (or gets a crappy seed), can Ben Simmons transfer to Kentucky right before the tournament and be immediately eligible?
-
Awful rule, every kid is a free agent after the championship game.
-
Awful rule, every kid is a free agent after the championship game.
Unless they have transferred already.
-
So if his team doesn't make the tournament (or gets a crappy seed), can Ben Simmons transfer to Kentucky right before the tournament and be immediately eligible?
Don't be ridiculous, you know what they mean.
-
Typical of today's attitudes - instant gratification for all!!!
Heck, why not just let them transfer between games?
-
Highly unlikely in any form.
-
This is good. Everyone's a one year rental. Coaches will first recruit other programs, then high schools and AAU.
NOT.
-
I don't see the problem.
Under the current rule, 40% of men's basketball players who enter Division I directly out of high school leave their initial school by the end of their sophomore year. So it's not as though sitting out two semesters is much of a deterrent now.
Beyond that, why go to such lengths to discourage transfers in the first place? Luke Fischer transferred to MU because he said Indiana wasn't the right fit. Happens all the time. It was his choice. And he earned his degree.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/tracking-transfer-division-i-men-s-basketball (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/tracking-transfer-division-i-men-s-basketball)
-
This is good. Everyone's a one year rental. Coaches will first recruit other programs, then high schools and AAU.
NOT.
There would still be restrictions/violations on recruiting players who are already on scholarships at other schools. That will never change.
-
There would still be restrictions/violations on recruiting players who are already on scholarships at other schools. That will never change.
Good luck with that. The back channels will be wide open.
-
There would still be restrictions/violations on recruiting players who are already on scholarships at other schools. That will never change.
In theory only.
-
Seems like a terrible rule change. Here are some that would be ok though and alleviate many of the oddities that upset people.
If you transfer before the start of the season, you can be immediately eligible at the school you transfer to, provided you can still enroll in classes that semester. Otherwise eligible at first semester you can enroll as a full time student.
If you transfer mid-season. You are eligible immediately at the start of the following season.
-
I don't see the problem.
Under the current rule, 40% of men's basketball players who enter Division I directly out of high school leave their initial school by the end of their sophomore year. So it's not as though sitting out two semesters is much of a deterrent now.
Beyond that, why go to such lengths to discourage transfers in the first place? Luke Fischer transferred to MU because he said Indiana wasn't the right fit. Happens all the time. It was his choice. And he earned his degree.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/tracking-transfer-division-i-men-s-basketball (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/tracking-transfer-division-i-men-s-basketball)
Yeah everyone is chicken litteling this thing. IMO it will cause an increase in transfers. But that's not necessarily bad. And it won't be a big increase.
-
Good luck with that. The back channels will be wide open.
Which is fine. Students should be able to explore their choices.
-
The only way I would like this, if it was effective for this year making Froling and Morrow immediately eligible. Otherwise, I see it as a negative for MU.
-
Me likey.
Give athletes the same rights every other student has, including students who aren't athletes. Many schools give scholarships to theater students, music students, journalism students, etc.
Indeed, when I was at the MU Tribune, many students received scholarships, including a full scholarship for the editor in chief. Any of those students could have transferred without having to sit out a year before being eligible to work at their new school's media outlets.
Once upon a time, freshmen athletes were ineligible. The rule was antiquated and was thrown out. Once upon a time, basketball players weren't allowed to dunk. The rule was antiquated and was thrown out. Same is true of this rule. It's a relic from another era. Dump it!
-
I view it this way:
1) If your coach leaves or is fired, you can transfer immediately and be immediately eligible.
2) If your school is out on probation, you get a one-time chance to immediately transfer.
3) Otherwise, you sit out a year unless your school releases you.
4) If a school gives you a guaranteed four-year scholarship, you have to sit out a year (most schools give a one year renewable scholarship).
-
"Common" student transfers are "penalized." Credits don't transfer, financial aid doesn't transfer, etc.
And student athletes aren't "common students."
-
No, that's stupid. Coaches & SA's are not the same.
I'd be interested to hear your actual argument about why coaches should be allowed to switch programs immediately, but players should not. The departure of a coach is more disruptive by orders of magnitude.
-
Me likey.
Give athletes the same rights every other student has, including students who aren't athletes. Many schools give scholarships to theater students, music students, journalism students, etc.
Indeed, when I was at the MU Tribune, many students received scholarships, including a full scholarship for the editor in chief. Any of those students could have transferred without having to sit out a year before being eligible to work at their new school's media outlets.
Once upon a time, freshmen athletes were ineligible. The rule was antiquated and was thrown out. Once upon a time, basketball players weren't allowed to dunk. The rule was antiquated and was thrown out. Same is true of this rule. It's a relic from another era. Dump it!
With all due respect, many of those students who transfer and are immediately eligible in theatre/media no longer get scholarships. The big scholarships are for incoming freshman, there are far fewer transfer scholarships. So it isn't exactly a good comparison. They also usually have lower priority in getting the acting roles or becoming things like an editor. So there are massive punishments, albeit not formal punishments.
Add to it, what Wades says, that often many of your credits don't even transfer, and the athletes right now really have the major advantage over a "common student".
How many players would transfer if they could get immediate eligibility, but would only get a half ride at the new school? Or would have to defer a starting role to players that are already on the roster. My guess, next to none.
-
Why are so many people against the notion of kids changing their mind and transferring? Some of these athletes are 16, sometimes younger, when the commit to a program. 16-18 year olds make rash decisions.
Hell, 21 year olds make rash decisions. Basically with the current transfer rules you are handcuffing kids, yes kids, to a decision they made when they weren't even allowed to drive or vote.
-
Why are so many people against the notion of kids changing their mind and transferring? Some of these athletes are 16, sometimes younger, when the commit to a program. 16-18 year olds make rash decisions.
Hell, 21 year olds make rash decisions. Basically with the current transfer rules you are handcuffing kids, yes kids, to a decision they made when they weren't even allowed to drive or vote.
Poor kids handcuffed into getting a $120K education for free.
They aren't handcuffed. Feel free to transfer. It just adds one extra year of a $30K/year education plus all the free travel, merchandise, exposure, and networking that comes with it.
-
There would still be restrictions/violations on recruiting players who are already on scholarships at other schools. That will never change.
I'd be the first coach to do away with the end of game handshake because of the obvious tampering temptations.
-
Poor kids handcuffed into getting a $120K education for free.
They aren't handcuffed. Feel free to transfer. It just adds one extra year of a $30K/year education plus all the free travel, merchandise, exposure, and networking that comes with it.
Great, even better. They can get out of school a year early so save the programs some money. What is the downside? "Free agency" Please, it's already like that as it is. May as well stop pretending to care about the "students well being" and let them be.
-
I am a fan of consistency. If you make regular transfers sit out a year, than make graduate and juco transfers sit out a year as well. If it is truly about helping the student acclimate and not about discouraging transfers then grad student and juco transfers statistically need even more help acclimating than traditional transfers do.
-
Great, even better. They can get out of school a year early so save the programs some money. What is the downside? "Free agency" Please, it's already like that as it is. May as well stop pretending to care about the "students well being" and let them be.
1) It's never been about the "students well being." It's always been about one thing. $$$$$$$$$.
2) Again, the narrative that these student athletes are starving and/or slaves is a joke. They're getting $100K+ worth of free education. Leaving school with no debt is a VERY BIG DEAL! Even if the student athlete makes $0.00 through athletics and the endorsement those things bring, they are given every opportunity to be set up for life with a free education. Their "well being" is just fine.
-
1) It's never been about the "students well being." It's always been about one thing. $$$$$$$$$.
2) Again, the narrative that these student athletes are starving and/or slaves is a joke. They're getting $100K+ worth of free education. Leaving school with no debt is a VERY BIG DEAL! Even if the student athlete makes $0.00 through athletics and the endorsement those things bring, they are given every opportunity to be set up for life with a free education. Their "well being" is just fine.
Revenue generating college sports have been professionalized. Transfer restrictions are in place to make these businesses easier to manage. The restrictions penalize the players and benefit the majority of schools and thereby their fans. We're fans, we don't want to see our ox get gored, so we want them, and we rationalize why restrictions are good.
Hell, the State of Kentucky waited until 1973 to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment.
-
I am a fan of consistency. If you make regular transfers sit out a year, than make graduate and juco transfers sit out a year as well. If it is truly about helping the student acclimate and not about discouraging transfers then grad student and juco transfers statistically need even more help acclimating than traditional transfers do.
The student acclimation year is clearly a lie. Otherwise it would apply to all sports, all transfer types, and freshmen.
The coach vs SA argument is also a fallacy. As mentioned, a coach's departure is far more disruptive. Both coaches and SAs are adults under the law, so restricting one and not the other, especially when the departure of the unpunished so blatantly impacts the circumstance of the punished, is hypocrisy of the highest order.
All that said, I don't want this unilaterally applied, but only for selfish reasons. I do think we'd see a transfer uptick. I do think it would become more like free agency and I don't want that. I'm also not sure that it will prove good for graduation rates, as it's easier to graduate in 5 years than 4. I would love to see the graduation rates nationally on 4-year SAs vs 5-year SAs.
When a coach leaves, program goes on probation, those should definitely void the year in residence. Who will really suffer are the low-majors. Schools like Cleveland State and Mount St Mary's that have already become farm systems for high major programs will see all their best players leaving asap without any return of comparable talent.
-
I'd be interested to hear your actual argument about why coaches should be allowed to switch programs immediately, but players should not. The departure of a coach is more disruptive by orders of magnitude.
One is a coach, one is a student-athlete. Completely different. "Players" commit to institutions up front and agree to these rules.
Student-athletes are allowed to switch schools and immediately be given a full ride at the new institution - what an amazing gift!
Coaches on the other hand are often not allowed to leave one school and immediately work at a new one (e.g.,. see Crean this year)... the penalties (e.g., offsetting buyouts) are so severe that there is a major disincentive to get another coaching job immediately, even if it's what you desire. But again, the coach agreed to it up front so I have no beef with it.
Now, if student-athletes couldn't receive financial aid at a new place immediately, I'd be concerned. That's simply no the case. They are able to practice, be a part of the program, get great benefits...
A coach's departure is more disruptive to a PROGRAM. A student changing schools is more disruptive to his personal academics. Stop putting $ and sports ahead of the student, folks!
The student acclimation year is clearly a lie. Otherwise it would apply to all sports, all transfer types, and freshmen.
No, this is silly talk. You can draw the line somewhere -- it's not crazy to do so. Happens all the time in all areas of life.
Not all sports have equal rigor/requirements.. not all sports have similar transfer stats (e.g., how well they do at new school, graduation rates, demographics, etc.). There are reasonable arguments why it makes sense to treat some sports differently.
Surely you hate the idea of foreign tours allowed to basketball teams. Why can't football teams do this? Why not baseball? Or swimming? It's such B.S.!!!! UGH!!!!!!! Summer workouts allowed in bball... why do they get different rules!?!?!?!?!? Ughhh!!! All sports should be treated equal, right?
-
One is a coach, one is a student-athlete. Completely different. "Players" commit to institutions up front and agree to these rules.
Hypocrisy. Coaches sign contracts to institutions up front and routinely break them.
Coaches on the other hand are often not allowed to leave one school and immediately work at a new one (e.g.,. see Crean this year)... the penalties (e.g., offsetting buyouts) are so severe that there is a major disincentive to get another coaching job immediately, even if it's what you desire. But again, the coach agreed to it up front so I have no beef with it.
Crean could certainly coach this year if he really wanted to. He is choosing not to because it is more lucrative to not coach.
No, this is silly talk. You can draw the line somewhere -- it's not crazy to do so. Happens all the time in all areas of life.
Not all sports have equal rigor/requirements.. not all sports have similar transfer stats (e.g., how well they do at new school, graduation rates, demographics, etc.). There are reasonable arguments why it makes sense to treat some sports differently.
Amazing that it just happens to only impact the revenue sports, and only certain transfers within the revenue sports. ::) It's pure horsecrap. Selfishly, yes, I want the year in residence because I think it lessens the free agency aspect. I do believe this rule would wreak havoc on the low-major programs, making March less entertaining when the best players from the bottom 2/3 of leagues have either already left or are just auditioning for high-major programs. But to act like it's for the student's benefit...this has never been the case and insisting otherwise is simply disingenuous. They are drawing arbitrary lines around the places where universities make money. That's all it is, and any "study" showing otherwise likely had the intent of showing exactly that from the start.
Surely you hate the idea of foreign tours allowed to basketball teams. Why can't football teams do this? Why not baseball? Or swimming? It's such B.S.!!!! UGH!!!!!!! Summer workouts allowed in bball... why do they get different rules!?!?!?!?!? Ughhh!!! All sports should be treated equal, right?
Yay, completely irrelevant hyperbole.
-
Surely you hate the idea of foreign tours allowed to basketball teams. Why can't football teams do this? Why not baseball? Or swimming? It's such B.S.!!!! UGH!!!!!!! Summer workouts allowed in bball... why do they get different rules!?!?!?!?!? Ughhh!!! All sports should be treated equal, right?
Football teams can do foreign trips: https://www.si.com/college-football/2017/06/14/michigan-italy-trip-cost (https://www.si.com/college-football/2017/06/14/michigan-italy-trip-cost)
-
One is a coach, one is a student-athlete. Completely different. "Players" commit to institutions up front and agree to these rules.
Student-athletes are allowed to switch schools and immediately be given a full ride at the new institution - what an amazing gift!
Coaches on the other hand are often not allowed to leave one school and immediately work at a new one (e.g.,. see Crean this year)... the penalties (e.g., offsetting buyouts) are so severe that there is a major disincentive to get another coaching job immediately, even if it's what you desire. But again, the coach agreed to it up front so I have no beef with it.
Now, if student-athletes couldn't receive financial aid at a new place immediately, I'd be concerned. That's simply no the case. They are able to practice, be a part of the program, get great benefits...
A coach's departure is more disruptive to a PROGRAM. A student changing schools is more disruptive to his personal academics. Stop putting $ and sports ahead of the student, folks!
No, this is silly talk. You can draw the line somewhere -- it's not crazy to do so. Happens all the time in all areas of life.
Not all sports have equal rigor/requirements.. not all sports have similar transfer stats (e.g., how well they do at new school, graduation rates, demographics, etc.). There are reasonable arguments why it makes sense to treat some sports differently.
Surely you hate the idea of foreign tours allowed to basketball teams. Why can't football teams do this? Why not baseball? Or swimming? It's such B.S.!!!! UGH!!!!!!! Summer workouts allowed in bball... why do they get different rules!?!?!?!?!? Ughhh!!! All sports should be treated equal, right?
It would seem that other sports are allowed to do foreign tours. I don't claim to be the rule expert you are but this seems like a situation where if the roles were reversed you'd condescendingly tell a person they're wrong and then stroke your own ego because of your knowledge of the rules.
https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/DI_Playing_and_Practice_Seasons%20_Foreign_Tours_and_Outside_Competition-SEMINAR_06302016.pptx
-
It would seem that other sports are allowed to do foreign tours. I don't claim to be the rule expert you are but this seems like a situation where if the roles were reversed you'd condescendingly tell a person they're wrong and then stroke your own ego because of your knowledge of the rules.
https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/DI_Playing_and_Practice_Seasons%20_Foreign_Tours_and_Outside_Competition-SEMINAR_06302016.pptx
Quoted for truth.
-
With all due respect, many of those students who transfer and are immediately eligible in theatre/media no longer get scholarships. The big scholarships are for incoming freshman, there are far fewer transfer scholarships. So it isn't exactly a good comparison. They also usually have lower priority in getting the acting roles or becoming things like an editor. So there are massive punishments, albeit not formal punishments.
Add to it, what Wades says, that often many of your credits don't even transfer, and the athletes right now really have the major advantage over a "common student".
How many players would transfer if they could get immediate eligibility, but would only get a half ride at the new school? Or would have to defer a starting role to players that are already on the roster. My guess, next to none.
Aren't student athletes given a lifetime scholarship to finish their degree? So why does it matter if credits won't transfer and they don't finish in four years?
-
Ultimately, this, like all similar debates, boils down to whether or not you think adult SAs in revenue-generating sports should be grateful to be given a full ride, e.g., paid in kind, by the institutions that profit greatly off not having to pay them in cash. Also - claiming that its just a coincidence that the toughest transfer restrictions are in the revenue-positive sports is offensive and transparently self-serving.
One caveat that I worry about here though - we all talked about Buzz cutting, etc., and when that happens, the NCAA apologists are quick to remind us that scholarships are one year renewable pacts. Under this rule, what's to stop coaches from cutting the second half of their bench every season to bring in the top guys from the mid-major conferences? Right now, its at least somewhat difficult to tell kids to take a hike.
-
Football teams can do foreign trips: https://www.si.com/college-football/2017/06/14/michigan-italy-trip-cost (https://www.si.com/college-football/2017/06/14/michigan-italy-trip-cost)
Yes, Michigan did a foreign TRIP, but there is a HUGE restriction on foreign TOURS for football teams. Bylaw 17.29.1.8 “Football Postseason Opportunity” says that a football foreign tour shall be considered that institution’s postseason opportunity for that season.
Football is flat out treated differently. OH, THE OUTRAGE!!!!
-
Poor kids handcuffed into getting a $120K education for free.
They aren't handcuffed. Feel free to transfer. It just adds one extra year of a $30K/year education plus all the free travel, merchandise, exposure, and networking that comes with it.
While I'm in favor of allowing players to play without sitting out a year if they get a release (the rule that exists in some other sports), I really don't understand all the hand-wringing about how awful it is to sit out a year. Does it suck to have to sit out a year? Yeah, I suppose it might. Is it pretty nice to get another year of free college, which will allow a student-athlete to either carry a bit lighter of a load or -- even better -- get started on a masters? Definitely.
-
Quoted for truth.
No, it's a lie. Congrats on believing that dimwit.
"Additionally, Harbaugh believes Michigan will be able to make this an annual event because there is not going to be any competition taking place. Basketball teams, for example, are allowed to take one foreign trip every four years. But those trips feature exhibition games.
Michigan will not be playing any football exhibitions. Therefore, as of now, they'll be able to do this every year."
http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2017/02/jim_harbaugh_plans_to_take_mic.html
There is a difference b/w a trip and a tour. A football tour was essentially unavailable to Michigan this summer.
-
Revenue generating college sports have been professionalized. Transfer restrictions are in place to make these businesses easier to manage. The restrictions penalize the players and benefit the majority of schools and thereby their fans. We're fans, we don't want to see our ox get gored, so we want them, and we rationalize why restrictions are good.
Hell, the State of Kentucky waited until 1973 to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment.
In my personal opinion, the biggest beneficiaries of the proposed rule change will be the high major programs. Not the athletes. This change will set up the low and mid-majors as a virtual farm system, and will make it easier for the high majors to slough off their recruiting mistakes.
That's not to say that I'm against the change. I just think that the benefits to the athletes will be secondary. Like pretty much everything else that the NCAA does.
-
While I'm in favor of allowing players to play without sitting out a year if they get a release (the rule that exists in some other sports), I really don't understand all the hand-wringing about how awful it is to sit out a year. Does it suck to have to sit out a year? Yeah, I suppose it might. Is it pretty nice to get another year of free college, which will allow a student-athlete to either carry a bit lighter of a load or -- even better -- get started on a masters? Definitely.
Yup. Is the system perfect? Probably not. But these student athletes aren't hurting.
-
No, it's a lie. Congrats on believing that dimwit.
"Additionally, Harbaugh believes Michigan will be able to make this an annual event because there is not going to be any competition taking place. Basketball teams, for example, are allowed to take one foreign trip every four years. But those trips feature exhibition games.
Michigan will not be playing any football exhibitions. Therefore, as of now, they'll be able to do this every year."
http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2017/02/jim_harbaugh_plans_to_take_mic.html
There is a difference b/w a trip and a tour. A football tour was essentially unavailable to Michigan this summer.
Man you know you've got a weak argument when you say something like that.
-
From personal experience I see both sides of the issue here. One of the biggest factors contributing to transferring, is when a player is recruited over. I think the immediate transfer ability may have some impact on coaches recruiting decisions. Schools make a big commitment when they put a kid on scholarship for sure , but the student also is making a commitment of time that he/she can't get back. I think immediate transfer ability evens the playing field. However, the current rule gives a considerable benefit to a student athlete in that it allows them a year to develop their game , get healthy and condition on the schools dime. A great example of someone benefiting from that circumstance was Steven Taylor , Jr. who ended up having a monster senior year at Toledo (15.3/12.2/3.7).and will be playing at JDA Dijon in the French Pro A league this year.
-
While I'm in favor of allowing players to play without sitting out a year if they get a release (the rule that exists in some other sports), I really don't understand all the hand-wringing about how awful it is to sit out a year. Does it suck to have to sit out a year? Yeah, I suppose it might. Is it pretty nice to get another year of free college, which will allow a student-athlete to either carry a bit lighter of a load or -- even better -- get started on a masters? Definitely.
It's less about whether sitting out a year is some odious fate, than it is about giving athletes the same rights as any other student (or person, really) when it comes to controlling his/her destiny.
And it comes down to siding with the right of the individual vs the rulers of billion dollar industry which relies on a largely one-sided relationship with a cheap, undercompensated labor force to produce its revenues.
So, no, sitting out a year isn't a fate worse than death. But it's still an unfair restriction.
-
Student-athletes are allowed to switch schools and immediately be given a full ride at the new institution - what an amazing gift!
A scholarship is not a gift. It's compensation - undercompensation in many instances - for what is essentially a full-time job that helps generate millions of dollars for the employer, i.e. the university.
-
A scholarship is not a gift. It's compensation - undercompensation in many instances - for what is essentially a full-time job that helps generate millions of dollars for the employer, i.e. the university.
And doesn't come with the usual protections of employment.
-
No, it's a lie. Congrats on believing that dimwit.
"Additionally, Harbaugh believes Michigan will be able to make this an annual event because there is not going to be any competition taking place. Basketball teams, for example, are allowed to take one foreign trip every four years. But those trips feature exhibition games.
Michigan will not be playing any football exhibitions. Therefore, as of now, they'll be able to do this every year."
http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2017/02/jim_harbaugh_plans_to_take_mic.html
There is a difference b/w a trip and a tour. A football tour was essentially unavailable to Michigan this summer.
Is the lie that I don't claim to be a rules expert? I don't. Or is the lie the source that I used? That wouldn't be a lie since I qualified it with "it would seem" so that'd be misinformation, you should use proper terminology and correct accordingly.
Is the lie that you can't respond without being condescending? I'd say 80% of your posts show otherwise and that's being generous.
Just curious what my lie was so I can be sure not to do so moving forward.
-
Honest question, aren't just about all employees in this country "undercompensated?" Isn't that simply how business works? Very few people are compensated the total amount of what they are worth/what they bring in to their company, because very few people are irreplaceable. If all employees were compensated what they were "worth" to the company then businesses wouldn't be profitable and businesses wouldn't survive. That's just how the system works.
-
Honest question, aren't just about all employees in this country "undercompensated?"
No. Someone didn't take Economics as an undergrad I see.
-
Ultimately, this, like all similar debates, boils down to whether or not you think adult SAs in revenue-generating sports should be grateful to be given a full ride, e.g., paid in kind, by the institutions that profit greatly off not having to pay them in cash. Also - claiming that its just a coincidence that the toughest transfer restrictions are in the revenue-positive sports is offensive and transparently self-serving.
One caveat that I worry about here though - we all talked about Buzz cutting, etc., and when that happens, the NCAA apologists are quick to remind us that scholarships are one year renewable pacts. Under this rule, what's to stop coaches from cutting the second half of their bench every season to bring in the top guys from the mid-major conferences? Right now, its at least somewhat difficult to tell kids to take a hike.
My sentiments exactly. For those who favor the rule change it is a double edged sword. I wonder how many will like the new rule, when MU star players start jumping ship for the Power 5 schools because they are "pissed" at the coach or a less talented player they like gets "Buzzed" because a more talented player is coming in.
-
My sentiments exactly. For those who favor the rule change it is a double edged sword. I wonder how many will like the new rule, when MU star players start jumping ship for the Power 5 schools because they are "pissed" at the coach or a less talented player they like gets "Buzzed" because a more talented player is coming in.
I'd still be fine with it.
-
It's less about whether sitting out a year is some odious fate, than it is about giving athletes the same rights as any other student (or person, really) when it comes to controlling his/her destiny.
And it comes down to siding with the right of the individual vs the rulers of billion dollar industry which relies on a largely one-sided relationship with a cheap, undercompensated labor force to produce its revenues.
So, no, sitting out a year isn't a fate worse than death. But it's still an unfair restriction.
I understand where you're coming from, but I'm still not convinced. The student can control his own fate. He can transfer to another school, go for free, take classes (they're students first, right?), work out with the team and enjoy all the other benefits and special rights that come with being a student athlete. They just are not allowed to play in games. I honestly don't have that much trouble with the restriction. However, as I said, I'd be perfectly happy to see the restriction removed.
Although the specifics vary from school to school, student athletes have an amazing number of rights/benefits that other students don't have -- even if they can't play due to transfers. I strongly suspect if you went to most athletes and said, "we're going to treat you like 'other students' in all respects -- good news, you don't have to sit out a year." They'd tell you, "No, I'm good. I'll wait."
-
Honest question, aren't just about all employees in this country "undercompensated?" Isn't that simply how business works? Very few people are compensated the total amount of what they are worth/what they bring in to their company, because very few people are irreplaceable. If all employees were compensated what they were "worth" to the company then businesses wouldn't be profitable and businesses wouldn't survive. That's just how the system works.
I say this very respectfully with a full understanding of how hard college athletes work: the large majority of scholarship athletes are vastly overcompensated when one compares the value they bring to their university versus what they receive.
And for that, I am extremely grateful. ;)
-
Honest question, aren't just about all employees in this country "undercompensated?" Isn't that simply how business works? Very few people are compensated the total amount of what they are worth/what they bring in to their company, because very few people are irreplaceable. If all employees were compensated what they were "worth" to the company then businesses wouldn't be profitable and businesses wouldn't survive. That's just how the system works.
:o
-
No. Someone didn't take Economics as an undergrad I see.
He's actually right. I'm thinking you and him are using different concepts of "undercompensated."
The argument of athletes being "undercompensated," largely stems from people thinking athletes bring in more revenue than they get back in benefits.
The typical person working for any company will generate over 10x more revenue than they receive in compensation.
So they are no less "undercompensated" than a typical employee.
I believe you are looking at the idea that compensation is determined by the free market, so the typical employee is adequately compensated or he would go elsewhere. Many then argue that college athletics is not free-market.
But, athletes have the opportunity to go work overseas if they deem college compensation inadequate. They don't, because they are better off in college.
-
He's actually right. I'm thinking you and him are using different concepts of "undercompensated."
The argument of athletes being "undercompensated," largely stems from people thinking athletes bring in more revenue than they get back in benefits.
The typical person working for any company will generate over 10x more revenue than they receive in compensation.
So they are no less "undercompensated" than a typical employee.
I believe you are looking at the idea that compensation is determined by the free market, so the typical employee is adequately compensated or he would go elsewhere. Many then argue that college athletics is not free-market.
But, athletes have the opportunity to go work overseas if they deem college compensation inadequate. They don't, because they are better off in college.
Exactly.
-
He's actually right. I'm thinking you and him are using different concepts of "undercompensated."
The argument of athletes being "undercompensated," largely stems from people thinking athletes bring in more revenue than they get back in benefits.
The typical person working for any company will generate over 10x more revenue than they receive in compensation.
So they are no less "undercompensated" than a typical employee.
I believe you are looking at the idea that compensation is determined by the free market, so the typical employee is adequately compensated or he would go elsewhere. Many then argue that college athletics is not free-market.
But, athletes have the opportunity to go work overseas if they deem college compensation inadequate. They don't, because they are better off in college.
Well of course I am using it in a free market sense. That's how it should be judged.
To assume that someone should be compensated at the same level they generate revenue is nonsensical.
-
Well of course I am using it in a free market sense. That's how it should be judged.
To assume that someone should be compensated at the same level they generate revenue is nonsensical.
Doesn't that prove college athletes are appropriately compensated since the market wouldn't/couldn't compensate them further?
-
A scholarship is not a gift. It's compensation - undercompensation in many instances - for what is essentially a full-time job that helps generate millions of dollars for the employer, i.e. the university.
May be true for 60 teams or so in NCAA Div 1 basketball, but the other 300.....?
-
I say this very respectfully with a full understanding of how hard college athletes work: the large majority of scholarship athletes are vastly overcompensated when one compares the value they bring to their university versus what they receive.
And for that, I am extremely grateful. ;)
This might be true in non-revenue sports, but certainly not football and basketball.
According to the latest data I can find, the average FBS scholarship is worth about $36K. Each of the 128 FBS schools can award 85 scholarships, or 10,880 scholarships. Valued at $36K each, that's a little less than $392 million in FBS scholarships.
Now, FBS programs generated $3.4 billion in revenues last year ... almost nine times more than the cost of their scholarships.
I realize this oversimplifies things, and there are other non-direct benefits (training, access to facilities, etc.) to the players, and costs of running a program go beyond just scholarships. And we're dealing with averages here. The top players at Alabama and Texas generate more value than the backup longsnapper at Florida Atlantic.
All that said, the numbers show that it's an easy case to make that college athletes - at least in the sports that generate revenue - are undercompensated.
-
Doesn't that prove college athletes are appropriately compensated since the market wouldn't/couldn't compensate them further?
No because there is a cap on their earnings and every player earns the same compensation.
A free market would allow certain players to earn more than the cost of a scholarship and others would earn less.
-
Imagine the NBA if all contracts were only for a max of one year...... and no incentive / penalty to changing teams. Yikes, you would have very elite teams and very bad teams.
-
Imagine the NBA if all contracts were only for a max of one year...... and no incentive / penalty to changing teams. Yikes, you would have very elite teams and very bad teams.
So, exactly like it is now.
-
Imagine the NBA if all contracts were only for a max of one year...... and no incentive / penalty to changing teams. Yikes, you would have very elite teams and very bad teams.
That's not really applicable to the NCAA because...
1. Players would only be allowed one transfer without sitting so not everyone is a free agent every year.
2. Players are limited to four years of eligibility.
-
This might be true in non-revenue sports, but certainly not football and basketball.
According to the latest data I can find, the average FBS scholarship is worth about $36K. Each of the 128 FBS schools can award 85 scholarships, or 10,880 scholarships. Valued at $36K each, that's a little less than $392 million in FBS scholarships.
Now, FBS programs generated $3.4 billion in revenues last year ... almost nine times more than the cost of their scholarships.
I realize this oversimplifies things, and there are other non-drect benefits (training, access to facilities, etc.) to the players, and costs of running a program beyond just schoalrships. And we're dealing with averages here. The top players at Alabama and Texas generate more value than the backup longsnapper at Florida Atlantic.
All that said, the numbers show that it's an easy case to make that college athletes - at least in the sports that generate revenue - are undercompensated.
I think the single word I highlighted is very important in this debate. There is an argument to be made that the "athletes", as a group, are under compensated. But, except in very rare cases, I think it's pretty hard to argue that any individual athlete is under compensated. Even in the revenue sports. Marquette basketball is a revenue sport, and presumably operates at a profit. Would the profit be significantly affected if Sam Hauser (just to pick the first name that came into my head) hadn't signed? If he transferred? I'd argue that it wouldn't. As much as I like Sam, I'd watch anyway. So would you. As good as he is, Sam's incremental value to the program is very hard to quantify, and might be negligible. The value that drives the revenue is in the Marquette name. If we swapped the entire roster with Iowa State for the season, I suspect we'd all still root for Marquette this year. And next year. And the year after that. So, yes, I agree that the "athletes" as a group are being given less than they generate (which, as explained up thread, is not surprising). But, I can't think of very many individual athletes that are being under compensated.
If you ended NCAA football next year and put those 10,880 football players in a new professional league, how many of us would give a crap about it? How many people would ever watch a single game? How many of those 128 teams would fold within weeks due to lack of interest? How many of those 10,880 athletes would get anywhere near $36k? In my opinion -- and yours may vary -- the answers to those questions explain why every single year athletes are waiting in line to be one of the lucky 10,880. I believe that this shows that it is the schools -- and the loyalty of fans to the schools -- that generates that revenue, not the individual athletes. I'll concede that none of it would be possible without the "athletes" as a group, but that doesn't convince me that individual athletes deserve more compensation.
And never mind that the large majority of programs -- even in revenue sports -- don't make any money.
-
I think the single word I highlighted is very important in this debate. There is an argument to be made that the "athletes", as a group, are under compensated. But, except in very rare cases, I think it's pretty hard to argue that any individual athlete is under compensated. Even in the revenue sports. Marquette basketball is a revenue sport, and presumably operates at a profit. Would the profit be significantly affected if Sam Hauser (just to pick the first name that came into my head) hadn't signed? If he transferred? I'd argue that it wouldn't. As much as I like Sam, I'd watch anyway. So would you. As good as he is, Sam's incremental value to the program is very hard to quantify, and might be negligible. The value that drives the revenue is in the Marquette name. If we swapped the entire roster with Iowa State for the season, I suspect we'd all still root for Marquette this year. And next year. And the year after that. So, yes, I agree that the "athletes" as a group are being given less than they generate (which, as explained up thread, is not surprising). But, I can't think of very many individual athletes that are being under compensated.
If you ended NCAA football next year and put those 10,880 football players in a new professional league, how many of us would give a crap about it? How many people would ever watch a single game? How many of those 128 teams would fold within weeks due to lack of interest? How many of those 10,880 athletes would get anywhere near $36k? In my opinion -- and yours may vary -- the answers to those questions explain why every single year athletes are waiting in line to be one of the lucky 10,880. I believe that this shows that it is the schools -- and the loyalty of fans to the schools -- that generates that revenue, not the individual athletes. I'll concede that none of it would be possible without the "athletes" as a group, but that doesn't convince me that individual athletes deserve more compensation.
And never mind that the large majority of programs -- even in revenue sports -- don't make any money.
Ding Ding Ding......We have a winner.
-
With the narrow exception of company-provided insurance (which is working out just swimmingly), if you aren't paid in cash, you are undercompensated. We don't get to spend money for people on education, and then say that they're appropriately compensated because of the sticker price for said education. Any argument about under vs overcompensation in this context is an argument of type, not degree.
-
The justice aspect of this argument is interesting...not sure if there is a perfect answer.
I think this would be bad for the game and just bring more power to the top teams - for that alone I don't like it. Free Agency without actual compensation (and salary caps for that matter) just make KY, Duke, et al stronger.
-
No, this is silly talk. You can draw the line somewhere -- it's not crazy to do so. Happens all the time in all areas of life.
Not all sports have equal rigor/requirements.. not all sports have similar transfer stats (e.g., how well they do at new school, graduation rates, demographics, etc.). There are reasonable arguments why it makes sense to treat some sports differently.
I agree with the treating different sports differently. Different sports do have different rigors so it makes sense to draw different lines. We can argue all day on where those lines should be.
Where I am not sure is where the line is drawn for what type of new player needs to sit and what type doesn't. While I'd have to do the research to back it, my personal experience working in academia and common sense tells me that juco transfers and freshmen need a lot more help acclimating than traditional transfers do. I would guess that new grad students also need more help acclimating but I'm less sure about those. Why make traditional transfers sit but allow jucos and freshmen to play right away if it's about acclimation? I feel like JUCOs would especially benefit given that many of them need an extra year to graduate depending on the program's requirements.
What are your thoughts on juco transfers getting to play right away Jay Bee?
-
This might be true in non-revenue sports, but certainly not football and basketball.
According to the latest data I can find, the average FBS scholarship is worth about $36K. Each of the 128 FBS schools can award 85 scholarships, or 10,880 scholarships. Valued at $36K each, that's a little less than $392 million in FBS scholarships.
Now, FBS programs generated $3.4 billion in revenues last year ... almost nine times more than the cost of their scholarships.
I realize this oversimplifies things, and there are other non-direct benefits (training, access to facilities, etc.) to the players, and costs of running a program go beyond just scholarships. And we're dealing with averages here. The top players at Alabama and Texas generate more value than the backup longsnapper at Florida Atlantic.
All that said, the numbers show that it's an easy case to make that college athletes - at least in the sports that generate revenue - are undercompensated.
Let's do the math a different way. If 128 schools generate $3.4 billion in revenue that means each school averages $26,562,500 in revenue. 85 players each on a scholarship averaging $36,000 in value creates $3,060,000 in "salary" which also excludes facility use, S&C, coaching, exposure, etc. That means the players are generating revenue at 8.7x their salary....not really out of wack with the rest of society IMHO.
-
No, it's a lie. Congrats on believing that dimwit.
Other sports can do foreign trips. This is the exact kind of stuff you lord over other people. Instead of just admitting you were wrong, you keep trying to twist the argument.
At this point, it's up to you. Accept and admit you were wrong, or continuing to look like a pretzel. My money is on the latter.
-
I think the single word I highlighted is very important in this debate. There is an argument to be made that the "athletes", as a group, are under compensated. But, except in very rare cases, I think it's pretty hard to argue that any individual athlete is under compensated. Even in the revenue sports. Marquette basketball is a revenue sport, and presumably operates at a profit. Would the profit be significantly affected if Sam Hauser (just to pick the first name that came into my head) hadn't signed? If he transferred? I'd argue that it wouldn't. As much as I like Sam, I'd watch anyway. So would you. As good as he is, Sam's incremental value to the program is very hard to quantify, and might be negligible. The value that drives the revenue is in the Marquette name. If we swapped the entire roster with Iowa State for the season, I suspect we'd all still root for Marquette this year. And next year. And the year after that. So, yes, I agree that the "athletes" as a group are being given less than they generate (which, as explained up thread, is not surprising). But, I can't think of very many individual athletes that are being under compensated.
Without putting in the time or effort to a lengthy economic explanation/argument/debate ... why do you think colleges bother to spend so much time, money and effort recruiting if, as you seem to imply, the players are interchangable and replaceable.
If Sam Hauser has no specific value to MU, why did MU likely spend thousands of dollars on travel, man hours, materials, and other inducements etc., trying to convince him to come to Milwaukee?
If MU just got anyone to take Sam's spot on the roster, would you really continue to spend money on the program? Would TV put that team on the air? Would a major conference want that team as one of its members?
I get that SAM HAUSER might not have an easy-to-define value, but you need people like Sam Hauser for a successful program, so I don't buy the notion that you could toss anyone in an MU uniform and we'd show up.
And never mind that the large majority of programs -- even in revenue sports -- don't make any money.
Actually, most make a ton of money.
Their lack of profits don't stem from a lack of revenues, it stems from spending like drunken sailors on facilities, coaching staffs, stadiums, etc. because they need somewhere for all their revenues to go, and because they need to in hopes of keeping up with those who do make profits while spending outrageous sums on locker rooms, etc.
A thoroughly middling athletic program like Texas Tech earned more than $77 million last year, and spent spend less than 10 percent of it on scholarships. Where did the rest go?
-
According to the latest data I can find, the average FBS scholarship is worth about $36K. Each of the 128 FBS schools can award 85 scholarships, or 10,880 scholarships. Valued at $36K each, that's a little less than $392 million in FBS scholarships.
Now, FBS programs generated $3.4 billion in revenues last year ... almost nine times more than the cost of their scholarships.
I also want to ask: what percentage of revenue -- without any consideration of expenses -- do you think the athletes should receive? Also, for those schools that are actually losing money on the revenue sports (i.e., a majority of them) do you still think that the amount an athlete receives should be based on the program's revenue?
-
I think the single word I highlighted is very important in this debate. There is an argument to be made that the "athletes", as a group, are under compensated. But, except in very rare cases, I think it's pretty hard to argue that any individual athlete is under compensated. Even in the revenue sports. Marquette basketball is a revenue sport, and presumably operates at a profit. Would the profit be significantly affected if Sam Hauser (just to pick the first name that came into my head) hadn't signed? If he transferred? I'd argue that it wouldn't. As much as I like Sam, I'd watch anyway. So would you. As good as he is, Sam's incremental value to the program is very hard to quantify, and might be negligible. The value that drives the revenue is in the Marquette name. If we swapped the entire roster with Iowa State for the season, I suspect we'd all still root for Marquette this year. And next year. And the year after that. So, yes, I agree that the "athletes" as a group are being given less than they generate (which, as explained up thread, is not surprising). But, I can't think of very many individual athletes that are being under compensated.
If you ended NCAA football next year and put those 10,880 football players in a new professional league, how many of us would give a crap about it? How many people would ever watch a single game? How many of those 128 teams would fold within weeks due to lack of interest? How many of those 10,880 athletes would get anywhere near $36k? In my opinion -- and yours may vary -- the answers to those questions explain why every single year athletes are waiting in line to be one of the lucky 10,880. I believe that this shows that it is the schools -- and the loyalty of fans to the schools -- that generates that revenue, not the individual athletes. I'll concede that none of it would be possible without the "athletes" as a group, but that doesn't convince me that individual athletes deserve more compensation.
And never mind that the large majority of programs -- even in revenue sports -- don't make any money.
Excellent post.
Let's do the math a different way. If 128 schools generate $3.4 billion in revenue that means each school averages $26,562,500 in revenue. 85 players each on a scholarship averaging $36,000 in value creates $3,060,000 in "salary" which also excludes facility use, S&C, coaching, exposure, etc. That means the players are generating revenue at 8.7x their salary....not really out of wack with the rest of society IMHO.
Another good post. Yes, they generate revenue, but that revenue goes somewhere (facilities, S&C, coaching, the stuff you mention and a whole lot more like the other sports that are propped up by revenue sports) and creates a value for the university that seems to be about in line with society. And while some athletes certainly are higher profile than others (thus the "undercompensated" type argument) the vast majority (probably 90%) are unknowns that get the same benefit. So if it's about a fair valuation, should those unknown scholarship athletes be given partial scholarships?
The system might not be perfect, but I think it's better than many give it credit for.
-
Without putting in the time or effort to a lengthy economic explanation/argument/debate ... why do you think colleges bother to spend so much time, money and effort recruiting if, as you seem to imply, the players are interchangable and replaceable.
If Sam Hauser has no specific value to MU, why did MU likely spend thousands of dollars on travel, man hours, materials, and other inducements etc., trying to convince him to come to Milwaukee?
If MU just got anyone to take Sam's spot on the roster, would you really continue to spend money on the program? Would TV put that team on the air? Would a major conference want that team as one of its members?
I get that SAM HAUSER might not have an easy-to-define value, but you need people like Sam Hauser for a successful program, so I don't buy the notion that you could toss anyone in an MU uniform and we'd show up.
Actually, most make a ton of money.
Their lack of profits don't stem from a lack of revenues, it stems from spending like drunken sailors on facilities, coaching staffs, stadiums, etc. because they need somewhere for all their revenues to go, and because they need to in hopes of keeping up with those who do make profits while spending outrageous sums on locker rooms, etc.
A thoroughly middling athletic program like Texas Tech earned more than $77 million last year, and spent spend less than 10 percent of it on scholarships. Where did the rest go?
Regarding the first question: obviously, putting a better team on the floor might have some incremental value. However, I do believe that DePaul still gets its Big East share, but perhaps I'm mistaken on that. There is incentive to having a winning program. But it's incremental. Over time, the brand can be devalued if it continues to lose. But, I still believe it is the brand that has the value. I rooted for Marquette through some pretty crappy years. And, unfortunately, likely will do so in the future.
Regarding the second question: thanks for making my initial point. Texas Tech is "thoroughly middling" yet they still have extraordinary revenue. Do you think that revenue has anything to do with any of the kids on that team? They have that revenue because they're Texas Tech. They generate that revenue in spite of the fact that they're "thoroughly middling." However, when countering my point that most schools lose money on sports, it's not particularly compelling to use a Power 5 football school as your example. I'll concede that most of the Power 5 schools are swimming in cash and spending like drunken sailors. However, that's still a minority of programs.
-
Another good post. Yes, they generate revenue, but that revenue goes somewhere (facilities, S&C, coaching, the stuff you mention and a whole lot more like the other sports that are propped up by revenue sports) and creates a value for the university that seems to be about in line with society. And while some athletes certainly are higher profile than others (thus the "undercompensated" type argument) the vast majority (probably 90%) are unknowns that get the same benefit. So if it's about a fair valuation, should those unknown scholarship athletes be given partial scholarships?
The system might not be perfect, but I think it's better than many give it credit for.
One thing I would highlight that should be done is allowing players to get compensation off their likeness....this would take care of those "super valuable" players who might not get their fair market value via scholarship compensation.
And overall, it's interesting to watch how principles ebb and flow depending the application.
-
One thing I would highlight that should be done is allowing players to get compensation off their likeness....this would take care of those "super valuable" players who might not get their fair market value via scholarship compensation.
I absolutely agree with this. I think it might create some need for NCAA oversight (the thought of which nauseates me), but it would be a good improvement.
-
In my personal opinion, the biggest beneficiaries of the proposed rule change will be the high major programs. Not the athletes. This change will set up the low and mid-majors as a virtual farm system, and will make it easier for the high majors to slough off their recruiting mistakes.
That's not to say that I'm against the change. I just think that the benefits to the athletes will be secondary. Like pretty much everything else that the NCAA does.
Sounds like a huge positive for students who were under recruited no?
-
My sentiments exactly. For those who favor the rule change it is a double edged sword. I wonder how many will like the new rule, when MU star players start jumping ship for the Power 5 schools because they are "pissed" at the coach or a less talented player they like gets "Buzzed" because a more talented player is coming in.
Uhhh? This happens already. Sup wally?
-
Sounds like a huge positive for students who were under recruited no?
Absolutely. I have no problem with the change.
-
Man you know you've got a weak argument when you say something like that.
Not at all. A foreign tour couldn't be done without skipping postseason for Michigan. Therefore, they put together a study abroad program, with a donor picking up the tab. No football games.
Enormous difference.
-
One thing I would highlight that should be done is allowing players to get compensation off their likeness....this would take care of those "super valuable" players who might not get their fair market value via scholarship compensation.
And overall, it's interesting to watch how principles ebb and flow depending the application.
I think we can all get behind this.
-
I think we can all get behind this.
Except for Jay Bee. Because apparently these young athletes should "just be greatful" that their multi-million dollar institutions which they make millions for allow them them a full ride.
I'll let you guys in on a little secret, it's not like the general student population is hurting for scholarships.
I got a little more than half from Marquette and I'd venture a guess I didn't make them a dime throughout my time there.
Plus id venture a guess that many of the student athletes (obviously with exceptions) are from low income environments. How is giving them a scholarship any different than other low income students who don't have restrictions placed against them.
-
Honest question, aren't just about all employees in this country "undercompensated?" Isn't that simply how business works? Very few people are compensated the total amount of what they are worth/what they bring in to their company, because very few people are irreplaceable. If all employees were compensated what they were "worth" to the company then businesses wouldn't be profitable and businesses wouldn't survive. That's just how the system works.
Exhibit one for the argument that you are in deep denial on this issue. Especially given that the "employees" being discussed in this instance have truly unique skills and abilities that make thier "employers" compete at a very high level in attempting to recruit them. Not to mention the "chaos" that almost everyone seems to believe would ensue if the players could transfer without restriction. If their skills were not scarce, they would not be in such demand.
Do I really need to address the businesses going under argument? If labor costs cause a business to be unprofitable, then by definition (economically speaking) labor is being overcompensated.
-
I got a little more than half from Marquette and I'd venture a guess I didn't make them a dime throughout my time there.
But to be fair, you haven't made much more than a dime since MU, either, ainner?
-
I feel that the proposed rule is well thought-out and potentially makes sense. In a way, it is simply extending the grad transfer benefit to other students. Like the grad transfer rule (where you need to achieve graduation to effect it), the proposed rule would tie the ability to play right away to academic achievement by restricting it to those who have a certain GPA - which presumably will be reasonably higher than the GPA required just to maintain eligibility. It also restricts the benefit to one transfer per eligible SA. It's not a free-for-all "free agency" as some suggest. I think the biggest issue with enforcing the rule will be the the likelihood of tampering - it's difficult to monitor and could become a compliance nightmare as coaches accuse other coaches of recruiting their top talent. I also think a lot of transfers shifting in and out of a team could affect team chemistry, but that's something a coach would need to take into account when they decide to accept transfers. It's still a two-way street, with both the SA and the receiving coach wanting the transfer to take place.
I don't think the rule would mean much for the elite level programs, which more and more are being built around one-and-dones and elite talent. Sure, Calipari reloads every year, but why would he want to take players who weren't even on the radar for the NBA draft when he has 5 of the top 15 potential future NBA stars who want to play for him the next year? I suspect there will be fewer openings on the top teams, and maybe even a trickle-down effect, where players who aren't 1-and-dones on certain teams fo find another team to dominate on when the next crop of highly rated freshmen show up. Providing they meet the GPA requirement, though.
And, while I know this works both ways, oh -- just imagine this year's team with Morrow playing the 4 (drool).
-
But to be fair, you haven't made much more than a dime since MU, either, ainner?
Still waiting to hear your rebuttal to my argument.
And I'm doing just fine for myself with my latest venture. I just don't feel the need to spout out my accomplishments like others.
-
I feel that the proposed rule is well thought-out and potentially makes sense. In a way, it is simply extending the grad transfer benefit to other students. Like the grad transfer rule (where you need to achieve graduation to effect it), the proposed rule would tie the ability to play right away to academic achievement by restricting it to those who have a certain GPA - which presumably will be reasonably higher than the GPA required just to maintain eligibility. It also restricts the benefit to one transfer per eligible SA. It's not a free-for-all "free agency" as some suggest. I think the biggest issue with enforcing the rule will the the likelihood of tampering - it's difficult to monitor and could become a compliance nightmare as coaches accuse other coaches of recruiting their top talent. I also think a lot of transfers shifting in and out of a team could affect team chemistry, but that's something a coach would need to take into account when they decide to accept transfers. It's still a two-way street, with both the SA and the receiving coach wanting the transfer to take place.
I don't think the rule would mean much for the elite level programs, which more and more are being built around one-and-dones and elite talent. Sure, Calipari reloads every year, but why would he want to take players who weren't even on the radar for the NBA draft when he has 5 of the top 15 potential future NBA stars who want to play for him the next year? I suspect there will be fewer openings on the top teams, and maybe even a trickle-down effect, where players who aren't 1-and-dones on certain teams fo find another team to dominate on when the next crop of highly rated freshmen show up. Providing they meet the GPA requirement, though.
And, while I know this works both ways, oh -- just imagine this year's team with Morrow playing the 4 (drool).
I agree with all you say. My only comment regarding the problem of increased tampering is that that problem was created by professionalizing collegiate revenue sports - a decision made by the schools - so the schools should have to live with the consequences, not the student-athletes.
-
Exhibit one for the argument that you are in deep denial on this issue. Especially given that the "employees" being discussed in this instance have truly unique skills and abilities that make thier "employers" compete at a very high level in attempting to recruit them. Not to mention the "chaos" that almost everyone seems to believe would ensue if the players could transfer without restriction. If their skills were not scarce, they would not be in such demand.
Do I really need to address the businesses going under argument? If labor costs cause a business to be unprofitable, then by definition (economically speaking) labor is being overcompensated.
So you think if there was no Juan Anderson coming to Marquette then MU might as well have closed everything down? We'll have to agree to disagree here. The fate of Marquette University doesn't rest in whether Quentin Grimes comes to play basketball here. As a fan do I hope he does and will I enjoy watching him play for Marquette if he does? Absolutely. Will I refuse to watch Marquette if Quentin decides to go to Kansas? Of course not. I will still watch Marquette basketball just as much as I would have with Quentin Grimes on the roster.
You're making my point. This is exactly how everything else is run. There are very few people that make less for their employer than what they cost their employer. No profitable business pays their employees what they bring in for the company.
-
I feel that the proposed rule is well thought-out and potentially makes sense. In a way, it is simply extending the grad transfer benefit to other students. Like the grad transfer rule (where you need to achieve graduation to effect it), the proposed rule would tie the ability to play right away to academic achievement by restricting it to those who have a certain GPA - which presumably will be reasonably higher than the GPA required just to maintain eligibility. It also restricts the benefit to one transfer per eligible SA. It's not a free-for-all "free agency" as some suggest. I think the biggest issue with enforcing the rule will be the the likelihood of tampering - it's difficult to monitor and could become a compliance nightmare as coaches accuse other coaches of recruiting their top talent. I also think a lot of transfers shifting in and out of a team could affect team chemistry, but that's something a coach would need to take into account when they decide to accept transfers. It's still a two-way street, with both the SA and the receiving coach wanting the transfer to take place.
I don't think the rule would mean much for the elite level programs, which more and more are being built around one-and-dones and elite talent. Sure, Calipari reloads every year, but why would he want to take players who weren't even on the radar for the NBA draft when he has 5 of the top 15 potential future NBA stars who want to play for him the next year? I suspect there will be fewer openings on the top teams, and maybe even a trickle-down effect, where players who aren't 1-and-dones on certain teams fo find another team to dominate on when the next crop of highly rated freshmen show up. Providing they meet the GPA requirement, though.
And, while I know this works both ways, oh -- just imagine this year's team with Morrow playing the 4 (drool).
Superb post, Momo. This, several by Pakuni, and a handful of others reflect my feeling on this issue.
As an aside, I like how some routinely throw out lines like, "The kids should be fine with scholarships worth $150K." It's using a big number trying to justify an argument. The in-state kids at Arkansas State, South Carolina State, Jackson State and even many big, name-brand basketball schools aren't receiving scholarships anywhere near the value of $150K. Not that it really matters; it's just a straw man, an attempt to shift the goal posts.
Also, it's deceptive to argue stuff like, "they signed the contracts so they knew what they were getting into." They signed the contracts because they had to; it's a monopoly, the only game in town.
Frankly, I am surprised by the number of folks here seeking to protect the rights of the huge institutions over the rights of the individuals.
-
Superb post, Momo. This, several by Pakuni, and a handful of others reflect my feeling on this issue.
As an aside, I like how some routinely throw out lines like, "The kids should be fine with scholarships worth $150K." It's using a big number trying to justify an argument. The in-state kids at Arkansas State, South Carolina State, Jackson State and even many big, name-brand basketball schools aren't receiving scholarships anywhere near the value of $150K. Not that it really matters; it's just a straw man, an attempt to shift the goal posts.
Also, it's deceptive to argue stuff like, "they signed the contracts so they knew what they were getting into." They signed the contracts because they had to; it's a monopoly, the only game in town.
Frankly, I am surprised by the number of folks here seeking to protect the rights of the huge institutions over the rights of the individuals.
I think your post illustrates some of the problems of this debate. You are, of course, correct that the value of a scholarship at Arkansas State, South Carolina State and Jackson State aren't nearly the value of some private schools like Stanford, Notre Dame or Marquette. You know what also isn't the same? The revenue. Jackson State has revenue of a bit over $7.5 million. South Carolina State has about $8.5 million. Admittedly, Arkansas State is doing quite a lot better at $43 million. How much more do you think Jackson State should offer its football players?
So, I contend that it's also a bit of a straw man to cite the hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue that Power 5 conference schools generate, and then cite schools like you mentioned. You'd be far better off to cite Ohio State, Michigan and Texas. You have a much stronger point in those cases.
-
Also, it's deceptive to argue stuff like, "they signed the contracts so they knew what they were getting into." They signed the contracts because they had to; it's a monopoly, the only game in town.
For basketball, that is a myth. There is the G-League, foreign leagues, transferring down to D-2 or 3 where they would be immediately game eligible. For many basketball players, D-1 offers the best option. And as far as I know, no one is coerced into signing a NLI.
Now if you want to argue the NCAA members are colluding, that I might listen to. Individual athletes are unable to negotiate their own terms. But since SAs aren't categorized as employees, it's tricky. A court of law would need to rule on that.
-
Frankly, I am surprised by the number of folks here seeking to protect the rights of the huge institutions over the rights of the individuals.
I thought this warranted a separate response, since I'm one of those people "seeking to protect the rights of huge institutions over the rights of the individuals."
I think that the trade-off of a college scholarship for playing sports is overwhelmingly beneficial for the vast majority of college athletes. I also believe that a significant overhaul of the system will benefit only an extremely small number of athletes at the expense of tens of thousands of others.
In my opinion, here is the list of stake-holders that I think will benefit from a significant overhaul of NCAA sports aimed at providing athletes a more "fair" piece of the revenue pie: - Superstar athletes in "revenue sports" at Power 5 Conference schools
- Power 5 Conference schools
- Media Outlets
Again, in my opinion, here is the list of stake-holders that I think will be harmed by a significant overhaul of NCAA sports aimed at providing athletes a more "fair" piece of the revenue pie: - Most athletes in "revenue sports" at Power 5 Conference schools
- Most athletes in "revenue sports" at non-Power 5 Conference
- Athletes in "non-revenue sports" at all schools
- Non-Power 5 Conference schools
The second group is much, much bigger than the first group. In my personal opinion, you claim to be fighting the system for the little guy, but in actuality you're advocating a system that will totally benefit the "huge institutions" (and, admittedly, a select few elite athletes) at the expense of all the truly little guys. The Power 5 schools will always get theirs. Count on that.
-
I thought this warranted a separate response, since I'm one of those people "seeking to protect the rights of huge institutions over the rights of the individuals."
I think that the trade-off of a college scholarship for playing sports is overwhelmingly beneficial for the vast majority of college athletes. I also believe that a significant overhaul of the system will benefit only an extremely small number of athletes at the expense of tens of thousands of others.
Could you explain this a little further? What do you imagine the overhaul looking like, and why would it benefit only an "extremely small" number of athletes at the expense of others?
-
Frankly, I am surprised by the number of folks here seeking to protect the rights of the huge institutions over the rights of the individuals.
"The rights of individuals."
Is this somewhere in the Constitution? It's only a "right" if you get it from somewhere (life, liberty, property, etc). Their deal with NCAA member institutions explicitly explains that the free education doesn't include this "right."
Good effort, though. They are seeking a privilege, and many here think an offer of a free education is privilege enough. You disagree, and that's fine...but don't cloud the argument by calling it a "right."
-
Frankly, I am surprised by the number of folks here seeking to protect the rights of the huge institutions over the rights of the individuals.
Playing D-1 sports for a scholarship is a privilege, not a right. There are also perks typically associated with revenue sport atheletes that athletes in other sports, i.e. track, do not. Things like better housing, preferred class registration times, flying charter instead of coach, etc. It varies by school but let's not pretend football and basketball players are treated equal in all things except transfer rules.
And I also want to ask: What harm is there in requiring football and basketball players to sit out a year in residence? Delayed gratification?
-
Typical of today's attitudes - instant gratification for all!!!
Heck, why not just let them transfer between games?
Exactly. Instant gratification should be restricted to adults (coaches). >:(
-
"The rights of individuals."
Is this somewhere in the Constitution? It's only a "right" if you get it from somewhere (life, liberty, property, etc). Their deal with NCAA member institutions explicitly explains that the free education doesn't include this "right."
Good effort, though. They are seeking a privilege, and many here think an offer of a free education is privilege enough. You disagree, and that's fine...but don't cloud the argument by calling it a "right."
It's not a privilege. It's a job. They're trading their labor and skills in return for compensation from the schools that benefit - through revenue, public exposure, good will from alumni/donors, etc. - from their labor and skills. In that sense, it's no different than any other contractual relationship between labor and management (though the NCAA wants to assure you it's totally different).
There's really no debate about that. The debate is over what's fair and appropriate compensation
It never ceases to amaze me how those who lack the skills to become a scholarship or professional athlete, and never put in the work to become one, are so willing to argue that those who do should just feel lucky to play a game.
-
One thing I would highlight that should be done is allowing players to get compensation off their likeness....this would take care of those "super valuable" players who might not get their fair market value via scholarship compensation.
And overall, it's interesting to watch how principles ebb and flow depending the application.
The concern here is the potential for abuse when a T. Boone Pickens type is suddenly offering top dollar to every Oklahoma State football player. I do think there needs to be some kind of regulation or the dirty recruiting of today will pale in comparison to what we see after that change.
-
Could you explain this a little further? What do you imagine the overhaul looking like, and why would it benefit only an "extremely small" number of athletes at the expense of others?
I suppose it depends on the nature of the overhaul, so perhaps I was generalizing too much. The overhaul that I'm thinking of is one that is often discussed: allow schools to pay the players. I'm interested to hear other ideas.
In my opinion, this will lead to a "rich get richer" scenario. One assumption in my thinking -- and someone can correct me if I'm wrong -- is that whatever is done for the men's football/basketball players will have to be done for others (because, let's face it, very few athletes outside FB/MBB are generating the dollars that are at issue here). This makes changes pretty expensive.
I believe if the schools start paying these players, the smaller schools won't be able to compete for athletes. The power conferences will have an extraordinary recruiting advantage (as we're already seeing to a lesser extent with the new guaranteed four year scholarships and cost of living) and will get even stronger. Right now, smaller schools with far less revenue are able to offer something of comparable value -- and in many cases greater value -- to what is offered by the big boys. Once players start getting a "fair" share of the revenue, how can Jackson State ever hope to compete with Ole Miss for a player? And the Power 5 schools will still have boatloads of cash. And I also think that most of the money flowing to players will flow toward a limited number of superstar players -- and not down to players numbers 30-85 on the roster. I envision a situation developing where the limited number of athletes would be compensated pretty well, but the proverbial long-snapper and 3rd string OG would not. I suppose that this could be remedied by making it be equal across the board -- but I'm not sure that would solve the current problem.
I think our disagreement is based upon two key factors. First, I think that most college sports programs don't really generate all that much profit for their schools. Second, I think most individual athletes don't "move the needle" all that much in terms of value. I'm sure we'll have to agree to disagree on these points. But, to set up a new system to account for a minority of athletes in a minority of programs, it just doesn't make sense to me. I'm certainly open to listen to ways that it could be done, but in my opinion it's just trying to fix something that I personally don't see as a problem.
How do you think the system should be changed? How do you propose ensuring that the athletes receive a fair share of the revenue? What would this mean to the Jackson States of the world?
By the way, I acknowledge my personal bias as a beneficiary of the existing system. However, I felt the same way before that was the case.
-
One caveat that I worry about here though - we all talked about Buzz cutting, etc., and when that happens, the NCAA apologists are quick to remind us that scholarships are one year renewable pacts. Under this rule, what's to stop coaches from cutting the second half of their bench every season to bring in the top guys from the mid-major conferences? Right now, its at least somewhat difficult to tell kids to take a hike.
Do you think top guys from mid-majors would really want to move just to be a bench player at a top school?
-
It's not a privilege. It's a job. They're trading their labor and skills in return for compensation from the schools that benefit - through revenue, public exposure, good will from alumni/donors, etc. - from their labor and skills. In that sense, it's no different than any other contractual relationship between labor and management (though the NCAA wants to assure you it's totally different).
There's really no debate about that. The debate is over what's fair and appropriate compensation
And I would argue it isn't fair. First, it doesn't come with the worker's compensation protections that a traditional job entails. Second, it doesn't allow players to negotiate their compensation. Everyone is given the exact same amount (in basketball) without being collectively bargained.
-
And I would argue it isn't fair. First, it doesn't come with the worker's compensation protections that a traditional job entails. Second, it doesn't allow players to negotiate their compensation. Everyone is given the exact same amount (in basketball) without being collectively bargained.
I understand your points. I also think that for many athletes, this belongs in the "be careful what you wish for" category. I really question whether most athletes would improve their situation if they were deemed employees.
-
I understand your points. I also think that for many athletes, this belongs in the "be careful what you wish for" category. I really question whether most athletes would improve their situation if they were deemed employees.
It probably wouldn't because many colleges and universities wouldn't want the expense as if they were actual employees.
And to be fair, I don't think they should be classified as employees.
-
It's not a privilege. It's a job. They're trading their labor and skills in return for compensation from the schools that benefit - through revenue, public exposure, good will from alumni/donors, etc. - from their labor and skills. In that sense, it's no different than any other contractual relationship between labor and management (though the NCAA wants to assure you it's totally different).
There's really no debate about that. The debate is over what's fair and appropriate compensation
It never ceases to amaze me how those who lack the skills to become a scholarship or professional athlete, and never put in the work to become one, are so willing to argue that those who do should just feel lucky to play a game.
If it's a job and they're getting compensation, you better let the IRS know because they should be collecting taxes. Or maybe you're just wrong....
-
I suppose it depends on the nature of the overhaul, so perhaps I was generalizing too much. The overhaul that I'm thinking of is one that is often discussed: allow schools to pay the players. I'm interested to hear other ideas.
I think we are talking about schools paying players, but that can be done in several ways, from a completely "free market" approach in which schools pay kids whatever they're willing to shell out, to a limited system in which all players receive an equal amount through a revenue-sharing model, the money is collected only after a kid gives up his eligibility, etc. Heck, the NCAA could even impose a cap. Maybe School A wants to sign one 5-star kid a year and fill out the roster with borderline kids, while School B would rather have 13 3- and 4-star kids.
(I'm not advocating for a cap system, by the way, just saying it's an option).
In my opinion, this will lead to a "rich get richer" scenario.
I think this already is the case. The "blue blood" programs almost always land the top players as it is. but instead of paying for the top players (at least above the table), they outspend other schools with inducements like $10 million locker rooms, $17 million athlete dorms. $20 million workout facilities, the highest-paid coaches, private jets, etc.
The rich have the advantages either way. But I'd rather see their riches go to the players rather than the coaches and facilities.
One assumption in my thinking -- and someone can correct me if I'm wrong -- is that whatever is done for the men's football/basketball players will have to be done for others (because, let's face it, very few athletes outside FB/MBB are generating the dollars that are at issue here). This makes changes pretty expensive.
This ultimately would be decided by the courts via Title IX, but there's already some precedent that would allow paying of some athletes without requiring the paying of all athletes. For example, federal courts have ruled that Title IX does not require the women's basketball coach to be paid the same as the men's basketball coach. And the golf coach doesn't have to be paid as much as the football coach.
I believe if the schools start paying these players, the smaller schools won't be able to compete for athletes.
They already don't compete for the same athletes. When was the last time Ole Miss lost a top recruit the Jackson State? No kid who has an offer from Alabama is choosing Georgia Southern instead, and paying kids won't change that. If anything, it might help the smaller schools, which might be willing to offer a better package for a 2/3-star kid than a Power 5 school, which would be more apt to focus its resources on higher-rated recruits.
Ultimately, the power schools will come out on top either way.
Moreover - and I suspect this won't be a popular opinion - why do we need to prop up the programs like Jackson State on the backs of the kids at Alabama and Ole Miss? Or, taken to its logical conclusion, why should a volleyball players go to school for free on the backs of the basketball players?
Ultimately, I'd be for a system that shares some revenues among all the schools and pays the players relatively equally, but I'm not sure why its sacrosanct that every college that wants to field a college football team can or should, economics be dam*ed. If a school's athletic program is a money pit that siphons funds away from the task of educating students, perhaps it's OK if that program shrinks or ceases to exist. The world won't end if San Jose State and Tulane don't have FBS programs.
I think our disagreement is based upon two key factors. First, I think that most college sports programs don't really generate all that much profit for their schools. Second, I think most individual athletes don't "move the needle" all that much in terms of value. I'm sure we'll have to agree to disagree on these points.
No, I actually agree on both points. Where we disagree is in whether that's justification for not more equitably sharing in the revenues the good players at the good programs generate.
How do you think the system should be changed? How do you propose ensuring that the athletes receive a fair share of the revenue? What would this mean to the Jackson States of the world?
I'll try to answer this later.
-
How many more Andrew Rowseys jet from their school when they don't need to sit a year? Then, play immediately instead of a year to settle in a bit and get their academics rolling?
-
If it's a job and they're getting compensation, you better let the IRS know because they should be collecting taxes. Or maybe you're just wrong....
The IRS has determined that scholarships - athletic or otherwise - are exempt forms of compensation.
-
The IRS has determined that scholarships - athletic or otherwise - are exempt forms of compensation.
Because they determined that the athletes are not employees performing a job. But you just said they are performing a job. I'm inclined to side with the courts.
And my guess is that you never got any closer to being a D-1 athlete than I did....
-
Because they determined that the athletes are not employees performing a job. But you just said they are performing a job. I'm inclined to side with the courts.
No, it's because they decided that scholarships of any type are not taxable income. They make no distinction regarding the type of scholarship.
Not sure if you're being obtuse here on purpose or what.
-
Personal attacks - nice.
No, I'm not obtuse. I just understand the issue far better than you do. I also know about the change in taxability of medical resident stipends - they used to be exempt, but this changed a few years back. Keep giving the athletes more and more, and the IRS and SCOTUS will do the same to athletes as they did to medical residents.
Don't think it could happen? Educate yourself: http://blogs.mprnews.org/oncampus/2011/01/med-residents-are-taxable-employees-supreme-court-rules/
-
I think we are talking about schools paying players, but that can be done in several ways, from a completely "free market" approach in which schools pay kids whatever they're willing to shell out, to a limited system in which all players receive an equal amount through a revenue-sharing model, the money is collected only after a kid gives up his eligibility, etc. Heck, the NCAA could even impose a cap. Maybe School A wants to sign one 5-star kid a year and fill out the roster with borderline kids, while School B would rather have 13 3- and 4-star kids.
(I'm not advocating for a cap system, by the way, just saying it's an option).
I think this already is the case. The "blue blood" programs almost always land the top players as it is. but instead of paying for the top players (at least above the table), they outspend other schools with inducements like $10 million locker rooms, $17 million athlete dorms. $20 million workout facilities, the highest-paid coaches, private jets, etc.
The rich have the advantages either way. But I'd rather see their riches go to the players rather than the coaches and facilities.
This ultimately would be decided by the courts via Title IX, but there's already some precedent that would allow paying of some athletes without requiring the paying of all athletes. For example, federal courts have ruled that Title IX does not require the women's basketball coach to be paid the same as the men's basketball coach. And the golf coach doesn't have to be paid as much as the football coach.
They already don't compete for the same athletes. When was the last time Ole Miss lost a top recruit the Jackson State? No kid who has an offer from Alabama is choosing Georgia Southern instead, and paying kids won't change that. If anything, it might help the smaller schools, which might be willing to offer a better package for a 2/3-star kid than a Power 5 school, which would be more apt to focus its resources on higher-rated recruits.
Ultimately, the power schools will come out on top either way.
Moreover - and I suspect this won't be a popular opinion - why do we need to prop up the programs like Jackson State on the backs of the kids at Alabama and Ole Miss? Or, taken to its logical conclusion, why should a volleyball players go to school for free on the backs of the basketball players?
Ultimately, I'd be for a system that shares some revenues among all the schools and pays the players relatively equally, but I'm not sure why its sacrosanct that every college that wants to field a college football team can or should, economics be dam*ed. If a school's athletic program is a money pit that siphons funds away from the task of educating students, perhaps it's OK if that program shrinks or ceases to exist. The world won't end if San Jose State and Tulane don't have FBS programs.
No, I actually agree on both points. Where we disagree is in whether that's justification for not more equitably sharing in the revenues the good players at the good programs generate.
I'll try to answer this later.
There's a lot here, and some to think about. Perhaps we don't disagree as much as it would appear.
I think one of the more interesting points you made -- and one I've tiptoed around although acknowledging my bias -- relates to athletes in other sports. There is no question that the revenue sports are subsidizing the athletes in all the other sports. It can't honestly be debated. Before I sent my daughter off to school, I told her, "if ever you feel it's unfair that the basketball team gets a lot of extra benefits, remember that basketball is paying for everything." I recognize that. However, I return to one of my original points: it's the school's brand that generates that revenue, not the individual athletes.
I struggle to envision what it would look like if they just opened it up and allowed schools to simply pay for players. I envision a scenario where a handful of key players at certain schools (MBB and high profile skill position players in FB) would make out extremely well, but the vast majority of athletes would probably end up with less than they currently have. I understand your point that maybe that's the way it should be -- free market and all. And maybe you're right. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with it. I think it will be the death of college sports as we know it. And I think that would be unfortunate.
-
The IRS has determined that scholarships - athletic or otherwise - are exempt forms of compensation.
This is patently false. You are lying.
-
However, I return to one of my original points: it's the school's brand that generates that revenue, not the individual athletes.
I think this is one of our main points of disagreement then.
I believe if you pulled 13 random students out of the rec center, put them in MU uniforms and sent them out onto the BC floor to play Marquette's schedule, the brand's revenue will dwindle and dwindle and the brand is will die.
The success and revenue of the brand are almost entirely dependent on the success of the players. Look no further than our friends in Lincoln Park. How's DePaul's "brand" these days?
As for non-star players getting less, unless you're talking about taking away scholarships and selling off facilities, I don't see how they'll be any worse off. I firmly believe there's enough money in college athletics to pay players in revenue producing sports a reasonable amount without taking anything away from other athletes.
It's just a matter of priorities.
Maybe Kansas basketball doesn't need a $14 million dorm. build them a $4 million dorm, and you could pay every scholarship basketball player a $10K salary for the next 76 years with the savings.
Perhaps Michigan football doesn't need a $21 million weight room. Maybe cut the price in half - still a pretty excellent weight room, IMO - and you can pay every player $10K a year for the next 12 years.
-
This is patently false. You are lying.
Yeah, he forgot to mention that one of the criteria is that none of the payment represents wages for teaching or other services required as a condition for receiving the scholarship or fellowship grant. Then he argues that they're doing a job for compensation but it still wouldn't be taxable. And he calls others obtuse....
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc421.html
Like I said, if the athletes push it, it could backfire....
-
This is patently false. You are lying.
Not my post you were referring to, but there may be a semantic issue here. The portion of the scholarship covering education expenses is not income and not taxed. The portion of the scholarship covering room and board is income and taxed. Obviously, at many schools this can be a fairly significant portion of the scholarship.
I wouldn't call him a liar, but I believe his blanket statement is incorrect.
-
I wouldn't call him a liar, but I believe his blanket statement is incorrect.
I agree that he/she may not be lying. He/she may just be an ignorant person talking authoritatively on a topic he/she knows little to nothing about in hopes that it bolsters his/her argument. Tsk, tsk.
-
Not my post you were referring to, but there may be a semantic issue here. The portion of the scholarship covering education expenses is not income and not taxed. The portion of the scholarship covering room and board is income and taxed. Obviously, at many schools this can be a fairly significant portion of the scholarship.
I wouldn't call him a liar, but I believe his blanket statement is incorrect.
I'll try to give him the benefit of the doubt and won't call him a liar...but he clearly is confused with the details. And that detail really matters if you're talking about giving the athletes stipends.
-
This is patently false. You are lying.
So disappointed you didn't call for my ban.
Anyhow, read up.
https://www.irs.gov/publications/p970/ch01.html
-
So disappointed you didn't call for my ban.
Anyhow, read up.
https://www.irs.gov/publications/p970/ch01.html
No, you read up. If you did, you'd either (a) see that you were wrong or (b) disregard the truth due to (1) stupidity or (2) desire to lie.
-
So disappointed you didn't call for my ban.
Anyhow, read up.
https://www.irs.gov/publications/p970/ch01.html
You should read the section entitled "Payment for Services" in light of your comment that the athletes are performing a job for compensation. Like I said, confused by the details, and the ramifications of your argument.
-
I recognize that. However, I return to one of my original points: it's the school's brand that generates that revenue, not the individual athletes.
If the school decided to play with a full team of walk-ons, the program would not exist after just a few years.
The athletes are the #1 driver of revenue. The brand plays a small part, but the brand wouldn't be worth a wooden nickel after a couple of 0-28 seasons. Our "brand" would only be seen as a laughingstock.
-
I think this is one of our main points of disagreement then.
I believe if you pulled 13 random students out of the rec center, put them in MU uniforms and sent them out onto the BC center floor to play Marquette's schedule, the brand's revenue will dwindle and dwindle and the brand is will die.
The success and revenue of the brand are almost entirely dependent on the success of the players. Look no further than our friends in Lincoln Park. How's DePaul's "brand" these days?
As for non-star players getting less, unless you're talking about taking away scholarships and selling off facilities, I don't see how they'll be any worse off. I firmly believe there's enough money in college athletics to pay players in revenue producing sports a reasonable amount without taking anything away from other athletes.
It's just a matter of priorities.
Maybe Kansas basketball doesn't need a $14 million dorm. build them a $4 million dorm, and you could pay every scholarship basketball player a $10K salary for the next 76 years with the savings.
Perhaps Michigan football doesn't need a $21 million weight room. Maybe cut the price in half - still a pretty excellent weight room, IMO - and you can pay every player $10K a year for the next 12 years.
Yet somehow DePaul continues to receive it's slice of the Big East pie and will be playing its games in a new $200 million arena. I'd say their brand still has some value. Despite the fact that they have been pretty awful for a long time.
I understand what you're saying -- and I even agree with you to a certain extent -- but I think that's a bit of a straw man. I'm not talking about pulling 13 random students from the athletic center. I'll concede that there's probably a level below which you cannot go. But generally speaking, as long as the product reaches a certain minimum level, fans are going to continue supporting their schools. And there are a lot of examples out there that the level needn't be very high. Texas Tech, which I've read is thoroughly middling, is an example.
I agree with you that spending is out of control. However, these elite athletes, the ones we're really talking about here, are demanding those things. Under the current system, that is how the elite athletes -- as a group -- are recouping their value. You think they should be paid in cash. They seem content to be paid in scholarship and extra perks while in school (with an ever-increasing amount of cash thrown in as "cost of living"). And they're lined up around the block to sign on the dotted line in exchange for that deal.
-
If the school decided to play with a full team of walk-ons, the program would not exist after just a few years.
The athletes are the #1 driver of revenue. The brand plays a small part, but the brand wouldn't be worth a wooden nickel after a couple of 0-28 seasons. Our "brand" would only be seen as a laughingstock.
Straw man.
-
Actually, most make a ton of money.
Their lack of profits don't stem from a lack of revenues, it stems from spending like drunken sailors on facilities, coaching staffs, stadiums, etc. because they need somewhere for all their revenues to go, and because they need to in hopes of keeping up with those who do make profits while spending outrageous sums on locker rooms, etc.
A thoroughly middling athletic program like Texas Tech earned more than $77 million last year, and spent spend less than 10 percent of it on scholarships. Where did the rest go?
As others have noted, Texas Tech lost money last year. And if it wasn't for creative accounting in how they divide revenue between sports and assign expenses, Football and Basketball would also have lost money.
Your proposal for not spending money on locker rooms etc., doesn't hold water. The athletes whether they are compensated or not will still want the best facilities, meaning there will still be an arms race there. Similarly, fans want to be in nice facilities, so to maximize revenue you still need that arms race.
What you will see if athletes are paid is that costs will go up, revenue will be unchanged, and instead they will pilfer more money away from academics and from students as higher student fees. A school like Texas Tech is already drawing about $7-10M per year from student fees and the University operating budget to make things work.
And that is for a Power 5 conference team. Move to the next level of leagues and those loses compensated by the University more to $20-30M in losses each year, with both Football and Basketball losing millions at those schools. Creative accounting hides the losses in these "revenue sports," but they are indeed losing money.
-
Straw man.
I suppose one could say Pakuni's example was a bit of hyperbole, but all I know is that in a KO-vs-Wojo thread awhile back, at least a dozen folks here contended that Marquette basketball was "dead" before KO revived it. We weren't recruiting well, students had lost interest. Non-student fans were staying away. MU hoops had become beyond irrelevant and had progressed to dead. DEAD.
So history might suggest that maybe the example was pretty close to true.
Otherwise, I agree with at least 90% of Pakuni's arguments on this subject.
Others are free to disagree, obviously. I'm hoping the NCAA eventually agrees with me and Pakuni.
-
The real truth is that the Dwyane Wades of the world pay for the expensive facilities, trainers, tutors, scholarships, etc., that the Juan Andersons of the world enjoy. Truth #2 is that there are a lot more Juan Andersons being overpaid than there are Dwyane Wades being underpaid. Paying players who are basically fungible for revenues brought in by the rare (in MU's case) star or ultra rare superstar is patently unfair.
-
As others have noted, Texas Tech lost money last year. And if it wasn't for creative accounting in how they divide revenue between sports and assign expenses, Football and Basketball would also have lost money.
Your proposal for not spending money on locker rooms etc., doesn't hold water. The athletes whether they are compensated or not will still want the best facilities, meaning there will still be an arms race there. Similarly, fans want to be in nice facilities, so to maximize revenue you still need that arms race.
What you will see if athletes are paid is that costs will go up, revenue will be unchanged, and instead they will pilfer more money away from academics and from students as higher student fees. A school like Texas Tech is already drawing about $7-10M per year from student fees and the University operating budget to make things work.
And that is for a Power 5 conference team. Move to the next level of leagues and those loses compensated by the University more to $20-30M in losses each year, with both Football and Basketball losing millions at those schools. Creative accounting hides the losses in these "revenue sports," but they are indeed losing money.
Actually schools don't *need* to enter these arms races. They generally choose to do so because athletic departments are normally run by paranoid administrators who look at every shiny new object that another school has and think they have to incorporate it immediately.
On top of that, they have the fiscal discipline of a crackhead in a drug house.
-
The real truth is that the Dwyane Wades of the world pay for the expensive facilities, trainers, tutors, scholarships, etc., that the Juan Andersons of the world enjoy. Truth #2 is that there are a lot more Juan Andersons being overpaid than there are Dwyane Wades being underpaid. Paying players who are basically fungible for revenues brought in by the rare (in MU's case) star or ultra rare superstar is patently unfair.
In a nutshell, this is where I'm coming from (although, I suppose I'd end with "unnecessary" instead of "unfair"). Even though the players, as a group, are essential to drive revenue, it's the brand that keeps the money flowing in. Most players are essentially fungible, with a few transcendent players able to really move the needle. What I see is that the players, as a group, are more than happy with what they're getting for their efforts and it's even pretty rare to see the superstars complain. My concern is that if they open things up and allow it to be a negotiation, a fairly limited number of players will receive a lot more money, but most of the players will receive less. College recruiting -- even in low profile, non-revenue sports -- is a bit like dealing with used car salesmen where they're trying to pitch you. It's already slimy when everyone is offering pretty much the same thing. I just really don't like the idea of professional recruiters/salesmen negotiating with tens of thousands of children and seeing how cheaply they can buy the commitment (in order to save enough money to pay for the superstars). I envision a situation where the top few players on a basketball team and maybe the top 10-20 players on the football roster get paid more (and even then, only in big conferences) and everyone else gets the best partial scholarship he can negotiate. Even though it's slimy now, at least the athlete -- generally speaking a child (in some sports often as young as 15-16 years old) with limited bargaining power -- knows what he or she is getting. At the end of the day, I just think they'd be changing a system under which tens of thousands of kids obtain a free education in order to increase the compensation of a handful of players who are going to be playing as professionals anyway.
I honestly bristle at the claim that I'm siding with the huge schools in taking this position. I think that no matter the system, the big schools are going to come out fine. I genuinely feel like I'm taking the side of the little guys -- the athletes who are benefiting from the current system who I believe will lose under a pay-for-play system. If people think it's unfair to have the Dwyane Wades of the world to subsidize the rest, I can appreciate that argument even if I generally disagree. But I think it's misguided to characterize moving to pay-for-play as looking out for the little guy. To me, it kind of feels like fighting for higher pay for up and coming mid-level executives in Fortune 100 companies.
I think there are two better solutions. First, as mentioned above, let those transcendent players capitalize on their name and make money. Second, allow those players to go directly to the professional leagues and avoid the issue entirely.
-
Do not think this will happen. If it does, the unintended consequences will be longstanding and damaging.
Poaching will become rampant. Tampering, the same.
Smaller schools, even 2nd division power 5 schools will become farm teams for elite schools.
This will result in more talent consolidation at the top as it is easier to assemble a team with proven talent than projected talent out of high school.
Upsets from smaller schools will decline, that impacts the general interest of the passive fan, especially around tournament time. Leads to lower ratings, lower dollars.
Ultimately that impacts all the men and women that play sports in the NCAA at the DI, DII and to some extent DIII (not scholarship, but NCAA puts on the championships).
Attempting to "solve" for a problem that isn't really a problem. Comparing what the history major can do is not the same thing. Even comparing to what a coach can do, an actual employee, is not the same. As hard as people want to lump those together as the same, they are not.
-
If the school decided to play with a full team of walk-ons, the program would not exist after just a few years.
The athletes are the #1 driver of revenue. The brand plays a small part, but the brand wouldn't be worth a wooden nickel after a couple of 0-28 seasons. Our "brand" would only be seen as a laughingstock.
That would never happen. Fans want to see the team win and winning helps to create the brand, so you are correct there. However, are people waiting to buy their season tickets each year based on who is playing for the team, or based on who the team is? Most are buying because of the name on the front of the jersey, as the names on the back come and go every few years. There are season ticket holders going on 40+ years, when we were great, when we sucked, when we were averaged. Why? Because of Marquette University and who the team represents, the university, students, alumni, the city, etc.
-
As others have noted, Texas Tech lost money last year. And if it wasn't for creative accounting in how they divide revenue between sports and assign expenses, Football and Basketball would also have lost money.
I don't think this is true.
In 2014-15 (the latest data I could find on this ... perhaps you can find more recent), the athletic department overall had revenues of $75.7 million with expenses of $76.5 million.
However, the football program turned a profit of $22.7 million and men's basketball had a profit of $2.1 million.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/raw.texastribune.org/college_sports/2014-2015/ncaa-texas-tech-2014-2015.pdf
Your proposal for not spending money on locker rooms etc., doesn't hold water. The athletes whether they are compensated or not will still want the best facilities, meaning there will still be an arms race there. Similarly, fans want to be in nice facilities, so to maximize revenue you still need that arms race.
Just to be clear, I didn't suggest not spending money on locker rooms. I suggested spending less on locker rooms and redirecting the savings to players.
There will always be an arms race for facilities, etc. But it doesn't have to be as extravagant, and won't, if you require schools to direct some of their revenues to the players rather than facilities, travel, etc.
What you will see if athletes are paid is that costs will go up, revenue will be unchanged, and instead they will pilfer more money away from academics and from students as higher student fees. A school like Texas Tech is already drawing about $7-10M per year from student fees and the University operating budget to make things work.
Actually, Texas Tech athletics is drawing about $3 million a year from student fees (see link above).
I;m not sure costs will go up. Maybe they will. And maybe colleges will just redirect their revenues elsewhere. I doesn't matter to me, because I think schools can afford it. And those that can't shouldn't be fielding teams.
It seems our main point of contention here is whether AD's have the revenues to pay players. You seem to think that in the $3.4 billion in revenues that FBS teams generated last year, there's no money to pay players. I disagree. As do many, many others.
And that is for a Power 5 conference team. Move to the next level of leagues and those loses compensated by the University more to $20-30M in losses each year, with both Football and Basketball losing millions at those schools. Creative accounting hides the losses in these "revenue sports," but they are indeed losing money.
I'm sure plenty of schools do indeed lose money.
Those schools should either reduce expenses, find ways to increase revenues or drop their programs. Again, the world will be just fine without San Jose State and Idaho running FBS programs.
Or, if the powers that be decide they need such bottom-feeder programs around, they can find a way to better share revenues.
-
That would never happen. Fans want to see the team win and winning helps to create the brand, so you are correct there. However, are people waiting to buy their season tickets each year based on who is playing for the team, or based on who the team is? Most are buying because of the name on the front of the jersey, as the names on the back come and go every few years. There are season ticket holders going on 40+ years, when we were great, when we sucked, when we were averaged. Why? Because of Marquette University and who the team represents, the university, students, alumni, the city, etc.
Fans buy tickets based on the perceived/expected value of that purchase. That perceived value is based on an unspoken promise that Marquette will do its best year in and year out to field a competitive, entertaining team. Fielding a competitive, entertaining team requires recruiting and developing talented, in-demand players.
So, yes, fans do buy their tickets based on who's playing for the team. Not any specific individual, but on a group of talented players.
The notion that fans are spending money simply to "cheer for the name on the front" is simply not accurate. They're spending money with an expectation of that the players wearing the name on the front will produce at a certain level. Stop meeting those expectations, and the fans will go away (again, see: DePaul).
-
Fans buy tickets based on the perceived/expected value of that purchase. That perceived value is based on an unspoken promise that Marquette will do its best year in and year out to field a competitive, entertaining team. Fielding a competitive, entertaining team requires recruiting and developing talented, in-demand players.
So, yes, fans do buy their tickets based on who's playing for the team. Not any specific individual, but on a group of talented players.
And that's why the "team of players plucked from the rec center" and "team of walk-ons" were straw men. Fans are awfully forgiving and brand-loyal, as long as schools are honoring that unspoken promise.
The notion that fans are spending money simply to "cheer for the name on the front" is simply not accurate. They're spending money with an expectation of that the players wearing the name on the front will produce at a certain level. Stop meeting those expectations, and the fans will go away (again, see: DePaul).
And yet, DePaul basketball still pulls in millions of dollars every year and ranks in the top 25% in revenue in D1 basketball despite being a dumpster fire for the better part of 30 years. Sounds like brand loyalty.
-
And yet, DePaul basketball still pulls in millions of dollars every year and ranks in the top 25% in revenue in D1 basketball despite being a dumpster fire for the better part of 30 years. Sounds like brand loyalty.
Are those millions the money from the Fox TV contract? Surely not from ticket sales.
-
TV networks spend a lot of money on broadcast rights. Quality of play is a factor. So while an individual football or basketball player has minimal affect, the total athlete pool of D-1 is important.
For example, why does Fox pay millions of dollars to broadcast the Big East but not the WIAC? Because BE basketball is of higher quality, so more people watch. D-1 athletes have some value collectively. They are what makes the brand strong.
-
Are those millions the money from the Fox TV contract? Surely not from ticket sales.
Of course. The DePaul brand has value. Even when the value is derived, largely, from being Chicago's private college with a basketball team. The value comes from that, not the players.
-
And that's why the "team of players plucked from the rec center" and "team of walk-ons" were straw men. Fans are awfully forgiving and brand-loyal, as long as schools are honoring that unspoken promise.
Well, if that's a straw man, so is the assertion that teams "cheer for the name on the front" regardless of who fills the uniform.
And yet, DePaul basketball still pulls in millions of dollars every year and ranks in the top 25% in revenue in D1 basketball despite being a dumpster fire for the better part of 30 years. Sounds like brand loyalty.
Are you sure about that 25 percent figure?
Anyhow, DePaul men's basketball raked in a whopping $5.5 million in revenue, according to the most recent figures I could find.
The Fox contract is worth $4.16 million a year per team. So, it's actually pretty pathetic that the program can only generate a little more than $1.3 million from all its revenues outside of TV (i.e. sponsorships, ticket sales, merchandise, etc.) and it doesn't speak highly of their brand value.
DePauls fortunate inclusion in the Big East is because of the league's desire to be in the Chicago market. It has nothing to do with the value of its brand or brand loyalty.
Some more facts on DePaul's brand loyalty:
"14 Blue Demons home games this year have drawn an average of 1,824 people. That's down 24 percent from last season's final average and on pace to mark the first attendance dip for the program in three years. This year saw more sparsely-attended games than normal, according to Allstate Arena ticket records obtained by Crain's. Seven DePaul games saw attendance of less than 1,000 people, including two games attended by fewer than 600 people."
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20170303/BLOGS04/170309946/basketball-attendance-sinking-as-depaul-heads-downtown
This is a program that 30 years ago was averaging 12,000 at its home games. Now it's lucky to get 1/10th of that, and you think there's still brand loyalty, and that the players matter less than the uniform?
-
D-1 athletes have some value collectively. They are what makes the brand strong.
I agree completely, and have stated as much repeatedly.
Here's an interesting question (in my opinion). Since we're talking about the collective -- and compensation -- I'll borrow from the language of collective bargaining. In labor law, a key question is often what the appropriate "bargaining unit" will be. That's the group of employees will will collectively negotiate and vote on a deal (a fairly significant over-simplification, but you get the idea). So, for the question: What bargaining unit do you think would actually vote in favor of a system where scholarship athletes are free to seek their own deal with no guarantee of a full scholarship?
Possible bargaining units (focusing only on scholarship athletes D1 headcount sports):
- All athletes
- All Power 5 athletes
- All males
- All Power 5 males
- All females
- All Power 5 females
- All football players
- All basketball players
- Power 5 football players
- Power 5 basketball players
The only one of those groups that I'm very confident would vote for a change to pay-for-play is the last group, but the second to last group probably would as well. I think that in the rest of the groups, if given a choice, the majority would vote to keep things the way they are with a guaranteed scholarship. This goes back to the fact that, in my opinion, the overwhelming majority of college athletes -- including those in FB and MBB -- are vastly over-compensated when compared to the value they bring to their programs. If you asked athletes whether they want their scholarship or a fair share of the revenue they generate, I don't think very many would choose the latter.
-
Well, if that's a straw man, so is the assertion that teams "cheer for the name on the front" regardless of who fills the uniform.
Except that I never said that. Another straw man. You referenced the "unspoken promise" and my point is that as long as the team honors that unspoken promise, people will cheer for that team. If they simply give up -- and I'll concede that sometimes it looks like DePaul has -- then it all falls apart.
Are you sure about that 25 percent figure?
Anyhow, DePaul men's basketball raked in a whopping $5.5 million in revenue, according to the most recent figures I could find.
The Fox contract is worth $4.16 million a year per team. So, it's actually pretty pathetic that the program can only generate a little more than $1.3 million from all its revenues outside of TV (i.e. sponsorships, ticket sales, merchandise, etc.) and it doesn't speak highly of their brand value.
DePauls fortunate inclusion in the Big East is because of the league's desire to be in the Chicago market. It has nothing to do with the value of its brand or brand loyalty.
Some more facts on DePaul's brand loyalty:
"14 Blue Demons home games this year have drawn an average of 1,824 people. That's down 24 percent from last season's final average and on pace to mark the first attendance dip for the program in three years. This year saw more sparsely-attended games than normal, according to Allstate Arena ticket records obtained by Crain's. Seven DePaul games saw attendance of less than 1,000 people, including two games attended by fewer than 600 people."
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20170303/BLOGS04/170309946/basketball-attendance-sinking-as-depaul-heads-downtown
This is a program that 30 years ago was averaging 12,000 at its home games. Now it's lucky to get 1/10th of that, and you think there's still brand loyalty, and that the players matter less than the uniform?
Yes, I'm sure about that figure (at least for they year I looked at). They were 88th out of 340-some.
I've conceded some of other points you've raised. But it is still the DePaul brand that enables that Big East money. I haven't seen any talk of replacing DePaul with Loyola. Granted, this is a different idea from "rooting for the name on the front of the jersey", but it's related.
-
Well, if that's a straw man, so is the assertion that teams "cheer for the name on the front" regardless of who fills the uniform.
Are you sure about that 25 percent figure?
Anyhow, DePaul men's basketball raked in a whopping $5.5 million in revenue, according to the most recent figures I could find.
The Fox contract is worth $4.16 million a year per team. So, it's actually pretty pathetic that the program can only generate a little more than $1.3 million from all its revenues outside of TV (i.e. sponsorships, ticket sales, merchandise, etc.) and it doesn't speak highly of their brand value.
DePauls fortunate inclusion in the Big East is because of the league's desire to be in the Chicago market. It has nothing to do with the value of its brand or brand loyalty.
Some more facts on DePaul's brand loyalty:
"14 Blue Demons home games this year have drawn an average of 1,824 people. That's down 24 percent from last season's final average and on pace to mark the first attendance dip for the program in three years. This year saw more sparsely-attended games than normal, according to Allstate Arena ticket records obtained by Crain's. Seven DePaul games saw attendance of less than 1,000 people, including two games attended by fewer than 600 people."
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20170303/BLOGS04/170309946/basketball-attendance-sinking-as-depaul-heads-downtown
This is a program that 30 years ago was averaging 12,000 at its home games. Now it's lucky to get 1/10th of that, and you think there's still brand loyalty, and that the players matter less than the uniform?
Even worse because a chunk of that is from tourney shares from the Big East.
-
Actually schools don't *need* to enter these arms races. They generally choose to do so because athletic departments are normally run by paranoid administrators who look at every shiny new object that another school has and think they have to incorporate it immediately.
On top of that, they have the fiscal discipline of a crackhead in a drug house.
You are right, they don't *need* to enter these arms races. They could choose to just be at a competitive disadvantage and field lower quality teams.
Here is the crux of it, where do the funds for the "arms races" come from? That answer is simple, donations. Donors are willing to donate large sums of money for fancier facilities, and new stadiums, locker rooms. They will not pony up the same type of dollars for an athletes salary. They want big shiny tangible objects that they can boast about to their friends. That is why administrators look at those object, that is what they can get donations for, and through the donations boast their profile and ranking.
The problem is that they need to still pay coaches salaries, scholarships, infrastructure costs, travel expenses and many others. Those cost as much, and often more than the actual revenue generated by the sports. So they get creative. Let's say all apparel sold with the university name is solely because of athletics...that will make our athletic loses more palatable. Let's assign the tutors, educational facilities, and substantial infrastructure costs to the university to make the loses appear less.
If you pay athletes the costs will be incurred by the general University budget and will take funds away from education.
Also, the athletes would most definitely be employees then, and would incur many other problems that they don't currently have to deal with.
-
You are right, they don't *need* to enter these arms races. They could choose to just be at a competitive disadvantage and field lower quality teams.
Here is the crux of it, where do the funds for the "arms races" come from? That answer is simple, donations. Donors are willing to donate large sums of money for fancier facilities, and new stadiums, locker rooms. They will not pony up the same type of dollars for an athletes salary. They want big shiny tangible objects that they can boast about to their friends. That is why administrators look at those object, that is what they can get donations for, and through the donations boast their profile and ranking.
The problem is that they need to still pay coaches salaries, scholarships, infrastructure costs, travel expenses and many others. Those cost as much, and often more than the actual revenue generated by the sports. So they get creative. Let's say all apparel sold with the university name is solely because of athletics...that will make our athletic loses more palatable. Let's assign the tutors, educational facilities, and substantial infrastructure costs to the university to make the loses appear less.
If you pay athletes the costs will be incurred by the general University budget and will take funds away from education.
Also, the athletes would most definitely be employees then, and would incur many other problems that they don't currently have to deal with.
I think you're making tons of assumptions here that not only are unsupported, but often contradicted.
NCAA history is rife with examples of donors paying athletes in violation of the rules. Why do you believe donors now would be unwilling to make such contributions within the rules? What makes you certain that a donor would rather shell out $10,000 for a locker room stall, but not a 5-star power forward? My guess is that one might prefer boasting about how his contribution helped land that kid who just put up 22 and 10, more so than the place that kid changes his socks.
I remain unconvinced that the revenues to pay kids aren't there. Again, FBS raked in $3.4 billion last year. Paying every FBS scholarship athlete a $10K salary would cost about 3 percent of that revenue. Are you really suggesting the average FBS athletic department couldn't find 3 percent in their budgets?
Whata re some of the problems athletes would incur if paid, and how do they outweigh the benefits (i.e. salaries, workers comp, labor protections, etc.)?
-
I think you're making tons of assumptions here that not only are unsupported, but often contradicted.
NCAA history is rife with examples of donors paying athletes in violation of the rules. Why do you believe donors now would be unwilling to make such contributions within the rules? What makes you certain that a donor would rather shell out $10,000 for a locker room stall, but not a 5-star power forward? My guess is that one might prefer boasting about how his contribution helped land that kid who just put up 22 and 10, more so than the place that kid changes his socks.
I remain unconvinced that the revenues to pay kids aren't there. Again, FBS raked in $3.4 billion last year. Paying every FBS scholarship athlete a $10K salary would cost about 3 percent of that revenue. Are you really suggesting the average FBS athletic department couldn't find 3 percent in their budgets?
Whata re some of the problems athletes would incur if paid, and how do they outweigh the benefits (i.e. salaries, workers comp, labor protections, etc.)?
My statement was in regards to large scale numbers. Yes there will always be some that are willing to directly pay the athletes, but those numbers are low in comparison to people that want their name on a building, or a plaque/brick in fancy facilities. I know this, because I see many of these budgets and spreadsheets and converse with the fundraisers/administrators.
It is often harder to raise money for a scholarship fund (unless your name is on it) than to raise money for a fountain.
As for the revenues not being there. There is a reason UCONN is losing $30M a year, and Houston is losing $30M a year, and why Texas Tech is losing money and over $100M in debt just for athletics. So yes, they can't find 3%, since they are already underwater.
And remember that $3.4B includes all donations to Universities that get earmarked for athletics, all sales of any apparel whether it has anything to do with sports or not, student fees that are slapped on (sometimes in the thousands of dollars) and required from all students, monetary transfers from the University to the athletic programs and many more accounting tricks.
If you think the money is there, go to FSU or UCONN and tell each student that they need to pony up another $1k+ in student fees so that the athletes can get paid.
-
In a nutshell, this is where I'm coming from (although, I suppose I'd end with "unnecessary" instead of "unfair"). Even though the players, as a group, are essential to drive revenue, it's the brand that keeps the money flowing in. Most players are essentially fungible, with a few transcendent players able to really move the needle. What I see is that the players, as a group, are more than happy with what they're getting for their efforts and it's even pretty rare to see the superstars complain. My concern is that if they open things up and allow it to be a negotiation, a fairly limited number of players will receive a lot more money, but most of the players will receive less. College recruiting -- even in low profile, non-revenue sports -- is a bit like dealing with used car salesmen where they're trying to pitch you. It's already slimy when everyone is offering pretty much the same thing. I just really don't like the idea of professional recruiters/salesmen negotiating with tens of thousands of children and seeing how cheaply they can buy the commitment (in order to save enough money to pay for the superstars). I envision a situation where the top few players on a basketball team and maybe the top 10-20 players on the football roster get paid more (and even then, only in big conferences) and everyone else gets the best partial scholarship he can negotiate. Even though it's slimy now, at least the athlete -- generally speaking a child (in some sports often as young as 15-16 years old) with limited bargaining power -- knows what he or she is getting. At the end of the day, I just think they'd be changing a system under which tens of thousands of kids obtain a free education in order to increase the compensation of a handful of players who are going to be playing as professionals anyway.
I honestly bristle at the claim that I'm siding with the huge schools in taking this position. I think that no matter the system, the big schools are going to come out fine. I genuinely feel like I'm taking the side of the little guys -- the athletes who are benefiting from the current system who I believe will lose under a pay-for-play system. If people think it's unfair to have the Dwyane Wades of the world to subsidize the rest, I can appreciate that argument even if I generally disagree. But I think it's misguided to characterize moving to pay-for-play as looking out for the little guy. To me, it kind of feels like fighting for higher pay for up and coming mid-level executives in Fortune 100 companies.
I think there are two better solutions. First, as mentioned above, let those transcendent players capitalize on their name and make money. Second, allow those players to go directly to the professional leagues and avoid the issue entirely.
I agree with this analysis.
-
It seems we've gone far afield of the original transfer rule topic in this thread, but the discussion has nonetheless been interesting. I'm not convinced that there is a role for academic institutions to run "professional" sports teams, where players are considered employees and get paid for their services. Nor do I care for the NBA to force kids who are good enough to be paid for their work to spend a year playing unpaid before they are eligible to join the league. I think eventually we will see changes here for the very elite - either they will be allowed to go directly to the draft, or the draft could expand to include a number of players that the NBA wants to have on their G-League teams; kind of like baseball, with a fully developed farm system where players get paid for their work and advance as their talents allow. We may see more kids going to Europe for a year instead of bothering with classes and all that stuff in order to play ball.
Realistically, only a small percentage of players in D-1 basketball ever get any time in the NBA. Why disrupt the whole system for that privileged few when there are other solutions for how to deal with the few? Would college basketball become less interesting without those "superstars" in the game? I doubt it. There will still be a high level of play, competitive teams and the best single elimination tournament in the US every March. We will still look for our coaches to put together a talented group of individuals and mold them into a team. There will be the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. I'd argue that it would be a better approach than paying the players.
I believe in college athletics and student athletes. It is a privilege to compete for your university and in exchange, receive a higher education that so many other young adults and families are struggling to pay for. An April 3, 2017 study by the NCAA notes that 99.2% of student athletes "go pro" in something other than sports. That includes not just the swimmers and runners and lacrosse players, it also includes the large majority of football and basketball players. Yes, MBB and football bring in the large share of revenues, and those can be very large with the TV contracts offered by too many sports outlets looking to fill airtime. But it's not as though those dollars are being stuffed in the pockets by greedy administrators (that we know of); they are being spread throughout the non-profit institutions to support other student athletics and even general institutional needs. If you want to spend a large part of that on a top-notch coach that will enhance your chances of recruiting better talent and winning, thus potentially increasing student and alumni pride and increasing donations, nothing wrong with that as long as it is self-supported by the program. Shame on any university that forces the general student population to fund a multi-million dollar coach's salary. But there is so much more to college athletics, and being a student athlete, than we see on our screens at home.
I think that there needs to be a relaxation of eligibility requirements. Why shouldn't high school seniors be allowed to enter the NBA draft, and attend college if they aren't drafted? Foreign players sometimes start playing professionally at a very young age - should they be allowed to join college teams in a certain age range? Should NBA teams be allowed to draft kids out of high school and then allow the kid to go to college for a couple (no less than two) years, like the NHL does? Seems to me that a lot of the requirements, except for the minimum grades and test scores, are a little silly for some of these athletes.
And finally, while I don't support paying players, I do believe that they should receive a reasonable stipend as part of their room and board. It seems there are too many players who arrive with a full scholarship but don't have enough money in their pocket to order a pizza or buy a movie ticket. That's part of college, too, and it would go a long way toward keeping players focused on their many other responsibilities if they are not concerned about that.
-
Damn, you go girl.
-
I'm getting dizzy reading El Quijote was easier :P
-
Fans buy tickets based on the perceived/expected value of that purchase. That perceived value is based on an unspoken promise that Marquette will do its best year in and year out to field a competitive, entertaining team. Fielding a competitive, entertaining team requires recruiting and developing talented, in-demand players.
So, yes, fans do buy their tickets based on who's playing for the team. Not any specific individual, but on a group of talented players.
The notion that fans are spending money simply to "cheer for the name on the front" is simply not accurate. They're spending money with an expectation of that the players wearing the name on the front will produce at a certain level. Stop meeting those expectations, and the fans will go away (again, see: DePaul).
I'm fairly certain I said some. There are all kinds of reasons people buy season tickets, but one of them is to support the school win or lose. Others are going to tie in performance, while others do not. This is why you have some people buying season tickets for 50 straight years, even for teams that may be on a 20 year losing streak. Could be the environment, the experience, or simply to support the school or team. I don't pretend to suggest that accomplishment, success, doesn't matter. It does for some fans, but is not the only reason or in some cases even a reason for buying.
-
It seems we've gone far afield of the original transfer rule topic in this thread, but the discussion has nonetheless been interesting. I'm not convinced that there is a role for academic institutions to run "professional" sports teams, where players are considered employees and get paid for their services. Nor do I care for the NBA to force kids who are good enough to be paid for their work to spend a year playing unpaid before they are eligible to join the league. I think eventually we will see changes here for the very elite - either they will be allowed to go directly to the draft, or the draft could expand to include a number of players that the NBA wants to have on their G-League teams; kind of like baseball, with a fully developed farm system where players get paid for their work and advance as their talents allow. We may see more kids going to Europe for a year instead of bothering with classes and all that stuff in order to play ball.
Realistically, only a small percentage of players in D-1 basketball ever get any time in the NBA. Why disrupt the whole system for that privileged few when there are other solutions for how to deal with the few? Would college basketball become less interesting without those "superstars" in the game? I doubt it. There will still be a high level of play, competitive teams and the best single elimination tournament in the US every March. We will still look for our coaches to put together a talented group of individuals and mold them into a team. There will be the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. I'd argue that it would be a better approach than paying the players.
I believe in college athletics and student athletes. It is a privilege to compete for your university and in exchange, receive a higher education that so many other young adults and families are struggling to pay for. An April 3, 2017 study by the NCAA notes that 99.2% of student athletes "go pro" in something other than sports. That includes not just the swimmers and runners and lacrosse players, it also includes the large majority of football and basketball players. Yes, MBB and football bring in the large share of revenues, and those can be very large with the TV contracts offered by too many sports outlets looking to fill airtime. But it's not as though those dollars are being stuffed in the pockets by greedy administrators (that we know of); they are being spread throughout the non-profit institutions to support other student athletics and even general institutional needs. If you want to spend a large part of that on a top-notch coach that will enhance your chances of recruiting better talent and winning, thus potentially increasing student and alumni pride and increasing donations, nothing wrong with that as long as it is self-supported by the program. Shame on any university that forces the general student population to fund a multi-million dollar coach's salary. But there is so much more to college athletics, and being a student athlete, than we see on our screens at home.
I think that there needs to be a relaxation of eligibility requirements. Why shouldn't high school seniors be allowed to enter the NBA draft, and attend college if they aren't drafted? Foreign players sometimes start playing professionally at a very young age - should they be allowed to join college teams in a certain age range? Should NBA teams be allowed to draft kids out of high school and then allow the kid to go to college for a couple (no less than two) years, like the NHL does? Seems to me that a lot of the requirements, except for the minimum grades and test scores, are a little silly for some of these athletes.
And finally, while I don't support paying players, I do believe that they should receive a reasonable stipend as part of their room and board. It seems there are too many players who arrive with a full scholarship but don't have enough money in their pocket to order a pizza or buy a movie ticket. That's part of college, too, and it would go a long way toward keeping players focused on their many other responsibilities if they are not concerned about that.
Great post. A reasonable stipend for profit making sports seems the best route. If one doesnt like it the D league or Europe is an option. Football does not have other options but that is not the NCAAs responsibility.
-
I honestly bristle at the claim that I'm siding with the huge schools in taking this position. I think that no matter the system, the big schools are going to come out fine. I genuinely feel like I'm taking the side of the little guys -- the athletes who are benefiting from the current system who I believe will lose under a pay-for-play system. If people think it's unfair to have the Dwyane Wades of the world to subsidize the rest, I can appreciate that argument even if I generally disagree. But I think it's misguided to characterize moving to pay-for-play as looking out for the little guy. To me, it kind of feels like fighting for higher pay for up and coming mid-level executives in Fortune 100 companies.
You should bristle because you are right. What so many people don't realize in making the argument that the Dwyane Wades of the world should get some because they are being exploited (which is a horrible argument), is 100s of thousands of men, women, minorities are getting an education and competing based on the model. These people are often arguing for a solution that would throw away opportunities for the other 99%. The Dwyane Wades of the world are still going to get their compensation because they are so good and having a platform (provided by the school / scholarship / coaching) to earn those dollars after school The exceptions being career ending injuries while in school.
-
Well, if that's a straw man, so is the assertion that teams "cheer for the name on the front" regardless of who fills the uniform.
Are you sure about that 25 percent figure?
Anyhow, DePaul men's basketball raked in a whopping $5.5 million in revenue, according to the most recent figures I could find.
The Fox contract is worth $4.16 million a year per team. So, it's actually pretty pathetic that the program can only generate a little more than $1.3 million from all its revenues outside of TV (i.e. sponsorships, ticket sales, merchandise, etc.) and it doesn't speak highly of their brand value.
DePauls fortunate inclusion in the Big East is because of the league's desire to be in the Chicago market. It has nothing to do with the value of its brand or brand loyalty.
Some more facts on DePaul's brand loyalty:
"14 Blue Demons home games this year have drawn an average of 1,824 people. That's down 24 percent from last season's final average and on pace to mark the first attendance dip for the program in three years. This year saw more sparsely-attended games than normal, according to Allstate Arena ticket records obtained by Crain's. Seven DePaul games saw attendance of less than 1,000 people, including two games attended by fewer than 600 people."
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20170303/BLOGS04/170309946/basketball-attendance-sinking-as-depaul-heads-downtown
This is a program that 30 years ago was averaging 12,000 at its home games. Now it's lucky to get 1/10th of that, and you think there's still brand loyalty, and that the players matter less than the uniform?
This.
-
This.
Personally, I find it absolutely remarkable that after two decades of being a dumpster fire, DePaul can still generate enough revenue to rank in the top 25% of basketball programs. I understand that the fans have abandoned the program, but the brand still manages to hold onto a spot in the Big East and generate millions. While it has certainly deteriorated, its the DePaul name that is bringing in that money, not the players. There are other schools in Chicago, but the Big East doesn't send them checks. If you think the Big East is sending checks because of those players, I guess we just disagree.
-
Personally, I find it absolutely remarkable that after two decades of being a dumpster fire, DePaul can still generate enough revenue to rank in the top 25% of basketball programs. I understand that the fans have abandoned the program, but the brand still manages to hold onto a spot in the Big East and generate millions. While it has certainly deteriorated, its the DePaul name that is bringing in that money, not the players. There are other schools in Chicago, but the Big East doesn't send them checks. If you think the Big East is sending checks because of those players, I guess we just disagree.
This.
-
Personally, I find it absolutely remarkable that after two decades of being a dumpster fire, DePaul can still generate enough revenue to rank in the top 25% of basketball programs. I understand that the fans have abandoned the program, but the brand still manages to hold onto a spot in the Big East and generate millions. While it has certainly deteriorated, its the DePaul name that is bringing in that money, not the players. There are other schools in Chicago, but the Big East doesn't send them checks. If you think the Big East is sending checks because of those players, I guess we just disagree.
The Big East is sending them checks because they are a member of the conference. The Big East wanted a Chicago presence and DePaul was the best of mostly poor options. If DePaul and their history were in Dayton, and the University of Dayton with its history was in Chicago, UD would be a member of the BE.
-
DePaul is considered the anchor tenant of Wintrust Arena. But the Chicago Sky of the WNBA also signed a deal to relocate from Allstate Arena and play at the new arena. The Sky set a franchise attendance record last season, averaging more than 7,000 fans a game.
Authorities are counting on a dramatic attendance boost for DePaul in the arena's inaugural season. Even tripling last year's attendance would still leave about half the seats empty. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/ct-sky-home-games-wintrust-arena-20170725-story.html (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/ct-sky-home-games-wintrust-arena-20170725-story.html)
http://www.wnba.com/news/record-breaking-attendance-five-years-digital-social-retail/ (http://www.wnba.com/news/record-breaking-attendance-five-years-digital-social-retail/)
-
DePaul is considered the anchor tenant of Wintrust Arena. But the Chicago Sky of the WNBA also signed a deal to relocate from Allstate Arena and play at the new arena. The Sky set a franchise attendance record last season, averaging more than 7,000 fans a game.
Authorities are counting on a dramatic attendance boost for DePaul in the arena's inaugural season. Even tripling last year's attendance would still leave about half the seats empty. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/ct-sky-home-games-wintrust-arena-20170725-story.html (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/ct-sky-home-games-wintrust-arena-20170725-story.html)
http://www.wnba.com/news/record-breaking-attendance-five-years-digital-social-retail/ (http://www.wnba.com/news/record-breaking-attendance-five-years-digital-social-retail/)
Are they playing more home games against Marquette this year?
-
Are they playing more home games against Marquette this year?
The new arena is about 30 miles closer to Indianapolis — less than a 3-hour drive. So maybe Wintrust can become a home-away-from-home game for Butler fans, as well.
-
The Big East is sending them checks because they are a member of the conference. The Big East wanted a Chicago presence and DePaul was the best of mostly poor options. If DePaul and their history were in Dayton, and the University of Dayton with its history was in Chicago, UD would be a member of the BE.
This.
DePaul's basketball brand is broken. Maybe not irreparably so; we'll have to see about that. But it is broken.
-
This.
DePaul's basketball brand is broken. Maybe not irreparably so; we'll have to see about that. But it is broken.
It may surprise some here, given the positions that I've taken in this thread, but I think that this is undeniably true. However, I don't think that's inconsistent with anything that I've said.
-
This.
DePaul's basketball brand is broken. Maybe not irreparably so; we'll have to see about that. But it is broken.
All it takes is a few good players, a new arena, and they can start their way back. The chances of coming all the way back are near zero, but this is not surprising as MU hasn't come all the way back either. For that matter, neither has UCLA or UNLV or any number of dozens of other programs. Basketball is a sport that doesn't take much to turn the corner to respectability.
-
This.
DePaul's basketball brand is broken. Maybe not irreparably so; we'll have to see about that. But it is broken.
Yep. If a school like Loyola could resurrect its program, DePaul would be totally expendable. Unfortunately - and remarkably - DePaul is the best Chicago has...
-
All it takes is a few good players, a new arena, and they can start their way back. The chances of coming all the way back are near zero, but this is not surprising as MU hasn't come all the way back either. For that matter, neither has UCLA or UNLV or any number of dozens of other programs. Basketball is a sport that doesn't take much to turn the corner to respectability.
I think this part is completely overblown.
Does anyone have an example of a situation where a team got a new arena and the program as a whole measurably improved?
-
Yep. If a school like Loyola could resurrect its program, DePaul would be totally expendable. Unfortunately - and remarkably - DePaul is the best Chicago has...
I suppose it depends if you consider Northwestern in Chicago or not (northeast suburbs?). As far as the city proper, probably DePaul, but Northwestern isn't far away and I'd put them miles ahead of the Demons right now.
-
I think this part is completely overblown.
Does anyone have an example of a situation where a team got a new arena and the program as a whole measurably improved?
Ask this in 2021 as we cut down the nets after our 3rd National Title in a row.
-
I suppose it depends if you consider Northwestern in Chicago or not (northeast suburbs?). As far as the city proper, probably DePaul, but Northwestern isn't far away and I'd put them miles ahead of the Demons right now.
Agreed. I was thinking of schools that could hypothetically have replaced DePaul in the BE.
-
I think this part is completely overblown.
Does anyone have an example of a situation where a team got a new arena and the program as a whole measurably improved?
Xavier. Cintas went up in 2000 and a program that previously only been to the sweet 16 once went to the elite 8 twice in the following 8 years. I what we should really be asking is what the programs DePaul is recruiting against are doing. They don't recruit at the same level as the rest of the BE, but if they start winning the top ones they are going for now they can build cycle over cycle. Unlikely, but possible.
-
Xavier. Cintas went up in 2000 and a program that previously only been to the sweet 16 once went to the elite 8 twice in the following 8 years. I what we should really be asking is what the programs DePaul is recruiting against are doing. They don't recruit at the same level as the rest of the BE, but if they start winning the top ones they are going for now they can build cycle over cycle. Unlikely, but possible.
Unfortunately DePaul hasn't even done anything with the few good recruits they have landed billy garret and myke Henry were both former top 100s, not great but you'd think it'd be enough to work with when they were upper classmen but they still sucked. Unfortunately I think it's just a sad culture there at this point and the last embarrassing coaching search didn't help
-
Xavier. Cintas went up in 2000 and a program that previously only been to the sweet 16 once went to the elite 8 twice in the following 8 years.
I think most people would attribute Xavier's turnaround with the arrival of Pete Gillen in 1985 and not the opening of Cintas fifteen years later.
-
I think most people would attribute Xavier's turnaround with the arrival of Pete Gillen in 1985 and not the opening of Cintas fifteen years later.
Fair enough, but it is interesting that exactly one recruiting cycle after Cintas opened (2004) was Xavier's first ever breakthrough to the E8.
-
I have no doubt that a building can make a difference. Look at the Kohl Center versus the old Fieldhouse. But unless the program is heading in the right direction with a good coach anyway, it's not going to make much of a difference.
So I think if DePaul were heading in the right direction, this building could be a game changer. But they aren't. They hired a ho-hum retread of a coach who isn't doing much.
-
I think this part is completely overblown.
I agree that the importance of arenas is overblown. Pauley Pavilion has always been second-rate, but UCLA does fine; MU's best years were in the Arena; Arkansas was better before Bud Walton Arena; Mizzou was better before the new Mizzou Arena, etc. People can always come up with examples to the contrary, but on balance, it's far more about the investment in the program and the head coach.
-
Agreed. I was thinking of schools that could hypothetically have replaced DePaul in the BE.
Gotcha. Here's the thing...someone has to lose. I have no problem with it being DePaul. It's best for the league if 2-3 teams are losing 13+ games per year. Increases everyone else's chances of getting to the tournament.
-
Sounds like this could actually happen. Hope it does for the sake of the athletes.
http://247sports.com/Article/Sources-Major-Potential-Shift-In-NCAA-Transfer-Rules-107001121
We need to recognize a couple realities about transferring. The VAST MAJORITY of transfers are due to guys not being good enough to play, so they transfer out of Division 1 basketball entirely.
Then you have to add a large number that transfer downward within D1 to a Mid-Major from a Power 6 team.
Finally, you have a small number that transfer up to a Power 6 conference team from a lower level - in, fact, less than 50 players per year.
Transfers are not the problem that we all make it out to be.
-
I think most people would attribute Xavier's turnaround with the arrival of Pete Gillen in 1985 and not the opening of Cintas fifteen years later.
Agreed - the willingness to make the investment in Cintas was due to X's prior success and the hope that it could continue/expand.
-
We need to recognize a couple realities about transferring. The VAST MAJORITY of transfers are due to guys not being good enough to play, so they transfer out of Division 1 basketball entirely.
Then you have to add a large number that transfer downward within D1 to a Mid-Major from a Power 6 team.
Finally, you have a small number that transfer up to a Power 6 conference team from a lower level - in, fact, less than 50 players per year.
Transfers are not the problem that we all make it out to be.
You're right, Brandie, but in both cases transfers benefit the "big boys" and if you make things more seamless (no sit out year) you'll get more of the same - it will be easier for the big boys to dump their dead wood and easier for them to poach the mid and low majors for those rare diamonds in the rough. The rich will get richer, something I would think would be anathema to you :)
-
You're right, Brandie, but in both cases transfers benefit the "big boys" and if you make things more seamless (no sit out year) you'll get more of the same - it will be easier for the big boys to dump their dead wood and easier for them to poach the mid and low majors for those rare diamonds in the rough. The rich will get richer, something I would think would be anathema to you :)
The big boys already dump their dead wood, so I don't know whether anything changes on that front.
But, your other point, I believe, is correct. I don't think it moves the needle at all as far as Blue Bloods are concerned, because they already are loaded with stars. But some Power 6 teams probably would try to use lower level programs as their "minor leagues". D1 coaches don't tend to be moral and ethical leaders.
-
Agreed - the willingness to make the investment in Cintas was due to X's prior success and the hope that it could continue/expand.
The question I answered was "measurable improvement after building a new arena" and I'd say Xavier qualifies. The question was not "has a new facility ever been the sole driver of program improvement?"
-
The question I answered was "measurable improvement after building a new arena" and I'd say Xavier qualifies. The question was not "has a new facility ever been the sole driver of program improvement?"
Fair enough.
-
This thread was about transfers, it has morphed to DePaul. If DePaul hired Tom Crean ,he would have the clout to recruit enough good transfers to get their program respectable and then build with traditional high school talent. DePauls new arena is definitely going to help the overall image of the program. Also attendance will be aided in a small way by trade show people looking for easy entertainment options. Granted it may not be a huge amount of people but beggars can't be choosers.
-
This thread was about transfers, it has morphed to DePaul. If DePaul hired Tom Crean ,he would have the clout to recruit enough good transfers to get their program respectable and then build with traditional high school talent.
To the former, imagine our shock at a Scoop thread going off topic.
To the latter, isn't that what Leitao is doing? Harrison-Docks last year, Maric and Coleman-Lands this year. I know they're DePaul, but I could see Leitao getting them to the middle of the league given time.
-
I think Bryce Drew is the guy DePaul should have landed. Young energetic coach, connections all over Chicago, reputation as a good recruiter.
I think he ran away from that job after he learned more about it. Got a better one a year later anyway.
-
To the former, imagine our shock at a Scoop thread going off topic.
To the latter, isn't that what Leitao is doing? Harrison-Docks last year, Maric and Coleman-Lands this year. I know they're DePaul, but I could see Leitao getting them to the middle of the league given time.
Leitao is a good guy and is making slow progress . However , I think a carny barker like Coach Crean could really get the media attention necessary to get things moving at a faster pace.
-
The question I answered was "measurable improvement after building a new arena" and I'd say Xavier qualifies. The question was not "has a new facility ever been the sole driver of program improvement?"
In the 10 years before Cintas, Xavier had a .693 win percentage. In the years since, they've had a .705 win percentage.
That's like 6-7 more wins over 15 years. It's something, I guess.
-
Wisconsin has been really good, since the Kohl Center was built. Who knows what would of happened, if they were still playing in the field house, but my guess is the Kohl Center has helped a lot.
-
Wisconsin has been really good, since the Kohl Center was built. Who knows what would of happened, if they were still playing in the field house, but my guess is the Kohl Center has helped a lot.
In looking at the records, that's a pretty good example. Before moving to the Kohl Center, the Badgers never had a 20 win season. Their first was the first year in the KC.
In the 19 years they have been in the KC, they have had only 3 years of less than 20 wins and none since 2005-06.
-
And yet ... I went to a LOT of games at the Fieldhouse. The few times Wisconsin had a good team, that place really rocked. When the band would play the Bud song and the fans would go crazy, I actually got goosebumps. And I HATED Bucky.
-
In looking at the records, that's a pretty good example. Before moving to the Kohl Center, the Badgers never had a 20 win season. Their first was the first year in the KC.
In the 19 years they have been in the KC, they have had only 3 years of less than 20 wins and none since 2005-06.
The Kohl Center doesn't cause that, though. What it does is act as a leading indicator that the university is willing to allocate funds towards a successful basketball program.
-
And yet ... I went to a LOT of games at the Fieldhouse. The few times Wisconsin had a good team, that place really rocked. When the band would play the Bud song and the fans would go crazy, I actually got goosebumps. And I HATED Bucky.
Agreed. They weren't as successful back then...but the Fieldhouse was a great environment in terms of noise and fan involvement.
-
Agreed. They weren't as successful back then...but the Fieldhouse was a great environment in terms of noise and fan involvement.
Never went to the Fieldhouse for rodentball but did go to a couple WIAA state tourneys back in the late 80's. I don't recall much about the atmosphere at the games... the atmosphere I remember most fondly was all of the adults drinking and partying at the Concourse after our HS team won state. Needless to say, we kids had the run of the hotel that night... those games of tag and hide-and-go-seek were absolutely epic. My childhood was all downhill from there.
-
I grew up in Madison and went to a grand total of two Bucky games growing up. The place did get loud. But it was a crappy facility.
-
In looking at the records, that's a pretty good example. Before moving to the Kohl Center, the Badgers never had a 20 win season. Their first was the first year in the KC.
In the 19 years they have been in the KC, they have had only 3 years of less than 20 wins and none since 2005-06.
Not only is the "never had a 20 win season" false, but the ~avg # of games per season when at the FH was 24; Kohl hole days it's been 34
Way better at Kohl hole, but facts are cool
-
Not only is the "never had a 20 win season" false, but the ~avg # of games per season when at the FH was 24; Kohl hole days it's been 34
Way better at Kohl hole, but facts are cool
Yes you correct. I didn't look previous to 1950.
-
I jumped out of the discussion on the transfer rule change a few pages ago and haven't kept up, so my apologies if this has been discussed here, but is allowing student athletes to be immediately eligible when transferring really a good thing academically? In terms of athletically it might be (though a year to adjust to the new school/coach/system/etc. might not hurt, if you think of the recent grad transfers we've had it took guys like Carlino, Lockett, and Reinhardt a month + into the season to really find their role). But with the likelihood that at least some of the transfer's credits don't transfer over to their new school, that can be a pretty big set back academically, and being a D1 college athlete it can be hard to make those up. I know they take summer courses, but aren't you still making it pretty unlikely that the transfer graduates in 4 years?
-
I jumped out of the discussion on the transfer rule change a few pages ago and haven't kept up, so my apologies if this has been discussed here, but is allowing student athletes to be immediately eligible when transferring really a good thing academically? In terms of athletically it might be (though a year to adjust to the new school/coach/system/etc. might not hurt, if you think of the recent grad transfers we've had it took guys like Carlino, Lockett, and Reinhardt a month + into the season to really find their role). But with the likelihood that at least some of the transfer's credits don't transfer over to their new school, that can be a pretty big set back academically, and being a D1 college athlete it can be hard to make those up. I know they take summer courses, but aren't you still making it pretty unlikely that the transfer graduates in 4 years?
Probably no worse that what an incoming freshman experiences.
-
Probably no worse that what an incoming freshman experiences.
But an incoming freshman isn't losing credits towards graduation that they've already earned.
Academically you have to try pretty hard not to remain eligible as a high major, major sport division 1 athlete. It's not really about getting passing grades with all of the support they have in place. You're not just hurting yourself if you aren't passing your classes as a student athlete, you're also hurting your program, so they're going to do pretty much everything they can to make sure you can a) be eligible to be on the court helping your team succeed and b) not hurt your program's APR. The problem here is that you're probably not taking 16-18 credits because of your athletic commitments, so you're going to be taking summer classes to make up for them, which is fine. But when you start to lose those credits because they didn't transfer from one school to the other then suddenly you're in a pretty tough position to graduate by the time your athletic eligibility expires.
-
But an incoming freshman isn't losing credits towards graduation that they've already earned.
Academically you have to try pretty hard not to remain eligible as a high major, major sport division 1 athlete. It's not really about getting passing grades with all of the support they have in place. You're not just hurting yourself if you aren't passing your classes as a student athlete, you're also hurting your program, so they're going to do pretty much everything they can to make sure you can a) be eligible to be on the court helping your team succeed and b) not hurt your program's APR. The problem here is that you're probably not taking 16-18 credits because of your athletic commitments, so you're going to be taking summer classes to make up for them, which is fine. But when you start to lose those credits because they didn't transfer from one school to the other then suddenly you're in a pretty tough position to graduate by the time your athletic eligibility expires.
Do we have any idea how many of Froling's credits didn't transfer or are you speculating about this being a common problem?
Just wondering, not a slam.
-
My bigger ? is about JUCOs. If its about helping the athlete academically than why are JUCOs immediately eligible? They are at much greater risk of credits not transferring and struggling in their first year than traditional transfers. If its about academics than all transfers should be required to sit out, not just the ones whose transfer would be inconvenient to NCAA membership.
-
My bigger ? is about JUCOs. If its about helping the athlete academically than why are JUCOs immediately eligible?
A JUCO w a two yr degree, as is most often the case (MU has had some exceptions), can't continue their education at their current school. The decision tree is end education or do. It end it, hey? Very diff animal than a 4-4 D1 transfer
-
Do we have any idea how many of Froling's credits didn't transfer or are you speculating about this being a common problem?
Just wondering, not a slam.
You're right that I don't know anything about individual cases, but I think just in general that when someone transfers from one college to another there are typically some credits that do not transfer over. I actually don't know that for certain, so I could be wrong.
-
Somebody gets Buzz-cut or Pole-axed or whatever by a coach - in other words, they get recruited over and they actually are highly "encouraged" to transfer. That exact thing could happen if we are lucky enough to get Grimes.
Should that kid really have to sit out a year?
(I admit to not being as up on the rules as some others here. Maybe that kid wouldn't have to sit out?)
-
A JUCO w a two yr degree, as is most often the case (MU has had some exceptions), can't continue their education at their current school. The decision tree is end education or do. It end it, hey? Very diff animal than a 4-4 D1 transfer
So? If they were forced to sit out a year they would still get a scholarship at their new school. Why does "end education or do" matter? Transfers sitting out is not supposed to be about keeping people from transferring, its supposed to be about benefiting the athlete's academics. No group needs that benefit more than JUCO transfers.
-
What is the rule if a student with no association with his current D-1 school's basketball program transfers to be a scholarship bball player at another D-1 program?
Unlikely situation, I know, but I'm sure there must be a rule to address it.
-
I think this part is completely overblown.
Does anyone have an example of a situation where a team got a new arena and the program as a whole measurably improved?
In the state alone
Wisconsin, Kohl Center
Marquette women's basketball and women's volleyball (Old Gym to Al)
Let's look at it another way, why did we bother to build the Al? If a building makes no difference or is overblown? Why did Louisville bother to leave Freedom Hall? The coaches / administrators believe it makes a huge difference to keep up with the Jones'. I'm not sure how we can measure what would have happened if they weren't built, the data is impossible to predict.
In my view, DePaul has been a dumpster fire program for several decades playing in a dumpster fire arena. They have a chance to rekindle something and open some eyes to cover the blemishes of the program. Whether they do it or not we wait and see, but this is a life line for them that they should be able to take advantage of.
-
Xavier during those first 15 years played in the MCC and other lesser conferences, not exactly what they played in since the Cintas center.
-
Schools/coaches should not be able restrict transfers to another school. Call it the Bo Ryan rule.
-
Schools/coaches should not be able restrict transfers to another school. Call it the Bo Ryan rule.
If tampering is suspected, they absolutely should be able to.
-
If tampering is suspected, they absolutely should be able to.
Easy to say tampering is suspected, hard to prove
-
Easy to say tampering is suspected, hard to prove
Yes, but it happens. It will happen uncontrollably if this dumb idea of transfer free agency is voted in. Will be completely uncontrollable. At least today the kid has to sit, and that decision weighs heavily regardless of how much tampering is going on. Take that year of sitting out, tampering will be an every day occurrence.
-
Somebody gets Buzz-cut or Pole-axed or whatever by a coach - in other words, they get recruited over and they actually are highly "encouraged" to transfer. That exact thing could happen if we are lucky enough to get Grimes.
Should that kid really have to sit out a year?
(I admit to not being as up on the rules as some others here. Maybe that kid wouldn't have to sit out?)
Nobody?
Even JB thinks it would be unethical to force this transfer to sit out a year?
-
Someone please talk to 82 so he doesn't have to carry on a conversation with himself.
-
Someone please talk to 82 so he doesn't have to carry on a conversation with himself.
It's often the only way I can get anybody to listen to me.
My poor dog. We have quite the "conversations" every time I walk her!
-
It's often the only way I can get anybody to listen to me.
My poor dog. We have quite the "conversations" every time I walk her!
So your ménage a trois consists of "me, myself and I", ai-na? Variety is the spice of life.
-
So your ménage a trois consists of "me, myself and I", ai-na? Variety is the spice of life.
Well, me always thought myself was sexy!
-
Love it! Now they just have to get rid of the GPA requirement.
How about we also drop all course requirements and call it the NCAA semi-pro league? We can keep the college logos, however.
-
How about we also drop all course requirements and call it the NCAA semi-pro league? We can keep the college logos, however.
So in other words, call it what it pretty much is?
-
So? If they were forced to sit out a year they would still get a scholarship at their new school. Why does "end education or do" matter? Transfers sitting out is not supposed to be about keeping people from transferring, its supposed to be about benefiting the athlete's academics. No group needs that benefit more than JUCO transfers.
I don’t know that I find this compelling. Data supports that transfers struggle more than others.
A primary reason for a transfer *should be* academics. For some, it’s a cry for help on their academics. “I believe this new school will be beneficial to me academically…. Help please.” So let’s help. Sit out a year. It’s cool, you can still be on full scholarship. But, take your take and get acclimated.
Transfers should be changing schools because of an academic benefit.
JUCOs and freshmen change schools because it’s a whole different animal… high school is done, time to go to college.. done with, or want to elevate from, a 2-year school to go to a 4-year. It’s not a change driven by struggles or concerns at the previous school. Transfers are.
-
I don’t know that I find this compelling. Data supports that transfers struggle more than others.
A primary reason for a transfer *should be* academics. For some, it’s a cry for help on their academics. “I believe this new school will be beneficial to me academically…. Help please.” So let’s help. Sit out a year. It’s cool, you can still be on full scholarship. But, take your take and get acclimated.
Transfers should be changing schools because of an academic benefit.
JUCOs and freshmen change schools because it’s a whole different animal… high school is done, time to go to college.. done with, or want to elevate from, a 2-year school to go to a 4-year. It’s not a change driven by struggles or concerns at the previous school. Transfers are.
This is a good point... when things are going well, change is eschewed; when things aren't going so well, change is sought. Now that might apply to apply to academics just as easily as it could apply to athletics or health or romance. And of course, some people just want a change of scenery for no reason whatsoever.
I wouldn't have a problem with waiving a residency year provided the athlete clears some sort of academic threshold... not just minimum progress required by NCAA, but something that demonstrates enough acumen to put any question about academics to rest. For example, if a transfer has a 3.0 GPA, has completed 15 credits for each semester he's been in school, and would still be on track to graduate in four years at the new institution (because sometimes graduation requirements may differ from school to school), residency is waived.
Frankly, I think the people being penalized the most by the current rules are transfers who may be on track to graduate in four years, but are forced to either a) delay graduation for a year or b) transfer to yet another school (grad transfer) just to get your fourth year of eligibility. If there's no question that you're going to graduate in four years, you should be able to exhaust your eligibility in four years regardless of where you first enrolled or graduated.
-
A selection of impact transfers this season.
https://www.fanragsports.com/rothstein-20-impact-transfers-2017-18-season/
-
I don’t know that I find this compelling. Data supports that transfers struggle more than others.
A primary reason for a transfer *should be* academics. For some, it’s a cry for help on their academics. “I believe this new school will be beneficial to me academically…. Help please.” So let’s help. Sit out a year. It’s cool, you can still be on full scholarship. But, take your take and get acclimated.
Transfers should be changing schools because of an academic benefit.
JUCOs and freshmen change schools because it’s a whole different animal… high school is done, time to go to college.. done with, or want to elevate from, a 2-year school to go to a 4-year. It’s not a change driven by struggles or concerns at the previous school. Transfers are.
Again ... what about the kid who is "forced" to transfer due to being Buzz-cut, Pole-axed, Creaned, etc.?
What if he's a good student and a model citizen who doesn't need "help" acclimating? He simply had to go because the coach recruited over him and "strongly suggested" he "consider his options."
That kid has to sit out a freakin' year? Really? Great rule!
-
What about if Brandon Bailey does not show up?
-
Again ... what about the kid who is "forced" to transfer due to being Buzz-cut, Pole-axed, Creaned, etc.?
What if he's a good student and a model citizen who doesn't need "help" acclimating? He simply had to go because the coach recruited over him and "strongly suggested" he "consider his options."
That kid has to sit out a freakin' year? Really? Great rule!
Non renewals due to performance or ability aren't OK per existing Bylaws. If the academics are important, you can stay.
-
What about if Brandon Bailey does not show up?
Then he's not a transfer and can play wherever he ends up.
-
Non renewals due to performance or ability aren't OK per existing Bylaws. If the academics are important, you can stay.
Huh? Not sure what you mean by this.
-
I think this part is completely overblown.
Does anyone have an example of a situation where a team got a new arena and the program as a whole measurably improved?
UConn and Gampel Pavillion in 1990? Calhoun had more to do with it, but program is night and day since Gampel opened.
-
So in other words, call it what it pretty much is?
??
Except it isn't. Virtually no one on the women's side of the ledger, and same for most on the men's side for collegiate sports. Even basketball and football, 1.5% are going to get paid after college playing ball.
-
Even basketball and football, 1.5% are going to get paid after college playing ball.
1.5% in basketball? Maybe that percentage makes the NBA, but then factor in the 90 new two-way roster spots, all the NBADL teams, and the hundreds of teams overseas and that figure is way, way higher.
Unless you mean to say guys like Joe Chapman, Dwight Burke, and Jake Thomas, all of whom got paid playing after college, are part of that elite 1.5%.
-
Huh? Not sure what you mean by this.
I think it means that you can't cite performance/ability as the reason for a non-renewal, which, in theory, means that if a coach was going to non-renew a player who doesn't want to leave, you may have to offer a scholarship to allow for the student to matriculate, i.e. you can't non-renew a redshirt senior who only has a semester left until graduation before the start of his fifth year.
Now in reality, the student-athlete wants to play, so he's likely going to move on if he has more than a year left, but this is why I am always skeptical about graduate transfers in basketball; I'm not saying that basketball players are dumb, but to keep a D-I basketball schedule and graduate in 3-1/2 years is quite the feat... hell it's quite the feat for any student to do that. I get that these guys have tutors and probably take courses during the summer months, and I would think that having a couple accomplish this in any given year would be reasonable, but it seems like a couple dozen do it every year. Occam's razor would suggest they're being "fast-tracked" through academics.
So what's worse... being "cut" from a team (i.e. having your scholarship revoked because you're not good enough) or being shuffled out the door with a degree even though you were shorted on your education?
-
I think it means that you can't cite performance/ability as the reason for a non-renewal, which, in theory, means that if a coach was going to non-renew a player who doesn't want to leave, you may have to offer a scholarship to allow for the student to matriculate, i.e. you can't non-renew a redshirt senior who only has a semester left until graduation before the start of his fifth year.
Now in reality, the student-athlete wants to play, so he's likely going to move on if he has more than a year left, but this is why I am always skeptical about graduate transfers in basketball; I'm not saying that basketball players are dumb, but to keep a D-I basketball schedule and graduate in 3-1/2 years is quite the feat... hell it's quite the feat for any student to do that. I get that these guys have tutors and probably take courses during the summer months, and I would think that having a couple accomplish this in any given year would be reasonable, but it seems like a couple dozen do it every year. Occam's razor would suggest they're being "fast-tracked" through academics.
So what's worse... being "cut" from a team (i.e. having your scholarship revoked because you're not good enough) or being shuffled out the door with a degree even though you were shorted on your education?
I think a lot of graduate transfers are guys who redshirted for one reason or another (injury, transfer, development) and are going into their 5th year of college. Like Duane, Carlino, Katin, etc.
-
I think a lot of graduate transfers are guys who redshirted for one reason or another (injury, transfer, development) and are going into their 5th year of college. Like Duane, Carlino, Katin, etc.
That could very well be the case. I guess I'm not taking note of all of the g-transfer situations... most of them probably are redshirts/transfers.
-
1.5% in basketball? Maybe that percentage makes the NBA, but then factor in the 90 new two-way roster spots, all the NBADL teams, and the hundreds of teams overseas and that figure is way, way higher.
Unless you mean to say guys like Joe Chapman, Dwight Burke, and Jake Thomas, all of whom got paid playing after college, are part of that elite 1.5%.
Great points Brewcity77.
For football, it is indeed 1.5% per the NCAA. There are over 70,000 college football players at the various divisions, and only about 16K are draft eligible each year. 250 on average were drafted per the NCAA. They came up with a 1.5% number
For college basketball, over 18,000 student athletes at the various divisions. For the NBA, the % that are drafted is 1.1% of the draft eligible ~4000 student athletes. Again, this is all per the NCAA. However, when you add overseas, as you suggest, the number is going to be higher. I should have been more clear with my language.
Thank you for the additional points.