Bravo for Wilson

[Badgerhoney]

I wouldn't be so sure.
Courts already have ruled that paying male coaches in revenue-producing sports more than their female counterparts is not a violation (see Stanley vs USC).
It's not an apples-to-apples case, but clearly both the courts and NCAA are willing to make a distinction when it comes to compensation and Title IX implications in revenue-producing sports and non-revenue producing sports.
None of us know how a court would rule, and smart people on both sides disagree, but it's far from a settled matter that Title IX would prevent paying football and men's basketball players.

Donna Lopiano, president of consulting group Sports Management Resources, says pending litigation against the NCAA lobbying for pay is "the biggest potential game-changer" and could "hurt men's and women's sports." The costs of paying revenue-generating players -- plus the costs of paying female athletes to comply with Title IX -- would be prohibitive to college sports programs.

"You have to match for the women," said Lopiano, the former director of women's athletics at Texas who co-authored a paper about how the misguided focus on money from the top conferences has distorted the purpose of sports in college.

[Brewtown Andy]

Donna Lopiano, president of consulting group Sports Management Resources, says pending litigation against the NCAA lobbying for pay is "the biggest potential game-changer" and could "hurt men's and women's sports." The costs of paying revenue-generating players -- plus the costs of paying female athletes to comply with Title IX -- would be prohibitive to college sports programs.

"You have to match for the women," said Lopiano, the former director of women's athletics at Texas who co-authored a paper about how the misguided focus on money from the top conferences has distorted the purpose of sports in college.

Which is why I've always thought the smartest financial solution for all involved would be to allow any student athlete to make a buck on their name or likeness.  If a car dealership in Storrs sees value in having one of the UConn women basketball players do local radio ads for them, they should be able to pay them for that.  Same thing for Kentucky men's basketball players in Lexington, or whatever kind of other sponsorship deals make sense for each circumstance. 

There's no burden on the school to provide money and the income is completely dependent on the viability of the individual athlete, regardless of gender or sport.

[mu03eng]

I may be misunderstanding what you mean by advertising platform, but if I'm not, then I think you're overvaluing it.
The majority of MLB and NHL players do just fine without the platform (one could say all do just fine, given how little attention NCAA hockey and baseball receive). The same for professional golfers, tennis players, soccer players, etc.
And, of course, one could note how guys like LeBron, Kobe, Garnett, Dwight Howard, etc., managed OK without the NCAA platform.

MLB has a legitimate farm system that players enter into for exposure that is preferred to NCAA, but even still NCAA baseball players get exposure within the industry.

I'd also note that the average salary for a AAA ball player who hasn't made a 40 man roster is $2150 per month plus $25 per diem each road day for meals and lodging.....seems considerably lower than what a college athlete is "making" on scholarship.

[WarriorInNYC]

Which is why I've always thought the smartest financial solution for all involved would be to allow any student athlete to make a buck on their name or likeness.  If a car dealership in Storrs sees value in having one of the UConn women basketball players do local radio ads for them, they should be able to pay them for that.  Same thing for Kentucky men's basketball players in Lexington, or whatever kind of other sponsorship deals make sense for each circumstance. 

There's no burden on the school to provide money and the income is completely dependent on the viability of the individual athlete, regardless of gender or sport.

I would generally be ok with this, but it does open up the possibilities of wealthy alums influencing recruits.  For example, what would there be to stop the local car dealership owner offering a top 10 recruit $50,000 to do local radio ads if they were to come to school there.

I think there is some way to get that stuff figured out by someone smarter than me.  Just saying it would be something that would need to keep an eye on, IMO.

[The Lens]

I'd also note that the average salary for a AAA ball player who hasn't made a 40 man roster is $2150 per month plus $25 per diem each road day for meals and lodging.....seems considerably lower than what a college athlete is "making" on scholarship.

This argument doesn't hold water for me. 

For instance:

The Big East signed a 12 year 500 million dollar deal with Fox Sports.  No league in AAA has a broadcast rights even close.

or

Every coach makes 7 figures.  No manager in AAA does.

I would wager revenues for AAA is nowhere near high major college athletics.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Which is why I've always thought the smartest financial solution for all involved would be to allow any student athlete to make a buck on their name or likeness.  If a car dealership in Storrs sees value in having one of the UConn women basketball players do local radio ads for them, they should be able to pay them for that.  Same thing for Kentucky men's basketball players in Lexington, or whatever kind of other sponsorship deals make sense for each circumstance. 

There's no burden on the school to provide money and the income is completely dependent on the viability of the individual athlete, regardless of gender or sport.

I agree with this with the added caveat that I think all money made this way should go into a trust for the athlete that they can't access until they leave the school. That's what they do for the Olympics and it works really well. I see no logical reason why student athletes shouldn't be able to profit off of their likenesses. Wouldn't this address the need that players are underpaid while putting no extra financial burden on the schools/ncaa? It seems like a win win.

Plus, I would finally get my NCAA football video games back. Madden isn't close to an acceptable replacement.

[forgetful]

This argument doesn't hold water for me. 

For instance:

The Big East signed a 12 year 500 million dollar deal with Fox Sports.  No league in AAA has a broadcast rights even close.

or

Every coach makes 7 figures.  No manager in AAA does.

I would wager revenues for AAA is nowhere near high major college athletics.

Lens, as I put in one of my posts, ask yourself why does the NCAA, with poorer quality athletes, generate more revenue?

The answer has nothing to do with the athletes, because if you wanted better baseball/basketball etc., you will find it in AAA or the D-league.  The value in the NCAA is the brand recognition of the Universities, where alumni and students attend games for University pride.  The quality on the playing surface is relatively arbitrary as long as it is competitive.

I think it is an important question that if they pay athletes a salary, there will be lawsuits from individuals in D-leagues etc., for being blocked from positions because of age.  They are clearly more qualified.

[Aughnanure]

MLB has a legitimate farm system that players enter into for exposure that is preferred to NCAA, but even still NCAA baseball players get exposure within the industry.

I'd also note that the average salary for a AAA ball player who hasn't made a 40 man roster is $2150 per month plus $25 per diem each road day for meals and lodging.....seems considerably lower than what a college athlete is "making" on scholarship.

The minor league farm system has it's own payment issues:


http://deadspin.com/mlb-argues-that-minor-leaguers-are-creatives-like-arti-1782927981

[mu03eng]

This argument doesn't hold water for me. 

For instance:

The Big East signed a 12 year 500 million dollar deal with Fox Sports.  No league in AAA has a broadcast rights even close.

or

Every coach makes 7 figures.  No manager in AAA does.

I would wager revenues for AAA is nowhere near high major college athletics.

Remember that Big East deal is for broadcast rights in all sports, not just basketball. That means all athletes would need to profit from that contract.

You are correct, it's an imperfect comparison, but it was mostly in response to NCAA baseball not providing a platform for players to showcase their ability for MLB....that's because they already have that platform which is the farm system.

[wadesworld]

Which is why I've always thought the smartest financial solution for all involved would be to allow any student athlete to make a buck on their name or likeness.  If a car dealership in Storrs sees value in having one of the UConn women basketball players do local radio ads for them, they should be able to pay them for that.  Same thing for Kentucky men's basketball players in Lexington, or whatever kind of other sponsorship deals make sense for each circumstance. 

There's no burden on the school to provide money and the income is completely dependent on the viability of the individual athlete, regardless of gender or sport.

You already have had (and probably still do have) people then giving these student athletes "jobs" where they don't have to show up and get paid for nothing. Big Bama fan owns a car dealership in Tuscaloosa? Oh wow Nick, let me make a call to this 5 star recruit and see if he'd be interested in making some extra money "helping to sell cars!"

7 months later: "Oh hey 5 star recruit! So glad you chose the Tide! Why don't you come in and fill out your direct deposit information and we'll slot you for the 8 to noon shift at Bryant-Denny Stadium on Saturdays!"

[Pakuni]

I'd also note that the average salary for a AAA ball player who hasn't made a 40 man roster is $2150 per month plus $25 per diem each road day for meals and lodging.....seems considerably lower than what a college athlete is "making" on scholarship.

Yeah, but aren't you forgetting to add in the value of the coaching, use of facilities, equipment and, of course, the advertising platform and the opportunity provided?

More seriously, though ...
1. Minor league revenues pale relative to big-time college sports, so it's not a very good comparison. The most valuable minor league team generated about $22 million in revenue last year. That puts them on par with the likes of Sacramento State, Georgia Southern and Bowling Green. Most Triple A teams generate far less.
2. Minor league salaries are a travesty, with many athletes qualifying for food stamps. Is that your idea of fair?

[mu03eng]

Yeah, but aren't you forgetting to add in the value of the coaching, use of facilities, equipment and, of course, the advertising platform and the opportunity provided?

More seriously, though ...
1. Minor league revenues pale relative to big-time college sports, so it's not a very good comparison. The most valuable minor league team generated about $22 million in revenue last year. That puts them on par with the likes of Sacramento State, Georgia Southern and Bowling Green. Most Triple A teams generate far less.
2. Minor league salaries are a travesty, with many athletes qualifying for food stamps. Is that your idea of fair?

My inarticulate point is that the farm system is providing the coaching et. al. as well as platform for exposure to the big leagues....which is what I'm saying colleges are providing. On top of that a minor league player gets a salary which could be compared to the scholarship a player is getting.

Also, you can't look at just minor league revenue as the farm system is funded out of MLB revenues so they are getting some revenue distribution from the larger MLB pool.

Lastly, I consider it fair if people are willing to take the opportunity in exchange for the total compensation package provided. If it was so unfair, people wouldn't be killing themselves to get in the minor league system. How would you make the system more "fair"?

[Galway Eagle]

I may be misunderstanding what you mean by advertising platform, but if I'm not, then I think you're overvaluing it.
The majority of MLB and NHL players do just fine without the platform (one could say all do just fine, given how little attention NCAA hockey and baseball receive). The same for professional golfers, tennis players, soccer players, etc.
And, of course, one could note how guys like LeBron, Kobe, Garnett, Dwight Howard, etc., managed OK without the NCAA platform.

I'm essentially saying that playing at a major university is a platform for a potential professional player to advertise their skillset against top competition and gain national exposure. Hockey baseball and soccer are very poor examples as those have some of the best farm systems in the world, in fact I'd argue the vast majority of true exceptional talent does not play for NCAA schools in those sports. 

Now regarding Lebron Kobe Garnett and Howard that is true, however the vast majority of young talent isn't going to be a top 50 all time NBA player. The majority need to showcase themselves at the best level they can. Lets use Jimmy Butler as an example, he's not drafted if he's going to Grambling or some other mid major. He got to utilize the national exposure that a successful program in the Big East could give him. I'd argue that he is reaping the benefits of investing in a good advertising platform for his basketball skills (Marquette).

[mu03eng]

I'm essentially saying that playing at a major university is a platform for a potential professional player to advertise their skillset against top competition and gain national exposure. Hockey baseball and soccer are very poor examples as those have some of the best farm systems in the world, in fact I'd argue the vast majority of true exceptional talent does not play for NCAA schools in those sports. 

Now regarding Lebron Kobe Garnett and Howard that is true, however the vast majority of young talent isn't going to be a top 50 all time NBA player. The majority need to showcase themselves at the best level they can. Lets use Jimmy Butler as an example, he's not drafted if he's going to Grambling or some other mid major. He got to utilize the national exposure that a successful program in the Big East could give him. I'd argue that he is reaping the benefits of investing in a good advertising platform for his basketball skills (Marquette).

+1

[Benny B]

I'm essentially saying that playing at a major university is a platform for a potential professional player to advertise their skillset against top competition and gain national exposure. Hockey baseball and soccer are very poor examples as those have some of the best farm systems in the world, in fact I'd argue the vast majority of true exceptional talent does not play for NCAA schools in those sports. 

Now regarding Lebron Kobe Garnett and Howard that is true, however the vast majority of young talent isn't going to be a top 50 all time NBA player. The majority need to showcase themselves at the best level they can. Lets use Jimmy Butler as an example, he's not drafted if he's going to Grambling or some other mid major. He got to utilize the national exposure that a successful program in the Big East could give him. I'd argue that he is reaping the benefits of investing in a good advertising platform for his basketball skills (Marquette).

Frankly, universities have to be biting their tongue on this argument, because it's a highly compelling one.  If your goal is professional basketball, even a scholarship to a low-major D-I school is going to give you more exposure and opportunity than any skillz video you can post on YouTube; if your goal is to get an education, then there's no problem.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Frankly, universities have to be biting their tongue on this argument, because it's a highly compelling one.  If your goal is professional basketball, even a scholarship to a low-major D-I school is going to give you more exposure and opportunity than any skillz video you can post on YouTube; if your goal is to get an education, then there's no problem.

But very few basketball players make it to the NBA.  With 351 D-I schools, assuming an average of 3 scholarships per school per year, that's over 1,000 seniors per year.  Less than 1% will be NBA draft picks.  I can't view training and exposure as a tangible benefit when such a small minority become pros.  It can help those who do become pros, but what about the other 99%?  It doesn't benefit them enough to become pros.

The equivalent would be telling an MU professor, "We don't pay much but there's an outside chance you'll be the President at Harvard someday.  So we factored that into your benefits package."  Or telling a local TV anchor they might get a network job at ABC because the station is an ABC affiliate.  Sure the experience could be the start of a long path to a successful career, but I think its absurd to consider "chance" to be "compensation".

[mu03eng]

The equivalent would be telling an MU professor, "We don't pay much but there's an outside chance you'll be the President at Harvard someday.  So we factored that into your benefits package."  Or telling a local TV anchor they might get a network job at ABC because the station is an ABC affiliate.  Sure the experience could be the start of a long path to a successful career, but I think its absurd to consider "chance" to be "compensation".

They may not overtly say it but that's exactly what TV stations do

[StillAWarrior]

But very few basketball players make it to the NBA.  With 351 D-I schools, assuming an average of 3 scholarships per school per year, that's over 1,000 seniors per year.  Less than 1% will be NBA draft picks.  I can't view training and exposure as a tangible benefit when such a small minority become pros.  It can help those who do become pros, but what about the other 99%?  It doesn't benefit them enough to become pros.

The equivalent would be telling an MU professor, "We don't pay much but there's an outside chance you'll be the President at Harvard someday.  So we factored that into your benefits package."  Or telling a local TV anchor they might get a network job at ABC because the station is an ABC affiliate.  Sure the experience could be the start of a long path to a successful career, but I think its absurd to consider "chance" to be "compensation".

That's very true.  But when we're talking about universities "exploiting athletes" by making millions and millions off of their efforts, it is those few and rare superstars who actually have an argument.  The rest of them are just shirt-fillers.  The athletes who don't have the popularity and skill to make it into the professional ranks are not the ones that people are paying to see (assuming that anyone is paying to see the athletes, as opposed to the universities' teams).

This just illustrates the fundamental problem with this ongoing debate.  So many people focus on a tiny fractions of the athletes - the superstars in the revenue producing sports.  Yes, those elite athletes benefit in a very direct way by the publicity/exposure they get from college athletics.  While I do think that other athletes benefit from the exposure (e.g., any Ohio State football player around here will get interviews and job opportunities even if they are never going to sniff the NFL), it's not nearly as valuable as the exposure for those who will be professional athletes.

But once we go beyond those rare exceptions, you've got thousands of athletes lining up for the opportunity to play a game they love in exchange for an education (and room, board, travel, training, gear, etc.).  I'm not a fan of trying to figure out solutions to a "problem" that only affects a tiny percentage of athletes that could absolutely devastate the vast majority of college athletes.  This is one of the reasons I think that some version of allowing athletes to market themselves is the best solution to the problem.  The people who actually are a draw -- which, frankly, I think are pretty rare -- will make some money.  Hopefully, this would help help preserve the system for the other athletes.  But, I can't help but wonder what affect this might have on competitive balance.

[WarriorInNYC]

But very few basketball players make it to the NBA.  With 351 D-I schools, assuming an average of 3 scholarships per school per year, that's over 1,000 seniors per year.  Less than 1% will be NBA draft picks.  I can't view training and exposure as a tangible benefit when such a small minority become pros.  It can help those who do become pros, but what about the other 99%?  It doesn't benefit them enough to become pros.

If you think the NBA is the only place to play, the 1% is an accurate figure.  But if you were to include the D League as well as international players, the estimated percentage is 12.2%.  I would be curious to see what the number is if you were to look at major conference programs (or even mid-major and up).

If you were to take away the bottom 200 schools, leaving the top 150 programs (which I would say is a reasonable/conservative representation of the population of basketball players that may expect to play professionally), that percentage figure jumps up to about 28% (12.2% / (150/347)).

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/estimated-probability-competing-professional-athletics

[Pakuni]

But very few basketball players make it to the NBA.  With 351 D-I schools, assuming an average of 3 scholarships per school per year, that's over 1,000 seniors per year.  Less than 1% will be NBA draft picks.  I can't view training and exposure as a tangible benefit when such a small minority become pros.  It can help those who do become pros, but what about the other 99%?  It doesn't benefit them enough to become pros.

The equivalent would be telling an MU professor, "We don't pay much but there's an outside chance you'll be the President at Harvard someday.  So we factored that into your benefits package."  Or telling a local TV anchor they might get a network job at ABC because the station is an ABC affiliate.  Sure the experience could be the start of a long path to a successful career, but I think its absurd to consider "chance" to be "compensation".

As an addendum,  the great majority of professional basketball players would be professional basketball players with or without the intercollegiate system. If the NCAA vanished tomorrow and colleges put a halt to intercollegiate sports, tall, athletic, talented kids would still find their way to the NBA. Just like talented baseball, soccer and hockey players make it to the pros without college.
The implied notion here that college is a necessary springboard to the NBA for any of these kids is silly.
The only way in which it's necessary is that, unlike hockey, soccer and baseball, the NBA and NCAA are happy to benefit economically from the lack of a true developmental system like those in other sports.

[Benny B]

But very few basketball players make it to the NBA.  With 351 D-I schools, assuming an average of 3 scholarships per school per year, that's over 1,000 seniors per year.  Less than 1% will be NBA draft picks.  I can't view training and exposure as a tangible benefit when such a small minority become pros.  It can help those who do become pros, but what about the other 99%?  It doesn't benefit them enough to become pros.

The equivalent would be telling an MU professor, "We don't pay much but there's an outside chance you'll be the President at Harvard someday.  So we factored that into your benefits package."  Or telling a local TV anchor they might get a network job at ABC because the station is an ABC affiliate.  Sure the experience could be the start of a long path to a successful career, but I think its absurd to consider "chance" to be "compensation".

You completely missed the second half...

if your goal is to get an education, then there's no problem.

Not every scholarship athlete accepts a college scholarship because they're hoping to go pro some day.  They're accepting a college scholarship because they want a college education.  Those are the students who are perfectly content with their situation; the only ones who are making noise are those who aren't content unless they're looking in someone else's pocketbook - and those are the ones who a) are looking to go pro and b) whose potential careers are greatly benefitting from the exposure, facilities, training, competition, etc. that come along with an athletics scholarship.

[mu03eng]

You completely missed the second half...

Not every scholarship athlete accepts a college scholarship because they're hoping to go pro some day.  They're accepting a college scholarship because they want a college education.  Those are the students who are perfectly content with their situation; the only ones who are making noise are those who aren't content unless they're looking in someone else's pocketbook - and those are the ones who a) are looking to go pro and b) whose potential careers are greatly benefitting from the exposure, facilities, training, competition, etc. that come along with an athletics scholarship.

The vast majority of student athletes would take additional money for playing sports but aren't agitating for it. The stars are the one's that are agitating for it because they are undervalued from a market standpoint, however the value they have "taken" from them is then distributed amongst the overvalued mass of student athletes.

[StillAWarrior]

Not every scholarship athlete accepts a college scholarship because they're hoping to go pro some day.  They're accepting a college scholarship because they want a college education.  Those are the students who are perfectly content with their situation; the only ones who are making noise are those who aren't content unless they're looking in someone else's pocketbook - and those are the ones who a) are looking to go pro and b) whose potential careers are greatly benefitting from the exposure, facilities, training, competition, etc. that come along with an athletics scholarship.

This bears repeating.  In fact, the percentage of scholarship athletes hoping to go pro is very small.  Even many -- I suspect most -- athletes in the revenue sports aren't really hoping or expecting to go pro.  The large majority of scholarship athletes are perfectly content with the "sports = free (or reduced cost) education" transaction.  In fact, most are absolutely thrilled with the trade off.

Even those who really don't give two craps about the "education" part are probably pretty content with the "sports = free room and board and hang out on college campus" transaction.

[StillAWarrior]

The vast majority of student athletes would take additional money for playing sports but aren't agitating for it. The stars are the one's that are agitating for it because they are undervalued from a market standpoint, however the value they have "taken" from them is then distributed amongst the overvalued mass of student athletes.

There is a lot of truth to this.  However, I think the number of athletes who are undervalued from the market standpoint is extremely small.  There are a transcendent few.  Even most of the ones who probably believe they are undervalued are effectively fungible.

Also, in many programs in conferences without lucrative television contracts or 100,000 seat stadiums and 15,000 seat arenas, many of the athletes are overvalued and the equation is reversed.  Tuition and fee money is "taken" from the student body at large and distributed among the overvalued athletes.

[Benny B]

The vast majority of student athletes would take additional money for playing sports but aren't agitating for it. The stars are the one's that are agitating for it because they are undervalued from a market standpoint, however the value they have "taken" from them is then distributed amongst the overvalued mass of student athletes.

Which brings up an interesting question:  Would the revenue sports still exist in their current form if all Olympic sports were eliminated from college campuses, specifically, would the universities' constituencies (administration, students, alumni, donors, etc.) still support the revenue sports if the Olympic sports were eliminated?