Transfer rule changes

[StillAWarrior]

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.

[Charlotte Warrior]

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.

[MUBurrow]

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.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

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.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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?

[mu03eng]

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.

[brewcity77]

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.

[Pakuni]

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?

[StillAWarrior]

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?

[brewcity77]

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.

[StillAWarrior]

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.

[mu03eng]

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.

[StillAWarrior]

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.

[#UnleashSean]

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?

[#UnleashSean]

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?

[StillAWarrior]

Sounds like a huge positive for students who were under recruited no?

Absolutely.  I have no problem with the change.

[Jay Bee]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

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.

[Dawson Rental]

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.

[Jay Bee]

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?

[MomofMUltiples]

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).

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

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.

[Dawson Rental]

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.

[wadesworld]

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.