MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Efficient Frontier on April 04, 2018, 05:23:43 PM
-
NCAA Division I schools coordinate compensation for men’s basketball and football players (precluding actual pay and limiting non-monetary benefits), providing rents to member schools (which may be shared with others) at the expense of those players.
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/the-ncaa
“A top NBA coach gets $7 million–$8 million per year, and a top player makes four times that. A top college coach gets $6 million, but the players get nothing.” - Austan Goolsbee
-
Tugg?
-
A University of Chicago economics professor wrote a paper in which he drew the conclusion that using slave labor was an efficient way to run a business. It doesn't mean anyone should ever actually practice it.
-
A University of Chicago economics professor wrote a paper in which he drew the conclusion that using slave labor was an efficient way to run a business. It doesn't mean anyone should ever actually practice it.
Source?
Assuming you're referring to Robert Fogel? If so, your description doesn't seem like a fair characterization of his research as advocating slavery.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/robert-w-fogel-an-innovative-and-nobel-prize-winning-economic-historian-dies-at-86/2013/06/13/9b32543e-d43c-11e2-b05f-3ea3f0e7bb5a_story.html?utm_term=.f0e453284e64
“Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery” (1974), co-written with economic historian Stanley L. Engerman, postulated that slavery was a thriving institution on the eve of the Civil War. The authors challenged a widely held view that slavery as an economic institution was in decline and even on the precipice of collapse when the war began in 1861.
He initially began the project to explore how less-efficient slave labor was compared with wage labor. “A lot of us, including me, believed that a system as evil as slavery could not have been profitable,” he told the Cornell alumni magazine in 2008.
A quick calculation, based on census data, showed the opposite. So he did more in-depth research, which relied on historical data up to 1860 about the prices of slaves and cotton, and food consumption by slaves and the larger population, among other information.
“At various points, we were so stunned by the results of what the other was working on that Stan and I were each prepared to accuse the other of finally having succumbed to racism,” he told the Cornell publication.
Dr. Fogel and Engerman concluded that many slaves, considered economic assets by their owners, were fed far better and worked less than some free, often exploited industrial workers in the North. They also asserted that some plantations were far more efficient than their counterparts in the North, and that the practice of slavery would have kept going if not for the Civil War.
“Our conclusion was that slavery was ended not because it was morally repugnant,” he told the University of Chicago Chronicle in 1993. “The marketplace could not have ended slavery, because slavery was an efficient and profitable system. Slavery ended only through political intervention based on the evolving American ethic against slavery.”
Predictably, “Time on the Cross” ignited intense criticism from civil rights groups and reviewers who charged the authors with an ugly form of revisionism. Dr. Fogel’s most vociferous critics charged him with racism, despite the fact that he was married to an African American.
The book won the prestigious Bancroft Prize and continued to draw controversy over the decades. The fierce reaction prompted Dr. Fogel to write a second book, “Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery” (1989) to defend his work and include a moral censure of slavery.
-
Source?
Assuming you're referring to Robert Fogel? If so, your description doesn't seem like a fair characterization of his research as advocating slavery.
I reread what I wrote, and I don't see the word "advocate" anywhere.
My point is, anything other than presentation of data and drawing a conclusion based on that data is a personal
opinion. And I am not sure why these economists' opinions on this are more important than anyone else's.
-
Any college sport that is a headcount sport such as Basketball, Football, Woman's Volleyball , ,Womans Tennis etc is getting paid very well. They are mandated to get a full scholarship, room and board, books . The student athletes who are in equivalency sports such as track, soccer, baseball, lacrosse etc are not getting compensated well . In fact most of those are coming out of pocket in a big way.
Certain conferences such as the ACC and Big Ten mandate 4 year scholarships. So even if the kid gets hurt they continue to get the scholarship.
A team is the sum of all the players. The guys and gals who are the scout team players contribute just as much to the success as the stars, so where do you draw the line on the compensation.
I think the market will address the issue. Eventually, there will be full access to professional sports for kids who want to go in that direction post high school. A kid from Syracuse just decommitted to play in the G League. Will be interesting to see how that works out.
-
I reread what I wrote, and I don't see the word "advocate" anywhere.
My point is, anything other than presentation of data and drawing a conclusion based on that data is a personal
opinion. And I am not sure why these economists' opinions on this are more important than anyone else's.
+1
-
Any college sport that is a headcount sport such as Basketball, Football, Woman's Volleyball , ,Womans Tennis etc is getting paid very well. They are mandated to get a full scholarship, room and board, books. The student athletes who are in equivalency sports such as track, soccer, baseball, lacrosse etc are not getting compensated well . In fact most of those are coming out of pocket in a big way.
Certain conferences such as the ACC and Big Ten mandate 4 year scholarships. So even if the kid gets hurt they continue to get the scholarship.
A team is the sum of all the players. The guys and gals who are the scout team players contribute just as much to the success as the stars, so where do you draw the line on the compensation.
I think the market will address the issue. Eventually, there will be full access to professional sports for kids who want to go in that direction post high school. A kid from Syracuse just decommitted to play in the G League. Will be interesting to see how that works out.
Trying to stamp out this common misconception when I see it. While it is true that most head count athletes receive full scholarships (and quite possibly all of them in revenue sports), it's not mandated. It's true that the "scholarship" cannot be split in a head count sport -- meaning that anyone who receives any athletics financial aid at all counts for the whole scholarship. So, if you have a scholarship limit of 13 (as in MBB), you can only have 13 athletes on scholarship no matter how much (or little) they receive. But, there is nothing in the NCAA rules requiring each of those athletes to receive full "grant in aid" (i.e., tuition, fees, room and board, cost of living), although some major conferences have moved in that direction. In some non-revenue head count sports, it is not uncommon for a program to not fully fund a program and offer partial scholarships to athletes.
That said, I agree with your underlying premise: athletes who are on full scholarship are compensated quite well. In the non-revenue sports, they are getting far more than they are bringing in. And many athletes in equivalency sports are getting very little by way of athletics aid.
-
Trying to stamp out this common misconception when I see it. While it is true that most head count athletes receive full scholarships (and quite possibly all of them in revenue sports), it's not mandated. It's true that the "scholarship" cannot be split in a head count sport -- meaning that anyone who receives any athletics financial aid at all counts for the whole scholarship. So, if you have a scholarship limit of 13 (as in MBB), you can only have 13 athletes on scholarship no matter how much (or little) they receive. But, there is nothing in the NCAA rules requiring each of those athletes to receive full "grant in aid" (i.e., tuition, fees, room and board, cost of living), although some major conferences have moved in that direction. In some non-revenue head count sports, it is not uncommon for a program to not fully fund a program and offer partial scholarships to athletes.
That said, I agree with your underlying premise: athletes who are on full scholarship are compensated quite well. In the non-revenue sports, they are getting far more than they are bringing in. And many athletes in equivalency sports are getting very little by way of athletics aid.
Many of them are getting compensated well. Many of them are not or else under-the-table payments wouldn't be happening.
-
Many of them are getting compensated well. Many of them are not or else under-the-table payments wouldn't be happening.
While I don't disagree, I'll argue that this is a case of semantics. What is "many"? There are 351 D1 basketball programs. Let's assume 12 scholarships, on average, per program...how many of those 4000+ basketball players are getting under-the-table payments? There are 128 FBS programs...how many of those 10,000+ football players are getting under-the-table payments? I honestly don't know. Maybe it's "many." Depends on how you define that word, I guess.
-
While I don't disagree, I'll argue that this is a case of semantics. What is "many"? There are 351 D1 basketball programs. Let's assume 12 scholarships, on average, per program...how many of those 4000+ basketball players are getting under-the-table payments? There are 128 FBS programs...how many of those 10,000+ football players are getting under-the-table payments? I honestly don't know. Maybe it's "many." Depends on how you define that word, I guess.
I used many because I really don't know the answer.
Let them earn income, including profiting off their own likeness, and we would soon find out.
-
I used many because I really don't know the answer.
Let them earn income, including profiting off their own likeness, and we would soon find out.
Amen.
-
Source?
Assuming you're referring to Robert Fogel? If so, your description doesn't seem like a fair characterization of his research as advocating slavery.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/robert-w-fogel-an-innovative-and-nobel-prize-winning-economic-historian-dies-at-86/2013/06/13/9b32543e-d43c-11e2-b05f-3ea3f0e7bb5a_story.html?utm_term=.f0e453284e64
“Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery” (1974), co-written with economic historian Stanley L. Engerman, postulated that slavery was a thriving institution on the eve of the Civil War. The authors challenged a widely held view that slavery as an economic institution was in decline and even on the precipice of collapse when the war began in 1861.
He initially began the project to explore how less-efficient slave labor was compared with wage labor. “A lot of us, including me, believed that a system as evil as slavery could not have been profitable,” he told the Cornell alumni magazine in 2008.
A quick calculation, based on census data, showed the opposite. So he did more in-depth research, which relied on historical data up to 1860 about the prices of slaves and cotton, and food consumption by slaves and the larger population, among other information.
“At various points, we were so stunned by the results of what the other was working on that Stan and I were each prepared to accuse the other of finally having succumbed to racism,” he told the Cornell publication.
Dr. Fogel and Engerman concluded that many slaves, considered economic assets by their owners, were fed far better and worked less than some free, often exploited industrial workers in the North. They also asserted that some plantations were far more efficient than their counterparts in the North, and that the practice of slavery would have kept going if not for the Civil War.
“Our conclusion was that slavery was ended not because it was morally repugnant,” he told the University of Chicago Chronicle in 1993. “The marketplace could not have ended slavery, because slavery was an efficient and profitable system. Slavery ended only through political intervention based on the evolving American ethic against slavery.”
Predictably, “Time on the Cross” ignited intense criticism from civil rights groups and reviewers who charged the authors with an ugly form of revisionism. Dr. Fogel’s most vociferous critics charged him with racism, despite the fact that he was married to an African American.
The book won the prestigious Bancroft Prize and continued to draw controversy over the decades. The fierce reaction prompted Dr. Fogel to write a second book, “Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery” (1989) to defend his work and include a moral censure of slavery.
Welcome back, Smuggles.
-
I reread what I wrote, and I don't see the word "advocate" anywhere.
My point is, anything other than presentation of data and drawing a conclusion based on that data is a personal
opinion. And I am not sure why these economists' opinions on this are more important than anyone else's.
I reread what you wrote, too, and I can also confirm that you did not use "advocate."
And I agree with the assessment of the basis - this is a yes/no consensus determination, an opinion of economists, not anything based on data, stats, or objective figures of any nature befitting of an economic analysis.
Additionally, what do a bunch of top university economists (TUE's) know about college athletics? Remember the game where you estimate how many 3rd graders you could take on in basketball at once... well the number of TUE's is double that.
Next thing is we'll be asking this year's Final Four participants what their opinion is on the economic impacts of subsidizing soybeans in the wake of Chinese tariffs.
-
I'm okay with paying them (semi-pro rate or below) as long as they then have to pay for tuition and housing.
-
I'm okay with paying them (semi-pro rate or below) as long as they then have to pay for tuition and housing.
That's a pretty dumb take.
-
That's a pretty dumb take.
Dumb take or not, it could be the outcome of all this. For those who have argued that they should be treated as employees, I often think, "be careful what you wish for." If they are deemed employees, I wouldn't be terribly shocked if the schools switched over from scholarships to wages. I also would not be terribly shocked if those wages were less than the value of the scholarship in a lot of places. I think this would be a really unfortunate development. I'd much rather see them keep their scholarships and be allowed to earn what they can from outside sources.
-
Dumb take or not, it could be the outcome of all this. For those who have argued that they should be treated as employees, I often think, "be careful what you wish for." If they are deemed employees, I wouldn't be terribly shocked if the schools switched over from scholarships to wages. I also would not be terribly shocked if those wages were less than the value of the scholarship in a lot of places. I think this would be a really unfortunate development. I'd much rather see them keep their scholarships and be allowed to earn what they can from outside sources.
Schools wouldn't likely switch to wages because the relative marginal cost of a scholarship is pretty minimal and certainly doesn't come close to its actual cash value. It would be more cost effective to simply issue a 1099 for the value of the scholarship.
-
Schools wouldn't likely switch to wages because the relative marginal cost of a scholarship is pretty minimal and certainly doesn't come close to its actual cash value. It would be more cost effective to simply issue a 1099 for the value of the scholarship.
I think schools will never willingly switch to wages. I'm talking about the people who are arguing to various governmental agencies that athletes should be treated as employees. If some people get their way, schools will have no choice in the matter. And if that happens, it's quite possible that the majority of scholarship athletes will end up trading those full-rides for a minimum wage job.
-
I'm okay with paying them (semi-pro rate or below) as long as they then have to pay for tuition and housing.
So you want to pay them less than their cost of going to school?
-
NCAA Division I schools coordinate compensation for men’s basketball and football players (precluding actual pay and limiting non-monetary benefits), providing rents to member schools (which may be shared with others) at the expense of those players.
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/the-ncaa
“A top NBA coach gets $7 million–$8 million per year, and a top player makes four times that. A top college coach gets $6 million, but the players get nothing.” - Austan Goolsbee
My favorite response
I would say "Strongly agree, Certainty 10," but noting that I know *nothing* about sports, I'm dialing this back to "Agree, Certainty 7"
How many of these economists know about the legality or Title IX implications associated with the question they were asked? If they did and the financial ramifications that came with it, would that change their answers?
-
My favorite response
I would say "Strongly agree, Certainty 10," but noting that I know *nothing* about sports, I'm dialing this back to "Agree, Certainty 7"
How many of these economists know about the legality or Title IX implications associated with the question they were asked? If they did and the financial ramifications that came with it, would that change their answers?
Title IX isn't a problem if they would simply allow students to earn income outside of their scholarship.
-
So you want to pay them less than their cost of going to school?
If you're paying athletes "what they're worth," I'd venture to say most are going to be paid less than the cost of attendance.
D-League salaries are what, like $30,000 tops? I'd love to hear someone make the argument that college athletes are - on average - "worth" more than D-Leaguers.
-
D-League salaries are what, like $30,000 tops? I'd love to hear someone make the argument that college athletes are - on average - "worth" more than D-Leaguers.
I would imagine the revenue generated by the D-League on a per player basis is well below what is generated from D1 basketball on a per player basis. Now probably the bottom 3/4 of D1 would be underwater in this type of scenario since the revenues are top heavy....but I dont know if the D League could pay more than a 'semi-pro' league where players are scarce due to the 4 year clock on eligibility.
-
If you're paying athletes "what they're worth," I'd venture to say most are going to be paid less than the cost of attendance.
Agreed. Most would be paid a lot less than the cost of attendance. In fact, if you're paying them "what they're worth," most would get nothing because they are costing the school money.
I found it kind of interesting to compare how the roles are reversed in some small D3 schools. The schools use the sports programs to actually lure students and bring money in. Coaches will offer roster spots to kids to get them help drive enrollment and tuition. I've seen volleyball rosters with 20-25 players. Obviously, there's no need for that many, but they know that some kids will come to the school because they were offered a spot on the team. I would think that spread out over all the sports, a small D3 could attract several dozen additional students, which could be a meaningful percentage of their enrollment.
-
Agreed. Most would be paid a lot less than the cost of attendance. In fact, if you're paying them "what they're worth," most would get nothing because they are costing the school money.
I found it kind of interesting to compare how the roles are reversed in some small D3 schools. The schools use the sports programs to actually lure students and bring money in. Coaches will offer roster spots to kids to get them help drive enrollment and tuition. I've seen volleyball rosters with 20-25 players. Obviously, there's no need for that many, but they know that some kids will come to the school because they were offered a spot on the team. I would think that spread out over all the sports, a small D3 could attract several dozen additional students, which could be a meaningful percentage of their enrollment.
That's pretty much the only reason football exists at many of these places.
-
I agree with Sultan. The players should be able to get a chance to be paid outside of their scholarship.
If David Gruber wants to pay Markus 50k for using him in an ad, I say go for it. Nike wasn’t selling jerseys with the number 33 on it because the numbers looked nice on the back. It was because that was Jimmy Butler’s number.
Some worry that schools with rich boosters will tilt the landscape. I don’t think it would change things anymore than it is with people getting paid under the table.
-
I would imagine the revenue generated by the D-League on a per player basis is well below what is generated from D1 basketball on a per player basis. Now probably the bottom 3/4 of D1 would be underwater in this type of scenario since the revenues are top heavy....but I dont know if the D League could pay more than a 'semi-pro' league where players are scarce due to the 4 year clock on eligibility.
Looking in someone else's wallet to judge your own worth is a horrible way to go through life.
If college football/basketball players want to get paid, they can go "generate revenue" in the D-league, because guess what, that money being generated by the universities today will still be generated whether they're there or not.
-
this is a yes/no consensus determination, an opinion of economists, not anything based on data, stats, or objective figures of any nature befitting of an economic analysis.
Additionally, what do a bunch of top university economists (TUE's) know about college athletics? Remember the game where you estimate how many 3rd graders you could take on in basketball at once... well the number of TUE's is double that.
I think you may have just burned the entire premise of MUScoop here.
-
So you want to pay them less than their cost of going to school?
They are amateur athletes. Not even semi-pros. They should be paid whatever amateur athletes make...which certainly does not add up to the scholarships they receive.
Or they can be grateful that their ability to dribble a basketball has given them a free education that most of their more academically-qualified classmates spend years paying back.
-
That's a pretty dumb take.
Cool.
-
Looking in someone else's wallet to judge your own worth is a horrible way to go through life.
If college football/basketball players want to get paid, they can go "generate revenue" in the D-league, because guess what, that money being generated by the universities today will still be generated whether they're there or not.
I was not pointing out anything about whether or not they should or shouldn't get paid. I was pointing out why looking at D-League salaries is a 'horrible' way to counter the argument. From a serious perspective the business model the NCAA has created is not found in nature. Not a free market for labor and like you point out, the revenue generation is disproportionate to the product (there are much better basketball players you can watch).
-
Welcome back, Smuggles.
Did Heisy get banned?
-
Looking in someone else's wallet to judge your own worth is a horrible way to go through life.
If college football/basketball players want to get paid, they can go "generate revenue" in the D-league, because guess what, that money being generated by the universities today will still be generated whether they're there or not.
Unless they all leave and the product stinks.
-
Unless they all leave and the product stinks.
The more that leave, the more there won’t be anywhere to play.
4,550 scholarship basketball players in D-I. The services of well over 4,000 aren’t needed elsewhere.
-
If they are going to start paying the players, why should there be any limitation on eligibility. I know some people that took 8+ years to get their undergraduate degree, because they were working part/full time while going to school, not to mention graduate school.
If this is simply a business, why have any enrollment requirements at the university at all?
-
I agree with Sultan. The players should be able to get a chance to be paid outside of their scholarship.
If David Gruber wants to pay Markus 50k for using him in an ad, I say go for it. Nike wasn’t selling jerseys with the number 33 on it because the numbers looked nice on the back. It was because that was Jimmy Butler’s number.
Some worry that schools with rich boosters will tilt the landscape. I don’t think it would change things anymore than it is with people getting paid under the table.
None of us know how much under the table things are happening, but it is fairly easy to spot when the kid is driving a new car, parents in a new house or what have you.
What happens when Markus has a few bad games and the rest of the players are ticked and want a share from Markus? Or Markus decides to hog the ball because it's about him?
Today we have a system where Markus' scholarship is the same as everyone else's on the team, and that's a good thing.
I can't imagine a better way to ruin college athletics than this idea of compensating players, let alone unequally. They aren't professionals. If they are that good, play for money. Should these kids even have to take classes? What other employee is required to take classes as a condition of employment? Why not be allowed to play for 10 or 15 years?
People are knee jerking solutions without thinking anything through. Title IX a big one. For a school like Marquette, the athletics program is over at DI. I hope you understand that, along with the opportunities gained by those student athletes on all those teams not men's and women's basketball.
-
None of us know how much under the table things are happening, but it is fairly easy to spot when the kid is driving a new car, parents in a new house or what have you.
What happens when Markus has a few bad games and the rest of the players are ticked and want a share from Markus? Or Markus decides to hog the ball because it's about him?
Today we have a system where Markus' scholarship is the same as everyone else's on the team, and that's a good thing.
I can't imagine a better way to ruin college athletics than this idea of compensating players, let alone unequally. They aren't professionals. If they are that good, play for money. Should these kids even have to take classes? What other employee is required to take classes as a condition of employment? Why not be allowed to play for 10 or 15 years?
People are knee jerking solutions without thinking anything through. Title IX a big one. For a school like Marquette, the athletics program is over at DI. I hope you understand that, along with the opportunities gained by those student athletes on all those teams not men's and women's basketball.
Look at Chicos the capitalist who is all about socialism when it for college age students.
Let them earn outside income. No Title IX issues. No extra cost to the school. Academic eligibility is still in place. Let's the market determine who is worth more.
-
Look at Chicos the capitalist who is all about socialism when it for college age students.
Let them earn outside income. No Title IX issues. No extra cost to the school. Academic eligibility is still in place. Let's the market determine who is worth more.
I've been a Democrat my whole life, capitalism is a system I prefer but it must be restrained and regulated. The Chicos comment again???
Why are you wanting to destroy college basketball for the 1%? Are you a super capitalist that believes the 1% should get it all? Maybe that explains our differences.
They can earn outside income today, via a job but it cannot be tied to their athletic position. You have not answered what this will do to the game itself, which I contend will ruin it. The concept of team ball destroyed as one or two players receive outside compensation while others do not. This happens in the pros already. You think transfers are bad now, wait until up and coming player on your team is offered a bigger endorsement from school 75 miles away. You are advocating for the destruction of college basketball and football.
Why? If they are good enough to get paid, then go professional. It is not the NCAA's fault there is not an alternative to college football. The NCAA wasn't created to provide professional opportunities for people to get paid playing football.
-
I've been a Democrat my whole life, capitalism is a system I prefer but it must be restrained and regulated. The Chicos comment again???
Why are you wanting to destroy college basketball for the 1%? Are you a super capitalist that believes the 1% should get it all? Maybe that explains our differences.
They can earn outside income today, via a job but it cannot be tied to their athletic position. You have not answered what this will do to the game itself, which I contend will ruin it. The concept of team ball destroyed as one or two players receive outside compensation while others do not. This happens in the pros already. You think transfers are bad now, wait until up and coming player on your team is offered a bigger endorsement from school 75 miles away. You are advocating for the destruction of college basketball and football.
Why? If they are good enough to get paid, then go professional. It is not the NCAA's fault there is not an alternative to college football. The NCAA wasn't created to provide professional opportunities for people to get paid playing football.
There is zero indication that players being allowed to earn outside income would be "the destruction of college basketball and football." Typical scare tactic. And no "team ball" hasn't suffered in the professional leagues where income inequality exists all over the place. And if players want to transfer for better opportunities, good for them!!!! They do it already so I'm not sure why it would be any different.
And I don't give a sh*t why the NCAA was created.
-
There is zero indication that players being allowed to earn outside income would be "the destruction of college basketball and football." Typical scare tactic. And no "team ball" hasn't suffered in the professional leagues where income inequality exists all over the place. And if players want to transfer for better opportunities, good for them!!!! They do it already so I'm not sure why it would be any different.
And I don't give a sh*t why the NCAA was created.
Why do you support the 1%ers only? Shouldn't this be about leveling the playing field and allowing teams to compete in a fair manner?
Players have held out for bigger pay in pro sports, that impacts the team dynamics and performance. Players have been accused in contract years to dominating play and thinking only about themselves, so team play has suffered. Nevertheless, they are professionals and these kids are not.
Players transfer today for more playing time, or because they are homesick not because there is a bidding war.
-
Why do you support the 1%ers only? Shouldn't this be about leveling the playing field and allowing teams to compete in a fair manner?
LOL really? "A fair manner?" There is a differentiation of resources throughout college athletics. Schools get more television revenue, NCAA shares, attendance, etc., which is used to pay certain coaches more, better facilities, etc. College athletics is arguably THE most inequitable athletic endeavor in the United States right now.
Do you complain about any of that? Of course not. Because you LOVE when those in power make more. You always have. But of course, try to allow the actual athletes to earn more and you become chicken little. Humorous and predictable.
-
Look at Chicos the capitalist who is all about socialism when it for college age students.
Let them earn outside income. No Title IX issues. No extra cost to the school. Academic eligibility is still in place. Let's the market determine who is worth more.
Who can pay these students "outside income". Anyone? Can University Donors/Sponsors pay the students, Boosters?
-
Who can pay these students "outside income". Anyone? Can University Donors/Sponsors pay the students, Boosters?
Anyone who wants to.
-
Anyone who wants to.
What do you think the consequences of that would be to football and basketball revenue?
-
What do you think the consequences of that would be to football and basketball revenue?
If people want to pay players versus making athletic donations that’s fine by me.
-
If people want to pay players versus making athletic donations that’s fine by me.
LOL. How many people are actually going to want to pay players for NIT-level basketball???
-
LOL really? "A fair manner?" There is a differentiation of resources throughout college athletics. Schools get more television revenue, NCAA shares, attendance, etc., which is used to pay certain coaches more, better facilities, etc. College athletics is arguably THE most inequitable athletic endeavor in the United States right now.
Do you complain about any of that? Of course not. Because you LOVE when those in power make more. You always have. But of course, try to allow the actual athletes to earn more and you become chicken little. Humorous and predictable.
Do you actually know this guy in real life or do you make these statements about him because you pretend to know him based off a few posts on a message board?
-
If people want to pay players versus making athletic donations that’s fine by me.
~65% (I used the top 20 revenue football programs) of revenue comes from donations or rights/licensing. Those are the same pools of money that the athletes would now be competing for.
Even in that top 20 football programs, most are at best breaking even because of supplementing with tax payer dollars, student tuition, or other funds meant for education.
What we know from precedent at other Universities, is that they will take money from education to offset athletic losses, or scholarships no longer exist. I have my money on siphoning more funds from education.
-
Do you actually know this guy in real life or do you make these statements about him because you pretend to know him based off a few posts on a message board?
Hmmmmm. That’s a pretty damn good point.
Mark me curious, but I wanna hear the response to this one.
-
LOL really? "A fair manner?" There is a differentiation of resources throughout college athletics. Schools get more television revenue, NCAA shares, attendance, etc., which is used to pay certain coaches more, better facilities, etc. College athletics is arguably THE most inequitable athletic endeavor in the United States right now.
Do you complain about any of that? Of course not. Because you LOVE when those in power make more. You always have. But of course, try to allow the actual athletes to earn more and you become chicken little. Humorous and predictable.
You are making a mistake of pretending to know who I am or what I believe. What I don't want to see happen is my beloved Marquette no longer have an athletics program in Division I. You seem hell bent on wanting that to happen.
A college scholarship and free room and board nets to mean the student doesn't pay. Whether that scholarship value is $10K at a state school or $50K from a private school is meaningless as the out of pocket cost to the student is the same. Net $0.
Conferences have their own television and media deals, they will not all be equal for any number of reasons. Size of the conference, size of the market, size of the alumni base, size of the school. Those inequalities will always exist, as will the competency of the school itself. Notre Dame is a better school that South Florida or Indiana. Duke is a better school than Indiana State or Purdue. The weather is better at San Diego State than University of Washington or Fordham.
But in terms of what is permissible for a school to offer those participating, extra benefits are what we are talking about. This is the part of the leveling of the playing field that NCAA members have asked the organization to control.
-
Hmmmmm. That’s a pretty damn good point.
Mark me curious, but I wanna hear the response to this one.
It will probably be something along the lines of "that's a dumb take."
-
LOL. How many people are actually going to want to pay players for NIT-level basketball???
Do you actually know this guy in real life or do you make these statements about him because you pretend to know him based off a few posts on a message board?
It will probably be something along the lines of "that's a dumb take."
Man you really are a sensitive little dude aren't you.
-
You are making a mistake of pretending to know who I am or what I believe. What I don't want to see happen is my beloved Marquette no longer have an athletics program in Division I. You seem hell bent on wanting that to happen.
A college scholarship and free room and board nets to mean the student doesn't pay. Whether that scholarship value is $10K at a state school or $50K from a private school is meaningless as the out of pocket cost to the student is the same. Net $0.
Conferences have their own television and media deals, they will not all be equal for any number of reasons. Size of the conference, size of the market, size of the alumni base, size of the school. Those inequalities will always exist, as will the competency of the school itself. Notre Dame is a better school that South Florida or Indiana. Duke is a better school than Indiana State or Purdue. The weather is better at San Diego State than University of Washington or Fordham.
But in terms of what is permissible for a school to offer those participating, extra benefits are what we are talking about. This is the part of the leveling of the playing field that NCAA members have asked the organization to control.
Four paragraphs of blathering that don't address a single point that I made. Congrats.
-
~65% (I used the top 20 revenue football programs) of revenue comes from donations or rights/licensing. Those are the same pools of money that the athletes would now be competing for.
Even in that top 20 football programs, most are at best breaking even because of supplementing with tax payer dollars, student tuition, or other funds meant for education.
What we know from precedent at other Universities, is that they will take money from education to offset athletic losses, or scholarships no longer exist. I have my money on siphoning more funds from education.
Oh. Well they're the ones who are going to have to live with that decision.
-
Man you really are a sensitive little dude aren't you.
Nope, just sick of the condescending tone of most of your posts on this board.
And I'm not a dude.
-
~65% (I used the top 20 revenue football programs) of revenue comes from donations or rights/licensing. Those are the same pools of money that the athletes would now be competing for.
Not really, especially with the rights/licensing. Nike, for example, isn't going to stop paying to put their swoosh on any team's jerseys. Pepsi and Coke aren't going to stop paying for the right to sell their product exclusively at certain schools. That money won't just up and vanish because JimBob's Tuscaloosa Chevy wants to give Player A some money to do an ad.
Even in that top 20 football programs, most are at best breaking even because of supplementing with tax payer dollars, student tuition, or other funds meant for education.
This seems incorrect. Source?
This data is a couple years old, but during the 2015 season 20 teams made a profit of more than $28 million. Eleven made more than $40 million. Again, this is profit, not gross revenue.
No doubt there are many athletic departments, and some football programs, that rely on heavy subsidies from student fees (not tuition), but the top tier football programs are making money hand over fist.
-
They can earn outside income today, via a job but it cannot be tied to their athletic position.
Right. Take a full load classes, practice 20 hours a week, travel across the country for games, requiring time to make up for missed classes, hit the weight room regularly ... and then go get a job.
Seems reasonable.
You have not answered what this will do to the game itself, which I contend will ruin it. The concept of team ball destroyed as one or two players receive outside compensation while others do not. This happens in the pros already.
For sure. Those 90s Bulls teams were ruined by all the Nike money Michael Jordan got.
And while LeBron's teams have made seven straight finals, the sad truth is that they've lost five of them ... because of all the money Coke gives him.
This is a truly bad take.
-
Nope, just sick of the condescending tone of most of your posts on this board.
And I'm not a dude.
Oh. Sorry. I really have no idea who you are or what you have posted before so I have no frame of reference.
-
Not really, especially with the rights/licensing. Nike, for example, isn't going to stop paying to put their swoosh on any team's jerseys. Pepsi and Coke aren't going to stop paying for the right to sell their product exclusively at certain schools. That money won't just up and vanish because JimBob's Tuscaloosa Chevy wants to give Player A some money to do an ad.
No, but I've read several studies that show that sponsorship of individuals is more successful, than direct sponsorship of teams. There is a total pool of money that isn't going to grow, that is devoted to college sports rights/licensing.
So any funds that shift from the University, to the athlete, will decrease revenue. I agree it will not be extreme, but even modest shifts of 5-10% would lead to 7-figure losses for the athletics program.
This seems incorrect. Source?
This data is a couple years old, but during the 2015 season 20 teams made a profit of more than $28 million. Eleven made more than $40 million. Again, this is profit, not gross revenue.
No doubt there are many athletic departments, and some football programs, that rely on heavy subsidies from student fees (not tuition), but the top tier football programs are making money hand over fist.
"most" was hyperbole, but several is true. I'm using:
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
(http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/)
But it is important to subtract out any revenue from "Student Fees" or "School Funds" as these siphon from education and are simply there because their budget has to tie.
So a school like Wisconsin that on the first page looks to post a $2M profit, is actually supplementing that with $8M in school funds, so are taking a $6M a year loss on football. Michigan State, Florida State ($10M), Minnesota and Iowa all also lose money.
Originally I also subtracted off "other," but apparently that includes things like NCAA tourney credits. "Other" is a category, budget wise, that many of these Universities park school funds of various times to make them look more profitable than they are.
-
Nope, just sick of the condescending tone of most of your posts on this board.
+ tax
-
Right. Take a full load classes, practice 20 hours a week, travel across the country for games, requiring time to make up for missed classes, hit the weight room regularly ... and then go get a job.
Seems reasonable.
The implication is they cannot work, there is no rule that says they cannot. Working in the Summer or during the non-season. It is difficult for basketball as a winter sport. It absolutely can be done in other sports but we are fixated here on only looking at basketball.
For sure. Those 90s Bulls teams were ruined by all the Nike money Michael Jordan got.
And while LeBron's teams have made seven straight finals, the sad truth is that they've lost five of them ... because of all the money Coke gives him.
This is a truly bad take.
That is one example you provide, but mine is not a bad take. Last year with the Washington Wizards and Gary Neal's antics with contracts and team chemistry? 2016 New York Jets and their team agenda, listen to the NY Media on that contractual squabbles by the vets and impact to the team. Dwight Howard with the NBA on several teams. Austin Rivers $35M contract with the Clippers and the problems it caused with teammates.
Team chemistry is a fragile thing, some teams can pull it off like the Bulls. Usually with veterans that want to win. Now make that work with 18 to 22 year olds that already have challenges of maturity, transferring due to lack of playing time and add this cocktail mix to it.
-
The implication is they cannot work, there is no rule that says they cannot. Working in the Summer or during the non-season. It is difficult for basketball as a winter sport. It absolutely can be done in other sports but we are fixated here on only looking at basketball.
Or they could do a commercial for a car dealer that would take a Sunday afternoon to shoot.
That is one example you provide, but mine is not a bad take. Last year with the Washington Wizards and Gary Neal's antics with contracts and team chemistry? 2016 New York Jets and their team agenda, listen to the NY Media on that contractual squabbles by the vets and impact to the team. Dwight Howard with the NBA on several teams. Austin Rivers $35M contract with the Clippers and the problems it caused with teammates.
Team chemistry is a fragile thing, some teams can pull it off like the Bulls. Usually with veterans that want to win. Now make that work with 18 to 22 year olds that already have challenges of maturity, transferring due to lack of playing time and add this cocktail mix to it.
Ridiculous. Preventing people from earning income because it might mess with "team chemistry" is a terrible reason not to allow people to earn income.
Coaches are making six and seven figure incomes to deal with this stuff.
-
Or they could do a commercial for a car dealer that would take a Sunday afternoon to shoot.
Ridiculous. Preventing people from earning income because it might mess with "team chemistry" is a terrible reason not to allow people to earn income.
Coaches are making six and seven figure incomes to deal with this stuff.
What coaches make is irrelevant. Why even bring it in to the conversation. College presidents make a lot, do they do all the heavy lifting or do college professors, TAs, Admissions people, counselors all work for a university, too? College presidents make a lot because of their responsibility for the school, a singular head. The same reason college coaches do. They also get fired at a high rate.
My greater question is why you want to destroy college basketball in its current form? Why do you want Loyola Chicago never to happen again? Why do you want to bring in the problems of professionalism into a college basketball environment? Why is it a good idea to make the haves and have nots even further separated? You seem to advocate for only the haves because that is how this will shake out. Are these kids exploited? How? They are earning an invaluable college degree, seeing the country, honing their skills for future employers. The way some of you articulate this as if it is slave labor. It is not. What's a degree worth to someone these days, not just the cost of education? $3 to 4 million in a lifetime and that's if they don't play a single down, make a layup, or hit a home run, in other words don't play professionally.
-
No, but I've read several studies that show that sponsorship of individuals is more successful, than direct sponsorship of teams. There is a total pool of money that isn't going to grow, that is devoted to college sports rights/licensing.
So any funds that shift from the University, to the athlete, will decrease revenue. I agree it will not be extreme, but even modest shifts of 5-10% would lead to 7-figure losses for the athletics program.
Again, I doubt this. At best, you're assuming facts not in evidence, i.e. that the amount of spending on college athletic sponsorships being done right now is the absolute most that will ever be done, and companies simply would not expand their spending as opportunities expand.
History says this is false. Corporate investment in college athletic sponsorships has grown by millions, if not billions, of dollars over the past couple decade. Just in one recent year it grew nearly 6 percent: http://www.sponsorship.com/iegsr/2015/08/31/Sponsorship-Spending-On-College-Athletics-Totals-$.aspx
To assume that starting today those sponsorship budgets are frozen seems wrong.
"most" was hyperbole, but several is true. I'm using:
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
(http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/)
But it is important to subtract out any revenue from "Student Fees" or "School Funds" as these siphon from education and are simply there because their budget has to tie.
So a school like Wisconsin that on the first page looks to post a $2M profit, is actually supplementing that with $8M in school funds, so are taking a $6M a year loss on football. Michigan State, Florida State ($10M), Minnesota and Iowa all also lose money.
Originally I also subtracted off "other," but apparently that includes things like NCAA tourney credits. "Other" is a category, budget wise, that many of these Universities park school funds of various times to make them look more profitable than they are.
What you've provided here is athletic department revenues/spending, not football. So, no, Wisconsin football is not operating at a $6 million loss. In fact, according to this, they were operating at a $24 million profit in 2013 (couldn't find anything more recent right now):
https://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciajessop/2013/08/31/the-economics-of-college-football-a-look-at-the-top-25-teams-revenues-and-expenses/#1c71abc06476
Athletic departments' losses - at least at most of the P5/P6 programs - come not from football (or men's basketball), but from the spending needed for all the other sports that generate no revenue in return. The labors of the football and men's basketball players - along with student fees - subsidize the scholarships, equipment, travel, etc., for the field hockey, golf and soccer teams.
-
What coaches make is irrelevant. Why even bring it in to the conversation.
Because I expect those who are highly compensated to be able to perform the tasks of their job, which includes team chemistry issues.
My greater question is why you want to destroy college basketball in its current form?
Strawman. I think it would be fine.
Why do you want Loyola Chicago never to happen again?
Hyperbolic strawman. "Never to happen again?"
Why do you want to bring in the problems of professionalism into a college basketball environment?
Because it isn't a problem.
Why is it a good idea to make the haves and have nots even further separated? You seem to advocate for only the haves because that is how this will shake out.
Because it doesn't really bother me? Sorry but if you are so concerned about this, why don't you lobby the NCAA to equally distribute all television revenue, tournament revenue, etc.
Are these kids exploited? How? They are earning an invaluable college degree, seeing the country, honing their skills for future employers. The way some of you articulate this as if it is slave labor. It is not. What's a degree worth to someone these days, not just the cost of education? $3 to 4 million in a lifetime and that's if they don't play a single down, make a layup, or hit a home run, in other words don't play professionally.
I never said they were exploited. I never said it was slave labor. Even more strawmen. (Which is a typical Chicos' tactic.)
Just because they are receiving the opportunity to earn an education, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to earn more.
-
That is one example you provide, but mine is not a bad take. Last year with the Washington Wizards and Gary Neal's antics with contracts and team chemistry? 2016 New York Jets and their team agenda, listen to the NY Media on that contractual squabbles by the vets and impact to the team. Dwight Howard with the NBA on several teams. Austin Rivers $35M contract with the Clippers and the problems it caused with teammates.
Team chemistry is a fragile thing, some teams can pull it off like the Bulls. Usually with veterans that want to win. Now make that work with 18 to 22 year olds that already have challenges of maturity, transferring due to lack of playing time and add this cocktail mix to it.
It's not only a bad take, it's a terrible take.
There have always been inequities among teammates, whether it be earnings, attention, preferential treatment, etc. The notion that Player A earning more than Player B destroys team chemistry is provably false, and have been proven false over and over and over again.
This simply is not a point worth arguing.
-
My greater question is why you want to destroy college basketball in its current form? Why do you want Loyola Chicago never to happen again? Why do you want to bring in the problems of professionalism into a college basketball environment? Why is it a good idea to make the haves and have nots even further separated? You seem to advocate for only the haves because that is how this will shake out.
I just don’t see how this would end the Loyola type stories. Is it because high major boosters would be bidding on their best players to get them to transfer? I think that’s overblown, especially if they’d still have to sit a year.
Is someone going to go to Kentucky and be an 8th man for 30k rather than a smaller school to be the star for 5k? Maybe. With all the transferring already going on, is a booster going to want to sink any money into a player that could bust or transfer in a year?
-
My greater question is why you want to destroy college basketball in its current form? Why do you want Loyola Chicago never to happen again?
Could you please explain how allowing, say, Marvin Bagley to sign a contract with Nike, or Collin Sexton to get paid for appearing in a local auto dealership's ad would "destroy college basketball" and prevent Loyola from ever happening again?
-
Again, I doubt this. At best, you're assuming facts not in evidence, i.e. that the amount of spending on college athletic sponsorships being done right now is the absolute most that will ever be done, and companies simply would not expand their spending as opportunities expand.
History says this is false. Corporate investment in college athletic sponsorships has grown by millions, if not billions, of dollars over the past couple decade. Just in one recent year it grew nearly 6 percent: http://www.sponsorship.com/iegsr/2015/08/31/Sponsorship-Spending-On-College-Athletics-Totals-$.aspx
To assume that starting today those sponsorship budgets are frozen seems wrong.
You are way over simplifying this. Universities project their spending increases off the current state of the business. That includes growth projections in sponsorships. Those growth projections will be incredibly wrong as they will divert some spending on athletes instead of Universities.
That will lead to large cost deficits in University athletic budgets.
What you've provided here is athletic department revenues/spending, not football. So, no, Wisconsin football is not operating at a $6 million loss. In fact, according to this, they were operating at a $24 million profit in 2013 (couldn't find anything more recent right now):
https://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciajessop/2013/08/31/the-economics-of-college-football-a-look-at-the-top-25-teams-revenues-and-expenses/#1c71abc06476
Athletic departments' losses - at least at most of the P5/P6 programs - come not from football (or men's basketball), but from the spending needed for all the other sports that generate no revenue in return. The labors of the football and men's basketball players - along with student fees - subsidize the scholarships, equipment, travel, etc., for the field hockey, golf and soccer teams.
You are right, I didn't pay attention to the specifics of the USA report. I had googled NCAA football revenue, and that was the top hit...should have paid more attention to what was actually in the article.
I was wrong.
I will note though that the numbers in these documents take advantage of creative accounting, to mitigate the large costs of athletics.
-
Or they could do a commercial for a car dealer that would take a Sunday afternoon to shoot.
Ridiculous. Preventing people from earning income because it might mess with "team chemistry" is a terrible reason not to allow people to earn income.
Coaches are making six and seven figure incomes to deal with this stuff.
I agree with your points here. Athletes should be allowed to do commercials and be compensated for their time. If their likeness is used in video games, they should receive a cut too (assuming that pro players do as well).
Moreover, part of a coach's job involves dealing with any chemistry issues---there are always going to be players who get more accolades than the others on any given team and issues associated with that but coaches have been dealing with that forever.
-
Is someone going to go to Kentucky and be an 8th man for 30k rather than a smaller school to be the star for 5k? Maybe. With all the transferring already going on, is a booster going to want to sink any money into a player that could bust or transfer in a year?
They go to Kentucky to be the 8th man for free right now. $30k would make that even more attractive.
And fully expect students to be forced to sign "marketing contracts" that stipulate that being a student/player at Kentucky is a requirement of the endorsement contract and if they leave the University or the team they will be in violation of the contract and required to pay back any incentives they received.
These booster-based contracts will tie a player to a University.
Now that is an aside. I agree with you that it wouldn't ruin Loyola-like stories, or sports as we know it.
-
Because I expect those who are highly compensated to be able to perform the tasks of their job, which includes team chemistry issues.
Strawman. I think it would be fine.
Hyperbolic strawman. "Never to happen again?"
Because it isn't a problem.
Because it doesn't really bother me? Sorry but if you are so concerned about this, why don't you lobby the NCAA to equally distribute all television revenue, tournament revenue, etc.
I never said they were exploited. I never said it was slave labor. Even more strawmen. (Which is a typical Chicos' tactic.)
Just because they are receiving the opportunity to earn an education, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to earn more.
Not to give your ego a boost it doesn't need, sultan, but you have kicked chicos' heinie on this subject so thoroughly that your foot must be hurting.
Pakuni also has done an excellent job beating back the doom-and-gloomers.
If I had $1 every time I heard or read that something or other was going to destroy college sports (or pro sports, for that matter), I'd be typing this from my beach chair on my private island.
-
Not to give your ego a boost it doesn't need, sultan, but you have kicked chicos' heinie on this subject so thoroughly that your foot must be hurting.
Pakuni also has done an excellent job beating back the doom-and-gloomers.
If I had $1 every time I heard or read that something or other was going to destroy college sports (or pro sports, for that matter), I'd be typing this from my beach chair on my private island.
Thank you but it really isn't that difficult.
-
It's not only a bad take, it's a terrible take.
There have always been inequities among teammates, whether it be earnings, attention, preferential treatment, etc. The notion that Player A earning more than Player B destroys team chemistry is provably false, and have been proven false over and over and over again.
This simply is not a point worth arguing.
How is it provably false when examples showing it happening have also occurred? Some teams and coaches can deal with it, others cannot. Because a team or teams can overcome it doesn't mean all can. It would be like you saying all kids declaring after their freshman year are ready for the NBA because you rattle off examples of cases where they are, but ignore cases where they weren't. Life doesn't work that way in my opinion.
Could you please explain how allowing, say, Marvin Bagley to sign a contract with Nike, or Collin Sexton to get paid for appearing in a local auto dealership's ad would "destroy college basketball" and prevent Loyola from ever happening again?
In my view the haves will separate even further. Today no team can offer compensation, therefore a scholarship which results in a net $0 cost to any athlete is the same at any school. Those schools that are in the middle, but small, will not have the resources to offer above and beyond the scholarship and lose out on players the receive today. This will be especially true for kids that come from difficult socioeconomic backgrounds.
A school like Loyola that has not made any NCAA tournament in years, with small time support in attendance and sponsorships will lose out on some kids they get today. Grad transfers is where things will be crazy because players don't have to sit out. It will become a bidding war, and a school like Loyola that has Custer returning this year in his grad season likely will not in the future because someone will pay him to switch schools. I think that hurts college basketball.
-
I just don’t see how this would end the Loyola type stories. Is it because high major boosters would be bidding on their best players to get them to transfer? I think that’s overblown, especially if they’d still have to sit a year.
Is someone going to go to Kentucky and be an 8th man for 30k rather than a smaller school to be the star for 5k? Maybe. With all the transferring already going on, is a booster going to want to sink any money into a player that could bust or transfer in a year?
Once the genie is out of the bottle it never goes back in. If I am right, then the haves will dominate even more, the middle will either regress or have to come up with additional dollars to compete. Effectively the middle class of college athletics will be wiped out.
Grad transfers will become free agent bidding wars.
-
I agree with your points here. Athletes should be allowed to do commercials and be compensated for their time. If their likeness is used in video games, they should receive a cut too (assuming that pro players do as well).
Moreover, part of a coach's job involves dealing with any chemistry issues---there are always going to be players who get more accolades than the others on any given team and issues associated with that but coaches have been dealing with that forever.
Accolades is different than $$$ when talking about a system in which every player on the team currently receives the same amount. This introduces something never seen before in the college game and it will cause waves because human beings are human beings. College coaches have never had to deal with what we are talking about or some are proposing.
-
Accolades is different than $$$ when talking about a system in which every player on the team currently receives the same amount. This introduces something never seen before in the college game and it will cause waves because human beings are human beings. College coaches have never had to deal with what we are talking about or some are proposing.
They’ll adjust. They’re smart people. College basketball has changed before and it will change again.
-
Accolades is different than $$$ when talking about a system in which every player on the team currently receives the same amount. This introduces something never seen before in the college game and it will cause waves because human beings are human beings. College coaches have never had to deal with what we are talking about or some are proposing.
This is actually happening now...kids are getting paid, just under the table...I bet the kids know who is getting money and how much more-so than the coaches (at least publicly).
-
This is actually happening now...kids are getting paid, just under the table...I bet the kids know who is getting money and how much more-so than the coaches (at least publicly).
Good point.
-
"Everybody knows everybody's getting paid. That's just how it is. Everybody's getting paid anyway, you might as well make it legal."
-- Lonzo Ball
-
How is it provably false when examples showing it happening have also occurred? Some teams and coaches can deal with it, others cannot. Because a team or teams can overcome it doesn't mean all can. It would be like you saying all kids declaring after their freshman year are ready for the NBA because you rattle off examples of cases where they are, but ignore cases where they weren't. Life doesn't work that way in my opinion.
You threw out a few bad teams and, apropos of nothing, blamed their badness on the fact that some players were in contract disputes. This is
1) not provable (I mean, the 2016 Jets problem was a lack of talent, not lack of team chemistry)
2) contract disputes aren't about whether some players on a team earn more than others - which is always the case.
There has never been a time in professional sports during which every player was compensated 100 percent the same. So your claim that this has "ruined" professional sports is utter nonsense. If that were to "ruin" professional sports, it would have happened 80 years ago, not just when it's convenient for your bad NCAA takes.
Your freshman tp NBA analogy is nonsensical. I'm not really sure what that's supposed to mean, much less how it supports your argument.
In my view the haves will separate even further. Today no team can offer compensation, therefore a scholarship which results in a net $0 cost to any athlete is the same at any school. Those schools that are in the middle, but small, will not have the resources to offer above and beyond the scholarship and lose out on players the receive today. This will be especially true for kids that come from difficult socioeconomic backgrounds.
Ducking the question.
I didn't ask about schools paying kids. I asked about kids earning compensation from outside sources, like signing an endorsement deal.
That said, your argument ignores a very basic reality of college sports: the playing level already is unequal, and always has been. Some schools can and do offer better facilities. Some can and do offer better academics. Some can and do offer better living arrangements. Some can and do offer better coaching. Some can and do offer more exposure. Some can and do offer better weather.
So, I'll ask again ... how does Marvin Bagley getting some money from Nike prevent Loyola from happening?
-
apropos of nothing...utter nonsense...your analogy is nonsensical... not really sure how it supports your argument...Ducking the question... your argument ignores a very basic reality
So...standard Chicos then.
-
Universities are corrupt and drunk off of government money. Lots of people getting rich while the younger generation builds a mountain of debt. Tuition increases are outpacing the rate of inflation by 2.5x, yet American students are falling behind other developed nations in academic achievement. This is the story of all socialist institutions.
-
Universities are corrupt and drunk off of government money. Lots of people getting rich while the younger generation builds a mountain of debt. Tuition increases are outpacing the rate of inflation by 2.5x, yet American students are falling behind other developed nations in academic achievement. This is the story of all socialist institutions.
Getting rich? I must be working in the wrong part of the university.
-
Getting rich? I must be working in the wrong part of the university.
Here is a map of Marquette in 1940:
(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/29695067_10155960059896293_1735623428506910720_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=ab9d3cdbfeab73eb7c8466789e706124&oe=5B6B2670)
See the building at the corner of eleventh and Michigan that has two tiny rooms that say "Bursar" and "Registrar"? Those two rooms have been replaced by Zilber Hall, a building that is a city block long and 4 stories high.
-
So outside of Opus, who's getting rich? I was told there are "lots of people getting rich?"
-
Universities are corrupt and drunk off of government money. Lots of people getting rich while the younger generation builds a mountain of debt. Tuition increases are outpacing the rate of inflation by 2.5x, yet American students are falling behind other developed nations in academic achievement. This is the story of all socialist institutions.
Nope. It's this capitalistic concept of supply and demand. Demand has skyrocketed as a college degree has become necessary for almost every good job.
-
Here is a map of Marquette in 1940:
(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/29695067_10155960059896293_1735623428506910720_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=ab9d3cdbfeab73eb7c8466789e706124&oe=5B6B2670)
See the building at the corner of eleventh and Michigan that has two tiny rooms that say "Bursar" and "Registrar"? Those two rooms have been replaced by Zilber Hall, a building that is a city block long and 4 stories high.
Love looking at that map. Thanks for providing it.
-
This is actually happening now...kids are getting paid, just under the table...I bet the kids know who is getting money and how much more-so than the coaches (at least publicly).
This I would have difficulty believing. Kids cannot share secrets, especially in a social media age. It would come out fairly quickly if others were getting paid under the table. Bragging or whatever. When Rowsey got suspended I knew exactly the reason why within a few hours because the students all knew and it spread like wildfire.
-
You threw out a few bad teams and, apropos of nothing, blamed their badness on the fact that some players were in contract disputes. This is
1) not provable (I mean, the 2016 Jets problem was a lack of talent, not lack of team chemistry)
2) contract disputes aren't about whether some players on a team earn more than others - which is always the case.
I based it on comments from journalists that follow the teams, or comments from other players about members of the team that contractual disputes caused some problems.
You are comparing a world in which 100% of the professional athletes are paid. Is that going to happen in college basketball? No, unlikely. My position is that a few will, and those that don't COULD (not definite) will feel they should be getting some too. That is a different reality than pro sports where all are paid, and even there contractual disputes cause problems. Salary cap ceilings limit the pie, someone is going to get some that someone else doesn't. Or someone gets cut, or restructures to pay for someone else.
There has never been a time in professional sports during which every player was compensated 100 percent the same. So your claim that this has "ruined" professional sports is utter nonsense. If that were to "ruin" professional sports, it would have happened 80 years ago, not just when it's convenient for your bad NCAA takes.
Your freshman tp NBA analogy is nonsensical. I'm not really sure what that's supposed to mean, much less how it supports your argument.
Ducking the question.
I didn't ask about schools paying kids. I asked about kids earning compensation from outside sources, like signing an endorsement deal.
That said, your argument ignores a very basic reality of college sports: the playing level already is unequal, and always has been. Some schools can and do offer better facilities. Some can and do offer better academics. Some can and do offer better living arrangements. Some can and do offer better coaching. Some can and do offer more exposure. Some can and do offer better weather.
So, I'll ask again ... how does Marvin Bagley getting some money from Nike prevent Loyola from happening?
I did not ignore it. Yes, the playing field is unlevel in some areas, but not with compensation. That is the difference. Everyone receives the same scholarship amount. Whether you are the star or whether you play 2 minutes a game, if you are on scholarship the value is the same. I admitted that some conferences earn more, some have better facilities, you named it, but not when it comes to the value of the scholarship. It is all the same. That is significant.
I answered your Bagley question also. In my view the haves will become even more dominant. Teams in the middle will have to make a decision to play this game, or not. Those that do will attract players with $$. Those that don't, will fall further down. In my view Loyola will not play this game. This becomes especially problematic for grad transfers. Do you not believe there will be essentially free agency bidding for players that don't have to sit out by promising endorsement deals?
-
This I would have difficulty believing. Kids cannot share secrets, especially in a social media age. It would come out fairly quickly if others were getting paid under the table. Bragging or whatever. When Rowsey got suspended I knew exactly the reason why within a few hours because the students all knew and it spread like wildfire.
At a school to the West of us, I've heard of kids magically finding an envelope with $1k in their locker. At other schools, I've known athletes that on their birthday receive anonymous packages with all kinds of expensive goodies in them.
A suspension is one thing, kids really don't care about it. Other things they will keep very tight to the vest, because of the consequences of acknowledging these random anonymous benefits.
-
I admitted that some conferences earn more, some have better facilities, you named it, but not when it comes to the value of the scholarship. It is all the same. That is significant.
So the cost of tuition at every school is the same? Housing is identical? Food is identical? Quality of life is the same? Quality of academics is the same?
This is plainly false. The value of a scholarship varies widely from school to school, because what one receives as a student-athlete varies widely from one school to the next.
For a kid who wants to be an engineer, the value of a scholarship to Stanford is quite a bit higher than the value of a scholarship to Washington State. For a kid who dreams of being a lawyer, a Northwestern scholarship is not "the same" as a Georgia Southern scholarship. For a kid who wants to play in the NFL, the value of a scholarship to Alabama is far higher than the value of a scholarship to Ball State.
Try as you might, you simply cannot separate the value of a scholarship from all that the scholarship entails. It's like arguing that a two-bedroom home in South LA is the same as a 6-bedroom home in Malibu because a home is a home is a home.
I answered your Bagley question also. In my view the haves will become even more dominant. Teams in the middle will have to make a decision to play this game, or not. Those that do will attract players with $$. Those that don't, will fall further down. In my view Loyola will not play this game. This becomes especially problematic for grad transfers. Do you not believe there will be essentially free agency bidding for players that don't have to sit out by promising endorsement deals?
This makes no sense. Why would Loyola care of Chris Custer got money for shaking hands at the local Chevy dealership? Why would they prevent Cameron Krutwig to earn a little side income by doing an ad for a local pizza place? What's it matter to Loyola?
As for grad transfers .... there's already free agency bidding, and who would do the promising of endorsement deals?
-
So the cost of tuition at every school is the same? Housing is identical? Food is identical? Quality of life is the same? Quality of academics is the same?
This is plainly false. The value of a scholarship varies widely from school to school, because what one receives as a student-athlete varies widely from one school to the next.
For a kid who wants to be an engineer, the value of a scholarship to Stanford is quite a bit higher than the value of a scholarship to Washington State. For a kid who dreams of being a lawyer, a Northwestern scholarship is not "the same" as a Georgia Southern scholarship. For a kid who wants to play in the NFL, the value of a scholarship to Alabama is far higher than the value of a scholarship to Ball State.
Try as you might, you simply cannot separate the value of a scholarship from all that the scholarship entails. It's like arguing that a two-bedroom home in South LA is the same as a 6-bedroom home in Malibu because a home is a home is a home.
I addressed this earlier but will do so again. The net cost to the student athlete at Duke is $0. The net cost to the student athlete at UNC-Greensboro is $0. The net cost to the student athlete at Wisconsin, Notre Dame, SUNY Albany, Cal State Chico, Marquette, Rice, Oklahoma is $0.
The value isn't $0, but the net cost is. Thus the level playing field. Even the value is going to be difficult to compare. A private school out of pocket cost to every day Joe is more than public, but that's because the public is subsidizing the public cost with taxes. Because UC Berkeley is less expensive than Depaul does that mean the Depaul educational value is higher? No, which we agree with. But that's not the role of the NCAA to make all schools of equal value, because that is impossible to do. How would you control weather? How would you control funding to specific academic departments? What if a visiting professor with a Nobel prize came to a school?
But the NCAA can control other aspects to level the playing field. The one most oft used is extra benefits and total cost, and in that space all member institutions have to play by the same, level playing field rules.
This makes no sense. Why would Loyola care of Chris Custer got money for shaking hands at the local Chevy dealership? Why would they prevent Cameron Krutwig to earn a little side income by doing an ad for a local pizza place? What's it matter to Loyola?
As for grad transfers .... there's already free agency bidding, and who would do the promising of endorsement deals?
Using this argument, why would any school care if some booster is illegally funneling money to certain players? What if that money was made illegally? Or was tied to activities that are legal in some states but not others (marijuana for example)? What if the money was legitimate but came from tobacco company? What if the money came from Larry Flynt, completely legal but he wanted a player to endorse his industry? Is that ok? Are only Chevy dealerships ok?
Who would do the promising of endorsement deals? If this were allowed, Coach Cal and every big time coach will have go to entities in town to fund their needs. They will have a list of what company A, B, C, D can offer and a range of which to offer.
Bad bad idea to go down this path.