Kolek planning to go pro
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.
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.
TAMUI do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.
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.
No, it's a lie. Congrats on believing that dimwit.
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.
And never mind that the large majority of programs -- even in revenue sports -- don't make any money.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Sounds like a huge positive for students who were under recruited no?
Man you know you've got a weak argument when you say something like that.
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.
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.
No...and after reading many many psosts from people on this board that do...I have to say I'm MUCH better off, if this is the type of "intelligence" a degree from MU gets you. It sure is on full display I will say that.
I got a little more than half from Marquette and I'd venture a guess I didn't make them a dime throughout my time there.
But to be fair, you haven't made much more than a dime since MU, either, ainner?
I feel that the proposed rule is well thought-out and potentially makes sense. In a way, it is simply extending the grad transfer benefit to other students. Like the grad transfer rule (where you need to achieve graduation to effect it), the proposed rule would tie the ability to play right away to academic achievement by restricting it to those who have a certain GPA - which presumably will be reasonably higher than the GPA required just to maintain eligibility. It also restricts the benefit to one transfer per eligible SA. It's not a free-for-all "free agency" as some suggest. I think the biggest issue with enforcing the rule will 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).
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.