Forbes Magazine: College Athletes are already paid

[ChicosBailBonds]

They were smart enough not to put this on the cover, but the article came out last week.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/08/29/pay-college-athletes-theyre-already-paid-up-to-125000year/


Title IX, smaller schools, most schools in the red, non revenue sports, etc....all at lease acknowledged, which is rarely if ever done by the Pay the Students articles.

Until one of these articles or ideas gets around to how to deal with Title IX, non-revenue sports, etc as if they don't exist, it is hard to take these ideas seriously.  Yes, we all get SOME college programs make a lot of money and have big crowds for their football or basketball games.  That's all nice and good.  Those same schools have a women's volleyball team, a track team, tennis and golf teams, etc, that don't make squat and are student athletes also.  How do you address them, especially the women's programs?  It's hard to take these articles seriously without a serious proposal on how to deal with non-revenue sports, TitleIX implications, smaller schools, etc.  Fluff pieces only IMO.

[brandx]

So do you feel that an NBA-ready player should be banned from playing at the level for which he is qualified so that he can spend his time raising money for the Golf and diving teams?

The argument that these players are already paid (scholarships) just doesn't hold water. Andrew Wiggins is only using the scholarship (which could actually go to a student or student-athlete that wants and needs it) because his talents are needed to raise money for non-revenue sports. Why is this burden placed on him?

A baseball player, tennis player, golfer, etc. can play professionally anywhere that their talent qualifies them for. But then they aren't cash cows to be milked for the colleges.

[MerrittsMustache]

So do you feel that an NBA-ready player should be banned from playing at the level for which he is qualified so that he can spend his time raising money for the Golf and diving teams?

The argument that these players are already paid (scholarships) just doesn't hold water. Andrew Wiggins is only using the scholarship (which could actually go to a student or student-athlete that wants and needs it) because his talents are needed to raise money for non-revenue sports. Why is this burden placed on him?

A baseball player, tennis player, golfer, etc. can play professionally anywhere that their talent qualifies them for. But then they aren't cash cows to be milked for the colleges.

The ideal scenario for basketball players would be for the NBDL to become the equivalent to the minor leagues in MLB. Players can be drafted directly from high school, knowing that they'll likely spend a couple years in the D-league making $25k before being called up the to the NBA (if they're called up at all) or they can go to college for 3 years before becoming draft-eligible again.

The obvious issue with this system is that college basketball already acts as a FREE minor league system to the NBA. Not to mention, the NCAA isn't going to want to miss out on the top HS players. While it would be in the best interest of the players, it wouldn't be in the best interest of the people raking in big money off of these players and unfortunately, they're the decision-makers.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

The ideal scenario for basketball players would be for the NBDL to become the equivalent to the minor leagues in MLB. Players can be drafted directly from high school, knowing that they'll likely spend a couple years in the D-league making $25k before being called up the to the NBA (if they're called up at all) or they can go to college for 3 years before becoming draft-eligible again.

The obvious issue with this system is that college basketball already acts as a FREE minor league system to the NBA. Not to mention, the NCAA isn't going to want to miss out on the top HS players. While it would be in the best interest of the players, it wouldn't be in the best interest of the people raking in big money off of these players and unfortunately, they're the decision-makers.

This really gets to it. The existing system makes way too much money for people in power for any kind of changes to occur. Elite basketball programs love it because it enables huge tax shelter athletic departments, and the NBA loves it because they don't want to have to create a real, costly minor league system.

[Sunbelt15]

That article means nothing. A scholarship doesn't help a kid buy clothes. It doesn't help with normal, everyday hardships like car repairs, haircuts, travel, etc. You don't have to pay them, but at least let them get a job. This would kill all the "pay the players" talk.

[GGGG]

Free market.  If a football or basketball player is getting money under the table, its because the market is declaring that he is worth more than a simple scholarship.

[StillAWarrior]

Free market.  If a football or basketball player is getting money under the table, its because the market is declaring that he is worth more than a simple scholarship.

That's very, very true.  But one issue that needs to be considered is that Title IX is seriously screwing with the free market.  If football and basketball players get paid, the girls will have to get paid too.  Suddenly, the "free" market doesn't look so free.

There are really two ways to look at this.  If the argument is that schools are making a lot of money off of these players, then there is only a relatively small group of players who should be getting paid - men's football and basketball players at a minority of schools.  This creates a Title IX problem, I believe.  If the argument is that student athletes deserve to get paid irrespective of whether their program turns a profit, then schools won't have enough money to pay everyone.

I think one free market solution to this would be for the NCAA to simply allow athletes to earn money off their own name.  I'm not sure this would implicate Title IX because it would not be the university doing it.

[jesmu84]

This really gets to it. The existing system makes way too much money for people in power for any kind of changes to occur.

Oh. Just like the rest of life. Things like this don't change without either severe PR nightmares for the people in power or some sort of large-scale protest, holdout, etc.

[GGGG]

That's very, very true.  But one issue that needs to be considered is that Title IX is seriously screwing with the free market.  If football and basketball players get paid, the girls will have to get paid too.  Suddenly, the "free" market doesn't look so free.

Title IX only addresses what the school gives them for direct aid.  It doesn't address what they earn otherwise.  The free market would allow athletes to earn money on their name from sources outside the university.

[StillAWarrior]

Title IX only addresses what the school gives them for direct aid.  It doesn't address what they earn otherwise.  The free market would allow athletes to earn money on their name from sources outside the university.

Agreed, and that is one of the most viable solutions to the issue.  I think the NCAA will still probably be involved in policing because of boosterism issues, but I think that this will eventually happen.

Edited to add another thought:  I think if this is the way the issue ultimately gets resolved, there are going to be a lot of disappointed athletes.  I don't think the market cares much about the third string offensive guard in most programs.  I think it will be a relatively few players with meaningful earning potential.  I think many of the advocates of paying players want wide-spread payment of athletes.  I think it left to the market -- through endorsements -- then it won't be particularly wide-spread.  But maybe I'm wrong.

[Pakuni]

So do you feel that an NBA-ready player should be banned from playing at the level for which he is qualified so that he can spend his time raising money for the Golf and diving teams?

The argument that these players are already paid (scholarships) just doesn't hold water. Andrew Wiggins is only using the scholarship (which could actually go to a student or student-athlete that wants and needs it) because his talents are needed to raise money for non-revenue sports. Why is this burden placed on him?

A baseball player, tennis player, golfer, etc. can play professionally anywhere that their talent qualifies them for. But then they aren't cash cows to be milked for the colleges.

I think the rule not allowing kids to go straight to the pros from high school is stupid, but keep in mind that's an NBA rule, not an NCAA rule.

And the rule only says that Andrew Wiggins can't use his talents to make money in the NBA, not that he can't use his talents to make money. D-League and Europe are options for him and every other kid. Kinda sh*tty options, but one would think better than the horrid exploitation of the NCAA.

[Pakuni]

The ideal scenario for basketball players would be for the NBDL to become the equivalent to the minor leagues in MLB. Players can be drafted directly from high school, knowing that they'll likely spend a couple years in the D-league making $25k before being called up the to the NBA (if they're called up at all) or they can go to college for 3 years before becoming draft-eligible again.

This already is an option for all players. Kids can go straight from high school to the NBDL if they choose.
Why do so few do that? Free market. The vast majority of kids have decided that despite its horribly exploitative nature, spending time in college - with better coaching, facilities, travel, etc. - is better for their development and future prospects than riding buses from Boise to Bakersfield to Sioux Falls and playing before a couple thousand fans.

[MerrittsMustache]

This already is an option for all players. Kids can go straight from high school to the NBDL if they choose.
Why do so few do that? Free market. The vast majority of kids have decided that despite its horribly exploitative nature, spending time in college - with better coaching, facilities, travel, etc. - is better for their development and future prospects than riding buses from Boise to Bakersfield to Sioux Falls and playing before a couple thousand fans.

Can't argue with that. However, I don't think that most athletes view the NCAA as "horribly exploitative." College basketball provides them with the opportunity to play games on national TV, it gives them free shoes and clothes, garners them national attention, makes them a "big man on campus" and a local celebrity. To a lot of 19-year-olds, that stuff is more important than getting 200 bucks a month.

[StillAWarrior]

Can't argue with that. However, I don't think that most athletes view the NCAA as "horribly exploitative." College basketball provides them with the opportunity to play games on national TV, it gives them free shoes and clothes, garners them national attention, makes them a "big man on campus" and a local celebrity. To a lot of 19-year-olds, that stuff is more important than getting 200 bucks a month.

That was my point in a post in the other thread.  Lots of people who try to make the case for college athletes getting paid argue that they are being exploited by the universities who are making tons of cash.  But year after year we see kids (and parents) hold press conferences on the happiest day of their lives -- the day they sign up to be exploited.  Speaking solely for myself, I hope and pray that some university somewhere will offer my kids an opportunity to be exploited in this way.

[Pakuni]

Can't argue with that. However, I don't think that most athletes view the NCAA as "horribly exploitative." College basketball provides them with the opportunity to play games on national TV, it gives them free shoes and clothes, garners them national attention, makes them a "big man on campus" and a local celebrity. To a lot of 19-year-olds, that stuff is more important than getting 200 bucks a month.

I was using "horribly exploited" sarcastically.
The reality is its a voluntary exchange.
The player exchanges his work and talent to the university, which has an opportunity to turn that work and talent into revenue. In return, the university provides a place to live, meals, some clothing, (usually) quality coaching and facilities and an environment in which a willing individual can maximize his/her ability to become a professional. And if that ability isn't good enough to make it as a professional, the player also gets the opportunity to receive a college education.

It seems to me that most of the people who think these kids are being unjustly exploited aren't of the opinion that the players aren't getting anything in return, but rather they're outraged that universities are able to profit off the kids at all, as if that's somehow unseemly.

[Sunbelt15]

That was my point in a post in the other thread.  Lots of people who try to make the case for college athletes getting paid argue that they are being exploited by the universities who are making tons of cash.  But year after year we see kids (and parents) hold press conferences on the happiest day of their lives -- the day they sign up to be exploited.  Speaking solely for myself, I hope and pray that some university somewhere will offer my kids an opportunity to be exploited in this way.

They're happy because of their future possibilities after college. We are talking about the happenings while in college and the inability of a student athlete to profit monetarily.

[LAZER]

Free market.  If a football or basketball player is getting money under the table, its because the market is declaring that he is worth more than a simple scholarship.

For this reason, I find it surprising more kids haven't gone to Europe, especially after it worked out well for Jennings.

[Eldon]

I was using "horribly exploited" sarcastically.
The reality is its a voluntary exchange.
The player exchanges his work and talent to the university, which has an opportunity to turn that work and talent into revenue. In return, the university provides a place to live, meals, some clothing, (usually) quality coaching and facilities and an environment in which a willing individual can maximize his/her ability to become a professional. And if that ability isn't good enough to make it as a professional, the player also gets the opportunity to receive a college education.

It seems to me that most of the people who think these kids are being unjustly exploited aren't of the opinion that the players aren't getting anything in return, but rather they're outraged that universities are able to profit off the kids at all, as if that's somehow unseemly.

As the great Robert Nozick once said
Did the agents have an equal opportunity to choose a different alternative?  Was there coercion?  Were all agents fully-informed (ie know that the monetary salary is zero)?

If the answer to all three of these questions is "yes," then there is nothing more that can be gleaned from an (economic) exchange.

If student-athletes are "exploited," then I suppose one could argue that the graduate students at a university are also exploited--if I go present at an academic conference, the name of my university is under my name and hence gets (some) the credit, yet I am not paid for the work.  I disagree that this is exploitation--money is not the only form of payment, as several posters have already pointed out. 

Exploitation is knowing someone else's situation and strategically using it against them.  Nobody forces students to go to college.  Student-athletes are well-aware they will not be getting any monetary benefit.  They had outside options.  Case closed.

[MerrittsMustache]

As the great Robert Nozick once said
Did the agents have an equal opportunity to choose a different alternative?  Was there coercion?  Were all agents fully-informed (ie know that the monetary salary is zero)?

If the answer to all three of these questions is "yes," then there is nothing more that can be gleaned from an (economic) exchange.

If student-athletes are "exploited," then I suppose one could argue that the graduate students at a university are also exploited--if I go present at an academic conference, the name of my university is under my name and hence gets (some) the credit, yet I am not paid for the work.  I disagree that this is exploitation--money is not the only form of payment, as several posters have already pointed out. 

Exploitation is knowing someone else's situation and strategically using it against them.  Nobody forces students to go to college.  Student-athletes are well-aware they will not be getting any monetary benefit.  They had outside options.  Case closed.

(Playing devil's advocate) - In terms of basketball they have other options. What about football?

[Tugg Speedman]

For this reason, I find it surprising more kids haven't gone to Europe, especially after it worked out well for Jennings.

Because the market works!  one year Scholarship, all in, is worth $25k to $50k/year (depending on school, one's view of education, etc.)  Europe will not pay that much except for a small handful of HS players each year.

[GGGG]

Edited to add another thought:  I think if this is the way the issue ultimately gets resolved, there are going to be a lot of disappointed athletes.  I don't think the market cares much about the third string offensive guard in most programs.  I think it will be a relatively few players with meaningful earning potential.  I think many of the advocates of paying players want wide-spread payment of athletes.  I think it left to the market -- through endorsements -- then it won't be particularly wide-spread.  But maybe I'm wrong.

I think you are spot on.  That is why you give a smallish stipend on top of the scholarship.  The only ones that would make any $$ are the stars.  Really, how many endorsement deals or autograph signings are any of the current MU players going to get?

[MerrittsMustache]

I think you are spot on.  That is why you give a smallish stipend on top of the scholarship.  The only ones that would make any $$ are the stars.  Really, how many endorsement deals or autograph signings are any of the current MU players going to get?

I'd pay Davante 100 bucks to hang out at my 4-yo sons' birthday party so the kids could climb on him and he could throw them in the pool. Does that count?

[ZiggysFryBoy]

I'd pay Davante 100 bucks to hang out at my 4-yo sons' birthday party so the kids could climb on him and he could throw them in the pool. Does that count?

I'd pay Big SHEESH just to come to my crib, play some video games and bechillendoe.

[Tugg Speedman]

I think you are spot on.  That is why you give a smallish stipend on top of the scholarship.  The only ones that would make any $$ are the stars.  Really, how many endorsement deals or autograph signings are any of the current MU players going to get?

Watch/listen/observe the endorsement deals at an MU game.  Everyone that does radio/TV spot, print add would consider a player.  It would cut into Buzz's income as his players would compete with him.

Milwaukee is a larger market than, say, Madison so the deals we generate more $$$ for the endorser.

[StillAWarrior]

Watch/listen/observe the endorsement deals at an MU game.  Everyone that does radio/TV spot, print add would consider a player.  It would cut into Buzz's income as his players would compete with him.

Milwaukee is a larger market than, say, Madison so the deals we generate more $$$ for the endorser.

If they make a change like this, I'll be very curious to see how it plays out.  It's not entirely clear to me that the size of the market will be the primary driving force.  It depends totally on how the NCAA changes the rule.  The reality is that boosters who own businesses will be all over this.  For example, will the NCAA prevent a Norman car dealer from paying a Sooner QB $75,000 for a print ad?  Better yet, will they stop a Cleveland car dealer (who happens to be a UW alum) from paying a Badger point guard $50,000 for a print ad?

While I do think that the NCAA is eventually going to let athletes do this sort of thing, it's going to raise some very interesting issues.  It will open up a can of worms if the NCAA is going to do some sort of review of such deals to ensure that they're commercially reasonable for the business or if it is purely boosters making cash payments to athletes.  It's a similar issue we've had for many, many years with bogus jobs provided by boosters.

[GGGG]

If they make a change like this, I'll be very curious to see how it plays out.  It's not entirely clear to me that the size of the market will be the primary driving force.  It depends totally on how the NCAA changes the rule.  The reality is that boosters who own businesses will be all over this.  For example, will the NCAA prevent a Norman car dealer from paying a Sooner QB $75,000 for a print ad?  Better yet, will they stop a Cleveland car dealer (who happens to be a UW alum) from paying a Badger point guard $50,000 for a print ad?

While I do think that the NCAA is eventually going to let athletes do this sort of thing, it's going to raise some very interesting issues.  It will open up a can of worms if the NCAA is going to do some sort of review of such deals to ensure that they're commercially reasonable for the business or if it is purely boosters making cash payments to athletes.  It's a similar issue we've had for many, many years with bogus jobs provided by boosters.

Or the NCAA could say "Hey, if a booster wants to pay you $50,000 to be in a print ad, why do we care?"

[brandx]

That's very, very true.  But one issue that needs to be considered is that Title IX is seriously screwing with the free market.  If football and basketball players get paid, the girls will have to get paid too.  Suddenly, the "free" market doesn't look so free.

There are really two ways to look at this.  If the argument is that schools are making a lot of money off of these players, then there is only a relatively small group of players who should be getting paid - men's football and basketball players at a minority of schools.  This creates a Title IX problem, I believe.  If the argument is that student athletes deserve to get paid irrespective of whether their program turns a profit, then schools won't have enough money to pay everyone.

I think one free market solution to this would be for the NCAA to simply allow athletes to earn money off their own name.  I'm not sure this would implicate Title IX because it would not be the university doing it.

Excellent points - there really is not an "easy" solution to this problem.

[brandx]

I think the rule not allowing kids to go straight to the pros from high school is stupid, but keep in mind that's an NBA rule, not an NCAA rule.

And the rule only says that Andrew Wiggins can't use his talents to make money in the NBA, not that he can't use his talents to make money. D-League and Europe are options for him and every other kid. Kinda sh*tty options, but one would think better than the horrid exploitation of the NCAA.

Good points - but while Wiggins has the freedom to make a living elsewhere on basketball - he can't do it where he would make top $$.

[StillAWarrior]

Or the NCAA could say "Hey, if a booster wants to pay you $50,000 to be in a print ad, why do we care?"

Sure, they could say that, but history strongly suggests they won't say that.  They could have said, "Hey, if a booster wants to pay you $25/hr to make sure nobody steals that statue, why do we care?"  Or, going a step further, they could say, "Hey, if a booster wants to pay you $50,000 to attend State U, why do we care?"

I think the NCAA will likely come up with some way to let athletes profit on their names.  But I don't think they're going to be willing to allow boosters to essentially make cash payments to athletes.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

So do you feel that an NBA-ready player should be banned from playing at the level for which he is qualified so that he can spend his time raising money for the Golf and diving teams?

The argument that these players are already paid (scholarships) just doesn't hold water. Andrew Wiggins is only using the scholarship (which could actually go to a student or student-athlete that wants and needs it) because his talents are needed to raise money for non-revenue sports. Why is this burden placed on him?

A baseball player, tennis player, golfer, etc. can play professionally anywhere that their talent qualifies them for. But then they aren't cash cows to be milked for the colleges.

In my opinion it does hold water.  They are getting an education, whether it is one year, 4 years, whatever.  There is a hard cost to attend a university...tuition, room and board...all those are covered.  The student athlete receives a roof over his\her head, meals, tutoring, sports equipment, coaching, as well as an education via the classes he\she is taking at no cost to them.

If they don't find value in that exchange, don't go to college, do something else.  Go to the NBDL, go to Europe.

At the end of the day, every time I read one of these articles justifying payment or whatever it makes my head spin.  They are lazy articles.  Why not just write an article saying "There should be no war".   Or, "there should be no poverty".  Awesome, we all agree.   Now, let's get real.  If these articles are going to justify paying these student athletes than they need to provide solutions on how to pay for women's teams, non revenue teams, how the pay structure is going to work, will some players be paid more than others, can one school offer more for their QB than another, etc, etc.  Instead of really high level, flowery puffery which does absolutely nothing but get a public who knows next to nothing about college athletics all ginned up.  John Q Public sees 110K at Michigan football game and then believes this is the norm and makes the next leap of faith that the other 24 teams on Michigan's campus are revenue positive when only one other one is.  Just one example of many.

Let's see solutions, not puffery.  And the next time I hear the stupid like that schools make millions off these kids and they couldn't even afford to purchase their own jersey in the book store I'm going to scream....this while said athlete is on their $400 iPhone, there $250 Dr. Beats headphones, etc, etc.  Of course some kids don't have money, but the "pay the athlete" crowd paints this picture as if 100% don't have two pennies to rub together which is absolute BS.

[ChicosBailBonds]

That article means nothing. A scholarship doesn't help a kid buy clothes. It doesn't help with normal, everyday hardships like car repairs, haircuts, travel, etc. You don't have to pay them, but at least let them get a job. This would kill all the "pay the players" talk.

They can get a job....the bigger trick is actually making sure they DO the job and aren't paid to not show up and do nothing.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Good points - but while Wiggins has the freedom to make a living elsewhere on basketball - he can't do it where he would make top $$.

Dr.'s have a ton of schooling and residency before they are eligible to make top $$. Even if I could perform eye surgery tomorrow, I still have to complete the steps. That's how it works.

Same for basketball players (draft), baseball players (arbitration), a mechanic in tech school, a plumber's apprentice, etc.

Did I really need philosophy to work in marketing? No. In fact, I didn't even need a degree... but my employer still required it.

I might be the greatest actor in the world, but until I get a few blockbusters under my belt, Hollywood won't pay me crap.

It's how the world works.

You need more than talent and potential to make top dollar.

[StillAWarrior]

And the next time I hear the stupid like that schools make millions off these kids and they couldn't even afford to purchase their own jersey in the book store I'm going to scream...

I also find it annoying when these kids think that those jerseys are "their" jerseys and that it is about them.  In my opinion, many of these kids seriously overestimate their importance in that process.  Most people are fans of the program first, and of the player a distant second.  I'm sure lots of Marquette fans bought Jae Crowder jerseys (using him as an example because he's one of my recent favorites).  He was a great and popular player for Marquette.  But, if he hadn't signed at Marquette, many of those fans would have bought Jimmy Butler jerseys.  Or Vander Blue jerseys.  Or Davante Gardner jerseys.  The point is simple:  most fans of these college programs are buying jerseys because of the name on the front of the jersey.  They're going to buy a Marquette jersey, it's just a matter of which one.

[jesmu84]

In my opinion it does hold water.  They are getting an education, whether it is one year, 4 years, whatever.  There is a hard cost to attend a university...tuition, room and board...all those are covered.  The student athlete receives a roof over his\her head, meals, tutoring, sports equipment, coaching, as well as an education via the classes he\she is taking at no cost to them.

If they don't find value in that exchange, don't go to college, do something else.  Go to the NBDL, go to Europe.

At the end of the day, every time I read one of these articles justifying payment or whatever it makes my head spin.  They are lazy articles.  Why not just write an article saying "There should be no war".   Or, "there should be no poverty".  Awesome, we all agree.   Now, let's get real.  If these articles are going to justify paying these student athletes than they need to provide solutions on how to pay for women's teams, non revenue teams, how the pay structure is going to work, will some players be paid more than others, can one school offer more for their QB than another, etc, etc.  Instead of really high level, flowery puffery which does absolutely nothing but get a public who knows next to nothing about college athletics all ginned up.  John Q Public sees 110K at Michigan football game and then believes this is the norm and makes the next leap of faith that the other 24 teams on Michigan's campus are revenue positive when only one other one is.  Just one example of many.

Let's see solutions, not puffery.  And the next time I hear the stupid like that schools make millions off these kids and they couldn't even afford to purchase their own jersey in the book store I'm going to scream....this while said athlete is on their $400 iPhone, there $250 Dr. Beats headphones, etc, etc.  Of course some kids don't have money, but the "pay the athlete" crowd paints this picture as if 100% don't have two pennies to rub together which is absolute BS.

+1. Very well said.

I really like Jay Bilas and respect his opinion. But he never addresses any of the issues you've pointed out.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The enormous road block to paying student athletes...Title IX.  Kristi Dosh, author and ESPN reporter writes a decent article on this back in 2011....at least acknowledging the legal and financial obstacles that prevent this.


http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/06/09/how-title-ix-relates-to-paying-players/


And Pat Forde's nice article on the myth....they myth of the "impoverished athlete".   http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6779583/college-athletes-far-exploited

[brandx]

Dr.'s have a ton of schooling and residency before they are eligible to make top $$. Even if I could perform eye surgery tomorrow, I still have to complete the steps. That's how it works.

Same for basketball players (draft), baseball players (arbitration), a mechanic in tech school, a plumber's apprentice, etc.

Did I really need philosophy to work in marketing? No. In fact, I didn't even need a degree... but my employer still required it.

I might be the greatest actor in the world, but until I get a few blockbusters under my belt, Hollywood won't pay me crap.

It's how the world works.

You need more than talent and potential to make top dollar.

Probably the best post here so far although I don't entirely agree.

I don't have an answer. Maybe a minor league system that similar to baseball? But - that system rewards longevity & mediocrity as much as it does results.

A crappy left-handed relief pitcher will make more than a young superstar in his first couple years. Kyle Lohse (13 years in MLB) commands almost 3 times as much in salary than Stephen Strasburg (4 years in MLB) although there isn't a team around who would rather have Lohse.

Maybe rather than skill level, it is that some sports are stacked against youth.

[Sunbelt15]

They can get a job....the bigger trick is actually making sure they DO the job and aren't paid to not show up and do nothing.

But I think their max earnings can be no more than $2000 per year.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The argument that these players are already paid (scholarships) just doesn't hold water. Andrew Wiggins is only using the scholarship (which could actually go to a student or student-athlete that wants and needs it) because his talents are needed to raise money for non-revenue sports. Why is this burden placed on him?

Last year Kansas averaged 16,445 per game
This year, Kansas averaged 16,438 per game
Next year with Wiggins, Kansas will average about 16,440 per game
The year after, if Wiggins leaves, Kansas will average 16,440 per game

It equally doesn't hold water that one player is the reason people go to games or should be the defining reason to give them $$.  People are going to KU games because they have been good forever, despite what Wiggins will do.  Sure, he'll be exciting, a great player, etc, and people will love to watch him.  When he leaves, they will still love to watch KU.  It's somewhat of a chicken and egg because Wiggins likely wouldn't attend KU if they didn't pack the place, have all that tradition, etc.  What incremental revenues is Wiggins adding to KU?  They were going to sell out anyway.  That money was going to be there whether he got there or not, so why does he deserve a cut just because he is Andrew Wiggins?

Maybe Wiggins should pay into a trust fund when he goes to the NBA to pay Wilt Chamberlain's estate, Kirk Hinrich, Collins, Danny Manning, Pierce, Chalmers, etc that made KU what it is so he would even find it appealing to go to KU in the first place.      

[brandx]

Last year Kansas averaged 16,445 per game
This year, Kansas averaged 16,438 per game
Next year with Wiggins, Kansas will average about 16,440 per game
The year after, if Wiggins leaves, Kansas will average 16,440 per game

All because of players like Wiggins. Put a 4-23 team on the floor for 2 years and the KU brand won't still put 16,400+ people in the seats. The players do that.

I'm not totally sold on paying athletes in college - but with the huge $$$ that these guys bring to the schools, the least they could do is give a small monthly stipend for BB and FB. I know some players don't need the money, but my guess is that the majority do.

The job suggestion is ridiculous as anyone who is around the programs know. They are already putting in a full work week on the field & in film study.

[forgetful]

I find the argument strange that people say they need to be paid when they are already getting a scholarship and lots of additional benefits. 

If they want to be paid, fine, give them an option.  They pay their way through college, are not entitled to any scholarships, they must pay for tutors and their own travel.  They can then take any "non-booster" pay for their name/likeness.

You give basketball and football players that option and they will be begging for their scholarships back.  Quite simply, they are already vastly overcompensated for their "likeness," given that most universities are losing money on athletics.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

I find the argument strange that people say they need to be paid when they are already getting a scholarship and lots of additional benefits. 

If they want to be paid, fine, give them an option.  They pay their way through college, are not entitled to any scholarships, they must pay for tutors and their own travel.  They can then take any "non-booster" pay for their name/likeness.

You give basketball and football players that option and they will be begging for their scholarships back.  Quite simply, they are already vastly overcompensated for their "likeness," given that most universities are losing money on athletics.

Do you really think this is true?  Football and Basketball are clearly a money maker for universities - through donations if not through direct profits.  I can understand this on the margins (bench players, low end of d1 and below) but there is money being made here -- universities are not putting teams out on the field because they want to be nice to alums or educate student athletes. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

All because of players like Wiggins. Put a 4-23 team on the floor for 2 years and the KU brand won't still put 16,400+ people in the seats. The players do that.

I'm not totally sold on paying athletes in college - but with the huge $$$ that these guys bring to the schools, the least they could do is give a small monthly stipend for BB and FB. I know some players don't need the money, but my guess is that the majority do.

The job suggestion is ridiculous as anyone who is around the programs know. They are already putting in a full work week on the field & in film study.

In many places, there is no "huge number" being brought into the school.  People are focusing on the very top.  It's like the union arguments against CEOs where they will say "CEO X makes millions of dollars and I'm only making $20 an hour".  Uhm, ok.....and many CEOs or Presidents in this country don't come close to that.

As for the 4-23 comment, sure....but that isn't going to happen at Kansas and we all know that.  A bad year they will win 17 or 18 games.  It's similar to Still's argument about the jersey purchase....whether Wiggins is there or not, KU fans are buying tickets and buying jerseys.  Where the argument goes left is when they look at jerseys sold with Wiggins number and say that Wiggins should get a piece of it because Wiggins number is on it.  If the book store put a different number on it, but kept the Kansas on the front and that's all they had, would that jersey sell, too?  What if they put a number 1 on it and there was no number 1 on the team, yet it sold many units....wouldn't that prove people are buying it because of what is on the front of the jersey, not on the back of the jersey?

[forgetful]

Do you really think this is true?  Football and Basketball are clearly a money maker for universities - through donations if not through direct profits.  I can understand this on the margins (bench players, low end of d1 and below) but there is money being made here -- universities are not putting teams out on the field because they want to be nice to alums or educate student athletes. 

Most universities are losing money on athletics, however they view the publicity associated with it to compensate for the investment.  There are only a handful of athletes in the country that would command any income for their likeness.  Meaning the vast majority would get $0 on an open market.  So yes I would say that they are over compensated.  

People talk about how much money Universities are making off these athletes, when the fact of the matter is they are lucky to break even.  Marquette makes a lot of money off basketball, about $3M. If you divided that across all athletes on the team you would have $230K. It is fairly common for companies to compensate their employees at about 1/3 to 1/5 of their actual value (think attorneys, billed out at $250/h but paid out at $50/h).  

So that would come out to fair market value at around $47K-$75K, which is in line with their current compensation.  So Basketball players (biggest money earners) are fairly compensated, which means everyone else is over compensated.  

Before anyone suggests that the analysis uses profits instead of revenue (valid point), realize that we assigned all the money to being generated by the athletes.  This is not true.  The high end of reasonable estimates would put their contribution between 15-50%, which would generate the exact same numbers.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Spoke briefly to a good friend of mine that is an AD in DI, with football.  He doesn't think anything major is going to change anytime soon.  The Presidents are against it, too many schools can't afford it and the downstream repercussions are immense including relegating many programs either out of existence or into a new format where they might as well be.

The Florida Gulf Coast run of this year would be gone, because they could not afford to pay kids.  Gonzaga from 15 years ago, gone.  Butler, gone.  Valpo, gone.  The things that make the tournament so great would be forever destroyed.

Oh, and there is Title IX which he predicted if any type of payment structure was devised where women or non-revenue sports got anything different than football or men's basketball, the first lawsuit would be filed within 48 hours.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Do you really think this is true?  Football and Basketball are clearly a money maker for universities - through donations if not through direct profits.  I can understand this on the margins (bench players, low end of d1 and below) but there is money being made here -- universities are not putting teams out on the field because they want to be nice to alums or educate student athletes. 

SOME football and basketball are money makers.....many are not.

[GGGG]

The Florida Gulf Coast run of this year would be gone, because they could not afford to pay kids.  Gonzaga from 15 years ago, gone.  Butler, gone.  Valpo, gone.  The things that make the tournament so great would be forever destroyed.

Hyperbolic crap.  Paying a small stipend (say $2,000 to use a previous example) isn't beyond any of the schools you just mentioned.  And if it is, then drop to D2.

Oh, and there is Title IX which he predicted if any type of payment structure was devised where women or non-revenue sports got anything different than football or men's basketball, the first lawsuit would be filed within 48 hours.

Again, that is false.  If the value of each athletic scholarship includes a stipend, it would be distributed in a manner similar to the way scholarships are distributed now.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Why would any of those schools "be gone"? They already offer an inferior product to their student-athlete customers in terms of national recognition, national connections, etc. Somehow an above the board $2,500 given by Kentucky to its players is going to change that going to Florida Gulf Coast is a less than stellar option?

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Fair point - I guess this problem is the burden of the handful of football schools making all the money in this system and paying their players already.  If they leave it collapses -- if they stay it is corrupt.  Not a new problem and I am not smart enough to say today is the inflection point.

Most universities are losing money on athletics, however they view the publicity associated with it to compensate for the investment.  There are only a handful of athletes in the country that would command any income for their likeness.  Meaning the vast majority would get $0 on an open market.  So yes I would say that they are over compensated. 

People talk about how much money Universities are making off these athletes, when the fact of the matter is they are lucky to break even.  Marquette makes a lot of money off basketball, about $3M. If you divided that across all athletes on the team you would have $230K. It is fairly common for companies to compensate their employees at about 1/3 to 1/5 of their actual value (think attorneys, billed out at $250/h but paid out at $50/h). 

So that would come out to fair market value at around $47K-$75K, which is in line with their current compensation.  So Basketball players (biggest money earners) are fairly compensated, which means everyone else is over compensated. 

Before anyone suggests that the analysis uses profits instead of revenue (valid point), realize that we assigned all the money to being generated by the athletes.  This is not true.  The high end of reasonable estimates would put their contribution between 15-50%, which would generate the exact same numbers.

[brandx]

I think there are two issues here that are being rolled into one.

The majority of student-athletes are just that - and so, in most cases, a scholarship IS fair compensation.

However there are thousands of student-athletes whose only interest is the athlete part of the equation. They would not even be in college except that is the best avenue to showcase their talents and move to the professional level. And the schools are more than happy to keep more qualified students out to let these athletes in - for the sole purpose of making money.

[PBRme]

I think the $tudent Athlete$ should be careful what they wish for.  Money that is gifted to them (as long as under the $13K individual/$26 Couple rule) is tax free.  If they are being compensated it will create tax obligation for them and reduce the tax deductibility for their parents. 

Also I would think it will only be an X time frame before Title IX would require equal payments for men and women which would be the end of all the non-revenue generating men's sports 

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think there are two issues here that are being rolled into one.

The majority of student-athletes are just that - and so, in most cases, a scholarship IS fair compensation.

However there are thousands of student-athletes whose only interest is the athlete part of the equation. They would not even be in college except that is the best avenue to showcase their talents and move to the professional level. And the schools are more than happy to keep more qualified students out to let these athletes in - for the sole purpose of making money.

You and I agree.  The question is, how do you fairly and more importantly, legally, compensate the latter under today's legal environment.  I also agree with you that a solution is true minor leagues, but I see no reason why anyone is going to invest the money to do this.  The NFL certainly isn't.  Basketball has one, sort of.  Baseball is the only one that does.  Hockey has a system, but many kids still go to college because they see the value of the education as well.

[forgetful]

You and I agree.  The question is, how do you fairly and more importantly, legally, compensate the latter under today's legal environment.  I also agree with you that a solution is true minor leagues, but I see no reason why anyone is going to invest the money to do this.  The NFL certainly isn't.  Basketball has one, sort of.  Baseball is the only one that does.  Hockey has a system, but many kids still go to college because they see the value of the education as well.

The problem with minor leagues for football/basketball is that they can't make money with them.  So no one will start it up.  The reason college sports make money has nothing to do with the players or even the talent per se....it has everything to do with loyalty to a school...being a fan.

If people want to watch the best athletes they watch the NFL and NBA.  They watch NCAA to watch their favorite school, they get attached to athletes, because of their association with said school.  

That is why, as others have pointed out, the value of the players compared to the University income are not actually that strongly connected.  They just need players that are competitive compared to the rest of the NCAA and people will come out to see "their team".

In this regards, the value of playing for MU is even higher, because of future opportunities it allows.

Think unpaid internships.  People take them, because they become associated with a specific entity that opens future opportunities.  Market pressures indicate that people will take the internship (unpaid), because of the possibility for future employment.  I don't see why its a big deal when it deals with athletics.

(Chicos not disagreeing with anything your wrote, just quoted because it made me think of minor leagues).

[77ncaachamps]

If I was a UK student on lots of student loans, I'd get ticked seeing how the MALE basketball student-athletes get a cozier pad, meals paid for, tutors, priority class scheduling, etc. AND get paid to do something they enjoy doing.

Are they going to pay starting players more than bench players?
Is the pay going to be adjustable? Performance-based?

[brandx]

The reason college sports make money has nothing to do with the players or even the talent per se....it has everything to do with loyalty to a school...being a fan.

A silly statement as it assumes $$ is the same as $$$$$$$$. You seem to be saying that Cornell U should make the same amount of money as Alabama or Texas. After all, it has nothing to do with the players, and, hence the quality of play, so why not. Actually an Ivy League school has richer fans so they should be making more money.

The big schools are making $$$$$$$$ because of the TV contracts. Those would not be there if it was just for the loyal fan base. They get these contracts because of the quality of play - the PLAYERS.

Fan loyalty comes in a distant second - as conference re-structuring as shown.

So while you sit down to watch Cornell vs. ..oh wait, nobody cares so they don't even start their schedule for another week... everyone else will watch Alabama vs. A&M because that is where your "meaningless" players will be.

[forgetful]

A silly statement as it assumes $$ is the same as $$$$$$$$. You seem to be saying that Cornell U should make the same amount of money as Alabama or Texas. After all, it has nothing to do with the players, and, hence the quality of play, so why not. Actually an Ivy League school has richer fans so they should be making more money.

The big schools are making $$$$$$$$ because of the TV contracts. Those would not be there if it was just for the loyal fan base. They get these contracts because of the quality of play - the PLAYERS.

Fan loyalty comes in a distant second - as conference re-structuring as shown.

So while you sit down to watch Cornell vs. ..oh wait, nobody cares so they don't even start their schedule for another week... everyone else will watch Alabama vs. A&M because that is where your "meaningless" players will be.

Horrible example.  Cornell has never been that interested in promoting sports, they don't need to as they already have national recognition, name recognition and alumni that will gladly donate tons of money. 

I also did mention, which you have excluded in the quote, that it doesn't matter how good the players are, just that they are competitive on a national level.  Point being if all the "professional eligible" players left for the NBA or some new minor league system, it would have not effect on college basketball or football.  Everyone would tune in to watch "their team" and wouldn't care a lick, that the players were not as good as they were last year.  Provided they are still nationally competitive.

And since all the top players would be gone.  The next rung would still go to traditional powerhouses and the college climate would be unchanged.

Only difference.  Those that are in this new minor league system would be getting paid about $30,000 per year and the minor league would still be going broke, because no on would give a damn about the league.  Inferior product compared to the NBA/NFL and no team connection like for the NCAA.  Lose/lose for the players involved.

[brandx]

Horrible example.  Cornell has never been that interested in promoting sports, they don't need to as they already have national recognition, name recognition and alumni that will gladly donate tons of money. 

I also did mention, which you have excluded in the quote, that it doesn't matter how good the players are, just that they are competitive on a national level.  Point being if all the "professional eligible" players left for the NBA or some new minor league system, it would have not effect on college basketball or football.  Everyone would tune in to watch "their team" and wouldn't care a lick, that the players were not as good as they were last year.  Provided they are still nationally competitive.

And since all the top players would be gone.  The next rung would still go to traditional powerhouses and the college climate would be unchanged.

Only difference.  Those that are in this new minor league system would be getting paid about $30,000 per year and the minor league would still be going broke, because no on would give a damn about the league.  Inferior product compared to the NBA/NFL and no team connection like for the NCAA.  Lose/lose for the players involved.

Sorry - but all sports are star-driven. That means players. How many Miami Heat jerseys have you seen with a generic number? The answer is zero because they won't sell without a '6' or a '3' on the back. There is no clamor for a Udonis Haslem jersey even though he competes on a national level and has for many years.

If there are no superstars, interest will diminish big-time. If players didn't matter, the NFL players would still be locked out. The scabs were competing on a national level - but there were no stars/talent and people had no interest.

Your argument seems to assume that all fans are idiots and don't know or care if there are talented players and stars on either team.

[forgetful]

Sorry - but all sports are star-driven. That means players. How many Miami Heat jerseys have you seen with a generic number? The answer is zero because they won't sell without a '6' or a '3' on the back. There is no clamor for a Udonis Haslem jersey even though he competes on a national level and has for many years.

If there are no superstars, interest will diminish big-time. If players didn't matter, the NFL players would still be locked out. The scabs were competing on a national level - but there were no stars/talent and people had no interest.

Your argument seems to assume that all fans are idiots and don't know or care if there are talented players and stars on either team.

I don't think you understand the niche that college sports have.  They are driven by a passionate association with a University.  People want their teams to be competitive. 

You are assuming that if the current stars were in a different league NBA/Europe/minor league, that there wouldn't be stars. Thats fundamentally impossible.  The stars would just be different people.  Are they as talented, no, but they would be the stars of the NCAA and people would cheer/follow NCAA all the same.  The person doesn't matter, just the competition.

If all fans cared about was talent, they would all watch the NBA/NFL, because that's where the most talent/stars are.  They watch NCAA, because of the association with the University.  They do not build long lasting connections to individual players because they are at most a 5-year commitment.  So comparisons to NFL lockouts are invalid. 

The NBA/NFL are star driven.  The NCAA is driven by university name recognition.

That is why schools are willing to lose money playing football and basketball.  They both bring the universities an insane amount of name recognition that would be prohibitively costly to achieve through standard advertisement.

[forgetful]

BrandX.  This may be a good way to visualize it.

Why did people buy Jordan jerseys.

       Because people wanted to be Michael Jordan.

Why did people buy Vander Blue jerseys.
 
      Because people wanted to show support for MU and he was there current star, just like Gardner will be this year and whoever will replace him the year after, and the year after .... ad nauseum.  Put anyone else in those jerseys as the teams star and they sell just as well provided that MU remains globally competitive in the NCAA.

[brandx]

BrandX.  This may be a good way to visualize it.

Why did people buy Jordan jerseys.

       Because people wanted to be Michael Jordan.

Why did people buy Vander Blue jerseys.
 
      Because people wanted to show support for MU and he was there current star, just like Gardner will be this year and whoever will replace him the year after, and the year after .... ad nauseum.  Put anyone else in those jerseys as the teams star and they sell just as well provided that MU remains globally competitive in the NCAA.

You are right - but only to the extent that it's the case locally or on campus.

But nationally, it is still about players. People away from College Station watch Texas A & M because of Johnny Manziel. No one except Alumni or students care about Cornell, because like you or I, they cannot name a single player they have an interest in watching.

[brandx]

BrandX.  This may be a good way to visualize it.

Why did people buy Jordan jerseys.

       Because people wanted to be Michael Jordan.

Why did people buy Vander Blue jerseys.
 
      Because people wanted to show support for MU and he was there current star, just like Gardner will be this year and whoever will replace him the year after, and the year after .... ad nauseum.  Put anyone else in those jerseys as the teams star and they sell just as well provided that MU remains globally competitive in the NCAA.

Ah yes. People want Johnny Football jerseys cuz they are TAMU fans. They really don't care what name is on it - it's just a coincidence that they all want Johnny Manziel gear. They probably haven't sold a single jersey outside of College station.

That's your point and it is ridiculous. People want Johnny Manziel jerseys because it is his name on it.

Also, TAMU fundraising is up 300% since Manziel. Let's just make sure he doesn't get any of it.

[forgetful]

Ah yes. People want Johnny Football jerseys cuz they are TAMU fans. They really don't care what name is on it - it's just a coincidence that they all want Johnny Manziel gear. They probably haven't sold a single jersey outside of College station.

That's your point and it is ridiculous. People want Johnny Manziel jerseys because it is his name on it.

Also, TAMU fundraising is up 300% since Manziel. Let's just make sure he doesn't get any of it.

For one, be careful about statistics.  First it is not up 300%, they had a year over year increase of $300 million in money coming into the university.  (Edit:  Apparently there are conflicting reports of whether it is up 300% or an increase from last year of $300M.  It is $300M higher than the next best year ever and I think some news outlets are assuming the previous record was the year before...I'm pretty sure that is incorrect, but even with the 300% increase, the remainder of the increase is due to a new biosecurity center that will ultimately bring in north of $380M).

Second, to call all that money fundraising is disingenuous since close to $100 million of the $740 million was due to research grants and awards (absolutely 0 to do with football).  

Third, $271.5 (almost all of the $300 million) is due to a new capital campaign to renovate the football field as a part of joining the SEC.  Capital campaigns are almost always successful and they often have some committments up front before even launching the campaign.  This would have been before Manziels successes, but is going on the books now.

$6 million is for the Bush library, again 0 due to football related activities.  So of the $300 million, $277.5 million would have occured whether Manziel was there or not.  It is also not atypical to see a year over year increase of around 5%, Universities need this to build their endowment.

5% of $440M amounts to $22M, almost identical to the remainder of the $300M increase.

So bottom line, new capital campaign ($271.5 M), normal increase ($22M) and a Bush library donation ($6M) account for the increase.  Does Manziel bring attention to the University, yes.  Does he bring in a ton of money.  Absolutely not.

As to the jersey sales, A&M brought in less than $60K in jersey sales for all of last year.  That value takes into consideration all jersey sales for all sports.  So even if 100% of jersey sales were a #2 football uniform it would have still only brought the university an extra $60K.  Divide that money across the athletes, strip their scholarships and give them each their $44.28 for jersey sales.

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/80530/manziel-jerseys-hardly-making-am-rich

But by all means, continue to think these guys are bringing in millions for the university and getting screwed out of their fair shared.  Fact of the matter is, if it wasn't for the free publicity and a mechanism of keeping alumni tied to the university, schools would jettison sports as they are a money loser.