Forbes Magazine: College Athletes are already paid

[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.