MUScoop

With college coaching reaching 3 millions dollars/year with UK's offer to Billy. CBS making a killing off of the tournament should there be compensation?

Keep in mind athelets ready get: The best on-campus housing, the first choice at classes, free food, free gatordae, free shoes, free warddrobes (it's amazing the amount of clothes they get that never see the Spirit Shop), free phones, use of the MU Hummers, etc...

In the revenue sports, unquestionably, yes!

They already are getting paid with what marqptm mentioned....not to mention a free education.  I think everything they get is good enough compensation.

Quote from: maxpower773 on March 30, 2007, 04:11:55 PM
They already are getting paid with what marqptm mentioned....not to mention a free education.  I think everything they get is good enough compensation.

and the coach gets all of that, plus the 6-7 figure salary which doesn't even approach what the University rakes in on the backs, time, effort, and pressure the players face. I don't see any way someone can reasonable argue they should not get a piece of the action.

If they are forbidden from holding a part time job per NCAA rules, then they should at least get some sort of stipend so they can go out on a date or fly home for Thanksgiving.

Quote from: marqptm on March 30, 2007, 04:06:19 PM
free phones, use of the MU Hummers, etc...

Really?  Is this a fact?  Just asking...

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on March 30, 2007, 04:17:13 PM

Quote from: maxpower773 on March 30, 2007, 04:11:55 PM
They already are getting paid with what marqptm mentioned....not to mention a free education.  I think everything they get is good enough compensation.

and the coach gets all of that, plus the 6-7 figure salary which doesn't even approach what the University rakes in on the backs, time, effort, and pressure the players face. I don't see any way someone can reasonable argue they should not get a piece of the action.

Question:  Should the basketball players at Marquette earn as much as the basketball players at Kentucky?  How about South Dakota State?  Should schools that lose money on basketball have to pay their players?

Quote from: StillAWarrior on March 30, 2007, 04:20:23 PM

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on March 30, 2007, 04:17:13 PM

Quote from: maxpower773 on March 30, 2007, 04:11:55 PM
They already are getting paid with what marqptm mentioned....not to mention a free education.  I think everything they get is good enough compensation.

and the coach gets all of that, plus the 6-7 figure salary which doesn't even approach what the University rakes in on the backs, time, effort, and pressure the players face. I don't see any way someone can reasonable argue they should not get a piece of the action.

Question:  Should the basketball players at Marquette earn as much as the basketball players at Kentucky?  How about South Dakota State?  Should schools that lose money on basketball have to pay their players?

That's a good point.  And that's why I say a stipend should be rolled into a scholarship.

The answer is that it should probably be relative to other factors. I don't claim to know a specific formula, but I also don't believe it would be that difficult to figure one out. This will of course make the rich richer - UK likely to pay more than MU for example, but that's life. I don't have a problem with that. Not much different than the way things are today anyway.

As far as schools that lose money having to pay the players, no I suppose they don't have to. Never said that they have to. But, should they be allowed to? I sure think so.  Last I checked these schools and their basketball teams were businesses. Those who can't afford to pay players will be left with the level of recruit you can attract with a scholarship only. Is that going to change where various players are going today. Not likely.

For the record I am not talking about millions of dollars here, but something more than nothing for those schools and coaches that are making money hand over fist seems appropriate. Of course there would need to be regulations and oversight, but to flatly outlaw it is just wrong.

Quote from: SoCalwarrior on March 30, 2007, 04:23:12 PM

Quote from: StillAWarrior on March 30, 2007, 04:20:23 PM
Question:  Should the basketball players at Marquette earn as much as the basketball players at Kentucky?  How about South Dakota State?  Should schools that lose money on basketball have to pay their players?

That's a good point.  And that's why I say a stipend should be rolled into a scholarship.

That's always been one of the big sticking points that I've had with paying college athletes.  I don't know how many thousand athletes are currently playing D1 sports, but very, very few are generating any income for their universities.  So, who to pay?  An obvious thought is to limit it to revenue sports, but even that is tricky because not all schools make any money on the so-called revenue sports.  Anyone know the what percentage of the 300+ D1 basketball schools turn a profit?  I have no idea.  And obviously some make far more than others; some are well subsidized by football; others are subsidized by taxpayers.  How are those things equalized?  Would we allow Kentucky to pay its kids $100,000 per season?  If so, how many schools could ever compete with them for recruits?  I have a hard time understanding how this would work.  I think it would require another division (D1-Pro) that would be fairly small.  I'm not sure I'd like to see that happen to college sports.

That said, I'm all for some sort of a modest stipend.  Do they get that already?  In a recent article I read about the NBA stipend, I thought I saw a quote from Novak that referred to money that they got on a regular basis.

They do get paid, in the form of a free education.  It might not seem like much to some, but when you've been paying huge student loans for 10 years it is a big deal.  Yes, the schools make a lot of money -- but there isn't an obligation to spread the wealth around, nor should there be.

Pros get paid.  Amateurs do not.  I think that's how it should stay.  But if you're not going to allow a kid to work for some extra dough, then you should at least provide a stipend.  Maybe they already do.

Take a guy like Wade when he was at Marquette.  He comes to MU with no money.  There is legally no way for him to earn or accept money.  But because of him, MU is raking it in.  Kids are wearing his jersey he couldn't own if it wasn't given to him.  And now he wants to take his wife out to dinner for their anniversary, but doesn't have the means.  It definitely puts a kid in an awkward position.

Problem is that you can't do it for "just big time sports"...the lawsuits from the gals on the soccer team and the boys on the golf team will fly so fast it would cripple everything.

It's all or nothing.  All means Marquette no longer has college sports and neither do 85% of other institutions.  Nothing means we keep going the way we are.

Ok so I wrote a paper on just this topic when I was a freshman. Here is a reacap
           - Student athletes can get up to $80,000 of reimbursement A YEAR this includes tuition, room and board, clothing etc
          - According to NCAA rules athletes CAN NOT hold a campus job, while campus jobs do not pay really well it can help pay basic expenses (cell phone, food etc) Not all athletes ca
n get buy with out some extra income
           - TV companies make huge amounts of money from TV contracts. For example Notre Dame makes $38 million a year to broadcast their games on NBC.

          - Application can increase tremendously after one succesful year- For example St. Joes application increased 140% after Jameer Nelson's final four year

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but don't atheltes receive a stipend of sorts already (whether it be in the form of a housing allowance or something)?  I know at some schools players tend to live off campus where they get the difference between the allowance and the actual costs.  

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 30, 2007, 05:18:46 PM
Problem is that you can't do it for "just big time sports"...the lawsuits from the gals on the soccer team and the boys on the golf team will fly so fast it would cripple everything.

It's all or nothing.  All means Marquette no longer has college sports and neither do 85% of other institutions.  Nothing means we keep going the way we are.

How is that different from what goes on now in regards to perks other than cash.  Why aren't there lawsuits from girl's soccer in regards to the clothing that football or basketball players get.  How about room and board?  When I was at MU, the basketball players had their own dorm, while many of the other scholarship sports had to room with the rest of us.  Compare the perks between MU's basketball team and the rifle team.  It's already unbalanced.

There may be stipends already, as on Wednesday, MU payday, I often see players in the campus US Bank.

I'm 100% they get phones.

As for the Hummers, it could be proved with a couple publicy posted pictures.

Quote from: SoCalwarrior on March 30, 2007, 05:48:34 PM

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 30, 2007, 05:18:46 PM
Problem is that you can't do it for "just big time sports"...the lawsuits from the gals on the soccer team and the boys on the golf team will fly so fast it would cripple everything.

It's all or nothing.  All means Marquette no longer has college sports and neither do 85% of other institutions.  Nothing means we keep going the way we are.

How is that different from what goes on now in regards to perks other than cash.  Why aren't there lawsuits from girl's soccer in regards to the clothing that football or basketball players get.  How about room and board?  When I was at MU, the basketball players had their own dorm, while many of the other scholarship sports had to room with the rest of us.  Compare the perks between MU's basketball team and the rifle team.  It's already unbalanced.

Unbalanced yes, but those players and such are still receiving residences, tuition, etc if they are under scholarship.  Let's make sure we're talking about apples to apples.  Many times the lower rung sports can split scholarships, etc.

I do not see how you could pay the men's basketball team without paying the women's basketball team.  It would be a field day for the Title IX attorneys.

Quote from: marqptm on March 30, 2007, 05:52:43 PM
There may be stipends already, as on Wednesday, MU payday, I often see players in the campus US Bank.

I'm 100% they get phones.

As for the Hummers, it could be proved with a couple publicy posted pictures.

I know they have phones for sure too. The Hummers...that I'm not sure on. I've never seen any of them in one.

It was estimated somewhere that college athletes put in over 1000 hours per year in their sport.  That was used as an argument to pay athletes.  I would use that as an argument against.  At Marquette, 1000 hours for $30,000 in education is $30/ hour.  That's more than I get now, and I have a doctorate from MU.  Besides that, you think Dwyane Wade ever had to put together a resume when he was drafted in the NBA?  Nope, Marquette, the college that allowed him in as a partial qualifier, went to the Elite Eight and Dwyane got millions and millions of free marketing of himself to potential employers.  You never saw an employer come to one of my clinicals to see how I worked with patients.  It all works out in the end.

I would be all for them being able to hold campus jobs, unfortunately some universities take a lot of liberties with those things and it would never work.

should have worked more on dribbling to your left and your jump shot when you were younger. ;D

I can appreciate the legal argument, as that would definitely get sticky (Although, if you tie the total athlete "salary" and scholarship money pool to the money actually raised by that particular sport, I think you could easily get around it. In fact, if you only paid the men's basketball team at MU for instance - they would probably end up way on the short end from a percentage basis, as compared to say the women's soccer team.

I cannot however buy off in any way on the jealousy argument many here are making - and yes jealous is all it is, coupled of course with your desire for MU to have a good team. These guys do get free education and you didn't. Tough! These guys also result in thousands of season tickets being sold, numerous national television appearances, articles in the paper on a daily basis, NCAA tournament appearances - Mega $$$$$ for Marquette University. You don't/didn't do any of that. Coach Crean gets paid very well for those same things and is free to walk away for more any time he wants, and can be working for his new employer the next day. Not only do the players not get a piece of the action, they also have restrictions placed on their ability to move.

As far as who to pay and how much, as most have argued, there is a value to the free education. There is no denying that, and the fact is, most women's soccer players as well as the average basketball player at SDSU are going to be happy just to have the scholarship anyway, so there is no reason they would have to pay players. Simple fact is, some athlete-students deserve more.

Personally, I think they deserve something. And the amount of extras they recieve on top of their tuiton is enough.

I was watching a News Hour segment on the graduation rates of the NCAA field .. made me think of this thread.

While graduation rates are the stat that's pointed at for educational "success" .. I'd like a study on what former players are doing after they receive their "diploma".  So many of them go on to a few years playing Euroball or some such.  I'd like to know how many D1 players who graduate end up in a career that requires (or is at least helped by) a college degree.

Sure, there are non-athletes that get degrees then don't use them .. but I'll bet dollars to donuts that there's a chasm of difference between the two groups and what they do with their degrees.

My point being .. it sure seems like the education the D1 schools give these guys is, more often than not, just a cover for having the sport played at their school.   With the amount of money increasing an insanely each year, coaches getting paid $1-2-3-4m/year .. and while grad rates are increasing slightly, I believe the true education level of these kids is generally dropping, as the majority who don't go on to pro sports tend to not use their degrees later.  It paints a picture that the whole student-athlete idea is becomming farcical.

Calling college basketball and football awash with money is an understatement.  In a decade, it'll be triple, and the pressure to win/compete will only go up from here, putting pressure on getting talent in and not caring so much about the game that is education. 

So .. with that in mind, I'm not sure I care if guys are paid.  Their value to the industry is high now, and going much, much higher.

i think arguements can be made both ways for paying college athletes. But what about the D2 and D3 athletes that have to pay for their travel gear, pay for their shoes, that don't recieve meal money or meals before home or away games?

Plus they don't have the time to hold a job. But yet they are still raking in money for their university.

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on March 30, 2007, 04:17:13 PM

Quote from: maxpower773 on March 30, 2007, 04:11:55 PM
They already are getting paid with what marqptm mentioned....not to mention a free education.  I think everything they get is good enough compensation.

and the coach gets all of that, plus the 6-7 figure salary which doesn't even approach what the University rakes in on the backs, time, effort, and pressure the players face. I don't see any way someone can reasonable argue they should not get a piece of the action.

The coach gets a free education and the best housing on campus Naivin?? that's news to me

Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 31, 2007, 10:25:41 AMCalling college basketball and football awash with money is an understatement.  In a decade, it'll be triple, and the pressure to win/compete will only go up from here, putting pressure on getting talent in and not caring so much about the game that is education. 

So .. with that in mind, I'm not sure I care if guys are paid.  Their value to the industry is high now, and going much, much higher.

Your comment raises the same question I posed earlier because it's a generalization.  Some college basketball and football is awash in money.     If you think college athletes should be paid because the schools are making a lot of money off of them, consider these things:

• I suspect (but don't have the data -- if anyone does, I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong) that very few Division II or III (or I-AA football) programs turn a profit on a regular basis.  So, I guess those kids wouldn't get paid.
• I suspect (same disclaimer) that many, maybe even a majority, Division I basketball  and football programs lose money.  So, those kids don't get paid either.
• I suspect the vast majority of women's basketball programs lose money, so they won't get paid either.

If colleges were allowed to pay players, I think the number of schools that could afford to do so would be very limited.  In essence, it would create a new super division in football and basketball and most schools (including Marquette, in my opinion) could not compete.

When you get right down to it, for the few schools that are fortunate enough to make a bit of money on basketball or football, most of them are plugging that money back into other programs.  Granted, Tom Crean is paid a fortune and the program has nice facilities and vehicles, but without the income generated by the men's basketball team, I shudder to think what would happen to Marquette's soccer, tennis, cross country, etc., etc.  Is it fair that Marquette's basketball team subsidizes the other athletic programs?  Maybe not.  Would it be fair to the other Marquette athletes to cancel their sports in order to pay the men's basketball team?  I don't think so.

These athletes are very gifted and work very hard.  In exchange for that, they get to go to college for free and get some other perks.  I think they should be entitled to some sort of stipend, and I suspect that they might get one ( see Novak's comments near bottom (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/nba/article/0,2777,DRMN_23922_5427887,00.html)).  Maybe it could be a little bigger.  But, I really don't have a problem with colleges and universities making money on these sports and then using the money to support other programs.

A couple questions for those of you who think players should get paid:  if Marquette (or any other school) paid players, would Mike Kinsella be paid as much as Dominique James?  Would DJ have gotten a raise after his freshman season?  Would he get a pay cut after this last year?  I'm not trolling.  I'm genuinely interested in how people think this would work.

Does anyone have a link to any reliable source of data showing which universities make money on their sports programs?

Quote from: StillAWarrior on March 31, 2007, 11:41:49 AM
A couple questions for those of you who think players should get paid:  if Marquette (or any other school) paid players, would Mike Kinsella be paid as much as Dominique James?  Would DJ have gotten a raise after his freshman season?  Would he get a pay cut after this last year?  I'm not trolling.  I'm genuinely interested in how people think this would work.

All very good questions, and things that would needto be dealt with. While I don't necessarily have answers sitting here today, I am reasonably sure good answers exist and could be found. As I said earlier, there would have to be some sort of regulations, limitations, and probably some sort of set formula. For instance, maybe Kinsella should be paid more by virtue of being a senior, and perhaps James should have gotten a raise after his first year because Sophomores should make more than a Freshman. Not sure about all of that, as I think the specific dollars we are talking about would have to be a factor. I am not suggesting they get pro-style contracts, and this would obviously have to be done in conjunction with adjustments to other rules like transfers, recruiting, etc. But, in the end a schools ability to pay, should be allowed to impact what they pay (I am comfortable with maximums as well to keep the footing at least somewhat even.), but in the end if Kentucky is able to or chooses to pay more than MU (within the rules), so be it. They are able to get better recruits than we can right now anyway, but I readily admit the divide would likley widen. Something along the lines of a stipend is what I envision, but I assume the amounts I am talking about would be higher than most others are suggesting (I am talking thousands, not hundreds).

I know that revenue sports funding non-revenue sports is a reality and perhaps a necessity, but then again I kind of have a problem with Dominic James and someone on the Women's soccer team being treated the same financially. One makes a direct contribution to the bottom line while one takes away from it. Fr. Wilde, Bill Cords etc. have made no secret of how important the basketball team is to the University - it goes well beyond funding the minor sports. Just as I would argue that Tom Crean is MU's most important employee and deserves to be paid as such, I just believe that if the players are in fact that important, they deserve more as well.

Yup, good points all.  Quick reply .. I think we're all only talking about the top, say 100, D1 schools .  All the others are much closer to the "student-athelete" concept.   -- And at the moment, the men's sports are where the money is.

That being said, if only ~100 teams are "big time" or "profitting" right now.. many many more schools are looking to do exactly that, if and when they have the chance.  Every year, there's a couple more schools that inch their way up.  Schools look better, alumni like it, ESPN has more content to sell.

On the point of who-gets-what .. excellent point.  At first, I'd suspect we're talking about a stipend for spending cash, but when we're talking millions to spread around, if there's ever a giant disconnect between education and big money college sports, look for a College Athlete Union to spring up and organize and demand their piece of the pie.

No, and I'll tell you why...

- Do all athletes get paid the same?

- Does the starting QB get the same as a 3rd string RB?

- Does a guy like Craig Kuphall get paid the same as Dominic James?

- What about non-profitable sports like swimming and track?   Those athletes will undoubtedly want to get paid as well.   Do they make as much as revenue generating athletes?

-  Then there's the question of women.  With the whole Title IX thing, women will want to get paid the same as men

- What about small schools?   They play sports at UW-Whitewater too.  Do they deserve to get paid the same as Madison and Marquette athletes?


Paying athletes would make most schools go broke.   There would undoubtedly be some NCAA regulations about uniformity of payments.    Otherwise these kids would be recruited by pro-type contracts. 

Quote from: MUsoxfan on March 31, 2007, 02:02:51 PM
No, and I'll tell you why...

- Do all athletes get paid the same?

- Does the starting QB get the same as a 3rd string RB?

- Does a guy like Craig Kuphall get paid the same as Dominic James?

- What about non-profitable sports like swimming and track?   Those athletes will undoubtedly want to get paid as well.   Do they make as much as revenue generating athletes?

-  Then there's the question of women.  With the whole Title IX thing, women will want to get paid the same as men

- What about small schools?   They play sports at UW-Whitewater too.  Do they deserve to get paid the same as Madison and Marquette athletes?

Paying athletes would make most schools go broke.   There would undoubtedly be some NCAA regulations about uniformity of payments.    Otherwise these kids would be recruited by pro-type contracts. 

Those are questions...you haven't actually told me anything, but let's take them one at a time...

- Do all athletes get paid the same?

No.

- Does the starting QB get the same as a 3rd string RB?

Depends on what the formula is, but  in my world, probably yes.

- What about non-profitable sports like swimming and track?   Those athletes will undoubtedly want to get paid as well.   Do they make as much as revenue generating athletes?

No. I'd like to get paid for sleeping, but you don't always get what you want. More often than not in th ereal world you get paid based on your value.

-  Then there's the question of women.  With the whole Title IX thing, women will want to get paid the same as men

See above.

Beyond that, why would the mistake that is/was Title XI provide defense of another. Here's a better answer, Title IX hurt women more than it helped them - get rid of Title IX. 

- What about small schools?   They play sports at UW-Whitewater too.  Do they deserve to get paid the same as Madison and Marquette athletes?

If they bring in as much money as the teams at bigger schools, absolutely yes, but they don't. So in answer to your question, no.

The all things being equal argument simply doesn't work, because in no way are all things equal. Swimmers and track athletes who get scholarships have the best deal going. Basketball players who receive virtually the same financial benefits as that swimmer or track athlete, don't. One translates into millions for the University, the other does not. For those who want to argue fairness, and that everyone would need to be paid (the same), etc., please first explain to me how the current system is fair.

If anyone saw scum bag Miles Brand on The Road to the Final Four just now, I rest my case.

His name isn't on the jersey?

If they're that good they'll get a pro contract?

Very few coaches are making that much money.

Those are your answers? Are you kidding me?!?!?!??!?!

This guy has unbelievable nerve to cry poor when it comes to this issue. The reality of the situation is that guys like him and others who don't feel these athletes should be paid just think it is the responsibility of basketball and football players to fund the athletic department (I have no problem with that) and their coaches contract (I have no problem with that either), and receive nothing more in return than do those other athletes taking advantage of the very scholarships, facilities, perks, etc. that they fund.

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on March 31, 2007, 02:26:01 PM

Quote from: MUsoxfan on March 31, 2007, 02:02:51 PM
No, and I'll tell you why...

- Do all athletes get paid the same?

- Does the starting QB get the same as a 3rd string RB?

- Does a guy like Craig Kuphall get paid the same as Dominic James?

- What about non-profitable sports like swimming and track?   Those athletes will undoubtedly want to get paid as well.   Do they make as much as revenue generating athletes?

-  Then there's the question of women.  With the whole Title IX thing, women will want to get paid the same as men

- What about small schools?   They play sports at UW-Whitewater too.  Do they deserve to get paid the same as Madison and Marquette athletes?

Paying athletes would make most schools go broke.   There would undoubtedly be some NCAA regulations about uniformity of payments.    Otherwise these kids would be recruited by pro-type contracts. 

Those are questions...you haven't actually told me anything, but let's take them one at a time...

- Do all athletes get paid the same?

No.

- Does the starting QB get the same as a 3rd string RB?

Depends on what the formula is, but  in my world, probably yes.

- What about non-profitable sports like swimming and track?   Those athletes will undoubtedly want to get paid as well.   Do they make as much as revenue generating athletes?

No. I'd like to get paid for sleeping, but you don't always get what you want. More often than not in th ereal world you get paid based on your value.

-  Then there's the question of women.  With the whole Title IX thing, women will want to get paid the same as men

See above.

Beyond that, why would the mistake that is/was Title XI provide defense of another. Here's a better answer, Title IX hurt women more than it helped them - get rid of Title IX. 

- What about small schools?   They play sports at UW-Whitewater too.  Do they deserve to get paid the same as Madison and Marquette athletes?

If they bring in as much money as the teams at bigger schools, absolutely yes, but they don't. So in answer to your question, no.

The all things being equal argument simply doesn't work, because in no way are all things equal. Swimmers and track athletes who get scholarships have the best deal going. Basketball players who receive virtually the same financial benefits as that swimmer or track athlete, don't. One translates into millions for the University, the other does not. For those who want to argue fairness, and that everyone would need to be paid (the same), etc., please first explain to me how the current system is fair.

So you're saying that if a football or basketball player is lucky enough to get a scholarship to a top-line school, then he should also get paid?   That will never fly.  There will be tons of class-action lawsuits that will clog the system and cost the NCAA and individual schools TONS of money

Quote from: MUsoxfan on March 31, 2007, 02:51:22 PM
So you're saying that if a football or basketball player is lucky enough to get a scholarship to a top-line school, then he should also get paid?   

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Quote from: MUsoxfan on March 31, 2007, 02:51:22 PM
There will be tons of class-action lawsuits that will clog the system and cost the NCAA and individual schools TONS of money

So you're saying the NCAA should not do the right thing and the fair thing because they might get sued?

They gave to law suits on Title IX and look how well that turned out. ::)

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on March 31, 2007, 03:17:58 PM

Quote from: MUsoxfan on March 31, 2007, 02:51:22 PM
So you're saying that if a football or basketball player is lucky enough to get a scholarship to a top-line school, then he should also get paid?   

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Quote from: MUsoxfan on March 31, 2007, 02:51:22 PM
There will be tons of class-action lawsuits that will clog the system and cost the NCAA and individual schools TONS of money

So you're saying the NCAA should not do the right thing and the fair thing because they might get sued?

They gave to law suits on Title IX and look how well that turned out. ::)

In a perfect world, I'd have it the way you want it.   I'd also eliminate Title IX and have maybe two women's "sports".    However, in the world we live in it's impossible.    Women, bad major conference revenue generating athletes, all mid-low major athletes and all non-Div 1 athletes would sue and they'd probably win.   The end result of the lawsuits would be either every athlete on every level in any sport be paid the same....including women.   Or, just live with the scholarship system.     The latter would prevent most programs from going broke.