http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20121215/SPT0101/312150052/After-silence-about-realignment-Cronin-erupts (http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20121215/SPT0101/312150052/After-silence-about-realignment-Cronin-erupts)
With these BILLION dollar TV deals, he's right.
Have felt the same way for years. Ridiculous that they aren't paid.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on December 17, 2012, 02:16:15 PM
Have felt the same way for years. Ridiculous that they aren't paid.
They are paid, just not in cash.
USA Today did a study last year that found the value of a Division I scholarship for one year is worth as much as $140,000. So a kid who sticks around four years gets more than a half million dollars of value out of it, not to mention the highest level of training possible to potentially earn even more in the professional ranks. Not suggesting they don't earn that, but let's not pretend they're getting nothing out of it.
Also, given that most athletics programs barely break even, if that, how do you propose to pay these kids? Can't pay them with money that doesn't exist.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2011-value-of-college-scholarship.htm
Quote from: Pakuni on December 17, 2012, 02:27:25 PM
They are paid, just not in cash.
USA Today did a study last year that found the value of a Division I scholarship for one year is worth as much as $140,000. So a kid who sticks around four years gets more than a half million dollars of value out of it, not to mention the highest level of training possible to potentially earn even more in the professional ranks. Not suggesting they don't earn that, but let's not pretend they're getting nothing out of it.
Also, given that most athletics programs barely break even, if that, how do you propose to pay these kids? Can't pay them with money that doesn't exist.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2011-value-of-college-scholarship.htm
Incidental money for miscellaneous student expenses should be included in scholarship. Money should come from the conferences or the NCAA from TV rights before being distributed to the individual schools. This makes the payout equal across all schools.
And what are you going to pay non-revenue producing sport's student athletes?
Quote from: wiscwarrior on December 17, 2012, 02:34:21 PM
Incidental money for miscellaneous student expenses should be included in scholarship. Money should come from the conferences or the NCAA from TV rights before being distributed to the individual schools. This makes the payout equal across all schools.
The NCAA is working on a plan to give scholarship athletes a $2,000 annual stipend. There are issues still to be worked out, such as whether it should only go to students who can show need (i.e. does the swimmer whose parents earn six figures really need it?) and how to handle kids on partial scholarship, but it's coming eventually.
Quote from: 77fan88warrior on December 17, 2012, 02:43:23 PM
And what are you going to pay non-revenue producing sport's student athletes?
An amount commensurate with what they bring in. Why should someone on MU's soccer team, be paid the same as Vander Blue, or someone on TA&M's swim team be paid the same as Johnny Manziel? Those guys named in the major sports are already carrying the load for those non-revenue producing sports, and so much more.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 17, 2012, 02:27:25 PM
Not suggesting they don't earn that, but let's not pretend they're getting nothing out of it.
Who's pretending that? I am just sick and tired of the hypocritical NcAA/university presidents who could give a rip about the athletes beyond what it means to their bottom line, and continue institute rules, policies and actions that consistently demonstrate as much.
These athletes generate billions of dollars. I think it is the restrictions placed upon them in terms of movement, etc. that bothers me most, while the coaches, ADs etc. who's salary they earn, are free to come and go as they please to the highest bidder.
Quote from: Groin_pull on December 17, 2012, 02:09:59 PM
With these BILLION dollar TV deals, he's right.
Then enjoy another basketball program because MU and many others will no longer be playing.
Those BILLION deals pay for a lot of things, including all the non-revenue sports championships. And a note to Mick, as soon as you pay the men's team, you have to pay the women's volleyball team, the women's soccer team, the cross country team, etc. Then its all over.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on December 17, 2012, 03:10:46 PM
An amount commensurate with what they bring in. Why should someone on MU's soccer team, be paid the same as Vander Blue, or someone on TA&M's swim team be paid the same as Johnny Manziel? Those guys named in the major sports are already carrying the load for those non-revenue producing sports, and so much more.
Using that argument, the Wisconsin basketball player should be paid more than the Marquette basketball player. Since they bring in more. Sure you want to go down that path?
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on December 17, 2012, 03:25:26 PM
Who's pretending that? I am just sick and tired of the hypocritical NcAA/university presidents who could give a rip about the athletes beyond what it means to their bottom line, and continue institute rules, policies and actions that consistently demonstrate as much.
These athletes generate billions of dollars. I think it is the restrictions placed upon them in terms of movement, etc. that bothers me most, while the coaches, ADs etc. who's salary they earn, are free to come and go as they please to the highest bidder.
You are painting with an incredibly broad brush. The NCAA has three divisions, 450,000 athletes, all but two sports lose money. You're focusing on a handful of athletic departments that make money and defining the entire NCAA based on the few. Most do not fit the description you are deploying.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on December 17, 2012, 03:10:46 PM
An amount commensurate with what they bring in. Why should someone on MU's soccer team, be paid the same as Vander Blue, or someone on TA&M's swim team be paid the same as Johnny Manziel? Those guys named in the major sports are already carrying the load for those non-revenue producing sports, and so much more.
So would the athletes in sports that lose money (aka most college athletes) be required to pay for the privilege to play?
More seriously, Title IX would have something to say about your plan.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on December 17, 2012, 03:25:26 PM
Who's pretending that? I am just sick and tired of the hypocritical NcAA/university presidents who could give a rip about the athletes beyond what it means to their bottom line, and continue institute rules, policies and actions that consistently demonstrate as much.
These athletes generate billions of dollars. I think it is the restrictions placed upon them in terms of movement, etc. that bothers me most, while the coaches, ADs etc. who's salary they earn, are free to come and go as they please to the highest bidder.
To be fair, the players don't have to accept a scholarship and go to school.
They can play a sport that doesn't require college (tennis, boxing, etc.) or accept the system as it stands.
I'm not saying the system is correct, but the idea that the players are martyrs is incorrect. They have other choices.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 17, 2012, 03:31:40 PM
Then enjoy another basketball program because MU and many others will no longer be playing.
Those BILLION deals pay for a lot of things, including all the non-revenue sports championships. And a note to Mick, as soon as you pay the men's team, you have to pay the women's volleyball team, the women's soccer team, the cross country team, etc. Then its all over.
You know actually maybe it should be over It really has become hypocritical when coaches make six and seven figures and athletes can't get "walk around" money. It has to be tough for some student athletes on scholarship to keep up with the average student financially when, I believe, they are not allowed to earn any money for incidentals while on scholarship
Do some of you even know how the money is spent in the NCAA?
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on December 17, 2012, 03:25:26 PM
Who's pretending that? I am just sick and tired of the hypocritical NcAA/university presidents who could give a rip about the athletes beyond what it means to their bottom line, and continue institute rules, policies and actions that consistently demonstrate as much.
These athletes generate billions of dollars. I think it is the restrictions placed upon them in terms of movement, etc. that bothers me most, while the coaches, ADs etc. who's salary they earn, are free to come and go as they please to the highest bidder.
I think you're conflating revenues with profits.
Yes, college athletics earn a lot of revenue. They also cost a lot of money, and the programs that actually earn profits off them are generally few and far between. In fact, many college athletics departments remain afloat only because they are subsidized to the tune of millions of dollars by fees imposed on the non-athletes.
While many Division I men's basketball and football teams make a profit, students still wind up subsidizing the overall costs of big-time athletic programs. In 2010, 46 of 53 public universities surveyed by Bloomberg diverted money to fund sports programs. School subsidies and student fees made up 21 percent of the $6.3 billion in athletic revenue at the NCAA's 120 largest programs. That was the largest share since 2004.http://www.bloomberg.com/consumer-spending/2012-03-21/the-real-cost-of-march-madness.html#slide3
And I don't think it's fair to suggest players "earn" the coaches their salaries. College coaches, especially at big-time programs, work their a**es off.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 17, 2012, 03:31:40 PM
Then enjoy another basketball program because MU and many others will no longer be playing.
Those BILLION deals pay for a lot of things, including all the non-revenue sports championships. And a note to Mick, as soon as you pay the men's team, you have to pay the women's volleyball team, the women's soccer team, the cross country team, etc. Then its all over.
And maybe it should be all over. If someone can explain to me why those other teams should be paid anything, let alone anything near what the men's team deserves, as some would argue they are now in terms of the scholarship benefits, etc., I'm all ears.
While I understand how people, like most here, rationalize it away because they want their college football, and basketball, and they want to see their team in the NCAA tournament, etc., so they aren't bothered by the fact that all of that money as you accurately point out is earned entirely by a small percentage, yet that small percentage receive little in the way of additional benefit, while the school and the remaining percentage receive a hugely disporortionate amount.
I am admittedly part of the problem, as I continue to plunk down for season tickets, watch game aft game, etc., but it gets harder all the time.
Quote from: wiscwarrior on December 17, 2012, 03:39:50 PM
You know actually maybe it should be over It really has become hypocritical when coaches make six and seven figures and athletes can't get "walk around" money. It has to be tough for some student athletes on scholarship to keep up with the average student financially when, I believe, they are not allowed to earn any money for incidentals while on scholarship
But on the flip side, regular students don't get tuition, housing, food, clothing and medical care for free. I'm pretty sure most would trade the ability to work on campus in exchange for free everything else (and freedom from sometimes crushing debt once they graduate).
Student athletes really aren't the victims they're often portrayed as.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on December 17, 2012, 03:44:28 PM
And maybe it should be all over. If someone can explain to me why those other teams should be paid anything, let alone anything near what the men's team deserves, as some would argue they are now in terms of the scholarship benefits, etc., I'm all ears.
While I understand how people, like most here, rationalize it away because they want their college football, and basketball, and they want to see their team in the NCAA tournament, etc., so they aren't bothered by the fact that all of that money as you accurately point out is earned entirely by a small percentage, yet that small percentage receive little in the way of additional benefit, while the school and the remaining percentage receive a hugely disporortionate amount.
I am admittedly part of the problem, as I continue to plunk down for season tickets, watch game aft game, etc., but it gets harder all the time.
As long as kids accept scholarships, schools will keep operating in such a manner. If you can start a minor league football league and pay kids right out of HS, you might make a dent in the NCAA.
Quote from: wiscwarrior on December 17, 2012, 03:39:50 PM
You know actually maybe it should be over It really has become hypocritical when coaches make six and seven figures and athletes can't get "walk around" money. It has to be tough for some student athletes on scholarship to keep up with the average student financially when, I believe, they are not allowed to earn any money for incidentals while on scholarship
To an extent, yes, but again, painting with a broad brush. Of the 350 DI basketball coaches, how many of them make 7 figure salaries? Of the DII and DIII coaches...how many? (ZERO). The NCAA isn't just about Kentucky, Kansas, UCLA and Alabama. It's about Tennessee Tech, Long Island U., Allegheny College, Houston Baptist, and hundreds of others. It's about the women's field hockey team, the men's gymnastics team, the track squad, the softball team and so many others.
The coach brings in the athletes and is the only stable presence on a team that turns over players every four years. Yes, at the top they make a lot of money. We live in a market driven society. If you want good coaches, then the market has been set. I have no doubt you are correct that some student athletes at the lower end of the spectrum are going to have a tough time at school vs other students, but there are plenty of regular Joe blows that are struggling right there with them. Taking out loans, working a job or two while in school. All walks of life.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 17, 2012, 03:33:28 PM
Using that argument, the Wisconsin basketball player should be paid more than the Marquette basketball player. Since they bring in more. Sure you want to go down that path?
Why not? Should a sales rep who brings in more revenue to his company be paid more than a counterpart or competitor who brings in less?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 17, 2012, 03:33:28 PM
The NCAA has three divisions, 450,000 athletes, all but two sports lose money. You're focusing on a handful of athletic departments that make money and defining the entire NCAA based on the few. Most do not fit the description you are deploying.
Right, and the ones who do are by definition getting screwed by carrying the entire load for the rest.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on December 17, 2012, 03:52:33 PM
Why not? Should a sales rep who brings in more revenue to his company be paid more than a counterpart or competitor who brings in less?
Right, and the ones who do are by definition getting screwed by carrying the entire load for the rest.
So I guess players on the same team should make different amounts as well, right? Vander Blue and Davante Gardner should make more than Jamal Ferguson based on their contributions???
So then, really, we need some sort of negotiations in order for these "salaries" to get figured out. I guess the college athletes would need some sort of agent in order to figure all of that out....
Where would it end. It just is not a feasible thing to do
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on December 17, 2012, 03:52:33 PM
Why not? Should a sales rep who brings in more revenue to his company be paid more than a counterpart or competitor who brings in less?
Yes, if the company explains that in the interview, they are free to devise any sort of employment/management techniques they want.
The players aren't getting into some sort of system that bleeds them dry. For the most part, they live just as well as the normal college student. They have to work VERY HARD for it, but their living standards are pretty good.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on December 17, 2012, 03:52:33 PM
Why not? Should a sales rep who brings in more revenue to his company be paid more than a counterpart or competitor who brings in less?
Right, and the ones who do are by definition getting screwed by carrying the entire load for the rest.
How much are you going to pay the college QB vs the punter? How about the 2nd string linebacker vs the 3rd string defensive end? How about the freshman point guard vs the senior wing forward? What if the freshman point guard has a monster game middle of the season and becomes the focal player, are you going to give him a raise?
You are comparing real world situation with a controlled system that provides an education (valued at 1000's of dollars) in exchange for participation. The comparisons are not the same, nor should they be. If they are, as I stated earlier, then you might as well frame your Marquette t-shirt because the only basketball you will ever see again will be played at the Helfair Center.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 17, 2012, 03:50:37 PM
Yes, at the top they make a lot of money. We live in a market driven society.
Except of course where college athletes are concerned. As you yourself pointed out, if players were paid based on revenue generated, UW players would get more than MU. Why is hat a problem for you? I get that you want your MU basketball and want it to be successful, but lets call this what it is.
In your market driven society, is the QB at Nevada or Temple worth the same as Matt Barkley or Denard Robinson, as they basically are today?
Your argument seems to be that its ok since it is for the greater good. Alabama, Duke, Florida, etc. provide opportunities for other sports and small schools, and that should be additional reward enough for the small group of athletes that generate that revenue.
Athletics does provide opportunities for many, many athletes, and thats a good thing. it is extremely unfortunate however that only a few do the heavy lifting to fund it, and receive limited incremental benefit. It's great for those of us who like to watch it, and if you are one off those other athletes, but if you're the one people ware tuning into to watch, its an unfair system.
This is a good discussion. The New Big East has made this board so ... civil. I don't know what to think :)
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on December 17, 2012, 04:21:09 PM...its an unfair system.
I think the only way it's actually unfair is if the students go in not knowing what they are getting. Since they are well-aware of what the benefits are, they are able to make any decision they want. Go to Europe. Sit out a year and try for the NBA. Skip sports and get an apprenticeship.
Even if players did start getting paid, people making less than other people while providing more benefit is a fact of life.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on December 17, 2012, 04:21:09 PM
Athletics does provide opportunities for many, many athletes, and thats a good thing. it is extremely unfortunate however that only a few do the heavy lifting to fund it, and receive limited incremental benefit. It's great for those of us who like to watch it, and if you are one off those other athletes, but if you're the one people ware tuning into to watch, its an unfair system.
Bull---- on that. An elite swimmer works just as hard as an elite basketball player works just as hard as an elite gymnast works just as hard as an elite football player. Don't take the popularity of one's sport as some sort of indication as to the amount of effort, i.e. "heavy lifting" that's being done.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 17, 2012, 04:14:50 PM
You are comparing real world situation with a controlled system that provides and education (valued at 1000's of dollars) in exchange for participation.
Bingo. A controlled system that is all about money. Cronin is absolutely correct in pointing that out, but what would he know about it?
As to how you do it, how about something along the lines of you making the amount players on a particular team are paid a function of revenue generated by that team, against the total AD revenues, and the coaches salary. I haven't, nor will I spend the time to to come up with it specifically, but in general if MU BBall generates X, and Buzz Williams total comp eats up Y% of that amount, or ranks him at a certain point among his peers...whatever criteria you want to use to account for his pay on some sort of relative scale, then Z =the pool of $ split evenly among the scholarship players. Same can apply across all sports and all schools. Obviously not fully baked, but just an idea.
As for womens volleyball, swimming, etc. of course some are going to complain, but is it in any way unfair? if the above formula dictates that they dont get any more than the same scholarship and benefits they receive today, are they going to turn down the scholarship? Of course not. Not suggesting it wold be easy, or wouldn't employ lawyers for years to come, but its the right thing to do.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 17, 2012, 04:44:39 PM
Bull---- on that. An elite swimmer works just as hard as an elite basketball player works just as hard as an elite gymnast works just as hard as an elite football player. Don't take the popularity of one's sport as some sort of indication as to the amount of effort, i.e. "heavy lifting" that's being done.
And a construction worker works just as hard as Tom Cruise. Harder, actually. Welcome to America. By heavy lifting, I was referring to generating revenue, not how hard the athletes work.
Where the NCAA money goes
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Answers/Nine+points+to+consider_one
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6756472/following-ncaa-money
If you guys are not up to speed with your worker's compensation laws, including insurance rates, payouts, and definitions of "employee," I suggest you brush up on same.
The reality is, the NCAA will never permit payment on a scale that Cronin is talking about. If they do, it opens the floodgates to additional hidden costs. Worker's compensation is just one of those costs.
Remember the football player from Rutgers that was recently paralyzed? What school wants to pay for his benefits, or see their insurance rates rise as a result of the increased liability, when players become "employees." A couple schools have already fought this fight and won.
There is so much more to "paying" than just simply writing checks. The NCAA and its member schools won't buy in. That is why there is such a fight over something as small as a paltry $2,000 stipend.
But, then again, what do I know? I still think the A-10 is going to swallow up the C7.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on December 17, 2012, 04:21:09 PM
Except of course where college athletes are concerned. As you yourself pointed out, if players were paid based on revenue generated, UW players would get more than MU. Why is hat a problem for you? I get that you want your MU basketball and want it to be successful, but lets call this what it is.
In your market driven society, is the QB at Nevada or Temple worth the same as Matt Barkley or Denard Robinson, as they basically are today?
Your argument seems to be that its ok since it is for the greater good. Alabama, Duke, Florida, etc. provide opportunities for other sports and small schools, and that should be additional reward enough for the small group of athletes that generate that revenue.
Athletics does provide opportunities for many, many athletes, and thats a good thing. it is extremely unfortunate however that only a few do the heavy lifting to fund it, and receive limited incremental benefit. It's great for those of us who like to watch it, and if you are one off those other athletes, but if you're the one people ware tuning into to watch, its an unfair system.
Because in sports I like a level playing field. I'm all for the capitalist system, but not in sports. I love the NFL the best because there is one pie and everyone draws from that one pie. It allows tiny Green Bay and tiny Pittsburgh to win titles every bit as much as big New York or Chicago. Within each team, you can decide how to dole out the money for your players. I don't like the fact my Angels are outspending 90% of the rest of baseball. I think it's bad for baseball and bad for competitive balance. Now, in the real world I don't agree with those extreme limiters, but when we're talking about an industry where the talent is so finite (pro baseball, football, college athletics, etc), I'd rather keep the playing fields as level as possible.
And yes, the few are carrying the load for the many but I don't see that as that much different than many companies. There are units that are nothing but cost centers, there are units that are profit or revenue centers that have to cover the expenses of those other units. But how do you square with the idea that all those athletes at even the non revenue producing teams are still busting their humps. They work very hard.
Players get paid with scholarships and benefits that they all get. Don't tell me that basketball players all just buy beats or get real nice apparel. That should be enough for them. College is about getting an education that will help you find a JOB that will pay you, it shouldn't be about getting paid for something that helped them avoid paying for college in the first place.
A little tangent, but when D-Wade said that Olympic athletes needed to get paid, it bothered me. You are representing your country, much like these college players represent their school. If they want money, get a job. You already don't have to pay for college.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on December 17, 2012, 04:50:14 PM
Bingo. A controlled system that is all about money. Cronin is absolutely correct in pointing that out, but what would he know about it?
As to how you do it, how about something along the lines of you making the amount players on a particular team are paid a function of revenue generated by that team, against the total AD revenues, and the coaches salary. I haven't, nor will I spend the time to to come up with it specifically, but in general if MU BBall generates X, and Buzz Williams total comp eats up Y% of that amount, or ranks him at a certain point among his peers...whatever criteria you want to use to account for his pay on some sort of relative scale, then Z =the pool of $ split evenly among the scholarship players. Same can apply across all sports and all schools. Obviously not fully baked, but just an idea.
As for womens volleyball, swimming, etc. of course some are going to complain, but is it in any way unfair? if the above formula dictates that they dont get any more than the same scholarship and benefits they receive today, are they going to turn down the scholarship? Of course not. Not suggesting it wold be easy, or wouldn't employ lawyers for years to come, but its the right thing to do.
There are so many things wrong with this proposed idea. College sports would end...done...with this proposal. Title IX would immediately be the first hurdle. Then you have all kinds of wonderful issues of anti-trust, workers comp, etc. That athlete now becomes an employee, or a contractor and the world changes immensely with that designation. The university's athletic department 501C classification goes bye bye. The departments would have to pay enormous taxes on SS of these athletes, donors would no longer be able to make tax exempt donations, etc. Don't forget collective bargaining becomes part of the equation. You have fundamentally killed college athletics with your proposal. May as well create a minor league system, because no way the schools can afford this.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 17, 2012, 05:20:26 PM
Because in sports I like a level playing field. I'm all for the capitalist system, but not in sports. I love the NFL the best because there is one pie and everyone draws from that one pie. It allows tiny Green Bay and tiny Pittsburgh to win titles every bit as much as big New York or Chicago. Within each team, you can decide how to dole out the money for your players. I don't like the fact my Angels are outspending 90% of the rest of baseball. I think it's bad for baseball and bad for competitive balance. Now, in the real world I don't agree with those extreme limiters, but when we're talking about an industry where the talent is so finite (pro baseball, football, college athletics, etc), I'd rather keep the playing fields as level as possible.
With this I agree completely, but I order for it to hold up, it first requires that the NCAA actually admit that they are running such an enterprise, where they still try to sell us on amateurism, and all that noise. Beyond that, those other entities you cite (NFL, MLB, etc.) have powerful players unions, that guarantee players certain things, minimum salaries, etc. that's where the argument breaks down completely. Admitting that college athletics is big business is one thing, treating the people involved as such is something else. The NCaA can't seem to do either.
Couldn't the NCAA just not enforce booster payments of players to limit liability? Not saying I would want that because all the big schools with bigtime alumni would just dominate every sport.
Quote from: martyconlonontherun on December 17, 2012, 05:45:53 PM
Couldn't the NCAA just not enforce booster payments of players to limit liability? Not saying I would want that because all the big schools with bigtime alumni would just dominate every sport.
thats similar to another idea thats been floated, to just allow agents to pay athletes. It prevents the non-revenue sports question because agents will only pay athletes that might prove lucrative to them. It also prevents the whole legal employer thing for the NCAA. biggest problems though is that it doesnt do much for the folks who see unjust enrichment all over the NCAA, it would actually solidify the system as is. it also doesnt do anything about the hypocritical rulings on benefits from the NCAA, and actually probably exacerbates those issues.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 17, 2012, 03:40:16 PM
Do some of you even know how the money is spent in the NCAA?
Actually I don't, but it seems to me that some of it isn't being spent in the right way.
Quote from: wiscwarrior on December 17, 2012, 07:19:05 PM
Actually I don't, but it seems to me that some of it isn't being spent in the right way.
I provided links to where the money goes.
I interned for free one summer. I actually did quite a bit of work that they could've/should've been paying somebody for.
I knew what I was getting into when I signed up. I didn't complain.
The players are getting scholarships and nothing else.
They know that when they sign up.
The NCAA could make 500 trillion dollars, and it wouldn't matter.
College athletes are not in a union. They are independent contractors, and if they don't like the deal they are making, they shouldn't take it.
If you want to talk about the real world, be accurate about it.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 17, 2012, 07:34:23 PM
I provided links to where the money goes.
What about a fund for SA's based on need and administered by the NCAA?
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on December 17, 2012, 07:35:03 PM
I interned for free one summer. I actually did quite a bit of work that they could've/should've been paying somebody for.
I knew what I was getting into when I signed up. I didn't complain.
The players are getting scholarships and nothing else.
They know that when they sign up.
The NCAA could make 500 trillion dollars, and it wouldn't matter.
College athletes are not in a union. They are independent contractors, and if they don't like the deal they are making, they shouldn't take it.
If you want to talk about the real world, be accurate about it.
Maybe you could afford to do that. Some of these SA's come from backgrounds where no spending money is available to them. I wonder how they get by without a stipend of some sort. Are they eligible for assistance from other sources?
Quote from: wiscwarrior on December 17, 2012, 07:56:20 PM
Maybe you could afford to do that. Some of these SA's come from backgrounds where no spending money is available to them. I wonder how they get by without a stipend of some sort. Are they eligible for assistance from other sources?
I'm not trying to be heartless about the student athlete, but I feel like Navin is turning the kids into martyrs, and I don't think that's the case.
They get tuition, room, board, per diem for road trips, upgraded meal plans and upgraded lodging (depending upon the sport).
They all work their asses off, and
they deserve everything they get. But, the idea that the system is absolutely unfair isn't really accurate.
If you want a scholarship, be a student athlete. If you aren't interested in a scholarship, you can go play your sport elsewhere.
It's all "fair" provided the schools aren't promising 1 thing and then providing another.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on December 17, 2012, 04:21:09 PM
Athletics does provide opportunities for many, many athletes, and thats a good thing. it is extremely unfortunate however that only a few do the heavy lifting to fund it, and receive limited incremental benefit. It's great for those of us who like to watch it, and if you are one off those other athletes, but if you're the one people ware tuning into to watch, its an unfair system.
If the athletes do what they're supposed to do, they get tens of thousands of dollars in value for their work. Since a college grad makes a million or more over his career (non-athletic) more than a non-grad, that seems like a pretty good deal to me.
Moreover, you act like the soccer team, as an example, works less hard than the basketball team. Having been part of the former at MU, I can certainly tell you that you're full of crap if you truly think that. College athletics is not the same as the corporate world where a person is paid according to the wealth he makes for his employer. Hell, most actual real world companies don't even pay like that.