MUScoop

On College Game-Day this morning on ESPNU, Butler student Kevin Schwartz hit a half court shot and won $18,000 from State Farm.

Bilas noted that this is perfectly legal, but give a real college basketball player so much as $1 (or a t-shirt and ride home) and you violate all sorts of NCAA rules.

The rule are conflicting and do not make sense.

(and speaking of Butler, apparently it is is legal to give a player $70,000 in loans as long as they play for Duke)

Cool, let's pay the players.  What team are you going to root for, since Marquette will no longer have a program?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 19, 2013, 05:29:57 PM
Cool, let's pay the players.  What team are you going to root for, since Marquette will no longer have a program?

Don't the players get to attend school for free?  There seems to be value in that.  I mean, it is like they get that 18K (at least) toward tuition every semester. 

Quote from: buckchuckler on January 19, 2013, 05:31:18 PM
Don't the players get to attend school for free?  There seems to be value in that.  I mean, it is like they get that 18K (at least) toward tuition every semester. 

Of course they do.  They get a free education, free room and board that is worth a lot more than just the amount of money that would be spent on that education.  The downstream value is huge.

Access to tutors and extra care that most students don't.  They also get to travel the USA, get network opportunities to well heeled donors, often get admitted to a school they couldn't dream of getting into on their grades alone, and they get to showcase their talents for a possible career after college in the NBA, Europe, etc.   I like Bilas a lot, but enough of the nonsense.

Bilas believes players should get a stipend, say $1,000/month.  Enough to buy a few things and go out to a movie.  This would eliminate a lot of the problems that get people/programs in trouble.

Bilas is correct.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 19, 2013, 05:43:50 PM
Of course they do.  They get a free education, free room and board that is worth a lot more than just the amount of money that would be spent on that education.  The downstream value is huge.

Access to tutors and extra care that most students don't.  They also get to travel the USA, get network opportunities to well heeled donors, often get admitted to a school they couldn't dream of getting into on their grades alone, and they get to showcase their talents for a possible career after college in the NBA, Europe, etc.   I like Bilas a lot, but enough of the nonsense.

But players do not own their image when in college.  Vander could not do local commercials in Milwaukee.  Cody Zeller cannot sign as a TV pitchman to do national commercials.  The coaches can and do this.

This cost the players a lot of money.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 19, 2013, 05:28:19 PM
On College Game-Day this morning on ESPNU, Butler student Kevin Schwartz hit a half court shot and won $18,000 from State Farm.

Bilas noted that this is perfectly legal, but give a real college basketball player so much as $1 (or a t-shirt and ride home) and you violate all sorts of NCAA rules.

The rule are conflicting and do not make sense.

(and speaking of Butler, apparently it is is legal to give a player $70,000 in loans as long as they play for Duke)

Kevin and his family are good friends and he is a really good basketball player. No surprise that he it that shot!  I was a little ticked at him, though, when I saw him during the game in Maui against MU sitting right behind the Butler bench going crazy after the win.  

I'll see his parents at the Bulls game tonight and suggest that they buy a round, given that their college costs just went down a bit.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 19, 2013, 05:29:57 PM
Cool, let's pay the players.  What team are you going to root for, since Marquette will no longer have a program?

that's just plain dumb and you know it. 

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 19, 2013, 05:47:13 PM
Bilas believes players should get a stipend, say $1,000/month.  Enough to buy a few things and go out to a movie.  This would eliminate a lot of the problems that get people/programs in trouble.

Bilas is correct.

Where does this money come from? Not all programs make a profit and what about the lower revenue sports?  Do you pay those student athletes a stipend? (I'm sure the Women's BBall team would like a stipend too.)

I understand where everyone is coming from but its just not reasonable considering the overall profitability, or lack thereof, of some college athletic programs.  (Mainly mid-majors)

You know, I never really learned much from the last 63,000 threads on this topic.  But I think this one is going to be different.

Quote from: muarmy81 on January 19, 2013, 05:55:06 PM
Where does this money come from? Not all programs make a profit and what about the lower revenue sports?  Do you pay those student athletes a stipend? (I'm sure the Women's BBall team would like a stipend too.)

I understand where everyone is coming from but its just not reasonable considering the overall profitability, or lack thereof, of some college athletic programs.  (Mainly mid-majors)

You do not have to pay, and you do not have to pay everyone, or all sports.  Just that you can if you want to.

Quote from: avid1010 on January 19, 2013, 05:52:49 PM
that's just plain dumb and you know it. 

Why is it dumb?  If you pay men's basketball, you have to pay track, soccer, women's volleyball, etc, etc.  You will eliminate 80% of the programs.  It's not dumb at all.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 19, 2013, 05:47:13 PM
Bilas believes players should get a stipend, say $1,000/month.  Enough to buy a few things and go out to a movie.  This would eliminate a lot of the problems that get people/programs in trouble.

Bilas is correct.

No it wouldn't...just like gov't expenditures, etc.  $1000 will lead to $2000 will lead to $5000 will lead to $10000.  Are you going to give a stipend to women's hoops...why not?  Track and Field?  Wait until the lawsuits start flying.

Does a kid playing at Gonzaga only get $500 since Spokane is a cheaper to live in than Milwaukee?  On and on and on.

Quote from: LloydMooresLegs on January 19, 2013, 05:51:23 PM
Kevin and his family are good friends and he is a really good basketball player. No surprise that he it that shot!  I was a little ticked at him, though, when I saw him during the game in Maui against MU sitting right behind the Butler bench going crazy after the win.  

I'll see his parents at the Bulls game tonight and suggest that they buy a round, given that their college costs just went down a bit.

I'm shocked he was allowed to participate.  Whenever we ran those shots at MU and IU, the insurance waiver required the participants to sign a document.  In that document, if they had played any high school basketball, college basketball, semi-pro basketball they were not eligible to play.  It was a standard document that almost all schools use, so I'm surprised that Butler isn't using the same process.  By excluding those athletes with those types of backgrounds, the insurance is much cheaper. 

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 19, 2013, 05:47:13 PM
Bilas believes players should get a stipend, say $1,000/month.  Enough to buy a few things and go out to a movie.  This would eliminate a lot of the problems that get people/programs in trouble.

Bilas is correct.

$1000 a month? What on earth would they spend 1000 dollars on? Maybe booze? I think things are fine the way there are, but if there were ever given an allowance, no well in hell would it be that high. I know it was a hypothetical scenario, but still. They aren't feeding a family of four.

Quote from: setyoursightsnorth on January 19, 2013, 06:06:07 PM
$1000 a month? What on earth would they spend 1000 dollars on? Maybe booze? I think things are fine the way there are, but if there were ever given an allowance, no well in hell would it be that high. I know it was a hypothetical scenario, but still. They aren't feeding a family of four.

Wait until the stories come out on what these guys would be spending their money on.  The blackeyes for programs will be fantastic.  Movies, pizza...LOL.  Uhm, that won't be what will be highlighted when it gets out what some of the money is used for.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 19, 2013, 06:10:48 PM
Wait until the stories come out on what these guys would be spending their money on.  The blackeyes for programs will be fantastic.  Movies, pizza...LOL.  Uhm, that won't be what will be highlighted when it gets out what some of the money is used for.

Maybe a stripper or two...
or seven.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 19, 2013, 06:05:55 PM
I'm shocked he was allowed to participate.  Whenever we ran those shots at MU and IU, the insurance waiver required the participants to sign a document.  In that document, if they had played any high school basketball, college basketball, semi-pro basketball they were not eligible to play.  It was a standard document that almost all schools use, so I'm surprised that Butler isn't using the same process.  By excluding those athletes with those types of backgrounds, the insurance is much cheaper. 

That type of insurance usually charges different rates based on the experience/qualifications of the participants.

So if you are doing a golf hole in one contest, you have to get the handicaps of all the players in the outing and then the actuaries take over.  No reason that this couldn't be priced the same way.

Though it is fun to see the no talent ass clowns in their loafers with zero basketball experience trying to make a half court shot.

Quote from: setyoursightsnorth on January 19, 2013, 06:06:07 PM
$1000 a month? What on earth would they spend 1000 dollars on? Maybe booze? I think things are fine the way there are, but if there were ever given an allowance, no well in hell would it be that high. I know it was a hypothetical scenario, but still. They aren't feeding a family of four.

Juan Anderson would have bought his own Brewers tickets and never got in trouble.

Don't forget clothes.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 19, 2013, 05:59:19 PM
You do not have to pay, and you do not have to pay everyone, or all sports.  Just that you can if you want to.

The EEOC would love that approach.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 19, 2013, 06:31:17 PM
Juan Anderson would have bought his own Brewers tickets and never got in trouble.

Don't forget clothes.

Something tells me that he wouldn't have bought those tickets...they were given to him because of who he was, not because of a lack of means if I had to guess.  Connections.

Maybe Chico, Sultan or someone else from late 80s/early 90s will remember, but I have a memory of a Marquette athlete (cross country maybe) participating in one of these and winning three prizes including a car. I think it was at Loyola. He had to either turn it down or lose his scholarship.  It's hazy, so I may be wrong on some of the details.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 19, 2013, 05:28:19 PM
On College Game-Day this morning on ESPNU, Butler student Kevin Schwartz hit a half court shot and won $18,000 from State Farm.

Bilas noted that this is perfectly legal, but give a real college basketball player so much as $1 (or a t-shirt and ride home) and you violate all sorts of NCAA rules.

The rule are conflicting and do not make sense.

(and speaking of Butler, apparently it is is legal to give a player $70,000 in loans as long as they play for Duke)

I don't see how the situation of the random fan taking a half court shot and the basketball player on scholarship are comparable at all.

The rules are not conflicting, they have nothing to do with each other.

If we start to pay them, where's the "amateur" in their status?

Ask any D-1 bench warmer or scrub, and they're probably happy to even have a D-1 scholarship much less $/mo.

The issue is especially magnified in Bilas's opinion when discussing BCS football bowl payouts and such.

Quote from: MarsupialMadness on January 19, 2013, 07:09:34 PM
I don't see how the situation of the random fan taking a half court shot and the basketball player on scholarship are comparable at all.

The rules are not conflicting, they have nothing to do with each other.

This.

Avid, to be fair my complaint is about the yahoos that are out there saying football and basketball athletes should be paid $25K to $50K a year.  There are actual policy people out there making these crazy comments with no possible tethering to reality. 

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 19, 2013, 06:05:55 PM
I'm shocked he was allowed to participate.  Whenever we ran those shots at MU and IU, the insurance waiver required the participants to sign a document.  In that document, if they had played any high school basketball, college basketball, semi-pro basketball they were not eligible to play.  It was a standard document that almost all schools use, so I'm surprised that Butler isn't using the same process.  By excluding those athletes with those types of backgrounds, the insurance is much cheaper. 

He actually didn't play HS for reasons other than his skill.  He is on the practice squad vs the Butler women's team (though I'm not sure what tha says). 

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 19, 2013, 06:01:36 PM
Why is it dumb?  If you pay men's basketball, you have to pay track, soccer, women's volleyball, etc, etc.  You will eliminate 80% of the programs.  It's not dumb at all.

You've really hit on the heart of the problem.  Kids who are generating revenue in their sport are seeing that revenue redirected to pay for the expenses of other non-revenue sports.  It especially a concern for football where kids are risking great injury in order to earn schools the money to fund the other sports.  Just because other college students are benefiting is no rationale to justify ripping off college students. 

This whole system developed over such a long period of time that universities got a pass.  I really think that they've blown it with the conference realignment and the big cable TV deals.  They are really bringing it out into the open just how big a business college revenue sports are, and I believe that it will lead eventually to paying student athletes.

Quote from: StillAWarrior on January 19, 2013, 07:04:41 PM
Maybe Chico, Sultan or someone else from late 80s/early 90s will remember, but I have a memory of a Marquette athlete (cross country maybe) participating in one of these and winning three prizes including a car. I think it was at Loyola. He had to either turn it down or lose his scholarship.  It's hazy, so I may be wrong on some of the details.

I am pretty sure of the details, or very close. It was a cross country/track athlete named Mike O'Hara.  He was at home for Christmas break and was at a Loyola basketball game.  He was randomly picked to do the half time contest.  He had 45 seconds to make a layup, free throw, three pointer from the top of the key, a half court shot straight on and half court from the side.  He made the layup, free throw and three pointer on his first attempts, made the half court straight on shot in two or three tries and hit the half court from the side at the buzzer.  Each shot he made he got a better and better prize, with the first half court winning airline tickets and the second half court a Ford Mustang GT convertible.  

With the way the rules were written back then, he could not accept the prizes and keep his athletic scholarship.  With the taxes he would have had to pay on the car ($28.000 car) and the lost scholarship money, it was best for him to decline the prizes.  A few years later the rule was changed and he could have won the prizes.  The rule was that you were not allowed to use your athletics ability to win any type of half time contest.  Scrawny cross country runners aren't usually known for their athletic ability, but he was obviously a pretty good shooter.  

Quote from: LloydMooresLegs on January 19, 2013, 07:31:01 PM
He actually didn't play HS for reasons other than his skill.  He is on the practice squad vs the Butler women's team (though I'm not sure what tha says). 

Thanks

Quote from: LittleMurs on January 19, 2013, 07:31:01 PM
You've really hit on the heart of the problem.  Kids who are generating revenue in their sport are seeing that revenue redirected to pay for the expenses of other non-revenue sports.  It especially a concern for football where kids are risking great injury in order to earn schools the money to fund the other sports.  Just because other college students are benefiting is no rationale to justify ripping off college students.

This whole system developed over such a long period of time that universities got a pass.  I really think that they've blown it with the conference realignment and the big cable TV deals.  They are really bringing it out into the open just how big a business college revenue sports are, and I believe that it will lead eventually to paying student athletes.

We'll see.  I don't know how you do it without destroying college sports.  People forget that only the top top schools have revenue of any material amounts.  There are 330 DI schools, a ton of DII schools, a ton of DIII schools.  The revenues from the TV deals pay for all three divisions.  Then you factor in non-revenue sports for both men and women.  You're either going to get to a situation where you kill those Olympic sports entirely or have no scholarships for them, or some other major impact elsewhere.

We haven't even gotten into the contract employee situation, benefits, etc.  Hard to see it not destroying it for most programs.  There is tremendous value with a college scholarship, but that doesn't seem to be enough.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 19, 2013, 05:47:13 PM
Bilas believes players should get a stipend, say $1,000/month.  Enough to buy a few things and go out to a movie.  This would eliminate a lot of the problems that get people/programs in trouble.

Bilas is correct.

There is a wide, vast difference between a monthly stipend and a free market system. A G a month ain't a problem.

Quote from: Avenue Commons on January 19, 2013, 10:04:23 PM
There is a wide, vast difference between a monthly stipend and a free market system. A G a month ain't a problem.

Fine pay them, but make it a true market system. Let good players leave for better schools and more cash. Make the contracts yearly so poor performers have their salaries reduced. Remember that any scholarships, room and board, tutor costs, etc are now benefits and tax them accordingly.

Maybe we found the answer to the country's budget woes!

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 19, 2013, 05:49:54 PM
But players do not own their image when in college.  Vander could not do local commercials in Milwaukee.  Cody Zeller cannot sign as a TV pitchman to do national commercials.  The coaches can and do this.

This cost the players a lot of money.

They absolutely can do this. They just can't play an amateur sport while doing so. They didn't have to go to American college. They could go try and play in Europe. Truth is, this pseudo farm system works pretty good for them. Gets them recognition they'd never get without the university.

Quote from: StillAWarrior on January 19, 2013, 07:04:41 PM
Maybe Chico, Sultan or someone else from late 80s/early 90s will remember, but I have a memory of a Marquette athlete (cross country maybe) participating in one of these and winning three prizes including a car. I think it was at Loyola. He had to either turn it down or lose his scholarship.  It's hazy, so I may be wrong on some of the details.

His name was Mike O'Hara, he had about one year of eligibility left. They changed the rule a few years later and made it sport specific so he could have kept every thing but had to give it all t-shirt, airline tickets and mustang back

Quote from: Utile et Dulce on January 19, 2013, 10:26:29 PM
Truth is, this pseudo farm system works pretty good for them. Gets them recognition they'd never get without the university.

thats not a fair comparison.  If there wasnt NCAA basketball, something would fill the void.  Clearly this country wants to pay for basketball beyond the NBA.  What would fill the void would pay the players.  So its not fair to say that its NCAAB or nothing.

Quote from: MUBurrow on January 19, 2013, 10:29:22 PM
thats not a fair comparison.  If there wasnt NCAA basketball, something would fill the void.  Clearly this country wants to pay for basketball beyond the NBA.  What would fill the void would pay the players.  So its not fair to say that its NCAAB or nothing.

Yes, I agree, but it wouldn't fill it to the same extent.  The benefit of having college athletics from a television perspective is you keep filling the bucket of fans because you keep graduating alumni that care about their school, and by definition "their team".  If you merely had a minor league basketball entity below the NBA, some people would gravitate toward it, but it is hard to fathom it being anything close to college hoops because of a lack of affinity toward the product that you get today from students, alumni, etc.  It's one of the reasons the NBDL is what it is...not very fantastic.

http://www.tennessean.com/viewart/20130116/SPORTS06/301160114/SEC-schools-spend-164-000-per-athlete


This is just one in a series of articles that points out how much schools are already spending per student athlete.    This one says $164k per athlete in the SEC.   There are other articles that indicat the Big East spends more than $100k per athlete.    I hate to agree with Chicos, but how could a school like MU pay that much per athlete AND include a stipend. 

Quote from: MUBurrow on January 19, 2013, 10:29:22 PM
thats not a fair comparison.  If there wasnt NCAA basketball, something would fill the void.  Clearly this country wants to pay for basketball beyond the NBA.  What would fill the void would pay the players.  So its not fair to say that its NCAAB or nothing.

Then why doesn't this alternative exist? If there is a league that can be both profitable enough for someone to invest and pay players, where is it? There are no rules stating this other league can't exist ... why hasn't the market created this better (from both the fan and the player perspective) product?

Why do the non-revenue programs even exist beyond needing to comply with Title IX?  I never saw a direct benefit from having a golf team or track team when I was a student.  From an individual school standpoint, I understand the need for a well rounded sports program, but I don't understand why colleges as a whole operating unprofitable teams.  Wouldn't the money be better spent being poured back into the universities?

Quote from: Utile et Dulce on January 20, 2013, 08:51:23 AM
Then why doesn't this alternative exist? If there is a league that can be both profitable enough for someone to invest and pay players, where is it? There are no rules stating this other league can't exist ... why hasn't the market created this better (from both the fan and the player perspective) product?

Seriously? Because the NCAA is doing it with institutional advantages any other market player could only dream of.

Quote from: Mufflers on January 20, 2013, 10:21:42 AM
Why do the non-revenue programs even exist beyond needing to comply with Title IX?  I never saw a direct benefit from having a golf team or track team when I was a student.  From an individual school standpoint, I understand the need for a well rounded sports program, but I don't understand why colleges as a whole operating unprofitable teams.  Wouldn't the money be better spent being poured back into the universities?

You could say that about anything....the art school major with a scholarship, the violin player in the music school, the linguist scholarship student, and on and on. 

Let's also not forget that about 98% of our country's Olympic medals are won by athletes that participated in collegiate sports...Olympic collegiate sports.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 20, 2013, 06:49:09 PM
You could say that about anything....the art school major with a scholarship, the violin player in the music school, the linguist scholarship student, and on and on. 

Let's also not forget that about 98% of our country's Olympic medals are won by athletes that participated in collegiate sports...Olympic collegiate sports.

well said. if we want to get into a philosophic debate about what sports schools "should" carry, revenue production shouldnt even factor in... unless we want to pay the players.

Quote from: MUBurrow on January 20, 2013, 05:48:33 PM
Seriously? Because the NCAA is doing it with institutional advantages any other market player could only dream of.

Such as?

Quote from: Utile et Dulce on January 20, 2013, 09:44:29 PM
Such as?

Compared to a pro league? They arent even comparable.  I'm not going to look up the exact percentages, but a massive amount of $$$ for NCAA sports comes from donations.  People donate their money to a fund such as the Blue and Gold fund, which in turn is used to reimburse players with scholarships and living expenses (at cost for the school) while the IRS subsidizes the whole thing by giving donors deductions.  Thats all BEFORE you even factor in the other indirect pathways that public state dollars have been funneled into athletic program expenses and facilities at public schools, which make up a ton of the higher profile programs.  

So already in that paragraph, a vast majority of most programs budgets have already been filled before you get into any of the areas of funding available for a typical pro league such as broadcasting rights, merchandise or ticket sales.  

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 19, 2013, 05:29:57 PM
Cool, let's pay the players.  What team are you going to root for, since Marquette will no longer have a program?

This type of response demonstrates exactly whom Chicos (and others) are actually concerned about on this topic...themselves. They want their college basketball, and specifically Marquette basketball, and they want the system designed to give them that,whether it is "fair" to the players or not, and justify it by saying, "well they get a scholarship that most people would be happy with, therefore it should be good enough for them."

Believe me, I get it. I have willingly turned a blind eye to performance enhancing drugs, concussions, etc. in MLB and the NFL. I have come to the conclussion that they are all doing it, are aware of the risks, and I don't care anymore. I want my football and baseball, and if they want to kill themselves, so be it, I will continue to tune in and feed the beast because I want to.  Of course it isn't exactly the same thing, since they are paid professionals. unlike NCAA football and basketball players who are unpaid professionals.

The treatment of athletes by the NCAA is similar to how the AAU acted in the 60s and 70s.  The NCAA gets everything and the players nothing.  giving money for travel home or for food or clothing may reduce the risk that players trade memorabilia for tatoos, etc.  Jay Bilas is money on this issue. 

+1  AAU analogy is spot on

It not about getting what you need as determined by some higher up (free tuition, room and board) but about getting what you make.

Recall the famous story about Chris Webber.  During his sophomore year he was in an Ann Arbor Mall and saw his Jersey for sale for $80.  He could not afford his own Jersey.  The owner of the story saw him and asked him if he'd come in and sign a bunch as he thought he could sell them for $200 to $500.  Webber could not earn a dime off those signed Jerseys.  He says this incident helped him decide to leave early.

The NCAA makes a billions off the Tourney.  The schools makes billions more in total off all the TV deals.  Yet somehow they cannot give a kid $1,000/month for travel home, food, movie tickets and new clothes?

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 19, 2013, 05:59:19 PM
You do not have to pay, and you do not have to pay everyone, or all sports.  Just that you can if you want to.

Well, the federal government and its thingy called Title IX cares to disagree.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 21, 2013, 08:52:11 AM
+1  AAU analogy is spot on

It not about getting what you need as determined by some higher up (free tuition, room and board) but about getting what you make.

Recall the famous story about Chris Webber.  During his sophomore year he was in an Ann Arbor Mall and saw his Jersey for sale for $80.  He could not afford his own Jersey.  The owner of the story saw him and asked him if he'd come in and sign a bunch as he thought he could sell them for $200 to $500.  Webber could not earn a dime off those signed Jerseys.  He says this incident helped him decide to leave early.

The NCAA makes a billions off the Tourney.  The schools makes billions more in total off all the TV deals.  Yet somehow they cannot give a kid $1,000/month for travel home, food, movie tickets and new clothes?

Truly, get a grip on reality.  There is a difference between "making" billions and profiting.  Look at a simple earnings and expense statement and get back to me on how they are making "billions".  They are not.

This will help to get you started.  

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/finances/ncaa+consolidated+financial+statements


http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Finances/Finances+Expenses

::)

Quote from: setyoursightsnorth on January 19, 2013, 06:12:40 PM
Maybe a stripper or two...
or seven.

Cleaning the carpet after a stripper craps on it can be expensive. Especially seven strippers. Or so I've been led to believe....

If a free education, housing ,meals, gear and travel aren't enough let them go pro.

Doctors have to delay gratification far longer and pay for their education as well.

I see where the NBADL draws about 50 people at the games I watch so I doubt a minor league NBA would be profitable. For the majority of NCAA athletes, the education is critical as they will need it for future employment.

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 21, 2013, 08:07:53 AM
This type of response demonstrates exactly whom Chicos (and others) are actually concerned about on this topic...themselves. They want their college basketball, and specifically Marquette basketball, and they want the system designed to give them that,whether it is "fair" to the players or not, and justify it by saying, "well they get a scholarship that most people would be happy with, therefore it should be good enough for them."

So if there is no Marquette basketball, and thus no scholarships at all for any sports at Marquette University, that is "fair" to the players?

Quote from: slingkong on January 21, 2013, 11:26:49 AM
Cleaning the carpet after a stripper craps on it can be expensive. Especially seven strippers. Or so I've been led to believe....

I can get you a quantity discount of you're in the Durham area.

Quote from: MarquetteDano on January 21, 2013, 11:40:56 AM
So if there is no Marquette basketball, and thus no scholarships at all for any sports at Marquette University, that is "fair" to the players?

Well, technically, yes, but my point is that we should call it what it is.

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 21, 2013, 12:20:52 PM
Well, technically, yes, but my point is that we should call it what it is.

What is it?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 19, 2013, 09:18:13 PM
Thanks

People forget that only the top top schools have revenue of any material amounts.  There are 330 DI schools, a ton of DII schools, a ton of DIII schools.  The revenues from the TV deals pay for all three divisions.  Then you factor in non-revenue sports for both men and women.  You're either going to get to a situation where you kill those Olympic sports entirely or have no scholarships for them, or some other major impact elsewhere.

So which is it? On the one hand, you say the above, but on the other, the NCAA financial links you provided indicate that Division II and Division III combined distribution accounts for roughly 6% of revenues and 7% of expenses. While DI institutions get better than 60%.

With roughly 750 total DII and DIII institutions, that translates to a best case of $72k per institution, which we know is high, as some of that money goes to support championships, etc, and it doesn't all go to the institutions. So are you suggesting that taking $72,000 away from UW-LaCrosse is going to destroy their athletic program?

Quote from: Pakuni on January 21, 2013, 12:33:06 PM
What is it?

Well, what did he say? That we better find someone other than MU to root for because they aren't going to be able to complete. So it's logical to say that he doesn't think players should be paid because it will create advantages for larger schools, etc., and MU will no longer be competitive. He doesn't want them paid, because he wants his MU basketball. And if players aren't getting their piece of the pie, while coaches cash $4M pay checks and can leave in a heartbeat for a bigger paycheck or to escape NCAA sanctions they created, so be it, while the players who make them successful and rich cannot even transfer schools without having to sit out a year, or make money on same way and remain on scholarship.

We've all known college BBall and football were all about money, and conference reallignment could not have crystallized it any more. The NCAA (which is the member institutions) is not going to give up a penny they don't have to, and right now the system they've developed is extraordinarily tipped in their favor, so they don't have to.

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 21, 2013, 12:58:29 PM
We've all known college BBall and football were all about money, and conference reallignment could not have crystallized it any more. The NCAA (which is the member institutions) is not going to give up a penny they don't have to, and right now the system they've developed is extraordinarily tipped in their favor, so they don't have to.

If it so tipped in their favor why did my cousins go play Big Ten baseball versus taking a relatively large singing bonus and play in the minors?  One of them graduated with a 3.1 but somehow he must be a moron.

Quote from: MarquetteDano on January 21, 2013, 01:12:16 PM
If it so tipped in their favor why did my cousins go play Big Ten baseball versus taking a relatively large singing bonus and play in the minors?  One of them graduated with a 3.1 but somehow he must be a moron.

You'd have to ask them, but my guess would be that they wanted to go to college. Obviously they're still going to be playing ball, and figure the professional option will still be the for them when they're done. Seems like a good decision.  I hope it works out for them. As to what that individual case has to do with anything, I have no idea, as I clearly and specifically referred to football and basketball as being tipped in the favor of NCAA/institutions.

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 21, 2013, 01:22:19 PM
You'd have to ask them, but my guess would be that they wanted to go to college. Obviously they're still going to be playing ball, and figure the professional option will still be the for them when they're done. Seems like a good decision.  I hope it works out for them. As to what that individual case has to do with anything, I have no idea, as I clearly and specifically referred to football and basketball as being tipped in the favor of NCAA/institutions.

But I think baseball is a excellent surrogate to compare basketball and football.  In baseball you have a legit competitor in the Minor Leagues.  Yet thousands of kids every year eschew that alternative and go get a University degree.

If a scholarship is so one-sided why do all of these kids go to school instead of play in the Minor Leagues?  It would seem the Minor Leagues is no better than a scholarship in this instance.

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 21, 2013, 08:07:53 AM
This type of response demonstrates exactly whom Chicos (and others) are actually concerned about on this topic...themselves. They want their college basketball, and specifically Marquette basketball, and they want the system designed to give them that,whether it is "fair" to the players or not, and justify it by saying, "well they get a scholarship that most people would be happy with, therefore it should be good enough for them."

Believe me, I get it. I have willingly turned a blind eye to performance enhancing drugs, concussions, etc. in MLB and the NFL. I have come to the conclussion that they are all doing it, are aware of the risks, and I don't care anymore. I want my football and baseball, and if they want to kill themselves, so be it, I will continue to tune in and feed the beast because I want to.  Of course it isn't exactly the same thing, since they are paid professionals. unlike NCAA football and basketball players who are unpaid professionals.

I'm worried about myself in this?  Uhm, no.

They get a free education, free room and board, free tutors, free travel around the USA.  Access to alumni and networking that most students can't dream of.  They get admitted to universities they would often NEVER get admitted to.  Free gear.  The ability to have a 4 year internship where they graduate to play in the NBA, NBADL, Europe, etc...how many other students get this?  Engineers may have a one year type of program.  Most A&S have none.  Business students may get a semester type of program.

Sorry, but how is this remotely thinking about "myself"? 

The problem is that most of you either skipped school the day they taught economics or have no idea how it works.  Furthermore, you view it through a lens of the top schools, top players and typically through the eyes of two sports...football and basketball.  Let alone that there are over 50 sports in the NCAA and hundreds of thousands of student athletes that DO NOT PLAY FOOTBALL OR BASKETBALL.

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 21, 2013, 12:58:29 PM
Well, what did he say? That we better find someone other than MU to root for because they aren't going to be able to complete. So it's logical to say that he doesn't think players should be paid because it will create advantages for larger schools, etc., and MU will no longer be competitive. He doesn't want them paid, because he wants his MU basketball. And if players aren't getting their piece of the pie, while coaches cash $4M pay checks and can leave in a heartbeat for a bigger paycheck or to escape NCAA sanctions they created, so be it, while the players who make them successful and rich cannot even transfer schools without having to sit out a year, or make money on same way and remain on scholarship.

We've all known college BBall and football were all about money, and conference reallignment could not have crystallized it any more. The NCAA (which is the member institutions) is not going to give up a penny they don't have to, and right now the system they've developed is extraordinarily tipped in their favor, so they don't have to.

It doesn't matter whether Chico's wants them paid or not. What matters is if there is a feasible system by which they can be paid without, for all intents, eliminating college athletics as they have been for most of the century and creating what is, for all intents, a minor-league sports program in which only a very small handful of schools can afford to participate.

The people who want to athletes paid, like yourself, are consistently in denial about three realities that make it essentially impossible, none of which they can (or are willing) to address.

1. College athletes already receive extensive compensation in the form of tuition and books, meals, clothing, housing and medical care. Most importantly, they receive a high level of professional training without which many of them would never be able to earn a living in their chosen sport. Do you think Jae Crowder is an NBA player today without the training he received in college? This compensation is worth, as has been pointed out already, more than $100,000 annually at some schools. A football player who redshirts then plays four seasons is getting more than a half million dollars in compensation. They are not playing for nothing.

2. Title IX requires that if you provide some athletes with certain benefits, you must supply all athletes with those benefits. so, if you want to pay Vander Blue a $1,000 monthly stipend, you're doing so for the women's lacrosse team, the golfers, the tennis players, etc. MU has 221 scholarship athletes, according to the latest Dept. of Education data. This would mean a $2.65 million hit to the athletic department's budget. It would cost the University of Wisconsin $10.5 million a year. Where's this money coming from?

3. Contrary to repeated assertions about college athletic departments raking in billions of dollars, many barely break even - if that - and are largely subsidized through student activity fees paid for by non-athletes. Nearly 15 percent of UConn's athletic budget is subsidized through fees. Same with Virginia and Rutgers. The number is over 9 percent at North Carolina and Florida State. Even big SEC programs like Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina and Florida are partially subsidized. How are these schools going to shell out millions of dollars a year to pay athletes when they can't even break even without subsidies under the current system?

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 21, 2013, 12:47:50 PM
So which is it? On the one hand, you say the above, but on the other, the NCAA financial links you provided indicate that Division II and Division III combined distribution accounts for roughly 6% of revenues and 7% of expenses. While DI institutions get better than 60%.

With roughly 750 total DII and DIII institutions, that translates to a best case of $72k per institution, which we know is high, as some of that money goes to support championships, etc, and it doesn't all go to the institutions. So are you suggesting that taking $72,000 away from UW-LaCrosse is going to destroy their athletic program?

You do realize that the budgets to run DII and DIII are a little different, right?  Do you know what the athletic budget is for a DIII school?  I didn't think so, but that kind of money is a huge hit to them.

Again, I ask, did you ever take economics in school and\or work in an environment where you are responsible for the P & L of a division, company, department, whatever?  I think you might want to invest some time in looking at what the NCAA takes in, then look at the expenditures.  Next, please divorce yourself (and others) of the ridiculous idea that schools are making "billions" off t-shirt or jersey sales...it is preposterous. 

Are there some student athletes that are hardship cases...yes there are.  Are there some that could use "walking around" money...yes.  Are these student athletes being given the chance of a lifetime worth FAR MORE than the actual dollar expenditures of that education in today's value....you're damn right they are. 

There were many of us that didn't have squat when we were in college.  Paid our own way, had a run down apartment that wasn't close to what some student athletes have...certainly didn't have the quality food access, teacher access, etc that they get.  There are tradeoffs in life.  A scholarship is offered, if they don't like it, go to Europe and play.

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 21, 2013, 12:58:29 PM
Well, what did he say? That we better find someone other than MU to root for because they aren't going to be able to complete. So it's logical to say that he doesn't think players should be paid because it will create advantages for larger schools, etc., and MU will no longer be competitive. He doesn't want them paid, because he wants his MU basketball. And if players aren't getting their piece of the pie, while coaches cash $4M pay checks and can leave in a heartbeat for a bigger paycheck or to escape NCAA sanctions they created, so be it, while the players who make them successful and rich cannot even transfer schools without having to sit out a year, or make money on same way and remain on scholarship.

We've all known college BBall and football were all about money, and conference reallignment could not have crystallized it any more. The NCAA (which is the member institutions) is not going to give up a penny they don't have to, and right now the system they've developed is extraordinarily tipped in their favor, so they don't have to.

Again, you keep going to the extreme.  How many coaches out of 1000 coaches are getting $4m pay checks?  Less than 1%.  By the way, the NCAA has no authority over coaches pay and they have come out repeatedly against the high amounts schools are paying.  If you have a beef with a coach's paycheck, that should be with the school, not with the NCAA.

I do like MU hoops and other sports at MU.  I believe we and other schools offer an EQUITABLE relationship.  We pay for your school, we provide assistance, facilities, room and board, etc, etc in return for you to represent our school.  No one is putting a gun to their head to take the offer.  In the end, the student athlete should earn far more from the relationship than the school does, especially in the non-revenue sports.  It won't even be close.  I see this as a benefit to MU and these students, not benefiting me as you imply.  Kids are being educated and becoming productive members of society for decades to come...all for playing soccer, or track, or volleyball, or golf at school. 

Quote from: Pakuni on January 21, 2013, 01:36:03 PM
It doesn't matter whether Chico's wants them paid or not. What matters is if there is a feasible system by which they can be paid without, for all intents, eliminating college athletics as they have been for most of the century and creating what is, for all intents, a minor-league sports program in which only a very small handful of schools can afford to participate.

The people who want to athletes paid, like yourself, are consistently in denial about three realities that make it essentially impossible, none of which they can (or are willing) to address.

1. College athletes already receive extensive compensation in the form of tuition and books, meals, clothing, housing and medical care. Most importantly, they receive a high level of professional training without which many of them would never be able to earn a living in their chosen sport. Do you think Jae Crowder is an NBA player today without the training he received in college? This compensation is worth, as has been pointed out already, more than $100,000 annually at some schools. A football player who redshirts then plays four seasons is getting more than a half million dollars in compensation. They are not playing for nothing.

2. Title IX requires that if you provide some athletes with certain benefits, you must supply all athletes with those benefits. so, if you want to pay Vander Blue a $1,000 monthly stipend, you're doing so for the women's lacrosse team, the golfers, the tennis players, etc. MU has 221 scholarship athletes, according to the latest Dept. of Education data. This would mean a $2.65 million hit to the athletic department's budget. It would cost the University of Wisconsin $10.5 million a year. Where's this money coming from?

3. Contrary to repeated assertions about college athletic departments raking in billions of dollars, many barely break even - if that - and are largely subsidized through student activity fees paid for by non-athletes. Nearly 15 percent of UConn's athletic budget is subsidized through fees. Same with Virginia and Rutgers. The number is over 9 percent at North Carolina and Florida State. Even big SEC programs like Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina and Florida are partially subsidized. How are these schools going to shell out millions of dollars a year to pay athletes when they can't even break even without subsidies under the current system?

I get all of that, and I appreciate you not acting like the condescending prick, like some others,  but while the items you point out are today's reality, and difficult, and perhaps even impossible to overcome, what bothers me is that no effort is made, and from where i'm sitting, the NCAA is all too happy to hide behind them. They immerse themselves in inconsistency and hypocrisy seemingly with every action they take. It's all about money,plain and simple.

I dont want to speak for anyone else, but the reason this bugs me is: If I pay someone the marketplace equivalent of $1 million in sour patch kids to work at my sour patch kids factory, have I paid him/her $1 million?

Quote from: MUBurrow on January 21, 2013, 05:08:23 PM
I dont want to speak for anyone else, but the reason this bugs me is: If I pay someone the marketplace equivalent of $1 million in sour patch kids to work at my sour patch kids factory, have I paid him/her $1 million?

I guess it depends: did the person agree to work at your factory in exchange for Sour Patch Kids?

Regardless, the analogy doesn't really hold. Sour Patch Kids, while undoubtedly delicious, aren't equivalent to housing, full meals and health care, nor do they offer the future earning potential of a college degree and professional training.

Quote from: Pakuni on January 21, 2013, 05:39:32 PM
I guess it depends: did the person agree to work at your factory in exchange for Sour Patch Kids?

Regardless, the analogy doesn't really hold. Sour Patch Kids, while undoubtedly delicious, aren't equivalent to housing, full meals and health care, nor do they offer the future earning potential of a college degree and professional training.

But telling an adult without another paying domestic outlet for that labor that the things you mentioned are "just as good as money" is awfully paternalistic, aina?

Quote from: MUBurrow on January 21, 2013, 05:08:23 PM
I dont want to speak for anyone else, but the reason this bugs me is: If I pay someone the marketplace equivalent of $1 million in sour patch kids to work at my sour patch kids factory, have I paid him/her $1 million?

I'm pretty sure, according to the Affordable Care Act, you're on the hook for health care benefits.

Quote from: MUBurrow on January 21, 2013, 05:08:23 PM
I dont want to speak for anyone else, but the reason this bugs me is: If I pay someone the marketplace equivalent of $1 million in sour patch kids to work at my sour patch kids factory, have I paid him/her $1 million?

I don't understand your analogy at all.  

1) If there is a marketplace for the sour patch kids and the person can sell them for $1 million, then I would say you have, at the very least, given them an asset that can be sold for that value

2) Is your analogy supposed to be the equivalent of an education...sour patch kids (or whatever) = education?  Sorry, I find that way out there.

An education delivers 10 fold (if not more) than what it costs.  Most of us that went to MU will make $1 million in our lifetimes, some will make appreciably more than that ($5 million...$10 million)...yet it cost us anywhere from $20K to $130K to go depending on when you attended.  

If folks don't want that exchange, they can go "sell their services" elsewhere.  Let's also not lose site of the fact that the kid that play 1 minute is whole career gets the same deal as the kid who is an All American.

Quote from: MUBurrow on January 21, 2013, 05:08:23 PM
I dont want to speak for anyone else, but the reason this bugs me is: If I pay someone the marketplace equivalent of $1 million in sour patch kids to work at my sour patch kids factory, have I paid him/her $1 million?

And I'll bring up the baseball comparison again.... that same person is being offered a job for less than that $1 million in sour patch kids in actual dinero and yet a good portion of them take the sour patch kids.  Why I wonder?

Quote from: MarquetteDano on January 21, 2013, 06:24:35 PM
And I'll bring up the baseball comparison again.... that same person is being offered a job for less than that $1 million in sour patch kids in actual dinero and yet a good portion of them take the sour patch kids.  Why I wonder?

I actually think thats a really counterproductive comparison.  Sure a good portion take the alternate option. But a ton of kids go pro out of high school - enough to severely water down the college game.  Earlier I had asked what other entity could possibly get away with the NCAA's compensation system if not for the inertia of its power and influence today. Baseball might be a better example of what would happen if private paying leagues and the NCAA started over from the same point.  What was the last time people on this board took in a NCAA baseball game?  What about a minor league game?  How much per year do you spend on NCAA baseball as compared to minor league baseball?

I bet minor league baseball blows NCAA baseball out of the water.  NCAA baseball is a massively inferior game compared to NCAA football or basketball relative to the level of pro competition. Sure, youre right that a bunch of kids still play NCAA ball - but I think ties lose in this comparison.  In baseball they have the choice - in basketball and football they dont.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 21, 2013, 06:14:40 PM

I don't understand your analogy at all.  

1) If there is a marketplace for the sour patch kids and the person can sell them for $1 million, then I would say you have, at the very least, given them an asset that can be sold for that value

2) Is your analogy supposed to be the equivalent of an education...sour patch kids (or whatever) = education?  Sorry, I find that way out there.

An education delivers 10 fold (if not more) than what it costs.  Most of us that went to MU will make $1 million in our lifetimes, some will make appreciably more than that ($5 million...$10 million)...yet it cost us anywhere from $20K to $130K to go depending on when you attended.  

If folks don't want that exchange, they can go "sell their services" elsewhere.  Let's also not lose site of the fact that the kid that play 1 minute is whole career gets the same deal as the kid who is an All American.

I dont want to monopolize this thread, especially since I actually dont have that strong an opinion either way, and I certainly dont want to get into a detailed comparison of sour patch kids vs a college education (clearly you could substitute ANYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD for sour patch kids in my example, who else would even try to break down that analogy?) but my point is that in no other facet of industry could you essentially eliminate any sense of the open market for a skill, then compensate individuals with that skill only with an in-kind service and call it fair and "best for the kids"

Quote from: MUBurrow on January 21, 2013, 07:07:42 PM
I bet minor league baseball blows NCAA baseball out of the water.  NCAA baseball is a massively inferior game compared to NCAA football or basketball relative to the level of pro competition. Sure, youre right that a bunch of kids still play NCAA ball - but I think ties lose in this comparison.  In baseball they have the choice - in basketball and football they dont.

The bottom line is that loads of kids are drafted every year with $30-$50k signing bonuses and a guarantee of salary and yet they still play college, with no chance of a stipend.  Based on some peoples' argument here, nearly every single kid would take the money.

Why don't they take the money?  If having a scholarship and having your expenses paid for you is so one-sided for the University, why wouldn't they play in the minor leagues?

And since the level of play is so wonderful at the college level in basketball/football why hasn't some smart entreprenuer started a league to show off all of this wonderful talent and pay the kids enough to lure them away from college?

Quote from: Mufflers on January 20, 2013, 10:21:42 AM
Why do the non-revenue programs even exist beyond needing to comply with Title IX?  I never saw a direct benefit from having a golf team or track team when I was a student.  From an individual school standpoint, I understand the need for a well rounded sports program, but I don't understand why colleges as a whole operating unprofitable teams.  Wouldn't the money be better spent being poured back into the universities?

Most students like the school they are attending for academic reasons.  Not everyone likes college basketball or football.  I think you'll have a hard time getting popular support for paying players- and only some athletes, but not others- at that.

Also, why then do most high schools run sports programs?  Are not all HS sports, and especially football and basketball, money losing propositions.

Quote from: MarquetteDano on January 21, 2013, 07:20:14 PM
The bottom line is that loads of kids are drafted every year with $30-$50k signing bonuses and a guarantee of salary and yet they still play college, with no chance of a stipend.  Based on some peoples' argument here, nearly every single kid would take the money.

I dont get why thats the bottom line.  Your argument for no one being paid is that in a situation where anyone can get paid, some choose to get paid.  Thats hardly a good argument that no one should get paid.

Quote from: MUBurrow on January 21, 2013, 06:02:42 PM
But telling an adult without another paying domestic outlet for that labor that the things you mentioned are "just as good as money" is awfully paternalistic, aina?

Last I checked, the NBDL paid its players.
Nobody is forced to play college ball, nor are they owed a domestic outlet for their chosen labor.

Quote from: Pakuni on January 21, 2013, 08:15:59 PM
Last I checked, the NBDL paid its players.
Nobody is forced to play college ball, nor are they owed a domestic outlet for their chosen labor.

You cannot play the for NBADL or the NBA until one year after your HS class graduates.  So yes or are being denied an opportunity to make money for a while.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 21, 2013, 08:30:02 PM
You cannot play the for NBADL or the NBA until one year after your HS class graduates.  So yes or are being denied an opportunity to make money for a while.

You're wrong. Players can go from high school to the D-league.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 21, 2013, 08:30:02 PM
You cannot play the for NBADL or the NBA until one year after your HS class graduates.  So yes or are being denied an opportunity to make money for a while.

Incorrect.  Directly from the NBADL website:

"The minimum age to play in the D-League is 18, unlike the NBA, which requires players to be 19 years old and one year out of high school in order to sign an NBA contract or be eligible for the draft. There is no maximum age and a recent trend has seen NBA veterans attempt to return to the NBA via the D-League."


If these guys should be paid as you and others state, there's your avenue.  By all means, have them skip college and the situation that college offers and have them go directly to the NBADL so they get paid. 

I would suggest this reading.

http://nymag.com/daily/sports/2011/11/chait-why-paying-student-athletes-wont-work.html

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 21, 2013, 09:23:24 PM
I would suggest this reading.

http://nymag.com/daily/sports/2011/11/chait-why-paying-student-athletes-wont-work.html

Stopped reading when the author went after Paul Ryan and free markets. What in the wide world of sports has gotten into you, man?

Quote from: MUBurrow on January 21, 2013, 07:51:11 PM
I dont get why thats the bottom line.  Your argument for no one being paid is that in a situation where anyone can get paid, some choose to get paid.  Thats hardly a good argument that no one should get paid.

I guess if you do not believe in capitalistic economics then yes, it is not a good argument.  If you do believe that people, more often than not, act in their self-interest when making decisions then not paying a stipend appears not to dissuade these athletes from college.  They have options.... go overseas, play in the minors (baseball or NBADL), get a non-sports job, etc..

If things are as unfair to the athlete as everyone states around here the great thing is there will, soon enough, be competition that will destroy the NCAA high revenue sports.

Because there is so much money to be made that whatever minor league entity is created will be able to more than pay these athletes their "true worth" and that will be so much greater than the value of a university education they will flee college athletics.

I will not hold my breath.

Quote from: MarquetteDano on January 21, 2013, 07:20:14 PM
The bottom line is that loads of kids are drafted every year with $30-$50k signing bonuses and a guarantee of salary and yet they still play college, with no chance of a stipend.  Based on some peoples' argument here, nearly every single kid would take the money.

For this argument to have any validity, you're going to have to show me where anyone said anything close to that.

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 21, 2013, 09:58:18 PM
For this argument to have any validity, you're going to have to show me where anyone said anything close to that.

You yourself stated everything is extraordinarily tipped in the university's favor versus the student.  With legitimate alternatives to university, why do so many eschew these alternatives?

Quote from: MarquetteDano on January 21, 2013, 09:48:47 PM

If things are as unfair to the athlete as everyone states around here the great thing is there will, soon enough, be competition that will destroy the NCAA high revenue sports.

Unfortunately, as long as the billion dollar TV contracts are going to the NCAA as they are today, they will continue to protect their "amateur" sports monopoly as they do today, all the while hiding behind title IX, non-revenue sports, etc. Again,  I'm not suggesting those are not real obstacles, but its tough to solve a problem the NCAA is not willing to acknowledge.

Quote from: MarquetteDano on January 21, 2013, 10:04:04 PM
You yourself stated everything is extraordinarily tipped in the university's favor versus the student.  

You honestly think that is not the case (and please don't bring up baseball again, as i specifically pointed to football and basketball)? More to the point, how or where did I suggest that given the opportunity, any kid would take the money ($30-50,000 as you suggest)? One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. So again, if ou can point to where anyone suggested that, I'll consider your argument.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 21, 2013, 09:48:18 PM
Stopped reading when the author went after Paul Ryan and free markets. What in the wide world of sports has gotten into you, man?

:)

The thing is, in this case he's right.  Non-revenue sports exist not because they are profitable or even self-reliant.  Those are the realities we have to deal with in a Title IX world...programs that exist and need to be paid for that could not exist on their own.  We can argue the merits or worthiness, but it isn't going away.

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 21, 2013, 10:08:28 PM
Unfortunately, as long as the billion dollar TV contracts are going to the NCAA as they are today, they will continue to protect their "amateur" sports monopoly as they do today, all the while hiding behind title IX, non-revenue sports, etc. Again,  I'm not suggesting those are not real obstacles, but its tough to solve a problem the NCAA is not willing to acknowledge.

Let's start by defining the problem...what do you think the problem is and do you think that it extends to only basketball and football players or student athletes of every sport?

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 21, 2013, 10:14:04 PM
You honestly think that is not the case (and please don't bring up baseball again, as i specifically pointed to football and basketball)? More to the point, how or where did I suggest that given the opportunity, any kid would take the money ($30-50,000 as you suggest)? One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. So again, if ou can point to where anyone suggested that, I'll consider your argument.

You cannot state on one hand that everything is against the student and on the other refuse to acknowldge that people have alternatives and say it has nothing to do with paying players.  Choices tell us the fairness of a trade.  It is crux of economics.  

Other than a few one and dones who are not allowed to go to the NBA straight out of high school (which I am against and is an NBA rule not NCAA) no one is getting treated unfairly.  If they truly were treated as bad as you say the talent would go elsewhere and the NCAA/universities would be forced to change.

Perhaps if more kids went to alternatives you will see the NCAA get around the Title IX stuff and pay only basketball/football student-athletes.  I would have no problem with that.  However, paying every full-time scholarship athlete does not sound feasible.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 21, 2013, 10:33:15 PM
Let's start by defining the problem...what do you think the problem is and do you think that it extends to only basketball and football players or student athletes of every sport?

Yes, I do. They live under restrictions in what they can and cannot do to maintain their "amateur" status, and their movement is restricted, while the revenue they generate is split disproportionatley among thousands of other people.

Great deal for the tennis and soccer players, who literally would not exist without the revenue the basketball and football players generate. Not to mention coaches who can come and go as they please, ADs,  television networks...the list of mouths they feed is a long one. They deserve more than what they get, but as you yourself pointed out, giving them more would upset the apple cart in a big way. As a result, nobody who benefits is willing to try to address it.

Quote from: MarquetteDano on January 21, 2013, 10:40:30 PM

Perhaps if more kids went to alternatives you will see the NCAA get around the Title IX stuff and pay only basketball/football student-athletes.  I would have no problem with that.  

Attempting to find a way to do so is all I am asking of the NCAA. I don't understand why however,it should require that kids opt for alternatives before they decide to take action. Your saying that seems to indicate that you agree they should be treated differently than other athletes, but because of the lack of alternatives, the NCAA should not address it simply because they don't have to. If its the right thing to do if there are alternatives for the players, why would you oppose it when there aren't? Goes back to my earlier point....many oppose paying players because they want their MU Basketball, NCAA tournament, and their college football on Saturday, and they know that paying players potentially changes the landscape as we know (and like) it.

I think that the number $1000/month was thrown out at the beginning of this thread and has been stuck to too literally.  That number might be too high, but a stipend is not the craziest idea ever thrown about.  I think players might get a small per diem now, but 1) some of these kids are really poor and 2) they aren't allowed to earn money in any way while on scholarship.  I don't know the answer, but I agree with NavinRJohnson - with all the billions of dollars exchanging hands because of these players, there should at least be an ongoing discussion on the topic of what would be equitable compensation for the players and how can we make sure they receive said equitable compensation.

nm, done with this one

Quote from: MUBurrow on January 22, 2013, 07:58:26 AM
If you think the compensation and revenue system only available to the NCAA but not to any other potential competitor reflects anything close to a free market system, this isn't really a discussion worth having.

So, just to great this straight, Minor League Baseball who is a competitor to the NCAA in terms of customers and suppliers (athletes) is not a fair comparison to basketball and football.

But because there hasn't been a league to truly compete with basketball and football that is a sign of a monopolistic environment.  Please don't tell me you are a Marquette business major.

Quote from: TJ on January 21, 2013, 11:10:40 PM
I think that the number $1000/month was thrown out at the beginning of this thread and has been stuck to too literally.  That number might be too high, but a stipend is not the craziest idea ever thrown about.  I think players might get a small per diem now, but 1) some of these kids are really poor and 2) they aren't allowed to earn money in any way while on scholarship.  I don't know the answer, but I agree with NavinRJohnson - with all the billions of dollars exchanging hands because of these players, there should at least be an ongoing discussion on the topic of what would be equitable compensation for the players and how can we make sure they receive said equitable compensation.

Why is a $1000/month too high?  Money to travel home, buy clothes, go out to a movie, buy something for yourself (itunes song, new iPad), books, gas for car, makes this number reasonable.  If fact, I don't think $2,000/month is unreasonable.

It is either that or illegally sell memorabilia for tattoos ... ask tOSU.

Quote from: MarquetteDano on January 22, 2013, 08:19:58 AM
So, just to great this straight, Minor League Baseball who is a competitor to the NCAA in terms of customers and suppliers (athletes) is not a fair comparison to basketball and football.

But because there hasn't been a league to truly compete with basketball and football that is a sign of a monopolistic environment.  Please don't tell me you are a Marquette business major.

I'm sure he's not. Probably spends all his time watching minor league baseball on TV. Oh wait, minor league baseball isn't on TV.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 22, 2013, 08:36:13 AM
Why is a $1000/month too high?  Money to travel home, buy clothes, go out to a movie, buy something for yourself (itunes song, new iPad), books, gas for car, makes this number reasonable.  If fact, I don't think $2,000/month is unreasonable.

It is either that or illegally sell memorabilia for tattoos ... ask tOSU.

I didn't say it was or wasn't too high.  I said it was brought up early in the thread and then taken as THE number, even used in later calculations of cost to the school.  In fact it was just a hypothetical number thrown out by a poster.

My point was that the whole conversation shouldn't be derailed because of a hypothetical amount, the question of whether players should be compensated in some way doesn't hinge on the amount.

And you answer your point - these kids don't need a new iPad every month, or at all.  The point of this is money for movies, food, and clothes - not iPads.  Show me that the average college student is spending $1000/month AFTER all tuition & housing & meal plans & books; then I'll accept that number.  In reality, they don't have a car because they don't need one as a student-athlete, the iPad idea is ridiculous, and books are provided.  So money for some clothes (they have lots of clothes provided as well), a movie, a dinner out, a few songs or movies... I don't think this is unreasonable, but it is nowhere near $1000/month.  Maybe that's what they deserve, but it's not what they need at all.

Quote from: TJ on January 22, 2013, 08:55:36 AM
And you answer your point - these kids don't need a new iPad every month, or at all.  The point of this is money for movies, food, and clothes - not iPads.  Show me that the average college student is spending $1000/month AFTER all tuition & housing & meal plans & books; then I'll accept that number.  In reality, they don't have a car because they don't need one as a student-athlete, the iPad idea is ridiculous, and books are provided.  So money for some clothes (they have lots of clothes provided as well), a movie, a dinner out, a few songs or movies... I don't think this is unreasonable, but it is nowhere near $1000/month.  Maybe that's what they deserve, but it's not what they need at all.

You must be an old man still using a rotary phone.  Cell phones/iPads/laptops are required learning tools in the 21st century.  Not only do you need to have one, you better be able to use them well.  Try getting a job with knowing how to use them.

They are not "kids" they are adults in their early 20s.  Some have wives and kids.  Cars are also not unreasonable.  Maybe at MU is an urban environment they are not as necessary.  They are more so at, say ND or Purdue.  Try getting around those areas without a car.

They do not have lots of clothes.  They have sweats provided.  "Real clothes" they need to buy.

Bottom line, divorce your image of a 17 year old from a rich family that is given a iPad and laptop and their parents pay their mobile phone bill.  Now think of a 22 or 23 year old with a wife/kid (Wade and DJ here) that has to buy these things for themselves and ask if $1,000/month is unreasonable.  It is too low!

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 22, 2013, 08:48:00 AM
I'm sure he's not. Probably spends all his time watching minor league baseball on TV. Oh wait, minor league baseball isn't on TV.

Well it is on tv.  Maybe not in your market.  But that is not the point.

It sounds like the more than a few here believe the kids are completely getting screwed over by the NCAA monetarily.  There is certainly not a small minority who believe this.  I just haven't heard a very good economic case for it.

Perhaps some smart former player could start a union of sorts and convince high school athletes to go on strike or at least put the fear into the NCAA of a strike.  But until then I don't see the empirical evidence.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 22, 2013, 09:04:03 AM
You must be an old man still using a rotary phone.  Cell phones/iPads/laptops are required learning tools in the 21st century.  Not only do you need to have one, you better be able to use them well.  Try getting a job with knowing how to use them.

They are not "kids" they are adults in their early 20s.  Some have wives and kids.  Cars are also not unreasonable.  Maybe at MU is an urban environment they are not as necessary.  They are more so at, say ND or Purdue.  Try getting around those areas without a car.

They do not have lots of clothes.  They have sweats provided.  "Real clothes" they need to buy.

Bottom line, divorce your image of a 17 year old from a rich family that is given a iPad and laptop and their parents pay their mobile phone bill.  Now think of a 22 or 23 year old with a wife/kid (Wade and DJ here) that has to buy these things for themselves and ask if $1,000/month is unreasonable.  It is too low!

I thought MU basketball players got free iPads....almost positive that was reported a few years ago.

While you are at it, are you going to buy these same things for the poor kid in the history department that doesn't have a car, an iPad, real clothes?  How about the kid in the Spanish department?  What about the kid paying his own way in the African American studies department, or are these kids out of luck because they aren't 6'5" and jump real high?

What about the student athlete woman's soccer player that has all that stuff, does she get it?  Is this needs based?  What's the cut off? 

It is too low, my ARSE.  There are people in this country today not making $12K a year today in some cases and you are abdicating that $12K a year is too low ON TOP of everything else they get.  WOW.  Does it suck that Wade had a wife and baby...yup.  Does that mean the student athlete that didn't make that choice is not going to receive a stipend but one that did, does?  Hmmm.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 22, 2013, 09:04:03 AM
You must be an old man still using a rotary phone.  Cell phones/iPads/laptops are required learning tools in the 21st century.  Not only do you need to have one, you better be able to use them well.  Try getting a job with knowing how to use them.

They are not "kids" they are adults in their early 20s.  Some have wives and kids.  Cars are also not unreasonable.  Maybe at MU is an urban environment they are not as necessary.  They are more so at, say ND or Purdue.  Try getting around those areas without a car.

They do not have lots of clothes.  They have sweats provided.  "Real clothes" they need to buy.

Bottom line, divorce your image of a 17 year old from a rich family that is given a iPad and laptop and their parents pay their mobile phone bill.  Now think of a 22 or 23 year old with a wife/kid (Wade and DJ here) that has to buy these things for themselves and ask if $1,000/month is unreasonable.  It is too low!

I still think that talking about buying an iPad a month is unreasonable.  And you should divorce your image of a 22 year old with a wife/kid - that's an unfortunate situation, but it is also not the standard case we should be looking at.

I'm on your side in this debate.  But if your baseline is $1000/month because they need iPads and laptops and it's either give them that or nothing then we're not going to get very far.  Especially after someone earlier in the thread calculated for you that Wisconsin would face a $10 million yearly expense with that number unless you can convince the courts that basketball and football players can be treated separately - an argument that has not won in the past.

Quote from: TJ on January 21, 2013, 11:10:40 PM
I think that the number $1000/month was thrown out at the beginning of this thread and has been stuck to too literally.  That number might be too high, but a stipend is not the craziest idea ever thrown about.  I think players might get a small per diem now, but 1) some of these kids are really poor and 2) they aren't allowed to earn money in any way while on scholarship.  I don't know the answer, but I agree with NavinRJohnson - with all the billions of dollars exchanging hands because of these players, there should at least be an ongoing discussion on the topic of what would be equitable compensation for the players and how can we make sure they receive said equitable compensation.

I don't see anyone arguing that the players couldn't or shouldn't receive a reasonable stipend. In fact, the NCAA has a proposal before it right now that would do that ($2,000 a year, not the ridiculous $1,000 a month that's been suggested here).

And, yes, $1,000 a month is ridiculous. It's way, way more than any college kid needs, especially one who has his/her meals, lodging and school needs provided for free. It would also, as I explained earlier, be impossible for the vast majority of schools to afford. Some people would rather not deal with these facts.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2013, 09:30:48 AM
I thought MU basketball players got free iPads....almost positive that was reported a few years ago.

While you are at it, are you going to buy these same things for the poor kid in the history department that doesn't have a car, an iPad, real clothes?  How about the kid in the Spanish department?  What about the kid paying his own way in the African American studies department, or are these kids out of luck because they aren't 6'5" and jump real high?

What about the student athlete woman's soccer player that has all that stuff, does she get it?  Is this needs based?  What's the cut off? 

It is too low, my ARSE.  There are people in this country today not making $12K a year today in some cases and you are abdicating that $12K a year is too low ON TOP of everything else they get.  WOW.  Does it suck that Wade had a wife and baby...yup.  Does that mean the student athlete that didn't make that choice is not going to receive a stipend but one that did, does?  Hmmm.

I do disagree with you overall in that I think a stipend of some amount should absolutely be seriously considered and potentially put in place, but I completely agree with the last part of this.

As for the kid in the history department, etc. - yes they pay their own way because they aren't 6'5" and jump real high.  This is about compensating players for the money (billions of dollars) they bring in to college athletics not about fixing poverty among college students.

Quote from: Pakuni on January 22, 2013, 09:31:38 AM
I don't see anyone arguing that the players couldn't or shouldn't receive a reasonable stipend. In fact, the NCAA has a proposal before it right now that would do that ($2,000 a year, not the ridiculous $1,000 a month that's been suggested here).

And, yes, $1,000 a month is ridiculous. It's way, way more than any college kid needs, especially one who has his/her meals, lodging and school needs provided for free. It would also, as I explained earlier, be impossible for the vast majority of schools to afford. Some people would rather not deal with these facts.

People were definitely arguing against paying players.  If no one's arguing against a reasonable stipend, let's do it.  $175 a month ($225 if they only are paid 9 months, though the problem remains that they aren't allowed to work during the summer) sounds great to me, at least as a starting point.  I would bet that proposal doesn't get the unanimous agreement you seem to be suggesting it will though.

Quote from: TJ on January 22, 2013, 09:38:19 AM
I do disagree with you overall in that I think a stipend of some amount should absolutely be seriously considered and potentially put in place, but I completely agree with the last part of this.

As for the kid in the history department, etc. - yes they pay their own way because they aren't 6'5" and jump real high.  This is about compensating players for the money (billions of dollars) they bring in to college athletics not about fixing poverty among college students.

But that's not the argument he was making.  He was saying he couldn't afford those things that he needs to succeed in the 21st century.  Well, neither can the poor kid in the History department...if you play along with his argument.

The other problem is theses guys continue to only focus on the very top, only football and basketball, and only at certain schools.  The guy playing for New Jersey Institute of Technology, going to practice every day, a DI player, will NEVER be on television unless they are playing a powerhouse school....does he get to be rewarded?  The school isn't making any money off of him?  So why is he treated differently?

I can't wait for the stories to come out on what these kids are buying with their cash....you want to see the public become even more skeptical about college athletics, you just wait.  I mean, what can possibly go wrong about putting a bunch of cash into the hands of 18 to 22 year olds....what could possibly go wrong.   ::)   And you just wait to see how this is abused by schools with further payments under the table.  Stud PG is going to be pissed that benchwarmer Charlie is getting the same stipend as he does. 

Quote from: TJ on January 22, 2013, 09:38:19 AM
As for the kid in the history department, etc. - yes they pay their own way because they aren't 6'5" and jump real high.  This is about compensating players for the money (billions of dollars) they bring in to college athletics not about fixing poverty among college students.

One thing people get consistently wrong is the notion that these kids are bringing in billions of dollars to college athletics. They're not. They're part of a structure built by the universities that produces billions of dollars.
Someone earlier cited the Chris Webber jersey as an example of these kids getting screwed. What that person failed to recognize is that a Chris Webber jersey is absolutely worthless without the word "Michigan" on its front and without the exposure on television and other media outlets he received by playing for Michigan (or any other NCAA institution). Nobody pays a dime for a plain blue jersey with the name Webber on the back. And if Chris Webber never existed or went straight to the NBA, Michigan would be selling jerseys with some other player's name on the back.
The jersey sells because it has "Michigan" on the front and "Webber" on the back. The university certainly benefits from the players' labor, but the players benefit from the billions of dollars of investment by the universities creating a system by which the players receive exposure, professional training, etc. that makes it possible for them to earn millions and millions down the road. It is (if I may delve into consultant-speak) a symbiotic relationship that benefits both sides.
Seems you're all ignoring the second half of the relationship.

Most of the people I went to MU with went through 4 years without an Ipad, car or "real clothes" we went to Goodwill for furniture and clothing and worked during the summer for spending money and bills. Many days I went without eating a full meal. One of the local restaurants would front us a meal until we had a few bucks. I would gladly do it again for the education,experience and opportunity.

This concept that everybody has to have everything everyone else has is corrupting. Jimmy Carter said "Life is not Fair"  Athletes chose the path they are on and the deal is to play for the school that houses, feeds, dresses and supports you.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2013, 09:52:18 AM
But that's not the argument he was making.  He was saying he couldn't afford those things that he needs to succeed in the 21st century.  Well, neither can the poor kid in the History department...if you play along with his argument.

The other problem is theses guys continue to only focus on the very top, only football and basketball, and only at certain schools.  The guy playing for New Jersey Institute of Technology, going to practice every day, a DI player, will NEVER be on television unless they are playing a powerhouse school....does he get to be rewarded?  The school isn't making any money off of him?  So why is he treated differently?

I can't wait for the stories to come out on what these kids are buying with their cash....you want to see the public become even more skeptical about college athletics, you just wait.  I mean, what can possibly go wrong about putting a bunch of cash into the hands of 18 to 22 year olds....what could possibly go wrong.   ::)   And you just wait to see how this is abused by schools with further payments under the table.  Stud PG is going to be pissed that benchwarmer Charlie is getting the same stipend as he does.  

I agree that there are issues.  Every problem you brought up is completely valid.  It's still an issue that needs to be explored when stories like this are being reported...

QuoteThe Big 12 Conference landed what is being reported as a 13-year media rights deal with ABC/ESPN and Fox worth $2.6 billion (or an average of $200 million per year for the conference and thus $20 million per school)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2012/09/07/20-million-reasons-why-sec-schools-love-big-12s-new-tv-deal-with-espn-fox/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2012/09/07/20-million-reasons-why-sec-schools-love-big-12s-new-tv-deal-with-espn-fox/)

Yes it is absolutely just the top of the food chain we're talking about here, and there's something to the argument that Marshall can't afford it, let alone NJIT, but this isn't going away while these contracts continue to bring in that much money.  (and bowl revenue, and ticket revenue, and donations, etc.)

Quote from: elephantraker on January 22, 2013, 09:57:14 AM
Most of the people I went to MU with went through 4 years without an Ipad, car or "real clothes" we went to Goodwill for furniture and clothing and worked during the summer for spending money and bills. Many days I went without eating a full meal. One of the local restaurants would front us a meal until we had a few bucks. I would gladly do it again for the education,experience and opportunity.

This concept that everybody has to have everything everyone else has is corrupting. Jimmy Carter said "Life is not Fair"  Athletes chose the path they are on and the deal is to play for the school that houses, feeds, dresses and supports you.

A) nothing you did at MU helped MU bring in $2+ million per year in revenue.
B) athletes aren't allowed to work during the summer for spending money and bills
C) I agree completely with your "Life is not fair" line.  But that doesn't mean that athletes shouldn't be fairly compensated for their services.  The definition of "fairly compensated" is obviously a point of contention here, but no one disagrees with that concept.

Quote from: Pakuni on January 22, 2013, 09:53:05 AM
One thing people get consistently wrong is the notion that these kids are bringing in billions of dollars to college athletics. They're not. They're part of a structure built by the universities that produces billions of dollars.
Someone earlier cited the Chris Webber jersey as an example of these kids getting screwed. What that person failed to recognize is that a Chris Webber jersey is absolutely worthless without the word "Michigan" on its front and without the exposure on television and other media outlets he received by playing for Michigan (or any other NCAA institution). Nobody pays a dime for a plain blue jersey with the name Webber on the back. And if Chris Webber never existed or went straight to the NBA, Michigan would be selling jerseys with some other player's name on the back.
The jersey sells because it has "Michigan" on the front and "Webber" on the back. The university certainly benefits from the players' labor, but the players benefit from the billions of dollars of investment by the universities creating a system by which the players receive exposure, professional training, etc. that makes it possible for them to earn millions and millions down the road. It is (if I may delve into consultant-speak) a symbiotic relationship that benefits both sides.
Seems you're all ignoring the second half of the relationship.

agreed, there's something to that.

Quote from: elephantraker on January 22, 2013, 09:57:14 AM
Most of the people I went to MU with went through 4 years without an Ipad, car or "real clothes" we went to Goodwill for furniture and clothing and worked during the summer for spending money and bills. Many days I went without eating a full meal. One of the local restaurants would front us a meal until we had a few bucks. I would gladly do it again for the education,experience and opportunity.

This concept that everybody has to have everything everyone else has is corrupting. Jimmy Carter said "Life is not Fair"  Athletes chose the path they are on and the deal is to play for the school that houses, feeds, dresses and supports you.

When did you go to MU and did the ball have laces on it?

I have MU kids from the Business School as interns in my company, I might even hire a recent MU grad in the coming year or two.  My company has nothing to do with technology ...

All that said, if the kid that wants a internship/job with me better know how to use Microsoft Office/ an iPad, HTML 5, word-press.  They should know when to use Firefox and when to use IE.  Again, my business has nothing to do with technology, but we use it, everyone uses it and better understand this.

He/she better have a way for me to find them (mobile phone) and access to email from a mobile location.

If you cannot do any of that, you cannot get a job with me.  And yes, you better have a way to buy business casual clothes, pay for a mobile phone, own a iPad and Laptop transportation availability (i.e., a car or buss pass).    

I just explained reality of getting a job in 2013 and that takes resources ... as in $1,000/month.  This is why 45% of unemployed have been so for more than 40 weeks.  They do not know what I wrote above and they have no useful skills in today's workforce and are unemployable.

If you want to think that kids only need $175/month so they can get drunk and buy pizza, fine, then don't expect them to get employed after college.  They can apply at the Grand Avenue Mall as a sales assistant.  MU send plenty of kids off to graduation with 50k/year jobs in hand.  To do this they need resources and $1,000/month is not unreasonable.

Now, if you think that is too much money and they will waste it, then social Darwinism will take over and they can enjoy that money for a while and learn to ask "would you like fries with that" after graduation.

CBB:

When the history or Spanish majors can get 15,000 to pay to go to the Bradley center twice a week then they two can have a full-ride and a stipend.

Quote from: TJ on January 22, 2013, 10:06:54 AM
agreed, there's something to that.

So the coach is worth millions a year but the players that actually win the games are worth a scholarship and, maybe $175/month.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 22, 2013, 10:18:25 AM
So the coach is worth millions a year but the players that actually win the games are worth a scholarship and, maybe $175/month.

Again, I agree the players should get a stipend.  But your all or nothing attitude isn't helping and it's not going to happen.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 22, 2013, 10:14:50 AM
When did you go to MU and did the ball have laces on it?

I have MU kids from the Business School as interns in my company, I might even hire a recent MU grad in the coming year or two.  My company has nothing to do with technology ...

All that said, if the kid that wants a internship/job with me better know how to use Microsoft Office/ an iPad, HTML 5, word-press.  They should know when to use Firefox and when to use IE.  Again, my business has nothing to do with technology, but we use it, everyone uses it and better understand this.

Ummm .... so you're suggesting it takes $1,000/month to learn how to use an iPad and when to use Firefox?
Weird. I learned those things for free.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2013, 09:52:18 AM
The other problem is theses guys continue to only focus on the very top, only football and basketball, and only at certain schools.  The guy playing for New Jersey Institute of Technology, going to practice every day, a DI player, will NEVER be on television unless they are playing a powerhouse school....does he get to be rewarded?  The school isn't making any money off of him?  So why is he treated differently?

You answered your own question. Because the school isn't making any money off him. Not complicated. Doesn't mean he doesn't work hard. Doesn't mean he doesn't have value. He just doesn't have as much.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2013, 09:52:18 AM
I can't wait for the stories to come out on what these kids are buying with their cash....you want to see the public become even more skeptical about college athletics, you just wait.  I mean, what can possibly go wrong about putting a bunch of cash into the hands of 18 to 22 year olds....what could possibly go wrong.   ::)   And you just wait to see how this is abused by schools with further payments under the table. 

So because there's risk associated with it, it shouldn't be considered? College athletics is so clean right now under the current system. Maybe, just maybe, if done correctly this could actually help. Guess what, if the NCAA's rules weren't so consistently ridiculous and blatantly hypocritical, perhaps some of these issues, and coaches perceived need to try to get around them would go away or at least be reduced.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2013, 09:52:18 AM
Stud PG is going to be pissed that benchwarmer Charlie is getting the same stipend as he does.

So you are assuming that stud PG isn't already pissed that cross country runner sitting next to him in English class is getting the same benefit he is, yet contributing far less from a financial standpoint. Why is this any different?

You acknowledge in nearly all of your posts that big time D1 football and basketball players have more value than the Olympic sports, DII, DIII, etc., yet are willing to just ignore it and unwilling to consider doing something about it. Why? As you have said repeatedly, you will need to find someone else to root for, because Marquette will be unable to compete. Who says? Who says it has to turn into a highest bidder system? Who says there is only one way to address the issue?

"If something's too hard, it isn't worth doing."

-- Homer Simpson

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 22, 2013, 10:50:11 AM
You acknowledge in nearly all of your posts that big time D1 football and basketball players have more value than the Olympic sports, DII, DIII, etc., yet are willing to just ignore it and unwilling to consider doing something about it. Why?

Again (and again) it's not a matter of wanting to do it, or whether it's too hard to do it, etc.
It's that you cannot do it. Federal law - which has been challenged numerous times and consistently upheld  - says you cannot do it. In a make-believe world where Title IX doesn't exist, some of the things you're suggesting might at least be feasible - though economically speaking, improbable. But so long as there's a Title IX, you cannot set up a system by which some student-athletes receive different benefits and compensation than others.
Can. Not. Happen.

Quote from: Pakuni on January 22, 2013, 10:55:47 AM
Again (and again) it's not a matter of wanting to do it, or whether it's too hard to do it, etc.
It's that you cannot do it. Federal law - which has been challenged numerous times and consistently upheld  - says you cannot do it. In a make-believe world where Title IX doesn't exist, some of the things you're suggesting might at least be feasible - though economically speaking, improbable. But so long as there's a Title IX, you cannot set up a system by which some student-athletes receive different benefits and compensation than others.
Can. Not. Happen.

So long as everyone is willing to accept the status quo, you're right. I guess that's my point. It actually is about wanting to do it, or whether its too hard to do. Have women and blacks always been allowed to vote? Have people always been eligible for Social Security? Have people always been required to wear seat belts? Is the process of getting on a plane the same as it was 20 years ago?

Times change and circumstances change. Guys like you and Chicaloop are willing to throw your hands up, and say, "that's the way it is. Nothing we can do about it," while others like myself, Jay Bilas, etc., look at it and see an unbalanced system that is not quite right, and would like someone to at least try to find a way to address it. The NCAA of course will not be that someone, because as everyone agrees, it's going to cut in on  their business.

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 22, 2013, 11:10:05 AM
So long as everyone is willing to accept the status quo, you're right. I guess that's my point. It actually is about wanting to do it, or whether its too hard to do. Have women and blacks always been allowed to vote? Have people always been eligible for Social Security? Have people always been required to wear seat belts? Is the process of getting on a plane the same as it was 20 years ago?

Times change and circumstances change. Guys like you and Chicaloop are willing to throw your hands up, and say, "that's the way it is. Nothing we can do about it," while others like myself, Jay Bilas, etc., look at it and see an unbalanced system that is not quite right, and would like someone to at least try to find a way to address it. The NCAA of course will not be that someone, because as everyone agrees, it's going to cut in on  their business.

Or maybe we simply recognize that a 40-year-old federal law that's withstood every legal challenge to date and is generally popular (outside fans of college football and men's basketball) isn't going to magically disappear because some people think a handful of kids going to college for free deserve even more.

You realize, by the way, that the NCAA is not a business, but rather an nonprofit association of nearly 1,300 colleges and universities? The idea that the NCAA is a business raking in billions of dollars is provably false. Paying athletes won't cost the NCAA a dime. It would, however, make many athletic departments insolvent (or even more insolvent).

Just wondering, though ... it's well known that significant portions of many universities' athletic department budgets are subsidized through fees imposed on non-athletes. Are you OK with non-athletes being charged even more to attend school - when many/most are already up to their eyeballs in debt - so that the kids who go to college for free can have some walking around cash?
Where's your sense of fairness there?

"The N.C.A.A.'s often-stated contention that it is protecting the players from "excessive commercialism" is ludicrous; the only thing it's protecting is everyone else's revenue stream. (The N.C.A.A. itself takes in nearly $800 million a year, mostly from its March Madness TV contracts.) "Athletes in football and basketball feel unfairly treated," Leigh Steinberg, a prominent sports agent, says. "The dominant attitude among players is that there is no moral or ethical reason not to take money, because the system is ripping them off."

"It is worth noting that, even now, 40 years after Title IX became the law of the land, many schools still spend far more money on men's than women's sports without running afoul of it."

"To hear the gnashing of teeth by those who believe that money will soil college sports is to hark back to the days when baseball was on the cusp of free agency, or the Olympics was considering abandoning its longstanding adherence to amateurism. In both cases, critics feared that the introduction of serious and legitimate money would damage the sports, turn off the fans and lead to chaos. Instead, baseball and the Olympics got much better.

College sports will become more honest once players are paid, and more honorable. Fans will be able to enjoy football and men's basketball without having to avert their eyes from the scandals and the hypocrisy."



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/lets-start-paying-college-athletes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/lets-start-paying-college-athletes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

Quote from: Pakuni on January 22, 2013, 10:55:47 AM
Again (and again) it's not a matter of wanting to do it, or whether it's too hard to do it, etc.
It's that you cannot do it. Federal law - which has been challenged numerous times and consistently upheld  - says you cannot do it. In a make-believe world where Title IX doesn't exist, some of the things you're suggesting might at least be feasible - though economically speaking, improbable. But so long as there's a Title IX, you cannot set up a system by which some student-athletes receive different benefits and compensation than others.
Can. Not. Happen.

If a kid comes from means and does NOT take a scholarship can he:

* Get a summer job
* Accept gifts (like Brewer's tickets)
* Sell his image (do local commercials as a endorser)

Quote from: Pakuni on January 22, 2013, 11:24:36 AM
You realize, by the way, that the NCAA is not a business, but rather an nonprofit association of nearly 1,300 colleges and universities?

Of course, and tat makes the whole thing that much more distasteful, as the university presidents hide behind the claim of student athletes and amateurism where the big time sports are concerned.

Quote from: Pakuni on January 22, 2013, 11:24:36 AM
Just wondering, though ... it's well known that significant portions of many universities' athletic department budgets are subsidized through fees imposed on non-athletes. Are you OK with non-athletes being charged even more to attend school - when many/most are already up to their eyeballs in debt - so that the kids who go to college for free can have some walking around cash?
Where's your sense of fairness there?

Actually, I am ok with that. Just as I am ok with those same students being charged fees for arts, music, theater, etc. I personally don't have much use for that, but I see the value in it to a University. In general, I support tax payer funded stadium projects, because I see the value to the community. I might also support tax funded theater or other types of projects if it will be an asset to the community. Really the same thing.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 21, 2013, 08:52:11 AM
+1  AAU analogy is spot on

It not about getting what you need as determined by some higher up (free tuition, room and board) but about getting what you make.

Recall the famous story about Chris Webber.  During his sophomore year he was in an Ann Arbor Mall and saw his Jersey for sale for $80.  He could not afford his own Jersey.  The owner of the story saw him and asked him if he'd come in and sign a bunch as he thought he could sell them for $200 to $500.  Webber could not earn a dime off those signed Jerseys.  He says this incident helped him decide to leave early.

The NCAA makes a billions off the Tourney.  The schools makes billions more in total off all the TV deals.  Yet somehow they cannot give a kid $1,000/month for travel home, food, movie tickets and new clothes?

Yes, let's recall that famous story about poor Chris Webber....you know, the kid that was paid $280,000 to play at Michigan and couldn't afford his own jersey.

POOR POOR CHRIS WEBBER.   ::)  He was so wronged.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/22/sports/basketball-college-roundup-webber-among-players-paid-by-michigan-booster.html


(http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4e567fc3eab8ea8610000041-400-300/boosters-payments-to-players-forces-university-of-michigan-to-forfeit-multiple-seasons-2002.jpg)

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 22, 2013, 11:36:40 AM
If a kid comes from means and does NOT take a scholarship can he:

* Get a summer job
* Accept gifts (like Brewer's tickets)
* Sell his image (do local commercials as a endorser)

Are you sure?  He would still have to keep his amateur status.  I don't think 2 & 3 would be allowed.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 22, 2013, 11:36:40 AM
If a kid comes from means and does NOT take a scholarship can he:

* Get a summer job
* Accept gifts (like Brewer's tickets)
* Sell his image (do local commercials as a endorser)

What kind of moron would turn down a scholarship valued at $50K or more a year so he could work at McDonald's or Old Navy over the summer and get freebies to a Brewers' game?
Your arguments are somehow getting worse.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2013, 11:42:13 AM

POOR POOR CHRIS WEBBER.   ::)  He was so wronged.

So I'm clear, you're using the example of a school that got caught cheating, had to vacate wins, final fours, etc., whom we should not be feeling sorry for, since he illegally received a bunch of money, as an argument against paying players. Do I have that right? That is relevant to Vander Blue, Devante Gardner, Monte Ball, etc., how exactly?

Let me ask you this, do you believe the current system is completely fair and reasonable for all parties involved, yes or no?

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 22, 2013, 11:41:48 AM
Of course, and tat makes the whole thing that much more distasteful, as the university presidents hide behind the claim of student athletes and amateurism where the big time sports are concerned.

Actually, I am ok with that. Just as I am ok with those same students being charged fees for arts, music, theater, etc. I personally don't have much use for that, but I see the value in it to a University. In general, I support tax payer funded stadium projects, because I see the value to the community. I might also support tax funded theater or other types of projects if it will be an asset to the community. Really the same thing.

Just so I'm clear .... you're OK with making a college education even less affordable for the average family so that kids already going to college for free and receiving benefits worth as much as $100,000 a year can have even more compensation?
Might I suggest your priorities are far out of order and you have a severe lack of perspective regarding the value of college athletics.

p.s. It's a whole other issue, but nearly every study on the subject shows that taxpayer funded stadiums offer little in return to the community.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2013, 09:52:18 AM
I can't wait for the stories to come out on what these kids are buying with their cash....you want to see the public become even more skeptical about college athletics, you just wait.  I mean, what can possibly go wrong about putting a bunch of cash into the hands of 18 to 22 year olds....what could possibly go wrong.   ::)   And you just wait to see how this is abused by schools with further payments under the table.  Stud PG is going to be pissed that benchwarmer Charlie is getting the same stipend as he does. 

I kind of think this is an argument for paying players. Let's end the stupid farce that these are "amateur" players. They're marketing tools for college administrator bigwigs. Let's put down the svelte banners and pom-poms and stop pretending that there is anything special about college athletics anymore.

Besides, they are already being paid, whether it's the quarter million dollar tuition free education, the housing, the food, etc. We can pretend college athletics is something it isn't when the (dirty) money is under the table. Let's just admit what it is and be honest about it.

Quote from: Pakuni on January 22, 2013, 11:53:04 AM
Might I suggest your priorities are far out of order and you have a severe lack of perspective regarding the value of college athletics.

Really? What's the number 1 marketing/publicity tool Marquette University has? Who is the highest paid employee at Marquette University?

It would seem MU's administration shares my perspective regarding the value of college athletics.

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 22, 2013, 12:02:04 PM
Really? What's the number 1 marketing/publicity tool Marquette University has? Who is the highest paid employee at Marquette University?

It would seem MU's administration shares my perspective regarding the value of college athletics.

Holy red herring.

I mentioned in an earlier thread about a strike.  I know it is theoretical but if every current scholarship player in D-I football and basketball went on "strike" what would happen?

We know it has been extremely effective in the NBA & MLB, and to some degree NHL in the past.  It would be interesting to see if it was effective for the scholarship athletes in basketball and football.

We know other students would be lining up to take scholarships, so supply would not be an issue.  Would it severely impact demand?

Quote from: Pakuni on January 22, 2013, 11:45:38 AM
What kind of moron would turn down a scholarship valued at $50K or more a year so he could work at McDonald's or Old Navy over the summer and get freebies to a Brewers' game?
Your arguments are somehow getting worse.

That's not what I'm saying.

Let me restate ... are the restrictions (i.e., no summer job, no gifts) due to playing college sports or because you accepted a scholarship?

Quote from: Pakuni on January 22, 2013, 12:31:54 PM
Holy red herring.

Really? You don't think the amount of money spent sends a pretty clear message how important the bball program is to the Administration and the overall strategy of the University? Let's see what Fr. wild, who has been remarkably consistent in his approah had to say about the value of athletics to the University...


"And then there have been developments in our recent history that straddle business and pleasure. Joining the Big East Conference was an enormous change for us. That was the moment when we said, 'We can do this. We have the ability to play at the highest level of Division I sports, and we want to seize this opportunity with both hands.' It wasn't just about athletics. It was about raising our image in the northeast part of the country, and sports have the power to do that. It gave us entrée we never had before in terms of student recruitment, and it energized our alums, which was a goal for us.

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 22, 2013, 11:50:35 AM
So I'm clear, you're using the example of a school that got caught cheating, had to vacate wins, final fours, etc., whom we should not be feeling sorry for, since he illegally received a bunch of money, as an argument against paying players. Do I have that right? That is relevant to Vander Blue, Devante Gardner, Monte Ball, etc., how exactly?

Let me ask you this, do you believe the current system is completely fair and reasonable for all parties involved, yes or no?

To be clear, I'm using the EXACT same example that Another84 used to perpetuate this myth that players should be paid...he used Chris Webber and indicated that poor Chris Webber didn't have enough money to buy his own jersey.  What a total crock.

Quote from: warrior07 on January 22, 2013, 11:59:02 AM
I kind of think this is an argument for paying players. Let's end the stupid farce that these are "amateur" players. They're marketing tools for college administrator bigwigs. Let's put down the svelte banners and pom-poms and stop pretending that there is anything special about college athletics anymore.

Besides, they are already being paid, whether it's the quarter million dollar tuition free education, the housing, the food, etc. We can pretend college athletics is something it isn't when the (dirty) money is under the table. Let's just admit what it is and be honest about it.

Again, they are "marketing tools" for a small percentage of colleges. 

Once you start handing out cold, hard cash, they become contract employees and then its game over.  I don't know why everyone keeps missing this.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2013, 01:34:38 PM
To be clear, I'm using the EXACT same example that Another84 used to perpetuate this myth that players should be paid...he used Chris Webber and indicated that poor Chris Webber didn't have enough money to buy his own jersey.  What a total crock.

I'll ask again, since you seem unwilling to answer....

Let me ask you this, do you believe the current system is completely fair and reasonable for all parties involved, yes or no?

Quote from: Pakuni on January 22, 2013, 11:53:04 AM
Just so I'm clear .... you're OK with making a college education even less affordable for the average family so that kids already going to college for free and receiving benefits worth as much as $100,000 a year can have even more compensation?
Might I suggest your priorities are far out of order and you have a severe lack of perspective regarding the value of college athletics.

If the value they bring to the university far outweighs the benefits they receive ... then yes.

I'm not going to do that math.  I don't know all the variables: how much the school's value is vs how much the players bring in vs the revenue stream vs how much compensation they receive, etc.  If that math is done and it turns out the players aren't being compensated fairly, then they should get more.  Especially when the NCAA's own rules prevent them from being able to earn anything outside the system.

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 22, 2013, 01:38:42 PM
I'll ask again, since you seem unwilling to answer....

Let me ask you this, do you believe the current system is completely fair and reasonable for all parties involved, yes or no?

Yes.  The players willingly agree to the arrangement right?  Fair is just a subjective term that means different things to different people.

That being said, I think athletics-grant-in-aids should be worth the total cost of attendance at the school.  This would then cover all direct costs, but also indirect costs.  This would not monumentally change the nature of college athletics because you are simply providing the other costs needed to cover attendance.

http://www.marquette.edu/mucentral/financialaid/resources_ugrad_coa.shtml

This is the same figure used by MU to cover financial aid, and students can get aid up to this figure, and get a reimbursement if they get more aid than direct costs.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2013, 01:36:30 PM
Again, they are "marketing tools" for a small percentage of colleges. 

Once you start handing out cold, hard cash, they become contract employees and then its game over.  I don't know why everyone keeps missing this.

Says you.  Maybe it results in less corrupt under the table dealings and people are happy to be rid of the scandals in college sports and they get even more popular.

Quote from: TJ on January 22, 2013, 01:43:43 PM
If the value they bring to the university far outweighs the benefits they receive ... then yes.

"They" as individual players...or "they" as a team?  I mean, Anthony Davis probably brought more to Kentucky than some walk-on did.  Should he get more?

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 22, 2013, 01:44:39 PM
Yes.  The players willingly agree to the arrangement right?

Do they really have a choice?  What options do they have to come to a different arrangement?

Quote from: TJ on January 22, 2013, 01:46:50 PM
Do they really have a choice?  What options do they have to come to a different arrangement?

Get a non-sports job, go to play overseas, NBADL, etc.

Quote from: TJ on January 22, 2013, 01:46:50 PM
Do they really have a choice?  What options do they have to come to a different arrangement?

Play in Europe...play in the NBDL...

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 22, 2013, 01:46:40 PM

"They" as individual players...or "they" as a team?  I mean, Anthony Davis probably brought more to Kentucky than some walk-on did.  Should he get more?

I don't know.  I certainly don't have all the answers here.  I do know that schools are bringing in millions of dollars each by selling the rights to broadcast the games, not to mention all the other revenue streams they have.  It's not an easy question.  But at some point the schools will be taking in so much money that they can't possibly justify it by saying they give the athletes scholarships.  Are we there yet?  Close?  I don't know.  $20 million per school per year for the top 5 conferences is a LOT of money.  How can you really call that nonprofit?

So let's do some math.

320 Student Athletes at Marquette currently.  Some of them participate in multiple sports (Cross country, and track) but I've counted them for each sport because, after all, are they supposed to get a stipend just for Cross Country and not for track?  Ah, pesky details.

320 students X $1,000 monthly stipend X 9 months in school.   (What if they go to Summer School...do they get a 12 month stipend?)

Cha Ching   $2,880,000 in stipends

Now, some believe that $1,000 per month is TOO LOW.  So let's take it to $2,000.   Cha Ching....$5,760,000 in stipends.


Where is this money coming from?  Blue and Gold ready to fork out another $2.9M to $5.8M...ready with those incremental donations?

Those of you saying only give the stipend to men's basketball....hmmm, that will be interesting...how long before Title IX nixes that one.

Then, what happens when a court rules that this stipend is actually the equivalent of an employment relationship contract...now you have to provide workman's comp, unemployment benefits, healthcare, etc.  Cha Ching....pretty soon you've wiped it all out. 


The number of educational opportunities provided to young men and women is phenonmenal when it comes to athletics.  You are putting at risk those opportunities and potentially eliminating many of them as a result of this.  To throw a few extra dollars to some kids in a highly visible sport to take away opportunities from men and women busting their butts in other sports that are low visibility, non-revenue.  Beware of unintended consequences.

Quote from: TJ on January 22, 2013, 01:54:28 PM
I don't know.  I certainly don't have all the answers here.  I do know that schools are bringing in millions of dollars each by selling the rights to broadcast the games, not to mention all the other revenue streams they have.  It's not an easy question.  But at some point the schools will be taking in so much money that they can't possibly justify it by saying they give the athletes scholarships.  Are we there yet?  Close?  I don't know.  $20 million per school per year for the top 5 conferences is a LOT of money.  How can you really call that nonprofit?

Well, you can call it not-for-profit because the organization has no owners to enrich.  You can argue that athletics should be considered "unrelated business income," and therefore taxable.  And that might be a good idea, however that just ramps up the costs for everyone and will further separate the haves from the have nots.

http://nonprofit.about.com/od/nonprofitmanagement/f/Unrelated.htm

Quote from: MarquetteDano on January 22, 2013, 01:49:59 PM
Get a non-sports job, go to play overseas, NBADL, etc.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 22, 2013, 01:50:52 PM
Play in Europe...play in the NBDL...

Any good options?  Any way to participate in the same structure while challenging the arrangement that they are forced to agree to?  It's either this arrangement or you can't play at the highest level available to you?  All of the best institutions agree to only deal with you on these terms... It's starting to sound like collusion or even a monopoly/trust.

Quote from: TJ on January 22, 2013, 02:00:45 PM
Any good options?  Any way to participate in the same structure while challenging the arrangement that they are forced to agree to?  It's either this arrangement or you can't play at the highest level available to you?  All of the best institutions agree to only deal with you on these terms... It's starting to sound like collusion or even a monopoly/trust.

Well, let's see where the O'Bannon lawsuit goes.

Quote from: TJ on January 22, 2013, 02:00:45 PM
All of the best institutions agree to only deal with you on these terms... It's starting to sound like collusion or even a monopoly/trust.

Professional sports (and college athletics as a quasi-development brach of pro sports) are pretty much natural monopolies. Thinking that paying players is going to create some competitive market structure is ignoring the fact that sports leagues have a lot in common with utilities, etc in terms of market structure.

Quote from: TJ on January 22, 2013, 01:45:10 PM
Says you.  Maybe it results in less corrupt under the table dealings and people are happy to be rid of the scandals in college sports and they get even more popular.

My point is, are colleges using the women's lacrosse team to promote the school?  The women's fencing team?  The men's golf team?  Or even the men's basketball team at a New Jersey Institute of Technology?  Too many people here are focused on the top of the heap and not seeing there are over 1000 NCAA schools, half a million student athletes, most of them never playing on a "national stage" of any kind.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2013, 02:16:03 PM
My point is, are colleges using the women's lacrosse team to promote the school?  The women's fencing team?  The men's golf team?  Or even the men's basketball team at a New Jersey Institute of Technology?  Too many people here are focused on the top of the heap and not seeing there are over 1000 NCAA schools, half a million student athletes, most of them never playing on a "national stage" of any kind.

And not all of them get full-rides.  They also do not get charter planes and million dollar training facilities like the revenue sports.  They don't get personal counselors and tutors.  They don't get separate living and dining facilities.

Point is we already massively discriminate between revenue and non-revenue sports.  So play the 13 guys on the team a stipend (amount TBD) because they make you money.  The rest can get less of a stipend, or no stipend.

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 22, 2013, 01:38:42 PM
I'll ask again, since you seem unwilling to answer....

Let me ask you this, do you believe the current system is completely fair and reasonable for all parties involved, yes or no?

I answered that already yesterday.  ABSOLUTELY #*&()$# YES.

A Marquette student athlete will receive about $180K in education and room\board based on today's value of $45K per year assuming 4 years.  Often it's 5 years, but let's keep the numbers simple.

With that Marquette education, in your lifetime you should be able to earn $2.27 million according to the latest numbers in 2011 over your lifetime.  That's already a 12.6 earnings ratio because of that degree.  That's just for a normal Bachelor's degree.  http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/08/05/how-higher-education-affects-lifetime-salary

On top of that, the student athlete also gets access to tutors, alumni through networking, travel opportunities, top notch medical care, a chance to hone their skills, etc, that every other Tom, Dick, Mary, and Susan don't get.  That is also worth something, much of it can't even be quantifiable.

They also get clothing, gear, etc....that has a value.

So yes, not only do I think it's fair, I find it VERY FAIR.  The school benefits, the student athlete benefits.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 22, 2013, 02:20:49 PM
And not all of them get full-rides.  They also do not get charter planes and million dollar training facilities like the revenue sports.  They don't get personal counselors and tutors.  They don't get separate living and dining facilities.

Point is we already massively discriminate between revenue and non-revenue sports.  So play the 13 guys on the team a stipend (amount TBD) because they make you money.  The rest can get less of a stipend, or no stipend.

The other student athletes do have access to the same academic resources as every other student athlete.  That is correct, some sports let you break up scholarships to provide more opportunities for more people.  Those student athletes are working just as hard as the basketball players, they might not be able to buy that Lacrosse jersey in the Gift Shop...so why aren't we taking care of them?

Go ahead and argue that in front of the courts....good luck.

While we are at it, why should the starting PG make the same stipend as the guy who never plays...is that fair?

Quote from: akmarq on January 22, 2013, 02:15:08 PM
Professional sports (and college athletics as a quasi-development brach of pro sports) are pretty much natural monopolies. Thinking that paying players is going to create some competitive market structure is ignoring the fact that sports leagues have a lot in common with utilities, etc in terms of market structure.

The courts have not ruled that way.   There is not the barriers to entry like a common utility has or other monopoly industries.  The courts, however, have ruled about collusion and that could interesting in the aforementioned O'Bannon case.

This piece by the individual originally brought up in this thread kind of sums up my position. In the end I guess it isn't so much about the Universities paying the players, though i wouldnt oppose it, but more about loosening the restrictions they place upon them. As I have said repeatedly, it is ridiculous that coaches, ADs, etc. are free to chase any better offer and leave any time, while a player who wants to transfer has to sit out a year. There is absolutely no way to defend that. Likewise, Buzz Williams can take any endorsement deal he wants, or even get a second job at Culvers if he so chooses, while athletes can't do anything to earn money, under the sham of amateurism. As stated earlier, the hypocritical NCAA is not protecting the athletes, but rather protecting everyone else's revenue stream.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/13/ncaa-and-the-interests-of-student-athletes/college-athletes-should-be-compensated

Now, of course Chicaloop and others will say that we all better find another team to root for in this scenario, as MU will not be able to compete, it will make college sports dirtier, blah, blah, blah, because the system today is so perfect and really takes care of everyone involved. Fine, I'll find someone else to root for.

Quote from: MarquetteDano on January 22, 2013, 12:55:46 PM
I mentioned in an earlier thread about a strike.  I know it is theoretical but if every current scholarship player in D-I football and basketball went on "strike" what would happen?

We know it has been extremely effective in the NBA & MLB, and to some degree NHL in the past.  It would be interesting to see if it was effective for the scholarship athletes in basketball and football.

The difference is that as union members, professional athletes have protections
(most importantly the right to reinstatement) when their walkout ends. College athletes, who are not unionized, have no such right. So striking means they could permanently lose their scholarship.
Now, for a star player at Kentucky or Alabama with a pro future, perhaps that's not a big deal. For the 7th man at an A-10 school or a special teamer at a MAC program, are they going to take that risk and end up out of college?
I doubt it.

Also, college sports fandom - far moreso than the pros - is driven by the name on the front of the jersey, not the one on the back.

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 22, 2013, 02:30:34 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/13/ncaa-and-the-interests-of-student-athletes/college-athletes-should-be-compensated

Now, of course Chicaloop and others will say that we all better find another team to root for in this scenario, as MU will not be able to compete, it will make college sports dirtier, blah, blah, blah, because the system today is so perfect and really takes care of everyone involved. Fine, I'll find someone else to root for.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the article.  Though we do need to realize that whatever pseudo-level playing field we have now would be completely gone.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2013, 01:58:15 PM
So let's do some math.

320 Student Athletes at Marquette currently.  Some of them participate in multiple sports (Cross country, and track) but I've counted them for each sport because, after all, are they supposed to get a stipend just for Cross Country and not for track?  Ah, pesky details.

320 students X $1,000 monthly stipend X 9 months in school.   (What if they go to Summer School...do they get a 12 month stipend?)

Cha Ching   $2,880,000 in stipends

Now, some believe that $1,000 per month is TOO LOW.  So let's take it to $2,000.   Cha Ching....$5,760,000 in stipends.


Where is this money coming from?  Blue and Gold ready to fork out another $2.9M to $5.8M...ready with those incremental donations?

Those of you saying only give the stipend to men's basketball....hmmm, that will be interesting...how long before Title IX nixes that one.

Then, what happens when a court rules that this stipend is actually the equivalent of an employment relationship contract...now you have to provide workman's comp, unemployment benefits, healthcare, etc.  Cha Ching....pretty soon you've wiped it all out. 


The number of educational opportunities provided to young men and women is phenonmenal when it comes to athletics.  You are putting at risk those opportunities and potentially eliminating many of them as a result of this.  To throw a few extra dollars to some kids in a highly visible sport to take away opportunities from men and women busting their butts in other sports that are low visibility, non-revenue.  Beware of unintended consequences.

Remember, some also believe that $1000/month is too high.

We are obviously only talking about 5 conferences, and we're really only talking about one sport (football).  64 institutions bring in about $20 million in revenue per school per year, just in media rights.  They are already the haves.  To argue any differently is silly.

So yes, let's do the math... 64 * $20,000,000 = $1,280,000 per year in revenue, mostly based on football and some for men's basketball broadcasting rights.

The same 64 teams give out 85 football & 13 basketball scholarships, so round that to 100, valued at what?  I've seen $50k - $100k per year.  At $50k that's $320,000,000.  At $100k that's $640,000,000.

Who's to say what's right?  Some might say a 25/75 split is pretty lopsided.  A 50/50 split is pretty comparable to professional sports leagues, and I don't think they necessarily need to be there.  But we'll see what happens as that revenue number goes up and up and up.  Also, remember that the revenue number is ONLY media broadcasting rights, not ticket sales, donations, vending, memorabilia, etc.  All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be surprised to see this continue to be an issue going forward.

Quote from: TJ on January 22, 2013, 03:10:40 PM
Remember, some also believe that $1000/month is too high.

We are obviously only talking about 5 conferences, and we're really only talking about one sport (football).  64 institutions bring in about $20 million in revenue per school per year, just in media rights.  They are already the haves.  To argue any differently is silly.

So yes, let's do the math... 64 * $20,000,000 = $1,280,000 per year in revenue, mostly based on football and some for men's basketball broadcasting rights.

The same 64 teams give out 85 football & 13 basketball scholarships, so round that to 100, valued at what?  I've seen $50k - $100k per year.  At $50k that's $320,000,000.  At $100k that's $640,000,000.

Who's to say what's right?  Some might say a 25/75 split is pretty lopsided.  A 50/50 split is pretty comparable to professional sports leagues, and I don't think they necessarily need to be there.  But we'll see what happens as that revenue number goes up and up and up.  Also, remember that the revenue number is ONLY media broadcasting rights, not ticket sales, donations, vending, memorabilia, etc.  All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be surprised to see this continue to be an issue going forward.

Hate to sound like a broken record, but Title IX makes this impossible. You can't pay athletes from one or two sports only. If you pay football players, you've got to pay the field hockey team and the tennis team and the water polo team and the golfers, etc., etc.
Efforts to exclude revenue producing sports from Title IX have repeatedly failed.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 22, 2013, 02:06:59 PM

Well, let's see where the O'Bannon lawsuit goes.

Indeed

QuoteHighly-skilled college athletes have no competitive alternatives to the terms and conditions created by the NCAA in restricting payments to players, according to Noll, a Stanford University economics professor emeritus who is an expert for the plaintiffs.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/10/expert_report_in_ed_obannon_la.html (http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/10/expert_report_in_ed_obannon_la.html)

Quote from: Pakuni on January 22, 2013, 03:16:23 PM
Hate to sound like a broken record, but Title IX makes this impossible. You can't pay athletes from one or two sports only. If you pay football players, you've got to pay the field hockey team and the tennis team and the water polo team and the golfers, etc., etc.
Efforts to exclude revenue producing sports from Title IX have repeatedly failed.

Very true.  It's still a problem that's not going away.  Maybe an exception will get made, maybe something else will happen, maybe nothing will happen.  But the broken record of people claiming that athletes should be better compensated for the billions of dollars they bring in revenue is not just going to be silenced by screaming Title IX at it forever.

Quote from: TJ on January 22, 2013, 03:18:19 PM
Indeedhttp://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/10/expert_report_in_ed_obannon_la.html (http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/10/expert_report_in_ed_obannon_la.html)

They are not talking about paying players in that case, first of all.

Second, shocking that an expert for the plaintiffs would agree.  What does our own Marquette resident expert, Prof. Peter Toumanoff, say I wonder?

Quote from: MarquetteDano on January 22, 2013, 03:22:52 PM
They are not talking about paying players in that case, first of all.

Second, shocking that an expert for the plaintiffs would agree.  What does our own Marquette resident expert, Prof. Peter Toumanoff, say I wonder?

Jeez.  It's obviously not proof.  And I didn't hide the fact that he was an expert for the plaintiffs or anything.  Take it for what it is, an interesting quote that says the courts will be given an argument that the whole basis for major college sports starts with collusion against the athletes.  As Sultan said, let's see where that lawsuit goes.

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 22, 2013, 02:30:34 PM
This piece by the individual originally brought up in this thread kind of sums up my position. In the end I guess it isn't so much about the Universities paying the players, though i wouldnt oppose it, but more about loosening the restrictions they place upon them. As I have said repeatedly, it is ridiculous that coaches, ADs, etc. are free to chase any better offer and leave any time, while a player who wants to transfer has to sit out a year. There is absolutely no way to defend that. Likewise, Buzz Williams can take any endorsement deal he wants, or even get a second job at Culvers if he so chooses, while athletes can't do anything to earn money, under the sham of amateurism. As stated earlier, the hypocritical NCAA is not protecting the athletes, but rather protecting everyone else's revenue stream.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/13/ncaa-and-the-interests-of-student-athletes/college-athletes-should-be-compensated

Now, of course Chicaloop and others will say that we all better find another team to root for in this scenario, as MU will not be able to compete, it will make college sports dirtier, blah, blah, blah, because the system today is so perfect and really takes care of everyone involved. Fine, I'll find someone else to root for.

Chicaloop?   ::)

No one here said the current system is pure or clean. 

Your post is factually wrong.  A student athlete CAN have a job and earn money without jeopardizing their amateurism.  There are limits, and rightly so.  I think you might want to go back into history when athletes used to be able to work and understand why the rules were put into place.  Athletes were paid a lot of money to water a lawn, or literally sit in a chair to watch the grass grow...that is if they even bothered to show up.  This is why the rules changes were put into place in the first place, but they can have a job.

But truly, if you are so upset about the current relationship which you practically make out to be some kind of serfdom scenario, then you might want to find another area of entertainment to enjoy.  I have not one shred of guilt over the current arrangement.  The students are getting a solid education and tremendous access to things 99% of students don't get access to.  In exchange, they represent the school on the fields of play.  If it bothers you so much, you would be a better person to give up this current situation that brings down so much harm from the man.  And if your system is adopted and 1000's of student athletes around this country are left to their own devices because schools can no longer provide aid, how will you feel?  Those opportunities that have been taken away?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2013, 03:32:45 PM

But truly, if you are so upset about the current relationship which you practically make out to be some kind of serfdom scenario,

If you could go ahead and show me where I've done that, that would be helpful.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2013, 03:32:45 PM
Chicaloop?   ::)

That's right, you weren't here when he was posting, but now that you're back, he seems to have disappeared.  ::) indeed.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2013, 03:32:45 PM
Chicaloop?   ::)


  Athletes were paid a lot of money to water a lawn, or literally sit in a chair to watch the grass grow...that is if they even bothered to show up.  This is why the rules changes were put into place in the first place, but they can have a job.

This image totally brought be back to the movie "One on One" when Robbie Benson, the point guard, gets paid to watch the sprinklers go on.

I think all of us, no matter where we stand on this issue, can enjoy this scene between Benson and his douche coach.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQP-DW-HjHA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQP-DW-HjHA)

Speaking as a parent whose children are fast approaching college age, let me say that I sincerely hope that some college somewhere sees fit to exploit my children in its quest for obscene profits.

Given the exploitative nature of the relationship, it's amazing how often it seems to be the one of the happiest days in a kid's life when he announces which school he has chosen to be exploited by.  Curiously, it's also an extremely proud day for his parents.

What about going the other way?  Instead of a stipend, loosen the rules.  Allow scholarship athletes to get jobs, accept a certain amount in appearance fees (certain amount) and or sell their image ("Hi this is Vander Blue for Wickestorm Ford ...).  This gets around Title IX.  Loosen the rules and if no one chooses to take up a lacrosse player or the soccer team up, they get nothing.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 22, 2013, 04:06:57 PM
What about going the other way?  Instead of a stipend, loosen the rules.  Allow scholarship athletes to get jobs, accept a certain amount in appearance fees (certain amount) and or sell their image ("Hi this is Vander Blue for Wickestorm Ford ...). 

Nope. Can't do that, because then you run the risk of college sports becoming dirty.

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 22, 2013, 04:12:10 PM
Nope. Can't do that, because then you run the risk of college sports becoming dirtier.

Fixed it for you.

Quote from: MarquetteDano on January 22, 2013, 03:48:12 PM
This image totally brought be back to the movie "One on One" when Robbie Benson, the point guard, gets paid to watch the sprinklers go on.

I think all of us, no matter where we stand on this issue, can enjoy this scene between Benson and his douche coach.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQP-DW-HjHA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQP-DW-HjHA)

mmmmm...Robby Benson....had a total crush on him in junior high......

Quote from: TJ on January 22, 2013, 03:10:40 PM
Remember, some also believe that $1000/month is too high.

We are obviously only talking about 5 conferences, and we're really only talking about one sport (football).  64 institutions bring in about $20 million in revenue per school per year, just in media rights.  They are already the haves.  To argue any differently is silly.

So yes, let's do the math... 64 * $20,000,000 = $1,280,000 per year in revenue, mostly based on football and some for men's basketball broadcasting rights.

The same 64 teams give out 85 football & 13 basketball scholarships, so round that to 100, valued at what?  I've seen $50k - $100k per year.  At $50k that's $320,000,000.  At $100k that's $640,000,000.

Who's to say what's right?  Some might say a 25/75 split is pretty lopsided.  A 50/50 split is pretty comparable to professional sports leagues, and I don't think they necessarily need to be there.  But we'll see what happens as that revenue number goes up and up and up.  Also, remember that the revenue number is ONLY media broadcasting rights, not ticket sales, donations, vending, memorabilia, etc.  All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be surprised to see this continue to be an issue going forward.

The problem is that we aren't talking about just 64 schools or 5 conferences.  That's really the entire point.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 22, 2013, 04:06:57 PM
What about going the other way?  Instead of a stipend, loosen the rules.  Allow scholarship athletes to get jobs, accept a certain amount in appearance fees (certain amount) and or sell their image ("Hi this is Vander Blue for Wickestorm Ford ...).  This gets around Title IX.  Loosen the rules and if no one chooses to take up a lacrosse player or the soccer team up, they get nothing.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

THEY CAN GET JOBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!   :o   THEY ALREADY ARE PERMITTED TO GET JOBS WITHIN THE RULES.   How many incorrect things are you going to say in this one thread?

Bylaw 12.4 of the NCAA rulebook.  THEY CAN WORK and BE PAID.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2013, 05:23:56 PM

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

THEY CAN GET JOBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!   :o   THEY ALREADY ARE PERMITTED TO GET JOBS WITHIN THE RULES.   How many incorrect things are you going to say in this thread?

I'm sorry, is that the only thing he said? Are they allowed to get jobs based on"who they are"? Are they allowed appearance fees? Are they allowed to sell their image? I do find it surprising he hasn't  memorized 400 pages of NCAA by-laws. All caps though...nice touch.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2013, 05:14:55 PM
The problem is that we aren't talking about just 64 schools or 5 conferences.  That's really the entire point.

I understand, but at the end of the day those privileged few are going to be all that matters.  We'll see what happens.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2013, 05:23:56 PM

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

THEY CAN GET JOBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!   :o   THEY ALREADY ARE PERMITTED TO GET JOBS WITHIN THE RULES.   How many incorrect things are you going to say in this one thread?

Bylaw 12.4 of the NCAA rulebook.  THEY CAN WORK and BE PAID.

True story ... Goldman Sachs takes undergrads as summer interns.  Some get paid as much as $100,000 for the summer (or $30,000/month).  These are the top kids they want to hire after graduation.

Since bylaw 12.4 of the NCAA rulebook says they can have jobs, then I guess they can get paid 100,000 a summer.  Since Goldman does it, we have a precedent and I'm sure the NCAA will have problem if Dick Strong is hiring summer interns off the basketball team for $100,000 a summer.

So I repeat with Navin's clarification, can they get summer jobs based on who they are?   Could they be hired for meet and greets around town?  Or can they only punch a clock for minimum wage cleaning dorms?

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 22, 2013, 08:38:24 PM
True story ... Goldman Sachs takes undergrads as summer interns.  Some get paid as much as $100,000 for the summer (or $30,000/month).  These are the top kids they want to hire after graduation.

Since bylaw 12.4 of the NCAA rulebook says they can have jobs, then I guess they can get paid 100,000 a summer.  Since Goldman does it, we have a precedent and I'm sure the NCAA will have problem if Dick Strong is hiring summer interns off the basketball team for $100,000 a summer.

So I repeat with Navin's clarification, can they get summer jobs based on who they are?   Could they be hired for meet and greets around town?  Or can they only punch a clock for minimum wage cleaning dorms?

Is this like the true story that poor little Chris Webber couldn't buy his own jersey despite getting paid $280K to attend Michigan?

Care to provide a link for your story?  I've seen where some interns get an ANNUAL salary of $95,000 as an intern...annual...12 months....if it is annualized, which of course almost always it isn't.  So some wisecrack says a guy made $25K over the Summer, therefore that extrapolates to $100K.  Of course, this is also for an internship with a Masters for Financial Engineering.  An bachelor's  internship (not yet graduated from school) from Sachs are for $29.50 an hour.  Still, a great gig if you can get it.  These are high caliber candidates that they put through the ringer...I deal with these type of people at McKinsey, etc, all the time...we're talking Yale, Harvard, Tufts, Cal, MIT, type pedigree.  Same types that fill those types of internships.

So let's get serious.  The reason I know your claim sounds wildly UNTRUE (despite your "true story claim") is an analyst at Goldman Sachs makes about $70K while an associate makes about $100K. An intern doesn't.

http://www.businessinsider.com/wall-street-interns-are-now-making-100000-per-year-quants-2011-5


http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Goldman-Sachs-San-Francisco-Salaries-EI_IE2800.0,13_IL.14,27_IM759.htm

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 22, 2013, 08:38:24 PM
True story ... Goldman Sachs takes undergrads as summer interns.  Some get paid as much as $100,000 for the summer (or $30,000/month).  These are the top kids they want to hire after graduation.

Not really. MBA's at the very top schools get that for the summer.

Quote from: keefe on January 22, 2013, 09:46:14 PM
Not really. MBA's at the very top schools get that for the summer.

New salary structure because of social media ... These kids are being offered even more to go to Silicon Valley, that who is Goldman is competiting with now for top talent.  Too many kids make a billion before 25 now in the valley (think Instagram) that Wall Street "welfare checks" and slave hours are not interesting unless you really pay up.  Again the 100k is for the select few they want after graduation, not the published rate you site.  These kids will be making 7 figures in a few years, and 8 figures soon after that.

But let's not get side tracked with Goldman salary structure ... Start a Superbar thread if you want to discuss. 

The issue was if players can get jobs, why doesn't some big donor offer a 100k a summer for an internship?

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 22, 2013, 09:56:42 PM
New salary structure because of social media ... These kids are being offered even more to go to Silicon Valley, that who is Goldman is competiting with now for top talent.  Too many kids make a billion before 25 now in the valley (think Instagram) that Wall Street "welfare checks" and slave hours are not interesting unless you really pay up.  Again the 100k is for the select few they want after graduation, not the published rate you site.  These kids will be making 7 figures in a few years, and 8 figures soon after that.

But let's not get side tracked with Goldman salary structure ... Start a Superbar thread if you want to discuss.  

The issue was if players can get jobs, why doesn't some big donor offer a 100k a summer for an internship?

Too many kids make a billion before 25?  You keep throwing out these extremes.  How many kids are making a billion before 25?  

And the issue is KIDS CAN GET JOBS, despite you claiming they couldn't.  They absolutely can.  Too many items in this thread you have claimed turned out to be dead wrong.  Kids not being able to go from high school to the NBDL...yes they can.  Kids not being able to get jobs...yes they can.  Chris Webber not being able to afford a jersey....uhm, yes he could.  Claiming that other student athletes don't get tutors...wrong.  Claiming that 45% of unemployed are that way because a lack of those skills....no.   Where are you finding this nonsense of wrongness...stay away from that website or that section of your memory, it's killing your arguments.  This is getting a bit old.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2013, 10:32:09 PM
Too many kids make a billion before 25?  You keep throwing out these extremes.  How many kids are making a billion before 25?  

And the issue is KIDS CAN GET JOBS, despite you claiming they couldn't.  They absolutely can.  Too many items in this thread you have claimed turned out to be dead wrong.  Kids not being able to go from high school to the NBDL...yes they can.  Kids not being able to get jobs...yes they can.  Chris Webber not being able to afford a jersey....uhm, yes he could.  Claiming that other student athletes don't get tutors...wrong.  Claiming that 45% of unemployed are that way because a lack of those skills....no.   Where are you finding this nonsense of wrongness...stay away from that website or that section of your memory, it's killing your arguments.  This is getting a bit old.

Going to keep this on topic ...

If they can get jobs, why doesn't Calipari arrange 100k a summer jobs for all his top recruits?

http://www.stanford.edu/~islander/jobrules.html (http://www.stanford.edu/~islander/jobrules.html)

I stand corrected, apparently student-athletes can get jobs.  I am certain that I had heard in the past that they were not allowed to.  I wonder if/when the rule changed to allow this.

Quote from: TJ on January 23, 2013, 12:05:19 AM
http://www.stanford.edu/~islander/jobrules.html (http://www.stanford.edu/~islander/jobrules.html)

I stand corrected, apparently student-athletes can get jobs.  I am certain that I had heard in the past that they were not allowed to.  I wonder if/when the rule changed to allow this.

Please educate AnotherMU84 on this along with about 5 to 6 other things in this thread.   :P  

The rule has been around since January of 1997.  "A representative of athletics interests may employ current student - athletes if their compensation is based on work actually performed at a rate commensurate with the going rate for services of like character. Further, compensation may not be based on the student - athletes' publicity, reputation, or fame obtained because of athletic ability."


Section 4   http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/AMA/compliance_forms/DI/DI%20Summary%20of%20NCAA%20Regulations.pdf



AnotherMU84...Coach Cal doesn't do that because his program would be thrown into NCAA rules violation.  This isn't hard.  I'm sure many of the athletes are probably already getting paid for work that isn't exactly taxing, but to go to the absurdity of making a 100K summer job would be just a touch over the top and too easy to sniff out. It's also against the rules since the maximum amount a student can earn is the cost of attending the school.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 23, 2013, 12:29:11 AM
Please educate AnotherMU84 on this along with about 5 to 6 other things in this thread.   :P  

If you start a Superbar thread I will answer and show I was correct in everything but the NBDL comment.  No more in this thread.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 23, 2013, 12:29:11 AM
Coach Cal doesn't do that because his program would be thrown into NCAA rules violation.

That's never stopped him before.   ;)

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2013, 05:23:56 PM

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

THEY CAN GET JOBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!   :o   THEY ALREADY ARE PERMITTED TO GET JOBS WITHIN THE RULES.   How many incorrect things are you going to say in this one thread?

Bylaw 12.4 of the NCAA rulebook.  THEY CAN WORK and BE PAID.

I think I read somewhere that a lot of UConn players work summer jobs at Connecticut car dealerships.

Quote from: StillAWarrior on January 23, 2013, 06:15:30 AM
That's never stopped him before.   ;)

According to the NCAA, he hasn't done anything.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 23, 2013, 12:33:50 AM
If you start a Superbar thread I will answer and show I was correct in everything but the NBDL comment.  No more in this thread.

You've already been proven wrong in every one of those scenarios here.  Start a SuperBar thread if you wish to backtrack, but your statements have already been blown up here.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 23, 2013, 09:29:16 AM
You've already been proven wrong in every one of those scenarios here.  Start a SuperBar thread if you wish to backtrack, but your statements have already been blown up here.

Half those statements were not mine, the rest are correct (except the NBDL which does not matter)

Here's one ...

Chris Webber saying he could not afford his Jersey was a direct quote from Chris in Mitch Albom's book "Fab Five."  But because some poster noted that Big Ed Martin slipped him $280,000 that makes me personally wrong?

What Webber said was 100% correct.  Based on what he got from University of Michigan, he could not afford his own Jersey.  Because he took illegal money does not change that reality.

Now, you knew all of this.  You knew the quote, knew the book, knew about Ed Martin and his role but you kept insisting that I was personally wrong just to be a dick.  Now, let it go and keep on the subject of giving players a stipend (Jay Bilas was correct) and keep arguing for your case of some sort of amateur slavery in college sports.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 23, 2013, 10:05:46 AM
Half those statements were not mine, the rest are correct (except the NBDL which does not matter)

Of course it doesn't matter after you were shown to be so blatantly wrong about it.

QuoteNow, let it go and keep on the subject of giving players a stipend (Jay Bilas was correct) and keep arguing for your case of some sort of amateur slavery in college sports.

Ought there not be some sort of Godwin's law in effect for when people raise the specter of slavery?
But you've proven me wrong in one sense. Just when I thought your arguments couldn't get any worse ....

Quote from: Pakuni on January 23, 2013, 10:14:10 AM
Of course it doesn't matter after you were shown to be so blatantly wrong about it.

Has anyone gone from High School directly to the NBDL?

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 23, 2013, 10:52:29 AM
Has anyone gone from High School directly to the NBDL?

Yes. A former Marquette recruit, in fact.
Google is your friend.

Yes Google is your friend and their is a restriction to jumping from HS to the NBDL.  So if you graduate from HS at 17, you have to wait a year.

----

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2407522

A player is eligible to be signed to a D-League contract if he is or will be at least 18 years old during the calendar year in which the D-League draft is held and his high school class has graduated. Also, the player may not have attended college in the United States in the academic year that takes place during the season covered by his D-League contract.

The D-League's new eligibility rule will go into effect at the same time as the NBA's new age limit, which requires players to be 19 years old and one year out of high school in order to sign an NBA contract or be eligible for the draft.

Quote from: MarquetteDano on January 22, 2013, 02:28:03 PM
The courts have not ruled that way.   There is not the barriers to entry like a common utility has or other monopoly industries.  The courts, however, have ruled about collusion and that could interesting in the aforementioned O'Bannon case.

I'm also interested to see where the case goes. I'm of the opinion that, while there are few 'natural' barriers to entry, the market can really only sustain one professional league in each sport (look at Arena football or the old ABL). Consumers reach a saturation point in the sports they follow and 32 team leagues are enought to meet demand for professional athletics.

College is a bit of a unique case because the NCAA has monopolized ALL leagues in ALL sports and there is larger demand for players (more teams). If we divide DI from other divisions, however, there is still extremely limted demand for players and the barriers to starting a new program are quite high (see Marquette and football). This isn't a situation where removing the NCAA's monopoly power is going to create more competition in the market for players...it's going to create less and those with market power (big SEC and state school programs) are better able to leverage that power.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 23, 2013, 11:15:16 AM
Yes Google is your friend and their is a restriction to jumping from HS to the NBDL.  So if you graduate from HS at 17, you have to wait a year.

----

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2407522

A player is eligible to be signed to a D-League contract if he is or will be at least 18 years old during the calendar year in which the D-League draft is held and his high school class has graduated. Also, the player may not have attended college in the United States in the academic year that takes place during the season covered by his D-League contract.

The D-League's new eligibility rule will go into effect at the same time as the NBA's new age limit, which requires players to be 19 years old and one year out of high school in order to sign an NBA contract or be eligible for the draft.

Nice try, but no, that's not what the rule says.
It says a player must turn 18 during the calendar year of the draft and his graduation. So a kid can graduate at 17 and sign with the D-League at 17, so long as he turns 18 by Dec. 31.
Seriously, how many high school kids don't turn 18 at some point during the year of their high school graduation?

Is it really so hard to admit you're wrong?

Quote from: Pakuni on January 23, 2013, 11:21:51 AM
Nice try, but no, that's not what the rule says.
It says a player must turn 18 during the calendar year of the draft and his graduation. So a kid can graduate at 17 and sign with the D-League at 17, so long as he turns 18 by Dec. 31.
Seriously, how many high school kids don't turn 18 at some point during the year of their high school graduation?

Is it really so hard to admit you're wrong?

The number is greater than zero because I did and I have two daughters that will.

I did repeatedly about the NBDL, look on the previous pages.  I also said it does not matter ... as it relates to the idea of paying players a stipend.

Now why don't you call me a Nazi so we can lock this thread.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 23, 2013, 10:05:46 AM
Half those statements were not mine, the rest are correct (except the NBDL which does not matter)

Here's one ...

Chris Webber saying he could not afford his Jersey was a direct quote from Chris in Mitch Albom's book "Fab Five."  But because some poster noted that Big Ed Martin slipped him $280,000 that makes me personally wrong?

What Webber said was 100% correct.  Based on what he got from University of Michigan, he could not afford his own Jersey.  Because he took illegal money does not change that reality.

Now, you knew all of this.  You knew the quote, knew the book, knew about Ed Martin and his role but you kept insisting that I was personally wrong just to be a dick.  Now, let it go and keep on the subject of giving players a stipend (Jay Bilas was correct) and keep arguing for your case of some sort of amateur slavery in college sports.

You used the Chris Webber example as a way to claim that these kids were so poor they couldn't even afford their own jersey.  You brought that up.  My point is that it was a ridiculous person to bring up as an example for any number of reasons, including the fact he had been given $280K to go to Michigan and was hardly poor as a result.  Anyone taken in by his sob story was duped.  It was a very poor example.  Yes, there are some kids in that predicament.  Of course, some of these same kids have an iPhone5, $400 headphones, an XBOX360 and on and on...but that's a conversation for another day.  Then when you compound it by saying things like schools are making billions off merchandise sales I just want to jump out of my window.  That is such a preposterous claim on all levels, but it feeds your belief that somehow these guys are wronged.

They aren't wronged.  If they feel they should be making money off the sale of a jersey with Marquette or Michigan on it that has their number (even though others have also worn that number), then they can go to the NBDL and see how their jersey sells in Bakersfield.  Did it ever occur to you or Chris Webber or anyone else making those claims that people also buy Marquette (or Michigan) jerseys, sweatshirts, t-shirts, hats, because they like the school, like the basketball team, etc....those entities are spending a lot of money to provide a team for Mr. Webber and others to put their skills on display.  Without them, there is no basketball team.  So it cuts both ways. 

If these players feel so wronged for ONLY receiving a quality education that will pay them over 10X fold in their lives, free room and board, etc, etc....then I suggest they go to the NBDL.  For soccer players, I suggest they go to Europe and try to make a go of it.  For Lacrosse players, maybe the NLL.  For golf, go out and get your card....afterall, I can buy a MU Golf cap in the Warrior Shoppe so clearly these golfers are exploited.    :'(

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 23, 2013, 11:32:16 AM
You used the Chris Webber example as a way to claim that these kids were so poor they couldn't even afford their own jersey.  You brought that up.  My point is that it was a ridiculous person to bring up as an example for any number of reasons, including the fact he had been given $280K to go to Michigan and was hardly poor as a result.  Anyone taken in by his sob story was duped.  It was a very poor example.  Yes, there are some kids in that predicament.  Of course, some of these same kids have an iPhone5, $400 headphones, an XBOX360 and on and on...but that's a conversation for another day.  Then when you compound it by saying things like schools are making billions off merchandise sales I just want to jump out of my window.  That is such a preposterous claim on all levels, but it feeds your belief that somehow these guys are wronged.

They aren't wronged.  If they feel they should be making money off the sale of a jersey with Marquette or Michigan on it that has their number (even though others have also worn that number), then they can go to the NBDL and see how their jersey sells in Bakersfield.  Did it ever occur to you or Chris Webber or anyone else making those claims that people also buy Marquette (or Michigan) jerseys, sweatshirts, t-shirts, hats, because they like the school, like the basketball team, etc....those entities are spending a lot of money to provide a team for Mr. Webber and others to put their skills on display.  Without them, there is no basketball team.  So it cuts both ways. 

If these players feel so wronged for ONLY receiving a quality education that will pay them over 10X fold in their lives, free room and board, etc, etc....then I suggest they go to the NBDL.  For soccer players, I suggest they go to Europe and try to make a go of it.  For Lacrosse players, maybe the NLL.  For golf, go out and get your card....afterall, I can buy a MU Golf cap in the Warrior Shoppe so clearly these golfers are exploited.    :'(

If you want to give me a free market argument, then go all the way.  Let players make money off their appearance and do endorsements.  Aurora Health is a big sponsor of MU basketball.  Maybe they would like Otule as a spokesman.  How about the doctor that repaired his knee, why not let him advertise using Otule, and pay him?

Why can't players get paid for meet and greets?  Why can't they get paid for signing memorabilia?  Why can't they get summer jobs with high roller Alums and "what they do and what they get paid is none of your business?"

Why only the "go to the NBDL" argument?  That is the lowest paying option.  Why not let them make money off their college years? 

By the way, the last article I read on this topic showed a graph that had some of the biggest schools yearly revenue from athletics at about $80 million.  So my math before based only on media revenue is a lot different than the real picture.  If the $80 million is right, and I have no proof that it is, then contrast that against the $10 million (a high estimate) in scholarship costs and my point remains... eventually that discrepancy is going to get so large that something's got to give.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2013, 09:43:23 PM
Care to provide a link for your story?  I've seen where some interns get an ANNUAL salary of $95,000 as an intern...annual...12 months....if it is annualized, which of course almost always it isn't.  So some wisecrack says a guy made $25K over the Summer, therefore that extrapolates to $100K.  Of course, this is also for an internship with a Masters for Financial Engineering.  An bachelor's  internship (not yet graduated from school) from Sachs are for $29.50 an hour.  Still, a great gig if you can get it.  These are high caliber candidates that they put through the ringer...I deal with these type of people at McKinsey, etc, all the time...we're talking Yale, Harvard, Tufts, Cal, MIT, type pedigree.  Same types that fill those types of internships.

So let's get serious.  The reason I know your claim sounds wildly UNTRUE (despite your "true story claim") is an analyst at Goldman Sachs makes about $70K while an associate makes about $100K. An intern doesn't.

http://www.businessinsider.com/wall-street-interns-are-now-making-100000-per-year-quants-2011-5


http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Goldman-Sachs-San-Francisco-Salaries-EI_IE2800.0,13_IL.14,27_IM759.htm

Remember these are averages ... the top interns can make several times these averages.  The top interns are paid the big bucks because the firms are recruiting them. (also note that Goldman is not on the list.  I'll guess it is not because they do not pay in the top 25 but their interns did not participate in the survey.)


The 25 Companies With the Highest-Paying Internships
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-02-14/the-25-companies-with-the-highest-paying-internships

For all the hand-wringing over the plight of the unpaid intern, let us turn our attention to the small group of lucky young professionals who find internships that pay more than many full-time positions.

Interns at the 25 best-paying companies earn an average monthly wage of between $4,604 and $6,704, according to a list provided by jobs site Glassdoor.com. For context, the average U.S. household pulls in about $4,400 monthly, based on U.S. Census Bureau data.

While no sensible person complains about getting paid a lot, money doesn't, as the saying goes, buy happiness. For instance, Scottrade, one of the highest-rated companies in terms of interns' satisfaction, only has an average base pay of about $1,800. Only five of the 20 best-rated companies also ranked among the highest-paying. "Compensation does not equate to 100 percent employee satisfaction," says Scott Dobroski, a spokesman for Glassdoor. "Company culture is a strong piece, as is commute, how they feel about co-workers, and feeling like their work matters." Surely, though, one can find some meaning for $6,700 a month.

So who's paying up? "In tech and finance, the war for talent continues to be fierce, and it's not so surprising that the war for talent is fierce at the intern level," says Dobroski. "Why not tap the best young minds right out of the gate?"

Here's the list, lowest to highest:

25. Qualcomm: $4,604
24. Bank of America: $4,605
23. SAP: $4,615
22. BP: $4,631
21. BlackRock: $4,698
20. Intel: $4,836
19. Tagged: $4,909
18. Capital One: $4,930
17. Deutsche Bank: $4,943
16. Shell Oil US: $4,975
15. Chevron: $4,999
14. PayPal: $5,060
13. Yahoo: $5,063
12. Apple: $5,277
11. Nvidia: $5,286
10. Amazon: $5,436
9. ConocoPhillips: $5,607
8. Microsoft: $5,847
7. Adobe: $5,861
6. LinkedIn: $5,866
5. Google: $5,891
4. Facebook: $6,084
3. ExxonMobil: $6,268
2. EBay: $6,500
1. VMware: $6,704

The figures are based on 13,500 intern reviews of 6,600 companies between January 2011 and January 2013. Reviews can be submitted by anyone who works as an intern at the company, from college students to grad school graduates and professionals making a career change. Only companies with 10 or more intern salary reports from that period were included. The average monthly base pay among surveyed interns was $4,200.

Wadesworld will be very disappointed to see you brought a thread back alive from more than three weeks ago...apparently no one does that...ahem.


On the internships...how long are these for..3 months...6 months?  Let's also remember that some of these are for MBA students, Masters in Engineering, etc.  If I recall, the original content of this argument was about interns making $100K or whatever while still in college, without even a bachelor's degree...that's where I was calling no joy.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 18, 2013, 09:06:19 PM
Wadesworld will be very disappointed to see you brought a thread back alive from more than three weeks ago...apparently no one does that...ahem.


On the internships...how long are these for..3 months...6 months?  Let's also remember that some of these are for MBA students, Masters in Engineering, etc.  If I recall, the original content of this argument was about interns making $100K or whatever while still in college, without even a bachelor's degree...that's where I was calling no joy.

Of my many flaws ... I stumbled upon the intern story (which was dated Feb 14) and remember this thread and revived it.

I can speak from personal experience on MBA internships. Companies like PepsiCo will pay aggressive monthly salaries for  summer interns from the best B Schools. In today's dollars that would approximate $12-15K/month for three months. But the real kicker is not the monthly salary - when an intern is ready to walk out the door for his second year Pepsi offers to pay the tuition for both years if the intern will sign a tender before leaving. That exceeds $100K. Not bad for a summer job. Competition for top talent is fierce and even MBAs who sign don't always honor the deal.

We had a young woman who was getting her MBA at Penn. She did her undergrad at UVA, spoke Japanese fluently. She did her internship with the PepsiCo Foods International Strat Planning team in Tokyo. She worked with me on the California Pizza Kitchen acquisition, sizing and scaling the economics of the CPK opportunity in Japan. Her work was first rate and I recommended her for the tuition reimbursement program with a guaranteed spot in PFI Tokyo Strat Planning. She signed on the dotted line and we cut her a check to pay off her first year's tuition and had Wharton send her second year bill to Purchase, NY. She went through the second year interview cycle at Penn and got an offer from BCG that was more attractive to her. I got a call from her telling me she was going with BCG and how was she to repay PepsiCo for the tuition deal we gave her. This happens all the time so we had our MBA Relations contact BCG who paid us back with interest. The only downside was we had planned on her being in Japan but we easily replaced her with another Wharton grad who also spoke Japanese. For some reason he had interned at Taco Bell in Irvine but jumped when Tokyo was dangled before him.

Internships can be lucrative but you have to have the creds and prove it within 3 months. Not everyone gets a great deal.

Quote from: keefe on February 18, 2013, 10:05:27 PM
I can speak from personal experience on MBA internships. Companies like PepsiCo will pay aggressive monthly salaries for  summer interns from the best B Schools. In today's dollars that would approximate $12-15K/month for three months. But the real kicker is not the monthly salary - when an intern is ready to walk out the door for his second year Pepsi offers to pay the tuition for both years if the intern will sign a tender before leaving. That exceeds $100K. Not bad for a summer job. Competition for top talent is fierce and even MBAs who sign don't always honor the deal.

We had a young woman who was getting her MBA at Penn. She did her undergrad at UVA, spoke Japanese fluently. She did her internship with the PepsiCo Foods International Strat Planning team in Tokyo. She worked with me on the California Pizza Kitchen acquisition, sizing and scaling the economics of the CPK opportunity in Japan. Her work was first rate and I recommended her for the tuition reimbursement program with a guaranteed spot in PFI Tokyo Strat Planning. She signed on the dotted line and we cut her a check to pay off her first year's tuition and had Wharton send her second year bill to Purchase, NY. She went through the second year interview cycle at Penn and got an offer from BCG that was more attractive to her. I got a call from her telling me she was going with BCG and how was she to repay PepsiCo for the tuition deal we gave her. This happens all the time so we had our MBA Relations contact BCG who paid us back with interest. The only downside was we had planned on her being in Japan but we easily replaced her with another Wharton grad who also spoke Japanese. For some reason he had interned at Taco Bell in Irvine but jumped when Tokyo was dangled before him.

Internships can be lucrative but you have to have the creds and prove it within 3 months. Not everyone gets a great deal.

+1  This is consistent with my sateen that TOP interns at Goldman Sachs can make $30k/month (again, only the top interns).

The reason this came up is Bball players can hold summer jobs (established a few pages earlier).  I'm surprised we have not seen/heard more stories if them getting summer "interns" for big bucks like these numbers and why this would not be a problem for the NCAA, no matter then salary.

What I object to are that the rules are too strict. I believe a college athlete on scholarship should be allowed to go to a baseball game with a fellow student if that fellow student has tickets to a game. I went to the Green Bay Packer Championship game against Dallas back in 1967 when a fellow student invited me because a family member was sick with the flu. Since I was not an athlete no big deal. I believe an assistant coach should be able to give a potential recruit a ride to the airport or bus station. As long as these things are documented what is the harm?

Quote from: muwarrior69 on February 19, 2013, 11:17:32 AM
What I object to are that the rules are too strict. I believe a college athlete on scholarship should be allowed to go to a baseball game with a fellow student if that fellow student has tickets to a game. I went to the Green Bay Packer Championship game against Dallas back in 1967 when a fellow student invited me because a family member was sick with the flu. Since I was not an athlete no big deal. I believe an assistant coach should be able to give a potential recruit a ride to the airport or bus station. As long as these things are documented what is the harm?

Are you're asking if the NCAA should act rational????  How dare you!