MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: tower912 on July 02, 2013, 07:50:00 PM
-
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2013/07/ncaa_transfer_rule_college_coaches_can_block_their_former_players_from_getting.html
450 transfers so far this year. Interesting perspective. And maybe MU doesn't want to be like SLU after all.
-
The drivel started with the very first sentence followed by the second.
Unjust?
Players get nothing?
I really wish some of these "authors" would actually do some research.
I read this article earlier today and thought about posting it, figured someone eventually would. So much wrong with this article that is hides the 1 or 2 legit points the author actually has.
-
Awful article.
-
I read this yesterday after a friend of mine posted this on fb. Very poorly done.
One thing I noted is that the author compares the mens basketball transfer rate to the transfer rate of non-athlete students in order to show that it is significantly less. I'm assuming that this non-athlete student transfer rate encompasses all students. What would be interesting is to see what the non-athlete student transfer rate is amongst those that have full-ride scholarships, as that would really be more applicable IMO.
-
I read this yesterday after a friend of mine posted this on fb. Very poorly done.
One thing I noted is that the author compares the mens basketball transfer rate to the transfer rate of non-athlete students in order to show that it is significantly less. I'm assuming that this non-athlete student transfer rate encompasses all students. What would be interesting is to see what the non-athlete student transfer rate is amongst those that have full-ride scholarships, as that would really be more applicable IMO.
And if you click through to the article they reference for their stat that 1 in 3 college students eventually transfer, you will notice that they include students that transfer to a 4-year school from a 2-year school. Um, if you are going to a 2-year school, you have no choice but to transfer if you actually want to get a Bachelor's degree. Also, what percentage of transfer students are switching to a less expensive school because of finances? Usually not an issue for students on a full-ride athletic scholly.
-
It's basically a bad editorial - the writer has a POV and doesn't much care if the "facts" that underpin it are true or not.
-
While all the previous comments, about the article, may be true I still believe the main point of the article is valid. IMHO, college athletes do get free room and board but the schools make millions. It does seem as though the school have the upper hand in this arrangement between athletes and schools. Athletes get free school. The school makes the money and the coaches can not play a kid, tell him he won't ever play again, or not renew his scholarship. Then they can stop a kid from going to any school they want.(with a scholarship) That is crazy. Finally, a coach can move any time they want.
-
While all the previous comments, about the article, may be true I still believe the main point of the article is valid. IMHO, college athletes do get free room and board but the schools make millions. It does seem as though the school have the upper hand in this arrangement between athletes and schools. Athletes get free school. The school makes the money and the coaches can not play a kid, tell him he won't ever play again, or not renew his scholarship. Then they can stop a kid from going to any school they want.(with a scholarship) That is crazy. Finally, a coach can move any time they want.
350 DI schools, most don't make millions. We have to stop thinking like college athletics is just the top 50 schools for basketball and football. The money the NCAA makes funds all divisions, all sports championships, the vast vast vast majority of these sports lose money, yet those kids are still getting their free education which cannot be measured simply with the cost of tuition and room\board. That educational value should be measured on what it leads to, what the earning power is for a college degree from that school vs not having a degree.
School does have the upper hand, as they should.
-
While all the previous comments, about the article, may be true I still believe the main point of the article is valid. IMHO, college athletes do get free room and board but the schools make millions. It does seem as though the school have the upper hand in this arrangement between athletes and schools. Athletes get free school. The school makes the money and the coaches can not play a kid, tell him he won't ever play again, or not renew his scholarship. Then they can stop a kid from going to any school they want.(with a scholarship) That is crazy. Finally, a coach can move any time they want.
The only thing I think would be worth changing, is allowing players to transfer without sitting out a year if their head coach leaves elsewhere. That and the limiting player's options of schools for when they transfer should probably be curtailed a bit.
But this notion that the NCAA/schools are taking advantage of student-athletes is absurd.
-
350 DI schools, most don't make millions. We have to stop thinking like college athletics is just the top 50 schools for basketball and football. The money the NCAA makes funds all divisions, all sports championships, the vast vast vast majority of these sports lose money, yet those kids are still getting their free education which cannot be measured simply with the cost of tuition and room\board. That educational value should be measured on what it leads to, what the earning power is for a college degree from that school vs not having a degree.
School does have the upper hand, as they should.
Why should schools have the upper hand? Why shouldn't it be a mutually fair arrangement? Yes, at many schools(like MU),high revenue sports pay for all other sports. That is great but at most of those schools there are millions of dollars left over that the schools make because of the athletes performances.
-
The only thing I think would be worth changing, is allowing players to transfer without sitting out a year if their head coach leaves elsewhere. That and the limiting player's options of schools for when they transfer should probably be curtailed a bit.
But this notion that the NCAA/schools are taking advantage of student-athletes is absurd.
If this notion is so absurd, why would you make any changes? Many schools make millions from major sports and can cut athletes at any time and restrict their ability to move from school to school. The most hypocritical part of the arrangement is the coaches complaining about athletes changing schools( not for more money) but the coaches leaving all the time for more cash.
-
350 DI schools, most don't make millions. We have to stop thinking like college athletics is just the top 50 schools for basketball and football. The money the NCAA makes funds all divisions, all sports championships, the vast vast vast majority of these sports lose money, yet those kids are still getting their free education which cannot be measured simply with the cost of tuition and room\board. That educational value should be measured on what it leads to, what the earning power is for a college degree from that school vs not having a degree.
School does have the upper hand, as they should.
Chicos, my man, we have to do an intervention and save what's left of your Friedman principles. How would you feel if year after year your division knocked it out of the park but you went unrewarded as the profits went to subsidize divisions within the company that ALWAYS lost money? If universities can find 200 large lying around to pay a guy to teach one 3 hour class they can figure out a way to pay for the volleyball team. If not, non revenue sports can become non scholarship as well.
-
Chicos, my man, we have to do an intervention and save what's left of your Friedman principles. How would you feel if year after year your division knocked it out of the park but you went unrewarded as the profits went to subsidize divisions within the company that ALWAYS lost money? If universities can find 200 large lying around to pay a guy to teach one 3 hour class they can figure out a way to pay for the volleyball team. If not, non revenue sports can become non scholarship as well.
You took the words out of my keyboard (and probably made the point better than I would have). Isn't using Bball and Fball players' talents to fund other sports the very definition of taking advantage of these kids?
And to say they are getting a free education doesn't mean much either. Many are getting this 'free education' only because they are not allowed, by rule, to pursue the job they seek without going to school.
-
And to say they are getting a free education doesn't mean much either. Many are getting this 'free education' only because they are not allowed, by rule, to pursue the job they seek without going to school.
This is completely false. Nowhere does it say they have to go to school. Europe is an option for basketball, and a very viable one (Jennings). Football on the other hand is a different story, but again, they don't HAVE to go to school.
-
You took the words out of my keyboard (and probably made the point better than I would have). Isn't using Bball and Fball players' talents to fund other sports the very definition of taking advantage of these kids?
And to say they are getting a free education doesn't mean much either. Many are getting this 'free education' only because they are not allowed, by rule, to pursue the job they seek without going to school.
The kids don't have to go to school to pursue their job. They can go somewhere else and apply their trade. Europe, Mexico, Canada, Globetrotters, XFL, Youtube, whatever.
This isn't to say that the athletic scholarships are perfectly "fair", but everybody knows the deal before they sign. If you don't like the deal, don't sign.
-
The drivel started with the very first sentence followed by the second.
Unjust?
Players get nothing?
The players do get something...but IMO is completely unjust.
Every player should get one free transfer without sitting out...no restrictions. The world wouldn't end by any means.
-
This is completely false. Nowhere does it say they have to go to school. Europe is an option for basketball, and a very viable one (Jennings). Football on the other hand is a different story, but again, they don't HAVE to go to school.
You may be correct, but if you are coming out of law school, would you accept a job with a two man firm in Racine or with a large firm in D.C.? Racine is an option, but if you really want to make it, which do you choose?
Andrew Wiggins has that option - he'll be the #1 pick - regardless of what he does or where her goes. Most don't have the same options.
-
You may be correct, but if you are coming out of law school, would you accept a job with a two man firm in Racine or with a large firm in D.C.? Racine is an option, but if you really want to make it, which do you choose?
Andrew Wiggins has that option - he'll be the #1 pick - regardless of what he does or where her goes. Most don't have the same options.
I am from DC and you really cannot get a good Kringle anywhere in the National Capital Region.
-
You may be correct, but if you are coming out of law school, would you accept a job with a two man firm in Racine or with a large firm in D.C.? Racine is an option, but if you really want to make it, which do you choose?
Andrew Wiggins has that option - he'll be the #1 pick - regardless of what he does or where her goes. Most don't have the same options.
Using your analogy, if I was coming out of law school and wanted to get paid right away, have less exposure with less competition, then have a legitimate shot at going to a larger firm later, then I would go with the two man firm in Racine.
If I wanted to have an unpaid internship for a year (or more if I wanted), test myself against the best competition, have tons of exposure in the market I eventually want to be in, and then have a shot to go somewhere else, then I would go to the large firm in D.C. Oh, and this lawfirm in DC would also provide me with career training in another field (just in case the whole law route didn't work out), provide me with housing in DC, and pay for my meals. By the way, throughout this unpaid internship at this law firm, they are going to bill my services out to our clients at $200/hour. I'm not getting paid and the firm is making money off the work I'm doing.
-
Using your analogy, if I was coming out of law school and wanted to get paid right away, have less exposure with less competition, then have a legitimate shot at going to a larger firm later, then I would go with the two man firm in Racine.
If I wanted to have an unpaid internship for a year (or more if I wanted), test myself against the best competition, have tons of exposure in the market I eventually want to be in, and then have a shot to go somewhere else, then I would go to the large firm in D.C. Oh, and this lawfirm in DC would also provide me with career training in another field (just in case the whole law route didn't work out), provide me with housing in DC, and pay for my meals. By the way, throughout this unpaid internship at this law firm, they are going to bill my services out to our clients at $200/hour. I'm not getting paid and the firm is making money off the work I'm doing.
And you will receive per diem when you travel, which is the best kept secret in college athletics.
-
Using your analogy, if I was coming out of law school and wanted to get paid right away, have less exposure with less competition, then have a legitimate shot at going to a larger firm later, then I would go with the two man firm in Racine.
If I wanted to have an unpaid internship for a year (or more if I wanted), test myself against the best competition, have tons of exposure in the market I eventually want to be in, and then have a shot to go somewhere else, then I would go to the large firm in D.C. Oh, and this lawfirm in DC would also provide me with career training in another field (just in case the whole law route didn't work out), provide me with housing in DC, and pay for my meals. By the way, throughout this unpaid internship at this law firm, they are going to bill my services out to our clients at $200/hour. I'm not getting paid and the firm is making money off the work I'm doing.
I wonder who is more successful - on average - someone who interns at a large law firm in NYC or DC or someone starting (and getting paid) at a small town firm.
(Hopefully I don't need to put this in teal)
-
Chicos, my man, we have to do an intervention and save what's left of your Friedman principles. How would you feel if year after year your division knocked it out of the park but you went unrewarded as the profits went to subsidize divisions within the company that ALWAYS lost money? If universities can find 200 large lying around to pay a guy to teach one 3 hour class they can figure out a way to pay for the volleyball team. If not, non revenue sports can become non scholarship as well.
I love Uncle Milty, but sports is a different world and I think Milty would say the same thing.
The comparison you laid out is apples to oranges, because my company isn't requiring us to carry a bunch of people or products that are a complete burden to the bottom line without making other contributions. (Yes, there are many departments that don't bring in revenue per se, but the provide a support function like IT, customer service, accounting, etc, that are needed to run a division). In the world of college athletics, we have money makers (for some schools) in men's hoops and football, then we have money losers in women's volleyball, women's hoops, track and field, tennis, soccer, etc, etc. Yet to be NCAA certified, all those sports have to be fielded to constitute a DI athletic program...minimum of 14 sports with the necessary scholarships. So going by those restrictive rules (haven't even gotten into Title IX yet), the revenue producers have to pay for the others (think about who pays fed taxes vs those that don't).
It sucks, I get it. Totally get it. The question comes down to whether we feel it is the right thing to do to have men's and women's teams competing. The law is pretty clear on this. As such, because most of these teams lose money something has to bring in revenue to cover those expenses. If we believe (and if the courts concur) that creating a scheme where only revenue sports are played and have their own P & L, self sufficient, etc...then I believe there is a more legitimate way to reach an end to this. However, I don't see the courts, college presidents, female athletes, male athletes from non-revenue sports, etc allowing this to happen. Until it does, there are 400,000+ athletes to deal with, the overwhelming majority playing a sport that loses money and is subsidized by the revenue sports, NCAA television money (to some extent), student activity fees, donations, etc.
As for the Petraeus thing, that salary will be funded by a gift to CUNY. Of course, that goes to the question of whether that gift money could be spent on something else....a question that ultimately comes back to the gifter who chooses to provide the gift.
If someone can present a legitimate model here that deals with the realities of what the courts have ruled, I'm sure many folks would love to hear it.
-
Why should schools have the upper hand? Why shouldn't it be a mutually fair arrangement? Yes, at many schools(like MU),high revenue sports pay for all other sports. That is great but at most of those schools there are millions of dollars left over that the schools make because of the athletes performances.
I don't agree with your latter statement to say most schools are in that situation. That's just off memory, I would have to check the data to be certain.
In terms of the upper hand question, I have several reasons why I believe that should be the case. Risk is primary.
The school is assuming the risk in holding a scholarship slot for that student athlete. If he\she doesn't work out and the team suffers, the school's athletic department takes the majority of hit be it in prestige, lost ticket sales (revenue), etc
The school is providing the coaching expertise, the educational opportunity, the venue(s) for which to train and showcase talents
Think of it this way. Many companies have educational reimbursement programs. For example, if one of my people desires to get an MBA, we will pay for it in full but they have to sign off that they will be here for a full five years, otherwise we're paying to increase the skills of an employee on our dime when they could leave and apply those skills (which we paid for) at another company. We're taking on the initial risk, we get the payoff with a better employee down the road. I view the relationship with student athletes in a similar fashion. The university is putting up the dollars to educate, house, feed, train this student athlete and in return the student athlete performs for the university. That's a HEAVY investment by the university with no guarantee of return...in fact often there is no return. If the student athlete does make it big, it is in large part to that investment the university made, including helping to showcase that athlete on television, in large arenas, in the media, through connections, etc. The student athlete benefits greatly, even if they do hit the big time because without the vehicle to perform, they are on their own to reach their goal of professional athlete.
-
350 DI schools, most don't make millions. We have to stop thinking like college athletics is just the top 50 schools for basketball and football. The money the NCAA makes funds all divisions, all sports championships, the vast vast vast majority of these sports lose money, yet those kids are still getting their free education which cannot be measured simply with the cost of tuition and room\board. That educational value should be measured on what it leads to, what the earning power is for a college degree from that school vs not having a degree.
I have serious doubts as to your free market credentials. Be advised I have notified the Cato Institute of your treasonous remarks.
-
I have serious doubts as to your free market credentials. Be advised I have notified the Cato Institute of your treasonous remarks.
As my beloved president /sarc would say, it's nuanced.
I don't think they are going to budge, I'm considered "patron" level in terms of annual donation to Cato.org....they want my money. :)
-
As my beloved president /sarc would say, it's nuanced.
I don't think they are going to budge, I'm considered "patron" level in terms of annual donation to Cato.org....they want my money. :)
They do great work. I am also a Patron.
-
Think of it this way. Many companies have educational reimbursement programs. For example, if one of my people desires to get an MBA, we will pay for it in full but they have to sign off that they will be here for a full five years, otherwise we're paying to increase the skills of an employee on our dime when they could leave and apply those skills (which we paid for) at another company. We're taking on the initial risk, we get the payoff with a better employee down the road. I view the relationship with student athletes in a similar fashion. The university is putting up the dollars to educate, house, feed, train this student athlete and in return the student athlete performs for the university. That's a HEAVY investment by the university with no guarantee of return...in fact often there is no return. If the student athlete does make it big, it is in large part to that investment the university made, including helping to showcase that athlete on television, in large arenas, in the media, through connections, etc. The student athlete benefits greatly, even if they do hit the big time because without the vehicle to perform, they are on their own to reach their goal of professional athlete.
In your example, unless a non-compete contract has been signed, if your employee decides to leave he may have to pay you back for school but you do not get to stop him from working for a year and tell him where he can and cannot work next. You still have not addressed the utter hypocrisy of the coaches leaving for large sums of money...see Brad Stevens he asked 13 kids to come to Butler and trust him then he left for 22M. He's not sitting out a year and Butler could not stop him from going.
-
In your example, unless a non-compete contract has been signed, if your employee decides to leave he may have to pay you back for school but you do not get to stop him from working for a year and tell him where he can and cannot work next. You still have not addressed the utter hypocrisy of the coaches leaving for large sums of money...see Brad Stevens he asked 13 kids to come to Butler and trust him then he left for 22M. He's not sitting out a year and Butler could not stop him from going.
I don't see the hypocrisy. Brad Stevens is a contract employee. The student athletes are not employees.
Those student athletes also signed letters of intent to play at Butler University, not Brad Stevens University. Don't get me wrong, I'm not naive to suggest kids don't go to schools without the coach, but at the same time many kids while at the school learn to want to be in the program and not necessarily the coach. This is why some kids transfer after a coach leaves and some do not.
On the employee continued education thing....ok, then if a kid wants to transfer should he \ she be required to reimburse the school for the year they invested in the kid (room, board, training, coaching, tuition)? If so, then I'm all for them coming and going as that would eliminate the risk that the university took and the investment they put into that student athlete.
-
The hypocrisy with the coaches, who have signed contracts, are the ones complaining about kids transferring, turning their backs on the team and their teammates and as soon as they can get a better deal thay are gone. No one limits the coach from leaving a school but the coaches want to limit the kids from leaving. Hypocrisy
-
The hypocrisy with the coaches, who have signed contracts, are the ones complaining about kids transferring, turning their backs on the team and their teammates and as soon as they can get a better deal thay are gone. No one limits the coach from leaving a school but the coaches want to limit the kids from leaving. Hypocrisy
Coaches enter into head coaching employment agreements. Many of these agreements have different forms of "punishing" the coach for leaving the school at certain times.
If kids wanted to only attend a school where they had great assurances the coach would be there for the next four years (i.e., in the form of an enormous buyout, loss of deferred comp, etc.), schools would take note of this and negotiate contracts accordingly.
The sob story of kids is mostly overdone. The comparison of coaches to student-athletes is absurd.
-
The sob story of kids is mostly overdone. The comparison of coaches to student-athletes is absurd.
Well I guess that's it, you say so the discussion is over. The slave owners said they were taking the risks and after all they fed and housed the slaves why would the slaves want to be free. The comparison is quite apt, the coaches demand loyalty from the players until they get a better deal and then there off. Another example you ask? See Tan Tommy!
-
The hypocrisy with the coaches, who have signed contracts, are the ones complaining about kids transferring, turning their backs on the team and their teammates and as soon as they can get a better deal thay are gone. No one limits the coach from leaving a school but the coaches want to limit the kids from leaving. Hypocrisy
But that's not true, they have clauses that often requires the coach to buyout a contract to leave. For example, Steve Alford just had to do that with New Mexico. There are consequences to their actions as well.
http://www.abqjournal.com/sports/39832/college/breaking-unm-steve-alford-come-to-buyout-agreement.html
-
But that's not true, they have clauses that often requires the coach to buyout a contract to leave. For example, Steve Alford just had to do that with New Mexico. There are consequences to their actions as well.
Trust me, that gets eaten by the new employer. The taxpayers of New Mexico thank you and your Bear Republic neighbors, Chico!
-
Trust me, that gets eaten by the new employer. The taxpayers of New Mexico thank you and your Bear Republic neighbors, Chico!
+1,000,000 or 22M if your Brad Stevens.
-
Trust me, that gets eaten by the new employer. The taxpayers of New Mexico thank you and your Bear Republic neighbors, Chico!
Usually, it does, but the point is there are repercussions. Someone is paying, it's not like you can walk away scott free. Someone's wallet will be hit as a result of that change.
Again, I'm all for transferring with no penalty, so long as the student athlete reimburses the school for the investment they made in the student athlete. Otherwise, they need to sit a year.
-
Usually, it does, but the point is there are repercussions. Someone is paying, it's not like you can walk away scott free. Someone's wallet will be hit as a result of that change.
Again, I'm all for transferring with no penalty, so long as the student athlete reimburses the school for the investment they made in the student athlete. Otherwise, they need to sit a year.
Chicos, I normally find you to be very rational and not arguing for arguments sake. I'm not sure why you feel it is necessary to die on ths sword. We all know the schools have the upper hand in this relationship, you even said so you think they should. You want the school to be reimbursed by the athlete I suppose that would be fine. I propose the athlete pay the school from the funds the school gives him from his share of ticket sales, tv contracts, and merchandise sales. You have forgot to take into account the school receives monetary compensation once the athlete starts to play.
-
Well I guess that's it, you say so the discussion is over. The slave owners said they were taking the risks and after all they fed and housed the slaves why would the slaves want to be free. The comparison is quite apt, the coaches demand loyalty from the players until they get a better deal and then there off. Another example you ask? See Tan Tommy!
Well at least you don't sound racist.
Many who have a bit of a dislike for I4 do not have this dislike because he left for another job.
And let's remember - kids can transfer anywhere they wish. They just may not be able to play basketball immediately.
Maybe you crybabies would like coaches to start promising kids a certain number of minutes and punish the school if the kids don't receive the promised minutes of playing time. Poor kiddos.
-
Chicos, I normally find you to be very rational and not arguing for arguments sake. I'm not sure why you feel it is necessary to die on ths sword. We all know the schools have the upper hand in this relationship, you even said so you think they should. You want the school to be reimbursed by the athlete I suppose that would be fine. I propose the athlete pay the school from the funds the school gives him from his share of ticket sales, tv contracts, and merchandise sales. You have forgot to take into account the school receives monetary compensation once the athlete starts to play.
I haven't forgotten about it, I just know what a pittance that money is in so many programs. There are DI basketball programs that have as few as 6 home games and revenue of less than $60,000. (To be clear, I'm talking gate receipts...these programs make more in the form of Buy Guarantees). I'll give you an example, Grambling's basketball budget is $325K. Of course there are those on the other side with many home games and larger revenues into the millions.
At the end of the day, the school is taking the risk. I don't think I'm falling on the sword with that argument....they are taking the risk. Meanwhile, the student is getting an education, room and board, training expertise, coaching expertise, a chance to showcase his talents for a future job in the association or Europe (if he is good enough). He is often getting to travel and experience something very few kids in this country get to experience. That is valuable and worth something.
So how about we propose paying the student athlete but the education, room and board are no longer free. I'm paid by my employer, but I have to pay for my clothes, cleaning, my car, gas, etc. Perhaps the students should have to pay for their uniforms, shoes, laundering of them.
I just don't understand why people poohpooh what they are getting as if it has no or little value. It has tremendous value and tremendous opportunities.
-
What are the rules for athletes transferring when there is a head coach change? Is it different for incoming players versus existing players?
-
What are the rules for athletes transferring when there is a head coach change? Is it different for incoming players versus existing players?
No rules. Schools can release players from their commitments if they wish, but they do not have to.
-
Usually, it does, but the point is there are repercussions. Someone is paying, it's not like you can walk away scott free. Someone's wallet will be hit as a result of that change.
Again, I'm all for transferring with no penalty, so long as the student athlete reimburses the school for the investment they made in the student athlete. Otherwise, they need to sit a year.
And should the school also cut a check to the student athlete for the revenue he/she created for the school?
-
What are the rules for athletes transferring when there is a head coach change? Is it different for incoming players versus existing players?
Like Chicos says - there are no rules specific to head coaching changes.
The key to remember is that kids commit to institutions, not to coaches or individuals. This is beaten into their heads time and time again. Those who sign an NLI contractually acknowledge this fact.
Sure, we know that many kids want to play for certain coaches. But the rules - which are clearly laid out for all parties to understand - are very clear that it's the academic institution that matters.
--------
In practice, schools are quick to release students from their NLI if a head coach leaves and the kid wants out. It's a PR thing and not doing so could negatively impact future recruiting.
No reason (except for "market conditions") that schools can't include provisions that make leaving a school "suddenly" quite painful for a coach under contract.
-
And should the school also cut a check to the student athlete for the revenue he/she created for the school?
How are you going to determine that? If the kid doesn't play as a freshman and is on the bench, do they get $0? And if they play only 10 minutes a game, then what? How about the women's soccer player, what does she get? Does the QB get more than the right tackle or the inside linebacker?
-
How are you going to determine that? If the kid doesn't play as a freshman and is on the bench, do they get $0? And if they play only 10 minutes a game, then what? How about the women's soccer player, what does she get? Does the QB get more than the right tackle or the inside linebacker?
While we are at paying athletes for the value they bring to the University, we can't forget about everyone else. Undergrads with top scores bring in $'s and recognition, why stop at just giving them scholarships, we should be paying them. Not only that, but in some fields, the future graduates can be counted on for donations. Let'd pay them forward for that money they are worth.
What about graduate students. They do research (at top schools bringing in millions in revenue) and teach, all for a measly stipend that is barely sufficient to pay for living expenses.
In life, very few are actually paid for the value they bring to an organization...if the athletes have an issue with it, by all means try Europe or the D-league. This they bring value crap is ridiculous. In fact at the vast majority of universities the athletes are not the students bringing in the most value, so in many regards they are already overcompensated for their value.
-
Like Chicos says - there are no rules specific to head coaching changes.
The key to remember is that kids commit to institutions, not to coaches or individuals. This is beaten into their heads time and time again. Those who sign an NLI contractually acknowledge this fact.
Sure, we know that many kids want to play for certain coaches. But the rules - which are clearly laid out for all parties to understand - are very clear that it's the academic institution that matters.
--------
In practice, schools are quick to release students from their NLI if a head coach leaves and the kid wants out. It's a PR thing and not doing so could negatively impact future recruiting.
No reason (except for "market conditions") that schools can't include provisions that make leaving a school "suddenly" quite painful for a coach under contract.
Thanks JB.
Say, when's the tourney in Bloominton?
How's the move going?
-
While we are at paying athletes for the value they bring to the University, we can't forget about everyone else. Undergrads with top scores bring in $'s and recognition, why stop at just giving them scholarships, we should be paying them. Not only that, but in some fields, the future graduates can be counted on for donations. Let'd pay them forward for that money they are worth.
What about graduate students. They do research (at top schools bringing in millions in revenue) and teach, all for a measly stipend that is barely sufficient to pay for living expenses.
In life, very few are actually paid for the value they bring to an organization...if the athletes have an issue with it, by all means try Europe or the D-league. This they bring value crap is ridiculous. In fact at the vast majority of universities the athletes are not the students bringing in the most value, so in many regards they are already overcompensated for their value.
So Andrew Wiggins is overcompensated for his value? You're going to have to explain that to me. In a free market - his "value" is 10's of millions of dollars - so getting $20,000-$25,000 dollars this year to play at Kansas means he is overcompensated?
-
So Andrew Wiggins is overcompensated for his value? You're going to have to explain that to me. In a free market - his "value" is 10's of millions of dollars - so getting $20,000-$25,000 dollars this year to play at Kansas means he is overcompensated?
Wiggins is one example (note I said most are over compensated). For analogy sake, the discovery of the synthesis of Taxol has brought Florida State 100's of millions of dollars. I would not be surprised if taxol and its analogs are approaching $1 billion in profits to FSU. Yet, the vast vast majority of grad students that did the work to yield taxol and its derivatives got a free PhD and around $18-20K in living expenses each year. In comparison, yes Wiggins would still be over compensated......given that as I mentioned, the vast majority are not Wiggins and do not contribute anywhere near that value. In fact most yield no value whatsoever and cost universities money. So on the average yes they are over compensated.
Wiggins is an extreme case, one that occurs in all facets of life and business.
-
Sounds like college basketball players are ripe for organizing!
Hoopsters of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!
(http://behance.vo.llnwd.net/profiles20/1670729/projects/5643051/88690a50da16bbcac62dd5ce6fdebac1.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8Ex1E-yRJT4/T-WLo5B4IwI/AAAAAAAAD6I/8HHUgtAuGOo/s640/01a+Marx-Engels.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQyK1ghwFedAydA2r1icISlE80hFL3BDpN6pU2yL3YQyp9Y7EgP)
(http://www.messersmith.name/wordpress/wp-content/workers_unite_pict0012.jpg)
(http://faculty.mercer.edu/grant_jc/Post%20C11.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQvupsqmXxcDP9kMeo7mxGxeAWzMPtvf5HE4xySYMiBcJKj0-Vq)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jkKX71N5Sag/UEsqczZRyDI/AAAAAAAALSg/eSqDcgFt45Y/s1600/1aaaaaaaaa.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSLNnPe6NlTaHRDFqg4_zJ5IgdqX7JWFyB9coMeScxjoXBrswtpNA)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcREDi6IvsIbHLKCRbTzaVVLV4vNSWMNvos4TGD_FiAkWvEEFe-x)
-
This is completely false. Nowhere does it say they have to go to school. Europe is an option for basketball, and a very viable one (Jennings). Football on the other hand is a different story, but again, they don't HAVE to go to school.
Sorry...but Europe is not a "very viable" option. The fact that only one player has chosen that route should show that.
The NCAA is a monopoly. They have the upper-hand in determining the terms of the contract. Most here seem to like system because we don't want to see players transfer...why I am not sure...but it is completely laughable if you think it is "fair."
I agree that the comparing it to the coaches is dumb because the coaches do what their contracts allow them to do.
However the players aren't employees, so they don't get workman's comp in case of injury, they can't collectively bargain, they don't earn what their "value" allows them to earn. (I mean really....should Andrew Wiggins really get the same value from his contract with Kansas next year as the 13th guy on the bench? Of course not.)
It is an absurd and unfair system - and the only reason it is set up this way is because the NCAA has no serious competitors. And that's the way the membership wants it. It is like a cartel. That is why any sort of comeback along the lines of "well that's the contract" doesn't make any sense. That is the same line of thinking when American commerce was dominated by the likes of Standard Oil. If you have no real alternative, you have no choice but to accept their terms.
-
Sorry...but Europe is not a "very viable" option. The fact that only one player has chosen that route should show that.
The NCAA is a monopoly. They have the upper-hand in determining the terms of the contract. Most here seem to like system because we don't want to see players transfer...why I am not sure...but it is completely laughable if you think it is "fair."
I agree that the comparing it to the coaches is dumb because the coaches do what their contracts allow them to do.
However the players aren't employees, so they don't get workman's comp in case of injury, they can't collectively bargain, they don't earn what their "value" allows them to earn. (I mean really....should Andrew Wiggins really get the same value from his contract with Kansas next year as the 13th guy on the bench? Of course not.)
It is an absurd and unfair system - and the only reason it is set up this way is because the NCAA has no serious competitors. And that's the way the membership wants it. It is like a cartel. That is why any sort of comeback along the lines of "well that's the contract" doesn't make any sense. That is the same line of thinking when American commerce was dominated by the likes of Standard Oil. If you have no real alternative, you have no choice but to accept their terms.
The NAIA is totally a viable option! (Teal not needed)
-
So Andrew Wiggins is overcompensated for his value? You're going to have to explain that to me. In a free market - his "value" is 10's of millions of dollars - so getting $20,000-$25,000 dollars this year to play at Kansas means he is overcompensated?
How on earth is his value at KU 10's of millions of dollars when FSU basketball makes a fraction of that and would make that whether he was there or not. If we want to look at HIS value, should we measure the incrementality of what HE brings?
-
How on earth is his value at FSU 10's of millions of dollars when FSU basketball makes a fraction of that and would make that whether he was there or not. If we want to look at HIS value, should we measure the incrementality of what HE brings?
You didn't understand the point - his value in a free market is mega-millions. At KU, it is limited.
His value should be what the free marketplace says it should be. His value without restrictive NCAA rules - would be in the $10's of millions. Why should Kansas make millions off of him when he is restricted from making the money himself.
He does not need KU or the NCAA to be a multi-millionaire - right now!! But yes the rules say he cannot make what he is worth.
Free market indeed!!
-
If a tennis player or golfer at 17 or 18 is valued at $10 mil in a free market - they have the freedom to earn that money.
If a basketball player at 17 or 18 years of age is valued at $10 mil - he does not have the freedom.
Any ideas on what the difference might be??
-
If a tennis player or golfer at 17 or 18 is valued at $10 mil in a free market - they have the freedom to earn that money.
If a basketball player at 17 or 18 years of age is valued at $10 mil - he does not have the freedom.
Any ideas on what the difference might be??
The tennis and golfers scored 1200 or better on their SATs? I kid, I kid.
By the way, the tennis and golfers play an individual sport, where they drive their own ticket. Personally, I love the golfing & tennis rewards concept. You make money in golf by actually performing. No contracts...you perform if you want to get paid. You slump in hoops, baseball, etc, you still get paid. You slump in golf, back to Q school. Wish all sports was that way. All we have to do is go to the link I provided earlier today of the top recruiting classes by years and see those that made it and those that completely bombed....yet with your argument you are going to say all those top recruits are worth tons of money based on what they did in high school. No thanks.
-
You didn't understand the point - his value in a free market is mega-millions. At KU, it is limited.
His value should be what the free marketplace says it should be. His value without restrictive NCAA rules - would be in the $10's of millions. Why should Kansas make millions off of him when he is restricted from making the money himself.
He does not need KU or the NCAA to be a multi-millionaire - right now!! But yes the rules say he cannot make what he is worth.
Free market indeed!!
It's not a free market at his age, nor should it be. We have age restrictions all over the place in this country. Age for consent, age to get married, age to be employed, age to buy liquor, vote, join the military...and even be eligible for certain professional sports leagues.
What if the guy down the street for me was just an awesome sniper, could hit an eye out of a bird at 1500 yards without a sweat but he was 15...should the Army be allowed to take him? He's worth something to the Army, he's got skilllllzzzzz.
Sometimes, society (for all its benefits and ills) decides that it is appropriate for people to have a few additional years for maturity, be it of mind or body (or both).
As far as Wilson goes, he may not need KU to become a millionaire, then again he might end up being a total bust at KU which helps NBA teams find out just how good these guys are. The leagues, if they were allowed to take high school kids, would demand some kind of salary cap ceiling pool for these draftees to protect them because for every Kobe or Lebron out there, we have a crapload of absolute busts that went for it all and flamed out hard.
-
What if the guy down the street for me was just an awesome sniper, could hit an eye out of a bird at 1500 yards without a sweat but he was 15...should the Army be allowed to take him? He's worth something to the Army, he's got skilllllzzzzz.
Every JTAC team has a sniper. These guys are trained on the M82 which fires a .50 cal round. The ranges are so extreme that the targeting solution factors in range, heading, velocity, angle, azimuth, windage, ambient temperature, barometric pressure, and a calculation for the movement of the earth during the round's flight! Goddam but I love American ingenuity.
-
The tennis and golfers can scored 1200 or better on their SATs? I kid, I kid.
By the way, the tennis and golfers play an individual sport, where they drive their own ticket. Personally, I love the golfing & tennis rewards concept. You make money in golf by actually performing. No contracts...you perform if you want to get paid. You slump in hoops, baseball, etc, you still get paid. You slump in golf, back to Q school. Wish all sports was that way. All we have to do is go to the link I provided earlier today of the top recruiting classes by years and see those that made it and those that completely bombed....yet with your argument you are going to say all those top recruits are worth tons of money based on what they did in high school. No thanks.
First, I think the remark about the reading/ SAT scores is out of line on several levels.
Second, having the right to earn a living in the entertainment industry shouldn't be based on whether you're a solo act.
Third, plenty of golfers make a great deal of money on appearance fees, exhibitions, etc.
-
It's not a free market at his age, nor should it be. We have age restrictions all over the place in this country. Age for consent, age to get married, age to be employed, age to buy liquor, vote, join the military...and even be eligible for certain professional sports leagues.
What if the guy down the street for me was just an awesome sniper, could hit an eye out of a bird at 1500 yards without a sweat but he was 15...should the Army be allowed to take him? He's worth something to the Army, he's got skilllllzzzzz.
Sometimes, society (for all its benefits and ills) decides that it is appropriate for people to have a few additional years for maturity, be it of mind or body (or both).
As far as Wilson goes, he may not need KU to become a millionaire, then again he might end up being a total bust at KU which helps NBA teams find out just how good these guys are. The leagues, if they were allowed to take high school kids, would demand some kind of salary cap ceiling pool for these draftees to protect them because for every Kobe or Lebron out there, we have a crapload of absolute busts that went for it all and flamed out hard.
This has nothing to do with society deciding anything. It's a business decision by the NBA to ensure the NCAA continues as their minor league and the freedom of the young men to make a living be damned. I can see why they're so arbitrary and anti free market - a rigged wheel is better for them. But why you?
-
You didn't understand the point - his value in a free market is mega-millions. At KU, it is limited.
His value should be what the free marketplace says it should be. His value without restrictive NCAA rules - would be in the $10's of millions. Why should Kansas make millions off of him when he is restricted from making the money himself.
He does not need KU or the NCAA to be a multi-millionaire - right now!! But yes the rules say he cannot make what he is worth.
Free market indeed!!
Wiggins can make money playing basketball if he so wishes. What are the "restrictive NCAA rules" that keep him from making "the money himself", which you claim to be in the $10's of millions. (Is that over time... or one year.. if over time, why are you using this if you're also assuming he'll only be at KU for one year?)
-
First, I think the remark about the reading/ SAT scores is out of line on several levels.
Second, having the right to earn a living in the entertainment industry shouldn't be based on whether you're a solo act.
Third, plenty of golfers make a great deal of money on appearance fees, exhibitions, etc.
First, teal
Second, maybe it shouldn't, but that's the way it is setup right now. Let's also not forget that the level or injuries on the golf course are a bit different than the gridiron or hardcourts. Part of the reason for age limits, certainly in the NFL, is to make sure to help protect against injury due to lack of physical maturity.
Third, yes...they do make money elsewhere, but they usually make the endorsements because of their success on the tour. There will always be exceptions where someone is signed to an endorsement because of potential or buzz. The prize money, the actual money earned for playing is determined on how well they do each and every week. I'd love to see that in sports. It exists to some extent in football, but with the guaranteed signing bonuses even then teams get tagged.
-
This has nothing to do with society deciding anything. It's a business decision by the NBA to ensure the NCAA continues as their minor league and the freedom of the young men to make a living be damned. I can see why they're so arbitrary and anti free market - a rigged wheel is better for them. But why you?
To some degree, you are correct, but you are not 100% correct. Part of it was to stem the tide of emotionally immature prima donnas being handed millions of dollars and flaming out. In the NFL's case, the age limit was put in due to physical maturity and injury prevention. No one is arguing that the leagues want the NCAA as the minor leagues, but it's not that cut and dried either. A kid can go to the NBDL if he wishes. Minimum age is 18. These kids have options and no one is going to argue the NBDL isn't a minor league to the NBA...of course it is. The issue there is opportunity because there are only so many teams while there are 350 DI college teams. They can also play in Europe if they wish. Or they can have their education fully paid for and play in college. God forbid these kids have three different opportunities before having wait a WHOLE YEAR before going to the NBA.
Let's also not put this all on the leagues, either. The NBA tried to institute a 2 year rule and guess who wouldn't go for that. The players union...surprise surprise. Hell the players union would be willing to let a 6th grader go to the pros if they thought it would butter their bread....as you stated. The NCAA has tried to address this, but the NBA has said no.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8097411/roots-nba-draft-one-done-rule-run-deep-men-college-basketball
Why is the "rigged wheel" better for me? It's not, personally. From an industry perspective, I think it betters college basketball AND the NBA by forcing kids to go to college ...the longer the better. The article below captures it well for me. It allows some kids that clearly aren't capable of much of anything other than putting a ball through a hole to actually earn some skills, socially and emotionally and maybe even intellectually. It allows the "development' to happen where development should be happening....college. Just as students develop skills for the career world, so should student athletes. On the job training in the pros usually doesn't work out well. For every Kobe and Garnett there are Leon Smiths, Korleone Young, Taj McDavid, etc, etc.
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/jun/27/one-year-wonder/
-
Second, maybe it shouldn't, but that's the way it is setup right now. Let's also not forget that the level or injuries on the golf course are a bit different than the gridiron or hardcourts. Part of the reason for age limits, certainly in the NFL, is to make sure to help protect against injury due to lack of physical maturity.
Please. The NFL's record on safety issues is abysmal. The only thing they're interested in protecting is their investment.
-
Hell the players union would be willing to let a 6th grader go to the pros if they thought it would butter their bread.
Tanned Tommy usually doles out offers to every 6th grader out there so I would not be against the NBA allowing these kids to sign PSA contracts. Nothing like healthy competition!
-
To some degree, you are correct, but you are not 100% correct. Part of it was to stem the tide of emotionally immature prima donnas being handed millions of dollars and flaming out. In the NFL's case, the age limit was put in due to physical maturity and injury prevention. No one is arguing that the leagues want the NCAA as the minor leagues, but it's not that cut and dried either. A kid can go to the NBDL if he wishes. Minimum age is 18. These kids have options and no one is going to argue the NBDL isn't a minor league to the NBA...of course it is. The issue there is opportunity because there are only so many teams while there are 350 DI college teams. They can also play in Europe if they wish. Or they can have their education fully paid for and play in college. God forbid these kids have three different opportunities before having wait a WHOLE YEAR before going to the NBA.
Let's also not put this all on the leagues, either. The NBA tried to institute a 2 year rule and guess who wouldn't go for that. The players union...surprise surprise. Hell the players union would be willing to let a 6th grader go to the pros if they thought it would butter their bread....as you stated. The NCAA has tried to address this, but the NBA has said no.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8097411/roots-nba-draft-one-done-rule-run-deep-men-college-basketball
Why is the "rigged wheel" better for me? It's not, personally. From an industry perspective, I think it betters college basketball AND the NBA by forcing kids to go to college ...the longer the better. The article below captures it well for me. It allows some kids that clearly aren't capable of much of anything other than putting a ball through a hole to actually earn some skills, socially and emotionally and maybe even intellectually. It allows the "development' to happen where development should be happening....college. Just as students develop skills for the career world, so should student athletes. On the job training in the pros usually doesn't work out well. For every Kobe and Garnett there are Leon Smiths, Korleone Young, Taj McDavid, etc, etc.
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/jun/27/one-year-wonder/
I suppose in your world Justin Bieber would have options too. He could sing in the church choir, go to Northwestern on a performing arts scholarship or move to Paris. Unfair and arbitrary, but he would have options.
-
Can we at least let college players sign endorsement deals?
-
Can we at least let college players sign endorsement deals?
Pandora's Box...
-
Wiggins can make money playing basketball if he so wishes. What are the "restrictive NCAA rules" that keep him from making "the money himself", which you claim to be in the $10's of millions. (Is that over time... or one year.. if over time, why are you using this if you're also assuming he'll only be at KU for one year?)
Wrong - Wiggins is unable to earn whatever the #1 pick in the draft earns (which he would have been this year) - hence the $10's of millions. To make even a decent fraction of that, he would have to go to another continent.
-
Wrong - Wiggins is unable to earn whatever the #1 pick in the draft earns (which he would have been this year) - hence the $10's of millions. To make even a decent fraction of that, he would have to go to another continent.
You're lacking logic. I say, "Wiggins can make money playing basketball if he so wishes" and you say I'm wrong... then YOU go on to say he can make money. I think at #1 last week you're to be paid up to $5.3MM this coming season. That's one reason why I'm struggling with the $10's of millions claim. Can't he be the #1 draft pick next season? Or the following one?
Many professional basketball players make a living playing for non-NBA teams. Wiggins could as well.
But, back to my question that you didn't answer. "What are the "restrictive NCAA rules" that keep him from making "the money himself", which you claim to be in the $10's of millions?"... your logic doesn't follow and you're mixing up arguments that can't be combined.
Besides, the NCAA doesn't say Wiggins can't play in the NBA this fall.
-
To some degree, you are correct, but you are not 100% correct. Part of it was to stem the tide of emotionally immature prima donnas being handed millions of dollars and flaming out. In the NFL's case, the age limit was put in due to physical maturity and injury prevention. No one is arguing that the leagues want the NCAA as the minor leagues, but it's not that cut and dried either. A kid can go to the NBDL if he wishes. Minimum age is 18. These kids have options and no one is going to argue the NBDL isn't a minor league to the NBA...of course it is. The issue there is opportunity because there are only so many teams while there are 350 DI college teams. They can also play in Europe if they wish. Or they can have their education fully paid for and play in college. God forbid these kids have three different opportunities before having wait a WHOLE YEAR before going to the NBA.
Let's also not put this all on the leagues, either. The NBA tried to institute a 2 year rule and guess who wouldn't go for that. The players union...surprise surprise. Hell the players union would be willing to let a 6th grader go to the pros if they thought it would butter their bread....as you stated. The NCAA has tried to address this, but the NBA has said no.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8097411/roots-nba-draft-one-done-rule-run-deep-men-college-basketball
Why is the "rigged wheel" better for me? It's not, personally. From an industry perspective, I think it betters college basketball AND the NBA by forcing kids to go to college ...the longer the better. The article below captures it well for me. It allows some kids that clearly aren't capable of much of anything other than putting a ball through a hole to actually earn some skills, socially and emotionally and maybe even intellectually. It allows the "development' to happen where development should be happening....college. Just as students develop skills for the career world, so should student athletes. On the job training in the pros usually doesn't work out well. For every Kobe and Garnett there are Leon Smiths, Korleone Young, Taj McDavid, etc, etc.
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/jun/27/one-year-wonder/
All good points Chicos.
But there are doctors, lawyers and all manner of business bigwigs who wash out because they are not ready on one level or another.
Maybe MLB has the best idea - anyone can be drafted out of high school - but if they attend a 4-year college, they are not eligible to be drafted until after their junior year. I think if this happened, the NBA would be forced to set up a legitimate minor league system, and if GMs are doing their jobs, only the elite guys coming directly from high school would get big $$. I certainly agree that most are/were not ready and need more development.
Seems like a win-win. Young players would have more options and colleges can boast that they are truly dealing with student-athletes.
-
You're lacking logic. I say, "Wiggins can make money playing basketball if he so wishes" and you say I'm wrong... then YOU go on to say he can make money. I think at #1 last week you're to be paid up to $5.3MM this coming season. That's one reason why I'm struggling with the $10's of millions claim. Can't he be the #1 draft pick next season? Or the following one?
Many professional basketball players make a living playing for non-NBA teams. Wiggins could as well.
But, back to my question that you didn't answer. "What are the "restrictive NCAA rules" that keep him from making "the money himself", which you claim to be in the $10's of millions?"... your logic doesn't follow and you're mixing up arguments that can't be combined.
Besides, the NCAA doesn't say Wiggins can't play in the NBA this fall.
He can also get hurt this year and never make any NBA number strictly because of an arbitrary rule. And, there is a huge, huge difference between money and MONEY.
Your last point is correct - it is the NBA that restricts the right of an 18 year old to earn a living doing doing something he is fully qualified to do.
-
He can also get hurt this year and never make any NBA number strictly because of an arbitrary rule. And, there is a huge, huge difference between money and MONEY.
Your last point is correct - it is the NBA that restricts the right of an 18 year old to earn a living doing doing something he is fully qualified to do.
OK, well let's blame career-ending injuries on the NCAA.
An 18 year old can play and make money in the NBA.
-
OK, well let's blame career-ending injuries on the NCAA.
Insurance
-
All good points Chicos.
But there are doctors, lawyers and all manner of business bigwigs who wash out because they are not ready on one level or another.
Maybe MLB has the best idea - anyone can be drafted out of high school - but if they attend a 4-year college, they are not eligible to be drafted until after their junior year. I think if this happened, the NBA would be forced to set up a legitimate minor league system, and if GMs are doing their jobs, only the elite guys coming directly from high school would get big $$. I certainly agree that most are/were not ready and need more development.
Seems like a win-win. Young players would have more options and colleges can boast that they are truly dealing with student-athletes.
I would have no problem with the MLB rule. I don't think for a New York second the players union would allow for it, but I would have no trouble with it.
-
He can also get hurt this year and never make any NBA number strictly because of an arbitrary rule. And, there is a huge, huge difference between money and MONEY.
Your last point is correct - it is the NBA that restricts the right of an 18 year old to earn a living doing doing something he is fully qualified to do.
The NBA put this rule in for a reason. It is too much risk to draft them straight out of high school. Also, why are we stopping at high school graduates. We are just restricting those 13-18 year olds from pursuing a professional career. Who are we to say that you have to graduate from high school before being eligible for the draft. We are hurting their earning potentials.
Your idea of a minor league is ridiculous and would be way worse for athletes than what is in place. Most of these players never make it to the NBA. Getting a college education gives them opportunties and recognition that they would not have had a chance at otherwise. A minor league would be like the D-league...have you looked at their salaries lately. They are way better off a year in college.
You mention that Europe is not really an option and that only 1 player went that route. Why do you think that is? 1) The money isn't there, because outside of the NBA, no one is making any money. 2) Too much risk, you have to go and play against top talent in an organized league. The skill sets coming out of high school don't transfer and you run the risk of not standing out and not getting drafted.
The NCAA has managed (through University ties) to create a market for young athletes where they can showcase and develop their skills to hopefully make a living (either through a degree or basketball). Take away the NCAA and most of these kids never get drafted, never get a degree and have no league where they can make money. Minor league is never going to bring in sufficient funds to pay a reasonable salary.
A guy like Wiggins is unusual. But there is a high probability that he still never amounts to anything. Why should the NBA pay him millions when he hasn't proven anything yet? They shouldn't, and don't want to, so he has options. NCAA, or overseas. If there was an economic demand for these kids another league would have been started.
Fact of the matter is there is no demand, so all arguments are useless. The athletes have a great thing and a great opportunity. Most would kill to be in their shoes.
-
Another comment. Even as things currently stand a lot of these kids are barely good enough to play in the NBA and the teams are forced to draft them anyway. Teams like Dallas were trying to give away draft picks so they didn't have to draft someone and pay them a salary even though they weren't good enough.
-
The tennis and golfers scored 1200 or better on their SATs? I kid, I kid.
By the way, the tennis and golfers play an individual sport, where they drive their own ticket. Personally, I love the golfing & tennis rewards concept. You make money in golf by actually performing. No contracts...you perform if you want to get paid. You slump in hoops, baseball, etc, you still get paid. You slump in golf, back to Q school. Wish all sports was that way. All we have to do is go to the link I provided earlier today of the top recruiting classes by years and see those that made it and those that completely bombed....yet with your argument you are going to say all those top recruits are worth tons of money based on what they did in high school. No thanks.
Agree! Can you imagine how exciting baseball would be if salaries were capped at 500,000. If you make the post season you get an additional million; make the world series an additional 5 million; win it all 100 million.
-
It's not a free market at his age, nor should it be. We have age restrictions all over the place in this country. Age for consent, age to get married, age to be employed, age to buy liquor, vote, join the military...and even be eligible for certain professional sports leagues.
What if the guy down the street for me was just an awesome sniper, could hit an eye out of a bird at 1500 yards without a sweat but he was 15...should the Army be allowed to take him? He's worth something to the Army, he's got skilllllzzzzz.
This has got to be one of the more absurd arguments I have read.
This has nothing to do with an age based restriction. It has to do with a system whereby a cartel can dictate the terms of the contract arrangement.
-
Agree! Can you imagine how exciting baseball would be if salaries were capped at 500,000. If you make the post season you get an additional million; make the world series an additional 5 million; win it all 100 million.
I know for a fact that Jordan or Montana never really tried that hard because their salaries weren't capped and they had all of the money they needed.
One of the greatest sports myths - that athletes don't try hard when they have made big $$$
-
The tennis and golfers scored 1200 or better on their SATs? I kid, I kid.
By the way, the tennis and golfers play an individual sport, where they drive their own ticket. Personally, I love the golfing & tennis rewards concept. You make money in golf by actually performing. No contracts...you perform if you want to get paid. You slump in hoops, baseball, etc, you still get paid. You slump in golf, back to Q school. Wish all sports was that way. All we have to do is go to the link I provided earlier today of the top recruiting classes by years and see those that made it and those that completely bombed....yet with your argument you are going to say all those top recruits are worth tons of money based on what they did in high school. No thanks.
Don't totally agree, Chicos. If a golfer or tennis player has been successful - he will still get paid even if he slumps - just like a baseball or basketball player would. All successful athletes in individual sports have endorsement contracts and many also command appearance fees.
Now if the slump continues for several years, they are out of luck, but so are athletes in team sports. They will either be cut or not re-signed.
-
Don't totally agree, Chicos. If a golfer or tennis player has been successful - he will still get paid even if he slumps - just like a baseball or basketball player would. All successful athletes in individual sports have endorsement contracts and many also command appearance fees.
Now if the slump continues for several years, they are out of luck, but so are athletes in team sports. They will either be cut or not re-signed.
I acknowledged that, but to get those endorsements they typically have to be good in the first place...typically. If they slump, they won't be earning much in the way of prize money if they fail to make the cut or get knocked out in the first round or two in tennis. They'll get something, but not the big paydays. The point with tennis and golf is usually you have to earn your way there and continue to earn your way. Its not like the team sports where you can cash in big time with guaranteed contracts that don't penalize you for sucking it up.
How often do we see team sports players come back to management to give money back because they had a lousy year? Yes, it's happened, but wow is it rare. Conversely, how often do we see players sitout and demand a better contract "so they get paid" based on a productive year?
-
This has got to be one of the more absurd arguments I have read.
This has nothing to do with an age based restriction. It has to do with a system whereby a cartel can dictate the terms of the contract arrangement.
I suggest you reread what I said and then also read some of the expert analysis that is out there. I didn't deny what you are saying, but there is more to it. For you to say it has NOTHING to do with age based restriction is just flat wrong.
-
I suggest you reread what I said and then also read some of the expert analysis that is out there. I didn't deny what you are saying, but there is more to it. For you to say it has NOTHING to do with age based restriction is just flat wrong.
I read it. The "expert (sic) analysis (sic)" sucked.
It's the same trite by the same people who are vested in the system and scared of change.
-
It's the same trite by the same people who are vested in the system and scared of change.
It's also the same tripe
-
It's also the same tripe
LOL...yeah...that too.
-
I read it. The "expert (sic) analysis (sic)" sucked.
It's the same trite by the same people who are vested in the system and scared of change.
It's been ruled in the courts and hashed out by many legal experts in this country. Not all agree, of course that's always the case with legal opinions.
“The idea that any minimum age requirement is unfair is absolutely wrong,” said Gary Roberts, director of sports law at Tulane Law School."
Ironically, Mr. Roberts doesn't like the decision, but at least he acknowledges that it isn't wrong.
The question I have for you and others is, where does it stop? Is it 18 years old instead of 19? What about 17? If there is a great 17 year old, why shouldn't he be able to play? Why not 16? There's always going to be a cutoff that is going to "deprive" someone of their ability to earn.
I offer this, more "expert analysis" that you will think sucks. ;) http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000139190/article/jadeveon-clowney-stimulates-debate-on-nfl-draft-age-restriction
-
It's been ruled in the courts and hashed out by many legal experts in this country. Not all agree, of course that's always the case with legal opinions.
“The idea that any minimum age requirement is unfair is absolutely wrong,” said Gary Roberts, director of sports law at Tulane Law School."
Ironically, Mr. Roberts doesn't like the decision, but at least he acknowledges that it isn't wrong.
The question I have for you and others is, where does it stop? Is it 18 years old instead of 19? What about 17? If there is a great 17 year old, why shouldn't he be able to play? Why not 16? There's always going to be a cutoff that is going to "deprive" someone of their ability to earn.
I offer this, more "expert analysis" that you will think sucks. ;) http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000139190/article/jadeveon-clowney-stimulates-debate-on-nfl-draft-age-restriction
No one is arguing that age limitations aren't legal. It's yet another Chicos' Strawman. You brought up age restrictions, but age restrictions has NOTHING TO DO with the topic at hand. The topic has to do with the players limitations under the terms of the NCAA scholarship. Those limitations ARE NOT AGE RELATED. You could be a 40 year old scholarship athlete and still be subject to them.
So it is a completely irrelevant point!
-
Pandora's Box...
But that's hardly a reason not to allow it.
-
But that's hardly a reason not to allow it.
The issue with endorsements and promotions is that it is far less empirical than salary. I have no problem with kids getting a stipend but I think that there needs to be a stratified, tiered system that is consistent across all Div I schools. Endorsements and promotions are fraught with potential fraud and unethical inducement. A simple, consistent formula is the only practical solution should the NCAA go in the direction of compensation.
-
The issue with endorsements and promotions is that it is far less empirical than salary. I have no problem with kids getting a stipend but I think that there needs to be a stratified, tiered system that is consistent across all Div I schools. Endorsements and promotions are fraught with potential fraud and unethical inducement. A simple, consistent formula is the only practical solution should the NCAA go in the direction of compensation.
You can do something similar with endorsements as well.
-
You can do something similar with endorsements as well.
Yes and no. Kids sign with a school and they are given a tiered stipend. But promotions and endorsements are specific to the individual. I just think it is too difficult to apply fairly. And a school like Marquette would be a distinct disadvantage vis-à-vis a Michigan, Notre Dame or Stanford. I don't think we want to get into that tail chase.
-
So Andrew Wiggins is overcompensated for his value? You're going to have to explain that to me. In a free market - his "value" is 10's of millions of dollars - so getting $20,000-$25,000 dollars this year to play at Kansas means he is overcompensated?
Fine. Let him get paid in Europe. Or Japan. Or Brazil. Or any other international profssional league. He doesn't have to play for Kansas.
He obviously thinks Kansas--even though they're not offering him cash compensation--is a better deal.
Why is that?
--Perhaps its the better media exposure at a top US college--not a small consideration when a significant portion of his income will be based on endorsements.
--Perhaps its the better access to NBA scouts. If the NBA is his career goal, then Kansas provides a better enviornment to be exposed to the NBA scouts.
--Perhaps its a believe that the US coaches are better able to prepare players for the NBA.
BTW, you cite the 20,000 to 25,000/year to play at Kansas--presumably the value of a scholarship. But what is the value you place on becoming a household name? If you are a star at Kansas, the US sports networks will see to it that fans know who you are, which will help your negotiating power for endorsements. What about access to NBA scouts? What about the value of preparation for the NBA? Isn't that all part of the deal?
At some point, everyone makes tradeoffs even if its not the best for their short term finances. For example, someone who wants to become a filmmaker would be better off going to USC, even if they had to pay their own way 100% rather than accept a full ride scholarship to Northern Michigan (or a paying job with a local advertising firm).
Similar with people who take unpaid or low-paying internships. In many cases, those same people could make more money waiting tables. But it wouldn't move them closer to their career choice. They trade off short term cash for long-term career achievement.
Wiggins attending Kansas is (for him) perceived as the best shot at achiving his long term career goal.
-
No one is arguing that age limitations aren't legal. It's yet another Chicos' Strawman. You brought up age restrictions, but age restrictions has NOTHING TO DO with the topic at hand. The topic has to do with the players limitations under the terms of the NCAA scholarship. Those limitations ARE NOT AGE RELATED. You could be a 40 year old scholarship athlete and still be subject to them.
So it is a completely irrelevant point!
Sigh. Yes, Brandx in this very thread brought up age 17 or 18 (below the 19 year requirement by the NBA).....so yes, age limitation has been brought up. No strawman. Just read what is in the thread.
-
I know for a fact that Jordan or Montana never really tried that hard because their salaries weren't capped and they had all of the money they needed.
One of the greatest sports myths - that athletes don't try hard when they have made big $$$
When I was a kid I saw Bob Feller pitch a double header against the Yankees when Lemon got hurt. How many pitchers today pitch complete games? It was an honor to play in the All Star game; today some players take a pass...don't want to get hurt. As a Yankee fan, A-rod the highest paid player, has been a bust in the post season. Any basketball fan who is not a Bull's fan know the refs gave Jordan that extra step or two on his way to score a basket. Anyone else it's traveling. He did'nt have to try hard, it was handed to him. The point is, if there was that big payoff to win, rather than being paid big money before you win, who would be more motivated.
-
When I was a kid I saw Bob Feller pitch a double header against the Yankees when Lemon got hurt. How many pitchers today pitch complete games? It was an honor to play in the All Star game; today some players take a pass...don't want to get hurt. As a Yankee fan, A-rod the highest paid player, has been a bust in the post season. Any basketball fan who is not a Bull's fan know the refs gave Jordan that extra step or two on his way to score a basket. Anyone else it's traveling. He did'nt have to try hard, it was handed to him. The point is, if there was that big payoff to win, rather than being paid big money before you win, who would be more motivated.
This has got to be one of the more absurd sports paragraphs I have ever read. Pitchers not pitching complete games has nothing to do with their will to compete. (And I really want some proof that Feller pitched both games of a double header.) And Michael Jordan "didn't have to try hard?" And even if I bought your theory that the "refs gave Jordan an extra step or two," what does that have to do with the amount of money he is paid?
Most players at the professional level are plenty motivated.
-
This has got to be one of the more absurd sports paragraphs I have ever read. Pitchers not pitching complete games has nothing to do with their will to compete. (And I really want some proof that Feller pitched both games of a double header.) And Michael Jordan "didn't have to try hard?" And even if I bought your theory that the "refs gave Jordan an extra step or two," what does that have to do with the amount of money he is paid?
Most players at the professional level are plenty motivated.
My thoughts exactly.
Jordan didn't have to try hard. I mean when he won the dunk contest, they actually moved the free throw line 3 feet closer to the basket. They didn't do that for any other player.
If there are complaints about not pitching complete games - shouldn't that be a criticism of management - I don't recall the last time a pitcher walked off the mound in the middle of a game and said "that's it for today".
-
This has got to be one of the more absurd sports paragraphs I have ever read. Pitchers not pitching complete games has nothing to do with their will to compete. (And I really want some proof that Feller pitched both games of a double header.) And Michael Jordan "didn't have to try hard?" And even if I bought your theory that the "refs gave Jordan an extra step or two," what does that have to do with the amount of money he is paid?
Most players at the professional level are plenty motivated.
Somewhat agree, but not completely. Still have many friends in baseball and they will tell you there are pitchers out there that are reluctant to pitch deep into ball games because of the potential harm it can do to their arms, at least that is their perception. They don't want to miss out on that next contract. Now, certainly to your point the game has changed considerably and bullpens are setup now to allow for pitchers to not have to do that, but there are certainly some guys and their agents that have put in uncertain terms what their pitch counts should be. You won't find any of this in the sports pages or on the web somewhere because fans would have a fit, but this does happen and it happens specifically to guys that are represented by several agents that play this game. It's also why you see certain teams not wanting to deal with those agents or their players.
-
(And I really want some proof that Feller pitched both games of a double header.)
I can't say about Bob Feller but I remember when Wilbur Wood pitched both games of a double header against the Yankees and lost both. Wood won 20 games that year. He also lost 20. Wood was a great knuckleballer who started almost 50 games a year and routinely threw more than 25 complete games. Guy was a beast at 75 mph.