Not sure this belongs here or the Super Bar.
With the massive CBB scandal front and center everyone in the media is now an expert on college athletics. I'm sure everyone has heard how the NCAA is to blame, how players need to be paid, how unfair the system is, these kids are slave labor, etc., etc. The 'drive by' media is having a field day picking off the low hanging fruit during their 120 second analysis of issue. (like all my cliche's?) But if one really takes the time to think through the issues and proposed changes, this is a massively complicated issue with potentially enormous consequences to college athletics and possibly the institutions themselves due to the amount of money involved.
I'll try to be as brief as possible and I'd love to hear others input and comments.
1. Paying players. Okay, to keep it simple I'll use one proposal I heard yesterday on a national radio show. $50,000 per year per player. Oh, and he generously said all the schools athletes would receive this to avoid any discrimination issues. That amounts to roughly $6.8 billion per year for Division I schools by my rough math. His point about avoiding discrimination issues was exactly right on. To make this work under the 'non-for-profit' educational umbrella with the institutions receiving massive amounts of governmental funds I see no other way around this. $6.8 billion, let that sink in. This might work for the P5 and Big East and maybe AAC or MWC schools but this I think will be a stretch for say the A10 and CUSA schools much less the rest of Division I. And how long before the media and players start complaining that $50,000 is way to little compared to the billions the NCAA is generating in revenues?
Of course you could only pay the players in revenue generating sports. How do you define that? Do you pay the players at Michigan the same as at Norfolk Sate? How do you deal with Title 9? Does that trip the switch to make the players employees in a for profit business? If so, do the schools loose their tax-exempt status? Can you imagine the tax liability, including real and personal property taxes, for say the University of Wisconsin?
In short, paying players will cause a seismic shift in college athletics. Maybe its time for it but make no mistake, it will be more that just a tweek in the NCAA rules.
2. Let the players profit from personal endorsements. This is another popular idea I've heard in the past 48 hours. Hell, this does not involve the school or the coach paying players. No advantage over other member schools right? Great idea? NO.What an idiotic loophole. On the most simplistic level, the SEC and Big 12 schools boosters will have every football and basketball player under 6 to 7 figure 'endorsement' deal faster than you can say 'cheating', with every other P5 school's boosters right behind them. If you could some how restrict this to legitimate endorsements (i'd don't know how) the biggest schools and those in the biggest conferences with the best TV deals get an automatic unfair advantage. The NCAA is not the NFL or NBA with everyone under a national TV package. This would even make it hard for Nebraska in football and Duke in basketball to compete with their relativity small fan/TV markets.
Best criteria for players being paid:
Does your sport (regardless of gender) have a profit/loss in the black?
If so, the athletes should be eligible to be compensated, tied to the salary of the coach of their respective program. It is absurd that a guy like Tom Crean essentially became a mega millionaire, largely due to Dwyane Wade.
So, how does it work? The NCAA enforces a mandate that a university must match dollar for dollar what is being paid to the head coach, and place that money into an annuity or S&P500 Index Fund every year. Players would become eligible to draw money based on their years of service, once they reach 40 years old (so that don't run the risk of blowing the money when they are young and dumb..as are most young men.)
This would help control coaches salaries, would correlate value based on the budget/marquee of the program - meaning kids going to schools with the highest paid coaches (usually the blue chip programs and recruits) would stand to benefit the most financially.
Universities should just give up sports for a few years, until the players learn to appreciate what they could of had.
Quote from: Floorslapper on February 25, 2018, 07:16:52 PM
Best criteria for players being paid:
Does your sport (regardless of gender) have a profit/loss in the black?
If so, the athletes should be eligible to be compensated, tied to the salary of the coach of their respective program. It is absurd that a guy like Tom Crean essentially became a mega millionaire, largely due to Dwyane Wade.
So, how does it work? The NCAA enforces a mandate that a university must match dollar for dollar what is being paid to the head coach, and place that money into an annuity or S&P500 Index Fund every year. Players would become eligible to draw money based on their years of service, once they reach 40 years old (so that don't run the risk of blowing the money when they are young and dumb..as are most young men.)
This would help control coaches salaries, would correlate value based on the budget/marquee of the program - meaning kids going to schools with the highest paid coaches (usually the blue chip programs and recruits) would stand to benefit the most financially.
I like the idea in theory but the premise behind the NCAA and amateur athletics is to create an even playing field. If some programs are creating compensation, and some more than others, then that blows up the NCAA. Also all the universities would have to agree to a standard accounting method and audit. I can't ever see that happening. This is a very stick wicket.
Does a tenured Philosophy professor make 50K?
Players do get paid in tuition, room, & board, and several other perks. If they don't think the compensation is fair, they don't HAVE to play college sports. It's a free market and if they believe that doing something else is more worth their time, then they are free to pursue any other venture. Why is it not this simple? Paying players beyond this would destroy the sport.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on February 25, 2018, 09:00:38 PM
Does a tenured Philosophy professor make 50K?
Good question. But how much money does Philosophy make for the university? I do still remember the year Nietzsche upset Plato in the Sweet Sixteen and busted my bracket. Uhg! That Übermensch was a one hell of a defense.
Quote from: bilsu on February 25, 2018, 07:20:53 PM
Universities should just give up sports for a few years, until the players learn to appreciate what they could of had.
Players coulld go play in Europe, Asia, and D League and see how "wonderful" they are for the 15% who could make it. The other 85% would go to school and pay. Or get a job.
Some sort of much, much lower stipend prob doable but anything over $10k prob not.
Quote from: TheyWereCones on February 25, 2018, 09:11:55 PM
Players do get paid in tuition, room, & board, and several other perks. If they don't think the compensation is fair, they don't HAVE to play college sports. It's a free market and if they believe that doing something else is more worth their time, then they are free to pursue any other venture. Why is it not this simple? Paying players beyond this would destroy the sport.
It's not a free market. A free market would let those more valuable earn more. That's not what is happening.
Just allow players to profit off their likeness, sign with an agent and get endorsement deals. The schools themselves don't have to pay them more. Let third parties do it.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on February 25, 2018, 09:00:38 PM
Does a tenured Philosophy professor make 50K?
That's pretty close
Quote from: bilsu on February 25, 2018, 07:20:53 PM
Universities should just give up sports for a few years, until the players learn to appreciate what they could of had.
How condescending and paternalistic of you.
Quote from: TheyWereCones on February 25, 2018, 09:11:55 PM
Players do get paid in tuition, room, & board, and several other perks. If they don't think the compensation is fair, they don't HAVE to play college sports. It's a free market and if they believe that doing something else is more worth their time, then they are free to pursue any other venture. Why is it not this simple? Paying players beyond this would destroy the sport.
THIS is the notion I keep coming back to. This is college athletics with student athletes. If the NBA or NFL want to set up a minor leagues, there is nothing stopping them. It may hurt the quality of the college game compared to what it is now, but at least the college game will be fair and equal. The games will be competitive relative to the talent on the field or court.
Hell if the P5 school fans don't like it then maybe the Saints can have a minor league team called the Tigers sponsored by LSU or the Packers can have "The Badgers brought to you by the University of Wisconsin".
Quote from: #bansultan on February 25, 2018, 09:25:26 PM
It's not a free market. A free market would let those more valuable earn more. That's not what is happening.
Just allow players to profit off their likeness, sign with an agent and get endorsement deals. The schools themselves don't have to pay them more. Let third parties do it.
Like this much more but need to make sure it doesnt turn into big achools even have more advantages than they do today. I am sure some experienced people could come up with rules to keep the playing field relatively level.
Quote from: TheyWereCones on February 25, 2018, 09:11:55 PM
Players do get paid in tuition, room, & board, and several other perks. If they don't think the compensation is fair, they don't HAVE to play college sports. It's a free market and if they believe that doing something else is more worth their time, then they are free to pursue any other venture. Why is it not this simple? Paying players beyond this would destroy the sport.
Definitely.
Here's the problem. The NCAA imposes the restriction that athletes cannot profit off of their likeness. I'm okay with that. However, they have to realize that this is going to open a black market.
As I see it, the long-term solution for closing the black market is one of two:
1) Somehow let the athletes profit from their likeness
2) Let the NCAA grow some teeth and punish the pay-for-players schools harshly.
Quote from: #bansultan on February 25, 2018, 09:25:26 PM
It's not a free market. A free market would let those more valuable earn more. That's not what is happening.
Just allow players to profit off their likeness, sign with an agent and get endorsement deals. The schools themselves don't have to pay them more. Let third parties do it.
Okay, but how do you address my concerns with this solution I pointed out in my original post?
Quote from: WhiteTrash on February 25, 2018, 09:37:27 PM
Okay, but how do you address my concerns with this solution I pointed out in my original post?
If someone wants to pay a player $100,000 let them pay it. Better that then paying him under the table. Really we have the vast majority of players going to a handful of schools already. What's going to change?
Quote from: #bansultan on February 25, 2018, 09:25:26 PM
It's not a free market. A free market would let those more valuable earn more. That's not what is happening.
Just allow players to profit off their likeness, sign with an agent and get endorsement deals. The schools themselves don't have to pay them more. Let third parties do it.
Yes, it is a free market. If they think they can make more money in ANY other job other than playing COLLEGE basketball, they can go do it. If they MUST play basketball because that is the only skill they will allow themselves to have, then they will have to try to make the best living possible doing it just like everybody else in the world who confines themselves to a limited skill set. They are free to go play in Europe for a year and get paid, and then go to the NBA later if they are good enough. These are the rules of playing college basketball. Why would you enter into a contract if you disagree with these rules and then whine about it later? I wish players could go straight to the NBA. But the NBA made rules against that. If these rules are too oppressive, maybe they should pay to get a degree or earn an academic scholarship like everyone else and learn another life skill then live under the horrible conditions of the basketball world. There is nothing stopping any one of these kids from becoming an entrepreneur or ANYTHING else. I don't understand what's not fair about a $100k+ free education. Many other people who will contribute a lot more to society than putting an orange ball through a hoop would love to take their scholarship if they don't like it.
Quote from: Eldon on February 25, 2018, 09:36:42 PM
Definitely.
Here's the problem. The NCAA imposes the restriction that athletes cannot profit off of their likeness. I'm okay with that. However, they have to realize that this is going to open a black market.
As I see it, the long-term solution for closing the black market is one of two:
1) Somehow let the athletes profit from their likeness
2) Let the NCAA grow some teeth and punish the pay-for-players schools harshly.
Exactly correct. The NCAA made rules but isn't exactly doing a great job enforcing them. So here we are.
Quote from: #bansultan on February 25, 2018, 09:42:46 PM
If someone wants to pay a player $100,000 let them pay it. Better that then paying him under the table. Really we have the vast majority of players going to a handful of schools already. What's going to change?
Fair enough. I can see your point. I happen to disagree. I think the P5 schools would completely dominate both football and basketball. They have way bigger and motivated fan bases that will pay for players through 'endorsement' deals. I think a kid like Joey Hauser would be going to UW because there would be huge endorsement deals waiting for him funded by a huge Wisconsin fan base(not just alumni). And I would not fault him one bit for doing so. Additionally, top coaches will migrate to the P5 schools for the benefit of landing the best players. IMO this would truly throw any sense of equality in the NCAA out the window.
Bad idea to allow payment for likeness. Larger schools that have 2x, 3x, 8x the alumni will buy players through endorsements. The larger the alumni base, the more apt you are to find the big fish that can pay.
The rationale for paying is because some are getting paid anyway? The rationale to stop burglary then is to not charge for items anymore since some people are stealing?
If this idea were to happen, the Big East would be gone. Small schools like Marquette, no longer playing DI basketball. It would make matters significantly worse and also ruin the sport. The greatness of the NCAA tournament, gone. What a terrible idea.
Quote from: WarriorDad on February 25, 2018, 10:08:23 PM
Bad idea to allow payment for likeness. Larger schools that have 2x, 3x, 8x the alumni will buy players through endorsements. The larger the alumni base, the more apt you are to find the big fish that can pay.
The rationale for paying is because some are getting paid anyway? The rationale to stop burglary then is to not charge for items anymore since some people are stealing?
If this idea were to happen, the Big East would be gone. Small schools like Marquette, no longer playing DI basketball. It would make matters significantly worse and also ruin the sport. The greatness of the NCAA tournament, gone. What a terrible idea.
Well said. This is not an easy issue to resolve and for all the crap the NCAA has and is getting, they have a very difficult job. I do not envy them. Plus everyone seems to forget the NCAA is the member schools, not some third party oversight organization.
Quote from: WhiteTrash on February 25, 2018, 09:17:56 PM
Good question. But how much money does Philosophy make for the university? I do still remember the year Nietzsche upset Plato in the Sweet Sixteen and busted my bracket. Uhg! That Übermensch was a one hell of a defense.
Say a student pays 10k per semester in tuiton. Has 12 credits. Philosophy is 3 of them. So pays 2.5k for that class. Philosophy professor has maybe 300 kids a semester? 750k per semester.
Quote from: Floorslapper on February 25, 2018, 07:16:52 PM
Best criteria for players being paid:
Does your sport (regardless of gender) have a profit/loss in the black?
If so, the athletes should be eligible to be compensated, tied to the salary of the coach of their respective program. It is absurd that a guy like Tom Crean essentially became a mega millionaire, largely due to Dwyane Wade.
So, how does it work? The NCAA enforces a mandate that a university must match dollar for dollar what is being paid to the head coach, and place that money into an annuity or S&P500 Index Fund every year. Players would become eligible to draw money based on their years of service, once they reach 40 years old (so that don't run the risk of blowing the money when they are young and dumb..as are most young men.)
This would help control coaches salaries, would correlate value based on the budget/marquee of the program - meaning kids going to schools with the highest paid coaches (usually the blue chip programs and recruits) would stand to benefit the most financially.
Who is going to define the accounting rules for what constitutes a profit/loss. Who is going to enforce it? Where is the money for that enforcement going to come from.
The fact is, right now most schools use creative accounting to make it appear as if sports break even or generate a profit, because they are almost all operating in the red.
And no payment system is going to stop people from breaking the rules. If everyone gets $50k, then the top players are going to say they should get $150k, and get paid under the table anyway. It doesn't solve the actual problem.
I'm old fashioned and I am vehemently opposed to paying players. But, if the players are going to get paid, then eliminate athletic scholarships, and let players get financial aid based on need like most everyone else. Then maybe they and their families would learn the value of what they already get.
Also, there's no reason to prohibit players from going pro right out of high school like they do in baseball and hockey. Let the NFL and NBA establish minor leagues to develop players and keep athletes who have no interest in a college education out of school.
Give the players a small stipend to make sure there are no starving athletes. Allow them to profit off their likeness but put the money in a fund that players don't have access to until after they graduate (this is how Olympians who are also NCAA athletes get their prize money if they medal). If they leave early they can access the account but the second they do they are ineligible for NCAA play. Put some sort of cap on how much they can earn off their likeness before they become ineligible.
I am sure there are issues with this idea but it seems like a fair system to me. Would it prevent all abuses? Absolutely not. Would it decrease them? I think so. Less motivation to risk being caught cheating when there's a legitimate way to earn some income.
Personally, I think players are compensated fairly. A college education, room/board, elite level coaching, tutoring, exposure and all the other benefits they receive is more than fair compensation for most individual NCAA athletes. But the inability to profit off their likeness seems wrong to me. If you need to put limits to keep competitive balance, fine. This would also allow the star players to "earn more" considering they are worth more to the school than the guy on the end of the bench.
Professors are making bank......6 digits part time.....
The new scam (not Marquette) that I see is that they publish a book and use it in their class......If it is an important book (computer science etc)......There are no "used" ones available.....I got a class where the list price for one of my son's books was $700......No $hit.....Just jack the price thru the roof.....Let's say $500 per copy to the prof for 200 or 300 kids.....Not a bad gig.....
Put that into your financial calculator.....I figure it to be over $250K.....
Quote from: wisblue on February 25, 2018, 10:34:35 PM
I'm old fashioned and I am vehemently opposed to paying players. But, if the players are going to get paid, then eliminate athletic scholarships, and let players get financial aid based on need like most everyone else. Then maybe they and their families would learn the value of what they already get.
Also, there's no reason to prohibit players from going pro right out of high school like they do in baseball and hockey. Let the NFL and NBA establish minor leagues to develop players and keep athletes who have no interest in a college education out of school.
I agree with the spirit of your idea in your first paragraph, but if they do start paying players (which I know you are against) there are so many issues that have to be resolved. How much? All student athletes? If not, who? and others I mentioned in my original post.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 25, 2018, 10:48:24 PM
Give the players a small stipend to make sure there are no starving athletes. Allow them to profit off their likeness but put the money in a fund that players don't have access to until after they graduate (this is how Olympians who are also NCAA athletes get their prize money if they medal). If they leave early they can access the account but the second they do they are ineligible for NCAA play. Put some sort of cap on how much they can earn off their likeness before they become ineligible.
I am sure there are issues with this idea but it seems like a fair system to me. Would it prevent all abuses? Absolutely not. Would it decrease them? I think so. Less motivation to risk being caught cheating when there's a legitimate way to earn some income.
Personally, I think players are compensated fairly. A college education, room/board, elite level coaching, tutoring, exposure and all the other benefits they receive is more than fair compensation for most individual NCAA athletes. But the inability to profit off their likeness seems wrong to me. If you need to put limits to keep competitive balance, fine. This would also allow the star players to "earn more" considering they are worth more to the school than the guy on the end of the bench.
I think what you propose has a lot of merit but (there's always a but) I think you fall into the trap the of 'being an honest person syndrome' as most people do. Your proposal presumes everyone will act in a honest way. But, for decades in the south and Big 12 country boosters and the schools they support have spent much effort to figure out what is allowed and not allowed and, maybe most importantly, not even addressed in NCAA rules so they can most effectively support their teams. Maybe to make my point quickly, if the NCAA passed your suggestion, every player on every SEC football and basketball team including walkons would "profiting from their likenesses", not just the 'star' players. And if the SEC does it, so will every P5 school and it would be allowed based upon what you proposed. And it would stink. It's a shame it has to be legislated with this in mind, but this is why the NCAA rule book is so long and complicated. If you give these people an inch they will take a mile.
Quote from: burger on February 25, 2018, 10:54:43 PM
Professors are making bank......6 digits part time.....
The new scam (not Marquette) that I see is that they publish a book and use it in their class......If it is an important book (computer science etc)......There are no "used" ones available.....I got a class where the list price for one of my son's books was $700......No $hit.....Just jack the price thru the roof.....Let's say $500 per copy to the prof for 200 or 300 kids.....Not a bad gig.....
Put that into your financial calculator.....I figure it to be over $250K.....
The only professors making six figures are those in high demand fields (finance, engineering) where you have to compete with industry, or those who bring in way more than that in grant and contract work. English, history, philosophy? Very doubtful.
And no professor is getting 500 a copy for a book they write. Not even close.
Quote from: WhiteTrash on February 25, 2018, 11:50:45 PM
I think what you propose has a lot of merit but (there's always a but) I think you fall into the trap the of 'being an honest person syndrome' as most people do. Your proposal presumes everyone will act in a honest way. But, for decades in the south and Big 12 country boosters and the schools they support have spent much effort to figure out what is allowed and not allowed and, maybe most importantly, not even addressed in NCAA rules so they can most effectively support their teams. Maybe to make my point quickly, if the NCAA passed your suggestion, every player on every SEC football and basketball team including walkons would "profiting from their likenesses", not just the 'star' players. And if the SEC does it, so will every P5 school and it would be allowed based upon what you proposed. And it would stink. It's a shame it has to be legislated with this in mind, but this is why the NCAA rule book is so long and complicated. If you give these people an inch they will take a mile.
I think you are vastly overestimating how much boosters would be willing to pay for marginal talent.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 25, 2018, 10:48:24 PM
Give the players a small stipend to make sure there are no starving athletes. Allow them to profit off their likeness but put the money in a fund that players don't have access to until after they graduate (this is how Olympians who are also NCAA athletes get their prize money if they medal). If they leave early they can access the account but the second they do they are ineligible for NCAA play. Put some sort of cap on how much they can earn off their likeness before they become ineligible.
I am sure there are issues with this idea but it seems like a fair system to me. Would it prevent all abuses? Absolutely not. Would it decrease them? I think so. Less motivation to risk being caught cheating when there's a legitimate way to earn some income.
I think this is a good system. Allow them to access the funds in case of a financial emergency too.
Quote from: wisblue on February 25, 2018, 10:34:35 PM
I'm old fashioned and I am vehemently opposed to paying players. But, if the players are going to get paid, then eliminate athletic scholarships, and let players get financial aid based on need like most everyone else. Then maybe they and their families would learn the value of what they already get.
This is just ridiculously condescending.
Quote from: #bansultan on February 26, 2018, 04:39:42 AM
I think you are vastly overestimating how much boosters would be willing to pay for marginal talent.
I could be. I see 100,000 people showing up for an Alabama spring game and it makes me think those people are
a bit too crazy for college sports.
I think there are definitely problems that need to be fixed. I tend to lean toward the "let them earn endorsement money" side of things. This would put the money in the pockets of the kids who really can differentiate themselves which is, I think, a relatively small group (as compared to scholarship athletes as a whole). For the vast majority of NCAA athletes (I'm thinking mid to high 90%) the scholarship is worth far more than anybody would ever be willing to pay them. I would hate to see sweeping changes that could negatively affect that large group of athletes in an attempt to address a problem that exists with a small minority of athletes at a small minority of schools.
I'm also surprised by the naivety in some discussions of standardized payments to athletes and the thought that such payments would solve the problem. The first post mentions a suggestion that each player be paid $50,000. I just don't see how that would solve the problem. That would simply set a new floor. Currently, the floor is a full scholarship. Top athletes have learned that they can get more. Nothing would change if everyone was paid $50,000. Top athletes would just learn that they could get more. I think it's hopelessly naive to think that this would solve the problem. Granted, it might solve a different problem for those who think that the athletes are being exploited.
And that's at the heart of why I think the better solutions involve letting the athletes profit. The argument that all these athletes are being exploited just doesn't hold up for me. The overwhelming majority of NCAA scholarship athletes are making out like bandits, receiving compensation that is far, far in excess of anything they are generating for the schools. I think the only way to hopefully effectively address the situation is to figure out a way for the athletes who really do have incremental value get compensated for that. It seems to me, that endorsements is the best avenue. Some regulation would be needed, but that can be worked out.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on February 26, 2018, 09:33:17 AM
I think there are definitely problems that need to be fixed. I tend to lean toward the "let them earn endorsement money" side of things. This would put the money in the pockets of the kids who really can differentiate themselves which is, I think, a relatively small group (as compared to scholarship athletes as a whole). For the vast majority of NCAA athletes (I'm thinking mid to high 90%) the scholarship is worth far more than anybody would ever be willing to pay them. I would hate to see sweeping changes that could negatively affect that large group of athletes in an attempt to address a problem that exists with a small minority of athletes at a small minority of schools.
I'm also surprised by the naivety in some discussions of standardized payments to athletes and the thought that such payments would solve the problem. The first post mentions a suggestion that each player be paid $50,000. I just don't see how that would solve the problem. That would simply set a new floor. Currently, the floor is a full scholarship. Top athletes have learned that they can get more. Nothing would change if everyone was paid $50,000. Top athletes would just learn that they could get more. I think it's hopelessly naive to think that this would solve the problem. Granted, it might solve a different problem for those who think that the athletes are being exploited.
And that's at the heart of why I think the better solutions involve letting the athletes profit. The argument that all these athletes are being exploited just doesn't hold up for me. The overwhelming majority of NCAA scholarship athletes are making out like bandits, receiving compensation that is far, far in excess of anything they are generating for the schools. I think the only way to hopefully effectively address the situation is to figure out a way for the athletes who really do have incremental value get compensated for that. It seems to me, that endorsements is the best avenue. Some regulation would be needed, but that can be worked out.
+1 on the bolded. Markus Howard and Sam Hauser, are they being short changed? Maybe, I can see that. They could make money off selling their own jerseys, people tune in to specifically watch them play, etc. Matt Heldt? Harry Froling? Not so much. No offense to the kids but they are getting a great deal right now with the free tuition, room and board, meals, etc.
The other thing I've thought of and haven't heard anyone really mention when this is discussed is performance bonuses for the players. The Jay Bilas's of the world always whine about players not getting payed when they discuss the money involved with the Final Four or the football National Championship. Do you start giving bonuses to teams that make the NCAA tourney, Final Four, National Title, etc? The players on those teams are really the only ones being short changed, right? The guys playing in the Horizon League aren't being short changed by the NCAA because the Final Four makes millions of dollars for the NCAA.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on February 25, 2018, 09:00:38 PM
Does a tenured Philosophy professor make 50K?
What does that have to do with anything? I am so tired of that old, ridiculous argument.
If 80,000 people wanted to watch him teach, he would have a mega-million dollar contract.
Quote from: GrimmReaper33 on February 26, 2018, 09:42:32 AMMatt Heldt? Harry Froling? Not so much. No offense to the kids but they are getting a great deal right now with the free tuition, room and board, meals, etc.
I disagree. It won't be the same deals the stars get, but I could see a local dairy ponying up for Matt Heldt. I could see local bars paying a little to even get walk-ons in ads. Obviously there will be a disparity, but there will be a market there if the players are willing to work it.
Quote from: GrimmReaper33 on February 26, 2018, 09:42:32 AM
+1 on the bolded. Markus Howard and Sam Hauser, are they being short changed? Maybe, I can see that. They could make money off selling their own jerseys, people tune in to specifically watch them play, etc. Matt Heldt? Harry Froling? Not so much. No offense to the kids but they are getting a great deal right now with the free tuition, room and board, meals, etc.
With the athletes, I think it's a bit of a sliding scale. I have no idea what the actual market would look like, but maybe a kid like Howard or Hauser could get $5k or $10k or something else to endorse a business. Maybe Marvin Bagley could get $100k. Hell, maybe more. And maybe a kid like Heldt could get $500. Who knows? But the amount they all could receive would correlate to their value.
And taking it a step further, a wrestler at Iowa could probably earn a little something. Or a volleyball player at Nebraska. Provide some value; earn some additional cash. I'd be surprised if there would be too many athletes in non-revenue sports who could earn much, but there would be some. And in the revenue sports, it would probably still be a minority.
Another benefit of this, presumably, is that it would keep things out of Title IX because the schools would not be the ones providing the benefit.
I think at one point Marquette said the total cost to the university for a scholarship athlete (and I can't remember if it was just basketball) is about $250,000 a year considering everything (schollie, room and board, travel, tutors etc).
Just saying.
One thing to keep in mind are the legal consequences of any non-scholarship payments to athletes. Right now sports benefit greatly by its not-for-profit educational model.
Any payments to athletes would greatly complicate such a model.
One such example would be that technically any University that built a stadium/sports facility on a bond, would not be allowed to pay any athlete (including scholarships: e.g. total compensation) in excess of that afforded to individuals in the D-league. That is immediately a non-starter, as the scholarships already exceed that salary.
This is due to government regulations that forbid unfair business practices by not-for-profit entities taking advantage of their status to outcompete for-profit entities.
Quote from: forgetful on February 26, 2018, 01:17:23 PM
One thing to keep in mind are the legal consequences of any non-scholarship payments to athletes. Right now sports benefit greatly by its not-for-profit educational model.
Any payments to athletes would greatly complicate such a model.
One such example would be that technically any University that built a stadium/sports facility on a bond, would not be allowed to pay any athlete (including scholarships: e.g. total compensation) in excess of that afforded to individuals in the D-league. That is immediately a non-starter, as the scholarships already exceed that salary.
This is due to government regulations that forbid unfair business practices by not-for-profit entities taking advantage of their status to outcompete for-profit entities.
Another potential reason to open up endorsement opportunities rather than have direct payments from the institutions?
Another thing to consider is schools be allowed to divide up the 13.0 scholarship FTE so that some students get a higher stipend but then some have to pay and be partial walk-ons. Or a school doesn't have to fill all of its slots.
That way players can negotiate better deals with other schools. Almost like a salary cap concept.
That may run afoul of forgetful's bond issue however.
Quote from: Daniel on February 26, 2018, 12:43:32 PM
I think at one point Marquette said the total cost to the university for a scholarship athlete (and I can't remember if it was just basketball) is about $250,000 a year considering everything (schollie, room and board, travel, tutors etc).
Just saying.
I'd be curious to see where that number comes from. I wonder if it's the total budget divided by the total number of scholarship athletes. That would be an interesting number for Marquette to calculate, but is a really different issue than what the athletes actually get. For starters, this would divide up the extremely high costs of running the MBB program (Wojo's salary, recruiting, etc.) by lots of athletes who aren't deriving any real benefit from that.
But the underlying point that the athletes are getting a lot value that doesn't show up on their 1098-T form is absolutely true. Coaching, trainers, travel, tutoring, swag, etc. It all adds up.
Quote from: #bansultan on February 26, 2018, 01:35:05 PM
Another thing to consider is schools be allowed to divide up the 13.0 scholarship FTE so that some students get a higher stipend but then some have to pay and be partial walk-ons. Or a school doesn't have to fill all of its slots.
That way players can negotiate better deals with other schools. Almost like a salary cap concept.
That may run afoul of forgetful's bond issue however.
Not entirely sure what you're referring to, but schools
can offer less than a full scholarship if they want. Under the current system, I think it is pretty much unheard of for basketball because they're all offering full rides in order to be competitive. But the schools
could offer partial scholarships if they wanted to.
And to hopefully avoid the confusion, I'm talking about only the financial aspect. I'm very well aware that basketball is a "headcount" sport and can only have 13 athletes on scholarship. They cannot "divide" a scholarship like "equivalency" sports can. But they can offer something less than a full scholarship.
And, it's quite possible I misunderstood your post entirely and this is not relevant to what you posted. If that is the case...never mind.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on February 26, 2018, 01:43:13 PM
Not entirely sure what you're referring to, but schools can offer less than a full scholarship if they want. Under the current system, I think it is pretty much unheard of for basketball because they're all offering full rides in order to be competitive. But the schools could offer partial scholarships if they wanted to.
And to hopefully avoid the confusion, I'm talking about only the financial aspect. I'm very well aware that basketball is a "headcount" sport and can only have 13 athletes on scholarship. They cannot "divide" a scholarship like "equivalency" sports can. But they can offer something less than a full scholarship.
And, it's quite possible I misunderstood your post entirely and this is not relevant to what you posted. If that is the case...never mind.
What I am saying is that some students can get the value of 2.0 of a scholarship, while two have to only get 0.5.
But I just realized how dumb that is because the value of private school scholarships is so much more than public.
The NCAA allows hockey and baseball players to have agents.
Why not basketball and football players?
The simplest solution is to let players sign with agents whenever they want. If the agent and that player choose to make some private financial arrangement that allows the player to receive money now against future earnings, great. That has no bearing on the university and doesn't cost the school a dime.
The problem with allowing players to take endorsement money is the potential mess that arises when the player's endorsement conflicts with the school's (i.e. kid at Nike school signs shoe deal with adidas; kid does radio spot for competitor of university sponsor). This, of course, also would just make official the underground business of shoe companies steering kids toward certain school. Be prepared for Oregon and Maryland buying every top recruit.