MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: tower912 on February 16, 2019, 11:01:26 AM
-
Bilas: "a student gets $19000, the players get nothing."
After a Kentucky student made a half court shot on gameday.
-
Yeah, true. But I bet a majority of students would trade the 19k to get what the players get for four years.
-
Bilas: "a student gets $19000, the players get nothing."
After a Kentucky student made a half court shot on gameday.
Think he knows the athletes are students too?
-
I think even Marquette said that it costs near $250,000 per athlete to cover tuition, tutors, travel, housing, etc. can’t remember where I saw that
-
I think even Marquette said that it costs near $250,000 per athlete to cover tuition, tutors, travel, housing, etc. can’t remember where I saw that
Easily.
-
Bilas: "a student gets $19000, the players get nothing."
After a Kentucky student made a half court shot on gameday.
4 year free ride for 12 guys. One student gets a 2% chance to make a shot for 19k once. Bilas is right. They get nothin
-
::)
I respect the guy a lot, but this one he takes to an idiotic extreme without any consideration opposing his view
-
Bilas: "a student gets $19000, the players get nothing."
After a Kentucky student made a half court shot on gameday.
Nothing? When one of my kids was on athletic scholarship they received much more than nothing. He doesn't help his cause with poor choice of words.
-
The four year scholarship is a fantastic deal for Matt Heldt and a just ok deal for Markus Howard.
Fine, pay the players but it better be merit based. Probably no more than 75 college basketball players deserve additional compensation.
-
Bilas: "a student gets $19000, the players get nothingfour years of tuition, room board and treatment like royalty."
After a Kentucky student made a half court shot on gameday.
Fixed for Jay.
I like Jay a lot, but don't think he's right about this.
-
The four year scholarship is a fantastic deal for Matt Heldt and a just ok deal for Markus Howard.
Fine, pay the players but it better be merit based. Probably no more than 75 college basketball players deserve additional compensation.
I totally agree with this... but maybe have it as it's own league for the paid players. And then you could even have each team maybe partnered up with a pro league team. Then they could probably even drop any school affiliation too. Just kind of call them D-level pro players. Oh, and then they could even get a sponsorship and allow them to name the league off that sponsorship. Bet Gatorade would be up for something like that.
Heck, once we do that we don't even have to have the ncaa oversee it. The NBA already does this sort of thing, we can let them oversee it. Nice part about that is you don't have to worry about eligibility issues and whatnot.
-
Markus is wayyyyy underpaid in today’s college model. If he led Marquette to the final four, he would be underpaid by a multiplier well over 10x.
-
Bilas: "a student gets $19000, the players get nothing."
After a Kentucky student made a half court shot on gameday.
JB's overarching points are correct imho, and much objectively more nuanced than this - but he doesn't do himself any favors shoehorning it into a student shooting for free tuition.
-
Bilas: "a student gets $19000, the players get nothing."
After a Kentucky student made a half court shot on gameday.
He's a clown to make that statement. An absolute clown.
-
Bilas: "a student gets $19000, the players get nothing."
After a Kentucky student made a half court shot on gameday.
Matt Heldt got $250,000
And I love Matt Heldt.
-
Markus is wayyyyy underpaid in today’s college model. If he led Marquette to the final four, he would be underpaid by a multiplier well over 10x.
Markus is on a national stage with a tryout for scouts each and every day. Free education, free training, free meals, chance to showcase and have his name out there on a daily basis. Win win for everyone. Most cheer and watch for the name on the front, not the name on the back.
Henry Ellenson was a first round pick....was he underpaid? Did he make us better in a material way? I'd argue no, players stood around and watched him be Henry. As a team, we didn't do anything, no tournament of any kind...yet he was a future pro. So what should he be paid?
Guys want to get paid...go to the G League, go to Europe. The earlier this silliness stops with the notion of paying college players, the better.
-
Matt Heldt got $250,000
And I love Matt Heldt.
I'd argue he got a lot more than that. The connections alone he has made the endearment to MU alumni will pay off for him for decades. Let alone the value of a college degree isn't just the current rate of tuition, it is also on the lifetime earnings it delivers. Something Jay Bilas 100% of the time refuses to acknowledge. How many guys get degrees through sports that never would have without sports....and as a result, pave the way for a life of consistent earnings vs a life of struggle if they don't make it athletically? The examples are endless.
-
Matt Heldt got $250,000
And I love Matt Heldt.
Chris Otule got $375,000
-
If Markus led Marquette to a national championship....
Markus gets
Free meals, scholarship and travel... alumni backslaps and a lifetime of feel good.
Marquette gets
Huge spike in applications, donations, recruiting, endowment, brand prestige, merchandising revenue, attendance and ratings.
For kids as talented as Markus the current set up is not a great deal for them.....
-
He's a clown to make that statement. An absolute clown.
Why call him a clown...you've never said anything stupid? That said, he is trying to stir debate, and I respect anyone who thinks we should do more to support kids and less to support people who try to profit off them while giving the "they have it great" line.
-
If Markus led Marquette to a national championship....
Markus gets
Free meals, scholarship and travel... alumni backslaps and a lifetime of feel good.
Marquette gets
Huge spike in applications, donations, recruiting, endowment, brand prestige, merchandising revenue, attendance and ratings.
For kids as talented as Markus the current set up is not a great deal for them.....
No, he gets a college education valued at $250K in today's money, earning potential over over $2M easily in the event he can never play again because he has a degree.
As for what Marquette gets....same number of games on TV whether he is here or not, that's contractually built in. More eyeballs, a few. Donations and endowment will go up for schools that have one time runs (Loyola of Chicago), but consistent power house athletically do not see that occur, Texas A&M proved the fallacy of the merchandise sales....they sold a grand total of $60K worth of jerseys the year Manziel won the Heisman so let's not get carried away with that continued myth. By the way, that was $60K for all jerseys..basketball, football, baseball...the amount of jerseys with Manziel's number far smaller than $60K.
http://www.espn.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/80530/manziel-jerseys-hardly-making-am-rich
Attendance, MU was going to average strong attendance this year regardless...hard to quantify how many incremental...probably some, but the new arena and built in base was happening no matter what. When Markus leaves, do you expect attendance to crater? Our ratings, I haven't checked them in about 5 weeks, will do so next week, but our ratings were no better this year than last year last I checked.
For kids as talented as Markus, if it it wasn't for college basketball he would be in the G League and NO ONE would hear of him, NO ONE would see his highlights on ESPN, etc, etc, but he would get paid.
It's a win win. College basketball is here whether the elite players decide to play in it or not.
-
No, he gets a college education valued at $250K in today's money, earning potential over over $2M easily in the event he can never play again because he has a degree.
this is a fun detail
-
The star players get significantly less from the school than the school gets from them.
The opposite is true for most players.
-
The star players get significantly less from the school than the school gets from them.
The opposite is true for most players.
Though, the star players don’t have to go to school......
-
The star players get significantly less from the school than the school gets from them.
The opposite is true for most players.
If that's true, why are they going to school? They don't have to. Reality is, schools help MAKE them stars. You think anyone would know Markus if he was in the G League right now? Nope. Win win. Elite players choose to go to school because it makes them better, gives them exposure, sets them up to be drafted....all BENEFITING the player. And oh by the way, for the ones that give a damn, they also get an education. Win win.
-
If that's true, why are they going to school? They don't have to. Reality is, schools help MAKE them stars. You think anyone would know Markus if he was in the G League right now? Nope. Win win. Elite players choose to go to school because it makes them better, gives them exposure, sets them up to be drafted....all BENEFITING the player. And oh by the way, for the ones that give a damn, they also get an education. Win win.
Because the alternatives are stupid. Just because school for a year is a better option than the G league or Europe doesn't mean the star players aren't being exploited.
Markus is a different case.
-
Because the alternatives are stupid. Just because school for a year is a better option than the G league or Europe doesn't mean the star players aren't being exploited.
Markus is a different case.
Exploited...good one.
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/l3q2TJV994Qqo9eIE/200w.webp?cid=3640f6095c687ba9536e5a4b36863cd8)
-
Why call him a clown...you've never said anything stupid? That said, he is trying to stir debate, and I respect anyone who thinks we should do more to support kids and less to support people who try to profit off them while giving the "they have it great" line.
Those "profits" go to giving opportunities to other men and women, mostly minorities, in other sports. He's a clown because he knows his statement is patently false. 100% false, to suggest they get NOTHING. It is a farce the moment it leaves his lips.
-
Markus has previously stated how grateful he is for all that comes with being on scholarship at Marquette. Markus is the opposite of Nigel Hayes
-
Exploited...good one.
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/l3q2TJV994Qqo9eIE/200w.webp?cid=3640f6095c687ba9536e5a4b36863cd8)
To be clear, I'm not referring to Markus. He seems to love the college system.
Zion should be making 10 Million+ this year but he is prevented from doing that in this country. Honestly not sure what he could make in Europe for a year.
-
To be clear, I'm not referring to Markus. He seems to love the college system.
Zion should be making 10 Million+ this year but he is prevented from doing that in this country. Honestly not sure what he could make in Europe for a year.
Its not about the college system. It’s the NBA age limit that is preventing Zion from those $$$.
-
To be clear, I'm not referring to Markus. He seems to love the college system.
Zion should be making 10 Million+ this year but he is prevented from doing that in this country. Honestly not sure what he could make in Europe for a year.
Remember though, it's not the "college system" that is forcing Zion to go to college. The NBA rule prevents him from turning pro and playing in their league.
-
NCAA student athletes get a ton in compensation. 99% of them are fairly or overpaid.
1% are very underpaid.
Personally, I think allowing them to make money off their likenesses would be the most sensible solution. The 1% can get paid what they are worth from outside sources and none of the 99% lose their opportunities (which would happen to a lot of them if universities were required to pay their athletes).
-
Those "profits" go to giving opportunities to other men and women, mostly minorities, in other sports. He's a clown because he knows his statement is patently false. 100% false, to suggest they get NOTHING. It is a farce the moment it leaves his lips.
Glad to see you're still a capitalist where you're concerned and a socialist on behalf of others.
-
Glad to see you're still a capitalist where you're concerned and a socialist on behalf of others.
Nuance...no such thing as pure capitalism here in the US, and as we have discussed at length, the NCAA uses the basketball revenue from the TV contracts (in full disclosure, my employer pays a HUGE amount of that contract) to fund opportunities for men and women, primarily minorities with those dollars. Yup, socialism in some cases is fantastic. Capitalism in some cases is fantastic. Nuance.
-
Its not about the college system. It’s the NBA age limit that is preventing Zion from those $$$.
I'm aware. And that will be changed in a couple years.
-
I'm aware. And that will be changed in a couple years.
Maybe.
-
Its not about the college system. It’s the NBA age limit that is preventing Zion from those $$$.
This is a good point, but there is still something inherently unfair about Zion W picking up the tab for some soccer player at Duke whom nobody would pay to see.
-
I think even Marquette said that it costs near $250,000 per athlete to cover tuition, tutors, travel, housing, etc. can’t remember where I saw that
You left out tatoo money.
-
There are an awful lot of bad things in the world to get worked up about.
Even for those who consider it "exploitation"...the "exploitation" of the 0.1% of college hoops players who could be making money at 18 if the NBA didn't prohibit it should be really low on the list.
-
There are an awful lot of bad things in the world to get worked up about.
Even for those who consider it "exploitation"...the "exploitation" of the 0.1% of college hoops players who could be making money at 18 if the NBA didn't prohibit it should be really low on the list.
Agreed - unless you're the guy being exploited.
-
Agreed - unless you're the guy being exploited.
Yeah, but in a year, he’ll sign a contract that will pay more than the other 99.9% will make in their entire careers.
-
If NBA players feel they were exploited while in college, they should use their considerable income and national platform to duke it out with the NBA owners and the NCAA over the 1 and done rule. I seriously doubt anyone playing anything but the top level of European or Chinese basketball leagues feels their lives are better post college.
-
If NBA players feel they were exploited while in college, they should use their considerable income and national platform to duke it out with the NBA owners and the NCAA over the 1 and done rule.
The NBA Players Association opposes the one and done rule.
-
This is a good point, but there is still something inherently unfair about Zion W picking up the tab for some soccer player at Duke whom nobody would pay to see.
Check out the NBA.....
-
The NBA Players Association opposes the one and done rule.
Yes, but they aren't putting in much of an effort to get rid of it. I think the whole issue goes away when one and done is gone so I fully support getting rid of it. However, until the people who actually went through it consider it more than a minor speed bump on their way to the pros I will not be too concerned about "exploited" athletes. For guys who aren't good enough to make the big time (Nigel Hayes et al), take a job in a minor league or quit bitchin. You are getting far more than you are worth.
-
Yes, but they aren't putting in much of an effort to get rid of it.
That's not accurate at all.
https://www.si.com/nba/2018/10/20/nba-nbpa-lowering-age-limit-ending-one-and-done-talks-standstill
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2801901-woj-nba-nbpa-struggling-to-reach-an-agreement-on-end-of-one-and-done-rule
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/24513084/in-step-abolition-one-done-rule-basketball-stakeholders-align-support-usa-basketball
-
I'm aware. And that will be changed in a couple years.
The NBA doesn’t trust themselves to draft these kids out of high school. Too many wasted contracts on kids who never deserved the money they got. For every Kobe there are ten Kwame Browns. For every LeBron there are ten Disanga Diops. The NBA instituted the one and done rule to save themselves millions. Make the kids prove their talents one year on the college level and pass the savings (some anyway) to NBA veterans who have earned it. I think the NBA is closer to pushing it to two years in college than repealing the one and done rule.
The PR Zion has received playing at Duke is worth more than the millions he could have made playing in Europe this year. That’s why he’s at Duke.
And you can’t let the players cash in on their likeness while in college because it would take away the level playing field. The shoe companies would just do what their doing now on a larger scale, eliminating Cinderella from the dance. Just because some cheat and get away with it, you don’t have to make the cheating legal.
-
That's not accurate at all.
https://www.si.com/nba/2018/10/20/nba-nbpa-lowering-age-limit-ending-one-and-done-talks-standstill
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2801901-woj-nba-nbpa-struggling-to-reach-an-agreement-on-end-of-one-and-done-rule
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/24513084/in-step-abolition-one-done-rule-basketball-stakeholders-align-support-usa-basketball
It is completely reasonable for owners to want access to all information before making a multi-million dollar decision. If the PA can't make that work then they are not dedicated to getting rid of one and done.
-
I don’t understand this thread and the mentality of it at all, especially Chico’s. This mentality that “we treat them well on our plantation” by giving them “three square meals, a nice bed, and English Composition 101” is borderline racist.
Why are we afraid to pay these kids? What evil comes from it? If the scholarship is worth what you say it is, then their is little risk to offering pay.
-
This is a good point, but there is still something inherently unfair about Zion W picking up the tab for some soccer player at Duke whom nobody would pay to see.
Question, outside of revenue sports like football and basketball (and maybe hockey and baseball in select instances), why do universities even have an elaborate system of competitive athletics? What purpose do they serve?
-
Chris Otule got $375,000
I think that 250k figure is per year.
-
I find it amusing those who are adamantly against things like the 70 percent tax and socialized healthcare want students to not be paid so that the schools can fund the rest of the programs. While those who adamantly want all these things want the players to be paid.
Weird flipflop
-
I don’t understand this thread and the mentality of it at all, especially Chico’s. This mentality that “we treat them well on our plantation” by giving them “three square meals, a nice bed, and English Composition 101” is borderline racist.
Why are we afraid to pay these kids? What evil comes from it? If the scholarship is worth what you say it is, then their is little risk to offering pay.
The outlandish accusation and comparison between the life of a scholar athlete and a slave is not only disturbing but also demonstrates one's inability to understand and lack of objectivity on the topics of both racism and why we have collegiate sports.
-
The outlandish accusation and comparison between the life of a scholar athlete and a slave is not only disturbing but also demonstrates one's inability to understand and lack of objectivity on the topics of both racism and why we have collegiate sports.
Yep. Kids who don't want to go to college have a choice. The G-league or overseas if they're good enough. Or get a job like other kids who don't like the idea of going to college. And if they do go to college, the pics I've seen of athletes' dorms and practice facilities at major schools hardly seem like slave quarters.
Disturbing comparison on so many levels....
-
So pay them. If you are correct, they will bypass the money for the current situation.
What is outrageous is your justification of an unfair system because the dorms are nice.
-
So pay them. If you are correct, they will bypass the money for the current situation.
What is outrageous is your justification of an unfair system because the dorms are nice.
You have not given one good reason to pay them. Slavery and your stretch of a stance on exploitation are not reasons to pay them when there are other ways they can get paid. The student is making the decision to become a scholar athlete, not the other way around.
The continued insistence of paying student athletes only bolsters a demonstrated lack of understanding of why college sports exist in the first place. There's already too much money and focus put on the athletics part of college athletics... paying students to play sports doesn't fix that problem, it makes it worse.
-
I don’t understand this thread and the mentality of it at all, especially Chico’s. This mentality that “we treat them well on our plantation” by giving them “three square meals, a nice bed, and English Composition 101” is borderline racist.
Why are we afraid to pay these kids? What evil comes from it? If the scholarship is worth what you say it is, then their is little risk to offering pay.
What does race have anything to do with this? Would not all student athletes regardless of race, gender, orientation, etc be impacted? Or are you suggesting only minority athletes be paid and only some sports? Good luck with that in a court of law.
Here’s an exchange for you, pay the kids but they have to pay for their tuition, room and board....if they underperform they can be fired....no guarantees like scholarships are today....just like actual employees they can be dismissed......let me guess, that isn’t fair either.
-
I find it amusing those who are adamantly against things like the 70 percent tax and socialized healthcare want students to not be paid so that the schools can fund the rest of the programs. While those who adamantly want all these things want the players to be paid.
Weird flipflop
Really? I can give you 100’s of examples of equal distinction that I guarantee you that you personally struggle with, along with many others, because life isn’t so regimented you have to be 100% on all scenarios. The contradictions are long and easy to shine a light on.
-
What does race have anything to do with this? Would not all student athletes regardless of race, gender, orientation, etc be impacted? Or are you suggesting only minority athletes be paid and only some sports? Good luck with that in a court of law.
Here’s an exchange for you, pay the kids but they have to pay for their tuition, room and board....if they underperform they can be fired....no guarantees like scholarships are today....just like actual employees they can be dismissed......let me guess, that isn’t fair either.
If you were familiar with Bilas argument, that is exactly what you do.
They are paid and from that is deducted tuition and room and board. They are free to pursue endorsement and advertising deals. But they have to sign a contract to maintain a 2.5 GPA or they forfeit salary. They want to be treat like a pro, welcome to the pros.
Or, they can take a full ride with all the restrictions that comes with it. Their choice.
-
If you were familiar with Bilas argument, that is exactly what you do.
They are paid and from that is deducted tuition and room and board. They are free to pursue endorsement and advertising deals. But they have to sign a contract to maintain a 2.5 GPA or they forfeit salary. They want to be treat like a pro, welcome to the pros.
Or, they can take a full ride with all the restrictions that comes with it. Their choice.
Ok, and this wouldn’t impact Sam Hauser, Joey Hauser, Ethan Happ, etc? If it does, then tell me again how you made this about race?
-
Why are we afraid to pay these kids? What evil comes from it? If the scholarship is worth what you say it is, then their is little risk to offering pay.
Because it screws over the 99% of student athletes who are fairly or overpaid for their services. If every student athlete was paid what they were worth every student athlete at Marquette other than the men's basketball team would be required to pay Marquette for the privilege of playing their sport for Marquette. Most of the men's basketball team would be paid less than their scholarships are worth. Markus, Sam, and maybe Theo/Sacar/Joey would be the only ones who come out ahead in that system.
I'll repeat again, let them make money off their likeness. The top players will get paid their worth from outside sources without impacting the vast majority of players who are already fairly or overpaid. Hell they might even come out with more money too. And most importantly, I get my NCAA Basketball and Football games back!
-
I'll repeat again, let them make money off their likeness. The top players will get paid their worth from outside sources without impacting the vast majority of players who are already fairly or overpaid. Hell they might even come out with more money too. And most importantly, I get my NCAA Basketball and Football games back!
Let me get your take on this ...
The NCAA thinks this will be wildly abused. Every sleazy used car salesman with dealerships near an SEC school will be recruiting for the local university by offering late-night TV deals if they attend the school in their TV market. The universities cannot police this.
(mya take is so what. Let them be free to pursue whatever they want.)
-
Question, outside of revenue sports like football and basketball (and maybe hockey and baseball in select instances), why do universities even have an elaborate system of competitive athletics? What purpose do they serve?
Are you seriously asking this questions?
-
Let me get your take on this ...
The NCAA thinks this will be wildly abused. Every sleazy used car salesman with dealerships near an SEC school will be recruiting for the local university by offering late-night TV deals if they attend the school in their TV market. The universities cannot police this.
(mya take is so what. Let them be free to pursue whatever they want.)
My take is also so what? If you really need to police it, put a cap on it. How? Require all payments to be placed into a secure account that can't be accessed until after graduation (or going pro). Put a limit on how much can be placed into that account. Any payments that don't get deposited into that account would put the player's eligibility in jeopardy.
Would it still get abused? Yes. Would it get abused anymore than it currently does? I don't think so.
-
Because it screws over the 99% of student athletes who are fairly or overpaid for their services. If every student athlete was paid what they were worth every student athlete at Marquette other than the men's basketball team would be required to pay Marquette for the privilege of playing their sport for Marquette. Most of the men's basketball team would be paid less than their scholarships are worth. Markus, Sam, and maybe Theo/Sacar/Joey would be the only ones who come out ahead in that system.
I'll repeat again, let them make money off their likeness. The top players will get paid their worth from outside sources without impacting the vast majority of players who are already fairly or overpaid. Hell they might even come out with more money too. And most importantly, I get my NCAA Basketball and Football games back!
The likeness idea will be abused to the hilt. Will essentially be a money laundering scheme to induce kids to go to certain schools....the rich will get richer (the rich schools with huge alumni bases and well heeled alums), while the smaller schools that can compete now will be shut out. I get the idea, but the abuse will be rampant unless you came up with a system that said a max amount could be paid....but then you get into other issues...$10K in South Dakota is a lot different than $10k in California.
-
Ok, and this wouldn’t impact Sam Hauser, Joey Hauser, Ethan Happ, etc? If it does, then tell me again how you made this about race?
You made it about race. I'm sorry that all the wealthy white guys writing this crap here cannot see how a poor African-American kid might interpret these words ...
Markus is on a national stage with a tryout for scouts each and every day. Free education, free training, free meals, chance to showcase and have his name out there on a daily basis. Win win for everyone. Most cheer and watch for the name on the front, not the name on the back.
Elite college athletes life-plan is not be a middle manager or an insurance salesman and to get married only to have his wife hound him about his weight and cholesterol. This is how middle-aged white guys view the world.
Their life plan is to be a professional basketball player, hopefully starting in the NBA.
If you cannot see how these quotes are the worst kind of patronizing white guy talk, then you need some serious self-introspection.
No, he gets a college education valued at $250K in today's money, earning potential over over $2M easily in the event he can never play again because he has a degree.
For kids as talented as Markus, if it it wasn't for college basketball he would be in the G League and NO ONE would hear of him, NO ONE would see his highlights on ESPN, etc, etc, but he would get paid.
It's a win win. College basketball is here whether the elite players decide to play in it or not.
If that's true, why are they going to school? They don't have to. Reality is, schools help MAKE them stars. You think anyone would know Markus if he was in the G League right now? Nope. Win win. Elite players choose to go to school because it makes them better, gives them exposure, sets them up to be drafted....all BENEFITING the player. And oh by the way, for the ones that give a damn, they also get an education. Win win.
-
My take is also so what? If you really need to police it, put a cap on it. How? Require all payments to be placed into a secure account that can't be accessed until after graduation (or going pro). Put a limit on how much can be placed into that account. Any payments that don't get deposited into that account would put the player's eligibility in jeopardy.
Would it still get abused? Yes. Would it get abused anymore than it currently does? I don't think so.
How do you do that? Sleazy Vinnie the used car salesman will just pay him. As long as he reports it on his taxes, he did nothing wrong. It is not illegal for sleazy Vinnie and sleazy Vinnie is not obligated to follow NCAA rules. The kid is when he signs a contract with the NCAA (LOI)
-
Wait, what? You literally replied to me and said it was borderline racist that I don’t think student athletes should be paid. I did not say anything about gender, race, etc regarding payment. YOU made it about race. YOU. YOU made the comparison and the statement, no one else did and you were called out on it by other posters, as you should have been. YOU.
I asked a couple of straight up questions, would your scheme not also be to pay everyone in those sports and gave you examples. Instead of responding, now you are attacking anyone here that disagrees with you as rich white guys.....again...YOU are making it about race and now affluency. YOU. Not anyone else but YOU. I’m going to give you a little clue, some of the people you just labeled as rich white guys, aren’t white and and aren’t rich, but they can still disagree with your idea of paying players. YOU made this racial and YOU continue to do so. It isn’t a racial issue, it’s a question of whether they should be paid or not....wealthy players, poor players, black, white, Asian, Hispanic, male, female, gay, straight....none of it matters unless you are now going to tell us that only some players should be paid based on other criteria. YOU made it about race, go back and read YOUR comments.
-
I think that 250k figure is per year.
No
-
Let me get your take on this ...
The NCAA thinks this will be wildly abused. Every sleazy used car salesman with dealerships near an SEC school will be recruiting for the local university by offering late-night TV deals if they attend the school in their TV market. The universities cannot police this.
(mya take is so what. Let them be free to pursue whatever they want.)
Sure, and therefore every small school with a small alumni base and without sleezy car dealer salemen, they should just fold up the tent and go play in Div 3, is that the answer? One of the core pillars of the NCAA and its member institutions is to try to create a semblance of a level playing field. It is impossible, but they try. They can’t legislate the arms race of new facilities, or sluff classes, or the weather on campus, but they can in other areas...a common set of practices to attempt (not always succeed) to curtail abuses. But you say, what the hell and go for it.
I hope you realize Marquette athletics will cease to exist in that example....but maybe that’s great for you...along with the opportunities for young women and men, many of them minkrities and disadvantaged, that currently receive opportunities from places like MU, and other small schools. Go for it, eh?
-
Wait, what? You literally replied to me and said it was borderline racist that I don’t think student athletes should be paid. I did not say anything about gender, race, etc regarding payment. YOU made it about race. YOU. YOU made the comparison and the statement, no one else did and you were called out on it by other posters, as you should have been. YOU.
I asked a couple of straight up questions, would your scheme not also be to pay anyone else, and gave you examples. Instead of responding, now you are attacking anyone here that disagrees with you as rich white guys.....again...YOU are making it about race and now affluency. YOU. Not anyone else but YOU. I’m going to give you a little clue, some of the people you just labeled as rich white guys, aren’t white and and aren’t rich, but they can still disagree with your idea of paying players. YOU made this racial and YOU continue to do so. It isn’t a racial issue, it’s a question of whether they snow should be paid or not....wealthy players, poor players, black, white, Asian, male, female, gay, straight....none of it matters unless you are now going to tell us that only some players should be paid based on other criteria. YOU made it about race, go back and read YOUR comments.
Because when the rich white guy interjects into a conversation about paying poor African-American kids by saying they have it good because they get "free meals" and then patronizing tells them about the value of higher education ... yes, it is a borderline racist comment.
-
If Zion W or any other player is so heart broken about “lack” of financial gain of playing in college (again lest we forget the amount of money for scholarship, food, travel, free swag, housing, education, etc)
Then why don’t they just go the route of Brandon Jennings who went overseas and made money right after high school?
Jennings was paid 1.65 million and also made $2mil in endorsements straight out of high school.
So instead of complaining, why not force a system change and go get your money!?
Or is it possibly that the players are not as upset about it as we make them out to be?
-
Because when the rich white guy interjects into a conversation about paying poor African-American kids by saying they have it good because they get "free meals" and then patronizing tells them about the value of higher education ... yes, it is a borderline racist comment.
Except the meals, training etc go to Joey Hauser, Ethan Happ, Sam Hauser, and everyone else playing basketball and football....they aren’t going to out to only some kids....which is why you made a ridiculous comment and got caught making it about race, now you are digging further and further. Now you double down calling anyone that opposes you as rich, white guys....another racial comment. You’re on a roll.
-
If Zion W or any other player is so heart broken about “lack” of financial gain of playing in college (again lest we forget the amount of money for scholarship, food, travel, free swag, housing, education, etc)
Then why don’t they just go the route of Brandon Jennings who went overseas and made money right after high school?
Jennings was paid 1.65 million and also made $2mil in endorsements straight out of high school.
So instead of complaining, why not force a system change and go get your money!?
Or is it possibly that the players are not as upset about it as we make them out to be?
Bingo. And it’s because college helps to ENHANCE their brand on a national stage....something they don’t get in Europe or the G league. For all the belly aching, it is a win win and these kids build a bigger brand in college than they would elsewhere. But absolutely, if the money was key....they have options, they chose not to go down that path. No one is forcing them to go to college.
-
How do you do that? Sleazy Vinnie the used car salesman will just pay him. As long as he reports it on his taxes, he did nothing wrong. IT is not illegal for sleazy Vinnie and sleazy Vinnie is not obligated to follow NCAA rules. The kid is when he signs a contract with the NCAA (LOI)
The NCAA can't police the vendors but they can police the student-athlete. Just like they can't police the shoe companies now.
-
If Zion W or any other player is so heart broken about “lack” of financial gain of playing in college (again lest we forget the amount of money for scholarship, food, travel, free swag, housing, education, etc)
Then why don’t they just go the route of Brandon Jennings who went overseas and made money right after high school?
Jennings was paid 1.65 million and also made $2mil in endorsements straight out of high school.
So instead of complaining, why not force a system change and go get your money!?
Or is it possibly that the players are not as upset about it as we make them out to be?
How about get rid of the one and done rule and let them all go straight to the NBA, like LeBron?
-
How about get rid of the one and done rule and let them all go straight to the NBA, like LeBron?
That would be great....NBA controls that, not NCAA. Next...
-
Here is my take on all of this. Based on having 3 kids in Division 1 athletics at the high end ACC and Big Ten level.
Kids are committing to play a team sport. They all know that from day 1 when they start in youth programs. Part of being on a team is the understanding of what the roles each player has . Again kids all know that over time.
So when it comes time to pick a college for a team sport, in general, a kid and their family evaluates what is the best circumstance for their particular skills. Less than 1 percent of high school athletes play D 1 sports and less than 3 percent play at any level in college. Less than 1 percent then go on to play professional.
When a kid arrives at a D1 school, usually for the first time in their life they are no longer the big man on campus. When a kid has to start out on the scout team, it is a big transition. They buy into that because they know they are part of a team and a good coach instills the understanding that the scout is a big part of the teams success. This is not an easy transition for kids and their is a big balancing act of school and sport. The compensation for all of this is a academics, housing, meals and full time tutors and life coaches fully paid for. Everyone knows that coming in is well. Acceptance is the system is universal and why it works so well. Everyone is part of the team and the team rises and falls together , not as an individual. So this is why a coach like Wojo was near tears in describing Matt Heldts role recently. Heldt came in worked his way from scout to NCAA starter and now is back to scout, and the team and Theo in particular are benefiting from it. That is ideally how things work. Several kids on MU last tournament team pointed in particular to the role Sacar played on scout as being a part of their success. The kids understand the system better than the adults do I think.
If an individual does not like their role on a team they transfer. All part of the system we have which works. Kids will move to another level if they want to be the star and not the role player. So a kid like Sandy can go to Green Bay or STJr can go to Toledo and be the star and move on to the next level if they so choose. It is a great part of the system.
Finally there is a myth about the starving student athlete. Simply not true. Every single kid can go and get a summer job just like any other kid. Save their money and they will be fine. Lots of kids have to learn to budget and do things like that. It is part of growing up.
The other thing people are not taking into consideration is that when a student athlete graduates there is a whole world of companies, institutions etc that want to hire these kids. So even if the kid is not a star, there is a lifetime reward that comes with being part of something that is bigger than yourself. Part of the value to having a collegiate sport system is that many go on to greater success in life and bring back funds to the schools they originally played for.
So my position is no further compensation is needed. The system is working well for those who are actually in .
There is a part of me that partially agrees with the notion that the kids should be able to benefit from their image use. However, I think the limits on that should be relatively narrow and well defined., where the money goes into a pool divided among all the kids playing across the D1 spectrum. That way the star running back gets an endorsement but the lineman who block get a benefit as well. Also so that the buy team type programs get some benefit for getting their role in the system etc. Would really even things out and make the system better for all.
-
Finally there is a myth about the starving student athlete. Simply not true. Every single kid can go and get a summer job just like any other kid. Save their money and they will be fine. Lots of kids have to learn to budget and do things like that. It is part of growing up.
Yup, and it continues to live on. They can get jobs like anyone else...it is mind blowing how often this myth is repeated as fact.
-
That's an interesting idea HC. Let them profit off their likeness but it gets spread across to benefit all athletes. It doesn't address the top 1% being underpaid but it does give the student athletes more opportunities. I don't hate the idea
-
Finally there is a myth about the starving student athlete. Simply not true. Every single kid can go and get a summer job just like any other kid. Save their money and they will be fine. Lots of kids have to learn to budget and do things like that. It is part of growing up.
The great majority of high-level college athletes stay on campus for classes, camps and workouts during the summer. Now you want them to work at Jimmy John's, too?
And these "lots of other kids" of which you speak don't have nearly the amount of obligations high-level DI athletes do.
In other words, apples to oranges.
-
The great majority of high-level college athletes stay on campus for classes, camps and workouts during the summer. Now you want them to work at Jimmy John's, too?
And these "lots of other kids" of which you speak don't have nearly the amount of obligations high-level DI athletes do.
In other words, apples to oranges.
Actually you are partially making my point. The kids that stay at school get paid good money for working the camps, t is not charity work. The classes are condensed over 3/5 weeks and they frequently have other campus related opportunities to make money. The workouts happen whether or not they are on campus, and yes that is something other kids don't have to do . However, these athlete kids also have opportunities that other kids don't have such as giving private coaching sessions which can add up to very good coin .
A typical summer for one of my kids, was to take the first round of classes, workout with other student athletes, Work the school camps, coach on select teams and then because they were a coach, give private lessons, train little kids etc . Those coaching environments frequently led to summer internships in future years. Kids have a lot of energy and are resourceful.
-
That's an interesting idea HC. Let them profit off their likeness but it gets spread across to benefit all athletes. It doesn't address the top 1% being underpaid but it does give the student athletes more opportunities. I don't hate the idea
But those bitching that they don’t get theirs will have to share again....how are the bitchers not going to make the same argument they make now?
-
Anyone can go pro after their first year and make as much money as they can. Most won't because they understand the value of a free degree.
-
Herman, that was well stated
-
The great majority of high-level college athletes stay on campus for classes, camps and workouts during the summer. Now you want them to work at Jimmy John's, too?
And these "lots of other kids" of which you speak don't have nearly the amount of obligations high-level DI athletes do.
In other words, apples to oranges.
Those lots of other kids are also paying 40k in tuition. D1 athletes being starving is a laughable fallacy. They are leagues better off then an average student.
-
Here is my take on all of this. Based on having 3 kids in Division 1 athletics at the high end ACC and Big Ten level.
Kids are committing to play a team sport. They all know that from day 1 when they start in youth programs. Part of being on a team is the understanding of what the roles each player has . Again kids all know that over time.
We also have some experience here with one of our kids playing DI sports on a scholarship. A non-revenue sport, but the ideals you express here is how it worked in our experience.
There are some big time athletes that could go directly into the pros and make money, but my stance is why jeopardize the entire thing for such a small handful of people? It doesn't make sense in my view. Its a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist.
-
Aside from those constantly calling it a gift of $250K (or more) even though the vast, vast, vast majority of MU students pay nowhere near $250K out of pocket for 4 years at MU, all I'll say is this:
I'm not fond of black-or-white, no-nuance, my-way-or-the-highway arguments. However, if I had to take a side for just about any argument, I'd take Bilas over chicos.
-
Aside from those constantly calling it a gift of $250K (or more) even though the vast, vast, vast majority of MU students pay nowhere near $250K out of pocket for 4 years at MU, all I'll say is this:
I'm not fond of black-or-white, no-nuance, my-way-or-the-highway arguments. However, if I had to take a side for just about any argument, I'd take Bilas over chicos.
The $250K number is the university’s investment in each student athlete per year.
Do the vast majority of MU students eat on the same meal plan as the men’s basketball team? Do they receive the same academic support? Access to medical/training staff? Fly on a private jet to their intramural games?
There is a built in support staff behind the scenes at MU that helps bring out the best in our basketball team. What a star like Markus Howard does to increase revenues, helps pay the salaries of the countless behind the scenes support staff that help to make him better.
Again, being treated better than he would being paid millions playing in Europe.
-
Aside from those constantly calling it a gift of $250K (or more) even though the vast, vast, vast majority of MU students pay nowhere near $250K out of pocket for 4 years at MU, all I'll say is this:
I'm not fond of black-or-white, no-nuance, my-way-or-the-highway arguments. However, if I had to take a side for just about any argument, I'd take Bilas over chicos.
The $250k is more than just the tuition, but the other investment.
I’d take Erin Andrews in any argument over yours.
-
this thread is beating a dead horse at this point
-
The $250K number is the university’s investment in each student athlete per year.
Do the vast majority of MU students eat on the same meal plan as the men’s basketball team? Do they receive the same academic support? Access to medical/training staff? Fly on a private jet to their intramural games?
There is a built in support staff behind the scenes at MU that helps bring out the best in our basketball team. What a star like Markus Howard does to increase revenues, helps pay the salaries of the countless behind the scenes support staff that help to make him better.
Again, being treated better than he would being paid millions playing in Europe.
Well, when one starts with the premise that non-student-athletes pay anywhere near full freight, it is easy to get to an inflated total. My daughter went to Lawrence, a very good, small, private liberal arts college. We weren't rich at the time but we were nowhere near "needy." And yet we didn't even have to pay half of the "rack rate" for tuition.
But sure, student-athletes get all the trappings that go with a paid-for education, room and board, training, etc.
They also get used.
IMHO, the first step is to give athletes the same freedom coaches have; coaches do not have to sit out a season after they jump ship (usually lying to their athletes about loyalty until the very last minute, but that's neither here nor there). After that, maybe payment can be discussed, although I admit I can't think of any kind of payment system that would be equitable.
As for Markus helping raise money to pay for the support staff ...
When universities -- including public ones -- pay coaches 3, 5, 10, 20 times what they pay university presidents, prize-winning professors, etc, I'll be willing to listen a little more about how strapped athletic department budgets need to use athletes to pay for support staff.
-
this thread is beating a dead horse at this point
This is Scoop - it's what we do.
-
Well, when one starts with the premise that non-student-athletes pay anywhere near full freight, it is easy to get to an inflated total. My daughter went to Lawrence, a very good, small, private liberal arts college. We weren't rich at the time but we were nowhere near "needy." And yet we didn't even have to pay half of the "rack rate" for tuition.
But sure, student-athletes get all the trappings that go with a paid-for education, room and board, training, etc.
They also get used.
IMHO, the first step is to give athletes the same freedom coaches have; coaches do not have to sit out a season after they jump ship (usually lying to their athletes about loyalty until the very last minute, but that's neither here nor there). After that, maybe payment can be discussed, although I admit I can't think of any kind of payment system that would be equitable.
As for Markus helping raise money to pay for the support staff ...
When universities -- including public ones -- pay coaches 3, 5, 10, 20 times what they pay university presidents, prize-winning professors, etc, I'll be willing to listen a little more about how strapped athletic department budgets need to use athletes to pay for support staff.
Do you think most OSU alums knew who the football coach was last yeR or the president of the university? How about the award winning prof? Just asking what your guess would be.
I suspect the head coaches of every sport except for men’s basketball and football make significantly less than the university president.
-
Do you think most OSU alums knew who the football coach was last yeR or the president of the university? How about the award winning prof? Just asking what your guess would be.
I suspect the head coaches of every sport except for men’s basketball and football make significantly less than the university president.
It doesn't bother me that a coach makes more than the university president.
I just find it funny when folks talk about universities' athletic budgets being "cash-strapped" despite spending $5-10 million (or more) on their football coach and men's basketball coach, and at least that much (or more) on the rest of those sports' coaching staffs. Many schools now pay offensive and defensive coordinators $1 million apiece or more, and several schools pay their women's basketball coach 7 figures, too.
Players wear sneakers, advertising Nike or UA or adidas for the entire world to see ... but coaches get the sneaker money and players don't see a nickel of it.
Hey, I like people making money. I like making money as much as the next person, and I always want to make more.
But stop the hypocrisy. Either rein in the coaching salaries or stop claiming you don't have money to pay athletes.
How 'bout we start with them getting a cut of the very significant $$$ they bring in for being walking apparel advertisers? If the coaches, administrators and NCAA honchos actually care about the athlete-students as much as they claim they do, they would be happy to agree to this.
-
It doesn't bother me that a coach makes more than the university president.
I just find it funny when folks talk about universities' athletic budgets being "cash-strapped" despite spending $5-10 million (or more) on their football coach and men's basketball coach, and at least that much (or more) on the rest of those sports' coaching staffs. Many schools now pay offensive and defensive coordinators $1 million apiece or more, and several schools pay their women's basketball coach 7 figures, too.
Players wear sneakers, advertising Nike or UA or adidas for the entire world to see ... but coaches get the sneaker money and players don't see a nickel of it.
Hey, I like people making money. I like making money as much as the next person, and I always want to make more.
But stop the hypocrisy. Either rein in the coaching salaries or stop claiming you don't have money to pay athletes.
How 'bout we start with them getting a cut of the very significant $$$ they bring in for being walking apparel advertisers? If the coaches, administrators and NCAA honchos actually care about the athlete-students as much as they claim they do, they would be happy to agree to this.
Most of the cash strapped athletic departments are not paying their coaches like that. There are the profitable athletic departments that Billas and others point to as the examples, but they are in the minority. Most departments are propped up by student fees and other subsidies from the university and would be operating in the red. I find it equally hypocritical that Bilas and others don’t want to talk about situation with so many departments that don’t have the means and conveniently are never used in the examples they wish to give.
-
Most of the cash strapped athletic departments are not paying their coaches like that. There are the profitable athletic departments that Billas and others point to as the examples, but they are in the minority. Most departments are propped up by student fees and other subsidies from the university and would be operating in the red. I find it equally hypocritical that Bilas and others don’t want to talk about situation with so many departments that don’t have the means and conveniently are never used in the examples they wish to give.
OK.
Have a nice day, chicos.
-
OK.
Have a nice day, chicos.
Sorry 82 but I mostly agree with Chicos on this one. We love to point at the Alabamas and Michigans of the world and say "see they are rich." But they make up the elite 1%. Unless you are going to make different rules for different programs, you have to factor in how the 99% would be impacted by proposed changes. Pretty much all D2 and D3 programs are charity cases. Most athletic departments outside the P5 are in the red. If you treat all schools like you treat the P5 you will end up taking away thousands of opportunities from student-athletes at smaller programs.
I love Bilas but he purposefully puts blinders on and ignores everyone but the star football and men's basketball players at D1 P5/6 schools. Yes, those stars are underpaid for their services. But everyone else is fairly or overpaid for their services. If you truly paid the stars what they are worth, that money would have to come from somewhere, and all the other players would suffer as a result.
-
Sorry 82 but I mostly agree with Chicos on this one. We love to point at the Alabamas and Michigans of the world and say "see they are rich." But they make up the elite 1%. Unless you are going to make different rules for different programs, you have to factor in how the 99% would be impacted by proposed changes. Pretty much all D2 and D3 programs are charity cases. Most athletic departments outside the P5 are in the red. If you treat all schools like you treat the P5 you will end up taking away thousands of opportunities from student-athletes at smaller programs.
I love Bilas but he purposefully puts blinders on and ignores everyone but the star football and men's basketball players at D1 P5/6 schools. Yes, those stars are underpaid for their services. But everyone else is fairly or overpaid for their services. If you truly paid the stars what they are worth, that money would have to come from somewhere, and all the other players would suffer as a result.
No need to apologize. We all are allowed opinions. I never mind a respectful disagreement and intelligent discussion, and I know you don't either.
As for where money should come from, as I said, let's start with the apparel manufacturers. Shift that $$$ from the coaches to the athlete-students -- the people who are being used as running, jumping, dunking, tackling billboards. It would be a start. And given how the coaches talk so beautifully about how much they love their athlete-students, we all know they'd be happy to do this.
-
Sorry 82 but I mostly agree with Chicos on this one. We love to point at the Alabamas and Michigans of the world and say "see they are rich." But they make up the elite 1%. Unless you are going to make different rules for different programs, you have to factor in how the 99% would be impacted by proposed changes. Pretty much all D2 and D3 programs are charity cases. Most athletic departments outside the P5 are in the red. If you treat all schools like you treat the P5 you will end up taking away thousands of opportunities from student-athletes at smaller programs.
I love Bilas but he purposefully puts blinders on and ignores everyone but the star football and men's basketball players at D1 P5/6 schools. Yes, those stars are underpaid for their services. But everyone else is fairly or overpaid for their services. If you truly paid the stars what they are worth, that money would have to come from somewhere, and all the other players would suffer as a result.
So, in essence, you guys are in favor of asystem in which the success of wealthy entities (i.e. Alabama, Michigan) and the labor of elite individuals (top DI players) subsidize the poor and less talented?
Philosophical question ... why do schools that are unable to compete, both on the field and financially, have to field DI programs? If they cannot be self-sustaining, why should others (other programs, non-athlete students, etc.) prop them up? Why not let the programs that can't cut it simply go away?
If your answer is "because if gives kids a chance to attend college," couldn't a school just as easily direct that funding to financial aid for deserving students, where it would go much farther without the additional costs of running a sports program, i.e. staff, equipment, travel, etc.? And, let's be honest, outside the two big revenue-producing sports, most athletic scholarships aren't going to needy kids. They're going to kids whose parents could afford the huge costs of travel soccer and hockey, golf and tennis tutors, and so on.
-
So, in essence, you guys are in favor of asystem in which the success of wealthy entities (i.e. Alabama, Michigan) and the labor of elite individuals (top DI players) subsidize the poor and less talented?
Yes. Though I am in favor of exploring new ways to allow the elites to profit from outside entities.
Philosophical question ... why do schools that are unable to compete, both on the field and financially, have to field DI programs? If they cannot be self-sustaining, why should others (other programs, non-athlete students, etc.) prop them up? Why not let the programs that can't cut it simply go away?
If your answer is "because if gives kids a chance to attend college," couldn't a school just as easily direct that funding to financial aid for deserving students, where it would go much farther without the additional costs of running a sports program, i.e. staff, equipment, travel, etc.? And, let's be honest, outside the two big revenue-producing sports, most athletic scholarships aren't going to needy kids. They're going to kids whose parents could afford the huge costs of travel soccer and hockey, golf and tennis tutors, and so on.
I think college athletics is a worthwhile investment to the collegiate experience of a student. I don't want only the very wealthy or very talented to get the experience of playing for or cheering on their school in a sporting event. I think there are reasonable limits, not every school should have every varsity program and schools shouldn't have bloated athletic budgets that are not proportional to the needs of their students, etc. But I am in favor of most schools having some level of a varsity athletics program.
-
Yes. Though I am in favor of exploring new ways to allow the elites to profit from outside entities.
I think college athletics is a worthwhile investment to the collegiate experience of a student. I don't want only the very wealthy or very talented to get the experience of playing for or cheering on their school in a sporting event. I think there are reasonable limits, not every school should have every varsity program and schools shouldn't have bloated athletic budgets that are not proportional to the needs of their students, etc. But I am in favor of most schools having some level of a varsity athletics program.
I hear ya, TAMU. But ...
My daughter went to a D3 school. They had varsity programs in a couple dozen sports (she played for one, and was a student trainer for another). Students were encouraged to both play for and cheer on the school's athletic teams.
Pretty much every school at every level offers intercollegiate sports as "a worthwhile investment to the collegiate experience of a student," just like her school did and continues to do. They do so without busting the budget.
Hundreds of thousands of kids go to those schools every year and benefit from this experience (if they choose to) without kowtowing to the hypocrisy of big-time college athletics.
Admission: I am glad I attended a school with a big-time basketball program, and obviously I love cheering on our Warriors to this day. However, if all schools competed as in the D3 model, I would have found other ways to show school spirit when I was there, and I would have no less of a complete life now.
An aside: My daughter's freshman year, the men's basketball team at her school was the last undefeated hoops team at any level in the entire country (I think they got to 31-0 before losing in the national quarterfinals) and received national pub because of it. I went to several of the games, and the gym was packed with students cheering mightily. Admission was free, the atmosphere was electric. Somehow that all took place without a $5 million-per-year coach, a bunch of high-6-figure assistants, a multizillion-dollar recruiting budget, private jet, luxurious locker room, jock-sniffing boosters and athlete-students only pretending to care about academics.
If you're gonna run college sports as if they were pro sports, pay the competitors who make it possible. If you just want the "collegiate sports experience" for students, stop running things like the pros.
-
Sorry 82 but I mostly agree with Chicos on this one. We love to point at the Alabamas and Michigans of the world and say "see they are rich." But they make up the elite 1%. Unless you are going to make different rules for different programs, you have to factor in how the 99% would be impacted by proposed changes. Pretty much all D2 and D3 programs are charity cases. Most athletic departments outside the P5 are in the red. If you treat all schools like you treat the P5 you will end up taking away thousands of opportunities from student-athletes at smaller programs.
I love Bilas but he purposefully puts blinders on and ignores everyone but the star football and men's basketball players at D1 P5/6 schools. Yes, those stars are underpaid for their services. But everyone else is fairly or overpaid for their services. If you truly paid the stars what they are worth, that money would have to come from somewhere, and all the other players would suffer as a result.
I am sorry for the abuse you will now take. And yes, you and I think the same on this matter. I saw it first hand for 6 years. I see it now with the arrangements we have had with Pac 12, Oklahoma, Georgia Tech, NCAA, Stanford, San Diego State and 15+ other NCAA institutions. People love to shape the argument about the 1%, and by doing so they are going to kill opportunities for hundreds of thousands of kids, more than half women and a huge chunk that are minorities if this thinking continues to go down the path some want it to go.
The pie isn’t endless, the dollars are not forever, and as long as we as a society find value in offering other sports opportunities for women and men that don’t make money, this is the situation we are in for better or worse.
-
So, in essence, you guys are in favor of asystem in which the success of wealthy entities (i.e. Alabama, Michigan) and the labor of elite individuals (top DI players) subsidize the poor and less talented?
Philosophical question ... why do schools that are unable to compete, both on the field and financially, have to field DI programs? If they cannot be self-sustaining, why should others (other programs, non-athlete students, etc.) prop them up? Why not let the programs that can't cut it simply go away?
If your answer is "because if gives kids a chance to attend college," couldn't a school just as easily direct that funding to financial aid for deserving students, where it would go much farther without the additional costs of running a sports program, i.e. staff, equipment, travel, etc.? And, let's be honest, outside the two big revenue-producing sports, most athletic scholarships aren't going to needy kids. They're going to kids whose parents could afford the huge costs of travel soccer and hockey, golf and tennis tutors, and so on.
Even this is skewed in how you portray it. Alabama women’s soccer isn’t making money, nor is Michigan volleyball or Swimming....add every other non revenue sport even to those schools that do turn a profit and they only turn a profit because of football and men’s basketball.
But in a nutshell, yes and HELL yes....that’s what I support. Maybe it is because I have worked day to day with non revenue athletes for a portion of my career, maybe it is because in my current role I have two D1 female minority employees that ran track....their experiences are heart warming and it made them better people, better organized, better employees (team work), and amazing drive. I value their athletic experiences greatly as part of their overall essence of who they are as people.
I don’t want those opportunities taken away. The financial aid argument you state, if I am hearing you or undestanding you correctly, takes away what sport is all about. Whether as an individual or team member, the ability to represent their school and achieve personal and school goals is gone. I want young people to have that opportunity and if that means the 1% of the 1% are slightly and TEMPORARILY not getting fair value, well then that’s what it means.
For most of the future pros, they will get theirs. Also, there are kids that were not destined for pro sports when they started college (Chris Crawford), but the schools and coaching made them get there....that is value added to the student athlete. We seem to over focus on the guy that is ready day one. The Rarest of the rare. We seldom concentrate on the guy that will never play a single minute after graduation, or is developed BECAUSE he or she went to school.
Give me a model that doesn’t lose opportunities for these student athletes at ALL levels, that also provides a platform for the elite and is legally compliant That is different than the current model and I’m all ears. I haven’t seen it. It almost always means removal of opportunities for student athletes to benefit the very few.
-
I am sorry for the abuse you will now take. And yes, you and I think the same on this matter. I saw it first hand for 6 years. I see it now with the arrangements we have had with Pac 12, Oklahoma, Georgia Tech, NCAA, Stanford, San Diego State and 15+ other NCAA institutions. People love to shape the argument about the 1%, and by doing so they are going to kill opportunities for hundreds of thousands of kids, more than half women and a huge chunk that are minorities if this thinking continues to go down the path some want it to go.
UConn football lost $13 million in 2017. How many deserving students could get full rides with that kind of money? I'd venture to guess way more than the 85 on the football team.
And, as I pointed out earlier, the great majority of recipients of athletic scholarships aren't underprivileged kids who coulnd't go to college otherwise. So, it's really only a relatively few - and mostly in the revenue producing/higher profile sports - who would lose opportunities without athletic scholarships. And those losses could easily would be outweighed by rededicating wasted money to academic and need-based aid.
I'm all for college sports and think schools that can do so in a self-sustaining way, or at least with reasonable losses, absolutely should.
-
I don’t want those opportunities taken away. The financial aid argument you state, if I am hearing you or undestanding you correctly, takes away what sport is all about. Whether as an individual or team member, the ability to represent their school and achieve personal and school goals is gone.
UConn (and ultimately the state's taxpayers) and its nonathlete students subsidized its athletic department to the tune of $38.5 million in 2017.
Is that a reasonable price to pay for giving a couple hundred kids the chance to achieve personal goals and represent the school?
And it's not just UConn. Nonathletes at dozens of schools spend hundreds of millions every year so a select few of their peers can "achieve their personal goals" in sports nobody cares about. You justify this how?
Again, I'm all for self-sustaining athletic departments, and even those that get by with a small loss. But taking large sums of money from other students and taxpayers so little Susie and Johnny can play field hockey and golf is inherently dumb and unfair.
-
82, I don't think "every school should play at the D3 level" is an appropriate solution. Again, that's sacrificing the 99% because the 1% are underpaid. I'd rather explore "how do we make the pie bigger" so we can pay the 1% more than "let's blow up the pie" so no one gets to eat pie.
I have no idea how the apparel money to coaches that you mentioned works. I would love it if outside entities got to pay student-athletes for wearing their gear. Or just letting players go pro straight out of high school so no one is being underpaid. Those make more sense to me then slashing athletic budgets and giving them to a handful of basketball and football players.
-
UConn (and ultimately the state's taxpayers) and its nonathlete students subsidized its athletic department to the tune of $38.5 million in 2017.
Is that a reasonable price to pay for giving a couple hundred kids the chance to achieve personal goals and represent the school?
And it's not just UConn. Nonathletes at dozens of schools spend hundreds of millions every year so a select few of their peers can "achieve their personal goals" in sports nobody cares about. You justify this how?
Again, I'm all for self-sustaining athletic departments, and even those that get by with a small loss. But taking large sums of money from other students and taxpayers so little Susie and Johnny can play field hockey and golf is inherently dumb and unfair.
UConn is the most glaring example. But, if it results in a P5 offer like they think it will, then all of that subsidizing will pay long term benefits. If it doesn't, the market will eventually self correct and force UConn to drop football.
-
UConn is the most glaring example. But, if it results in a P5 offer like they think it will, then all of that subsidizing will pay long term benefits.
Perhaps the most glaring example, but far from the only. Over five years, Georgia State nonathletes subsidized the athletic department to the tune of $90 million. And that's a school without P5 aspirations.
Colorado State's athletic department was subsidized through more than $15 million from the university and another $5.8 million from students in 2017.
As for UConn and its P5 dreams, would it be fair to say that the longer that athletic department runs the way it has, the more diminished those dreams become? And given its location and football program, I already can't imagine UConn is high on the list for any P5 conference.
-
UConn football lost $13 million in 2017. How many deserving students could get full rides with that kind of money? I'd venture to guess way more than the 85 on the football team.
And, as I pointed out earlier, the great majority of recipients of athletic scholarships aren't underprivileged kids who coulnd't go to college otherwise. So, it's really only a relatively few - and mostly in the revenue producing/higher profile sports - who would lose opportunities without athletic scholarships. And those losses could easily would be outweighed by rededicating wasted money to academic and need-based aid.
I'm all for college sports and think schools that can do so in a self-sustaining way, or at least with reasonable losses, absolutely should.
Yup, again going after the extreme case. Acknowledged and you can find the extremes all day and all night long. Stipulated.
You know I can come back with a number of my own examples how states and state schools spend money to do the same thing....right? One's man's outrage of college sports is another man's outrage at studying cow fart impacts or courses like "What if Harry Potter was Real?", "Lady Gaga and the Sociology of Fame". Look, all kinds of things are subject to value and investment, some things in society are improper....I can easily make an argument we should never put one dime toward anything that is entertainment / sports based. Same can be said of a number of things in life.
-
UConn (and ultimately the state's taxpayers) and its nonathlete students subsidized its athletic department to the tune of $38.5 million in 2017.
Is that a reasonable price to pay for giving a couple hundred kids the chance to achieve personal goals and represent the school?
And it's not just UConn. Nonathletes at dozens of schools spend hundreds of millions every year so a select few of their peers can "achieve their personal goals" in sports nobody cares about. You justify this how?
Again, I'm all for self-sustaining athletic departments, and even those that get by with a small loss. But taking large sums of money from other students and taxpayers so little Susie and Johnny can play field hockey and golf is inherently dumb and unfair.
It may be dumb and unfair, so are a lot of things. What if a bunch of people said they don't want to subsidize poor people, or anyone under a 3.75 high school GPA? What if there are large swaths of people that say any "______ studies" program should be cut as they are "dumb and unfair" and those dollars should be spent on more important (who gets to decide) academic pursuits? Hopefully you see that your argument on this is no different if we substitute athletics for something else that others find dumb and unfair.
The one thing athletics does do is build brand, give alumni and perspective students something to rally around in larger numbers. Whether it is a soccer game, lacrosse, football, hockey, etc. Sure, some sports have almost no attendance.....can't the same be said about many other programs subsidized by the school / taxpayer? Yup.
-
It may be dumb and unfair, so are a lot of things.
Can't top that that justification.
-
Perhaps the most glaring example, but far from the only. Over five years, Georgia State nonathletes subsidized the athletic department to the tune of $90 million. And that's a school without P5 aspirations.
Colorado State's athletic department was subsidized through more than $15 million from the university and another $5.8 million from students in 2017.
As for UConn and its P5 dreams, would it be fair to say that the longer that athletic department runs the way it has, the more diminished those dreams become? And given its location and football program, I already can't imagine UConn is high on the list for any P5 conference.
What if a tiny school in Indiana didn't invest in football, would Notre Dame be an internationally know institution? How about a small, urban school in Milwaukee? One in Spokane, WA? How about a small campus in Durham, NC? A number of these programs were subsidized at one point, some still are by students / university.....did they pay off for the schools? Was it a smart move to solidify the school's future? How about some state schools....Boise State, wonder how much that blue football field cost and how many people thought it was ridiculous at one point. Texas A&M, a punch line for many years, has leveraged athletics into raising its level of prestige in part due to athletics and is now a great institution....not the sole reason, but in part one of the reasons.
Yes, a lot of schools are trying to capture that lightning in the bottle, and will fail. UCONN is an example, others do it too. Yup. It happens. But there have been enough that did capture it, that is the allure. Grand Canyon Valley is trying it. UCSD, totally against athletics for years, is now trying to up their game and within 15 years become a player on the west coast to raise their visibility by going D1. It may not work....but it may.
-
UConn (and ultimately the state's taxpayers) and its nonathlete students subsidized its athletic department to the tune of $38.5 million in 2017.
Is that a reasonable price to pay for giving a couple hundred kids the chance to achieve personal goals and represent the school?
And it's not just UConn. Nonathletes at dozens of schools spend hundreds of millions every year so a select few of their peers can "achieve their personal goals" in sports nobody cares about. You justify this how?
Again, I'm all for self-sustaining athletic departments, and even those that get by with a small loss. But taking large sums of money from other students and taxpayers so little Susie and Johnny can play field hockey and golf is inherently dumb and unfair.
The non revenue “ Olympic Sports” as some schools refer to them are not very expensive in the greater scheme of things and have a proven track record of developing alumni who are successful in a broad range of endeavors and end up giving back to the schools.
The big money loser for most schools is BCS level football. I think it is widely recognized U Conn went down an unwise path to pursue that dream of football success. Unfortunately for them there is no one willing to pull the plug on the program and thus they continue to bleed red ink.
I think The sustainable college athletic model is one like the Big East where football is at the individual schools choice and is primarily non scholarship FCS. All the Big East schools are doing very well with their non basketball sports and in general school spirit and alumni enthusiasm is at very high levels.
-
82, I don't think "every school should play at the D3 level" is an appropriate solution. Again, that's sacrificing the 99% because the 1% are underpaid. I'd rather explore "how do we make the pie bigger" so we can pay the 1% more than "let's blow up the pie" so no one gets to eat pie.
I have no idea how the apparel money to coaches that you mentioned works. I would love it if outside entities got to pay student-athletes for wearing their gear. Or just letting players go pro straight out of high school so no one is being underpaid. Those make more sense to me then slashing athletic budgets and giving them to a handful of basketball and football players.
I wasn't suggesting that every school play at the D3 level. I was just saying that these bazillion-dollar sports enterprises stuffed inside what are supposed to be institutes of higher learning are not the only way to provide what you call "a worthwhile investment to the collegiate experience of a student."
And I don't know how it would work to shift shoe money to athlete-students. I don't have the answers. I'm just trying to brainstorm a little, because I do not think the current set-up is equitable.
Whenever I think of issues like these, I almost always choose to err on the side of supporting the athlete-students, without whom college sports could not exist.
As usual, TAMU, I appreciate the tone of your posts. Even when I don't agree entirely, I usually learn something from you.