MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: Tugg Speedman on April 11, 2014, 08:09:22 AM
-
Has NCAA President Vladimir Putin commented on this?
Kentucky's John Calipari: NCAA Is Crumbling Like the Soviet Union
Wildcats Coach Outlines Plan for Helping College Athletes in New Book
The Wall Street Journal
April 8, 2014
by Ben Cohen
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303847804579479863693200386?KEYWORDS=calipari&mg=reno64-wsj
ARLINGTON, Texas—Kentucky basketball coach John Calipari likens the NCAA to a dying superpower and believes the college-sports governing body faces extinction unless it embraces reform.
"The situation reminds me a little of the Soviet Union in its last years," Calipari writes in a forthcoming book. "It was still powerful. It could still hurt you. But you could see it crumbling, and it was just a matter of time before it either changed or ceased to exist."
Calipari, whose Kentucky team lost to Connecticut in college basketball's national-championship game Monday night, is the latest prominent figure to join the chorus of critics who argue that the NCAA takes unfair advantage of athletes. The organization is currently facing a possible trial in June in a case regarding athlete compensation. Earlier this month, a National Labor Relations Board ruling designated Northwestern's scholarship football players as employees and awarded them the right to unionize.
Calipari's book, "Players First: Coaching From the Inside Out" (Penguin Press) will be published on April 15. In it, Calipari—a frequent critic of the NCAA who has had previous wins vacated for player-eligibility violations—outlines a 13-point plan for improving the experience of big-time college athletes in a chapter called "At War? Common Sense Versus the NCAA." Calipari accuses the NCAA of selectively enforcing its own rules and hints at a future when college sports are governed by "super-conferences" instead of the NCAA. "I believe the tide is turning," he writes. "The NCAA will soon have to reform itself or it will not remain the dominant force in college athletics."
In a news conference Sunday, NCAA president Mark Emmert said he agreed his organization needed to change and said he was encouraged by some recent initiatives meant to increase athlete rights and include them in the NCAA's legislative process. "There are things that need to get fixed," he said. But Emmert shot down many of the most radical ideas—including players forming unions.
NCAA officials declined to comment beyond what Emmert said on Sunday, a spokeswoman said Tuesday morning.
Among Calipari's suggestions for enhancing the life of college athletes is one that other high-profile coaches have recommended: a $3,000 to $5,000 stipend for players to cover the full cost of attending a university. So far, this policy shift has been voted down by smaller schools. Big 12 Conference commissioner Bob Bowlsby said Sunday the NCAA should consider redefining scholarships, "but the devil's in the details of that," he said. "It's not as easy to do as it may seem, even if we're willing, and we certainly are willing."
Calipari also lobbies for the NCAA to cover eligible players' insurance premiums and allow college athletes to accept loans against future earnings up to $50,000. Such a benefit currently violates the NCAA's amateurism rules.
Many of Calipari's recommendations reflect the growing movement to expand athlete rights. If a coach leaves his team, Calipari says, players should be permitted to transfer without sitting out for one season, as NCAA rules currently require. In addition, Calipari urges the NCAA to allow players the money for one round-trip flight home every year, access to lawyers and funds for formal attire to wear when representing the school.
Calipari has a history of run-ins with the NCAA. His teams at the University of Massachusetts and the University of Memphis, where he coached before taking the Kentucky job in 2009, had Final Four trips vacated for eligibility violations. In 2011, when Kentucky celebrated Calipari's 500th career win, the NCAA objected on the grounds that some of his previous wins had been vacated. In the book, Calipari acknowledges that he has been cast as a "black hat." He says the NCAA has rejected his suggestions on several fronts, such as changing eligibility rules to prevent "one-and-done" players in college basketball.
"I think we could have gotten somewhere with me as the point man, but the NCAA was not interested in my help," he writes. "The message I got, between the lines, was, 'No, not you. Not Calipari. We don't want him involved.'"
As part of his plan, Calipari calls for an overhaul of the organization's oversight. He advocates for the NCAA to shift its compliance and enforcement offices to the conference level or form a separate body with subpoena power, which the NCAA lacks, and asks that its investigations be handled anonymously.
Currently, the NCAA's regulations are so wide-ranging that they include when and how much schools can feed athletes—the sort of control that Calipari says should be shifted to universities. "Is the NCAA afraid we're going to make them fat? Give them too much ice cream and chocolate cake?" he writes. "The whole thing really defies sanity."
Calipari's other proposals are part of what he calls a "common sense" initiative. He would let families purchase championship rings and stay in the same hotels as players during events like the NCAA tournament. He also requests an NCAA exemption to give his players Christmas gifts that cost less than $50.
Calipari's proposals come as the NCAA is sorting out the ramifications of a decision by a regional director of the NLRB who ruled that Northwestern's scholarship football players were employees of the school and had the right to unionize. While it's not clear whether a union will form or what it would ask for, the ruling could upend the current structure of college sports. Northwestern's players are scheduled to vote on forming a union on April 25, and the school plans to appeal the decision to the NLRB's national board. Legal experts caution the case could spend years in litigation. Even if the ruling is upheld, its scope is narrow and pertains only to private universities, since public schools are exempt from federal labor laws.
Emmert sharply criticized the ruling Sunday, saying a union was a "grossly inappropriate solution" that would "blow up everything about the collegiate model of athletics."
The NCAA's control of college sports is under attack in the courts, too. An antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA brought by former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon, certified as a class action, is scheduled for a June trial. Prominent sports attorney Jeffrey Kessler also sued the NCAA last month in an attempt to allow Division I football and men's basketball players to negotiate compensation. The two sides of the O'Bannon case met twice in March for settlement talks, according to court documents. A federal judge recently granted the plaintiff's request to include the NLRB ruling in the case.
O'Bannon's lawsuit goes unmentioned in Calipari's latest book, his fourth.
"I don't endorse all of what the NCAA critics say," Calipari writes. "But I don't think the organization—and the institution of college sports—would be under such attack if we made some of the common-sense changes that I, and many others, are recommending."
-
I agree with every single thing he says.
And if anyone chimes in that smaller schools wouldn't be able to compete etc etc etc, please let me know when Loyola-Chicago or Detroit Mercy have their own version of the AL or the Bradley Center.
-
He makes some excellent points. I don't think I'm alone in not being a big Calipari fan, but this could change my mind. Even if he is just trying to stick it to the organization that has repeatedly labeled him a cheater, I think he is right. Agreeing with Calipari is an odd start to the day.
The past couple years I've been much more cognizant of the exploitation inherent to my favorite sport. College basketball and football are certain to be much different in five years. I hope they find a reasonable solution that preserves the excitement of college athletics and does right by the athletes. I fear there is too much money involved for people to act reasonably.
-
SUPERBAR
-
His idea on creating a new body with subpoena power....how is he going to do this, with pixie dust? Of course everyone wants the NCAA to have it, but that doesn't mean they get to have it or any other body. Subpoena power is a writ for a government agency....the NCAA isn't a gov't agency, so as much as I support like crazy the desire for the NCAA to have subpoena power, his suggestion to merely create a body that has that power seems naive at best.
$3k to $5K? And what is it a few years from now? $5k to $10K? You know that's going to do nothing but keep getting worse. Golf athletes getting this also? Female softball players? Track and Field?
I have no problem with the loan idea in principle, but talk about the Pandora's box that is going to open. Afterall, nothing screams responsibility like a bunch of prima donna's aged 18 to 22. Can't wait to hear the stories of the money borrowed what it is spent on and then the player busts out and can't pay it back.
His common sense ideas about hotel stays, championship rings...whatever. That's a non-issue.
-
His common sense ideas about hotel stays, championship rings...whatever. That's a non-issue.
Obviously it is an issue because it keeps getting requested and nothing changes.
The NCAA doesn't have to do exactly what Calipari says, but they have to do something. And someone with some power that represents the best interests of the student athletes should be involved - if that has to be a Northwestern players union because the NCAA and the conferences can't look past their greed enough to do it themselves then so be it.
-
Afterall, nothing screams responsibility like a bunch of prima donna's aged 18 to 22.
As opposed to the "responsible" middle aged people who are even bigger prima donna's? Please...Just look at scoop.
-
$3k to $5K? And what is it a few years from now? $5k to $10K?
If it is pegged to inflation or some index of the 'actual' cost to attend college (I'm sure the FAFSA people have one) that is exactly what will happen.
-
As opposed to the "responsible" middle aged people who are even bigger prima donna's? Please...Just look at scoop.
So you're advocating for the 2 wrongs make a right model? :D
I'm not sure I buy the "NCAA HAS TO DO SOMETHING" argument either. That's half of what keeps getting this country in a mess. You "fix" something without knowing the unintended consequences and you create an even bigger issue. Nothing is ever fixed, but people feel all warm and fuzzy in their bellies at night for a few weeks feeling like they did something...that is until those that were "helped" say it isn't enough and want more.
To me, the solution is simple. These are the rules, deal with them. If you don't like the rules, go somewhere else. If enough of the best players say they won't play, then the NBA can change the NBDL rules to allow them to come in one year earlier. They can get their $3K to $5K per month, not even per academic year. Put the onus on the NBA to stop freeloading off the NCAA. Kids that want the college experience, will go to college. Kids that don't care about school, go somewhere else.
-
How about a salary cap on coaches salaries? How would Calipari feel about that?
-
So you're advocating for the 2 wrongs make a right model? :D
I'm not sure I buy the "NCAA HAS TO DO SOMETHING" argument either. That's have of what keeps getting this country in a mess. You "fix" something without knowing the unintended consequences and you create an even bigger issue. Nothing is ever fixed, but people feel all warm and fuzzy in their bellies at night for a few weeks feeling like they did something...that is until those that were "helped" say it isn't enough and want more.
To me, the solution is simple. These are the rules, deal with them. If you don't like the rules, go somewhere else. If enough of the best players say they won't play, then the NBA can change the NBDL rules to allow them to come in one year earlier. They can get their $3K to $5K per month, not even per academic year. Put the onus on the NBA to stop freeloading off the NCAA. Kids that want the college experience, will go to college. Kids that don't care about school, go somewhere else.
Hmmm ... the "our way or the highway" approach. You then think that current rules treat the athletes 100% fairly then?
I'm not being a jerk here (or at least not trying to be). I seriously am asking this.
-
So you're advocating for the 2 wrongs make a right model? :D
I'm not sure I buy the "NCAA HAS TO DO SOMETHING" argument either. That's have of what keeps getting this country in a mess. You "fix" something without knowing the unintended consequences and you create an even bigger issue. Nothing is ever fixed, but people feel all warm and fuzzy in their bellies at night for a few weeks feeling like they did something...that is until those that were "helped" say it isn't enough and want more.
To me, the solution is simple. These are the rules, deal with them. If you don't like the rules, go somewhere else. If enough of the best players say they won't play, then the NBA can change the NBDL rules to allow them to come in one year earlier. They can get their $3K to $5K per month, not even per academic year. Put the onus on the NBA to stop freeloading off the NCAA. Kids that want the college experience, will go to college. Kids that don't care about school, go somewhere else.
I think you are missing the point behind why Calipari and others are saying that the NCAA has to do something. It's not simply a matter of making it better, it's about survival. People don't like the rules and they will start going somewhere else if the rules are not adapted. Over the past couple years we have seen athletes successfully challenge the rules on individual likeness, expanded influence of the BCS, the movement to unionize, and a push by people like Mark Cuban to expand developmental leagues to undercut the NCAA. This isn't simply a matter of change for the sake of change.
I don't necessarily have enough knowledge of the NCAA to say whether or not I agree with all of Calipari's proposed solutions, but I agree with the general premise that the NCAA appears to be on the verge of collapse. I certainly don't think it's in the NCAA's best interest to stubbornly cling to the status quo. Some changes are probably necessary if they hope to survive.
-
$3k to $5K? And what is it a few years from now? $5k to $10K? You know that's going to do nothing but keep getting worse. Golf athletes getting this also? Female softball players? Track and Field?
I'm kind of agreeing to his most of his points, but no so much this part. I don't want to see college athletes get paid and I think the point of $3k to $5K is to pay for airfare, family visits, little things in life that other college students etc. so instead of giving a blank check of this amount allow for the school to cover a specified quantity of these type expenses. Allow the athletes to work summer jobs.
The problem with $3k to $5K is everyone who speaks of it is really only talking about football and basketball and not the zillion other NCAA sports. If you only give scholarships regardless of sport you are being fair to a degree, but when you start paying some and not wanting to pay others now you've moved beyond near equal. There is TITLE IX and you pay football players are you going to pay 85 women student-athletes in a non-revenue generating college sport to compensate?
-
The NBA is in talks with the NCAA already about this issue and seems to not have an issue with paying players. Yes, the NBA will open up its pocket books and even have a 2 and done rule.
http://msn.foxsports.com/ohio/story/silver-says-nba-could-help-college-players-040914
-
The NBA is in talks with the NCAA already about this issue and seems to not have an issue with paying players. Yes, the NBA will open up its pocket books and even have a 2 and done rule.
http://msn.foxsports.com/ohio/story/silver-says-nba-could-help-college-players-040914
Chicos votes No. Give money to poor people who are making millions for the schools? No way ;D
-
Chicos votes No. Give money to poor people who are making millions for the schools? No way ;D
Poor People are the accelerators of the economy. Put money into their hands and it's spent within no time.
-
Hmmm ... the "our way or the highway" approach. You then think that current rules treat the athletes 100% fairly then?
I'm not being a jerk here (or at least not trying to be). I seriously am asking this.
How is it any different than the extortion threat they are using....our way or the highway and we'll break away underlying threat?
Do I think athletes are treated fairly? Yes.
A scholarship valued at $80K to $300K if they go through graduation
Often an admission to a school they couldn't even get into....priceless
Access to free tutors and mentors
Access to some of the finest coaches in the country
A training ground (for some sports) to help them cash in for their careers down the road to make huge money (potentially)
Free rooming, free food, free clothing and gear
Access to an alumni base and the powerful that most people don't get a chance to have = post graduate jobs, business relationships, etc
Travel
Etc
They get hard costs taken care of and its hard to even put a value tag on the benefits they get post school either through connections, etc.
When you say "athletes", I'd also like to know who you mean because it sure seems to me that 99% of the time people are talking about the 50,000 Football and basketball players and not the other 400,000 student athletes from all the other sports.
-
If it is pegged to inflation or some index of the 'actual' cost to attend college (I'm sure the FAFSA people have one) that is exactly what will happen.
That always works out great. I can hear it now "but but but it costs so much more to go to school at St. John's than Nebraska, so I deserve a larger increase". Quite frankly, they would be exactly correct in that argument. Our tax system, SS payouts, etc should work the same way, but they don't.
As for the "actual cost" to attend college, I can't wait to see that itemized list and especially the discretionary items which are just that...discretionary but will now all of a sudden be deemed necessary and part of the actual cost.
-
Chicos votes No. Give money to poor people who are making millions for the schools? No way ;D
Seems a bit of a broad statement...didn't realize only poor people are making "millions" for the schools.....and what about the schools not making millions at all that actually lose money? Again, too many here focusing on the top 10% not the bigger picture.
I guess these "poor people" aren't getting anything out of the deal :o
-
I think you are missing the point behind why Calipari and others are saying that the NCAA has to do something. It's not simply a matter of making it better, it's about survival. People don't like the rules and they will start going somewhere else if the rules are not adapted. Over the past couple years we have seen athletes successfully challenge the rules on individual likeness, expanded influence of the BCS, the movement to unionize, and a push by people like Mark Cuban to expand developmental leagues to undercut the NCAA. This isn't simply a matter of change for the sake of change.
I don't necessarily have enough knowledge of the NCAA to say whether or not I agree with all of Calipari's proposed solutions, but I agree with the general premise that the NCAA appears to be on the verge of collapse. I certainly don't think it's in the NCAA's best interest to stubbornly cling to the status quo. Some changes are probably necessary if they hope to survive.
I get it just fine, basically lower your standards, bend your rules or change them....it sounds like American Catholics.
You're basically arguing that if changes aren't made, they take their ball and go elsewhere. Fine. Go elsewhere.
Lastly, why on earth is it so hard for people to process the most important point in all of this. The NCAA is an ASSOCIATION. The schools are its members, the NCAA is a body that enforces the rules, administers the champions, but it functions at the behest of its membership...the SCHOOLS.
If the schools want to make changes, then there will be changes. Don't blame the NCAA, blame the schools. If the HAVES believe the HAVE NOTS are wielding too much power and diluting their votes to get legislation passed, then the HAVES will do something about it.
It is a bit ironic seeing certain people here back the HAVES. ;)
-
I'm kind of agreeing to his most of his points, but no so much this part. I don't want to see college athletes get paid and I think the point of $3k to $5K is to pay for airfare, family visits, little things in life that other college students etc. so instead of giving a blank check of this amount allow for the school to cover a specified quantity of these type expenses. Allow the athletes to work summer jobs.
The problem with $3k to $5K is everyone who speaks of it is really only talking about football and basketball and not the zillion other NCAA sports. If you only give scholarships regardless of sport you are being fair to a degree, but when you start paying some and not wanting to pay others now you've moved beyond near equal. There is TITLE IX and you pay football players are you going to pay 85 women student-athletes in a non-revenue generating college sport to compensate?
Athletes CAN work summer jobs
-
I think Coach Cal might want to enroll in Kentucky's world class history or political science courses and maybe understand why the Soviet Union crumbled. His analogy is piss poor.
-
Poor People are the accelerators of the economy. Put money into their hands and it's spent within no time.
I would prefer they be investing in tech infrastructure but it's just too damn hard to say no to a six of PBR and a pack American Spirits on a balmy Friday night
-
I agree with every single thing he says.
And if anyone chimes in that smaller schools wouldn't be able to compete etc etc etc, please let me know when Loyola-Chicago or Detroit Mercy have their own version of the AL or the Bradley Center.
Can't speak for Detroit, but Loyola has made some pretty significant strides with their athletic facilities in recent years, with a new 5,000+ seat arena that opened about 6-7 years ago, and then a couple years back they opened a $26 million athletics facility that's essentially their version of the AL, minus the arena.
With that and joining the MVC last year, Loyola is definitely working to improve their hoops standing. I don't think they'll ever reach the Big East level, but they're trending in the right direction. Unfortunately, I don't think Porter Moser is the guy to take them to the next level.
-
I would prefer they be investing in tech infrastructure but it's just too damn hard to say no to a six of PBR and a pack American Spirits on a balmy Friday night
Perhaps I should have stated "accelerators of the retail sector".
I'm 100% for tech infrastructure. It's a shame that corporate America is sitting on excess of 1.8 trillion dollars in cash. This is dead money that's not doing anything. Think of the R+D opportunities that are being wasted as well as all the jobs that could be created!!!
-
Perhaps I should have stated "accelerators of the retail sector".
I'm 100% for tech infrastructure. It's a shame that corporate America is sitting on excess of 1.8 trillion dollars in cash. This is dead money that's not doing anything. Think of the R+D opportunities that are being wasted as well as all the jobs that could be created!!!
Why are they sitting on it....that's your answer
-
So you're advocating for the 2 wrongs make a right model? :D
I'm not sure I buy the "NCAA HAS TO DO SOMETHING" argument either. That's half of what keeps getting this country in a mess. You "fix" something without knowing the unintended consequences and you create an even bigger issue. Nothing is ever fixed, but people feel all warm and fuzzy in their bellies at night for a few weeks feeling like they did something...that is until those that were "helped" say it isn't enough and want more.
To me, the solution is simple. These are the rules, deal with them. If you don't like the rules, go somewhere else. If enough of the best players say they won't play, then the NBA can change the NBDL rules to allow them to come in one year earlier. They can get their $3K to $5K per month, not even per academic year. Put the onus on the NBA to stop freeloading off the NCAA. Kids that want the college experience, will go to college. Kids that don't care about school, go somewhere else.
Where?
Your suggestion is that we wait until a large number of the best players decide to sit out a year in protest until the NBADL changes its rules to allow them to play one year earlier, is that what I'm reading?
-
I think you are missing the point behind why Calipari and others are saying that the NCAA has to do something. It's not simply a matter of making it better, it's about survival. People don't like the rules and they will start going somewhere else if the rules are not adapted. Over the past couple years we have seen athletes successfully challenge the rules on individual likeness, expanded influence of the BCS, the movement to unionize, and a push by people like Mark Cuban to expand developmental leagues to undercut the NCAA. This isn't simply a matter of change for the sake of change.
I don't necessarily have enough knowledge of the NCAA to say whether or not I agree with all of Calipari's proposed solutions, but I agree with the general premise that the NCAA appears to be on the verge of collapse. I certainly don't think it's in the NCAA's best interest to stubbornly cling to the status quo. Some changes are probably necessary if they hope to survive.
But it's working so well for the music industry.
-
Where?
Your suggestion is that we wait until a large number of the best players decide to sit out a year in protest until the NBADL changes its rules to allow them to play one year earlier, is that what I'm reading?
If a player doesn't like it, go to Europe, sit out a year, go to the NBDL. The NCAA has its rules, those are the rules, created by its members. Life isn't always fair, there isn't always another option, that's the way it goes.
The minimum age requirement for the NBDL is 18 years old. Most freshmen in college are 18 years old...that's an option for most players from an age perspective. Problem is, that there are only so many slots. That's too bad. Mark Cuban wants to push the NBDL harder to eliminate the hypocrisy of the one and done. Good, they should do it. Let the league create its own minor league system and not be beholden to the NCAA while also forcing the NCAA to be something it is not.
-
That always works out great. I can hear it now "but but but it costs so much more to go to school at St. John's than Nebraska, so I deserve a larger increase". Quite frankly, they would be exactly correct in that argument. Our tax system, SS payouts, etc should work the same way, but they don't.
As for the "actual cost" to attend college, I can't wait to see that itemized list and especially the discretionary items which are just that...discretionary but will now all of a sudden be deemed necessary and part of the actual cost.
Chicos, no one is saying that change will be easy or that they have all the answers at this point. But your only response to this issue seems to be stomping your feet and putting your fingers in your ears. Change is coming, whether you like it or not - the O'Bannon case and the Northwestern players union are just the start of it. The NCAA could try to get out ahead of it and make positive reforms that attempt to satisfy all parties or they can dig into their position even further and have to deal with changes thrust upon them.
-
Athletes CAN work summer jobs
? When did this start? I know they could not as of a few years ago.
-
Chicos, no one is saying that change will be easy or that they have all the answers at this point. But your only response to this issue seems to be stomping your feet and putting your fingers in your ears. Change is coming, whether you like it or not - the O'Bannon case and the Northwestern players union are just the start of it. The NCAA could try to get out ahead of it and make positive reforms that attempt to satisfy all parties or they can dig into their position even further and have to deal with changes thrust upon them.
If that were the case, unions would get what they want all the time. There are two sides to this coin, you are arguing only one side of it. The NCAA can capitulate, they can say absolutely no, etc. All kinds of things can happen. My guess is something will happen, I'm just telling you what I would do. In my experience, many of the changes that are being discussed will only make matters worse down the road, because people like to make changes for change sake cuz it makes them feel fluffy....they have no clue as to the unintended consequences it unleashes. You give $3K, they want $10K. You give $50K loan eligibility, they want $100K. You give 1 airline trip per semester, they want 5 airline trips per month. Just how it works.
School isn't for everyone, no one disagrees. Those that don't want to go to school, don't. Do something else.
-
But it's working so well for the music industry.
+1000
We are quite possibly in the worst decade of music ever ....
-
Calipari is one person. What are the other 500 division 1 schools saying? Calipari is stating what is best in his interest nothing else. Lots of money behind Kentucky so why not state it. If some schools split and form a professional league, so be it. Maybe the second tier is like minor league baseball or hockey. Why lose sleep over it.
-
He's saying this to start stuff...
then he whisks off to the NBA, leaving the mess behind.
-
In my experience, many of the changes that are being discussed will only make matters worse down the road, because people like to make changes for change sake cuz it makes them feel fluffy....they have no clue as to the unintended consequences it unleashes. You give $3K, they want $10K. You give $50K loan eligibility, they want $100K. You give 1 airline trip per semester, they want 5 airline trips per month. Just how it works.
School isn't for everyone, no one disagrees. Those that don't want to go to school, don't. Do something else.
I agree that this could get messy and there needs to be an incredible amount of foresight in any changes they decide to make, but I don't think fear of unintended consequences is a good enough reason to not make reforms.
I have no idea what those reforms will/should be, but I think it's a pretty lousy system in place that needs some fixing.
-
Calipari is one person. What are the other 500 division 1 schools saying? Calipari is stating what is best in his interest nothing else. Lots of money behind Kentucky so why not state it. If some schools split and form a professional league, so be it. Maybe the second tier is like minor league baseball or hockey. Why lose sleep over it.
True as well. Just think if he had his Freshman class coming back. They'd be de facto #1 and have a great chance at going undefeated.
-
What other comparable alternative is there to NCAA D-I basketball? There isn't one.
In Europe, basketball takes a solid third to soccer and rugby. How much do professional basketball coaches there make? How much did our women's coach make?
But, what about the D-League? Again, how much do the D-League coaches make? How much did our women's coach make? Women's coach. A more competitive D-League would require more money from the NBA. Think that will happen anytime soon? Yea, neither do I.
As long as college graduates are willing to donate tens of thousands (or more) to their alma mater(s) and possibly even earmark the money for college athletics, bball in particular, then the quality of DI college basketball will not deteriorate. Accordingly, DI college basketball coaches will always be the best 31st-349th best basketball coaches in the world. If you are a college basketball player, you willingly sacrifice higher pay to come learn from these guys. I really don't see how the situation is much different than an unpaid internship--young men sacrificing present income for invaluable work experience that will ultimately lead to much higher future income (higher at least in expectation).
-
? When did this start? I know they could not as of a few years ago.
For years.
Started with Prop 62 in 1997.
Refined in 2003....NCAA Bylaw 15.2.6
Refined again in 2007.
There are limits on how much you can earn, to prevent abuses where players are paid but never show up, or paid $40 an hour to water a lawn.
This part of the problem, so much BS information out there where people believe they can't, so much focus on the corner cases, people don't even know the real answers. When I read the other day about Shabazz saying he didn't have enough money to eat...WTF is he talking about. He has training table every day, meal plans, etc. You would think from his comments the guy is starving. The hyperbole is ridiculous.
-
I agree that this could get messy and there needs to be an incredible amount of foresight in any changes they decide to make, but I don't think fear of unintended consequences is a good enough reason to not make reforms.
I have no idea what those reforms will/should be, but I think it's a pretty lousy system in place that needs some fixing.
What's lousy about it? I'm just curious...and when I say lousy, can you include how it's lousy across the board for the non "stars", the kids at Cal State Chico, the benchwarmers at MU, etc.
-
Wait, Calipari has an issue with an organization that has marred his career for decades?
THIS IS HUGE NEWS. ::)
-
What's lousy about it? I'm just curious...and when I say lousy, can you include how it's lousy across the board for the non "stars", the kids at Cal State Chico, the benchwarmers at MU, etc.
I'm not talking across the board, I'm talking about revenue generating sports.
-
? When did this start? I know they could not as of a few years ago.
Oops! Poor phrasing on my part. I was stating they should be allowed to work summer jobs.
-
I'm not talking across the board, I'm talking about revenue generating sports.
And that's a fundamental problem.
But let's just for giggles keep it at revenue generating sports....let's choose basketball only and the 355 schools with 13 scholarship athletes per school.
-
Oops! Poor phrasing on my part. I was stating they should be allowed to work summer jobs.
Which they can and have been able to for some time.
-
Can't speak for Detroit, but Loyola has made some pretty significant strides with their athletic facilities in recent years, with a new 5,000+ seat arena that opened about 6-7 years ago, and then a couple years back they opened a $26 million athletics facility that's essentially their version of the AL, minus the arena.
With that and joining the MVC last year, Loyola is definitely working to improve their hoops standing. I don't think they'll ever reach the Big East level, but they're trending in the right direction. Unfortunately, I don't think Porter Moser is the guy to take them to the next level.
The King of Comparisons once more. Any insight on the racial demographics of urban vs rural campuses?
-
Perhaps I should have stated "accelerators of the retail sector".
I'm 100% for tech infrastructure. It's a shame that corporate America is sitting on excess of 1.8 trillion dollars in cash. This is dead money that's not doing anything. Think of the R+D opportunities that are being wasted as well as all the jobs that could be created!!!
Package goods sales in the C Store Channel have long been a key barometer of economic performance. Is the trickle trickling, if you will.
-
Let's say the bigger state universities break off and form their own "Super League". Will their fan base grow? Will their revenues grow? I kind of doubt if they would grow significantly. People who are currently their fans will stay their fans and my guess is people who aren't their fans will also stay that way. Hence, their fans (customers) are not growing. Finally, while I was fortunate to be at Marquette in the late 70's to see some great BB teams, that was not the reason I was attending Marquette. Colleges and Universities with small sport programs are doing fine. Is it our egos that might get bruised?
-
I get it just fine, basically lower your standards, bend your rules or change them....it sounds like American Catholics.
You're basically arguing that if changes aren't made, they take their ball and go elsewhere. Fine. Go elsewhere.
Lastly, why on earth is it so hard for people to process the most important point in all of this. The NCAA is an ASSOCIATION. The schools are its members, the NCAA is a body that enforces the rules, administers the champions, but it functions at the behest of its membership...the SCHOOLS.
If the schools want to make changes, then there will be changes. Don't blame the NCAA, blame the schools. If the HAVES believe the HAVE NOTS are wielding too much power and diluting their votes to get legislation passed, then the HAVES will do something about it.
It is a bit ironic seeing certain people here back the HAVES. ;)
If changes aren't made they will take their ball and go elsewhere, it's only a matter of time. It's easy for you to say you're fine with that, but the schools that make up the NCAA stand to lose a significant amount of money. I guess we'll see if they take your love it or leave it approach.
It is not difficult for me to understand that the NCAA is an association of member schools. I'm not quite sure how you want me to look at the situation. Can I say the NCAA has to make changes, or do I have to say all of the schools that make up the NCAA have to vote to make changes within the NCAA to protect the long term viability of their association? I think the former implies the later.
Finally, stop trying to insert your "cafeteria Catholics" narrative into bball posts. I would love to argue the many ways in which you are completely off base and hypocritical when you make that argument, but I can't because it will just get the post locked. However, that doesn't stop you from throwing your commentary out there just to remind everyone where you stand. Please stop!
-
The only item on the list that makes sense is insurance.
The ability to take out a 50k loan on future earnings? Why not have them apply for grants and other established college funding? They are low interest and put less of a burden on the student athlete should they not find employment in their chosen sport.
There's already an established way for them to do this. As there is for every other student.
-
And that's a fundamental problem.
But let's just for giggles keep it at revenue generating sports....let's choose basketball only and the 355 schools with 13 scholarship athletes per school.
I take issue with athletes not being able to earn money on autographs, merchandise, appearances, etc. I also take issue with universities not actually educating athletes. I also think these schools can afford to pay ALL student athletes and they can make it work if need be. Also for football, the athletes don't have any sort of alternative and are dictated when they are allowed to go to the NFL.
IMO there's a lot of hypocrisy in the whole system and there's so much room for improvement. It doesn't need to be overnight, but establishing a well run governing body would be a step in the right direction.
-
I have a lot of buds who went to Springs, Annapolis, and West Point. To a man they consider it an honor and a privilege.
-
Oops! Poor phrasing on my part. I was stating they should be allowed to work summer jobs.
Might work for football players but I think the basketball players take a good chunk of their course work over the summer.
-
If that were the case, unions would get what they want all the time. There are two sides to this coin, you are arguing only one side of it. The NCAA can capitulate, they can say absolutely no, etc. All kinds of things can happen. My guess is something will happen, I'm just telling you what I would do. In my experience, many of the changes that are being discussed will only make matters worse down the road, because people like to make changes for change sake cuz it makes them feel fluffy....they have no clue as to the unintended consequences it unleashes. You give $3K, they want $10K. You give $50K loan eligibility, they want $100K. You give 1 airline trip per semester, they want 5 airline trips per month. Just how it works.
School isn't for everyone, no one disagrees. Those that don't want to go to school, don't. Do something else.
No, there aren't two sides to this coin and that's one of the biggest problems. There is currently no union for players and their interests are not currently represented when decisions are made that affect them. You say it yourself... the NCAA is an association looking out for the best interests for its members - the universities/conferences. If there was a union maybe they would win some and lose some, but as it is the players have no voice.
And I apologize if you answered already as I haven't read the whole thread yet, but what do you propose as the alternative for these kids given that the NBADL won't have freshmen and there is no minor league football? NCAA is the only game in town. Telling a kid he has to move to Europe if he doesn't want to go to college is not a good enough answer.
-
No, there aren't two sides to this coin and that's one of the biggest problems. There is currently no union for players and their interests are not currently represented when decisions are made that affect them. You say it yourself... the NCAA is an association looking out for the best interests for its members - the universities/conferences. If there was a union maybe they would win some and lose some, but as it is the players have no voice.
And I apologize if you answered already as I haven't read the whole thread yet, but what do you propose as the alternative for these kids given that the NBADL won't have freshmen and there is no minor league football? NCAA is the only game in town. Telling a kid he has to move to Europe if he doesn't want to go to college is not a good enough answer.
Why not?
-
Why not?
Telling people "you have to play by my rules or leave the country" is not a good enough answer in my opinion.
-
(http://d2ws0xxnnorfdo.cloudfront.net/meme/215949)[/url]
http://www.youtube.com/v/YEt41bYQBgE?hl=en_US&version=3
-
http://www.youtube.com/v/TKjPSbXB6Xc?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0
-
No, there aren't two sides to this coin and that's one of the biggest problems. There is currently no union for players and their interests are not currently represented when decisions are made that affect them. You say it yourself... the NCAA is an association looking out for the best interests for its members - the universities/conferences. If there was a union maybe they would win some and lose some, but as it is the players have no voice.
And I apologize if you answered already as I haven't read the whole thread yet, but what do you propose as the alternative for these kids given that the NBADL won't have freshmen and there is no minor league football? NCAA is the only game in town. Telling a kid he has to move to Europe if he doesn't want to go to college is not a good enough answer.
Just FYI, kids can go straight to the D-League from high school.
It's a crappy alternative, but it is an alternative.
-
Just FYI, kids can go straight to the D-League from high school.
It's a crappy alternative, but it is an alternative.
It won't be a crappy alternative if the NCAA (which is an association of member schools- for Chicos) continues on its current path, and the NBA realizes the benefits of using the D-League as a true farm system.
I realize there are some big ifs in there, but that seems like the path everyone is on right now.
-
It won't be a crappy alternative if the NCAA (which is an association of member schools- for Chicos) continues on its current path, and the NBA realizes the benefits of using the D-League as a true farm system.
I realize there are some big ifs in there, but that seems like the path everyone is on right now.
Sure, the D-League and Europe are options (even if they are crappy). But the NCAA would be cutting its own throat by pushing that option rather than paying player a small stipend. The schools would soon find out that without top-notch athletes, the interest will go down, the crowds will go down, hence, the contracts will go down and income will go down.
You will always have the people that support their University, but the casual fans will no longer pay for a poor product.
-
Just FYI, kids can go straight to the D-League from high school.
It's a crappy alternative, but it is an alternative.
And it always will be.
MU alums will donate to continue to donate to MU, all the way up to being willing and able to pay $3M for a coach.
Will D-League coaches ever make $3M? I don't think so.
Until then, the NCAA will always get the better players. Players forego NBA DLeague salary to learn from the likes of Coach K et al.
-
I take issue with athletes not being able to earn money on autographs, merchandise, appearances, etc. I also take issue with universities not actually educating athletes. I also think these schools can afford to pay ALL student athletes and they can make it work if need be. Also for football, the athletes don't have any sort of alternative and are dictated when they are allowed to go to the NFL.
IMO there's a lot of hypocrisy in the whole system and there's so much room for improvement. It doesn't need to be overnight, but establishing a well run governing body would be a step in the right direction.
Lazer, appreciate the response. I do have some follow-up questions, however.
How is it that you don't think they are actually educating athletes? I'm curious where this comes from. Do you not feel someone like Will Gates, or Wesley Matthews, or Steve Novak benefited from their education? Or a Larry Williams who played in the NFL yet still got a ND education, and later a law degree. Are there examples of kids slipping through the system? Sure. I have to ask, however, how much of that is also on the kid who doesn't want to put in the work.
On the autograph, merchandise stuff. People like to trumpet out that a certain number jersey is sold in the book store and thus that particular athlete is driving that sale. My question would be, without 100,000 people in Michigan Stadium in the first place, how much of a platform is that kid getting? To me, the simple solution on this is don't sell jerseys or simply sell them without a number on them. Can't the argument be made the Bo Ellis made that jersey just as important and Dean Meminger or Dwyane Wade or Tex Winter? Why should today's players get the benefit from them, especially if they are only around for 1 year or 4 years maximum? Am I buying the jersey because it says Marquette on it, or because it has a #3 on it?
When you say you think these schools can pay all of these athletes, the numbers flat out say they can't depending on the amount that is paid. You are right, for football there is no alternative...there isn't for fencing either. Or professional swimming, etc.
My issue with all of this is the NCAA is an association made up of many members, over 1000. Multiple divisions, and even within the divisions you have the HAVES and HAVE NOTS. I'm not sure you are ever going to get to a "well run organization" with that size because there are too many agendas.
-
How is it any different than the extortion threat they are using....our way or the highway and we'll break away underlying threat?
Do I think athletes are treated fairly? Yes.
A scholarship valued at $80K to $300K if they go through graduation
Often an admission to a school they couldn't even get into....priceless
Access to free tutors and mentors
Access to some of the finest coaches in the country
A training ground (for some sports) to help them cash in for their careers down the road to make huge money (potentially)
Free rooming, free food, free clothing and gear
Access to an alumni base and the powerful that most people don't get a chance to have = post graduate jobs, business relationships, etc
Travel
Etc
They get hard costs taken care of and its hard to even put a value tag on the benefits they get post school either through connections, etc.
When you say "athletes", I'd also like to know who you mean because it sure seems to me that 99% of the time people are talking about the 50,000 Football and basketball players and not the other 400,000 student athletes from all the other sports.
OK. I happen to disagree with you, but thanks for taking the time to provide a serious, thought-out answer.
-
(http://d2ws0xxnnorfdo.cloudfront.net/meme/215949)[/url]
http://www.youtube.com/v/vK1F_mOJbRg?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0
-
No, there aren't two sides to this coin and that's one of the biggest problems. There is currently no union for players and their interests are not currently represented when decisions are made that affect them. You say it yourself... the NCAA is an association looking out for the best interests for its members - the universities/conferences. If there was a union maybe they would win some and lose some, but as it is the players have no voice.
And I apologize if you answered already as I haven't read the whole thread yet, but what do you propose as the alternative for these kids given that the NBADL won't have freshmen and there is no minor league football? NCAA is the only game in town. Telling a kid he has to move to Europe if he doesn't want to go to college is not a good enough answer.
Why does there have to be an alternative? That's my biggest question...why? What is the alternative for fencing, women's field hockey, cross country? Why does the NCAA have to suddenly be an alternative for that fact that isn't minor league football? Is that their reason for existing? Of course not. Life isn't fair. If I wanted to stay home and major in something that none of the local schools had and it required me to move, does that mean my local school should start teaching that major because it is not a good enough answer? Say I want to go work for IBM and I live in Montana, but Montana doesn't have an IBM office, is it on IBM to build an office in Montana to make me happy? Why is it that the NCAA has to be all things to all people? Life isn't fair.
Yes, the NCAA is there to represent the membership, the problem is that within the membership you have differing agendas all over the place. There are people that would love to make it just a pure minor league sport, forget school, pay the players. Others that don't. Others in between. Well, if that first group wants that, it sure seems to me that they might want to look into other opportunities to create a marketplace rather than bastardizing further the current system. With each change, there are ramifications and usually they are poor.
-
How is it any different than the extortion threat they are using....our way or the highway and we'll break away underlying threat?
Do I think athletes are treated fairly? Yes.
A scholarship valued at $80K to $300K if they go through graduation
Often an admission to a school they couldn't even get into....priceless
Access to free tutors and mentors
Access to some of the finest coaches in the country
A training ground (for some sports) to help them cash in for their careers down the road to make huge money (potentially)
Free rooming, free food, free clothing and gear
Access to an alumni base and the powerful that most people don't get a chance to have = post graduate jobs, business relationships, etc
Travel
Etc
They get hard costs taken care of and its hard to even put a value tag on the benefits they get post school either through connections, etc.
When you say "athletes", I'd also like to know who you mean because it sure seems to me that 99% of the time people are talking about the 50,000 Football and basketball players and not the other 400,000 student athletes from all the other sports.
Thanks for saving me a lot of time, Chicos. I appreciate it.
-
If changes aren't made they will take their ball and go elsewhere, it's only a matter of time. It's easy for you to say you're fine with that, but the schools that make up the NCAA stand to lose a significant amount of money. I guess we'll see if they take your love it or leave it approach.
It is not difficult for me to understand that the NCAA is an association of member schools. I'm not quite sure how you want me to look at the situation. Can I say the NCAA has to make changes, or do I have to say all of the schools that make up the NCAA have to vote to make changes within the NCAA to protect the long term viability of their association? I think the former implies the later.
Finally, stop trying to insert your "cafeteria Catholics" narrative into bball posts. I would love to argue the many ways in which you are completely off base and hypocritical when you make that argument, but I can't because it will just get the post locked. However, that doesn't stop you from throwing your commentary out there just to remind everyone where you stand. Please stop!
The analogy was appropriate, because what you are saying is if the institution doesn't change, I'll stop being a member. Same deal with both analogies.
My point with the NCAA is that people blame the NCAA, blame the schools...they are the NCAA. I think most people don't have a clue what the NCAA is or how it functions, and usually you can tell that from their remarks. I'm not putting you in that camp, but the general populace doesn't get it. Nor do they get that 450,000 student athletes are competing each year, the public focuses on 2 sports and usually the top 10% or so of those two sports and starts spinning out wild commentary about the entire system. They have no forth thought to the ramifications of Title IX, to the students themselves, to varying schools within the conferences, etc
I have no doubt some changes will come, because that's human nature to try and do something for the sake of doing something. Be careful what you wish for, and I say that mostly to MU fans because this could end very ugly for a school like MU....but it also could end ugly for anyone that is participating in Olympic sports, female athletes, etc.
I could see a world where some schools say screw it, we're breaking away and we will have men's and women's basketball and football and then a few other women's sports to comply with Title IX Period. No mandatory 14 sports minimums, all you other athletes..too bad so sad. We're in compliance, we don't have any deadweight of non revenue sports, we are now minor leagues. That's an awful ending for many human beings and opportunities in order to make sure Johnny Football is able to a stipend or some coin to sign an autograph.
-
If that were the case, unions would get what they want all the time. There are two sides to this coin, you are arguing only one side of it. The NCAA can capitulate, they can say absolutely no, etc. All kinds of things can happen. My guess is something will happen, I'm just telling you what I would do. In my experience, many of the changes that are being discussed will only make matters worse down the road, because people like to make changes for change sake cuz it makes them feel fluffy....they have no clue as to the unintended consequences it unleashes. You give $3K, they want $10K. You give $50K loan eligibility, they want $100K. You give 1 airline trip per semester, they want 5 airline trips per month. Just how it works.
School isn't for everyone, no one disagrees. Those that don't want to go to school, don't. Do something else.
So because they might want more in the future, your argument is to give nothing. You should work for Walmart
-
Lazer, appreciate the response. I do have some follow-up questions, however.
How is it that you don't think they are actually educating athletes? I'm curious where this comes from. Do you not feel someone like Will Gates, or Wesley Matthews, or Steve Novak benefited from their education? Or a Larry Williams who played in the NFL yet still got a ND education, and later a law degree. Are there examples of kids slipping through the system? Sure. I have to ask, however, how much of that is also on the kid who doesn't want to put in the work.
On the autograph, merchandise stuff. People like to trumpet out that a certain number jersey is sold in the book store and thus that particular athlete is driving that sale. My question would be, without 100,000 people in Michigan Stadium in the first place, how much of a platform is that kid getting? To me, the simple solution on this is don't sell jerseys or simply sell them without a number on them. Can't the argument be made the Bo Ellis made that jersey just as important and Dean Meminger or Dwyane Wade or Tex Winter? Why should today's players get the benefit from them, especially if they are only around for 1 year or 4 years maximum? Am I buying the jersey because it says Marquette on it, or because it has a #3 on it?
When you say you think these schools can pay all of these athletes, the numbers flat out say they can't depending on the amount that is paid. You are right, for football there is no alternative...there isn't for fencing either. Or professional swimming, etc.
My issue with all of this is the NCAA is an association made up of many members, over 1000. Multiple divisions, and even within the divisions you have the HAVES and HAVE NOTS. I'm not sure you are ever going to get to a "well run organization" with that size because there are too many agendas.
If you walked into the Golden Eagle in 2003 and the three jerseys they're selling are 3, 20 and 34, there's little doubt about why people are buying those jerseys
-
If you walked into the Golden Eagle in 2003 and the three jerseys they're selling are 3, 20 and 34, there's little doubt about why people are buying those jerseys
Number #1 jerseys are for kids
-
If you walked into the Golden Eagle in 2003 and the three jerseys they're selling are 3, 20 and 34, there's little doubt about why people are buying those jerseys
Yup, and who did he play for? Marquette. And if he didn't play at Marquette, would no jerseys be sold in the book store or would another jersey be sold instead? A lot of people buy jerseys because the name on the front never changes, the number on the back always does. So should he get a benefit of the incremental sales above the BAU run rate since jerseys were going to be sold anyway? Since Marquette is the one putting him out to showcase, how much of the cut does MU get? So on and so forth.
I find it to be a red herring. Schools should just sell jerseys with no numbers, or don't sell them at all. Then I'd like to see these guys make the argument that some older guy bought a MU Proud Dad of Student sweatshirt and claim it was the basketball team that drove those sales.
Which begs another question following through on all this logic...the students that play the mascot, they should get a cut every time a mascot stuffed animal is sold, or a t-shirt with the mascot on it...right? ;)
-
Lazer, appreciate the response. I do have some follow-up questions, however.
How is it that you don't think they are actually educating athletes? I'm curious where this comes from. Do you not feel someone like Will Gates, or Wesley Matthews, or Steve Novak benefited from their education? Or a Larry Williams who played in the NFL yet still got a ND education, and later a law degree. Are there examples of kids slipping through the system? Sure. I have to ask, however, how much of that is also on the kid who doesn't want to put in the work.
On the autograph, merchandise stuff. People like to trumpet out that a certain number jersey is sold in the book store and thus that particular athlete is driving that sale. My question would be, without 100,000 people in Michigan Stadium in the first place, how much of a platform is that kid getting? To me, the simple solution on this is don't sell jerseys or simply sell them without a number on them. Can't the argument be made the Bo Ellis made that jersey just as important and Dean Meminger or Dwyane Wade or Tex Winter? Why should today's players get the benefit from them, especially if they are only around for 1 year or 4 years maximum? Am I buying the jersey because it says Marquette on it, or because it has a #3 on it?
When you say you think these schools can pay all of these athletes, the numbers flat out say they can't depending on the amount that is paid. You are right, for football there is no alternative...there isn't for fencing either. Or professional swimming, etc.
My issue with all of this is the NCAA is an association made up of many members, over 1000. Multiple divisions, and even within the divisions you have the HAVES and HAVE NOTS. I'm not sure you are ever going to get to a "well run organization" with that size because there are too many agendas.
1) Obviously every school and team for that matter is different, but the lack of education I was referring to was the schools simply pushing student athletes through classes to worthless classes and worthless degrees just to keep them eligible.
2) In regards to merchandise, the school certainly provides a platform, but the athletes attract the attention to the school so it's a two-way street. So why not share the revenues? They could be shared between the school, the student athletes, and the AD.
3) I haven't taken a deep look at the numbers for paying all athletes, and I don't know what percent of NCAA student athletes are on full/partial rides or none at all, but I would think some sort of revenue sharing could provide some assistance to all schools and all athletes.
There is no silver bullet and there are plenty of reasons to be wary of paying athletes, but there is no reason not to at elast explore some sort of pay, stpiend, etc. and to put pressure on the NCAA to really look after the "student athlete"
-
Which begs another question following through on all this logic...the students that play the mascot, they should get a cut every time a mascot stuffed animal is sold, or a t-shirt with the mascot on it...right? ;)
Never mind ... I had a snarky response but I just noticed your smiley face ...
-
Then I'd like to see these guys make the argument that some older guy bought a MU Proud Dad of Student sweatshirt and claim it was the basketball team that drove those sales.
I know you're being difficult for the sake of being difficult, but there is a case to be made for that.
Marquette is known on a broad scale because of the basketball team. A good basketball team increases applications, which increase demand, which increases tuition, which increases the chance that the man that bought the MU Proud Dad shirt bought it because their kid wanted to go to Marquette instead of Loras because the basketball team is good and popular.
-
Do I think athletes are treated fairly? Yes.
A scholarship valued at $80K to $300K if they go through graduation
Often an admission to a school they couldn't even get into....priceless
Access to free tutors and mentors
Access to some of the finest coaches in the country
A training ground (for some sports) to help them cash in for their careers down the road to make huge money (potentially)
Free rooming, free food, free clothing and gear
Access to an alumni base and the powerful that most people don't get a chance to have = post graduate jobs, business relationships, etc
Travel
Etc
They get hard costs taken care of and its hard to even put a value tag on the benefits they get post school either through connections, etc.
When you say "athletes", I'd also like to know who you mean because it sure seems to me that 99% of the time people are talking about the 50,000 Football and basketball players and not the other 400,000 student athletes from all the other sports.
The NCAA amateurism model breaks down for elite athletes in revenue generating sports. The NCAA and some of its member institutions make a lot of money off of those exceptional student athletes. You outline a number of ways that the athletes are compensated and declare that fair. Why do you get to decide what fair compensation is for their skill, effort and work? To me it feels like the status quo benefits the NCAA, its member institutions, coaches, administrators and fans more than it benefits exceptional student athletes. The problem is the people making the money have such a vested interest in the status quo that it will be difficult to make a meaningful change. Those exceptional student athletes don't have a strong enough voice at the table.
I think the end result will either be a legitimate alternate route to the NBA and NFL where athletes can financially benefit from their work at a younger age as is the case for most professional sports leagues worldwide (MLB, NHL, soccer) or an 'olympic' model where student athletes could benefit from endorsements but not be paid directly. I realize that this may damage MU hoops in the long run, but I think the change is necessary.
"Life isn't fair."
I'm glad that the world is full of people who see this as a challenge and not a sentence. It also is a very poor rhetorical device especially compared to some of your other thoughtful comments.
-
The NCAA amateurism model breaks down for elite athletes in revenue generating sports. The NCAA and some of its member institutions make a lot of money off of those exceptional student athletes. You outline a number of ways that the athletes are compensated and declare that fair. Why do you get to decide what fair compensation is for their skill, effort and work? To me it feels like the status quo benefits the NCAA, its member institutions, coaches, administrators and fans more than it benefits exceptional student athletes. The problem is the people making the money have such a vested interest in the status quo that it will be difficult to make a meaningful change. Those exceptional student athletes don't have a strong enough voice at the table.
I think the end result will either be a legitimate alternate route to the NBA and NFL where athletes can financially benefit from their work at a younger age as is the case for most professional sports leagues worldwide (MLB, NHL, soccer) or an 'olympic' model where student athletes could benefit from endorsements but not be paid directly. I realize that this may damage MU hoops in the long run, but I think the change is necessary.
"Life isn't fair."
I'm glad that the world is full of people who see this as a challenge and not a sentence. It also is a very poor rhetorical device especially compared to some of your other thoughtful comments.
With respect to the bold part, I disagree. I don't think that it will ever happen. Rick Pitino makes like $4M/year. You think the Rio Grande Vipers/Milan's pro team can afford that much for a coach? I don't.
Serious question: What is your opinion on unpaid internships?
-
"Life isn't fair."
I'm glad that the world is full of people who see this as a challenge and not a sentence. It also is a very poor rhetorical device especially compared to some of your other thoughtful comments.
To each their own on my comments, I don't think it is a poor rhetorical device, but rather the situation we are in. Why does NCAA has to be all things to all people and make it fair and create an opportunity for such a small subset? You called out that the model doesn't work for elite athletes in football and basketball. Maybe not even for baseball and hockey. Therein lies an important question. 450,000 student athletes each year and the institution needs to change for what, 500 people....5,000?
This is why I say life isn't fair. Why does the NCAA have to fill this need, especially when it serves so many others well? When it is providing so many others an education, a chance to compete, access to a better life, etc. You may not think there is "enough" value provided to the elite athletes, though plenty of elite athletes have been on record to say their scholarship and what it ultimately gave them was priceless, but there is a value.
In my view, for those that don't think there is enough value, they should choose another path. Why force member institutions to provide even more value (which will never be enough, the demands will always be more more more more) for such an elite group? If the need is so apparent, a market based solution exists.
Mark my words that the people crying about the injustice that player X on UCONN "ONLY" gets a $120K education for free, only gets access to outstanding coaching and a chance to ply his trade to make millions later, only gets free room and board, only gets free tutoring, etc, etc...this same cry for justice group will lose their minds when this means less opportunities for women in women's sports, men in non-revenue sports, etc. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. And while we take care of these elite athletes, you will ultimately reduce opportunities for others.
-
I know you're being difficult for the sake of being difficult, but there is a case to be made for that.
Marquette is known on a broad scale because of the basketball team. A good basketball team increases applications, which increase demand, which increases tuition, which increases the chance that the man that bought the MU Proud Dad shirt bought it because their kid wanted to go to Marquette instead of Loras because the basketball team is good and popular.
You can make a case for anything. YOU know Marquette on a broad scale because of the basketball team. Many others know it because of nothing to do with the basketball team. A good basketball team CAN increase applications, just as schools with NO sports teams of any consequence can also have increases in applications, etc. How many students are at MU, undergrads, grads, dentistry, law, etc? How many student tickets are sold? There's an interest, there's also plenty of disinterested...in fact many more than those interested.
So I'm not being difficult for the sake of being difficult anymore than your argument you just made. Sports has value, I wouldn't have chosen it for a career if I didn't think so. It can also be wildly overstated what that value is. Sports can also devalue things...how much of a hit did UW-milwaukee take the other day? How much of a hit does MU take being on the front page of the Chicago Tribune? UNC with their issues? Duke with Duke lacrosse scandal? Few people want to go down that path, but it can work both ways.
-
1) Obviously every school and team for that matter is different, but the lack of education I was referring to was the schools simply pushing student athletes through classes to worthless classes and worthless degrees just to keep them eligible.
OK, fair enough...so it seems you would concede that, in fact, some schools do educate students or at least that students are forced to at least pass classes to be able to play. After all, we are talking about college here and whether you play sports or not, a certain GPA is required to matriculate and stay eligible.
2) In regards to merchandise, the school certainly provides a platform, but the athletes attract the attention to the school so it's a two-way street. So why not share the revenues? They could be shared between the school, the student athletes, and the AD.
OK. What's the cut? Who gets what? Reverse question for you, the book store goes out and buys a bunch of #10 replica jerseys for the pre-season All American basketball player because he is going to be lights out. Items are purchased, they are in inventory and low and behold, the student athlete is arrested for raping a coed. No on is buying the jersey, no one wants to be seen with it. Does the player, since he was going to get the plus side of the sharing need to pay back the school for putting up the money for all the units purchased, or is there no risk shared by the student athlete?
3) I haven't taken a deep look at the numbers for paying all athletes, and I don't know what percent of NCAA student athletes are on full/partial rides or none at all, but I would think some sort of revenue sharing could provide some assistance to all schools and all athletes.
There is no silver bullet and there are plenty of reasons to be wary of paying athletes, but there is no reason not to at elast explore some sort of pay, stpiend, etc. and to put pressure on the NCAA to really look after the "student athlete"
Do you think it hasn't been explored in the past and this issue is only coming up now? I'm just curious. I think you will find there are some departments that are already under water today and this type of requirement will cause them to drop sports entirely. Is that a good thing that maybe 250 to 400 scholarship athletes at a school no longer have that opportunity to go to college, some of which would never have had the opportunity without that scholarship? Title IX issues, how do you address them? Does the QB get paid more than the punter? What happens if a player is hurt, no more stipend? I think these are fair questions and only the tip of the iceburg, but many of them could have incredibly meaningful NEGATIVE ramifications on other students who are struggling to get into college and this is their only avenue.
-
I don't have all the answers to the these questions and I admittedly don't have enough information to start drafting a policy, but the guys making the big bucks I'm sure can start coming with some models and ideas.
Schools consistently come up with ways to raise money for new investments, whether that is a new academic building or VTech throwing an extra 1.5MM a year at their bball coach. I think they're capable of coming up with some ideas.
-
The NCAA amateurism model breaks down for elite athletes in revenue generating sports. The NCAA and some of its member institutions make a lot of money off of those exceptional student athletes. You outline a number of ways that the athletes are compensated and declare that fair. Why do you get to decide what fair compensation is for their skill, effort and work? To me it feels like the status quo benefits the NCAA, its member institutions, coaches, administrators and fans more than it benefits exceptional student athletes. The problem is the people making the money have such a vested interest in the status quo that it will be difficult to make a meaningful change. Those exceptional student athletes don't have a strong enough voice at the table.
I think the end result will either be a legitimate alternate route to the NBA and NFL where athletes can financially benefit from their work at a younger age as is the case for most professional sports leagues worldwide (MLB, NHL, soccer) or an 'olympic' model where student athletes could benefit from endorsements but not be paid directly. I realize that this may damage MU hoops in the long run, but I think the change is necessary.
"Life isn't fair."
I'm glad that the world is full of people who see this as a challenge and not a sentence. It also is a very poor rhetorical device especially compared to some of your other thoughtful comments.
Should have said "Those exceptional student athletes don't have any voice at the table."
Thank you for the post, I agree with your comments.
-
Sure, the D-League and Europe are options (even if they are crappy). But the NCAA would be cutting its own throat by pushing that option rather than paying player a small stipend. The schools would soon find out that without top-notch athletes, the interest will go down, the crowds will go down, hence, the contracts will go down and income will go down.
You will always have the people that support their University, but the casual fans will no longer pay for a poor product.
Exactly. College basketball will soon be the same as college baseball if the NCAA doesn't make some changes.
-
Exactly. College basketball will soon be the same as college baseball if the NCAA doesn't make some changes.
It's absolutely amazing that even more kids don't transfer. Most of the poor kids never have the chance to visit their families or have their families visit them for 9 months - even longer when summer classes are needed. They have no money - their families can't afford to send them any, and they don't have time to get jobs because of basketball. Remember they have full loads in school plus they have basketball which consumes more time than most part-time jobs.
The NCAA is a dinosaur and within 5 years will no longer exist as we know it. Calipari's arguments are cheap and full of common sense. There would not be any athletes in court suing for union rights if his suggestions were implemented. What we don't know is what will take its place. Will the larger schools form their own association? Will basketball have any place or will it be driven by football with basketball taking whatever is left?
Emmert speech last week was the dying gasp. It was the old white men with all the money decrying that anyone would have the gall to want a share of it.
This is a certainty, just as much as gay marriage or legalized mary jane was a certainty 5-10 years ago. The old guard fought against them to protect their self-interests even though the outcome was inevitable, but their time is past.
How this will affect MU will be interesting since it will be football-driven. It astounds me that men making $5+ mil a year get so uptight over giving their players a pittance.
-
Should have said "Those exceptional student athletes don't have any voice at the table."
Thank you for the post, I agree with your comments.
They don't have any voice? Some of you make it out like these are slaves or something. Forced into labor camps.
-
It's absolutely amazing that even more kids don't transfer. Most of the poor kids never have the chance to visit their families or have their families visit them for 9 months - even longer when summer classes are needed. They have no money - their families can't afford to send them any, and they don't have time to get jobs because of basketball. Remember they have full loads in school plus they have basketball which consumes more time than most part-time jobs.
The NCAA is a dinosaur and within 5 years will no longer exist as we know it. Calipari's arguments are cheap and full of common sense. There would not be any athletes in court suing for union rights if his suggestions were implemented. What we don't know is what will take its place. Will the larger schools form their own association? Will basketball have any place or will it be driven by football with basketball taking whatever is left?
Emmert speech last week was the dying gasp. It was the old white men with all the money decrying that anyone would have the gall to want a share of it.
This is a certainty, just as much as gay marriage or legalized mary jane was a certainty 5-10 years ago. The old guard fought against them to protect their self-interests even though the outcome was inevitable, but their time is past.
How this will affect MU will be interesting since it will be football-driven. It astounds me that men making $5+ mil a year get so uptight over giving their players a pittance.
How many of them are making over $5+ mil per year?
People fought against gay marriage for their own self interests? You sure about that?
People fought against mary jane for their own self interests, or because it is a gateway drug for some
The NCAA will no longer exist as we know it in 5 years?
Most of the poor kids never have a chance to visit their families for have them visit them for 9 months? Source?
Athletes aren't in court suing for union rights.
Old white men not willing to share (ah yest..the leftist mantra)....cool, got your liberal racism charge in there a long with gay marriage, etc. Well done
-
While I'll not sure student-athletes should be paid, I do believe they deserve compensation when their jerseys, etc are being sold in the bookstore.
If you're a stud athlete and your jersey is flying off the shelves, you deserve that cash.
-
I don't have all the answers to the these questions and I admittedly don't have enough information to start drafting a policy, but the guys making the big bucks I'm sure can start coming with some models and ideas.
Schools consistently come up with ways to raise money for new investments, whether that is a new academic building or VTech throwing an extra 1.5MM a year at their bball coach. I think they're capable of coming up with some ideas.
Lots of smart people have worked on this over the years....it's a heck of a lot different to raise money for a building or a coach then it is for student athletes because of TITLE IX, because almost all sports don't make money (sans football and basketball), and many departments are already in the red. It it was easy, it would be done.
-
They don't have any voice? Some of you make it out like these are slaves or something. Forced into labor camps.
You are exaggerating the opposing argument now to distract people from the facts.
The original post was correct, they don't have any voice at the table. The players don't have any ability to negotiate. That is a fact. If the determination that athletes are in fact employees is upheld, that fact will change.
-
While I'll not sure student-athletes should be paid, I do believe they deserve compensation when their jerseys, etc are being sold in the bookstore.
If you're a stud athlete and your jersey is flying off the shelves, you deserve that cash.
The fact that athletes can't use their own name or likeness to earn money is even more egregious than the jersey sales. How can the NCAA prevent athletes from getting paid for appearances or autograph signings that don't occur on a college campus or have any connection to the school or NCAA?
-
You are exaggerating the opposing argument now to distract people from the facts.
The original post was correct, they don't have any voice at the table. The players don't have any ability to negotiate. That is a fact. If the determination that athletes are in fact employees is upheld, that fact will change.
Poor kids, my goodness they have it terrible. They can't negotiate....oh noes. Well, again, that gun placed to their head forcing them to take a scholarship, free room and board, etc...which they can decline and choose not to do.
Lots of people don't have the ability to negotiate, welcome to the real world.
In this world some of you want to create, what are you doing for the women's soccer team, the track team, the volleyball team? Since some of you want them to be employees, if they play poorly...they can be fired...right? After all, they're employees. Taxation for that employee compensation they are getting...looking forward to that since I'm a big pro tax guy.
Exaggeration...the exaggeration going on is the nonsense that somehow 450,000 student athletes are treated so poorly. You guys are focusing on the 1% and trying to extrapolate and force an association to be something it isn't.
Personally, I think the NCAA (i.e. the schools) will cave and only make matters much worse. Some schools will drop sports...won't that be awesome for those that "don't have the ability to negotiate" since they won't have an opportunity at all anymore. I'm hoping the university presidents stand up to it because these kids are getting a deal better almost any other student out there. That's the exaggeration, that somehow these kids can't eat, can barely buy a soda and are being forced into virtual servitude. It is ridiculous.
-
They don't have any voice? Some of you make it out like these are slaves or something. Forced into labor camps.
You're the one who keeps saying the NCAA is an association of universities looking out for their own best interests. Who's providing a voice advocating for the players' interests in this scenario?
-
The fact that athletes can't use their own name or likeness to earn money is even more egregious than the jersey sales. How can the NCAA prevent athletes from getting paid for appearances or autograph signings that don't occur on a college campus or have any connection to the school or NCAA?
As I said many times here before and it bears repeating...AGAIN. The NCAA is an association, the MEMBERS are the schools. Blame the schools.
Why is it done, simple...because of the abuses in the past. It is an end around to paying students and giving certain schools an unfair advantage. Why is this so hard to comprehend?
On the surface, I don't disagree with your premise, but here's the problem with it. Sign with school A and they guarantee you $50 per signature that you sign. Sign with school B, and you'll get $500 per signature that you sign. Then there is this whole thing called amateurism. Now, you may not agree with it, you may not like, you may think it is fraudulent, but right now the premise is that they are amateurs. You start allowing them to be paid for signatures, etc, they are no longer.
Here's the part that makes me chuckle a bit. On one end a lot of you guys are saying that these kids aren't really student athletes, that they are just whored out by the schools. They aren't in class enough (the claim goes) and concentrating on the student part. Now you want them to actually whore themselves out, make public appearances to get paid, etc? Presumably to miss school in the process of doing this. Don't you find that a bit incongruous?
If you want that, then get a minor league started. Why is it that the NCAA has to be the answer to what some of you feel is a gross injustice?
If we play some of the things you guys are advocating for, maybe the universities should get a little something something as well. I get tired of hearing about the millions the schools are making, because most aren't making squat. So in the future, if a kid goes to a school, is drafted by the NFL the kid has to pay the school a cut...seems only fair. The school allowed the kid to be seen by the scouts. The school put the risk in educating, training, feeding, clothing, sheltering the kid. If the NBA drafts D-Wade and he makes it, D-Wade has to pay MU....MU took a chance on the kid.
Is this where we want this go?
-
You're the one who keeps saying the NCAA is an association of universities looking out for their own best interests. Who's providing a voice advocating for the players' interests in this scenario?
I said the NCAA is an association and universities make up their membership.
What players interests? Sorry, they are getting a free ride to go to a school that many of them couldn't even get accepted into if they couldn't throw a ball, catch a pass, dunk a ball, score a goal. They are getting free tutors, free food, free shelter, free equipment and clothes. Access to some of the best coaching and training facilities. Access to the alumni for post graduate jobs, networking, etc. Free travel. Access to showcase themselves to the public, pro scouts, be on television, etc.
Sorry, you'll forgive me when I believe their interests are more than taken care.
-
I said the NCAA is an association and universities make up their membership.
What players interests? Sorry, they are getting a free ride to go to a school that many of them couldn't even get accepted into if they couldn't throw a ball, catch a pass, dunk a ball, score a goal. They are getting free tutors, free food, free shelter, free equipment and clothes. Access to some of the best coaching and training facilities. Access to the alumni for post graduate jobs, networking, etc. Free travel. Access to showcase themselves to the public, pro scouts, be on television, etc.
Sorry, you'll forgive me when I believe their interests are more than taken care.
Nothing is free. Your repeated use of "free" to describe what student athletes receive in return for their efforts underlies our basic disagreement and is disrespectful to the athletes. The athletes work hard. In return for their hard work, they earn tuition, room and board, etc. The universities do not give them anything for free. If they decide to stop playing, they would not continue to receive those benefits. Universities are not charities. If they didn't feel it was in their best interest to offer those things to the athletes, they wouldn't.
There have been some interesting points on both sides and the more I think about it, the more I believe an olympic model where athletes are able to make money off of their name would be the best way forward. I find it hard to justify the current policy in the first place. With the olympic model, the most exceptional student athletes could make a bunch of money. How much? Let the market decide. If some backer wants to pay an athlete $10 million for a commercial for his/her company, fine. Mediocre players could make a few thousand bucks signing autographs or commercials. Athletes in non-revenue generating sports wouldn't see much changes (except possibly a decrease in funds as some athletic department donations may be redirected to the athletes). This would probably further concentrate talent at top programs, but we see plenty of that already. I'm sure there are plenty of other problems with the olympic model, but it seems more fair to the athletes.
-
Poor kids, my goodness they have it terrible. They can't negotiate....oh noes. Well, again, that gun placed to their head forcing them to take a scholarship, free room and board, etc...which they can decline and choose not to do.
Lots of people don't have the ability to negotiate, welcome to the real world.
In this world some of you want to create, what are you doing for the women's soccer team, the track team, the volleyball team? Since some of you want them to be employees, if they play poorly...they can be fired...right? After all, they're employees. Taxation for that employee compensation they are getting...looking forward to that since I'm a big pro tax guy.
Exaggeration...the exaggeration going on is the nonsense that somehow 450,000 student athletes are treated so poorly. You guys are focusing on the 1% and trying to extrapolate and force an association to be something it isn't.
Personally, I think the NCAA (i.e. the schools) will cave and only make matters much worse. Some schools will drop sports...won't that be awesome for those that "don't have the ability to negotiate" since they won't have an opportunity at all anymore. I'm hoping the university presidents stand up to it because these kids are getting a deal better almost any other student out there. That's the exaggeration, that somehow these kids can't eat, can barely buy a soda and are being forced into virtual servitude. It is ridiculous.
The first point you make is an oversimplification of a complex issue. You are right to say that athletes can choose to walk away, but they can also seek to leverage their position in the organization to get fair market value for the service they provide to the organization. If they are unsuccessful, the NBA or some other organization will provide them the opportunity that the NCAA does not. It's only a matter of time, unless the NCAA makes some concessions. People with legitimate grievances can't be kept down forever.
Your second point about other sports isn't really relevant, IMO. Why should athletes that make millions of dollars for their universities be responsible for supporting athletes and sports that lose money? Where else in the U.S. would this argument hold water? Can you imagine a company saying, "I'm sorry Bill, I know you made us millions of dollars last year, but we're not going to give you any additional pay or benefits because we have to take care of hundreds of other employees that don't make us a dime." That would be ridiculous, and so is the NCAA's position.
You claim that we are trying to force an association to be something it isn't, but I would argue that the NCAA is actually just pretending to be something it isn't. The NCAA stopped being an association for amateur athletics a long time ago, and now they simply want to cling to an antiquated model so they can get the best of both worlds. They can't keep making money hand over fist on the backs of athletes and continue to hide behind the shield of amateurism.
Yes, the schools may have to drop other sports to accommodate football and basketball. What this really means is that an organization that uses sports to make money may have to cut sports that aren't profitable. As you love to say, welcome to the real world NCAA.
Finally, the fact that athletes get a better deal than almost any student out there doesn't make the deal fair and equitable for the athletes. Athletes in bball and football make more money for a university than any student out there. Comparing athletes with normal students is ridiculous.
-
As I said many times here before and it bears repeating...AGAIN. The NCAA is an association, the MEMBERS are the schools. Blame the schools.
I get it. The NCAA is an association that governs athletics for the member schools. I guess I don't get the point you are trying to make by reminding us of this fact constantly. Doesn't criticism of an organization automatically imply criticism of the members? Do I have to list individual schools in my arguments to make you happy?
-
With respect to the bold part, I disagree. I don't think that it will ever happen. Rick Pitino makes like $4M/year. You think the Rio Grande Vipers/Milan's pro team can afford that much for a coach? I don't.
Serious question: What is your opinion on unpaid internships?
In general I am against them. I paid for almost two years of MU with my engineering co-op. I tell other engineering students to never work for free (at least after sophomore year). In some fields it is the norm. If a student in those fields is earning credit, receiving extensive training from a mentor, and not taking the job of a regular employee, I guess it is okay. I think think recent reporting by Propublica and others has demonstrated that unpaid internships have been vastly overused.
Good point on the coaches. Some of the suggested changes people have mentioned would likely decrease coaches salaries. The high salaries for some coaches highlights the under-compensation of the athletes on their teams.
-
On the surface, I don't disagree with your premise, but here's the problem with it. Sign with school A and they guarantee you $50 per signature that you sign. Sign with school B, and you'll get $500 per signature that you sign. Then there is this whole thing called amateurism. Now, you may not agree with it, you may not like, you may think it is fraudulent, but right now the premise is that they are amateurs. You start allowing them to be paid for signatures, etc, they are no longer.
You're missing the point. The NCAA should be free to govern the actions of its member schools, but not the individual athletes ability to profit from his own name and likeness outside of the school. If the NCAA doesn't want to give schools an unfair advantage, then they can prevent schools from paying athletes for signatures and appearances. That doesn't mean that an athlete should not be allowed to get paid for an appearance outside of the school. Why can't a player get paid by a private organization or individual to sign autographs if he isn't on school property and isn't wearing the school's uniform?
-
I said the NCAA is an association and universities make up their membership.
What players interests? Sorry, they are getting a free ride to go to a school that many of them couldn't even get accepted into if they couldn't throw a ball, catch a pass, dunk a ball, score a goal. They are getting free tutors, free food, free shelter, free equipment and clothes. Access to some of the best coaching and training facilities. Access to the alumni for post graduate jobs, networking, etc. Free travel. Access to showcase themselves to the public, pro scouts, be on television, etc.
Sorry, you'll forgive me when I believe their interests are more than taken care.
And you said that membership looks out for its own interest, that being what's best for the universities.
What you seem to be saying in this post is that you think that the players are fairly compensated. Maybe the players don't agree. Why not let them represent themselves and see what happens? If you're right and everything is fair then nothing will change except making the players feel heard. No harm in that, right?
And you keep bringing this back to paying players. Its been a few days since I read the article, but most of the proposed reforms have nothing to do with direct payments to players. Maybe if the NCAA and its member institutions we're so inflexible about some common sense reforms then they could take some of the steam out of the movement. But alas...
-
Here's the part that makes me chuckle a bit. On one end a lot of you guys are saying that these kids aren't really student athletes, that they are just whored out by the schools. They aren't in class enough (the claim goes) and concentrating on the student part. Now you want them to actually whore themselves out, make public appearances to get paid, etc? Presumably to miss school in the process of doing this. Don't you find that a bit incongruous?
If we play some of the things you guys are advocating for, maybe the universities should get a little something something as well. I get tired of hearing about the millions the schools are making, because most aren't making squat. So in the future, if a kid goes to a school, is drafted by the NFL the kid has to pay the school a cut...seems only fair. The school allowed the kid to be seen by the scouts. The school put the risk in educating, training, feeding, clothing, sheltering the kid. If the NBA drafts D-Wade and he makes it, D-Wade has to pay MU....MU took a chance on the kid.
Is this where we want this go?
There is absolutely no presumption that they would miss school to make appearances.
Your last point sounds like a perfect issue for the NCAA to raise in collective bargaining. Oh, wait...
-
That doesn't mean that an athlete should not be allowed to get paid for an appearance outside of the school. Why can't a player get paid by a private organization or individual to sign autographs if isn't on school property and isn't wearing the school's uniform?
Even I can admit that this would be disastrous and lead to rampant corruption and cheating. But the NCAA collectively burying their heads in the sand and doing nothing is going to be disastrous in the end too.
-
Nothing is free. Your repeated use of "free" to describe what student athletes receive in return for their efforts underlies our basic disagreement and is disrespectful to the athletes. The athletes work hard. In return for their hard work, they earn tuition, room and board, etc. The universities do not give them anything for free. If they decide to stop playing, they would not continue to receive those benefits. Universities are not charities. If they didn't feel it was in their best interest to offer those things to the athletes, they wouldn't.
There have been some interesting points on both sides and the more I think about it, the more I believe an olympic model where athletes are able to make money off of their name would be the best way forward. I find it hard to justify the current policy in the first place. With the olympic model, the most exceptional student athletes could make a bunch of money. How much? Let the market decide. If some backer wants to pay an athlete $10 million for a commercial for his/her company, fine. Mediocre players could make a few thousand bucks signing autographs or commercials. Athletes in non-revenue generating sports wouldn't see much changes (except possibly a decrease in funds as some athletic department donations may be redirected to the athletes). This would probably further concentrate talent at top programs, but we see plenty of that already. I'm sure there are plenty of other problems with the olympic model, but it seems more fair to the athletes.
You know what, you are right. There is no such thing as free and its something I believe in strongly. You are exactly right. Very poor choice of words on my part.
There is an exchange for not having to pay for those hard costs. In my view the benefits far outweigh what they are actually receiving and having to do for those benefits. The benefits are lifelong while what they have to do to receive those benefits at most is four years and they largely benefit from those actions anyway.
On the Olympic sports and other "market decides" alternatives you are suggesting, you are flat out flying in to the face of TITLE IX law. Why do you ignore this? Furthermore, the schools \ NCAA don't have the enforcement capable of regulating it. The Pandora's box you are suggesting would ruin opportunities and ruin college sports. For what? For the 1% you will deny opportunities for 99%?
-
You're missing the point. The NCAA should be free to govern the actions of its member schools, but not the individual athletes ability to profit from his own name and likeness outside of the school. If the NCAA doesn't want to give schools an unfair advantage, then they can prevent schools from paying athletes for signatures and appearances. That doesn't mean that an athlete should not be allowed to get paid for an appearance outside of the school. Why can't a player get paid by a private organization or individual to sign autographs if he isn't on school property and isn't wearing the school's uniform?
I'm not missing it all. I'm not taking about the school paying the athletes, I'm talking about 50,000 Wisconsin alumni with a C Note each paying for an autograph that is worth $1. I'm talking about 125 Kentucky car dealerships deciding that each Kentucky basketball player will get an appearance fee of $25K to show up at the dealership for 3 hours and no repercussions at all.
What a great recruiting pitch "hey stud athlete, we can't pay you but this new autograph and appearance policy we can work with. Come to UK and our alumni network will have you making $100K a year while playing here and all you have to do is show up a few times at the dealer showroom'
-
And you said that membership looks out for its own interest, that being what's best for the universities.
What you seem to be saying in this post is that you think that the players are fairly compensated. Maybe the players don't agree. Why not let them represent themselves and see what happens? If you're right and everything is fair then nothing will change except making the players feel heard. No harm in that, right?
And you keep bringing this back to paying players. Its been a few days since I read the article, but most of the proposed reforms have nothing to do with direct payments to players. Maybe if the NCAA and its member institutions we're so inflexible about some common sense reforms then they could take some of the steam out of the movement. But alas...
You will never get everyone to agree. Read the comments of the Northwestern football players the last two weeks. Those interviewed, about 1/2 have said they will vote no because they feel the are treated very fairly. In today's millenial world, I'm surprised it wasn't lower.
Let me ask you this TJ, you give in and what happens 3 years from now? You think 100% of them are going to feel they are treated fairly? 5 years from now? 10 years from now?
Give an inch, they want a mile.
-
There is absolutely no presumption that they would miss school to make appearances.
Your last point sounds like a perfect issue for the NCAA to raise in collective bargaining. Oh, wait...
But but but but but I hear the same argument about practice time. All that practice keeps them away from schooling. It doesn't, the argument is that they could be studying or doing homework, etc, but they are "forced" to practice. So if they are at an appearance instead of studying, hitting the books, what's the difference?
That's why the argument they make about this is BS.
-
Even I can admit that this would be disastrous and lead to rampant corruption and cheating. But the NCAA collectively burying their heads in the sand and doing nothing is going to be disastrous in the end too.
Are they burying their heads in the sand, or are they limited to what they can regulate and enforce?
And yet you guys want to put a force multiplier in there and make it 10X worse with what you are asking. Be careful what you wish for...I don't think the membership is this stupid to adopt what some of you are asking for, but they'll adopt some things just so they can feel warm and fuzzy at night and pretend they did something. Most likely, what they will do will make matters worse. I'm looking forward to see if this goes to the extremes where the support grows for certain benefits and it leads to outright shutdown of some programs or sports. It will be like watching the unions in corporate America that kept pushing, kept telling themselves that there is no way they won't give in to us and then the pink slips arrive and they stand there in shock.
Be careful what you wish for.
-
And you said that membership looks out for its own interest, that being what's best for the universities.
What you seem to be saying in this post is that you think that the players are fairly compensated. Maybe the players don't agree. Why not let them represent themselves and see what happens? If you're right and everything is fair then nothing will change except making the players feel heard. No harm in that, right?
And you keep bringing this back to paying players. Its been a few days since I read the article, but most of the proposed reforms have nothing to do with direct payments to players. Maybe if the NCAA and its member institutions we're so inflexible about some common sense reforms then they could take some of the steam out of the movement. But alas...
+1 homerun
Chicos, you have gone and on for pages moralizing about the current system. The players disagree with you and are ready to vote on a union at Northwestern. Calipari disagrees with you in the article above. Jay Bilas disagrees with you. Even the NCAA disagrees with you and said it will change, just not how.
So just admit you hold an extreme view that is not shared by those that are directly impacted by college sports.
-
+1 homerun
Chicos, you have gone and on for pages moralizing about the current system. The players disagree with you and are ready to vote on a union at Northwestern. Calipari disagrees with you in the article above. Jay Bilas disagrees with you. Even the NCAA disagrees with you and said it will change, just not how.
So just admit you hold an extreme view that is not shared by those that are directly impacted by college sports.
-1...dribbler in front of the box, the catcher throws you out by 65 feet.
I hold an extreme view on this? Right now 1/2 the Northwestern football players share my view...50-50....yup, I'm extreme on this. LOL http://colorlines.com/archives/2014/04/northwestern_football_players_face_steep_climb_to_union.html
If Coach C disagrees with me, don't I get into heaven automatically? Don't I get a moral badge for that...I'm certainly taking it that way.
Show me where the NCAA disagrees with me when the head of the NCAA flat out said they disagree with the unionization and what it could mean. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/04/06/mark-emmert-ncaa-structure-presidents-press-conference-unionization-labor/7382025/
You might want to recalibrate your post and put a few facts in there.
-
I think it would be funny if the NCAA just gave up basketball and football overnight so those poor student athletes could be freed up by the Soviet Union.
I am sure for-profit leagues would sprout up everywhere and these kids would be making millions. ::)
-
But but but but but I hear the same argument about practice time. All that practice keeps them away from schooling. It doesn't, the argument is that they could be studying or doing homework, etc, but they are "forced" to practice. So if they are at an appearance instead of studying, hitting the books, what's the difference?
That's why the argument they make about this is BS.
Nothing in this post accurately reflects my argument. A player can decide what to do with his own free time. You originally said that the athletes would presumably miss school, not study time. I explained that it wouldn't interfere with school, at which point you decided to attack another argument that I never even made.
-
I'm not missing it all. I'm not taking about the school paying the athletes, I'm talking about 50,000 Wisconsin alumni with a C Note each paying for an autograph that is worth $1. I'm talking about 125 Kentucky car dealerships deciding that each Kentucky basketball player will get an appearance fee of $25K to show up at the dealership for 3 hours and no repercussions at all.
What a great recruiting pitch "hey stud athlete, we can't pay you but this new autograph and appearance policy we can work with. Come to UK and our alumni network will have you making $100K a year while playing here and all you have to do is show up a few times at the dealer showroom'
But wait, you keep reminding us that the NCAA is an association of schools. So, blame the schools and hold them accountable. The NCAA can make and enforce rules to prevent the schools from using outside benefits in the ways you describe.
-
But wait, you keep reminding us that the NCAA is an association of schools. So, blame the schools and hold them accountable. The NCAA can make and enforce rules to prevent the schools from using outside benefits in the ways you describe.
Right...LOL. Hold the schools accountable. How do you suggest that happen. This, I would love to hear. Are you going to have an NCAA investigator assigned to more than 1,000 NCAA schools? Please.
-
The fact that athletes can't use their own name or likeness to earn money is even more egregious than the jersey sales. How can the NCAA prevent athletes from getting paid for appearances or autograph signings that don't occur on a college campus or have any connection to the school or NCAA?
How can you separate the two? Would these kids be getting asked for an autograph for which you think they are entitled payment if they DID NOT PLAY FOR A SPORT SPONSORED BY THE NCAA? Of course not.
The connection is already there and the notoriety, etc, that the student athletes are getting is derived from the fact they play in a NCAA sponsored sport. Damn right they can prevent it, it is their rules. Don't like it, go play somewhere else and see how in demand your autograph is.
By the way, show me where the NCAA is selling autographs of players. They're not (nor am I implying that you say they are), so how is the NCAAs stance even at issue? The NCAA isn't selling autographs and they don't allow the student athletes to do so. Pretty simple.
-
How can you separate the two? Would these kids be getting asked for an autograph for which you think they are entitled payment if they DID NOT PLAY FOR A SPORT SPONSORED BY THE NCAA? Of course not.
I would have to assume you are against NFL players selling their autographs as well - since they PLAY FOR A SPORT SPONSORED BY THE NFL.
Chicos, you doth protest way too much. How many posts is it now just in this thread decrying any money going to the have-nots despite all the work they do and the massive injury threats they constantly face.
We could go through hundreds of threads here and probably never once find one where you choose the side with less power or less money. A constant refrain for you. You give anecdotes for everything to show how fair life is. Well, it isn't.
-
Right...LOL. Hold the schools accountable. How do you suggest that happen. This, I would love to hear. Are you going to have an NCAA investigator assigned to more than 1,000 NCAA schools? Please.
Like you say, it's an association of schools. If you can argue that the schools have the power to change the system in one area, why don't they have the ability to change it in another? Instead, they make rules that protect schools from themselves at the expense of the athletes. Sounds fair.
-
How can you separate the two? Would these kids be getting asked for an autograph for which you think they are entitled payment if they DID NOT PLAY FOR A SPORT SPONSORED BY THE NCAA? Of course not.
The connection is already there and the notoriety, etc, that the student athletes are getting is derived from the fact they play in a NCAA sponsored sport. Damn right they can prevent it, it is their rules. Don't like it, go play somewhere else and see how in demand your autograph is.
By the way, show me where the NCAA is selling autographs of players. They're not (nor am I implying that you say they are), so how is the NCAAs stance even at issue? The NCAA isn't selling autographs and they don't allow the student athletes to do so. Pretty simple.
The connection is already there and the notoriety, etc, that the student athletes are getting is derived from the fact they play in a NCAA sponsored sport. Damn right they can prevent it, it is their rules. Don't like it, go play somewhere else and see how in demand your autograph is.
By the way, show me where the NCAA is selling autographs of players. They're not (nor am I implying that you say they are), so how is the NCAAs stance even at issue? The NCAA isn't selling autographs and they don't allow the student athletes to do so. Pretty simple.
[/quote]If they go play somewhere else then no one in the NCAA would be getting dime, because no one would go to games.
Don't sell their jerseys or their likenesses then. They should get a cut from it.
-
This is a certainty, just as much as gay marriage or legalized mary jane was a certainty 5-10 years ago.
This just hit the wires from Harvard study in the last hour....people are fighting it for many reasons, one of them being just pure health concerns. Just because some people want it legalized doesn't mean it is the right thing to do or those opposing it are dinosaurs. Potentially permanent impacts
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-04-casual-marijuana-linked-brain-abnormalities.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/legal-pot/marijuana-re-shapes-brains-users-study-claims-n81126
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/04/15/casual-marijuana-use-linked-with-brain-abnormalities-study-finds/
-
This is a certainty, just as much as gay marriage or legalized mary jane was a certainty 5-10 years ago.
A new initiative launched in Olympia
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/39092266.jpg)
-
A new initiative launched in Olympia
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/39092266.jpg)
HAHAHAHAHAHA
-
You know what? Reading these posts is very enlightening. Just a few simple questions.
How may people on this board have extensive experience dealing with unions, a wide variety, in a wide variety of locales, negotiating contracts and grievance procedure through arbitration, federal lawsuits, and NLRB charges? Probably not too many, but for those that have, have you ever seen a union that really does not represent its members, tells lies whenever it is convenient, and does not really give a damn about the public welfare?
Foe those that have and answered yes, that is what the real world is. For those that answered no, you are living in a fantasy world.
-
This just hit the wires from Harvard study in the last hour....people are fighting it for many reasons, one of them being just pure health concerns. Just because some people want it legalized doesn't mean it is the right thing to do or those opposing it are dinosaurs. Potentially permanent impacts
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-04-casual-marijuana-linked-brain-abnormalities.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/legal-pot/marijuana-re-shapes-brains-users-study-claims-n81126
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/04/15/casual-marijuana-use-linked-with-brain-abnormalities-study-finds/
Cigarettes, beer, whiskey, McDonald's, Mtn. Dew, etc are all bad too !!! Marijuana just has a worse social stigma with the older generation and conservatives. Alcohol is the worst of the bunch. Insert argument here ____________.
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/15/bill-o-reilly-tries-to-enlist-kentucky-s-basketball-coach-in-bashing-blacks.html
-
Cigarettes, beer, whiskey, McDonald's, Mtn. Dew, etc are all bad too !!! Marijuana just has a worse social stigma with the older generation and conservatives. Alcohol is the worst of the bunch. Insert argument here ____________.
Ugh, I'm agreeing with Deane.
Spot on.
-
ncaa approved unlimited food for athletes today - addresses one of the common complaints - probably the most common sense and easiest to address (along with some of the post game travel rules)
-
all because poor Shabazz Napier went to bed 'starving' ::)
-
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10800648/texas-longhorns-ad-steve-patterson-counters-northwestern-push-players-union
BINGO...sounds like the same things I've been saying...people focusing on the 1% will destroy opportunities for the 400,000+ student athletes out there that have zero chance of doing anything in pro sports.
"The universities, the conferences and the NCAA have done a very poor job of telling our story and we've allowed this story to be created by the sports press to focus on the one-half of 1 percent of the student-athletes that go on to play pro sports. But 99.5 percent of student-athletes would not be in the position they're in without getting a scholarship."
"The difficulty in opening up free-market marketing to the half of the 1 percent is that it would create a competitive balance issue," Patterson said. "It would be easy for Booster X to figure out how'd he'd essentially pay a recruit to come to a school."
-
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10800648/texas-longhorns-ad-steve-patterson-counters-northwestern-push-players-union
BINGO...sounds like the same things I've been saying...people focusing on the 1% will destroy opportunities for the 400,000+ student athletes out there that have zero chance of doing anything in pro sports.
"The universities, the conferences and the NCAA have done a very poor job of telling our story and we've allowed this story to be created by the sports press to focus on the one-half of 1 percent of the student-athletes that go on to play pro sports. But 99.5 percent of student-athletes would not be in the position they're in without getting a scholarship."
"The difficulty in opening up free-market marketing to the half of the 1 percent is that it would create a competitive balance issue," Patterson said. "It would be easy for Booster X to figure out how'd he'd essentially pay a recruit to come to a school."
Again, I'll use some of your favorite phrases for arguing your position on this issue. Welcome to the real world... life's not fair.
I don't think anyone disagrees with this assessment, but it doesn't really change the issue in any significant way. The NCAA has to make a difficult decision about its true identity. For years all of these schools have been straddling a line between a multi-billion dollar industry and an organization providing education opportunities for amateur athletes. They aren't going to be able to straddle that line much longer.
The small percentage of athletes that go on to play pro sports are also the same athletes that make all of the money that supports the opportunities for the athletes that won't compete beyond college. The 1% athletes have figured this out, and are now leveraging their position to get the best possible deal. You may not like it, but that's the way things work in America. Frankly, I find it somewhat amusing that you would post an argument that bemoans the impact free-market capitalism will have on competitive balance.
-
NCAA's Emmert Defends Scholarship Values, Insurance Coverage On ESPN Radio
NCAA President Mark Emmert appeared on ESPN Radio's "Mike & Mike" Friday morning and talked about several of the bigger issues facing the organization, including whether the value of a scholarship is enough, granting student-athletes unlimited food and the unionization efforts at Northwestern. Emmert said while the NCAA generates $800-900M annually from the men's basketball tournament, it is the only event that brings in revenue. Emmert: "That money pays for all of intercollegiate athletics that we’re involved with. We run 89 championships -- Divisions I, II, III, all of the sports. Everything that we do is paid for by that one top-line revenue number. So when people say, ‘Oh my God, look at all of the money colleges are getting and earning and making off of a sport,’ that’s just dead wrong. ... This notion that somehow there is a big vault with $10 billion in it is silly." He noted "most everybody" that works in college athletics would say a scholarship is enough for student-athletes without adding a stipend. Emmert: "If we’re providing the full cost of attendance and the student doesn't have to reach in their own pocket to pay for their education, they’re getting all the things they need. I heard you guys talking about insurance and a bunch of other things. We need to address all of those issues, but there is almost nobody that I’ve ever talked to that wants to turn student-athletes into paid employees of universities.” Emmert was asked if colleges are losing out on money by giving out scholarships. He responded, “Yes, sure they are. They are taking a seat from a paying student."
PUTTING FOOD ON THE TABLE: Emmert said he did not "know how to interpret" UConn G Shabazz Napier’s comments made during the Final Four that he sometimes goes to bed hungry because he cannot afford to buy food, but the athletes on full scholarship are either given the "cash equivalent of what a full meal plan is worth or they’re getting a full meal plan." The NCAA earlier this week allowed athletes to get unlimited meals and snacks, and Emmert admitted that the NCAA's "biggest problem" is "dumb rules about food." Emmert: "If UConn wants to feed Shabazz breakfast in bed every day, they can. Great, fine, who cares? Feed kids what they need for nutrition, get out of the nitpicky nonsense.”
COVERAGE PLANS: Insurance coverage is a key aspect of the ongoing unionization effort at Northwestern, but Emmert said athletes are already covered if someone "gets injured today playing football or basketball or any sport and that’s a prolonged injury, goes and sticks with them their whole lifetime." Emmert: "We spend $20 million a year on long-term insurance policies for student-athletes. We have young men and young women who tragically have had injuries stretch all the way through their life. They've been covered for 20, 30 years in some cases. We need to make sure that that’s good enough. We need to make sure that the insurance while they’re playing is good enough. We’re pretty confident that it is" (“Mike & Mike,” ESPN Radio, 4/18).
-
NCAA's Emmert Defends Scholarship Values, Insurance Coverage On ESPN Radio
NCAA President Mark Emmert appeared on ESPN Radio's "Mike & Mike" Friday morning and talked about several of the bigger issues facing the organization, including whether the value of a scholarship is enough, granting student-athletes unlimited food and the unionization efforts at Northwestern. Emmert said while the NCAA generates $800-900M annually from the men's basketball tournament, it is the only event that brings in revenue. Emmert: "That money pays for all of intercollegiate athletics that we’re involved with. We run 89 championships -- Divisions I, II, III, all of the sports. Everything that we do is paid for by that one top-line revenue number. So when people say, ‘Oh my God, look at all of the money colleges are getting and earning and making off of a sport,’ that’s just dead wrong. ... This notion that somehow there is a big vault with $10 billion in it is silly." He noted "most everybody" that works in college athletics would say a scholarship is enough for student-athletes without adding a stipend. Emmert: "If we’re providing the full cost of attendance and the student doesn't have to reach in their own pocket to pay for their education, they’re getting all the things they need. I heard you guys talking about insurance and a bunch of other things. We need to address all of those issues, but there is almost nobody that I’ve ever talked to that wants to turn student-athletes into paid employees of universities.” Emmert was asked if colleges are losing out on money by giving out scholarships. He responded, “Yes, sure they are. They are taking a seat from a paying student."
PUTTING FOOD ON THE TABLE: Emmert said he did not "know how to interpret" UConn G Shabazz Napier’s comments made during the Final Four that he sometimes goes to bed hungry because he cannot afford to buy food, but the athletes on full scholarship are either given the "cash equivalent of what a full meal plan is worth or they’re getting a full meal plan." The NCAA earlier this week allowed athletes to get unlimited meals and snacks, and Emmert admitted that the NCAA's "biggest problem" is "dumb rules about food." Emmert: "If UConn wants to feed Shabazz breakfast in bed every day, they can. Great, fine, who cares? Feed kids what they need for nutrition, get out of the nitpicky nonsense.”
COVERAGE PLANS: Insurance coverage is a key aspect of the ongoing unionization effort at Northwestern, but Emmert said athletes are already covered if someone "gets injured today playing football or basketball or any sport and that’s a prolonged injury, goes and sticks with them their whole lifetime." Emmert: "We spend $20 million a year on long-term insurance policies for student-athletes. We have young men and young women who tragically have had injuries stretch all the way through their life. They've been covered for 20, 30 years in some cases. We need to make sure that that’s good enough. We need to make sure that the insurance while they’re playing is good enough. We’re pretty confident that it is" (“Mike & Mike,” ESPN Radio, 4/18).
If Emmert is correct, he should be fired as he's doing a terrible job of communicating this to the players. They do not believe him. Or more to the point, the student-athletes value scholarships and the insurance the NCAA offers differently than Emmert and see a much lower value than he assigns. That is why they are organizing.
If Emmert is wrong, he should be fired. In this case he is offering an incorrect view of the world.
-
I heard most of the interview, and he did a good job in trying to get the NCAA back in control of the story (goes to the point below about him being fired for letting the narrative go so wrong for so long), but he also misdirected a bunch (I know,-- :o :o ) and flat out lied on several points, including stating that if the players were "deemed employees," then 22 or 25 year olds could then bring age discrimination lawsuits against the schools because the teams were "hiring" 19 and 19 year olds even though the 22 to 25 year olds were better players. Nonsense.
-
NCAA president Mark Emmert said Friday that he was happy to take pressure off his organization and its member schools as the governing body's legislative council voted earlier this week to eliminate all previous restrictions on food for athletes.
"The biggest problem was, the NCAA has historically had all kinds of, I don't know how to describe it [except to say] dumb rules about food," Emmert said on ESPN Radio's "Mike & Mike" show. "The infamous one is you can provide between meals a snack, but you can't provide a meal. Well, then you got to define what's the difference between a snack and a meal? So it was literally the case that a bagel was defined as a snack -- unless you put cream cheese on it. Now it becomes a meal. That's absurd."
What is absurd are these comments by Emmert. So they knew these rules were "dumb", but never did anything about them? And the ONLY reason they are doing anything now is because of the union threats.
Calipari is 100% correct.
-
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10800648/texas-longhorns-ad-steve-patterson-counters-northwestern-push-players-union
BINGO...sounds like the same things I've been saying...people focusing on the 1% will destroy opportunities for the 400,000+ student athletes out there that have zero chance of doing anything in pro sports.
"The universities, the conferences and the NCAA have done a very poor job of telling our story and we've allowed this story to be created by the sports press to focus on the one-half of 1 percent of the student-athletes that go on to play pro sports. But 99.5 percent of student-athletes would not be in the position they're in without getting a scholarship."
"The difficulty in opening up free-market marketing to the half of the 1 percent is that it would create a competitive balance issue," Patterson said. "It would be easy for Booster X to figure out how'd he'd essentially pay a recruit to come to a school."
The athletic director with the largest budget in the nation said Thursday he doesn't support paying athletes nor a system in which they can market themselves, and doesn't understand the recent quest by some Northwestern football players to unionize.
Patterson went on to say "This is our money and we want to keep it. We are very selective in choosing the players who will make us richer than we ever dreamed possible. We are trying to teach all players the concept of the American Dream. Let someone else do the work so you can enjoy the good life you receive from their efforts".
-
NCAA president Mark Emmert said Friday that he was happy to take pressure off his organization and its member schools as the governing body's legislative council voted earlier this week to eliminate all previous restrictions on food for athletes.
"The biggest problem was, the NCAA has historically had all kinds of, I don't know how to describe it [except to say] dumb rules about food," Emmert said on ESPN Radio's "Mike & Mike" show. "The infamous one is you can provide between meals a snack, but you can't provide a meal. Well, then you got to define what's the difference between a snack and a meal? So it was literally the case that a bagel was defined as a snack -- unless you put cream cheese on it. Now it becomes a meal. That's absurd."
What is absurd are these comments by Emmert. So they knew these rules were "dumb", but never did anything about them? And the ONLY reason they are doing anything now is because of the union threats.
Calipari is 100% correct.
This in spades.
I'm totally against unions but in this case the can act as an agent of change.
The NCAA is a clusterf**k and northwestern unionizing will continue to keep pressure on them to reform. Without this pressure they will talk forever about reform and never do it.
-
Indeed. One of his lies was to say that Napier's comments had nothing to do with the decision re food, as that had been in the works for 2 years. Please. It nay well have been inn the workkks for two years, but without the O'Bannon lawsuit, the union movement and statements like Napier's, there still would have been no action.
-
If Emmert is correct, he should be fired as he's doing a terrible job of communicating this to the players. They do not believe him. Or more to the point, the student-athletes value scholarships and the insurance the NCAA offers differently than Emmert and see a much lower value than he assigns. That is why they are organizing.
If Emmert is wrong, he should be fired. In this case he is offering an incorrect view of the world.
LOL. All it takes it a bunch of dolts talking into the ears of student athletes to say the world is against you and that's who they are going to believe. I can think of a few athletes that listened to the wrong people and thought they were going to get drafted. I mean, are you serious?
There is an entire victim culture out there that feels the man is against these guys and they aren't going to believe anything. Look at how many people in this very thread have been so cavalier with the facts and have no damn clue what they are talking about.
How many people in this thread insisted players couldn't get jobs? They can. How many people in this thread said these kids need insurance? They already have it. Etc, etc. It's not Emmert's job to make people smart or attentive. He oversees an association, he can't touch 450,000 student athletes individually. They certainly message to these kids about the benefits, etc, but color be amazingly shocked that a bunch of 18 to 22 year old kids didn't pay enough damn attention.
-
The athletic director with the largest budget in the nation said Thursday he doesn't support paying athletes nor a system in which they can market themselves, and doesn't understand the recent quest by some Northwestern football players to unionize.
Patterson went on to say "This is our money and we want to keep it. We are very selective in choosing the players who will make us richer than we ever dreamed possible. We are trying to teach all players the concept of the American Dream. Let someone else do the work so you can enjoy the good life you receive from their efforts".
Cute....glad you used teal, but I suspect you believe every word of it.
-
I heard most of the interview, and he did a good job in trying to get the NCAA back in control of the story (goes to the point below about him being fired for letting the narrative go so wrong for so long), but he also misdirected a bunch (I know,-- :o :o ) and flat out lied on several points, including stating that if the players were "deemed employees," then 22 or 25 year olds could then bring age discrimination lawsuits against the schools because the teams were "hiring" 19 and 19 year olds even though the 22 to 25 year olds were better players. Nonsense.
Not nonsense actually. That opinion by SOME legal experts has already been brought up. Now, will it hold water, who knows, but like anything with legal questions you can line up a bunch of lawyers and some will say yes and some will say no to the exact same issue. What he is mentioning was brought up by several legal experts on the unionization \ employee status a few weeks ago as a potential risk. I'll try to find the article.
-
What is absurd are these comments by Emmert. So they knew these rules were "dumb", but never did anything about them? And the ONLY reason they are doing anything now is because of the union threats.
Calipari is 100% correct.
And again....they are an association. The rules are those adopted and approved by the member institutions. They enforce the rules. They give guidance on the rules, but if that's what the membership wants, that's what was approved. The NCAA, unlike our wonderful gov't, doesn't get to decide what to enforce and what it deems as lawful on any given day or depending on what constituency you are coddling for money and votes. No, they have to enforce the rules the membership has voted in.
Don't like the rules, introduce legislation at the NCAA membership meetings to change it. Ask this question, what has Calipari and Kentucky done on this front to introduce legislation for change?
-
Indeed. One of his lies was to say that Napier's comments had nothing to do with the decision re food, as that had been in the works for 2 years. Please. It nay well have been inn the workkks for two years, but without the O'Bannon lawsuit, the union movement and statements like Napier's, there still would have been no action.
Napiers comments were absolutely absurd. Off the hook absurd. He says he was going to be starving, what a disservice to people in this world that truly do. Embarrassing.
The NCAA is stuck having to enforce some of this stupidity, but as we all know too well in this country, you can't legislate morality and you certainly can legislate stupidity. The member schools do that, the NCAA enforces it.
"We wind up having to enforce the stupid rule, which means you have to have someone watching if someone is putting cream cheese on a bagel," Emmert said.
"The notion that schools might compete by offering better quality food, that's not inherently a bad thing," Emmert said. "So let's compete over who can provide the best nutrition for a student-athlete. We compete over who can give them the best locker room. I'd rather they compete over who can give them the best nutrition. So will there be competition around that, I'm sure there will be, but I don't think that's a bad thing."
-
This in spades.
I'm totally against unions but in this case the can act as an agent of change.
The NCAA is a clusterf**k and northwestern unionizing will continue to keep pressure on them to reform. Without this pressure they will talk forever about reform and never do it.
We'll see if they unionize...you may be counting your chickens way too soon. Furthermore, there are repercussions....you're basically saying enrich the 1% and the other 99% of student athletes go unnatural carnal knowledge themselves. Careful what you wish for.
-
Don't like the rules, introduce legislation at the NCAA membership meetings to change it.
This won't happen unless the athletes get representation at the table. Of course you and the NCAA think denying them representation is completely fine.
-
Indeed. One of his lies was to say that Napier's comments had nothing to do with the decision re food, as that had been in the works for 2 years. Please. It nay well have been inn the workkks for two years, but without the O'Bannon lawsuit, the union movement and statements like Napier's, there still would have been no action.
+1
The NCAA has dozens of reforms in the works. And they will stay in the works until something like Napiers comment forces the into action.
Northwestern Union vote this Friday April 25.
-
Cute....glad you used teal, but I suspect you believe every word of it.
You know me too well >:(
-
Number of Northwestern players coming out against union is growing. Hard to know totals, but interesting article.
http://www.athleticbusiness.com/more-news/number-of-anti-union-players-growing-at-northwestern.html
-
+1
The NCAA has dozens of reforms in the works. And they will stay in the works until something like Napiers comment forces the into action.
Northwestern Union vote this Friday April 25.
Yup, I honestly dont get how people can support these corporations that exploit these kids. For christ sake let Juan Anderson accept free tickets to a Brewers game without having to get suspended. The hypocrisy is incredible.
-
Yup, I honestly dont get how people can support these corporations that exploit these kids. For christ sake let Juan Anderson accept free tickets to a Brewers game without having to get suspended. The hypocrisy is incredible.
Those rules are there for a reason....don't like the rules, then change the rules. The reason, is easy. Massive abuse in the past where schools that were attached to big market pro teams could give away free tickets and an inducement, creating an unfair advantage for all the schools that don't have access to that. Say Marquette was in Rhinelander and our biggest rival was in Chicago. We recruit for the same kids, but the Chicago school gave free tickets to Bears, Bulls, Hawks, Cubs, White Sox games to their recruits and current players. Anytime, all the time.
That was the complaint, that's why the rule is there.
-
This won't happen unless the athletes get representation at the table. Of course you and the NCAA think denying them representation is completely fine.
I can only guess by your comments that you don't understand the representation and voice they already have. So, no, I don't agree with your initial statement that they have no representation. As with way too much in this thread, the amount of wrong knowledge about their situation is fascinating and revealing at the same time.
Now, is that representation the same. Nope, but they do have a voice. SAAC has been around for 25 years is just one area where that representation is manifested.
-
+1
The NCAA has dozens of reforms in the works. And they will stay in the works until something like Napiers comment forces the into action.
Northwestern Union vote this Friday April 25.
Again, this is just wrong. Seriously, it would take you probably 5 minutes to go through the reform measurements that are considered each year, voted on, implemented or not implemented. Each year, all part of the public record. All there on a website to easily read and follow.
So many flat out falsehoods and staggering lack of knowledge on this topic it is truly amazing.
-
Number of Northwestern players coming out against union is growing. Hard to know totals, but interesting article.
http://www.athleticbusiness.com/more-news/number-of-anti-union-players-growing-at-northwestern.html
And the unionization movement said if it fails next Friday at Northwestern they move on to Georgia Tech next with others right behind them. It does not end Friday with a no vote.
And remember if they vote yes, nothing really happens for a year as they only START the process of organizing and wait on its legality as the appeals process continues.
If they vote yes and the NCAA caves and gives them everything they want, they can later de-certify the union.
This is what I think happens. NU votes yes, later this summer Georgia Tech votes yes. The NCAA caves and radically changes the rules. Then they declare victory and de-certify the union.
-
Those rules are there for a reason....don't like the rules, then change the rules. The reason, is easy. Massive abuse in the past where schools that were attached to big market pro teams could give away free tickets and an inducement, creating an unfair advantage for all the schools that don't have access to that. Say Marquette was in Rhinelander and our biggest rival was in Chicago. We recruit for the same kids, but the Chicago school gave free tickets to Bears, Bulls, Hawks, Cubs, White Sox games to their recruits and current players. Anytime, all the time.
That was the complaint, that's why the rule is there.
1. Thou dost seem to be protesting way too much.
2. "don't like the rules... change the rules" - What does that mean? Are you saying the players who should have no voice have the ability to change the rules? Well, guess what? They ARE taking your advice. They are trying to change the rules the only way that is possible.
-
Unionization of collegiate athletics will ruin things for athletes who do not play Football or Basketball. This is a union play using the spoiled, pampered ones who are virtually the only ones (save for baseball and maybe soccer) who have a pro future and their college experience and training is what makes them marketable. Having had children who were recruited to play collegiate athletics I know that they are provided among other things, clothing and perks like a bag to put their laundry in so someone can take them to be cleaned. The opportunity for an education certainly is the major payoff here for serious students. I seriously doubt Napier has been starved by UCONN but as a typical young man is just constantly hungry from one meal to the next.
-
Those rules are there for a reason....don't like the rules, then change the rules. The reason, is easy. Massive abuse in the past where schools that were attached to big market pro teams could give away free tickets and an inducement, creating an unfair advantage for all the schools that don't have access to that. Say Marquette was in Rhinelander and our biggest rival was in Chicago. We recruit for the same kids, but the Chicago school gave free tickets to Bears, Bulls, Hawks, Cubs, White Sox games to their recruits and current players. Anytime, all the time.
That was the complaint, that's why the rule is there.
Yes, the rules are their for a reason as this article states. But not what Chicos states.
The reason is they were passed 25 years ago to protect the schools that were losing buckets of money. In union terms the schools and the NCAA made the "work rules" more difficult to save money. So why the stupid food rule, and the 20-hours practice rule? To save money!
Now that the economics are much more favorable the schools and the NCAA are slow to change to work rules in favor for the student athlete. And predictably the student athletes are pushing back by threatening to unionize.
----------
The story below talks about the environment in 1991 that lead to the rule changes were are talking about today.
Chicago Sun-Times Columnist Rick Telender wrote a book about UW during this period called From Red Ink to Roses: The Turbulent Transformation of a Big Ten Program
http://www.amazon.com/From-Red-Ink-Roses-Transformation/dp/product-description/067174853X
From the reviews ...
Telander also weaves in the stories of dozens of Wisconsin athletes, coaches and administrators to trace the changes in the university's athletic department throughout 1991. The year was marked by the department's efforts to cut its budget deficit, an endeavor that included eliminating baseball, fencing and three other sports. ... Here, he examines the workings of the athletic department at the University of Wisconsin, a large, prestigious institution that is attempting to strike a balance between educational goals and winning games. Among the many threads that Telander weaves together are budget cuts, sexual harassment, gender equity, marketing schemes, fund-raising efforts, recruiting adventures, lawsuits, violence, the NCAA, corruption, the tension between major (football and men's basketball) and minor (everything else) sports, and the effects of all of the above on the mental and physical health of the athletes. ... How the University of Wisconsin athletic department went from a debt-ridden mess in 1990 to one of the healthiest programs in the country, capped by its once hapless football team's stunning 1994 Rose Bowl victory.
----------------------
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10803318/mark-emmert-ends-ncaa-food-fight
Pick the silliest NCAA rules, and the odds are, the NCAA membership passed them to level the playing field. That is the genesis of the one-meal-a-day rule. It was passed in January 1991 as part of a revolutionary package of reforms endorsed by the NCAA Presidents Commission with the intent of reining in runaway spending and reasserting university control over athletics.
"It is time for the NCAA membership to act on the basis of Association interest -- what is best for the whole of college athletics -- rather than what might be desired by any of its component parts," NCAA executive director Dick Schultz said that week at the NCAA convention in Nashville.
The Presidents Commission came about at the end of the 1980s, a decade of rampant cheating, amid concerns that intercollegiate athletics had gone out of control. The SMU death penalty remained a fresh memory. The vast majority of athletic administrators welcomed the presidents asserting their control. The presidents did so with a heavy hand. Virtually the only officials to complain about the rules changes were the coaches who would have to operate under them. But their voices were not taken seriously.
The American economy sputtered at the time -- President George H.W. Bush would lose his re-election bid the following year -- and the fear of continued overspending served as an impetus for the reform package. Budget issues certainly generated more fear than the thought of what might happen to student-athletes who didn't get enough to eat. The reform package included rules to benefit student-athletes, among them the 20-hour playing week.
Nearly a quarter-century later, most of that cost-cutting package has been repealed or become obsolete. The 20-hour rule is a rule in name only, as the NLRB regional director explained in his ruling in the Northwestern case.
The rule cutting coaching staffs and limiting the earnings of some assistant coaches cost the NCAA members $54.5 million to settle an antitrust suit. There is one significant exception. The decision to reduce the overall scholarship limit for FBS schools from 95 to 85 brought about increased parity that has served the sport well.
If money is speech, as the U.S. Supreme Court just finished saying, then the top FBS schools have a lot to say. If, as Slive says, the first words out of their collective mouths are "student-athlete," then intercollegiate athletics will survive their self-induced crisis.
But events -- lawsuits, the Northwestern case -- are moving faster than the NCAA membership is. "If we don't find a way to funnel more benefits to student-athletes," Pacific athletic director Ted Leland said last week, "then people on the outside are going to do it for us."
-
I can only guess by your comments that you don't understand the representation and voice they already have. So, no, I don't agree with your initial statement that they have no representation. As with way too much in this thread, the amount of wrong knowledge about their situation is fascinating and revealing at the same time.
Now, is that representation the same. Nope, but they do have a voice. SAAC has been around for 25 years is just one area where that representation is manifested.
Okay, enlighten me. Please explain how the players are represented when NCAA members introduce legislation? I'm dying to hear this, because I assume you are going to provide some BS about how the schools represent the athlete's interests.
-
Unionization of collegiate athletics will ruin things for athletes who do not play Football or Basketball. This is a union play using the spoiled, pampered ones who are virtually the only ones (save for baseball and maybe soccer) who have a pro future and their college experience and training is what makes them marketable. Having had children who were recruited to play collegiate athletics I know that they are provided among other things, clothing and perks like a bag to put their laundry in so someone can take them to be cleaned. The opportunity for an education certainly is the major payoff here for serious students. I seriously doubt Napier has been starved by UCONN but as a typical young man is just constantly hungry from one meal to the next.
If a "unionization" comes to pass - it probably won't much affect almost all athletes who don't play BB or FB - other than medical care after they graduate if the care is needed because of something that happened while playing their sport.
-
1. Thou dost seem to be protesting way too much.
2. "don't like the rules... change the rules" - What does that mean? Are you saying the players who should have no voice have the ability to change the rules? Well, guess what? They ARE taking your advice. They are trying to change the rules the only way that is possible.
Hardly protesting too much. I find it amazing someone can say don't suspend the kid for taking free tickets. The kid knew the rules and the rules are common sense. This idea that it is "just tickets" leads to "it's just free shoes'...it's "just a few sweatshirts"...it's "just a crappy motorized scooter", etc, etc
They are an inducement, they are not allowed.
If YOU, the fan don't like these rules. Contact your school. Ask them why they voted for these rules. Tell them you want it changed because of the vast injustice done to these kids at Marquette that are receiving more than $200K education and all the other benefits that go with them. And certainly, the student athletes can do the same. Have them make the case on how terrible they have it to the athletic department, convince them they need change.
Or, since the student athletes DO have a voice through SAAC and other outlets, have them make the case there directly to the NCAA.
-
If a "unionization" comes to pass - it probably won't much affect almost all athletes who don't play BB or FB - other than medical care after they graduate if the care is needed because of something that happened while playing their sport.
They ALREADY have insurance for related injuries that happened playing their sport....again, why do people keep saying these things WHEN THAT ALREADY EXISTS. smh
The other part you are missing, if unionization happens at SOME schools, they will drop some sports...and that most certainly will impact athletes that don't play BB and FB. There are consequences to actions.
-
They ALREADY have insurance for related injuries that happened playing their sport....again, why do people keep saying these things WHEN THAT ALREADY EXISTS. smh
The other part you are missing, if unionization happens at SOME schools, they will drop some sports...and that most certainly will impact athletes that don't play BB and FB. There are consequences to actions.
Again, the players don't think much of their current insurance package. You might but your opinion doesn't count.
As far as some schools dropping sports, that just hyperbole designed to scare. No evidence any of this will happen.
-
Okay, enlighten me. Please explain how the players are represented when NCAA members introduce legislation? I'm dying to hear this, because I assume you are going to provide some BS about how the schools represent the athlete's interests.
No different than you or I are represented when Congress passes legislation. We have input to our representatives, etc. For student athletes, the number one way is the SAAC, the Student Athlete Advisory Committee that is a liason with the schools, conferences and the NCAA. The committee is made up of current student athletes. Every university in the NCAA has representation.
For Marquette:
President: Rachel Stier, Volleyball
Vice-President: John Mau, Men's Soccer
Secretary: Maegan Kelly, Women's Soccer
Tresurer: Bret Hardin, Men's Track
Men's Tennis: Logon Collins, Dan Mamalat
Women's Tennis: Alexandra Dawson, Ana Pimienta Ibarra
Women's Cross Country: Haley Loprieno, Rebecca Pachuta
Men's Basketball: Jamil Wilson, Derrick Wilson
Women's Basketball: Lauren Tibbs, Api Ojulu
Men's Track: Michael Saindon
Women's Track: Katherine Kemmerer, Kristen Gaffey
Men's Lacrosse: Ben Dvorak, Daniel Mojica
Women's Lacrosse: Jenaye Coleman, Meredith Donaldson
Men's Golf: Corey Konieczki, Nicholas Nelson
Women's Volleyball: Courtney Mrotek
Men's Soccer: Bryan Ciesiulka
Women's Soccer: Cara Jacobson
There is then representation at the conference level of students. So the Big East has SAAC representatives from each member school.
-
Northwestern Union vote this Friday April 25.
Yup, I'll stick my neck out and say it doesn't pass.
-
If a "unionization" comes to pass - it probably won't much affect almost all athletes who don't play BB or FB - other than medical care after they graduate if the care is needed because of something that happened while playing their sport.
It will. Title IX will make sure they get paid equally with BB and FB.
This will be a big mess.
-
Again, the players don't think much of their current insurance package. You might but your opinion doesn't count.
As far as some schools dropping sports, that just hyperbole designed to scare. No evidence any of this will happen.
LOL. Right. It's a matter of pure economics. It will happen, guaranteed...question is to what level. I'm trying to think of examples in the past where unions demanded something, management said no and if they pushed, the jobs and plant would be scuttled...then the typical response "it's just hyperbole designed to scare...no evidence any of this will happen"...yeah, tough to come up with those examples. ::)
And I'm sorry if they don't like the insurance package, maybe I don't like it at my work. My options, go buy one on my own, get another job. Welcome to the real world.
-
Or, since the student athletes DO have a voice through SAAC and other outlets, have them make the case there directly to the NCAA.
Or better yet, and far more effective, take the union gambit, which likely will not result in actual unionization, but instead in huge PR and move toward reform.
-
Or better yet, and far more effective, take the union gambit, which likely will not result in actual unionization, but instead in huge PR and move toward reform.
My guess, Northwestern football will not vote to unionize, Heisenburg will be floored along with a few others here. There will be some "reforms", though many of them have already been in the works...the NCAA doesn't vote on legislation every weekend or every month like some would desire here. People on one side will claim victory for these reforms (again, most of them already in the works) and then we'll go through the whole process again in a few years when more and more and more and more and more is asked for. Because the top line revenue number comes from ONE SINGLE source, the NCAA television contract, those dollars (96% of them) go to fund the championships for DI, DII, DIII and for 450,000 student athletes. There is only so much MORE that can be given without it impacting the 99% that are playing, in school to get an education.
Ramifications to all of this.
-
My view is that they do not vote to unionize; if they do, the northwestern appeal will win anyway; if the players win all the ay up to the Supreme Court, which I doubt very very much, few other teams will join. You are right that various rules changes have been in process me time; you are wrong if you believe that the union effort does not impact timing and outcome. And I say that not knowing whether the players ultimate end game is unnionization or just to impact outcome, as I suggest.
-
They ALREADY have insurance for related injuries that happened playing their sport....again, why do people keep saying these things WHEN THAT ALREADY EXISTS. smh
Sorry. No.
If a football player has issues from a football-related injury, the colleges aren't going to cover the care needed if the guy is 60 years old.
-
BTW, the only good thing about sitting all day in a warehouse with 9 vball courts going full time is catching up on scoop.
-
No different than you or I are represented when Congress passes legislation.
This is just absolutely untrue. In fact it made me laugh out loud when I read it.
Our representatives in Congress actually have the power to create legislation and an equal vote on whether that legislation becomes law. The SAAC has no such power. It's like a high school's student government.
Comparing the SAAC to Congress is probably the most ridiculous thing you have posted in this thread.
-
My view is that they do not vote to unionize; if they do, the northwestern appeal will win anyway; if the players win all the ay up to the Supreme Court, which I doubt very very much, few other teams will join. You are right that various rules changes have been in process me time; you are wrong if you believe that the union effort does not impact timing and outcome. And I say that not knowing whether the players ultimate end game is unnionization or just to impact outcome, as I suggest.
Considering some of the lawyers involved pushing unionization, their goal is clear....whether the student athletes want it, we'll see. Let's not diminish the outside forces at work here and what their intentions are.
On the timing and outcome, much of that is based on when the legislation is voted on and how soon things can be reasonable executed. This isn't a situation like Congress where they can call up a vote any day they want.
-
Sorry. No.
If a football player has issues from a football-related injury, the colleges aren't going to cover the care needed if the guy is 60 years old.
The NCAA has catastrophic coverage for student athletes...DI schools carry this at a rate of 98% while DII and DIII schools around 79%. The NCAA also has disability coverage through the ESDI program, launched 25 years ago.
The NCAA also requires every student athlete to have their own personal insurance, just like my son's high school does and my son's soccer league does, or my daughter's league does. Most students are also covered by the university if the injury happens while enrolled. Kevin Ware's leg snapping in two, Louisville covered those expenses. Now, was Louisville required to cover those? No. It is not mandated by the NCAAs policies.
Look, can improvements be made, etc, etc? Of course. No one is denying that.
-
He feels the same way I do, Olympic sports will be cut and opportunities for young people removed.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11243234/bob-bowlsby-big-12-commissioner-says-cheating-pays-ncaa-enforcement-broken
-
This is truly
American elitist: beat the system, succeed, and watch others fail.
Then lament why others can't play by the rules.
-
This is truly American elitist: beat the system, succeed, and watch others fail.
Then lament why others can't play by the rules.
Exactly,
Fact is the changes coming are going to save the system that is currently broken. Don't expect the Big 12 commissioner (aka, the bitch of Texas) to ever acknowledge this as the longhorns have it good with the current corrupt system and want to keep it this way.
-
Exactly,
Fact is the changes coming are going to save the system that is currently broken. Don't expect the Big 12 commissioner (aka, the bitch of Texas) to ever acknowledge this as the longhorns have it good with the current corrupt system and want to keep it this way.
So you are now saying changes are coming, but it will survive? At least you took down the hyperbole.
-
This is truly American elitist: beat the system, succeed, and watch others fail.
Then lament why others can't play by the rules.
That's one part of it, the other part is about all the opportunities for young people will now disappear, which is a shame. No one seems to care about the 99%, it's the 1% that are "on the plantation and can't eat 6 meals a day"
-
Bowlsby's comments are all part of an orchestrated play by the Power 5 to get the flexibility they want. If they don't get it, they have laid the groundwork for them to potentially leave the NCAA entirely.
Really if they were truly concerned about compliance, they could find a way to get the enforcement division more money. But they won't do that.
-
That's one part of it, the other part is about all the opportunities for young people will now disappear, which is a shame. No one seems to care about the 99%, it's the 1% that are "on the plantation and can't eat 6 meals a day"
People simply don't care as much about the olympic sports. It's the free market in action.
-
That's one part of it, the other part is about all the opportunities for young people will now disappear, which is a shame. No one seems to care about the 99%, it's the 1% that are "on the plantation and can't eat 6 meals a day"
Really ::)
Why, oh why, do we persecute the people who hold all of the money and power? Why have we made their lives so hard and unlivable?
-
That's one part of it, the other part is about all the opportunities for young people will now disappear, which is a shame. No one seems to care about the 99%, it's the 1% that are "on the plantation and can't eat 6 meals a day"
The 99% will be fine ... and you accuse me of hyperbole.
-
Having Olympics sports is a form of penance for the big state schools getting fat off of football and basketball. Perhaps it wasn't a good business model for them afterall even if it did help them feel better about themselves.
-
That's one part of it, the other part is about all the opportunities for young people will now disappear, which is a shame. No one seems to care about the 99%, it's the 1% that are "on the plantation and can't eat 6 meals a day"
People who want to play soccer or volleyball or whatever will still be able to play them, they just won't be able to force the football players and basketball players to pay them to do it. What a pity.
-
He feels the same way I do, Olympic sports will be cut and opportunities for young people removed.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11243234/bob-bowlsby-big-12-commissioner-says-cheating-pays-ncaa-enforcement-broken
I think many of the Olympic Sports are actually much more financially viable than they are given credit for. These sports only offer partial scholarships. So if you have 26 kids on the soccer team and 9.9 scholarships spread between them your looking at 16 full tuition paying students. Most of these would not be attending the school if it were not for the sport. So I think a lot of it is in the accounting. As such, I don't think these will disappear. There will end up being more regional conferences specifically for the Olympic sports though to reduce costs.
These other sports add fabric to the schools and there will be plenty of people that stand up for them.
-
I think many of the Olympic Sports are actually much more financially viable than they are given credit for. These sports only offer partial scholarships. So if you have 26 kids on the soccer team and 9.9 scholarships spread between them your looking at 16 full tuition paying students. Most of these would not be attending the school if it were not for the sport. So I think a lot of it is in the accounting. As such, I don't think these will disappear. There will end up being more regional conferences specifically for the Olympic sports though to reduce costs.
These other sports add fabric to the schools and there will be plenty of people that stand up for them.
I'll take that a step further. The vast majority of athletic programs lose far more money on football and basketball than they do on the other olympic sports.
I know of large D1 programs that lose 10-15 million a year on football and basketball and about 4-5 million a year on all the other sports combined. That is with them allocating all "spirit shop" sales to football and basketball and none of that merchandising for other sports.
-
Once you open it up to sponsors, companies can/will sponsor the Olympic sports. Not the program but the athletes. Companies will sign promising tennis (like babolat) track (asics) and swimmers (speedo) to contracts and send them college. This does not happen now as they are defined as professionals. Not everyone will get a huge payday. No, few will get a huge payday. Some might get a few thousand dollars and directed to a sponsor school ... Not unlike the partial schollies handed out now. Nike essentially does this now with the University of Oregon.
The business model will change, the current entrenched interest might lose, but Olympic sport athletes will continue just fine on college campuses.
-
Having Olympics sports is a form of penance for the big state schools getting fat off of football and basketball. Perhaps it wasn't a good business model for them afterall even if it did help them feel better about themselves.
Not to hijack the thread, but this is an interesting comment. It goes to the reality that Americans are really not good fans of sports. We like football, basketball and few other team sports. But the rest as far as we are concerned could all go away, including the Olympics.
Europeans, on the other hand, will support soccer like we support football, and find 50,000 top watch a track meet and millions to line the route of a bike race. Try doing that here.
So, the real problem is we (Americans) are crappy fans, we only have the capacity to bitch about the packers and MU and everything else can go to zero.
-
Not to hijack the thread, but this is an interesting comment. It goes to the reality that Americans are really not good fans of sports. We like football, basketball and few other team sports. But the rest as far as we are concerned could all go away, including the Olympics.
Europeans, on the other hand, will support soccer like we support football, and find 50,000 top watch a track meet and millions to line the route of a bike race. Try doing that here.
So, the real problem is we (Americans) are crappy fans, we only have the capacity to bitch about the packers and MU and everything else can go to zero.
Hey we sided with Ryan Braun! Even when the rest of the country laughed at us!
-
Not to hijack the thread, but this is an interesting comment. It goes to the reality that Americans are really not good fans of sports. We like football, basketball and few other team sports. But the rest as far as we are concerned could all go away, including the Olympics.
Europeans, on the other hand, will support soccer like we support football, and find 50,000 top watch a track meet and millions to line the route of a bike race. Try doing that here.
So, the real problem is we (Americans) are crappy fans, we only have the capacity to bitch about the packers and MU and everything else can go to zero.
Of course you are ignoring that MLB drew an over all attendance of almost 75 million, or 30,000 or so per game. And the NBA, NHL, college football and basketball...
-
That's one part of it, the other part is about all the opportunities for young people will now disappear, which is a shame. No one seems to care about the 99%, it's the 1% that are "on the plantation and can't eat 6 meals a day"
That is correct.
Not to make this political but athletic scholarships have benefitted the rich but especially the middle class and poor.
Let's not forget the cost of skyrocketing college education.
Get ready for "REFORM"...whatever that meant and means...
-
Not to hijack the thread, but this is an interesting comment. It goes to the reality that Americans are really not good fans of sports. We like football, basketball and few other team sports. But the rest as far as we are concerned could all go away, including the Olympics.
Europeans, on the other hand, will support soccer like we support football, and find 50,000 top watch a track meet and millions to line the route of a bike race. Try doing that here.
So, the real problem is we (Americans) are crappy fans, we only have the capacity to bitch about the packers and MU and everything else can go to zero.
Well if we all got 6 weeks of vacation like many countries across the pond I would line the streets to drink beer and watch a bike race too.
-
Not to hijack the thread, but this is an interesting comment. It goes to the reality that Americans are really not good fans of sports. We like football, basketball and few other team sports. But the rest as far as we are concerned could all go away, including the Olympics.
Europeans, on the other hand, will support soccer like we support football, and find 50,000 top watch a track meet and millions to line the route of a bike race. Try doing that here.
So, the real problem is we (Americans) are crappy fans, we only have the capacity to bitch about the packers and MU and everything else can go to zero.
400,000 show up to watch cars go round at the Indy 500 weekend. Not to mention NASCAR that is mostly in the US. Major golf events are packed in the US. I really not see your point at all. I would really be shocked if there is a huge difference is sports spectating events between continents. Of course the tour de france is gonna be packed, it is held once a year and is the biggest event in the sport at a tourist destination. It's not like people go nuts about cycling all-year round.
-
Of course you are ignoring that MLB drew an over all attendance of almost 75 million, or 30,000 or so per game. And the NBA, NHL, college football and basketball...
Ok let me be more specific ... In the US we are fans of team sports. Individual sports, and many Olympic sports, have lost interest. The one current exception might be tennis. (Marty, check your numbers, Golf is collapsing and in crisis right now. see this http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/hbo-real-sports-the-downturn-in-the-golf-industry/127ps57l)
By contrast European (and in particular French) are just as passionate about their team sports as we are BUT THEY ALSO attend, watch and cheer for individual sports in far greater numbers than we do.
Remember I wrote this in response to Chucklehead saying:
Having Olympics sports is a form of penance for the big state schools getting fat off of football and basketball.
He seems to be holding a view of many Americans that all individual sports are worthless and should go away. The only role they now serve is "penance" (a form of punishment) for big schools with sport team programs.
-
What about boxing and UFC in the USA?
-
What about boxing and UFC in the USA?
Pretty niche audience these days for both.
-
Pretty niche audience these days for both.
Probably pretty true...I guess the amount of money they make distorts how popular it actually is.
-
Probably pretty true...I guess the amount of money they make distorts how popular it actually is.
Well niche audiences can be passionate and that passion can make it lucrative. Golf, tennis, cycling, etc. all involve a good deal of money. They just don't have broad appeal.
-
What about boxing and UFC in the USA?
Largest crowd I've fought in front of was roughly 600. Granted I'm not a household name, or even a big name.
Pretty niche audience these days for both.
While I agree that's somewhat true I also think that as white college educated American males you might be underestimating the support of those sports. We aren't the target market at all. Heck I'm in the sport and not part of the target market.
-
Actually I was basing it on the television ratings, which while on Fox, drew television audiences similar to what the British Open did last Sunday. Now the British Open rating was terrible by golf standards, and the UFC ratings have slipped since moving to FS.
But that was better than I thought they were.
-
Ok let me be more specific ... In the US we are fans of team sports. Individual sports, and many Olympic sports, have lost interest. The one current exception might be tennis. (Marty, check your numbers, Golf is collapsing and in crisis right now. see this http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/hbo-real-sports-the-downturn-in-the-golf-industry/127ps57l)
http://www.cbssports.com/golf/eye-on-golf/24585468/the-2014-us-open-is-sold-out
I just don't get your point. The video is about golf participation, not attendance. They are literally turning away people from major golf events. You were saying US people don't turn out for other sports which is false. You used example of premiere single events like the tour de france to say they support those sports. We we showed up for a similar sport in Indy 500 in an equal amount of people. From my experience, it isn't unique to Americans only going to major events that are culturally import. Last summer I would stream Gianni's games from Greece at 2 in the morning to see only maybe 30 people in the stands. Do you have any evidence that these countries support lower tier sports at non-championship times? You are only giving examples of major championships.
FYI- This major track event had 50K attendance in the US last year. http://www.thepennrelays.com/ You may want to check your numbers.
-
People simply don't care as much about the olympic sports. It's the free market in action.
I would disagree as context and location are relevant. The Olympic sports at Michigan, for instance, have solid support and are championed by the overall community. And on Ivy campuses, Olympic sports are much more an integral part of the student experience. Many of these sports have had active teams since before the Civil War.
-
http://www.cbssports.com/golf/eye-on-golf/24585468/the-2014-us-open-is-sold-out
I just don't get your point. The video is about golf participation, not attendance. They are literally turning away people from major golf events. You were saying US people don't turn out for other sports which is false. You used example of premiere single events like the tour de france to say they support those sports. We we showed up for a similar sport in Indy 500 in an equal amount of people. From my experience, it isn't unique to Americans only going to major events that are culturally import. Last summer I would stream Gianni's games from Greece at 2 in the morning to see only maybe 30 people in the stands. Do you have any evidence that these countries support lower tier sports at non-championship times? You are only giving examples of major championships.
FYI- This major track event had 50K attendance in the US last year. http://www.thepennrelays.com/ You may want to check your numbers.
Agree with the post.
And dwindling golf participation is much more a matter of economics than anything else.
-
http://www.cbssports.com/golf/eye-on-golf/24585468/the-2014-us-open-is-sold-out
I just don't get your point. The video is about golf participation, not attendance. They are literally turning away people from major golf events. You were saying US people don't turn out for other sports which is false. You used example of premiere single events like the tour de france to say they support those sports. We we showed up for a similar sport in Indy 500 in an equal amount of people. From my experience, it isn't unique to Americans only going to major events that are culturally import. Last summer I would stream Gianni's games from Greece at 2 in the morning to see only maybe 30 people in the stands. Do you have any evidence that these countries support lower tier sports at non-championship times? You are only giving examples of major championships.
FYI- This major track event had 50K attendance in the US last year. http://www.thepennrelays.com/ You may want to check your numbers.
Are you that arguing that Americans sports fans support individual sports to the degree that Europeans do?
And finish this thought ... do you agree with Chucklehead that schools competing in Olympic sports is nothing but penance (form of punishment) for having football programs. That was sparked my initial comment. How many people think that little of Olympic sports?
-
Are you that arguing that Americans sports fans support individual sports to the degree that Europeans do?
And finish this thought ... do you agree with Chucklehead that schools competing in Olympic sports is nothing but penance (form of punishment) for having football programs. That was sparked my initial comment. How many people think that little of Olympic sports?
I think if the NCAA lifted the minimum sports requirement, that you would see a lot of schools cut the number of programs they field.
-
I think if the NCAA lifted the minimum sports requirement, that you would see a lot of schools cut the number of programs they field.
And if they cut eliminated title IX, more or less programs? I would argue more.
-
And if they cut eliminated title IX, more or less programs? I would argue more.
Well the NCAA can't cut Title IX...it's a federal law. But yeah, I think most schools would attempt to limit their expenses in order to focus attention on sports (football, basketball) that give them the largest profile.
-
Hey we sided with Ryan Braun! Even when the rest of the country laughed at us!
"He may be a sonuvabitch but he's OUR sonuvabitch!"
-- Richard Nixon
-
Well the NCAA can't cut Title IX...it's a federal law. But yeah, I think most schools would attempt to limit their expenses in order to focus attention on sports (football, basketball) that give them the largest profile.
I also agree. If our (A&M's) AD could cut every sport other than football, basketball, baseball, and softball, he would.
-
http://www.cbssports.com/golf/eye-on-golf/24585468/the-2014-us-open-is-sold-out
I just don't get your point. The video is about golf participation, not attendance. They are literally turning away people from major golf events. You were saying US people don't turn out for other sports which is false. You used example of premiere single events like the tour de france to say they support those sports. We we showed up for a similar sport in Indy 500 in an equal amount of people. From my experience, it isn't unique to Americans only going to major events that are culturally import. Last summer I would stream Gianni's games from Greece at 2 in the morning to see only maybe 30 people in the stands. Do you have any evidence that these countries support lower tier sports at non-championship times? You are only giving examples of major championships.
FYI- This major track event had 50K attendance in the US last year. http://www.thepennrelays.com/ You may want to check your numbers.
Golf is on the decline in the US because...
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101860445
2014 US Open ratings were abysmal
http://www.cbssports.com/golf/eye-on-golf/24590216/us-open-ratings-were-abysmal
British Open ratings tank with no Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson in contention
http://www.sbnation.com/golf/2014/7/23/5929261/2014-british-open-tv-ratings-tiger-woods-phil-mickelson
The 2014 Masters: CBS Averages Lowest Rating Since 1957; Sunday Ties 34-Year Low
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2014/04/the-masters-cbs-averages-lowest-rating-since-1957-sunday-ties-34-year-low/
2013 Players Championship Draws Lowest TV Ratings in 15 Years Without Tiger Woods
http://hotlinks.golf.com/2014/05/13/players-championship-draws-lowest-tv-ratings-in-15-years-without-tiger-woods/