MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: Newsdreams on October 17, 2016, 09:56:06 PM
-
https://twitter.com/swaggydu1/status/788191193934995456
https://twitter.com/swaggydu1/status/788190736428756993
https://twitter.com/swaggydu1/status/788190136295165952
-
https://twitter.com/swaggydu1/status/788191193934995456
https://twitter.com/swaggydu1/status/788190736428756993
https://twitter.com/swaggydu1/status/788190136295165952
+1. Someone gets it.
-
There's no doubt why he feels that way. He's getting a much more valuable education than Nigel is.
-
I wouldn't be at all surprised if this story gets some legs and national attention. Certainly would reflect well on Duane and MU. While I don't fault players for wanting more, kudos to him for appreciating what he has and his mature perspective. Impressive.
-
There's no doubt why he feels that way. He's getting a much more valuable education than Nigel is.
My first chuckle this morning.
-
How about that. It's the public school kid who comes across as feeling entitled.
-
Wow. Strong and mature words from a fine young man. Duane, you represent MU to the highest degree. Bravo, sir.
-
I don't think there is any doubt that players are getting something in return for their play.
Having said that, is the amount of money being made by the NCAA proportional to what the players are getting?
I say no.
What is the solution?
I'd be okay with a flat small stipend that is paid out by the NCAA to every player.
-
I don't think there is any doubt that players are getting something in return for their play.
Having said that, is the amount of money being made by the NCAA proportional to what the players are getting?
I say no.
What is the solution?
I'd be okay with a flat small stipend that is paid out by the NCAA to every player.
Every basketball player? Or every student-athlete? If the NCAA pays men's basketball a certain amount, won't the Title IX police demand that all athletes get paid that same amount?
-
I don't think there is any doubt that players are getting something in return for their play.
Having said that, is the amount of money being made by the NCAA proportional to what the players are getting?
I say no.
What is the solution?
I'd be okay with a flat small stipend that is paid out by the NCAA to every player.
All student athletes on full scholarships already get a weekly stipend.
-
Nice words, Du. Nice words.
-
I don't think there is any doubt that players are getting something in return for their play.
Having said that, is the amount of money being made by the NCAA proportional to what the players are getting?
I say no.
What is the solution?
I'd be okay with a flat small stipend that is paid out by the NCAA to every player.
How is this different in any other industry. Average CEO makes 300 times the average worker. So what if NCAA makes money, No one is forcing them to play. Hey Nigel, if you don't like it move to Europe and play professionally. Free education, free room and board, free meal plans, amazing tutors, networking opportunities, facilities, coaching, etc. My goodness, UW probably spends $500K per player...minimum.
-
How is this different in any other industry. Average CEO makes 300 times the average worker. So what if NCAA makes money, No one is forcing them to play. Hey Nigel, if you don't like it move to Europe and play professionally. Free education, free room and board, free meal plans, amazing tutors, networking opportunities, facilities, coaching, etc. My goodness, UW probably spends $500K per player...minimum.
Yup.
-
Keeping the train on the tracks...
This is an outstanding response by Duane. Even if he's producing not as well as we might like on the court, I am supremely proud he is a Marquette student.
-
Some of Scoop's insiders warned us that despite attending the same high school, Duane might not be much of a help recruiting Diamond Stone. Perhaps we now know why. Regardless, very well said, Duane.
-
Every basketball player? Or every student-athlete? If the NCAA pays men's basketball a certain amount, won't the Title IX police demand that all athletes get paid that same amount?
That's really the only true stumbling block (other than the institutions' unwillingness to share anymore of the kitty with athletes). It would have to be litigated.
Some pretty smart people (Bilas, Jeff Kessler) argue it's a bit of a red herring, given that Title IX only addresses opportunity, not compensation.
-
That's really the only true stumbling block (other than the institutions' unwillingness to share anymore of the kitty with athletes). It would have to be litigated.
Some pretty smart people (Bilas, Jeff Kessler) argue it's a bit of a red herring, given that Title IX only addresses opportunity, not compensation.
That and deciding how much each player should be compensated. I know its been thrown out there that potentially each player should be paid the same amount. But if that were to happen, and I was the Heismann trophy winning QB, you better bet that I would be complaining that I'm being paid the same amount as the punter at Jacksonville State and it isn't fair considering the "amount of revenue I'm bringing in" vs him.
-
That and deciding how much each player should be compensated. I know its been thrown out there that potentially each player should be paid the same amount. But if that were to happen, and I was the Heismann trophy winning QB, you better bet that I would be complaining that I'm being paid the same amount as the punter at Jacksonville State and it isn't fair considering the "amount of revenue I'm bringing in" vs him.
I've linked it earlier, but the NYT sports business reporter's proposal is to set a cap with a minimum salary of $25K, but no maximum. The cap - about $650K for basketball and $3 million for football - would be easily affordable for the great majority of Division I programs and allow them each to decide how to allocate their resources as they see fit.
-
I am on the record in numerous other similar threads as saying the athletes are being totally pimped out by the "system."
I don't pretend to have all the answers as to how I would make it different, though.
One day, athletes will bring one school's teams to their knees with a "strike." My money would be on Northwestern or Stanford ... but again, what the heck do I know?
-
I've linked it earlier, but the NYT sports business reporter's proposal is to set a cap with a minimum salary of $25K, but no maximum. The cap - about $650K for basketball and $3 million for football - would be easily affordable for the great majority of Division I programs and allow them each to decide how to allocate their resources as they see fit.
So you're now going to recruit kids by giving them a dollar amount that you'll pay them? Do they have to remain academically eligible? Are they guaranteed the same amount of money all 4 years or is everything renegotiated after each year? If they don't perform to what their school determines they should be performing for the amount of money they're giving, can they cut them? If a player is playing well above what the school is paying him or her can he or she transfer to a school that is willing to pay him or her what he or she wants? Are all student athletes just free agents after every season and whoever the highest bidder is for their services they are free to go to?
-
I've linked it earlier, but the NYT sports business reporter's proposal is to set a cap with a minimum salary of $25K, but no maximum. The cap - about $650K for basketball and $3 million for football - would be easily affordable for the great majority of Division I programs and allow them each to decide how to allocate their resources as they see fit.
The interesting piece to this, is if you go back and refer to my post in the Nigel thread....that analysis I performed led to an income generated by the public school athletic programs of $300m. If every one of those schools gives out max bball and football scholarships (I know, not likely each one will be given out) and the salaries they give are all at the minimum (also very not likely, perhaps these two counter-balance), then that $300m net income (revenues less expenses) turns into a $266m loss.
Again, I know my analysis isn't perfect, but I think those are somewhat relatable numbers to consider.
-
So you're now going to recruit kids by giving them a dollar amount that you'll pay them? Do they have to remain academically eligible?
Yep.
You're OK with recruiting kids through million dollar weight rooms, lavish dorms for athletes only, sponsored clothing and visits with pretty co-eds - not to mention shadier enticements like strippers, hookers and under-the-table payments - but an upfront salary is simply beyond the pale?
And of course, they'd have to remain eligible. Why would that change?
-
Yep.
You're OK with recruiting kids through million dollar weight rooms, lavish dorms for athletes only, sponsored clothing and visits with pretty co-eds - not to mention shadier enticements like strippers, hookers and under-the-table payments - but an upfront salary is simply beyond the pale?
And of course, they'd have to remain eligible. Why would that change?
You think those issues would go away? I'll go ahead and say with a fair amount of confidence that those things would only get worse if we're just going to get rid of the free education and turn these guys into professional athletes.
And because we're no longer giving them money for school and giving them money for whatever they want to use it on. So they're no longer student athletes, they're professional athletes who play sports for a school.
-
The interesting piece to this, is if you go back and refer to my post in the Nigel thread....that analysis I performed led to an income generated by the public school athletic programs of $300m. If every one of those schools gives out max bball and football scholarships (I know, not likely each one will be given out) and the salaries they give are all at the minimum (also very not likely, perhaps these two counter-balance), then that $300m net income (revenues less expenses) turns into a $266m loss.
Again, I know my analysis isn't perfect, but I think those are somewhat relatable numbers to consider.
1. Aren't scholarships and other costs already factored into the expenses that left you with the $300 million net?
2. Your figures assume that ALL scholarship athletes will be paid, which is not being proposed here.
-
You think those issues would go away? I'll go ahead and say with a fair amount of confidence that those things would only get worse if we're just going to get rid of the free education and turn these guys into professional athletes.
Why would it get worse? Cause you say so?
I'm sure some shady dealings would continue, but I believe there would be less incentive all around, and less incentive means less frequency.
Say a 5-star recruit signs on to play at Kentucky for three years (as would be required under the cap proposal) at $100K a year. Is that kid going to risk his guaranteed $300K for a few hundred dollar handshakes and a leased Yukon? I mean, maybe it'll happen, but there's substantially less incentive for it - the kid's already making $100K a year - and significant disincentive for it.
And because we're no longer giving them money for school and giving them money for whatever they want to use it on. So they're no longer student athletes, they're professional athletes who play sports for a school.
Nobody said this.
-
Payroll taxes, IRS are they going to have accountants? With the amount of money being talked about think it'll turn to a nightmare with Uncle Sam
-
1. Aren't scholarships and other costs already factored into the expenses that left you with the $300 million net?
2. Your figures assume that ALL scholarship athletes will be paid, which is not being proposed here.
1. Scholarships and other costs are already factored into the expenses that gives the $300m net. Isn't this additional salary on top of that? Or would athletes not be receiving scholarships, room and board, clothing, etc.
2. My figures for the calculation here is that ALL MENS BASKETBALL and FOOTBALL scholarship athletes are paid and that every scholarship is used (not likely, I agree), and that all salaries are at minimum 25k (also not likely). The additional cost per school would be $2.5m.
The scenario of $2k per athlete in the other thread was assuming all scholarship athletes across all sports were paid.
-
Payroll taxes, IRS are they going to have accountants? With the amount of money being talked about think it'll turn to a nightmare with Uncle Sam
Which is exactly why it's not going to be more than total cost of attendance unless something from the outside influences it.
-
Payroll taxes, IRS are they going to have accountants? With the amount of money being talked about think it'll turn to a nightmare with Uncle Sam
Thats actually a good point. The minimum salary of 25k/athlete would actually cost each school about 27k/athlete (again, minimum salary). If each school uses all mens bball and football scholarships and pays them all the MINIMUM of 25k, it would cost each school an additional $2,637,425 on top of scholarships and other costs.
If this was extrapolated across all public universities, this would result in a $310m loss.
Again, take this analysis FWIW.
-
Payroll taxes, IRS are they going to have accountants? With the amount of money being talked about think it'll turn to a nightmare with Uncle Sam
Are you suggesting adding a maximum 98 people (85 football, 13 basketball) to the payroll is going to lead to an accounting nightmare and terrible burden for universities that already employ thousands of people?
The University of Texas system employs nearly 20,000 faculty alone, not to mention thousands more administrative and support personnel. But 85 athletes are going to be the straw that broke the camel's back?
-
1. Scholarships and other costs are already factored into the expenses that gives the $300m net. Isn't this additional salary on top of that? Or would athletes not be receiving scholarships, room and board, clothing, etc.
2. My figures for the calculation here is that ALL MENS BASKETBALL and FOOTBALL scholarship athletes are paid and that every scholarship is used (not likely, I agree), and that all salaries are at minimum 25k (also not likely). The additional cost per school would be $2.5m.
The scenario of $2k per athlete in the other thread was assuming all scholarship athletes across all sports were paid.
I'd like to see you numbers again, because they don't seem to add up.
That said, the simple solution to this is require athletic departments to rid themselves of bureaucratic bloat and unnecessary expenses.
Between 2004 and 2014, annual revenues for Power 5 schools rose from $2.7 billion to $4.5 billion. You're telling me they can't each find $2.5 million in their budget for the players largely responsible for producing those revenues?
-
That's really the only true stumbling block (other than the institutions' unwillingness to share anymore of the kitty with athletes). It would have to be litigated.
Some pretty smart people (Bilas, Jeff Kessler) argue it's a bit of a red herring, given that Title IX only addresses opportunity, not compensation.
Bilas is a moron. He's certainly got the acumen when it comes to basketball, but he should stick to that. Title IX is much more extensive that simply "opportunity," and in fact, does appear to - at the very least, implicitly - address compensation:
"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
I'm sure Bilas can bastardize the language any way he wants to spin his tune, but the litigation (which I agree would be inevitable) is likely to boil down to and center around the "spirit" of Title IX, and I don't see how - especially in today's society - anyone could argue that female athletes not receiving the same stipend/compensation as the men isn't discriminatory.
-
Are you suggesting adding a maximum 98 people (85 football, 13 basketball) to the payroll is going to lead to an accounting nightmare and terrible burden for universities that already employ thousands of people?
The University of Texas system employs nearly 20,000 faculty alone, not to mention thousands more administrative and support personnel. But 85 athletes are going to be the straw that broke the camel's back?
No, the students. People here talking 100k etc. 18 year olds don't know enough about taxes,investments etc given that amount of money. Plus you get social Security payments most will not even know what to do.
-
I'd like to see you numbers again, because they don't seem to add up.
That said, the simple solution to this is require athletic departments to rid themselves of bureaucratic bloat and unnecessary expenses.
Between 2004 and 2014, annual revenues for Power 5 schools rose from $2.7 billion to $4.5 billion. You're telling me they can't each find $2.5 million in their budget for the players largely responsible for producing those revenues?
I'd be happy to share the quick spreadsheet I made if there is an easy way to do that. But I basically used the following table from the NCAA on the public schools:
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances
http://sports.usatoday.com/2016/04/14/methodology-for-ncaa-athletic-department-revenue-database/
I just copied/pasted that table into excel and summed at the bottom. The math to apply the salary minimums to mens bball and football is quite simple. But do remember, that is the minimum. You also quoted maximums of 650k for bball and $3m for football. I would imagine the Power 5 conferences to be shelling out quite a lot more dough if that is the case.
I'd be curious as to what examples of bureaucratic bloat and unnecessary expenses are for college athletics that universities are supposedly able to just easily get rid of.
So you quoted the Power 5 schools, yes, those schools should be ale to afford an additional $2.5m, though as I pointed out above, I'm guessing the number it would actually cost them would be a multiple of that. For schools outside the Power 5 and outside a small handful of programs, this would be a huge cost to burden and I would guess they would cut back on athletes they provide this to.
On that note, would those programs still be able to provide scholarships to athletes? Or would each scholarship also require a minimum "salary"? I would guess that these schools would effectively have no shot at any quality recruits, even within their own state.
-
Bilas is a moron. He's certainly got the acumen when it comes to basketball, but he should stick to that. Title IX is much more extensive that simply "opportunity," and in fact, does appear to - at the very least, implicitly - address compensation:
"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
I'm sure Bilas can bastardize the language any way he wants to spin his tune, but the litigation (which I agree would be inevitable) is likely to boil down to and center around the "spirit" of Title IX, and I don't see how - especially in today's society - anyone could argue that female athletes not receiving the same stipend/compensation as the men isn't discriminatory.
I wouldn't be so sure.
Courts already have ruled that paying male coaches in revenue-producing sports more than their female counterparts is not a violation (see Stanley vs USC).
It's not an apples-to-apples case, but clearly both the courts and NCAA are willing to make a distinction when it comes to compensation and Title IX implications in revenue-producing sports and non-revenue producing sports.
None of us know how a court would rule, and smart people on both sides disagree, but it's far from a settled matter that Title IX would prevent paying football and men's basketball players.
-
I've linked it earlier, but the NYT sports business reporter's proposal is to set a cap with a minimum salary of $25K, but no maximum. The cap - about $650K for basketball and $3 million for football - would be easily affordable for the great majority of Division I programs and allow them each to decide how to allocate their resources as they see fit.
That is patently false. Most Universities are losing money on basketball and football and it is not because of bloated bureaucracies. It is because the sports are expensive. They are actually doctoring the books with creative accounting to make the expenses and losses seem lower than they actually are, for fear of students/public outcry at the losses and use of tax payer/student tuition to fund athletics.
Universities right now often have salary freezes on faculty and staff, because of losses, in many times losses incurred by athletics. You are asking the Universities to further cut education dollars to pay athletes, who if they want to be professional can go to Europe or the D-league (or for football Arena and others).
Lets look at this in perspective. I'm a science professor that is arguably in the top 10 in the world in my field. I generate $3M a year in revenue, and a minimum of $500k-1M in profit (from the research side). I make less than $100k and have salary freezes due to budget constraints. What you propose is that either I should continue to have a salary freeze or students should have to increase tuition, in order to pay athletes that generate a net loss for the University (sizable net loss).
By your accounting, I should get a 50/50 revenue split, so around $1.5M in salary; even if we look at profit (not revenue) and allow a 50/50 split; I should get $250-500k depending on the year.
Why don't I complain about my salary and post signs about broke professor; because this is my choice. I could go and work in industry or as a consultant tomorrow and get paid the $250-500k. But that comes with sacrifices I don't want to make. People like Nigel want all the benefits of being an athlete and the financial compensation of being in the private sector. That is not how the world works. Like me, they can choose: Academics and their compensation; or go play professionally overseas or in the D-league or equivalent and get private sector compensation. They should not have both.
You like to pretend that there is this magic pool of money being hidden away from the athletes that can be used for compensation. Let me tell you, as a person that sees these budgets, it does not exist. Athletics is a major drain on University finances at the vast majority of D1 institutions. They accept those losses as needed expenses for advertisement. It is shown time and again that the biggest benefit of athletics is not revenue from athletics, but revenue of tuition and donation aided by exposure. Such studies show that it doesn't even matter if you win; at most institutions just fielding a team generates tuition and donations. In that case, value over replacement is near $0.
-
I'd be happy to share the quick spreadsheet I made if there is an easy way to do that. But I basically used the following table from the NCAA on the public schools:
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances
http://sports.usatoday.com/2016/04/14/methodology-for-ncaa-athletic-department-revenue-database/
I just copied/pasted that table into excel and summed at the bottom. The math to apply the salary minimums to mens bball and football is quite simple. But do remember, that is the minimum. You also quoted maximums of 650k for bball and $3m for football. I would imagine the Power 5 conferences to be shelling out quite a lot more dough if that is the case.
I'd be curious as to what examples of bureaucratic bloat and unnecessary expenses are for college athletics that universities are supposedly able to just easily get rid of.
So you quoted the Power 5 schools, yes, those schools should be ale to afford an additional $2.5m, though as I pointed out above, I'm guessing the number it would actually cost them would be a multiple of that. For schools outside the Power 5 and outside a small handful of programs, this would be a huge cost to burden and I would guess they would cut back on athletes they provide this to.
On that note, would those programs still be able to provide scholarships to athletes? Or would each scholarship also require a minimum "salary"? I would guess that these schools would effectively have no shot at any quality recruits, even within their own state.
Thanks for sharing. I'll take a look and respond.
-
Thanks for sharing. I'll take a look and respond.
Definitely. And I understand the quick analysis I've done isn't perfect and is using quite a few assumptions, and there may even be more relevant data out there that I haven't found.
But I do think the numbers tell a bit of a story of what the implications could be.
-
That is patently false. Most Universities are losing money on basketball and football and it is not because of bloated bureaucracies. It is because the sports are expensive. They are actually doctoring the books with creative accounting to make the expenses and losses seem lower than they actually are, for fear of students/public outcry at the losses and use of tax payer/student tuition to fund athletics.
This is patently false.
Do tell, why have college athletics become literally billions of dollars more expensive over the past decade?
It's not because playing sports is expensive. It's not because of the scholarships. It's not because the costs of footballs and basketballs are soaring. It's not because schools are paying more for uniforms.
It's because the size of athletic department staffs, and those workers' salaries, are growing exponentially.
http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2015/12/31/Colleges/College-Spending.aspx?
It's because schools are spending hundreds of millions in a facilities arms race.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/for-college-athletic-departments-building-the-best-is-never-ending-task/2015/12/21/e8384dd4-a558-11e5-9c4e-be37f66848bb_story.html
It's because head coaching salaries have gone up more than 75 percent just since 2007.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/college/college-football/fbs-college-football-coaches-salaries-are-perks-are-soaring-newsday-special-report-1.9461669
It's because assistant coaches salaries are up 52 percent over the last five years.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865619020/In-college-football-assistant-coach-salaries-on-the-rise.html?pg=all
It's because schools are literally spending millions on things like painting fields and walls.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2015/12/29/graphics-branding-college-football-millions-advent/78039496/
It's because they're paying strength coaches salaries in the mid six figures.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/14459410/these-highly-paid-strength-conditioning-coaches-carry-plenty-weight-college-football
It's because football teams participate in bowl games that don't come close to covering their costs.
http://time.com/money/4170907/students-are-biggest-losers-in-college-bowl-games/
I'm sympathetic to your position as a professor, and agree that some schools are struggling. I am no way advocating education cuts to pay athletes.
Rather, I'm advocating a redistribution of existing athletic revenues away from the administrators and the coaches and the facilities and other unnecessary spending and to the athletes.
Such studies show that it doesn't even matter if you win; at most institutions just fielding a team generates tuition and donations. In that case, value over replacement is near $0.
So, if winning doesn't matter, why spend yourself broke in an attempt to win?
-
This is patently false.
Do tell, why have college athletics become literally billions of dollars more expensive over the past decade?
It's not because playing sports is expensive. It's not because of the scholarships. It's not because the costs of footballs and basketballs are soaring. It's not because schools are paying more for uniforms.
It's because the size of athletic department staffs, and those workers' salaries, are growing exponentially.
http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2015/12/31/Colleges/College-Spending.aspx?
It's because schools are spending billions in a facilities arms race.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/for-college-athletic-departments-building-the-best-is-never-ending-task/2015/12/21/e8384dd4-a558-11e5-9c4e-be37f66848bb_story.html
It's because head coaching salaries have gone up more than 75 percent just since 2007.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/college/college-football/fbs-college-football-coaches-salaries-are-perks-are-soaring-newsday-special-report-1.9461669
It's because assistant coaches salaries are up 52 percent over the last five years.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865619020/In-college-football-assistant-coach-salaries-on-the-rise.html?pg=all
It's because schools are literally spending millions on things like painting fields and walls.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2015/12/29/graphics-branding-college-football-millions-advent/78039496/
It's because they're paying strength coaches salaries in the mid six figures.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/14459410/these-highly-paid-strength-conditioning-coaches-carry-plenty-weight-college-football
It's because football teams participate in bowl games that don't come close to covering their costs.
http://time.com/money/4170907/students-are-biggest-losers-in-college-bowl-games/
I'm sympathetic to your position as a professor, and agree that some schools are struggling. I am no way advocating education cuts to pay athletes.
Rather, I'm advocating a redistribution of existing athletic revenues away from the administrators and the coaches and the facilities and other unnecessary spending and to the athletes.
So, if winning doesn't matter, why spend yourself broke in an attempt to win?
My University just had one of the big three consulting firms come through the University to find solutions to ongoing budget issues. There number 1 issue leading to budget problems was athletics and loses incurred there.
They went through that budget and couldn't find any justifiable position cuts compared to the market. The budget went untouched. The consensus was that although the athletics budget was the number one budget problem, the budget was being used efficiently and was essentially the minimum necessary to maintain a sustainable program. Athletics has grown considerably, the challenges of recruiting in the internet era, the challenges of keeping athletes, who are not prepared for college, eligible have grown exponentially.
Add to that the fact that salaries are being controlled by a few minority institutions (generating profits) and you have what we have today. What is definitely true, is that any increase in costs due to paying players, will not come with cuts to the athletic program (except for maybe getting rid of non-revenue programs entirely), it will come from cutting education expenses or increasing tuition.
One thing to remember, is that those facility costs are usually coming from donations. Universities solicit funds from donors, who often then give to athletics instead of academics. It is not coming from traditional revenue streams.
If you would do a 50/50 split, you would see reported revenue plummet, because apparel not containing a sport, would now be classified as University revenue, not football revenue. Donations would be classified as University revenue, not football revenue. All that would be left are ticket sales (after removing student fees that are counted as athletics revenue), concessions and TV deals. All University supplements (currently counted as revenue) would also be removed.
My guess, revenue would drop 30-50% or more from changes in accounting.
-
Pakuni I feel one thing you are undervaluing is that the University provides a certain advertising platform for these athletes that directly correlates to their value. An Anthony Davis or someone similar is a phenomenal player who obviously is worth a ton out of High School. However he's worth more at Kentucky than at Grambling because Kentucky gives him national advertising, and a chance to develop his skills in a way that can prepare him for the NBA. That's advertising and training. That form of advertising and conditioning costs money and since they don't have any it's a trade for services rendered.
-
Pakuni I feel one thing you are undervaluing is that the University provides a certain advertising platform for these athletes that directly correlates to their value. An Anthony Davis or someone similar is a phenomenal player who obviously is worth a ton out of High School. However he's worth more at Kentucky than at Grambling because Kentucky gives him national advertising, and a chance to develop his skills in a way that can prepare him for the NBA. That's advertising and training. That form of advertising and conditioning costs money and since they don't have any it's a trade for services rendered.
I may be misunderstanding what you mean by advertising platform, but if I'm not, then I think you're overvaluing it.
The majority of MLB and NHL players do just fine without the platform (one could say all do just fine, given how little attention NCAA hockey and baseball receive). The same for professional golfers, tennis players, soccer players, etc.
And, of course, one could note how guys like LeBron, Kobe, Garnett, Dwight Howard, etc., managed OK without the NCAA platform.
-
Value of a Marquette Education (per year): $50,237
Average starting annual salary for class of 2015: $50,651
It's fair.
Nice work Duane for recognizing this.
-
How is this different in any other industry. Average CEO makes 300 times the average worker. So what if NCAA makes money, No one is forcing them to play. Hey Nigel, if you don't like it move to Europe and play professionally. Free education, free room and board, free meal plans, amazing tutors, networking opportunities, facilities, coaching, etc. My goodness, UW probably spends $500K per player...minimum.
Actually, if they want to get a chance for the NBA, they almost have to go to college. Europe really isn't an option. They have little interest in HS kids from the US coming over to play.
There was a reason Mudiay played in Zhina.
-
Most Universities are losing money on basketball and football and it is not because of bloated bureaucracies. It is because the sports are expensive.
This is patently false. It is because most universities allow athletic departments spend every dime they make and even charge student fees to offset overspending.
You definitely have the "poor me" narrative down that most administrations and the NCAA are selling. Too bad it's just not true.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/sports/wp/2015/11/23/running-up-the-bills/
-
The sad part for Hayes is if he was paid on merit, the Badgers long snapper would make more. Football drives everything.
That being said, I do think he has a point. The game has changed. Al McGuire quit coaching at 47 to go make some real money. He would be making 5 million now. Coaches salaries are through the roof. Coaching staffs have grown five fold. Athletic departments are mini businesses. Now true, athletes lifestyle is better. Better facilities, better travel, better gear. But some sort of cash package should not be out of the question.
-
I wouldn't be so sure.
Courts already have ruled that paying male coaches in revenue-producing sports more than their female counterparts is not a violation (see Stanley vs USC).
It's not an apples-to-apples case, but clearly both the courts and NCAA are willing to make a distinction when it comes to compensation and Title IX implications in revenue-producing sports and non-revenue producing sports.
None of us know how a court would rule, and smart people on both sides disagree, but it's far from a settled matter that Title IX would prevent paying football and men's basketball players.
Student athletes are still going to be students. A stipend won't make them paid employees of the university. But your comparison is indeed apples to apples, apples to horse apples, that is.
-
The sad part for Hayes is if he was paid on merit, the Badgers long snapper would make more. Football drives everything.
That being said, I do think he has a point. The game has changed. Al McGuire quit coaching at 47 to go make some real money. He would be making 5 million now. Coaches salaries are through the roof. Coaching staffs have grown five fold. Athletic departments are mini businesses. Now true, athletes lifestyle is better. Better facilities, better travel, better gear. But some sort of cash package should not be out of the question.
Anyone know what Al's ending salary was?
-
This is patently false. It is because most universities allow athletic departments spend every dime they make and even charge student fees to offset overspending.
You definitely have the "poor me" narrative down that most administrations and the NCAA are selling. Too bad it's just not true.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/sports/wp/2015/11/23/running-up-the-bills/
The annual increase in budget and revenue from 2004-2014 is 5%. Given that the largest expenses for athletic departments is travel, salary and benefits (all increasing at an average rate exceeding 5%), the increases are not unreasonable. They have been able to maintain an equivalent revenue increase (often exploiting increased donations and/or student fees) to make it appear as if the budgets balance.
Articles like the one from the Washington Post really create a false narrative by not diving into the specifics and by being wholly unaware of academic budgets.
-
For those arguing for salary's for college athletes. Let's look at basketball.
Few college players are good enough to make the D-league. The D-league average salary is $20-25k and housing. That is less than what is being provided college athletes.
So tell me this. Why should a college athlete get paid more than higher quality athletes in the D-league? Seems like the going market rate for them is less than they are being provided.
Some may argue, well then why is the NCAA making so much money if they don't have value? The answer is simple, what differentiates college basketball (less able basketball players) from the D-league (more qualified players). The difference is association with Universities. It is the University that draws in eyeballs, for a pride in my University, the athletes names etc., are arbitrary.
In that vein, if you provide salary for NCAA athletes, what about lawsuits from D-league and other professional players that say they are being discriminated against based on age from playing in the professional NCAA leagues?
-
I wouldn't be so sure.
Courts already have ruled that paying male coaches in revenue-producing sports more than their female counterparts is not a violation (see Stanley vs USC).
It's not an apples-to-apples case, but clearly both the courts and NCAA are willing to make a distinction when it comes to compensation and Title IX implications in revenue-producing sports and non-revenue producing sports.
None of us know how a court would rule, and smart people on both sides disagree, but it's far from a settled matter that Title IX would prevent paying football and men's basketball players.
Donna Lopiano, president of consulting group Sports Management Resources, says pending litigation against the NCAA lobbying for pay is "the biggest potential game-changer" and could "hurt men's and women's sports." The costs of paying revenue-generating players -- plus the costs of paying female athletes to comply with Title IX -- would be prohibitive to college sports programs.
"You have to match for the women," said Lopiano, the former director of women's athletics at Texas who co-authored a paper about how the misguided focus on money from the top conferences has distorted the purpose of sports in college.
-
Donna Lopiano, president of consulting group Sports Management Resources, says pending litigation against the NCAA lobbying for pay is "the biggest potential game-changer" and could "hurt men's and women's sports." The costs of paying revenue-generating players -- plus the costs of paying female athletes to comply with Title IX -- would be prohibitive to college sports programs.
"You have to match for the women," said Lopiano, the former director of women's athletics at Texas who co-authored a paper about how the misguided focus on money from the top conferences has distorted the purpose of sports in college.
Which is why I've always thought the smartest financial solution for all involved would be to allow any student athlete to make a buck on their name or likeness. If a car dealership in Storrs sees value in having one of the UConn women basketball players do local radio ads for them, they should be able to pay them for that. Same thing for Kentucky men's basketball players in Lexington, or whatever kind of other sponsorship deals make sense for each circumstance.
There's no burden on the school to provide money and the income is completely dependent on the viability of the individual athlete, regardless of gender or sport.
-
I may be misunderstanding what you mean by advertising platform, but if I'm not, then I think you're overvaluing it.
The majority of MLB and NHL players do just fine without the platform (one could say all do just fine, given how little attention NCAA hockey and baseball receive). The same for professional golfers, tennis players, soccer players, etc.
And, of course, one could note how guys like LeBron, Kobe, Garnett, Dwight Howard, etc., managed OK without the NCAA platform.
MLB has a legitimate farm system that players enter into for exposure that is preferred to NCAA, but even still NCAA baseball players get exposure within the industry.
I'd also note that the average salary for a AAA ball player who hasn't made a 40 man roster is $2150 per month plus $25 per diem each road day for meals and lodging.....seems considerably lower than what a college athlete is "making" on scholarship.
-
Which is why I've always thought the smartest financial solution for all involved would be to allow any student athlete to make a buck on their name or likeness. If a car dealership in Storrs sees value in having one of the UConn women basketball players do local radio ads for them, they should be able to pay them for that. Same thing for Kentucky men's basketball players in Lexington, or whatever kind of other sponsorship deals make sense for each circumstance.
There's no burden on the school to provide money and the income is completely dependent on the viability of the individual athlete, regardless of gender or sport.
I would generally be ok with this, but it does open up the possibilities of wealthy alums influencing recruits. For example, what would there be to stop the local car dealership owner offering a top 10 recruit $50,000 to do local radio ads if they were to come to school there.
I think there is some way to get that stuff figured out by someone smarter than me. Just saying it would be something that would need to keep an eye on, IMO.
-
I'd also note that the average salary for a AAA ball player who hasn't made a 40 man roster is $2150 per month plus $25 per diem each road day for meals and lodging.....seems considerably lower than what a college athlete is "making" on scholarship.
This argument doesn't hold water for me.
For instance:
The Big East signed a 12 year 500 million dollar deal with Fox Sports. No league in AAA has a broadcast rights even close.
or
Every coach makes 7 figures. No manager in AAA does.
I would wager revenues for AAA is nowhere near high major college athletics.
-
Which is why I've always thought the smartest financial solution for all involved would be to allow any student athlete to make a buck on their name or likeness. If a car dealership in Storrs sees value in having one of the UConn women basketball players do local radio ads for them, they should be able to pay them for that. Same thing for Kentucky men's basketball players in Lexington, or whatever kind of other sponsorship deals make sense for each circumstance.
There's no burden on the school to provide money and the income is completely dependent on the viability of the individual athlete, regardless of gender or sport.
I agree with this with the added caveat that I think all money made this way should go into a trust for the athlete that they can't access until they leave the school. That's what they do for the Olympics and it works really well. I see no logical reason why student athletes shouldn't be able to profit off of their likenesses. Wouldn't this address the need that players are underpaid while putting no extra financial burden on the schools/ncaa? It seems like a win win.
Plus, I would finally get my NCAA football video games back. Madden isn't close to an acceptable replacement.
-
This argument doesn't hold water for me.
For instance:
The Big East signed a 12 year 500 million dollar deal with Fox Sports. No league in AAA has a broadcast rights even close.
or
Every coach makes 7 figures. No manager in AAA does.
I would wager revenues for AAA is nowhere near high major college athletics.
Lens, as I put in one of my posts, ask yourself why does the NCAA, with poorer quality athletes, generate more revenue?
The answer has nothing to do with the athletes, because if you wanted better baseball/basketball etc., you will find it in AAA or the D-league. The value in the NCAA is the brand recognition of the Universities, where alumni and students attend games for University pride. The quality on the playing surface is relatively arbitrary as long as it is competitive.
I think it is an important question that if they pay athletes a salary, there will be lawsuits from individuals in D-leagues etc., for being blocked from positions because of age. They are clearly more qualified.
-
MLB has a legitimate farm system that players enter into for exposure that is preferred to NCAA, but even still NCAA baseball players get exposure within the industry.
I'd also note that the average salary for a AAA ball player who hasn't made a 40 man roster is $2150 per month plus $25 per diem each road day for meals and lodging.....seems considerably lower than what a college athlete is "making" on scholarship.
The minor league farm system has it's own payment issues:
http://deadspin.com/mlb-argues-that-minor-leaguers-are-creatives-like-arti-1782927981
-
This argument doesn't hold water for me.
For instance:
The Big East signed a 12 year 500 million dollar deal with Fox Sports. No league in AAA has a broadcast rights even close.
or
Every coach makes 7 figures. No manager in AAA does.
I would wager revenues for AAA is nowhere near high major college athletics.
Remember that Big East deal is for broadcast rights in all sports, not just basketball. That means all athletes would need to profit from that contract.
You are correct, it's an imperfect comparison, but it was mostly in response to NCAA baseball not providing a platform for players to showcase their ability for MLB....that's because they already have that platform which is the farm system.
-
Which is why I've always thought the smartest financial solution for all involved would be to allow any student athlete to make a buck on their name or likeness. If a car dealership in Storrs sees value in having one of the UConn women basketball players do local radio ads for them, they should be able to pay them for that. Same thing for Kentucky men's basketball players in Lexington, or whatever kind of other sponsorship deals make sense for each circumstance.
There's no burden on the school to provide money and the income is completely dependent on the viability of the individual athlete, regardless of gender or sport.
You already have had (and probably still do have) people then giving these student athletes "jobs" where they don't have to show up and get paid for nothing. Big Bama fan owns a car dealership in Tuscaloosa? Oh wow Nick, let me make a call to this 5 star recruit and see if he'd be interested in making some extra money "helping to sell cars!"
7 months later: "Oh hey 5 star recruit! So glad you chose the Tide! Why don't you come in and fill out your direct deposit information and we'll slot you for the 8 to noon shift at Bryant-Denny Stadium on Saturdays!"
-
I'd also note that the average salary for a AAA ball player who hasn't made a 40 man roster is $2150 per month plus $25 per diem each road day for meals and lodging.....seems considerably lower than what a college athlete is "making" on scholarship.
Yeah, but aren't you forgetting to add in the value of the coaching, use of facilities, equipment and, of course, the advertising platform and the opportunity provided?
More seriously, though ...
1. Minor league revenues pale relative to big-time college sports, so it's not a very good comparison. The most valuable minor league team generated about $22 million in revenue last year. That puts them on par with the likes of Sacramento State, Georgia Southern and Bowling Green. Most Triple A teams generate far less.
2. Minor league salaries are a travesty, with many athletes qualifying for food stamps. Is that your idea of fair?
-
Yeah, but aren't you forgetting to add in the value of the coaching, use of facilities, equipment and, of course, the advertising platform and the opportunity provided?
More seriously, though ...
1. Minor league revenues pale relative to big-time college sports, so it's not a very good comparison. The most valuable minor league team generated about $22 million in revenue last year. That puts them on par with the likes of Sacramento State, Georgia Southern and Bowling Green. Most Triple A teams generate far less.
2. Minor league salaries are a travesty, with many athletes qualifying for food stamps. Is that your idea of fair?
My inarticulate point is that the farm system is providing the coaching et. al. as well as platform for exposure to the big leagues....which is what I'm saying colleges are providing. On top of that a minor league player gets a salary which could be compared to the scholarship a player is getting.
Also, you can't look at just minor league revenue as the farm system is funded out of MLB revenues so they are getting some revenue distribution from the larger MLB pool.
Lastly, I consider it fair if people are willing to take the opportunity in exchange for the total compensation package provided. If it was so unfair, people wouldn't be killing themselves to get in the minor league system. How would you make the system more "fair"?
-
I may be misunderstanding what you mean by advertising platform, but if I'm not, then I think you're overvaluing it.
The majority of MLB and NHL players do just fine without the platform (one could say all do just fine, given how little attention NCAA hockey and baseball receive). The same for professional golfers, tennis players, soccer players, etc.
And, of course, one could note how guys like LeBron, Kobe, Garnett, Dwight Howard, etc., managed OK without the NCAA platform.
I'm essentially saying that playing at a major university is a platform for a potential professional player to advertise their skillset against top competition and gain national exposure. Hockey baseball and soccer are very poor examples as those have some of the best farm systems in the world, in fact I'd argue the vast majority of true exceptional talent does not play for NCAA schools in those sports.
Now regarding Lebron Kobe Garnett and Howard that is true, however the vast majority of young talent isn't going to be a top 50 all time NBA player. The majority need to showcase themselves at the best level they can. Lets use Jimmy Butler as an example, he's not drafted if he's going to Grambling or some other mid major. He got to utilize the national exposure that a successful program in the Big East could give him. I'd argue that he is reaping the benefits of investing in a good advertising platform for his basketball skills (Marquette).
-
I'm essentially saying that playing at a major university is a platform for a potential professional player to advertise their skillset against top competition and gain national exposure. Hockey baseball and soccer are very poor examples as those have some of the best farm systems in the world, in fact I'd argue the vast majority of true exceptional talent does not play for NCAA schools in those sports.
Now regarding Lebron Kobe Garnett and Howard that is true, however the vast majority of young talent isn't going to be a top 50 all time NBA player. The majority need to showcase themselves at the best level they can. Lets use Jimmy Butler as an example, he's not drafted if he's going to Grambling or some other mid major. He got to utilize the national exposure that a successful program in the Big East could give him. I'd argue that he is reaping the benefits of investing in a good advertising platform for his basketball skills (Marquette).
+1
-
I'm essentially saying that playing at a major university is a platform for a potential professional player to advertise their skillset against top competition and gain national exposure. Hockey baseball and soccer are very poor examples as those have some of the best farm systems in the world, in fact I'd argue the vast majority of true exceptional talent does not play for NCAA schools in those sports.
Now regarding Lebron Kobe Garnett and Howard that is true, however the vast majority of young talent isn't going to be a top 50 all time NBA player. The majority need to showcase themselves at the best level they can. Lets use Jimmy Butler as an example, he's not drafted if he's going to Grambling or some other mid major. He got to utilize the national exposure that a successful program in the Big East could give him. I'd argue that he is reaping the benefits of investing in a good advertising platform for his basketball skills (Marquette).
Frankly, universities have to be biting their tongue on this argument, because it's a highly compelling one. If your goal is professional basketball, even a scholarship to a low-major D-I school is going to give you more exposure and opportunity than any skillz video you can post on YouTube; if your goal is to get an education, then there's no problem.
-
Frankly, universities have to be biting their tongue on this argument, because it's a highly compelling one. If your goal is professional basketball, even a scholarship to a low-major D-I school is going to give you more exposure and opportunity than any skillz video you can post on YouTube; if your goal is to get an education, then there's no problem.
But very few basketball players make it to the NBA. With 351 D-I schools, assuming an average of 3 scholarships per school per year, that's over 1,000 seniors per year. Less than 1% will be NBA draft picks. I can't view training and exposure as a tangible benefit when such a small minority become pros. It can help those who do become pros, but what about the other 99%? It doesn't benefit them enough to become pros.
The equivalent would be telling an MU professor, "We don't pay much but there's an outside chance you'll be the President at Harvard someday. So we factored that into your benefits package." Or telling a local TV anchor they might get a network job at ABC because the station is an ABC affiliate. Sure the experience could be the start of a long path to a successful career, but I think its absurd to consider "chance" to be "compensation".
-
The equivalent would be telling an MU professor, "We don't pay much but there's an outside chance you'll be the President at Harvard someday. So we factored that into your benefits package." Or telling a local TV anchor they might get a network job at ABC because the station is an ABC affiliate. Sure the experience could be the start of a long path to a successful career, but I think its absurd to consider "chance" to be "compensation".
They may not overtly say it but that's exactly what TV stations do
-
But very few basketball players make it to the NBA. With 351 D-I schools, assuming an average of 3 scholarships per school per year, that's over 1,000 seniors per year. Less than 1% will be NBA draft picks. I can't view training and exposure as a tangible benefit when such a small minority become pros. It can help those who do become pros, but what about the other 99%? It doesn't benefit them enough to become pros.
The equivalent would be telling an MU professor, "We don't pay much but there's an outside chance you'll be the President at Harvard someday. So we factored that into your benefits package." Or telling a local TV anchor they might get a network job at ABC because the station is an ABC affiliate. Sure the experience could be the start of a long path to a successful career, but I think its absurd to consider "chance" to be "compensation".
That's very true. But when we're talking about universities "exploiting athletes" by making millions and millions off of their efforts, it is those few and rare superstars who actually have an argument. The rest of them are just shirt-fillers. The athletes who don't have the popularity and skill to make it into the professional ranks are not the ones that people are paying to see (assuming that anyone is paying to see the athletes, as opposed to the universities' teams).
This just illustrates the fundamental problem with this ongoing debate. So many people focus on a tiny fractions of the athletes - the superstars in the revenue producing sports. Yes, those elite athletes benefit in a very direct way by the publicity/exposure they get from college athletics. While I do think that other athletes benefit from the exposure (e.g., any Ohio State football player around here will get interviews and job opportunities even if they are never going to sniff the NFL), it's not nearly as valuable as the exposure for those who will be professional athletes.
But once we go beyond those rare exceptions, you've got thousands of athletes lining up for the opportunity to play a game they love in exchange for an education (and room, board, travel, training, gear, etc.). I'm not a fan of trying to figure out solutions to a "problem" that only affects a tiny percentage of athletes that could absolutely devastate the vast majority of college athletes. This is one of the reasons I think that some version of allowing athletes to market themselves is the best solution to the problem. The people who actually are a draw -- which, frankly, I think are pretty rare -- will make some money. Hopefully, this would help help preserve the system for the other athletes. But, I can't help but wonder what affect this might have on competitive balance.
-
But very few basketball players make it to the NBA. With 351 D-I schools, assuming an average of 3 scholarships per school per year, that's over 1,000 seniors per year. Less than 1% will be NBA draft picks. I can't view training and exposure as a tangible benefit when such a small minority become pros. It can help those who do become pros, but what about the other 99%? It doesn't benefit them enough to become pros.
If you think the NBA is the only place to play, the 1% is an accurate figure. But if you were to include the D League as well as international players, the estimated percentage is 12.2%. I would be curious to see what the number is if you were to look at major conference programs (or even mid-major and up).
If you were to take away the bottom 200 schools, leaving the top 150 programs (which I would say is a reasonable/conservative representation of the population of basketball players that may expect to play professionally), that percentage figure jumps up to about 28% (12.2% / (150/347)).
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/estimated-probability-competing-professional-athletics
-
But very few basketball players make it to the NBA. With 351 D-I schools, assuming an average of 3 scholarships per school per year, that's over 1,000 seniors per year. Less than 1% will be NBA draft picks. I can't view training and exposure as a tangible benefit when such a small minority become pros. It can help those who do become pros, but what about the other 99%? It doesn't benefit them enough to become pros.
The equivalent would be telling an MU professor, "We don't pay much but there's an outside chance you'll be the President at Harvard someday. So we factored that into your benefits package." Or telling a local TV anchor they might get a network job at ABC because the station is an ABC affiliate. Sure the experience could be the start of a long path to a successful career, but I think its absurd to consider "chance" to be "compensation".
As an addendum, the great majority of professional basketball players would be professional basketball players with or without the intercollegiate system. If the NCAA vanished tomorrow and colleges put a halt to intercollegiate sports, tall, athletic, talented kids would still find their way to the NBA. Just like talented baseball, soccer and hockey players make it to the pros without college.
The implied notion here that college is a necessary springboard to the NBA for any of these kids is silly.
The only way in which it's necessary is that, unlike hockey, soccer and baseball, the NBA and NCAA are happy to benefit economically from the lack of a true developmental system like those in other sports.
-
But very few basketball players make it to the NBA. With 351 D-I schools, assuming an average of 3 scholarships per school per year, that's over 1,000 seniors per year. Less than 1% will be NBA draft picks. I can't view training and exposure as a tangible benefit when such a small minority become pros. It can help those who do become pros, but what about the other 99%? It doesn't benefit them enough to become pros.
The equivalent would be telling an MU professor, "We don't pay much but there's an outside chance you'll be the President at Harvard someday. So we factored that into your benefits package." Or telling a local TV anchor they might get a network job at ABC because the station is an ABC affiliate. Sure the experience could be the start of a long path to a successful career, but I think its absurd to consider "chance" to be "compensation".
You completely missed the second half...
if your goal is to get an education, then there's no problem.
Not every scholarship athlete accepts a college scholarship because they're hoping to go pro some day. They're accepting a college scholarship because they want a college education. Those are the students who are perfectly content with their situation; the only ones who are making noise are those who aren't content unless they're looking in someone else's pocketbook - and those are the ones who a) are looking to go pro and b) whose potential careers are greatly benefitting from the exposure, facilities, training, competition, etc. that come along with an athletics scholarship.
-
You completely missed the second half...
Not every scholarship athlete accepts a college scholarship because they're hoping to go pro some day. They're accepting a college scholarship because they want a college education. Those are the students who are perfectly content with their situation; the only ones who are making noise are those who aren't content unless they're looking in someone else's pocketbook - and those are the ones who a) are looking to go pro and b) whose potential careers are greatly benefitting from the exposure, facilities, training, competition, etc. that come along with an athletics scholarship.
The vast majority of student athletes would take additional money for playing sports but aren't agitating for it. The stars are the one's that are agitating for it because they are undervalued from a market standpoint, however the value they have "taken" from them is then distributed amongst the overvalued mass of student athletes.
-
Not every scholarship athlete accepts a college scholarship because they're hoping to go pro some day. They're accepting a college scholarship because they want a college education. Those are the students who are perfectly content with their situation; the only ones who are making noise are those who aren't content unless they're looking in someone else's pocketbook - and those are the ones who a) are looking to go pro and b) whose potential careers are greatly benefitting from the exposure, facilities, training, competition, etc. that come along with an athletics scholarship.
This bears repeating. In fact, the percentage of scholarship athletes hoping to go pro is very small. Even many -- I suspect most -- athletes in the revenue sports aren't really hoping or expecting to go pro. The large majority of scholarship athletes are perfectly content with the "sports = free (or reduced cost) education" transaction. In fact, most are absolutely thrilled with the trade off.
Even those who really don't give two craps about the "education" part are probably pretty content with the "sports = free room and board and hang out on college campus" transaction.
-
The vast majority of student athletes would take additional money for playing sports but aren't agitating for it. The stars are the one's that are agitating for it because they are undervalued from a market standpoint, however the value they have "taken" from them is then distributed amongst the overvalued mass of student athletes.
There is a lot of truth to this. However, I think the number of athletes who are undervalued from the market standpoint is extremely small. There are a transcendent few. Even most of the ones who probably believe they are undervalued are effectively fungible.
Also, in many programs in conferences without lucrative television contracts or 100,000 seat stadiums and 15,000 seat arenas, many of the athletes are overvalued and the equation is reversed. Tuition and fee money is "taken" from the student body at large and distributed among the overvalued athletes.
-
The vast majority of student athletes would take additional money for playing sports but aren't agitating for it. The stars are the one's that are agitating for it because they are undervalued from a market standpoint, however the value they have "taken" from them is then distributed amongst the overvalued mass of student athletes.
Which brings up an interesting question: Would the revenue sports still exist in their current form if all Olympic sports were eliminated from college campuses, specifically, would the universities' constituencies (administration, students, alumni, donors, etc.) still support the revenue sports if the Olympic sports were eliminated?
-
The vast majority of student athletes would take additional money for playing sports but aren't agitating for it. The stars are the one's that are agitating for it because they are undervalued from a market standpoint, however the value they have "taken" from them is then distributed amongst the overvalued mass of student athletes.
It was Kain Kolter and the Northwestern football team that made the unionization bid.
Not many stars in that group.
-
The equivalent would be telling an MU professor, "We don't pay much but there's an outside chance you'll be the President at Harvard someday. So we factored that into your benefits package." Or telling a local TV anchor they might get a network job at ABC because the station is an ABC affiliate. Sure the experience could be the start of a long path to a successful career, but I think its absurd to consider "chance" to be "compensation".
Actually, that is essentially the case for professors. Part of the "justification" for a lower salary is that we retain the option to do outside consulting up to 20% of our day. The argument is that the University provides the exposure to allow a professor to access these outside consulting opportunities that would not be available otherwise.
The other argument for the low salaries is they provide the infrastructure in support for one to make a name for themselves; which allows both consulting opportunities and the possibility to go elsewhere for higher salaries (eventually; e.g. Dean's/Presidents/Better Universities).
Your analogies actually support the position opposite the one you are trying to make.
Now, we also have to work 60+ hours a week, so we really don't have time for the consulting part, but in theory it is there, and they use it as a justification for low pay.
-
It was Kain Kolter and the Northwestern football team that made the unionization bid.
Not many stars in that group.
Hey now, dont be dissing star QB Trevor Siemian. That was actually a decent team. Van Hoose, Siemian, Kolter, Campbell, Vitale and Venric Mark (if he was still there at that point)
-
Foot ball and BB players at UT are either Strong or Smart; none are rich:
http://www.chron.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Why-A-Lot-Of-Good-College-Football-Teams-Are-5807651.php
-
It was Kain Kolter and the Northwestern football team that made the unionization bid.
Not many stars in that group.
Agree Pakuni. Unions would benefit the scrubs in the "star" sports more than anyone (I think). If I'm reading this correctly, all scholarship players in revenue sports would receive equal stipends, star or bench warmer.
-
Sorry if I missed it, but didn't see this earlier in the thread:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/bigeast/2016/10/19/marquette-duane-wilson-ncaa-protest-nigel-hayes-money/92411676/
-
Last paragraph of that USA today article is odd. How did this all the sudden go from being about NCAA not allowing fair treatment of student-athletes to racism?
-
Foot ball and BB players at UT are either Strong or Smart; none are rich:
http://www.chron.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Why-A-Lot-Of-Good-College-Football-Teams-Are-5807651.php
The problem with this "article" is its very short-sighted and will lead most readers to think players are getting shafted.
They use the NFL's collective bargaining agreement to determine the players receive 47% of all revenue. Yet all revenue includes contributions from donors. Additionally, it forgets the concept that most of the other athletic programs are funded via revenues that are brought in via football (mainly) and basketball.
-
Last paragraph of that USA today article is odd. How did this all the sudden go from being about NCAA not allowing fair treatment of student-athletes to racism?
Scott Gleeson asked Nigel why he was doing what he was doing and that was the answer.