Mick Cronin says players "need" to get paid

[nathanziarek]

This is a good discussion. The New Big East has made this board so ... civil. I don't know what to think

...its an unfair system.

I think the only way it's actually unfair is if the students go in not knowing what they are getting. Since they are well-aware of what the benefits are, they are able to make any decision they want. Go to Europe. Sit out a year and try for the NBA. Skip sports and get an apprenticeship.

Even if players did start getting paid, people making less than other people while providing more benefit is a fact of life.

[Pakuni]

Athletics does provide opportunities for many, many athletes, and thats a good thing. it is extremely unfortunate however that only a few do the heavy lifting to fund it, and receive limited incremental benefit. It's great for those of us who like to watch it, and if you are one off those other athletes, but if you're the one people ware tuning into to watch, its an unfair system.

Bull---- on that. An elite swimmer works just as hard as an elite basketball player works just as hard as an elite gymnast works just as hard as an elite football player. Don't take the popularity of one's sport as some sort of indication as to the amount of effort, i.e. "heavy lifting" that's being done.

[NavinRJohnson]

You are comparing real world situation with a controlled system that provides and education (valued at 1000's of dollars) in exchange for participation. 

Bingo. A controlled system that is all about money. Cronin is absolutely correct in pointing that out, but what would he know about it?

As to how you do it, how about something along the lines of you making the amount players on a particular team are paid a function of revenue generated by that team, against the total AD revenues, and the coaches salary. I haven't, nor will I spend the time to to come up with it specifically, but in general if MU BBall generates X, and Buzz Williams total comp eats up Y% of that amount, or ranks him at a certain point among his peers...whatever criteria you want to use to account for his pay on some sort of relative scale, then Z =the pool of $ split evenly among the scholarship players. Same can apply across all sports and all schools. Obviously not fully baked, but just an idea.

As for womens volleyball, swimming, etc. of course some are going to complain, but is it in any way unfair? if the above formula dictates that they dont get any more than the same scholarship and benefits they receive today, are they going to turn down the scholarship? Of course not. Not suggesting it wold be easy, or wouldn't employ lawyers for years to come, but its the right thing to do.

[NavinRJohnson]

Bull---- on that. An elite swimmer works just as hard as an elite basketball player works just as hard as an elite gymnast works just as hard as an elite football player. Don't take the popularity of one's sport as some sort of indication as to the amount of effort, i.e. "heavy lifting" that's being done.

And a construction worker works just as hard as Tom Cruise. Harder, actually. Welcome to America. By heavy lifting, I was referring to generating revenue, not how hard the athletes work.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Where the NCAA money goes


http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Answers/Nine+points+to+consider_one


http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6756472/following-ncaa-money

[MUCam]

If you guys are not up to speed with your worker's compensation laws, including insurance rates, payouts, and definitions of "employee," I suggest you brush up on same.

The reality is, the NCAA will never permit payment on a scale that Cronin is talking about. If they do, it opens the floodgates to additional hidden costs. Worker's compensation is just one of those costs.

Remember the football player from Rutgers that was recently paralyzed? What school wants to pay for his benefits, or see their insurance rates rise as a result of the increased liability, when players become "employees." A couple schools have already fought this fight and won.

There is so much more to "paying" than just simply writing checks. The NCAA and its member schools won't buy in. That is why there is such a fight over something as small as a paltry $2,000 stipend.

But, then again, what do I know? I still think the A-10 is going to swallow up the C7.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Except of course where college athletes are concerned. As you yourself pointed out, if players were paid based on revenue generated, UW players would get more than MU. Why is hat a problem for you? I get that you want your MU basketball and want it to be successful, but lets call this what it is.

In your market driven society, is the QB at Nevada or Temple worth the same as Matt Barkley or Denard Robinson, as they basically are today?

Your argument seems to be that its ok since it is for the greater good. Alabama, Duke, Florida, etc. provide opportunities for other sports and small schools, and that should be additional reward enough for the small group of athletes that generate that revenue.

Athletics does provide opportunities for many, many athletes, and thats a good thing. it is extremely unfortunate however that only a few do the heavy lifting to fund it, and receive limited incremental benefit. It's great for those of us who like to watch it, and if you are one off those other athletes, but if you're the one people ware tuning into to watch, its an unfair system.

Because in sports I like a level playing field. I'm all for the capitalist system, but not in sports.  I love the NFL the best because there is one pie and everyone draws from that one pie. It allows tiny Green Bay and tiny Pittsburgh to win titles every bit as much as big New York or Chicago.  Within each team, you can decide how to dole out the money for your players.  I don't like the fact my Angels are outspending 90% of the rest of baseball.  I think it's bad for baseball and bad for competitive balance.  Now, in the real world I don't agree with those extreme limiters, but when we're talking about an industry where the talent is so finite (pro baseball, football, college athletics, etc), I'd rather keep the playing fields as level as possible.

And yes, the few are carrying the load for the many but I don't see that as that much different than many companies. There are units that are nothing but cost centers, there are units that are profit or revenue centers that have to cover the expenses of those other units.  But how do you square with the idea that all those athletes at even the non revenue producing teams are still busting their humps.  They work very hard.

[setyoursightsnorth]

Players get paid with scholarships and benefits that they all get. Don't tell me that basketball players all just buy beats or get real nice apparel. That should be enough for them. College is about getting an education that will help you find a JOB that will pay you, it shouldn't be about getting paid for something that helped them avoid paying for college in the first place.
A little tangent, but when D-Wade said that Olympic athletes needed to get paid, it bothered me. You are representing your country, much like these college players represent their school. If they want money, get a job. You already don't have to pay for college.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Bingo. A controlled system that is all about money. Cronin is absolutely correct in pointing that out, but what would he know about it?

As to how you do it, how about something along the lines of you making the amount players on a particular team are paid a function of revenue generated by that team, against the total AD revenues, and the coaches salary. I haven't, nor will I spend the time to to come up with it specifically, but in general if MU BBall generates X, and Buzz Williams total comp eats up Y% of that amount, or ranks him at a certain point among his peers...whatever criteria you want to use to account for his pay on some sort of relative scale, then Z =the pool of $ split evenly among the scholarship players. Same can apply across all sports and all schools. Obviously not fully baked, but just an idea.

As for womens volleyball, swimming, etc. of course some are going to complain, but is it in any way unfair? if the above formula dictates that they dont get any more than the same scholarship and benefits they receive today, are they going to turn down the scholarship? Of course not. Not suggesting it wold be easy, or wouldn't employ lawyers for years to come, but its the right thing to do.

There are so many things wrong with this proposed idea.  College sports would end...done...with this proposal.  Title IX would immediately be the first hurdle.  Then you have all kinds of wonderful issues of anti-trust, workers comp, etc.  That athlete now becomes an employee, or a contractor and the world changes immensely with that designation.  The university's athletic department 501C classification goes bye bye.  The departments would have to pay enormous taxes on SS of these athletes, donors would no longer be able to make tax exempt donations, etc.  Don't forget collective bargaining becomes part of the equation.  You have fundamentally killed college athletics with your proposal.  May as well create a minor league system, because no way the schools can afford this.

[NavinRJohnson]

Because in sports I like a level playing field. I'm all for the capitalist system, but not in sports.  I love the NFL the best because there is one pie and everyone draws from that one pie. It allows tiny Green Bay and tiny Pittsburgh to win titles every bit as much as big New York or Chicago.  Within each team, you can decide how to dole out the money for your players.  I don't like the fact my Angels are outspending 90% of the rest of baseball.  I think it's bad for baseball and bad for competitive balance.  Now, in the real world I don't agree with those extreme limiters, but when we're talking about an industry where the talent is so finite (pro baseball, football, college athletics, etc), I'd rather keep the playing fields as level as possible.

With this I agree completely, but I order for it to hold up, it first requires that the NCAA actually admit that they are running such an enterprise, where they still try to sell us on amateurism, and all that noise. Beyond that, those other entities you cite (NFL, MLB, etc.) have powerful players unions, that guarantee players certain things, minimum salaries, etc. that's where the argument breaks down completely. Admitting that college athletics is big business is one thing, treating the people involved as such is something else. The NCaA can't seem to do either.

[martyconlonontherun]

Couldn't the NCAA just not enforce booster payments of players to limit liability? Not saying I would want that because all the big schools with bigtime alumni would just dominate every sport.

[MUBurrow]

Couldn't the NCAA just not enforce booster payments of players to limit liability? Not saying I would want that because all the big schools with bigtime alumni would just dominate every sport.

thats similar to another idea thats been floated, to just allow agents to pay athletes. It prevents the non-revenue sports question because agents will only pay athletes that might prove lucrative to them.  It also prevents the whole legal employer thing for the NCAA.  biggest problems though is that it doesnt do much for the folks who see unjust enrichment all over the NCAA, it would actually solidify the system as is.  it also doesnt do anything about the hypocritical rulings on benefits from the NCAA, and actually probably exacerbates those issues.

[wiscwarrior]

Do some of you even know how the money is spent in the NCAA? 

Actually I don't, but it seems to me that some of it isn't being spent in the right way.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Actually I don't, but it seems to me that some of it isn't being spent in the right way.

I provided links to where the money goes. 

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I interned for free one summer. I actually did quite a bit of work that they could've/should've been paying somebody for.

I knew what I was getting into when I signed up. I didn't complain.

The players are getting scholarships and nothing else.

They know that when they sign up.

The NCAA could make 500 trillion dollars, and it wouldn't matter.

College athletes are not in a union. They are independent contractors, and if they don't like the deal they are making, they shouldn't take it.

If you want to talk about the real world, be accurate about it.

[wiscwarrior]

I provided links to where the money goes. 

What about a fund for SA's based on need and administered by the NCAA?

[wiscwarrior]

I interned for free one summer. I actually did quite a bit of work that they could've/should've been paying somebody for.

I knew what I was getting into when I signed up. I didn't complain.

The players are getting scholarships and nothing else.

They know that when they sign up.

The NCAA could make 500 trillion dollars, and it wouldn't matter.

College athletes are not in a union. They are independent contractors, and if they don't like the deal they are making, they shouldn't take it.

If you want to talk about the real world, be accurate about it.

Maybe you could afford to do that. Some of these SA's come from backgrounds where no spending money is available to them. I wonder how they get by without a stipend of some sort. Are they eligible for assistance from other sources?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Maybe you could afford to do that. Some of these SA's come from backgrounds where no spending money is available to them. I wonder how they get by without a stipend of some sort. Are they eligible for assistance from other sources?

I'm not trying to be heartless about the student athlete, but I feel like Navin is turning the kids into martyrs, and I don't think that's the case.

They get tuition, room, board, per diem for road trips, upgraded meal plans and upgraded lodging (depending upon the sport).  

They all work their asses off, and they deserve everything they get. But, the idea that the system is absolutely unfair isn't really accurate.

If you want a scholarship, be a student athlete. If you aren't interested in a scholarship, you can go play your sport elsewhere.

It's all "fair" provided the schools aren't promising 1 thing and then providing another.

[slingkong]

Athletics does provide opportunities for many, many athletes, and thats a good thing. it is extremely unfortunate however that only a few do the heavy lifting to fund it, and receive limited incremental benefit. It's great for those of us who like to watch it, and if you are one off those other athletes, but if you're the one people ware tuning into to watch, its an unfair system.

If the athletes do what they're supposed to do, they get tens of thousands of dollars in value for their work.  Since a college grad makes a million or more over his career (non-athletic) more than a non-grad, that seems like a pretty good deal to me.

Moreover, you act like the soccer team, as an example, works less hard than the basketball team.  Having been part of the former at MU, I can certainly tell you that you're full of crap if you truly think that.  College athletics is not the same as the corporate world where a person is paid according to the wealth he makes for his employer.  Hell, most actual real world companies don't even pay like that.