Good Point Jay Bilas

[ChicosBailBonds]

You must be an old man still using a rotary phone.  Cell phones/iPads/laptops are required learning tools in the 21st century.  Not only do you need to have one, you better be able to use them well.  Try getting a job with knowing how to use them.

They are not "kids" they are adults in their early 20s.  Some have wives and kids.  Cars are also not unreasonable.  Maybe at MU is an urban environment they are not as necessary.  They are more so at, say ND or Purdue.  Try getting around those areas without a car.

They do not have lots of clothes.  They have sweats provided.  "Real clothes" they need to buy.

Bottom line, divorce your image of a 17 year old from a rich family that is given a iPad and laptop and their parents pay their mobile phone bill.  Now think of a 22 or 23 year old with a wife/kid (Wade and DJ here) that has to buy these things for themselves and ask if $1,000/month is unreasonable.  It is too low!

I thought MU basketball players got free iPads....almost positive that was reported a few years ago.

While you are at it, are you going to buy these same things for the poor kid in the history department that doesn't have a car, an iPad, real clothes?  How about the kid in the Spanish department?  What about the kid paying his own way in the African American studies department, or are these kids out of luck because they aren't 6'5" and jump real high?

What about the student athlete woman's soccer player that has all that stuff, does she get it?  Is this needs based?  What's the cut off? 

It is too low, my ARSE.  There are people in this country today not making $12K a year today in some cases and you are abdicating that $12K a year is too low ON TOP of everything else they get.  WOW.  Does it suck that Wade had a wife and baby...yup.  Does that mean the student athlete that didn't make that choice is not going to receive a stipend but one that did, does?  Hmmm.

[TJ]

You must be an old man still using a rotary phone.  Cell phones/iPads/laptops are required learning tools in the 21st century.  Not only do you need to have one, you better be able to use them well.  Try getting a job with knowing how to use them.

They are not "kids" they are adults in their early 20s.  Some have wives and kids.  Cars are also not unreasonable.  Maybe at MU is an urban environment they are not as necessary.  They are more so at, say ND or Purdue.  Try getting around those areas without a car.

They do not have lots of clothes.  They have sweats provided.  "Real clothes" they need to buy.

Bottom line, divorce your image of a 17 year old from a rich family that is given a iPad and laptop and their parents pay their mobile phone bill.  Now think of a 22 or 23 year old with a wife/kid (Wade and DJ here) that has to buy these things for themselves and ask if $1,000/month is unreasonable.  It is too low!

I still think that talking about buying an iPad a month is unreasonable.  And you should divorce your image of a 22 year old with a wife/kid - that's an unfortunate situation, but it is also not the standard case we should be looking at.

I'm on your side in this debate.  But if your baseline is $1000/month because they need iPads and laptops and it's either give them that or nothing then we're not going to get very far.  Especially after someone earlier in the thread calculated for you that Wisconsin would face a $10 million yearly expense with that number unless you can convince the courts that basketball and football players can be treated separately - an argument that has not won in the past.

[Pakuni]

I think that the number $1000/month was thrown out at the beginning of this thread and has been stuck to too literally.  That number might be too high, but a stipend is not the craziest idea ever thrown about.  I think players might get a small per diem now, but 1) some of these kids are really poor and 2) they aren't allowed to earn money in any way while on scholarship.  I don't know the answer, but I agree with NavinRJohnson - with all the billions of dollars exchanging hands because of these players, there should at least be an ongoing discussion on the topic of what would be equitable compensation for the players and how can we make sure they receive said equitable compensation.

I don't see anyone arguing that the players couldn't or shouldn't receive a reasonable stipend. In fact, the NCAA has a proposal before it right now that would do that ($2,000 a year, not the ridiculous $1,000 a month that's been suggested here).

And, yes, $1,000 a month is ridiculous. It's way, way more than any college kid needs, especially one who has his/her meals, lodging and school needs provided for free. It would also, as I explained earlier, be impossible for the vast majority of schools to afford. Some people would rather not deal with these facts.

[TJ]

I thought MU basketball players got free iPads....almost positive that was reported a few years ago.

While you are at it, are you going to buy these same things for the poor kid in the history department that doesn't have a car, an iPad, real clothes?  How about the kid in the Spanish department?  What about the kid paying his own way in the African American studies department, or are these kids out of luck because they aren't 6'5" and jump real high?

What about the student athlete woman's soccer player that has all that stuff, does she get it?  Is this needs based?  What's the cut off? 

It is too low, my ARSE.  There are people in this country today not making $12K a year today in some cases and you are abdicating that $12K a year is too low ON TOP of everything else they get.  WOW.  Does it suck that Wade had a wife and baby...yup.  Does that mean the student athlete that didn't make that choice is not going to receive a stipend but one that did, does?  Hmmm.

I do disagree with you overall in that I think a stipend of some amount should absolutely be seriously considered and potentially put in place, but I completely agree with the last part of this.

As for the kid in the history department, etc. - yes they pay their own way because they aren't 6'5" and jump real high.  This is about compensating players for the money (billions of dollars) they bring in to college athletics not about fixing poverty among college students.

[TJ]

I don't see anyone arguing that the players couldn't or shouldn't receive a reasonable stipend. In fact, the NCAA has a proposal before it right now that would do that ($2,000 a year, not the ridiculous $1,000 a month that's been suggested here).

And, yes, $1,000 a month is ridiculous. It's way, way more than any college kid needs, especially one who has his/her meals, lodging and school needs provided for free. It would also, as I explained earlier, be impossible for the vast majority of schools to afford. Some people would rather not deal with these facts.

People were definitely arguing against paying players.  If no one's arguing against a reasonable stipend, let's do it.  $175 a month ($225 if they only are paid 9 months, though the problem remains that they aren't allowed to work during the summer) sounds great to me, at least as a starting point.  I would bet that proposal doesn't get the unanimous agreement you seem to be suggesting it will though.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I do disagree with you overall in that I think a stipend of some amount should absolutely be seriously considered and potentially put in place, but I completely agree with the last part of this.

As for the kid in the history department, etc. - yes they pay their own way because they aren't 6'5" and jump real high.  This is about compensating players for the money (billions of dollars) they bring in to college athletics not about fixing poverty among college students.

But that's not the argument he was making.  He was saying he couldn't afford those things that he needs to succeed in the 21st century.  Well, neither can the poor kid in the History department...if you play along with his argument.

The other problem is theses guys continue to only focus on the very top, only football and basketball, and only at certain schools.  The guy playing for New Jersey Institute of Technology, going to practice every day, a DI player, will NEVER be on television unless they are playing a powerhouse school....does he get to be rewarded?  The school isn't making any money off of him?  So why is he treated differently?

I can't wait for the stories to come out on what these kids are buying with their cash....you want to see the public become even more skeptical about college athletics, you just wait.  I mean, what can possibly go wrong about putting a bunch of cash into the hands of 18 to 22 year olds....what could possibly go wrong.      And you just wait to see how this is abused by schools with further payments under the table.  Stud PG is going to be pissed that benchwarmer Charlie is getting the same stipend as he does. 

[Pakuni]

As for the kid in the history department, etc. - yes they pay their own way because they aren't 6'5" and jump real high.  This is about compensating players for the money (billions of dollars) they bring in to college athletics not about fixing poverty among college students.

One thing people get consistently wrong is the notion that these kids are bringing in billions of dollars to college athletics. They're not. They're part of a structure built by the universities that produces billions of dollars.
Someone earlier cited the Chris Webber jersey as an example of these kids getting screwed. What that person failed to recognize is that a Chris Webber jersey is absolutely worthless without the word "Michigan" on its front and without the exposure on television and other media outlets he received by playing for Michigan (or any other NCAA institution). Nobody pays a dime for a plain blue jersey with the name Webber on the back. And if Chris Webber never existed or went straight to the NBA, Michigan would be selling jerseys with some other player's name on the back.
The jersey sells because it has "Michigan" on the front and "Webber" on the back. The university certainly benefits from the players' labor, but the players benefit from the billions of dollars of investment by the universities creating a system by which the players receive exposure, professional training, etc. that makes it possible for them to earn millions and millions down the road. It is (if I may delve into consultant-speak) a symbiotic relationship that benefits both sides.
Seems you're all ignoring the second half of the relationship.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

Most of the people I went to MU with went through 4 years without an Ipad, car or "real clothes" we went to Goodwill for furniture and clothing and worked during the summer for spending money and bills. Many days I went without eating a full meal. One of the local restaurants would front us a meal until we had a few bucks. I would gladly do it again for the education,experience and opportunity.

This concept that everybody has to have everything everyone else has is corrupting. Jimmy Carter said "Life is not Fair"  Athletes chose the path they are on and the deal is to play for the school that houses, feeds, dresses and supports you.

[TJ]

But that's not the argument he was making.  He was saying he couldn't afford those things that he needs to succeed in the 21st century.  Well, neither can the poor kid in the History department...if you play along with his argument.

The other problem is theses guys continue to only focus on the very top, only football and basketball, and only at certain schools.  The guy playing for New Jersey Institute of Technology, going to practice every day, a DI player, will NEVER be on television unless they are playing a powerhouse school....does he get to be rewarded?  The school isn't making any money off of him?  So why is he treated differently?

I can't wait for the stories to come out on what these kids are buying with their cash....you want to see the public become even more skeptical about college athletics, you just wait.  I mean, what can possibly go wrong about putting a bunch of cash into the hands of 18 to 22 year olds....what could possibly go wrong.     And you just wait to see how this is abused by schools with further payments under the table.  Stud PG is going to be pissed that benchwarmer Charlie is getting the same stipend as he does.  

I agree that there are issues.  Every problem you brought up is completely valid.  It's still an issue that needs to be explored when stories like this are being reported...

The Big 12 Conference landed what is being reported as a 13-year media rights deal with ABC/ESPN and Fox worth $2.6 billion (or an average of $200 million per year for the conference and thus $20 million per school)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2012/09/07/20-million-reasons-why-sec-schools-love-big-12s-new-tv-deal-with-espn-fox/

Yes it is absolutely just the top of the food chain we're talking about here, and there's something to the argument that Marshall can't afford it, let alone NJIT, but this isn't going away while these contracts continue to bring in that much money.  (and bowl revenue, and ticket revenue, and donations, etc.)

[TJ]

Most of the people I went to MU with went through 4 years without an Ipad, car or "real clothes" we went to Goodwill for furniture and clothing and worked during the summer for spending money and bills. Many days I went without eating a full meal. One of the local restaurants would front us a meal until we had a few bucks. I would gladly do it again for the education,experience and opportunity.

This concept that everybody has to have everything everyone else has is corrupting. Jimmy Carter said "Life is not Fair"  Athletes chose the path they are on and the deal is to play for the school that houses, feeds, dresses and supports you.

A) nothing you did at MU helped MU bring in $2+ million per year in revenue.
B) athletes aren't allowed to work during the summer for spending money and bills
C) I agree completely with your "Life is not fair" line.  But that doesn't mean that athletes shouldn't be fairly compensated for their services.  The definition of "fairly compensated" is obviously a point of contention here, but no one disagrees with that concept.

[TJ]

One thing people get consistently wrong is the notion that these kids are bringing in billions of dollars to college athletics. They're not. They're part of a structure built by the universities that produces billions of dollars.
Someone earlier cited the Chris Webber jersey as an example of these kids getting screwed. What that person failed to recognize is that a Chris Webber jersey is absolutely worthless without the word "Michigan" on its front and without the exposure on television and other media outlets he received by playing for Michigan (or any other NCAA institution). Nobody pays a dime for a plain blue jersey with the name Webber on the back. And if Chris Webber never existed or went straight to the NBA, Michigan would be selling jerseys with some other player's name on the back.
The jersey sells because it has "Michigan" on the front and "Webber" on the back. The university certainly benefits from the players' labor, but the players benefit from the billions of dollars of investment by the universities creating a system by which the players receive exposure, professional training, etc. that makes it possible for them to earn millions and millions down the road. It is (if I may delve into consultant-speak) a symbiotic relationship that benefits both sides.
Seems you're all ignoring the second half of the relationship.

agreed, there's something to that.

[Tugg Speedman]

Most of the people I went to MU with went through 4 years without an Ipad, car or "real clothes" we went to Goodwill for furniture and clothing and worked during the summer for spending money and bills. Many days I went without eating a full meal. One of the local restaurants would front us a meal until we had a few bucks. I would gladly do it again for the education,experience and opportunity.

This concept that everybody has to have everything everyone else has is corrupting. Jimmy Carter said "Life is not Fair"  Athletes chose the path they are on and the deal is to play for the school that houses, feeds, dresses and supports you.

When did you go to MU and did the ball have laces on it?

I have MU kids from the Business School as interns in my company, I might even hire a recent MU grad in the coming year or two.  My company has nothing to do with technology ...

All that said, if the kid that wants a internship/job with me better know how to use Microsoft Office/ an iPad, HTML 5, word-press.  They should know when to use Firefox and when to use IE.  Again, my business has nothing to do with technology, but we use it, everyone uses it and better understand this.

He/she better have a way for me to find them (mobile phone) and access to email from a mobile location.

If you cannot do any of that, you cannot get a job with me.  And yes, you better have a way to buy business casual clothes, pay for a mobile phone, own a iPad and Laptop transportation availability (i.e., a car or buss pass).    

I just explained reality of getting a job in 2013 and that takes resources ... as in $1,000/month.  This is why 45% of unemployed have been so for more than 40 weeks.  They do not know what I wrote above and they have no useful skills in today's workforce and are unemployable.

If you want to think that kids only need $175/month so they can get drunk and buy pizza, fine, then don't expect them to get employed after college.  They can apply at the Grand Avenue Mall as a sales assistant.  MU send plenty of kids off to graduation with 50k/year jobs in hand.  To do this they need resources and $1,000/month is not unreasonable.

Now, if you think that is too much money and they will waste it, then social Darwinism will take over and they can enjoy that money for a while and learn to ask "would you like fries with that" after graduation.

CBB:

When the history or Spanish majors can get 15,000 to pay to go to the Bradley center twice a week then they two can have a full-ride and a stipend.

[Tugg Speedman]

agreed, there's something to that.

So the coach is worth millions a year but the players that actually win the games are worth a scholarship and, maybe $175/month.

[TJ]

So the coach is worth millions a year but the players that actually win the games are worth a scholarship and, maybe $175/month.

Again, I agree the players should get a stipend.  But your all or nothing attitude isn't helping and it's not going to happen.

[Pakuni]

When did you go to MU and did the ball have laces on it?

I have MU kids from the Business School as interns in my company, I might even hire a recent MU grad in the coming year or two.  My company has nothing to do with technology ...

All that said, if the kid that wants a internship/job with me better know how to use Microsoft Office/ an iPad, HTML 5, word-press.  They should know when to use Firefox and when to use IE.  Again, my business has nothing to do with technology, but we use it, everyone uses it and better understand this.

Ummm .... so you're suggesting it takes $1,000/month to learn how to use an iPad and when to use Firefox?
Weird. I learned those things for free.

[NavinRJohnson]

The other problem is theses guys continue to only focus on the very top, only football and basketball, and only at certain schools.  The guy playing for New Jersey Institute of Technology, going to practice every day, a DI player, will NEVER be on television unless they are playing a powerhouse school....does he get to be rewarded?  The school isn't making any money off of him?  So why is he treated differently?

You answered your own question. Because the school isn't making any money off him. Not complicated. Doesn't mean he doesn't work hard. Doesn't mean he doesn't have value. He just doesn't have as much.

I can't wait for the stories to come out on what these kids are buying with their cash....you want to see the public become even more skeptical about college athletics, you just wait.  I mean, what can possibly go wrong about putting a bunch of cash into the hands of 18 to 22 year olds....what could possibly go wrong.      And you just wait to see how this is abused by schools with further payments under the table. 

So because there's risk associated with it, it shouldn't be considered? College athletics is so clean right now under the current system. Maybe, just maybe, if done correctly this could actually help. Guess what, if the NCAA's rules weren't so consistently ridiculous and blatantly hypocritical, perhaps some of these issues, and coaches perceived need to try to get around them would go away or at least be reduced.

Stud PG is going to be pissed that benchwarmer Charlie is getting the same stipend as he does.

So you are assuming that stud PG isn't already pissed that cross country runner sitting next to him in English class is getting the same benefit he is, yet contributing far less from a financial standpoint. Why is this any different?

You acknowledge in nearly all of your posts that big time D1 football and basketball players have more value than the Olympic sports, DII, DIII, etc., yet are willing to just ignore it and unwilling to consider doing something about it. Why? As you have said repeatedly, you will need to find someone else to root for, because Marquette will be unable to compete. Who says? Who says it has to turn into a highest bidder system? Who says there is only one way to address the issue?

"If something's too hard, it isn't worth doing."

-- Homer Simpson

[Pakuni]

You acknowledge in nearly all of your posts that big time D1 football and basketball players have more value than the Olympic sports, DII, DIII, etc., yet are willing to just ignore it and unwilling to consider doing something about it. Why?

Again (and again) it's not a matter of wanting to do it, or whether it's too hard to do it, etc.
It's that you cannot do it. Federal law - which has been challenged numerous times and consistently upheld  - says you cannot do it. In a make-believe world where Title IX doesn't exist, some of the things you're suggesting might at least be feasible - though economically speaking, improbable. But so long as there's a Title IX, you cannot set up a system by which some student-athletes receive different benefits and compensation than others.
Can. Not. Happen.

[NavinRJohnson]

Again (and again) it's not a matter of wanting to do it, or whether it's too hard to do it, etc.
It's that you cannot do it. Federal law - which has been challenged numerous times and consistently upheld  - says you cannot do it. In a make-believe world where Title IX doesn't exist, some of the things you're suggesting might at least be feasible - though economically speaking, improbable. But so long as there's a Title IX, you cannot set up a system by which some student-athletes receive different benefits and compensation than others.
Can. Not. Happen.

So long as everyone is willing to accept the status quo, you're right. I guess that's my point. It actually is about wanting to do it, or whether its too hard to do. Have women and blacks always been allowed to vote? Have people always been eligible for Social Security? Have people always been required to wear seat belts? Is the process of getting on a plane the same as it was 20 years ago?

Times change and circumstances change. Guys like you and Chicaloop are willing to throw your hands up, and say, "that's the way it is. Nothing we can do about it," while others like myself, Jay Bilas, etc., look at it and see an unbalanced system that is not quite right, and would like someone to at least try to find a way to address it. The NCAA of course will not be that someone, because as everyone agrees, it's going to cut in on  their business.

[Pakuni]

So long as everyone is willing to accept the status quo, you're right. I guess that's my point. It actually is about wanting to do it, or whether its too hard to do. Have women and blacks always been allowed to vote? Have people always been eligible for Social Security? Have people always been required to wear seat belts? Is the process of getting on a plane the same as it was 20 years ago?

Times change and circumstances change. Guys like you and Chicaloop are willing to throw your hands up, and say, "that's the way it is. Nothing we can do about it," while others like myself, Jay Bilas, etc., look at it and see an unbalanced system that is not quite right, and would like someone to at least try to find a way to address it. The NCAA of course will not be that someone, because as everyone agrees, it's going to cut in on  their business.

Or maybe we simply recognize that a 40-year-old federal law that's withstood every legal challenge to date and is generally popular (outside fans of college football and men's basketball) isn't going to magically disappear because some people think a handful of kids going to college for free deserve even more.

You realize, by the way, that the NCAA is not a business, but rather an nonprofit association of nearly 1,300 colleges and universities? The idea that the NCAA is a business raking in billions of dollars is provably false. Paying athletes won't cost the NCAA a dime. It would, however, make many athletic departments insolvent (or even more insolvent).

Just wondering, though ... it's well known that significant portions of many universities' athletic department budgets are subsidized through fees imposed on non-athletes. Are you OK with non-athletes being charged even more to attend school - when many/most are already up to their eyeballs in debt - so that the kids who go to college for free can have some walking around cash?
Where's your sense of fairness there?

[NavinRJohnson]

"The N.C.A.A.'s often-stated contention that it is protecting the players from "excessive commercialism" is ludicrous; the only thing it's protecting is everyone else's revenue stream. (The N.C.A.A. itself takes in nearly $800 million a year, mostly from its March Madness TV contracts.) "Athletes in football and basketball feel unfairly treated," Leigh Steinberg, a prominent sports agent, says. "The dominant attitude among players is that there is no moral or ethical reason not to take money, because the system is ripping them off."

"It is worth noting that, even now, 40 years after Title IX became the law of the land, many schools still spend far more money on men's than women's sports without running afoul of it."

"To hear the gnashing of teeth by those who believe that money will soil college sports is to hark back to the days when baseball was on the cusp of free agency, or the Olympics was considering abandoning its longstanding adherence to amateurism. In both cases, critics feared that the introduction of serious and legitimate money would damage the sports, turn off the fans and lead to chaos. Instead, baseball and the Olympics got much better.

College sports will become more honest once players are paid, and more honorable. Fans will be able to enjoy football and men's basketball without having to avert their eyes from the scandals and the hypocrisy."



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/lets-start-paying-college-athletes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[Tugg Speedman]

Again (and again) it's not a matter of wanting to do it, or whether it's too hard to do it, etc.
It's that you cannot do it. Federal law - which has been challenged numerous times and consistently upheld  - says you cannot do it. In a make-believe world where Title IX doesn't exist, some of the things you're suggesting might at least be feasible - though economically speaking, improbable. But so long as there's a Title IX, you cannot set up a system by which some student-athletes receive different benefits and compensation than others.
Can. Not. Happen.

If a kid comes from means and does NOT take a scholarship can he:

* Get a summer job
* Accept gifts (like Brewer's tickets)
* Sell his image (do local commercials as a endorser)

[NavinRJohnson]

You realize, by the way, that the NCAA is not a business, but rather an nonprofit association of nearly 1,300 colleges and universities?

Of course, and tat makes the whole thing that much more distasteful, as the university presidents hide behind the claim of student athletes and amateurism where the big time sports are concerned.

Just wondering, though ... it's well known that significant portions of many universities' athletic department budgets are subsidized through fees imposed on non-athletes. Are you OK with non-athletes being charged even more to attend school - when many/most are already up to their eyeballs in debt - so that the kids who go to college for free can have some walking around cash?
Where's your sense of fairness there?

Actually, I am ok with that. Just as I am ok with those same students being charged fees for arts, music, theater, etc. I personally don't have much use for that, but I see the value in it to a University. In general, I support tax payer funded stadium projects, because I see the value to the community. I might also support tax funded theater or other types of projects if it will be an asset to the community. Really the same thing.

[ChicosBailBonds]

+1  AAU analogy is spot on

It not about getting what you need as determined by some higher up (free tuition, room and board) but about getting what you make.

Recall the famous story about Chris Webber.  During his sophomore year he was in an Ann Arbor Mall and saw his Jersey for sale for $80.  He could not afford his own Jersey.  The owner of the story saw him and asked him if he'd come in and sign a bunch as he thought he could sell them for $200 to $500.  Webber could not earn a dime off those signed Jerseys.  He says this incident helped him decide to leave early.

The NCAA makes a billions off the Tourney.  The schools makes billions more in total off all the TV deals.  Yet somehow they cannot give a kid $1,000/month for travel home, food, movie tickets and new clothes?

Yes, let's recall that famous story about poor Chris Webber....you know, the kid that was paid $280,000 to play at Michigan and couldn't afford his own jersey.

POOR POOR CHRIS WEBBER.     He was so wronged.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/22/sports/basketball-college-roundup-webber-among-players-paid-by-michigan-booster.html

[TJ]

If a kid comes from means and does NOT take a scholarship can he:

* Get a summer job
* Accept gifts (like Brewer's tickets)
* Sell his image (do local commercials as a endorser)

Are you sure?  He would still have to keep his amateur status.  I don't think 2 & 3 would be allowed.

[Pakuni]

If a kid comes from means and does NOT take a scholarship can he:

* Get a summer job
* Accept gifts (like Brewer's tickets)
* Sell his image (do local commercials as a endorser)

What kind of moron would turn down a scholarship valued at $50K or more a year so he could work at McDonald's or Old Navy over the summer and get freebies to a Brewers' game?
Your arguments are somehow getting worse.