Good Point Jay Bilas

[WellsstreetWanderer]

If a free education, housing ,meals, gear and travel aren't enough let them go pro.

Doctors have to delay gratification far longer and pay for their education as well.

I see where the NBADL draws about 50 people at the games I watch so I doubt a minor league NBA would be profitable. For the majority of NCAA athletes, the education is critical as they will need it for future employment.

[MarquetteDano]

This type of response demonstrates exactly whom Chicos (and others) are actually concerned about on this topic...themselves. They want their college basketball, and specifically Marquette basketball, and they want the system designed to give them that,whether it is "fair" to the players or not, and justify it by saying, "well they get a scholarship that most people would be happy with, therefore it should be good enough for them."

So if there is no Marquette basketball, and thus no scholarships at all for any sports at Marquette University, that is "fair" to the players?

[Tugg Speedman]

Cleaning the carpet after a stripper craps on it can be expensive. Especially seven strippers. Or so I've been led to believe....

I can get you a quantity discount of you're in the Durham area.

[NavinRJohnson]

So if there is no Marquette basketball, and thus no scholarships at all for any sports at Marquette University, that is "fair" to the players?

Well, technically, yes, but my point is that we should call it what it is.

[Pakuni]

Well, technically, yes, but my point is that we should call it what it is.

What is it?

[NavinRJohnson]

Thanks

People forget that only the top top schools have revenue of any material amounts.  There are 330 DI schools, a ton of DII schools, a ton of DIII schools.  The revenues from the TV deals pay for all three divisions.  Then you factor in non-revenue sports for both men and women.  You're either going to get to a situation where you kill those Olympic sports entirely or have no scholarships for them, or some other major impact elsewhere.

So which is it? On the one hand, you say the above, but on the other, the NCAA financial links you provided indicate that Division II and Division III combined distribution accounts for roughly 6% of revenues and 7% of expenses. While DI institutions get better than 60%.

With roughly 750 total DII and DIII institutions, that translates to a best case of $72k per institution, which we know is high, as some of that money goes to support championships, etc, and it doesn't all go to the institutions. So are you suggesting that taking $72,000 away from UW-LaCrosse is going to destroy their athletic program?

[NavinRJohnson]

What is it?

Well, what did he say? That we better find someone other than MU to root for because they aren't going to be able to complete. So it's logical to say that he doesn't think players should be paid because it will create advantages for larger schools, etc., and MU will no longer be competitive. He doesn't want them paid, because he wants his MU basketball. And if players aren't getting their piece of the pie, while coaches cash $4M pay checks and can leave in a heartbeat for a bigger paycheck or to escape NCAA sanctions they created, so be it, while the players who make them successful and rich cannot even transfer schools without having to sit out a year, or make money on same way and remain on scholarship.

We've all known college BBall and football were all about money, and conference reallignment could not have crystallized it any more. The NCAA (which is the member institutions) is not going to give up a penny they don't have to, and right now the system they've developed is extraordinarily tipped in their favor, so they don't have to.

[MarquetteDano]

We've all known college BBall and football were all about money, and conference reallignment could not have crystallized it any more. The NCAA (which is the member institutions) is not going to give up a penny they don't have to, and right now the system they've developed is extraordinarily tipped in their favor, so they don't have to.

If it so tipped in their favor why did my cousins go play Big Ten baseball versus taking a relatively large singing bonus and play in the minors?  One of them graduated with a 3.1 but somehow he must be a moron.

[NavinRJohnson]

If it so tipped in their favor why did my cousins go play Big Ten baseball versus taking a relatively large singing bonus and play in the minors?  One of them graduated with a 3.1 but somehow he must be a moron.

You'd have to ask them, but my guess would be that they wanted to go to college. Obviously they're still going to be playing ball, and figure the professional option will still be the for them when they're done. Seems like a good decision.  I hope it works out for them. As to what that individual case has to do with anything, I have no idea, as I clearly and specifically referred to football and basketball as being tipped in the favor of NCAA/institutions.

[MarquetteDano]

You'd have to ask them, but my guess would be that they wanted to go to college. Obviously they're still going to be playing ball, and figure the professional option will still be the for them when they're done. Seems like a good decision.  I hope it works out for them. As to what that individual case has to do with anything, I have no idea, as I clearly and specifically referred to football and basketball as being tipped in the favor of NCAA/institutions.

But I think baseball is a excellent surrogate to compare basketball and football.  In baseball you have a legit competitor in the Minor Leagues.  Yet thousands of kids every year eschew that alternative and go get a University degree.

If a scholarship is so one-sided why do all of these kids go to school instead of play in the Minor Leagues?  It would seem the Minor Leagues is no better than a scholarship in this instance.

[ChicosBailBonds]

This type of response demonstrates exactly whom Chicos (and others) are actually concerned about on this topic...themselves. They want their college basketball, and specifically Marquette basketball, and they want the system designed to give them that,whether it is "fair" to the players or not, and justify it by saying, "well they get a scholarship that most people would be happy with, therefore it should be good enough for them."

Believe me, I get it. I have willingly turned a blind eye to performance enhancing drugs, concussions, etc. in MLB and the NFL. I have come to the conclussion that they are all doing it, are aware of the risks, and I don't care anymore. I want my football and baseball, and if they want to kill themselves, so be it, I will continue to tune in and feed the beast because I want to.  Of course it isn't exactly the same thing, since they are paid professionals. unlike NCAA football and basketball players who are unpaid professionals.

I'm worried about myself in this?  Uhm, no.

They get a free education, free room and board, free tutors, free travel around the USA.  Access to alumni and networking that most students can't dream of.  They get admitted to universities they would often NEVER get admitted to.  Free gear.  The ability to have a 4 year internship where they graduate to play in the NBA, NBADL, Europe, etc...how many other students get this?  Engineers may have a one year type of program.  Most A&S have none.  Business students may get a semester type of program.

Sorry, but how is this remotely thinking about "myself"? 

The problem is that most of you either skipped school the day they taught economics or have no idea how it works.  Furthermore, you view it through a lens of the top schools, top players and typically through the eyes of two sports...football and basketball.  Let alone that there are over 50 sports in the NCAA and hundreds of thousands of student athletes that DO NOT PLAY FOOTBALL OR BASKETBALL.

[Pakuni]

Well, what did he say? That we better find someone other than MU to root for because they aren't going to be able to complete. So it's logical to say that he doesn't think players should be paid because it will create advantages for larger schools, etc., and MU will no longer be competitive. He doesn't want them paid, because he wants his MU basketball. And if players aren't getting their piece of the pie, while coaches cash $4M pay checks and can leave in a heartbeat for a bigger paycheck or to escape NCAA sanctions they created, so be it, while the players who make them successful and rich cannot even transfer schools without having to sit out a year, or make money on same way and remain on scholarship.

We've all known college BBall and football were all about money, and conference reallignment could not have crystallized it any more. The NCAA (which is the member institutions) is not going to give up a penny they don't have to, and right now the system they've developed is extraordinarily tipped in their favor, so they don't have to.

It doesn't matter whether Chico's wants them paid or not. What matters is if there is a feasible system by which they can be paid without, for all intents, eliminating college athletics as they have been for most of the century and creating what is, for all intents, a minor-league sports program in which only a very small handful of schools can afford to participate.

The people who want to athletes paid, like yourself, are consistently in denial about three realities that make it essentially impossible, none of which they can (or are willing) to address.

1. College athletes already receive extensive compensation in the form of tuition and books, meals, clothing, housing and medical care. Most importantly, they receive a high level of professional training without which many of them would never be able to earn a living in their chosen sport. Do you think Jae Crowder is an NBA player today without the training he received in college? This compensation is worth, as has been pointed out already, more than $100,000 annually at some schools. A football player who redshirts then plays four seasons is getting more than a half million dollars in compensation. They are not playing for nothing.

2. Title IX requires that if you provide some athletes with certain benefits, you must supply all athletes with those benefits. so, if you want to pay Vander Blue a $1,000 monthly stipend, you're doing so for the women's lacrosse team, the golfers, the tennis players, etc. MU has 221 scholarship athletes, according to the latest Dept. of Education data. This would mean a $2.65 million hit to the athletic department's budget. It would cost the University of Wisconsin $10.5 million a year. Where's this money coming from?

3. Contrary to repeated assertions about college athletic departments raking in billions of dollars, many barely break even - if that - and are largely subsidized through student activity fees paid for by non-athletes. Nearly 15 percent of UConn's athletic budget is subsidized through fees. Same with Virginia and Rutgers. The number is over 9 percent at North Carolina and Florida State. Even big SEC programs like Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina and Florida are partially subsidized. How are these schools going to shell out millions of dollars a year to pay athletes when they can't even break even without subsidies under the current system?

[ChicosBailBonds]

So which is it? On the one hand, you say the above, but on the other, the NCAA financial links you provided indicate that Division II and Division III combined distribution accounts for roughly 6% of revenues and 7% of expenses. While DI institutions get better than 60%.

With roughly 750 total DII and DIII institutions, that translates to a best case of $72k per institution, which we know is high, as some of that money goes to support championships, etc, and it doesn't all go to the institutions. So are you suggesting that taking $72,000 away from UW-LaCrosse is going to destroy their athletic program?

You do realize that the budgets to run DII and DIII are a little different, right?  Do you know what the athletic budget is for a DIII school?  I didn't think so, but that kind of money is a huge hit to them.

Again, I ask, did you ever take economics in school and\or work in an environment where you are responsible for the P & L of a division, company, department, whatever?  I think you might want to invest some time in looking at what the NCAA takes in, then look at the expenditures.  Next, please divorce yourself (and others) of the ridiculous idea that schools are making "billions" off t-shirt or jersey sales...it is preposterous. 

Are there some student athletes that are hardship cases...yes there are.  Are there some that could use "walking around" money...yes.  Are these student athletes being given the chance of a lifetime worth FAR MORE than the actual dollar expenditures of that education in today's value....you're damn right they are. 

There were many of us that didn't have squat when we were in college.  Paid our own way, had a run down apartment that wasn't close to what some student athletes have...certainly didn't have the quality food access, teacher access, etc that they get.  There are tradeoffs in life.  A scholarship is offered, if they don't like it, go to Europe and play.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Well, what did he say? That we better find someone other than MU to root for because they aren't going to be able to complete. So it's logical to say that he doesn't think players should be paid because it will create advantages for larger schools, etc., and MU will no longer be competitive. He doesn't want them paid, because he wants his MU basketball. And if players aren't getting their piece of the pie, while coaches cash $4M pay checks and can leave in a heartbeat for a bigger paycheck or to escape NCAA sanctions they created, so be it, while the players who make them successful and rich cannot even transfer schools without having to sit out a year, or make money on same way and remain on scholarship.

We've all known college BBall and football were all about money, and conference reallignment could not have crystallized it any more. The NCAA (which is the member institutions) is not going to give up a penny they don't have to, and right now the system they've developed is extraordinarily tipped in their favor, so they don't have to.

Again, you keep going to the extreme.  How many coaches out of 1000 coaches are getting $4m pay checks?  Less than 1%.  By the way, the NCAA has no authority over coaches pay and they have come out repeatedly against the high amounts schools are paying.  If you have a beef with a coach's paycheck, that should be with the school, not with the NCAA.

I do like MU hoops and other sports at MU.  I believe we and other schools offer an EQUITABLE relationship.  We pay for your school, we provide assistance, facilities, room and board, etc, etc in return for you to represent our school.  No one is putting a gun to their head to take the offer.  In the end, the student athlete should earn far more from the relationship than the school does, especially in the non-revenue sports.  It won't even be close.  I see this as a benefit to MU and these students, not benefiting me as you imply.  Kids are being educated and becoming productive members of society for decades to come...all for playing soccer, or track, or volleyball, or golf at school. 

[NavinRJohnson]

It doesn't matter whether Chico's wants them paid or not. What matters is if there is a feasible system by which they can be paid without, for all intents, eliminating college athletics as they have been for most of the century and creating what is, for all intents, a minor-league sports program in which only a very small handful of schools can afford to participate.

The people who want to athletes paid, like yourself, are consistently in denial about three realities that make it essentially impossible, none of which they can (or are willing) to address.

1. College athletes already receive extensive compensation in the form of tuition and books, meals, clothing, housing and medical care. Most importantly, they receive a high level of professional training without which many of them would never be able to earn a living in their chosen sport. Do you think Jae Crowder is an NBA player today without the training he received in college? This compensation is worth, as has been pointed out already, more than $100,000 annually at some schools. A football player who redshirts then plays four seasons is getting more than a half million dollars in compensation. They are not playing for nothing.

2. Title IX requires that if you provide some athletes with certain benefits, you must supply all athletes with those benefits. so, if you want to pay Vander Blue a $1,000 monthly stipend, you're doing so for the women's lacrosse team, the golfers, the tennis players, etc. MU has 221 scholarship athletes, according to the latest Dept. of Education data. This would mean a $2.65 million hit to the athletic department's budget. It would cost the University of Wisconsin $10.5 million a year. Where's this money coming from?

3. Contrary to repeated assertions about college athletic departments raking in billions of dollars, many barely break even - if that - and are largely subsidized through student activity fees paid for by non-athletes. Nearly 15 percent of UConn's athletic budget is subsidized through fees. Same with Virginia and Rutgers. The number is over 9 percent at North Carolina and Florida State. Even big SEC programs like Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina and Florida are partially subsidized. How are these schools going to shell out millions of dollars a year to pay athletes when they can't even break even without subsidies under the current system?

I get all of that, and I appreciate you not acting like the condescending prick, like some others,  but while the items you point out are today's reality, and difficult, and perhaps even impossible to overcome, what bothers me is that no effort is made, and from where i'm sitting, the NCAA is all too happy to hide behind them. They immerse themselves in inconsistency and hypocrisy seemingly with every action they take. It's all about money,plain and simple.

[MUBurrow]

I dont want to speak for anyone else, but the reason this bugs me is: If I pay someone the marketplace equivalent of $1 million in sour patch kids to work at my sour patch kids factory, have I paid him/her $1 million?

[Pakuni]

I dont want to speak for anyone else, but the reason this bugs me is: If I pay someone the marketplace equivalent of $1 million in sour patch kids to work at my sour patch kids factory, have I paid him/her $1 million?

I guess it depends: did the person agree to work at your factory in exchange for Sour Patch Kids?

Regardless, the analogy doesn't really hold. Sour Patch Kids, while undoubtedly delicious, aren't equivalent to housing, full meals and health care, nor do they offer the future earning potential of a college degree and professional training.

[MUBurrow]

I guess it depends: did the person agree to work at your factory in exchange for Sour Patch Kids?

Regardless, the analogy doesn't really hold. Sour Patch Kids, while undoubtedly delicious, aren't equivalent to housing, full meals and health care, nor do they offer the future earning potential of a college degree and professional training.

But telling an adult without another paying domestic outlet for that labor that the things you mentioned are "just as good as money" is awfully paternalistic, aina?

[4everwarriors]

I dont want to speak for anyone else, but the reason this bugs me is: If I pay someone the marketplace equivalent of $1 million in sour patch kids to work at my sour patch kids factory, have I paid him/her $1 million?

I'm pretty sure, according to the Affordable Care Act, you're on the hook for health care benefits.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I dont want to speak for anyone else, but the reason this bugs me is: If I pay someone the marketplace equivalent of $1 million in sour patch kids to work at my sour patch kids factory, have I paid him/her $1 million?

I don't understand your analogy at all.  

1) If there is a marketplace for the sour patch kids and the person can sell them for $1 million, then I would say you have, at the very least, given them an asset that can be sold for that value

2) Is your analogy supposed to be the equivalent of an education...sour patch kids (or whatever) = education?  Sorry, I find that way out there.

An education delivers 10 fold (if not more) than what it costs.  Most of us that went to MU will make $1 million in our lifetimes, some will make appreciably more than that ($5 million...$10 million)...yet it cost us anywhere from $20K to $130K to go depending on when you attended.  

If folks don't want that exchange, they can go "sell their services" elsewhere.  Let's also not lose site of the fact that the kid that play 1 minute is whole career gets the same deal as the kid who is an All American.

[MarquetteDano]

I dont want to speak for anyone else, but the reason this bugs me is: If I pay someone the marketplace equivalent of $1 million in sour patch kids to work at my sour patch kids factory, have I paid him/her $1 million?

And I'll bring up the baseball comparison again.... that same person is being offered a job for less than that $1 million in sour patch kids in actual dinero and yet a good portion of them take the sour patch kids.  Why I wonder?

[MUBurrow]

And I'll bring up the baseball comparison again.... that same person is being offered a job for less than that $1 million in sour patch kids in actual dinero and yet a good portion of them take the sour patch kids.  Why I wonder?

I actually think thats a really counterproductive comparison.  Sure a good portion take the alternate option. But a ton of kids go pro out of high school - enough to severely water down the college game.  Earlier I had asked what other entity could possibly get away with the NCAA's compensation system if not for the inertia of its power and influence today. Baseball might be a better example of what would happen if private paying leagues and the NCAA started over from the same point.  What was the last time people on this board took in a NCAA baseball game?  What about a minor league game?  How much per year do you spend on NCAA baseball as compared to minor league baseball?

I bet minor league baseball blows NCAA baseball out of the water.  NCAA baseball is a massively inferior game compared to NCAA football or basketball relative to the level of pro competition. Sure, youre right that a bunch of kids still play NCAA ball - but I think ties lose in this comparison.  In baseball they have the choice - in basketball and football they dont.

[MUBurrow]

I don't understand your analogy at all.  

1) If there is a marketplace for the sour patch kids and the person can sell them for $1 million, then I would say you have, at the very least, given them an asset that can be sold for that value

2) Is your analogy supposed to be the equivalent of an education...sour patch kids (or whatever) = education?  Sorry, I find that way out there.

An education delivers 10 fold (if not more) than what it costs.  Most of us that went to MU will make $1 million in our lifetimes, some will make appreciably more than that ($5 million...$10 million)...yet it cost us anywhere from $20K to $130K to go depending on when you attended.  

If folks don't want that exchange, they can go "sell their services" elsewhere.  Let's also not lose site of the fact that the kid that play 1 minute is whole career gets the same deal as the kid who is an All American.

I dont want to monopolize this thread, especially since I actually dont have that strong an opinion either way, and I certainly dont want to get into a detailed comparison of sour patch kids vs a college education (clearly you could substitute ANYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD for sour patch kids in my example, who else would even try to break down that analogy?) but my point is that in no other facet of industry could you essentially eliminate any sense of the open market for a skill, then compensate individuals with that skill only with an in-kind service and call it fair and "best for the kids"

[MarquetteDano]

I bet minor league baseball blows NCAA baseball out of the water.  NCAA baseball is a massively inferior game compared to NCAA football or basketball relative to the level of pro competition. Sure, youre right that a bunch of kids still play NCAA ball - but I think ties lose in this comparison.  In baseball they have the choice - in basketball and football they dont.

The bottom line is that loads of kids are drafted every year with $30-$50k signing bonuses and a guarantee of salary and yet they still play college, with no chance of a stipend.  Based on some peoples' argument here, nearly every single kid would take the money.

Why don't they take the money?  If having a scholarship and having your expenses paid for you is so one-sided for the University, why wouldn't they play in the minor leagues?

And since the level of play is so wonderful at the college level in basketball/football why hasn't some smart entreprenuer started a league to show off all of this wonderful talent and pay the kids enough to lure them away from college?

[MUFC9295]

Why do the non-revenue programs even exist beyond needing to comply with Title IX?  I never saw a direct benefit from having a golf team or track team when I was a student.  From an individual school standpoint, I understand the need for a well rounded sports program, but I don't understand why colleges as a whole operating unprofitable teams.  Wouldn't the money be better spent being poured back into the universities?

Most students like the school they are attending for academic reasons.  Not everyone likes college basketball or football.  I think you'll have a hard time getting popular support for paying players- and only some athletes, but not others- at that.

Also, why then do most high schools run sports programs?  Are not all HS sports, and especially football and basketball, money losing propositions.