Good Point Jay Bilas

[MUBurrow]

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.

I dont get why thats the bottom line.  Your argument for no one being paid is that in a situation where anyone can get paid, some choose to get paid.  Thats hardly a good argument that no one should get paid.

[Pakuni]

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?

Last I checked, the NBDL paid its players.
Nobody is forced to play college ball, nor are they owed a domestic outlet for their chosen labor.

[Tugg Speedman]

Last I checked, the NBDL paid its players.
Nobody is forced to play college ball, nor are they owed a domestic outlet for their chosen labor.

You cannot play the for NBADL or the NBA until one year after your HS class graduates.  So yes or are being denied an opportunity to make money for a while.

[Pakuni]

You cannot play the for NBADL or the NBA until one year after your HS class graduates.  So yes or are being denied an opportunity to make money for a while.

You're wrong. Players can go from high school to the D-league.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You cannot play the for NBADL or the NBA until one year after your HS class graduates.  So yes or are being denied an opportunity to make money for a while.

Incorrect.  Directly from the NBADL website:

"The minimum age to play in the D-League is 18, unlike the NBA, which requires players to be 19 years old and one year out of high school in order to sign an NBA contract or be eligible for the draft. There is no maximum age and a recent trend has seen NBA veterans attempt to return to the NBA via the D-League."


If these guys should be paid as you and others state, there's your avenue.  By all means, have them skip college and the situation that college offers and have them go directly to the NBADL so they get paid. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

I would suggest this reading.

http://nymag.com/daily/sports/2011/11/chait-why-paying-student-athletes-wont-work.html

[Lennys Tap]

I would suggest this reading.

http://nymag.com/daily/sports/2011/11/chait-why-paying-student-athletes-wont-work.html

Stopped reading when the author went after Paul Ryan and free markets. What in the wide world of sports has gotten into you, man?

[MarquetteDano]

I dont get why thats the bottom line.  Your argument for no one being paid is that in a situation where anyone can get paid, some choose to get paid.  Thats hardly a good argument that no one should get paid.

I guess if you do not believe in capitalistic economics then yes, it is not a good argument.  If you do believe that people, more often than not, act in their self-interest when making decisions then not paying a stipend appears not to dissuade these athletes from college.  They have options.... go overseas, play in the minors (baseball or NBADL), get a non-sports job, etc..

If things are as unfair to the athlete as everyone states around here the great thing is there will, soon enough, be competition that will destroy the NCAA high revenue sports.

Because there is so much money to be made that whatever minor league entity is created will be able to more than pay these athletes their "true worth" and that will be so much greater than the value of a university education they will flee college athletics.

I will not hold my breath.

[NavinRJohnson]

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.

For this argument to have any validity, you're going to have to show me where anyone said anything close to that.

[MarquetteDano]

For this argument to have any validity, you're going to have to show me where anyone said anything close to that.

You yourself stated everything is extraordinarily tipped in the university's favor versus the student.  With legitimate alternatives to university, why do so many eschew these alternatives?

[NavinRJohnson]

If things are as unfair to the athlete as everyone states around here the great thing is there will, soon enough, be competition that will destroy the NCAA high revenue sports.

Unfortunately, as long as the billion dollar TV contracts are going to the NCAA as they are today, they will continue to protect their "amateur" sports monopoly as they do today, all the while hiding behind title IX, non-revenue sports, etc. Again,  I'm not suggesting those are not real obstacles, but its tough to solve a problem the NCAA is not willing to acknowledge.

[NavinRJohnson]

You yourself stated everything is extraordinarily tipped in the university's favor versus the student.  

You honestly think that is not the case (and please don't bring up baseball again, as i specifically pointed to football and basketball)? More to the point, how or where did I suggest that given the opportunity, any kid would take the money ($30-50,000 as you suggest)? One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. So again, if ou can point to where anyone suggested that, I'll consider your argument.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Stopped reading when the author went after Paul Ryan and free markets. What in the wide world of sports has gotten into you, man?

The thing is, in this case he's right.  Non-revenue sports exist not because they are profitable or even self-reliant.  Those are the realities we have to deal with in a Title IX world...programs that exist and need to be paid for that could not exist on their own.  We can argue the merits or worthiness, but it isn't going away.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Unfortunately, as long as the billion dollar TV contracts are going to the NCAA as they are today, they will continue to protect their "amateur" sports monopoly as they do today, all the while hiding behind title IX, non-revenue sports, etc. Again,  I'm not suggesting those are not real obstacles, but its tough to solve a problem the NCAA is not willing to acknowledge.

Let's start by defining the problem...what do you think the problem is and do you think that it extends to only basketball and football players or student athletes of every sport?

[MarquetteDano]

You honestly think that is not the case (and please don't bring up baseball again, as i specifically pointed to football and basketball)? More to the point, how or where did I suggest that given the opportunity, any kid would take the money ($30-50,000 as you suggest)? One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. So again, if ou can point to where anyone suggested that, I'll consider your argument.

You cannot state on one hand that everything is against the student and on the other refuse to acknowldge that people have alternatives and say it has nothing to do with paying players.  Choices tell us the fairness of a trade.  It is crux of economics.  

Other than a few one and dones who are not allowed to go to the NBA straight out of high school (which I am against and is an NBA rule not NCAA) no one is getting treated unfairly.  If they truly were treated as bad as you say the talent would go elsewhere and the NCAA/universities would be forced to change.

Perhaps if more kids went to alternatives you will see the NCAA get around the Title IX stuff and pay only basketball/football student-athletes.  I would have no problem with that.  However, paying every full-time scholarship athlete does not sound feasible.

[NavinRJohnson]

Let's start by defining the problem...what do you think the problem is and do you think that it extends to only basketball and football players or student athletes of every sport?

Yes, I do. They live under restrictions in what they can and cannot do to maintain their "amateur" status, and their movement is restricted, while the revenue they generate is split disproportionatley among thousands of other people.

Great deal for the tennis and soccer players, who literally would not exist without the revenue the basketball and football players generate. Not to mention coaches who can come and go as they please, ADs,  television networks...the list of mouths they feed is a long one. They deserve more than what they get, but as you yourself pointed out, giving them more would upset the apple cart in a big way. As a result, nobody who benefits is willing to try to address it.

[NavinRJohnson]

Perhaps if more kids went to alternatives you will see the NCAA get around the Title IX stuff and pay only basketball/football student-athletes.  I would have no problem with that.  

Attempting to find a way to do so is all I am asking of the NCAA. I don't understand why however,it should require that kids opt for alternatives before they decide to take action. Your saying that seems to indicate that you agree they should be treated differently than other athletes, but because of the lack of alternatives, the NCAA should not address it simply because they don't have to. If its the right thing to do if there are alternatives for the players, why would you oppose it when there aren't? Goes back to my earlier point....many oppose paying players because they want their MU Basketball, NCAA tournament, and their college football on Saturday, and they know that paying players potentially changes the landscape as we know (and like) it.

[TJ]

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.

[MUBurrow]

nm, done with this one

[MarquetteDano]

If you think the compensation and revenue system only available to the NCAA but not to any other potential competitor reflects anything close to a free market system, this isn't really a discussion worth having.

So, just to great this straight, Minor League Baseball who is a competitor to the NCAA in terms of customers and suppliers (athletes) is not a fair comparison to basketball and football.

But because there hasn't been a league to truly compete with basketball and football that is a sign of a monopolistic environment.  Please don't tell me you are a Marquette business major.

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

Why is a $1000/month too high?  Money to travel home, buy clothes, go out to a movie, buy something for yourself (itunes song, new iPad), books, gas for car, makes this number reasonable.  If fact, I don't think $2,000/month is unreasonable.

It is either that or illegally sell memorabilia for tattoos ... ask tOSU.

[NavinRJohnson]

So, just to great this straight, Minor League Baseball who is a competitor to the NCAA in terms of customers and suppliers (athletes) is not a fair comparison to basketball and football.

But because there hasn't been a league to truly compete with basketball and football that is a sign of a monopolistic environment.  Please don't tell me you are a Marquette business major.

I'm sure he's not. Probably spends all his time watching minor league baseball on TV. Oh wait, minor league baseball isn't on TV.

[TJ]

Why is a $1000/month too high?  Money to travel home, buy clothes, go out to a movie, buy something for yourself (itunes song, new iPad), books, gas for car, makes this number reasonable.  If fact, I don't think $2,000/month is unreasonable.

It is either that or illegally sell memorabilia for tattoos ... ask tOSU.

I didn't say it was or wasn't too high.  I said it was brought up early in the thread and then taken as THE number, even used in later calculations of cost to the school.  In fact it was just a hypothetical number thrown out by a poster.

My point was that the whole conversation shouldn't be derailed because of a hypothetical amount, the question of whether players should be compensated in some way doesn't hinge on the amount.

And you answer your point - these kids don't need a new iPad every month, or at all.  The point of this is money for movies, food, and clothes - not iPads.  Show me that the average college student is spending $1000/month AFTER all tuition & housing & meal plans & books; then I'll accept that number.  In reality, they don't have a car because they don't need one as a student-athlete, the iPad idea is ridiculous, and books are provided.  So money for some clothes (they have lots of clothes provided as well), a movie, a dinner out, a few songs or movies... I don't think this is unreasonable, but it is nowhere near $1000/month.  Maybe that's what they deserve, but it's not what they need at all.

[Tugg Speedman]

And you answer your point - these kids don't need a new iPad every month, or at all.  The point of this is money for movies, food, and clothes - not iPads.  Show me that the average college student is spending $1000/month AFTER all tuition & housing & meal plans & books; then I'll accept that number.  In reality, they don't have a car because they don't need one as a student-athlete, the iPad idea is ridiculous, and books are provided.  So money for some clothes (they have lots of clothes provided as well), a movie, a dinner out, a few songs or movies... I don't think this is unreasonable, but it is nowhere near $1000/month.  Maybe that's what they deserve, but it's not what they need at all.

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!

[MarquetteDano]

I'm sure he's not. Probably spends all his time watching minor league baseball on TV. Oh wait, minor league baseball isn't on TV.

Well it is on tv.  Maybe not in your market.  But that is not the point.

It sounds like the more than a few here believe the kids are completely getting screwed over by the NCAA monetarily.  There is certainly not a small minority who believe this.  I just haven't heard a very good economic case for it.

Perhaps some smart former player could start a union of sorts and convince high school athletes to go on strike or at least put the fear into the NCAA of a strike.  But until then I don't see the empirical evidence.