Good Point Jay Bilas

[NavinRJohnson]

POOR POOR CHRIS WEBBER.    He was so wronged.

So I'm clear, you're using the example of a school that got caught cheating, had to vacate wins, final fours, etc., whom we should not be feeling sorry for, since he illegally received a bunch of money, as an argument against paying players. Do I have that right? That is relevant to Vander Blue, Devante Gardner, Monte Ball, etc., how exactly?

Let me ask you this, do you believe the current system is completely fair and reasonable for all parties involved, yes or no?

[Pakuni]

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.

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.

Just so I'm clear .... you're OK with making a college education even less affordable for the average family so that kids already going to college for free and receiving benefits worth as much as $100,000 a year can have even more compensation?
Might I suggest your priorities are far out of order and you have a severe lack of perspective regarding the value of college athletics.

p.s. It's a whole other issue, but nearly every study on the subject shows that taxpayer funded stadiums offer little in return to the community.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

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 kind of think this is an argument for paying players. Let's end the stupid farce that these are "amateur" players. They're marketing tools for college administrator bigwigs. Let's put down the svelte banners and pom-poms and stop pretending that there is anything special about college athletics anymore.

Besides, they are already being paid, whether it's the quarter million dollar tuition free education, the housing, the food, etc. We can pretend college athletics is something it isn't when the (dirty) money is under the table. Let's just admit what it is and be honest about it.

[NavinRJohnson]

Might I suggest your priorities are far out of order and you have a severe lack of perspective regarding the value of college athletics.

Really? What's the number 1 marketing/publicity tool Marquette University has? Who is the highest paid employee at Marquette University?

It would seem MU's administration shares my perspective regarding the value of college athletics.

[Pakuni]

Really? What's the number 1 marketing/publicity tool Marquette University has? Who is the highest paid employee at Marquette University?

It would seem MU's administration shares my perspective regarding the value of college athletics.

Holy red herring.

[MarquetteDano]

I mentioned in an earlier thread about a strike.  I know it is theoretical but if every current scholarship player in D-I football and basketball went on "strike" what would happen?

We know it has been extremely effective in the NBA & MLB, and to some degree NHL in the past.  It would be interesting to see if it was effective for the scholarship athletes in basketball and football.

We know other students would be lining up to take scholarships, so supply would not be an issue.  Would it severely impact demand?

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

That's not what I'm saying.

Let me restate ... are the restrictions (i.e., no summer job, no gifts) due to playing college sports or because you accepted a scholarship?

[NavinRJohnson]

Holy red herring.

Really? You don't think the amount of money spent sends a pretty clear message how important the bball program is to the Administration and the overall strategy of the University? Let's see what Fr. wild, who has been remarkably consistent in his approah had to say about the value of athletics to the University...


"And then there have been developments in our recent history that straddle business and pleasure. Joining the Big East Conference was an enormous change for us. That was the moment when we said, 'We can do this. We have the ability to play at the highest level of Division I sports, and we want to seize this opportunity with both hands.' It wasn't just about athletics. It was about raising our image in the northeast part of the country, and sports have the power to do that. It gave us entrée we never had before in terms of student recruitment, and it energized our alums, which was a goal for us.

[ChicosBailBonds]

So I'm clear, you're using the example of a school that got caught cheating, had to vacate wins, final fours, etc., whom we should not be feeling sorry for, since he illegally received a bunch of money, as an argument against paying players. Do I have that right? That is relevant to Vander Blue, Devante Gardner, Monte Ball, etc., how exactly?

Let me ask you this, do you believe the current system is completely fair and reasonable for all parties involved, yes or no?

To be clear, I'm using the EXACT same example that Another84 used to perpetuate this myth that players should be paid...he used Chris Webber and indicated that poor Chris Webber didn't have enough money to buy his own jersey.  What a total crock.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I kind of think this is an argument for paying players. Let's end the stupid farce that these are "amateur" players. They're marketing tools for college administrator bigwigs. Let's put down the svelte banners and pom-poms and stop pretending that there is anything special about college athletics anymore.

Besides, they are already being paid, whether it's the quarter million dollar tuition free education, the housing, the food, etc. We can pretend college athletics is something it isn't when the (dirty) money is under the table. Let's just admit what it is and be honest about it.

Again, they are "marketing tools" for a small percentage of colleges. 

Once you start handing out cold, hard cash, they become contract employees and then its game over.  I don't know why everyone keeps missing this.

[NavinRJohnson]

To be clear, I'm using the EXACT same example that Another84 used to perpetuate this myth that players should be paid...he used Chris Webber and indicated that poor Chris Webber didn't have enough money to buy his own jersey.  What a total crock.

I'll ask again, since you seem unwilling to answer....

Let me ask you this, do you believe the current system is completely fair and reasonable for all parties involved, yes or no?

[TJ]

Just so I'm clear .... you're OK with making a college education even less affordable for the average family so that kids already going to college for free and receiving benefits worth as much as $100,000 a year can have even more compensation?
Might I suggest your priorities are far out of order and you have a severe lack of perspective regarding the value of college athletics.

If the value they bring to the university far outweighs the benefits they receive ... then yes.

I'm not going to do that math.  I don't know all the variables: how much the school's value is vs how much the players bring in vs the revenue stream vs how much compensation they receive, etc.  If that math is done and it turns out the players aren't being compensated fairly, then they should get more.  Especially when the NCAA's own rules prevent them from being able to earn anything outside the system.

[GGGG]

I'll ask again, since you seem unwilling to answer....

Let me ask you this, do you believe the current system is completely fair and reasonable for all parties involved, yes or no?

Yes.  The players willingly agree to the arrangement right?  Fair is just a subjective term that means different things to different people.

That being said, I think athletics-grant-in-aids should be worth the total cost of attendance at the school.  This would then cover all direct costs, but also indirect costs.  This would not monumentally change the nature of college athletics because you are simply providing the other costs needed to cover attendance.

http://www.marquette.edu/mucentral/financialaid/resources_ugrad_coa.shtml

This is the same figure used by MU to cover financial aid, and students can get aid up to this figure, and get a reimbursement if they get more aid than direct costs.

[TJ]

Again, they are "marketing tools" for a small percentage of colleges. 

Once you start handing out cold, hard cash, they become contract employees and then its game over.  I don't know why everyone keeps missing this.

Says you.  Maybe it results in less corrupt under the table dealings and people are happy to be rid of the scandals in college sports and they get even more popular.

[GGGG]

If the value they bring to the university far outweighs the benefits they receive ... then yes.

"They" as individual players...or "they" as a team?  I mean, Anthony Davis probably brought more to Kentucky than some walk-on did.  Should he get more?

[TJ]

Yes.  The players willingly agree to the arrangement right?

Do they really have a choice?  What options do they have to come to a different arrangement?

[MarquetteDano]

Do they really have a choice?  What options do they have to come to a different arrangement?

Get a non-sports job, go to play overseas, NBADL, etc.

[GGGG]

Do they really have a choice?  What options do they have to come to a different arrangement?

Play in Europe...play in the NBDL...

[TJ]

"They" as individual players...or "they" as a team?  I mean, Anthony Davis probably brought more to Kentucky than some walk-on did.  Should he get more?

I don't know.  I certainly don't have all the answers here.  I do know that schools are bringing in millions of dollars each by selling the rights to broadcast the games, not to mention all the other revenue streams they have.  It's not an easy question.  But at some point the schools will be taking in so much money that they can't possibly justify it by saying they give the athletes scholarships.  Are we there yet?  Close?  I don't know.  $20 million per school per year for the top 5 conferences is a LOT of money.  How can you really call that nonprofit?

[ChicosBailBonds]

So let's do some math.

320 Student Athletes at Marquette currently.  Some of them participate in multiple sports (Cross country, and track) but I've counted them for each sport because, after all, are they supposed to get a stipend just for Cross Country and not for track?  Ah, pesky details.

320 students X $1,000 monthly stipend X 9 months in school.   (What if they go to Summer School...do they get a 12 month stipend?)

Cha Ching   $2,880,000 in stipends

Now, some believe that $1,000 per month is TOO LOW.  So let's take it to $2,000.   Cha Ching....$5,760,000 in stipends.


Where is this money coming from?  Blue and Gold ready to fork out another $2.9M to $5.8M...ready with those incremental donations?

Those of you saying only give the stipend to men's basketball....hmmm, that will be interesting...how long before Title IX nixes that one.

Then, what happens when a court rules that this stipend is actually the equivalent of an employment relationship contract...now you have to provide workman's comp, unemployment benefits, healthcare, etc.  Cha Ching....pretty soon you've wiped it all out. 


The number of educational opportunities provided to young men and women is phenonmenal when it comes to athletics.  You are putting at risk those opportunities and potentially eliminating many of them as a result of this.  To throw a few extra dollars to some kids in a highly visible sport to take away opportunities from men and women busting their butts in other sports that are low visibility, non-revenue.  Beware of unintended consequences.

[GGGG]

I don't know.  I certainly don't have all the answers here.  I do know that schools are bringing in millions of dollars each by selling the rights to broadcast the games, not to mention all the other revenue streams they have.  It's not an easy question.  But at some point the schools will be taking in so much money that they can't possibly justify it by saying they give the athletes scholarships.  Are we there yet?  Close?  I don't know.  $20 million per school per year for the top 5 conferences is a LOT of money.  How can you really call that nonprofit?

Well, you can call it not-for-profit because the organization has no owners to enrich.  You can argue that athletics should be considered "unrelated business income," and therefore taxable.  And that might be a good idea, however that just ramps up the costs for everyone and will further separate the haves from the have nots.

http://nonprofit.about.com/od/nonprofitmanagement/f/Unrelated.htm

[TJ]

Get a non-sports job, go to play overseas, NBADL, etc.

Play in Europe...play in the NBDL...

Any good options?  Any way to participate in the same structure while challenging the arrangement that they are forced to agree to?  It's either this arrangement or you can't play at the highest level available to you?  All of the best institutions agree to only deal with you on these terms... It's starting to sound like collusion or even a monopoly/trust.

[GGGG]

Any good options?  Any way to participate in the same structure while challenging the arrangement that they are forced to agree to?  It's either this arrangement or you can't play at the highest level available to you?  All of the best institutions agree to only deal with you on these terms... It's starting to sound like collusion or even a monopoly/trust.

Well, let's see where the O'Bannon lawsuit goes.

[akmarq]

All of the best institutions agree to only deal with you on these terms... It's starting to sound like collusion or even a monopoly/trust.

Professional sports (and college athletics as a quasi-development brach of pro sports) are pretty much natural monopolies. Thinking that paying players is going to create some competitive market structure is ignoring the fact that sports leagues have a lot in common with utilities, etc in terms of market structure.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Says you.  Maybe it results in less corrupt under the table dealings and people are happy to be rid of the scandals in college sports and they get even more popular.

My point is, are colleges using the women's lacrosse team to promote the school?  The women's fencing team?  The men's golf team?  Or even the men's basketball team at a New Jersey Institute of Technology?  Too many people here are focused on the top of the heap and not seeing there are over 1000 NCAA schools, half a million student athletes, most of them never playing on a "national stage" of any kind.