Good Point Jay Bilas

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

And not all of them get full-rides.  They also do not get charter planes and million dollar training facilities like the revenue sports.  They don't get personal counselors and tutors.  They don't get separate living and dining facilities.

Point is we already massively discriminate between revenue and non-revenue sports.  So play the 13 guys on the team a stipend (amount TBD) because they make you money.  The rest can get less of a stipend, or no stipend.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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?

I answered that already yesterday.  ABSOLUTELY #*&()$# YES.

A Marquette student athlete will receive about $180K in education and room\board based on today's value of $45K per year assuming 4 years.  Often it's 5 years, but let's keep the numbers simple.

With that Marquette education, in your lifetime you should be able to earn $2.27 million according to the latest numbers in 2011 over your lifetime.  That's already a 12.6 earnings ratio because of that degree.  That's just for a normal Bachelor's degree.  http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/08/05/how-higher-education-affects-lifetime-salary

On top of that, the student athlete also gets access to tutors, alumni through networking, travel opportunities, top notch medical care, a chance to hone their skills, etc, that every other Tom, Dick, Mary, and Susan don't get.  That is also worth something, much of it can't even be quantifiable.

They also get clothing, gear, etc....that has a value.

So yes, not only do I think it's fair, I find it VERY FAIR.  The school benefits, the student athlete benefits.

[ChicosBailBonds]

And not all of them get full-rides.  They also do not get charter planes and million dollar training facilities like the revenue sports.  They don't get personal counselors and tutors.  They don't get separate living and dining facilities.

Point is we already massively discriminate between revenue and non-revenue sports.  So play the 13 guys on the team a stipend (amount TBD) because they make you money.  The rest can get less of a stipend, or no stipend.

The other student athletes do have access to the same academic resources as every other student athlete.  That is correct, some sports let you break up scholarships to provide more opportunities for more people.  Those student athletes are working just as hard as the basketball players, they might not be able to buy that Lacrosse jersey in the Gift Shop...so why aren't we taking care of them?

Go ahead and argue that in front of the courts....good luck.

While we are at it, why should the starting PG make the same stipend as the guy who never plays...is that fair?

[MarquetteDano]

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.

The courts have not ruled that way.   There is not the barriers to entry like a common utility has or other monopoly industries.  The courts, however, have ruled about collusion and that could interesting in the aforementioned O'Bannon case.

[NavinRJohnson]

This piece by the individual originally brought up in this thread kind of sums up my position. In the end I guess it isn't so much about the Universities paying the players, though i wouldnt oppose it, but more about loosening the restrictions they place upon them. As I have said repeatedly, it is ridiculous that coaches, ADs, etc. are free to chase any better offer and leave any time, while a player who wants to transfer has to sit out a year. There is absolutely no way to defend that. Likewise, Buzz Williams can take any endorsement deal he wants, or even get a second job at Culvers if he so chooses, while athletes can't do anything to earn money, under the sham of amateurism. As stated earlier, the hypocritical NCAA is not protecting the athletes, but rather protecting everyone else's revenue stream.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/13/ncaa-and-the-interests-of-student-athletes/college-athletes-should-be-compensated

Now, of course Chicaloop and others will say that we all better find another team to root for in this scenario, as MU will not be able to compete, it will make college sports dirtier, blah, blah, blah, because the system today is so perfect and really takes care of everyone involved. Fine, I'll find someone else to root for.

[Pakuni]

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.

The difference is that as union members, professional athletes have protections
(most importantly the right to reinstatement) when their walkout ends. College athletes, who are not unionized, have no such right. So striking means they could permanently lose their scholarship.
Now, for a star player at Kentucky or Alabama with a pro future, perhaps that's not a big deal. For the 7th man at an A-10 school or a special teamer at a MAC program, are they going to take that risk and end up out of college?
I doubt it.

Also, college sports fandom - far moreso than the pros - is driven by the name on the front of the jersey, not the one on the back.

[MarquetteDano]

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/13/ncaa-and-the-interests-of-student-athletes/college-athletes-should-be-compensated

Now, of course Chicaloop and others will say that we all better find another team to root for in this scenario, as MU will not be able to compete, it will make college sports dirtier, blah, blah, blah, because the system today is so perfect and really takes care of everyone involved. Fine, I'll find someone else to root for.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the article.  Though we do need to realize that whatever pseudo-level playing field we have now would be completely gone.

[TJ]

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.

Remember, some also believe that $1000/month is too high.

We are obviously only talking about 5 conferences, and we're really only talking about one sport (football).  64 institutions bring in about $20 million in revenue per school per year, just in media rights.  They are already the haves.  To argue any differently is silly.

So yes, let's do the math... 64 * $20,000,000 = $1,280,000 per year in revenue, mostly based on football and some for men's basketball broadcasting rights.

The same 64 teams give out 85 football & 13 basketball scholarships, so round that to 100, valued at what?  I've seen $50k - $100k per year.  At $50k that's $320,000,000.  At $100k that's $640,000,000.

Who's to say what's right?  Some might say a 25/75 split is pretty lopsided.  A 50/50 split is pretty comparable to professional sports leagues, and I don't think they necessarily need to be there.  But we'll see what happens as that revenue number goes up and up and up.  Also, remember that the revenue number is ONLY media broadcasting rights, not ticket sales, donations, vending, memorabilia, etc.  All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be surprised to see this continue to be an issue going forward.

[Pakuni]

Remember, some also believe that $1000/month is too high.

We are obviously only talking about 5 conferences, and we're really only talking about one sport (football).  64 institutions bring in about $20 million in revenue per school per year, just in media rights.  They are already the haves.  To argue any differently is silly.

So yes, let's do the math... 64 * $20,000,000 = $1,280,000 per year in revenue, mostly based on football and some for men's basketball broadcasting rights.

The same 64 teams give out 85 football & 13 basketball scholarships, so round that to 100, valued at what?  I've seen $50k - $100k per year.  At $50k that's $320,000,000.  At $100k that's $640,000,000.

Who's to say what's right?  Some might say a 25/75 split is pretty lopsided.  A 50/50 split is pretty comparable to professional sports leagues, and I don't think they necessarily need to be there.  But we'll see what happens as that revenue number goes up and up and up.  Also, remember that the revenue number is ONLY media broadcasting rights, not ticket sales, donations, vending, memorabilia, etc.  All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be surprised to see this continue to be an issue going forward.

Hate to sound like a broken record, but Title IX makes this impossible. You can't pay athletes from one or two sports only. If you pay football players, you've got to pay the field hockey team and the tennis team and the water polo team and the golfers, etc., etc.
Efforts to exclude revenue producing sports from Title IX have repeatedly failed.

[TJ]

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

Indeed

Highly-skilled college athletes have no competitive alternatives to the terms and conditions created by the NCAA in restricting payments to players, according to Noll, a Stanford University economics professor emeritus who is an expert for the plaintiffs.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/10/expert_report_in_ed_obannon_la.html

[TJ]

Hate to sound like a broken record, but Title IX makes this impossible. You can't pay athletes from one or two sports only. If you pay football players, you've got to pay the field hockey team and the tennis team and the water polo team and the golfers, etc., etc.
Efforts to exclude revenue producing sports from Title IX have repeatedly failed.

Very true.  It's still a problem that's not going away.  Maybe an exception will get made, maybe something else will happen, maybe nothing will happen.  But the broken record of people claiming that athletes should be better compensated for the billions of dollars they bring in revenue is not just going to be silenced by screaming Title IX at it forever.

[MarquetteDano]

Indeedhttp://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/10/expert_report_in_ed_obannon_la.html

They are not talking about paying players in that case, first of all.

Second, shocking that an expert for the plaintiffs would agree.  What does our own Marquette resident expert, Prof. Peter Toumanoff, say I wonder?

[TJ]

They are not talking about paying players in that case, first of all.

Second, shocking that an expert for the plaintiffs would agree.  What does our own Marquette resident expert, Prof. Peter Toumanoff, say I wonder?

Jeez.  It's obviously not proof.  And I didn't hide the fact that he was an expert for the plaintiffs or anything.  Take it for what it is, an interesting quote that says the courts will be given an argument that the whole basis for major college sports starts with collusion against the athletes.  As Sultan said, let's see where that lawsuit goes.

[ChicosBailBonds]

This piece by the individual originally brought up in this thread kind of sums up my position. In the end I guess it isn't so much about the Universities paying the players, though i wouldnt oppose it, but more about loosening the restrictions they place upon them. As I have said repeatedly, it is ridiculous that coaches, ADs, etc. are free to chase any better offer and leave any time, while a player who wants to transfer has to sit out a year. There is absolutely no way to defend that. Likewise, Buzz Williams can take any endorsement deal he wants, or even get a second job at Culvers if he so chooses, while athletes can't do anything to earn money, under the sham of amateurism. As stated earlier, the hypocritical NCAA is not protecting the athletes, but rather protecting everyone else's revenue stream.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/13/ncaa-and-the-interests-of-student-athletes/college-athletes-should-be-compensated

Now, of course Chicaloop and others will say that we all better find another team to root for in this scenario, as MU will not be able to compete, it will make college sports dirtier, blah, blah, blah, because the system today is so perfect and really takes care of everyone involved. Fine, I'll find someone else to root for.

Chicaloop?   

No one here said the current system is pure or clean. 

Your post is factually wrong.  A student athlete CAN have a job and earn money without jeopardizing their amateurism.  There are limits, and rightly so.  I think you might want to go back into history when athletes used to be able to work and understand why the rules were put into place.  Athletes were paid a lot of money to water a lawn, or literally sit in a chair to watch the grass grow...that is if they even bothered to show up.  This is why the rules changes were put into place in the first place, but they can have a job.

But truly, if you are so upset about the current relationship which you practically make out to be some kind of serfdom scenario, then you might want to find another area of entertainment to enjoy.  I have not one shred of guilt over the current arrangement.  The students are getting a solid education and tremendous access to things 99% of students don't get access to.  In exchange, they represent the school on the fields of play.  If it bothers you so much, you would be a better person to give up this current situation that brings down so much harm from the man.  And if your system is adopted and 1000's of student athletes around this country are left to their own devices because schools can no longer provide aid, how will you feel?  Those opportunities that have been taken away?

[NavinRJohnson]

But truly, if you are so upset about the current relationship which you practically make out to be some kind of serfdom scenario,

If you could go ahead and show me where I've done that, that would be helpful.

[NavinRJohnson]

Chicaloop?   

That's right, you weren't here when he was posting, but now that you're back, he seems to have disappeared.  indeed.

[MarquetteDano]

Chicaloop?   


  Athletes were paid a lot of money to water a lawn, or literally sit in a chair to watch the grass grow...that is if they even bothered to show up.  This is why the rules changes were put into place in the first place, but they can have a job.

This image totally brought be back to the movie "One on One" when Robbie Benson, the point guard, gets paid to watch the sprinklers go on.

I think all of us, no matter where we stand on this issue, can enjoy this scene between Benson and his douche coach.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQP-DW-HjHA

[StillAWarrior]

Speaking as a parent whose children are fast approaching college age, let me say that I sincerely hope that some college somewhere sees fit to exploit my children in its quest for obscene profits.

Given the exploitative nature of the relationship, it's amazing how often it seems to be the one of the happiest days in a kid's life when he announces which school he has chosen to be exploited by.  Curiously, it's also an extremely proud day for his parents.

[Tugg Speedman]

What about going the other way?  Instead of a stipend, loosen the rules.  Allow scholarship athletes to get jobs, accept a certain amount in appearance fees (certain amount) and or sell their image ("Hi this is Vander Blue for Wickestorm Ford ...).  This gets around Title IX.  Loosen the rules and if no one chooses to take up a lacrosse player or the soccer team up, they get nothing.

[NavinRJohnson]

What about going the other way?  Instead of a stipend, loosen the rules.  Allow scholarship athletes to get jobs, accept a certain amount in appearance fees (certain amount) and or sell their image ("Hi this is Vander Blue for Wickestorm Ford ...). 

Nope. Can't do that, because then you run the risk of college sports becoming dirty.

[TJ]

Nope. Can't do that, because then you run the risk of college sports becoming dirtier.

Fixed it for you.

[warriorchick]

This image totally brought be back to the movie "One on One" when Robbie Benson, the point guard, gets paid to watch the sprinklers go on.

I think all of us, no matter where we stand on this issue, can enjoy this scene between Benson and his douche coach.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQP-DW-HjHA

mmmmm...Robby Benson....had a total crush on him in junior high......

[ChicosBailBonds]

Remember, some also believe that $1000/month is too high.

We are obviously only talking about 5 conferences, and we're really only talking about one sport (football).  64 institutions bring in about $20 million in revenue per school per year, just in media rights.  They are already the haves.  To argue any differently is silly.

So yes, let's do the math... 64 * $20,000,000 = $1,280,000 per year in revenue, mostly based on football and some for men's basketball broadcasting rights.

The same 64 teams give out 85 football & 13 basketball scholarships, so round that to 100, valued at what?  I've seen $50k - $100k per year.  At $50k that's $320,000,000.  At $100k that's $640,000,000.

Who's to say what's right?  Some might say a 25/75 split is pretty lopsided.  A 50/50 split is pretty comparable to professional sports leagues, and I don't think they necessarily need to be there.  But we'll see what happens as that revenue number goes up and up and up.  Also, remember that the revenue number is ONLY media broadcasting rights, not ticket sales, donations, vending, memorabilia, etc.  All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be surprised to see this continue to be an issue going forward.

The problem is that we aren't talking about just 64 schools or 5 conferences.  That's really the entire point.

[ChicosBailBonds]

What about going the other way?  Instead of a stipend, loosen the rules.  Allow scholarship athletes to get jobs, accept a certain amount in appearance fees (certain amount) and or sell their image ("Hi this is Vander Blue for Wickestorm Ford ...).  This gets around Title IX.  Loosen the rules and if no one chooses to take up a lacrosse player or the soccer team up, they get nothing.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

THEY CAN GET JOBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!      THEY ALREADY ARE PERMITTED TO GET JOBS WITHIN THE RULES.   How many incorrect things are you going to say in this one thread?

Bylaw 12.4 of the NCAA rulebook.  THEY CAN WORK and BE PAID.

[NavinRJohnson]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

THEY CAN GET JOBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!      THEY ALREADY ARE PERMITTED TO GET JOBS WITHIN THE RULES.   How many incorrect things are you going to say in this thread?

I'm sorry, is that the only thing he said? Are they allowed to get jobs based on"who they are"? Are they allowed appearance fees? Are they allowed to sell their image? I do find it surprising he hasn't  memorized 400 pages of NCAA by-laws. All caps though...nice touch.