Time Cover: It's Time to Pay College Athletes

[Tugg Speedman]

TIME Cover Story: It's Time to Pay College Athletes

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2151167,00.html

College sports are mass entertainment. It's time to fully reward players for their work

This week's TIME's cover story, on newsstands starting Sept. 6 and available to subscribers here, makes a case for paying college athletes. This debate has been simmering for years, but received new urgency after Texas A&M quarterback Johnny Manziel allegedly received money for signing autographs earlier this year. The NCAA and Texas A&M determined that Manziel did not take money, but when the "scandal" broke in August, the most pressing question was: why shouldn't he? "That's crazy to me that it's not allowed," says Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson, who starred at Oklahoma. "Actors, actresses--these people can sign things and get paid for it. How come this kid can't? How come a kid that's at a high level, that's going to be offered a big amount of money, can't sit down and be like, 'Damn, this is my decision?'"

Change, in some form, is coming to college sports. The power football schools seem intent on at least offering a $2,000 stipend to scholarship athletes. Athletes are starting to speak up too. Chris Brunette, a senior offensive lineman who plays for Georgia, is a pro prospect. But he knows he can suffer a career-ending injury at any time. "The NFL is not promised at all," says Burnette. "For so many college athletes, at no other time in our lives will we be as valuable. To be able to capitalize on that would be great."

[GGGG]

Dan Wetzel is spot on here.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--latest-college-scandals-again-reveal-folly-of-ncaa-rules-210822795.html

[ChicosBailBonds]

1)  Time Magazine still exists?
2)  We might go to war with Syria and that is the little blurb at the top and we're worrying about paying college athletes?
3) Dan Wetzel, who I love, actually believes the Olympics are MORE POPULAR now with pros....I would like to know what he is using as a criteria.  There was something special watching the US hockey team win the Gold in 1980, nothing approaches it anymore.  Watching the US men's basketball team in the Olympics might be the greatest waste of air out there in sports.  To each their own, but the Olympics for a lot of people took a big step back when they let the pros in

In every one of these articles about "it's time to pay the players" they never address all the other sports, TitleIX, or even what do do with the 50% of college football and 70% of college basketball that can't afford it.

It's a classic knee jerk article...the flavor of the day....ultimately saying since it's being done, just open up the gates.  It's the legalize drugs argument.  It's the immigration argument.  It's the piracy argument.  Basically, since some people are doing it, just let everyone do it.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

[Tugg Speedman]

Most studies I've seen suggest that the public is more interested in watching pros in the Olympics. 

* more interested in watching pros in tennis and hockey
* big endorsement deals, and frequent commercial appearances, make Phelps, Bolt, Shawn White and woman's beach volleyball, figure skating and gymnastics household names.  That makes watching these sports more popular.

Yes, you give up the stories like the 1980 Hockey team, but in that case, it was only after they advanced out of division play that everyone got interested.  That means it was only the last two or three games that people paid attention to.

Finally count me among those think college sports get better when players get paid their true worth.  The Olympics did.  Pros does not necessarily mean the schools have to pay.  Let Manziel do commercials.  If Blue could get endorsement deals in Milwaukee, he might have stayed another year.

[MerrittsMustache]

1)  Time Magazine still exists?
2)  We might go to war with Syria and that is the little blurb at the top and we're worrying about paying college athletes?
3) Dan Wetzel, who I love, actually believes the Olympics are MORE POPULAR now with pros....I would like to know what he is using as a criteria.  There was something special watching the US hockey team win the Gold in 1980, nothing approaches it anymore.  Watching the US men's basketball team in the Olympics might be the greatest waste of air out there in sports.  To each their own, but the Olympics for a lot of people took a big step back when they let the pros in

In every one of these articles about "it's time to pay the players" they never address all the other sports, TitleIX, or even what do do with the 50% of college football and 70% of college basketball that can't afford it.

It's a classic knee jerk article...the flavor of the day....ultimately saying since it's being done, just open up the gates.  It's the legalize drugs argument.  It's the immigration argument.  It's the piracy argument.  Basically, since some people are doing it, just let everyone do it.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Last week's cover was about Obama and Syria.

I agree with most of the rest of your post. However, the Time article does briefly mention Title IX, how a lot of schools couldn't afford to pay players (he says only about 60 could) and IIRC states that only football and men's basketball players could be paid since those sports generate revenue. In other words, the author is willing to overlook some major issues so that Johnny Football, Jabari Parker, et al can have some money in their pockets.

The Time article also mentions that paying players wouldn't stop a school like Lehigh (who theoretically couldn't pay players) from beating a team like Duke in the NCAA Tournament. What he fails to realize is that it's very possible that instead of playing for free and being the star at Lehigh, CJ McCollum may have taken a salary to be the 8th man at Duke.

[melissasmooth]

Last week's cover was about Obama and Syria.

I agree with most of the rest of your post. However, the Time article does briefly mention Title IX, how a lot of schools couldn't afford to pay players (he says only about 60 could) and IIRC states that only football and men's basketball players could be paid since those sports generate revenue. In other words, the author is willing to overlook some major issues so that Johnny Football, Jabari Parker, et al can have some money in their pockets.

The Time article also mentions that paying players wouldn't stop a school like Lehigh (who theoretically couldn't pay players) from beating a team like Duke in the NCAA Tournament. What he fails to realize is that it's very possible that instead of playing for free and being the star at Lehigh, CJ McCollum may have taken a salary to be the 8th man at Duke.

I think a lot of schools, including Marquette, will just end up dropping division I sports.

[MerrittsMustache]

I think a lot of schools, including Marquette, will just end up dropping division I sports.

Depending on how the pay scale was created, I think men's basketball would survive. The rest of the D1 sports? Not as likely.

[GGGG]

1)  Time Magazine still exists?
2)  We might go to war with Syria and that is the little blurb at the top and we're worrying about paying college athletes?
3) Dan Wetzel, who I love, actually believes the Olympics are MORE POPULAR now with pros....I would like to know what he is using as a criteria.  There was something special watching the US hockey team win the Gold in 1980, nothing approaches it anymore.  Watching the US men's basketball team in the Olympics might be the greatest waste of air out there in sports.  To each their own, but the Olympics for a lot of people took a big step back when they let the pros in

The larger point is that it was impossible to keep up the sham that was amateurism in the Olympics.  I mean, the US Olympic team that you reference was playing against professionals in pretty much every sense of the word.  If it wanted to, the USOC could still use amateur athletes in the Olympics...but they don't.

Furthermore, I never understood the point of why there was amateurism in the first place.  I guess I don't understand the moral superiority of unpaid athletes versus paid ones.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

The larger point is that it was impossible to keep up the sham that was amateurism in the Olympics.  I mean, the US Olympic team that you reference was playing against professionals in pretty much every sense of the word.  If it wanted to, the USOC could still use amateur athletes in the Olympics...but they don't.

Furthermore, I never understood the point of why there was amateurism in the first place.  I guess I don't understand the moral superiority of unpaid athletes versus paid ones.

I was going to post something almost identical to this.

The reason to change the current system is to get rid of the current sham of amateurism. It creates a false narrative about college athletics and the big name programs making a lot of money off college athletics.

[StillAWarrior]

Depending on how the pay scale was created, I think men's basketball would survive. The rest of the D1 sports? Not as likely.

Would D1 men's basketball survive?  Probably.  Would there still be 347 D1 men's basketball teams?  Doubtful.  I think participation in D1 basketball would fairly quickly drop down to the level of participation in D1 football (FBS). 

[GGGG]

Would D1 men's basketball survive?  Probably.  Would there still be 347 D1 men's basketball teams?  Doubtful.  I think participation in D1 basketball would fairly quickly drop down to the level of participation in D1 football (FBS). 

Which is fine by me.

And here is an article written by a friend of mine that addresses some of this from a football perspective.

http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/2013/09/college-football-scandals-happen-because-we-dont-want-a-clean-sport/

"Why? Why does the NCAA go through this ridiculous charade of having rules which can’t be violated, then look for any possible reason not to put any real teeth in its enforcement? It’s simple. We might claim we want clean football, but more than that, we want Alabama football. We want to see the best taking on the best. We want to claim bragging rights over the person in the next driveway or the next cubicle.

We wanted a playoff, but we also wanted the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl. The NCAA is more than happy to give us both. We want rules, but we want them to be enforced loosely and capriciously because more than we want to feel good about college football, we want to watch it."

[Benny B]

This is idiotic.  See the other thread/article regarding Title IX.  You can't pay the men more than you pay the women, no university is going to be able to pay a $2,000 stipend to every college athlete, and you can't simply drop all non-revenue sports, because you'll be dropping all of the women's sports.

Sorry, but there are laws that will indirectly prohibit paying college athletes.  Now if you want to change Title IX, that's a different argument, but straight-up arguing that college athletes should be paid is as futile as arguing that Texas should be able to secede from the U.S.

[Tugg Speedman]

The larger point is that it was impossible to keep up the sham that was amateurism in the Olympics.  I mean, the US Olympic team that you reference was playing against professionals in pretty much every sense of the word.  If it wanted to, the USOC could still use amateur athletes in the Olympics...but they don't.

Furthermore, I never understood the point of why there was amateurism in the first place.  I guess I don't understand the moral superiority of unpaid athletes versus paid ones.

+1 could not have said it any better

[GGGG]

This is idiotic.  See the other thread/article regarding Title IX.  You can't pay the men more than you pay the women, no university is going to be able to pay a $2,000 stipend to every college athlete, and you can't simply drop all non-revenue sports, because you'll be dropping all of the women's sports.

Sorry, but there are laws that will indirectly prohibit paying college athletes.  Now if you want to change Title IX, that's a different argument, but straight-up arguing that college athletes should be paid is as futile as arguing that Texas should be able to secede from the U.S.

It is way more simple than you are making it out to be.

You upgrade the value of the scholarship to include a stipend.  So for instance, it now becomes tuition, room and board, etc. plus $2,000.  (To use your example.)  That $2,000 would then be part of the partial scholarships that non-revenue sports currently distribute.  So the soccer player that has a .5 scholarship, would get half their tuition, etc. paid, plus $1,000.

[Tugg Speedman]

The Time article also mentions that paying players wouldn't stop a school like Lehigh (who theoretically couldn't pay players) from beating a team like Duke in the NCAA Tournament. What he fails to realize is that it's very possible that instead of playing for free and being the star at Lehigh, CJ McCollum may have taken a salary to be the 8th man at Duke.

I have a different take on this ... MU could be a huge winner if athletes get paid.  (I'm speaking about BB here, not FB)

My assumption is the real money is not coming from a check from the athletic department.  Instead it is coming from endorsement deals, paid meet and greets and boosters.  MU, being in a major metropolitan city, will offer lots of endorsements deal opportunities.  And it greatly increases the profile of the school if its athletes are constantly on TV pitching products.  In this world having Milwaukee is a distinct advantage over Madison, Champaign and Bloomington.  Endorsement deals in those markets will be less money.  Yes the B1G schools have more boosters that can give money, but Milwaukee has a larger TV market that companies can flat out pay more for endorsements.  It all evens out.

Winners are the new BE as they are in major TV markets.  Losers are schools in small TV markets.

Think beyond salaries from the Athletic Department.  That is not where the money is.

[Pakuni]

It is way more simple than you are making it out to be.

You upgrade the value of the scholarship to include a stipend.  So for instance, it now becomes tuition, room and board, etc. plus $2,000.  (To use your example.)  That $2,000 would then be part of the partial scholarships that non-revenue sports currently distribute.  So the soccer player that has a .5 scholarship, would get half their tuition, etc. paid, plus $1,000.

Two thoughts:

1. The notion that a stipend - especially at the levels that have been bandied about (i.e. $2,000 or so) - would eliminate kids taking extra benefits on the side is naive at best.
Not many kids are going to turn down $10,000 from an agent, or trip on a yacht, or a no-show job, or a car from a booster who owns a dealership, because he's getting $166 a month through his scholarship. The only way to significantly reduce the temptation is to pay kids significantly, and almost no one is able or willing to do that.
Also, a small stipend wouldn't change a thing when it comes to issues like improper recruiting and academic fraud.

2. Your proposal above doesn't really solve the Title IX question. Under the law, a school must provide a proportionate amount of total assistance. So if a school is paying 85 football players and 13 men's basketball players a $2,000 stipend, it's going to have to find about 98 female athletes (the exact number determined by participation rates) to award $2,000 stipends. I don't think you can resolve that by giving out half scholarships to female athletes. In fact, that probably puts a school more in violation of Title IX.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

The other part of the argument against, as I have heard advanced, is that they already are being paid: tuition, books, room and board , apparel, laundry done, tutors etc. For most student athletes that is enough to want a scholarship and most, I would think, are satisfied with the education they receive. Sure we all struggled financially in college but knew that it was a sacrifice that would result in a paying job once we achieved a 4 year degree. I assume we are mostly discussing those athletes who are mainly there to reach the Pros; who are the ones breaking the rules.
I know the reaction to scholarship offers that my children and their teammates received were based on the opportunity to receive a good education in return for their efforts on playing fields.

[StillAWarrior]

The other part of the argument against, as I have heard advanced, is that they already are being paid: tuition, books, room and board , apparel, laundry done, tutors etc. For most student athletes that is enough to want a scholarship and most, I would think, are satisfied with the education they receive. Sure we all struggled financially in college but knew that it was a sacrifice that would result in a paying job once we achieved a 4 year degree. I assume we are mostly discussing those athletes who are mainly there to reach the Pros; who are the ones breaking the rules.
I know the reaction to scholarship offers that my children and their teammates received were based on the opportunity to receive a good education in return for their efforts on playing fields.

I think there's a lot of truth to this.  All the kids who have press conferences (and the far, far greater number of athletes in non-revenue sports who don't) never seem terribly upset about signing up to be exploited by the universities.

[GGGG]

Two thoughts:

1. The notion that a stipend - especially at the levels that have been bandied about (i.e. $2,000 or so) - would eliminate kids taking extra benefits on the side is naive at best.
Not many kids are going to turn down $10,000 from an agent, or trip on a yacht, or a no-show job, or a car from a booster who owns a dealership, because he's getting $166 a month through his scholarship. The only way to significantly reduce the temptation is to pay kids significantly, and almost no one is able or willing to do that.
Also, a small stipend wouldn't change a thing when it comes to issues like improper recruiting and academic fraud.

2. Your proposal above doesn't really solve the Title IX question. Under the law, a school must provide a proportionate amount of total assistance. So if a school is paying 85 football players and 13 men's basketball players a $2,000 stipend, it's going to have to find about 98 female athletes (the exact number determined by participation rates) to award $2,000 stipends. I don't think you can resolve that by giving out half scholarships to female athletes. In fact, that probably puts a school more in violation of Title IX.

1. I agree with you.  I was simply addressing Title IX

2. As long as they hand out scholarships in a manner they do now, with the proportion of men to women scholarships being roughly equal to the overall proportion of men to women on campus, they should be fine.  That is why you have so many more women's non-revenue scholarships at places that play football.

It's wikipedia so I am not 100% sure of its accuracy, but you get the drift:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_I_(NCAA)#Scholarship_limits_by_sport

[Pakuni]

2. As long as they hand out scholarships in a manner they do now, with the proportion of men to women scholarships being roughly equal to the overall proportion of men to women on campus, they should be fine.  That is why you have so many more women's non-revenue scholarships at places that play football.

It's wikipedia so I am not 100% sure of its accuracy, but you get the drift:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_I_(NCAA)#Scholarship_limits_by_sport

Agreed, which is why I think this doesn't solve the Title IX problem.
What some like Jay Bilas have proposed - and what I thought you were proposing, though perhaps I misread - to pay athletes in only revenue-producing sports doesn't seem possible under the current law. Whatever you pay the football team, you're going to have to pay the same amount to roughly the same number of women's sports athletes.

Wetzel's argument that Johnny Football isn't the same as a New Hampshire field hockey player is completely correct from an economic standpoint, but Title IX doesn't care about the economic standpoint, nor was it designed to care. And I think it's an uphill/unwinnable battle to re-write federal law to allow a relative handful of college athletes to make money.

[GGGG]

Agreed, which is why I think this doesn't solve the Title IX problem.
What some like Jay Bilas have proposed - and what I thought you were proposing, though perhaps I misread - to pay athletes in only revenue-producing sports doesn't seem possible under the current law. Whatever you pay the football team, you're going to have to pay the same amount to roughly the same number of women's sports athletes.

Yeah you are misreading me.  What I am saying is that if they tack on a stipend on every scholarship (not just revenue producing ones) they should be fine.

The other thing that they could do is allow athletes to profit off of their own name.  That would fall outside of the NCAA rules and Title IX, and then them earn what the free market bears.  So if Manziel wants to earn $50,000 in a summer for autographs, that's just fine.  If a local car dealer wants Chris Otule to be its spokesman, that's fine too.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Most studies I've seen suggest that the public is more interested in watching pros in the Olympics. 

* more interested in watching pros in tennis and hockey
* big endorsement deals, and frequent commercial appearances, make Phelps, Bolt, Shawn White and woman's beach volleyball, figure skating and gymnastics household names.  That makes watching these sports more popular.

Yes, you give up the stories like the 1980 Hockey team, but in that case, it was only after they advanced out of division play that everyone got interested.  That means it was only the last two or three games that people paid attention to.

Finally count me among those think college sports get better when players get paid their true worth.  The Olympics did.  Pros does not necessarily mean the schools have to pay.  Let Manziel do commercials.  If Blue could get endorsement deals in Milwaukee, he might have stayed another year.

I'd love to see the studies.  It's hard to go on ratings performance because you can't compare apples to apples in any Olympics due to time zone changes, coverage (more coverage now than back then), cable channels have some events, games are now every 2 years (Winter, Summer, Winter, etc). 

The problem with the idea of endorsements, they will lead to MASSIVE recruiting nightmares.  Imagine the Kentucky boosters and business folks that can line up endorsement deals for their recruits vs Marquette?  Hell, imagine Wisconsin alumni lining them up in the state and outbidding for recruits MU would normally get.

It would be an absolute disaster.....you could kiss goodbye the idea of small schools, especially in small markets, ever competing again.  An absolute disaster.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The larger point is that it was impossible to keep up the sham that was amateurism in the Olympics.  I mean, the US Olympic team that you reference was playing against professionals in pretty much every sense of the word.  If it wanted to, the USOC could still use amateur athletes in the Olympics...but they don't.

Furthermore, I never understood the point of why there was amateurism in the first place.  I guess I don't understand the moral superiority of unpaid athletes versus paid ones.

Very simple.....VERY SIMPLE.  To attempt, however difficult, to keep a level playing field.   

First of all, the comparison to the Olympics is ridiculous and Dan's comments are ridiculous on it.  The Olympic teams in many cases are funded by governments, or in the case of the US they are funded through federations, corporate sponsors, etc.  It was the Olympics way to try to keep some competitive balance but ALSO to tap into the traditions of the games.  Of course there have been issues with amateurism since day one, just as there have been issues with it in college athletics since day one.  That doesn't mean another way is better. 


Back to college athletics....you already have runaway bidding on coaching salaries which puts many schools out of the competitive arena.  Then you get into the game of facilities, conferences, tv exposure, etc.   All of this already skews many programs from the haves and the have nots.   The NCAA and the member institutions have tried to keep some balance to attempt (it is impossible, but attempt nonetheless) to keep a level playing field where they can.  No one disputes this is impossible, the question is whether it is worthy to pursue.

In my mind, very worthy to pursue.  I truly don't think people understand what happens if you open up the floodgates.  As fractured and broken as the current system is, you risk total destruction by opening it up.  Do people really think that paying a student $2,500 stipend is going to stop under the table payments?  LOL.  Of course not.  If kids are allowed to be endorsed, how on earth is a student athlete in Spokane, WA going to have the opportunity to make the same in endorsements as a kid in NYC, L.A, Chicago, or for that matter at well heeled schools that will do anything to pimp their players like Alabama, UNC, Kentucky, etc? 

And then we get back to the questions at hand that absolutely NO ONE EVER WANTS TO ANSWER.  Title IX.  Non Revenue Sports. Etc, etc.

The current system is broken....the idea of paying players makes broken look like a well working machine.  It will destroy college athletics as we know it.

[GGGG]

Back to college athletics....you already have runaway bidding on coaching salaries which puts many schools out of the competitive arena.  Then you get into the game of facilities, conferences, tv exposure, etc.   All of this already skews many programs from the haves and the have nots.   The NCAA and the member institutions have tried to keep some balance to attempt (it is impossible, but attempt nonetheless) to keep a level playing field where they can.  No one disputes this is impossible, the question is whether it is worthy to pursue.

In my mind, very worthy to pursue.  I truly don't think people understand what happens if you open up the floodgates.  As fractured and broken as the current system is, you risk total destruction by opening it up.  Do people really think that paying a student $2,500 stipend is going to stop under the table payments?  LOL.  Of course not.  If kids are allowed to be endorsed, how on earth is a student athlete in Spokane, WA going to have the opportunity to make the same in endorsements as a kid in NYC, L.A, Chicago, or for that matter at well heeled schools that will do anything to pimp their players like Alabama, UNC, Kentucky, etc? 

And then we get back to the questions at hand that absolutely NO ONE EVER WANTS TO ANSWER.  Title IX.  Non Revenue Sports. Etc, etc.

The current system is broken....the idea of paying players makes broken look like a well working machine.  It will destroy college athletics as we know it.

You do realize that the best players are already going to places like Kentucky...and not to places like Spokane right?  Paying players might accelerate that somehow, but it is hardly the nightmare that your hyperbolic rants portray it to be. 

And if you would take time to read this thread, and the one on Forbes, I have REPEATEDLY ADDRESSED the Title IX issue.  It is nowhere near as big of a problem as you portray it to be.  (surprise, surprise)

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I think there's a lot of truth to this.  All the kids who have press conferences (and the far, far greater number of athletes in non-revenue sports who don't) never seem terribly upset about signing up to be exploited by the universities.

For me, this is everything.

If the kids don't like the deal, or feel they are being exploited, they should look for another place to play.

MLB exploits the hell out of young players until they hit free agency. Guess what? If the players don't like it, they can go play in Japan.

College kids aren't slaves.

A kid with division 1 talent, and decent grades, has a lot of options. Far more options than the average 18 yr old.