Broke Nigel Hayes

[GGGG]

How much revenue does an NBA 12th man generate?  Long snapper?  Middle reliever?

Even at the professional level, people are watching by and large for the name on the front of the jersey.  So calculating an individual's specific revenue generation is a false metric.

That's exactly right.  If you judge Nigel Hayes versus a "replacement scholarship player," he likely doesn't have much marginal value. 

[StillAWarrior]

Right. But my point is, the value of a scholarship and all the other benefits student athletes receive is far less than even half of what they generate in revenue, like closer to 10 percent of the value they generate.
It's a very bad deal for them. Put it to you this way ... how many schools do you think would, if given the choice, have players fund 100 percent of their own tuition, food, costs and all their other benefits, in exchange for even a 35-65 split of revenues?
For MU, by the way, that would equate to about $161,000 per player in the 2013-14 season.

If -- or probably when -- players start getting paid, it's going to come as a rude awakening to many, I suspect.  Time will tell how the details will work out and whether revenue sports will have a better deal than non-revenue (and whether starting QBs will have a better deal than third string OL).  But I suspect there will be a lot of people -- particularly in non-revenue sports -- who are very unhappy that they traded their full ride in for a minimum wage job.

I'd be surprised if the change to paying players is going to be done on a revenue sharing basis.  And for the vast majority of NCAA athletes, revenue sharing would be an absolute disaster.

[GGGG]

I don't think you are going to see players getting paid more than the total cost of attendance scholarships.  The reason is that it fundamentally changes the nature of the relationship to one of employer / employee.  The only thing that might change this is if outside legislation changes the nature of intercollegiate athletics.

[StillAWarrior]

I don't think you are going to see players getting paid more than the total cost of attendance scholarships.  The reason is that it fundamentally changes the nature of the relationship to one of employer / employee.  The only thing that might change this is if outside legislation changes the nature of intercollegiate athletics.

Agreed.  And I think that if the nature of the relationship gets fundamentally changed by outside legislation, the vast majority of college athletes will be very unhappy with where that ends up.

[mu03eng]

Right. But my point is, the value of a scholarship and all the other benefits student athletes receive is far less than even half of what they generate in revenue, like closer to 10 percent of the value they generate.
It's a very bad deal for them. Put it to you this way ... how many schools do you think would, if given the choice, have players fund 100 percent of their own tuition, food, costs and all their other benefits, in exchange for even a 35-65 split of revenues?
For MU, by the way, that would equate to about $161,000 per player in the 2013-14 season.

What's the correct ratio of salary to generated revenue? What about all the money the universities put in to allow the students to put their value on display in front of national audiences and for scouts. All the people that work to promote games, or market players, or even get venues ready for play? What is the economic value of players having access to improve and get an opportunity in to be paid millions in the NBA or NFL? What would he have to pay for the coaching he is receiving from the university or the strength and conditioning staff?

I probably make 10% of the generated revenue for the business I manage, am I being underpaid? I don't think so, especially when you account for the future opportunities my current role will afford me based on experience and knowledge gained as well as people I meet.

Nigel and the folks who advocate for his side may not like the equation or would like it to be more tangible but I don't think there is any way you can argue that student athletes are given a raw deal in terms of pure economic compensation for services rendered.

[Pakuni]

Where will the money come from, the vast majority of Universities lose money on football and basketball and nearly all lose money on athletics.   

Right, largely because they're bloated bureaucracies that spend excessively on coaches, administration and facilities.
The NYT story I linked above suggests a plan to pay players more equitably that would cost football programs $3 million a year and basketball programs $650K a year. That's not the kind of money that should make or break a program. And if it does, maybe the program shouldn't exist.

Should taxpayers foot the bill to provide college athletes with more money?  Should tuition go up even more to offset the higher expenses.  Or should new facilities, nice travel/accomodations go out the window and go back to kids riding the bus to games and staying at a motel 6, reusing old gear from season to season etc.

No. No. No.
These are all false choices, though. There are ways to better compensate the players without such draconian measures. The problem is, the people in charge don't want to give up their bloat and so have convinced a too substantial part of the public that giving players a small piece of the pie would mean doom.

[Pakuni]

What's the correct ratio of salary to generated revenue? What about all the money the universities put in to allow the students to put their value on display in front of national audiences and for scouts. All the people that work to promote games, or market players, or even get venues ready for play? What is the economic value of players having access to improve and get an opportunity in to be paid millions in the NBA or NFL? What would he have to pay for the coaching he is receiving from the university or the strength and conditioning staff?

I probably make 10% of the generated revenue for the business I manage, am I being underpaid? I don't think so, especially when you account for the future opportunities my current role will afford me based on experience and knowledge gained as well as people I meet.

Nigel and the folks who advocate for his side may not like the equation or would like it to be more tangible but I don't think there is any way you can argue that student athletes are given a raw deal in terms of pure economic compensation for services rendered.

Of course they can make that argument, and of course you can put a value on the players.
They've managed to do just that in the NBA, NFL and NHL. Why would the NCAA be any different?
The NFL has decided that the players' value is 48.5 percent of revenues. In the NBA it's 51.5 percent. In the NHL it's 50 percent.
At big time programs, scholarship costs are typically less than 10 percent of revenues, often less.
How can anyone look at those numbers and say the players aren't getting a raw deal in terms of pure economic compensation for services rendered?

[Pakuni]

How much revenue does an NBA 12th man generate?  Long snapper?  Middle reliever?

Even at the professional level, people are watching by and large for the name on the front of the jersey.  So calculating an individual's specific revenue generation is a false metric.

I agree that college athletes are well compensated, but I also think football and basketball players deserve more of the cut.  Not sure the best way to go about that or exactly how much each player should get.

Correct, which is why you can't do it by individual, but collectively .... just like the NBA, NHL and NFL do.

[wadesworld]

Of course they can make that argument, and of course you can put a value on the players.
They've managed to do just that in the NBA, NFL and NHL. Why would the NCAA be any different?
The NFL has decided that the players' value is 48.5 percent of revenues. In the NBA it's 51.5 percent. In the NHL it's 50 percent.
At big time programs, scholarship costs are typically less than 10 percent of revenues, often less.
How can anyone look at those numbers and say the players aren't getting a raw deal in terms of pure economic compensation for services rendered?

The 12th man on a division one basketball scholarship brings in more money than what his tuition, room and board, food, clothes, health care, travel, shoes, etc. cost?  I have a hard time buying that.

[mu03eng]

Of course they can make that argument, and of course you can put a value on the players.
They've managed to do just that in the NBA, NFL and NHL. Why would the NCAA be any different?
The NFL has decided that the players' value is 48.5 percent of revenues. In the NBA it's 51.5 percent. In the NHL it's 50 percent.
At big time programs, scholarship costs are typically less than 10 percent of revenues, often less.
How can anyone look at those numbers and say the players aren't getting a raw deal in terms of pure economic compensation for services rendered?

I can easily do it, because people like Nigel aren't accounting for the economic compensation they are receiving in less tangible assets than scholarship money. Here is a brief list(and not exhaustive) of things Nigel has access to as part of his "compensation" package, which I don't think you are taking into account as part of your 10% ratio.

-Education
-Tutoring
-Food
-Lodging
-Strength and conditioning
-Advanced coaching
-Athletic facilities for practice
-Clothing
-Equipment
-Exposure to professional scouts
-Experiences, in the form of travel to various places that is paid for
-Access to celebrities
-Access to a network of alumni that regular students likely don't have
etc

If the argument is that they could be compensated more, I wouldn't argue against that, especially if video games were still being made off of their likeness. However it hardly enters into the realm of a raw deal. I think they are fairly compensated right now.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I can definitely hear arguments about weekly stipends being increased, things like textbooks getting covered, and allowing players to profit off their likenesses (e.g. video games). But I don't see a good reason to switch to a pay for play system. I think players are more than fairly compensated.

On the video games, I think they could handle it like they do the Olympics. College athletes who win medals in the Olympics are given thousands of dollars in prize money. That money sits in a bank account they can't access until they graduate and then it is transferred to them to avoid NCAA restrictions. Set up a similar system for video games and other similar business opportunities. The president of EA Sports has already said that they are more than happy to pay college athletes for their likenesses. It's the NCAA that's saying no.

[Pakuni]

I can easily do it, because people like Nigel aren't accounting for the economic compensation they are receiving in less tangible assets than scholarship money. Here is a brief list(and not exhaustive) of things Nigel has access to as part of his "compensation" package, which I don't think you are taking into account as part of your 10% ratio.

-Education
-Tutoring
-Food
-Lodging
-Strength and conditioning
-Advanced coaching
-Athletic facilities for practice
-Clothing
-Equipment
-Exposure to professional scouts
-Experiences, in the form of travel to various places that is paid for
-Access to celebrities
-Access to a network of alumni that regular students likely don't have
etc

If the argument is that they could be compensated more, I wouldn't argue against that, especially if video games were still being made off of their likeness. However it hardly enters into the realm of a raw deal. I think they are fairly compensated right now.

I think we, respectfully, have very different ideas about who benefits from the college sports system and what qualifies as compensation.
Arguing that a players are "compensated" via coaching, conditioning and facilities, etc., misses the point entirely, IMO. Those things don't exist for the players' benefit. They exist for the programs' benefit.
Your position is akin to arguing that a widget factory exists primarily to help a widget salesman sell widgets. No. The factory - like the sales force - exists to help the company profit. Coaches, facilities, trainers, tutors etc., don't exist to for the sake of players, they exist to help the program profit.
Because in order to succeed and generate revenues, players need to be fed and coached and have a place to practice. The schools aren't providing these things out of the kindness of their hearts or because they care about the players well-being. They're doing it because they believe it ultimately helps their bottom lines.

Do you consider the pens, paper, computer, desks, phones and vending machines you use at work to be "compensation?" Is your supervisor* part of your compensation? Are they listed on your 1040?

# = If you have one.

[wadesworld]

I think we, respectfully, have very different ideas about who benefits from the college sports system and what qualifies as compensation.
Arguing that a players are "compensated" via coaching, conditioning and facilities, etc., misses the point entirely, IMO. Those things don't exist for the players' benefit. They exist for the programs' benefit.
Your position is akin to arguing that a widget factory exists primarily to help a widget salesman sell widgets. No. The factory - like the sales force - exists to help the company profit. Coaches, facilities, trainers, tutors etc., don't exist to for the sake of players, they exist to help the program profit.
Schools don't feed players, coach players and give players a locker room for the sake of the players. It's done for sake of the athletic department/university. Because in order to succeed and generate revenues, players need to be fed and coached and have a place to practice. The schools aren't providing these things out of the kindness of their hearts or because they care about the players well-being. They're doing it because they believe it ultimately helps their bottom lines.

Do you consider the pens, paper, computer, desks, phones and vending machines you use at work to be "compensation?" Is your supervisor* part of your compensation? Are they listed on your 1040?

# = If you have one.

Isn't that the same as every money making organization out there?  Does a company train its employees so the employee can become more qualified and go do better work elsewhere for a competitor if that employee so chooses, or does a company train its employees so they can do good work for its company so the company can make more money?  College coaches coach up their players for the benefit of the program so that the school can make more money, but professional coaches coach up their athletes for the benefit of the individual athlete?  Uhh, okay?

That's how the world works.  If the student athletes don't like that they're forced to take an education rather than money, go ahead and travel overseas or join the D League and you can get take the money and pay for your living, food, clothes, etc.

[mu03eng]

I think we, respectfully, have very different ideas about who benefits from the college sports system and what qualifies as compensation.
Arguing that a players are "compensated" via coaching, conditioning and facilities, etc., misses the point entirely, IMO. Those things don't exist for the players' benefit. They exist for the programs' benefit.
You're position is akin to arguing that a widget factory exists to help a widget salesman sell widgets. No. The factory - like the sales force - exists to help the company profit. Schools don't feed players, coach players and give players a locker room for the sake of the players. It's done for sake of the athletic department/university. Because in order to succeed and generate revenues, players need to be fed and coached and have a place to practice. The schools aren't providing these things out of the kindness of their hearts or because they care about the players well-being. They're doing it because they believe it ultimately helps their bottom lines.

Do you consider the pens, paper, computer, desks, phones and vending machines you use at work to be "compensation?" Is your supervisor* part of your compensation? Are they listed on your 1040?

# = If you have one.

If my company pays for me to get an MBA or be trained on something universal like pragmatic marketing or whatever....that's for the company but I definitely get benefit from it as well. I can put it on my resume and increase my market value on it. At the end of the day, I don't care who "it's for" if you are getting benefit out of it, it is an advantage for you. Do regular students get access to any of those things? There is a reason that universities pour money into things like locker rooms, the athletes care, so it's a recruiting tool. If the athletes care, they are benefiting from it.

So you don't learn anything from your boss that you can apply at other companies potentially? You wouldn't find it beneficial to work at a company that has the latest technology that makes your life better? Maybe you don't, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean you aren't gaining advantages by that.

[Pakuni]

Isn't that the same as every money making organization out there?  Does a company train its employees so the employee can become more qualified and go do better work elsewhere for a competitor if that employee so chooses, or does a company train its employees so they can do good work for its company so the company can make more money? 

Of course it is.
Except the NCAA and colleges insist they are not "money-making organizations" and college athletes are not "employees." Just ask them.
Seems like you want it both ways. You want the NCAA and schools to be nonprofit organizations with all the benefits that entails ... and yet want them to seek profit and treat students as if they are employees, but without giving those students the same rights as employees.
Hmmm. And some have to gall to claim the system is rigged.

College coaches coach up their players for the benefit of the program, but professional coaches coach up their athletes for the benefit of the individual athlete?  Uhh, okay?

I said this? Anyone said this?

That's how the world works.  If the student athletes don't like that they're forced to take an education rather than money, go ahead and travel overseas or join the D League and you can get take the money and pay for your living, food, clothes, etc.

The NCAA ... love it or leave it!
Or, you know, the players can use their leverage and platform to fight for a more equitable system. Isn't that the American way?

[Pakuni]

If my company pays for me to get an MBA or be trained on something universal like pragmatic marketing or whatever....that's for the company but I definitely get benefit from it as well. I can put it on my resume and increase my market value on it. At the end of the day, I don't care who "it's for" if you are getting benefit out of it, it is an advantage for you. Do regular students get access to any of those things? There is a reason that universities pour money into things like locker rooms, the athletes care, so it's a recruiting tool. If the athletes care, they are benefiting from it.

So you don't learn anything from your boss that you can apply at other companies potentially? You wouldn't find it beneficial to work at a company that has the latest technology that makes your life better? Maybe you don't, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean you aren't gaining advantages by that.

Respectfully, you're shifting the goalposts here.
What you previously labeled as "player compensation," i.e. coaching, the use of a locker room, food, you're now admitting are things that exist for the program's sake, but a player benefits from them indirectly.
Either way, it doesn't really matter. We fundamentally disagree, it appears, on the purpose of big-time college athletics. 

[wadesworld]

Of course it is.
Except the NCAA and colleges insist they are not "money-making organizations" and college athletes are not "employees." Just as them.
Seems like you want it both ways. You want the NCAA and schools to be nonprofit organizations with all the benefits that entails ... and yet want them to seek profit and treat students as if they are employees, but without giving those students the same rights as employees.
Hmmm. And some have to gall to claim the system is rigged.

I said this? Anyone said this?

The NCAA ... love it or leave it!
Or, you know, the players can use their leverage and platform to fight for a more equitable system.

I couldn't care less if the NCAA makes money.  They should make money.  The student athletes benefit greatly (whether or not you want to admit they do) and the NCAA benefits greatly.  Good for them both.

Then what's your point talking about coaches being in place to benefit the school/program and not the student athlete?  That's just how it goes.  High school coaches coach up their players to win.  The horror!  College coaches coach up their program to win, so that they get NCAA Tournament shares, more butts in their seats, etc.  How could they possibly take advantage of these kids like that?!  If you don't think the student athletes are benefiting from receiving the best coaching in the business, then I'm not sure what else there is to say.

Problem for the players is that they've "used their leverage and platform to fight for a more equitable system" for years...and nothing has changed.  Maybe people don't think the system is broken?  Maybe some people actually understand the value of a college degree and 0 student loans?

[mu03eng]

Of course it is.
Except the NCAA and colleges insist they are not "money-making organizations" and college athletes are not "employees." Just as them.
Seems like you want it both ways. You want the NCAA and schools to be nonprofit organizations with all the benefits that entails ... and yet want them to seek profit and treat students as if they are employees, but without giving those students the same rights as employees.
Hmmm. And some have to gall to claim the system is rigged.

Whether it's non-profit or not has nothing to do with how it works. Hospitals are non-profit but they still provide training for their employees that is transferable to other employers.

Yours seems to be a largely semantical one. I'm fine calling the athletes employees, doesn't change that I think they are fairly* compensated for their revenue generation.

*If they can get more compensation then they do now by some means (organization, protest, whatever) than so be it. That new level would be fair compensation....but I don't think you can say they aren't fairly compensated right now.

[mu03eng]

Respectfully, you're shifting the goalposts here.
What you previously labeled as "player compensation," i.e. coaching, the use of a locker room, food, you're now admitting are things that exist for the program's sake, but a player benefits from them indirectly.
Either way, it doesn't really matter. We fundamentally disagree, it appears, on the purpose of big-time college athletics.

I don't think I am. Big-time athletics are to promote the university and generate revenue. Players are compensated as part of that in often non-monetary ways. Big time athletics are no different than non-profit or even profit driven companies just the mechanism of how they compensate their companies can be different as far as the mix of non-monetary/monetary compensation.

If your argument to my point was that I implied that player compensation includes strength and conditioning as a direct benefit as opposed to an indirect benefit, you are correct I did not make that level of distinction until your argument back. Doesn't mean I'm shifting goal posts, just a clarification.

[Pakuni]

I couldn't care less if the NCAA makes money.  They should make money.  The student athletes benefit greatly (whether or not you want to admit they do) and the NCAA benefits greatly.  Good for them both.

Then what's your point talking about coaches being in place to benefit the school/program and not the student athlete?  That's just how it goes.  High school coaches coach up their players to win.  The horror!  College coaches coach up their program to win, so that they get NCAA Tournament shares, more butts in their seats, etc.  How could they possibly take advantage of these kids like that?!  If you don't think the student athletes are benefiting from receiving the best coaching in the business, then I'm not sure what else there is to say.

Problem for the players is that they've "used their leverage and platform to fight for a more equitable system" for years...and nothing has changed.  Maybe people don't think the system is broken?  Maybe some people actually understand the value of a college degree and 0 student loans?

Yes, it's obvious you don't care.

Nothing has changed?
Hmmm.

In landmark action for major-college sports, schools and athlete representatives from the NCAA's five wealthiest conferences on Saturday voted 79-1 to expand what Division I schools can provide under an athletic scholarship.
The vote, taken during the NCAA's annual convention, redefines an athletic scholarship so that it can cover not only the traditional tuition, room, board, books and fees, but also the incidental costs of attending college. That means a scholarship will now be able to pay for items including transportation and miscellaneous personal expenses.
Conservatively this means Division I men's and women's athletes collectively stand to gain at least $50 million a year in additional benefits.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2015/01/17/ncaa-convention-cost-of-attendance-student-athletes-scholarships/21921073/

For the first time, the NCAA this year is allowing schools to give cash stipends to cover the cost of things like late-night snacks, student fees, laundry money and movies.
Scholarships cover the core expenses of college such as tuition and room and board. The new stipends are supposed to close the gap between scholarship money and what it actually costs to attend school.
The stipends, available at most of the country major sports programs, range from about $2,000 to $5,000 a year, although some schools are reportedly offering a few thousand more than that. That may not sound like a lot, but that's real money for students from poorer families.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/04/news/companies/extra-cash-college-athletes/

And, don't worry, these changes are just the beginning. Whether you believe (or like) it or not, the momentum is heavily in favor of more compensation for athletes. The NCAA wouldn't be doing this if the pressure from its athletes, the public and from within the institutions themselves weren't mounting.

[Jay Bee]

What's the going rate for a high-volume 41.2 eFG% guy?

[martyconlonontherun]

I guess a simple solution is just allow players to receive outside payments but make them report everything they receive. Make some limitations like no payments from known felons, tobacco, alcohol companies and gambling sites. That takes away from a lot of shady characters. Universities will lose some endorsements that are shifted to players but aren't liable to Pay hundreds of athletes. It also avoids the delemna of splitting revenues from a star kicker and other players.

It would throw the balance of power to universities with powerful alumni but so be it. Does it really matter if schools like Marquette can't keep up?

[mu03eng]

I guess a simple solution is just allow players to receive outside payments but make them report everything they receive. Make some limitations like no payments from known felons, tobacco, alcohol companies and gambling sites. That takes away from a lot of shady characters. Universities will lose some endorsements that are shifted to players but aren't liable to Pay hundreds of athletes. It also avoids the delemna of splitting revenues from a star kicker and other players.

It would throw the balance of power to universities with powerful alumni but so be it. Does it really matter if schools like Marquette can't keep up?

I really like the idea of getting money for outside of the sport activities like video game likeness, etc but having it put into a trust for after they graduate. Even if some powerful alumni wants to game the system by paying the player through some endorsement it's after the fact and not something they can do directly.

[Lennys Tap]

The 12th man on a division one basketball scholarship brings in more money than what his tuition, room and board, food, clothes, health care, travel, shoes, etc. cost?  I have a hard time buying that.

.
Ah, there's the rub. The 12th man generates nothing, his value to the bottom line is zero. Truth is the top players get ripped off and the scrubs are overpaid if the payment is a full scholarship. 

[martyconlonontherun]

I really like the idea of getting money for outside of the sport activities like video game likeness, etc but having it put into a trust for after they graduate. Even if some powerful alumni wants to game the system by paying the player through some endorsement it's after the fact and not something they can do directly.

Is there anything wrong with powerful alumni throwing money at kids? As long as its reported to make sure nothing shady is going on, I don't see a problem with it.