92% of Economists agree that NCAA Athletes should be paid

[GGGG]

Agreed.  Most would be paid a lot less than the cost of attendance.  In fact, if you're paying them "what they're worth," most would get nothing because they are costing the school money.

I found it kind of interesting to compare how the roles are reversed in some small D3 schools.  The schools use the sports programs to actually lure students and bring money in.  Coaches will offer roster spots to kids to get them help drive enrollment and tuition.  I've seen volleyball rosters with 20-25 players.  Obviously, there's no need for that many, but they know that some kids will come to the school because they were offered a spot on the team.  I would think that spread out over all the sports, a small D3 could attract several dozen additional students, which could be a meaningful percentage of their enrollment. 

That's pretty much the only reason football exists at many of these places.

[cheebs09]

I agree with Sultan. The players should be able to get a chance to be paid outside of their scholarship.

If David Gruber wants to pay Markus 50k for using him in an ad, I say go for it. Nike wasn’t selling jerseys with the number 33 on it because the numbers looked nice on the back. It was because that was Jimmy Butler’s number.

Some worry that schools with rich boosters will tilt the landscape. I don’t think it would change things anymore than it is with people getting paid under the table.

[Benny B]

I would imagine the revenue generated by the D-League on a per player basis is well below what is generated from D1 basketball on a per player basis.  Now probably the bottom 3/4 of D1 would be underwater in this type of scenario since the revenues are top heavy....but I dont know if the D League could pay more than a 'semi-pro' league where players are scarce due to the 4 year clock on eligibility.

Looking in someone else's wallet to judge your own worth is a horrible way to go through life. 

If college football/basketball players want to get paid, they can go "generate revenue" in the D-league, because guess what, that money being generated by the universities today will still be generated whether they're there or not.

[Efficient Frontier]

this is a yes/no consensus determination, an opinion of economists, not anything based on data, stats, or objective figures of any nature befitting of an economic analysis.

Additionally, what do a bunch of top university economists (TUE's) know about college athletics?  Remember the game where you estimate how many 3rd graders you could take on in basketball at once... well the number of TUE's is double that.

I think you may have just burned the entire premise of MUScoop here.

[jutaw22mu]

So you want to pay them less than their cost of going to school?

They are amateur athletes.  Not even semi-pros.  They should be paid whatever amateur athletes make...which certainly does not add up to the scholarships they receive.

Or they can be grateful that their ability to dribble a basketball has given them a free education that most  of their more academically-qualified classmates spend years paying back.

[jutaw22mu]

That's a pretty dumb take.

Cool. 

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Looking in someone else's wallet to judge your own worth is a horrible way to go through life. 

If college football/basketball players want to get paid, they can go "generate revenue" in the D-league, because guess what, that money being generated by the universities today will still be generated whether they're there or not.

I was not pointing out anything about whether or not they should or shouldn't get paid.  I was pointing out why looking at D-League salaries is a 'horrible' way to counter the argument.  From a serious perspective the business model the NCAA has created is not found in nature.  Not a free market for labor and like you point out, the revenue generation is disproportionate to the product (there are much better basketball players you can watch). 

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Welcome back, Smuggles.

Did Heisy get banned?

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Looking in someone else's wallet to judge your own worth is a horrible way to go through life. 

If college football/basketball players want to get paid, they can go "generate revenue" in the D-league, because guess what, that money being generated by the universities today will still be generated whether they're there or not.

Unless they all leave and the product stinks.

[Benny B]

Unless they all leave and the product stinks.

The more that leave, the more there won’t be anywhere to play. 

4,550 scholarship basketball players in D-I.  The services of well over 4,000 aren’t needed elsewhere. 

[forgetful]

If they are going to start paying the players, why should there be any limitation on eligibility.  I know some people that took 8+ years to get their undergraduate degree, because they were working part/full time while going to school, not to mention graduate school. 

If this is simply a business, why have any enrollment requirements at the university at all?

[WarriorDad]

I agree with Sultan. The players should be able to get a chance to be paid outside of their scholarship.

If David Gruber wants to pay Markus 50k for using him in an ad, I say go for it. Nike wasn’t selling jerseys with the number 33 on it because the numbers looked nice on the back. It was because that was Jimmy Butler’s number.

Some worry that schools with rich boosters will tilt the landscape. I don’t think it would change things anymore than it is with people getting paid under the table.

None of us know how much under the table things are happening, but it is fairly easy to spot when the kid is driving a new car, parents in a new house or what have you.

What happens when Markus has a few bad games and the rest of the players are ticked and want a share from Markus? Or Markus decides to hog the ball because it's about him? 

Today we have a system where Markus' scholarship is the same as everyone else's on the team, and that's a good thing.

I can't imagine a better way to ruin college athletics than this idea of compensating players, let alone unequally.  They aren't professionals. If they are that good, play for money.  Should these kids even have to take classes?  What other employee is required to take classes as a condition of employment?  Why not be allowed to play for 10 or 15 years? 

People are knee jerking solutions without thinking anything through.  Title IX a big one.  For a school like Marquette, the athletics program is over at DI.  I hope you understand that, along with the opportunities gained by those student athletes on all those teams not men's and women's basketball.

[GGGG]

None of us know how much under the table things are happening, but it is fairly easy to spot when the kid is driving a new car, parents in a new house or what have you.

What happens when Markus has a few bad games and the rest of the players are ticked and want a share from Markus? Or Markus decides to hog the ball because it's about him? 

Today we have a system where Markus' scholarship is the same as everyone else's on the team, and that's a good thing.

I can't imagine a better way to ruin college athletics than this idea of compensating players, let alone unequally.  They aren't professionals. If they are that good, play for money.  Should these kids even have to take classes?  What other employee is required to take classes as a condition of employment?  Why not be allowed to play for 10 or 15 years? 

People are knee jerking solutions without thinking anything through.  Title IX a big one.  For a school like Marquette, the athletics program is over at DI.  I hope you understand that, along with the opportunities gained by those student athletes on all those teams not men's and women's basketball.

Look at Chicos the capitalist who is all about socialism when it for college age students.

Let them earn outside income.  No Title IX issues.  No extra cost to the school.  Academic eligibility is still in place.  Let's the market determine who is worth more.

[WarriorDad]

Look at Chicos the capitalist who is all about socialism when it for college age students.

Let them earn outside income.  No Title IX issues.  No extra cost to the school.  Academic eligibility is still in place.  Let's the market determine who is worth more.

I've been a Democrat my whole life, capitalism is a system I prefer but it must be restrained and regulated.  The Chicos comment again???

Why are you wanting to destroy college basketball for the 1%?  Are you a super capitalist that believes the 1% should get it all? Maybe that explains our differences.

They can earn outside income today, via a job but it cannot be tied to their athletic position.  You have not answered what this will do to the game itself, which I contend will ruin it.  The concept of team ball destroyed as one or two players receive outside compensation while others do not.  This happens in the pros already. You think transfers are bad now, wait until up and coming player on your team is offered a bigger endorsement from school 75 miles away.  You are advocating for the destruction of college basketball and football.

Why?    If they are good enough to get paid, then go professional.  It is not the NCAA's fault there is not an alternative to college football.  The NCAA wasn't created to provide professional opportunities for people to get paid playing football.

[GGGG]

I've been a Democrat my whole life, capitalism is a system I prefer but it must be restrained and regulated.  The Chicos comment again???

Why are you wanting to destroy college basketball for the 1%?  Are you a super capitalist that believes the 1% should get it all? Maybe that explains our differences.

They can earn outside income today, via a job but it cannot be tied to their athletic position.  You have not answered what this will do to the game itself, which I contend will ruin it.  The concept of team ball destroyed as one or two players receive outside compensation while others do not.  This happens in the pros already. You think transfers are bad now, wait until up and coming player on your team is offered a bigger endorsement from school 75 miles away.  You are advocating for the destruction of college basketball and football.

Why?    If they are good enough to get paid, then go professional.  It is not the NCAA's fault there is not an alternative to college football.  The NCAA wasn't created to provide professional opportunities for people to get paid playing football.

There is zero indication that players being allowed to earn outside income would be "the destruction of college basketball and football."  Typical scare tactic.  And no "team ball" hasn't suffered in the professional leagues where income inequality exists all over the place.  And if players want to transfer for better opportunities, good for them!!!!  They do it already so I'm not sure why it would be any different.

And I don't give a sh*t why the NCAA was created. 

[WarriorDad]

There is zero indication that players being allowed to earn outside income would be "the destruction of college basketball and football."  Typical scare tactic.  And no "team ball" hasn't suffered in the professional leagues where income inequality exists all over the place.  And if players want to transfer for better opportunities, good for them!!!!  They do it already so I'm not sure why it would be any different.

And I don't give a sh*t why the NCAA was created.

Why do you support the 1%ers only?  Shouldn't this be about leveling the playing field and allowing teams to compete in a fair manner? 

Players have held out for bigger pay in pro sports, that impacts the team dynamics and performance.  Players have been accused in contract years to dominating play and thinking only about themselves, so team play has suffered.  Nevertheless, they are professionals and these kids are not.

Players transfer today for more playing time, or because they are homesick not because there is a bidding war. 

[GGGG]

Why do you support the 1%ers only?  Shouldn't this be about leveling the playing field and allowing teams to compete in a fair manner?

LOL really?  "A fair manner?"  There is a differentiation of resources throughout college athletics.  Schools get more television revenue, NCAA shares, attendance, etc., which is used to pay certain coaches more, better facilities, etc.  College athletics is arguably THE most inequitable athletic endeavor in the United States right now.

Do you complain about any of that?  Of course not.  Because you LOVE when those in power make more.  You always have.  But of course, try to allow the actual athletes to earn more and you become chicken little.  Humorous and predictable.

[forgetful]

Look at Chicos the capitalist who is all about socialism when it for college age students.

Let them earn outside income.  No Title IX issues.  No extra cost to the school.  Academic eligibility is still in place.  Let's the market determine who is worth more.

Who can pay these students "outside income".  Anyone?  Can University Donors/Sponsors pay the students, Boosters?

[GGGG]

Who can pay these students "outside income".  Anyone?  Can University Donors/Sponsors pay the students, Boosters?

Anyone who wants to.

[forgetful]

Anyone who wants to.

What do you think the consequences of that would be to football and basketball revenue?

[GGGG]

What do you think the consequences of that would be to football and basketball revenue?

If people want to pay players versus making athletic donations that’s fine by me.

[jutaw22mu]

If people want to pay players versus making athletic donations that’s fine by me.

LOL. How many people are actually going to want to pay players for NIT-level basketball???

[jutaw22mu]

LOL really?  "A fair manner?"  There is a differentiation of resources throughout college athletics.  Schools get more television revenue, NCAA shares, attendance, etc., which is used to pay certain coaches more, better facilities, etc.  College athletics is arguably THE most inequitable athletic endeavor in the United States right now.

Do you complain about any of that?  Of course not.  Because you LOVE when those in power make more.  You always have.  But of course, try to allow the actual athletes to earn more and you become chicken little.  Humorous and predictable.

Do you actually know this guy in real life or do you make these statements about him because you pretend to know him based off a few posts on a message board? 

[forgetful]

If people want to pay players versus making athletic donations that’s fine by me.

~65% (I used the top 20 revenue football programs) of revenue comes from donations or rights/licensing.  Those are the same pools of money that the athletes would now be competing for.

Even in that top 20 football programs, most are at best breaking even because of supplementing with tax payer dollars, student tuition, or other funds meant for education. 

What we know from precedent at other Universities, is that they will take money from education to offset athletic losses, or scholarships no longer exist.  I have my money on siphoning more funds from education.

[Benny B]

Do you actually know this guy in real life or do you make these statements about him because you pretend to know him based off a few posts on a message board?

Hmmmmm.  That’s a pretty damn good point. 

Mark me curious, but I wanna hear the response to this one.