92% of Economists agree that NCAA Athletes should be paid

[WarriorDad]

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.

You are making a mistake of pretending to know who I am or what I believe.  What I don't want to see happen is my beloved Marquette no longer have an athletics program in Division I.  You seem hell bent on wanting that to happen.

A college scholarship and free room and board nets to mean the student doesn't pay.  Whether that scholarship value is $10K at a state school or $50K from a private school is meaningless as the out of pocket cost to the student is the same. Net $0.

Conferences have their own television and media deals, they will not all be equal for any number of reasons.  Size of the conference, size of the market, size of the alumni base, size of the school.  Those inequalities will always exist, as will the competency of the school itself.  Notre Dame is a better school that South Florida or Indiana.  Duke is a better school than Indiana State or Purdue.  The weather is better at San Diego State than University of Washington or Fordham. 

But in terms of what is permissible for a school to offer those participating, extra benefits are what we are talking about.  This is the part of the leveling of the playing field that NCAA members have asked the organization to control. 

[jutaw22mu]

Hmmmmm.  That’s a pretty damn good point. 

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

It will probably be something along the lines of "that's a dumb take."

[GGGG]

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

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? 

It will probably be something along the lines of "that's a dumb take."

Man you really are a sensitive little dude aren't you.

[GGGG]

You are making a mistake of pretending to know who I am or what I believe.  What I don't want to see happen is my beloved Marquette no longer have an athletics program in Division I.  You seem hell bent on wanting that to happen.

A college scholarship and free room and board nets to mean the student doesn't pay.  Whether that scholarship value is $10K at a state school or $50K from a private school is meaningless as the out of pocket cost to the student is the same. Net $0.

Conferences have their own television and media deals, they will not all be equal for any number of reasons.  Size of the conference, size of the market, size of the alumni base, size of the school.  Those inequalities will always exist, as will the competency of the school itself.  Notre Dame is a better school that South Florida or Indiana.  Duke is a better school than Indiana State or Purdue.  The weather is better at San Diego State than University of Washington or Fordham. 

But in terms of what is permissible for a school to offer those participating, extra benefits are what we are talking about.  This is the part of the leveling of the playing field that NCAA members have asked the organization to control. 

Four paragraphs of blathering that don't address a single point that I made.  Congrats.

[GGGG]

~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.

Oh.  Well they're the ones who are going to have to live with that decision.

[jutaw22mu]

Man you really are a sensitive little dude aren't you.

Nope, just sick of the condescending tone of most of your posts on this board.

And I'm not a dude.

[Pakuni]

~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.

Not really, especially with the rights/licensing. Nike, for example, isn't going to stop paying to put their swoosh on any team's jerseys. Pepsi and Coke aren't going to stop paying for the right to sell their product exclusively at certain schools. That money won't just up and vanish because JimBob's Tuscaloosa Chevy wants to give Player A some money to do an ad.

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.   

This seems incorrect. Source?
This data is a couple years old, but during the 2015 season 20 teams made a profit of more than $28 million. Eleven made more than $40 million. Again, this is profit, not gross revenue.
No doubt there are many athletic departments, and some football programs, that rely on heavy subsidies from student fees (not tuition), but the top tier football programs are making money hand over fist.

[Pakuni]

They can earn outside income today, via a job but it cannot be tied to their athletic position. 

Right. Take a full load classes, practice 20 hours a week, travel across the country for games, requiring time to make up for missed classes, hit the weight room regularly ... and then go get a job.
Seems reasonable.

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.

For sure. Those 90s Bulls teams were ruined by all the Nike money Michael Jordan got.
And while LeBron's teams have made seven straight finals, the sad truth is that they've lost five of them ... because of all the money Coke gives him.
This is a truly bad take.

[GGGG]

Nope, just sick of the condescending tone of most of your posts on this board.

And I'm not a dude.

Oh.  Sorry.  I really have no idea who you are or what you have posted before so I have no frame of reference.

[forgetful]

Not really, especially with the rights/licensing. Nike, for example, isn't going to stop paying to put their swoosh on any team's jerseys. Pepsi and Coke aren't going to stop paying for the right to sell their product exclusively at certain schools. That money won't just up and vanish because JimBob's Tuscaloosa Chevy wants to give Player A some money to do an ad.

No, but I've read several studies that show that sponsorship of individuals is more successful, than direct sponsorship of teams.  There is a total pool of money that isn't going to grow, that is devoted to college sports rights/licensing. 

So any funds that shift from the University, to the athlete, will decrease revenue.  I agree it will not be extreme, but even modest shifts of 5-10% would lead to 7-figure losses for the athletics program.

This seems incorrect. Source?
This data is a couple years old, but during the 2015 season 20 teams made a profit of more than $28 million. Eleven made more than $40 million. Again, this is profit, not gross revenue.
No doubt there are many athletic departments, and some football programs, that rely on heavy subsidies from student fees (not tuition), but the top tier football programs are making money hand over fist.

"most" was hyperbole, but several is true.  I'm using:

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/


But it is important to subtract out any revenue from "Student Fees" or "School Funds" as these siphon from education and are simply there because their budget has to tie. 

So a school like Wisconsin that on the first page looks to post a $2M profit, is actually supplementing that with $8M in school funds, so are taking a $6M a year loss on football.  Michigan State, Florida State ($10M), Minnesota and Iowa all also lose money.

Originally I also subtracted off "other," but apparently that includes things like NCAA tourney credits.  "Other" is a category, budget wise, that many of these Universities park school funds of various times to make them look more profitable than they are. 

[WarriorDad]

Nope, just sick of the condescending tone of most of your posts on this board.

+ tax

[WarriorDad]

Right. Take a full load classes, practice 20 hours a week, travel across the country for games, requiring time to make up for missed classes, hit the weight room regularly ... and then go get a job.
Seems reasonable.

The implication is they cannot work, there is no rule that says they cannot.  Working in the Summer or during the non-season. It is difficult for basketball as a winter sport. It absolutely can be done in other sports but we are fixated here on only looking at basketball.

For sure. Those 90s Bulls teams were ruined by all the Nike money Michael Jordan got.
And while LeBron's teams have made seven straight finals, the sad truth is that they've lost five of them ... because of all the money Coke gives him.
This is a truly bad take.

That is one example you provide, but mine is not a bad take. Last year with the Washington Wizards and Gary Neal's antics with contracts and team chemistry?  2016 New York Jets and their team agenda, listen to the NY Media on that contractual squabbles by the vets and impact to the team.  Dwight Howard with the NBA on several teams.  Austin Rivers $35M contract with the Clippers and the problems it caused with teammates. 

Team chemistry is a fragile thing, some teams can pull it off like the Bulls. Usually with veterans that want to win.  Now make that work with 18 to 22 year olds that already have challenges of maturity, transferring due to lack of playing time and add this cocktail mix to it.

[GGGG]

The implication is they cannot work, there is no rule that says they cannot.  Working in the Summer or during the non-season. It is difficult for basketball as a winter sport. It absolutely can be done in other sports but we are fixated here on only looking at basketball.

Or they could do a commercial for a car dealer that would take a Sunday afternoon to shoot.

That is one example you provide, but mine is not a bad take. Last year with the Washington Wizards and Gary Neal's antics with contracts and team chemistry?  2016 New York Jets and their team agenda, listen to the NY Media on that contractual squabbles by the vets and impact to the team.  Dwight Howard with the NBA on several teams.  Austin Rivers $35M contract with the Clippers and the problems it caused with teammates. 

Team chemistry is a fragile thing, some teams can pull it off like the Bulls. Usually with veterans that want to win.  Now make that work with 18 to 22 year olds that already have challenges of maturity, transferring due to lack of playing time and add this cocktail mix to it.

Ridiculous.  Preventing people from earning income because it might mess with "team chemistry" is a terrible reason not to allow people to earn income. 

Coaches are making six and seven figure incomes to deal with this stuff. 

[WarriorDad]

Or they could do a commercial for a car dealer that would take a Sunday afternoon to shoot.


Ridiculous.  Preventing people from earning income because it might mess with "team chemistry" is a terrible reason not to allow people to earn income. 

Coaches are making six and seven figure incomes to deal with this stuff.

What coaches make is irrelevant.  Why even bring it in to the conversation.  College presidents make a lot, do they do all the heavy lifting or do college professors, TAs, Admissions people, counselors all work for a university, too?  College presidents make a lot because of their responsibility for the school, a singular head. The same reason college coaches do. They also get fired at a high rate.

My greater question is why you want to destroy college basketball in its current form?  Why do you want Loyola Chicago never to happen again? Why do you want to bring in the problems of professionalism into a college basketball environment? Why is it a good idea to make the haves and have nots even further separated? You seem to advocate for only the haves because that is how this will shake out.  Are these kids exploited?  How?  They are earning an invaluable college degree, seeing the country, honing their skills for future employers.  The way some of you articulate this as if it is slave labor.  It is not.  What's a degree worth to someone these days, not just the cost of education?  $3 to 4 million in a lifetime and that's if they don't play a single down, make a layup, or hit a home run, in other words don't play professionally.

[Pakuni]

No, but I've read several studies that show that sponsorship of individuals is more successful, than direct sponsorship of teams.  There is a total pool of money that isn't going to grow, that is devoted to college sports rights/licensing. 

So any funds that shift from the University, to the athlete, will decrease revenue.  I agree it will not be extreme, but even modest shifts of 5-10% would lead to 7-figure losses for the athletics program.

Again, I doubt this. At best, you're assuming facts not in evidence, i.e. that the amount of spending on college athletic sponsorships being done right now is the absolute most that will ever be done, and companies simply would not expand their spending as opportunities expand.
History says this is false. Corporate investment in college athletic sponsorships has grown by millions, if not billions, of dollars over the past couple decade. Just in one recent year it grew nearly 6 percent: http://www.sponsorship.com/iegsr/2015/08/31/Sponsorship-Spending-On-College-Athletics-Totals-$.aspx


To assume that starting today those sponsorship budgets are frozen seems wrong.

"most" was hyperbole, but several is true.  I'm using:

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/


But it is important to subtract out any revenue from "Student Fees" or "School Funds" as these siphon from education and are simply there because their budget has to tie. 

So a school like Wisconsin that on the first page looks to post a $2M profit, is actually supplementing that with $8M in school funds, so are taking a $6M a year loss on football.  Michigan State, Florida State ($10M), Minnesota and Iowa all also lose money.

Originally I also subtracted off "other," but apparently that includes things like NCAA tourney credits.  "Other" is a category, budget wise, that many of these Universities park school funds of various times to make them look more profitable than they are.

What you've provided here is athletic department revenues/spending, not football. So, no, Wisconsin football is not operating at a $6 million loss. In fact, according to this, they were operating at a $24 million profit in 2013 (couldn't find anything more recent right now):
https://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciajessop/2013/08/31/the-economics-of-college-football-a-look-at-the-top-25-teams-revenues-and-expenses/#1c71abc06476

Athletic departments' losses - at least at most of the P5/P6 programs -  come not from football (or men's basketball), but from the spending needed for all the other sports that generate no revenue in return. The labors of the football and men's basketball players - along with student fees - subsidize the scholarships, equipment, travel, etc., for the field hockey, golf and soccer teams.

[GGGG]

What coaches make is irrelevant.  Why even bring it in to the conversation.

Because I expect those who are highly compensated to be able to perform the tasks of their job, which includes team chemistry issues.

My greater question is why you want to destroy college basketball in its current form? 

Strawman.  I think it would be fine.

Why do you want Loyola Chicago never to happen again?

Hyperbolic strawman.  "Never to happen again?"

Why do you want to bring in the problems of professionalism into a college basketball environment?

Because it isn't a problem.

Why is it a good idea to make the haves and have nots even further separated? You seem to advocate for only the haves because that is how this will shake out.

Because it doesn't really bother me?  Sorry but if you are so concerned about this, why don't you lobby the NCAA to equally distribute all television revenue, tournament revenue, etc.

Are these kids exploited?  How?  They are earning an invaluable college degree, seeing the country, honing their skills for future employers.  The way some of you articulate this as if it is slave labor.  It is not.  What's a degree worth to someone these days, not just the cost of education?  $3 to 4 million in a lifetime and that's if they don't play a single down, make a layup, or hit a home run, in other words don't play professionally.

I never said they were exploited.  I never said it was slave labor.  Even more strawmen.  (Which is a typical Chicos' tactic.)

Just because they are receiving the opportunity to earn an education, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to earn more.

[Pakuni]

That is one example you provide, but mine is not a bad take. Last year with the Washington Wizards and Gary Neal's antics with contracts and team chemistry?  2016 New York Jets and their team agenda, listen to the NY Media on that contractual squabbles by the vets and impact to the team.  Dwight Howard with the NBA on several teams.  Austin Rivers $35M contract with the Clippers and the problems it caused with teammates. 

Team chemistry is a fragile thing, some teams can pull it off like the Bulls. Usually with veterans that want to win.  Now make that work with 18 to 22 year olds that already have challenges of maturity, transferring due to lack of playing time and add this cocktail mix to it.

It's not only a bad take, it's a terrible take.
There have always been inequities among teammates, whether it be earnings, attention, preferential treatment, etc. The notion that Player A earning more than Player B destroys team chemistry is provably false, and have been proven false over and over and over again.
This simply is not a point worth arguing.

[cheebs09]

My greater question is why you want to destroy college basketball in its current form?  Why do you want Loyola Chicago never to happen again? Why do you want to bring in the problems of professionalism into a college basketball environment? Why is it a good idea to make the haves and have nots even further separated? You seem to advocate for only the haves because that is how this will shake out.

I just don’t see how this would end the Loyola type stories. Is it because high major boosters would be bidding on their best players to get them to transfer? I think that’s overblown, especially if they’d still have to sit a year.

Is someone going to go to Kentucky and be an 8th man for 30k rather than a smaller school to be the star for 5k? Maybe. With all the transferring already going on, is a booster going to want to sink any money into a player that could bust or transfer in a year?

[Pakuni]

My greater question is why you want to destroy college basketball in its current form?  Why do you want Loyola Chicago never to happen again?

Could you please explain how allowing, say, Marvin Bagley to sign a contract with Nike, or Collin Sexton to get paid for appearing in a local auto dealership's ad would "destroy college basketball" and prevent Loyola from ever happening again?

[forgetful]

Again, I doubt this. At best, you're assuming facts not in evidence, i.e. that the amount of spending on college athletic sponsorships being done right now is the absolute most that will ever be done, and companies simply would not expand their spending as opportunities expand.
History says this is false. Corporate investment in college athletic sponsorships has grown by millions, if not billions, of dollars over the past couple decade. Just in one recent year it grew nearly 6 percent: http://www.sponsorship.com/iegsr/2015/08/31/Sponsorship-Spending-On-College-Athletics-Totals-$.aspx


To assume that starting today those sponsorship budgets are frozen seems wrong.

You are way over simplifying this.  Universities project their spending increases off the current state of the business.  That includes growth projections in sponsorships.  Those growth projections will be incredibly wrong as they will divert some spending on athletes instead of Universities. 

That will lead to large cost deficits in University athletic budgets. 

What you've provided here is athletic department revenues/spending, not football. So, no, Wisconsin football is not operating at a $6 million loss. In fact, according to this, they were operating at a $24 million profit in 2013 (couldn't find anything more recent right now):
https://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciajessop/2013/08/31/the-economics-of-college-football-a-look-at-the-top-25-teams-revenues-and-expenses/#1c71abc06476

Athletic departments' losses - at least at most of the P5/P6 programs -  come not from football (or men's basketball), but from the spending needed for all the other sports that generate no revenue in return. The labors of the football and men's basketball players - along with student fees - subsidize the scholarships, equipment, travel, etc., for the field hockey, golf and soccer teams.

You are right, I didn't pay attention to the specifics of the USA report.  I had googled NCAA football revenue, and that was the top hit...should have paid more attention to what was actually in the article. 

I was wrong.
 
I will note though that the numbers in these documents take advantage of creative accounting, to mitigate the large costs of athletics.

[jutaw22mu]

Or they could do a commercial for a car dealer that would take a Sunday afternoon to shoot.


Ridiculous.  Preventing people from earning income because it might mess with "team chemistry" is a terrible reason not to allow people to earn income. 

Coaches are making six and seven figure incomes to deal with this stuff.

I agree with your points here.  Athletes should be allowed to do commercials and be compensated for their time.  If their likeness is used in video games, they should receive a cut too (assuming that pro players do as well). 

Moreover, part of a coach's job involves dealing with any chemistry issues---there are always going to be players who get more accolades than the others on any given team and issues associated with that but coaches have been dealing with that forever.

[forgetful]

Is someone going to go to Kentucky and be an 8th man for 30k rather than a smaller school to be the star for 5k? Maybe. With all the transferring already going on, is a booster going to want to sink any money into a player that could bust or transfer in a year?

They go to Kentucky to be the 8th man for free right now.  $30k would make that even more attractive.

And fully expect students to be forced to sign "marketing contracts" that stipulate that being a student/player at Kentucky is a requirement of the endorsement contract and if they leave the University or the team they will be in violation of the contract and required to pay back any incentives they received. 

These booster-based contracts will tie a player to a University.

Now that is an aside.  I agree with you that it wouldn't ruin Loyola-like stories, or sports as we know it.

[MU82]

Because I expect those who are highly compensated to be able to perform the tasks of their job, which includes team chemistry issues.


Strawman.  I think it would be fine.


Hyperbolic strawman.  "Never to happen again?"


Because it isn't a problem.


Because it doesn't really bother me?  Sorry but if you are so concerned about this, why don't you lobby the NCAA to equally distribute all television revenue, tournament revenue, etc.


I never said they were exploited.  I never said it was slave labor.  Even more strawmen.  (Which is a typical Chicos' tactic.)

Just because they are receiving the opportunity to earn an education, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to earn more.

Not to give your ego a boost it doesn't need, sultan, but you have kicked chicos' heinie on this subject so thoroughly that your foot must be hurting.

Pakuni also has done an excellent job beating back the doom-and-gloomers.

If I had $1 every time I heard or read that something or other was going to destroy college sports (or pro sports, for that matter), I'd be typing this from my beach chair on my private island.

[GGGG]

Not to give your ego a boost it doesn't need, sultan, but you have kicked chicos' heinie on this subject so thoroughly that your foot must be hurting.

Pakuni also has done an excellent job beating back the doom-and-gloomers.

If I had $1 every time I heard or read that something or other was going to destroy college sports (or pro sports, for that matter), I'd be typing this from my beach chair on my private island.

Thank you but it really isn't that difficult.

[WarriorDad]

It's not only a bad take, it's a terrible take.
There have always been inequities among teammates, whether it be earnings, attention, preferential treatment, etc. The notion that Player A earning more than Player B destroys team chemistry is provably false, and have been proven false over and over and over again.
This simply is not a point worth arguing.

How is it provably false when examples showing it happening have also occurred?  Some teams and coaches can deal with it, others cannot.  Because a team or teams can overcome it doesn't mean all can.   It would be like you saying all kids declaring after their freshman year are ready for the NBA because you rattle off examples of cases where they are, but ignore cases where they weren't. Life doesn't work that way in my opinion.

Could you please explain how allowing, say, Marvin Bagley to sign a contract with Nike, or Collin Sexton to get paid for appearing in a local auto dealership's ad would "destroy college basketball" and prevent Loyola from ever happening again?

In my view the haves will separate even further. Today no team can offer compensation, therefore a scholarship which results in a net $0 cost to any athlete is the same at any school.  Those schools that are in the middle, but small, will not have the resources to offer above and beyond the scholarship and lose out on players the receive today. This will be especially true for kids that come from difficult socioeconomic backgrounds. 

A school like Loyola that has not made any NCAA tournament in years, with small time support in attendance and sponsorships will lose out on some kids they get today.  Grad transfers is where things will be crazy because players don't have to sit out. It will become a bidding war, and a school like Loyola that has Custer returning this year in his grad season likely will not in the future because someone will pay him to switch schools.  I think that hurts college basketball.