92% of Economists agree that NCAA Athletes should be paid

[WarriorDad]

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?

Once the genie is out of the bottle it never goes back in.  If I am right, then the haves will dominate even more, the middle will either regress or have to come up with additional dollars to compete. Effectively the middle class of college athletics will be wiped out.

Grad transfers will become free agent bidding wars.

[WarriorDad]

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.

Accolades is different than $$$ when talking about a system in which every player on the team currently receives the same amount.  This introduces something never seen before in the college game and it will cause waves because human beings are human beings. College coaches have never had to deal with what we are talking about or some are proposing. 

[GGGG]

Accolades is different than $$$ when talking about a system in which every player on the team currently receives the same amount.  This introduces something never seen before in the college game and it will cause waves because human beings are human beings. College coaches have never had to deal with what we are talking about or some are proposing. 

They’ll adjust. They’re smart people. College basketball has changed before and it will change again.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Accolades is different than $$$ when talking about a system in which every player on the team currently receives the same amount.  This introduces something never seen before in the college game and it will cause waves because human beings are human beings. College coaches have never had to deal with what we are talking about or some are proposing.

This is actually happening now...kids are getting paid, just under the table...I bet the kids know who is getting money and how much more-so than the coaches (at least publicly).

[jutaw22mu]

This is actually happening now...kids are getting paid, just under the table...I bet the kids know who is getting money and how much more-so than the coaches (at least publicly).

Good point.

[MU82]

"Everybody knows everybody's getting paid. That's just how it is. Everybody's getting paid anyway, you might as well make it legal."

-- Lonzo Ball

[Pakuni]

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.

You threw out a few bad teams and, apropos of nothing, blamed their badness on the fact that some players  were in contract disputes.  This is
1) not provable (I mean, the 2016 Jets problem was a lack of talent, not lack of team chemistry)
2) contract disputes aren't about whether some players on a team earn more than others - which is always the case.

There has never been a time in professional sports during which every player was compensated 100 percent the same. So your claim that this has "ruined" professional sports is utter nonsense. If that were to "ruin" professional sports, it would have happened 80 years ago, not just when it's convenient for your bad NCAA takes.

Your freshman tp NBA analogy is nonsensical. I'm not really sure what that's supposed to mean, much less how it supports your argument.

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. 

Ducking the question.
I didn't ask about schools paying kids. I asked about kids earning compensation from outside sources, like signing an endorsement deal.
That said, your argument ignores a very basic reality of college sports: the playing level already is unequal, and always has been. Some schools can and do offer better facilities. Some can and do offer better academics. Some can and do offer better living arrangements. Some can and do offer better coaching. Some can and do offer more exposure. Some can and do offer better weather.

So, I'll ask again ... how does Marvin Bagley getting some money from Nike prevent Loyola from happening?

[TSmith34, Inc.]

apropos of nothing...utter nonsense...your analogy is nonsensical... not really sure how it supports your argument...Ducking the question... your argument ignores a very basic reality

So...standard Chicos then.

[Boozemon Barro]

Universities are corrupt and drunk off of government money. Lots of people getting rich while the younger generation builds a mountain of debt. Tuition increases are outpacing the rate of inflation by 2.5x, yet American students are falling behind other developed nations in academic achievement. This is the story of all socialist institutions.

[GGGG]

Universities are corrupt and drunk off of government money. Lots of people getting rich while the younger generation builds a mountain of debt. Tuition increases are outpacing the rate of inflation by 2.5x, yet American students are falling behind other developed nations in academic achievement. This is the story of all socialist institutions.

Getting rich?  I must be working in the wrong part of the university. 

[warriorchick]

Getting rich?  I must be working in the wrong part of the university.

Here is a map of Marquette in 1940:



See the building at the corner of eleventh and Michigan that has two tiny rooms that say "Bursar" and  "Registrar"? Those two rooms have been replaced by Zilber Hall, a building that is a city block long and 4 stories high.

[GGGG]

So outside of Opus, who's getting rich?  I was told there are "lots of people getting rich?"

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Universities are corrupt and drunk off of government money. Lots of people getting rich while the younger generation builds a mountain of debt. Tuition increases are outpacing the rate of inflation by 2.5x, yet American students are falling behind other developed nations in academic achievement. This is the story of all socialist institutions.

Nope.  It's this capitalistic concept of supply and demand.  Demand has skyrocketed as a college degree has become necessary for almost every good job.

[MU82]

Here is a map of Marquette in 1940:



See the building at the corner of eleventh and Michigan that has two tiny rooms that say "Bursar" and  "Registrar"? Those two rooms have been replaced by Zilber Hall, a building that is a city block long and 4 stories high.

Love looking at that map. Thanks for providing it.

[WarriorDad]

This is actually happening now...kids are getting paid, just under the table...I bet the kids know who is getting money and how much more-so than the coaches (at least publicly).

This I would have difficulty believing.  Kids cannot share secrets, especially in a social media age.  It would come out fairly quickly if others were getting paid under the table.  Bragging or whatever.  When Rowsey got suspended I knew exactly the reason why within a few hours because the students all knew and it spread like wildfire.

[WarriorDad]

You threw out a few bad teams and, apropos of nothing, blamed their badness on the fact that some players  were in contract disputes.  This is
1) not provable (I mean, the 2016 Jets problem was a lack of talent, not lack of team chemistry)
2) contract disputes aren't about whether some players on a team earn more than others - which is always the case.

I based it on comments from journalists that follow the teams, or comments from other players about members of the team that contractual disputes caused some problems.   

You are comparing a world in which 100% of the professional athletes are paid.  Is that going to happen in college basketball?  No, unlikely.  My position is that a few will, and those that don't COULD (not definite) will feel they should be getting some too.  That is a different reality than pro sports where all are paid, and even there contractual disputes cause problems.  Salary cap ceilings limit the pie, someone is going to get some that someone else doesn't. Or someone gets cut, or restructures to pay for someone else.

There has never been a time in professional sports during which every player was compensated 100 percent the same. So your claim that this has "ruined" professional sports is utter nonsense. If that were to "ruin" professional sports, it would have happened 80 years ago, not just when it's convenient for your bad NCAA takes.

Your freshman tp NBA analogy is nonsensical. I'm not really sure what that's supposed to mean, much less how it supports your argument.

Ducking the question.
I didn't ask about schools paying kids. I asked about kids earning compensation from outside sources, like signing an endorsement deal.
That said, your argument ignores a very basic reality of college sports: the playing level already is unequal, and always has been. Some schools can and do offer better facilities. Some can and do offer better academics. Some can and do offer better living arrangements. Some can and do offer better coaching. Some can and do offer more exposure. Some can and do offer better weather.

So, I'll ask again ... how does Marvin Bagley getting some money from Nike prevent Loyola from happening?

I did not ignore it.  Yes, the playing field is unlevel in some areas, but not with compensation.  That is the difference. Everyone receives the same scholarship amount.  Whether you are the star or whether you play 2 minutes a game, if you are on scholarship the value is the same.  I admitted that some conferences earn more, some have better facilities, you named it, but not when it comes to the value of the scholarship.  It is all the same.  That is significant.

I answered your Bagley question also.  In my view the haves will become even more dominant.  Teams in the middle will have to make a decision to play this game, or not. Those that do will attract players with $$.  Those that don't, will fall further down.  In my view Loyola will not play this game.  This becomes especially problematic for grad transfers.  Do you not believe there will be essentially free agency bidding for players that don't have to sit out by promising endorsement deals? 

[forgetful]

This I would have difficulty believing.  Kids cannot share secrets, especially in a social media age.  It would come out fairly quickly if others were getting paid under the table.  Bragging or whatever.  When Rowsey got suspended I knew exactly the reason why within a few hours because the students all knew and it spread like wildfire.

At a school to the West of us, I've heard of kids magically finding an envelope with $1k in their locker.  At other schools, I've known athletes that on their birthday receive anonymous packages with all kinds of expensive goodies in them. 

A suspension is one thing, kids really don't care about it.  Other things they will keep very tight to the vest, because of the consequences of acknowledging these random anonymous benefits. 

[Pakuni]

I admitted that some conferences earn more, some have better facilities, you named it, but not when it comes to the value of the scholarship.  It is all the same.  That is significant.

So the cost of tuition at every school is the same? Housing is identical? Food is identical? Quality of life is the same? Quality of academics is the same?
This is plainly false. The value of a scholarship varies widely from school to school, because what one receives as a student-athlete  varies widely from one school to the next.
For a kid who wants to be an engineer, the value of a scholarship to Stanford is quite a bit higher than the value of a scholarship to Washington State. For a kid who dreams of being a lawyer, a Northwestern scholarship is not "the same" as a Georgia Southern scholarship. For a kid who wants to play in the NFL, the value of a scholarship to Alabama is far higher than the value of a scholarship to Ball State.
Try as you might, you simply cannot separate the value of a scholarship from all that the scholarship entails. It's like arguing that a two-bedroom home in South LA is the same as a 6-bedroom home in Malibu because a home is a home is a home.

I answered your Bagley question also.  In my view the haves will become even more dominant.  Teams in the middle will have to make a decision to play this game, or not. Those that do will attract players with $$.  Those that don't, will fall further down.  In my view Loyola will not play this game.  This becomes especially problematic for grad transfers.  Do you not believe there will be essentially free agency bidding for players that don't have to sit out by promising endorsement deals?

This makes no sense. Why would Loyola care of Chris Custer got money for shaking hands at the local Chevy dealership? Why would they prevent Cameron Krutwig to earn a little side income by doing an ad for a local pizza place? What's it matter to Loyola?
As for grad transfers .... there's already free agency bidding, and who would do the promising of endorsement deals?

[WarriorDad]

So the cost of tuition at every school is the same? Housing is identical? Food is identical? Quality of life is the same? Quality of academics is the same?
This is plainly false. The value of a scholarship varies widely from school to school, because what one receives as a student-athlete  varies widely from one school to the next.
For a kid who wants to be an engineer, the value of a scholarship to Stanford is quite a bit higher than the value of a scholarship to Washington State. For a kid who dreams of being a lawyer, a Northwestern scholarship is not "the same" as a Georgia Southern scholarship. For a kid who wants to play in the NFL, the value of a scholarship to Alabama is far higher than the value of a scholarship to Ball State.
Try as you might, you simply cannot separate the value of a scholarship from all that the scholarship entails. It's like arguing that a two-bedroom home in South LA is the same as a 6-bedroom home in Malibu because a home is a home is a home.

I addressed this earlier but will do so again.  The net cost to the student athlete at Duke is $0.  The net cost to the student athlete at UNC-Greensboro is $0.  The net cost to the student athlete at Wisconsin, Notre Dame, SUNY Albany, Cal State Chico, Marquette, Rice, Oklahoma is $0. 

The value isn't $0, but the net cost is.  Thus the level playing field.  Even the value is going to be difficult to compare.  A private school out of pocket cost to every day Joe is more than public, but that's because the public is subsidizing the public cost with taxes.  Because UC Berkeley is less expensive than Depaul does that mean the Depaul educational value is higher?  No, which we agree with.  But that's not the role of the NCAA to make all schools of equal value, because that is impossible to do.  How would you control weather?  How would you control funding to specific academic departments?  What if a visiting professor with a Nobel prize came to a school?   

But the NCAA can control other aspects to level the playing field.  The one most oft used is extra benefits and total cost, and in that space all member institutions have to play by the same, level playing field rules.

This makes no sense. Why would Loyola care of Chris Custer got money for shaking hands at the local Chevy dealership? Why would they prevent Cameron Krutwig to earn a little side income by doing an ad for a local pizza place? What's it matter to Loyola?
As for grad transfers .... there's already free agency bidding, and who would do the promising of endorsement deals?

Using this argument, why would any school care if some booster is illegally funneling money to certain players?  What if that money was made illegally? Or was tied to activities that are legal in some states but not others (marijuana for example)?  What if the money was legitimate but came from tobacco company?  What if the money came from Larry Flynt, completely legal but he wanted a player to endorse his industry?  Is that ok?  Are only Chevy dealerships ok? 

Who would do the promising of endorsement deals?  If this were allowed, Coach Cal and every big time coach will have go to entities in town to fund their needs.  They will have a list of what company A, B, C, D can offer and a range of which to offer. 

Bad bad idea to go down this path.