Meanwhile, down to the wire on O'Bannon v. NCAA

[Indoor66]

Or else the NCAA will be forced (sooner or later) to put the money toward anti-trust lawyers and 9-figure fines. If they give up their quixotic fight for "amateurism", it could go to students instead. I prefer the latter.

On solvency: I doubt there are more than ~50 mbball athletes/year whose collegiate play is worth significant $$$. Universities could recoup their investment by taking an equity stake in their future earnings, in return for fronting them a salary + national exposure.

Now, that ain't gonna happen!

[Richard Berg]

ain't gonna happen!

Why? It's pretty similar to how professors are hired: comfortable salary + access to university facilities & staff, knowing that the good performers will eventually bring millions of $$ in grant money, from which the university takes its cut.

Basketball stars-in-training wouldn't need nearly as much money, of course. Only a tiny # of Okafors nationwide could command a salary on par with a full-time researcher. The Amile Jeffersons of the world are more like TAs.

If the concern is oversight over expenses, well, universities already have those processes in place too. If Amile wants to attend a summer camp for big men, he can apply for reimbursement thru the same channels that a grad student would use to attend a conference / workshop in his field. Amile's market value can't be more than a few thousand bucks; it's crazy that we'd force him to pay for travel out of such a tiny salary (let alone out-of-pocket, as in the status quo).

[swood1000]

I agree with the first part of this, sorta. The comparison of revenue and expenses is not really relevant. All the institutions we're talking about are non-profit, so revenue and expenses have to equal out eventually. If schools are forced to shell out extra money to something, it has to come out of somewhere else. If it can come out of "lavish" spending on other things, okay, but it's not clear that will (or can, for many schools) happen. It's really tricky to determine what is fair here.

My point is this: people say that there's plenty of athletic revenue out of which the $5,000/person can be paid. The university counters that by claiming that after subtracting the athletic expenses from the athletic revenue there's really nothing left, so the $5,000 can't be paid out of athletic revenues. The question is whether this is true or whether they have "padded" the athletic expenses to make it seem like they have already used up all the athletic revenues, or whether they have paid the coaching staff more than was necessary, giving the appearance that all the athletic revenue has already been used up.

I don't agree with the last part of swood's statement either. Every company (and non-profit organizations even more so) has to take money generated from one area and spend it on another - why are athletic departments not allowed to do this? And frankly, only a few players (the stars of the team) add most of the total value added by the players, but the $5000 proposal is for everyone to be paid equally, which is doing the same thing. Seems like a terrible argument to me. And I don't know where the additional subsidies for non-revenue sports would come from - state appropriations have continued to be cut year after year (even as state revenues have turned around, but that's another story). It's not like cutting (even deeper) on the academic side would go over well, not when academic departments already don't have enough money in their teaching budgets to cover things like office supplies.

The argument being made here is similar to the above. The school says that after subtracting athletic expenses from athletic revenue there is no athletic revenue left out of which to pay into the trust fund. Those arguing on behalf of SAs who want a share of the revenue might say that the costs of the non-revenue sports should not be subtracted as expenses in this calculation since they really were not expenses necessary to generate that revenue (as basketball and football coach salaries were). The argument is that the costs of non-revenue sports should not be subtracted any more than costs of maintaining the chemistry lab should be subtracted. And when you don't subtract these expenses the athletic revenues exceed the athletic expenses by enough to be able to pay into the trust fund.

If there is enough athletic net revenue to pay into the trust fund without having to draw money from some other part of the university then it's easier to make the argument that the university should pay into the trust fund.

[Richard Berg]

The school says that after subtracting athletic expenses from athletic revenue there is no athletic revenue left out of which to pay into the trust fund. Those arguing on behalf of SAs who want a share of the revenue might say that the costs of the non-revenue sports should not be subtracted as expenses in this calculation since they really were not expenses necessary to generate that revenue (as basketball and football coach salaries were). The argument is that the costs of non-revenue sports should not be subtracted any more than costs of maintaining the chemistry lab should be subtracted. And when you don't subtract these expenses the athletic revenues exceed the athletic expenses by enough to be able to pay into the trust fund.

It's simpler than that, really. Every organization (universities included) has way more potential expenses than available budget. It's all a matter of priorities.

Some universities will pay athletes by cutting back on fancy buildings and 7-figure coaches (yay). Others will pay athletes by cutting back on chemistry labs (boo). Top destinations like Duke might sidestep the accounting game, preferring to convince recruits that a Duke degree alone is worth more than a Kentucky degree + $20K trust fund. Bottom-feeders like SC State should probably drop out of D1, which is fine.

Bottom line: good schools will put their students first. Bad ones won't...which is sad, but no different from today: as we've seen in this very thread, most athletic departments are already budget sinks, i.e. suck money away from the educational departments. And no, I don't think the NCAA (or any other regulator short of the .gov's purse strings) can force universities to prioritize education over athletics.

[Indoor66]

My point is this: people say that there's plenty of athletic revenue out of which the $5,000/person can be paid. The university counters that by claiming that after subtracting the athletic expenses from the athletic revenue there's really nothing left, so the $5,000 can't be paid out of athletic revenues. The question is whether this is true or whether they have "padded" the athletic expenses to make it seem like they have already used up all the athletic revenues, or whether they have paid the coaching staff more than was necessary, giving the appearance that all the athletic revenue has already been used up.


The argument being made here is similar to the above. The school says that after subtracting athletic expenses from athletic revenue there is no athletic revenue left out of which to pay into the trust fund. Those arguing on behalf of SAs who want a share of the revenue might say that the costs of the non-revenue sports should not be subtracted as expenses in this calculation since they really were not expenses necessary to generate that revenue (as basketball and football coach salaries were). The argument is that the costs of non-revenue sports should not be subtracted any more than costs of maintaining the chemistry lab should be subtracted. And when you don't subtract these expenses the athletic revenues exceed the athletic expenses by enough to be able to pay into the trust fund.

If there is enough athletic net revenue to pay into the trust fund without having to draw money from some other part of the university then it's easier to make the argument that the university should pay into the trust fund.

From what pot of gold does the money for the non-revenue sports come from. Or are we going to do away with them? Bye Bye soccer, tennis, golf, track, cross country, swimming, fencing, etc. Also, who pays for the intramural athletic fields and facilities? Ah, the darn intricacies of it all. I know, just increase student fees.

[Richard Berg]

From what pot of gold does the money for the non-revenue sports come from. Or are we going to do away with them? Bye Bye soccer, tennis, golf, track, cross country, swimming, fencing, etc. Also, who pays for the intramural athletic fields and facilities? Ah, the darn intricacies of it all. I know, just increase student fees.

The same way we fund scholarships for exceptional talents in music or science or community service or whatever. Donors give money. Some of the money has strings attached ("the Joe Blow Fellowship in Basket-Weaving"). Most does not, allowing the university to prioritize as it sees fit (in accordance with Title IX etc).

If the end result is a smaller ratio of full-ride athletes to full-ride mathletes, I'm ok with that.

[Duvall]

The same way we fund scholarships for exceptional talents in music or science or community service or whatever. Donors give money. Some of the money has strings attached ("the Joe Blow Fellowship in Basket-Weaving"). Most does not, allowing the university to prioritize as it sees fit (in accordance with Title IX etc).

If the end result is a smaller ratio of full-ride athletes to full-ride mathletes, I'm ok with that.

Okay, but that ratio isn't changing because there are more academic scholarships, it's because schools are shifting their focus from supporting non-revenue sports with scholarships to supporting the revenue sports - because if those sports are going to have payrolls they had better damned well be successful and profitable. It won't mean the end of seven-figure salaries for college football and basketball coaches, it will mean the beginning of eight-figure salaries for those coaches.

If you're okay with that, then that's fine. I'm just frustrated by the lack of candor from the Bilases of the world about what they are actually proposing.

[swood1000]

From what pot of gold does the money for the non-revenue sports come from. Or are we going to do away with them? Bye Bye soccer, tennis, golf, track, cross country, swimming, fencing, etc. Also, who pays for the intramural athletic fields and facilities? Ah, the darn intricacies of it all. I know, just increase student fees.

Universities don't use profit/loss accounting like for-profit entities do. But a for-profit entity, in order to determine whether a division of the company is profitable, will take the revenues of the division and subtract from them the expenses necessary to generate that revenue. MBB athletes might say the same thing. Take the basketball revenue and subtract the expenses necessary to generate that revenue (coach's salaries, gym maintenance, etc.) After you have done that, is there enough left to create a trust fund for the MBB athletes? If so, then they would say that we have enough revenue to do so and that it is appropriate to do so since that was an expense necessary to generate that revenue.

As far as the pot of gold from which we are going to fund archery, they would ask why we even have archery, and what claim archery has on MBB revenue. Why does archery have a claim on MBB revenue but the expenses of the chemistry lab are not a claim on MBB revenue? From what pot of gold are we going to fund the chemistry lab? If that fund is limited then we need to decide our priorities and determine whether we want to have a chemistry lab or an archery team, or so they would argue.

[Richard Berg]

Okay, but that ratio isn't changing because there are more academic scholarships, it's because schools are shifting their focus from supporting non-revenue sports with scholarships to supporting the revenue sports - because if those sports are going to have payrolls they had better damned well be successful and profitable. It won't mean the end of seven-figure salaries for college football and basketball coaches, it will mean the beginning of eight-figure salaries for those coaches.

If you're okay with that, then that's fine. I'm just frustrated by the lack of candor from the Bilases of the world about what they are actually proposing.

I'm skeptical they'd find it cost-effective to spend that kind of money. Sports victories are a zero-sum game, after all. You're talking about NBA level salaries, for a talent pool where only a select few even make it into the D-League (5-figure salary).

But hey, if athletic depts discover that's what it takes to balance their books, fine. If D1 swimming reverts to intramural in the process, fine. What matters is that they contribute (net) funds to the university pot of gold, rather than taking away from it like almost everyone does today.

[swood1000]

I'm skeptical they'd find it cost-effective to spend that kind of money. Sports victories are a zero-sum game, after all. You're talking about NBA level salaries, for a talent pool where only a select few even make it into the D-League (5-figure salary).

But hey, if athletic depts discover that's what it takes to balance their books, fine. If D1 swimming reverts to intramural in the process, fine. What matters is that they contribute (net) funds to the university pot of gold, rather than taking away from it like almost everyone does today.

So, do you believe that the supposed benefits of amateurism are illusory and that college athletes should be under no such restrictions? Recruits sign with the team willing to pay the highest salary?

[swood1000]

But hey, if athletic depts discover that's what it takes to balance their books, fine. If D1 swimming reverts to intramural in the process, fine. What matters is that they contribute (net) funds to the university pot of gold, rather than taking away from it like almost everyone does today.

But the mission of the university is education, not profit. Whether a class or program should be offered depends on whether the educational value exceeds the cost. Otherwise, why not just use the university facilities for factories or other uses with profit as the principal criterion?

Why should D1 swimming be required to generate a profit and the Department of Romance Languages not? The answer would have to be that swimming does not have as much educational value, but is that true? A person who believes that the worth of university programs is to be primarily judged by whether they make a profit has abandoned the historical understanding of the purpose of a university.

[Richard Berg]

So, do you believe that the supposed benefits of amateurism are illusory and that college athletes should be under no such restrictions? Recruits sign with the team willing to pay the highest salary?

Yes, I think the benefits of amateurism are illusory (and for the most part, always were). Regardless, I don't think revenue-sport athletes can be called "amateur" by any credible definition.

I don't think salary will tip the needle that much, actually. Average D1 players will be hard pressed to field offers that vary by more than a couple grand -- probably not enough to keep a HS kid from choosing his hometown favorite / the coach he clicked with / his preferred degree program. For a select few with elite skills and/or desperate family finances, the difference could be life changing; hopefully nobody will begrudge those kids from chasing the highest bid.

Endorsements might prove a bigger factor. Local advertisers know that Kentucky players have their state's undivided loyalty, while they'd have to tread carefully before putting a Texas player's face in an A&M-leaning media market. Would be interesting to see this play out. Even so I think the best recruits would still end up at (roughly) the same schools they do today.

But the mission of the university is education, not profit.

Completely agree. Unfortunately, nothing prevents a university from slashing educational budgets in order to prop up sports. Most D1 athletics run at a loss (i.e. are siphoning funds from the university's operating budget), yet the NCAA doesn't even pretend to care. Labor negotiations within the athletics world, O'Bannon included, will not (and indeed cannot) change this. It will only stop if the DoE threatens to withdraw Federal funds from those schools...which will never happen.

Best we can do is advocate (as fans and donors) for our schools to do the right thing. Namely: give fair offers to our athletic recruits, collect the fruit of their labor, and direct those profits back to education. For an elite private school like Duke, I'd define "education" as need-based scholarships. For a struggling school like SC State, it might just mean instructor payroll. In both cases, swimming scholarships are WAY down on the priority list, sorry.

[swood1000]

Yes, I think the benefits of amateurism are illusory (and for the most part, always were). Regardless, I don't think revenue-sport athletes can be called "amateur" by any credible definition.

Here's the NCAA short definition of amateurism:

Amateur competition is a bedrock principle of college athletics and the NCAA. Maintaining amateurism is crucial to preserving an academic environment in which acquiring a quality education is the first priority. In the collegiate model of sports, the young men and women competing on the field or court are students first, athletes second.

The NCAA membership has adopted amateurism rules to ensure the students' priority remains on obtaining a quality educational experience and that all of student-athletes are competing equitably.

All incoming student-athletes must be certified as amateurs. With global recruiting becoming more common, determining the amateur status of prospective student-athletes can be challenging. All student-athletes, including international students, are required to adhere to NCAA amateurism requirements to remain eligible for intercollegiate competition.

In general, amateurism requirements do not allow:

• Contracts with professional teams
• Salary for participating in athletics
• Prize money above actual and necessary expenses
• Play with professionals
• Tryouts, practice or competition with a professional team
• Benefits from an agent or prospective agent
• Agreement to be represented by an agent
• Delayed initial full-time collegiate enrollment to participate in organized sports competition

Why is this not a credible definition?

[Richard Berg]

Young men cannot be "students first, athletes second" when there are tens of billions of dollars riding on their athletic performance. The fact they must also follow a 500-page rulebook does not change the fundamental nature of their labor.

Simply because they employ (well compensated) compliance officers to dot their i's and cross their t's does not make them "amateurs", any more than Exxon's EPA paperwork makes them an "environmental company".

edit: to be clear, this is not a criticism of either. I like sports. I like energy. I simply reserve the right to call a spade a spade.

[swood1000]

Young men cannot be "students first, athletes second" when there are tens of billions of dollars riding on their athletic performance.

I don't follow this.Take an average Duke MBB player from this past season and suppose instead that Duke did not receive millions of dollars from broadcasting the games and from winning the tournament. What change would this have produced in the average Duke player? Would he have approached things differently? Can you clarify your point?

[swood1000]

Young men cannot be "students first, athletes second" when there are tens of billions of dollars riding on their athletic performance. The fact they must also follow a 500-page rulebook does not change the fundamental nature of their labor.

Simply because they employ (well compensated) compliance officers to dot their i's and cross their t's does not make them "amateurs", any more than Exxon's EPA paperwork makes them an "environmental company".

edit: to be clear, this is not a criticism of either. I like sports. I like energy. I simply reserve the right to call a spade a spade.

My city has a city championship golf tournament that does not allow professional golfers to compete. Is there something wrong with this? Suppose they televised the tournament locally and had some revenue which they used to run the tournament or hire some staff or invested for some future use. Would there be something wrong with this? Would you argue that some of the revenue must be distributed to the amateur golfers? If an amateur golfer doesn't like the fact that there is going to be some revenue generated in part by his golf, and that he will not share in it, he can refuse to participate, right? Or he can organize his own tournament with a different set of rules. What's wrong with this? Have his rights been abridged?

[Richard Berg]

I don't follow this.Take an average Duke MBB player from this past season and suppose instead that Duke did not receive millions of dollars from broadcasting the games and from winning the tournament. What change would this have produced in the average Duke player? Would he have approached things differently? Can you clarify your point?

Is this a serious question? Without outside money, Duke basketball would look radically different. Players would join & quit frequently, uninhibited by conditional scholarships, like any other volunteer / student club. No 80 hour work weeks. The small army of conditioning coaches, physical therapists, nutritionists, academic advisers, tutors, etc that currently shepherd them thru their daily routine would all be working in the private sector somewhere. No wood paneled varsity-only weight rooms, study lounges, or video booths. No SportsVue or Blue Planet. The team would travel by school bus. The ACC would replace Syracuse and Miami with Elon and Davidson. Final Four tickets would cost $50 and fit comfortably into Reynolds Coliseum.

Our 2015 starters would've played for European club teams. Most of our role players would've pursued degrees near their hometown, at jucos or Div 3 schools you've never heard of. MP3 would be 1st Team ACC. Coach K would have roughly the same number of championship rings, but they would say "Lakers" on them.

[Richard Berg]

My city has a city championship golf tournament that does not allow professional golfers to compete. Is there something wrong with this? Suppose they televised the tournament locally and had some revenue which they used to run the tournament or hire some staff or invested for some future use. Would there be something wrong with this? Would you argue that some of the revenue must be distributed to the amateur golfers? If an amateur golfer doesn't like the fact that there is going to be some revenue generated in part by his golf, and that he will not share in it, he can refuse to participate, right? Or he can organize his own tournament with a different set of rules. What's wrong with this? Have his rights been abridged?

Nothing wrong with that.

Get back to me when your city has conspired with 1000 other cities across the USA, made utter dedication to golf a condition of city residence, dictated what outside contacts a resident may & may not have, and threatened to blackball them from the other 999 cities if they disobey.

[bob blue devil]

...
Our 2015 starters would've played for European club teams. Most of our role players would've pursued degrees near their hometown, at jucos or Div 3 schools you've never heard of.

so you're saying these athletes who deserve to be paid actually do have alternatives to get paid, but are freely choosing the terribly unfair package offered by a member of the ncaa "cartel"? i wonder how the schools are pulling this off - must be some sort of evil magic, because certainly the deal is not fair.

apologies for the sarcasm - couldn't help myself as i am emotionally vested on the other side of the argument. simply put, if duke (or any school) competed for athletes on salary, i'd probably lose all interest and advocate converting to a div2 program or whatever the alternative would be. you think keeping athletes eligible was a conflict before, well wait until you start paying someone a hefty salary...

[swood1000]

Is this a serious question? Without outside money, Duke basketball would look radically different. Players would join & quit frequently, uninhibited by conditional scholarships, like any other volunteer / student club.

Really don't follow this. We're just saying that Duke does not receive millions of dollars from this. The games are still televised and the championships are still held. One of the reasons recruits come to Duke is for the national exposure. Most games are televised nationally. There's plenty of attention from the national press. There's a significant chance of winning a national championship. All this exposure allows them to be noticed by the NBA scouts and to build a following. Why would they join and quit frequently? Do you think that's what they did back in 1900. They were undisciplined and didn't really care? Harvard didn't care whether they beat Yale and so the Harvard athletes wouldn't show up for practice?

The small army of conditioning coaches, physical therapists, nutritionists, academic advisers, tutors, etc that currently shepherd them thru their daily routine would all be working in the private sector somewhere. No wood paneled varsity-only weight rooms, study lounges, or video booths.

I agree with this. The staff would be reduced significantly but so what? Would the athletes be less motivated because of that? No country club setting but no other team would have it any better. Would that make them less motivated?

No SportsVue or Blue Planet.

Why not? There would still be fan interest.

The team would travel by school bus. The ACC would replace Syracuse and Miami with Elon and Davidson.

Even if it were true that team travel could not be accommodated, which I don't think would have to be the case, is there an insufficient number of worthy opponents within a bus ride from Duke? Back in the days of Babe Ruth did sports teams lack fan support because airlines were not available to fly them to distant cities?

Final Four tickets would cost $50 and fit comfortably into Reynolds Coliseum.

Because of a lack of fan interest? Why?

Coach K would have roughly the same number of championship rings, but they would say "Lakers" on them.

Back in the early years of Adolph Rupp there were no competent college coaches because the big bucks were not there?

So I asked what change would be produced in the average Duke player if Duke did not receive millions of dollars, and is it your answer that the average Duke player would no longer be interested in playing basketball, and the fans would no longer care about the team, even if the team were just as successful?