It is not essentially free (unless you are going to argue that it is essentially free for any given student, which of course isn't true or there would be 0 cost to running a University). It is more expensive to have student athletes attend because of the additional services (both academic and athletic) offered to that group of students. A small number of those partially offset that amount with the value that they individually bring, and a smaller number fully or more than fully offset that amount. Arguing that the athletes should receive compensation beyond that academic and athletic services provided now is a perfectly reasonable position for a person to have, but trying to argue that those services are "essentially free" is ridiculous. You used to make good (although a bit strong) points on this subject but your rhetoric has become more and more extreme over time and it is taking away from the points you try to make.
I have no wish to enter this debate, I just wanted to share a data point since Acy brought it up. I remember reading an article several years back that during the championship year of 2010, Duke spent something like $363K per player for the entire year. Not sure if that covered the cost of academics or just athletics.
Carry on.
You are missing the point, so I must not be clear.
As I noted above, D1 schools spend 3-12 times more per student on athletes than they do on "regular" students: facilities, travel, training table, coaches, etc. And certainly that is one way to look at what players get in exchange for their labor at Duke (and elsewhere). My basketball player friends from the old days see what they got as invaluable. No argument.
But for the OAD player who doesn't want to be there -- who is simply putting in the time to be eligible for the NBA -- the hard coasts are negligible. It costs Duke next to nothing to put players in classes and into empty living space. Food is a hard cost. So are books and the stipend athletes now receive. And that's about it. My point is simply that the idea that players are being "paid" the sticker price cost of a Duke education is silly.
https://www.cnbc.com/id/35861926
This article mentions the 2008-2009 season - $394,068 per player. Although without shining a light on what those expenses entailed, it's tough to see where that money went... Glancing at the schedule we didn't do a ton of traveling that year; No Maui, just MSG. I'd assume some accounting gymnastics took place and some of the facility/equipment upgrades were looped into that figure, otherwise they broke it down and decided that's what a full season of private coaching sessions with the GOAT is worth. I mean, K Academy costs $10k for the week... Seems the players are getting a bargain for year-round coaching for under $400k.
I'm pleased that Duke did that because, as I understand it, NCAA rules do not require it. Moreover, players aren't entitled to anything even when they suffer career-ending or life-threatening injuries. Indeed, the sad case of Ray Dennison led to the myth of the "student-athlete."
Maybe we should change the name of this thread. I haven't heard anything from Wendell's mom lately, so it appears she's cooled off.
Can't say that for some of the forum members.
That very well may be true, I would guess that includes some "per player" assignment of staff costs. But just because we did not go to Maui or MSG does not mean we did not have to cover hotel, bus, and flight costs for travel to less high-profile locations. And I kind of doubt our guys are flying economy...some of them probably wouldn't fit in economy if they wanted to.
If the proposal is that players should be compensated based on their fair market value, then the corresponding benefits provided to scholarship athletes should likewise be measured based on fair market value, which is the lost opportunity to generate income from other sources by offering those benefits to a willing buyer on the open market. Applying that standard, the costs to Duke of providing full academic benefits to any athlete -- whether a star one-and-done player who is destined to earn millions in the NBA or a career backup -- equals the total cost of tuition, room, board, and fees for an ordinary Duke undergraduate student. (After all, Duke wouldn't likely want to leave classroom seats and dorm rooms empty when thousands of qualified applicants are clamoring for the opportunity to occupy them.) Of course, scholarship athletes receive substantial additional benefits, including private tutoring, personal training/medical services, travel expenses, apparel, insurance, etc. We can only speculate about the total amount of revenue that Duke could realize if it offered those benefits for sale on the open market -- I can easily imagine some wealthy alumni who would pay a tidy sum just for the privilege of traveling with the team and sitting on the bench, or providing that dream opportunity for their child -- but I'm guessing that if the compensated players were required to pay all of their own expenses based on the fair market value of those benefits, any who make less than $250,000 might find it difficult to make ends meet.
Per player spending is a strange thing anyway. I mean, would you take a job for minimum wage if they built a multi-million dollar showering facility for you and your coworkers? Or flew you on a Lear jet to and from work?
But... We spent 10 million dollars on you! That's great, but I got a paycheck for $300...
Obviously ridiculous examples, but "per player spending" can be, say ten pairs of Nike for forty basketball games - there's about $2k... But you can't eat it or spend it
Good point, but does it change the calculus at all if you are just entering the job market for the first time, and instead of a multi-million dollar shower facility it was a multi-million dollar facility with some of the best equipment and resources available for training in your given field (with excellent connections for elite job placement 1-5 years down the line) in addition to some high-end leisure amenities (I would like to fly around in a lear jet...)? I've been in my current field for about two years and I would probably still take that deal right now if offered.
The main argument for why that isn't sufficient is that the players don't have other good options available, but I remain unconvinced that should be the NCAA's problem to solve, and it actually seems to bolster the NCAA's position because in theory if there was viable, competitive business model where the same players got paid one would expect in a capitalistic society that someone would have pursued it by now.