Dispelling notions about the NCAA

[uh_no]

The NCAA is not exactly rolling in cash

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6047149

When you say "players should get paid" (a la bilas), are you willing to cut sports to do it? because unless you are, it's not economically feasible.

Sorry Duke Volleyball and wrestling, you have to go away so we can pay the basketball players their money!

[dukelilsis]

I understand what you are saying, however, I have long felt that players deserve a stipend of some kind. I was Speaker Pro Tempore for the Student Legislature at UNCC and I got a stipend. Actually, I even got one when I was the Student Activities Committee Chair. I brought no revenue to the university and what I did, sadly, was of little consequence in the grand scheme of things. The sports programs at universities not only bring in money but they also help in the recruitment of students. When you consider that the kids who work in the campus candy/coffee/newspaper shop get paid by the university, I don't think it is asking too much to allow the student atheletes the same type of compensation. I'm not referring to a major salary--just a little extra money. Afterall, at one time, the student managers for the men's basketball team received a pay check while the players received nothing. (I have no idea if managers are paid now or not.)

[sagegrouse]

The NCAA is not exactly rolling in cash

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6047149

When you say "players should get paid" (a la bilas), are you willing to cut sports to do it? because unless you are, it's not economically feasible.

Sorry Duke Volleyball and wrestling, you have to go away so we can pay the basketball players their money!

That's a false choice IMHO (where the H is invariably silent). There is no logical connection between a tiny increase in the tens of millions spent on basketball and a decrease in the tens of thousands spent on minor sports. Paying 12 basketball players a few bucks would be lost in the noise. Moreover, I believe I have seen figures on the athletic budget revenue of $60 million or higher.

sagegrouse

[mapei]

I understand what you are saying, however, I have long felt that players deserve a stipend of some kind. I was Speaker Pro Tempore for the Student Legislature at UNCC and I got a stipend. Actually, I even got one when I was the Student Activities Committee Chair. I brought no revenue to the university and what I did, sadly, was of little consequence in the grand scheme of things. The sports programs at universities not only bring in money but they also help in the recruitment of students. When you consider that the kids who work in the campus candy/coffee/newspaper shop get paid by the university, I don't think it is asking too much to allow the student atheletes the same type of compensation. I'm not referring to a major salary--just a little extra money. Afterall, at one time, the student managers for the men's basketball team received a pay check while the players received nothing. (I have no idea if managers are paid now or not.)

I'm not sure that's a valid analogy unless you also received a scholarship explicitly for your potential as a student government guy. A scholarship is worth tens of thousands of dollars and, if that's not enough, don't go to school & refine your sports skills in the d-league or somewhere else.

[Acymetric]

That's a false choice IMHO (where the H is invariably silent). There is no logical connection between a tiny increase in the tens of millions spent on basketball and a decrease in the tens of thousands spent on minor sports. Paying 12 basketball players a few bucks would be lost in the noise. Moreover, I believe I have seen figures on the athletic budget revenue of $60 million or higher.

sagegrouse

$60 mil? I've been under the impression that the majority of athetic departments are in the red. Plus its not just the 12 basketball players, its the 85 football players. I also think there are people who would not let it fly for the men to get paid and not the women (regardless of how much sense it makes).

Would these stipends be mandated or is it optional for the school?

[mgtr]

I also think there are people who would not let it fly for the men to get paid and not the women (regardless of how much sense it makes).


I think there are lots and lots of people who would make this argument. I taught at a college (Div 2 in those days) where the women faculty members kept arguing that the only reason that the men's team got more attendance (and, therefore, many more $$) than the women's team was that the women, in effect, played the warmup game for the men. When cornered with this argument, the men's coach answered that he would be happy to play first, and then see how many people stayed around for the women's game. Now, obviously, neither team was in Duke's league, and not even the men's game filled the gym.
The coach never got any takers on this schedule switch, since then they wouldn't have an argument. But they still kept making the argument.

[CDu]

I understand what you are saying, however, I have long felt that players deserve a stipend of some kind. I was Speaker Pro Tempore for the Student Legislature at UNCC and I got a stipend. Actually, I even got one when I was the Student Activities Committee Chair. I brought no revenue to the university and what I did, sadly, was of little consequence in the grand scheme of things. The sports programs at universities not only bring in money but they also help in the recruitment of students. When you consider that the kids who work in the campus candy/coffee/newspaper shop get paid by the university, I don't think it is asking too much to allow the student atheletes the same type of compensation. I'm not referring to a major salary--just a little extra money. Afterall, at one time, the student managers for the men's basketball team received a pay check while the players received nothing. (I have no idea if managers are paid now or not.)

You're ignoring the fact that the scholarship players als get a full scholarship covering tuition, room, and board. They also their on-campus meals for free (at least I'm pretty sure football and basketball players still get a free meal plan - they did when I was at Duke). The scholarship bball players have next to no expenses unless they're elective. The same is not true of the work study students who get a pay check.

[dukelilsis]

Actually, I was on scholarship with tuition, board, books and meal plan all covered. I did have to pay for my parking decal but that was it. No, it was not for my political abilities (I would've never gotten a free lunch based on that :)). Still, I was in a situation where I could take on a part time job for added expenses while most student athletes are not due to time constraints. Again, I understand your point and respect that scholarship players do get a lot in exchange for their playing time. I just feel that a stipend wouldn't be a bad thing. We have had plenty of kids who are in a good situation when it comes to money (I'm sure Grant Hill never had a need for spending money) but there are even more college kids who don't have those extra funds for little things. When I went to college I had a full ride for the essentials yet, since my parents were retired, I had to have a source of income. When does a college basketball player have time for a job waiting tables? They don't because they are putting in so much time pounding the hardwood. Maybe I'm just naive or too tender hearted.

[SCMatt33]

The NCAA is not exactly rolling in cash

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6047149

When you say "players should get paid" (a la bilas), are you willing to cut sports to do it? because unless you are, it's not economically feasible.

Sorry Duke Volleyball and wrestling, you have to go away so we can pay the basketball players their money!

This situation is why I think that for those who believe in paying athletes (I'm somewhat ambivalent on the subject, but would lean towards nothing more than a stipend), they "Jay Bilas" model is actually a good one. If you go back and read Jay's writing on the subject, he does not believe that players should be directly paid by the schools, conferences, or the NCAA for their services, but rather that they should be allowed to earn endorsement money similar to what Olympic athletes do. Michael Phelps is not paid by the IOC or the USOC, and his gold medals did not come with prize money, but he is allowed to make Nike commercials and get paid for it. Under this model, players could still make money, but the schools wouldn't have to pay them.

Are there problems with this model, yes. You would have to come up with a way where Phil Knight couldn't just offer potential players bigger contracts than they're worth on the condition that they go to Oregon. You'd also have to insure that players can still spend sufficient time on academics if they're going to film commercials in addition to team obligations. These problems are big enough where I don't support the plan in the way Jay presented it, but it does show that there are way to pay players without added strain on struggling athletic departments.


$60 mil? I've been under the impression that the majority of athetic departments are in the red. Plus its not just the 12 basketball players, its the 85 football players. I also think there are people who would not let it fly for the men to get paid and not the women (regardless of how much sense it makes).

Would these stipends be mandated or is it optional for the school?

Most schools are in the red, but sagegrouse was quoting revenues, not profits. Say you paid a 13 member team $5000 for the season (which I think would be high for a stipend, but wanted to be liberal), you would end up with an extra 65,000 dollars on the books. For a private school like Duke, that's barely more than one extra scholarship. No matter what, compared to the numbers that the departments deal with, it would be fairly insignificant to their final numbers. Even if they are in the red, they would have no trouble going that much farther into the red compared to cutting costs for other sports.

[throatybeard]

I love Mike Krzyzewski and David Cutcliffe, but I won't shed a single tear if one day, Duke decides to go the UChicago route. The purpose of the school is not to prop up fun sports. I like watching fun sports. But the re-appropriation of higher ed for televised sports is ridiculous. And when travel gets more expensive due to energy austerity (sorry, PPB), this will become more clear.

[Bob Green]

And when travel gets more expensive due to energy austerity (sorry, PPB), this will become more clear.

You raise a good point. The future might be a return to the pass when teams played a regional schedule.

[J.Blink]

FWIW, I agree with Throatybeard.

I went to both Duke and UChicago and while both schools had very strong positives and very strong negatives, I too would not ultimately mind if Duke went the UChicago route. Few athletics (or effectively no athletics--they bulldozed their football field to build a library!) certainly hasn't hurt them...

The thing that really gets me is how tired I am of advertisements. Rationally, it's completely understandable (and extends far beyond just Duke), and I can't blame Duke for wanting to make a buck (though I think they take it to extremes far too often). But I really miss the days when in Wallace Wade they just showed a list of other game scores, it wasn't the "Kangaroo" 'hop around the country' scoreboard, nor the honeybaked ham perfect spiral play of the game, etc etc etc. Cameron isn't so bad, but with the incredibly loud PA this year and the more "cheesy" announcer (and court level video boards) it seems heading in that direction.

The main downside would be nobody to slap Carolina around with impunity!

[Richard Berg]

I've never said the NCAA / university athletic departments should pay players. Brand-name athletes are more than capable of making money on their own.

No -- what grates me to no end are the NCAA rules that actively prevent scholarship recipients from taking advantage of their god-given talents. It's not just stupid, it's borderline criminal.

[Indoor66]

What happens to the great majority of the players and the top schools and about all the players at the "lesser" schools who no one wants to hire for endorsements? Check out pro rosters and see how many players have endorsements.

The idea that endorsements are a meaningfull solution to the concept of paying players is ridiculous.

[kmspeaks]

Actually, I was on scholarship with tuition, board, books and meal plan all covered. I did have to pay for my parking decal but that was it. No, it was not for my political abilities (I would've never gotten a free lunch based on that :)). Still, I was in a situation where I could take on a part time job for added expenses while most student athletes are not due to time constraints. Again, I understand your point and respect that scholarship players do get a lot in exchange for their playing time. I just feel that a stipend wouldn't be a bad thing. We have had plenty of kids who are in a good situation when it comes to money (I'm sure Grant Hill never had a need for spending money) but there are even more college kids who don't have those extra funds for little things. When I went to college I had a full ride for the essentials yet, since my parents were retired, I had to have a source of income. When does a college basketball player have time for a job waiting tables? They don't because they are putting in so much time pounding the hardwood. Maybe I'm just naive or too tender hearted.

You work a summer job and save as much of that money as you can or you take out a student loan for some spending money. You might have to make some sacrifices. Maybe you're drinking Natty light instead of the good stuff or you go to the movie but skip the popcorn, but unless the wages for on campus jobs have vastly increased in the 8 months since I graduated then the students who are counting on that for spending money are in the same boat you are.

I was a student athlete and, with the exception of a handful of football/basketball superstars, you're really going to have a hard time convincing me that the system is doing student athletes a disservice by providing them with a scholarship and housing but not some kind of stipend.

[Richard Berg]

What happens to the great majority of the players and the top schools and about all the players at the "lesser" schools who no one wants to hire for endorsements?
They get a free education?

[Chitowndevil]

I love Mike Krzyzewski and David Cutcliffe, but I won't shed a single tear if one day, Duke decides to go the UChicago route. The purpose of the school is not to prop up fun sports. I like watching fun sports. But the re-appropriation of higher ed for televised sports is ridiculous. And when travel gets more expensive due to energy austerity (sorry, PPB), this will become more clear.

Oh please no. I am on the faculty at U of C (Duke undergrad and Ph.D.). I have limited interaction with undergrads but from what I have seen they are absolutely amazing kids, easily equal to Duke undergrads on an academic level. But, keeping in mind this is highly subjective, I have a tough time seeing how undergrad life here is much fun. I just don't see the same interaction of the students as at Duke and say Michigan, and I don't just mean sporting events. And from what I've seen there is not the same connection between alumni. Please don't misinterpret this, I feel lucky to be here and proud to have my name associated with U of C, and I would put the quality of students here up against anywhere in the country.

The economics of college sports is a complicated topic. There is a lot of unusual accounting involved and I don't know that anyone has all of the relevant data. What I do know is that college sports was a vital part of student life at Duke, and had a very real positive impact on students far outside of the athletic department. I've seen this same kind of impact in the brief time I've spent at Michigan. There are lots of problems with college sports, but I also believe they generate a lot of value for students and alumni and that value is difficult to measure in dollars and cents.

[alteran]

That's a false choice IMHO (where the H is invariably silent). There is no logical connection between a tiny increase in the tens of millions spent on basketball and a decrease in the tens of thousands spent on minor sports. Paying 12 basketball players a few bucks would be lost in the noise. Moreover, I believe I have seen figures on the athletic budget revenue of $60 million or higher.

sagegrouse

Do you think it'd just be twelve? Wouldn't football have to be included, too? Once you include football, you're up to almost a hundred scholarships (assuming they're still at 85, I forget). My guess is that Title IX would double this, so now you're at just under 200 stipends at a minimum.

Assuming a figure of $100 a week (pulled from thin air, no idea what is reasonable to keep a kid from booster temptation) we're talking a million dollars a year.

That's still chump change to the real upper tier programs, sorta, but at a lot of schools that's going to hurt. A lot.

[J.Blink]

Oh please no. I am on the faculty at U of C (Duke undergrad and Ph.D.). I have limited interaction with undergrads but from what I have seen they are absolutely amazing kids, easily equal to Duke undergrads on an academic level. But, keeping in mind this is highly subjective, I have a tough time seeing how undergrad life here is much fun. I just don't see the same interaction of the students as at Duke and say Michigan, and I don't just mean sporting events. And from what I've seen there is not the same connection between alumni. Please don't misinterpret this, I feel lucky to be here and proud to have my name associated with U of C, and I would put the quality of students here up against anywhere in the country.

Well, it IS the place where fun goes to die!

I'm glad I went to Duke undergrad and UC grad...I think that ordering gets the ideals of both universities (and I do think being an undergrad at UC -- in part because of the very heavy courseload -- could be tough). I do think there is more undergrad+faculty interaction at UC than at Duke judging by the experiences of many of my friends. Personally I had great interactions at Duke.

[SCMatt33]

Do you think it'd just be twelve? Wouldn't football have to be included, too? Once you include football, you're up to almost a hundred scholarships (assuming they're still at 85, I forget). My guess is that Title IX would double this, so now you're at just under 200 stipends at a minimum.

Assuming a figure of $100 a week (pulled from thin air, no idea what is reasonable to keep a kid from booster temptation) we're talking a million dollars a year.

That's still chump change to the real upper tier programs, sorta, but at a lot of schools that's going to hurt. A lot.

So those programs wouldn't give out stipends. There's nothing that would force schools to give stipends, just allow it. Just like schools don't have to give out scholarships to every athlete, they wouldn't have to give out stipends to every athlete as well. Schools without as much money simply wouldn't use them. Would this less parity, of coarse, but I'm pretty sure that every model of paying players would tilt the scales even further towards those who have more money.

[dukeimac]

The talk of paying athletes is BS, they get paid!

First, the value of the scholarship they get is payment. To act as if it has no value is like saying they would still go to college if they didn't get the scholarship. Most Duke players might but the vast majority of athletes would not give college a second thought if they didn't get a scholarship. If that was true, offer them all a partial scholarship and see how many would turn it down, the vast majority.

Secondly, and I know this personally because I talked to a star who played for Roy and Kansas some years back, this basketball player told me straight out, while he was going to college, he had everything he could have ever imagine. He could go to the store and pick out two shirts a month, nothing in the $40 range but $25-$30 was okay, every personal items was taken care of. All he had to do was call the "boy" and the cologne was delivered, a $20 bottle. Meals were lush, the athletes were served a special meal every night. Football players got steaks, not just one but several, if they wanted. They had access to all the free gatoraid, pop, other sports drinks they wanted, for free. He said he had the nicest alarm clock, better than he could have ever afforded. They had access to the "media room" to watch the 6 - 55" plasma TVs. HE said they spent more time in that room watching games and other shows than they did watching game film. They had phone cards to make calls, to anywhere just as long as they didn't go over their limit. About one hour per night worth of calls. He said he could not image needing anything while playing for Kansas.

The athletes are getting paid, the scholarships and extras they get has a real value to it.

[dcdevil2009]

The talk of paying athletes is BS, they get paid!
...
The athletes are getting paid, the scholarships and extras they get has a real value to it.

I agree; it's impossible to argue that a scholarship isn't a form of payment. However, it doesn't follow that athletes are properly compensated for the value they bring to the university. There are cases where an athlete isn't bringing the school the value of the scholarship and others where an athlete is worth more to the school than the scholarship, even within the same sport. Agreeing to pay all basketball players or all football players some stipend on top of their scholarship doesn't change any of that. Some people could be earning more than the stipend and others are overpaid with the stipend.

[uh_no]

I don't think the question is whether the athletes bring money into the NCAA and the universities, but where the money would come from to pay them their 'stipend'..since nobody has any money, the only place is out of other sports' coach's salaries or other sports' budgets.

[Richard Berg]

Agents, boosters, shoe companies, autographed merchandise, summer tournaments, speaking gigs, instruction clinics, local advertising...

I'm no business guru, but there seems to be plenty of opportunity. Heck, from what I've read on DBR and elsewhere, there is already plenty of cash flowing through these channels. Bring it above-board and there would be (1) less waste; lord knows how much time & money is spent combing through that endless rulebook for loopholes, or trying to hide the $$ trail behind complex schemes (2) a far better chance of equitable distribution to the people whose hard work is actually adding value to the industry, rather than slimy middlemen like the Pumps.