PDA

View Full Version : Recent Study: NCAA FB/BB Athlete's Worth $100K Per Year



Newton_14
09-12-2011, 07:12 PM
Interesting article here. Before you dismiss it as just another group lobbying for players to get paid, the advocacy group that did the study, takes another angle such as trust funds for example. Not saying it would work, but it is an interesting read

I have always been against paying college players, but I have often wondered if there were a way for players to get royalties from their jersey sales for example, without opening a pandora's box of issues.

The results of the study also showed Duke BB Players having the most value at $1mil ea per year (That Duke Brand is strong as ever), and Texas FB Players at $513K ea per year.

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/college_basketball/story/10119694/

MartyClark
09-12-2011, 10:17 PM
Interesting article here. Before you dismiss it as just another group lobbying for players to get paid, the advocacy group that did the study, takes another angle such as trust funds for example. Not saying it would work, but it is an interesting read

I have always been against paying college players, but I have often wondered if there were a way for players to get royalties from their jersey sales for example, without opening a pandora's box of issues.

The results of the study also showed Duke BB Players having the most value at $1mil ea per year (That Duke Brand is strong as ever), and Texas FB Players at $513K ea per year.

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/college_basketball/story/10119694/

How do we get the source document? Is it a study or an simply an argument? Is it peer reviewed? I appreciate your thoughts but just the summary makes me skeptical of the economic validity of the source document. If it has economic validity, is it relevant?Under Title IX can a basketball play be paid even a fraction of his "economic value" without a corresponding payment to college athletes who have no economic value, wrestlers, softball players, gymnast, swimmers?

I have more questions than answers but as a small college wrestler, who paid his own way, and a father who paid the way of three kids, these arguments just don't resonate with me.

Newton_14
09-12-2011, 10:31 PM
How do we get the source document? Is it a study or an simply an argument? Is it peer reviewed? I appreciate your thoughts but just the summary makes me skeptical of the economic validity of the source document. If it has economic validity, is it relevant?Under Title IX can a basketball play be paid even a fraction of his "economic value" without a corresponding payment to college athletes who have no economic value, wrestlers, softball players, gymnast, swimmers?

I have more questions than answers but as a small college wrestler, who paid his own way, and a father who paid the way of three kids, these arguments just don't resonate with me.

Yeah, sorry, I would love to see more as well. I just ran across the article on Wral this afternoon and thought it would be an item that would interest the DBR community. My understanding is that it was a study. I am searching the Web for more info. I will post any additional info I can find.

Edit: Update. Per the article, the full report is to be released tomorrow. I assume they will provide all of the data that led to their conclusions. I will link to that tomorrow as soon as it becomes available.

MartyClark
09-12-2011, 10:38 PM
Yeah, sorry, I would love to see more as well. I just ran across the article on Wral this afternoon and thought it would be an item that would interest the DBR community. My understanding is that it was a study. I am searching the Web for more info. I will post any additional info I can find.

I appreciate you posting it. I think it is a good topic for discussion. It will be interesting to get some more information about the source document and to get the opinions of the economists on this board. Thanks.

Bluedog
09-12-2011, 11:13 PM
Question: do people watch players like Lance Thomas, Leo Lyons, Roderick Wilmont, and Chris Kramer with great interest because of their jaw dropping athleticism and supreme basketball abilities? Or do they watch them because of the superior brand and team that they are associated with? I named key cogs to solid teams at Duke, Missouri, Indiana, and Purdue - all schools with a solid basketball following that generate serious dollars. I obviously greatly value the contributions Lance Thomas and other Duke athletes make to the university's athletic program, but I'd argue that it's the brand of Duke that creates the interest and subsequently the revenue. Right now, those four players play for the Austin Toros and Fort Wayne Mad Ants, but I don't see people paying top dollar to watch a Toros vs. Mad Ants matchup on television or in person.

A Duke vs. North Carolina has such appeal because it's Duke and North Carolina. Yes, both programs have great players and have a history of outstanding athletes going through their program, but the fact that these are colleges with alumni support, local interest, and an established brand create the excitement. The Austin Toros team probably has superior players, but can't compete with the Duke appeal. While people would eagerly pay to watch LeBron and Kobe no matter where they are at, I'm sorry, but it's not the same for Lance Thomas (one of the most underrated recent players in my mind, by the way, so I'm not trying to pick on LT). People weren't necessarily eager to watch Lance - people were excited to watch Duke.

Having said all that, I agree with the report that scholarships should include room and board and basic living expenses. I also think it's silly that there's a cap on summer income, but I can understand it as they don't want schools to take advantage of the system by paying certain athletes $20k over a summer for a cozy job. At Duke, athletes have no out of pocket expenses during their career and basically everything is paid for that would be deemed necessary to live a comfortable life. Basketball players have an insane number of food points that no one person could reasonably use on his or her own in a year, which even allows them to order food from off campus eateries as long as it gets delivered on campus.

On top of that, most athletic programs lose money as a whole, including Duke. If we paid basketball and football players, we'd have to get rid of other sports that generate no revenue to compensate. Do people really think it's in college athletics best interest to eliminate programs in women's golf, men's wrestling, swimming and diving, tennis, and more? I personally don't.

Duke spent $15 million on basketball in 2009 (so it's likely greater than that now; link (http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/16/most-valuable-college-basketball-teams-business-sports-final-four.html)), the most of any university in the country by a $6 million margin. Thus, we are spending >$1 million for each of the 13 scholarship players. Do I think the investment is worth it? Absolutely. Do I think the players are being shortchanged by "simply" getting free tuition, room and board, access to some of the best facilities, coaches, and trainers in the nation to prepare them to do great things with their lives whether it be in sports or professionally? Definitely not.

Certainly an interesting discussion and I look forward to reading the study's analysis and particularly if it puts forth any speculation as to what would happen to non revenue sports if football and men's basketball players were to be paid. Obviously, reasonable minds can differ and this is simply my opinion.

cruxer
09-13-2011, 08:22 AM
I haven't read the study, but the brand vs. personality discussion is interesting. Do you think you could swap Duke's roster with UNCA's roster for the next 10 years and have the Duke brand stay the same? Surely Duke needs a steady stream of Lance Thomases, Nolan Smiths, Quinn Cooks, et al to maintain the brand of winning and excellence.

I will at some point read the study, but regardless of its methodology, I don't think it's underlying point can be denied. Major sport athletes in the NCAA are way undercompensated, and their share of the pie is divided up by the rest of the actors in the system. Only in the warped NCAA economy can all 300+ potential utilizers of talent (employers?) collude among themselves and legal teams to form a common employment contract (letter of intent) that, without negotiation, dictates to unrepresented 18-yr-olds what their compensation will be for services rendered. Keep in mind that Terrelle Pryor got in trouble for getting free use of cars and some tattoos. The Ohio State Director of Compliance gets the free use of a car legally and apparently uncontroversially.

DBR's front page article seems to suggest that money management skills should be some factor in whether or not college athletes should be further compensated. I guess, then, that the Jim Donnan controversy demonstrates that coaches should be forced to take "How not to fall for Ponzi schemes" classes in lieu of some of their ample salary. Tuition free, natch.

-c

MCFinARL
09-13-2011, 08:35 AM
On top of that, most athletic programs lose money as a whole, including Duke. If we paid basketball and football players, we'd have to get rid of other sports that generate no revenue to compensate. Do people really think it's in college athletics best interest to eliminate programs in women's golf, men's wrestling, swimming and diving, tennis, and more? I personally don't.



This is such an important point. Most people who advocate paying athletes in the "revenue" sports tend to ignore it. While it seems unfair, in a way, for universities to "sell" their football and basketball stars and keep the proceeds (and I don't want to let universities off the hook for sometimes exploiting their athletes, which many have done in a variety of ways), paying those athletes to play works only if you see the entire thing as a primarily financial transaction.

The original idea was that scholarship athletes bring their talents to a school's athletic program, and in return, they get a free or reduced cost college education. Even for non-scholarship athletes, at elite colleges with rigorous admissions, their talent helps them achieve admission to a school they otherwise might not be able to attend (just as musical talent, math talent, literary ability or entrepreneurial skills might bring notice to other applicants).

But as college football and basketball have increasingly (over the last 50-odd years) become a path to lucrative professional careers for the very best athletes and a way to chase their more uncertain gridiron or hoop dreams for many more, the value of the free education seems less obvious to many of these athletes and their advocates. As much as big-time college sports can boost a school's popularity and bring in donations, I don't see, philosophically or institutionally, why universities should openly run paid professional development leagues for the NFL and/or NBA. And it would be a double shame if doing so would undercut the programs of the actual student-athletes who are primarily in school to get a college education.

sagegrouse
09-13-2011, 12:47 PM
On top of that, most athletic programs lose money as a whole, including Duke. If we paid basketball and football players, we'd have to get rid of other sports that generate no revenue to compensate. Do people really think it's in college athletics best interest to eliminate programs in women's golf, men's wrestling, swimming and diving, tennis, and more? I personally don't.



The large and successful programs make money in any reasonable sense. They may show breakeven or losses but that includes all spending, including investments and facilities, etc.

I circulated data last week that showed that Duke had total revenue from athletics of $69 million -- #30 in the NCAA and second in the ACC (just behind FSU and just ahead of UNC). This improbably large figure includes donations. The figure for Texas is $154 million, according to an article referenced on another thread. Each school may report a loss, but if they had to show a profit...........

I haven't read the paper cited by the OP. As I read between the lines, the authors used percentage revenue distributions from pro football and basketball to estimate what college players could or should earn. Well, that's an -- uh -- interesting approach.

sagegrouse

johnb
09-13-2011, 01:19 PM
People have been kicking around the idea of compensating players from the revenue sports for quite a while, and I guess I can see how they are a group that actually does TEND to bring in cash to the university (though don't most football programs LOSE money??). Further, football and basketball players are more likely to hail from less affluent families than, say, swimmers, golfers, or tennis players and so it's possible they don't get enough to eat or wear (and I'm reminded of the Duke/UNLV final in which every Duke player parent was at the game, and the only UNLV player's parent who could afford to go was the end-of-the-bench white kid's parents; the NCAA could stand some tweaking).

Overall, though, I just don't have much sympathy. It seems enough they get the huge admissions bumps, free tuition, R&B, tutoring, and cool experiences. A handful might lose out on endorsement possibilities, but those are the guys who will later make it in the pros. And I think Bluedog is right: I'd watch anybody play if they're wearing a Duke uniform, and while it's true that we wouldn't be on tv for long if we stopped recruiting stars, the name on the jersey does trump the individual player; it's one of the reasons why I deplore the average salaries of the CEO's of large, public companies; the top guys at GE, Exxon, etc, are probably effective, but I don't believe companies need to pay them that much; would they really work less hard if they only got $5m?

And anyway, an article from an advocacy group as evidence of anything, puhlease.

m g
09-13-2011, 01:25 PM
The large and successful programs make money in any reasonable sense. They may show breakeven or losses but that includes all spending, including investments and facilities, etc.

sagegrouse

I don't think you know what a profit is.

CDu
09-13-2011, 01:35 PM
The large and successful programs make money in any reasonable sense. They may show breakeven or losses but that includes all spending, including investments and facilities, etc.

I circulated data last week that showed that Duke had total revenue from athletics of $69 million -- #30 in the NCAA and second in the ACC (just behind FSU and just ahead of UNC). This improbably large figure includes donations. The figure for Texas is $154 million, according to an article referenced on another thread. Each school may report a loss, but if they had to show a profit...........

I haven't read the paper cited by the OP. As I read between the lines, the authors used percentage revenue distributions from pro football and basketball to estimate what college players could or should earn. Well, that's an -- uh -- interesting approach.

sagegrouse

1. Those numbers appear to be revenue - not profit. Revenue tells only half the story. To know whether the teams make money (net profit), you need to consider their cost. As you seem to acknowledge, most of these programs indeed don't make a profit when you account for their expenditures. Paying players would increase the costs, and make profit less likely. and it would make it a lot more likely that smaller sports (which rely on the revenue from football/basketball) would get cut.

2. I've never fully understood the argument for paying players. The revenue sport players get $50,000 per year in scholarship value plus free food and medical treatment/trainers, free tutoring, and access to fantastic connections. They don't have to pay for anything that they need. Why do they need to be paid?

Newton_14
09-13-2011, 08:31 PM
How do we get the source document? Is it a study or an simply an argument? Is it peer reviewed? I appreciate your thoughts but just the summary makes me skeptical of the economic validity of the source document. If it has economic validity, is it relevant?Under Title IX can a basketball play be paid even a fraction of his "economic value" without a corresponding payment to college athletes who have no economic value, wrestlers, softball players, gymnast, swimmers?

I have more questions than answers but as a small college wrestler, who paid his own way, and a father who paid the way of three kids, these arguments just don't resonate with me.

So here is the link to the NCPA (National College Players Association) website, where their article is stored. Scroll to the bottom of the article to find links to the study itself, and other data.

Have not had time to read through much of it, but wanted to share the info for those interested.

http://www.ncpanow.org/research?id=0024

RPS
09-14-2011, 04:26 PM
I've never fully understood the argument for paying players. The revenue sport players get $50,000 per year in scholarship value plus free food and medical treatment/trainers, free tutoring, and access to fantastic connections. They don't have to pay for anything that they need. Why do they need to be paid?

It's not a matter of needing to be paid. It's a matter of being free to make your own deal. The NCAA is a cartel designed to maximize revenue for members and to control costs. Why should it be acceptable for the NCAA to act as a cartel but not for anybody else (except for the BCS, of course)?

DukeWarhead
09-14-2011, 04:51 PM
It's not a matter of needing to be paid. It's a matter of being free to make your own deal. The NCAA is a cartel designed to maximize revenue for members and to control costs. Why should it be acceptable for the NCAA to act as a cartel but not for anybody else (except for the BCS, of course)?

Oh yes, allowing college kids to make their own deals wouldn't lead to any issues with contract problems, hold-outs, lawsuits, or any of that, would it? Let's add some seats to the bench at games to accomodate their agents while we are at it. I can see it now.. "We had big hopes for Austin this season, but since he has a contract with Nike, and the school is currently taking bids from other brands, he has been instructed by his lawyers to sit out the ACC tourney and maybe the NCAAT as well." Of course, that wouldn't happen - would it?

RPS
09-14-2011, 06:20 PM
Oh yes, allowing college kids to make their own deals wouldn't lead to any issues with contract problems, hold-outs, lawsuits, or any of that, would it? Let's add some seats to the bench at games to accomodate their agents while we are at it. I can see it now.. "We had big hopes for Austin this season, but since he has a contract with Nike, and the school is currently taking bids from other brands, he has been instructed by his lawyers to sit out the ACC tourney and maybe the NCAAT as well." Of course, that wouldn't happen - would it?

It wasn't too long ago that those suggesting that professionals should be allowed into the Olympics faced the same cries of impending doom. And, indeed, the Olympics are now much worse since the purity of amateurism has been lost and nobody cares or watches anymore. Oh, wait....