The Pay the Players Debate

[JasonEvans]

We have danced around it a bit in various threads, so I figured it was time for a thread simply dedicated to the question of -- should we pay the players?

I offer the following article from The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/8643/) as an excellent read on the subject. It will hit somewhat close to home as the first couple pages talk at length about UNC's Bill Friday as well as an outspoken UNC trustee who feels athletes should be paid.


For all the outrage, the real scandal is not that students are getting illegally paid or recruited, it’s that two of the noble principles on which the NCAA justifies its existence—“amateurism” and the “student-athlete”—are cynical hoaxes, legalistic confections propagated by the universities so they can exploit the skills and fame of young athletes. The tragedy at the heart of college sports is not that some college athletes are getting paid, but that more of them are not.

I did find it interesting that when the article went down the laundry list of accused and convicted NCAA violators in recent years (USC, Ohio St, Miami, and Cam Newton) that no mention was made of Carolina. Players getting treated to parties and other benefits by agents and an assistant coach serving as a runner for an agent would seem to hit right at the core of the points of this story. Ahh well, no biggie.

Anyway, the article certainly makes a compelling case for some kind of payment to athletes.

-Jason "enjoy!" Evans

[uh_no]

I'll first admit I haven't read the whole article, but having read the first couple pages leaves me with some notions about the rest of the article.

The question that won't get answered is "where does the money come from?" They are quick to point out how much schools make off football teams each year, but noticeable absent is the fact that despite this revenue, almost every big sports program loses money each year.

With that being the case, where do the cuts come from? should we cut volleyball to pay the football team? Should the university pony up bigger stipends to pay them? Since the latter likely won't happen here, how do you justify the huge competitive disadvantage this would put schools who wouldn't increase stipends to pay players?

In terms of the NCAA itself, people assume the whole operation is rolling in cash: this simply is not true. Almost all of their revenue comes off the some of the championships (the football money has nothing to do with the NCAA....) and this money is almost all spent on a) putting on the other non-profitable championships which don't make money (the lacrosse and womens ncaa tournaments may turn a profit...I don't know) or b) split among the schools....so you want more of this money to go to ball players...then which championships are you going to cut? sorry D3 wrestling, no natty for you this year, Derrick Williams needs his paycheck. Even if you DID split this among players, how do you decide who gets the money? how do you determine how much a player is worth? here's a fun fact, the NCAA gives 100% of the profit from the men's championship back to the schools...

where does the money come from? "tv contracts" is not a valid answer here....that money gets spent....

perhaps you want to allow players to profit from jersey sales with their names....I'm okay with that....

[JasonEvans]

Duuuh, totally forgot to include my feelings on this subject... as if anybody cares ;)

I have long said that the NCAA should find some way to compensate these kids. To some extent, the athletes are providing a service for the school-- representing it to the outside world, providing entertainment, and enhancing the college experience for fellow students. So, they should be compensated the same way other student employees are. The kids who work in the admission office conducting tours get paid. The kids who work in the library get paid. The kids who check IDs outside the gym or tennis court or whatever get paid. So too should the athletes.

My suggestion is to provide payment for every hour of practice. The NCAA already mandates certain amounts of practice time, so the number is easy to monitor and uniform. Pay them, I dunno, $7 an hour or something like that. The NCAA mandates no more than something like 20 hours of practice a week during the season, so my proposal would put $140/week into the pocket of scholarship athlete, probably coming to several thousand dollars a year. Not enough to keep kids from turning pro early (though the schools should not be trying to compete with the pros in that regard); not enough to buy a new car; but enough to let kids buy pizza and beverages every now and then; enough to take your girl out for dinner and a movie; enough to save for a couple weeks and buy a ticket home or maybe buy a ticket for mom and dad to come see one of your games.

This is not a break-the-bank kind of proposal. Schools could afford this, I am convinced. I would hate to see it only applied to football and basketball -- it should just be part of a full athletic scholarship, the same way books, room, and food money are part of the scholarship.

--Jason "Someone tell me why this is a bad idea!?!?!" Evans

[JasonEvans]

I am trying to figure out how many scholarships a typical Division I university gives out each year. I know Duke will have about 60 guys on football scholarship and 13 on basketball and 15 on women's basketball... but I am unsure how many others there are. I doubt Duke gives out the equivilant of more than 150 full scholarships... probably a bit less.

So, lets use that 150. If Duke awarded $4000 in stipends alongside each of those 150 scholarship, that would mean it would cost Duke $600,000 to give a stipend to their players. I know many sports department run on a tight budget, but I think $600-grand is not a break the bank kind of figure. Maybe I am wrong.

This may be difficult for some schools... but perhaps those schools do not belong in Division I competing with the big boys.

-Jason "money is tough... but fixing the NCAA's problems won't be free" Evans

[Genedoc]

I am trying to figure out how many scholarships a typical Division I university gives out each year. I know Duke will have about 60 guys on football scholarship and 13 on basketball and 15 on women's basketball... but I am unsure how many others there are. I doubt Duke gives out the equivilant of more than 150 full scholarships... probably a bit less.

So, lets use that 150. If Duke awarded $4000 in stipends alongside each of those 150 scholarship, that would mean it would cost Duke $600,000 to give a stipend to their players. I know many sports department run on a tight budget, but I think $600-grand is not a break the bank kind of figure. Maybe I am wrong.

This may be difficult for some schools... but perhaps those schools do not belong in Division I competing with the big boys.

-Jason "money is tough... but fixing the NCAA's problems won't be free" Evans

Duke's own Jay Bilas has put more thought into this that most of the rest of the people in the internet combined. My opinions in short, many of which have been shaped by listening to/reading Jay's perspectives and which I know will be wildly unpopular...

1) Yes, absolutely, unequivocally yes...players deserve fair market compensation for their work product. Their risk and skill generations billions of dollars of revenue, and they're not given an iota of compensation for the wealth they create. That's patently un-American.

2) The NCAA nor the member institutions has to bear a dime of the costs. The market will sort it out. If you've a drama program and the star can make a million dollars also doing films, you don't kick him out of the drama program. If you've a music program and one of your stars signs a record deal, you don't kick him out of the drama program. If you've an English major that write the great American novel, you don't bar them from seeking compensation for their efforts. Why are athletes treated completely, totally different than any other college student?

3) The title IV canard is just that - a canard. You absolutely do not have to pay all of the players in all of the sports. That's preposterous and only applicable if the Universities and/or the NCAA is the payer. How much revenue does the field hockey team or the cross country team generate? None. And in the event that they do and there exists a market for their endorsements/products...GREAT! Let them take advantage of those rare opportunities. If Bob in Omaha wants to spend $100 on a field hockey jersey, let him, and let the jersey owner reap the profit.

[devildeac]

I am trying to figure out how many scholarships a typical Division I university gives out each year. I know Duke will have about 60 guys on football scholarship and 13 on basketball and 15 on women's basketball... but I am unsure how many others there are. I doubt Duke gives out the equivilant of more than 150 full scholarships... probably a bit less.

So, lets use that 150. If Duke awarded $4000 in stipends alongside each of those 150 scholarship, that would mean it would cost Duke $600,000 to give a stipend to their players. I know many sports department run on a tight budget, but I think $600-grand is not a break the bank kind of figure. Maybe I am wrong.

This may be difficult for some schools... but perhaps those schools do not belong in Division I competing with the big boys.

-Jason "money is tough... but fixing the NCAA's problems won't be free" Evans

I'd bet it's closer to 200 total when you add up all the fulls and partials in all the other sports. My estimates:

FB-85
WBB-15
MBB-12
BB-10
WG-6
MG-4
WLAX-15
MLAX-10
WS-15
MS-10
VB-5
WT-6
MT-4

Again, these are estimates I recall from my son briefly considering soccer (10/year IIRC) and Jim Sumner discussing BB in the past with ~10/team. I haven't counted any for field hockey, track and field, wrestling, swimming/diving or fencing. Perhaps add 10 more? If I added correctly, that should be about 210. And we don't have ice hockey or water polo, a couple other popular sports in other areas of the country. Not a cheap proposal. It would certainly be even more interesting to see the #s from the large state schools compared to Duke also. Obviously, their $/scholly is less based on in-state tuition, but perhaps they fund larger #/sport and/or larger # of teams.

[CDu]

Duuuh, totally forgot to include my feelings on this subject... as if anybody cares ;)

I have long said that the NCAA should find some way to compensate these kids. To some extent, the athletes are providing a service for the school-- representing it to the outside world, providing entertainment, and enhancing the college experience for fellow students. So, they should be compensated the same way other student employees are. The kids who work in the admission office conducting tours get paid. The kids who work in the library get paid. The kids who check IDs outside the gym or tennis court or whatever get paid. So too should the athletes.

My suggestion is to provide payment for every hour of practice. The NCAA already mandates certain amounts of practice time, so the number is easy to monitor and uniform. Pay them, I dunno, $7 an hour or something like that. The NCAA mandates no more than something like 20 hours of practice a week during the season, so my proposal would put $140/week into the pocket of scholarship athlete, probably coming to several thousand dollars a year. Not enough to keep kids from turning pro early (though the schools should not be trying to compete with the pros in that regard); not enough to buy a new car; but enough to let kids buy pizza and beverages every now and then; enough to take your girl out for dinner and a movie; enough to save for a couple weeks and buy a ticket home or maybe buy a ticket for mom and dad to come see one of your games.

This is not a break-the-bank kind of proposal. Schools could afford this, I am convinced. I would hate to see it only applied to football and basketball -- it should just be part of a full athletic scholarship, the same way books, room, and food money are part of the scholarship.

--Jason "Someone tell me why this is a bad idea!?!?!" Evans

The revenue sport athletes DO get compensated. They get a full scholarship, free food (don't think for a minute that those kids have to pay for pizza and drinks - they get fantastic meal plans), free tutors, free medical support and trainers. That's quite a payment.

And uh oh's point remains - if you pay the revenue sport athletes, where does that money come from? Do you cut a non-revenue sport? Do you decrease the quality of the facilities (which get used by the non-revenue sports and some of the regular student body)?

[Genedoc]

The revenue sport athletes DO get compensated. They get a full scholarship, free food (don't think for a minute that those kids have to pay for pizza and drinks - they get fantastic meal plans), free tutors, free medical support and trainers. That's quite a payment.
It's hardly "quite a payment" when they generate a billion plus (http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/29/news/companies/college_football_dollars/index.htm) dollars in profit and put themselves at significant physical peril while doing it. And they work extensively in the weight room, on the training field, in the film room, and in practice in exchange for their "payment." They're getting less than pennies on the dollar.



And uh oh's point remains - if you pay the revenue sport athletes, where does that money come from? Do you cut a non-revenue sport? Do you decrease the quality of the facilities (which get used by the non-revenue sports and some of the regular student body)?
You don't have to cut anything, you don't have to decrease anything. Allowing the players access to the free market will not cost the NCAA nor the member institutions a dime. If anything, they'll save money because the laughably arcane rule book will be greatly simplified and compliance with the new rules will be markedly easier.

[sagegrouse]

The revenue sport athletes DO get compensated. They get a full scholarship, free food (don't think for a minute that those kids have to pay for pizza and drinks - they get fantastic meal plans), free tutors, free medical support and trainers. That's quite a payment.

And uh oh's point remains - if you pay the revenue sport athletes, where does that money come from? Do you cut a non-revenue sport? Do you decrease the quality of the facilities (which get used by the non-revenue sports and some of the regular student body)?

Jason already answered it. A few hundred a month for about 95 players (football and hoops scholarship limits) is about half-a-million, which is only one percent of Duke athletic budget. Don't you think Kevin White can handle a 1% variance within an existing contingency account? Let's don't make this problem too hard.

Also, on my earlier post that drew a comment, I said that Duke's $69 million was REVENUE and not PROFIT. The point was that universities like the government count all spending the same , whether its a true cost or an investment. Texas may "spend" all of its $154 million -- but it really doesn't need to.

sagegrouse

[Duvall]

Also, on my earlier post that drew a comment, I said that Duke's $69 million was REVENUE and not PROFIT. The point was that universities like the government count all spending the same , whether its a true cost or an investment. Texas may "spend" all of its $154 million -- but it really doesn't need to.

Which brings us back to the question of what we cut, doesn't it?

[uh_no]

Also, on my earlier post that drew a comment, I said that Duke's $69 million was REVENUE and not PROFIT. The point was that universities like the government count all spending the same , whether its a true cost or an investment. Texas may "spend" all of its $154 million -- but it really doesn't need to.

sagegrouse

Most schools are not texas, take us for example. do you think the athletics department would be taking 16 million dollars a year from the university if it didn't NEED to spend it on something?

Another point: someone said that the couple hundred thousand dollars a scholarship is worth is pittance compared to the billions the athletes bring in.....well then what difference does 4k an athlete make when they have all their living expenses paid for? By the same argument, the 4k is worthless since it doesn't compare to the amount of money they bring in

Whether 600k is doable or not, that money is already being spent somewhere, and the question is still, where does it come from? if the athletics department had 600k laying around, they wouldn't be taking as much money as they do from the university.

When you're working at a huge loss any decently large increase in the budget will have to be taken from somwhere else (unless you're the US government)

and if we'd have trouble finding the money how the heck are school like villanova or st johns with a tiny endowment going to even field a team? we might as well just wave every mid major school goodbye....and suddenly there'd be a HUGE disparity between teams that can afford to pay up and those that can't.....

and that's where I think the largest problems lie...the rich schools get better and the small schools lose out....this is a kind of problem you run into when you want any sort of significant amount of payment. If for instance, you only allow players to make money off jersey sales, then a good baller is going to make money wherever he goes to play, and the money comes from the fans, and doesn't cannibalize university profits (except for maybe jersey sales, which I believe are outside the athletics departments balance sheet...not sure)...and mid majors might have an even bigger draw for some top players, as they wouldn't have to compete for jersey sales with 4 other guys (on a team like duke)...so effectively its the same reasons you have for people to go to small schools today.

[Duvall]

1) Yes, absolutely, unequivocally yes...players deserve fair market compensation for their work product. Their risk and skill generations billions of dollars of revenue, and they're not given an iota of compensation for the wealth they create. That's patently un-American.

Isn't that the opposite of a free market? Under the current system, a player is free to accept the compensation offered by schools in exchange for becoming a student-athlete. A player is also free to reject that offer and seek any and all compensation from anyone willing to pay him. The player just can't do both at the same time.

[Genedoc]

Isn't that the opposite of a free market? Under the current system, a player is free to accept the compensation offered by schools in exchange for becoming a student-athlete. A player is also free to reject that offer and seek any and all compensation from anyone willing to pay him. The player just can't do both at the same time.
The opposite of a free market is a work force that creates billions of dollars of value while not being allowed to capitalize on their market worth. Why is the drama student, the music major, or the English literature major allowed to partake of both an academic scholarship and whatever yield the free market may provide, but not the athlete?

[SoCalDukeFan]

Jason wants to give a fixed stipend, which is hardly a free market.

I am not sure where GeneDoc thinks the money will come from - letting the players get paid for doing TV interviews? their name on jerseys? accepting payments from boosters? autograph shows? Maybe the NFL and NBA?

I agree completely that it is sickening the way big time sports at many school exploit their football and basketball players. Almost no concern for academics and all for money, and the money goes to the school or the conference or the NCAA.

Why not try to reverse it. Play college football at 1:30 on Saturday afternoon. No Sunday college basketball. Require athletes to be students.

While certainly big time players are exploited, I know several women who went to college on full or partial athletic scholarships. I think they and their parents think it was a pretty good deal. They got to play a sport they loved and got a college degree, in some cases from schools that would not have accepted them otherwise and the parents saved a bunch of dough.

SoCal

[Duvall]

The opposite of a free market is a work force that creates billions of dollars of value while not being allowed to capitalize on their market worth.

You may not like the deal. You may not think it is a good deal, and you are free to reject both as participant and spectator. But that doesn't make it any less freely offered and accepted.


Why is the drama student, the music major, or the English literature major allowed to partake of both an academic scholarship and whatever yield the free market may provide, but not the athlete?

Because there are no drama leagues or literature competitions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwAOc4g3K-g). Even if alumni and sponsors tried to lure talented fine arts prospects to one school over another, it wouldn't present a problem.

[uh_no]

While certainly big time players are exploited, I know several women who went to college on full or partial athletic scholarships. I think they and their parents think it was a pretty good deal.
SoCal


I think there are millions of parents/students out there wishing they could scrounge ANY scholarship money to help offset the huge loans they end up with. I dislike the argument that one can't complain just because others have it worse, but lets keep it in perspective here.

The NCAA is the college game, and if players don't like it, there are other leagues that would certainly love to pay them to play.

[Genedoc]

I am not sure where GeneDoc thinks the money will come from - letting the players get paid for doing TV interviews? their name on jerseys? accepting payments from boosters? autograph shows? Maybe the NFL and NBA?

SoCal
The money will come from wherever/whomever would like to spend/invest their money on a college athlete. The more marketable players...QB at USC, Tailback at Alabama, etc...will inevitably have more options than fullback at Direcional State Tech. If a thousand fans in Kenosha want to give a hundred dollars each to Russell Wilson for his autograph, let them. And let him capitalize on his earning potential.

Students will have to remain academically eligible, do their own course work of course, and make sure they're doing nothing illegal - just like every other college student.

[Genedoc]

The NCAA is the college game, and if players don't like it, there are other leagues that would certainly love to pay them to play.
What other football leagues would love to pay the players?

[uh_no]

The money will come from wherever/whomever would like to spend/invest their money on a college athlete. The more marketable players...QB at USC, Tailback at Alabama, etc...will inevitably have more options than fullback at Direcional State Tech. If a thousand fans in Kenosha want to give a hundred dollars each to Russell Wilson for his autograph, let them. And let him capitalize on his earning potential.

Students will have to remain academically eligible, do their own course work of course, and make sure they're doing nothing illegal - just like every other college student.

Having the free flow of money from boosters to players opens up a huge can of worms. At least if you restrict it to jersey sales, there is very little grey area exposed, and it is harder to abuse.

as to other football leagues, the CFL would LOVE to have some american college players I am sure.

[MartyClark]

The title IV canard is just that - a canard. You absolutely do not have to pay all of the players in all of the sports. That's preposterous and only applicable if the Universities and/or the NCAA is the payer. How much revenue does the field hockey team or the cross country team generate? None. And in the event that they do and there exists a market for their endorsements/products...GREAT! Let them take advantage of those rare opportunities. If Bob in Omaha wants to spend $100 on a field hockey jersey, let him, and let the jersey owner reap the profit.

I assume you mean Title IX rather than Title IV. I think you acknowledge that, even with a rule change, Duke or the NCAA could not pay the mens basketball team without paying the woman's lacrosse team ( I'm not an expert in Title IX but believe that interpretation would be consistent with the legislative intent ). Are you saying that every men's basketball player receive a cut from the sale of any Duke basketball jersey? Or are you saying that Austin Rivers should get a cut consistent with the sale of jerseys bearing his name?

I probably disagree with you but am interested to hear a clarification.

[uh_no]

I assume you mean Title IX rather than Title IV. I think you acknowledge that, even with a rule change, Duke or the NCAA could not pay the mens basketball team without paying the woman's lacrosse team ( I'm not an expert in Title IX but believe that interpretation would be consistent with the legislative intent ). Are you saying that every men's basketball player receive a cut from the sale of any Duke basketball jersey? Or are you saying that Austin Rivers should get a cut consistent with the sale of jerseys bearing his name?

I probably disagree with you but am interested to hear a clarification.

This is a point not brought up often. If universities were to pay more dollars to mens players then women's players, it would necessarily create a sports opportunity for men that was NOT available to women (in the same way that offering fewer scholarships is a violation, regardless if the 'opportunity' existed otherwise).

I think though, that sale of jerseys, as long as the opportunity to sell jerseys through the university were equally allowable to all athletes, would be acceptable. Obviously the university could do something like "you owe us money if the university loses money on jerseys you had made" but the opportunity to have jerseys' made and sold would be available to both men and women.

[Genedoc]

I assume you mean Title IX rather than Title IV. I think you acknowledge that, even with a rule change, Duke or the NCAA could not pay the mens basketball team without paying the woman's lacrosse team ( I'm not an expert in Title IX but believe that interpretation would be consistent with the legislative intent ). Are you saying that every men's basketball player receive a cut from the sale of any Duke basketball jersey? Or are you saying that Austin Rivers should get a cut consistent with the sale of jerseys bearing his name?

I probably disagree with you but am interested to hear a clarification.
Correct...I meant title IX. Mea culpa.

As to the second question, I'm saying Rivers should be able to market himself freely just like every other college student. If he wants to charge for signed tshirts and people want to pay him...let them. If Nike wants to give him an endorsement deal while he's still in svhool, let them.

[MartyClark]

Correct...I meant title IX. Mea culpa.

As to the second question, I'm saying Rivers should be able to market himself freely just like every other college student. If he wants to charge for signed tshirts and people want to pay him...let them. If Nike wants to give him an endorsement deal while he's still in svhool, let them.

Okay, I need to think about this. Parenthetically, the University of Colorado football team had a really good wide receiver/returner in 2006 and 2007 named Jeremy Bloom. He was also a professional and Olympic freestyle skier. In order to finance the skiing, he had to accept endorsements. The NCAA would not allow him to accept ski endorsements, although he could accept professional ski prize money, and maintain his NCAA status as a football player. I thought that was completely unfair at the time.

You have raised a different issue but I can see how some would advocate your position.

[WiJoe]

Pay the athletes?

No, no, never, never, uh, uh, uh.

I do feel this way: When the four, 16-team "super conferences" become reality, and those schools break away from the NCAA, all bets are off (no pun intended).

[hq2]

It's hardly "quite a payment" when they generate a billion plus dollars in profit and put themselves at significant physical peril while doing it. And they work extensively in the weight room, on the training field, in the film room, and in practice in exchange for their "payment." They're getting less than pennies on the dollar.

Yup. This is pretty close to the mark. But the real question which everyone wants to know is, who will pay the costs for the programs that don't make the big bucks?
The answer IMHO is.....the NFL. These folks have $9 billion in profits or revenue which they just divvied up. Every year, colleges house, feed, and train for four years, the athletes who will stock NFL rosters. For this service, the equivalent of which costs MLB tens of thousands (and maybe more) per minor league player, the NFL pays zero. It's time for the NFL to pay up. Each year, the NFL should subsidize player salaries at Division I schools. If 300 Division I schools have at least 50 football scholarships each, and each player is paid $40,000 a year (not much these days, and typical of low minor league salaries) that would cost the NFL about $600 million a year. The NFL has that kind of money, and plenty more besides. That's where it should come from.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

As to the second question, I'm saying Rivers should be able to market himself freely just like every other college student. If he wants to charge for signed tshirts and people want to pay him...let them. If Nike wants to give him an endorsement deal while he's still in svhool, let them.

I totally agree. The NCAA has no right to inhibit a student athlete from any legal outside source of income. None.

Now, the NCAA could/should have the right to require that student athlete to report the income, meet academic requirements or face suspension.

The NCAA could then put some limitation on their institutions as needed to prevent corruption, or competition issues, not the players.

Better yet...... lets just put Jay in charge, give him a big stick, a bag of powered donuts and a case of Red Bull to clean the whole mess up.....

[Nugget]

I totally agree. The NCAA has no right to inhibit a student athlete from any legal outside source of income. None.

Now, the NCAA could/should have the right to require that student athlete to report the income, meet academic requirements or face suspension.

I disagree with this because it it leads too directly to undermining the basic premise of collegiate sports.

If by "pay the players" one means the type of modest, "everyone gets it so they can take their girlfriend out on a date," sort of money, that's one thing -- and I'd probably be for it, and it wouldn't be too difficult to fund it.

But, essentially making each player a junior professional free agent is, I think, a totally different story and would largely undermine any rationale or justification for college sports as it currently exists.

I understand that dedicated fans of college sports are, to a large degree, participants in a sham -- we pretend that all of the players are legitimate students, want to be in college and are there to represent "Dear old Duke," when in fact most of the top players in men's basketball and football would jump to the pros in a second if allowed.

But, I think the better response to that situation is not to throw in the towel on amatuerism; instead, it should be to have the pro sports open up to anyone who wants to go pro whenever they want. And, if you go to college, you're an amatuer (with a modest, livable, stipend).

A rule like Wheat proposes largely destroys any connection between the college and the team. But, that connection has to mean something, otherwise there is no reason for college sports. What's valuable about college sports is the connection between team and school; if college sports become nothing more than the "Alabama minor league NFL franchise" or the "Kentucky minor league NBA franchise" then what is the point of pretending it's "college" sports?

I would much rather have legitimate minor leagues like the NBDL for those who really want to be pros right away (and not in college), and trade for having more legitimate "collegiate" teams that have lower quality of play. And, since the value in college sports really is in the name on the front of the jersey not the name on the back, I suspect there would not be much drop in the financial success of college sports -- especially if everyone was on the same, level, playing field in that regard.

[Genedoc]

In response to nugget:

Players as junior free agents would change very little in my opinion. They largely already are. I also disagree completely with the notion that it would destroy the connection between school and team. At most places, as you allude to, that connection is already stretched well beyond recognition.

I really don't things would be all that different from status quo. It would mean that the silly season of the NCAA arbitrarily enforcing and changing rules randomly would be much less exciting, and discussion about whether or not a college kid can have butter with his bagel would cease.

[davekay1971]

My view on this boils down to the simple fact that using the college athletics structure as a minor league system has inherent and inescapable problems. You really can't avoid the following pitfalls:

1) You have colleges full of kids who are not academically suited to the college they attend. They may not have the background or simple academic prowess to succeed. They may not care about the educational side of their university experience (which is kind of like not caring about the driving side of your car experience). There is, therefore, a sense that the kids aren't "real" students.

2) You have academic institutions driven by a $$$ motive to make difficult decisions about where to draw the line in terms of academic integrity, admissions standards, etc.

3) You have the few athletes who do go on to make a living in professional sports not as well trained in their sport as they otherwise would be. ("Huh, what?" some may ask). Well, take 4 years of minor league hoops full time versus 4 years of splitting your hoops with academic requirements, with the strict time limits imposed by the NCAA. Given equally good coaching, I bet the full time hoopsters come out better trained than the part timers.

As much as I am a fan of college sports, and I have a deep and abiding love for college sports above all pro sports, the solution to all of the above problems is simple: establish viable minor leagues for the revenue generating sports. Eligible age of entry is 18, the same age at which most people can pursue full time employment.

This would allow people who feel they are likely to be able to make a living at the sport of the choice to start doing so at an early age. If they're exceedingly talented they will sign good sized bonuses, make larger contracts, and be able to collect endorsement deals at an early age. If they're less talented they can at least start to make a living and guage their ability to succeed against their peers. Those that don't make the major league will hopefully have some money saved for college, as well as the understanding that their career isn't going to be made on the playing field (ie: they will have ample motivation to take college seriously). Colleges, meanwhile, will lose a tremendous source of revenue, but they will no longer have to compete with building pro caliber stadiums and training facilities, luring coaches with multi-millions, and, more importantly, turning the idea of amateur competition among students into a joke.

Are there pitfalls to this? Sure. The predatory agents, posses, and hangers-on will still be there. You're still going to have young men with little or no ability to manage money out there as 18-21 year olds being told all sorts of fanciful tales by people looking to take advantage of them. There need to be safeguards and training against these kinds of things, but who's to say a minor league system will be any more incompetent dealing with these issues than has the NCAA. I would want the minor league system to have organized training in investing, dealing with agents, dealing with contracts, managing the unique aspects of a career that is short but heavily front-loads earning...and has prep courses available for those young men who are not going to make it to the majors and need to start getting themselves ready for college. The minor league system should also offer medical insurance and disability insurance, providing the young athletes with some financial cushion against career ending or shortening injury (the kind of insurance the NCAA doesn't provide). But I'd also like to see the NCAA implement these programs. It has, to date, not done so.

Will this lead to the death of major college sports? Yes. And I would really, really miss it. I've grown up watching ACC hoops and football and loving them. But, if done right, it's a solution that's good for the athletes...and probably better for the universities than having the universities pay the players.

[Hermy-own]

As many people on this thread have pointed out, most schools lose money through their athletic department. A very few big time football schools do manage to make money off their athletic department - but many of those schools are the absolute worst at taking advantage of players, admitting people who shouldn't be in college, and then making the players' lives revolve around football without paying them a cent.

I feel the purpose of a college or university is as a place of teaching and research. It's completely natural that, as colleges have become nicer places and more and more people attend college, they offer recreational activities to their students, such as athletics. That's completely fine. But the emphasis placed on athletics by colleges and universities has completely spun out of control - First, it gives advanced athletes advantages getting into college and in paying for college, but then forces them to spending many hours practicing a sport that only a small percentage will actually earn their living playing. Second, it diverts money and attention away from the vast majority of the student body. Special, multi-million dollar facilities for only athletes to train in (0 benefit to the student body as a whole) seem to be... I dunno, let's just say 'not good'.

In my unrealistic dream world, scholarships given to athletes should be given to gifted students who cannot afford college, or simply boosting the financial aid a college can offer - helping thousands of students escape debt. The money siphoned off to the athletic department should really be spent on academic buildings, professors, and students - the true purpose of a university.

Admittedly, I am a huge Duke basketball fan, making me bit of a hypocrite. But big time sports should probably be spun away from our education system. i.e. The NBA needs a D-league, and the NCAA needs a complete revamping, with much emphasis taken away from college athletics.

So as for paying college athletes... sure, they should be paid. Just not by the college. How about by a D-league (or the NBA/NFL/MLB/NHL for whenever the player is ready to go there).

EDIT: Davekay just beat me to it. I'm in complete agreement with him

[Nugget]

My view on this boils down to the simple fact that using the college athletics structure as a minor league system has inherent and inescapable problems. . . .

As much as I am a fan of college sports, and I have a deep and abiding love for college sports above all pro sports, the solution to all of the above problems is simple: establish viable minor leagues for the revenue generating sports. Eligible age of entry is 18, the same age at which most people can pursue full time employment. . . .

Colleges, meanwhile, will lose a tremendous source of revenue, but they will no longer have to compete with building pro caliber stadiums and training facilities, luring coaches with multi-millions, and, more importantly, turning the idea of amateur competition among students into a joke.

. . . Will this lead to the death of major college sports? Yes. And I would really, really miss it. I've grown up watching ACC hoops and football and loving them. But, if done right, it's a solution that's good for the athletes...and probably better for the universities than having the universities pay the players.

You make much the same point I was trying to make for more eloquently.

But, I don't quite share your pessimism that your proposal would necessarily result in loss of "a tremendous source of revenue" or or "the death of major college sports."

the NCAA basketball tournment is still a massive money-maker even though the level of play has been substantially watered down over the past 20 years due to early entry.

I think college sports would still make a whole bunch of money even if the level of play was watered down a bit further. It's still Alabama-Auburn (or Duke-Carolina) even if the players, on both sides, are not quite as talented.

[fuqua1997]

Absolutely not. First off, most kids are already on a free ride, and receive privileges that other students do not get. I was a Division I athlete, and greatly appreciate the opportunity to have reduced school costs due to my ability to play a sport. However, to suggest that an athlete should be paid in some way is way off base, in my opinion. It is tough to hold down a job when you are an athlete, but the summer is usually wide open, as well as the rest of the off-season. Considering kids on full rides get free room and food, it is tough to argue that they need more. I worked in the Summer and Spring to pay some other bills, and have more spending money.

Pay Players = more corruption = less pride for the school and sport = more premadonnas

[Genedoc]

Absolutely not. First off, most kids are already on a free ride, and receive privileges that other students do not get. I was a Division I athlete, and greatly appreciate the opportunity to have reduced school costs due to my ability to play a sport. However, to suggest that an athlete should be paid in some way is way off base, in my opinion. It is tough to hold down a job when you are an athlete, but the summer is usually wide open, as well as the rest of the off-season. Considering kids on full rides get free room and food, it is tough to argue that they need more. I worked in the Summer and Spring to pay some other bills, and have more spending money.

Pay Players = more corruption = less pride for the school and sport = more premadonnas
Free room, board, and access to an education is perfectly reasonable compensation for most athletes. Most athletes, however, do not create billions of dollars of revenue for NCAA member institutions. Football and basketball players do. Room and board in exchange for creating billions in wealth and revenue doesn't quite sound like a fair shake to me, especially considering their are businesses who want to pay them market compensation. And I'd suggest that allowing the players to pursue their market worth would significantly decrease the amount of corruption.

[Duvall]

Free room, board, and access to an education is perfectly reasonable compensation for most athletes. Most athletes, however, do not create billions of dollars of revenue for NCAA member institutions. Football and basketball players do. Room and board in exchange for creating billions in wealth and revenue doesn't quite sound like a fair shake to me, especially considering their are businesses who want to pay them market compensation.

If room and board isn't fair compensation for most college basketball and football players, then why do the vast majority get offered less than that when they leave college?

[Genedoc]

If room and board isn't fair compensation for most college basketball and football players, then why do the vast majority get offered less than that when they leave college?
For the same reason I no longer get paid for the job I used to have?

[Wheat/"/"/"]

[QUOTE=Wheat/"/"/";518255]I totally agree. The NCAA has no right to inhibit a student athlete from any legal outside source of income. None.

Now, the NCAA could/should have the right to require that student athlete to report the income, meet academic requirements or face suspension./QUOTE]

I disagree with this because it it leads too directly to undermining the basic premise of collegiate sports.

If by "pay the players" one means the type of modest, "everyone gets it so they can take their girlfriend out on a date," sort of money, that's one thing -- and I'd probably be for it, and it wouldn't be too difficult to fund it.

But, essentially making each player a junior professional free agent is, I think, a totally different story and would largely undermine any rationale or justification for college sports as it currently exists.

I understand that dedicated fans of college sports are, to a large degree, participants in a sham -- we pretend that all of the players are legitimate students, want to be in college and are there to represent "Dear old Duke," when in fact most of the top players in men's basketball and football would jump to the pros in a second if allowed.

But, I think the better response to that situation is not to throw in the towel on amatuerism; instead, it should be to have the pro sports open up to anyone who wants to go pro whenever they want. And, if you go to college, you're an amatuer (with a modest, livable, stipend).

A rule like Wheat proposes largely destroys any connection between the college and the team. But, that connection has to mean something, otherwise there is no reason for college sports. What's valuable about college sports is the connection between team and school; if college sports become nothing more than the "Alabama minor league NFL franchise" or the "Kentucky minor league NBA franchise" then what is the point of pretending it's "college" sports?

I would much rather have legitimate minor leagues like the NBDL for those who really want to be pros right away (and not in college), and trade for having more legitimate "collegiate" teams that have lower quality of play. And, since the value in college sports really is in the name on the front of the jersey not the name on the back, I suspect there would not be much drop in the financial success of college sports -- especially if everyone was on the same, level, playing field in that regard.

Why punish players and keep allowing institutions...the NCAA and its members...to continue to treat athletes like slave labor while they profit in the billions of dollars? How can that possibly be considered fair?

I don't want to sound rude, and this is not directed at you personally, but could that attitude be because you are not the parent financially challenged, or your child is not the player being taken advantage of so its easy to cling to "amateur principles"?

We all know the NBDL is not a viable option. Realistically, the NCAA controls everything below the professional level.

And we know the NCAA would change tunes in a second if the best athletes left school for anything else.

Keeping... "the basic premise of collegiate sports" seems very naive to me. Times change, this is not 1940.

It's all about control...control of the money....and it's as simple and ugly as that.

Let the kids play and get paid, if they are worthy enough for someone to want to pay them. It won't hurt anything but some egos on kids nobody wants to pay. Nothing will change with fans supporting their schools, etc...

The very least the NCAA should do is let the players profit from their skills, if someone is willing to pay them, (in the sunlight).

The NCAA/schools can be the ones to pay them, or not...their choice...but don't try and stop someone else.

To address competition issues, a legitimate concern, the NCAA can do something like levy luxury taxes on schools that try to compile too much talent, spread the money around to smaller schools...whatever...it's their "league"....but put in those restrictions in at the institutional level, not at the player level.

Edit> I have no problem with the NCAA standing firm on academic requirements etc.. players who don't want an education or meet school standards do have the option to go on to the NBDL, if they chose.

[Duvall]

My view on this boils down to the simple fact that using the college athletics structure as a minor league system has inherent and inescapable problems. You really can't avoid the following pitfalls:

1) You have colleges full of kids who are not academically suited to the college they attend. They may not have the background or simple academic prowess to succeed. They may not care about the educational side of their university experience (which is kind of like not caring about the driving side of your car experience). There is, therefore, a sense that the kids aren't "real" students.

2) You have academic institutions driven by a $$$ motive to make difficult decisions about where to draw the line in terms of academic integrity, admissions standards, etc.

3) You have the few athletes who do go on to make a living in professional sports not as well trained in their sport as they otherwise would be. ("Huh, what?" some may ask). Well, take 4 years of minor league hoops full time versus 4 years of splitting your hoops with academic requirements, with the strict time limits imposed by the NCAA. Given equally good coaching, I bet the full time hoopsters come out better trained than the part timers.

As much as I am a fan of college sports, and I have a deep and abiding love for college sports above all pro sports, the solution to all of the above problems is simple: establish viable minor leagues for the revenue generating sports. Eligible age of entry is 18, the same age at which most people can pursue full time employment.

I agree with a lot of what you write here, except - who's going to establish this minor league system? The professional leagues have the money to do so, but no incentive, as there's simply no money in it.

[lotusland]

It's hardly "quite a payment" when they generate a billion plus (http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/29/news/companies/college_football_dollars/index.htm) dollars in profit and put themselves at significant physical peril while doing it. And they work extensively in the weight room, on the training field, in the film room, and in practice in exchange for their "payment." They're getting less than pennies on the dollar.


This is the fallacy that is always repeated. The truth is that these athletes couldn't buy a sausage biscuit with their "value" as a professional. Take off the college jersey and no one cares when or where they play. They get a very valuable scholarship, free use of top notch facilities and coaching and they get tremendous exposure to a national media market that may benefit them for the rest of their lives.

[MartyClark]

[QUOTE=Nugget;518258]

Why punish players and keep allowing institutions...the NCAA and its members...to continue to treat athletes like slave labor while they profit in the billions of dollars? How can that possibly be considered fair?

I don't want to sound rude, and this is not directed at you personally, but could that attitude be because you are not the parent financially challenged, or your child is not the player being taken advantage of so its easy to cling to "amateur principles"?

We all know the NBDL is not a viable option. Realistically, the NCAA controls everything below the professional level.

And we know the NCAA would change tunes in a second if the best athletes left school for anything else.

Keeping... "the basic premise of collegiate sports" seems very naive to me. Times change, this is not 1940.

It's all about control...control of the money....and it's as simple and ugly as that.

Let the kids play and get paid, if they are worthy enough for someone to want to pay them. It won't hurt anything but some egos on kids nobody wants to pay. Nothing will change with fans supporting their schools, etc...

The very least the NCAA should do is let the players profit from their skills, if someone is willing to pay them, (in the sunlight).

The NCAA/schools can be the ones to pay them, or not...their choice...but don't try and stop someone else.

To address competition issues, a legitimate concern, the NCAA can do something like levy luxury taxes on schools that try to compile too much talent, spread the money around to smaller schools...whatever...it's their "league"....but put in those restrictions in at the institutional level, not at the player level.

Edit> I have no problem with the NCAA standing firm on academic requirements etc.. players who don't want an education or meet school standards do have the option to go on to the NBDL, if they chose.

Wheat:

Sorry, but you are catching no fish with this angry diatribe. When you describe the current situation as punishing players or "slave labor", you have lost most of us.

[JasonEvans]

I'd suggest that allowing the players to pursue their market worth would significantly decrease the amount of corruption.

While I agree with the spirit of what you and others have proposed, I fear the reality.

Phil Knight of Nike loves the University of Oregon. He and his company give lots of money to Oregon. Under the, "let the free market pay the players what they are worth" argument, there would be nothing to stop Phil Night from offering the top 5 high school recruits several hundred thousand dollars each... if they attend Oregon.

Similarly, billionaire T. Boone Pickens is a huge Okie State fan... I mean huge to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in gifts -- many to the athletic department. If he could approach the top 10 football recruits in America and say to them, "come to Okie State and I will buy a million dollars worth of your football jerseys" it would be a massive recruiting advantage for Okie State. The best part is, Pickens could turn around and donate the jerseys to charity, getting a tax write-off for him buying players for the football team.

And when the NBA comes calling to Harrison Barnes and he sees visions of millions of dollars dancing before him, what would stop some rich UNC alums from paying him that same amount to stay in school another year and be an "endorser" or buying a few hundred thousand Barnes jerseys?

The reason I proposed a small (several thousand dollars) cash payment to players was because I think it would at least begin to solve the problem of "this kid doesn't even have the money to take his girlfriend to the movies and his parents cannot afford to fly in to see him play" while not breaking the bank and not providing a loophole allowing some richer schools/alums to pervert the system into a recruiting advantage. I know my idea is not perfect and maybe it doesn't really solve the problem. But "let the free market decide" is a bad idea and not one which will eliminate corruption.

-Jason "maybe $4k isn't enough... but it would be a start" Evans

[Genedoc]

This is the fallacy that is always repeated. The truth is that these athletes couldn't buy a sausage biscuit with their "value" as a professional. Take off the college jersey and no one cares when or where they play. They get a very valuable scholarship, free use of top notch facilities and coaching and they get tremendous exposure to a national media market that may benefit them for the rest of their lives.
It's a matter of fact that many people would like to pay players for their time, autographs, and companies would sign some of them to very lucrative endorsement deals. This has been illustrated repeatedly over the last few years as players have taken cash for their autographs and other paraphernalia and subsequently been suspended. Were this fact a fallacy, those suspensions wouldn't have happened because there wouldn't have been a market for their goods.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

[QUOTE=Wheat/"/"/";518276]

Wheat:

Sorry, but you are catching no fish with this angry diatribe. When you describe the current situation as punishing players or "slave labor", you have lost most of us.

Jason,
I chose those words very carefully, and maybe a little over the top hyperbole, but stand by them to get my point accross.

[Genedoc]

Jason - Im stunned we made it three pages in before Pickens/Knight came up. Knight's already bought Oregon a top 5 program, complete with requisite NCAA violations. The Oregon athletic facilities are better than many professional teams have. We're already pretty much exactly where you fear we'd be.

[davekay1971]

I agree with a lot of what you write here, except - who's going to establish this minor league system? The professional leagues have the money to do so, but no incentive, as there's simply no money in it.

Great question. I'm lacking in any historical knowledge about how the minor league baseball system was established, or minor league futbol/football/soccer leagues are established in other countries, but I imagine they were developed when there wasn't already an established collegiate league (with massive TV contracts) in place. There is money to be made in minor league basketball and football in America...but only if the NCAA is not already in place as a monster competitor.

With the NCAA in place as a defacto minor league system that is free to the NBA and NFL, there is no incentive for those professional leagues to establish a viable minor league system in their respective sports. Which is why it doesn't exist, I suppose.

So, it would take (1) an Act of Congress, which has better things to do; (2) the universities willingly giving up their revenue generating sports machine because they want to keep the academic ivory towers all academic and ivory; or (3) the NFL and NBA, Bill Gates, Mark Cuban, Donald Trump, George Soros, Disney (parent of ESPN), and Warren Buffet teaming up to put together the capital to start the league, pay the players enough to entice them away from the already established NCAA system, and broadcast the games for the TV exposure the players and the league would want.

In other words: We're back to it ain't gonna happen.

[Duvall]

I chose those words very carefully, and maybe a little over the top hyperbole, but stand by them to get my point accross.

You shouldn't.

[lotusland]

It's a matter of fact that many people would like to pay players for their time, autographs, and companies would sign some of them to very lucrative endorsement deals. This has been illustrated repeatedly over the last few years as players have taken cash for their autographs and other paraphernalia and subsequently been suspended. Were this fact a fallacy, those suspensions wouldn't have happened because there wouldn't have been a market for their goods.

What I'm saying is that if you put the same players on a pro team called the Durham Blue Devils instead of the Duke Blue Devils then nobody cares. There would be no autographs or endorsements because nobody would ever hear of them or even care that they play basketball. The only reason people want their autograph or buy their jersey is because they represent a particular school. Without a college affiliation there isn't a market for their goods.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

You shouldn't.


OK then...if that comment is going down a road where it was never intended, I'll take it back

I'll simply say again, players are being used for financial gain by institutions and denied the basic right to a free market.

[JasonEvans]

Jason - Im stunned we made it three pages in before Pickens/Knight came up. Knight's already bought Oregon a top 5 program, complete with requisite NCAA violations. The Oregon athletic facilities are better than many professional teams have. We're already pretty much exactly where you fear we'd be.

Pickens and Knight have bought facilities, but not players. My point is that if we let the "free market" give whatever it wants to players, billionaires are going to buy players too. Can you imagine the overt bidding war that would happen for top recruits between various billionaires who back various universities? Kids would not be choosing schools because of academics or atmosphere or the coach who can teach them the most, they'd be choosing based on who was offering them gigantic wads of cash.

Even the professional sports leagues refuse to allow a true free market to happen. They have a draft, precisely so the kids do not get to go to the highest bidding team. They have salary caps so teams cannot spend whatever they want on players with no regard to the financial implications.

All I have to say is that if the "free market" is given free reign over college athletics, Duke better hope that Bill and Melinda Gates are big sports fans!

-Jason "with the rookie salary scales in place in pro sports, there would absolutely be kids staying in school because the NBA/NFL would be a pay cut" Evans

[Genedoc]

What I'm saying is that if you put the same players on a pro team called the Durham Blue Devils instead of the Duke Blue Devils then nobody cares. There would be no autographs or endorsements because nobody would ever hear of them or even care that they play basketball. The only reason people want their autograph or buy their jersey is because they represent a particular school. Without a college affiliation there isn't a market for their goods.
Yes, management needs labor, and labor needs management. All I'm saying is treat it like the multiple billion dollar business it is. The school presidents treat it like a business. The TV networks, the apparel companies, and the coaches all treat it like a business, but we tell the players it's all about amateurism. That ship sailed long ago.

The people in charge treat it 100% like a business. The ACC round robin...dead because it made more money to sell it out. Oklahoma/Nebraska...in different conferences after 100 years of history. Coaches move annually. The amateurism component was killed when the adults started treating it like a true business. All I'm suggesting is to allow the players to treat it exactly like the coaches, Presidents, network bosses, and apparel company CEOs do.

[Genedoc]

Pickens and Knight have bought facilities, but not players. My point is that if we let the "free market" give whatever it wants to players, billionaires are going to buy players too. Can you imagine the overt bidding war that would happen for top recruits between various billionaires who back various universities? Kids would not be choosing schools because of academics or atmosphere or the coach who can teach them the most, they'd be choosing based on who was offering them gigantic wads of cash.

Even the professional sports leagues refuse to allow a true free market to happen. They have a draft, precisely so the kids do not get to go to the highest bidding team. They have salary caps so teams cannot spend whatever they want on players with no regard to the financial implications.

All I have to say is that if the "free market" is given free reign over college athletics, Duke better hope that Bill and Melinda Gates are big sports fans!

-Jason "with the rookie salary scales in place in pro sports, there would absolutely be kids staying in school because the NBA/NFL would be a pay cut" Evans
If you think most football players choose schools based on where they'll learn the most, I've a bridge I'd love to show you. There are ways to limit things to keep guys like Knight from buying the top 100 players every year, and plenty of kids would go where wanted regardless of compensation. But really, things would look very, very similar to exactly what they already look like, only we wouldn't be having ridiculous discussions about bagels and butter as impermissible benefits each offseason.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Yes, management needs labor, and labor needs management. All I'm saying is treat it like the multiple billion dollar business it is. The school presidents treat it like a business. The TV networks, the apparel companies, and the coaches all treat it like a business, but we tell the players it's all about amateurism. That ship sailed long ago.

The people in charge treat it 100% like a business. The ACC round robin...dead because it made more money to sell it out. Oklahoma/Nebraska...in different conferences after 100 years of history. Coaches move annually. The amateurism component was killed when the adults started treating it like a true business. All I'm suggesting is to allow the players to treat it exactly like the coaches, Presidents, network bosses, and apparel company CEOs do.

Well said.

[SoCalDukeFan]

First of all no one is putting a gun to a kid's head and making him play college sports. He can pay his own way, get an academic or some other scholarship, or just not attend. If he plays the sport to get a degree,l that is his choice. If he thinks he is being exploited then he can drop the sport.

The NFL/NBA age limitations should be dropped. If an 18 year old thinks the can play in the NFL, let him. I heard last night that the Cowboy's starting right tackle is only 20 years old. The age limitations are the pros, not the colleges doing anyway.

While a student could say have a best selling album and also appear in the college musical, no school is going to get into a bidding war for incoming freshmen singers. You can be assured that Pickens and Knight and others will be bidding for top high school athletes if they could.

The fact is that most if not all of these "exploited" athletes spend untold hours in the gym so that they could be good enough to be exploited.

The idea of a stipend, while not free market, makes sense to me. Athletes should be able to have a little dignity and not be totally broke.

If we go free market and say athletes should be treated like any other student, can they hang around for 5,6, 7 or 8 years if they want. Can a good college player who can not make it in the pros just take a course or two and play for as long as Phil Knight will pay him. Can a kid try out for the pros, not make it, and come back to school if he has not graduated? Why not?

I fully understand that there is a huge disparity in that the NCAA wants the players to be treated as student-athletes and at the same time the NCAA, the schools, and the TV networks want them to be treated as free entertainment talent. Why not get the schools to go back and tell the networks to shove it. Give up some TV money. Treat the players as students.

Personally I would rather see Duke go Div III then free market.

SoCal

[roywhite]

What I'm saying is that if you put the same players on a pro team called the Durham Blue Devils instead of the Duke Blue Devils then nobody cares. There would be no autographs or endorsements because nobody would ever hear of them or even care that they play basketball. The only reason people want their autograph or buy their jersey is because they represent a particular school. Without a college affiliation there isn't a market for their goods.

An important point, I think.

Do we go to college football/basketball games to see the best talent in the 18-22 yr age range, or more so because of our attachment to that college?
Is the revenue primarily due to the players skill or to the college rivalries?

During the summer, my wife and I go to a dozen minor-league baseball games; it's good entertainment at a reasonable price, but it's not the same as passionately following the Blue Devils or another college team that we've grown to love. At the minor league games, I don't see kids or grown ups clamoring for player autographs or memorabilia.

[uh_no]

Why punish players and keep allowing institutions...the NCAA and its members...to continue to treat athletes like slave labor while they profit in the billions of dollars? How can that possibly be considered fair?


who's profiting here? the NCAA made a grand total of about 2 million dollars off all D1 institutions last year.
You can see out of the 73 or so million dollars they brought in, they expensed about 71 million. D2 broke even, and D3 lost some 3 million dollars.

All reports can be found http://ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Research/Finances+of+Intercollegiate+Athletics

so anyway, the NCAA makes no money, it spends it to put on championships and divides it among member institutions...athletics departments make no money, most lose it, and even hugely successful ones like ours lose on the order of 16 million dollars a year, which the university covers.

So if you don't want to treat the athletes like slaves, what are you going to cut? maybe the NCAA should cut D3....then they would have more money to send to schools....maybe we should just cut the fencing and rowing teams...then we could avoid treating the basketball players (who live like kings on campus compared to the rest of us peons) like slaves

so what are the cuts wheat? tell me how much you want to pay, and to whom (and keep in mind that whatever you choose to pay has to be evenly split among women and men as per title IX) and then find me an equal amount of cuts at either the university, or the NCAA level.

[DukeWarhead]

My apologies to those who feel that opening the door to paying college players would have little impact on college sports - but you are dead wrong. You just have to look at the NFL and NBA lockouts to see where that road leads. No sort of regulation or well intentioned plan would prevent lawyers, agents, and boosters from pushing to expand, twist, change whatever rules are established - and the sport would suffer. Hold-outs. Contract impasses. etc. Yes, it would happen.

And besides, there's no compelling argument for paying them, sorry.
No, college sports player are not victims. They are volunteers.
No, they are not being exploited. They are being provided an education in return for preparing for and playing a game.
Yes, you can say it's not "fair" - but fair has nothing to do with it, to be honest.

As William Munny so elequently put it, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

The percentage of all NCAA athletes that participate in multi-million dollar producing programs is small. All the others work just as hard or harder for what they do.

I highly encourage any student athlete that feels ill-used or victimized to exercise thier freedom to not be victimized or exploited by not playing the sport.
Believe me, someone will be eager to take thier place - and appreciate what they are given.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

who's profiting here? the NCAA made a grand total of about 2 million dollars off all D1 institutions last year.
You can see out of the 73 or so million dollars they brought in, they expensed about 71 million. D2 broke even, and D3 lost some 3 million dollars.

All reports can be found http://ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Research/Finances+of+Intercollegiate+Athletics

so anyway, the NCAA makes no money, it spends it to put on championships and divides it among member institutions...athletics departments make no money, most lose it, and even hugely successful ones like ours lose on the order of 16 million dollars a year, which the university covers.

So if you don't want to treat the athletes like slaves, what are you going to cut? maybe the NCAA should cut D3....then they would have more money to send to schools....maybe we should just cut the fencing and rowing teams...then we could avoid treating the basketball players (who live like kings on campus compared to the rest of us peons) like slaves

so what are the cuts wheat? tell me how much you want to pay, and to whom (and keep in mind that whatever you choose to pay has to be evenly split among women and men as per title IX) and then find me an equal amount of cuts at either the university, or the NCAA level.

Everybody is getting paid, very well, by the revenues generated by sports entertainment, everybody but the players.

Show me a study detailing salaries of NCAA employees...nevermind the huge paychecks of some coaches.

I'm not advocating schools cut anything, or even that the NCAA pay players. The NCAA can argue their income is necessary to provide the "stage".

What I am saying is players have a right to receive income from whatever outside source, provided its above board to avoid corruption.

I'm saying the NCAA has no right to deny a player legal opportunities at income.

I'm saying the NCAA can find ways to regulate its members on the other issues.

[throatybeard]

I disagree with this because it it leads too directly to undermining the basic premise of collegiate sports.

If by "pay the players" one means the type of modest, "everyone gets it so they can take their girlfriend out on a date," sort of money, that's one thing -- and I'd probably be for it, and it wouldn't be too difficult to fund it.

But, essentially making each player a junior professional free agent is, I think, a totally different story and would largely undermine any rationale or justification for college sports as it currently exists.

I understand that dedicated fans of college sports are, to a large degree, participants in a sham -- we pretend that all of the players are legitimate students, want to be in college and are there to represent "Dear old Duke," when in fact most of the top players in men's basketball and football would jump to the pros in a second if allowed.

But, I think the better response to that situation is not to throw in the towel on amatuerism; instead, it should be to have the pro sports open up to anyone who wants to go pro whenever they want. And, if you go to college, you're an amatuer (with a modest, livable, stipend).

A rule like Wheat proposes largely destroys any connection between the college and the team. But, that connection has to mean something, otherwise there is no reason for college sports. What's valuable about college sports is the connection between team and school; if college sports become nothing more than the "Alabama minor league NFL franchise" or the "Kentucky minor league NBA franchise" then what is the point of pretending it's "college" sports?

I would much rather have legitimate minor leagues like the NBDL for those who really want to be pros right away (and not in college), and trade for having more legitimate "collegiate" teams that have lower quality of play. And, since the value in college sports really is in the name on the front of the jersey not the name on the back, I suspect there would not be much drop in the financial success of college sports -- especially if everyone was on the same, level, playing field in that regard.

I love this post. I miss Nugget posting a lot. I am not ideologically opposed to paying the players, but it's pretty clear that every discussion of it proves that the implementation would be a mess. I'm not saying you can't do it, but it's not simple, no matter how much folks want to act like it's some minor or medium-sized procedural issue.

[throatybeard]

Personally I would rather see Duke go Div III then free market.

SoCal

This. The free market is great and all, but I want my university to be in the free market for professors, or whatever market exists for faculty, not the market for 19 year olds who can pass a basketball around in their underwear. I know it's presently impossible to go the D3 route, politically, and I like Krzyzewski. But I can definitely see a time two, three decades from now when we really re-evaluate our priorities and go the Chicago route. And I'd be just fine. I got other schools to cheer for, and quasi-professional sports are extremely peripheral to the mission of the institution.

No duh it's a business. Amateurism is a lie, of course. At a certain point, I will think it's appropriate to get out of that business. We're close. Not there yet but close.

[cruxer]

I love the way everyone opposed to players getting a fair compensation are acting like the big 2 NCAA sports live in the same economy as the rest. Frankly, since the NCAA negotiates the TV rights for men's bball and not football, the men's NCAAT proceeds pay for the lion's share of the NCAA's revenue.

We nominally call this amateur athletics (just like volleyball!), but in reality, only men's college football and basketball comprise a multi-billion dollar industry. Only it's an industry where those who make the rules (administrators, coaches, etc) get to collude amongst themselves and consult legal representation to enforce a contract (the LOI) on their 18-yr-old and unrepresented (by rule!) talent. Consequently, much of the money in the economy goes to those rule makers rather than to said talent. I love Coach K dearly, but he makes close to $6M/yr. How's that compare to the volleyball coach? The University of Florida's head volleyball coach has won SEC Coach of the Year 12 freakin times! Anyone care to wager what she makes compared to first-year and first-time head football coach Will Muschamp? Nobody seems to find that disparity unfair. When VCU gave Shaka Smart the big salary bump, who asked "Where's the money going to come from?" I don't begrudge anyone their salary, but frankly, these aren't market prices. These are prices you can demand when you get to control the market!

Sure being the de-facto minor leagues for the NFL and NBA hurts college athletics, but that ship sailed long, long ago. Saying it isn't so won't make it not so. As a Furman University alum, I was on campus this week and watched some club rugby (fyi the tourney featured Furman, Clemson, Tennessee and UNCA). It dawned on me that I, along with about 10 other fans, were watching what most people envision when they think of college amateur athletics. I reveled in that for a bit, then went to a bar to watch South Carolina/Georgia on the tube.

-c

[Genedoc]

And besides, there's no compelling argument for paying them, sorry.

My apologies to those who feel there's no compelling reason to pay players, but you're simply dead wrong. The compelling reasons are legion. People want to pay them. Most of them want to take the money available to them. They're key participants in a multi-billion dollar industry. Every other entity in that multi billion dollar industry - the coaches, the Presidents, the institutions, the boosters, the TV networks, the apparel companies, etc - treat it explicitly like a business. They maximize profit first, everything else second, and tell the players actually doing the work, taking the risks, and creating value that they're amateurs. It's a charade.

For those who say it's the name on the front, connection to the Univesities, and that the quality of play is largely irrelevant to the amount of money generated, I submit to you...women's basketball. Same names on the front of the jerseys, same connection to the University, many of the teams play in the same building as their male counterparts. So clearly WBB should be roughly as profitable as MBB, right?

[Genedoc]

I love this post. I miss Nugget posting a lot. I am not ideologically opposed to paying the players, but it's pretty clear that every discussion of it proves that the implementation would be a mess. I'm not saying you can't do it, but it's not simple, no matter how much folks want to act like it's some minor or medium-sized procedural issue.
It would be a mess compared to the squeaky clean, well oiled machine we presently have in place? It would be LESS of a mess than the completely arbitrary enforcement and arcane rule book currently in place. You realize I'm not exaggerating when I say they spent part of the offseason arguing about whether or not butter and cream cheese for bagels was an impermissible benefit? That degree of absurdity combined with the coaching merry go round and the annual conference realignments strongly suggest it's already as busted of a mess as possible.

[uh_no]

It would be a mess compared to the squeaky clean, well oiled machine we presently have in place? It would be LESS of a mess than the completely arbitrary enforcement and arcane rule book currently in place. You realize I'm not exaggerating when I say they spent part of the offseason arguing about whether or not butter and cream cheese for bagels was an impermissible benefit? That degree of absurdity combined with the coaching merry go round and the annual conference realignments strongly suggest it's already as busted of a mess as possible.

Arguing that the current rules in place are trivial and ridiculous and thinking that players should be paid, frankly, have nothing to do with each other.


Well if you're gonna let players have cream cheese, gash darn it why don't you just pay them salaries!

[Genedoc]

Arguing that the current rules in place are trivial and ridiculous and thinking that players should be paid, frankly, have nothing to do with each other.

I beg to differ. Throaty said that "implementation [of a new system] would be a mess." A mess compared to what is a perfectly reasonable question and line of reasoning. Yes, it would be a mess compared to the mythical perfect system. But compared to the actual situation as it exists in reality, it would be scarcely noticeable.

The presidents and the NCAA member institutions have nobody to blame but themselves. The presidents are in charge, and they've failed, miserably. They are the ones who have treated football and basketball purely like a business. For decades. Coaches salaries, coaches free to move while players are tied to restrictive LOIs, TV contract size, conference expansions and realignments that blow up generations of traditions. If the Presidents treated football and basketball like other intercollegiate athletics, they'd have a leg to stand on. They do not. They treat it like a business, or they get fired.

[uh_no]

I beg to differ. Throaty said that "implementation [of a new system] would be a mess." A mess compared to what is a perfectly reasonable question and line of reasoning. Yes, it would be a mess compared to the mythical perfect system. But compared to the actual situation as it exists in reality, it would be scarcely noticeable.

Wait, so your argument is that since today's system is a mess, who cares if we just pay the players as well?

The logic does not follow. I disagree with Throaty that the paying of players should be decided based on the complexity of required rules, but I absolutely cannot agree to the fallacious argument that because the implementation of such a payment system could not be more complex than today's rules, it must be better.

[Genedoc]

Wait, so your argument is that since today's system is a mess, who cares if we just pay the players as well?

The logic does not follow. I disagree with Throaty that the paying of players should be decided based on the complexity of required rules, but I absolutely cannot agree to the fallacious argument that because the implementation of such a payment system could not be more complex than today's rules, it must be better.
The players deserve to be paid because they're creating value while investing time and taking risk to do so. Currently, they are creating a value that far exceeds their compensation, and a market exists that would like to compensate them for their time and risk, yet they are prevented from accessing that market.

With regard to the system and its complexities, precedent and context matters. The agents treat football/basketball as a business. The coaches treat football/basketball as a business. The University Presidents treat football/basketball as a business. The TV Networks treat football/basketball as a business. The apparel companies treat football/basketball as a business. The advertisers treat football/basketball as a business. Yet the players are told with a straight face that they're amateurs and should behave as such.

[RPS]

From my perspective as the parent of a former D1 athlete in a "revenue generating sport" in a BCS conference (now graduated), most of this discussion misses the primary point. The main issue (or so it seems to me) is not whether one can justify paying players or what will happen to college sports if players get paid or even if the players are being exploited. The main issue is whether a cartel of colleges and universites can get together to control their market and to keep all the money generated thereby for themselves and away from those (the players) who are the key instruments in the generation of that money. If you love cartels, you should love the NCAA and the current system. On the other hand, if you think cartels are a bad idea, how can you justify the current system?

P.S. How many of those who are trying so hard mto defend the (indefensible) NCAA have even read the article (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/8643/)? It doesn't look like many.

[uh_no]

From my perspective as the parent of a former D1 athlete in a "revenue generating sport" in a BCS conference (now graduated), most of this discussion misses the primary point. The main issue (or so it seems to me) is not whether one can justify paying players or what will happen to college sports if players get paid or even if the players are being exploited. The main issue is whether a cartel of colleges and universites can get together to control their market and to keep all the money generated thereby for themselves and away from those (the players) who are the key instruments in the generation of that money. If you love cartels, you should love the NCAA and the current system. On the other hand, if you think cartels are a bad idea, how can you justify the current system?

P.S. How many of those who are trying so hard mto defend the (indefensible) NCAA have even read the article (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/8643/)? It doesn't look like many.

must be nice to not have thousands upon thousands of dollars of loans.

[RPS]

must be nice to not have thousands upon thousands of dollars of loans.

You know not whereof you speak.

The only reason he doesn't have loans is because we had the means to pay. After being starter from the opening game as a true freshman, he was injured. The coaches didn't think he was *really* injured ("You need to be tough!") so they waited six weeks for an MRI and "suggested" he continue to practice. The MRI revealed a serious (and seriously aggravated by practice) injury. The doctors said he would take a year to heal properly, with no guaranty of full recovery. After two months he was told to get ready for spring ball or his spot was in jeopardy. Long story short -- he was never the same and his career was over. His mother and I paid for him to finish school. The great irony is that he loves everything about his school and his experience there except for the primary reason he went -- sports. Because he is a great student, he has a full ride for graduate school at Georgetown. How do you think he feels about the NCAA and the system? Let's just say that he is astonishingly cynical for his age.

Meanwhile, he had no rights -- not even due process -- with respect to his undergraduate university (just below Duke on the U.S. News list but much higher in the Shanghai rankings). They must be signed away to play. At a campus with more than a dozen Nobel laureates, academics for athletes are not second fiddle -- they are last chair, even as the administration proudly proclaims athletes' academic achievements and graduation rates to press and alumni at every opportunity. Academics are a means to retaining eligibility and nothing more.

No rules are actively broken, but things are done in such a way as to get what the coaches want. For example, 20-hour weekly limitations on practice time are skirted by scheduling gaps between film, practice and the like -- long enough for meaningful "extra" and "optional" work-outs and film study, but not long enough to head to the library. Judicious use of those "breaks" every day allows coaches to require morning lifting and practice/meetings/film/meals that start at 1pm every day and end well into the evening every day (with one day "off") and still comply with a 20-hour weekly limit (see here (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2009-09-01-ncaa-time-rules_N.htm), for example). No D1 athlete I know spends less than 40-50 hours per week on his or her sport (and I know a lot of them). Many spend much more.

The system is a disgusting travesty. It exists for the sole benefit of the cartel. The players are merely cheap (almost free) labor. That they (and that you would) agree to be willingly exploited by that cartel doesn't make it any less of a cartel. If you want a football career or -- unless you're a talented enough basketball player to forego college -- a basketball career, it's the only game in town (by design). Let's see...only game in town...illegal cartel...monopolization...do you think there might be a connection?

The NFL and the NBA love having terrific farm systems for free. The television networks love having desirable programming. The schools love the revenue, the exposure and the draw for alums. The players eagerly accept being exploited because it's the only road to the pros.

What's not to like?

[sagegrouse]

"Hell, no!" is always a correct answer to appeals to control a free-ranging discussion.

I see three ways to "pay the players:"

1. A stipend of a few hundred dollars a month as part of the scholarship for players in revenue-producing sports (or all scholarship players). And, of course, it wouldn't be compulsory, but the practice would become a de facto standard. This is no big deal, and I expect the NCAA to address this issue, although surely its solution will be half-baked and half-hearted given the need for consensus.

[My take: Yawn. This shouldn't be controversial. It amounts to less than ten percent of the costs of a $50,000 scholarship. And would impose a burden of less than $1 million on athletic departments. I know posters here have agonized about the need for cutbacks and the loss of Olympic sports, but really and truly these amounts are within the contingency budget for any major athletic department and should cause no serious financial pressure. Heck, Spurrier's proposal to have the head coaches provide the stipend removes the immediate budgetary obstacles.]

2. Let players receive endorsement income or a share of licensed product sales by the university. This is a modification of the Olympic sports model, and there should be quite a bit of experience out there to tap.

[My take: This is a really big deal. Does this give certain schools a huge advantage because they have large merchandise sales? Do all players participate or (Bilas's idea) is each allowed to make his own deals? Big operational and competitive issues. This is probably workable but revolutionary.]

3. Let players earn a "salary" -- say $25,000 -- in addition to tuition and fees. This money becomes significant to almost every school. If we are talking about a free market, where schools bid for players, this is a competitive environment unlike anything we have experienced in collegiate athletics.

[My take: This is a really, really big deal. It would have to be studied and modeled in some detail, and I wonder how the NCAA would ever arrive at an agreement.]

sagegrouse

[JasonEvans]

must be nice to not have thousands upon thousands of dollars of loans.

Would you say the same thing to a kid who had earned an academic scholarship? Some people -- through hard work and genetic luck -- are so outstanding, our Universities are willing to give them an education for free. It is an amazing thing. However, the kid who happens to be a chemistry genius is allowed to earn money for his chemistry skills while in school but the kid who is a basketball or football or track genius is not. How is that fair?

While I have stated that an absolute free market for college athletes would create problems that are simply too fundamental to competition for us to allow that, I think it is wrong to not allow these kids to get something for the tremendous income and exposure they provide to the University.

But, my larger point is that because we put so many requirements and restrictions upon these athletes as a condition of their scholarship, we should not treat that scholarship as the end-all, be-all of what we are giving them.

-Jason "JMHO... thanks for listening" Evans

[Genedoc]

You know not whereof you speak.

The only reason he doesn't have loans is because we had the means to pay. After being starter from the opening game as a true freshman, he was injured. The coaches didn't think he was *really* injured ("You need to be tough!") so they waited six weeks for an MRI and "suggested" he continue to practice. The MRI revealed a serious (and seriously aggravated by practice) injury. The doctors said he would take a year to heal properly, with no guaranty of full recovery. After two months he was told to get ready for spring ball or his spot was in jeopardy. Long story short -- he was never the same and his career was over. His mother and I paid for him to finish school. The great irony is that he loves everything about his school and his experience there except for the primary reason he went -- sports. Because he is a great student, he has a full ride for graduate school at Georgetown. How do you think he feels about the NCAA and the system? Let's just say that he is astonishingly cynical for his age.

Meanwhile, he had no rights -- not even due process -- with respect to his undergraduate university (just below Duke on the U.S. News list but much higher in the Shanghai rankings). They must be signed away to play. At a campus with more than a dozen Nobel laureates, academics for athletes are not second fiddle -- they are last chair, even as the administration proudly proclaims athletes' academic achievements and graduation rates to press and alumni at every opportunity. Academics are a means to retaining eligibility and nothing more.

No rules are actively broken, but things are done in such a way as to get what the coaches want. For example, 20-hour weekly limitations on practice time are skirted by scheduling gaps between film, practice and the like -- long enough for meaningful "extra" and "optional" work-outs and film study, but not long enough to head to the library. Judicious use of those "breaks" every day allows coaches to require morning lifting and practice/meetings/film/meals that start at 1pm every day and end well into the evening every day (with one day "off") and still comply with a 20-hour weekly limit (see here (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2009-09-01-ncaa-time-rules_N.htm), for example). No D1 athlete I know spends less than 40-50 hours per week on his or her sport (and I know a lot of them). Many spend much more.

The system is a disgusting travesty. It exists for the sole benefit of the cartel. The players are merely cheap (almost free) labor. That they (and that you would) agree to be willingly exploited by that cartel doesn't make it any less of a cartel. If you want a football career or -- unless you're a talented enough basketball player to forego college -- a basketball career, it's the only game in town (by design). Let's see...only game in town...illegal cartel...monopolization...do you think there might be a connection?

The NFL and the NBA love having terrific farm systems for free. The television networks love having desirable programming. The schools love the revenue, the exposure and the draw for alums. The players eagerly accept being exploited because it's the only road to the pros.

What's not to like?

Amen. They're treated like labor, by management, and given a pittance of compensation.

Mark Schlereth has said a lot of what you say above, summarized by two things that he said that I made it a point to remember. First, he said he laughed out loud when he heard anyone mention the notion of a "free" education, and that it instantly let him know that they had no idea what they were talking about. He went on to say it's hard to consider something free when you work for it 40 hours a week and injure yourself repeatedly. The second thing he said, and he addressed it to every high school athlete and parent of an athlete listening - "You better use the game, because the game is assuredly using you. You better get everything you can out of it - money, education, access - as soon as you can get it, because the second you get hurt or someone else beats you out of a job, the game will abandon you instantly. So use the game to it's fullest, because it's using you to the fullest."

[RPS]

Let players receive endorsement income or a share of licensed product sales by the university. This is a modification of the Olympic sports model, and there should be quite a bit of experience out there to tap.

[My take: This is a really big deal. Does this give certain schools a huge advantage because they have large merchandise sales? Do all players participate or (Bilas's idea) is each allowed to make his own deals? Big operational and competitive issues. This is probably workable but revolutionary.]

As an aside that (at least) I find interesting and ironic, schools sell jerseys but they don't sell jerseys with players' names on them to maintain the illusion that they aren't trading off the players' in doing so. However, by remarkable coincidence, the couple of jerseys that schools pre-print and market heavily all happen to bear the numbers of the most popular players that year with (perhaps) an all-time favorite thrown in. Of course, my next door neighbor could order a jersey, special order any number he wanted and put his own name on the back. Similarly, I could order a jersey with my son's number on it. But I couldn't put my own name on the back because -- you guessed it -- players' names can't go on the backs of jerseys. But at least I have a couple of bowl game jerseys with his name on the back to hang in my office....

[Wheat/"/"/"]

.... The main issue is whether a cartel of colleges and universites can get together to control their market and to keep all the money generated thereby for themselves and away from those (the players) who are the key instruments in the generation of that money. If you love cartels, you should love the NCAA and the current system. On the other hand, if you think cartels are a bad idea, how can you justify the current system?


Exactly.

Your son's story is compelling and should humanize the issue for everyone. Thanks for sharing it.

[RPS]

Your son's story is compelling and should humanize the issue for everyone. Thanks for sharing it.

I should be clear that his school is well known as one of the supposed exemplars of "doing things the right way." It is not one of those schools (eh-hem...SEC) where such things as oversigning, greyshirting and running off are common (remember this mini-scandal (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=2966536&sportCat=ncf), from another of the supposed "good guy" schools?). Also, if you don't know what those terms relate to, don't speak up defend the system before you do.

You're welcome.

[uh_no]

You know not whereof you speak.

The only reason he doesn't have loans is because we had the means to pay. After being starter from the opening game as a true freshman, he was injured. The coaches didn't think he was *really* injured ("You need to be tough!") so they waited six weeks for an MRI and "suggested" he continue to practice. The MRI revealed a serious (and seriously aggravated by practice) injury. The doctors said he would take a year to heal properly, with no guaranty of full recovery. After two months he was told to get ready for spring ball or his spot was in jeopardy. Long story short -- he was never the same and his career was over. His mother and I paid for him to finish school. The great irony is that he loves everything about his school and his experience there except for the primary reason he went -- sports. Because he is a great student, he has a full ride for graduate school at Georgetown. How do you think he feels about the NCAA and the system? Let's just say that he is astonishingly cynical for his age.

...
I certainly appreciate you sharing your story, and apologize for making assumptions. It seems, though, that the issue here lies with the fact that scholarships are 1 year deals, and that seems to be counter to paying players. If your son had been guaranteed a 4 year scholarship, his story would not be nearly as strong evidence for "paying players". I'm just am not seeing how your son having the ability to get paid by the university would have made one bit of difference in the outcome. Is it because he was treated poorly and spat back out because of an unfortunate injury? If anything, had he been on payroll, the team would have had MORE incentive to cut him early. I guess I fail to see how your story supports the argument that the students should be paid.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I just spent the better part of an hour reading this story that RPS linked (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/8643/)and it was well worth it.

I highly reccomend it for anyone intrested in this topic.

[RPS]

I guess I fail to see how your story supports the argument that the students should be paid.

Then you're missing the forest for the trees.

The standard propaganda is that athletics supports the mission of the university and provides wonderful opportunities for "student-athletes" (one of the great euphemisms out there). The truth is that intercollegiate athletics are a means for schools to enhance revenue, exposure and alumni involvement. To accomplish these goals colleges have formed an explicit cartel designed to minimize costs and maximize return under the guise of another, more noble mission altogether. Any opportunities afforded to athletes are ancilliary, incidental and intended merely to support the real goal -- return on investment.

At my son's school, the Nike contract was sacrosanct. Even if other shoes were better for you or you simply preferred another kind, you had to wear Nike. If it was *truly* imperative to wear another shoe, staff was available to do a "spats" tape job and paint a perfect swoosh onto the tape in the proper location. There was a check of every player before every game because (the players were told) Nike had enforcement officials monitoring every game and recording the television broadcasts to make sure that compliance was total. If it wasn't, there would be "serious consequences" with the suggestion of fines to the school. Regular tape jobs had to be careful never to obscure any swoosh. Every player and every coach had to have multiple swooshes readily visible at all times. But really, it's not about the money -- it's about the kids....

I loved Duke basketball as a student sitting in Cameron decades ago and (hypocritically) love it still today. I also think it comes as close as is possible to doing things "the right way." But I think it is impossible reasonably to conclude that the entire institution of college athletics is anything other than a travesty and a sham.

And you still haven't explained why a cartel is a good thing.

[JasonEvans]

I just spent the better part of an hour reading this story that RPS linked (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/8643/)and it was well worth it.

I highly reccomend it for anyone intrested in this topic.

Hey Wheat... I love ya bud, but it is worth pointing out that the story you just recommended is the very story that I linked at the beginning of the thread. It is the story that caused me to start this thread.

--Jason "I... sniff... can't believe.... sniff... that folks don't read.... sniff... everything I link... sob" Evans

[DukeWarhead]

The references to slave labor, cartels, and the like are really pretty stupid.
NCAA athletes are volunteers, plain and simple. Stop depicting them as hapless victims. They know about and have chosen to be part of the "crooked" system.
I say this as a former NCAA athlete, albeit, no - my program did not generate "billions."

I am also career military - I have seen so many college-age kids, who had numerous career opportunities (some in professional sports), choose instead to serve on active or reserve duty, many knowing what that committment meant in wartime - to get very rankled when I hear about the plight of the under-paid, under-appreciated college athlete. You want to add more to the scholarship, fine. Let them sell their own jersies, fine.
But do not, ever, try to make them out to be unwitting victims or slaves or whatever garbage. It's just not true.

P.S. - $$$$ is what leads to hold-outs, lock-outs, and the like. You want to see that in college sports? Not me.

[RPS]

The references to slave labor, cartels, and the like are really pretty stupid.

Before suggesting that anyone else is stupid, kindly explain how the NCAA is different from a cartel.

[DukeWarhead]

Before suggesting that anyone else is stupid, kindly explain how the NCAA is different from a cartel.

I said the references were stupid, and they are. Fine - use cartel - (although I don't see it as a group made up of competing organizations - it is seperate from the schools themselves, clearly.) But kindly explain the slave labor references. Or better yet, don't even try.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Hey Wheat... I love ya bud, but it is worth pointing out that the story you just recommended is the very story that I linked at the beginning of the thread. It is the story that caused me to start this thread.

--Jason "I... sniff... can't believe.... sniff... that folks don't read.... sniff... everything I link... sob" Evans

My apologies there Jason, I missed it when I read your post. Been on my phone alot lately and limit checking links.
....

Just saw a tweet where Frank Deford is calling that article the greatest one ever written on the NCAA, or something like that.

And Tom McMillan commenting something like the NCAA about to "Crumble"...

[toooskies]

I absolutely love the argument that no one would watch the "Durham Blue Devils" if they weren't associated with Duke. Think of it the other way around: would people casually wear Duke clothing and memorabilia without the players on the court? Would the rivalry with UNC be as strong if we didn't play basketball 2-3 times a year, on a national stage? Do you continue to purchase high school gear as frequently as Duke gear? After all, it's the same thing. Could you name as many famous Duke non-athletes as you can athletes?

How many school donors give money because their sports team reminds them of where they came from? More than anyone would likely admit, either from the school or the donors. But it certainly plays a part, even if it's just an excuse to get donors to return to campus to see the games.

Professional sports prove that players matter above the pay-scale. One only needs to look at Kyrie Irving's decision to turn professional-- his choices were the value of a college education (retails for about $50,000 per year) or becoming an NBA professional and be paid millions per year. (Let's disregard effects of the lockout, this is a peculiar year; substitute Mike Dunleavy's senior year if you like.) He's literally getting paid a hundred times the cost of his college education. Not every player is worth that, and maybe Kyrie isn't worth that much to a college program, but the short of it is that his free-market value dwarfs the value of a college education. There's a cost of NOT going to college that many early entrants face (as in, not learning the lessons there may be to your detriment), but lacking "amateur" status isn't one of them.

[Jderf]

The references to slave labor, cartels, and the like are really pretty stupid.
NCAA athletes are volunteers, plain and simple. Stop depicting them as hapless victims. They know about and have chosen to be part of the "crooked" system.
I say this as a former NCAA athlete, albeit, no - my program did not generate "billions."

I am also career military - I have seen so many college-age kids, who had numerous career opportunities (some in professional sports), choose instead to serve on active or reserve duty, many knowing what that committment meant in wartime - to get very rankled when I hear about the plight of the under-paid, under-appreciated college athlete. You want to add more to the scholarship, fine. Let them sell their own jersies, fine.
But do not, ever, try to make them out to be unwitting victims or slaves or whatever garbage. It's just not true.

P.S. - $$$$ is what leads to hold-outs, lock-outs, and the like. You want to see that in college sports? Not me.

I agree with you that references to "slave labor" and "cartels" reflect rhetoric more than reality, and aggressive language probably doesn't help at all in finding a middle ground in this debate. But at the same time, it is hard to see how the collegiate participation of pro-capable athletes is in any way voluntary. Yes, the vast majority of Div-I athletes do choose to enroll in college because it is their best option. But a substantial minority (the John Walls, the Reggie Bushes) enroll in college because it is their only option. They are more than talented enough to make money from their abilities, but are not able to purely because of an arbitrary system (the rules of the NCAA combined with the lack of viable development leagues) prohibits them from doing so. I find it hard to call that voluntary.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

[QUOTE=.... But kindly explain the slave labor references. Or better yet, don't even try.[/QUOTE]

I used the "Slave labor" reference earlier, and backed off of it because I didn't want the thread to spiral down into something racial, which was not my intention.

But since then, I read the story that JASON (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/8643/) linked where many of my thoughts on the issue were expressed much better than I can present them.

And just now, Jay Bilas tweeted a link to this article (http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/09/how-colleges-exploit-student-athletes/244945/) that does a better job than I can using the "colonialism" angle.

Quote from the article......"The power of the system to hold these athletes out for ridicule and disparagement while presenting them as subjects of moral outrage distorts the real impropriety here. The conditions of the athletic scholarship and transfer rules, prohibitions against agents, limits on due process, failure to deliver on the promise to educate, the unobstructed selling of athlete images, and the like are tools of exploitation that benefit college sport leaders while oppressing those who perform on the field".

[throatybeard]

Here's another implementation problem you rarely hear anyone mention or acknowledge when they're arguing for paying the players.

Here's the Miami Heat's payroll for 2011-12. (Let's ignore the lockout and assume that people will play for pay and receive these amounts).

James $16M
Bosh $16.M
Wade $15.5M
Miller $5.4M
Haslem $3.8M
Anthony $3.6M
House $1.4M
Ilgauskas $1.4M
Chalmers $1.1M
Pittman $789K
Beverly $789K
Hasbrouk $300K
Butler $300K

Only the first six guys are under contract beyond this year, and their compensation goes up every year. Guys four thru six come off the books after 2015. There's a market here. It's not totally free, of course, in that there's a league minimum, and a salary cap. And there's a rookie pay scale, so you could be the best guy on the team and making seven figures instead of eight, although that's not the case on this team. But James, Bosh and Wade are making the most money and have the longest contracts because talent is not distributed evenly among all the guys in the league. A few guys make eight figures, often two per team, but most guys are making somewhere around a million, million and a half. They're akin to the replacement-level player in baseball.

When paying the college players comes up, you usually hear a couple suggestions. One is to cut guys a percentage of their jersey sales, which sounds pretty fair, but will usually be less than half the team for MBB and like a tenth if that for FB. And the other is to just give all the scholarship athletes, or maybe even just the revenue scholarship athletes, some pizza and date money. (It's always pizza and always taking girls out on dates, for some reason. No one ever mentions, I don't know, tacos, GRE test prep, the cover at a gay dance club, a CV boot for a 1997 Camry. Always pizza and girls).

Well, there's a big problem. If the argument is that the athletes are generating value for the school and the school keeps all the revenue, not every athlete is generating the same amount of revenue. And it's a lot easier to quantify--although still thorny--who's generating more value in MBB than it is in FB. Take a top-heavy team like the Heat, the 2006 Duke Men. In alphabetical order.

Boateng
Boykin
J Davidson
P Davidson
Dockery
Johnson
McClure
McRoberts
Melchionni
Nelson
Paulus
Perkins
Pocius
Redick
Williams

Two of the guys generated a lot more value for the team. A lot more. Jamal Boykin is probably a "replacement-level" player for Krzyzewski. On the other hand, he's only had nine guys whose shirts are on the ceiling, and two of them are in this senior class. If this were the NBA, Redick and Williams would be near the league maximum. McRoberts was one of the better players on the team even if he was a pain in the butt, but he was a rookie, so he'd make very little. The upperclassmen who started but weren't as good as 4 and 23 would probably be making something like the MLE. Even if you scaled down all the numbers by a factor of 10 or a 100, that's what the "contour" of the payroll would look like.

Well, you say, maybe it should be more like a minor league payscale, since this is basically AAA for the NBA. Or maybe AA and AAA squooshed together. But then you've got the bonus babies making way more than the journeymen.

What about contract length? Do five-star defensive ends get a contract for five years (including a redshirt year), while the last couple guys in the class are on one year deals that have to be renewed (or not)? What if someone improves dramatically during the course of their four years. Shouldn't Chris Carrawell make a lot more in 2000 than in 1997? What about guys who underwhelm during their careers? Say Paulus is a bonus baby in 2006. His being one of the highest paid is pretty hard to justify by 2008 and 2009. Is Paulus 2009 making more than Singler 2009? Do the Universities really have you under control if they give you a four-year contract? Say you're Luol Deng. You're good enough to warrant a four year deal from the outset. But the NBA pays more and you want to go after a year. Can you, are you under an enforceable contract?

Or do we just pay them all pizza/girl money, $8K/year say? This means we don't really have a market. We're saying JJ Redick is no more valuable to Duke than Eric Boateng. Or do we pay them pizza/girl money, but make it legal for boosters to give them mafia handshakes, and open that up to a market? Even if you pay them pizza/girl money, and the best player on the team is getting a nice 100 grand from Michael Jordan Nissan, that's still not near as much as the NBA pays. So that gets us back to the contract issue. Does Deng have to stay through 2007, having proven in 2004 that he's ready for the Bulls? Do we only do one-year contracts, which would basically mean mediocre upperclassmen are constantly getting cut halfway to their bachelors degree for new whizzes out of AAU?

I just don't know how you implement this. It's terribly, terribly complicated. I'm not saying it can't be done, but you've got to solve a lot of difficulties in order to implement it.

[RPS]

I said the references were stupid, and they are. Fine - use cartel.

I will -- because it is a cartel, by every plausible definition. And they are supposed to be against the law.


But kindly explain the slave labor references. Or better yet, don't even try.

Walter Byers was the first and long-time executive director of the NCAA. This is what he wrote in his book, Unsportsmanlike Conduct (page 390)(quoted in the Atlantic article (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/8643/?single_page=true)): "The college player cannot sell his own feet (the coach does that) nor can he sell his own name (the college will do that). This is the plantation mentality resurrected and blessed by today’s campus executives."

Didn't you read the article that was the basis of this thread? From the article:

"Slavery analogies should be used carefully. College athletes are not slaves. Yet to survey the scene—corporations and universities enriching themselves on the backs of uncompensated young men, whose status as “student-athletes” deprives them of the right to due process guaranteed by the Constitution—is to catch an unmistakable whiff of the plantation. Perhaps a more apt metaphor is colonialism: college sports, as overseen by the NCAA, is a system imposed by well-meaning paternalists and rationalized with hoary sentiments about caring for the well-being of the colonized. But it is, nonetheless, unjust. The NCAA, in its zealous defense of bogus principles, sometimes destroys the dreams of innocent young athletes.

"The NCAA today is in many ways a classic cartel. Efforts to reform it—most notably by the three Knight Commissions over the course of 20 years—have, while making changes around the edges, been largely fruitless. The time has come for a major overhaul. And whether the powers that be like it or not, big changes are coming. Threats loom on multiple fronts: in Congress, the courts, breakaway athletic conferences, student rebellion, and public disgust. Swaddled in gauzy clichés, the NCAA presides over a vast, teetering glory."

[RPS]

I just don't know how you implement this. It's terribly, terribly complicated. I'm not saying it can't be done, but you've got to solve a lot of difficulties in order to implement it.

Pro sports are not a good model because unions of the players negotiated those conditions. A "free" market might (and probably would) look much different. College players have no such rights -- they had to sign them away to play. More to the point, I understand why colleges and universities would want to be in the sports business under the current groundrules -- they are overwhelming stacked in their favor yet they somehow still look to some people as being benevolent (and not necessarily as despots). What I don't understand is how college sports fit into the mission and purpose of a great university and why such a university should be in the sports business. Do you have a suggestion?

[DukeWarhead]

I will -- because it is a cartel, by every plausible definition. And they are supposed to be against the law.



Walter Byers was the first and long-time executive director of the NCAA. This is what he wrote in his book, Unsportsmanlike Conduct (page 390)(quoted in the Atlantic article (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/8643/?single_page=true)): "The college player cannot sell his own feet (the coach does that) nor can he sell his own name (the college will do that). This is the plantation mentality resurrected and blessed by today’s campus executives."

Didn't you read the article that was the basis of this thread? From the article:

"Slavery analogies should be used carefully. College athletes are not slaves. Yet to survey the scene—corporations and universities enriching themselves on the backs of uncompensated young men, whose status as “student-athletes” deprives them of the right to due process guaranteed by the Constitution—is to catch an unmistakable whiff of the plantation. Perhaps a more apt metaphor is colonialism: college sports, as overseen by the NCAA, is a system imposed by well-meaning paternalists and rationalized with hoary sentiments about caring for the well-being of the colonized. But it is, nonetheless, unjust. The NCAA, in its zealous defense of bogus principles, sometimes destroys the dreams of innocent young athletes.

"The NCAA today is in many ways a classic cartel. Efforts to reform it—most notably by the three Knight Commissions over the course of 20 years—have, while making changes around the edges, been largely fruitless. The time has come for a major overhaul. And whether the powers that be like it or not, big changes are coming. Threats loom on multiple fronts: in Congress, the courts, breakaway athletic conferences, student rebellion, and public disgust. Swaddled in gauzy clichés, the NCAA presides over a vast, teetering glory."

You can quote the article all you want - doesn't make it so. It's an argument, and one that is full of crap, IMO. Talk about an unmistakable whiff of the plantation is silly hyperbole. (crap, really.) As the noted historian Sir Michael Howard once said, analogies are a lazy substitute for true analytic thought. That's what's on display in that article.
They aren't victims, they aren't akin to slaves, and no, they aren't subjects to something like colonialism. Hogwash.

But keep living in the hyperbolic world, by all means. Maybe you too can help the poor, downtrodden college athlete free himself and forever fan away that whiff of the plantation someday.

[Newton_14]

The players deserve to be paid because they're creating value while investing time and taking risk to do so. Currently, they are creating a value that far exceeds their compensation, and a market exists that would like to compensate them for their time and risk, yet they are prevented from accessing that market.


Just to play Devil's Advocate a bit, but one question for each statement above.

Regarding "deserve to be paid because they're creating value while investing time and taking risk". Do not middle school players and High School Players invest time, take on risk (A player at my wife's High School in Miss. died on the football field last Friday evening) as well? Most High School stadiums in the Triangle are packed each week, bringing in a decent gate receipt plus concessions. Do we pay Middle School/High School players for the same reason? (Yes the profits are in low thousands of dollars vs millions, but isn't the basic principle the same?)

Regarding their current compensation, on top of the free education, food, travel, clothing, shoes, healthcare the player's receive, the College's and the NCAA provide the players with a grand (and free) stage to showcase their talent's. Kyrie recently parlayed that opportunity into a huge endorsement contract and Number 1 draft pick. Other, less talented players, who could not possible go from High School directly to the NBA, hone their skills in College and improve enough to get drafted and make it in the NBA.

I am not saying you are wrong, nor am I saying that Uh No is wrong. Just saying there is much to consider in this argument. There is nothing simple or cut and dry on either side of the argument.

[throatybeard]

What I don't understand is how college sports fit into the mission and purpose of a great university and why such a university should be in the sports business. Do you have a suggestion?

Exactly. Running a minor league for the NBA and the NFL decidedly does not fit into the University's mission. Having some athletics, sure. Well-rounded young people, and all that.

My suggestion, which I probably shouldn't even air at a fan site devoted to Division I basketball, is that Duke should go the U Chicago route and get out of the business altogether. Not right now, of course, but rather at a time when it will be more politically feasible. That will be sometime post-Krzyzewski.

I don't want to turn this into a PPB thread (although if you think about it, it already is, just one related directly to sport). I will just throw this out there, and then not respond if anyone takes issue with it, so as not to sidetrack the thread. I strongly believe we are on the cusp of an energy crisis out of which we will not be able to extract ourselves completely, no matter how superb our technology becomes. Nobody has even gotten a plane into the air using anything other than cheap fossil fuel, and these mega-conferences will be short lived. How short, I don't know. But perhaps by the time those of us who are in our 20s and 30s are elderly, flying all these athletes all over the country will be fiscally impossible. It doesn't matter whether it's in 2020 or 2050 or 2080, it's gonna happen. All aspects of life including manufacturing and agriculture will have to re-localize. It's simply a question of when. Conferences will have to re-regionalize at some point.

At the point when the power conferences decide that it simply isn't possible to fly the wrestling team from Spokane to Stillwater and still keep the doors to the institution open, those conferences will begin to fracture. At such time, or maybe a little ahead of it, it is my hope that Duke will get out of the game altogether, reclassify to D-III or something like it, pay the football coach like he's teaching Spanish or Chemistry, and bring sports back into a reasonable and sustainable scale in the context of the University.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I absolutely love the argument that no one would watch the "Durham Blue Devils" if they weren't associated with Duke. Think of it the other way around: would people casually wear Duke clothing and memorabilia without the players on the court? Would the rivalry with UNC be as strong if we didn't play basketball 2-3 times a year, on a national stage? Do you continue to purchase high school gear as frequently as Duke gear? After all, it's the same thing.

I see people in LA wearing U of Chicago gear. And it would be fine with me if Duke went the U of Chicago route.

I also see people wearing Yale, Harvard, etc and I doubt if it is because of their sports teams.

I really don't see anything in Duke's mission to be a minor league for the NFL and NBA with professional players.

SoCal

[RPS]

You can quote the article all you want - doesn't make it so. It's an argument, and one that is full of crap, IMO. Talk about an unmistakable whiff of the plantation is silly hyperbole. (crap, really.)

I think I understand you. So those "poor, downtrodden" athletes aren't free to make their own deals. The cartel prevents that. And the cartel is comprehensive so there is absolutly nowhere else for the fledgling pro football player to develop his skills and almost nowhere else for the fledgling pro basketball player who can't get drafted out of high school to develop his skills. Moreover, there is not a shred of evidence that the system as a whole cares about these athletes one bit. The schools hold out the carrot of the pros for the 1-2% who have that in their futures but will drop them instantly if they decide, utterly arbitrarily, that it's in their own interest to do so. But because these athletes "freely" go to these schools (what choice do they have, precisely, if they want to advance in football?) and receive some benefit for doing so (what do you think is the true marginal cost to the college of that alleged "$50,000 scholarship" anyway?), they should be grateful for what they have and not be so uppity. In fact, the athletes probably aren't really unhappy -- it's those outside agitators putting them up to it. Walter Byers, Jay Bilas, Tom McMillan -- they're "full of crap." That these college athletes are disproportionately poor and black is irrelevant. They should simply realize how much has been done for them and shut up.

Message received.

[DukeWarhead]

I think I understand you.

In fact, the athletes probably aren't really unhappy -- it's those outside agitators putting them up to it. Walter Byers, Jay Bilas, Tom McMillan -- they're "full of crap." That these college athletes are disproportionately poor and black is irrelevant. They should simply realize how much has been done for them and shut the h*!! up.

Message received.

Bingo. Good for you, glad you figured it out.

Is this big push coming from all DIV-I athletes??? Do they feel like colonial subjects??? I wonder how many of them really think that way.

The fact that you felt compelled to insert in the racial aspect explains a lot. Way to go.

No, the athletes aren't the ones leading the hyperbolic charge on this. There's plenty of folks willing to take up that banner for them.

[fuqua1997]

The word "slave" and "NCAA athlete" are not synonymous, never should be mentioned in the same sentence. Especially for someone who, if they stay 4 years at an institution like Duke just got $200,000+ worth of education and living expenses that they did not pay for. Most blokes walking out of school incur loans that takes years to pay off. College is something that some kids cannot afford, and that most do not pay for it up front without loans. Most importantly, the college years are some of the most fun, and carefree years of your life, even for athletes. You will always remember the life experiences and lessons learned over those years.

If you work hard, you will walk away from a school with a minimum of a BS, and if you redshirt, and go 5 years, you can even walk out with a Master's degree if you play your cards right, or just take your time to get your BS. All of this is mostly funded by the donors and proud fans.

That is not slave labor, far from it. And if an athlete thinks it is, they should quit and give their "Slave Labor Privileges" up so that the privileges can quickly be scooped up by the next person in line who is dying for a scholarship.

[Duvall]

That these college athletes are disproportionately poor and black is irrelevant. They should simply realize how much has been done for them and shut the h*!! up.

I don't think anyone has suggested that the athletes shut up. I've only seen people ask that we avoid using inflammatory and inapposite metaphors.

[Duvall]

Exactly. Running a minor league for the NBA and the NFL decidedly does not fit into the University's mission. Having some athletics, sure. Well-rounded young people, and all that.

My suggestion, which I probably shouldn't even air at a fan site devoted to Division I basketball, is that Duke should go the U Chicago route and get out of the business altogether. Not right now, of course, but rather at a time when it will be more politically feasible. That will be sometime post-Krzyzewski.

It's interesting that Johns Hopkins is D-III and still manages to compete in Division I lacrosse (maybe other sports too, I don't know). I'm not sure how they swing that, though.

[Wander]

Argue for paying players if you want, but please, lay off the slavery references and the idea that these kids are poor souls being forced to work so that they can be exploited by their universities. Anyone who attended a Division 1 college (even a clean one like Duke) and didn't live under a rock knows nothing could be further from the truth. These guys are treated like kings.

I don't remember being paid to do my undergraduate research project at Duke. There are certainly some individual instances of athletes being treated not very nicely, and I'm OK with some of the smaller ideas being thrown around like a small stipend amount or counting the sports as course credits. But the idea that athletes at D1 schools are second-class citizens is laughable.

[RPS]

I don't think anyone has suggested that the athletes shut up. I've only seen people ask that we avoid using inflammatory and inapposite metaphors.

That the best example of such an "inflammatory and inapposite" metaphor ("The college player cannot sell his own feet (the coach does that) nor can he sell his own name (the college will do that). This is the plantation mentality resurrected and blessed by today’s campus executives") came from the founding executive director of the NCAA is telling, don't you think?

Or how about Jay Bilas (http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2011/06/20/jay-bilas-college-athletes-arent-realizing-their-fair-market-value-because-the-ncaa-cartel-sucks/):

"The arguments and ultimatums of Paterno and Emmert fail. Both deserve fair market value, and the only reason to question their salaries is because they are part of a cartel that restricts athletes from realizing their fair market value while others profit. Many would gladly 'switch places' with a college athlete, but that is not a legitimate argument for denying athletes the opportunity to profit in the marketplace. There is no valid argument or data to support the notion that allowing compensation to athletes would compromise the educational mission of the NCAA.

"The idea that a college athlete should play only for the love of the game is nonsense. If it were true, why give a scholarship at all? A scholarship athlete at UCLA does not love the game any less than an athlete in the Ivy League, and his education is not compromised by cost of attendance. And, it is not compromised by more than that."

As Jay said elsewhere (http://news.wfu.edu/2010/10/07/jay-bilas-time-to-reform-the-ncaa/), there’s nothing amateur about college athletics because “everybody gets paid except the athletes.”

[RPS]

The fact that you felt compelled to insert in the racial aspect explains a lot. Way to go.

Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring it doesn't mean it isn't an issue.

[Bluedog]

It's interesting that Johns Hopkins is D-III and still manages to compete in Division I lacrosse (maybe other sports too, I don't know). I'm not sure how they swing that, though.

Lacrosse is the only sport that JHU competes in DI. The NCAA has a rule that a DIII institution can have a single "showcase" sport in DI. However, they are not allowed to offer scholarships in that DI sport as I understand it. This conclusion was made about five years ago. JHU, though, was grandfathered in prior to that ruling and thus is still allowed to give scholarships for lacrosse. If another DIII school wanted a single DI showcase sport, it is allowed but they can't give scholarships making it very difficult to compete at the highest level. Hobart was DI in lacrosse but couldn't give out scholarships and was thus unable to compete and subsequently moved back down to D3. I'm not sure what would happen, though, if a school is DI in every sport and then decides to drop to DIII in all sports except one.

On another note, should only football teams the produce a profit get to pay their players? Duke football spends more than it brings in....The costs have been higher than that of Stanford's football program the past two years. If you think the team is bad now, just wait until other teams can pay their players and we can't. :eek:

[chris13]

Rps:

Thanks for the insights from a parent of a recent D1 athlete.

I don't have a problem with players not getting paid per se. I have a problem with players being asked to work the equivalent of a full time job that compromises their educational experience so that universities can make millions of dollars.

The answer to me isn't to make the players professionals. it is to make the athletic departments amateur again. Shorten seasons, limit practice time,limit games to certain days and times, play more local opponents, don't steer athletes to jock majors, don't admit kids whose academic credentials are woefully shy of the typical admitted student. Treat coaches like faculty and not like pro coaches in terms of compensation, evaluation, and job security.

[DukeWarhead]

Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring it doesn't mean it isn't an issue.

Ahhhhhhhh. And there it is. Of course. I suppose myself and the other ostriches who don't tend to assign a certain race or color to the term "college athlete" need to wake up and smell that coffee.

Stupid me, I assumed that this debate had applicability to all college athletes. Little did I know that only a cetain group was being supposedly exploited.

[throatybeard]

OK, I finally read the Atlantic article. Anyone whose takeaway from the article is outrage over one vague reference to plantation dynamics is missing the point by about 1000 miles. Let's have some actual reading comprehension grounded reading in the incredible injustices detailed in the article.

The funny thing is that I actually heard about the Jan Kemp case when I was a kid in Georgia in the 1980s. I never thought I'd hear her name again in a major publication of any sort. I thought they'd swept her under the rug. Someone is doing some honest to God actual investigative journalism here.

One of the things I value most about my present job at UMSL, which has D2 sports and aspires to an R1 research profile, is that the stakes in sports aren't high enough to get me fired for obstructing some kid's path to starting tailback.

[77devil]

I did find it interesting that when the article went down the laundry list of accused and convicted NCAA violators in recent years (USC, Ohio St, Miami, and Cam Newton) that no mention was made of Carolina. Players getting treated to parties and other benefits by agents and an assistant coach serving as a runner for an agent would seem to hit right at the core of the points of this story. Ahh well, no biggie.

-Jason "enjoy!" Evans


I'm sure it is purely coincidental that the author is a UNC grad. The tutor behavior at FSU was another opportunity to include UNC.

I believe the NCAA will fight even modest reforms such as allowing scholarship athletes to receive a "work-study" stipend. They may lose eventually in court, but NCAA officials will always defend their turf despite what's fair. There is too much money at stake for them, and they fear any incremental loss of control will lead to what happened with football TV in the 80's.

[roywhite]

My apologies to those who feel there's no compelling reason to pay players, but you're simply dead wrong. The compelling reasons are legion. People want to pay them. Most of them want to take the money available to them. They're key participants in a multi-billion dollar industry. Every other entity in that multi billion dollar industry - the coaches, the Presidents, the institutions, the boosters, the TV networks, the apparel companies, etc - treat it explicitly like a business. They maximize profit first, everything else second, and tell the players actually doing the work, taking the risks, and creating value that they're amateurs. It's a charade.

For those who say it's the name on the front, connection to the Univesities, and that the quality of play is largely irrelevant to the amount of money generated, I submit to you...women's basketball. Same names on the front of the jerseys, same connection to the University, many of the teams play in the same building as their male counterparts. So clearly WBB should be roughly as profitable as MBB, right?

You make points, but can't go along with the women's BB comparison.
I don't see claims that the "quality of play is largely irrelevant to the amount of money generated"....it's a factor, but not predominant IMO.
Is the WNBA as popular as the NBA? No, it's a different game and women's college basketball is a different game than the men's game.
If the men's basketball players who might have gone to Duke and UNC went instead to a Research Triangle "Inter-Nets" minor league team, would they get the following that Duke and UNC get?

My own preference is for a model similar to college baseball, where a prospect can sign with an MLB team out of high school and begin in the minor leagues, or choose to go to college with a restriction about not being draft eligible for 3 years. For those players who have no interest in taking college classes, they should have a viable option to develop their skills, admittedly. With such a scenario, would ACC basketball and the NCAA Tournament still be very popular? Yes, although probably somewhat less popular due to a dropoff in quality.

[RPS]

Stupid me, I assumed that this debate had applicability to all college athletes. Little did I know that only a cetain group was being supposedly exploited.

It does apply to all. But to ignore race (and economics) as a factor (since D1 college athletes are disproportionately black and poor) is -- frankly -- nuts.

Upon some reflection about this overnight, it's fascinating to me how the NCAA is being defended here. Nobody is actively defending the idea that it isn't a cartel, which makes sense since the NCAA is a classic cartel by any plausible definition.

The defenses are essentially that this particular cartel is okay on two possible grounds. The first relates to a parade of horribles -- college sports as we know it will be ruined if the players get paid. I think this idea is dramatically overblown (the Olympics example being instructive). But even if it weren't, it doesn't seem to me to be a basis to avoid doing the right thing.

The second defense is predicated upon envy. Nobody who has it better than I do/did or is in a position I would love to have or have had can possibly suffer from being exploited. It's the same problem pro athletes have to deal with when embroiled in labor disputes. This envy is understandable psychologically, of course, but isn't based upon anything like reasoned analysis.

I'm also struck by the emotion generated by this issue. My quick survey of the reaction to the response generated by the Atlantic article shows overwhelming support from the best sports analysts out there -- Bilas, Deford, McMillen.... Nobody outside of forums like this one seems willing to speak up on behalf of the NCAA (although I could be missing it). I suspect it's because the NCAA is a fading relic and generally indefensible. As the article puts it:

"For all the outrage, the real scandal is not that students are getting illegally paid or recruited, it’s that two of the noble principles on which the NCAA justifies its existence—'amateurism' and the 'student-athlete'—are cynical hoaxes, legalistic confections propagated by the universities so they can exploit the skills and fame of young athletes."

And so it is.

[Dukiedevil]

I think one issue being overlooked is that it isn't actually the NCAA that is creating the "forced minor league" system. It's actually the NBA and NFL (since those are the sports we are talking about). I don't think we would be even having this discussion if both leagues allowed entry at any age. Would some of you feel differently about the schools/NCAA if individuals immediately had a choice other than the college sports?

[RPS]

I think one issue being overlooked is that it isn't actually the NCAA that is creating the "forced minor league" system. It's actually the NBA and NFL (since those are the sports we are talking about). I don't think we would be even having this discussion if both leagues allowed entry at any age. Would some of you feel differently about the schools/NCAA if individuals immediately had a choice other than the college sports?

I think a more meaningful minor league system would help more. No high school student is likely to be ready for the NFL and very few college sophomores are ready for the NBA. Moreover, early entry with no meaningful minor league has, in my view, hurt the level of play in the NBA significantly. So I don't expect the rules to change anytime soon unless they make entry harder (alternatively, the NBA could allow unfettered access and create a meaningful minor league system, but I doubt they think doing so would make sense when the colleges do a perfectly good job of it for free). More importantly, for kids that age who are talented and aspire to play at the highest level, college is the only real option. It's what gives the NCAA its cartel status. A meaningful alternative makes the NCAA less of a cartel and, in my view, gives it more leeway to keep things the way they are. It would still be hypocritical, of course, but the legal problems are much less severe.

[DukeWarhead]

It does apply to all. But to ignore race (and economics) as a factor (since D1 college athletes are disproportionately black and poor) is -- frankly -- nuts.
.

No it's not nuts, it's simply refusing to buy into something unless some proof of racial preferences in regards to athlete compensation or the lack there of can be shown. Last time I checked there are plenty of white kids playing D1 sports - both football and basketball - and unless they are somehow being compensated better or otherwise treated differently than their black teammates - the insinuation of race being a driving force (or even a relevant subplot) behind the so-called exploitation of said players carries no weight.

(Before you start throwing examples of racism in college sports from the 60s and 70s at me, remember, we are talking about today's athletes.)

To suggest that those that don't agree with the original article's depiction of college athletes as victims of exploitation are simply envious or jealous of the college athlete (black or white) is pretty weak. Exploitation has a set definition, but its application is subjective. Victimization has a set definition, but its application is subjective. It is completely possible for rational thinking people to feel that the free education and benefits provided to athletes in return for their participation in a sport is a fair system, regardless of how much money is being generated by the university. Many people choose to view the value of a college education as more than just the dollar amount of tuition and fees.
You can jump up and down and point to definitions of "cartel" and "fair market value" and, yes "exploitation" all you want, but for many folks, the current system will always seem pretty fair because they (obviously myself included) don't believe that the dollar amount of revenue raised by the sport matters in any way when determining whether or not a free education is adequate compensation for playing a sport. It's a question of personal perspective, personal values, and views on entitlement in society. But it's not automatically a issue of racism or envy. Not at all.
I understand this is a broad-brush approach. Many would say it's oversimplifying the issue. I would argue that the issue is becoming clouded by over-analysis, legalise, loaded racial insinuation, and unncessary pyschoanalysis of those who don't agree.

[Mike Corey]

Ben Cohen, former sports editor of The Chronicle (and an occasional DBR poster), writes the following (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904060604576572752351110850.html) in the Wall Street Journal:


Ramogi Huma, the president of the NCPA, is a supporter of the Olympic model. "The NCAA has created a black market. You can choose between the black market and fair market," he said. The organization's report said competitive equity and a level playing field are already shaky notions. (It's probably worth noting that just because you spend the most money on players doesn't mean you're going to win every year—just ask the New York Yankees.)

Marc Isenberg, the author of "Money Players," a book about the business of professional sports, supports one novel way to pay players while promoting good behavior. He said schools could create a trust fund in escrow for athletes drawn from television rights payments. That way, he said, "if you stay in school, graduate and don't break any NCAA rules, there's a pot of gold waiting for you."

[Genedoc]

It's stupefying to me that anyone can read the linked article thoroughly and not admit the NCAA is a cartel founded on the plantation mentality. Walter Byers, the architect of the NCAA, its first director, and director for nearly forty years, states exactly that in his memoirs.

"The college player cannot sell his own feet (the coach does that) nor can he sell his own name (the college will do that). This is the plantation mentality resurrected and blessed by today’s campus executives."

followed by...

"Prosecutors and the courts, with the support of the public, should use antitrust laws to break up the collegiate cartel"

The man who literally built the NCAA from the ground up explicitly states the organization is a highly effective cartel founded on the resurrected plantation mentality. How can use of those terms be inflammatory or inaccurate when the man who built the NCAA uses them readily?

How can you defend an organization that stated in open court that athletes never had rights that the NCAA explicitly requires that they waive? If they never had it, how can you with a straight face require them to waive it in order to be eligible?

[roywhite]

It's stupefying to me that anyone can read the linked article thoroughly and not admit the NCAA is a cartel founded on the plantation mentality. Walter Byers, the architect of the NCAA, its first director, and director for nearly forty years, states exactly that in his memoirs.

The man who literally built the NCAA from the ground up explicitly states the organization is a highly effective cartel founded on the resurrected plantation mentality. How can use of those terms be inflammatory or inaccurate when the man who built the NCAA uses them readily?

How can you defend an organization that stated in open court that athletes never had rights that the NCAA explicitly requires that they waive? If they never had it, how can you with a straight face require them to waive it in order to be eligible?

Sorry, huff and puff all you like. I simply don't share your outrage.

Is it an unfair system in some ways? Yes
Do there need to be changes? Yes

Frankly, when I see "plantation mentality" thrown around, I tune out.
That's hyperbole.

[Genedoc]

Sorry, huff and puff all you like. I simply don't share your outrage.

Is it an unfair system in some ways? Yes
Do there need to be changes? Yes

Frankly, when I see "plantation mentality" thrown around, I tune out.
That's hyperbole.
If ignorant outsiders who knew nothing about the institution used such colorful language, perhaps I'd understand the willing dismissal as nothing more than hyperbole. But it's not. It's the guy who built the system in the 1950's and administered it for nearly 40 years. Is it possible the man who built the system in the 1950's may have more insight into how it was set up and administered than you or me?

[RPS]

No it's not nuts, it's simply refusing to buy into something unless some proof of racial preferences in regards to athlete compensation or the lack there of can be shown. Last time I checked there are plenty of white kids playing D1 sports - both football and basketball - and unless they are somehow being compensated better or otherwise treated differently than their black teammates - the insinuation of race being a driving force (or even a relevant subplot) behind the so-called exploitation of said players carries no weight.

Another thread on this subject noted the Duke/UNLV NCAA final in which every Duke player parent was at the game but the only UNLV player's parents who could afford to go were those of the end-of-the-bench white kid.

From The Atlantic: "Nick Saban, Alabama’s head football coach, mobilized his peers to denounce agents as a public scourge. 'I hate to say this,' he said, 'but how are they any better than a pimp? I have no respect for people who do that to young people. None.'

"Saban’s raw condescension contrasts sharply with the lonely penitence from Dale Brown, the retired longtime basketball coach at LSU. 'Look at the money we make off predominantly poor black kids,' Brown once reflected. 'We’re the whoremasters.'”


To suggest that those that don't agree with the original article's depiction of college athletes as victims of exploitation are simply envious or jealous of the college athlete (black or white) is pretty weak.

From this very thread: "where do I sign up to have my kids enslaved by an NCAA basketball team?"

"I guess being enslaved by a football team would be okay too....heck they can be enslaved by any ncaa sports team they want!"

"The revenue sport athletes DO get compensated. They get a full scholarship, free food (don't think for a minute that those kids have to pay for pizza and drinks - they get fantastic meal plans), free tutors, free medical support and trainers. That's quite a payment."

"The NCAA is the college game, and if players don't like it, there are other leagues that would certainly love to pay them to play."

"If he thinks he is being exploited then he can drop the sport."

"I highly encourage any student athlete that feels ill-used or victimized to exercise thier freedom to not be victimized or exploited by not playing the sport.
Believe me, someone will be eager to take thier place - and appreciate what they are given."

"I am also career military - I have seen so many college-age kids, who had numerous career opportunities (some in professional sports), choose instead to serve on active or reserve duty, many knowing what that committment meant in wartime - to get very rankled when I hear about the plight of the under-paid, under-appreciated college athlete."

All of these comments are predicated upon envy -- the claims that college athletes have no business complaining becase they have it great compared to others or that lots of other people would love to be in their shoes (Nikes, I'm sure).


You can jump up and down and point to definitions of "cartel" and "fair market value" and, yes "exploitation" all you want, but for many folks, the current system will always seem pretty fair because they (obviously myself included) don't believe that the dollar amount of revenue raised by the sport matters in any way when determining whether or not a free education is adequate compensation for playing a sport.

America is supposed to be an opportunity society -- where people are free to make what they can of and for themselves. We Americans generally resist (and vigorously resist) some force from above telling up what's fair and right for us even though we don't have a say in the matter. I suspect that, as career military, you have spent a fair amount of time thinking about what it is you are defending. "Freedom" is a frequent answer I hear (I live in a military town). What it is about athletes that makes you so afraid to allow them the freedom to make the best they can (as they see it) of and for themselves and makes you so anxious to impose upon them what they can and cannot do in that regard?


It's a question of personal perspective, personal values, and views on entitlement in society.

I see "entitlement" in a different context here. It sounds like you are suggesting that athletes who object to the cartel (which you seem to concede exists -- as you must, of course) are foolishly whining about what they are entitled to when they really have it pretty good. I would suggest that they are entitled -- consistent with the American dream -- to try to make the best of and for themselves that they can as they see it.


P.S. It's more than a little ironic that the term "student-athlete" was coined in the (successful) effort by the NCAA to prevent college athletes from being able to collect worker's compensation insurance. You might consider the story of Kent Waldrep (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/8643/?single_page=true):


Using the “student-athlete” defense, colleges have compiled a string of victories in liability cases. On the afternoon of October 26, 1974, the Texas Christian University Horned Frogs were playing the Alabama Crimson Tide in Birmingham, Alabama. Kent Waldrep, a TCU running back, carried the ball on a “Red Right 28” sweep toward the Crimson Tide’s sideline, where he was met by a swarm of tacklers. When Waldrep regained consciousness, Bear Bryant, the storied Crimson Tide coach, was standing over his hospital bed. “It was like talking to God, if you’re a young football player,” Waldrep recalled.

Waldrep was paralyzed: he had lost all movement and feeling below his neck. After nine months of paying his medical bills, Texas Christian refused to pay any more, so the Waldrep family coped for years on dwindling charity.

Through the 1990s, from his wheelchair, Waldrep pressed a lawsuit for workers’ compensation. (He also, through heroic rehabilitation efforts, recovered feeling in his arms, and eventually learned to drive a specially rigged van. “I can brush my teeth,” he told me last year, “but I still need help to bathe and dress.”) His attorneys haggled with TCU and the state worker-compensation fund over what constituted employment. Clearly, TCU had provided football players with equipment for the job, as a typical employer would—but did the university pay wages, withhold income taxes on his financial aid, or control work conditions and performance? The appeals court finally rejected Waldrep’s claim in June of 2000, ruling that he was not an employee because he had not paid taxes on financial aid that he could have kept even if he quit football. (Waldrep told me school officials “said they recruited me as a student, not an athlete,” which he says was absurd.)

[RPS]

By the way, based upon various media reports, the average salary of an NBA coach is around $2mm; the average player makes around $6mm. The average ACC basketball coach makes well over $1mm; the average ACC basketball player is not paid.

The average NFL coach makes around $3mm; the average NFL player makes nearly $2mm. The average ACC football coach makes nearly $2mm (the average SEC coach makes around $2.5mm); the average ACC football player is not paid (the average salaries of SEC players are unknown).

Note that college coaches' total compensation may be much higher due to bonuses, guaranteed endorsements, shoe/TV deals and the like.

[DukeWarhead]

"All of these comments are predicated upon envy -- the claims that college athletes have no business complaining becase they have it great compared to others or that lots of other people would love to be in their shoes (Nikes, I'm sure)."



"I see "entitlement" in a different context here. It sounds like you are suggesting that athletes who object to the cartel are foolishly whining about what they are entitled to when they really have it pretty good. I would suggest that they are entitled -- consistent with the American dream -- to try to make the best of and for themselves that they can as they see it."



Absurd is the only word I can offer for this line of thinking.

To suggest that those who disagree with the depiction of the exploited, under-compensated D-I college athlete do so strictly because they are envious of the athlete's situation is flat-out inane. Nor are these people (we) trying to suggest that the college athletes themselves are the complainers here.

By far, the biggest beef is with the growing chorus of those willing to speak for the athletes as to their supposed plight - those who feel they alone understand what is "the right thing to do" for these players.

Details are missing. Facts - not selected cut and paste quotes from previous threads or articles.

1. What percentage of D-I athletes (all sports, thank you) participate in profit-producing (not just revenue) programs?
2. What percentage of these players generate more profit for their university than the cost of thier schooling/fees/room and board?
3. Don't just say that college sports teams are "dispraportionately black and poor." Show me the actual numbers - the hard stats - from all D-1 college athletes (all sports, thank you). Numbers make sense. Your random quote selections and reference to the UNLV squad from 20 years ago do absolutely nothing to prove just how dispraportionately black and poor all D-1 sports teams are today. If you are going to accuse the system of either overt or latent racism - these numbers are important.

This whole debate centers on what people see as fair (or ethical, or moral, etc.) Fair and just are completely subjective terms based on a person's point of view and personal values, etc. If you are going to make an argument (as the Atlantic article does so blatantly) that D-1 college athletes are victims of exploitation and unfairly being taken advantage of - you are arguing an opinion - not a fact - any many, many folks (and not just racist or envious folks!!!) are going to disagree with you wholeheartedly. Until you can provide some cold-hard numbers (see questions, 1, 2, 3) to back up your opinion - it will always be just that - never a fact.

And....the fact that you actually suggest that today's college athletes are being denied "the American Dream" makes me want to laugh, vomit, and perhaps weep - in no particular order.

However, I suppose you have to love a country where such divergent senses of reality can coexist peacefully.

[DukeWarhead]

Sorry, huff and puff all you like. I simply don't share your outrage.

Is it an unfair system in some ways? Yes
Do there need to be changes? Yes

Frankly, when I see "plantation mentality" thrown around, I tune out.
That's hyperbole.

Bless you for having some common sense.

[Turk]

Absurd is the only word I can offer for this line of thinking.

To suggest that those who disagree with the depiction of the exploited, under-compensated D-I college athlete do so strictly because they are envious of the athlete's situation is flat-out inane. Nor are these people (we) trying to suggest that the college athletes themselves are the complainers here.

By far, the biggest beef is with the growing chorus of those willing to speak for the athletes as to their supposed plight - those who feel they alone understand what is "the right thing to do" for these players.

Details are missing. Facts - not selected cut and paste quotes from previous threads or articles.

1. What percentage of D-I athletes (all sports, thank you) participate in profit-producing (not just revenue) programs?
2. What percentage of these players generate more profit for their university than the cost of thier schooling/fees/room and board?
3. Don't just say that college sports teams are "dispraportionately black and poor." Show me the actual numbers - the hard stats - from all D-1 college athletes (all sports, thank you). Numbers make sense. Your random quote selections and reference to the UNLV squad from 20 years ago do absolutely nothing to prove just how dispraportionately black and poor all D-1 sports teams are today. If you are going to accuse the system of either overt or latent racism - these numbers are important.

This whole debate centers on what people see as fair (or ethical, or moral, etc.) Fair and just are completely subjective terms based on a person's point of view and personal values, etc. If you are going to make an argument (as the Atlantic article does so blatantly) that D-1 college athletes are victims of exploitation and unfairly being taken advantage of - you are arguing an opinion - not a fact - any many, many folks (and not just racist or envious folks!!!) are going to disagree with you wholeheartedly. Until you can provide some cold-hard numbers (see questions, 1, 2, 3) to back up your opinion - it will always be just that - never a fact.

And....the fact that you actually suggest that today's college athletes are being denied "the American Dream" makes me want to laugh, vomit, and perhaps weep - in no particular order.

However, I suppose you have to love a country where such divergent senses of reality can coexist peacefully.

OK, Warhead, I think we read you loud and clear: all scholarship "student-athletes" take the deal that's offered them based on a rational cost-benefit analysis. They know the rules, they know the tradeoffs, they know what they signed up for, and that makes it fair. Otherwise, they would have turned it down. Anyone who says different is either a moron or itching for a fight. Got it.

On the other hand, college athletics has become a billion dollar industry, and the athletes who generate the billions get none of it. An increasing number of intelligent, well-qualified people are starting to think there's enough money to go around and enhance to standard scholarship package and give the players a bit of walking-around money.

So here's my question(s) to you: Are you satisfied with the status quo of the financing and scholarships in college athletics? Is this the best possible system we can achieve? What (if anything) would you change in the current system, and why?

[DukeWarhead]

OK, Warhead, I think we read you loud and clear: all scholarship "student-athletes" take the deal that's offered them based on a rational cost-benefit analysis. They know the rules, they know the tradeoffs, they know what they signed up for, and that makes it fair. Otherwise, they would have turned it down. Anyone who says different is either a moron or itching for a fight. Got it.

On the other hand, college athletics has become a billion dollar industry, and the athletes who generate the billions get none of it. An increasing number of intelligent, well-qualified people are starting to think there's enough money to go around and enhance to standard scholarship package and give the players a bit of walking-around money.

So here's my question(s) to you: Are you satisfied with the status quo of the financing and scholarships in college athletics? Is this the best possible system we can achieve? What (if anything) would you change in the current system, and why?

There has been no shortage of attempts to put words in my mouth or fabricate arguments surrounding this. I'll end my participation in this thread with these final points, which have been my points all along:

1. Only a small percentage of D-1 college athletes (all sports) participate in programs that make millions in profit. How many are we talking about here? Can anyone provide the numbers?

2. The supposed racial aspect of this - to include the plantation references - are overblown and needlessly polarizing. If scores of white athletes are in the same boat - why such a push with the racial insinuations?

3. Portrayals of college athletes as victims of exploitation or victims of an unfair system are subjective, argumentitive portrayals. They simply are not facts. People have varying opinions on what is fair and what equals "doing the right thing." Most importantly, to chalk opposing opinion up to latent racism or personal jealousy or envy is really, really lame.


Ultimately, I honestly feel that the current system is better than the alternatives being proposed. I do not see anyway that allowing college athletes to sign financial deals or giving them "a bit of walking around money" will solve the supposed problems and still maintain the positives of colllege athletics. I have seen nothing so far - no suggested plan - that guarantees that we won't see lock-outs and hold outs just like in pro sports, which I think would have a more devastating impact on college sports.

By trying to do right by the players, I believe plans to pay or open free market dealings to them will ruin college sports - and I honestly don't think today's athletes would want that. I could be wrong, but until I see a detailed, believable argument otherwise, I will stick to my guns. Grass is indeed always greener on the otherside, and if we jump the fence on this, I'll bet the outcome will not be what was intended.

There. I'll stumble of the soapbox.
Fire away. I won't shoot back.

[uh_no]

I think this thread has really run its course.

I certainly feel that either side can make strong cases for their points, and like relgious people vs atheists, neither is going to convince the other regardless of the soundess of their cases, and therefore the same tired points are being rehashed over and over in increasing frustration and condescension.

In the end it comes down to whether you can empathize with the athletes plight, and just like a homeless person is not going to stand behind the cause of a businessman who feels he got shortchanged on his yearly bonus (however valid his complaint might be), I refuse to stand behind people demanding payment behind players. Their cause may be justified, but frankly, they're better off than I am, so I really couldn't care less and am not going going to spend an ounce of energy attempting to improve their lot. Call it jealousy, but its really not....I'm quite happy with my life and wouldn't change it for any other, but that doesn't mean I have to feel sorry for people complaining about getting less than they deserve for their pursuits when I have worked equally hard for things and have been satisfied with nothing.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

There has been no shortage of attempts to put words in my mouth or fabricate arguments surrounding this. I'll end my participation in this thread with these final points, which have been my points all along:

1. Only a small percentage of D-1 college athletes (all sports) participate in programs that make millions in profit. How many are we talking about here? Can anyone provide the numbers?

Who cares how many kids it is? One players right to gather compensation and being taken advantage of is too many, if it is you.



2. The supposed racial aspect of this - to include the plantation references - are overblown and needlessly polarizing. If scores of white athletes are in the same boat - why such a push with the racial insinuations?

The "plantation" references, and "slave labor" references are about the "colonialism" of the NCAA, not about racism. That's something you are bringing to the table.


3. Portrayals of college athletes as victims of exploitation or victims of an unfair system are subjective, argumentitive portrayals. They simply are not facts. People have varying opinions on what is fair and what equals "doing the right thing." Most importantly, to chalk opposing opinion up to latent racism or personal jealousy or envy is really, really lame.

It is a fact that the NCAA is exploiting a players talent... by using that talent to create a product that overwhelmingly compensates the NCAA.

While we can argue the fair/unfair side of that all day, that's not the real problem, as I see it.

The problem is, the NCAA refuses to allow a player the ability to accept compensation from any other source.

I say they have no right to do that. (The NCAA does have the right to see those sources and regulate them).

I'm not saying the NCAA has to pay them, or a individual school, I'm saying somebody else can, if they want to.

Yes, it will be difficult to regulate. But it can be done, it won't hurt anything, and it will have to be done because it is the right thing to do.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

....... Their cause may be justified, but frankly, they're better off than I am, so I really couldn't care less and am not going going to spend an ounce of energy attempting to improve their lot. Call it jealousy, but its really not....I'm quite happy with my life and wouldn't change it for any other, but that doesn't mean I have to feel sorry for people complaining about getting less than they deserve for their pursuits when I have worked equally hard for things and have been satisfied with nothing.

Wow. It is time to move on.

[mkirsh]

I'm all in favor of a model where the players are entitled to a share of profits from using their likeness (jerseys, ads, video games, etc), but would probably have a profit share of 33% to the individual player (maybe with a cap), 33% to the school, and 33% to a general fund to pay for stipends for all athletes.

However, to argue the other side, doesn't the free market exist today? Players DO have other choices - basketball players can go to Europe or play in the NBDL, baseball players can play in the minors, soccer the MLS or Europe, golf and tennis have no age restrictions professionally, etc - but the "package" the NCAA offers, even with its drawbacks, is just greater than other market-based alternatives? That the players look at the positives of free education, free platform for "brand" development, platform to be veiwed by scouts, etc as outweighing the negatives of no direct compensation and willingly make the choice to accept the NCAA offer with full information? One could argue that football players don't have the same alternatives, but that is part of my point - there isn't enough free market return for someone to found the Columbus Free Agents and offer a more compelling financial package for players than Ohio State does. NCAA does a lot of things wrong, but I think they do offer players better value than what other market participants offer.

[Turk]

There has been no shortage of attempts to put words in my mouth or fabricate arguments surrounding this. I'll end my participation in this thread with these final points, which have been my points all along:

1. Only a small percentage of D-1 college athletes (all sports) participate in programs that make millions in profit. How many are we talking about here? Can anyone provide the numbers?

2. The supposed racial aspect of this - to include the plantation references - are overblown and needlessly polarizing. If scores of white athletes are in the same boat - why such a push with the racial insinuations?

3. Portrayals of college athletes as victims of exploitation or victims of an unfair system are subjective, argumentitive portrayals. They simply are not facts. People have varying opinions on what is fair and what equals "doing the right thing." Most importantly, to chalk opposing opinion up to latent racism or personal jealousy or envy is really, really lame.


Ultimately, I honestly feel that the current system is better than the alternatives being proposed. I do not see anyway that allowing college athletes to sign financial deals or giving them "a bit of walking around money" will solve the supposed problems and still maintain the positives of colllege athletics. I have seen nothing so far - no suggested plan - that guarantees that we won't see lock-outs and hold outs just like in pro sports, which I think would have a more devastating impact on college sports.

By trying to do right by the players, I believe plans to pay or open free market dealings to them will ruin college sports - and I honestly don't think today's athletes would want that. I could be wrong, but until I see a detailed, believable argument otherwise, I will stick to my guns. Grass is indeed always greener on the otherside, and if we jump the fence on this, I'll bet the outcome will not be what was intended.

There. I'll stumble of the soapbox.
Fire away. I won't shoot back.

Warhead, if you're done with the thread, you went out in style. I thought you summarized your point of view quite well, and the only thing I will send your way is a spork. I do think the NCAA will continue to face sustained pressure and will eventually tinker with the current rules, and the only question is whether the changes will be window-dressing or actually have an impact. The NCAA is sitting on the sidelines during the latest merry-go-round with all the schools going in and out of the Random Conference Shuffler, and there will be more and more dollars being thrown around until we reach the breaking point. Your comment about unintended consequences is absolutely true, but it may or may not be worse than doing nothing.

[throatybeard]

I'm all in favor of a model where the players are entitled to a share of profits from using their likeness (jerseys, ads, video games, etc), but would probably have a profit share of 33% to the individual player (maybe with a cap), 33% to the school, and 33% to a general fund to pay for stipends for all athletes.

However, to argue the other side, doesn't the free market exist today? Players DO have other choices - basketball players can go to Europe or play in the NBDL, baseball players can play in the minors, soccer the MLS or Europe, golf and tennis have no age restrictions professionally, etc - but the "package" the NCAA offers, even with its drawbacks, is just greater than other market-based alternatives? That the players look at the positives of free education, free platform for "brand" development, platform to be veiwed by scouts, etc as outweighing the negatives of no direct compensation and willingly make the choice to accept the NCAA offer with full information? One could argue that football players don't have the same alternatives, but that is part of my point - there isn't enough free market return for someone to found the Columbus Free Agents and offer a more compelling financial package for players than Ohio State does. NCAA does a lot of things wrong, but I think they do offer players better value than what other market participants offer.

That's not a bad argument. If the NCAA is indentured servitude, and it may be, heck with it. Go to Europe. And maybe these kids think DI MBB is giving them a branding opportunity that excels what Europe or somewhere else offers them. I'm tossing you a spork.

[77devil]

I'm all in favor of a model where the players are entitled to a share of profits from using their likeness (jerseys, ads, video games, etc), but would probably have a profit share of 33% to the individual player (maybe with a cap), 33% to the school, and 33% to a general fund to pay for stipends for all athletes.

However, to argue the other side, doesn't the free market exist today? Players DO have other choices - basketball players can go to Europe or play in the NBDL, baseball players can play in the minors, soccer the MLS or Europe, golf and tennis have no age restrictions professionally, etc - but the "package" the NCAA offers, even with its drawbacks, is just greater than other market-based alternatives? That the players look at the positives of free education, free platform for "brand" development, platform to be veiwed by scouts, etc as outweighing the negatives of no direct compensation and willingly make the choice to accept the NCAA offer with full information? One could argue that football players don't have the same alternatives, but that is part of my point - there isn't enough free market return for someone to found the Columbus Free Agents and offer a more compelling financial package for players than Ohio State does. NCAA does a lot of things wrong, but I think they do offer players better value than what other market participants offer.

In the future when the players get their cut, they better make sure the deal is based on a smaller portion of the gross instead of the net, otherwise NCAA accounting will result in no profit.

As to other choices, since many of the top players that could reasonably pursue alternatives were compensated surreptitiously during recruitment and/or while in school, other market alternatives generally are less attractive.

[RPS]

The BCS excludes schools and prohibits a true championship so its members can get more money. Bowl officials are collecting big salaries and insane perks to perpetuate the current system. Schools are chasing new conferences left and right for more money. Coaches are changing jobs for more money. Coaches and schools are signing new equipment deals for more money. The only participants in the entire structure who aren't free to cut a deal are the players. There is obviously something wrong with that picture.

I'll give my last word to Prof. Paul Haagen (http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/daily-take/201108/its-time-consider-college-football-union) of the law school: "There's a significant problem when there’s not a voice. If the players have no voice, then you’re currently running on an enlightened despotism model. We haven't liked that since the 18th century."

[Double DD]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/seth_davis/09/21/Branch.rebuttal/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_wr_a5

Very nice article by Seth Davis that points out the flaws in Taylor Branch's article in the Atlantic.

[RPS]

From Seth Davis (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/seth_davis/09/21/Branch.rebuttal/1.html):


In the end, the greatest flaw of Branch's article is his failure to address the question of why schools operate athletics programs despite having to incur such financial losses. Could it be that maybe -- just maybe -- they really do believe there is educational value in competing? That they think sports is a worthy investment because it gives tens of thousands of young people the opportunity to learn discipline, teamwork and time management alongside calculus and English lit? Could it be that the schools really do want to enrich the lives of their "student-athletes" regardless of whether they are turning a profit?

I am truly amazed that anyone might believe this.

[toooskies]

While it points out flaws, it also has flaws of its own. While it claims only a handful of schools operate "in the black", it doesn't mention things like the benefit that sports programs give to the student body, to future recruiting, to future donations to the university, to school merchandise licenses, and so on. Just as there are gains for the players that aren't strictly tuition-related, there are substantial gains for the schools that don't show up on the official budget.

Also, the article makes the point about age limits in pro sports, but doesn't discuss the cases of conflict. It claims that age limits mean the open market value is zero for freshman athletes, but it doesn't go the other way and say that the market for upperclassmen is vastly more than their "market value". In the case of first-round draft picks, up to a hundred times their college reimbursement. If colleges really want to educate these men, then they would do everything they could to keep them in school until they get their degree.

Seth Davis certainly is betraying the truth when he says "As the father of three children under the age of eight, I can only pray that someone "exploits" my sons someday by giving them tuition, room and board at one of America's finest universities." Well, yes, everyone would love $200,000 in return for playing a sport they enjoy. But at some point it becomes unfair for the schools to profit off of giving that gift.

If the schools profited by a billion dollars per player, would you still be happy with the $200,000? No one would say that's fair. So instead of asking whether they should be paid now or not, I ask the question: at what amount of profit do schools have a moral obligation to return some of that profit to their players? People arguing for paying players are saying we are past that amount; are the people against paying players arguing there is no amount of money which schools can profit off of the players which is "too much"?

[tendev]

People arguing for paying college athletes have to explain, if it is so unfair not to pay them (outside of the value of what is permitted) why do they play? Let's face it, they have a choice. They can decline the scholarship and not play. I concede that one might reasonably argue that it is unfair to permit colleges to band together through the NCAA to collectively prohibit payment beyond a scholarship. But so far, the fairness argument has not compelled Congress to pass laws requiring colleges to pay football and basketball players beyond what they are already paid. The perceived unfairness of the system has not pushed the players to fight the system. If, as the author of the Atlantic thinks, they have been treated so unfairly, they do have options. It is what the baseball players union, the football players union and other unions have done: strike. An effective collective effort like a strike is not easy to pull off, but history demonstrates time and time again that people can be pushed only so far. Apparently, to date, the NCAA has not pushed the players that far.

[gep]

... An effective collective effort like a strike is not easy to pull off, but history demonstrates time and time again that people can be pushed only so far. Apparently, to date, the NCAA has not pushed the players that far.

Except for the few players accepting "extra benefits", I don't recall hearing any player of any sport pushing for "payments" over and above tuition, room, board, books, food, etc. Is this correct? Seems to me like this "pay the players" argument is from the media, and of course us fan boards....

[Turk]

I was unimpressed with the Davis piece; he's a status quo apologist who is smart enough not to bite the hand that feeds him. His main point is that even the big-revenue programs "lose" money. Of course, he just throws out some simple counts, and takes at face value whatever the schools claim about their books, and I suspect there might be some advanced accounting techniques being used. If the money's there, they're going to spend it, just not on the players who actually bring it in. Here's a quote from Boeheim that I think is right on; I clipped it from the link in the "Boeheim in the ACC" thread:

"It's interesting because 30 years ago schools made X amount of money. Twenty years ago, they made 2X. Ten years ago, they made 4X. Now they're going to make 6X. And you know what? They're going to end up breaking even, just like they did 30 years ago."

But here's the quote that jumped out at me:

"We need look no further than the current conference expansion madness to understand that many of the presidents who are running college sports are feckless, greedy hypocrites. It's also apparent that the NCAA's enforcement process has gone off the rails. Still, in the final analysis it's not the NCAA's responsibility to stop schools and athletes from cheating..."

Davis has it exactly wrong. I would say the people who run the NCAA are feckless, greedy hypocrites. They are doing all they can to protect their revenue streams (and helping the schools to do the same) by developing an increasingly byzantine set of rules and regulations that focus on trivia while ignoring the elephant in the room. The NCAA has adopted the responsibility to stop cheating precisely to justify its existence. It seems to me that we already went through this debate back when the Olympics were supposedly "amateur." I think there's a way to figure this out, and one way to attack the problem is to be honest about it and put all the money on the table. And if they were really interested in the education of the "student-athletes", the NCAA would tie its TV payouts to the schools' graduation rates, but it lacks both the incentive and the huevos to do so.

[SCMatt33]

I had a question about all of this money that everyone is supposedly chasing. Where does it actually go? We all like to blame schools for chasing TV dollars, but it's not like the AD's, coaches, presidents or trustees walk home at the end of the day with millions in bonuses as a result. This isn't like the corporate world where there are executives who get millions in bonuses every year on top of the millions they make in salary. Who are these "greedy hypocrites" that walk home with the money at the end of the day. I feel like in one way or another, this money does stay within the athletic department. For them to keep their 501(c)(3) status, they have to reinvest most of that money back into the school or they couldn't qualify as a non-profit. Is this money that gets used in the so called facilities arms race? Does it pay for Maryland's fancy under armour unis? Does it go towards endowing scholarships? Where does this money actually go? Is there anyone here who knows for sure? Before we automatically condemn a school for wanted to generate revenue off of its athletic department, shouldn't we consider how they use it.

On another point more directly related to paying players specifically, this does really seem like an unsolvable problem. Seth Davis hints at this at the end of his article before citing specific problems about a few specific proposals (which I won't get into here since it's been talked about so much already). Ultimately, there's a good reason that no one has been able to come up with a solution that doesn't have at least a few major problems. There is a fundamental discord between the mission of an educational institution whose mission is not about making profit (other than to improve the institution itself), an athletics department whose goal is really to promote and generate power and prestige for the university (goals to which generating revenue helps greatly), and professional sports leagues, who are about profit, and use college athletics as a feeder system. There is an unresolvable issue when you have something that tries to link an entity that can't be about making money, and one that has to be about making money.

The big problem is that universities can't be separated from the money-making aspect because a big chunk of the value in college sports is the affiliation with communities that have hundreds of thousands of built-in fans that wouldn't exist without the brand of the school. I can't think of another place in the world where a league can generate this kind of interest without having the best players in it, while coexisting in the same place as the league that does have the best player. The question becomes how to solve (or at least work around this). Plenty have tried and should keep trying, but an answer hasn't yet been found.

[uh_no]

it's not like the AD's, coaches, presidents or trustees walk home at the end of the day with millions in bonuses as a result. This isn't like the corporate world where there are executives who get millions in bonuses every year on top of the millions they make in salary. Who are these "greedy hypocrites" that walk home with the money at the end of the day.

I think you answered your own question with that one. Perhaps you should take a look at what the top basketball/football coaches, and ADs make.

[SCMatt33]

I think you answered your own question with that one. Perhaps you should take a look at what the top basketball/football coaches, and ADs make.

For sure most coaches and AD's get serious salaries, but it doesn't come anywhere close to what they bring in off of these TV deals. Also, that amount is not directly tied to what the athletic department brings in. All of Pitts coaches and AD's won't suddenly get millions in raises each because of the extra money they get from the ACC. Where is the new money going???

[uh_no]

For sure most coaches and AD's get serious salaries, but it doesn't come anywhere close to what they bring in off of these TV deals. Also, that amount is not directly tied to what the athletic department brings in. All of Pitts coaches and AD's won't suddenly get millions in raises each because of the extra money they get from the ACC. Where is the new money going???

it will likely go towards some improvement of facilities, but I would not be suprised if some of the coaches got bonuses or new contracts. You have to remember, the increase in money for the school is likely a couple million dollars, so I'm sure the athletics departments will have no problem figuring out how to spend it, even if it means decreasing the subsidy from their university.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/seth_davis/09/21/Branch.rebuttal/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_wr_a5

Very nice article by Seth Davis that points out the flaws in Taylor Branch's article in the Atlantic.

Taylor Branch responds (http://taylorbranch.com/2011/09/23/response-to-seth-davis/)to Seth Davis.

[toooskies]

Still waiting for an answer to my question: how much money could a school make before it's unfair to the student-athletes to profited from? I suppose it was a little too theoretical, though, so let's dig into specific numbers.

We nearly lost NFL games because of a debate over revenues being divided 50/50 with players; I think the final numbers have players receiving 43% of revenues. NBA basketball is heading towards what looks like a 50/50 revenue split as well, although the players earned well over that last year. So how does that compare with college revenues?

Duke's current basketball revenue is 26.7 million dollars, according to Forbes Magazine. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2011/03/14/acc-basketball-financials-heavily-skewed-by-duke-unc-success/) With 13 scholarships, that equals roughly $650,000. At Duke, basketball players receive about 2.5% of revenues. At other ACC schools (or in non-championship years), revenue is lower; FSU only brings in $5 million annually, but their tuition also probably adjusts down to make the ratio around 10%.

Are those numbers fair? At what point are those numbers unfair?

[JasonEvans]

Are those numbers fair? At what point are those numbers unfair?

This really is an excellent question. If the athletic departments were making hundreds of millions of dollars a year, turning massive profits that not only funded all athletics but also provided money back to the University, I cannot imagine anyone getting too upset at the notion of paying the players. The folks who argue against putting something in the pockets of the revenue-generating players, do you refute this?

So, if we can agree that AT SOME POINT the college players should be paid, then (in the immortal words of WC Fields or someone like that) "we have established that you are a whore, we are just haggling over the price."

-Jason "no offense to the whores, in this case. Heck, I think they should be paid" Evans

[uh_no]

This really is an excellent question. If the athletic departments were making hundreds of millions of dollars a year, turning massive profits that not only funded all athletics but also provided money back to the University, I cannot imagine anyone getting too upset at the notion of paying the players. The folks who argue against putting something in the pockets of the revenue-generating players, do you refute this?

So, if we can agree that AT SOME POINT the college players should be paid, then (in the immortal words of WC Fields or someone like that) "we have established that you are a whore, we are just haggling over the price."

-Jason "no offense to the whores, in this case. Heck, I think they should be paid" Evans

I agree in principal, but I think there would need to be some sort of profit sharing in place, or else suddenly texas turns huge profits, pays players, attracts top end in every sport, makes more profit, game over for sports. would it be more fair? for sure, but I don't think many of us would like the results of having a small handful of colleges which are absolutely dominant in every sport.

[gep]

Would this be an appropriate comparison? Large, very profitable companies are so most usually because of the employees. Sure, there's profit sharing, bonuses, etc. But the difference in employee salaries compared to the top executives is extreme. Should employees get larger bonuses, larger salaries? What's fair? And, a lot of business, like a lot of colleges, are not turning a huge profit. How do they compete with top employees? Maybe work environment, company culture, etc... just like colleges can provide a good college experience. Maybe that's worth something?

[toooskies]

I maintain that while the players' non-financial benefits are significant, the school and the community receive significant non-financial benefits as well. I'm not saying they shouldn't be accounted for, but on the other hand, I'm not sure the non-financial benefits are in favor of the players.

And the players are actually affected negatively financially because they can't sign endorsements. Yet the teams can!

I'm not really concerned about schools setting a level playing field between each other. They'll do that on their own. I'm not at all saying that there shouldn't be rules for competitive balance. I'm saying that to me, the 2010 championship team deserved more than 2.4% of the revenue that they generated for the school. I'm curious if I'm alone on that.

Now, to make that ratio better, maybe things should go the other way-- maybe college basketball shouldn't generate so much money. But what school is going to turn down revenue streams?

[RPS]

Jay Bilas speaks on this topic here (http://www.ballinisahabit.net/2011/10/preseason-q-and-series-jay-bilas.html).


I just don't believe that amateurism as a principle is such a valuable thing. I heard Taylor Branch say this recently, and I think it's a great way to put it, 'If one wishes to be an amateur, that's great, but to impose amateurism across the board doesn't seem right to me'.

It didn't seem right to me in college and doesn't seem right to me now. Especially when you have so much money that's being made off of college athletics, to deny an adult, which a college athlete is, the right to benefit from endorsements, his name or likeness, just seems to be fundamentally wrong. I don't think players need to paid a salary, or made employees, anything like that. I do think that "cost of attendance" is the least we could do and we're not even going to get to that. They're going to punt on "cost of attendance", and it will probably end up being $2,025 as the maximum, which will fall way short for a lot of athletes.

I just feel like there is nothing in the principle of amateurism that's of great benefit to the athlete. It's not like you say 'if you're an amateur, it will enhance you education, it's a wonderful virtue that you get great benefit from'. It's just not true, there's nothing like that. People just don't want to do it.

[Acymetric]

Jay Bilas speaks on this topic here (http://www.ballinisahabit.net/2011/10/preseason-q-and-series-jay-bilas.html).

Is "cost of attendance" something other than tuition, room, board, and books? What is he referring to there?

As for the comparison to the Olympic model, the problem is that very rarely would there be an issue of a Russian company offering endorsements to an American athlete to get the athlete to compete for Russia as there are citizenship requirements. Without that obstacle in college sports it is easy to imagine this happening constantly; which is why the "let them earn sponsorship deals" argument falls flat. If they are going to be paid, it should be through the school or some larger governing body (NCAA or something new) and it should be the same at every school.

[sagegrouse]

Is "cost of attendance" something other than tuition, room, board, and books? What is he referring to there?



I would assume that "cost of attendance" would provide a stipend for living expenses, much like graduate students on fellowship receive. He dismisses $2025, which is $225 per month on a nine-month basis. I agree with Jay that that's not enough -- maybe twice that. But there are people on this thread who do not want to provide another dime, and I respect their views.

sagegrouse
'I lived pretty well as a grad student -- apartment, beat-up old car, social life, even symphony tickets -- much better than the scrimping and saving as an undergrad'

[RPS]

Is "cost of attendance" something other than tuition, room, board, and books? What is he referring to there?

The "Cost of Attendance" of a college or university is the estimated full and reasonable cost of completing a full year as a full-time student and as determined and published by each educational institution. It typically includes:

Tuition and fees payable to the institution
Books and supplies
Room and board
Personal costs, transportation

By law (http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/resource/net_price_calculator.asp), as of October 29, 2011, every post-secondary institution that receives federal financial aid funds must post a Net Price Calculator that shows the institution's Cost of Attendance — defined by the federal requirement as the sum of tuition and fees, room and board, books and supplies, and other expenses including personal expenses and transportation for a first-time, full-time undergraduate student — and determines for each prospective or current student a personalized Net Price, which is the difference between COA and need and merit-based Grant Aid (not including work-study programs or government subsidized loans). The published Cost of Attendance also establishes the limits for qualified financial aid and student loans available to the student.

As Duke Admissions puts it (http://admissions.duke.edu/jump/applying/finaid.html): "The estimated cost of attendance is our best approximation of what each student at Duke will need to cover basic expenses." Duke's Cost of Attendance (http://admissions.duke.edu/jump/applying/finaid.html) for 2011-2012 is $57,180.

More here (http://www.ifap.ed.gov/sfahandbooks/attachments/0607Vol3Ch2.pdf).

[toooskies]

Cost of attendance means different things to different people, though. For instance, Elliot Williams had his cost to attend Duke escalate because it was further away from a sick family member. He had no choice but to transfer. Perhaps if he received a fraction of the cash he generated for the university, he could've supported his family enough to move to the Triangle for his medical care. While that may not have ultimately been the decision he would've made, it's hard to argue that basketball at Duke and medical care from Duke Hospital would be worse than in Memphis.

That's not to say, "If we paid players, we might have kept Elliot Williams." It's just that here Elliot could show up on national TV, contributing to the millions of dollars which Duke makes off of basketball, and he doesn't come away with anything that can help pay the bills for his family. Whereas the coaches, trainers, athletic department employees, concessions staff, newspaper columnists, television personalities, website operators, and so on all do.

Not that I think DBR turns enough of a profit to pay the bills!

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Here's another reply to Seth Davis's argument supporting the status quo in college sports by Adam Schwarz at Sportsgeekonomics (http://sportsgeekonomics.tumblr.com/)...

A few interesting quotes...

"Davis confuses a market where a single cartel controls prices with a “fair market.” The NCAA maximum allowable athletic scholarship is not a free market offer because cartelized industries are the antithesis of free markets. The lack of outside demand is proof the NCAA cartel is a success; it has cartelized 100% of the industry. That’s not a defense, it’s an indictment."

"Davis reminds us how good the scholarship offer is compared to what smart non-athletic high school students get offered when choosing among colleges. He’s right that athletes get a better deal than almost all other students on campus. But that misses the point entirely. The idea is not that athletic scholarships aren’t valuable, but rather that they are far less than the value of what the schools would gladly pay in a free market, if the NCAA didn’t cap compensation."

"The irony is that Davis and Branch and I actually all should agree that we don’t need any rules against paying players. Branch and I think we should drop the rule to let market forces kick in and for college athletes to earn what they are worth. Davis thinks college athletes are overpaid, and if that were true we could drop the NCAA rules prohibiting pay and nothing would change. Since we’re agreed, let’s drop the rule and see what happens. I know, and I suspect Davis does too, that the result would be more compensation to athletes."

[toooskies]

The fun thing is, not paying players while students isn't even the first step. The first step would be to drop the no-profit-from-athletics rule where athletes aren't allowed to profit from being who they are until they declare to go professional. The second step would be to compensate players whom the university profits from even after their playing days, which will probably occur by court order instead of University agreement.

At least the players receive something-- an education-- for playing the sport. But the restrictions from making money elsewhere and not compensating players at all for their likeness post-graduation are probably the worst things that the NCAA does. The argument for paying players is simply that allowing players to take money from sponsors will essentially come down to which school has the most dollars in unofficial sponsorships. Putting university money on the table simply makes that sponsorship run through the school instead of around it.

I'm not as gung-ho about a 100% free-market personally; some NCAA or conference rules wouldn't be a terrible thing. The terrible thing is rewarding the engine of a billion-dollar industries with pocket change.

[wilko]

I don't think many of us would like the results of having a small handful of colleges which are absolutely dominant in every sport.

THIS is what I fear will come of this as well.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

THIS is what I fear will come of this as well.

I'm not sure this is not already happening at some level, but there has to be way the schools can regulate themselves, without trampling on players rights, to maintain some reasonable parity.

Here's another example of that little light the NCAA is staring at in a dark tunnel, (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7065822/bill-russell-sues-ncaa-using-likeness-consent-report-says)refusing to consider that it's a train coming and about to rock their world.

[uh_no]

I'm not sure this is not already happening at some level, but there has to be way the schools can regulate themselves, without trampling on players rights, to maintain some reasonable parity.

Here's another example of that little light the NCAA is staring at in a dark tunnel, (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7065822/bill-russell-sues-ncaa-using-likeness-consent-report-says)refusing to consider that it's a train coming and about to rock their world.

what incentive would schools like texas, OSU, and ND have to regulate themselves? as prominent as duke is, there is absolutely no way that they could compete with the funds from the alumni bases that larger schools could provide. Not a chance guys come here when they can get bigger paychecks elsewhere....and that's not to demean our kids, in the same way that leaving for the NBA is often the right decision, why would an athlete come to duke when they could be making multiple amounts greater elsewhere?

[SCMatt33]

I've posted about different parts of this topic before, and some of it may be repeated here, but I think that too often we look at a specific idea or issue that comes up and debate it. This issue encompasses several different facets and they need to be looked at together. One post about cost of attendance, another about CoA, and another about Ed O'Bannon doesn't really help get to a solution. The way I see it, there are two main categories that fall under this umbrella. The first is immediate NCAA issues, such as the effect of realignment or the Ed O'Bannon lawsuit. The second is long term models like CoA and the Olympic model. These then tie together as the issues in the first category will lead to reforms in the second category. By this logic, we should first discuss the immediate issues, a few of which have been in the news lately:

Realignment

There is obviously a very popular thread on this board about all the latest realignment gossip. I enjoy it as much as anyone, but it has taken on the flavor of a recruiting thread, just with schools instead of players. There are potential conference "rosters" of the future, arguments about who is a "good fit" for whom, etc. As it relates to this thread though, realignment comes into play as far as the influence over rules. If four or five superconferences try to break free of the NCAA, it would naturally lead to a more conducive environment to get some sort of reform passed. I think this is much less likely than some others, though, as getting four to five conferences to agree on rules when they have to start with a blank piece of paper will be impossible. Even with current rules as a baseline, the conferences couldn't agree on something as simple as a +1 football playoff. Why would anyone expect that they could agree on things that the NCAA now takes care of like minimum academic requirements, recruiting rules, transfer rules, etc. Separation from the NCAA is very complicated, and I think unlikely. Without that separation, we are left with the status quo in terms of governing structure, which lessens the likelihood of major reforms being forced by realignment.

Ed O'Bannon

I'm sure most, if not all people here are at least somewhat familiar with the existence of the Ed O'bannon lawsuit. The short version is that O'Bannon claims that the NCAA should have to pay royalties to players after they turn pro, as the NCAA does not hold their rights in perpetuity. This would include things like video games and archived game footage. This suit recently made new headlines ad Bill Russell filed suit for his likeness being used on historical teams in these games without his consent. I think there is no one answer to this case, and I personally feel that some of the arguments are totally legit, while others don't hold water. I think most of the video game stuff is crap. First, players don't own the rights to their jersey number, fashion style, or an image that kind of looks like them. Sam Keller, the former ASU and Nebraska quarterback, claims in his part of the suit that EA used his distinctive visor, to make the character clearly represent him. I'm sorry Sam, but I don't think you own the rights to the image of a visor. Second, even if they did find that players owned these rights, how much value does one players image really add to the value of a game. When you consider the programming, testing, marketing, material, and brand value of the schools, the players collective contribution to the value of the game can't be that much, let alone any individual. Besides, sales of college games pale in comparison to pro video games. The basketball sales were so bad that the game was discontinued.

I think that Bill Russell may have a case. His likeness was put into the game while he was a professional without his consent. The problem for Russell is that the basketball game has been discontinued so I think a substantial ruling in his favor is unlikely.

The television argument is complete crap. There is no precedent for individual players owning a direct piece of broadcast rights. Professionals don't, amateurs don't, coaches don't. Besides, unless you're Christian Laettner, the amount of air time you get isn't worth much. While I think that a favorable ruling for O'Bannon is unlikely, it would have a tremendous impact on the pay debate. This type of ruling could open up the door to new models where players still don't get paid directly, but could collect residuals later on.

These are the two biggest issues related to the pay debate that are currently on the NCAA's plate. They could have a major impact on its resolution, or they could be but minor blips on the radar. I will save my analysis of the specific models for another post.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Here's another interesting take...Sports as an academic major?
From Sally Jenkings at the Washington Post. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/ncaa-colleges-should-consider-offering-sports-as-an-academic-major/2011/10/05/gIQAF6ijOL_story.html)

Problem solving 101....Identify the problem.

Somehow, someway, the NCAA better figure out how to compensate players more equitably, or allow others willing to compensate them, and soon or risk imploding.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

..... why would an athlete come to duke when they could be making multiple amounts greater elsewhere?

Maybe they wouldn't. But in a free, capitalistic society they absolutely have the fundamental right to make that choice for themselves, right?

[uh_no]

Maybe they wouldn't. But in a free, capitalistic society they absolutely have the fundamental right to make that choice for themselves, right?

Of course. I'm simply arguing that everyone here stumping for this cause might not be satisfied with the end result.

[Black Mambo]

Whenever I get into a debate, I find it helpful to get at the first principles (i.e. the fundamental heart) from which both parties are arguing from. It seems to me that the 1st principle from which those in favor of paying players are arguing from is that in our capitalistic society, you have the right to seek the best option for you, and nobody should profit off of you without your consent unless they are willing to FAIRLY compensate you. Makes sense to me.

However, if this is in fact the first principle, my question is, how is this argument to be applied? Can I apply it to highschool sports? There are plenty of schools who "profit" from excellent highschool basketball teams (e.g. Lebron's team during highschool) or every week football games. Should these schools pay the players because ultimately it is the players that are playing the games and generating this revenue?

To be clear, I disagree that highschool players should be paid, but I bring it up because I think for that first principle to be valid, it should be applicable to AT LEAST more than one specific situation. SOme of you may say that the difference is in the amount of money that is at stake, that university coaches make way more than highschool coaches, etc.... To that I would say that if the
"fundamental right to be compensated" is the main issue, then how much the coaches make isnt part of the argument. To be clear, I think coaches make WAY too much, but even still, I dont see how it factors into the pay the players debate. Several posts have already detailed that only a SMALL handful of athletic departments are profitable (hence why I used quotes above), and one could make the argument that these unprofitable departments could be a kin to the likely unprofitable high school departments (but obviously on a much bigger scale).

So to all those who are for paying the players, what is your first principle, and should it be applied to high school athletics? If not, why not? If so, and you think that highschool players as well should get paid, well...Pandora's box is about to explode.

[AZLA]

Wouldn't it be interesting if the NCAA did start paying college basketball players while the NBA is in a lockout resulting in no "professional" basketball players being paid.

At that point, we could pretty much be assured the end of the world is at hand...

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I think the line in this discussion should be drawn at adults. Individuals 18 and over.

Responsibilites for juveniles in sports is on parents, and they have separate issues.

[Jarhead]

I think the line in this discussion should be drawn at adults. Individuals 18 and over.

Responsibilites for juveniles in sports is on parents, and they have separate issues.

On that I disagree. The real dividing line is amateurism and professionalism. If college sports are amateur then the athlete cannot earn an income from participation. The quid pro quo is the tuition and necessary expenses. I will concede, though, that the definition of necessary expenses needs some tweaking, and a stipend or honest part time work may be justified. In fact it may be justified for more than just athletes. For athletes it would need to be well regulated, though, to keep the playing field level. The way things are going, we may find that only golf makes a clear distinction between amateur and professional. On the other hand, it seems to me that only football and basketball seem to be burdened with the problem. Now why is that?

[Black Mambo]

I think the line in this discussion should be drawn at adults. Individuals 18 and over.

Responsibilites for juveniles in sports is on parents, and they have separate issues.

There are plenty of high school seniors (and possibly some high school juniors) who are 18. Where do they fall? Should they be paid if they help their respective schools generate revenue?

This is a serious question and I think gets to the heart of the debate. If the answer is no, then the natural question is why not, given the arguments that are currently perpetuated by those in favor of paying players. Those not in favor of paying amateur college players can at least be consistent in their first principles and say you also shouldnt pay high school players because they are amateurs.

So again, for those in favor of paying players, what is the first principle that can apply to college athletes and revenue generating highschool athletes that are 18 and over? I fail to see why the two groups should be distinct. Should these HS individuals be allowed to explore the "free market" and also be allowed to receive dollars from their respective schools (lack of actual profit, notwithstanding), or from corporate sponsors?

[Black Mambo]

On that I disagree. The real dividing line is amateurism and professionalism. If college sports are amateur then the athlete cannot earn an income from participation. The quid pro quo is the tuition and necessary expenses. I will concede, though, that the definition of necessary expenses needs some tweaking, and a stipend or honest part time work may be justified. In fact it may be justified for more than just athletes. For athletes it would need to be well regulated, though, to keep the playing field level. The way things are going, we may find that only golf makes a clear distinction between amateur and professional. On the other hand, it seems to me that only football and basketball seem to be burdened with the problem. Now why is that?

I completely agree with Jarhead's sentiment. IMHO, the dividing line is amateurism /professionalism. But that may be the fundamental disagreement between the two camps, and I'm not sure how that is reasonably bridged.

If we want college pro sport teams, then by all means, let's push for that and get rid of the facade of student-athletes. Let there be agents and contract negotiations and lockouts and all that other fun stuff. But if we want actual amatuer student athletes, then lets push for that within the context of the "full cost of attendance" model.

[Black Mambo]

What if ALL college players were paid the full cost of attendance as a salary. Then those who were serious about being student athletes could use that money to both live and pay tuition to attend classes for a degree. Those who werent serious about the student part would get their $40-$50k a year for playing "semi-pro" for the school. Of course, this might bias the one-and-dones who have no desire to go to class to go to expensive private schools...like Duke :)

Yes, that would be messy. But it was just a thought I had.

EDIT: This money would likely be taxable, but the taxes could be recuperated via the Hope Learning Tax Credit, which is a credit (rather than a deduction, so actual 1:1 dollars would go back to the taxpayer)

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Amateurism is dead in college sports, imo. Time to move on.

As for HS, if an 18 year old adult still allowed to play with minors demands to be paid, pretty simple, cut him.

[Black Mambo]

Amateurism is dead in college sports, imo. Time to move on.

As for HS, if an 18 year old adult still allowed to play with minors demands to be paid, pretty simple, cut him.


Amateurism is NOT dead in college sports. The number of athletes across ALL of D1 college athletics (not to mention D2 and D3) who could be considered amateurs VASTLY outweighs those who are in revenue generating sports. The pay the players debate is really focused on mens football and basketball. if you want to say that amateurism is dead in D1 mens FB and BB then fine. Even then, I would argue that on any given team, there are no more than five individuals who actually generate revenue for the school beyond what the school spends on them.

As for your HS "cut him" statement, that's a weak response, and misses the point. The issue is if these students should be allowed to be paid. Every legitimate argument that you can make for not paying the 18 yr old HS FB and BB players who generate money for their school can be directly applied to college athletics, and every argument that is made for payign college athletes can (and for consistently, should) be applied to these revenue generating HS athletes. Sure, the money is more in college athletics, but I would argue that the principle should be the same. I cant think of anyone who would seriously say we should start paying highschool AMATEURS. As Jarhead articulated, amateurism is the line. If you want to go ahead and say that college mens BB and FB players are not amateurs, then by all means, but then let's stop calling them student athletes. Let's pay and treat them as non-student pros / semi-pros, and get them completely out of the classroom and taking away a spot from a more serious student who is only going pro in engineering, medicine, law, or what have you. If they want to go to class, then they can pay for it just like all the rest of us, whether through that semi-pro stipend, family means, or the normal financial aid system.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Amateurism is NOT dead in college sports. The number of athletes across ALL of D1 college athletics (not to mention D2 and D3) who could be considered amateurs VASTLY outweighs those who are in revenue generating sports. The pay the players debate is really focused on mens football and basketball. if you want to say that amateurism is dead in D1 mens FB and BB then fine. Even then, I would argue that on any given team, there are no more than five individuals who actually generate revenue for the school beyond what the school spends on them.

I thought it was pretty clear we were discussing the big revenue generating sports and athletes.


As for your HS "cut him" statement, that's a weak response, and misses the point. The issue is if these students should be allowed to be paid. Every legitimate argument that you can make for not paying the 18 yr old HS FB and BB players who generate money for their school can be directly applied to college athletics, and every argument that is made for payign college athletes can (and for consistently, should) be applied to these revenue generating HS athletes. Sure, the money is more in college athletics, but I would argue that the principle should be the same. I cant think of anyone who would seriously say we should start paying highschool AMATEURS. As Jarhead articulated, amateurism is the line. If you want to go ahead and say that college mens BB and FB players are not amateurs, then by all means, but then let's stop calling them student athletes. Let's pay and treat them as non-student pros / semi-pros, and get them completely out of the classroom and taking away a spot from a more serious student who is only going pro in engineering, medicine, law, or what have you. If they want to go to class, then they can pay for it just like all the rest of us, whether through that semi-pro stipend, family means, or the normal financial aid system.

HS is for amateurs, and it is relevant that the vast majority of kids in HS are minors. I'll stand by my way to deal with any adult athlete in HS that demands to be paid.

We don't need this debate to "go there" (HS) in order to bring fairness to the adult athletes in the big business of college sports.

[-jk]

I thought it was pretty clear we were discussing the big revenue generating sports and athletes.



HS is for amateurs, and it is relevant that the vast majority of kids in HS are minors. I'll stand by my way to deal with any adult athlete in HS that demands to be paid.

We don't need this debate to "go there" (HS) in order to bring fairness to the adult athletes in the big business of college sports.

I'm not so sure it's so cut-and-dried. The developmental psychologists and neurologists would suggest that college aged brains are nowhere close to adult maturity. That they have more in common with high schoolers than with adults. There's not a clear line when enrolling in college.

-jk

[uh_no]

I'm not so sure it's so cut-and-dried. The developmental psychologists and neurologists would suggest that college aged brains are nowhere close to adult maturity. That they have more in common with high schoolers than with adults. There's not a clear line when enrolling in college.

-jk

I think the perfect example is lebron james. The amount of publicity he brought to his high school (along with the inevitable money the school made for the rights to their games that ESPN showed) was incredible for a HS (and possibly unprecedented). Is that situation so different form the college scene?

[Indoor66]

I think the perfect example is lebron james. The amount of publicity he brought to his high school (along with the inevitable money the school made for the rights to their games that ESPN showed) was incredible for a HS (and possibly unprecedented). Is that situation so different form the college scene?

There is an old saying around the law: Hard cases make bad law.

You cite bron bron and high school. How many other examples can you cite of a single high school athlete who was, basically, the single cause of his school making money off of ANY athletic activity - whether basketball, football or other? Also, how many times was bron bron on TV as a high schooler?

I am on record as not favoring payment of college athletes (beyond the present system of aid(. I see such payments as the basis for the destruction of the college game (all of them where the athletes get paid) through the inherent strife that such payments will cause.

I can support a modest increase in the monthly spending money allowance and a slight relaxation of the earning capacity for scholarship athletes, but beyond that, increases in payments will open the door to rampant booster cash ruining the games. It will also open the door to all of the "fairness" politicians sticking their fingers into the games and the relationships.

Such a change will, IMO, kill college athletics.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I'm not so sure it's so cut-and-dried. The developmental psychologists and neurologists would suggest that college aged brains are nowhere close to adult maturity. That they have more in common with high schoolers than with adults. There's not a clear line when enrolling in college.

-jk

While I won't argue that the developmental psychologists may not be right, I will have to argue that there is a clear line.

In this country, legally, individuals are considered adults at 18 years old, correct?
I'm no lawyer, but I do have google :).

The clear line is called the "age of majority".

"The age of majority is the threshold of adulthood as it is conceptualized (and recognized or declared) in law. It is the chronological moment when minors cease to legally be considered children and assume control over their persons, actions, and decisions, thereby terminating the legal control and legal responsibilities of their parents or guardian over and for them. .................... The age of majority is a legally fixed age, concept, or statutory principle, which may differ depending on the jurisdiction, and may not necessarily correspond to actual mental or physical maturity of an individual."

My point all along is college kids have rights, adult rights, and they are being abused.

Just because it may only be a small % of college kids people are willing to pay, does not mean the NCAA should be able to deny that player other avenues to receive compensation for their skills, while they (NCAA) use those same skills to generate billions of dollars for themselves.

I'm open to the argument that the schools don't have to pay,... (more).
A case can probably be made that they provide the stage and have expenses. But I can't see any valid reason for an adult athlete to be denied the right to accept compensation from some other willing, legal/transparent source.

It may not be convenient, lots of new regulations would have to be written, but it would be the right thing to do.

[uh_no]

There is an old saying around the law: Hard cases make bad law.

You cite bron bron and high school. How many other examples can you cite of a single high school athlete who was, basically, the single cause of his school making money off of ANY athletic activity - whether basketball, football or other? Also, how many times was bron bron on TV as a high schooler?


If one argues that an athlete should make income proportional to the economic value they generate for the school, then they should support it regardless of the athletic level or the ability of other students on that level to generate value. Just because other HS athletes were not able to make a profit for their schools does not make lebron any more or less deserving of being compensated.

[Indoor66]

If one argues that an athlete should make income proportional to the economic value they generate for the school, then they should support it regardless of the athletic level or the ability of other students on that level to generate value. Just because other HS athletes were not able to make a profit for their schools does not make lebron any more or less deserving of being compensated.

Each athlete (in income producing sports) is part of a team. No one athlete, no matter how superior his skills, plays the game alone. How do you value this? The process is impossible to implement with any fathomable system that is "fair" to all athletes involved. How much is the practice player worth as opposed to the player who spells the star to give him rest as opposed to the 2nd best player... and on and on. How do you implement this - assuming you can get beyond the point that it is a poor idea ab initio.

[-jk]

While I won't argue that the developmental psychologists may not be right, I will have to argue that there is a clear line.

In this country, legally, individuals are considered adults at 18 years old, correct?
I'm no lawyer, but I do have google :).

The clear line is called the "age of majority".

"The age of majority is the threshold of adulthood as it is conceptualized (and recognized or declared) in law. It is the chronological moment when minors cease to legally be considered children and assume control over their persons, actions, and decisions, thereby terminating the legal control and legal responsibilities of their parents or guardian over and for them. .................... The age of majority is a legally fixed age, concept, or statutory principle, which may differ depending on the jurisdiction, and may not necessarily correspond to actual mental or physical maturity of an individual."

My point all along is college kids have rights, adult rights, and they are being abused.

Just because it may only be a small % of college kids people are willing to pay, does not mean the NCAA should be able to deny that player other avenues to receive compensation for their skills, while they (NCAA) use those same skills to generate billions of dollars for themselves.

I'm open to the argument that the schools don't have to pay,... (more).
A case can probably be made that they provide the stage and have expenses. But I can't see any valid reason for an adult athlete to be denied the right to accept compensation from some other willing, legal/transparent source.

It may not be convenient, lots of new regulations would have to be written, but it would be the right thing to do.

Even that "age of majority" line isn't so clear - adult life comes in graduated steps. Yes, you can sign a contract at 18, but you have to be 21 to buy a drink, 25 to run for the House, 30 for the Senate, and 35 for President. Most states also have age requirements above 18 to hold office.

Many hotels and most cruise lines require guests to be 21. Car rental companies routinely restrict drivers below 25. In most states that allow casino gambling, you have to be 21.

Parents can claim a full time student as a dependent until 24, and also carry him on the family health plan to (I think) 26.

Life and the law are full of examples of 18 not being a bright line.

-jk

[uh_no]

Each athlete (in income producing sports) is part of a team. No one athlete, no matter how superior his skills, plays the game alone. How do you value this? The process is impossible to implement with any fathomable system that is "fair" to all athletes involved. How much is the practice player worth as opposed to the player who spells the star to give him rest as opposed to the 2nd best player... and on and on. How do you implement this - assuming you can get beyond the point that it is a poor idea ab initio.

So you admit, then, that if universities were paying player, then every member of the football and basketball team should make equal amounts of money?

[Indoor66]

So you admit, then, that if universities were paying player, then every member of the football and basketball team should make equal amounts of money?

No, I don't "admit" anything. I am just saying that if you go down this road, expect the issue of "fairness" to require equal inclusion of all athletes representing an institution - whether male or female or playing a revenue sport or not. This is the elephant in the room. The costs become huge and programs will have to be eliminated because of those costs. It is not just a football and basketball question.

[uh_no]

No, I don't "admit" anything. I am just saying that if you go down this road, expect the issue of "fairness" to require equal inclusion of all athletes representing an institution - whether male or female or playing a revenue sport or not. This is the elephant in the room. The costs become huge and programs will have to be eliminated because of those costs. It is not just a football and basketball question.

I agree with you 100%. There is no need to get bent out of shape.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Even that "age of majority" line isn't so clear - adult life comes in graduated steps. Yes, you can sign a contract at 18, but you have to be 21 to buy a drink, 25 to run for the House, 30 for the Senate, and 35 for President. Most states also have age requirements above 18 to hold office.

Many hotels and most cruise lines require guests to be 21. Car rental companies routinely restrict drivers below 25. In most states that allow casino gambling, you have to be 21.

Parents can claim a full time student as a dependent until 24, and also carry him on the family health plan to (I think) 26.

Life and the law are full of examples of 18 not being a bright line.

-jk

I think we're gonna have to start somewhere with this issue, it's not going away, and it seems to me that the legal age where these kids can sign contracts and accept adult responsibility is as good as any place to start.

[uh_no]

I think we're gonna have to start somewhere with this issue, it's not going away, and it seems to me that the legal age where these kids can sign contracts and accept adult responsibility is as good as any place to start.

So exploiting them is okay up until that age?

[Black Mambo]

So exploiting them is okay up until that age?

OK, so maybe a less adversarial reply...

To Wheat: You still have not explained why those HS individuals (they are not so few, and they dont all have to be as good as Lebron) should or should not be allowed to be paid or accept outside monies. Your "cut him" statement is a practical solution that does not address the issue of paying these players. I could say very much the same thing. Cut Reggie Bush. Cut Kellen Winslow. Cut any college athlete that wants money. We both know thats not going to happen. Well many highschools would say they would never cut Lebron. Or cut there star HS players who are being recruited by D1 schools. The bottom line is that they HS students are no different than the college students. The only difference is their competition.

I agree that a fair model of compensation is necessary. But I think the onus is on those in favor of paying the players to reasonably explain, based on a widely applicable first principle, and within the context of a non-professional model, why the "full cost of attendance" is not "fair".

[Jarhead]

OK, so maybe a less adversarial reply...

To Wheat: You still have not explained why those HS individuals (they are not so few, and they dont all have to be as good as Lebron) should or should not be allowed to be paid or accept outside monies. Your "cut him" statement is a practical solution that does not address the issue of paying these players. I could say very much the same thing. Cut Reggie Bush. Cut Kellen Winslow. Cut any college athlete that wants money. We both know thats not going to happen. Well many highschools would say they would never cut Lebron. Or cut there star HS players who are being recruited by D1 schools. The bottom line is that they HS students are no different than the college students. The only difference is their competition.

I agree that a fair model of compensation is necessary. But I think the onus is on those in favor of paying the players to reasonably explain, based on a widely applicable first principle, and within the context of a non-professional model, why the "full cost of attendance" is not "fair".

Good luck on getting that fairness explanation. The full cost of attendance is not peanuts or pennies. It is a substantial sum.

[Black Mambo]

Good luck on getting that fairness explanation. The full cost of attendance is not peanuts or pennies. It is a substantial sum.

My take on "full cost of attendance" is what is necessary to attend the university, including food, travel, books, etc... This does not include money to buy the latest gear or electronics. Aren't we talking 2-3k more per athlete per year? Can anyone seriously argue 10k more per athlete per year to achieve the "full cost of attendance"? And cant this addition be in the form of services? For example, most universities have travel agencies that could book athletes trips back and forth from home. Athletes already get generous meal plans (compared to the student body), but could be given more since their caloric intake is by necessity higher than the general student body. Etc...

My other not-so-far-out-but-will-never-happen idea is to just give all athletes the cash equivalent to attendance and let those who want to go to school pay for it out if that money. Those who dont want to go to school get their money for being a semi-pro. In this model you have access to the "free market", but the "free market" can cut you each year based upon lack of performance.

[toooskies]

OK, so maybe a less adversarial reply...

To Wheat: You still have not explained why those HS individuals (they are not so few, and they dont all have to be as good as Lebron) should or should not be allowed to be paid or accept outside monies. Your "cut him" statement is a practical solution that does not address the issue of paying these players. I could say very much the same thing. Cut Reggie Bush. Cut Kellen Winslow. Cut any college athlete that wants money. We both know thats not going to happen. Well many highschools would say they would never cut Lebron. Or cut there star HS players who are being recruited by D1 schools. The bottom line is that they HS students are no different than the college students. The only difference is their competition.

I agree that a fair model of compensation is necessary. But I think the onus is on those in favor of paying the players to reasonably explain, based on a widely applicable first principle, and within the context of a non-professional model, why the "full cost of attendance" is not "fair".

What you're essentially saying is, "within the context of not paying the players, how can you justify paying the players?" The only reason these players are considered "non-professional" is because the schools have all agreed not to pay them, or let anyone pay them. For many athletes, maintaining academic eligibility isn't a benefit, it's simply part of the job. And the only reason they take that job is in hopes of getting paid in the future.

The "context of a non-professional model" is the absurdity of the status quo argument, for the following reasons:

If it's non-professional, why even give them the cost of attendance?
If it's non-professional, why are both college basketball and college football billion-dollar industries?
If it's non-professional, why not broadcast the games at-cost instead of selling to the highest bidder?
If it's non-professional, why are schools trying to generate revenue from sports at all?
If it's non-professional, why do coaches in the BCS conferences make millions of dollars a year?
If it's non-professional, why are equipment and jerseys sponsored beyond their cost?
If it's non-professional, why do the costs of recruiting players exceed their full cost of attendance? (Given that much of a coach's job is to recruit well, much of their salaries are recruiting costs)
If it's non-professional, why do colleges continue to neglect to educate players to manage their finances, to the point where bankrupcy of professional athletes is a common and serious problem?
If it's non-professional, why do colleges continue to support football under the claim of the benefit of players' health when evidence says pursuing it as a career leads to long-term health problems?

High school is still different because of magnitude. It isn't a billion dollar industry despite an order of magnitude more teams; there aren't bidders to broadcast the games; coaches' pay is similar to other school employees; high schools don't get paid sponsorships; recruiting is disallowed by many states; HS athletes don't need to be able to manage millions of dollars; and HS football players probably aren't athletic enough to make long-term physical consequences worse than the benefits.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

OK, so maybe a less adversarial reply...

To Wheat: You still have not explained why those HS individuals (they are not so few, and they dont all have to be as good as Lebron) should or should not be allowed to be paid or accept outside monies.

Because the HS kids are minors, for the most part. The amateur model can, and does, work for HS sports.

I do recognize the reality that some HS's are compensating the best athletes in some ways already. Look at the Brewster's, Oak Hills, etc, basically recruiting HS kids to become powerhouses. They may not be getting money, but they are getting better education, (hopefully) , great travel benefits, meals, living arrangements, shoes, the best coaching, training etc..

For me, I draw the "getting paid" line at what happens when a kid becomes an adult. Once an adult, and you can sign a contract if someone is willing to offer, there should not be anyone protecting their own interests (NCAA) telling you, you can't accept that compensation, while they make millions. (Providing there is transparency).

[SCMatt33]

Here's the second part of my earlier post (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?26083-The-Pay-the-Players-Debate&p=521933#post521933). For those that don't want to read it in detail, I talked about some of the issues that have led us to this debate and how they will have an effect on the ultimate outcome. For this part, I will break down each of the prominent proposals that I have seen. All have pros and cons, but the goal here is to find out what is the best solution for both the welfare of the athletes and the welfare of college athletics, because both are in a symbiotic relationship.

Status Quo

No debate on this subject can begin properly without an analysis of the current state of college athletics. While most, with a few notable exceptions, consider the current system either slightly damaged or completely broken, we must give it a fair look along with all other possibilities. One of the biggest pros of the current system is something that is often overlooked by proponents of other systems, it is tolerated by everyone. Even if a few athletes have gone out of their way to beat the system in the last few decades, either by trying to plow through it legally (Maurice Clarett, Mike Williams), Sneak around the rules (Chris Webber, Terelle Pryor, many others), or bypass it entirely (Brandon Jennings), it is at least tolerated by players, coaches, schools, conferences, professional leagues, and the government. Each of these groups has a unique power with which to prevent a new system from being implemented, but none currently exercise that power to destroy the current system. That being said, it is clear that the balance currently in place is an unstable one. Each of the entities above has tried to tweak the system in the past in their favor, and few are completely satisfied with this model. Hardly anyone's best interest is completely served here. Athletes feel disenfranchised and the state of athletics takes a hit via reputation with all the bad press. When people are so readily willing to circumvent the rules, there is clearly a problem. Tolerance of the system will only take you so far, and while it is certainly a path that will lead to survival, it is one in which it will be very difficult to thrive.

Full Cost of Attendance

I'm sure most everyone here is familiar with the concept, but as a reminder, the full cost of attendance model advocates closing the gap (by most accounts several thousand dollars) between what is currently offered in a scholarship, and what it truly costs to attend school with all basic needs met. The beauty in this model is that it will be fairly simple and seamless to implement. The basic structure of the system that has been accepted by everyone doesn't change. The costs are fairly low compared to other models, and there are no issues with crossing the border between amateur and professional athletics. What does maintaining amateurism have to do with the success of a model, you ask? Well, I mentioned before that the government is one entity that holds power in this situation, and there are two areas in which the government can dictate terms. The first is Title IX, which is a prominent issue in these debates as people resolve whether athletes who don't generate revenue should share in the increased pay. The second is the 501(c)(3) tax exempt status which is enjoyed by college athletics. This one isn't talked about much but is very important in any potential model. Currently, the best defense for public schools when taxpayers inquire about high coaching salaries and expensive stadium renovations is that they are funded by private donations. Depending on how the money is spent, these donations can be fully or mostly tax deductible. If players were paid by schools as professionals, or they were no longer full time students, this status would be in jeopardy. The CoA model avoids this debate entirely, while still helping out athletes, and at a relatively low cost to schools. It can be implemented by those who can afford it, and ignored by those who can't. It doesn't damage the feeder system into pro leagues and continues to allow all parties a seat at the table.
This upside isn't without it's flaws however. While tax status shouldn't be an issue, Title IX could be. Schools claim they don't have much money to spend anyway, and paying football players would likely require that volleyball, or softball, or field hockey players share in the bounty. The simple solution is to implement this for head-count sports only. There is a built-in balance for Title IX, and implementing this into equivalency sports would be very messy and likely not do much since there is no expectation of having all costs covered anyway. The second major problem is whether this really closes the gap for between what the best players generate, and what they receive. A few thousand dollars wouldn't have stopped Cecil Newton from shopping his son around, and it wouldn't have stopped Reggie Bush from accepting a house. Perhaps this model is a little too simple, and doesn't adequately address the fundamental problems sparking this debate.

The Olympic Model (brought to you in part by the Jay Bilas Corporation: Reasonable Minds Can Differ)

Sorry if that advertising joke didn't come across in text. Anyway, Jay Bilas' pet model advocates copying the Olympics in terms of paying athletes. Olympic athletes are not paid directly for their services, but they are free to profit from their fame, image, and talent in any way they see fit outside of competition. Again, one of the big pros of this system is that it is pretty easy and seamless to implement. All you do is delete a few rules from the rule book and you're set. Even better, there are absolutely no Title IX issues or headcount/equivalency issues as everyone is free to seek endorsements. This model may even encourage certain players to stay in school as they are more valuable to advertisers as the best college player as opposed to a rookie pro. The fact that revenue athletes are likely to be the only ones profiting is something that schools can't be held accountable for. It allows athletes who earn it to make significant money without costing the schools a dime. The tax thing is a non-starter, as the USOC currently enjoys 501(c)(3) status and this model wouldn't be substantially different. This still comes with some major drawbacks. The first one is brought up is that it will essentially turn recruiting into free agency. What's to stop one coach from lining up three car dealerships to endorse offensive linemen who only the most diehard fans will recognize. Given the passion of fan bases, and the competitiveness of coaches, a free market as envisioned could never truly exist. The next logical question is whether this is such a bad thing. It would be foolish to think that a free and competitive market for recruits currently exists, so why not let the athletes get in on it. The issue, which wouldn't resolve until such a system was implemented, is that we won't know just how much recruiting will be affected. Will it be only slightly different than now, or will one school in football have a 25 man class filled with only top 50 recruits. Unfortunately, there's no way to know which scenario would play out.

Those two ended up longer than I anticipated, so I will stretch this out to a third post later, in which I will talk about a few less common proposals, and some overall thoughts about what might happen.

[toooskies]

I'm not sure that the current NCAA people aren't satisfied with the current situation. While they don't like the current bad press from cheating, I don't think anything they're prepared to do will change that much, and they probably acknowledge that. $3000 a year won't encourage anyone not to take another $100, or $1000, or $10000.

Even as a spectator, the stream of scandals gets in the way of enjoying the game. A small "cost of living" compensation just means that players will be buying small luxuries instead of necessities.

The biggest scandal is we don't know how big the scandal is. The NCAA doesn't have the resources to enforce their system in any meaningful way. And dedicating more resources to enforcement is money that takes away from the academic mission.
Honestly, I don't see how the Olympic model would be any different than the existing one as long as the school isn't involved with the endorsements: if there is a rule against it, is there a meaningful difference between that world and the one we have now, where that promise could simply be for under-the-table money?

[Richard Berg]

The NCAA would be in a better position to enforce rules and uphold their academic mission if their rulebook were actually concerned with academics. Every dollar they spend harrassing Nolan Smith for playing in "unauthorized" summer games is one that could've gone toward ensuring kids go to (real) classes and write their own papers.

Taking money in return for rare skills is not cheating. Plagiarism, fraud, favortism...those are the things that corrupt a university. Stick to that.

[Dukeface88]

Detailed post.


Wanted to give props for this post, but I have to "spread the love" before I can give more pitchforks.



For my part, I support parity between athletic scholarships and whatever the university considers when calculating need-based scholarships. I know that with Duke financial aid, any money that doesn't go to school expenses gets refunded to the student to use for whatever they want to spend it on. At least for me that ended up being a pretty decent stipend, but I might not be typical (I actually ended up making money by studying abroad, somehow). I imagine requiring the same numbers would simplify legal issues, and prevent possible accounting shenanigans by certain...less scrupulous schools.

I'd also note that using the age of majority isn't the bright-line people might think. It actually varies by state; most use 18, but not all, and some involve high school graduation as well. There's also the issue of emancipation.

[oldnavy]

As a father with two sons in college, anyone who thinks that the players are not getting "paid" now hasn't written a check to pay tuition, rent, light bill, books, etc... recently. I'm not crying any tears for the atheletes, nor is my check book!

[toooskies]

As a father with two sons in college, anyone who thinks that the players are not getting "paid" now hasn't written a check to pay tuition, rent, light bill, books, etc... recently. I'm not crying any tears for the atheletes, nor is my check book!

Costs of continuing education are a different topic, and I'd be the last to say that $50,000 of estimated value is "nothing". I don't think anyone disregards that. But you're looking at it the wrong way. You're looking at it from the perspective of someone acquiring a service-- the education of your son. But in college basketball, it is very much the case that the university is the institution that is acquiring the service of the basketball players.

Don't believe me? Then why would they go out and spend millions on coaches' salaries to recruit the players and acquire their service? And when the school loses a recruit, do we regret that the player is missing out on a better education, or do we regret that the player won't be on our side? We regret that they won't be representing our school, but we very much appreciate the fact that they're doing a service for us; they're representing us.

Now, most college athletes don't go pro. We have marketing campaigns paid for by the NCAA to remind us of that. But that doesn't mean that their contributions aren't valuable in a monetary sense to universities. Butler is making a lot of money off of their back-to-back championship runs, but those teams only had two future NBA talents (Heyward and Mack, who aren't expected to be stars). But Butler's recent run has people claiming that they'll become "the next Duke", bringing national attention and accolades to the otherwise low-key midwestern school. How immense is that value? Oh, let's say a billion dollars. (http://rushthecourt.net/2011/07/26/study-butler-basketball-generates-over-1-billion-in-publicity-for-school/) And the players got roughly a thousandth of that over the two years?

Like I said, you need to look at the perspective of the players, as adults spending their first years of adulthood providing a service rather than receiving a gift. If you had the unique ability to provide a service to an employer that would pretty directly make them millions of dollars annually, would you be happy working for $50,000 a year? Would it be just for you to receive only 2.5% of the profit you earned, in a job where your skill set is very much in demand?

[oldnavy]

Costs of continuing education are a different topic, and I'd be the last to say that $50,000 of estimated value is "nothing". I don't think anyone disregards that. But you're looking at it the wrong way. You're looking at it from the perspective of someone acquiring a service-- the education of your son. But in college basketball, it is very much the case that the university is the institution that is acquiring the service of the basketball players.

Don't believe me? Then why would they go out and spend millions on coaches' salaries to recruit the players and acquire their service? And when the school loses a recruit, do we regret that the player is missing out on a better education, or do we regret that the player won't be on our side? We regret that they won't be representing our school, but we very much appreciate the fact that they're doing a service for us; they're representing us.

Now, most college athletes don't go pro. We have marketing campaigns paid for by the NCAA to remind us of that. But that doesn't mean that their contributions aren't valuable in a monetary sense to universities. Butler is making a lot of money off of their back-to-back championship runs, but those teams only had two future NBA talents (Heyward and Mack, who aren't expected to be stars). But Butler's recent run has people claiming that they'll become "the next Duke", bringing national attention and accolades to the otherwise low-key midwestern school. How immense is that value? Oh, let's say a billion dollars. (http://rushthecourt.net/2011/07/26/study-butler-basketball-generates-over-1-billion-in-publicity-for-school/) And the players got roughly a thousandth of that over the two years?

Like I said, you need to look at the perspective of the players, as adults spending their first years of adulthood providing a service rather than receiving a gift. If you had the unique ability to provide a service to an employer that would pretty directly make them millions of dollars annually, would you be happy working for $50,000 a year? Would it be just for you to receive only 2.5% of the profit you earned, in a job where your skill set is very much in demand?

What the University and the NCAA "make" off of the basketball programs is irrelevant to me. The question to me is "are the kids that play ball getting a fair deal?"

So, looking at it from the kids perspective, assuming they are going to have to pay their own way would mean, "I get an education from Duke University for playing basketball"? You mean I won't have to 1) forgo college altogether (which I think would be the case for most of the kids on BBall Scholarships), or 2) have to work a minimum wage job and scape and beg and borrow only to graduate with a HUGE loan repayment debt. I'll take that deal any day of the week.

The kids are playing a game they love to play and in turn they receive a VERY valuable education that really cannot be quantified in terms of dollars and cents. So, I say yes, the deal is more than fair IMO. If my two son's were able to get a full scholarship, I would feel like I/they had won the lottery, and I sure wouldn't sit around thinking how exploited they are, no quite the opposite, I would be very THANKFUL.

[toooskies]

What the University and the NCAA "make" off of the basketball programs is irrelevant to me. The question to me is "are the kids that play ball getting a fair deal?"

So, looking at it from the kids perspective, assuming they are going to have to pay their own way would mean, "I get an education from Duke University for playing basketball"? You mean I won't have to 1) forgo college altogether (which I think would be the case for most of the kids on BBall Scholarships), or 2) have to work a minimum wage job and scape and beg and borrow only to graduate with a HUGE loan repayment debt. I'll take that deal any day of the week.

The kids are playing a game they love to play and in turn they receive a VERY valuable education that really cannot be quantified in terms of dollars and cents. So, I say yes, the deal is more than fair IMO. If my two son's were able to get a full scholarship, I would feel like I/they had won the lottery, and I sure wouldn't sit around thinking how exploited they are, no quite the opposite, I would be very THANKFUL.

They aren't kids. They're new to being adults, true, but of sound mind nonetheless. And you're looking at it from the perspective of a parent rather than as a fellow adult.

The fairness of the deal is entirely dependent on what they're giving versus what they're getting. What they're giving is a service that makes millions of dollars for schools. What they're getting is something worth about $50,000 a year, and the education itself may not even hold that value to them.

And yes, it CAN be quantifiable in dollars and cents. Universities charge for it. A service is worth what someone is willing to pay, and the going rate is $50,000. And as I've said before, the non-financial benefits the schools receive from the players balances if not outweighs the benefits given to athletes. You could even argue that the schools prevent players from learning what they need to thrive as adults because they're prohibited from earning any money while they're there.

And again: if the education is so valuable to the player (vastly beyond what it costs), why even have educational requirements in the rules? For some, it's a benefit; for many more than you realize, it's a burden.

[oldnavy]

They aren't kids. They're new to being adults, true, but of sound mind nonetheless. And you're looking at it from the perspective of a parent rather than as a fellow adult.

The fairness of the deal is entirely dependent on what they're giving versus what they're getting. What they're giving is a service that makes millions of dollars for schools. What they're getting is something worth about $50,000 a year, and the education itself may not even hold that value to them.

And yes, it CAN be quantifiable in dollars and cents. Universities charge for it. A service is worth what someone is willing to pay, and the going rate is $50,000. And as I've said before, the non-financial benefits the schools receive from the players balances if not outweighs the benefits given to athletes. You could even argue that the schools prevent players from learning what they need to thrive as adults because they're prohibited from earning any money while they're there.

And again: if the education is so valuable to the player (vastly beyond what it costs), why even have educational requirements in the rules? For some, it's a benefit; for many more than you realize, it's a burden.

I ask myself, what is the value of a college education? It is more than the cost of living and tuition. Beside the value of self improvement, there was some study out not that long ago that said a college graduate will earn approximately 1 million dollars more than a non-graduate over the course of a career. If you want to boil it down to just dollars and cents this has to be factored in as well.

But for the sake of argument, take the money completely out of it for a second. Say that college sports did not generate income at all or that they broke even at best. Would it be ok then to trade education for play/practice time? If you say yes, that is fair, then it is fair no matter how much or how little money is made by the school. What if the sport lost money? Would it be fair then? Say the economy keeps going in the tank, and soon advertising dollars and TV revenue dry up and the sports programs dwindled away, would you think that an athlete on scholarship had a good deal then? If you say under those conditions the deal is fair, then the deal is fair.

I have to keep these things simple in my mind. If I think that the effort I put into playing a sport in college is worth the benefit (education) I get out of it, then I cannot worry about how much or how little others are making down the line. If I do not think it is worth it then I don't play ball. I made this decision years ago. I had an offer to play football at a school in the western part of this state. I gave it a lot of thought, but in the end I realized that I would never be good enough to make money from playing and therefore it was time that I put my efforts into school and give up the game. I didn't think that the value of going to that school was going to be worth my effort to play football there plus I did not have the passion for the game any longer. These young men and women can make the same decision now. All they have to do is say no and someone behind them in line will take the offer.

I get that others come to a different conclusion on this topic and that is fine. The world would be very dull and probably screwed up even more if everyone agreed with me on everything!

[toooskies]

I ask myself, what is the value of a college education? It is more than the cost of living and tuition. Beside the value of self improvement, there was some study out not that long ago that said a college graduate will earn approximately 1 million dollars more than a non-graduate over the course of a career. If you want to boil it down to just dollars and cents this has to be factored in as well.

But for the sake of argument, take the money completely out of it for a second. Say that college sports did not generate income at all or that they broke even at best. Would it be ok then to trade education for play/practice time? If you say yes, that is fair, then it is fair no matter how much or how little money is made by the school. What if the sport lost money? Would it be fair then? Say the economy keeps going in the tank, and soon advertising dollars and TV revenue dry up and the sports programs dwindled away, would you think that an athlete on scholarship had a good deal then? If you say under those conditions the deal is fair, then the deal is fair.

I have to keep these things simple in my mind. If I think that the effort I put into playing a sport in college is worth the benefit (education) I get out of it, then I cannot worry about how much or how little others are making down the line. If I do not think it is worth it then I don't play ball. I made this decision years ago. I had an offer to play football at a school in the western part of this state. I gave it a lot of thought, but in the end I realized that I would never be good enough to make money from playing and therefore it was time that I put my efforts into school and give up the game. I didn't think that the value of going to that school was going to be worth my effort to play football there plus I did not have the passion for the game any longer. These young men and women can make the same decision now. All they have to do is say no and someone behind them in line will take the offer.

I get that others come to a different conclusion on this topic and that is fine. The world would be very dull and probably screwed up even more if everyone agreed with me on everything!

And yet, despite professionals making so much, they learn so little about personal finance that they go bankrupt more often than not. (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1153364) I fail to see the general connection between an average college graduate and a top-tier athlete that you're trying to make. If anything, forcibly delaying the players' financial lives until they graduate may be a bad thing for them.

Your hypothetical statement is essentially "anyone should be happy with a full scholarship for any reason." You're escalating the value of college to the point where it's impossible to place a value on it. Or in other terms, it's simply an offer, the way an industry would take interns and use them for their benefit while teaching them. But in those situations, interns aren't being profited from in any real sense, they are being developed for future employment.

We're very much discussing different situations, though. For the vast majority of college athletes, a full scholarship is a blessing. Even for players in revenue-generating sports, a scholarship is better than they'd get in any scenario. But there are also plenty-- and not just those going pro-- who deserve more given what they do for the school. I'm not saying that the players should be more greedy or upset about their situation. I'm saying that speaking from the school's perspective, they should be more just.

[DukeWarhead]

You have to look no further than NBA lockout mess getting worse by the day to see the real danger that comes with opening the "free market" to college players and letting them seek deals, sign contracts, etc. Money is going to potentially kill this NBA season and in my mind there is no way to argue that it could not, or would not, potentially do the same to college sports if the system is changed to allow players to get money deals. If it's possible, players will indeed seek the best offer. They will hold out for competitive contracts. They will get into financial deals that could present conflicts with the school's contracts (Nike vs. Adidas, etc. Gatorade vs. Powerade, etc.) which could provoke a transfer.
Those that argue for more "fairness" for college athletes by the way of letting them market themselves and get $ have not provided any kind of system model that would prevent the mess that NBA or NFL endured over this year. Some have said, "well, let the NCAA regulate it" but these are the same folks that blame the NCAA for the current situation, and all of a sudden trust it to prevent the sport from being controlled by the $$$ issue. Nope. can't have it both ways.
Some have said that any damaged caused to the sport by opening the market up to players would be a small price to pay for "doing what's right." I say no way. The sport itself and the 90% of college athletes that have no "market value" and play for the love of competition have priority.
The writing is on wall - it's in today's sports headlines. Cross that line, open that box, and college sports as a whole will lose much much more than it would gain.
Yes, I know that Jay Bilas feels differently. But even Jay has been wrong before.

[SCMatt33]

This is the third part of what I'm now stretching into a four part post. The first part (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?26083-The-Pay-the-Players-Debate&p=521933#post521933) dealt with some of the issues leading to this debate. The second (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?26083-The-Pay-the-Players-Debate&p=522298#post522298) tackled a few of the most prominent proposals. Here I will talk about some of the less talked about proposals. Whether they are ideas that are more outside-of-the-box, or just not seen as reasonable, these ideas haven't gained the attention in major media outlets as the others. That doesn't mean they are better or worse, just different.

Full Pay

I think this doesn't get talked about much because most people understand that there are way too many hurdles to ever make it happen, but it deserves it's place in the conversation anyway. The basic principle of the proposal is that college athletes should be paid a full salary like they are professionals. The two issues argued over the most are just how much players should earn, and where will the money come from. The first question is a little easier to answer than the second. Since this is a basketball centric board, I will look at this from a basketball prospective. Last year, the NBA minimum salary was about 475,000 dollars. After the lockout, this number is sure to go down. Lets say that it goes down to $400,000, which is about what it was in 2006. I doubt that there is anyone out there thinks college athletes should be paid as much as NBA athletes (given that the NBA salary cap is double Duke's entire revenue stream) so we can set that as a maximum. Ignoring scholarships for a moment, I don't think that anyone would want a salary below the poverty line, which for a single person (not many college athletes have families) was about 11,000 (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml). For right now, we can set this as the minimum salary (on top of a scholarship). If we were making a model, I think this would be a reasonable range to have salaries at. A freshman bench warmer at a mediocre program would get his scholarship plus 11,000. Even if we accept the largest cost of attendance gap, this would give that player about 6-8 thousand dollars of stipend money on top of what he needs to live. The guys who are stars would be making close to the minimum for a NBA rookie as they get ready to make the next step.

The second question is much harder to address. There are so many revenue streams and so many ways to account for it, that it can be confusing. There was a report released recently that said Duke had the highest basketball revenue at over $26 million, but what does that include. Most college revenue cannot be specifically attributed to a single sport (even if we know what sports are generally making money). For example, TV contracts are written to include more than just football and basketball, but there are no line items to write down which was worth exactly how much. The same is true of private donations. This doesn't even apply only the revenue side. The same is true of costs. Most training facilities are used for more than one sport and the cost is never attributed to a specific one. At the end of the day, though, you look and see that most schools don't bring in much profit (whether you believe schools accounting or not is a different issue). Having two sports cover all of the costs of dozens of other sports is a big deal. You could easily pull money to pay players by eliminating other sports, but most don't want that. Unfortunately, that's probably what we'd see happen. If schools really are making money off of sports, they won't just sit back and say "oh well" if you make them pay player. They will find a way to preserve that profit. Look at Wall Street. A law was passed that stopped banks from charging business too much on debit card transactions. The idea was to help out small business at the expense of banks, who were reaping in billions from these transactions. It's pretty well known that BoA will now charge consumers for debit card use. The same thing happens with Title IX. If schools really really wanted to, they wouldn't have to cut any men's sports to remain in Title XI compliance, but the finances look better to them that way than adding extra women's sports.

Speaking of Title IX, there would be all kinds of issues over paying salaries to men's basketball and football players without paying women's athletes. You can argue day and night about who generates the revenue, but it doesn't change federal law. To keep the government in on this, the IRS might come calling and questioning the non-profit status of college sports. There is precedent with the Olympics for allowing athletes to profit off of their image, but there is no precedent for paying them directly. Another ramification along this line is what happens to the small schools who really don't make any money off of their athletic programs. You can't make rules for 350 schools based of the problems of the top 20%, just like the NBA can't base is lockout negotiations on the finances of the Lakers and Celtics. There are so many problems here that I think most understand that this could never happen under a collegiate model. If you wanted to destroy that model, you would get too...

Separation of Students and Athletes

I've heard this one suggested a few times. There are so many problems with academics an athletes, why not just separate the two. Make it so that it is no longer required for a person to be enrolled as a full time student to be on a team. I made it clear that while there were too many problems with the last proposal to make it happen, it deserved its place in the discussion. I'm not so sure about that with this one. When I was about 7 or 8 years old, I attended a basketball camp at a youth center one summer. There were about 50 kids at the camp and we were all lined up on the baseline, and the owner of the center, who also ran the camp, came out and talked to us. The first thing he said was that this camp wasn't about making us good basketball players and that we literally had a better chance of being hit by lightning than making the NBA. Even among players on top college teams, very few will earn significant money from playing basketball, and even fewer will earn a lifetime income from playing basketball. In addition to all the other issues with this (similar to full pay), why should we encourage athletes to skip their education to do something that they can't make a living on? Of coarse, we could take this idea, and go in the complete opposite direction to come up with...

Athletics Performance as an Academic Degree

If telling athletes that skipping their education won't work, why don't turn athletics into an education in itself. I remember first hearing this proposal 6-12 months ago, and it was brought to the forefront again recently by a Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/ncaa-colleges-should-consider-offering-sports-as-an-academic-major/2011/10/05/gIQAF6ijOL_story.html). I've heard two versions of this proposal. The first is like the Post article, treat athletics, like music, theater, and art. The second is to design something around preparing athletes for the next level so that we don't see so many stories of athletes throwing away their money. The second isn't really a legit solution for anything, because it would benefit so few people. Like the idea that the system can't be centered around the top few, you would have a major that would be taken by those who can't benefit from it. The Post's idea is a little more intriguing. There are things to be gained from sports in terms of history, law, public policy, science, math, medicine, and all sorts of academic fields. The classes that were described, though, still sound like electives in other majors rather than a major unto itself. At the end of the day, you have to compare an athletics performance major to a theater or music performance major (I'm eliminating education from this since PE is already a well established major at many schools). A theater or music major who fails to make it on Broadway or into a major orchestra can still have a career in performance on a smaller scale. My brother is a classically trained trumpet player. Right now he is struggling like many of us in this economy, but he has always been able to bring in some money from his music, even if he had to supplement it with other sources. He has played in churches for holidays and weddings. He founded a non-profit chamber ensemble. For acting, there are plenty of local theaters out there. Again, I have a friend who was a theater major and is currently struggling and has a non-theater related job. He is still able to act locally, though, and continue to pursue his career there. I don't know anybody in art, but just because you don't have galleries in New York, it doesn't mean you can't survive on your craft. That's not how it is with athletics. People only want to see the best. Beyond the NBA, there is no one who can make a lifetime worth of income off of basketball. Even within the league, most won't play long enough or earn a big enough salary to not need another career. Players who go to Europe will make good money, but it is very rare for someone to play long enough and earn enough to have a lifetime worth of income. Beyond that, D-league players barely earn enough to survive, let alone save anything. A few players could make some money in athletics entertainment (Globetrotters), but there just aren't many avenues for athletics performance beyond a professional league.

I do however, think that there is merit in the idea of folding athletics into academics. I don't see why the ideas for classes couldn't be incorporated into a classroom component to athletics to get athletes a few credits for what they do. If you add academic components to being on a team, it can help alleviate some of burdens of having to complete a full coarse load over four years in addition to their team obligations. The idea that athletics could replace another major though, doesn't seem to work for me.

[toooskies]

You have to look no further than NBA lockout mess getting worse by the day to see the real danger that comes with opening the "free market" to college players and letting them seek deals, sign contracts, etc. Money is going to potentially kill this NBA season and in my mind there is no way to argue that it could not, or would not, potentially do the same to college sports if the system is changed to allow players to get money deals. If it's possible, players will indeed seek the best offer. They will hold out for competitive contracts. They will get into financial deals that could present conflicts with the school's contracts (Nike vs. Adidas, etc. Gatorade vs. Powerade, etc.) which could provoke a transfer.
Those that argue for more "fairness" for college athletes by the way of letting them market themselves and get $ have not provided any kind of system model that would prevent the mess that NBA or NFL endured over this year. Some have said, "well, let the NCAA regulate it" but these are the same folks that blame the NCAA for the current situation, and all of a sudden trust it to prevent the sport from being controlled by the $$$ issue. Nope. can't have it both ways.
Some have said that any damaged caused to the sport by opening the market up to players would be a small price to pay for "doing what's right." I say no way. The sport itself and the 90% of college athletes that have no "market value" and play for the love of competition have priority.
The writing is on wall - it's in today's sports headlines. Cross that line, open that box, and college sports as a whole will lose much much more than it would gain.
Yes, I know that Jay Bilas feels differently. But even Jay has been wrong before.

Transfers are already driven by money-- take any player who transfers for more playing time, and they're probably doing so because they're trying to become an NBA player and can't when they're the 3rd guy off the bench. Also, the existing transfer rules would still apply, and no sponsor is going to wait a year to see a sponsorship pay off.

As for collective bargaining, it's hard to believe that college players will ever have a collective negotiating platform. First, no one has a vested interest in its long-term success, only 4 years of playing. Second, there are many more players to represent. Third, the interests of each player vary pretty widely, and parents have a much greater say in the lives of college athletes than pros; there's really no common ground among the athletes.

[toooskies]

This is the third part of what I'm now stretching into a four part post. The first part (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?26083-The-Pay-the-Players-Debate&p=521933#post521933) dealt with some of the issues leading to this debate. The second (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?26083-The-Pay-the-Players-Debate&p=522298#post522298) tackled a few of the most prominent proposals. Here I will talk about some of the less talked about proposals. Whether they are ideas that are more outside-of-the-box, or just not seen as reasonable, these ideas haven't gained the attention in major media outlets as the others. That doesn't mean they are better or worse, just different.

Full Pay

I think this doesn't get talked about much because most people understand that there are way too many hurdles to ever make it happen, but it deserves it's place in the conversation anyway. The basic principle of the proposal is that college athletes should be paid a full salary like they are professionals. The two issues argued over the most are just how much players should earn, and where will the money come from. The first question is a little easier to answer than the second. Since this is a basketball centric board, I will look at this from a basketball prospective. Last year, the NBA minimum salary was about 475,000 dollars. After the lockout, this number is sure to go down. Lets say that it goes down to $400,000, which is about what it was in 2006. I doubt that there is anyone out there thinks college athletes should be paid as much as NBA athletes (given that the NBA salary cap is double Duke's entire revenue stream) so we can set that as a maximum. Ignoring scholarships for a moment, I don't think that anyone would want a salary below the poverty line, which for a single person (not many college athletes have families) was about 11,000 (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml). For right now, we can set this as the minimum salary (on top of a scholarship). If we were making a model, I think this would be a reasonable range to have salaries at. A freshman bench warmer at a mediocre program would get his scholarship plus 11,000. Even if we accept the largest cost of attendance gap, this would give that player about 6-8 thousand dollars of stipend money on top of what he needs to live. The guys who are stars would be making close to the minimum for a NBA rookie as they get ready to make the next step.

The second question is much harder to address. There are so many revenue streams and so many ways to account for it, that it can be confusing. There was a report released recently that said Duke had the highest basketball revenue at over $26 million, but what does that include. Most college revenue cannot be specifically attributed to a single sport (even if we know what sports are generally making money). For example, TV contracts are written to include more than just football and basketball, but there are no line items to write down which was worth exactly how much. The same is true of private donations. This doesn't even apply only the revenue side. The same is true of costs. Most training facilities are used for more than one sport and the cost is never attributed to a specific one. At the end of the day, though, you look and see that most schools don't bring in much profit (whether you believe schools accounting or not is a different issue). Having two sports cover all of the costs of dozens of other sports is a big deal. You could easily pull money to pay players by eliminating other sports, but most don't want that. Unfortunately, that's probably what we'd see happen. If schools really are making money off of sports, they won't just sit back and say "oh well" if you make them pay player. They will find a way to preserve that profit. Look at Wall Street. A law was passed that stopped banks from charging business too much on debit card transactions. The idea was to help out small business at the expense of banks, who were reaping in billions from these transactions. It's pretty well known that BoA will now charge consumers for debit card use. The same thing happens with Title IX. If schools really really wanted to, they wouldn't have to cut any men's sports to remain in Title XI compliance, but the finances look better to them that way than adding extra women's sports.

Speaking of Title IX, there would be all kinds of issues over paying salaries to men's basketball and football players without paying women's athletes. You can argue day and night about who generates the revenue, but it doesn't change federal law. To keep the government in on this, the IRS might come calling and questioning the non-profit status of college sports. There is precedent with the Olympics for allowing athletes to profit off of their image, but there is no precedent for paying them directly. Another ramification along this line is what happens to the small schools who really don't make any money off of their athletic programs. You can't make rules for 350 schools based of the problems of the top 20%, just like the NBA can't base is lockout negotiations on the finances of the Lakers and Celtics. There are so many problems here that I think most understand that this could never happen under a collegiate model. If you wanted to destroy that model, you would get too...

Separation of Students and Athletes

I've heard this one suggested a few times. There are so many problems with academics an athletes, why not just separate the two. Make it so that it is no longer required for a person to be enrolled as a full time student to be on a team. I made it clear that while there were too many problems with the last proposal to make it happen, it deserved its place in the discussion. I'm not so sure about that with this one. When I was about 7 or 8 years old, I attended a basketball camp at a youth center one summer. There were about 50 kids at the camp and we were all lined up on the baseline, and the owner of the center, who also ran the camp, came out and talked to us. The first thing he said was that this camp wasn't about making us good basketball players and that we literally had a better chance of being hit by lightning than making the NBA. Even among players on top college teams, very few will earn significant money from playing basketball, and even fewer will earn a lifetime income from playing basketball. In addition to all the other issues with this (similar to full pay), why should we encourage athletes to skip their education to do something that they can't make a living on? Of coarse, we could take this idea, and go in the complete opposite direction to come up with...

Athletics Performance as an Academic Degree

If telling athletes that skipping their education won't work, why don't turn athletics into an education in itself. I remember first hearing this proposal 6-12 months ago, and it was brought to the forefront again recently by a Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/ncaa-colleges-should-consider-offering-sports-as-an-academic-major/2011/10/05/gIQAF6ijOL_story.html). I've heard two versions of this proposal. The first is like the Post article, treat athletics, like music, theater, and art. The second is to design something around preparing athletes for the next level so that we don't see so many stories of athletes throwing away their money. The second isn't really a legit solution for anything, because it would benefit so few people. Like the idea that the system can't be centered around the top few, you would have a major that would be taken by those who can't benefit from it. The Post's idea is a little more intriguing. There are things to be gained from sports in terms of history, law, public policy, science, math, medicine, and all sorts of academic fields. The classes that were described, though, still sound like electives in other majors rather than a major unto itself. At the end of the day, you have to compare an athletics performance major to a theater or music performance major (I'm eliminating education from this since PE is already a well established major at many schools). A theater or music major who fails to make it on Broadway or into a major orchestra can still have a career in performance on a smaller scale. My brother is a classically trained trumpet player. Right now he is struggling like many of us in this economy, but he has always been able to bring in some money from his music, even if he had to supplement it with other sources. He has played in churches for holidays and weddings. He founded a non-profit chamber ensemble. For acting, there are plenty of local theaters out there. Again, I have a friend who was a theater major and is currently struggling and has a non-theater related job. He is still able to act locally, though, and continue to pursue his career there. I don't know anybody in art, but just because you don't have galleries in New York, it doesn't mean you can't survive on your craft. That's not how it is with athletics. People only want to see the best. Beyond the NBA, there is no one who can make a lifetime worth of income off of basketball. Even within the league, most won't play long enough or earn a big enough salary to not need another career. Players who go to Europe will make good money, but it is very rare for someone to play long enough and earn enough to have a lifetime worth of income. Beyond that, D-league players barely earn enough to survive, let alone save anything. A few players could make some money in athletics entertainment (Globetrotters), but there just aren't many avenues for athletics performance beyond a professional league.

I do however, think that there is merit in the idea of folding athletics into academics. I don't see why the ideas for classes couldn't be incorporated into a classroom component to athletics to get athletes a few credits for what they do. If you add academic components to being on a team, it can help alleviate some of burdens of having to complete a full coarse load over four years in addition to their team obligations. The idea that athletics could replace another major though, doesn't seem to work for me.

Up to this point I believe your summary has been fantastic and mostly factual, but there are rebuttals to many of the issues here that claim certain models are restrictive. For instance, Title IX doesn't mean what you think it means. While it requires equivalent treatment based on gender, the discrimination between paid and non-paid can simply be tied to revenue generation. Most schools don't match funding or scholarship loads between genders (or ratios between genders). The important numbers tend to be number of teams and number of participating athletes. We live in a world where dollar-for-dollar equivalence doesn't exist-- the men's basketball coaches get paid more than the women's, for instance. But even if it were required to afford the same funding to women's and men's sports, this would only cut men's salaries in half, not render them impossible.

Second, it's easy to promote an institution as non-profit while still paying people. The coaches get paid to primarily coach basketball, for instance. Graduate students get salaries for TAing.

The issue about where the money comes from also seems a little "Chicken Little". Currently, institutions already spend a large amount of money on the athletic program. They're called budgets, and they won't necessarily go up if schools decide to pay players, but you might see fewer high-tech training facilities built purely to impress recruits. You might see falling salaries for head coaches. You might see coaches who wait until 9th grade to start recruiting instead of 7th grade. I think sacrificing other programs is the last place you'd see cuts, even though they're the easiest programs to single out. But any time you wonder where the money would come from, just realize that revenues continue to grow sharply. Just taking the delta in revenues from the last TV contract to this one would pay the basketball team at the scale you propose.

If anything, though, the biggest limitation of the pay model isn't that there are problems that can't be resolved; it's that it is so far from our current reality that the mindsets would have to change so significantly that it's literally impossible. You'd need some jarring events to bring it about, like teams forfeiting games.

[DukeWarhead]

Transfers are already driven by money-- take any player who transfers for more playing time, and they're probably doing so because they're trying to become an NBA player and can't when they're the 3rd guy off the bench. Also, the existing transfer rules would still apply, and no sponsor is going to wait a year to see a sponsorship pay off.

As for collective bargaining, it's hard to believe that college players will ever have a collective negotiating platform. First, no one has a vested interest in its long-term success, only 4 years of playing. Second, there are many more players to represent. Third, the interests of each player vary pretty widely, and parents have a much greater say in the lives of college athletes than pros; there's really no common ground among the athletes.

There's no way to be sure that current transfer rules would still apply. That's my point. Once you change the system, allow agents and lawyers into the mix, all existing rules are open to suits - pushing to let tranfers compete right away. I think that's part of the avalanche that I believe opening the door to free marketing will trigger. Sure, you can say it can be avoided by carefully thought out NCAA regulation, but that's wishful thinking. I just don't see where you can have it both ways - free markets for college players with none of the agent-lawyer-contract mess. At least, I haven't seen a realistic scenario put out there.

[SCMatt33]

Up to this point I believe your summary has been fantastic and mostly factual, but there are rebuttals to many of the issues here that claim certain models are restrictive. For instance, Title IX doesn't mean what you think it means. While it requires equivalent treatment based on gender, the discrimination between paid and non-paid can simply be tied to revenue generation. Most schools don't match funding or scholarship loads between genders (or ratios between genders). The important numbers tend to be number of teams and number of participating athletes. We live in a world where dollar-for-dollar equivalence doesn't exist-- the men's basketball coaches get paid more than the women's, for instance. But even if it were required to afford the same funding to women's and men's sports, this would only cut men's salaries in half, not render them impossible.

Second, it's easy to promote an institution as non-profit while still paying people. The coaches get paid to primarily coach basketball, for instance. Graduate students get salaries for TAing.

The issue about where the money comes from also seems a little "Chicken Little". Currently, institutions already spend a large amount of money on the athletic program. They're called budgets, and they won't necessarily go up if schools decide to pay players, but you might see fewer high-tech training facilities built purely to impress recruits. You might see falling salaries for head coaches. You might see coaches who wait until 9th grade to start recruiting instead of 7th grade. I think sacrificing other programs is the last place you'd see cuts, even though they're the easiest programs to single out. But any time you wonder where the money would come from, just realize that revenues continue to grow sharply. Just taking the delta in revenues from the last TV contract to this one would pay the basketball team at the scale you propose.

If anything, though, the biggest limitation of the pay model isn't that there are problems that can't be resolved; it's that it is so far from our current reality that the mindsets would have to change so significantly that it's literally impossible. You'd need some jarring events to bring it about, like teams forfeiting games.

The current setup of college sports already pushes the limits of Title IX and non-profit status. We already have inequalities in participation and many people being paid big salaries. Pushing these envelopes further will cause a massive reaction. Here's a few relevant FAQ's on Title IX from the NCAA's web site.


Q. How is Title IX applied to athletics?

Athletics programs are considered educational programs and activities. There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics:

Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play;
Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and
Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; (c) travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes.



Q. Does Title IX require that equal dollars be spent on men and women's sports?

No. The only provision that requires that the same dollars be spent proportional to participation is scholarships. Otherwise, male and female student-athletes must receive equitable "treatment" and "benefits."

Most schools do not need to have equal numbers in participation because they can satisfy that Men and Women are both given an equal opportunity to participate. For those familiar with the "three-prong" concept that has been established in the courts. The basic concept is that participation must either (a) be proportional to enrollment, (b) demonstrate a history and continuing practice of program expansion for the underrepresented gender, or (c) demonstrate that the interests and abilities of both genders are met. This third one is where most schools meet Title IX compliance without having equal dollars spent or equal participation.

As quoted, the one area where there is rigidity is that scholarship dollars must be proportional to participation. The effects this has on the CoA model is obvious. If you raise the value of a scholarship in certain men's sports, then there must be a similar increase in a proportional amount of women's sports (or more scholarships offered at a lower value). With full pay, the effects are less obvious since payments as professionals has never been examined by the courts. You can bet however, that any attempt to raise the pay of revenue athletes, but classify it as something other than scholarships to side step Title IX will be met with a long, drawn-out legal battle that will cost schools millions. Another thing to note is that aside from everything else, there cannot be discrimination based on generating revenue. There have been several attempts over the years to give football and men's basketball separate status within Title IX because they generate revenue while others don't. These attempts have been shot down. Again, I'm not saying it would be impossible for a system where men's basketball and football players are treated as pro's can't work within Title IX. I'm just saying that the hurdles to climb would be big and the roadblock thrown at it would be numerous. Many of the other proposals would be more seamless and more practical.

On the note on non-profit status, there would be similar issues. If college athletics went from "amateur" to "professional," there would be many people who have a problem with it, and in today's "occupy wall street" world, this isn't the kind of press that Universities want. Again, I'm not saying that they would lose their status, only that it would be challenged and there would be great pains in moving to this system.

[left_hook_lacey]

For anyone wanting to discuss this.

[BLPOG]

For anyone wanting to discuss this.

Not sure if any of the posts are going to be re-located, so for the sake of posterity: Today's comments in this thread (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?40497-Adidas-Scandal-(FBI-Investigation-Several-Schools-Impacted)) prompted the bump.

[swood1000]

Folks -- the answer to all of this is real simple...

If you want to be paid, at whatever age you are, you are free to go to the NBA G-League. If a G-League team wants you, they would have a couple spots per team that could be slotted at $100k/year salaries. If a G-League team wants a 15 year old kid in one of those slots, fine.

At the age of 18, anyone who wants to make themselves eligible for the NBA draft can do so...

...But, if you don't want enter the NBA Draft at age 18, you commit to at least 2 years of college.

-Jason "this ain't rocket science" Evans
The problem is that the players want their cake and eat it too. They want all the popularity and excitement that would be lost if college basketball morphed into a minor league professional sport, but the pay based on its current popularity as an amateur sport. Some people seem to be arguing that high-profile amateur sports should not be allowed to exist.

[flyingdutchdevil]

The problem is that the players want their cake and eat it too. They want all the popularity and excitement that would be lost if college basketball morphed into a minor league professional sport, but the pay based on its current popularity as an amateur sport. Some people seem to be arguing that high-profile amateur sports should not be allowed to exist.

"High-profile amateur sports" really seems like an oxymoron in today's world. If something is popular, the participants - correctly so - will demand to be compensated accordingly.

[swood1000]

"High-profile amateur sports" really seems like an oxymoron in today's world. If something is popular, the participants - correctly so - will demand to be compensated accordingly.
Why is it "correct" that they be compensated? What's wrong with a strictly amateur sport, and if athletes want compensation they need to go to the professional leagues?

[cspan37421]

In the scandal thread, someone noted that the business of paying the players a market rate was "easy - just let third party sponsors do it" - implying that the school's hands are clean of it.

Well, among the many thorny issues that raises, is this one.

Can you see Coach K - or any competent and accomplished college coach - trying to manage a bunch of players being paid by someone else? Perhaps by different shoe companies on the same team? Imagine how sharing the ball would go. Imagine "Coach, I know the head trainer says I'm ready to go, but Nike wants me to sit for another week, to protect their investment."

I suspect it wouldn't be so easy at all, and create a lot of conflicts of interest that don't already exist. At least in the case of paying with scholarships and stipends, they are thus "paid" (mostly in kind) by their school, for whom they are also competing on the court.

I'm not saying paying players can't work, but I don't see how a blanket statement of "pay them in cash, now" constitutes a serious proposal for less corruption and a fair, level playing field / competitive landscape for college basketball. I can see it creating a level playing field for minor league basketball - by removing from college basketball all players with at least minor league talent. The University of Chicago solution. Then we could cheer on the 6'4" nerd from Calc III who would be our starting center. We'd probably know them and have a stronger connection to them. Not all bad. Not likely to attract crowds, TV money, sell t-shirts, sell tickets, etc.

I'm also not convinced that one could not make the present system better by attempting to fix its problems rather than ditching it altogether. If the risk of being caught and prosecuted for tax fraud, with penalties or jail time, was perceived as too high, we might have much less of it. As it is, we don't catch many, it appears. This FBI sweep is the exception in college sports, not the rule, methinks.

[swood1000]

The scandal is caused by the insistence on the players not being compensated, for "amatuer" reasons.

Just get rid of the notion that we have to preserve amateurism and let third parties pay them openly, and you get rid of the problem. I don't agree with Jay Bilas much but on this he is right, all we have done is driven the paying of athletes into the blackmarket, we haven't (and will never be able to) stop it. We just made it seedier and dirtier.
But what about the fans who want an amateur sport?

[bird]

But what about the fans who want an amateur sport?

Women's high school field hockey.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Why is it "correct" that they be compensated? What's wrong with a strictly amateur sport, and if athletes want compensation they need to go to the professional leagues?

Because there is something wrong in a sport where the only stakeholder not financially compensated is the players.

[flyingdutchdevil]

But what about the fans who want an amateur sport?

High school basketball.

[BLPOG]

Why is it "correct" that they be compensated? What's wrong with a strictly amateur sport, and if athletes want compensation they need to go to the professional leagues?

I think these questions relate closely to what I see as the core problem of the current system - it is a delusion in which essentially pro sports pretend to be amateur and create an enormous number of misaligned incentives and signals. The only way to have a stable (and not rife with corruption) amateur league is if professional leagues are sufficiently saturated such that the combination of benefits accrued from professional employment (whether explicitly pro or through false-amateurism) is small enough at the first professional tier be worth approximately the same as the incidental benefits of being an amateur.

That might mean less excitement for college sports. It's also difficult to practically effect the separation because (a large) part of the excitement for the false-amateurs comes through the factionalism of support for one's school, so the minor league might not be able to sustain itself if not affiliated with schools. The only logical conclusion is that players at that level have to be paid; the real questions are (1) Will they remain affiliated with schools or join minor leagues with possibly smaller interest? and (2) If they remain school-affiliated, will they be paid licitly or illicitly, and what forms will these payments take? If we want to maintain the same general structure and level of talent and competitiveness as exists today, we have our answer to (1). The answer to (2) really then comes down to whether we want a system with built-in dishonesty and waste or an attempt at transparency and efficiency.

If we don't like the choices in (2), then we have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that the entire system needs a radical structural change and that the sports simply will not be the same. I think that could be a good thing in the long-term. Some smaller rule changes might improve an issue here or there (the one-year-out before NBA rule is a prominent example), but they don't address the fundamental issue.

[Indoor66]

No one seems to address the question as to how you compensate the stars vs the roll players. What is the pay scale? Equal to all? Can someone break this down for me.

Additionally, where does this currently non-existant pool of cash needed to make these payments come from?

[Kedsy]

The scandal is caused by the insistence on the players not being compensated, for "amatuer" reasons.

Just get rid of the notion that we have to preserve amateurism and let third parties pay them openly, and you get rid of the problem. I don't agree with Jay Bilas much but on this he is right, all we have done is driven the paying of athletes into the blackmarket, we haven't (and will never be able to) stop it. We just made it seedier and dirtier.

Legalizing the behavior doesn't eliminate the underlying problem. It would encourage rich boosters and large corporate sponsors to determine which schools will be competitive, based on their own corporate interests. Assuming semi-professional sports would still generate enough money to feed this new industry (a big if), it would lead to, e.g., Adidas and Nike essentially "owning" universities, or at least make them responsible for a large part of "their" universities' budgets, and presumably would lead them to instruct university behavior, to suit their interests, with the threat that they'll back someone else instead if their needs aren't satisfied. Inevitably, they'd be making decisions in areas other than sports.

Having said all that, I suppose they could do essentially the same thing now by contributing gobs of cash to the university directly, with the same strings (as perhaps Nike/Phil Knight has done at Oregon). But to me this feels different.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

No one seems to address the question as to how you compensate the stars vs the roll players. What is the pay scale? Equal to all? Can someone break this down for me.

Additionally, where does this currently non-existant pool of cash needed to make these payments come from?

I can't answer the first part, but I am sure the schools with pay worthy talent can find some money to spare, given the massive revenue the players create for the institution. Or jersey sales? A percentage of TV revenue or ticket sales? If not, perhaps boosters could provide it?

There are lots of questions about "pay for play," but I can't imagine the availability of funds would be obe.

[flyingdutchdevil]

No one seems to address the question as to how you compensate the stars vs the roll players. What is the pay scale? Equal to all? Can someone break this down for me.

Additionally, where does this currently non-existant pool of cash needed to make these payments come from?

Because I don't think anyone knows how to fix it. They have just identified the underlying problem.

Like US healthcare. It's broken, but no one has come up with a legitimate fix.

[BLPOG]

Because I don't think anyone knows how to fix it. They have just identified the underlying problem.

Like US healthcare. It's broken, but no one has come up with a legitimate fix.

I would frame it slightly differently. No one has come up with a fix that satisfies everyone's wants.

There's a reason for that. It's an impossible delusion.

There are still improvements that can be made, but frankly there will be some people who will just be upset with real or potential results of any given change. Even if something were more or less a pareto improvement, you wouldn't be able to convince everyone of it.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I would frame it slightly differently. No one has come up with a fix that satisfies everyone's wants.

There's a reason for that. It's an impossible delusion.

There are still improvements that can be made, but frankly some people will just be upset with real or potential results of any given change.

Like US healthcare :p

[swood1000]

Because there is something wrong in a sport where the only stakeholder not financially compensated is the players.
This would go for the National Amateur golf tournament, which is televised nationally. Get rid of it? But nobody would tune in to watch the same players if they were professional. They aren't good enough. It's the fact of their being amateur that provides the interest value.

[Indoor66]

I think I get it. We are going to create a currently non-existent problem without any idea of a means of solving the problem and no source of funds to pay for the solution.

Gee, what could go wrong with this plan? Sounds like something designed in Washington or Albany or Sacramento or Springfield or San Juan.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I think I get it. We are going to create a currently non-existent problem without any idea of a means of solving the problem and no source of funds to pay for the solution.

Gee, what could go wrong with this plan? Sounds like something designed in Washington or Albany or Sacramento or Springfield or San Juan.

Do you literally not see the players as creating massive revenue, a small percentage of which could be used to pay top players? Or do you doubt that boosters would pony up more than enough to compensate players?

There are logistical problems, but "lack of money" isn't one.

[swood1000]

High school basketball.
We have amateur college basketball because there is a market for it. People are willing to tune in to watch these players, but nobody would tune in to watch if they were professional because they aren't good enough. Only a small percentage are going to make it to the pros. Why don't these players go to the G-league? Because it doesn't have nearly the excitement for the fans that the amateur league does, and therefore it doesn't generate revenue sufficient to fund the salaries they want. The market will pay for an amateur option, so we'll have that option.

[Richard Berg]

The audience interest comes from the branding, not the salary. Do you have any evidence that schools known to pay under-the-table have worse viewership than clean schools? I'd suggest the opposite is true.

[Indoor66]

Do you literally not see the players as creating massive revenue, a small percentage of which could be used to pay top players? Or do you doubt that boosters would pony up more than enough to compensate players?

There are logistical problems, but "lack of money" isn't one.

You assume facts not in evidence. What happens to the current revenues? Are they being stashed in bunkers on each campus? If so, why are athletic departments/programs mostly losing money? They could draw on the "stash", maybe?

Here we talk about the"problem" but very little about REALISTIC solutions.

[Richard Berg]

You assume facts not in evidence. What happens to the current revenues? Are they being stashed in bunkers on each campus? If so, why are athletic departments/programs mostly losing money? They could draw on the "stash", maybe?

Here we talk about the"problem" but very little about REALISTIC solutions.
The most realistic outcome is (1) revenue athletes are better off than status quo (2) non-revenue athletes are worse off. That seems fine to me. People who are good at field hockey aren't owed a free education, at least no moreso than people who are good at clarinet or Model UN. It just so happens that the former provide a convenient smokescreen for today's arrangement.

[BLPOG]

We have amateur college basketball because there is a market for it. People are willing to tune in to watch these players, but nobody would tune in to watch if they were professional because they aren't good enough. Only a small percentage are going to make it to the pros. Why don't these players go to the G-league? Because it doesn't have nearly the excitement for the fans that the amateur league does, and therefore it doesn't generate revenue sufficient to fund the salaries they want. The market will pay for an amateur option, so we'll have that option.

I don't think it's accurate to characterize revenue sports as amateur. The student athletes are being paid through benefits - scholarships, training, publicity, free meals, etc. So we should dispense with that charade if we actually intend to analyze the issue. We can call them nonsalaried or semi-pro or something else, but they are not amateurs.

Beyond that, there are some assumptions here that I don't think can be convincingly separated from other explanations given available evidence. Do we know that if the top 75 football and basketball teams separated into their own league, they wouldn't garner the same level of excitement? No, we suspect that, and it's likely, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't generate sufficient excitement to be self-sustaining. I anticipate the rebuttal "but why isn't there already a minor league that people like, if one could be self-supporting?" The answer is that there is, in college. Separating it from college would change things, but it isn't immediately obvious how much it would affect interest, even if we are right about the direction of the effect.

No one business generates sufficient revenue to fund the salary anyone wants. Everyone has unlimited wants (OK, maybe some ascetic monks or something can be excepted, but probably not even then). What matters is whether a business generates sufficient revenue to provide economic profit - net revenue above the next best alternative. The same applies for its employees in terms of their salaries. It is not clear at what price point the majority of college revenue-athletes would be willing to play to forgo their college experience, but I think it is well within the amount that a league could pay.

I went to an Arena Football game recently. There were more folks there than I see at Wizards games, and my ticket was more expensive than the last time I saw the Wizards.

The market isn't paying for an amateur option right now. The market is paying for a couple minor leagues affiliated with schools and branded as students and amateurs - leagues also riddled with corruption, opaque processes, and an inefficiency in payment structure that puts players at a great BATNA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_alternative_to_a_negotiated_agreement) disadvantage, which is especially to the detriment of honest players and teams/coaches, and which humans generally find to be distasteful and unfair even if they've never heard of BATNA and never will.

[BLPOG]

You assume facts not in evidence. What happens to the current revenues? Are they being stashed in bunkers on each campus? If so, why are athletic departments/programs mostly losing money? They could draw on the "stash", maybe?

Here we talk about the"problem" but very little about REALISTIC solutions.

You're going to have trouble finding a solution, real or imaginary, to an overdetermined system.

Accepting that fact has an implication - it's time to eliminate some constraints.

[Indoor66]

You're going to have trouble finding a solution, real or imaginary, to an overdetermined system.

Accepting that fact has an implication - it's time to eliminate some constraints.

What does that mean or add? I don't understand.

[BLPOG]

What does that mean or add? I don't understand.

It means that if you make a list of certain characteristics you want your system to have, it is possible that they cannot coexist at the same time, under any ruleset that you construct.

If that is the case - and there is ample evidence that it might be for some combination of what most people want in terms of excitement and amateurism - then the set of characteristics that one wants to see must be altered if he has any realistic hope of getting that outcome. To some extent, he just needs to prioritize.

It's a simple thing, but a lot of people seem to ignore it. Accompanying music (https://youtu.be/7knIi3LGf4M)

[cato]

High school basketball.

Are these bribes being paid to high school basketball players and their families?

[Bostondevil]

Something I rarely see brought up in this debate is how unfair the current system is to students who don't play sports.

With the current student loan debt at over $1 trillion - I do not view revenue brought into a school by successful sports teams as the property of only the athletes. To illustrate my point, let me bring up Johnny Manzell. When he won the Heisman, news outlets reported that alumni donations went up by something like $300 million that year. A lot of folks argued that Manzell deserved some of the spoils. Perhaps. But the year he won the Heisman, the graduating class was busy racking up $200 million in student loan debt, 10,000 new alumni with an average debt of around $20,000. So? If Johnny Manzell won the Heisman while attending Boston College, the alumni donations would not have come close to exceeding expectations by $300 million, not because the alumni don't care as much (although that might be part of it) but because Boston College graduates 1/4 as many kids every year, there just aren't as many alumni to donate. Johnny Manzell didn't generate that much extra in donations because he won the Heisman, he generated that much extra because he won the Heisman AT Texas A&M.

Let's consider another anecdote - this one is personal, apologies. My son was not the kind of athlete who would ever be recruited to play sports in college. He found his niche in high school with the ultimate frisbee team but where he really excelled was on the science team. He participated in one event, don't remember what it's called, but it's only for freshman and sophomores. Each kid on the team could compete in one area and up to three kids per team could choose the same area (and collaborate at the competition). My son took astronomy. The awards were given to the entire team, but they did announce the top three schools by area. On the day of the statewide meet the other kid doing astronomy could not compete so my son did it alone. He finished first, by himself. The whole time he was in high school for the overall state championships in both Ocean Bowl (what they called a competition limited to marine science) and the statewide science team competition, my son's high school finished no worse than 3rd. It would be a hard fought competition between my son and the captain of the science team to determine who was the MVP but the rest of the kids would agree it was between those two. My son was the better all around student and was able to attend Duke. The other kid? The one who excelled in science but struggled in his humanities classes? Was only admitted to UMass. Now, UMass is a perfectly fine school and I'm sure the young man did just fine there. But it was his only choice and he was one of the top science students in the state the year he graduated from high school. We make excuses for kids with top athletic talent when it comes to admissions, but not for top science kids. The search for "well-rounded" kids is just double speak for letting in kids who aren't good enough students. If you dream of playing varsity sports in college, the academics start to take a back seat in high school. Even at the high achieving upper middle class high school where my kids go, you don't start if you miss practice no matter how big an exam you have coming up. Another aside on this - my son's senior year the science team finished second in the state. So did the football team. The science team got one picture in the yearbook. The football team got 4 pages.

Let's get back to tuition. If the decision is made to pay players, we are talking about paying players in all sports. There will be no revenue sports distinction, well, not one that won't have to weather multiple legal challenges. There is no revenue sports distinction in terms of expected time spent on sports related activities. There may be slight variations by sport, but, playing a varsity sport at a D1 school is like having a full time job. It's not just the football players that spend 40-60 hours a week involved in team related activities. And that's where I kind of say - no way. I'll admit my view of all this changed when I started actually writing tuition checks but I am already subsidizing the golf and tennis teams, I absolutely object to paying those players too! When I went with my son to one of those local Duke send off parties for kids from the area who would be attending, I met several lovely young women about to go to Duke on lacrosse scholarships who went to a rival high school in both sports and socio-economic class. That's when it hit me why some parents are so nasty about playing time for their kids. If my kids were really good at sports instead of, you know, academics, I would have a new kitchen! (That last remark was a joke, well, kinda, I would like a new kitchen but I'm not really blaming Duke's golf team for the fact that I don't have one.) I view athletic scholarships as merit based, so, I compare them to other merit based scholarships. There is not a single D1 school in the country that gives more merit based scholarship money for academic reasons than for athletic ones. Stanford, for example, gives none. You read that right - there are no purely academic scholarships awarded by Stanford. Again - merit based, not need based. I just fail to see why athletes are the class of student that most deserves to graduate without student loan debt. (I know, I know, some still do.)

Let's briefly mention CTE - given what we now know, it's time for colleges to quit having football teams at all. Hahahahahaha, fat chance. Still - I suspect we will reach a time when the Ivies give it up and I suspect that time is coming sooner rather than later.

So, my solution, and I've posted it in another thread - pay players as long as they are considered employees of the university - the don't take up admission slots and they don't get scholarship money. I'm perfectly fine with saying that paid players may enroll in classes but they are not official degree candidates. Ok, what about the student athletes that do want to earn a degree? Admit them on their academic merits and put them into the need based financial aid pool like everybody else. I'd even let the athletes themselves decide which category they fit into.

[BLPOG]

<snip>
So, my solution, and I've posted it in another thread - pay players as long as they are considered employees of the university - the don't take up admission slots and they don't get scholarship money. I'm perfectly fine with saying that paid players may enroll in classes but they are not official degree candidates. Ok, what about the student athletes that do want to earn a degree? Admit them on their academic merits and put them into the need based financial aid pool like everybody else. I'd even let the athletes themselves decide which category they fit into.

I think my "solution" is pretty similar to yours. The players can be students and athletes, but as athletes (at the top "collegiate" level) they are employees first, and they don't have to be students. The teams become minor league teams affiliated with the school. I think it's the only way to create space for actual amateur teams that don't make a mockery of academic standards to exist at the schools.

Also, please no one interpret my last statement as saying Duke revenue athletes are a bunch of dummies. I'm making a general comment on lowered standards for acceptance of athletes throughout American colleges.

[Duke95]

You assume facts not in evidence. What happens to the current revenues? Are they being stashed in bunkers on each campus? If so, why are athletic departments/programs mostly losing money? They could draw on the "stash", maybe?

Here we talk about the"problem" but very little about REALISTIC solutions.

These facts are in evidence. Papers have been written about this, mine included. Just because you are unfamiliar with the evidence doesn't mean it hasn't been presented over and over and over again.
Not to pick on you, but anyone who says athletic programs are "losing money" doesn't understand how the accounting works.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

You assume facts not in evidence. What happens to the current revenues? Are they being stashed in bunkers on each campus? If so, why are athletic departments/programs mostly losing money? They could draw on the "stash", maybe?

Here we talk about the"problem" but very little about REALISTIC solutions.

It is wildly disingenuous to pretend that football and basketball don't make giant piles of money for universities. I don't know how to have a conversation with someone who won't acknowledge that.

[Duke95]

I just fail to see why athletes are the class of student that most deserves to graduate without student loan debt. (I know, I know, some still do.)

Why? Because their skills are more valued. Is it fair for sports stars to make millions why teachers scrape by? The market is a brutal arbiter of value. Athletes command a higher value because society has placed a premium on sports entertainment. It's just another variant of the diamond-water paradox.

As for your suggestion to separate sports and academic admissions, I think I'm with you on that.

[Duke95]

It is wildly disingenuous to pretend that football and basketball don't make giant piles of money for universities. I don't know how to have a conversation with someone who won't acknowledge that.

People just hear "most schools lose money" and believe the NCAA propaganda. Very few, unless they're in the field or have some other interest, actually take time to look at the numbers.
When I was doing the research for my article, even I was stunned by the sheer amount of money made.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

People just hear "most schools lose money" and believe the NCAA propaganda. Very few, unless they're in the field or have some other interest, actually take time to look at the numbers.
When I was doing the research for my article, even I was stunned by the sheer amount of money made.

Do I need to clarify that we are talking about power five men's basketball? So much money abounds.

And, again, would any power five program have trouble raising money from boosters if something like that were offered?

I support athletes having more leverage and I am interested to hear proposals about paying players. There are lots of valid concerns for all these plans, but lack of funds is not one of them.

[Richard Berg]

Why? Because their skills are more valued. Is it fair for sports stars to make millions why teachers scrape by? The market is a brutal arbiter of value. Athletes command a higher value because society has placed a premium on sports entertainment. It's just another variant of the diamond-water paradox.

This is only true for top athletes in revenue sports. The bench warmer on the water polo team is a huge money loser with zero market value, yet he receives the same scholarship as the Heisman candidate, thanks to how the NCAA distributes the loot earned by the latter. Meanwhile, all-star dancers and scientists and novelists are never given the chance to compete for booster & TV money.

If scholarship administration were the purview of admissions officers instead of ADs, we'd see a far more diverse range of extracurricular talents rewarded. You can't please everyone (short of massive .gov re-investment in public universities), but you can be much more fair with the money you do bring in.

[PackMan97]

People just hear "most schools lose money" and believe the NCAA propaganda. Very few, unless they're in the field or have some other interest, actually take time to look at the numbers.
When I was doing the research for my article, even I was stunned by the sheer amount of money made.

Yup!

It's easy to do a locker renovation, give raises to staff, have a nice coaches retreat, increase the recruiting budget, build a practice facility, etc.

[Richard Berg]

The audience interest comes from the branding, not the salary. Do you have any evidence that schools known to pay under-the-table have worse viewership than clean schools? I'd suggest the opposite is true.

Just to flesh out my response to swood's critique of the G-League: it's true that the Austin Spurs do not command much of a fan base. If you re-branded them as the UT Spurs, however, they'd be enormously profitable.

[Bostondevil]

Why? Because their skills are more valued. Is it fair for sports stars to make millions why teachers scrape by? The market is a brutal arbiter of value. Athletes command a higher value because society has placed a premium on sports entertainment. It's just another variant of the diamond-water paradox.

As for your suggestion to separate sports and academic admissions, I think I'm with you on that.

But only for revenue sports. As much good as Title IX has done for women's sports, especially women's team sports, in this country, universities don't actually value those skills over let's say a theater department that puts on shows that attract ticket buyers from the local community. It's the price they have to pay for the football and men's basketball players. Duke could win every women's NCAA golf championship from here until doomsday and it won't increase alumni donations. Title IX isn't a result of the free market, in fact it's the opposite, it's the government insisting that a university that receives federal funding has to spread the resources around, taking from the revenue sports to provide for the non-revenue sports. And I say, why stop at sports when it comes to spreading the resources?

The real life's blood of any major research university isn't alumni donations to the athletic department - it's research grants. And free undergraduate labor is important to many a professor's research. It's a win-win situation usually, the professors' research projects move forward and the students get valuable experience, maybe some mentoring, recommendations for grad schools and future careers. But the model there could be looked at as somewhat similar to what the athletes are doing, providing free labor in anticipation of future earnings.

[PackMan97]

You assume facts not in evidence. What happens to the current revenues? Are they being stashed in bunkers on each campus? If so, why are athletic departments/programs mostly losing money? They could draw on the "stash", maybe?

Here we talk about the"problem" but very little about REALISTIC solutions.

There is no money to pay players, so we will just build them a $15 million dorm.

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/nc-state/article175906391.html

[Wander]

There is no money to pay players, so we will just build them a $15 million dorm.

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/nc-state/article175906391.html

Completely anecdotal and probably doesn't apply to DBR, but I've noticed among my friends a divide in the pay for players issue. People who went to big D1 sports schools for undergrad are far less likely to support paying players. I think that's because they know the large amount of perks and advantages athletes get (like nicer dorms) compared to non-athletes, which doesn't really get reported in these stories or by Jay Bilas.

[TampaDuke]

There is no money to pay players, so we will just build them a $15 million dorm.

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/nc-state/article175906391.html

Yeah, but this and similar projects are financed, not by the college, but the private direct support organization (I.e., donations). Will they have the same appetite for funding exorbitant player salaries? Surely, there's a willlingness by some boosters to donate even for salaries, but will it be at the same or similar level?

[TampaDuke]

These facts are in evidence. Papers have been written about this, mine included. Just because you are unfamiliar with the evidence doesn't mean it hasn't been presented over and over and over again.
Not to pick on you, but anyone who says athletic programs are "losing money" doesn't understand how the accounting works.

Could be wrong, but I don't think he's saying there isn't big money in college sports, but rather that paying players will shift the priorities of where that money is spent. These are not for profit institutions giving out huge dividends to shareholders. They're using the money on stadiums, coaches, dorms, non-revenue sports, etc. Some of that is surely exorbitant, but not all of it. I'm a free market guy, but if you go down the path of paying players per the market, it's hard to imagine a compelling market reason that they should be required to support non-revenue sports.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

... if you go down the path of paying players per the market, it's hard to imagine a compelling market reason that they should be required to support non-revenue sports.

This makes sense to me. In the vacuum of "amateur athletics," it is somewhat reasonable that football and water polo coexist; one subsidizes the other to a large degree. Without football, water polo would have a difficult time. It is justified as part of an academic institution's mission and legislated by the NCAA to ensure fairness in competition.

I doubt there IS a compelling "market reason" for this arrangement, and yes, introducing a radical change to the system at the top will have ramifications down the food chain, as it were.

In other words, yes, there is plenty of money there thanks to football and basketball, but it helps out gymnastics team go to national tournaments.

Still not sure if that is a compelling enough reason to continue exploiting valuable athletes in revenue sports, but it is a more than fair point.

[Indoor66]

This makes sense to me. In the vacuum of "amateur athletics," it is somewhat reasonable that football and water polo coexist; one subsidizes the other to a large degree. Without football, water polo would have a difficult time. It is justified as part of an academic institution's mission and legislated by the NCAA to ensure fairness in competition.

I doubt there IS a compelling "market reason" for this arrangement, and yes, introducing a radical change to the system at the top will have ramifications down the food chain, as it were.

In other words, yes, there is plenty of money there thanks to football and basketball, but it helps out gymnastics team go to national tournaments.

Still not sure if that is a compelling enough reason to continue exploiting valuable athletes in revenue sports, but it is a more than fair point.

The highlighted part is where you lose me in these discussions. I do not see any "exploitation". The athlete chooses which school to attend, receives all of the known benefits (and hopefully not any or many unknown) and plays his sport. If he or she is good enough, the athlete gets to compete on another level at which time he or she is paid with the benefits apropos for that level of competition/services. The two levels are not the same and do not command the same remuneration. Taking a "feel good" attitude that the athlete at the University level is exploited because he is not paid is, IMO, ridiculous.

If there is too much money in the University sports game, then deal with that issue. Require the funds, above a certain level, be spent elsewhere. But paying a small group of athletes, because paying all will never work - they would get an additional few dollars in their pocket after the money was spread around to ALL scholarship athletes (as is inevitable when one goes down this road). This does not "fix" the problem. All of the problems remain and the net of the feel good solution is that the Universities have to cut back other places.

There is no pool of unspent money to tap into to pay athletes. To pay athletes the existing income stream must be reordered and spent differently. That means winners and losers at the schools. Who selects the winners and losers? Jay Bilas? The Student Government? The Trustees? The Athletic Department? The Chemistry or Physics or Philosophy department? Who restructures the University wide budgets?

This is why, IMO, these discussions are mental masturbation. I will posit, for the sake of discussion, that all participants in organized college/university sports that are on teams sponsored by the school, must be paid. Please, now, will someone outline for me a pay scale, source of payment, method of distribution of the funds, dealing with dismissal for poor grades, dismissal for cause over unacceptable actions by the athlete (crime, etc). All of these things and more are impacted by the factor of money. When are the funds earned? When are they due and payable? How much can accrue and when does accrual commence and terminate?

It sounds nice to "give the kids some of the filthy lucre they solely generate for the school through the sweat of their athletic prowess," but until someone lays out a system that deals with the problem beyond a dreaming concept, it is all that: pie in the sky.

[BLPOG]

This is why, IMO, these discussions are mental masturbation. I will posit, for the sake of discussion, that all participants in organized college/university sports that are on teams sponsored by the school, must be paid. Please, now, will someone outline for me a pay scale, source of payment, method of distribution of the funds, dealing with dismissal for poor grades, dismissal for cause over unacceptable actions by the athlete (crime, etc). All of these things and more are impacted by the factor of money. When are the funds earned? When are they due and payable? How much can accrue and when does accrual commence and terminate?

What are you suggesting here seems to be that the free enterprise system is just too darn hard for an entrepreneur to navigate.

I think that is not particularly likely.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

If there is too much money in the University sports game, then deal with that issue...


It sounds nice to "give the kids some of the filthy lucre they solely generate for the school through the sweat of their athletic prowess," but until someone lays out a system that deals with the problem beyond a dreaming concept, it is all that: pie in the sky.

So, attempting to pay the skilled labor is pie in the sky, but you suggest that we somehow reduce the amount of money in college athletics?

I don't buy the argument that "even though the athletes create millions in revenue, there's no excess money to compensate them, because we already spent it all!"

Throwing out the concept of paying players as a possibility, simply because I cannot detail for you the specifics doesn't make any sense to me. We will never move forward if we wait until all the specifics are ironed out before we start having a discussion.

Let's take a few steps back. I stated that the student athletes are being exploited and you disagree. Maybe we can start there?

[BLPOG]

So, attempting to pay the skilled labor is pie in the sky, but you suggest that we somehow reduce the amount of money in college athletics?

I don't buy the argument that "even though the athletes create millions in revenue, there's no excess money to compensate them, because we already spent it all!"

Throwing out the concept of paying players as a possibility, simply because I cannot detail for you the specifics doesn't make any sense to me. We will never move forward if we wait until all the specifics are ironed out before we start having a discussion.

Let's take a few steps back. I stated that the student athletes are being exploited and you disagree. Maybe we can start there?

I'm going to submit that using the word "exploited" as the foundation of this discussion is not a productive strategy toward reaching consensus.