Compensation for Student-Athletes (from PJ Hairston thread)

[allenmurray]

MODERATOR'S NOTE: This discussion has been pulled from the PJ Hairston thread (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?31445-PJ-Hairston-Busted), starting around post #910. That explains why this thread appears to starts by quoting another post. - devil84


Honestly? I find find fandom among alums to be unnerving at times. As much as I love following Duke, and as rabid a fan as I am, I am not at all convinced that this strange mash up of higher education and minor league pro sports is in the best interest of the schools.

If things are as bad at UNC as they seem, then I am one step closer to thinking the whole business should just be shut down. This is a school that was supposed to be doing it the right way.

The whole thing makes D-II and D-III sports more appealing. College Sports are professional minor leagues - I enjoy watching them, but only if I don't think about it too much while doing so. Sort of the way you'd never eat a hot dog if you had to read the list of ingredients aloud before you took the first bite.

[davekay1971]

The whole thing makes D-II and D-III sports more appealing. College Sports are professional minor leagues - I enjoy watching them, but only if I don't think about it too much while doing so. Sort of the way you'd never eat a hot dog if you had to read the list of ingredients aloud before you took the first bite.

Au contraire. I can read all the ingredients of a hot dog aloud, watch the hot dog made, and still slather that bad boy with mustard and chili, put it into a processed bleached white flour bun and wolf it down happily between seeing my morning and afternoon patients. The good news: I know which colleagues I'll let do my heart cath.

As for your point about college sports, you're right. I love them, and I watch them, but I do so knowing perfectly well that there's an inherent conflict between high level (ie: for profit) college sports and the mission of amateurism and education. It's easier doing it while cheering for Duke, because I honestly feel that Duke tries to resolve that conflict in earnest spirit of educating the athletes that play for us. Carolina fans, I assume, have to do like Wheat and just ignore the AFAM scandals that show that UNC football and basketball decided to sacrifice education in the name of athletic victory years ago.

[allenmurray]

Au contraire. I can read all the ingredients of a hot dog aloud, watch the hot dog made, and still slather that bad boy with mustard and chili, put it into a processed bleached white flour bun and wolf it down happily between seeing my morning and afternoon patients. The good news: I know which colleagues I'll let do my heart cath.

As for your point about college sports, you're right. I love them, and I watch them, but I do so knowing perfectly well that there's an inherent conflict between high level (ie: for profit) college sports and the mission of amateurism and education. It's easier doing it while cheering for Duke, because I honestly feel that Duke tries to resolve that conflict in earnest spirit of educating the athletes that play for us. Carolina fans, I assume, have to do like Wheat and just ignore the AFAM scandals that show that UNC football and basketball decided to sacrifice education in the name of athletic victory years ago.

My son (some old-timers here may remember him as wolfpackdevil) played D-III basketball last year. There was a purity and joy in their gym that was refreshing. The gym was tiny, so when 750 people showed up it was standing room only. They didn't have a mascot but for a couple games one of the coach's friends (the coach was only 26) wore a rented Chewbacca costume. Admission to the game - free. Concessions available? Home made cupcakes and cookies being sold by a student group as a fund raiser.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I don't have the stats in front of me, but I seeme to remember that the majority of D-1 sports teams do not turn any profit or certainly not much of one.

Not to get too far off topic here, but they're never going to show a profit as long as the administrators/coaches/AD's pay themselves big salaries, build huge venues and spend on everything but the talent that deserves to be compensated.

[Duvall]

Not to get too far off topic here, but they're never going to show a profit as long as the administrators/coaches/AD's pay themselves big salaries, build huge venues and spend on everything but the talent that deserves to be compensated.

...including the rest of the talent, which is where most of the money goes.

[Bob Green]

Not to get too far off topic here, but they're never going to show a profit as long as the administrators/coaches/AD's pay themselves big salaries, build huge venues and spend on everything but the talent that deserves to be compensated.

The talent is being compensated with the opportunity to receive a quality education. Count me in the camp that believes a quality education is fantastic compensation. Unfortunately, some student-athletes do not understand the value of the education being provided to them.

[allenmurray]

I still maintain you CAN find that kind of down-home, true-to-the-sport, untainted by big dollar college sports at D-I schools. I don't have the stats in front of me, but I seeme to remember that the majority of D-1 sports teams do not turn any profit or certainly not much of one. I spent many years watching Southern Conference and Big South basketball. Sure, some games weren't very well attended, but others were packed and the players, coaches, and fans were all there playing, coaching, and cheering thier hearts out. No TV deals or NBA hopes. Just that outside dream of making the NCAA tournament some day. I'd say that's at least half of the D-1 athletes.

So I roll my eyes at the "student-athlete doesn't exist anymore" notion because I'd say that (and I can't put a percentage on it) MOST D-1 athletes are not ginning up loads of cash for thier schools and are not receiving the shady deals and breaks seen at some (The minority) big time money programs.

I just don't like seeing the majority of players and schools dismissed because they don't fit the "college sports is dead" narrative.

Sorry to slide this in the PJ H thread. Understand if it gets moved.

I don't think extolling the virtues and hard work of D-II and D-III athletes is "dismissing" the majority of D-I players. Saying that the mess that is frequently (not always) D-I sports makes D-II and D-III more appealing to me hardly seems to warrant such a reaction. If I enjoy cheering for Guilford College, or Oglethorpe, or Williams, or any of the hundreds of D-III schools, because I appreciate the balance they have chosen, that shouldn't be odd. The fact that it is shows how unbalanced college athletics has become.

[Turtleboy]

How many D 1 players are forced into playing college ball? I worked 20-30 hours a week during college, borrowed my butt off, and graduated with a huge pile of debt. If I had gotten a free ride, with all that entails, and a debt free graduation with the only requirement that I play basketball for the school I would have thought I had died and gone to heaven.

If they don't want to play, they should just not play. Compensation problem solved.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

The talent is being compensated with the opportunity to receive a quality education. Count me in the camp that believes a quality education is fantastic compensation. Unfortunately, some student-athletes do not understand the value of the education being provided to them.

I agree, quality education is fantastic compensation. And for some guys that is great.

The question is...is it fair compensation for the stars given the revenue those athletes bring in? Personally, I don't think it's fair and if I was that athlete, I'd rather get paid and pay for my own education.

Understand as well if you guys want to move this sidetrack conversation...

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I agree, quality education is fantastic compensation. And for some guys that is great.

The question is...is it fair compensation for the stars given the revenue those athletes bring in? Personally, I don't think it's fair and if I was that athlete, I'd rather get paid and pay for my own education.

Understand as well if you guys want to move this sidetrack conversation...

But... that option was open to PJ. If he wanted, he could have gotten drafted a few weeks ago, put school on hold, and used his basketball money to go back to college somewhere on down the road. Granted, the NCAA has unfortunately become the only proving ground for the NBA that gets attention, but if you don't want to play by the rules, then don't join the club.

Reminder: the "one and done" rule is an NBA rule, not an NCAA rule. Go play pro in Europe if you don't want to have to worry about grades, eligibility, improper benefits, etc. Then, if you've proven yourself there, come back to the states and make a roster.

These kids are extremely privileged, whether they realize it or not.

FWIW - my school of less that a thousand won a national championship this year. They beat the Albany School of Pharmacy to get there.

Go Owls! Go Duke!

[OldPhiKap]

The talent is being compensated with the opportunity to receive a quality education. Count me in the camp that believes a quality education is fantastic compensation. Unfortunately, some student-athletes do not understand the value of the education being provided to them.

Hard to see the value of majoring in Swahili through no-show classes.


But for most other institutions, I agree.

[Ima Facultiwyfe]

The talent is being compensated with the opportunity to receive a quality education. Count me in the camp that believes a quality education is fantastic compensation. Unfortunately, some student-athletes do not understand the value of the education being provided to them.

Thanks Bob.I totally agree. A Duke tuition is upwards of $50,000 a year. That's a handsome salary for a 19 year old who is learning a trade that will earn him bigger bucks later. Not to mention the ace in the hole degree in case plan A doesn't pan out (providing he doesn't walk away from that opportunity).
Love, Ima

[Reilly]

Hard to see the value of majoring in Swahili through no-show classes....

I dunno ... honing bluster and a sense of entitlement for no good reason gotta count for something ....

Maybe good practice for being a member of the Black Pigeon's entourage? ... or a three-card monte dealer perhaps? ....

[OldPhiKap]

I dunno ... honing bluster and a sense of entitlement for no good reason gotta count for something....

It earned me a J.D.

[chaosmage]

Thanks Bob.I totally agree. A Duke tuition is upwards of $50,000 a year. That's a handsome salary for a 19 year old who is learning a trade that will earn him bigger bucks later. Not to mention the ace in the hole degree in case plan A doesn't pan out (providing he doesn't walk away from that opportunity).
Love, Ima

It's more than public school teachers make in NC, which is a crying shame. It's one of the few things I royally disagree with Bilas on. An allowance? Yes, set by the NCAA so that no school breaks its budget, if possible. If not equitable, don't do it. But people crying because they are "only" getting an education is ridiculous, because my wife busted her buns to get a degree from Berkeley, and our grandkids will be paying it off. These kids get a quality education IF THEY CHOOSE.

/stepdownfromsoapbox
/endrant

[gofurman]

It's more than public school teachers make in NC, which is a crying shame. It's one of the few things I royally disagree with Bilas on. An allowance? Yes, set by the NCAA so that no school breaks its budget, if possible. If not equitable, don't do it. But people crying because they are "only" getting an education is ridiculous, because my wife busted her buns to get a degree from Berkeley, and our grandkids will be paying it off. These kids get a quality education IF THEY CHOOSE.

/stepdownfromsoapbox
/endrant

Completely agree! And lest we forget, that's actually a 50k salary TAX FREE (since the athletic scholly is not taxed as income). So that's really about 70k these kids are making!

I think that is a very nice stipend.

[Dev11]

Completely agree! And lest we forget, that's actually a 50k salary TAX FREE (since the athletic scholly is not taxed as income). So that's really about 70k these kids are making!

I think that is a very nice stipend.

The argument, though, is that the free market would allow them to make a lot more. What Bilas and co shout about is that the NCAA allows the 'employees' to make as much as they want (coaches making 6 and 7 figures) while the 'student-athletes' can't make anything over their scholarship.

Nobody ever said the job market is fair. It's apples to oranges to compare a teacher's salary to the would-be salary of a collegiate athlete, particularly if that athlete is at a private school (perhaps more understandable at a public school, but if that money is coming from donors or other athletic programs, not really).

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Completely agree! And lest we forget, that's actually a 50k salary TAX FREE (since the athletic scholly is not taxed as income). So that's really about 70k these kids are making!

I think that is a very nice stipend.
Especially considering the D-league salary ranges from about 15-25k per year plus housing, $40 per day for food and other unspecified benefits. Guys are living paycheck to paycheck.

So playing big time D1 hoops (or playing overseas if the legal "compensation" they receive for playing D1 hoops isn't enough) seems like a privileged opportunity to me and a fairly comfortable one in general.

Although those unspecified benefits might be just what some of the Heels are looking for!

[CDu]

The argument, though, is that the free market would allow them to make a lot more. What Bilas and co shout about is that the NCAA allows the 'employees' to make as much as they want (coaches making 6 and 7 figures) while the 'student-athletes' can't make anything over their scholarship.

There are two counterarguments in play:
1. It isn't a free market.
2. The players make the choice to play college ball over other paid alternatives (notably the NBDL and Europe). That suggests they are complicit in the system.

Colleges offer their student athletes an opportunity to advertise their skills for a future employer. And they offer the opportunity for their student athletes to get a free education should they choose to actually pursue it.

Do colleges (and the NCAA) make a big profit off of their student athletes? Absolutely. But that's a knowing choice that players make because (presumably) they see the benefit of (a) better exposure, (b) hanging out with kids their age, (c) get the networking opportunities associated with their college program, and possibly (d) the education.

The problem is not with the NCAA/universities. The problem is with the NBA implementing a one-year rule for draft eligibility.


Nobody ever said the job market is fair.

One might apply the same logic to being a student athlete.

[Turtleboy]

The argument, though, is that the free market would allow them to make a lot more. Then they should test the free market. What's stopping them? Surely not the NCAA or the schools.

If they don't like the deal all they have to do is not be a part of it. They choose of their own free will to play college ball, and are certainly completely free to choose otherwise.

[PackMan97]

Colleges offer their student athletes an opportunity to advertise their skills for a future employer. And they offer the opportunity for their student athletes to get a free education should they choose to actually pursue it.

Let's be honest...there is a certain local University that isn't offering an education to their student athletes.

[OldPhiKap]

Then they should test the free market. What's stopping them? Surely not the NCAA or the schools.

If they don't like the deal all they have to do is not be a part of it. They choose of their own free will to play college ball, and are certainly completely free to choose otherwise.

It is similar to an apprenticeship. Most kids are not ready to play NBA ball. But they grow into it over time. College allows them to develop their skills, their physical stature, and their understanding of the game.

I agree that the problem here is not that college athletes do not get paid. It is that there is an artificial barrier to top employment (namely, the no-freshman rule in the NBA). Which of course, is promoted by the union that wants to keep down some competition for some older players.

Don't blame colleges. Blame anti-anti-trust.

Wonder if PJ is wishing he had bounced to the league right about now.

[Dev11]

There are two counterarguments in play:
1. It isn't a free market.
2. The players make the choice to play college ball over other paid alternatives (notably the NBDL and Europe). That suggests they are complicit in the system.

Colleges offer their student athletes an opportunity to advertise their skills for a future employer. And they offer the opportunity for their student athletes to get a free education should they choose to actually pursue it.

Do colleges (and the NCAA) make a big profit off of their student athletes? Absolutely. But that's a knowing choice that players make because (presumably) they see the benefit of (a) better exposure, (b) hanging out with kids their age, (c) get the networking opportunities associated with their college program, and possibly (d) the education.

The problem is not with the NCAA/universities. The problem is with the NBA implementing a one-year rule for draft eligibility.



One might apply the same logic to being a student athlete.

From the perspective of a 17 year old kid who doesn't have a lot of exposure to things outside of basketball tournaments and high school, going to the D-League or Europe are really unattractive options. Playing in the D-League means making a small salary and living on the road in less-than-flashy cities, and going to Europe means being in a country where you don't speak the language and you're thousands of miles from anything you know.

Currently, playing NCAA basketball is the best option, but that doesn't make it a great option. If the D-League had more stature and more money, kids like John Wall and Kyrie Irving might be inclined to pick it over college.

It's a crummy situation on all sides, unless you are somebody who profits handsomely from the college game. Is having a rental car from some sketchy guy in Durham making PJ Hairston a better basketball player? No. Did that car help Carolina win more games this year? No. So why the fuss?

(That's not to say that PJ didn't make some dumb mistakes and shouldn't be punished. He apparently broke a few laws and maybe deserves some fine or jail time. Should that affect UNC basketball? No, I don't think so)

[allenmurray]

Playing in the D-League means making a small salary and living on the road in less-than-flashy cities

Most people know that their "first" job will be at a lower salary than once they have established themselves in a career, and it may not be in their most hoped-for location. As your experience and skills grow, and therefore you become more marketable, you make more money and have your choice of different options. It is called building a career, and not expecting to have things handed to you.

[rifraf]

I don't think the schools should be paying kids, but I don't see what's wrong with letting them earn off their talents and skills outside the school. I don't see what's wrong with them getting sponsorships, royalty checks from video games, etc. Nothing stopped me from getting a paid internship while I was at Duke, or taking jobs and earning money. I don't think it should be any different. Should kids on full rides be restricted from earning money from internships or jobs they get due to their studies because they're getting a great opportunity?

[moonpie23]

as long as the schools are not making any PROFIT on the athletics, the scholarship should be enough "compensation"......but, if they ARE making profit, then the athletes should share in that profit.....

[Dev11]

Most people know that their "first" job will be at a lower salary than once they have established themselves in a career, and it may not be in their most hoped-for location. As your experience and skills grow, and therefore you become more marketable, you make more money and have your choice of different options. It is called building a career, and not expecting to have things handed to you.

I understand your point, and there are definitely a lot of these kids who think they should have everything right away (Tony Parker's ongoing decision press conference comes to mind).

I don't think my suggestion of a more-hyped D-League is happening any time soon. NBA teams are certainly recognizing the need to rely more on their farm teams, as many of the farm teams have signed exclusive deals with NBA teams. However, I think the NBA loves that it has a giant free hype tool in NCAA basketball, and doesn't need to mess with that.

[75Crazie]

I don't think my suggestion of a more-hyped D-League is happening any time soon. NBA teams are certainly recognizing the need to rely more on their farm teams, as many of the farm teams have signed exclusive deals with NBA teams. However, I think the NBA loves that it has a giant free hype tool in NCAA basketball, and doesn't need to mess with that.
Nailed it. Until the NBA gives at least equal treatment and consideration to players going the D-league route, the NCAA will continue to be, by far, the most attractive and desirable route for any player with serious chops coming out of high school -- including players who can barely read or write. The D-league has a long ways to go until it becomes a true farm system like the one baseball has.

[Newton_14]

as long as the schools are not making any PROFIT on the athletics, the scholarship should be enough "compensation"......but, if they ARE making profit, then the athletes should share in that profit.....

This is one point I will always disagree with. High School and Middle Schools make profits off of their basketball games. Some of them make fairly good amounts of profits due to having highly sought after recruits on their team that pack the gyms every game. So should we be paying the middle school and high school players just because their schools are making money off of the games? Of course not.


As for the compensation college athlete's already receive today, it goes well beyond the tuition, housing, and meals, and the value of the diploma an degree they receive. In a report released a couple of years back, it revealed that in the 2010 National Title year, Duke spent something like $309K per player on the men's basketball team that season. That included gear like the piles of shoes (go to Duke Planet and watch the video of Tyler Thornton showing everyone the very large room in the Emily K facility that stocks the hundreds and hundreds of pairs of shoes the players have provided for them), athletic wear like tee shirts, shorts, practice jerseys, etc, the free private plane rides to and from games, lavish hotel rooms, etc etc. These kids get lots and lots of perks regular students do not get, not the least of which is the thousand of hours of TV time to show off their talents and grow their own personal brands which helps many of them sign mult-million dollar shoe deals often before they even sign their salary contract with the professional team they end up playing for. Some people dismiss all of that but it is valid and it has value. They greatly benefit both from the perks afforded them and the millions of dollars the free advertisement and exposure gets them.

All of that said, I have always maintained the players should get a cut of the jersey sales, and they certainly should get a cut of the DVD's sold of games they played in, as well as any video games that have their likeness, even if the money is put into a trust until after they graduate or turn professional. To keep it fair with jersey sales, the percentage of dollars designated for the players could be set up in a profit sharing model such that it is split evenly with every kid on the roster for that season, to allow the reserves and walkons to get rewarded for their time committments/sacrifices/contributions, etc.

I will never agree however, that college athlete's should be given a straight up salary for playing. It's just not right and certainly not fair to non-revenue sports players.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

This is one point I will always disagree with. High School and Middle Schools make profits off of their basketball games. Some of them make fairly good amounts of profits due to having highly sought after recruits on their team that pack the gyms every game. So should we be paying the middle school and high school players just because their schools are making money off of the games? Of course not.


One thing to consider is that college players are legally adults, middle school and high school kids are not. I've never seen anyone suggest juveniles be paid.

There has got to be a way to allow college players to fairly participate in the profitability of the big revenue sports...those kids, (young adults), might get shoes and clothes and plane rides, but they can't hardly get a job with their time demands and the restrictions to have enough cash to go out on a date. But a coach can make 5 million a year?

As someone mentioned earlier, a current student in any other field, say software engineering, can certainly generate income while studying for their degree if a company values their skills and is willing to pay before they graduate.

What if a school told that student...since we teach you in our lab and you have a scholarship, you can take that internship in your spare time, work on that project...but everything they pay you, whatever money you can generate, will go to us until you graduate.

We'll give you our thanks...and stroke your ego.

And don't forget that players often finish with lifelong injuries...and the schools don't use any of their profits that player helped generate to help them deal with those injuries after they graduate...but that's another discussion.

[JasonEvans]

I think Roy has this figured out. If he suspended PJ for 1/2 the season now, PJ would just leave and join the D-league. By waiting to dole out a suspension, it will be too late for PJ to bail, no matter how harsh the penalty. (Not that I think he will get more than a proverbial slap on the wrist with a 3 game suspension).

Ummm, why does waiting prevent PJ from joining the D-League? The moment he gets suspended, if the does not like the suspension and wants to turn pro right away, he can. He could turn pro and play in Europe or turn pro and play in the D-League or just turn pro and live off agent largess for a couple months while he waits for the NBA draft (he is a likely 1st round draft pick in 2014).

I think Roy has not suspended PJ because they are waiting to see all the details and there is really nothing to be gained from suspending him now versus suspending him in September or October.

-Jason "I think PJ gets 5-7 games if nothing more is revealed than what we currently know. If it gets worse, the suspension could get up to 10+ games" Evans

[Wander]

One thing to consider is that college players are legally adults, middle school and high school kids are not. I've never seen anyone suggest juveniles be paid.

There has got to be a way to allow college players to fairly participate in the profitability of the big revenue sports...those kids, (young adults), might get shoes and clothes and plane rides, but they can't hardly get a job with their time demands and the restrictions to have enough cash to go out on a date. But a coach can make 5 million a year?

As someone mentioned earlier, a current student in any other field, say software engineering, can certainly generate income while studying for their degree if a company values their skills and is willing to pay before they graduate.

What if a school told that student...since we teach you in our lab and you have a scholarship, you can take that internship in your spare time, work on that project...but everything they pay you, whatever money you can generate, will go to us until you graduate.

We'll give you our thanks...and stroke your ego.

And don't forget that players often finish with lifelong injuries...and the schools don't use any of their profits that player helped generate to help them deal with those injuries after they graduate...but that's another discussion.

Listen, I think your heart is in the right place, as are a lot of the people who argue that athletes should get paid. But a lot of it comes from a place of just... genuine ignorance.

The idea that some random software engineer is treated better than a BCS football or basketball player is a total joke. It's simply not real. For starters, tons of "regular" students DO take unpaid internships or do unpaid lab work in an effort to get experience or pad their resume (I know I did). And those that take paying summer jobs or whatever largely spend their money toward living expenses or tuition or whatever. I'm sure you can take the most extreme example of a student getting a cushy law internship vs an athlete in hardship and find a specific instance where the athlete comes out on bottom, but I promise you on average that a scholarship athlete gets far more monetary value and perks than a non-athlete from a university. Far more.

There are specific examples of athletes being treated unfair, the NCAA has some stupid rules, and most scholarship athletes deserve their benefits because they put in a lot of hard work beyond what's required of non-athletes. But giving a salary or a percentage of jersey sales to kids who already get so much more than non-athletes isn't the answer. Instead of focusing on the coaches vs players comparison, your outrage would be better saved for coaches vs professors, or better yet coaches vs student-who-needs-financial-aid.

[chaosmage]

This one came to me at a completely random moment. While watching Looney Tunes. If you know what I'm talking about, you'll understand almost immediately.

Hypothesis: Calculate how much a team makes. This includes TV Revenue, gear licensure (would allow players to finally have their names on a jersey in this case), etc. Choose a percentage, say 10%. That percentage of the school's earnings from the team such as basketball, etc. is held in trust, with interest-bearing if possible (I'm not a financial guy). That percentage is divided among the number of athletes participating on the team (15 or so for b-ball, etc.). Upon the player's graduation from university, the player receives his portion of the team's earnings.

Mathematics: Duke earns 5 million on average per year (I'm guessing) from the basketball team. Miles Plumlee stayed four years and graduated. That's 5 mil times 4 years, take 10%, equaling out to 2 mil. Divide by 15 players or so, and that gives you about 100-150K. Nice fat check for actually doing what a good majority of people have to do just to graduate. Some variables, such as determining the number of players each year, the actual percentage, do walk-ons get included, etc. would have to be worked out.

My reasoning for requiring graduation is that if you leave early, you're trying to go pro, and therefore you are expecting a much larger salary. If you don't make it, you can still go back, finish your coursework, and receive your check. It keeps the student in student athlete. Also provides incentives for the kids to actually finish. It could even have ties to classroom performance. Lose 10% if you are suspended for any reason. Good preparation for the pro leagues and the real world.

And now I'm running with it... Could also have requirements to complete some financial workshops before receiving it, so that you don't go broke.

I've probably mentioned that I'm in favor of an allowance. Not if this were to work, and one of the things I didn't realize (not going to a D-I school) is how much the players get. Shoes, practice gear (that they can wear to class), etc. Live on campus and you probably have a meal plan. So I'm officially changing my stance and saying no to the players having an allowance. They're already getting a full ride.

Feel free to run with it... idea is trademarked by chaosmage, inc. All rights reserved, etc. :-D :-D

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Mathematics: Duke earns 5 million on average per year (I'm guessing) from the basketball team. Miles Plumlee stayed four years and graduated. That's 5 mil times 4 years, take 10%, equaling out to 2 mil. Divide by 15 players or so, and that gives you about 100-150K. Nice fat check for actually doing what a good majority of people have to do just to graduate.

100-150K, which is less than the value of four years at Duke.

It is a good deal, playing basketball for your education.

Wheat, I still say whether or not you agree with the rules (clearly you don't), you have to expect your players to abide by the rules and punish then when they don't.

Especially when a player has looked at the possibility of the NBA and decided they would rather stay in school, playing for the university, and abide by NCAA rules. Even if the rules were outdated, outlandish, and predatory, PJ knows them and chose to keep working under them.



Go Duke

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Listen, I think your heart is in the right place, as are a lot of the people who argue that athletes should get paid. But a lot of it comes from a place of just... genuine ignorance.

The idea that some random software engineer is treated better than a BCS football or basketball player is a total joke. It's simply not real. For starters, tons of "regular" students DO take unpaid internships or do unpaid lab work in an effort to get experience or pad their resume (I know I did). And those that take paying summer jobs or whatever largely spend their money toward living expenses or tuition or whatever. I'm sure you can take the most extreme example of a student getting a cushy law internship vs an athlete in hardship and find a specific instance where the athlete comes out on bottom, but I promise you on average that a scholarship athlete gets far more monetary value and perks than a non-athlete from a university. Far more.

There are specific examples of athletes being treated unfair, the NCAA has some stupid rules, and most scholarship athletes deserve their benefits because they put in a lot of hard work beyond what's required of non-athletes. But giving a salary or a percentage of jersey sales to kids who already get so much more than non-athletes isn't the answer. Instead of focusing on the coaches vs players comparison, your outrage would be better saved for coaches vs professors, or better yet coaches vs student-who-needs-financial-aid.

It's always easy for people without the talent to say to those with the talent that what you get is good...be happy....you don't need more.

We are the ones who need more so that we can do good things, and we will decide what those good things are, not you. You just keep working for us. And you better work hard or we'll take your scholarship away. And don't worry about what we pay ourselves, or how an injury might impact the rest of your life and go uncompensated, just keep working hard.

[Turtleboy]

It's always easy for people without the talent to say to those with the talent that what you get is good...be happy....you don't need more.

We are the ones who need more so that we can do good things, and we will decide what those good things are, not you. You just keep working for us. And you better work hard or we'll take your scholarship away. And don't worry about what we pay ourselves, or how an injury might impact the rest of your life and go uncompensated, just keep working hard.How many D1 athletes, do suppose, are forced into attending college? How many attend college not understanding the deal? If they don't like the terms, they can always work for a living. After what I had to go through to get a college degree my heart bleeds not at all for someone who must suffer the awful consequences of playing D1 ball. Worse than prison, right Rashad?

[Atlanta Duke]

All of that said, I have always maintained the players should get a cut of the jersey sales, and they certainly should get a cut of the DVD's sold of games they played in, as well as any video games that have their likeness, even if the money is put into a trust until after they graduate or turn professional. To keep it fair with jersey sales, the percentage of dollars designated for the players could be set up in a profit sharing model such that it is split evenly with every kid on the roster for that season, to allow the reserves and walkons to get rewarded for their time committments/sacrifices/contributions, etc.

The entire system may come crashing down regardless of whether or not the universities voluntarily decide to restructure their current financial relationships with the "student-athletes." The latest fallout from the O'Bannon lawsuit regarding use of players' names and likenesses dropped yesterday.


The NCAA announced Wednesday it is not renewing its licensing contract with Electronic Arts for a college football video game, citing legal and business concerns.

The NCAA, EA and the nation's leading collegiate trademark licensing and marketing firm, Collegiate Licensing Co., are co-defendants in at least two federal lawsuits concerning the use of college athletes' names and likenesses....

The NCAA's agreement with EA pertains only to the use of the NCAA's name and logo -- not those of the individual schools depicted -- and its statement pointed to a more serious question: "Member colleges and universities license their own trademarks and other intellectual property for the video game. They will have to independently decide whether to continue those business arrangements in the future."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/07/17/ncaa-ending-videogame-contract-with-ea-electronic-arts/2525843/

[75Crazie]

How many D1 athletes, do suppose, are forced into attending college? How many attend college not understanding the deal? If they don't like the terms, they can always work for a living. After what I had to go through to get a college degree my heart bleeds not at all for someone who must suffer the awful consequences of playing D1 ball. Worse than prison, right Rashad?
I myself think there are a lot of D1 athletes who, yes, are actually "forced" into attending college ... because there is just no realistic alternative path for progression into the NBA or NFL. I am not counting the NBA D league, which has nowhere near the same cachet as the NCAA has, and football is way worse. I am willing to bet that a large percentage of one-and-done basketball players would not have opted to sign with a college if the NBA had a decent farm system as an alternative.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I could probably be convinced that a school does not have to be the one to pay the players, they do give scholarships and provide the platform, but there is no justification for denying players the right to profit from their skills if someone is willing to pay them while they attend.... It's all due to some outdated notion of amateurism or their desire to control all the revenue streams.

[DukeAlumBS]

I could probably be convinced that a school does not have to be the one to pay the players, they do give scholarships and provide the platform, but there is no justification for denying players the right to profit from their skills if someone is willing to pay them while they attend.... It's all due to some outdated notion of amateurism or their desire to control all the revenue streams.

I don't agree the school should pay IMO Wheat, I feel a ROTC like set up. With signed legal stuff for the student and the school. And a monthly stipend to help. The student should sign for a 4 year education. That IMO is a good idea.
Now, would you all get off Wheat, he has been the only one being a sincere , supporter! All of you have been non compliant?
Can we focus on PJ HAIRSTON! THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT!
Nice day my friends, Jimmy

[Channing]

Theoretically, I agree that students should get a cut of the millions of dollars they are earning for schools and the NCAA. However, that leads down a lot of slippery slopes, and the potential for an even greater shift in talent to the profitable schools will certainly occur. Very few football and very few basketball programs turn a profit. So are we going to have programs that are already losing money pay the athletes? A school like Duke will never be able to pay its football players as much as FSU.

What about non-revenue sports? What about Title IX? I would venture no women's bball programs (except maybe Tenn and Conn) are profitable. Are we just going to pay the male and not the female athletes?

[CDu]

Theoretically, I agree that students should get a cut of the millions of dollars they are earning for schools and the NCAA. However, that leads down a lot of slippery slopes, and the potential for an even greater shift in talent to the profitable schools will certainly occur. Very few football and very few basketball programs turn a profit. So are we going to have programs that are already losing money pay the athletes? A school like Duke will never be able to pay its football players as much as FSU.

What about non-revenue sports? What about Title IX? I would venture no women's bball programs (except maybe Tenn and Conn) are profitable. Are we just going to pay the male and not the female athletes?

Technically, I think the Title IX thing isn't an issue. If the money is entirely based off of a percentage of revenue, then the non-revenue sports (which include women's sports) wouldn't get any money.

But I think if you start allowing for money to go to players, more non-revenue sports will go by the wayside in order to fund revenue-sport stipends. That would be spiting the folks who are closer to the reflection of the student athlete concept (as I suspect the graduation rate for non-revenue sports is much higher than the graduation rate in the revenue sports due to the lack of early entry.

Essentially, I see no reason why universities should have to pay players in response to a rule implemented by the NBA that they have no control over.

[NSDukeFan]

I could probably be convinced that a school does not have to be the one to pay the players, they do give scholarships and provide the platform, but there is no justification for denying players the right to profit from their skills if someone is willing to pay them while they attend.... It's all due to some outdated notion of amateurism or their desire to control all the revenue streams.

I think this discussion is interesting and the related O'Bannon case. I certainly believe that a full-ride scholarship is a great reimbursement for the players, that hopefully they take advantage of. I can also agree that there is an awful lot of money in college sports that does not go to the athletes. I don't think paying players is the answer and am not sure that I would even agree a stipend would be a good thing.

Realistically, how many student-athletes, of the thousands in division 1 basketball and/or football, would be able to generate a significantly higher income for themselves than an athletic scholarship, if they were not affiliated with a brand name school? 20 in basketball? 30 in football? I don't know and maybe my guess is way off, but I don't believe every football and/or basketball player in D-1 sports should be paid because Jabari Parker, Andrew Wiggins, Julius Randle and 10 other players could be professional basketball players and/or make money playing basketball, or through endorsements, if college wasn't the best option for them to train to go pro. Even for these top players, college ball offers them the scholarship and the best arena to display their skills to show their future employers.

[Wander]

college ball offers them the scholarship and the best arena to display their skills to show their future employers.

This is a HUGE advantage that often goes understated in these discussions. Maybe it doesn't matter for guys like Wiggins who are well known in high school, but for the many players who work their way onto NBA draft radars while in college, it's a huge deal. What would Stephen Curry be doing with his life right now if not for the exposure offered because of athletic scholarships? I guess it's possible he'd still be in the NBA, but the road to get there would have been a lot more challenging.

[Duvall]

What would Stephen Curry be doing with his life right now if not for the exposure offered because of athletic scholarships? I guess it's possible he'd still be in the NBA, but the road to get there would have been a lot more challenging.

Well, maybe. He did have an inside connection with at least one franchise.

[Jarhead]

It is a mystery to me just what salaries for student athletes has to do with the the PJ Hairston situation, but I'll have to play along. It seems to me that what could be a very complicated process has been condensed to silly plan to give a stipend to athletes out of "profits" of their colleges. What if no profits are made? Where does the money come from. Is it fair to pay quarterbacks but not female soccer goalies? How will that decision be made? What NCAA rules, better yet, what Federal laws will have to be changed to allow the salaries to be paid to some athletes, and not to others. What Federal laws are germain in this issue? How would the pro leagues be involved? My guess is that they would refuse the opportunity, unless they decide to fore go the draft process. That would change their whole on-field, court or ice competition structure. Are they willing to do that? And who knows what is actually profit? How does a non-profit institution account for profits. Don't they have a problem with taxes if they start distributing mystery profits? Does anybody want the Congress to get involved in this?

There are still more angles raising bunches of other questions, too many for me to identify, and more than likely go beyond simple college athletics. On the other hand, to go deeper in this probably would go beyond the boundaries of public policy discussion.

Oops, I didn't notice the new thread, so forget what I said about Hairston.

[DukeAlumBS]

It is a mystery to me just what salaries for student athletes has to do with the the PJ Hairston situation, but I'll have to play along. It seems to me that what could be a very complicated process has been condensed to silly plan to give a stipend to athletes out of "profits" of their colleges. What if no profits are made? Where does the money come from. Is it fair to pay quarterbacks but not female soccer goalies? How will that decision be made? What NCAA rules, better yet, what Federal laws will have to be changed to allow the salaries to be paid to some athletes, and not to others. What Federal laws are germain in this issue? How would the pro leagues be involved? My guess is that they would refuse the opportunity, unless they decide to fore go the draft process. That would change their whole on-field, court or ice competition structure. Are they willing to do that? And who knows what is actually profit? How does a non-profit institution account for profits. Don't they have a problem with taxes if they start distributing mystery profits? Does anybody want the Congress to get involved in this?

There are still more angles raising bunches of other questions, too many for me to identify, and more than likely go beyond simple college athletics. On the other hand, to go deeper in this probably would go beyond the boundaries of public policy discussion.

Oops, I didn't notice the new thread, so forget what I said about Hairston.

Thank you very much my friend. We are not going to settle that payment issue here. We may keep on line and see if we can insult Roy to can Hairston. And get on with life.
You have a nice day, Jimmy

[chaosmage]

with Bilas. He is of the opinion that a scholly is not enough, and that paying the players won't cause any problems. What I think he fails to see is, as has been pointed out many times, his opinions about parity will fall apart once player "salaries" come into play. UNCC or Winthrop can't pay a player anything near what UNX or Duke can, and the NCAA can scream about regulating it all they won't... other things (as they already have) will come into play.

Just don't see it happening and being equal.

[Bluedog]

with Bilas. He is of the opinion that a scholly is not enough, and that paying the players won't cause any problems. What I think he fails to see is, as has been pointed out many times, his opinions about parity will fall apart once player "salaries" come into play. UNCC or Winthrop can't pay a player anything near what UNX or Duke can, and the NCAA can scream about regulating it all they won't... other things (as they already have) will come into play.

Just don't see it happening and being equal.

I agree. Maybe it "won't cause any problems" for the basketball program just looking at it from a standalone perspective, but for athletic budgets as a whole it could have a serious impact depending on how much money we're talking about. Say goodbye to swimming, wrestling, field hockey, tennis, etc. at MANY universities if they have to pay the men's basketball and football players based on the amount of revenue they bring in. If it's just a $2-3k allotment, or going to the Olympic model wherein athletes can make money outside the university (e.g. endorsements), then athletic budgets could still manage.

[75Crazie]

Why should it be incumbent on the colleges to pay the players? The major college basketball and football programs are un-subsidized farm leagues for the professional leagues, so make the NBA and NFL step up and subsidize the "farm leagues" like MLB does for its baseball farm teams.

And while we're at it ... remove the ridiculous requirement that a player only interested in progression to a professional league has to attend college-level courses. Quit trying to pay lip-service to outdated NCAA rules and recognize big-time college sports for what it is -- a developmental league for the pros. Don't penalize a college player if he/she wants to try for a degree and attend classes, but likewise don't penalize a player who doesn't have the chops for college and is only there because it is the only viable path to the pros.

Baseball gets it right. There are two paths to the majors, either signing with a team out of high school and progressing through the farm system, or attending a college and developing your skills while there by playing college ball. It's too late for that for football or basketball, but that doesn't mean that some sort of compromise isn't feasible.

[Henderson]

This discussion of whether college athletes who generate profits for their universities should be paid more than the cost of education is older than the context. It's really about how you measure the value of labor. Do you objectify it? ("He's getting a lot in the form of a free education, and that's about right."). Or do you argue the free market? ("Hey, if he doesn't want to go to college for free and play basketball, he can choose to do something else.") Or do you use a labor theory of value? ("The value of a his labor for the university should be measured by what his labor adds to the value of the product -- i.e. the money the university rakes in.")

There are problems with each, including:

Objectification: Some educations are worth more than others, and many kids don't give a rip about the education and so don't value it at all.

Free market: If the other "choices" are not realistic for an 18 year old (Europe is far away and rife with language issues; D-League pays crap and isn't a good showcase for the NBA, because it's not televised much), the choice is illusory.

Labor theory of value: Some schools don't make money on B-ball; some don't make money on sports at all. And what profits they do generate are used in whole or in part to support other non-revenue sports, including opportunities for women under Title IX. Even schools with great programs in this sport or that sport struggle in the Athletic Department to make a "profit" after covering all the other sports. Plus, some kids generate a lot more value than others. Pay them more?

It's a puzzlement. But it's a 19th Century puzzlement transcending college sports, pitting Marx against socialists against Adam Smith.

[Wander]

Quit trying to pay lip-service to outdated NCAA rules and recognize big-time college sports for what it is -- a developmental league for the pros.

And what about the thousands upon thousands of college players who don't use NCAA sports as a developmental league for the pros? Should the last girl off the bench on the field hockey team not be required to take any classes? I don't think you're suggesting that, but how do you decide who's good enough to meet this no-classes option?

Now, I do think one good reform would be to allow kids who play sports to count that sport as a class and thus reduce the coursework required to be considered a full time student. Similar to how independent study/independent research/senior thesis courses work at Duke (and I assume elsewhere).

[DukeWarhead]

What do players deserve?

I would offer William Munny's words to a soon to be dispatched Little Bill in Unforgiven: "Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

The idea of fairness is too vague, too subjective to apply to benefits for college athletes. Is it fair that they don't get a cut of the big sports paycheck? How much would be fair? Would it be fair if some players got a bigger cut that others? Would it be fair if only a couple conferences were competitive for a championship every year?

A great lesson for all college kids, fairness doesn't always apply.

"But the school makes millions! Player's deserve some of that!" Deserve's got nothing to do with it.

[Indoor66]

What do players deserve?

I would offer William Munny's words to a soon to be dispatched Little Bill in Unforgiven: "Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

The idea of fairness is too vague, too subjective to apply to benefits for college athletes. Is it fair that they don't get a cut of the big sports paycheck? How much would be fair? Would it be fair if some players got a bigger cut that others? Would it be fair if only a couple conferences were competitive for a championship every year?

A great lesson for all college kids, fairness doesn't always apply.

"But the school makes millions! Player's deserve some of that!" Deserve's got nothing to do with it.

Kind a reminds me of something I heard in Law School - If you want justice, haul your butt over to Divinity. We don't deal in it here.

[SoCalDukeFan]

First of all the great majority of college athletes are not exploited, imho. They get an opportunity for an education and can play a sport they probably love.

There are some players that are. Clearly when the NCAA is profiting (and I guess maybe they are stopping it) from video games with a player's image and number on the box and they player gets no compensation, they he is being exploited. The NBA contributes but forcing kids to choose between Europe, the NBDL, or a year in college even if they are fully ready for the NBA. Or the schools, conferences, and the NCAA making unlimited millions from bowl games and basketball playoffs and the college players - some of whom might make millions if they could play in the NBA or NFL - are limited to the scholarship, then I think they are exploited.

Maybe allow boosters, video game companies etc. to pay the players but not the schools. The boosters are paying anyway, just under the table.

SoCal

[toooskies]

Labor theory of value: Some schools don't make money on B-ball; some don't make money on sports at all. And what profits they do generate are used in whole or in part to support other non-revenue sports, including opportunities for women under Title IX. Even schools with great programs in this sport or that sport struggle in the Athletic Department to make a "profit" after covering all the other sports.

Reducing the benefit of having a sports team to its profits vastly underestimates the value that the team provides. Athletics is the primary outreach program of a school with its alumni. If you're talking TV revenue and ticket/merchandise sales, you aren't taking into account the actual benefit to the school of a competitive athletic team. How much do Alabama's donations drop without everyone in the state saying "Roll Tide"? How important is Duke's basketball team as a recruiting tool? There's also historical connection: how many of us know more about the Duke athletics program than academics? If the quads on campus weren't named after them, would you be able to name more university Presidents than basketball coaches?

Put another way: how much money would you have to donate annually to Duke for them to NOT have a scholarship basketball team? I'm sure it's at least double their annual revenue.

[DukeWarhead]

Kind a reminds me of something I heard in Law School - If you want justice, haul your butt over to Divinity. We don't deal in it here.

I love that. Thanks for sharing.

[75Crazie]

And what about the thousands upon thousands of college players who don't use NCAA sports as a developmental league for the pros? Should the last girl off the bench on the field hockey team not be required to take any classes? I don't think you're suggesting that, but how do you decide who's good enough to meet this no-classes option?

Now, I do think one good reform would be to allow kids who play sports to count that sport as a class and thus reduce the coursework required to be considered a full time student. Similar to how independent study/independent research/senior thesis courses work at Duke (and I assume elsewhere).
Wander, I was only addressing what I called "big-time" college sports, meaning specifically football and basketball. Personally, I have no idea of any kind what the development process is for most of the minor sports. I see no need for changing what I perceive to be something that is not broken regarding those sports. And for mid-tier sports like soccer and hockey, I do believe there are sufficient developmental opportunities that do not require college attendance.

My concern is that for two of the three highest-visibility, highest-grossing professional sports leagues in this country, there are next to no alternatives for advancement in the sport other than attending college and having to pay lip-service to the academic hypocrisy of the NCAA. I have yet to hear any reasonable explanation as to why attendance in college classes is a necessary prerequisite for advancement to professional football or basketball.

[BigWayne]

Another interesting angle to this discussed here: http://blutarsky.wordpress.com/2013/07/19/saving-the-ncaas-bacon/

I can really see this happening somehow. If anything were to come out of the O'Bannon suit that created a system
of payment to the players, the government is going to get all involved with it anyway as there will surely be Title IX
based lawsuits to go along with it.

[johnb]

Football and basketball players spend an inordinate amount of time working out, practicing, playing games, traveling, and recuperating. As a group, they also come from some of the poorest backgrounds of any students at most major universities. There have been some counter-examples on Duke teams, but--as was pointed out in the Fab 5 film--Duke is unusual in that it tends to successfully recruit a hugely disproportionate percentage of the top 40 players who also happen to be middle class and/or went to solid high schools.

All this is to say that since the system is churning through LOTS of cash in the revenue sports (regardless of whether the number turns out to be profit or loss), then it seems to me reasonable to hand out monthly stipends that would amount to something akin to work study amounts to those students who would have qualified for financial aid at the university. In other words, I don't see a particular need to send checks to the Plumlees, but $300/month would make college life a lot more bearable to the MANY football and basketball players who otherwise don't have enough money to go on a date--and don't have the option of working to make that money.

I have no problem not giving it to the tennis players, but I can also imagine it being ok to pay them a stipend as well, assuming they qualify based on some sort of parental income criterion. And if colleges can't afford to pay this sort of modest amount, then they can eliminate an assistant coach from a single sport--or just reduce their number of scholarships somewhere.

In other words, it seems naive and insensitive to hold on to the idea that the football/bball athletes should be viewed the same way as the people who row crew at Williams. The latter group parlayed their sport into an enhanced likelihood of admission, but it's almost guaranteed that crew was not an athletic option at the high schools that produced Sean Dockery and David Henderson and Chris Carrawell and virtually the entire football lineup of every team in the SEC. Unless you have spent a lot of time with these guys, preferably in their home environment, I just think it presumptuous to criticize them for trying to grab a few of the crumbs from the very big pie that they are instrumental in baking.

[DukeWarhead]

In other words, I don't see a particular need to send checks to the Plumlees, but $300/month would make college life a lot more bearable to the MANY football and basketball players who otherwise don't have enough money to go on a date--and don't have the option of working to make that money.

In other words, it seems naive and insensitive to hold on to the idea that the football/bball athletes should be viewed the same way as the people who row crew at Williams. The latter group parlayed their sport into an enhanced likelihood of admission, but it's almost guaranteed that crew was not an athletic option at the high schools that produced Sean Dockery and David Henderson and Chris Carrawell and virtually the entire football lineup of every team in the SEC. Unless you have spent a lot of time with these guys, preferably in their home environment, I just think it presumptuous to criticize them for trying to grab a few of the crumbs from the very big pie that they are instrumental in baking.


1. Five fingers coming together to make a fist aint going to work if three are getting paid and two aren't.

2. You seem to forget that there are millions of college kids living on ramen and saltines just to get through school, regardless of the size house their parents live in. And nobody is posting their highlights of their intern work at the library on Sportscenter.

[DukeWarhead]

Football and basketball players spend an inordinate amount of time working out, practicing, playing games, traveling, and recuperating. .

Many regular college kids spend and inordinate amount of time working (because they have to pay their own tuition), studying (because they don't have tutors), riding their bike to campus (because they can't afford/or even get access to a campus parking pass).

True - athletes are busy, especially during the season. However, trying to suggest that they get the short end of the stick in comparison to the average college student just doesn't fly.

Of the two universties I attended and two at which I have instructed, the 'big sport" athletes are well taken care of. (and I mean well.)

[Wander]

$300/month would make college life a lot more bearable to the MANY football and basketball players who otherwise don't have enough money to go on a date--and don't have the option of working to make that money.


Allow me to quote you a piece from an article that came out when it was first announced that Mike Gbinije was transferring from Duke:

"Having a job, especially one that forces him away from his busy life on West Campus, has further thrust Gbinije into the general population of Duke’s Class of 2015.

“I usually don’t walk around putting myself on a higher pedestal—I try to be as humble as I can,” he said. “And I think getting a job at the Marketplace allows me to do [that and] make some money, but more importantly I get to interact with the people on East Campus because usually I’m never there.”

The decision is already paying dividends as Gbinije gets to know his classmates. Once, a surprised student asked him why he was working there when he is on full scholarship.

“Just trying to be a regular student,” Gbinije recalled answering."

[Wander]

I have yet to hear any reasonable explanation as to why attendance in college classes is a necessary prerequisite for advancement to professional football or basketball.

Well, why was it necessary for me to take a foreign language course as a math major? I'd like to think it was a good experience and I appreciate that Duke made me do it, but it certainly wasn't REQUIRED for my future job.

In some sense, I agree with you - I think kids should just be allowed to jump to NBA after high school if they want. I just don't find it a moral outrage that athletes are expected to take classes.

[MarkD83]

Objectification:
Free market:
Labor theory of value:

Henderson's division of this issue into the three areas does clarify this issue for me and adds another twist to the discussion.

If one wants to pay college basketball and football players based on a free market value then you have to ask what is the value of the basketball or football program you are attending.

Would you accept being paid nothing to go to Duke and play basketball for Coach K and be on TV most of the time or would you want $10,000/year and play for a team that is finishing at the bottom of some other conference and never gets on TV?

A free market would not set aside a stipend for every student based on revenue...as I understand Henderson's analysis a stipend based on revenue would be the labor theory of value.

[johnb]

1. Five fingers coming together to make a fist aint going to work if three are getting paid and two aren't.

2. You seem to forget that there are millions of college kids living on ramen and saltines just to get through school, regardless of the size house their parents live in. And nobody is posting their highlights of their intern work at the library on Sportscenter.


1. I'm fine paying everyone the stipend... you're probably right that differentiating based on parental income is likely to be more dividing than it's worth.

2. OTOH, most kids at Duke are not surviving on ramen and saltines three meals a day. And it's true that their work is not posted on Sportscenter, but I'd argue that around the clock, 12-month-a-year effort that is being publicly critiqued is not completely a blessing. If one of our starters does not perform as well as we would like, even this site will erupt into critiques. Do they get special attention, special admissions, special tutors? Sure. I'm ambivalent about big time sports. But it is big time, and there's lots of money going to administrators, schools, and coaches. The young men in the revenue sports happen to come from families that are disproportionally poor (if you have data that indicates that most starting football and basketball players at D1 schools are secretly middle class, I await the data). So while clearly their athletic prowess is often a step out of poverty (a step that sinks backward, unfortunately, as often as it propels them forward), I don't see the problem with paying them some cash for the time and effort they put into what amounts to a year-round, difficult, full-time job. $300-400 per month probably works out to $3/hour to a group of kids who have an unusually valuable skill set. As for the extras that go to them, extra sneakers are nice, but you can't actually wear 20 pairs of shoes at a time.

[BigWayne]

Football and basketball players spend an inordinate amount of time working out, practicing, playing games, traveling, and recuperating. As a group, they also come from some of the poorest backgrounds of any students at most major universities. There have been some counter-examples on Duke teams, but--as was pointed out in the Fab 5 film--Duke is unusual in that it tends to successfully recruit a hugely disproportionate percentage of the top 40 players who also happen to be middle class and/or went to solid high schools.

All this is to say that since the system is churning through LOTS of cash in the revenue sports (regardless of whether the number turns out to be profit or loss), then it seems to me reasonable to hand out monthly stipends that would amount to something akin to work study amounts to those students who would have qualified for financial aid at the university. In other words, I don't see a particular need to send checks to the Plumlees, but $300/month would make college life a lot more bearable to the MANY football and basketball players who otherwise don't have enough money to go on a date--and don't have the option of working to make that money.

I have no problem not giving it to the tennis players, but I can also imagine it being ok to pay them a stipend as well, assuming they qualify based on some sort of parental income criterion. And if colleges can't afford to pay this sort of modest amount, then they can eliminate an assistant coach from a single sport--or just reduce their number of scholarships somewhere.

In other words, it seems naive and insensitive to hold on to the idea that the football/bball athletes should be viewed the same way as the people who row crew at Williams. The latter group parlayed their sport into an enhanced likelihood of admission, but it's almost guaranteed that crew was not an athletic option at the high schools that produced Sean Dockery and David Henderson and Chris Carrawell and virtually the entire football lineup of every team in the SEC. Unless you have spent a lot of time with these guys, preferably in their home environment, I just think it presumptuous to criticize them for trying to grab a few of the crumbs from the very big pie that they are instrumental in baking.

What some are neglecting is that in the current governmental climate and the current academia environment, it is not possible to set up a system that treats the men's BBall and football players differently than all other student-athletes in a directly documentable way It can be done to some extent by indirect methods like facilities and extracurricular programs, which likely happens at every school. Any system involving monetary benefits will end up creating a paper trail of who gets it and who doesn't. Activists from various corners will come out of the woodwork to protest and sue for equal treatment. University administrations in their pursuit of social equity will cave to such pressure in mere nanoseconds.

[TampaDuke]

In my opinion, anyone arguing that a free market should govern pay for college athletes, is forgetting that the free market doesn't even govern professional salaries.If you start paying athletes, do you also institute a salary cap? How about a draft? Do athletes get to bargain with schools or the NCAA? Should they be able to strike? Once you open the door, be prepared for all of these issues to be front and center continuously.

If you just allow boosters to pay players in the open, do you limit the amount? Should schools with hundreds of thousands of alumni get to pay grossly more than others with a smaller alumni base? If so, do you think Duke would be a prime choice for 5-star recruits ten years from now if Oklahoma State, Oregon, Ohio State, Texas, etc., can offer vastly more?

Any debate about paying athletes should include, if not emphasize, how such a system would impact competitive balance,in addition to the impact on the academic integrity and nature of collegiate education.

[Atlanta Duke]

What do players deserve?...

"But the school makes millions! Player's deserve some of that!" Deserve's got nothing to do with it.

But the Sherman Antitrust Act might:)

With regard to the Ed O'Bannon lawsuit:

O’Bannon filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of himself and other former college athletes against the NCAA and Collegiate Licensing Company (“CLC”), the entity that manages the NCAA’s licensing agreements ... Citing the Sherman Antitrust Act, O’Bannon asserted that the NCAA and CLC created an unreasonable restraint of trade by conspiring to “fix the price for the use of his image at zero.”...

The impetus for the lawsuit is “Form 08-3a”, which the NCAA requires student-athletes to sign before participating in athletics. Via the form, student-athletes give the NCAA permission to use their images and likenesses to “promote NCAA championships or other NCAA events, activities or programs.” O’Bannon asserts that Form 08-3a is an unenforceable “adhesion contract” through which the NCAA compels uninformed college athletes to forfeit all rights to license their images and likenesses.

http://winthropintelligence.com/2012/05/06/student-athlete-licensing-program-how-could-it-happen-and-what-are-the-elements/

The O'Bannon lawsuit initially focused on video game revenue in which players' likenesses were used - the NCAA terminated its video game licensing agreement with EA this week

NCAA officials were quick to claim that their decision to toss EA overboard was business as usual and did not signal anything of importance, suggesting that the action was based on "the current business climate" and the "costs of litigation." Yeah, right. It was based more on the current litigation climate and the costs of a loss in court.

Until the decision to dump EA this week, the NCAA faced the possibility, if not the probability, of endless payments to athletes whose moves, images and uniform numbers were featured in EA games. Each year's edition was an addition to the damages that would be awarded to players, if the players were successful.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9491666/latest-developments-ncaa-electronic-arts-lawsuit-significantly-change-case

But now the plot in the O'Bannon lawsuit has thickened

Even as the NCAA was for the first time acknowledging the possibility of a major loss to O'Bannon and the other players, the plaintiffs' attorneys changed everything with their addition of six current players to their roster.

With current players now included in the lawsuit, the NCAA faces the prospect of a serious threat to its television income. The O'Bannon lawyers hinted at the prospect in a hearing on July 5 before U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken when they suggested that current players would open the "injunctive" phase of the litigation.

Until the addition of current players, the O'Bannon group had been seeking only "damages," a payment of money for the use of their images. Current players have what lawyers and judges call "standing" to demand a piece of current income. Because they are playing now, the current players have the right to argue that they are entitled to a share of current NCAA revenue, including television revenue.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9491666/latest-developments-ncaa-electronic-arts-lawsuit-significantly-change-case

The business model of the NCAA and the major conferences going forward is based on growing TV revenue in general and getting cable companies to pay large $$ for conference networks such as Big Ten Network in particular.

If the players are able to get into the TV $$$ it not only changes the financial dynamics of the "pay the players" argument but potentially blows up the cash flow assumptions upon which big time college football and basketball are based