PDA

View Full Version : Disagree with Coach Cutcliffe



SoCalDukeFan
09-26-2013, 03:22 PM
http://college-football.si.com/2013/09/25/david-cutcliffe-ncaa-tacos/?sct=cf_t2_a7

Quote:
"And nobody is really getting rich off of this;"


Lets see
What is Coach Cut's Salary? Coach K's? Mark Emmert's? Brent Musberger's? etc. etc. etc.

There are a lot of people getting rich off of college sports.

SoCal

Dev11
09-26-2013, 03:36 PM
http://college-football.si.com/2013/09/25/david-cutcliffe-ncaa-tacos/?sct=cf_t2_a7

Quote:
"And nobody is really getting rich off of this;"


Lets see
What is Coach Cut's Salary? Coach K's? Mark Emmert's? Brent Musberger's? etc. etc. etc.

There are a lot of people getting rich off of college sports.

SoCal

Not that it helps a ton, but Cut clarified today on the David Glenn Show that he meant that schools aren't profiting, given the costs of running the programs. However, his undisclosed-but-widely-assumed 7 figure salary is flying in the face of that argument, too.

allenmurray
09-26-2013, 10:24 PM
Not that it helps a ton, but Cut clarified today on the David Glenn Show that he meant that schools aren't profiting, given the costs of running the programs. However, his undisclosed-but-widely-assumed 7 figure salary is flying in the face of that argument, too.

Median household (not individual, but household) income in NC is under $50k a year. I know people who make ten times that who swear they are "middle class". Coach Cut may not think he's rich.

sagegrouse
09-26-2013, 10:37 PM
Median household (not individual, but household) income in NC is under $50k a year. I know people who make ten times that who swear they are "middle class". Coach Cut may not think he's rich.

Here's one reference (http://www.coacheshotseat.com/DavidCutcliffe.htm)that says he's making $1.75 M per year. Wikipedia says $1.5. I think David would agree he is "rich," unless he has some hidden debts or losses in his past.

sagegrouse

Jarhead
09-26-2013, 11:12 PM
When it comes to coaches high salaries there is a market place that decides on what those salaries will be. If anyone thinks the salaries should be lower, in what range should they be? If a Division 1 school wants to save some money, I would accept an offer of $100,000 right now. It would sure be fun for me, but I don't think my team would win a single game.

Beyond that, I am getting a bit annoyed by those who complain about the sports profits made by the colleges. They are what is known as non-profit. They follow a different set of accounting rules. They have no ownership to whom profits are distributed. All of the revenues earned or contributed go into funds for use in supporting the programs and research of the university or college. At any level, in order to get good people working for the university, good salaries and benefits must be provided for the entire body of employees, faculty and staff. Is that what folks are complaining about?

SoCalDukeFan
09-26-2013, 11:29 PM
When it comes to coaches high salaries there is a market place that decides on what those salaries will be. If anyone thinks the salaries should be lower, in what range should they be? If a Division 1 school wants to save some money, I would accept an offer of $100,000 right now. It would sure be fun for me, but I don't think my team would win a single game.

Beyond that, I am getting a bit annoyed by those who complain about the sports profits made by the colleges. They are what is known as non-profit. They follow a different set of accounting rules. They have no ownership to whom profits are distributed. All of the revenues earned or contributed go into funds for use in supporting the programs and research of the university or college. At any level, in order to get good people working for the university, good salaries and benefits must be provided for the entire body of employees, faculty and staff. Is that what folks are complaining about?

Sure there is a marketplace and maybe Cut but certainly K could make as much or more in the pros. But college football and basketball are big business, some people are making a lot of money. Not the players.

You like the marketplace so much, why not a marketplace for college age football players?

Why should football and basketball players have to be part of non profits and see the profit from their labors distributed to other sports?

SoCal

johnb
09-26-2013, 11:33 PM
When it comes to coaches high salaries there is a market place that decides on what those salaries will be. If anyone thinks the salaries should be lower, in what range should they be? If a Division 1 school wants to save some money, I would accept an offer of $100,000 right now. It would sure be fun for me, but I don't think my team would win a single game.

Beyond that, I am getting a bit annoyed by those who complain about the sports profits made by the colleges. ...

Accounting is interesting. Cutcliffe has become a (more) wealthy man at Duke. K had obviously become a rich man as a Duke employee And they got their salaries because of the marketplace. If players can use the same marketplace to leverage their position and get payment for themselves, I don't begrudge them much. Does Duke get hurt? I'd guess that Duke has been as helped by college athletics as any college. We may be non-profit, but Duke has profited a lot by its athletes and coaches, who have--in turn--profited by being part of the broader Duke community....

throatybeard
09-27-2013, 01:03 AM
This raises a question.

Is Duke FB actually making money?

I ask because you routinely see articles that contend that only about half the I-A schools turn a profit on FB, due to the fact that FB takes so much human resources in scholarship terms. We can't fill the stadium. We basically can't win. (I mean, I like Cut, and I want him here, but we haven't even come close to, say, 9-3. I'm all for building a statue to him after the 6-7 season, given the circumstances, but we still ain't Texas).

I thought I saw something during the Franks or Roof era that said we lost about half a million on FB, in a given year, and (this amazed me, given how successful WBB has been here) about 1M on WBB. It said we are a one-revenue-sport school. And what happens after Krzyzeswki retires and some replacement goes 15-15 one year? Yikes.

Des Esseintes
09-27-2013, 01:39 AM
This raises a question.

Is Duke FB actually making money?

I ask because you routinely see articles that contend that only about half the I-A schools turn a profit on FB, due to the fact that FB takes so much human resources in scholarship terms. We can't fill the stadium. We basically can't win. (I mean, I like Cut, and I want him here, but we haven't even come close to, say, 9-3. I'm all for building a statue to him after the 6-7 season, given the circumstances, but we still ain't Texas).

I thought I saw something during the Franks or Roof era that said we lost about half a million on FB, in a given year, and (this amazed me, given how successful WBB has been here) about 1M on WBB. It said we are a one-revenue-sport school. And what happens after Krzyzeswki retires and some replacement goes 15-15 one year? Yikes.

According to this guy (http://www.dukesportsblog.com/a-look-at-duke-footballs-finances/), whose data comes from ESPN, Duke football is modestly profitable. Since Duke is private, the info is incomplete, but based on what we have Duke averaged $70,804,027 in revenue the past five years and $70,526,074 in expenses. So we made a little under $400k/year. *fires cannons* Tenth in the conference in profitability. FSU was #1 ACC, making almost $10M.

This site (http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/06/20/which-football-and-basketball-programs-produce-the-largest-profits/) has different numbers, with much lower revenues and expenses. It claims Duke football cleared about $1.5M in 2010. Also, says Duke basketball netted $14M that year.

ETA: I checked the ESPN source info (http://b2.caspio.com/dp.asp) to which the first blog linked. One thing that jumped out to me was that Boston College, another private institution, listed identical amounts for both revenue and expenses. Pretty unlikely that they should balance so perfectly. That suggests that perhaps both Duke and BC are taking advantage of their private status to downplay the profitability of their programs. Or something? Someone with more experience could maybe cast some illumination?

throatybeard
09-27-2013, 02:42 AM
One thing that jumped out to me was that Boston College, another private institution, listed identical amounts for both revenue and expenses. Pretty unlikely that they should balance so perfectly. That suggests that perhaps both Duke and BC are taking advantage of their private status to downplay the profitability of their programs. Or something? Someone with more experience could maybe cast some illumination?

Curiouser and curiouser, said...Clarkston Hines.

allenmurray
09-27-2013, 07:09 AM
Here's one reference (http://www.coacheshotseat.com/DavidCutcliffe.htm)that says he's making $1.75 M per year. Wikipedia says $1.5. I think David would agree he is "rich," unless he has some hidden debts or losses in his past.

sagegrouse

He may agree - he may not. that was my point. As people make more money they lose sight of just how far ahead they are of others. In this country a family with an income of $250,000 is in the top 3% of all income earners. I bet most of them don't think of themselves as "rich", though they are surely outliers.

Reilly
09-27-2013, 07:47 AM
Some thoughts.

1. Cut's comments were made during his Tuesday press conference. That is up for viewing at goduke.com. I recommend watching the whole thing.

2. When Cut said nobody's getting rich, it immediately rang hollow -- at least on a superficial level -- as it was coming from a man making around $2m/year due to college athletics.

3. I think the poster above who noted Cut was probably meaning the schools are not getting rich off of the athletes is correct and is what Cut was getting at. The revenue sports (FB, MBB) fund entire athletic departments.

4. I think Cut doesn't like complainers, and doesn't like folks who focus on the negative. I think he believes that there is a lot *right* w/ revenue-producing college athletics:
- they help fund, for example, 26 teams at Duke
- they provide a rallying point for alums and fans and fun gatherings
- they give educational opportunity to hundreds of students per year/per institution, for free higher education
- the athletes have it good (training tables, trainers and medical staff, equipment and clothes, trips here and there, camaraderie ....)

In other words, college athletes are getting a lot, for "free" (or, for their service; or, for playing games), so quit complaining. And a lot of other good is coming from college sports -- thousands of jobs at schools (coaches, trainers, support staff), scholarships for non-revenue sports, and TV gets to make money, and college sports are part of our shared cultural life, and fun.

Yes, some folks are getting rich (Cut, K), but if you look at the thousands of colleges, those folks are probably the rare exception. And there's a lot of good that comes from college sports. So quit complaining. That's what I see Cut's comment meaning.

doctorhook
09-27-2013, 09:22 AM
This raises a question.

Is Duke FB actually making money?

I ask because you routinely see articles that contend that only about half the I-A schools turn a profit on FB, due to the fact that FB takes so much human resources in scholarship terms. We can't fill the stadium. We basically can't win. (I mean, I like Cut, and I want him here, but we haven't even come close to, say, 9-3. I'm all for building a statue to him after the 6-7 season, given the circumstances, but we still ain't Texas).

I thought I saw something during the Franks or Roof era that said we lost about half a million on FB, in a given year, and (this amazed me, given how successful WBB has been here) about 1M on WBB. It said we are a one-revenue-sport school. And what happens after Krzyzeswki retires and some replacement goes 15-15 one year? Yikes.

There was a recent article in the Triangle Business Journal which detailed the financial facts of the Triangle football programs. Sorry I can not provide the link but Duke football was profitable to the tune of 5 million dollars last year. Shocking, I know.

ChillinDuke
09-27-2013, 10:05 AM
Sure there is a marketplace and maybe Cut but certainly K could make as much or more in the pros. But college football and basketball are big business, some people are making a lot of money. Not the players.

You like the marketplace so much, why not a marketplace for college age football players?

Why should football and basketball players have to be part of non profits and see the profit from their labors distributed to other sports?

SoCal

As I have argued in other threads regarding this issue, they don't have to be part of non profits. They choose to.

And further, I am still not convinced that there is a market for their labor without having the college name on their helmets/chest/jersey/etc.

Do you pay to watch Clemson vs. Florida State if they are The Bashers vs. The Thrashers in the INHFL (Insert Name Here Football League)? Do you? I certainly don't - I substitute away to something else. Haven't we tried this with AFL and Canadian Football and even XFL? They may exist still in varying success ranges - but they are certainly no college football audience.

My point is all this ballyhoo over players not getting compensated for playing in college presumes there is a market for their services outside of college that college is precluding them from profiting in. I say, fine, try it - let the players secede and form a non-college league where they get paid (will never happen, I know). But do people out there really think even 2% of these kids would get paid if they didn't play for a school? Convince me of this, and I will start to agree on paying student athletes a salary.

- Chillin

sagegrouse
09-27-2013, 10:38 AM
There was a recent article in the Triangle Business Journal which detailed the financial facts of the Triangle football programs. Sorry I can not provide the link but Duke football was profitable to the tune of 5 million dollars last year. Shocking, I know.

Hmmm... I posted an insightful and brilliant response to this post 20 minutes ago but it never appeared. Now I'll have to start over on something much more prosaic.

Lessee.... Football revenue consists of


Gate receipts and concessions
TV revenue
Bowl revenue
Donations (usually considered in most analyses I have seen)



There are two problems in allocation of revenue: How do you divide the ESPN contract revenue, which was for football AND basketball, between the two sports? One could use the TV earnigns ofr each support I suppose, but it seems pretty arbitrary.

How do you allocated donations to sports, when usually they are not specific to a sport?

I would like to see a methodology described before I reached any conclusions.

sagegrouse
'My earlier post was much better'

SoCalDukeFan
09-27-2013, 11:32 AM
As I have argued in other threads regarding this issue, they don't have to be part of non profits. They choose to.

And further, I am still not convinced that there is a market for their labor without having the college name on their helmets/chest/jersey/etc.

Do you pay to watch Clemson vs. Florida State if they are The Bashers vs. The Thrashers in the INHFL (Insert Name Here Football League)? Do you? I certainly don't - I substitute away to something else. Haven't we tried this with AFL and Canadian Football and even XFL? They may exist still in varying success ranges - but they are certainly no college football audience.

My point is all this ballyhoo over players not getting compensated for playing in college presumes there is a market for their services outside of college that college is precluding them from profiting in. I say, fine, try it - let the players secede and form a non-college league where they get paid (will never happen, I know). But do people out there really think even 2% of these kids would get paid if they didn't play for a school? Convince me of this, and I will start to agree on paying student athletes a salary.

- Chillin

limit what college coaches get paid to what high school coaches get?

Then you would have more money for the other programs, the coaches could either not coach or coach for less money, you would still have fine coaches just like you do at the high school level.

The real problem is that college football and basketball are big business with big money being made by lots of people, but not by the stars that make the game. And Cut and the NCAA and others don't see that.

SoCal

ChillinDuke
09-27-2013, 11:40 AM
limit what college coaches get paid to what high school coaches get?

Then you would have more money for the other programs, the coaches could either not coach or coach for less money, you would still have fine coaches just like you do at the high school level.

There is no chance that I'm on board that the quality of coaches would stay equivalent in this scenario. Just like anything - the best coaches will (to some degree - likely a large one) substitute away to a profession that will compensate them for their skill set.


The real problem is that college football and basketball are big business with big money being made by lots of people, but not by the stars that make the game. And Cut and the NCAA and others don't see that.

SoCal

Do the stars make the game? Or do the school brands make them stars? And are we talking about "the stars" as about 1% of players?

- Chillin

Class of '94
09-27-2013, 11:45 AM
As I have argued in other threads regarding this issue, they don't have to be part of non profits. They choose to.

And further, I am still not convinced that there is a market for their labor without having the college name on their helmets/chest/jersey/etc.

Do you pay to watch Clemson vs. Florida State if they are The Bashers vs. The Thrashers in the INHFL (Insert Name Here Football League)? Do you? I certainly don't - I substitute away to something else. Haven't we tried this with AFL and Canadian Football and even XFL? They may exist still in varying success ranges - but they are certainly no college football audience.

My point is all this ballyhoo over players not getting compensated for playing in college presumes there is a market for their services outside of college that college is precluding them from profiting in. I say, fine, try it - let the players secede and form a non-college league where they get paid (will never happen, I know). But do people out there really think even 2% of these kids would get paid if they didn't play for a school? Convince me of this, and I will start to agree on paying student athletes a salary.

- Chillin

There's a lot of things that I disagree with when it comes to Jim Delaney and the Big Ten; but in this instance I agree with him on this matter of should college players get paid. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9723411/big-ten-commissioner-jim-delany-discusses-possible-football-basketball-changes

I think colleges should look at ways to further enhance and increase the value of scholarships; but I'm not sold on the idea of college players getting paid to play. One generally goes to college to learn and prepare for a professional career,not to get paid there. College coaching on the otherhand is a profession and they deservedly should get paid based on the countless hours spent teaching, training and developing these kids for a professional career and beyond. If college players want to get paid, go pro; and I think they should have the ability to bypass college all together or allow agents to invest in them to train for a year or two until eligible for the draft if players want to get paid. As Delaney pointed out, there are clearly players taht don't want to go to college and shouldn't foreced to do so.

People are making decent to good salaries as coaches and athletic administrators in this day and age compared to 50 years ago; and if anyone has a problem with that, imo you have to go deeper than college athletics and look at the whole industry of sports (and the premium that consumers are willing to pay for it) and ask yourself why people should get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions to play kid's games compared to people imo who provide a greater service to this country (like teachers, etc), many of which are vastly underpaid.

Jarhead
09-27-2013, 11:56 AM
Sure there is a marketplace and maybe Cut but certainly K could make as much or more in the pros. But college football and basketball are big business, some people are making a lot of money. Not the players.

You like the marketplace so much, why not a marketplace for college age football players?

Why should football and basketball players have to be part of non profits and see the profit from their labors distributed to other sports?

SoCal

I didn't miss the point. You moved it. The market place that I was talking about covers only the staffing of college coaching ranks. As for the players, you seem to prefer a system in which football players are hired just like campus cops, kitchen help, et al. That would require a massive change in rules and the environment of college sports, or would end it.

As for those making lots of money from college sports, they are outsiders that are beyond the control of the college system. They have to pay for access to the college system, and yeah, lots of money. That money makes its way to the colleges, and contributes to the total cost of running proper college institutions. Without it, then what?

sagegrouse
09-27-2013, 12:19 PM
limit what college coaches get paid to what high school coaches get?

Then you would have more money for the other programs, the coaches could either not coach or coach for less money, you would still have fine coaches just like you do at the high school level.

The real problem is that college football and basketball are big business with big money being made by lots of people, but not by the stars that make the game. And Cut and the NCAA and others don't see that.

SoCal

Would you also limit the income of doctors at Duke Med? Their true earnings are hidden in for-profit entities, but the number of seven-figure incomes there is substantial.

sagegrouse

SoCalDukeFan
09-27-2013, 03:20 PM
Would you also limit the income of doctors at Duke Med? Their true earnings are hidden in for-profit entities, but the number of seven-figure incomes there is substantial.

sagegrouse

I don't want to limit the income of doctors, coaches, or players. But if its necessary to limit what players get because schools need the funds for their other programs, then why not limit the coaches as well?

Interesting that Katherine Webb who gets at least some of her fame out of being AJ McCarron's girlfriend can be paid for Carl's Jr commercials but AJ can't get a free hamburger.

http://freebeacon.com/blog/katherine-webb-stars-in-hot-ad-college-football-boyfriend-cant/

The system has evolved to this: college football and basketball are very popular and there is no substantial minor league in either sport. Pro leagues won't take players right of high school and NFL requires 3 years. Works out great for the pro leagues who let the colleges develop and market future stars and they don't lose money on a minor league system. Rather than trying to figure out what is right for all concerned including the athletes, the NCAA chooses to allow players to be exploited and cries that is the fault of the pro leagues. All kinds of people make big money - coaches, NCAA leadership, announcers, etc etc off of college football and basketball. And that is something that Coach Cut should at least acknowledge.

SoCal

ChillinDuke
09-27-2013, 03:52 PM
I don't want to limit the income of doctors, coaches, or players. But if its necessary to limit what players get because schools need the funds for their other programs, then why not limit the coaches as well?

Because the simple counter to this argument is that this high salary is the market value for these coaches to be employed at their respective schools, thus allowing the school to bring in the recruits that they bring in. You can look at the coaches' high salaries as another of the (many) benefits that the school pays for on behalf of the athletes. Not saying you have to look at it this way, but you certainly could.


Interesting that Katherine Webb who gets at least some of her fame out of being AJ McCarron's girlfriend can be paid for Carl's Jr commercials but AJ can't get a free hamburger.

AJ McCarron definitely gets free hamburgers. His meals are paid for since he is a scholarship athlete.


The system has evolved to this: college football and basketball are very popular and there is no substantial minor league in either sport. Pro leagues won't take players right of high school and NFL requires 3 years. Works out great for the pro leagues who let the colleges develop and market future stars and they don't lose money on a minor league system.

Why is this consistently a sticking point with people? It's the employers right to impose whatever requirements they want for their prospective employees. Every job opening I've ever seen has "Requirements" listed. I'm an active CPA and wouldn't be considered for my current job unless I had 4 years of college, 1 year of masters, and passed the CPA exam. What gives me the right to say they can't do this? It's their prerogative. And I did what I had to do to be employed by them - because it was my choice. How is this materially different from a basketball player and the 1-year NBA rule?


Rather than trying to figure out what is right for all concerned including the athletes, the NCAA chooses to allow players to be exploited and cries that is the fault of the pro leagues. All kinds of people make big money - coaches, NCAA leadership, announcers, etc etc off of college football and basketball. And that is something that Coach Cut should at least acknowledge.

SoCal

Disagreeing is fine. But I will point out that you have evaded my two main questions, while reiterating your same point.

I don't see strong evidence that college athletes are exploited, i.e. I don't see strong evidence they could command payment for their services if they weren't playing in college. Without that evidence I just can't see why players should get paid to play. If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? If Johnny Football still has his same skillset and talent but doesn't play in college, does anyone care about him? More to the point, does anyone pay to watch him play? Maybe people do, I honestly don't know. But personally, I would not.

IMHO there are compelling arguments to be made that the colleges are the reason people want to watch the players to begin with. Not to mention there are compelling arguments that the NCAA is the already existing platform that the players need to showcase their play. These two arguments undermine a lot of the counter-arguments that players should get paid. Again, if players believe they can get paid in their own non-NCAA league instead of going to college, then good luck. It would require (a) creating a platform that the NCAA already has in terms of league structures, playoffs, etc, and (b) an enormous leap of faith that people would actually come to see the players as opposed to see their college. Try to quantify that as compensation.

- Chillin

RoyalBlue08
09-27-2013, 04:32 PM
I was really disappointed in Cut's comments. I think there are valid arguments on both sides of compensation for college athletes, but if I were a coach making a million dollars plus per season, I would have a hard time living with that fact given the restrictions on student athletes. (Although I have yet to hear an argument that makes any sense regarding the NCAA's stance on restricting players outside incomes. I think this will continue to be an issue until they lift these restrictions or are made to pay through the nose from antitrust litigation.)

It does makes me wonder what the true span of opinion is on this matter among coaches. I bet it is every bit as varied as it is on this message board. In particular I wonder how Coach K feels about all of this. I wonder if he will ever address it this season given that it is such a big topic now. I am sure he is going to be asked by some brave reporter some day.

SoCalDukeFan
09-27-2013, 04:47 PM
Because the simple counter to this argument is that this high salary is the market value for these coaches to be employed at their respective schools, thus allowing the school to bring in the recruits that they bring in. You can look at the coaches' high salaries as another of the (many) benefits that the school pays for on behalf of the athletes. Not saying you have to look at it this way, but you certainly could.



AJ McCarron definitely gets free hamburgers. His meals are paid for since he is a scholarship athlete.



Why is this consistently a sticking point with people? It's the employers right to impose whatever requirements they want for their prospective employees. Every job opening I've ever seen has "Requirements" listed. I'm an active CPA and wouldn't be considered for my current job unless I had 4 years of college, 1 year of masters, and passed the CPA exam. What gives me the right to say they can't do this? It's their prerogative. And I did what I had to do to be employed by them - because it was my choice. How is this materially different from a basketball player and the 1-year NBA rule?



Disagreeing is fine. But I will point out that you have evaded my two main questions, while reiterating your same point.

I don't see strong evidence that college athletes are exploited, i.e. I don't see strong evidence they could command payment for their services if they weren't playing in college. Without that evidence I just can't see why players should get paid to play. If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? If Johnny Football still has his same skillset and talent but doesn't play in college, does anyone care about him? More to the point, does anyone pay to watch him play? Maybe people do, I honestly don't know. But personally, I would not.

IMHO there are compelling arguments to be made that the colleges are the reason people want to watch the players to begin with. Not to mention there are compelling arguments that the NCAA is the already existing platform that the players need to showcase their play. These two arguments undermine a lot of the counter-arguments that players should get paid. Again, if players believe they can get paid in their own non-NCAA league instead of going to college, then good luck. It would require (a) creating a platform that the NCAA already has in terms of league structures, playoffs, etc, and (b) an enormous leap of faith that people would actually come to see the players as opposed to see their college. Try to quantify that as compensation.

- Chillin

I fully understand that coaches salaries are set in a competitive market place. I also understand that players are not. If Kyrie Irving sold his services to whatever college wanted him, then I am sure he would have gotten more than room, board, tuition, etc than he got in his one year at Duke. Furthemore why do the best coaches get paid the best but the players all get the same scholarship etc. regardless if they are a super star All American or a bench warmer?

You don't see evidence of college athletes being exploited. While EA Sports just settled with Ed O'Bannon. The NCAA was selling college stars jerseys . It goes on and on.

I should have said that Webb can get paid by Carl's Jr but McCarron can not get a free hamburger from Carl's Jr.

My wife went to USC and we have had season tickets for years. When they had lousy teams the Colisseum was half full, great teams 90,000, now 50,000. Same school, just different players (and coaches).

College does provide a platform for Johhny Football, and others. But he can not use it to benefit financially.

I fully understand that professions have requirements. My point is that the NCAA rather than trying to find a system that works for all, chooses instead to exploit the athletes and blames the pro leagues. I don't blame the pro leagues, the NCAA does. Of course, you don't think that college athletes who brings in big crowds and millions of dollars are being exploited. Before you met all the requirements to be a CPA did someone employ you as an accoutant at say 10% of what a real CPA gets paid, use your services to make millions of dollars which they then distributed to the partners?

SoCal

ChillinDuke
09-27-2013, 09:58 PM
I fully understand that coaches salaries are set in a competitive market place. I also understand that players are not. If Kyrie Irving sold his services to whatever college wanted him, then I am sure he would have gotten more than room, board, tuition, etc than he got in his one year at Duke. Furthemore why do the best coaches get paid the best but the players all get the same scholarship etc. regardless if they are a super star All American or a bench warmer?

You don't see evidence of college athletes being exploited. While EA Sports just settled with Ed O'Bannon. The NCAA was selling college stars jerseys . It goes on and on.

I should have said that Webb can get paid by Carl's Jr but McCarron can not get a free hamburger from Carl's Jr.

My wife went to USC and we have had season tickets for years. When they had lousy teams the Colisseum was half full, great teams 90,000, now 50,000. Same school, just different players (and coaches).

College does provide a platform for Johhny Football, and others. But he can not use it to benefit financially.

I fully understand that professions have requirements. My point is that the NCAA rather than trying to find a system that works for all, chooses instead to exploit the athletes and blames the pro leagues. I don't blame the pro leagues, the NCAA does. Of course, you don't think that college athletes who brings in big crowds and millions of dollars are being exploited.

Your view is a fair one. I guess where I struggle to get to is that any "exploitation" is of very few. To keep it close to home, can we legitimately argue that anyone on our very own Duke Football team is being "exploited"? Snap back to basketball - for every Kyrie example there are probably 20 full teams of players (280 players) that could be used as the counterexamples who could not command more than their scholarship package. So any solution would have to ensure that the system as a whole is still structurally sound for all the players or risk hurting the non-Kyrie's - which I assume you do not favor.

Which really brings me to think, if this "exploitation" isn't rampant - which I believe it is in the unquestionable and overwhelming minority - then it's the choice of those few to be "exploited". Meaning - the two or three Kyrie Irving's of each college basketball season have options available to them if they want to be paid more than a scholarship package. Go to Europe. Go to the D-League (where you likely won't get paid more than a scholarship package, by the way). Sit out a year and work out and let an agent bank roll you, if he/she's willing to take the risk.

It just seems silly to blow up this entire system so that <1% of players can get "fair market value" for their services at the expense of >99% of players who are arguably getting overpaid for their services, especially when those <1% have actual, real options if they so choose to spurn college. And again, they consistently choose not to exercise these options.


Before you met all the requirements to be a CPA did someone employ you as an accoutant at say 10% of what a real CPA gets paid, use your services to make millions of dollars which they then distributed to the partners?

SoCal

Yes. We were called interns.

Alright. I'll shut up now.

- Chillin

Jarhead
09-27-2013, 11:19 PM
Before you met all the requirements to be a CPA did someone employ you as an accoutant at say 10% of what a real CPA gets paid, use your services to make millions of dollars which they then distributed to the partners?

SoCal
Just about every profession has some sort of internship requirement. Interns are not paid the big bucks because they are totally inexperienced in their profession, and are prone to screwing up. I sure as he11 would not sign and submit a tax return prepared by an accounting intern, nor would I want a medical intern to perform surgery on me. Beginners in a profession, a craft, a skill really do need close supervision in any work they do. Running errands is even risky for the typical intern.

So why is it that you seem to think they should be paid at a higher scale while reducing the pay of their mentors? Higher pay should be based on ones level of competence.




Yes. We were called interns.

Alright. I'll shut up now.

- Chillin

Chillin, why did you give up so easily? I'll bet your first accounting assignment was something like taking inventory in some wharehouse, or box balancing the output from some computer report, or other menial tasks. Every beginner coming into a job needs to accrue considerable experience in a job before they are paid the big bucks. That's the way it should be.

Same thing goes for sports. I don't accept any logic that calls for paying college coaches the same as high school coaches. That is senseless. That's only one of SoCal's wild ideas that should be summarily dismissed.

ChillinDuke
09-27-2013, 11:33 PM
Chillin, why did you give up so easily? I'll bet your first accounting assignment was something like taking inventory in some wharehouse, or box balancing the output from some computer report, or other menial tasks. Every beginner coming into a job needs to accrue considerable experience in a job before they are paid the big bucks. That's the way it should be.

Didn't give up. I stuck with it: 3 summers as an accounting intern doing accounts receivable and payroll for small businesses.

Then 1 winter as an audit intern for hedge funds. 3 years as an auditor full-time, now moving into finance and investment valuation - all of this with the same firm. And I still don't get paid the big bucks by any metric. Needless to say, I agree with your sentiments.

And yes - I said hedge funds. So I'm quite familiar with the concept of people making millions while those facilitating are making comparatively humble compensation.

- Chillin

mkline09
09-28-2013, 07:53 AM
I would agree with an above poster that I'm sure Cutcliffe see's himself as financially well off if not rich. But he pays a cost as the job is 24 hours a day essentially seven days a week year round. Now, as a teacher, in North Carolina, it is hard for me not to see the money flowing toward college athletics and wonder how nice it would be to have an even a minuscule amount of that hit the NC Teacher salary pot which has remained stagnant for about 6 years now. But I teach cause I love it and though it isn't 7-days a week 24 hours a day, at times it feels like it. I know how much work it is for me and I can only imagine how much it is for Cut. Plus he doesn't get to spend time with family, especially during the season, and sacrificing the little things we all take for granted a bit with a regular 9 to 5 job. I disagree with the statement Cut made about no one getting rich, but I don't think he at all made it in a context that suggested everyone involved is poor. There are colleges operating programs at a loss or that are on hard financial times. Cough... Cough.. Maryland.

SoCalDukeFan
09-28-2013, 05:01 PM
Your view is a fair one. I guess where I struggle to get to is that any "exploitation" is of very few. To keep it close to home, can we legitimately argue that anyone on our very own Duke Football team is being "exploited"? Snap back to basketball - for every Kyrie example there are probably 20 full teams of players (280 players) that could be used as the counterexamples who could not command more than their scholarship package. So any solution would have to ensure that the system as a whole is still structurally sound for all the players or risk hurting the non-Kyrie's - which I assume you do not favor.

Which really brings me to think, if this "exploitation" isn't rampant - which I believe it is in the unquestionable and overwhelming minority - then it's the choice of those few to be "exploited". Meaning - the two or three Kyrie Irving's of each college basketball season have options available to them if they want to be paid more than a scholarship package. Go to Europe. Go to the D-League (where you likely won't get paid more than a scholarship package, by the way). Sit out a year and work out and let an agent bank roll you, if he/she's willing to take the risk.

It just seems silly to blow up this entire system so that <1% of players can get "fair market value" for their services at the expense of >99% of players who are arguably getting overpaid for their services, especially when those <1% have actual, real options if they so choose to spurn college. And again, they consistently choose not to exercise these options.



Yes. We were called interns.

Alright. I'll shut up now.

- Chillin

I fully agree with you that not every player is being exploited. And I don't have the perfect solution.
As a start we might let players sell their autograph etc.

As for the intern example, I would guess many interns think they are also exploited. In some basketball cases the freshmen player is the star of the team. How often are accounting interns the best accountant in the office?

Lastly the fact that coaches are paid a competitive salary. in my opinion, has no relevance to the discussion. Cut said no one was getting rich. Clearly some coaches are. The system which involves not playing players creates the wealth which allows competitive multi million dollar salaries for coaches. I could also argue that the schools are also getting rich, and choosing to distribute the riches to other programs in the athletic department.

SoCal

Devil549
09-29-2013, 08:39 PM
I will not say anything negative about how much money anybody makes in a legal, meaningful job. Also these kids get a FREE education if they are Pell Grant eligible then they can get full Pell on top of their free education.

Also if football and men's basketball did not make the money they make, have TV contracts they have other sports at DI level would not be funded as well. Watch a lacrosse, baseball, volleyball or soccer game on ESPN and let me now if you think they could make it on ticket sales or be on TV if they were not part of a TV deal.

All these student athletes travel the country play in games, fly free, eat and stay in great or at least nice hotels. The only time I ate free in college was when I went home for the holidays and I had to pay for my own gas and hope my dad would slip me a $10 for gas money back (gas about 50 cents a gallon back then....I know I am getting old).