College athletes exploited?

[huskyd]

According to a front page essay in today's Outlook section of the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...black-athletes-but-they-could-force-a-change/, college athletes are exploited by the NCAA because they play w/out pay. As most of these athletes are black, the problem is not only “perpetuating a financial injustice. It's committing a racial one.”

UConn's women's basketball team fits this profile. The players are unpaid (while the administrators, mostly white, make the big bucks), and they are mostly African-American. So, are our beloved Huskies exploited?

The Post article focuses mostly on men and especially football players. There is clearly a difference
then between gender and sport. What seems a common denominator is that most administrators are white (and generally well paid), and most of the players are black. (This is less true in so-called “minor” sports, which are often supported by the men's teams.)

Too avoid an unwieldy topic, I've narrowed the question down to our Husky women and how this “injustice” affects them (if at all). Just yesterday, we batted around the subject of Morgan Tuck's future in basketball and education. The issues of money and other opportunities were raised. Is our team the reflection of a flawed and discriminatory culture?

 

[HuskyBandDad]

Yea they are exploited as they get a free education, travel all over the country on charter flights, stay in 4 star hotels and free meals and are treated like royalty. When they graduate and go to a job interview it certainly does not hurt to put "Uconn Womens Basketball player" on their resume. Can I be exploited please.

 

[huskyd]

Yea they are exploited as they get a free education, travel all over the country on charter flights, stay in 4 star hotels and free meals and are treated like royalty. When they graduate and go to a job interview it certainly does not hurt to put "Uconn Womens Basketball player" on their resume. Can I be exploited please.

In 2014, UConn basketball player Shabazz Napier "complained of often going to bed hungry." The NCAA quickly passed legislation mandating year-around meals for athletes.

 

[ThisJustIn]

Any time folks talk about NCAA athletes and money I want to make sure it's clear we're talking about Men's Football and Men's Basketball..... in the top 25.

In those instances, they're not "exploited." The Universities simply follow the business norm: the upper management gets as much money as possible, and they pay their employees, the producer of the work, as little as possible. In this case, it's a barter situation. They don't actually get pay, they get perks.

I've yet to see anyone outline a feasible way to "rectify" this imbalance. Are the football/basketball teams separated from the Athletic program and turned into a "for-profit" entity? Does that mean they now must pay taxes, athletes are simply employees with no need to attend school? Can athletes get fired? Can they be headhunted? How do programs "move up" into the for profit arena?

 

[HuskyNan]

In 2014, UConn basketball player Shabazz Napier "complained of often going to bed hungry." The NCAA quickly passed legislation mandating year-around meals for athletes.

I did wonder about Shabazz's comments. I have two kids in college and when I ask them if they're getting enough to eat, they laugh at me. There is free food EVERYWHERE, from dormmates, parties, and student union sponsored events. And when they do go to the cafeteria, the kids can load up on sandwiches, fruit, bagels, cookies to take back to their rooms - it's an all-you-can eat thing. I send care packages with homemade goodies, too. My kids could survive pretty well without the food plan we paid for.

 

[huskiemaniac]

In 2014, UConn basketball player Shabazz Napier "complained of often going to bed hungry." The NCAA quickly passed legislation mandating year-around meals for athletes.

That was in the works long before Shabazzs comment...the timing just made it appear that his comment had an effect...

 

[PhillyCoach]

In 2014, UConn basketball player Shabazz Napier "complained of often going to bed hungry." The NCAA quickly passed legislation mandating year-around meals for athletes.

Was the quick decision to help the hungry students a good thing or a bad thing? I can't tell what you are inferring.
Upfront I want to state - I am not a fan of the NCAA and some of their rules. I believe that the NCAA took away the opportunity for summer work because of a few cheaters. There should be a simple stipend for every athlete since they can't work much since they are practicing and training. This goes for band members, cheerleaders, etc. (could be based on time put in each week.) Football players and maybe soccer & basketball players should have special insurance. I am supportive.
What I don't agree with is making this a racial thing! If you add up every athlete from every sport from every level of college play--there are many more non-minority athletes. Why go there? It does not bring me into the fold of support when the focus is on "certain groups." You know there are many wealthy black players in college and many poor white players. How about treating ALL POOR players equally. From what I know, every athlete is being treated in the same way by the NCAA.
I taught and coached in the inner-city for 40 years. I loved my students as my own children. All lives matter--yes, all athletes matter.
Final note - I am a firm believer in free will and personal responsibility. Players and parents make the decision to play or not to play. Ironically, my son was offered a half-scholarship to UConn for track in the early 90"s. HE decided it was not worth the travel, practice time, and NCAA rules he would have to deal with. He went with a PA school as a non-athlete and loved every minute of it. He was going to live with that decision.

 

[ThisJustIn]

BTW, here's a proposal: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/09/sports/a-way-to-start-paying-college-athletes.html?ref=sports

Every Division I men’s basketball and football team would have a salary cap, just as the pros do — except the amounts would be vastly lower. In basketball, the cap would be $650,000. In football, it would be $3 million. It is ludicrous to argue that the Power 5 programs cannot afford this; the combined $3.65 million is barely half the $7 million that Michigan Coach Jim Harbaugh made this season. (I would also drop the number of scholarships in college football to 60, which is closer to the size of an N.F.L. team, from 85 in the top tier.)

Second, I would impose a minimum salary: $25,000 per player in each sport. This would obviously not make the athletes rich, but it would give them enough to live like typical college students.

Now to the free-market aspect: The minimum salaries consume only half the cap. The rest of the money would be used as a recruiting tool, so that a star player could be offered additional money as an inducement to go to a particular university. One university might want to offer a star halfback $40,000, while another might offer him $60,000. The player would make a choice based not on a recruiter’s sweet-talking promises — or not solely on that — but on cold, hard cash.

I can see you recoiling at this notion. But let me ask: Is offering cash compensation really that much worse than the current system, in which universities build lavish facilities and spend absurd sums on their “programs” to lure good players? Doesn’t it make more sense to give some of that money to the players? It would actually be less expensive.

 

[UcMiami]

Most college athletic programs lose money, so are the athletes on the 'none revenue' sports teams (who may be predominantly black as well) exploiting the poor white athletic departments?

I don't think anyone thinks the NCAA is a well run organization, in fact most think it is a smoking pile of ____. But the fact remains that the cost of college athletics is huge, it is a money losing proposition for 99% of schools and a great benefit to 99% of student athletes. Title IX exists because the courts looked at athletic departments as homogenous entities and not as individual sports. All those that are calling for greater compensation for student athletes do the exact opposite and cherry pick specific sports that are the economic engines for the athletic departments allowing them to spend incredible amounts of money on the other sports.

The other issue to me is that all of the 'calculations' of exploitation do not take into account the value added nature of the 'money sport' to the athletes - for drafted players that value added is huge. They enter college for the most part with a 'zero' professional value and leave college three or so years later with a average value in the millions. That represents a fairly small proportion of the scholarship athletes in those sports, but for them the value added is the earning power added by getting a college degree which is currently around $18,000 per year. For college athletes, that may vary - those that take the academics seriously, it is real, for those that don't at least in the schools local economy, the 'good will' for former players on popular teams usually has its own 'value added' for employment prospects.

 

[huskiemaniac]

Most college athletic programs lose money, so are the athletes on the 'none revenue' sports teams (who may be predominantly black as well) exploiting the poor white athletic departments?

I don't think anyone thinks the NCAA is a well run organization, in fact most think it is a smoking pile of ____. But the fact remains that the cost of college athletics is huge, it is a money losing proposition for 99% of schools and a great benefit to 99% of student athletes. Title IX exists because the courts looked at athletic departments as homogenous entities and not as individual sports. All those that are calling for greater compensation for student athletes do the exact opposite and cherry pick specific sports that are the economic engines for the athletic departments allowing them to spend incredible amounts of money on the other sports.

The other issue to me is that all of the 'calculations' of exploitation do not take into account the value added nature of the 'money sport' to the athletes - for drafted players that value added is huge. They enter college for the most part with a 'zero' professional value and leave college three or so years later with a average value in the millions. That represents a fairly small proportion of the scholarship athletes in those sports, but for them the value added is the earning power added by getting a college degree which is currently around $18,000 per year. For college athletes, that may vary - those that take the academics seriously, it is real, for those that don't at least in the schools local economy, the 'good will' for former players on popular teams usually has its own 'value added' for employment prospects.

Schools get multimillion dollar payments from the conferences tv contracts... That has to be included. College sports make a lot of money.

 

[UcMiami]

BTW, here's a proposal: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/09/sports/a-way-to-start-paying-college-athletes.html?ref=sports
Second, I would impose a minimum salary: $25,000 per player in each sport. This would obviously not make the athletes rich, but it would give them enough to live like typical college students.

Typical college students get $25,000 to spend as they want?! Not sure where your 'typical' college student goes to school, and who their parents are!

 

[Bgillon]

Title 9 I believe says schools have to spend the same amount of money on womens' teams as they do on mens' teams in total. Secondly not all D1 schools can afford to pay the athletes what some schools can like Texas for instance. So Texas might offer a female basketball player $25K per year plus a scholarship and UCONN can't afford to match that. Happy?

 

[UcMiami]

Schools get multimillion dollar payments from the conferences tv contracts... That has to be included. College sports make a lot of money.

I know - on average somewhere between $20-25 million per school in a P5, but then those athletic departments are averaging expenses somewhere around $100M so they still have to find revenues of around $75M from other sources. Most of them fall short - depending on year somewhere between 10 and 20 schools book profits, over any five year period the number is somewhere around 10.

 

[ocoandasoc]

Here's another piece of info that may or may not be relative to the initial issue: Of ALL college sports scholarship recipients, I believe only about 15% or less are African American.

 

[Striper69]

Yea they are exploited as they get a free education, travel all over the country on charter flights, stay in 4 star hotels and free meals and are treated like royalty. When they graduate and go to a job interview it certainly does not hurt to put "Uconn Womens Basketball player" on their resume. Can I be exploited please.

I think it all balances out.

Most teams/schools don't have the success or attention that UCONN gets and don't get all that money. The girl's still get the benny's so it's all good.

 

[j66kicker]

In 2014, UConn basketball player Shabazz Napier "complained of often going to bed hungry." The NCAA quickly passed legislation mandating year-around meals for athletes.

Shabazz isn't going to bed hungry now. He only makes $1.3 million/year as 3rd team point guard for the Orlando Magic, but can still afford 3 squares.

 

[gandydancer]

I'm tired of this crap. If you think you are being exploited don't take the scholarship and the perks. Stay home and pay for your own education and major in some meaningless feel good subject. Then go whine about the unfairness of society when you can't get a job.

 

[alexrgct]

Not an appropriate thread title. Why even use the name "Uconn" here? Seems like a cry for attention or a desire to be inflammatory for its own sake. Obviously, this has little to do with Uconn wcbb.

 

[Millenial23]

They're getting a free education, so I don't think they're being exploited... and yeah, about Shabazz, I don't believe that at all. They have meal plans which include dining hall unlimited access, and if those are closed, there are the grab-n-go's which are kind of like a Subway, and there are points to spend at the Student Union or the 8 or so cafe's around campus. And I think the athletes get some additional stipend of some sort, so if Shabazz went to bed hungry it was because he didn't or wouldn't go get food for himself somewhere on campus.

 

[huskyd]

Was the quick decision to help the hungry students a good thing or a bad thing? I can't tell what you are inferring.
Upfront I want to state - I am not a fan of the NCAA and some of their rules. I believe that the NCAA took away the opportunity for summer work because of a few cheaters. There should be a simple stipend for every athlete since they can't work much since they are practicing and training. This goes for band members, cheerleaders, etc. (could be based on time put in each week.) Football players and maybe soccer & basketball players should have special insurance. I am supportive.
What I don't agree with is making this a racial thing! If you add up every athlete from every sport from every level of college play--there are many more non-minority athletes. Why go there? It does not bring me into the fold of support when the focus is on "certain groups." You know there are many wealthy black players in college and many poor white players. How about treating ALL POOR players equally. From what I know, every athlete is being treated in the same way by the NCAA.
I taught and coached in the inner-city for 40 years. I loved my students as my own children. All lives matter--yes, all athletes matter.
Final note - I am a firm believer in free will and personal responsibility. Players and parents make the decision to play or not to play. Ironically, my son was offered a half-scholarship to UConn for track in the early 90"s. HE decided it was not worth the travel, practice time, and NCAA rules he would have to deal with. He went with a PA school as a non-athlete and loved every minute of it. He was going to live with that decision.

Phil, I wasn't inferring a thing, I was just repeating what the article had to say. In the case of Napier, the point the author (an agent!) was making is that when people speak up, change happens. He is agitating for change in the name of fairness and, I believe, improving his own business opportunities. I have no dog in this fight, just thought it would make for an interesting discussion--which it seems to have done.

 

[huskyd]

Not an appropriate thread title. Why even use the name "Uconn" here? Seems like a cry for attention or a desire to be inflammatory for its own sake. Obviously, this has little to do with Uconn wcbb.

As I explained in my initial comment Alex, I was trying to reduce the discussion to a controllable size. The complaint in the article (not my complaint) about exploitation wasn't directed to any sport or gender, it was a general comment about "injustice." My question was: does the comment apply to the team of which we are great supporters? Your answer, I take it, is that the issue has nothing to do with UConn WCBB. Fair enough.

 

[CocoHusky]

Regardless of the racial composition on the UCONN WCBB team they are not being exploited. I struggle to think of a Women's program where players are being exploited period. As ThisJustnin has stated "we're talking about Men's Football and Men's Basketball" in the P5 conferences for the most part.
Because Football and Men's basketball is predominately African Americans, race (perhaps unfairly) becomes part of the argument. As an African American I personally struggle with the racial component of the argument because a few short decades ago especially in the SEC African American did not even have access to the universities which are now being accused of exploiting African American players. When I hear of an African American player complain about exploitation I sympathize but by second reaction is to say "Do you realize that your grandparents definitely and you parents maybe, did not have an opportunity to set foot on this campus. Get to class, get your degree and make something off your opportunity!"
Are NCAA football and Men's basketball players being exploited? Absolutely, because there is big money involved. Leave the big money and change to mostly white NCAA football and Men's basketball players and there would still be exploitation and the racial component would change to rich vs poor. Are there solutions available? Yes but almost all realistic solutions involving money changing pockets.
I believe the NCAA to be evil because of its situation based ethics and Mini-Micro management style. The Mini-Micro management style is what lead to Shabazz's complaint. Seriously why should the NCAA care about how many cartons or milk or juice Shabazz takes when he leaves the cafeteria? It should have always been "unlimited" snacks IMO.

 

[Stinger92860]

Does anyone know if Bazz was on a meal plan? He probably lived in Hilltop. On the road they receive a stipend and I would expect organized meals.

 

[CocoHusky]

Yea they are exploited as they get a free education...Can I be exploited please.

I'm tired of this crap. If you think you are being exploited don't take the scholarship and the perks. Stay home and pay for your own education and major in some meaningless feel good subject. Then go whine about the unfairness of society when you can't get a job.

They're getting a free education, so I don't think they're being exploited...

The scholarship received by NCAA athletes is not free! People are defining free as meaning Mom & Dad are not taking out a loan or cutting the check then it must be free. If it were free then an athlete would not have to show up for 20 hours of practice each week 6 days a week in addition to going to classes. If you are on ROTC scholarship try not showing up for training or duty.

 

[iamcbs]

Yea they are exploited as they get a free education, travel all over the country on charter flights, stay in 4 star hotels and free meals and are treated like royalty. When they graduate and go to a job interview it certainly does not hurt to put "Uconn Womens Basketball player" on their resume. Can I be exploited please.

The cost of OOS tuition, room and board, and fees for UConn is approximately 20k per year. The university just signed a new TV Deal this year with SNY that will pay them $1.14 million per year for 4 years for the broadcast rights to the women's games, not to mention the image, licensing fees and royalties for UConn Merchandise. I'm willing to wager that Breanna Stewart's image is worth more than the 20k a year her scholarship covers, she gets none of the revenue generated from a brand that sells mainly because of her. Geno makes out like a bandit, but the players don't get even a portion of that money and it's even worse in MCBB and CFB. So exploited yes, I'd say and so did Federal Court Judge Claudia Wilkens in the O'Bannon Case. You may want to read her decision.