... the next time a blue chip recruit makes a head-scratching college choice out of college. It ain’t for the gumbo.

[Travelman6]

I am conflicted on the whole pay to play subject for students. However, the problem with your logic is that they are NOT the AVERAGE student. They are the students that (a) bring millions in to the school by playing a sport and (b) are unable to benefit from that skill while in school. Every other student with a skill can take advantage of that skill while in school, including getting paid.

Is it fair to say to them that they can not earn a living until they go to a school for a semester (basketball) or 3 years after HS graduation (football)?

But IMO it is not just the player bringing value to the school. But it can go the other way too. The school is also giving the player the opportunity. The school having such a marketable brand helps the player to get known too.

But why is Dabo Sweeny worth 9 million dollars

I don't know, doesn't seem fair when tuition is so high IMHO.

 

[Purple Stein]

If they were hired as employees it would interesting to see how many kids get fired at the end of their season or even halfway through the season.

Lol. In some bizarro world we fired all of our linebackers last October and RE gave a press conference about how he was going to have to raise his rate for linebackers to 15 cents more than minimum wage to attract better talent before the Tulsa game.

 

[Guapo]

I don't know, doesn't seem fair when tuition is so high IMHO.

That’s 9 million PER YEAR, btw.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Very curious how you think college athletic brands accrue value

Mostly through alumni and state or regional pride. That's 90% of it. Winning certainly helps. It helps drive the pride aspect. Lots of people in every state root for the state U because it represents the state in their mind. But the players? You cheer for and follow the guys who go to your school. You don't cheer for a school because of the guys who went there. Very rarely. Maybe a guy like Zion created a few young Duke fans.

My sister went to UConn and now lives in South Carolina. She's a Clemson football fan now, because that's the local team and lots of alumni and other Clemson fans live there. She's not a Clemson fan because of Trevor Lawrence. They sold out before him and they will sell out after him. And he'll go in the draft next year and probably be a top 10 pick.

 

[bmayuc]

You've stated this isn't at all complicated yet haven't explained how it all works.

This is very, very simple. I'll walk you through it.

Give the workers(players) freedom of movement and a union to negotiate labor terms. Colleges can, like all other employers, make offers based on their economic and strategic decisions. Let the kids make what they are worth in salary, benefits, and the endorsement circuit. Let them play and work where they want to. Take the NCAA rulebook and just through it right in a big bonfire because overnight that byzantine pile of crap is no longer needed.

But no! you say. Then college athletics would die!! Competition would fall!! All the best players would go to the highest pay!

Yes. Probably. But why is this bad? Let Duke offer a kid $5m if they think its worth it. Maybe it works out. Maybe he tears his ACL and Duke is on the hook for $20m for a player that sits on the pine. That's THE POINT OF A MARKET.

With regard to college sports writ large, if the market says it dies, it deserves to die. Do not prop up broken, corrupt, and exploitative systems just because you have a nostalgic remembrance of the glory days gone by and because you think UConn might not compete.

If it burns, then it shoudl burn. If it survives, it does so in a fair market situation and the kids get to make decisions freely. Either way, all parties now have complete freedom and transparency with which to operate. no more incentives for cloak and dagger BS.

How difficult is that?

 

[businesslawyer]

This is very, very simple. I'll walk you through it.

Give the workers(players) freedom of movement and a union to negotiate labor terms. Colleges can, like all other employers, make offers based on their economic and strategic decisions. Let the kids make what they are worth in salary, benefits, and the endorsement circuit. Let them play and work where they want to. Take the NCAA rulebook and just through it right in a big bonfire because overnight that byzantine pile of crap is no longer needed.

But no! you say. Then college athletics would die!! Competition would fall!! All the best players would go to the highest pay!

Yes. Probably. But why is this bad? Let Duke offer a kid $5m if they think its worth it. Maybe it works out. Maybe he tears his ACL and Duke is on the hook for $20m for a player that sits on the pine. That's THE POINT OF A MARKET.

With regard to college sports writ large, if the market says it dies, it deserves to die. Do not prop up broken, corrupt, and exploitative systems just because you have a nostalgic remembrance of the glory days gone by and because you think UConn might not compete.

If it burns, then it shoudl burn. If it survives, it does so in a fair market situation and the kids get to make decisions freely. Either way, all parties now have complete freedom and transparency with which to operate. no more incentives for cloak and dagger BS.

How difficult is that?

Of course, every pro league in the U.S. (and every soccer league worldwide) operates under the structure of some umbrella organization that limits spending in some ways. I'm not disagreeing with your point, but recognize that your argument changes pro sports as well if there are no limits to preserve competitive balance.

 

[Jbirdp5]

But why is Dabo Sweeny worth 9 million dollars while the star QB is worth 200k?

So in this model should he have gotten more out of high school or would he then be able to renegotiate his deal after his freshman year?

 

[HuskyHawk]

How are all these schools affording to pay coaches and ADs millions upon millions if they are actually losing globs of money in the process?

Because they are investing in a long term future and there are only a few of them. That coach is 10x more valuable than any player. Dabo brings in the players. He coaches them up. And he's there more than four years. On top of that, the pay one guy, maybe two more coordinators big salaries (except UConn). Are you doing that with 50+ football players?

Absolutely think the system needs to allow anybody to pursue their career at any time. Once you have that, College should simply say "this is what we are offering". You can choose that or choose something else. As I said, I'd even let them kick in a little living money.

 

[superjohn]

This is very, very simple. I'll walk you through it.

Give the workers(players) freedom of movement and a union to negotiate labor terms. Colleges can, like all other employers, make offers based on their economic and strategic decisions. Let the kids make what they are worth in salary, benefits, and the endorsement circuit. Let them play and work where they want to. Take the NCAA rulebook and just through it right in a big bonfire because overnight that byzantine pile of crap is no longer needed.

But no! you say. Then college athletics would die!! Competition would fall!! All the best players would go to the highest pay!

Yes. Probably. But why is this bad? Let Duke offer a kid $5m if they think its worth it. Maybe it works out. Maybe he tears his ACL and Duke is on the hook for $20m for a player that sits on the pine. That's THE POINT OF A MARKET.

With regard to college sports writ large, if the market says it dies, it deserves to die. Do not prop up broken, corrupt, and exploitative systems just because you have a nostalgic remembrance of the glory days gone by and because you think UConn might not compete.

If it burns, then it shoudl burn. If it survives, it does so in a fair market situation and the kids get to make decisions freely. Either way, all parties now have complete freedom and transparency with which to operate. no more incentives for cloak and dagger BS.

How difficult is that?

It's not difficult at all ending college sports. What you're proposing is the end of college sports.

 

[Jbirdp5]

There’s probably be a buyout clause? Did you really think this was a “gotcha question”??

I was literally asking you a question about the model you came up with. Do you feel the need to be a jerk when someone asks you something?

 

[upstater]

You think players who can currently get potentially up to 300K are gonna be happy with 10K? Ok lol.

The reality is the entire amateurism model is based on restricting players from being paid their worth. We don't really know what that value is right now, because an entire ecosystem has developed around them being paid nothing at all. But I have a feeling that going from 0 to 10K aint gonna cut it

Their worth is determined by whatever booster gets off on this stuff. In other words, their worth is equivalent to the infinite desires of some schmuck. There are a lot of those guys in the SEC, apparently.

But once this whole thing becomes a for-profit enterprise, I wonder if the same devotion to these "college" sports will continue. We know the schools are bleeding money themselves. At what point do boosters lose interest?

I guess in the SEC they never will.

Elsewhere I'm not so sure.

Can Reid play in the NBA right now? If not, what would he get paid in the NBDL?

That would seem to be a good gauge of what he's worth on the open market (when you remove crazy Cajun boosters from the equation).

 

[andy34]

Of course, every pro league in the U.S. (and every soccer league worldwide) operates under the structure of some umbrella organization that limits spending in some ways. I'm not disagreeing with your point, but recognize that your argument changes pro sports as well if there are no limits to preserve competitive balance.

The argument doesn't change pro sports at all. Every pro league in the US is the result of negotiations between workers and owners, except the NCAA. Each league has different mechanisms to suppress "spending" (aka salaries to workers) - MLB has service time manipulation, rookie contracts, and the luxury tax, and the NFL has a salary cap and nonguaranteed contracts. The NCAA simply doesn't have to pay their workers anything at all. If they did, players could collectively bargain with employers to come to whichever agreement they deem to be in their best interests.

 

[upstater]

It's not complicated, schools should be free to pay their employees what they believe they are worth, including athletes. If actually paying your workers endangers your entire industry, then that's a pretty harsh indictment of the industry. Or put another way, who is more deserving of fairness and equity: the workers who have heretofore been unpaid, or the institutions who have financially benefited from unpaid work for decades?

The institutions are taking a beating.

But they are good at hiding the bloodbath from their true prime #1 customers.

The parents of regular students footing the losses.

If budgets ever showed the true costs, there'd be a revolt from the very people you want to hide the truth from.

Why isn't anyone brave enough to just come out with the truth?

Because there are alumni, boosters, board members, state politicians who will axe your $1million salary before you get out the words....

Many of these presidents don't know a basketball from an acorn. Some were born far field across the world and they probably think this is all deranged. By I guarantee you all these presidents understand what a $1 million salary is.

 

[bmayuc]

Of course, every pro league in the U.S. (and every soccer league worldwide) operates under the structure of some umbrella organization that limits spending in some ways. I'm not disagreeing with your point, but recognize that your argument changes pro sports as well if there are no limits to preserve competitive balance.

I'm not sure how it changes pro sports directly. Each league is obliged to make their own agreements and contracts and bylaws. All i know is this corrupt, broken system is in need of radical overhaul.

And with regard to preserving competition... uh is it literally any different than the talent distribution now? Hate to break it to you guys, but the reason people love March Madness is because there EXISTS TODAY AND HAS FOR THE ETERNITY OF COLLEGE SPORTS a massive talent distribution cartel already in place. Its called the Power 5 and its attempting to snuff out every other school through raw economic means.

you can argue my system would make that distribution more even or more extreme, but lets start with the reality that it already exists and not live in some ficticious world where everyone is on a level playing field. C'mon.

 

[upstater]

The NCAA simply doesn't have to pay their workers anything at all. If they did, players could collectively bargain with employers to come to whichever agreement they deem to be in their best interests.

They do pay them. I mean, if you don't consider food, housing, utlilities, $6k stipend and tuition a form of payment, then you are actually making the case that the university doesn't pay contingent workers either (I'm talking adjuncts and TAs, etc.). But players do get cash and they can actually sue the NCAA as a union, which was the decision of the NLRB a few years ago. Players are in the same class as workers (teachers) who have already formed into unions.

 

[upstater]

How are all these schools affording to pay coaches and ADs millions upon millions if they are actually losing globs of money in the process?

How does UConn do it?

 

[superjohn]

The argument doesn't change pro sports at all. Every pro league in the US is the result of negotiations between workers and owners, except the NCAA. Each league has different mechanisms to suppress "spending" (aka salaries to workers) - MLB has service time manipulation, rookie contracts, and the luxury tax, and the NFL has a salary cap and nonguaranteed contracts. The NCAA simply doesn't have to pay their workers anything at all. If they did, players could collectively bargain with employers to come to whichever agreement they deem to be in their best interests.

Because they aren't employees. There are all sorts of professional leagues kids can join where they are workers, get paid a salary and don't have to go to class.

Or they can choose to go to college get a 200K education for free, get a stipend, get professional training etc.

 

[andy34]

They do pay them. I mean, if you don't consider food, housing, utlilities, $6k stipend and tuition a form of payment, then you are actually making the case that the university doesn't pay contingent workers either (I'm talking adjuncts and TAs, etc.). But players do get cash and they can actually sue the NCAA as a union, which was the decision of the NLRB a few years ago. Players are in the same class as workers (teachers) who have already formed into unions.

Does your boss pay you in food? Or would you prefer to have a salary?

Also the NLRB decided that players cannot form a union. Not sure what you're referring to, though maybe there is some context I'm missing.

 

[superjohn]

They are almost all non-revenue at this point. Facilities bonds at some schools are upwards of half a BILLION. It is really interesting to look at what happens with sports budgets once a school goes D1 football. Suddenly, that $10 million loss for all your sports jumps to $30 million, which says a lot about the true costs for football.

I'd bet that men's basketball is the only true revenue sport.

This is true and yet we have people advocating paying college athletes 500 grand.

 

[andy34]

Because they aren't employees. There are all sorts of professional leagues kids can join where they are workers, get paid a salary and don't have to go to class.

Or they can choose to go to college get a 200K education for free, get a stipend, get professional training etc.

Grad school students are both employees and students, and can form unions. Why can't players?

Also, as has been said before, $200K is a completely misleading figure for tuition. The marginal cost for colleges to add a single player is farrrrr less.

 

[bmayuc]

It's not difficult at all ending college sports. What you're proposing is the end of college sports.

That is a false assertion. Colleges have massive economic power, wealthy donor bases, lucrative TV contracts, and a need in a competitive environment show their schools in the best possible terms to attract the next generation of students. All the same things that power many, many rich coaches and administrators to get paid off the labor of poor often minority ethnicity kids.

I think what this would do is take that same money, and redistribute it to the players who actually produce the product on the field/court.

Would there be change. Yup. Some schools would self-select out of the arms race, some would choose to invest at a lower level and come up with different strategies to compete(pay coaches less, spread less money to a more even group of talent, increase other benefits, etc). Some schools would burn through all sorts of cash on their staff and less on players, some would choose to operate at a loss, some would choose not to. Some will offer 2,3, and 4 year contracts to marginal prospects to get an advantage over higher offers at a single year. In short, it will be a burst of new opportunity and change, but not the "end". I will always bleedblue because I attended UConn.

I think it would be really interesting actually. And of course it would be a much, much, much more just system. Which is really the point that matters.

 

[olehead]

Either they want to be college basketball players or they want to be professional players. It's up to them. We should not give them the option to be both. I fully support them being able to go pro whenever they want. Try to get your $300k out of the G-League or a Greek team. Knock yourself out.

But don't pretend that your value is what it is without the college branding behind it. Most fans of college teams support the team, no matter who is on it. Take 99% of college basketball players and put them on a G-league team straight from HS and nobody would know or care who they were. We only follow DHam because he played at UConn. Straight from HS? Would never know his name.

Now Zion Williamson, sure. He's got marketing value all by himself. Should have been able to jump straight to NBA (which I think players now can or will next year).

Generally, if the decision for the hs player is Pro v College, the decision is based upon the athlete's value/brand independent of college choice.

 

[superjohn]

Grad school students are both employees and students, and can form unions. Why can't players?

Also, as has been said before, $200K is a completely misleading figure for tuition. The marginal cost for colleges to add a single player is farrrrr less.

Whatever the number they are going for free, have everything taken care of, and get a stipend. Find a way to let them use their likeness or something along those lines, increase their stipend but the things you and others are advocating is lunacy and would end college sports.

 

[superjohn]

That is a false assertion. Colleges have massive economic power, wealthy donor bases, lucrative TV contracts, and a need in a competitive environment show their schools in the best possible terms to attract the next generation of students. All the same things that power many, many rich coaches and administrators to get paid off the labor of poor often minority ethnicity kids.

I think what this would do is take that same money, and redistribute it to the players who actually produce the product on the field/court.

Would there be change. Yup. Some schools would self-select out of the arms race, some would choose to invest at a lower level and come up with different strategies to compete(pay coaches less, spread less money to a more even group of talent, increase other benefits, etc). Some schools would burn through all sorts of cash on their staff and less on players, some would choose to operate at a loss, some would choose not to. Some will offer 2,3, and 4 year contracts to marginal prospects to get an advantage over higher offers at a single year. In short, it will be a burst of new opportunity and change, but not the "end". I will always bleedblue because I attended UConn.

I think it would be really interesting actually. And of course it would be a much, much, much more just system. Which is really the point that matters.

You must have loved the Pony Express.

 

[bmayuc]

You must have loved the Pony Express.

I say this with great care because there is a lot of bad stuff on here, but...

That is literally one of the dumbest posts I've ever read on this site.