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

[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.

 

[Guapo]

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?

I thought you were the one asking the jerkish rhetorical question; if that wasn’t the case, I apologize.

 

[Guapo]

Nope, because what's the alternative? Is Clemson making millions? It's the rare college football program that is even profitable. But pay even a few players and it loses money. Very few schools could pay anything. UConn certainly couldn't.

So sure, start up a minor league football league. Make it like AAA baseball or minor league hockey. See who watches it (nobody).

Clemson is providing him exposure, providing him coaching and facilities, providing him a free education and room and board. Look we can make this like European football if you want. But people watch Clemson because they live in the area or went to Clemson. The players are there only a couple of years. That's not what people come for. They support the school. They certainly have pride in great players. We love Kemba. But if Kemba went to Syracuse and somebody else came he we'd hate Kemba and love the somebody else. Because it's about the school.

I’d say this isn’t a black and white answer. Clemson and UConn are providing the facilities and the platform but Kemba and Lawrence have provided the schools with an invaluable amount of exposure, which is why schools play sports in the first place.

 

[Guapo]

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.

Revenue is not the same as profit.

 

[superjohn]

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.

You just advocated oil company executives and financial firm executives duking it out to get the best athletes to go to their alma maters and I'm the dumb one for saying you must have loved the Pony Express...

 

[Guapo]

You must have loved the Pony Express.

Do we all actually think schools out there are struggling financially?

Because, aside from some tiny private schools, that is most definitely not the case.

American academia is one of the largest holders of wealth in the world.

 

[Guapo]

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.

But can’t that same logic be applied to Dabo? They’ll have been Clemson fans before Dabo and after Dabo, so why pay Dabo at all?

 

[superjohn]

Do we all actually think schools out there are struggling financially?

Because, aside from some tiny private schools, that is most definitely not the case.

American academia is one of the largest holders of wealth in the world.

Do you actually think paying all the athletes or only the revenue generating athletes well over 300K is sustainable for colleges and college sports?

I assumed what bmayuk was proposing is an arms race between wealthy donor bases, hence my Pony Express comment.

 

[Guapo]

Do you actually think paying all the athletes or only the revenue generating athletes well over 300K is sustainable for colleges and college sports?

I assumed what bmayuk was proposing is an arms race between wealthy donor bases, hence my Pony Express comment.

Nope. But, I do think shoe companies should be able to pay them whatever they want.

 

[Jbirdp5]

I thought you were the one asking the jerkish rhetorical question; if that wasn’t the case, I apologize.

No problem, just would be interested to see how complex things would get if they opened that box, if a player came in unheralded and outplayed expectations could they get more money, leave etc

 

[Guapo]

Do you actually think paying all the athletes or only the revenue generating athletes well over 300K is sustainable for colleges and college sports?

I assumed what bmayuk was proposing is an arms race between wealthy donor bases, hence my Pony Express comment.

Nope. But, I do think shoe companies should be able to pay them whatever they want.

I’m asking this genuinely; walk me through the thought process here.

TV companies pay Big 10 schools 50 million dollars per year.

That money gets distributed in the form of:

1) Astronomical coaches salaries
2) Astronomical admin salaries
3) crazy facility upgrades

What is the argument for keeping the most important part of the labor creating that wealth (the athlete) from getting a cut of that windfall?

 

[superjohn]

I’m asking this genuinely; walk me through the thought process here.

TV companies pay Big 10 schools 50 million dollars per year.

That money gets distributed in the form of:

1) Astronomical coaches salaries
2) Astronomical admin salaries
3) crazy facility upgrades

What is the argument for keeping the most important part of the labor creating that wealth (the athlete) from getting a cut of that windfall?

I hear you but if it's all only about money then scrap every other sport other than football and men's basketball and cut every athletic program that's not in the P5. I don't think this would hold up in the courts.

Say if there is no age limit in football or basketball to play professionally why does it matter that colleges aren't paying kids 500k salaries? All sorts of opportunities to be a professional athlete and there is the opportunity to go to school and be a college athlete.

 

[Guapo]

I hear you but if it's all only about money then scrap every other sport other than football and men's basketball and cut every athletic program that's not in the P5. I don't think this would hold up in the courts.

Say if there is no age limit in football or basketball to play professionally why does it matter that colleges aren't paying kids 500k salaries? All sorts of opportunities to be a professional athlete and there is the opportunity to go to school and be a college athlete.

I hear you too. I just think there must be a happy medium between the current system and one that pays everyone 500k and gets rid of all the other sports.

These haven’t come from you, but the reason I’ve been so worked up about this here is that there are others in this thread that are using rhetorical arguments that I think are downright bad and damaging; basically “shut up and entertain me, kid.”

 

[superjohn]

I hear you too. I just think there must be a happy medium between the current system and one that pays everyone 500k and gets rid of all the other sports.

These haven’t come from you, but the reason I’ve been so worked up about this here is that there are others in this thread that are using rhetorical arguments that I think are downright bad and damaging; basically “shut up and entertain me, kid.”

I agree there should be a better way of doing things. Players being able to use their likeness and a larger stipend seem like a good place to start.

My main point is this stuff is incredibly complicated and some are making it out like everything could be solved over a 2 hour meeting.

 

[NEforceUConn]

Wtf has college bb turned into South America such as us oil/mining companies securing long term contracts. That sounds about right

 

[bmayuc]

I agree there should be a better way of doing things. Players being able to use their likeness and a larger stipend seem like a good place to start.

My main point is this stuff is incredibly complicated and some are making it out like everything could be solved over a 2 hour meeting.

The phrase "this stuff is incredibly complicated" is an easy way for those who support the corrupt status quo to throw up their hands and seem reasonable on any topic.

And no one is claiming this could be agreed over a 2 hour meeting. Talk about a straw man.

But lets be clear - The reason it can't be figured out in 2 hours is not cuz its such an overwhelmingly complex problem set. Almost everyone agrees that the current state of affairs is indefensible morally, ethically, and pragmatically. And there are models in place, right now, in nearly every league and country around the world that are totally workable in this context.

No, the reason this freaking thing will drag on and the carcass of amateur athletics will be dragged behind the money train is that there are a LOT of people getting very RICH and POWERFUL off the status quo - institutions, individuals, and interests. They will resist and do half-measures(bigger stipdends and using their likeness, anyone?) and PR campaigns until the pitchforks and torches chase them out of town.

Oh, and the other reason its complicated is that those PR campaigns are enough to sell people like @superjohn that this whole thing is just so daggum complicated and boy I just wish I could turn on my TV and see my alma mater dunk some basketballs and not worry about the morality of the whole thing.