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

[HuskyHawk]

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?

Is it the most important part? Is it really? Clemson's players, minus Dabo and staff, wouldn't win a game. Minus Clemson's investments, they wouldn't have a stadium, a gym, a place to sleep or eat, uniforms or any fans. They'd have zero media exposure. They'd be a bunch of dudes playing football at the park. Sure, they'd be good, so maybe a tip jar could net them $50 between them from people in the park.

It's like the ridiculous arguments that the workers at auto factories are critical. What? They are the most easily replaced element of the whole thing. The engineers designing the car, people handling compliance with thousands of pages of regulations, the building of the factory and procurement of materials, transportation of those and finished products, distribution and sales network, warranty and parts system, advertising, it goes on an on. Yes, Toyota makes billions. But it isn't because of some guy in Tennessee working the assembly line.

Unlike that guy working the line building Camrys, these kids get a chance to earn a college degree, they get to loved by fans (and girls), they get top of the line training and nutrition guidance, they get free room and board, and they get exposure that gives them a chance to make a lot of money. And they get all that by playing a game that they love. Something they'd do for free. They aren't victims. They do get a fair cut in my view, or close to it. I'm sure Trevor the star QB is under-compensated, and the bench special teams guy is over-compensated. But just by a little.

 

[Kenny11]

Zion used his 8 months at Duke to turn himself into a massive brand and set the stage for a shoe company bidding war that will make him more than $200Million very soon. If he went to Italy for a year this wouldn't have happened. Going to college for a year is worth it financially for the future nba stars like Zion even if they aren't getting paid to go to college (though they are most likely getting paid to go to college). My point is that Zion should not be brought up in these arguments. He is an exception. All of the one and done guys are exceptions. One thing that shouldn't be forgotten is how amazing life on campus is for a college athlete which is really the main reason most of the top 20 high school basketball players go to college for a year or 2 instead of going to europe or the g-league.

But when you start talking about football players at huge universities that are more likely to be chewed up and spit out with body and brain damage and only a small chance of becoming an nfl player, and no opportunity to play internationally, the argument for paying the player becomes more reasonable.

 

[superjohn]

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.

Yep, that's me I've been duped by Emmert's PR campaigns.

 

[ClifSpliffy]

this thread's cool in helping, by market discovery mechanisms, to figure out the current market price for a men's cbb player.

 

[intlzncster]

What if he has a career ending injury next season? Clemson will have made millions off his labor, and an unknown amount in brand equity; yet he could end up without even a scholarship

Sane deal as the pros tho. Unless you are talking contracts as below. Then you should be able to hold a kid in school to honor that contract.

The career ending injury piece is an easy fix. Require schools to allow the kids to finish his schooling if he's medically unfit.

This suggestion does not preclude the existence of contracts, which would provide players protection (more protection than they currently have now!)

Really then, you need a players union . There would also have to be revenue sharing among schools to ensure an equitable playing field. The difference in markets and revenue is too great otherwise. The competition would devolve into something way more lopsided than it already is

What you all are talking about is a professional league. Disband the NCAA for Major college Athletics and form another league.

 

[superjohn]

[


Really then, you need a players union . There would also have to be revenue sharing among schools to ensure an equitable playing field. The difference in markets and revenue is too great otherwise. The competition would devolve into something way more lopsided than it already is

What you all are talking about is a professional league. Disband the NCAA for Major college Athletics and form another league.

Bingo, that's what they're advocating. Bymayuc sneers at half measures of increasing the stipend, using their likeness. All he's advocating is more professional leagues and we see how well other professional football and basketball leagues turn out.

 

[intlzncster]

.
ould 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.

Some schools? The vast majority. How many schools make big profits from their football programs? UConn would certainly be finished.

What you're suggesting is a a professional league with almost no rules.

In terms of equitable competition,it would be the furthest thing from just as you could possibly imagine.

It would create a system where the most well heeled boosters win.

He's not wrong. College Athletics as a whole would be done.

 

[intlzncster]

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.

The only thing that makes sense to me is to completely abandon the college part of it and make it into a European soccer club system. Schools could someone teams and that sor of. Kids would be employees of the club etc.

Remove scholastics from the equation.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Some schools? The vast majority. How many schools make big profits from their football programs. UConn would certainly be finished.

What you're suggesting is a a professional league with almost no rules.

In terms of equitable competition,it would be the furthest thing from just as you could possibly imagine.

It would create a system where the most well heeled boosters win.

He's not wrong. College Athletics as a whole would be done.

And while some of those college players who aren't NFL ready are pretty good, so were the ones who graduated the year before, and the year before, and the year before. They'd have to compete with CFL and AAF. How did the AAF do? How much did they pay people?

The fact that they need to be non-professionals, enrolled at college at a certain age and only can play 4 years limits the competition they face. Almost all HS football players not opting for college would need to crack the AAF or CFL (maybe NFL for a handful). Very few are even that good.

Be careful what you wish for. The college system is a pretty good deal for most of these guys. I have met CEOs and a lot of successful people who played college football. Met a law firm partner a few months back who played at Trinity. So you squash the college sports model and you just removed a lot of underprivileged kids from college education.

 

[HuskyHawk]

The only thing that makes sense to me is to completely abandon the college part of it and make it into a European soccer club system. Schools could someone teams and that sor of. Kids would be employees of the club etc.

Remove scholastics from the equation.

Sure. And nobody would watch it. So there wouldn't be any money to pay them.

 

[StunningSteve]

What do you pay them though? How is paying them gonna stop a kid from taking 300K?

This.

/endofthread

 

[bmayuc]

Some schools? The vast majority. How many schools make big profits from their football programs? UConn would certainly be finished.

What you're suggesting is a a professional league with almost no rules.

In terms of equitable competition,it would be the furthest thing from just as you could possibly imagine.

It would create a system where the most well heeled boosters win.

He's not wrong. College Athletics as a whole would be done.

No.

1. All professional leagues have rules. That false assertion is very easy to bat down. Here's a couple example's of professional leagues with rules : NBA, MLB, NHL, EPL, etc. And those "rules" include much stronger protections and guarantees for the workers who actually produce the product of the league. They are called "unions".

2. Do you consider the current cartel system of the Power 5 to be a "equitable system". Before you answer keep in mind we LITERALLY call the scrub NCAA tournament teams CINDERELLAS because they are poor, in a different social and economic class, and have no chance because the tournament is of course non-equitable. Unless, of course, you think Duke getting 3 5 star recruits in every class is a great example of fairness? C'mon wake up.

3. Most schools lose money on sports now. Think D3, D2, D1AA. By your logic, why do any of those schools play football, basketball, lacrosse, soccer? The answer, of course, is that 99% of collegiate athletics is done to increase the student experience, extracurriculars, etc. etc. These are all fine reasons to have athletic programs and none would be affected. At all. Schools that opt out of the rat race of the 1% of schools involved in high level football/basketball would just... continue with business as usual. Imagine that? It wouldn't collapse society after all.

The difference is that at the highest level, it becomes free market. "Boosters" as you all use would be a meaningless term. They would be "Program Sponsors" legitimately instead of illicitly. So instead of a bag of cash from the user car dealer "booster" now you have an above board sponsorship. Where there used to be shady shoe company involvement is now just... NIKE Sponsoring player endorsements transparently at their sponsor schools. The term "booster" is a term born of illicit affairs. This system bring that crap above board, pays the players a fair market wage, and the rest of the system can just... carry on as normal.

What exactly is the problem there?

****if you say the problem is that UConn can't compete, I both disagree generally and also beleive it is not a sufficient reason to not support a more just system. If the only thing that supports our success is a corrupt system that is not a good reason to not support a more just system.

 

[Greathusky]

I propose that we replace "One Shining Moment" with a Buffett classic "I will Play for Gumbo".

 

[UConnNick]

This would just result in another professional league run by small number of universities that can afford to pay players. Also, what would be the point of these players being students when they are employees getting paid big salaries. Most schools that can’t afford to pay, would probably just continue with the current model and not play the schools with “professional” players.

Paying players would be a disaster for college sports. I’d rather schools continue to try to pay players under the table. If they get away with it so be it, if they get caught then they have to deal with significant consequences.

The problem is there have been no significant consequences to date, except at SMU. Does anybody else find it terribly ironic that we are currently in a conference with the only school to ever get really hammered by the NCAA?

 

[EBonz30]

What do you pay them though? How is paying them gonna stop a kid from taking 300K?

Open market, just like everything else in the world is. Pay the kids what they are worth to the school.

 

[Stinger92860]

I wonder how much Waters received?

 

[Essexdave]

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

Allowing the schools to pay players opens a can of worms t9 and discrimination suits. Many schools unable to compete. The solution , IMO, allow any player in any sport to make whatever they can from outside sources.

 

[BlueDogs]

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

Last time I checked a college education cost 160k out of state for 4 years at minimum. It really pissses me off knowing how many kids and families borrow and use their life savings to get what these kids don’t appreciate. The real problem is college players are no longer there to go to college. If they think they are worth something then go try and play in the NBA and see how that works out. Not only to they have an opportunity to learn, they get a free stage to showcase their talents under a brand name, and get generally great coaching and programs to develop their skills. It’s a friggin bargain. Under that model, The only kids getting ripped off are those paying their way.

 

[andy34]

Last time I checked a college education cost 160k out of state for 4 years at minimum. It really pissses me off knowing how many kids and families borrow and use their life savings to get what these kids don’t appreciate. The real problem is college players are no longer there to go to college. If they think they are worth something then go try and play in the NBA and see how that works out. Not only to they have an opportunity to learn, they get a free stage to showcase their talents under a brand name, and get generally great coaching and programs to develop their skills. It’s a friggin bargain. Under that model, The only kids getting ripped off are those paying their way.

As has been noted before in this thread, the "200K" and "160K" figures thrown out there about the value of a 4 year college education are wildly inflated, for a number of reasons. The marginal cost for a college to add an athlete to a few classes is extraordinarily lower. The high cost of higher education has a lot of reasons, and I would hope anyone really concerned with the cost of college would advocate for making college free, like most of the rest of the world. Also, I'm one of the kids who "got ripped off" and is paying loans a decade after I finished at UConn. Hasn't stopped me from pushing for a better system. Lastly, the value of the "brand name" of the college is in large part due to the free labor that players have provided to the universities. Their prestige has been constructed on the backs of unpaid labor - today's players have a platform built by players in the past. The great coaches and great programs are all financed by media and sneaker deals...... which are valuable themselves because of the players. Every student is getting ripped off, we can both advocate for payers to be paid and for college to be free.

 

[huskymedic]

I wonder how much Waters received?

He got extra $hrimp, Crawdad$ and Andouille $ausage in his gumbo.

Can’t believe it took 125 posts before his name came up. I figured it would be in the first few.

 

[upstater]

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.

Food, housing, $6k, training, tuition.

This is much more than 75% of the people teaching the classes get.

Like I said, you asked how the universities could justify exploitation. I simply answered that there are classes of exploited workers.

 

[upstater]

As has been noted before in this thread, the "200K" and "160K" figures thrown out there about the value of a 4 year college education are wildly inflated, for a number of reasons. The marginal cost for a college to add an athlete to a few classes is extraordinarily lower. The high cost of higher education has a lot of reasons, and I would hope anyone really concerned with the cost of college would advocate for making college free, like most of the rest of the world. Also, I'm one of the kids who "got ripped off" and is paying loans a decade after I finished at UConn. Hasn't stopped me from pushing for a better system. Lastly, the value of the "brand name" of the college is in large part due to the free labor that players have provided to the universities. Their prestige has been constructed on the backs of unpaid labor - today's players have a platform built by players in the past. The great coaches and great programs are all financed by media and sneaker deals. which are valuable themselves because of the players. Every student is getting ripped off, we can both advocate for payers to be paid and for college to be free.

There is no marginal cost to add players. Every student is the same. Departmental funding for salaries/labor is based on head counts. That's how workers get paid.

The real cost at a place like UConn can be measured in expenditure per student. I don't know what it is but at most universities like UConn it is $20-25k per year. When you add sports training, it's likely a lot more than that.

 

[upstater]

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.

Thanks for the update on the union. Last I read, this was the decision: Northwestern players get union vote

 

[upstater]

Revenue is not the same as profit.

Non-revenue, revenue is just the terminology they use in college sports to refer to self-sustaining programs. Those are not my terms. To a degree, every single program brings in revenue. The distinction is for which programs stand on their own.

Again, not my terms.

 

[UCDaveD]

I don’t give a Spartacus either way, but lmfao at the dude saying that Zion’s brand would be anything near what it is now had he gone overseas for a year. Yeah, because everyone’s dying to see Lega Basket Serie A games. SVP kicking off Sportscenter with those Torino vs Bologna highlights. Heard Zion dropped 20 vs Umana Reyer Venezia. Screw the NCAA tournament, those overseas playoff games are appointment television!

 

[BlueDogs]

As has been noted before in this thread, the "200K" and "160K" figures thrown out there about the value of a 4 year college education are wildly inflated, for a number of reasons. The marginal cost for a college to add an athlete to a few classes is extraordinarily lower. The high cost of higher education has a lot of reasons, and I would hope anyone really concerned with the cost of college would advocate for making college free, like most of the rest of the world. Also, I'm one of the kids who "got ripped off" and is paying loans a decade after I finished at UConn. Hasn't stopped me from pushing for a better system. Lastly, the value of the "brand name" of the college is in large part due to the free labor that players have provided to the universities. Their prestige has been constructed on the backs of unpaid labor - today's players have a platform built by players in the past. The great coaches and great programs are all financed by media and sneaker deals. which are valuable themselves because of the players. Every student is getting ripped off, we can both advocate for payers to be paid and for college to be free.

The market sets the value and marginal cost is not a sound argument.

 

[CL82]

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?

Know your niche. College sports hook is that these guys students who go out and play sports for old state U. Yes, I know that that is idealized version of college sports, but take it away and they essentially become the D-league or minor league ball. And the whole ball of wax unravels.

Oh and just in case you haven't thought this through, UConn is running its sports programs at a deficit right now (we can debate whether is really a $40M deficit or "just" a $20M deficit) adding more cost to it kills college sports for us.

 

[weyuo]

What kills me is every time I hear that these kids aren't getting paid I have to wonder why all the non athletes at UConn are shelling out thousands to attend the same school. They have to pay for their own books, food, medical expenses, transportation and don't get a free national TV stage to audition for potential employers. The average UConn student doesn't have state of the art physical training facilities yet part of their tuition pays for the upkeep for those who do. I don't buy this pay the players nonsense. If you want to pay them as an employee then Let them pay the school back for their cost once they leave early, get booted for violations and under performing. Let them pay the school back for expensive medical surgeries that the average student and/or their parents have to pay for. Add up what free housing, tuition, books, tutors, food, state of the art health care, transportation, training facilities and weekly auditions on national TV for perspective employers costs and trell me they aren't already getting paid. Oh, and throw a four year college degree in as icing on the cake. I think they get paid plenty already.

And for any student athlete that thinks they should get paid cash on top of everything else they get for free from the school just think of the alternative. Where would you be without the scholarship? Start paying players and less schools will be able to compete and will eventually drop the sport(s). Less sports means less scholarships means less free rides. Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it and the consequences.

 

[ucp990411]

What is so off base about his first paragraph? There shouldn't be any age limit for the NBA but I don't see what's such a load of cr@p about what he said.

There should not be any age limit for any sport. If a player is good enough and thinks he can handle it without college than go for it. Just like any other job. But the NCAA would fight it. I can’t believe this age rule has not been challenged in court

 

[Robertelamin]

There should not be any age limit for any sport. If a player is good enough and thinks he can handle it without college than go for it. Just like any other job. But the NCAA would fight it. I can’t believe this age rule has not been challenged in court

The NCAA doesn’t have a say in the matter since these are the NBA and NFL rules. I believe Maurice Clarett challenged it in court and lost.