Van Pelt Rant RE: Maryland Student Section

[Jimmy Serrano]

Well I'm working under the assumption the number would be a standard across schools.

And the schools that couldn't afford it?

 

[whaler11]

And the schools that couldn't afford it?

Everyone in a major conference can afford it. If you are talking about the AAC down... no one thinks they are competing anymore anyway once the playoff starts do they?

Northern Illinois wouldn't get in a 16 team playoff this year unless there was a rule that required them to be picked.

 

[CL82]

I think Aresco has this right, as much as it pains me to say that. Adjust the payments that they are allowed but don't call it being paid. Room, board, tuition, meal stipends and Pell grants, if qualified, ought to be enough.

 

[Husky25]

I seriously doubt too many folks would stop watching if the players got something like a $5,000 stipend.

It would be the exact same game but you wouldn't watch because they had some spending money?

I can tell you and you can choose to believe me or not. We won't really find out until after if it happens. But yes, all things being equal, I (and more than the doubted "too many" folks) will probably gravitate away from college sports.

It's the same sport. It's not the same game. Here's a For Instance...In 1998, UConn sponsored a Division 1-AA. They made the playoffs (First time in history). They even hosted a game at Memorial Stadium (on campus). Do you remember what the attendance was (Memorial Stadium held just over 16,000)? I didn't, so I looked it up (I do remember watching the game on TV from Massachusetts as I was a Senior at the time.) and I was shocked: 6,193. UConn was 43rd in 1-AA in attendance that year with an average of about 9,000. Think about that. Less than 6,200 show up for the first playoff game in the Program's history.

No one is saying it is not a quality product. The Rock Cats are quality baseball for the level as well. On their best day they will never out draw the Red Sox or Yankees on their respective worst. Again. Same sport, different game.

 

[upstater]

Yeah I'm calling bullspit on this. Why wouldn't that poison already exist when they're getting a free education?

It does exist. It will get worse.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

It does exist. It will get worse.

Kids are picking colleges more and more because of the high profile the university enjoys because of its athletic success. They are now going to revolt over this? The football player next to them today is getting an education valued at 6 figures for nothing, and they're gonna worry about a $5k stipend? I'm not buying it.

 

[UConn Insider]

I'm fascinated by the pay-for-play debate. I would side with paying players but understand the argument on both sides.

If anyone is interested, I really recommend Patrick Hruby's work on SportsOnEarth, he really goes at the idea that schools "can't afford" it: http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/54644180/

Also this one address "College Sports aren't popular Because of Amateurism": http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/54644180/

 

[whaler11]

I can tell you and you can choose to believe me or not. We won't really find out until after if it happens. But yes, all things being equal, I (and more than the doubted "too many" folks) will probably gravitate away from college sports.

It's the same sport. It's not the same game. Here's a For Instance...In 1998, UConn sponsored a Division 1-AA. They made the playoffs (First time in history). They even hosted a game at Memorial Stadium (on campus). Do you remember what the attendance was (Memorial Stadium held just over 16,000)? I didn't, so I looked it up (I do remember watching the game on TV from Massachusetts as I was a Senior at the time.) and I was shocked: 6,193. UConn was 43rd in 1-AA in attendance that year with an average of about 9,000. Think about that. Less than 6,200 show up for the first playoff game in the Program's history.

No one is saying it is not a quality product. The Rock Cats are quality baseball for the level as well. On their best day they will never out draw the Red Sox or Yankees on their respective worst. Again. Same sport, different game.

I was at that Hampton game. It was ridiculously warm and I remember there being way more than 6k there - but it was a long time ago.

I'm not sure your point though. People will be less interested if the players got $100 a week in spending money? I just don't get how that changes anything.

 

[BHusky]

I can tell you and you can choose to believe me or not. We won't really find out until after if it happens. But yes, all things being equal, I (and more than the doubted "too many" folks) will probably gravitate away from college sports.

It's the same sport. It's not the same game. Here's a For Instance...In 1998, UConn sponsored a Division 1-AA. They made the playoffs (First time in history). They even hosted a game at Memorial Stadium (on campus). Do you remember what the attendance was (Memorial Stadium held just over 16,000)? I didn't, so I looked it up (I do remember watching the game on TV from Massachusetts as I was a Senior at the time.) and I was shocked: 6,193. UConn was 43rd in 1-AA in attendance that year with an average of about 9,000. Think about that. Less than 6,200 show up for the first playoff game in the Program's history.

No one is saying it is not a quality product. The Rock Cats are quality baseball for the level as well. On their best day they will never out draw the Red Sox or Yankees on their respective worst. Again. Same sport, different game.

The Hampton game was played in Storrs over Thanksgiving break. I am not sure you can make a justified argument about fan attendance on the most heavily traveled weekends of the year and based on a game time/location given with less than a weeks notice. Team seeds were established Sunday and those seeds dictated home or away games.

If it gets to the point where players can truly cash in during college making 5-6 figures then it may have a negative affect on fan bases outside the Southeast. But the last I heard they were taking about $2k-$3k a school year which I highly doubt would cause a huge backlash from fans or students.

 

[upstater]

Kids are picking colleges more and more because of the high profile the university enjoys because of its athletic success. They are now going to revolt over this? The football player next to them today is getting an education valued at 6 figures for nothing, and they're gonna worry about a $5k stipend? I'm not buying it.

I really think you're overstating selection of colleges. Most schools have kids working at least halftime for tuition. Many of these schools have 30-40k in students. If half of them cared enough about football to select the school for that reason, you'd think they'd show up to football games. This is, by the way, the kind of thing you'll read about in the student newspaper. The student fees.

 

[upstater]

I'm fascinated by the pay-for-play debate. I would side with paying players but understand the argument on both sides.

If anyone is interested, I really recommend Patrick Hruby's work on SportsOnEarth, he really goes at the idea that schools "can't afford" it: http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/54644180/

Also this one address "College Sports aren't popular Because of Amateurism": http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/54644180/

This article is so wrong I wouldn't even know where to start.

The problem with all these sports writers is that they don't know enough about accounting or care enough to do any research or even use basic logic. He says football programs are profitable. That ignores the fact that football programs are housed within universities that must abide by title IX. It's just stupidity on his part. I don't know enough about accounting either but at least I have the curiosity to ask whether these ADs make a profit. They don't.

If this were truly the business world, there would be cutbacks. Hide profits? It's the opposite way around. They hide losses. How else to explain all the direct institutional support and student fees? How many businesses do you know where expenditures meet revenues down to the penny? That right there tells you something about the accounting tricks.

 

[whaler11]

But they hide losses because of what they choose to spend money on.

You can have a football team without paying the coaching staff 5 million dollars. You can have a basketball team without charter flying them all over the country.

The revenue is there for it to be profitable, the schools just are in an arms race to oblivion.

 

[upstater]

But they hide losses because of what they choose to spend money on.

You can have a football team without paying the coaching staff 5 million dollars. You can have a basketball team without charter flying them all over the country.

The revenue is there for it to be profitable, the schools just are in an arms race to oblivion.

The first people to scream if UConn went cheap on the new football coach would be the football season ticket holders and boosters. Not sure at all about charter travel and such--don't know what they do there.

 

[UConn Insider]

The first people to scream if UConn went cheap on the new football coach would be the football season ticket holders and boosters. Not sure at all about charter travel and such--don't know what they do there.

I guess bottom line is I support paying players and refuse to believe the NCAA or schools would crumble and waste away if/when Pay-for-Play is instituted.

I truly haven't seen a great plan put forth, nor do I have one, but it sure is fun message board fodder

 

[Carl Spackler]

I can tell you and you can choose to believe me or not. We won't really find out until after if it happens. But yes, all things being equal, I (and more than the doubted "too many" folks) will probably gravitate away from college sports.

It's the same sport. It's not the same game. Here's a For Instance...In 1998, UConn sponsored a Division 1-AA. They made the playoffs (First time in history). They even hosted a game at Memorial Stadium (on campus). Do you remember what the attendance was (Memorial Stadium held just over 16,000)? I didn't, so I looked it up (I do remember watching the game on TV from Massachusetts as I was a Senior at the time.) and I was shocked: 6,193. UConn was 43rd in 1-AA in attendance that year with an average of about 9,000. Think about that. Less than 6,200 show up for the first playoff game in the Program's history.

No one is saying it is not a quality product. The Rock Cats are quality baseball for the level as well. On their best day they will never out draw the Red Sox or Yankees on their respective worst. Again. Same sport, different game.

You can't look at one side of a coin and ignore the other. Yup, I was there. Not a lot of people at that game.

Last Saturday - 37,000+ tickets were sold, and the gate count had to have been damn close to the ticket sales, for an 0-4 UCONN football team taking on a 1-4 South Florida team in an essentially meaningless game in a brand new conference.

UCONN football in 2013, is NOT the same sport from a fan perspective as UCONN football in 1998.

 

[Husky25]

I was at that Hampton game. It was ridiculously warm and I remember there being way more than 6k there - but it was a long time ago.

I'm not sure your point though. People will be less interested if the players got $100 a week in spending money? I just don't get how that changes anything.

I got the number from a Courant article.

First of all, they aren't talking about $5,000. It'll be lower. I'd bet on that (ironically). But to answer your question: Yes, the game will change. It won't be immediate, but the already wide gap between those who can afford it and the AAC/MWC types who can't/won't will grow even larger. At least now there is the perception that a Boise St. or Northern Illinois has a fighting chance to crash the party. They can get a better-than-decent recruiting class every so often. That chance evaporates under virtually any pay-for-play model and you'll see the elite recruit pool swing even more than it has already toward the haves. When even the marginally decent players gravitate away from the AAC schools (and even the lower tier ACC, and other Power 5 schools), the product on the field suffers and unlike this year's problems at UConn, that can't be so easily fixed. As I said, same sport, different game. Remember, at the end of the day, it's about being entertained and all things being equal, the best players are more entertaining. The best play on Sunday...Monday...and sometimes Thursday.

Basketball is a little different due to the difference in length of season and age of the athletes playing in College vs. the NBA. The styles may be different, but they have a similar problem. It took UConn almost 20 years to go from Big East Second Fiddle (Only invited because Holy Cross declined) to National Champion. It's taken Gonzaga 14 years to do the same. They have yet to win the big one, but they are in the conversation. Pay for Play = no more FGCUs. No more Witchita States. No more Gonzagas and no more UConns. That's what is so great about the Tournament. Recycling the teams at the top is good for fans. What's good for fans is good for the sport. It's not good for the Athletic Aristocracy, but they want the lamb slaughtered.

Finally, Look at baseball. A player can be drafted to the pro leagues right out of high school. No college required. A first year, non-bonus baby Bryce Harper type makes about $1000/month plus meal money. The Big East Regular Season Champion and College World Series participant, Louisville Cardinals clock in at #15 on the national attendance list....at 1,436 in average/game. The Louisville Bats are the AAA affiliate (minimum salary is a about double the first year pay) to the Cincinnati Reds and had an average attendance of 7,800. The point again is entertainment value. Triple-A is presumably a better played game, ergo more fan support.

That is the product on the field. Now lets address the fiscal aspect:

1) $100/wk won't appease the athletes. Once received, they'll want more and where does it end? It will make a bad situation worse and won't fix the problem.
2) I truly believe it is not about the money. After all these years of hearing professional athletes say it, I finally understand what they mean. Do you really think Drew Brees needs $51 mil over the next 2+ years? No, and he doesn't either. What he cares about is what the money insinuates to anyone paying attention. It's status. Period. Money corrupts and the Manziels of will still solicit $10,000 from a sports dealer for a couple autographs just because he can.
3) Who do you pay? What sports? How do you address Title XI (this is the 800 lb. Gorilla in the room, BTW)?

 

[upstater]

I guess bottom line is I support paying players and refuse to believe the NCAA or schools would crumble and waste away if/when Pay-for-Play is instituted.

I truly haven't seen a great plan put forth, nor do I have one, but it sure is fun message board fodder

When you mean pay-for-play, do you mean professionalizing it? Or do you mean a stipend?

If you mean professionalizing it, I think it would crumble. 25 is right--people wouldn't play to watch minor league football--outside of the SEC. If you mean a stipend, that's different. Each school will have to decide whether it wants to lose more money on that.

 

[Husky25]

You can't look at one side of a coin and ignore the other. Yup, I was there. Not a lot of people at that game.

Last Saturday - 37,000+ tickets were sold, and the gate count had to have been damn close to the ticket sales, for an 0-4 UCONN football team taking on a 1-4 South Florida team in an essentially meaningless game in a brand new conference.

UCONN football in 2013, is NOT the same sport from a fan perspective as UCONN football in 1998.

Different emotions were at play last week, Carl. Homecoming, New Coach, New QB, New Hope. Look at the percentages. Memorial sat 16,200. UConn's average attendance that year was about 9,000 (a little over but lets round it for simplicity's sake). UConn filled its stadium for regular season games verse Maine, Hofstra, UMass, URI, and Delaware to the tune of 56% and can barely muster 38% for a playoff game.

UConn is now playing at the highest level of NCAA football. They were 0-4 and still filled their 40,000 seat stadium to roughly 92%. That's how much the level of play on the field means.

 

[UConn Insider]

When you mean pay-for-play, do you mean professionalizing it? Or do you mean a stipend?

If you mean professionalizing it, I think it would crumble. 25 is right--people wouldn't play to watch minor league football--outside of the SEC. If you mean a stipend, that's different. Each school will have to decide whether it wants to lose more money on that.

I just realized I didn't link this article: http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/62747894/ it discusses wheter Amateurism is what makes College sports popular. Read it and let me know your thoughts. Again, I just find the whole debate really interesting since I think we are headed that way in the near future

Whether it's pay for play, stipend, a combo of both, or something we haven't thought of (Olympic model?), my feelings for UConn Athletics won't change, and I think I'm in the majority for college sports fans. But yeah, there are certainly a lot of factors at play.

 

[upstater]

I just realized I didn't link this article: http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/62747894/ it discusses wheter Amateurism is what makes College sports popular. Read it and let me know your thoughts. Again, I just find the whole debate really interesting since I think we are headed that way in the near future

Whether it's pay for play, stipend, a combo of both, or something we haven't thought of (Olympic model?), my feelings for UConn Athletics won't change, and I think I'm in the majority for college sports fans. But yeah, there are certainly a lot of factors at play.

What makes the sports popular is the fact that they are affiliated with schools, and the students and alumni who go/went to those schools are a big part of the popularity. If these were semi-pro or minor league teams, they wouldn't be popular.

That Hruby guy gets most of his facts wrong, and it leads him to the wrong conclusions. if you start with the knowledge that college sports lose money, then the question of amateurism/professionalism is moot. Not to mention the fact that you are dealing with institutions that have relied on apprenticeship labor for eons now.

 

[UConn Insider]

What makes the sports popular is the fact that they are affiliated with schools, and the students and alumni who go/went to those schools are a big part of the popularity. If these were semi-pro or minor league teams, they wouldn't be popular.

That Hruby guy gets most of his facts wrong, and it leads him to the wrong conclusions. if you start with the knowledge that college sports lose money, then the question of amateurism/professionalism is moot. Not to mention the fact that you are dealing with institutions that have relied on apprenticeship labor for eons now.

That's the thing, how does any of it change, just because athletes start getting a slice of the multi-billion dollar pie? The reason minor leagues/semi-pros do so poorly is they don't have the built in fan bases that colleges do. Just asking, would you lose interest in UConn if athletes start getting paid?

And I'm not going to pretend to know the economics of college athletic departments and I'm sure there's other threads in which more this is discussed in more detail, but once some kinda of pay system is installed, it's my opinion that there won't be this "doomsday" scenario of colleges and athletic department folding up shop left and right.

 

[upstater]

That's the thing, how does any of it change, just because athletes start getting a slice of the multi-billion dollar pie? The reason minor leagues/semi-pros do so poorly is they don't have the built in fan bases that colleges do. Just asking, would you lose interest in UConn if athletes start getting paid?

And I'm not going to pretend to know the economics of college athletic departments and I'm sure there's other threads in which more this is discussed in more detail, but once some kinda of pay system is installed, it's my opinion that there won't be this "doomsday" scenario of colleges and athletic department folding up shop left and right.

Yes, I'd stop watching. It would make no sense to me because at that point you wouldn'tbe dealing with students. I don't see how the athletes would take classes alongside other students. Universities would also have a huge bit of trouble putting this over on the rest of the employees as well, because they've jacked up tuition and shuttered programs, fired staff to save money. Makes no sense to dump more money into sports when you're cutting everywhere else.

Athletes already get a slice. Top training, facilities, education if they want it, room and board. Athletic programs are in the red. People like Hruby can pretend that Title IX doesn't exist and that football is profitable on its own, but he's not dealing with reality. Not only that, but football expenditures have exactly followed the rise in football revenues.

 

[UConn Insider]

Yes, I'd stop watching. It would make no sense to me because at that point you wouldn'tbe dealing with students. I don't see how the athletes would take classes alongside other students. Universities would also have a huge bit of trouble putting this over on the rest of the employees as well, because they've jacked up tuition and shuttered programs, fired staff to save money. Makes no sense to dump more money into sports when you're cutting everywhere else.

Athletes already get a slice. Top training, facilities, education if they want it, room and board. Athletic programs are in the red. People like Hruby can pretend that Title IX doesn't exist and that football is profitable on its own, but he's not dealing with reality. Not only that, but football expenditures have exactly followed the rise in football revenues.

Interesting you feel that way, I guess I don't understand why we only say to student-athletes that your scholarship is enough and you don't deserve any additional money, but we would never say that a music student with a scholarship who can perform or book gigs to get paid. No you can't make $100 performing at Ted's you already have a scholarship!

But alas, we can go on forever, ain't getting solved between you and me.

 

[upstater]

Interesting you feel that way, I guess I don't understand why we only say to student-athletes that your scholarship is enough and you don't deserve any additional money, but we would never say that a music student with a scholarship who can perform or book gigs to get paid. No you can't make $100 performing at Ted's you already have a scholarship!

But alas, we can go on forever, ain't getting solved between you and me.

They can make $100 at ted's. They are allowed to work during the summer. All the TAs and scholarship kids on campus sign contracts forbidding them from working during the school year.

I just can't understand why people keep shouting capitalism and they don't bother looking at the bottom line. You want to pay people when the department they are a part of is a money loser. Makes no sense. Hruby's arguments totally ignored Title 9.

 

[J187Money]

Yes, I'd stop watching. It would make no sense to me because at that point you wouldn'tbe dealing with students. I don't see how the athletes would take classes alongside other students. Universities would also have a huge bit of trouble putting this over on the rest of the employees as well, because they've jacked up tuition and shuttered programs, fired staff to save money. Makes no sense to dump more money into sports when you're cutting everywhere else.

Athletes already get a slice. Top training, facilities, education if they want it, room and board. Athletic programs are in the red. People like Hruby can pretend that Title IX doesn't exist and that football is profitable on its own, but he's not dealing with reality. Not only that, but football expenditures have exactly followed the rise in football revenues.

I hear what you are saying, but let's just say we are talking $5K/kid. If you did it for the full 85 that is $425K/year. Double it if you need to make up for Title IX somewhere. The math alone says that this wouldn't kill the program. Or any real program. To say that we shouldn't pay athletes is one thing. To say that the universities can't afford a stipend, one that is 25% of the head coach's salary is silly.

And the reality is that many of these kids do scrape by. And that's why violations happen. When P told the kids two weeks before his first game they needed jackets and ties, where were these kids supposed to get the money to accomplish that? Telling them they can go to a thrift shop is nice in theory, but football player size clothing isn't always readily available.

You would be shocked what the school doesn't pay for. Even some things the players wear on the field. You need tape, fine - they have a warehouse full of tape. You want an ankle brace? Go to Dick's and buy one. Get poked in the eye? We will get you special contacts so you can play. When you walk off the field we will take them from you and hold them. If you can't see to go to class? Go buy some glasses. You are poor? Tough *|>¥!

I'm not in favor of paying kids "real money" and I understand the slippery slope argument. But how does giving a player a modest stipend do anything but make life easier for the average athlete? I would argue that the guys with their hands out will always have their hands out. Most of the kids are just looking to get by and enjoy college life a little on top of football.