OT: It's time to pay college athletes.

[XXtwindad]

This seems like a step in the right direction:https://www.google.com/amp/s/deadspin.com/california-lawmakers-passes-bill-allowing-college-athle-1838001341/amp

Newsom is a moderate progressive and college jock. He'll sign it. Read an essay not too long ago by a couple of profs comparing the collegiate athletic system to apartheid - with the (almost) exclusively white administrators earning millions and the (almost) exclusively black athletes on bottom earning comparative peanuts for their sweat equity. Made a very compelling argument.

[Rada]

Maybe it's time for colleges to do what they are meant to do and get out of sports.

[Blue Jays]

Maybe it is time for student amateur athletes to focus on good grades, earning a degree, getting a job, and paying student loans.

[unterhausen]

Maybe it's time for colleges to do what they are meant to do and get out of sports.

this. As a Penn Stater, I was a little shocked at how much football corrupted the university. But it corrupts even the universities with unsuccessful programs as well. And the scandals at MSU and Ohio State wrestling were even more shocking. No college president has ever been fired over wrestling or gymnastics. Pretty sure that is limited to football and basketball.

[fiamme red]

Maybe it's time for colleges to do what they are meant to do and get out of sports.There is too much money in college sports for this to happen. There are colleges that have 75% of their revenues coming from football and basketball.

[cmg]

"moment of fear for the predominantly white institutions whose collective multibillion-dollar revenues have been built largely on the exertions of (uncompensated) black athletes. The NCAA reported $1.1 billion in revenue for its 2017 fiscal year. Most of that money comes from the Division I men’s-basketball tournament. In 2016, the NCAA extended its television agreement with CBS Sports and Turner Broadcasting through 2032—an $8.8 billion deal. About 30 Division I schools each bring in at least $100 million in athletic revenue every year. Almost all of these schools are majority white—in fact, black men make up only 2.4 percent of the total undergraduate population of the 65 schools in the so-called Power Five athletic conferences. Yet black men make up 55 percent of the football players in those conferences, and 56 percent of basketball players. "

since you brought up college and compensation of athletes here's another topic. What would happen to those Div 1 schools if they lost those black athletes because they decided to go to black schools instead and took those endorsements with them?

[johnniecakes]

Maybe it's time for colleges to do what they are meant to do and get out of sports.
And public schools as well. Always money for sports, which benefit very few, but just try and hire reading teacher for elementary school and hear the "we can't afford it" cry from the district

[echappist]

Maybe it's time for colleges to do what they are meant to do and get out of sports.

Maybe it is time for student amateur athletes to focus on good grades, earning a degree, getting a job, and paying student loans.

hear hear

once again, American exceptionalism at its finest. Nowhere else in the world does this sort of masquerade go on. If the fans want their bread and circus and demand a collegiate team, do what they do in other countries and license out the school name (e.g. UANL in Liga MX, Católica and Universidad de Chile in Chilean first division). It's not too much further from what we have today (team composed mostly of players having no interested in academics), and certainly can't be more damaging to academics than what currently goes on.

--------------------------------------

that said, I applaud the effort in CA. About damn time the athletes get treated like employees. The documentary "Schooled" detailed lives ruined by collegiate sports, including one gentleman who suffered life-long paralysis that was the result of playing in NCAA sports. And here's the kicker, were he a minor leaguer, he'd have been able to claim workmen's comp. In this case, he was deemed a student athlete, and the university conveniently washed its hands.

Hypocrisy at its finest

[Red Tornado]

Maybe it's time for colleges to do what they are meant to do and get out of sports.
Maybe; a little extreme but I can see where you're coming from.

Maybe it is time for student amateur athletes to focus on good grades, earning a degree, getting a job, and paying student loans.
In the words of Daniel Bryan, "Yes! Yes! Yes!".

this. As a Penn Stater, I was a little shocked at how much football corrupted the university. But it corrupts even the universities with unsuccessful programs as well. And the scandals at MSU and Ohio State wrestling were even more shocking. No college president has ever been fired over wrestling or gymnastics. Pretty sure that is limited to football and basketball.
Other sports, too but yes mainly football.

I agree there seems to be a gap with all this money money going to colleges, admins, etc. However, they are still STUDENTS and I can't, in my mind, justify paying them for playing a game while people like myself/wife/kids have to pay (instead of getting paid) to get an education. I know this is a result of how the system is set up currently but that doesn't make it right. Education first, athletics second.
My $0.02 and I will say nothing further.

[jtbadge]

This thread is already a train wreck. Predictable responses from old white men about how young people of color need to sit down and shut up. Might as well shut it down now.

[XXtwindad]

Maybe it's time for colleges to do what they are meant to do and get out of sports.

It's a nice sentiment. But perhaps too utopian. Colleges have always been businesses. And the football and basketball programs, in particular, are the big moneymakers. They fund all the other programs. The athletes should be compensated accordingly.

[Mikej]

Very few college sports programs can actually pay for them selves. It’s actually a shockingly small amount. I’ve never really followed sports so I really don’t care-

[mhespenheide]

To clarify:

California is not proposing to pay its student-athletes.

It is proposing to allow them to sign endorsement deals and to prohibit state-run universities from disciplinary action against student-athletes who sign endorsement deals.

[FlashUNC]

College athletes should get all the endorsement dollars they can get. They should get paid if they're in a revenue sport. Heck, the revenue sports should subsidize pay for non-revenue sports. Athletes should be able to transfer without penalty.

As money making enterprises, the concept of "student athlete" is Orwellian NCAA nonsense and should be treated as such.

Pay 'em.

[yinzerniner]

Obviously the hierarchy of big-time Football and Basketball will fight tooth and nail but there wouldn't be any need to pay college athletes if alternatives existed like the minors and junior programs of the other two major sports, Baseball and Hockey.

Also doesn't make sense that you lose you amateur status for the football and basketball when you're drafted. It's a punishment that's only in place to limit the life choices of predominantly needy athletes.

And gotta love how they allow college athletes to play other sports for money but keep their eligibility, but won't allow those same athletes to take endorsement money without losing eligibility. The Jeremy Bloom case comes to mind.

But agree, this thread will probably need to be shut down in 3, 2, ........

[rwsaunders]

I do pay the college athletes with every tuition check that I write.

[mhespenheide]

Colleges have always been businesses. And the football and basketball programs, in particular, are the big moneymakers. They fund all the other programs.


Sideline: Can I amend your statement?

Some small fraction of the nation's football and basketball programs are the big moneymakers.

All D3 programs, practically all D2 programs, and even the majority of D1 programs lose money. A tiny, tiny percentage of universities and colleges make a lot of money off their athletics programs -- the ones with national name recognition.

I remain embittered against the University of Wyoming, where I got my graduate degree, for cutting a relatively cheap national-class cross-country skiing team due to "budget constraints" while simultaneously pouring money into a perpetually second- or third-class football program.

//end sideline.

[jtbadge]

I do pay the college athletes with every tuition check that I write.

Nope, at most universities, athletic scholarships are paid entirely from athletic revenue and booster donations.


Either way, tuition is payment at a rate of cents on the hour for the time they work, and most schools don’t allow student athletes to hold jobs for fear of NCAA violations.

[msl819]

This is always an interesting conversation for me. Myself, I am an ex- college jock. While I did not compete at one of the big dollar schools, I did compete in a major sport at the Division I level and earned a degree that has positioned me for work. When people ask me if athletes should be paid, I honestly don't have a good response. It is complicated.

The Article linked above is concerning the CA bill to allow athletes to be compensated for endorsements. For sure this is a form of compensation, but still very different than every athlete getting paid beyond what their scholarship allows based solely on their activities on a team.

There is a crazy amount of money being made. For certain, the athletes regardless of color, are not reaping the lion's share of the reward.

Given the amount of schools that have built their institutions and set budgets based off athletics based income, I shutter to think about what the cost of tuition would be if even more of the costs were passed directly to the individual student. We are already moving into the territory where many offered degrees at Universities do not position the student with enough earning potential to reasonably pay back the amount borrowed.

It sounds to me like the major sentiment here is it is time for rich, old white men stop profiting off the backs of young (often black) athletes and give athletics the boot. Or direct the funds to the athlete not the institution. If that were to happen, I wonder how much more elite and out of reach higher-Ed would be for people who's last names do not include a trust fund.

It is complicated! And while it may not seem fair, every athlete is willfully participating.

Most days I would argue for the reprioritizing of athletics into a healthier perspective on campus, not paying beyond a scholarship. But let's be real... there is WAY too much money at stake for that course correction to happen.

[rwsaunders]

Nope, at most universities, athletic scholarships are paid entirely from athletic revenue and booster donations.


Either way, tuition is payment at a rate of cents on the hour for the time they work, and most schools don’t allow student athletes to hold jobs for fear of NCAA violations.

I think that your funding statement warrants further review...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2014/12/12/who-actually-funds-intercollegiate-athletic-programs/#4ffa452217af

[XXtwindad]

Sideline: Can I amend your statement?

Some small fraction of the nation's football and basketball programs are the big moneymakers.

All D3 programs, practically all D2 programs, and even the majority of D1 programs lose money. A tiny, tiny percentage of universities and colleges make a lot of money off their athletics programs -- the ones with national name recognition.

I remain embittered against the University of Wyoming, where I got my graduate degree, for cutting a national-class cross-country skiing team due to budget constraints while simultaneously pouring money into a perpetually second- or third-class football program.

//end sideline.

Point taken. Thank you.

[FriarQuade]

The restrictions put on student athletes are pretty insane and they absolutely should be allowed to have some kind of stipend for basic expenses.

The tough call comes from who you pay and where the money comes from. I imagine the revenue shake out is pretty similar to cycling, one or two events, sports and schools make an extremely disproportionate share of the money. Should those events/schools/sports share that revenue and with who?

[XXtwindad]

This is always an interesting conversation for me. Myself, I am an ex- college jock. While I did not compete at one of the big dollar schools, I did compete in a major sport at the Division I level and earned a degree that has positioned me for work. When people ask me if athletes should be paid, I honestly don't have a good response. It is complicated.

The Article linked above is concerning the CA bill to allow athletes to be compensated for endorsements. For sure this is a form of compensation, but still very different than every athlete getting paid beyond what their scholarship allows based solely on their activities on a team.

There is a crazy amount of money being made. For certain, the athletes regardless of color, are not reaping the lion's share of the reward.

Given the amount of schools that have built their institutions and set budgets based off athletics based income, I shutter to think about what the cost of tuition would be if even more of the costs were passed directly to the individual student. We are already moving into the territory where many offered degrees at Universities do not position the student with enough earning potential to reasonably pay back the amount borrowed.

It sounds to me like the major sentiment here is it is time for rich, old white men stop profiting off the backs of young (often black) athletes and give athletics the boot. If that were to happen, I wonder how much more elite and out of reach higher-Ed would be for people who last names do not include a trust fund.

It is complicated! And while it may not seem fair, every athlete is willfully participating.

Thanks for the response. To be clear: I was aware that this bill only pertains to endorsements. I think it's a step in the right (ultimate) direction.

[Rada]

This thread is already a train wreck. Predictable responses from old white men about how young people of color need to sit down and shut up. Might as well shut it down now.

Can't speak for anyone else, but not what I meant. We spend a trillion dollars a year on national security yet keep cutting spending on education. Yet what everyone seems to focus on is pay for student athletes who make up a fraction of the student population. I'd rather see a lot more underprivileged children given the chance at a good education. But nope, lets worry about athletes.

[msl819]

The restrictions put on student athletes are pretty insane and they absolutely should be allowed to have some kind of stipend for basic expenses.

The tough call comes from who you pay and where the money comes from. I imagine the revenue shake out is pretty similar to cycling, one or two events, sports and schools make an extremely disproportionate share of the money. Should those events/schools/sports share that revenue and with who?

I completely agree with this. Many athletes comes from economically depressed environments and no student athlete should not be able to afford basic expense. Unless it has changed, athletes on full-scholarship are prohibited by the NCAA from working a job.

[msl819]

Thanks for the response. To be clear: I was aware that this bill only pertains to endorsements. I think it's a step in the right (ultimate) direction.

I did not assume you weren't. I simply highlighted that because this bill is not a flat pay athletes decision. I do not think the NCAA or the institution should be able to profit from the name or likeness of individuals that are not compensated. Jersey sales, video game, etc. should not allow money to be made and not passed along to the athlete. Wasn't that the law suit Ed O'Bannon fought and won?

[msl819]

I think that your funding statement warrants further review...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2014/12/12/who-actually-funds-intercollegiate-athletic-programs/#4ffa452217af

And the 80% of fees spoken of in the article, it sounds like, are primarily used for scholarships. There is an immense cost to running any program far beyond the cost of tuition, room, board, and fees of the athletes. Insurance, facilities, coaches salaries, support staff, travel, recruiting, on and on the list goes. Those are all being paid by someone(s).

[XXtwindad]

I did not assume you weren't. I simply highlighted that because this bill is not a flat pay athletes decision. I do not think the NCAA or the institution should be able to profit from the name or likeness of individuals that are not compensated. Jersey sales, video game, etc. should not allow money to be made and not passed along to the athlete. Wasn't that the law suit Ed O'Bannon fought and won?

From the O'Bannon decision:

"The NCAA subsequently appealed the ruling,[19] arguing that Wilken did not properly consider NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma. In that case, the NCAA was denied control of college football television rights, but the court also stated: "To preserve the character and quality of the ‘product,’ athletes must not be paid."[20]

[msl819]

From the O'Bannon decision:

"The NCAA subsequently appealed the ruling,[19] arguing that Wilken did not properly consider NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma. In that case, the NCAA was denied control of college football television rights, but the court also stated: "To preserve the character and quality of the ‘product,’ athletes must not be paid."[20]

So the fight is basically over who owns the product. The University, the athlete, or the NCAA. But really who owns it, the NCAA or the Institution.

[Mark McM]

Obviously the hierarchy of big-time Football and Basketball will fight tooth and nail but there wouldn't be any need to pay college athletes if alternatives existed like the minors and junior programs of the other two major sports, Baseball and Hockey.

That's true. But the NCAA has colluded with the NBA and the NFL to prevent this from happening in basketball and football. For example, NBA draft rules say that a player has to be at least 19 years old AND out of high school for at least 1 year, before they can be hired by an NBA team. It's not practical for a young athlete to take a gap year at the start of their career, so the only practical path to an NBA team is to go to a college team. In affect the NBA has made the NCAA their farm system - only, players in the minor leagues have far more rights than NCAA players.

[KJMUNC]

While I think something needs changing, I wasn't thrilled to hear that this bill was passed today as it's far too open ended.

As someone who played football for one of the biggest programs in the country (even though I was mostly just practice fodder for the starters and NFL-bound), I feel pretty qualified to offer an opinion here:

I'm not for individual player endorsements as that has all kinds of individual-driven complications in a large team sport that are too hard to untangle.

I AM all for some sort of compensation agreement between the school and athlete based on some combination of # of seasons/years with a binary-trigger bonus for graduation.

I also believe compensation should be designed to enable something useful AFTER you leave school: pay off school debt, down payment on house, start investing, etc.

Case in point: my alma mater's football program brings in roughly >$150M/yr and the athletic programs there in general top $200M with a $40M+ profit margin.

So let's do simple math: say you set-up a fund where you could earn up to $50k if you compete at least 4 seasons and graduate (with decremented step-downs from there if you do less/don't graduate). You're talking about a $7M hit for a team of 140 players......and that's not an annual cost, as the team might turnover 30 players a year, so it's more like $1.5M annually with a 5yr turnover required for the full $7M. That's <1% of annual revenues. Heck, make it $100k....choose any number you want.....it's not making a dent for the large programs.

Obviously things are more complicated for schools that don't bring in $150M/year in football revenue, but why shouldn't the NCAA step in to help? They generated $1B in revenue last year.....

As an NCAA athlete I couldn't hold a job in college, got no official benefits (food, clothing, etc) beyond uniforms and warmups, and was typically busy with school or practice 12hrs a day for most of the year while the university made money hand over fist selling anything they could (or generating donations). It would've been nice to walk away with something to help start life for all that non-class/non-degree investment I put in for the school.

CA's bill isn't perfect, but maybe it will finally force the NCAA to have a realistic dialog about options.

[AngryScientist]

This thread is already a train wreck. Predictable responses from old white men about how young people of color need to sit down and shut up. Might as well shut it down now.

to me this thread appears to be a civil, thoughtful discussion. throwing racial statements, which are completely baseless are what get's threads shut down, such as the one you posted.

how do you know any responses here are from "old white men"?

i can think of 100 ways you could have presented an opinion on this matter without having to stoop to the level you did.

you have earned a 2-week time out, since you should know better.

[saf-t]

and as a tangentially related issue, how many professors could be hired for the cost of just *one* of these (https://thebestschools.org/magazine/highest-paid-college-coaches/) guys?


Disclaimer: I know a whole bunch of folks teaching in colleges as adjuncts who are making a few grand per class because their institutions find "more cost effective" to do it that way than hiring tenured faculty who get benefits.

[fiamme red]

and as a tangentially related issue, how many professors could be hired for the cost of just *one* of these (https://thebestschools.org/magazine/highest-paid-college-coaches/) guys?


Disclaimer: I know a whole bunch of folks teaching in colleges as adjuncts who are making a few grand per class because their institutions find "more cost effective" to do it that way than hiring tenured faculty who get benefits.I have a friend with a PhD who is teaching six college courses this semester (three at one school, three at another) as an adjunct, and he's barely getting by.

But the argument can be made that Saban and Meyer generate many times their salary in revenues for their schools.

[oldpotatoe]

Maybe it's time for colleges to do what they are meant to do and get out of sports.

Too much money involved, although I agree. Let these athletes ‘major’ in their sport instead of the BS about ‘student athletes’. If they want to take other classes, let them but recognize it for what it is, minor league farm teams training for the pros.

[reconstyle]

Let's be honest here - athletics is only a small part of the problem. The whole college system is the US is a gigantic disaster.

Education is big business, and regardless of the fact that all d1 schools are "non-profit" - the majority of their decisions, whether athletic or academic, are driven by money. Until that changes, we'll continue to have ballooning student debt which will drive the US into an absolutely massive recession.

[beeatnik]

to me this thread appears to be a civil, thoughtful discussion. throwing racial statements, which are completely baseless are what get's threads shut down, such as the one you posted.

how do you know any responses here are from "old white men"?

i can think of 100 ways you could have presented an opinion on this matter without having to stoop to the level you did.

you have earned a 2-week time out, since you should know better.

Confused by this. As a person of color (ethnically) and, more importantly, someone who has been banned on multiple occasions, I don't interpret James's statement as a violation of the forum's conduct policy. Speculating about demographics and describing a group in developmental terms regardless of intent should be "protected speech." When it comes to the decisions that affect major american athletics, aren't old(er) white men the decision makers? As they represent not just the largest demographic group but the most influential. Interestingly enough, ancestry.com revealed to me that I'm an old(er) white man.

And what about banning the guy who called my thread a "mess" and insulted weird people (we're a class!)

https://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=2591620&postcount=128

https://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=2591733&postcount=156

[akelman]

Let's be honest here - athletics is only a small part of the problem. The whole college system is the US is a gigantic disaster.

The rest of the world sends its best and brightest to the United States for higher education, and our system is a disaster? I'm genuinely confused.

[reconstyle]

The rest of the world sends its best and brightest to the United States for higher education, and our system is a disaster? I'm genuinely confused.

Burden of proof is on you to substantiate that claim.

[Black Dog]

Confused by this. As a person of color (ethnically) and, more importantly, someone who has been banned on multiple occasions, I don't interpret James's statement as a violation of the forum's conduct policy. Speculating about demographics and describing a group in developmental terms regardless of intent should be "protected speech." When it comes to the decisions that affect major american athletics, aren't old(er) white men the decision makers? As they represent not just the largest demographic group but the most influential. Interestingly enough, ancestry.com revealed to me that I'm an old(er) white man.

And what about banning the guy who called my thread a "mess" and insulted weird people (we're a class!)

https://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=2591620&postcount=128

https://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=2591733&postcount=156

I agree. The two of week ban seems, prima facia, to be heavy handed. Is it not older white men that are making huge profits off primarily black athletes who are never going to be compensated if they are injured and disabled in any way while generating massive revenue for the NCAA and a few schools.

[sjbraun]

"you have earned a 2-week time out, since you should know better."

This is a bit harsh and unwarranted, IMHO

[akelman]

Burden of proof is on you to substantiate that claim.

I'm totally mystified. You think our system is a disaster? How so? And you don't think the brightest young people come from around the world to study at American colleges and universities? Also, are we in court now? There's a burden of proof that must be met by the...wait, who?

All kidding aside, here are two questions: how's our system a disaster (I well might agree with you)? And do you think people who have the means from around the world don't come to the United States for higher education?

[XXtwindad]

Confused by this. As a person of color (ethnically) and, more importantly, someone who has been banned on multiple occasions, I don't interpret James's statement as a violation of the forum's conduct policy. Speculating about demographics and describing a group in developmental terms regardless of intent should be "protected speech." When it comes to the decisions that affect major american athletics, aren't old(er) white men the decision makers? As they represent not just the largest demographic group but the most influential. Interestingly enough, ancestry.com revealed to me that I'm an old(er) white man.

And what about banning the guy who called my thread a "mess" and insulted weird people (we're a class!) gotta admit, that's funny...

https://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=2591620&postcount=128

https://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=2591733&postcount=156

All humor aside, Nick was right on point. jtbadge's comments did nothing to further the dialogue. If he thought the thread was BS (fair enough) he should've articulated it in another manner. Shaming people on their (perceived) pigment is a zero sum game. There are many words at one's disposal for a sentient individual (which, from the postings I've seen from jtbadge, he most certainly is.) He should've used them. I can't speak to the "time-out." But, again, Nick was certainly in the right to point out the response was ill-thought out, at the very least.

[beeatnik]

All humor aside, Nick was right on point. jtbadge's comments did nothing to further the dialogue. If he thought the thread was BS (fair enough) he should've articulated it in another manner. Shaming people on their (perceived) pigment is a zero sum game. There are many words at one's disposal for a sentient individual (which, from the postings I've seen from jtbadge, he most certainly is.) He should've used them.

It's shameful to be an older white male? Was my thread locked because fat (for LA) became a punchline?

[Black Dog]

I'm totally mystified. You think our system is a disaster? How so? And you don't think the brightest young people come from around the world to study at American colleges and universities? Also, are we in court now? There's a burden of proof that must be met by the...wait, who?

All kidding aside, here are two questions: how's our system a disaster (I well might agree with you)? And do you think people who have the means from around the world don't come to the United States for higher education?

Err ummm. People of means from around the world go to good schools in Canada and Europe not just the USA. Primarily because their countries of origin do not have equivalent schools.

[akelman]

All humor aside, Nick was right on point. jtbadge's comments did nothing to further the dialogue. If he thought the thread was BS (fair enough) he should've articulated it in another manner. Shaming people on their (perceived) pigment is a zero sum game. There are many words at one's disposal for a sentient individual (which, from the postings I've seen from jtbadge, he most certainly is.) He should've used them.

Who wants to take bets on whether the first few people who posted were over, let's say, 45 and also white? And who wants to talk about the racial dynamics that often animate people's opinions on these (and other) subjects? Nobody? Yeah, I figured. Good talk!

[joosttx]

This thread is already a train wreck. Predictable responses from old white men about how young people of color need to sit down and shut up. Might as well shut it down now.

pay the kids. allow them to form an organization that looks out / represents them. F' the NCAA. -signed white guy over 45.

[XXtwindad]

It's shameful to be an older white male?

C'mon, man. Really like the unique vibe you bring to the Paceline, but let's get back on point.

[akelman]

F' the NCAA.

Best comment in the thread. The NCAA is a cartel and deeply corrupt. For what it's worth, I'm really old and really white.

[joosttx]

It's shameful to be an older white male? Was my thread locked because fat (for LA) became a punchline?

Im sorry for that.

[beeatnik]

C'mon, man. Really like the unique vibe you bring to the Paceline, but let's get back on point.

It's interesting to me when we coddle or protect individuals whose status is not dependent on either.

[Black Dog]

paid the kids. allow them to form an organization that looks out / represents them. F' the NCAA. -signed white guy over 45.

I agree. As a white guy over 45 I can acknowledge that, relatively speaking, I have been given smoother roads to ride on compared to people of colour and women. Time to let everyone ride on the good roads. Privilege based on wealth, gender, and race is real. Merit needs to matter a hell of a lot more.

[KJMUNC]

Best comment in the thread. The NCAA is a cartel and deeply corrupt. For what it's worth, I'm really old and really white.

The Boz said it best, 30yrs ago.....

[Vientomas]

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_Baby_Athletic_Association

[beeatnik]

Im sorry for that.

I think it was locked because I'm a weirdo and bad thread title giver.

[XXtwindad]

While I think something needs changing, I wasn't thrilled to hear that this bill was passed today as it's far too open ended.

As someone who played football for one of the biggest programs in the country (even though I was mostly just practice fodder for the starters and NFL-bound), I feel pretty qualified to offer an opinion here:

I'm not for individual player endorsements as that has all kinds of individual-driven complications in a large team sport that are too hard to untangle.

I AM all for some sort of compensation agreement between the school and athlete based on some combination of # of seasons/years with a binary-trigger bonus for graduation.

I also believe compensation should be designed to enable something useful AFTER you leave school: pay off school debt, down payment on house, start investing, etc.

Case in point: my alma mater's football program brings in roughly >$150M/yr and the athletic programs there in general top $200M with a $40M+ profit margin.

So let's do simple math: say you set-up a fund where you could earn up to $50k if you compete at least 4 seasons and graduate (with decremented step-downs from there if you do less/don't graduate). You're talking about a $7M hit for a team of 140 players......and that's not an annual cost, as the team might turnover 30 players a year, so it's more like $1.5M annually with a 5yr turnover required for the full $7M. That's <1% of annual revenues. Heck, make it $100k....choose any number you want.....it's not making a dent for the large programs.

Obviously things are more complicated for schools that don't bring in $150M/year in football revenue, but why shouldn't the NCAA step in to help? They generated $1B in revenue last year.....

As an NCAA athlete I couldn't hold a job in college, got no official benefits (food, clothing, etc) beyond uniforms and warmups, and was typically busy with school or practice 12hrs a day for most of the year while the university made money hand over fist selling anything they could (or generating donations). It would've been nice to walk away with something to help start life for all that non-class/non-degree investment I put in for the school.

CA's bill isn't perfect, but maybe it will finally force the NCAA to have a realistic dialog about options.

One of the best responses on the thread. (And there were several)

[joosttx]

I think it was locked because I'm a weirdo and bad thread title giver.

Maybe... maybe not. How the little girl. Getting big?

[Matthew]

At least text books are still cheap.

[sjbraun]

All college sports should be limited to intramural activities; colleges should be about education, not revenue generating sports.

[joosttx]

All college sports should be limited to intramural activities; colleges should be about education, not revenue generating sports.

I would simply say college athletics does have a place. For some it’s an excellent way to teach leadership, confidence and teamwork. That is part of the education you get in college.

[54ny77]

I still can't understand why curling isn't a D1 sport. Especially in Florida. It could bring in hundreds of dollars a year.

[akelman]

All college sports should be limited to intramural activities; colleges should be about education, not revenue generating sports.

I'm fine with intercollegiate athletics. I was a Division I jock and learned a lot from my coaches and teammates. I just don't think colleges and universities should be providing de facto minor leagues for the pros. I say that because revenue sports mostly aren't profitable for the schools—though it's difficult to disaggregate things like development from the overall equation—and the hidden costs are terribly corrosive for many campuses.

[FriarQuade]

College atheltics is a big part of why the US women's soccer team has been so great over the last 10 years. Title nine gave these ladies another step to climb when most other countries where stopping them dead in their tracks.

This conversation is way more complicated than the powerhouse schools in basketball and football. There's a thousand athletes at most D1 schools that will be subject to these rules. They all deserve a little scratch for the effort they put into their schools image.

[FlashUNC]

So pay 'em.

It ain't that complicated.

[Dekonick]

separation of church and st... oops... I mean athletics and higher ed. ;)

I don't $ee how $port$ have anything to do with education. Oh, if we pay athletes, how about grad students get a cut from patents? Riiight...

[sitzmark]

In my opinion "star" athletes are being paid ... they are being given an opportunity to use their athletic talents to earn a higher education at no cost or significantly less cost than the tuition/room/board most students/parents pay. Some athletes choose to use the opportunity for its intended purpose and many don't. Athletics - especially team sports - is a learning and development opportunity that pays dividends in life outside of sports... teamwork and leadership skills that have value in government and private business. As a percentage, the number of "well rounded" people who excel in academics and athletics is small - whether in primary education or higher-level. Those individuals who are "gifted", self-motivated, competitive (or whatever adjective one choses to apply) are usually found in business and government leadership roles because of the skills they've honed on and off the field of competition.

Viewing the situation as "extortion of black athletes" is akin to thinking the sun revolves around the earth - it might appear that way, but is not reality. Thankfully athletes are not recruited based on ethnicity but rather on athletic talent - the percentages are what they are without ulterior motive. There was a time when minority athletes were not extended the opportunities that exist today. No doubt some would argue differently, but if the student-athlete population was 80% white and 20% other I don't believe the dynamics of big-money college athletics would change significantly.

Outside of income directly associated with athletics, athletic programs are leveraged to keep alumni engaged and donating billions to school endowments that benefit all students. It's not a perfect system, but I agree that it has helped produce some of the finest "education" programs in the world.

Attempting to protect the concept of "fair" amateur athletics devoid of advantages that money can bestow isn't a bad concept. In realty the fairy tale of world full of amateur athletes competing solely for the joy of sport is just that.

[verticaldoug]

While I think something needs changing, I wasn't thrilled to hear that this bill was passed today as it's far too open ended.

As someone who played football for one of the biggest programs in the country (even though I was mostly just practice fodder for the starters and NFL-bound), I feel pretty qualified to offer an opinion here:

I'm not for individual player endorsements as that has all kinds of individual-driven complications in a large team sport that are too hard to untangle.

I AM all for some sort of compensation agreement between the school and athlete based on some combination of # of seasons/years with a binary-trigger bonus for graduation.

I also believe compensation should be designed to enable something useful AFTER you leave school: pay off school debt, down payment on house, start investing, etc.

Case in point: my alma mater's football program brings in roughly >$150M/yr and the athletic programs there in general top $200M with a $40M+ profit margin.

So let's do simple math: say you set-up a fund where you could earn up to $50k if you compete at least 4 seasons and graduate (with decremented step-downs from there if you do less/don't graduate). You're talking about a $7M hit for a team of 140 players......and that's not an annual cost, as the team might turnover 30 players a year, so it's more like $1.5M annually with a 5yr turnover required for the full $7M. That's <1% of annual revenues. Heck, make it $100k....choose any number you want.....it's not making a dent for the large programs.

Obviously things are more complicated for schools that don't bring in $150M/year in football revenue, but why shouldn't the NCAA step in to help? They generated $1B in revenue last year.....

As an NCAA athlete I couldn't hold a job in college, got no official benefits (food, clothing, etc) beyond uniforms and warmups, and was typically busy with school or practice 12hrs a day for most of the year while the university made money hand over fist selling anything they could (or generating donations). It would've been nice to walk away with something to help start life for all that non-class/non-degree investment I put in for the school.

CA's bill isn't perfect, but maybe it will finally force the NCAA to have a realistic dialog about options.

I assume you are referring to Texas A&M here which is one of the only two programs with revenues over $200mm and the only showing a net. The other school Texas, spends it all.

The conversation really only works for the top FBS schools. Outside of that, athletics is just a massive cash drain for colleges.


http://cafidatabase.knightcommission.org/fbs/big-12/the-university-of-texas-at-austin#!quicktabs-tab-where_the_money-0

http://cafidatabase.knightcommission.org/fbs/big-12/the-university-of-texas-at-austin#!quicktabs-tab-where_the_money-1

Total spend for Texas
They don't show a profit even with donor contributions.


http://cafidatabase.knightcommission.org/fbs/sec/texas-a-m-university#!quicktabs-tab-where_the_money-1

http://cafidatabase.knightcommission.org/fbs/sec/texas-a-m-university#!quicktabs-tab-where_the_money-0

Texas A & M
The generosity of donors relative to the athletic program is really amazing.

Alabama
http://cafidatabase.knightcommission.org/fbs/sec/the-university-of-alabama#!quicktabs-tab-where_the_money-1

Georgia
http://cafidatabase.knightcommission.org/fbs/sec/university-of-georgia#!quicktabs-tab-where_the_money-1

Ohio State
http://cafidatabase.knightcommission.org/fbs/big-ten/the-ohio-state-university#!quicktabs-tab-where_the_money-1

Michigan
http://cafidatabase.knightcommission.org/fbs/big-ten/university-of-michigan#!quicktabs-tab-where_the_money-1


At the FBS level, the players really are professional athletes. And if you really want to split hairs, you can cut the pool down more by just focusing on Pac-12, Big10, SEC and ACC with a couple of independents.

I had a link to a title 9 database with a much more detailed breakdown by university and sport for T9 compliance, but I can't find it now.

[unterhausen]

I don't $ee how $port$ have anything to do with education. Oh, if we pay athletes, how about grad students get a cut from patents? Riiight...I know someone that gets a check from MIT every year from royalties on a patent. He's sure his advisor gets more. OTOH, I don't know any grad students I have worked with that invented anything patentable. When the university would pay to file, we would patent things just because it makes sponsors happy. But they realized they weren't making money and fired all the patent lawyers.

[joosttx]

I know someone that gets a check from MIT every year from royalties on a patent. He's sure his advisor gets more. OTOH, I don't know any grad students I have worked with that invented anything patentable. When the university would pay to file, we would patent things just because it makes sponsors happy. But they realized they weren't making money and fired all the patent lawyers.

Speaking from experience anything a grad student does in his/her research is owned but the school. You have to be very careful when you get a big idea.

[joosttx]

In my opinion "star" athletes are being paid ... they are being given an opportunity to use their athletic talents to earn a higher education at no cost or significantly less cost than the tuition/room/board most students/parents pay. Some athletes choose to use the opportunity for its intended purpose and many don't. Athletics - especially team sports - is a learning and development opportunity that pays dividends in life outside of sports... teamwork and leadership skills that have value in government and private business. As a percentage, the number of "well rounded" people who excel in academics and athletics is small - whether in primary education or higher-level. Those individuals who are "gifted", self-motivated, competitive (or whatever adjective one choses to apply) are usually found in business and government leadership roles because of the skills they've honed on and off the field of competition.

Viewing the situation as "extortion of black athletes" is akin to thinking the sun revolves around the earth - it might appear that way, but is not reality. Thankfully athletes are not recruited based on ethnicity but rather on athletic talent - the percentages are what they are without ulterior motive. There was a time when minority athletes were not extended the opportunities that exist today. No doubt some would argue differently, but if the student-athlete population was 80% white and 20% other I don't believe the dynamics of big-money college athletics would change significantly.

Outside of income directly associated with athletics, athletic programs are leveraged to keep alumni engaged and donating billions to school endowments that benefit all students. It's not a perfect system, but I agree that it has helped produce some of the finest "education" programs in the world.

Attempting to protect the concept of "fair" amateur athletics devoid of advantages that money can bestow isn't a bad concept. In realty the fairy tale of world full of amateur athletes competing solely for the joy of sport is just that.

The whole argument is flawed by calling them amateur. People are paying billions of dollars to see them play. That’s not amateur work.

[oldpotatoe]

I completely agree with this. Many athletes comes from economically depressed environments and no student athlete should not be able to afford basic expense. Unless it has changed, athletes on full-scholarship are prohibited by the NCAA from working a job.

Guess you have never seen the football players parking lot at a Div 1 school...
I have....it's pretty amazing..those big, black, SUVs come from somewhere..:eek:

[unterhausen]

Those are from summer jobs, aren't they? As if that really explains a $50k car. I see football players driving really nice cars around town. Okay, still not as nice as the Saudi grad students or Chinese undergrads drive.

[msl819]

Guess you have never seen the football players parking lot at a Div 1 school...
I have....it's pretty amazing..those big, black, SUVs come from somewhere..:eek:

I was a football player at a division I school and have spent the better part of my adult life in close proximity to another. Nothing was further from my experience. Granted it was two decades ago. I don’t doubt some school do such things or their boosters, the vast majority do not or cannot afford these behaviors. I had teammates who regularly lacked the spare money necessary to do laundry, go on a date, etc. a reasonable monthly stipend for petty cash even if it is just $50-100 only seems fair when the NCAA won’t allow them an odd job.

And the NCAA doesn't currently just govern Power 5 Division I school. The vast majority of college athletes don't fall into the category of what we think is true of schools like Alabama, Texas, A&M, USC, Ohio State. And they don't play the big dollar sports, yet the rules apply across the board, even when they are being broken or not enforced.

[verticaldoug]

Those are from summer jobs, aren't they? As if that really explains a $50k car. I see football players driving really nice cars around town. Okay, still not as nice as the Saudi grad students or Chinese undergrads drive.

I think the ferrari's belong to the High School students in LA to be fair.

[FlashUNC]

In my opinion "star" athletes are being paid ... they are being given an opportunity to use their athletic talents to earn a higher education at no cost or significantly less cost than the tuition/room/board most students/parents pay. Some athletes choose to use the opportunity for its intended purpose and many don't. Athletics - especially team sports - is a learning and development opportunity that pays dividends in life outside of sports... teamwork and leadership skills that have value in government and private business. As a percentage, the number of "well rounded" people who excel in academics and athletics is small - whether in primary education or higher-level. Those individuals who are "gifted", self-motivated, competitive (or whatever adjective one choses to apply) are usually found in business and government leadership roles because of the skills they've honed on and off the field of competition.

Viewing the situation as "extortion of black athletes" is akin to thinking the sun revolves around the earth - it might appear that way, but is not reality. Thankfully athletes are not recruited based on ethnicity but rather on athletic talent - the percentages are what they are without ulterior motive. There was a time when minority athletes were not extended the opportunities that exist today. No doubt some would argue differently, but if the student-athlete population was 80% white and 20% other I don't believe the dynamics of big-money college athletics would change significantly.

Outside of income directly associated with athletics, athletic programs are leveraged to keep alumni engaged and donating billions to school endowments that benefit all students. It's not a perfect system, but I agree that it has helped produce some of the finest "education" programs in the world.

Attempting to protect the concept of "fair" amateur athletics devoid of advantages that money can bestow isn't a bad concept. In realty the fairy tale of world full of amateur athletes competing solely for the joy of sport is just that.

Speaking from experience anything a grad student does in his/her research is owned but the school. You have to be very careful when you get a big idea.

To Mr Joosttx's point, Turner/CBS Sports are paying the NCAA nearly $20 billion dollars over the next decade and a half to broadcast March Madness.

And not a dollar of that goes to the people actually playing the games.

Amateurism has been the fig leaf the NCAA -- operating as a cartel -- has used to tamp down labor's fair share of the product they put out there.

Pay the kids.

[Black Dog]

To Mr Joosttx's point, Turner/CBS Sports are paying the NCAA nearly $20 billion dollars over the next decade and a half to broadcast March Madness.

And not a dollar of that goes to the people actually playing the games.

Amateurism has been the fig leaf the NCAA -- operating as a cartel -- has used to tamp down labor's fair share of the product they put out there.

Pay the kids.

Exactly. The money generated does not go to the schools or the athletes. Athletic programs as an aggregate suck funds from academics and that cost is covered by higher than necessary tuitions. These are simple and verifiable facts, not opinions.

[batman1425]

Speaking from experience anything a grad student does in his/her research is owned but the school. You have to be very careful when you get a big idea.

University IP statements apply to grad students, postdocs, and faculty. Anything generated with federal funding or using university property falls under the IP of the university. That said - you can still file, and will get a (admittedly small) cut of the overall royalty. Some institutions will also allow you to take all of the royalty if you provide them with first refusal to the IP.

This is why many senior investigators have LLC's that separately from but in tandem with their university sponsored labs. Space and resources needs to be physically separate for IP reasons.

It depends on your contribution to the project and the lab dynamics if you would get listed. I'm on patents from my training phases.

[sitzmark]

To Mr Joosttx's point, Turner/CBS Sports are paying the NCAA nearly $20 billion dollars over the next decade and a half to broadcast March Madness.

And not a dollar of that goes to the people actually playing the games.

Amateurism has been the fig leaf the NCAA -- operating as a cartel -- has used to tamp down labor's fair share of the product they put out there.

Pay the kids.

My vote would then be to disassociate those athletic programs from the school and end player scholarships. Athletes would then be employees of the NCAA/team as pro athletes are for their respective governing bodies, and the NCAA would be a separate pro/semi-pro league. Athletes could choose to pursue higher education on their own $$ if they desire. OR ...

The NCAA could perform to its charter and prohibit athletic programs from charging admission or broadcast of games. A majority of the money problem solved. Major program college athletics would become almost unrecognizable to what exists today in almost every way.

[FlashUNC]

My vote would then be to disassociate those athletic programs from the school and end player scholarships. Athletes would then be employees of the NCAA/team as pro athletes are for their respective governing bodies, and the NCAA would be a separate pro/semi-pro league. Athletes could choose to pursue higher education on their own $$ if they desire. OR ...

The NCAA could perform to its charter and prohibit athletic programs from charging admission or broadcast of games. A majority of the money problem solved. Major program college athletics would become almost unrecognizable to what exists today in almost every way.

The NCAA has been a joke since it's founding.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/

A fairy-tale version of the founding of the NCAA holds that President Theodore Roosevelt, upset by a photograph of a bloodied Swarthmore College player, vowed to civilize or destroy football. The real story is that Roosevelt maneuvered shrewdly to preserve the sport—and give a boost to his beloved Harvard. After McClure’s magazine published a story on corrupt teams with phantom students, a muckraker exposed Walter Camp’s $100,000 slush fund at Yale. In response to mounting outrage, Roosevelt summoned leaders from Harvard, Princeton, and Yale to the White House, where Camp parried mounting criticism and conceded nothing irresponsible in the college football rules he’d established. At Roosevelt’s behest, the three schools issued a public statement that college sports must reform to survive, and representatives from 68 colleges founded a new organization that would soon be called the National Collegiate Athletic Association. A Haverford College official was confirmed as secretary but then promptly resigned in favor of Bill Reid, the new Harvard coach, who instituted new rules that benefited Harvard’s playing style at the expense of Yale’s. At a stroke, Roosevelt saved football and dethroned Yale.


For nearly 50 years, the NCAA, with no real authority and no staff to speak of, enshrined amateur ideals that it was helpless to enforce. (Not until 1939 did it gain the power even to mandate helmets.) In 1929, the Carnegie Foundation made headlines with a report, “American College Athletics,” which concluded that the scramble for players had “reached the proportions of nationwide commerce.” Of the 112 schools surveyed, 81 flouted NCAA recommendations with inducements to students ranging from open payrolls and disguised booster funds to no-show jobs at movie studios. Fans ignored the uproar, and two-thirds of the colleges mentioned told The New York Times that they planned no changes. In 1939, freshman players at the University of Pittsburgh went on strike because they were getting paid less than their upperclassman teammates.

[Spaghetti Legs]

2016 WaPo article outlining the dramatic pay increase of Power 5 conference commissioners. Annual salaries range 2.0 to 3.4 million

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/good-to-be-commish-salaries-for-power-five-conference-bosses-soar/2016/01/08/8b5dfe1c-b569-11e5-a76a-0b5145e8679a_story.html

2016 top NCAA exec salaries - President 2.4 mill.

https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-president-mark-emmert-received-big-pay-bump-213658604.html

I considered including coaches salaries but that’s easy enough to goggle and one can make a better argument that the salary is earned (probably more so than top CEO salaries). I’m very interested to see any data on median 10 year post grad salary (or leaving college, since not all graduate)of NCAAM football and basketball players. Since only a tiny percentage of players get big time pro contracts, I think this might shed some light on the true benefit of the time in college. When these academic scandals surface it becomes more clear that some of these programs aren’t that interested in preparing these kids for life.

The proposal for the UC system IMO will directly affect very few athletes but I think it’s a step in the right direction and I’m very interested to see how this pans out; there will be some serious head butting with the NCAA. I’d like to see athletes get some form of compensation. If you’ve seen responses to the NCAA “day in the life” video from last spring, you’ll see a greater time commitment by a scholarship athlete than you would with a student on academic scholarship. The academic scholarship student can do work-study and check people in at the gym for spending money whereas the athlete a) isn’t allowed b) doesn’t have time. Giving the kids compensation might also reduce the shady athletic boosters under the table cash which often lands the kids in hot water, kicked out of school, and gets coaches fired.

[djg]

https://beta.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/08/23/university-chicago-made-one-college-footballs-boldest-plays-it-quit/

"As the bizarre American habit of college football turns 150 years old this autumn, the University of Chicago’s decision to quit big-time football remains one of the game’s boldest, most outlying turns. It remains that singular case in which a school with six undisputed major-conference titles, one legend (Amos Alonzo Stagg, its coach for the first 41 seasons, 1892-1932) and the first Heisman Trophy winner, up and got out."

[XXtwindad]

Recent (potentially career altering) injury to one of the best college QBs in the nation underscores why college athletes should be compensated. Newsom signed the CA bill recently.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/mccollough-tua-tagovailoas-gruesome-injury-a-reminder-of-why-college-athletes-deserve-pay/ar-BBWS4Oh?ocid=spartandhp

[jamesdak]

Can't speak for anyone else, but not what I meant. We spend a trillion dollars a year on national security yet keep cutting spending on education. Yet what everyone seems to focus on is pay for student athletes who make up a fraction of the student population. I'd rather see a lot more underprivileged children given the chance at a good education. But nope, lets worry about athletes.

Right! I don't get all this emphasis on athletes at all levels. They reach "god" status while really contributing nothing to society but entertainment. Pay the teachers, they are the ones in a position to turn our education system around.

[unterhausen]

Most college football teams are a net drain on their schools. In that sense, they are taking away from teaching salaries. I still think that college athletes should be paid

[peanutgallery]

I, too, live in your market (though you are closer to the spigot) and I cannot help but get the feeling that the current PSU coach is angling for his next job on the backs of current players. When things are good, hype central...when things are bad, blame the players and not the play caller. Point of reference - the play caller is a total one-man hype machine. Curious thing to watch transpire. Bunch of the players are just one bad play away from a career altering injury

Feel bad for the players, coach could pay each one (pretty well) out of his own pocket and still be a millionaire - annually, and he's more than likely way more concerned with the earnest $ thats been put down on his next house. Bring back Knute Rockne, if that concept ever existed

Just pay the players. This is just football, which is somewhat subdued when college basketball is concerned. Eventually, there will be a reckoning

Most college football teams are a net drain on their schools. In that sense, they are taking away from teaching salaries. I still think that college athletes should be paid

[fiamme red]

It appears that Greg Schiano's demands are going to be met by Rutgers' Board of Governors, and he's going to return as head coach of the football team. (Rutgers is a publicly funded college.) He's going to get $4 million per year, unlimited use of a private jet for recruiting and program travel, and guarantee of a new football-only facility.

https://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/2019/12/rutgers-and-greg-schiano-kissed-and-made-up-how-a-dead-deal-became-a-2nd-marriage.html

An eight-year deal worth $32 million was agreed to Friday, according to two people familiar with the negotiations, and the jet travel would be financed privately. But the last hurdle remained: Schiano’s demand to get out of his contract if Rutgers didn’t meet his demands for a new Field House and football-only facility by July 2023. Those facilities could cost an estimated $150 million, and Rutgers, already squeezed by recently built sports facilities, had winced originally.

Half, both sides agreed, would have to be funded privately for Rutgers to proceed with any building plans.:crap:

[peanutgallery]

Worst of both worlds, way too much to pay Schiano - not nearly enough to be competitive in the Big 10

Be a while before they some conference tv revenue to boot

It appears that Greg Schiano's demands are going to be met by Rutgers' Board of Governors, and he's going to return as head coach of the football team. (Rutgers is a publicly funded college.) He's going to get $4 million per year, unlimited use of a private jet for recruiting and program travel, and guarantee of a new football-only facility.

https://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/2019/12/rutgers-and-greg-schiano-kissed-and-made-up-how-a-dead-deal-became-a-2nd-marriage.html

:crap:

[XXtwindad]

It appears that Greg Schiano's demands are going to be met by Rutgers' Board of Governors, and he's going to return as head coach of the football team. (Rutgers is a publicly funded college.) He's going to get $4 million per year, unlimited use of a private jet for recruiting and program travel, and guarantee of a new football-only facility.

https://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/2019/12/rutgers-and-greg-schiano-kissed-and-made-up-how-a-dead-deal-became-a-2nd-marriage.html

:crap:

Rutgers has a football team?

[XXtwindad]

A lot has happened in the past year, obviously. Many changes may be imminent in higher education. I think this may be one of them. And it’s the right move.

From a recent article by the legendary, late Georgetown coach John Thompson Jr shortly before he died:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/11/12/opinion/ncaa-sports-paying-college-players.amp.html

“Everybody within college basketball knows which schools are buying players — illegally offering cash or other gifts to players or their families to persuade them to attend and play at their schools. The whole system is filthy with it, well beyond the few schools publicly named by the N.C.A.A. Since the N.C.A.A. won’t hold everyone accountable, paying players might as well be legal. Schools that don’t pay for players have an extremely hard time competing for championships, and coaches who don’t cheat can barely hold on to their jobs, because their losses against the cheaters are counted against them.

The N.C.A.A. is also teaching young athletes that the way to succeed in life is to break rules, not follow them. We are abdicating our responsibility to act on the rules we make and corrupting the educational mission that universities are supposed to have. It seems that the N.C.A.A. is making players into thieves. It feels like entrapment.“

[72gmc]

The NCAA shouldn't be relied upon to teach values to college athletes, beyond the value of money. It makes money off of college athletes and controls their ability to make a future for themselves. And it's free to play favorites.

[earlfoss]

I have no substance to add than to say that this is a great thread. There are some well articulated perspectives formed all along the spectrum of those engaged in the sport. This is one of the reasons why I enjoy being a part of this forum. Personally, the American addiction to football is disgusting to me. Pay the kids.

[GParkes]

I recall seeing an interview with John Salley saying he was a STUDENT- athlete, and not an athlete-student, that graduating from Georgia Tech was more important than hoops. And locally to me, Sebastian Gingras (son of NHL pro Gaston Gingras) decided to play hockey at Union College because they showed him the science labs before they showed him the rink - he got a national championship in 2014, and a degree. Should be more young men with these attitudes.

[XXtwindad]

In the wake of legendary “Coach K’s” retirement, the NYT borrowed from
Marc Antony’s playbook:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/06/07/sports/basketball/mike-krzyzewski-duke-retire.amp.html

“Krzyzewski earns in the neighborhood of $10 million a year, a mogul who operates atop an economic caste system that has kept the athletes unpaid at the bottom of the barrel.”

With the ascendency of well-funded upstart leagues, (https://www.google.com/amp/s/nba.nbcsports.com/2021/03/09/new-overtime-elite-league-chips-away-at-traditional-college-path-to-nba/amp/) a flurry of lawsuits, and Pandemic related paradigms that are here to stay, there are seismic changes on the college sports landscape.

[Ozz]

In the wake of legendary “Coach K’s” retirement, the NYT borrowed from
Marc Antony’s playbook: ...

the ascendency of well-funded upstart leagues, (https://www.google.com/amp/s/nba.nbcsports.com/2021/03/09/new-overtime-elite-league-chips-away-at-traditional-college-path-to-nba/amp/) a flurry of lawsuits, and Pandemic related paradigms that are here to stay, there are seismic changes on the college sports landscape.
I dunno.....I would think this just means that NBA caliber players will find routes other than college to make it to pro level.

Most the players in college are not NBA bound, and are plenty good. Maybe it brings more parity to programs, and the coaching becomes even more important?

I still think players should be compensated beyond scholarship, or at least be free to market themselves....

[XXtwindad]

I dunno.....I would think this just means that NBA caliber players will find routes other than college to make it to pro level.

Most the players in college are not NBA bound, and are plenty good. Maybe it brings more parity to programs, and the coaching becomes even more important?

I still think players should be compensated beyond scholarship, or at least be free to market themselves....

Yes. That’s exactly right. And that leaves college basketball programs where, exactly? Minus their fig leaves (“college experience” etc) probably.

[benb]

Pretty much any HS/Junior Pro league makes way more sense than the joke that college sports has become...

The US is pretty much the only place in the world that has Pro sports that require the athletes to go to a college and not get paid and not necessarily get to have the same quality of education as the regular students.

Even hockey and baseball here have never had this strange setup, we still have a lot of sports in the US where college is not really on the competitive path to the big leagues at all. Even some Olympic sports like gymnastics... college is mostly off the path to the Elite level.

The idea of putting a scholarship fund away for these athletes who skip out on college is a fantastic idea. Let them try for the Pros and have the scholarship fund there as a golden parachute since most of them are not going to make it.

It'd be great if the sports already off the college path did that.. Minor league baseball and hockey could do that too.

[prototoast]

I recall seeing an interview with John Salley saying he was a STUDENT- athlete, and not an athlete-student, that graduating from Georgia Tech was more important than hoops. And locally to me, Sebastian Gingras (son of NHL pro Gaston Gingras) decided to play hockey at Union College because they showed him the science labs before they showed him the rink - he got a national championship in 2014, and a degree. Should be more young men with these attitudes.

There should be more college coaches and administrators with these attitudes. In many schools, even in non-revenue sports for which going pro is virtually non-existent, coaches prohibit/coerce the athletes from pursuing certain courses/majors that might conflict with team activities. It's great when students recognize the importance of an education, but when they are focused on their sport to the exclusion of all else, they are doing exactly what most college coaches want, and are rewarded for that behavior.

[bthomas515]

There should be more college coaches and administrators with these attitudes. In many schools, even in non-revenue sports for which going pro is virtually non-existent, coaches prohibit/coerce the athletes from pursuing certain courses/majors that might conflict with team activities. It's great when students recognize the importance of an education, but when they are focused on their sport to the exclusion of all else, they are doing exactly what most college coaches want, and are rewarded for that behavior.

I work with a lot of student athletes and my experience with them is quite different. Most coaches are fine with them to take whatever classes. Most of our swimmers are actually pre-med. Because academic admission standards for athletes are different, the athletic advisors will steer them in certain directions but that is pretty normal for universities in general.

[sjbraun]

College sports should be an activity/club option for students, not a training ground for pro sports or the fulfillment of alumna's sports fantasies.
Make all college sports intramural activities, so all students can benefit from the opportunities provided by participating in sports.

[prototoast]

College sports should be an activity/club option for students, not a training ground for pro sports or the fulfillment of alumna's sports fantasies.
Make all college sports intramural activities, so all students can benefit from the opportunities provided by participating in sports.

I have competed in NCAA sports, club sports, and intramural sports. They are all great, but they are not perfect substitutes for each other. I don't think it's necessary to throw the baby out with the bath water here, just loosen the grip of the NCAA cartel, and things will be fine.

[FlashUNC]

I have competed in NCAA sports, club sports, and intramural sports. They are all great, but they are not perfect substitutes for each other. I don't think it's necessary to throw the baby out with the bath water here, just loosen the grip of the NCAA cartel, and things will be fine.

You loosen the grip of the NCAA by getting rid of the NCAA.

Modest reform has not worked, because the fundamental premise is flawed. Time for wholesale change.

[vespasianus]

In the wake of legendary “Coach K’s” retirement, the NYT borrowed from
Marc Antony’s playbook:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/06/07/sports/basketball/mike-krzyzewski-duke-retire.amp.html

“Krzyzewski earns in the neighborhood of $10 million a year, a mogul who operates atop an economic caste system that has kept the athletes unpaid at the bottom of the barrel.”

With the ascendency of well-funded upstart leagues, (https://www.google.com/amp/s/nba.nbcsports.com/2021/03/09/new-overtime-elite-league-chips-away-at-traditional-college-path-to-nba/amp/) a flurry of lawsuits, and Pandemic related paradigms that are here to stay, there are seismic changes on the college sports landscape.

You need to look at the net worth of the students that he coached. Was their time at Duke productive and did it benefit them?

[XXtwindad]

You need to look at the net worth of the students that he coached. Was their time at Duke productive and did it benefit them?

A valid question. Short answer: not nearly as much as it benefited the school.

[prototoast]

You loosen the grip of the NCAA by getting rid of the NCAA.

Modest reform has not worked, because the fundamental premise is flawed. Time for wholesale change.

I don't think we've seen sufficient reform to know. Personally, I think there is a compelling case that restrictions on pay (both from the schools and outside activities) should be illegal on antitrust grounds, and we haven't seen NCAA sports play out without that.

Yes, I will grant you that the NCAA, as it currently exists, exists for the purpose of exploiting students and enriching coaches and administrators. Maybe the organization itself is beyond reform, but I don't think the competitive intercollegiate athletics couldn't exist without exploiting the students.

[FlashUNC]

I don't think we've seen sufficient reform to know. Personally, I think there is a compelling case that restrictions on pay (both from the schools and outside activities) should be illegal on antitrust grounds, and we haven't seen NCAA sports play out without that.

Yes, I will grant you that the NCAA, as it currently exists, exists for the purpose of exploiting students and enriching coaches and administrators. Maybe the organization itself is beyond reform, but I don't think the competitive intercollegiate athletics couldn't exist without exploiting the students.

Agreed on the latter point. Intercollegiate athletics is too deeply ingrained in the social fabric to disappear entirely, and this point there's too much money in it. And there's nothing inherently wrong with college athletics, beyond the fig leaf that somehow these players are students first. As Cardale Jones said about OSU, he didn't come to campus to play school.

The NCAA has resisted serious reform for decades now, and pushed back against anything that challenges the supremacy of their cartel. The only sufficient reform as I see it is abolishing the organization and starting over with a more just bargain between the labor and capital in the system. They're not going to let athletes have a real and equal seat at the table, even though the athletes are the ones that fuel the whole enterprise.

[echappist]

I don't think we've seen sufficient reform to know. Personally, I think there is a compelling case that restrictions on pay (both from the schools and outside activities) should be illegal on antitrust grounds, and we haven't seen NCAA sports play out without that.

Yes, I will grant you that the NCAA, as it currently exists, exists for the purpose of exploiting students and enriching coaches and administrators. Maybe the organization itself is beyond reform, but I don't think the competitive intercollegiate athletics couldn't exist without exploiting the students.

Assuming you fully intended the double negative, there is even precedence that the NCAA isn't needed at all to have intercollegiate competitions, with men's crew and cycling being the two prime examples.

[vespasianus]

A valid question. Short answer: not nearly as much as it benefited the school.

Maybe not but is anything wrong with that?

[Mark McM]

You need to look at the net worth of the students that he coached. Was their time at Duke productive and did it benefit them?

An economist would say no, when you take into account the opportunity costs of not being able to market their talents to teams at rates commenserate with the value they bring, and to benefit from endorsement deals. Or, at least there would be opportunity costs if it was truly a free market system (which it is not).

[verticaldoug]

Paying college athlete conversation reminds me of the conversation about whether Olympic athletes could be professional and paid instead of remaining amateurs.

Well, we all know the change was made, and if anything, the Olympics have only become more corrupt and worse as the money has increased.

The issue isn't the college athletes pay, it's the corruption within the NCAA Athletic system. Paying athletes without addressing this will only make the situation worse.

(You only need to look at how the NCAA handles women's sports television contracts to see the rot)

[Marvinlungwitz]

X

[XXtwindad]

Changes are a comin .... https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/in-n-c-a-a-case-supreme-court-backs-payments-to-student-athletes/ar-AALh91b?ocid=msedgntp

[unterhausen]

The issue isn't the college athletes pay, it's the corruption within the NCAA Athletic system. Paying athletes without addressing this will only make the situation worse.
The corruption is the reason why college sports should be split off from the academy. Penn State was just the most obvious example, we seem to have gotten used to it because there wasn't nearly as much national outrage that the entire sports and academic administration of Michigan State was involved in protecting a child predation ring in the national women's gymnastic program that was closely associated with the university.

[bicycletricycle]

I would go the other way, ban college sports. Let club sports fill in as the professional farm leagues, they can pay athletes if they want.

[RWL2222]

I would go the other way, ban college sports. Let club sports fill in as the professional farm leagues, they can pay athletes if they want.

Yep.

[vespasianus]

An economist would say no, when you take into account the opportunity costs of not being able to market their talents to teams at rates commenserate with the value they bring, and to benefit from endorsement deals. Or, at least there would be opportunity costs if it was truly a free market system (which it is not).

But the vast majority of college athletes don't ever make it to a pro contract. Now, you could argue DUKE makes more money off them but that is another story.

Personally, I hope this leads to the death of all big name college sports. Bring it back to the student athlete.

[ripvanrando]

I don't think college athletes should be paid beyond a scholarship. But I also don't understand the fanaticism of some Alums like at Penn State. Whatever supplemental revenue they generate from sports should go towards education in my view.

I played two sports at a D3 school. I bought my own golf balls and hockey sticks and all gear for that matter. They didn't even pay for sutures and I got cut a lot. But they did pay for ice time and green fees. If I had wanted to play in the NHL, I would have went to Canada at 18 when offered. I get it that D1 athletes are different, some of them will play pro ball and will earn the bucks. They can always go directly to the pro ranks, plenty of hockey players have done it and even Tiger left Stanford before finishing his degree. So, nobody is forcing them to stay and play. If they are that good, they could leave and play in the pro ranks. Otherwise, many are getting a free education and that is where they should focus.

[Mark McM]

I don't think college athletes should be paid beyond a scholarship. But I also don't understand the fanaticism of some Alums like at Penn State. Whatever supplemental revenue they generate from sports should go towards education in my view.

Top players bring in far more to their schools than the value of a scholarship. Only paying them the value of a scholarship denies them the ability to negotiate compensation based on their actual value.


I played two sports at a D3 school. I bought my own golf balls and hockey sticks and all gear for that matter. They didn't even pay for sutures and I got cut a lot. But they did pay for ice time and green fees. If I had wanted to play in the NHL, I would have went to Canada at 18 when offered. I get it that D1 athletes are different, some of them will play pro ball and will earn the bucks. They can always go directly to the pro ranks, plenty of hockey players have done it and even Tiger left Stanford before finishing his degree. So, nobody is forcing them to stay and play. If they are that good, they could leave and play in the pro ranks. Otherwise, many are getting a free education and that is where they should focus.

The system is rigged to prevent athletes from doing that - due to collusion between the NCAA and the NFL and NBA, athletes can not just go directly to the pros. The NFL requires that a player wait 3 years after graduating from high school before they can play professionally. The NBA requires a player to wait 1 year after high school. With no where else to play for up to 3 years, athletes have no choice but to go to a college team. And because they have no choice, they basically have to accept whatever terms the NCAA offers (whether it is fair compensation or not).

[redir]

I've been here at Virginia Tech long enough to remember when they were just a podunk college football team to the Big Ten Big East with coach Beamer and Mike Vic and so on. IT's completely changed this town in some ways good in other ways bad. If you owned a house here your property values doubled easily in ten years. There is all kinds of money here now and not just inside the university and it all came on the backs of the athletes. I'm all for them having a slice of that pie.

[ripvanrando]

Top players bring in far more to their schools than the value of a scholarship. Only paying them the value of a scholarship denies them the ability to negotiate compensation based on their actual value.




The system is rigged to prevent athletes from doing that - due to collusion between the NCAA and the NFL and NBA, athletes can not just go directly to the pros. The NFL requires that a player wait 3 years after graduating from high school before they can play professionally. The NBA requires a player to wait 1 year after high school. With no where else to play for up to 3 years, athletes have no choice but to go to a college team. And because they have no choice, they basically have to accept whatever terms the NCAA offers (whether it is fair compensation or not).

Aren't they still drafting high school players into the NHL? Kid down the street from me went in the first round back in the day.

One year before being able to play in the NBA? Boo Hoo. I did not know that about the NFL.

I don't believe student athletes should share those funds.

I am sure SCOTUS has nothing better to do and will show me wrong, I am just giving my opinion. College Athletes should be students first and foremost. Most of these kids will never play professionally. Maybe the issue is with the NFL, maybe they are colluding with NCAA.

[Black Dog]

I would go the other way, ban college sports. Let club sports fill in as the professional farm leagues, they can pay athletes if they want.

Exactly.

[prototoast]

I am sure SCOTUS has nothing better to do and will show me wrong, I am just giving my opinion. College Athletes should be students first and foremost. Most of these kids will never play professionally. Maybe the issue is with the NFL, maybe they are colluding with NCAA.

The legal question isn't "should colleges pay players?" The legal question is "should colleges be allowed to collude to stop players from being paid?"

[Mark McM]

Aren't they still drafting high school players into the NHL? Kid down the street from me went in the first round back in the day.

Football and basketball is where the money is in college sports. But unlike the NBA and the NFL, the NHL and MLB have a minor league farm team system, so they don't need to rely on colluding with colleges.

College Athletes should be students first and foremost.

Sadly, many athletes on scholarship aren't allowed to be students first. The demands of their sports, both in training schedules and travel, mean that they can't attend regular classes. Instead, many schools develop "parallel" education programs specifically for athletes. And sadly, many of these programs are scholastically deficient compared to the schools regular education programs. These programs are primarily aimed at keeping the athlete's academically eligible to play (by awarding good grades), with little effort payed to actual learning.

As an example, a class action lawsuit was brought against the University of North Caroline for fraud, with the student athletes charging they at they were not given the top quality college education there were promised:

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ex-north-carolina-athletes-sue-ncaa-unc-over-academic-scandal/

[ripvanrando]

The legal question isn't "should colleges pay players?" The legal question is "should colleges be allowed to collude to stop players from being paid?"

So, you agree with me.

[el cheapo]

College athletes (primarily football and basketball) need to form a union like player associations in the NFL and NBA. Profit sharing and lifetime medical coverage for serious injuries would be a start. These kids that play college sports don't realize how much power they have over the NCAA if they get together as a group and STRIKE until they get what they want. Probably won't happen because most of these kids are still dreaming of being a PRO and they don't want to rock the boat.

[Mark McM]

College athletes (primarily football and basketball) need to form a union like player associations in the NFL and NBA. Profit sharing and lifetime medical coverage for serious injuries would be a start. These kids that play college sports don't realize how much power they have over the NCAA if they get together as a group and STRIKE until they get what they want. Probably won't happen because most of these kids are still dreaming of being a PRO and they don't want to rock the boat.

In 2015, an attempt was tried and failed to unionize the Northeastern University football team. However, just last month federal bills were introduced to the US House and Senate that would declare any student that receives compensation to play to be employees of the school, and would be allowed to collectively bargain.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31521100/congressional-bill-introduced-allow-college-athletes-form-unions-become-employees

Decades ago the Olympics let go of the myth of the "Amateur Athlete". It's time for colleges to give up on that myth, too. If players are compensated to play a sport (whether that's in cash or scholarships), they are by definition professional athletes.

[unterhausen]

The only reason college athletes are amateurs is to give the entire enterprise a thin veneer of legitimacy. That's gone if it ever existed.

[ojingoh]

The only reason college athletes are amateurs is to give the entire enterprise a thin veneer of legitimacy. That's gone if it ever existed.

I wrote a really long winded reply to the question but this sums it up right here.

It's always going to be about the money for colleges and athletics. College administrators are ruthlessly exploiting players and the fan base by owning teams thinly disguised as 'college teams' when the only reason they exist is to make more money for the athletic department. Not the university - the university athletic department.

Case in point - UT at Austin made $144M in revenue in 2018 from just the football team, and 1/3 of that was 'donations' from alums, roughly a third from ads and commercial use, and another third from ticket sales. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/texas-sports-nation/college/article/How-Texas-athletics-spent-206-6-million-in-2018-13588340.php Where did they spend all that money? On UT athletics!

I think it's deeply troubling one sport 'pays' for the other 34 sports https://www.businessinsider.com/college-sports-football-revenue-2017-10 in order for fans not to demand the football teams be divested from the university and pay the players. I'd want nothing more than the players to get paid and the other teams earn their own money. Colleges shouldn't even be in the sport game at all besides club sports - what does the university do besides educate people? Teach them how to putt? Work on their backstroke?

[Marvinlungwitz]

X=x

[ripvanrando]

The thrust of this thread wasn't the legal question but a moral one.

It seems there is a cabal of conspiracy and collusion where the coaches and admins make millions and are probably in bed with overseeing organizations. Probably some sort of antitrust issue.

Should students be paid to play sports in college? Not in my opinion as stated and briefly explained earlier. Students should be at University to learn, period. My opinion has nothing to do with the law.

[ripvanrando]

Why should academic students pay for athletic programs? The campus fee is quite large at Rutgers, something like $1400. Some of this fee supports football and other losing endeavors.

Compared with other Big Ten schools and similar peer institutions, a far larger share of Rutgers revenue for athletics is generated not by the athletics program itself but through the university’s own revenue sources, including student fees. Such non-athletic revenue sources contributed $33 million to the Rutgers athletic budget, including $12 million in student fees, which the report says “significantly exceeded that of both Big Ten and peer institutions.”

https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/2019/02/01/rutgers-athletics-bottom-big-ten-revenue-and-victories/2748374002/

[vespasianus]

I would go the other way, ban college sports. Let club sports fill in as the professional farm leagues, they can pay athletes if they want.



The sentiment by many is that places like Duke exploit poor black kids that play in college but never make it to the pro's and end up broke. That might be the case, I don't know but honestly, I think you need to look at the outcome data as a whole and see the benefit/harm that is occurring.

You could make the argument that college athletics has helped bring many people out of poverty by giving them an education.

[ripvanrando]

It is time that non-athletes to stop subsidizing sports, not the time to pay college athletes. Why should a working mom or anyone else attending school be forced to pay $1400 activities fees, much of which goes to the sports programs....?

The NCAA reported in 2016 that the average Division I school lost $12.6m annually on athletics if they don’t have a football team, and $14.4m if they do. In Division II, the annual loss per school as of 2014 was $5.1m if they had a football team and $4.1m if they did not. For Division III, football schools lost $3.1m on athletics while those without football experienced a $1.6m loss.

Largely, student fees and hiked tuition subsidize these costs at smaller private universities, although taxpayers contribute at state government-operated public colleges. Even so, a 2010 Washington Post report revealed that nine public colleges in Virginia charged each student more than $1,000 annually in fees to fund their athletic department.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/oct/16/college-sports-revenue-loss-making-programs-academics

[peanutgallery]

Alabama and Clemson (and many other schools) are basically football plantations with admin and coaches making a mint while the players are on a year to year deal without any real compensation. There's an entire economy based on the players performing and the haves cashing the checks

One injury, you're out. Don't buy into the crazy evangelical church that Dabo likes (look it up), you're out. Refuse to cut Saban's grass in his requested way, you're out

Just so happens that the folks running the show down South happen the be generally one color and those providing the talent another. I find it a little weird

Pay 'em

[bicycletricycle]

I think you probably could make that argument, however, if that is your goal, why only do it for kids that can play sports? University is for education, if they could keep sports small it would be fine but when they dominate the students experience, heck, when they dominate the schools budget, the priorities are upside down.

The sentiment by many is that places like Duke exploit poor black kids that play in college but never make it to the pro's and end up broke. That might be the case, I don't know but honestly, I think you need to look at the outcome data as a whole and see the benefit/harm that is occurring.

You could make the argument that college athletics has helped bring many people out of poverty by giving them an education.

[ripvanrando]

Alabama and Clemson (and many other schools) are basically football plantations with admin and coaches making a mint while the players are on a year to year deal without any real compensation. There's an entire economy based on the players performing and the haves cashing the checks

One injury, you're out. Don't buy into the crazy evangelical church that Dabo likes (look it up), you're out. Refuse to cut Saban's grass in his requested way, you're out

Just so happens that the folks running the show down South happen the be generally one color and those providing the talent another. I find it a little weird

Pay 'em

Who pays? They already lose money (over 30 million per year) that ostensibly is taken from the academic students in one way or another.

Clemson's athletic programs cost the school $122 million against revenue of $85 million.

The male coaches make a mint.....millions.....while the average female coach is in the $200K range.

https://clemsontigers.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Clemson-2020-EADA-Survey.pdf

[prototoast]

It is time that non-athletes to stop subsidizing sports, not the time to pay college athletes. Why should a working mom or anyone else attending school be forced to pay $1400 activities fees, much of which goes to the sports programs....?



https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/oct/16/college-sports-revenue-loss-making-programs-academics

Yes, I definitely think that excessive student fees to subsidize athletics are a bad thing that schools should avoid. It is also a plausible outcome that if the athletes themselves are the ones profiting from the sport, rather than coaches and administrators, those coaches and administrators would be less inclined to set up rules that allow them to capture revenue from the general student body.

Right now, the problem isn't just that the athletes are being exploited, but it's also that coaches and administrators are capturing excess rent as part of that exploitation. That's why the latter group fights so hard to stop the athlete from being paid, and that's why it's important for everyone that these markets be efficient.

[ripvanrando]

Yes, I definitely think that excessive student fees to subsidize athletics are a bad thing that schools should avoid. It is also a plausible outcome that if the athletes themselves are the ones profiting from the sport, rather than coaches and administrators, those coaches and administrators would be less inclined to set up rules that allow them to capture revenue from the general student body.

Right now, the problem isn't just that the athletes are being exploited, but it's also that coaches and administrators are capturing excess rent as part of that exploitation. That's why the latter group fights so hard to stop the athlete from being paid, and that's why it's important for everyone that these markets be efficient.

I agree. That is why I wrote this earlier in the thread, "It seems there is a cabal of conspiracy and collusion where the coaches and admins make millions and are probably in bed with overseeing organizations. Probably some sort of antitrust issue."

Sports as a whole are losing money at University. Paying athletes does not solve the problem of foisting these extraordinary expenses onto the academic body.

[peanutgallery]

If you go to Dabo's church, it's a little bump in pay

The tv contract and other marketing endeavors are conveniently not included. The income is far more than $85 million. Fuzzy accounting, that might be just the gate income. That's a really low number

Who pays? They already lose money (over 30 million per year) that ostensibly is taken from the academic students in one way or another.

Clemson's athletic programs cost the school $122 million against revenue of $85 million.

The male coaches make a mint.....millions.....while the average female coach is in the $200K range.

https://clemsontigers.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Clemson-2020-EADA-Survey.pdf

[XXtwindad]

Lots of thought provoking responses here. Good stuff.

[ripvanrando]

If you go to Dabo's church, it's a little bump in pay

The tv contract and other marketing endeavors are conveniently not included. The income is far more than $85 million. Fuzzy accounting, that might be just the gate income. That's a really low number

It is the complete reporting to NCAA and it includes media per the report, this is what it says.....

Your total revenues must cover your total expenses.
Enter all revenues attributable to intercollegiate athletic activities. This includes revenues from appearance guarantees
and options, an athletic conference, tournament or bowl games, concessions, contributions from alumni and others,
institutional support, program advertising and sales, radio and television, royalties, signage and other sponsorships,
sport camps, state or other government support, student activity fees, ticket and luxury box sales, and any other
revenues attributable to intercollegiate athletic activities.


Almost every newspaper article that I can find or any report that I can find shows athletic programs costing more than they earn, and some of the losses at many schools are born by academic students.

[72gmc]

“If this was the real world, the NCAA would be out of business. The only thing tethering it to any kind of logical business model is March Madness. Just don't deny the athletes their share while the association is taking in $1 billion per year.”

I don’t often agree with Dennis Dodd, and this statement if his has been obvious for a long time, but I’m glad it is being said, again.

[prototoast]

I agree. That is why I wrote this earlier in the thread, "It seems there is a cabal of conspiracy and collusion where the coaches and admins make millions and are probably in bed with overseeing organizations. Probably some sort of antitrust issue."

Sports as a whole are losing money at University. Paying athletes does not solve the problem of foisting these extraordinary expenses onto the academic body.

As I see it, there are 3 levels to the issue of sports losing money.

1) there is a baseline level of expenditure on sports, think something like a DIII cross country team, creates opportunities for students, and has a budget comparable to what university might spend on other extracurriculars such as music or theater. This might show up as a "loss" but strikes me as appropriate expenditure of university funds.

2) there are some sports that can generate revenue in excess of their costs. This is particularly true in basketball where teams are small and so costs are (relatively) low. If a basketball team can regularly sell out an arena or sell TV rights, I don't see why that excess revenue shouldn't go to players, coaches, and administrators who make that happen.

3) many teams/sports have costs that are well above a baseline, and well in excess of the revenue they bring in. This is often true of football where costs can get out of hand pretty quickly (large teams, large coaching staffs, lots of travel), but it's also true for a lot of non-revenue sports at large football schools.

I think you and I both agree that #3 should be cut. I just think there's still room for schools to lose money on #1, and for schools to make money and pay players on #2.

[vespasianus]

I think you probably could make that argument, however, if that is your goal, why only do it for kids that can play sports? University is for education, if they could keep sports small it would be fine but when they dominate the students experience, heck, when they dominate the schools budget, the priorities are upside down.

They do. But many of those kids may not get into a Duke if not for their athletics.

[ripvanrando]

As I see it, there are 3 levels to the issue of sports losing money.

1) there is a baseline level of expenditure on sports, think something like a DIII cross country team, creates opportunities for students, and has a budget comparable to what university might spend on other extracurriculars such as music or theater. This might show up as a "loss" but strikes me as appropriate expenditure of university funds.

2) there are some sports that can generate revenue in excess of their costs. This is particularly true in basketball where teams are small and so costs are (relatively) low. If a basketball team can regularly sell out an arena or sell TV rights, I don't see why that excess revenue shouldn't go to players, coaches, and administrators who make that happen.

3) many teams/sports have costs that are well above a baseline, and well in excess of the revenue they bring in. This is often true of football where costs can get out of hand pretty quickly (large teams, large coaching staffs, lots of travel), but it's also true for a lot of non-revenue sports at large football schools.

I think you and I both agree that #3 should be cut. I just think there's still room for schools to lose money on #1, and for schools to make money and pay players on #2.

On #1, I played two D3 sports. I suspect Alum donations covered much of the costs. The players also covered much of the costs. The complexity and costs are probably on par with music, theater, etc. as you wrote. No scholarships. Just students playing sports.

On #2, few schools generate enough revenue to pay overall expenses of the athletic program. Take U. Conn where the female basketball team wins the championship but runs at a loss compared to the male basketball team with revenues exceeding the cost. Shouldn't the boys team's excess revenue stream simply go to support the other sports programs, rather than pay the male basketball players? That is how I see it. Also, there is this bucket of revenue that is usually quite large that is not broken down. Some of those funds come from academic students, some from donors, etc.

On #3, it isn't many but the vast majority of teams that operate at a loss. Few are profitable; yet, coaches earn 7 figure salaries (on the boys teams). Yes, they should be cut. Not fair to make academic students pay for that.

[bicycletricycle]

They do. But many of those kids may not get into a Duke if not for their athletics.

Take the money you dump into sports, use it to educate whatever group of people you want to.

[peanutgallery]

Creative accounting, they all poor mouth. Part of the game

It is the complete reporting to NCAA and it includes media per the report, this is what it says.....



Almost every newspaper article that I can find or any report that I can find shows athletic programs costing more than they earn, and some of the losses at many schools are born by academic students.

[ojingoh]

Addendum: https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/as-nil-rules-go-into-effect-these-ncaa-athletes-moved-quickly-to-profit-from-name-image-and-likeness/amp/

[XXtwindad]

Addendum: https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/as-nil-rules-go-into-effect-these-ncaa-athletes-moved-quickly-to-profit-from-name-image-and-likeness/amp/

Wow. The floodgates have opened. Never heard of the Cavinder sisters. Evidently, they play hoop at Fresno State. Or something to that effect 😉

Edit: Ya know, I was initially a little blown away by the crass commercialism in the link posted above. I don't get "Tick Toc." But the athletes don't need my suburban dad ass to "get them." They can't monetize me. But they can certainly monetize their thousands of followers.

I can rail against the defiling of the sacred college "myth": a leafy place to study Proust, expose yourself to other ideas and cultures, form friendships and get laid. That's how it worked for me (Except for Proust. Never really got into him) And, certainly, that's the idealized image that administrators and coaches are hawking. But the athletes have a different take: you can have your sepia-infused pipe dream. Cuz we're getting paid.

[XXtwindad]

Interesting read in the NYT. The floodgates have definitely opened. At least for a select few. And perhaps to the detriment of many other college athletes.

But still...why shouldn't those athletes monetize their "brands?" Blame the system. Not the athletes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/magazine/ncaa-nba-student-athlete.html

That changed on July 1, 2021. Following a Supreme Court decision against the N.C.A.A., the organization ended nearly all its restrictions on what athletes could earn from the use of their names, images and likenesses, an amorphous category that has become known as NIL. Overnight, those athletes could make deals with companies and endorse their products. They could even accept money from boosters — usually longtime donors, or local businessmen with ties to a university — in transactions that previously would have led to severe sanctions against their teams. Around the country, administrators were astonished by the abrupt reversal. “It’s not a hole in the dike,” is how Vince Ille, a senior associate athletic director under Cunningham, describes the N.C.A.A.’s change of course. “It’s the obliteration of the entire dam.”

[Mark McM]

Interesting read in the NYT. The floodgates have definitely opened. At least for a select few. And perhaps to the detriment of many other college athletes.

But still...why shouldn't those athletes monetize their "brands?" Blame the system. Not the athletes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/magazine/ncaa-nba-student-athlete.html

That changed on July 1, 2021. Following a Supreme Court decision against the N.C.A.A., the organization ended nearly all its restrictions on what athletes could earn from the use of their names, images and likenesses, an amorphous category that has become known as NIL. Overnight, those athletes could make deals with companies and endorse their products. They could even accept money from boosters — usually longtime donors, or local businessmen with ties to a university — in transactions that previously would have led to severe sanctions against their teams. Around the country, administrators were astonished by the abrupt reversal. “It’s not a hole in the dike,” is how Vince Ille, a senior associate athletic director under Cunningham, describes the N.C.A.A.’s change of course. “It’s the obliteration of the entire dam.”

Just like with other structures, the NCAA "student athlete" structure will slowly rot away from the inside until it "suddenly" collapses.

[vespasianus]

Just like with other structures, the NCAA "student athlete" structure will slowly rot away from the inside until it "suddenly" collapses.

I hope so. Universities need to go back to educating people, not being a place for them to play games...

[eephotog]

I know a few unis that canceled their sports teams to "focus on academia", decades ago. They all brought them back because it's the best way to get alumni $$$.

[Mark McM]

I know a few unis that canceled their sports teams to "focus on academia", decades ago. They all brought them back because it's the best way to get alumni $$$.


That might be perception, but studies have found that it is not true (https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7072/7/2/19).

What is true however is that university administrators who promote their sports teams are more popular and are more likely to keep their jobs and get raises than university administrators who cut funding to sports teams - regardless of whether the sports teams are net loss for the university.

[tomato coupe]

That might be perception, but studies have found that it is not true (https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7072/7/2/19).
There's some humor in the fact that the authors are from Smith College.

[batman1425]

There's some humor in the fact that the authors are from Smith College.

I fail to see the humor there. Care to elaborate?

[peanutgallery]

Its a quidditch skool

I fail to see the humor there. Care to elaborate?

[tomato coupe]

I fail to see the humor there. Care to elaborate?
It's a school that's well distanced from the issue being studied, which means there was essentially no chance of any pressure being placed on the authors.

[verticaldoug]

It's a school that's well distanced from the issue being studied, which means there was essentially no chance of any pressure being placed on the authors.

I doubt any school admin would try to pressure a study about this. The admin are probably looking for a solution too.

The money from endorsements is going to rip apart college sports pretty quickly in my opinion.

The biggest problem will be human nature at loss aversion. Admins will not want to cut programs because of the sunk costs and headlines, so will just continue to bleed by default year after year.

The whole likeness/endorsement will also be the carrot that is the ultimate recruiting tool and the haves and have nots will tear apart even more.(I'm reminded bow the Olympics changed from being ammie to professional. The Olympics were always about money for the organizers, but that change really created an environment which was all about money from top to bottom. Olympics have sucked ever since. We should just sell the NCAA Sports Brand to the Saudis so they can sportwash their bull****. Seems like a fitting way to kill it for good)

[verticaldoug]

Paying college athlete conversation reminds me of the conversation about whether Olympic athletes could be professional and paid instead of remaining amateurs.

Well, we all know the change was made, and if anything, the Olympics have only become more corrupt and worse as the money has increased.

The issue isn't the college athletes pay, it's the corruption within the NCAA Athletic system. Paying athletes without addressing this will only make the situation worse.

(You only need to look at how the NCAA handles women's sports television contracts to see the rot)

I guess I already wrote about this earlier in the thread

[CDM]

nvr mind

[oldpotatoe]

I hope so. Universities need to go back to educating people, not being a place for them to play games...

Agree. At least for basketball and football, Universities have become subsidized 'minor leagues'. BUT, LOTSA of $ involved with college sports. Universities aren't going to give that up w/o a fight.

And as much as this is titled, 'paying college athletes', most aren't 'getting paid' and no 'salary' comes from the university as 'pay'.
Who's getting rich are the new crop of agents.

[peanutgallery]

You'd have to pry that cash out of the cold, dead hands of an army of administrators. They're getting just as rich as the agents off this deal. Could you imagine a Big 10 skool rejecting one penny of the billions that they're getting from Fox in their latest agreement? Places like Dickinson or Smith are just jealous that squash doesn't generate the same amount of $$$. They'd take it in a hot second

Agree. At least for basketball and football, Universities have become subsidized 'minor leagues'. BUT, LOTSA of $ involved with college sports. Universities aren't going to give that up w/o a fight.

And as much as this is titled, 'paying college athletes', most aren't 'getting paid' and no 'salary' comes from the university as 'pay'.
Who's getting rich are the new crop of agents.

[oldpotatoe]

You'd have to pry that cash out of the cold, dead hands of an army of administrators. They're getting just as rich as the agents off this deal. Could you imagine a Big 10 skool rejecting one penny of the billions that they're getting from Fox in their latest agreement? Places like Dickinson or Smith are just jealous that squash doesn't generate the same amount of $$$. They'd take it in a hot second

Anecdotal and a long time ago. Moved to the Business skool in my sophomore year..1969-70, Univ of Colorado. One of the core courses was 'Personal Finance'. 26 'students' first day of class.. Probably 10 were football players. met 3 days per week. By second week, down to 16-17 students..the football players were never seen again. BUT...when final grades handed out...there were 26 student's names on the sheet(by last 4 of SSN)...Hmmm:eek:

[batman1425]

Places like Dickinson or Smith are just jealous that squash doesn't generate the same amount of $$$. They'd take it in a hot second

Jealous? I've never heard of a place like Smith lament about loss of big dollar sports revenue. Their multi-billion dollar endowment is evidence that they are doing just fine without one. They could care less.

Anecdotal and a long time ago. Moved to the Business skool in my sophomore year..1969-70, Univ of Colorado. One of the core courses was 'Personal Finance'. 26 'students' first day of class.. Probably 10 were football players. met 3 days per week. By second week, down to 16-17 students..the football players were never seen again. BUT...when final grades handed out...there were 26 student's names on the sheet(by last 4 of SSN)...Hmmm:eek:

This was pervasive in the past at many institutions. UNC's paper classes are probably the most famous mainstream example. While there may be isolated instances of this that continue in some institutions, in my experience at 5 different college/universities over the last 15 years, a few of which would be in the "D1 powerhouse" category, I saw zero of this happening.

[peanutgallery]

They're chasing the $$$, too. Just a longer term graft with a different term being used..."endowment"

Admin and egos involved

Jealous? I've never heard of a place like Smith lament about loss of big dollar sports revenue. Their multi-billion dollar endowment is evidence that they are doing just fine without one. They could care less.



This was pervasive in the past at many institutions. UNC's paper classes are probably the most famous mainstream example. While there may be isolated instances of this that continue in some institutions, in my experience at 5 different college/universities over the last 15 years, a few of which would be in the "D1 powerhouse" category, I saw zero of this happening.

[Ozz]

Anecdotal and a long time ago. Moved to the Business skool in my sophomore year..1969-70, Univ of Colorado. One of the core courses was 'Personal Finance'. 26 'students' first day of class.. Probably 10 were football players. met 3 days per week. By second week, down to 16-17 students..the football players were never seen again. BUT...when final grades handed out...there were 26 student's names on the sheet(by last 4 of SSN)...Hmmm:eek:
It is not unusual for student athletes to be enrolled in classes that don't attend with the rest of student body....their schedules don't allow for it, so they have special "study hall" with tutors and such that administer the classes....

Not saying this was the case here, but I found out about this when attending a sports alum weekend at my alma mater....during the season, the students are on the road a lot, so classes are handled differently.

This sure wasn't the case when I was there....I road in the back of a pickup truck from Dillion, MT back to Spokane to make it back to class to take a test. Our van broke down on the way back from a tournament at BYU...there were 6 of us that needed to get back to classes on Monday, and I got one of the short straws. No tour buses or charter jets back then..;)

[iwishiwasriding]

maybe it's time for colleges to do what they are meant to do and get out of sports.

+1

[cnighbor1]

My concern is many college athletes in order to maximize their value will be ball hogs

[vespasianus]

You'd have to pry that cash out of the cold, dead hands of an army of administrators. They're getting just as rich as the agents off this deal. Could you imagine a Big 10 skool rejecting one penny of the billions that they're getting from Fox in their latest agreement? Places like Dickinson or Smith are just jealous that squash doesn't generate the same amount of $$$. They'd take it in a hot second

What is sad is that a place like Dickinson, Smyth, Franklin and Marshall and Swarthmore get the true student athlete that love what they do and also are students.

[Mark McM]

The title of this thread is "It's time to pay college athletes," but maybe a better way forward is to stop paying coaching staffs and stop taking donations that are stipulated to only be spent for sports. The problem isn't that the students aren't being paid to play, the problem is that the rest of the system (coaches, college administrators, NCAA executive) are being payed for students to play. Basing a football coaches salary on their win/loss record is equivalent to paying professors for how many A's their students get. The incentives to shortcut students' educations is too great in both cases.

[batman1425]

The title of this thread is "It's time to pay college athletes," but maybe a better way forward is to stop paying coaching staffs and stop taking donations that are stipulated to only be spent for sports. The problem isn't that the students aren't being paid to play, the problem is that the rest of the system (coaches, college administrators, NCAA executive) are being payed for students to play. Basing a football coaches salary on their win/loss record is equivalent to paying professors for how many A's their students get. The incentives to shortcut students' educations is too great in both cases.

Well they do get compensated for the books/manuscripts they write, and productivity of their research which are often driven by undergrads and grad students, for free, or for submarket value stipends on the basis of - its necessary and valuable experience. The faculty happen to be paid submarket valuations for that as well.

[Spaghetti Legs]

As time marches on, I watch less and less college sports and my viewing pendulum has swung to almost all NBA, NFL, MLS/EPL and occasionally watching my and my son’s alma maters.

IMO the TV revenue chase and conference realignment is destroying college sports and NIL has little bearing in this. I grew up in NC the heyday of ACC sports in the 80’s. It was an 8 team league which stretched from Atlanta to DC suburbs. Everybody played each other every season and if you followed sports, you knew all the good players and their stories. Now the league has 14 or 15 teams and stretches from Boston to Miami. I live down the street from the UVA Rotunda but Wahoos playing Boston College? Meh.. pass.

The well being of the average “student-athlete” is clearly not in the forefront of the money grab. Next year UCLA and USC students will routinely have to travel to the Midwest and New Jersey for conference sports events. No wonder you never see the students in the classroom. I view NIL as a step in the right direction and maybe a chance to save college sports, particularly if it’s fleshed out into some form of revenue sharing model so that every athlete can benefit.

[unterhausen]

When I was a grad student, one of the Penn State basketball(?) players was a mechanical engineering undergrad. He used to call the office I had a desk in looking for his ta because he wasn't going to be in town. I swear we had email back then.

It would be great if we could get rid of college sports, but it's amazing how many die-hard fans there are in this area with seemingly zero personal connection to the school. The crowd with pitchforks and torches would stretch from downtown to the next town over.

[Mark McM]

It would be great if we could get rid of college sports, but it's amazing how many die-hard fans there are in this area with seemingly zero personal connection to the school. The crowd with pitchforks and torches would stretch from downtown to the next town over.

I agree, college sports are so ingrained that it would be difficult to simply do away with them. Instead, maybe they should evolve to their logical conclusion. College sports have long been treated as if they were minor leagues, so maybe they should be spun off into a true minor league, independent of colleges.

But that would never happen. Because if it did, it would reveal the lie of the "student athlete". Firstly, the teams would have to be financially self-sustaining (which most college athletic programs today aren't). And secondly, we would see if the athletes really can be full time students at the same time or not, if they followed the same educationaly path as other full time athletes.

[72gmc]

College sports have long been treated as if they were minor leagues, so maybe they should be spun off into a true minor league, independent of colleges.

If you were to start from a blank page with today's numbers in mind, the term might be "sports college" and the model might be an institution with a sports-training mission linked to an educational institution. It'd be a reality-based rearrangement of the reasons for many athletes to be there (sports first) and the education would be an opportunity athletes could earn based on their sports performance.

A lot of the current student-athlete shenanigans wouldn't need to exist. New shenanigans would be invented, of course ...

[oldpotatoe]

I agree, college sports are so ingrained that it would be difficult to simply do away with them. Instead, maybe they should evolve to their logical conclusion. College sports have long been treated as if they were minor leagues, so maybe they should be spun off into a true minor league, independent of colleges.

But that would never happen. Because if it did, it would reveal the lie of the "student athlete". Firstly, the teams would have to be financially self-sustaining (which most college athletic programs today aren't). And secondly, we would see if the athletes really can be full time students at the same time or not, if they followed the same educationaly path as other full time athletes.

How about let these 'student athletes' 'major' in their sport. Then do some other courses so they could actually get some sort of meaningful degree. Considering the time spent by a basketball or football player...training, practicing, then traveling/playing...it's ludicrous to think these 'athletes' actually have time to go to class.

[peanutgallery]

Penn state is still hung with a Paterno, Jay is on the board of trustees. 409, baby:) That crew is a pretty rabid fan base, hope they never find that stupid statue

When I was a grad student, one of the Penn State basketball(?) players was a mechanical engineering undergrad. He used to call the office I had a desk in looking for his ta because he wasn't going to be in town. I swear we had email back then.

It would be great if we could get rid of college sports, but it's amazing how many die-hard fans there are in this area with seemingly zero personal connection to the school. The crowd with pitchforks and torches would stretch from downtown to the next town over.

[witcombusa]

What is the percentage of college athletes that go on to 'pro'?
Well, at least they don't have a giant debt to show for it...
It would be a hard sell from the school placement perspective though.

[oldpotatoe]

What is the percentage of college athletes that go on to 'pro'?
Well, at least they don't have a giant debt to show for it...
It would be a hard sell from the school placement perspective though.

For basketball and football..it hovers around 1%-1.5%. For baseball(and probably because MLB has a 'minor league' system), it's a little more than 10%(10.4%).

About 10% of those minor league baseball players make it to the Major Leagues. So, 'about the same percentages. I doubt the training, practice, playing time/travel for baseball is the same as Football/basketball but I really don't know.

I really loved watching Univ of Colorado baseball team but it got axed because of Title 9.
The Colorado Buffaloes baseball team was discontinued after the 1980 season. Baseball, wrestling, men's and women's gymnastics, men's and women's swimming, and women's diving comprised the seven programs that were discontinued on June 11, 1980

[Alistair]

How about let these 'student athletes' 'major' in their sport. Then do some other courses so they could actually get some sort of meaningful degree. Considering the time spent by a basketball or football player...training, practicing, then traveling/playing...it's ludicrous to think these 'athletes' actually have time to go to class.

I think that's roughly what 72gmc was suggesting.

You'd have PSU or ND or whoever "spin-off" a sports college, where athletes are recruited and basically treated as neo-pros, where the sport is primary, and the education is secondary (that's already reality, we just pretend it isn't).

That gets away from things like...
- red-shirts and eligibility problems
- any pretense of student-athletes being "normal" students
- amateurism goes out the window - the athletes get paid just like a pro
- scholarship limits (ie, cutting men's wrestling and spinning up women's whatever to make sure football scholarships can be granted)

Ticket sales and TV still gets used to fund the sports college.

Similar systems already exist in Europe for secondary and "junior" college. And we already have it in the US, but mostly limited to secondary schools in "rich-person" sports (tennis, golf).

[Alistair]

I doubt the training, practice, playing time/travel for baseball is the same as Football/basketball but I really don't know.

Having played a club sport (rowing) for two years in college and with friends who were NCAA D1 in non-revenue sports (soccer, softball), the training and travel might not be exactly where it is for football/basketball, but it was still a massive all-consuming commitment...

Which is why I left the team mid-sophomore year. And why the soccer-playing friend gave up her scholarship and left the team her senior year. In both cases, it was too much time/effort to keep up academically and also enjoy life as a student. I was a mediocre athlete at that level. She was an elite player (lots of national team camps, scholarship to OSU, but no prospects of making an Olympics or Worlds team).

[72gmc]

I think that's roughly what 72gmc was suggesting.

You'd have PSU or ND or whoever "spin-off" a sports college, where athletes are recruited and basically treated as neo-pros, where the sport is primary, and the education is secondary (that's already reality, we just pretend it isn't).

That gets away from things like...
- red-shirts and eligibility problems
- any pretense of student-athletes being "normal" students
- amateurism goes out the window - the athletes get paid just like a pro
- scholarship limits (ie, cutting men's wrestling and spinning up women's whatever to make sure football scholarships can be granted)

Ticket sales and TV still gets used to fund the sports college.

Similar systems already exist in Europe for secondary and "junior" college. And we already have it in the US, but mostly limited to secondary schools in "rich-person" sports (tennis, golf).

Yes. My employer has video ad screens in the elevators (that’s a different rant) and IMG, a big dang sports agency, advertises their own academy of this sort in Florida. Send your kid, we’ll put them on the perhaps-Wimbledon path, and we’ll throw in a post-high-school education.

[Mark McM]

What is the percentage of college athletes that go on to 'pro'?
Well, at least they don't have a giant debt to show for it...
It would be a hard sell from the school placement perspective though.

On the other side of the coin, consider that many college sports high injury rates, and college athletes frequently have no health insurance, and definitely don't have workmans compensation. And if a college athlete's injury prevents them from playing their sport, they can lose their scholarship (and maybe have to drop out of school). This happened to my nephew - he started at his first college with a basketball scholarship, got injured and couldn't play, lost his scholarship, and had to drop out (he did later complete his degree at another school).