OT: It's time to pay college athletes.

[rwsaunders]

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

[mhespenheide]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

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]

Originally Posted by rwsaunders

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]

Originally Posted by jtbadge

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/20.../#4ffa452217af

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by mhespenheide

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]

Originally Posted by 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. 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

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]

Originally Posted by rwsaunders

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

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/20.../#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]

Originally Posted by msl819

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]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.