OT: It's time to pay college athletes.

[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]

Originally Posted by sjbraun

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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...re_the_money-0

http://cafidatabase.knightcommission...re_the_money-1

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


http://cafidatabase.knightcommission...re_the_money-1

http://cafidatabase.knightcommission...re_the_money-0

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

Alabama
http://cafidatabase.knightcommission...re_the_money-1

Georgia
http://cafidatabase.knightcommission...re_the_money-1

Ohio State
http://cafidatabase.knightcommission...re_the_money-1

Michigan
http://cafidatabase.knightcommission...re_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]

Originally Posted by Dekonick

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]

Originally Posted by unterhausen

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by msl819

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..

[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]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

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..

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[FlashUNC]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by joosttx

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.