NCAA Rules and Player Compensation

[PDaDdy]

Interesting read.

 

I agree that the NCAA is a monopoly and that they violate the tenants of free market principals, just not capitalism.

 

Students in my opinion should be eligible for compensation for their athletic ability at least as far as ownership of their own image or likeness when used in publications or for sale.

 

 

The amount of students that actually benefit financially afterwards professionally for their participation in college athletics is small.

 

In basketball a High School student still has the choice to go overseas and play, or to play in the NBA's developmental leagues. Baseball is similar and hockey is an interesting hodgepodge, but has different routes to become a professional without going to a University.

 

I suppose arena league football and the CFL might provide another avenue, but I am not sure if this a stable route.

 

My question is why does the NCAA prohibit pay for a student who receives compensation for participating in another sport. That is where the rub comes in to me. Why can't a student football player make money say playing australian rules football during the summer.

 

From reading the above link it seems to me that is the case or am I wrong.

 

I still think the NCAA is a scam for the average student athlete unless that athlete is actually gaining a legitimate degree. Or the NCAA should be prohibited from using the the "term student athlete" as it is dishonest or talented athletes enrolled in questionable accredited high ed programs should not be eligible to play those Div I teams. Since that is not the case, I would call this an exploitation of labor.

 

That being said the only real legal question I have is over ownership of one's image and the compensation a school and business receives from use of said likeness. It is my understanding that is still being worked through the courts.

 

Make no mistake though, the NCAA is a sanctioned monopolistic use of labor. I am just not sure there is a legal argument for a remedy.

 

You bring up some good points in there that I agree with. As I stated before I'm not a college sports guy at all and don't know much about the NCAA other than the controversy you hear about. The whole thing just seemed wrong to me about how these "student athletes" are prevented from doing things that any other american citizen can do.

 

I'm definitely learning more about how controlling the NCAA is.

[billsfan89]

Anyone using the well they get to go to school for free argument just doesn't get it.

 

1- It doesn't cost the schools that much for the schooling (They may charge you 25k a year but it costs them less then that).

 

2- Most players aren't on full ride scholarships.

 

Anyone using the well you don't have to play for the NCAA argument is flawed

 

The NCAA holds a monopoly on college sports there is no viable alternative for kids to play. That hardly seems like free trade.

 

Why anyone would justify a monopoly profiting millions off the backs of young athletes without just compensation is beyond me.

[Cotton Fitzsimmons]

YE OLE has to side with the PDaddy on this one. For those who say, "Oh the free tuition and room and board" is all the compensation they need, I ask this: If a student is at USC or Ohio State on an ACADEMIC scholarship and has a free ride, are they also prohibited to use their entrepreneurial skills to make money? I have a strong hunch that if such a student on academic scholarship started a successful business out of their dorm room, it would be celebrated as The American Dream, as opposed to being punished, suspended, having their reputation tarnished, etc.

[NoSaint]

YE OLE has to side with the PDaddy on this one. For those who say, "Oh the free tuition and room and board" is all the compensation they need, I ask this: If a student is at USC or Ohio State on an ACADEMIC scholarship and has a free ride, are they also prohibited to use their entrepreneurial skills to make money? I have a strong hunch that if such a student on academic scholarship started a successful business out of their dorm room, it would be celebrated as The American Dream, as opposed to being punished, suspended, having their reputation tarnished, etc.

 

they can work.

 

they just actually have to show up and work a job instead of being handed cash by boosters.

[bigc14120]

I had a really interesting thought. We all know the NCAA has some very restrictive rules regarding boosters and outside forces putting money in players pockets. Why I am curious about is the NCAA empowered to deny an american citizen athlete the ability to engage in free trade and the capitalist system. I am no expert but doesn't this seem unconstitutional? I hope some on here have some knowledge of the system and what rules this might violate. It kills me how these young kids are breaking the rules and making money off of their name. You know the rules. For fear of it impacting a potential pro career, don't break them. That being said the rules are just FLAT OUT WRONG and need be changed which would help remove any temptation for a broke kid to violate these rules to make money to get some nice things.

 

This got me thinking of a work around. If a player wanted to go into the school store, purchase their own jersey, sign it with their own signature and sell it on eBay as a signed jersey, would the NCAA have any ability to stop an american citizen from selling a piece of merchandise that they purchased with their own money, signed and put on eBay?

 

Something is REALLY REALLY wrong with the NCAA if they can suspend constitutional rights to free trade and capitalism for american citizens to make money. This would not even go against the spirit of the NCAA whose goal is supposedly to protect student athletes from outside influences that potentially don't have their best interests at heart.

 

I would love to see a student athlete take this approach with the full backing of legal counsel to attempt to challenge the NCAAs directives to keep these players poor and prevent them from profiting from their fame. Yes, some get a free ride with tuition but that amount of compensation pales in comparison to the money the university makes off of their cheap fixed wage labor force.

 

For shame NCAA!!!

Actually, you are on the right track here...but, not thinking big enough. As antiunion as my personnal beliefs are, the athletes in college football are exploited without compensation. AT the top BCS schools, they should be paid beyond the sham free education. (at least its a sham in many situations) I think a job action is required to set things straight....right now the NCAA and schools are taking advantage of these young men. I also believe that the same situation arrises wrt exploitation of graduate research assistants at research universities. there are now sporatic organizational efforts to stop that one...why not the big time sport schools. Anyhow, this really is a situation where the big time administrators for the universities are keeping a cap on the situation so far. Most young men of that caliber are thinking they might make the pro's, and don't want to rock the boat. Revenue sharing anyone?

[C.Biscuit97]

I'm guessing anyone against student-athletes getting paid probably never had the opportunity to play a college sport in the life. It is worlds apart being a student-athlete compared to a regular student. It is more than a full time job.

 

And while it is foolish and insensitive to compare the NCAA to slavery, the NCAA is a very crooked system. A lot of people are getting rich off the sweat of these athletes. It is stupid that Cam Newton or Tim Tebow doesn't get a cent off their college jersey. It is a joke in fact.

 

And save the free college degree stuff. A degree doesn't mean crap anymore. These kids deserve a piece of the pie, not 60 year old rich guys.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

they can work.

 

they just actually have to show up and work a job instead of being handed cash by boosters.

That's fine but how feasible is a job when there is practice and/or games every day? How about team meetings and weight lifting? And that's not to mention that travel to and from games is a big time eater too.

 

I would guesstimate that an NCAA Division I football player must commit about 30 hours per week solely to football during the season. If he's also supposed to attend class and study and perform other coursework (homework, meetings), how feasible is it to really have any kind of job?

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the players get a totally raw deal and that they are being completely exploited… but as I've stated three times now (and no one has answered)… why the double standard?

 

Here are some questions I'd like someone to answer for me:

 

1) (Again) why can a regular student do virtually anything to make money where a scholarship football player has so many restrictions placed upon them?

 

2) If a football player at say, Florida, is given a scholarship worth approximately $26,000 for one year, how much does that athlete generate in revenues for the University for that year? ($26K is actually high. http://www.sfa.ufl.edu/basics/cost-of-attendance/)

 

3) Do regular students generate this same revenue for the University?

 

4) Should the fact that a football player devotes hundreds of extra hours per year towards football on top of academics be ignored?

 

5) For a football player with aspirations of playing in the NFL, is there REALLY a legitimate path other than NCAA football in which to take?

 

I'm still open-minded in this discussion but I'd like to hear how these questions would be answered by someone who thinks that the NCAA rules are fair towards the football players.

[NoSaint]

That's fine but how feasible is a job when there is practice and/or games every day? How about team meetings and weight lifting? And that's not to mention that travel to and from games is a big time eater too.

 

I would guesstimate that an NCAA Division I football player must commit about 30 hours per week solely to football during the season. If he's also supposed to attend class and study and perform other coursework (homework, meetings), how feasible is it to really have any kind of job?

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the players get a totally raw deal and that they are being completely exploited… but as I've stated three times now (and no one has answered)… why the double standard?

 

Here are some questions I'd like someone to answer for me:

 

1) (Again) why can a regular student do virtually anything to make money where a scholarship football player has so many restrictions placed upon them?

 

2) If a football player at say, Florida, is given a scholarship worth approximately $26,000 for one year, how much does that athlete generate in revenues for the University for that year? ($26K is actually high. http://www.sfa.ufl.edu/basics/cost-of-attendance/)

 

3) Do regular students generate this same revenue for the University?

 

4) Should the fact that a football player devotes hundreds of extra hours per year towards football on top of academics be ignored?

 

5) For a football player with aspirations of playing in the NFL, is there REALLY a legitimate path other than NCAA football in which to take?

 

I'm still open-minded in this discussion but I'd like to hear how these questions would be answered by someone who thinks that the NCAA rules are fair towards the football players.

 

Well, i was targeting that answer at the concept that was developing that ncaa athletes arent allowed to make money, when in reality they arent allowed to make money based upon exploiting their membership on the team. That is a huge fundamental difference that I think a lot of people in this thread were missing.

 

As to the hours - the ncaa does regulate how much you can work with the team. in season, its 20 hours. offseason workouts are limited to 8 hours. obviously, just like cash changing hands, this is also an issue that has to be addressed.

 

 

clearly this will be idealistic and not going to happen, but i believe its the practical answer that should be discussed if you truly want to fix the problem..... so here goes.....

 

 

I think the answer to all your questions lies within how the whole system got off the tracks and needs to get turned around at a fundamental level, and i dont mean pay them. These kids are student athletes. they should be in college learning how to be successful men, and not just auditioning for the nfl. I think a large portion of the old boys network running the NCAA needs to be canned to make this happen. we need to hear about top level ncaa officials getting fired for their own misconduct, coaches who lie being blackballed, the nfl punishing agents for improper conduct, and the boosters that paid reggie bush being banned from association with USC athletics just like he was and so on...

 

if you dont want to be a student athlete, sign with a professional team (UFL maybe?), not a university team. if the rules in place were properly enforced, instead of selectively enforced to the favor of those men at the top getting paid -- suddenly an outside league might be viable. athletic schmucks that dont go to class and leave highschool without knowing how to read or do basic math, would need somewhere to play, coaches that lied would need to find non university job. when you break down what the system is supposed to be at its most fundamental level, the kids are not providing a service to the school, the school is giving the student a chance to exercise their interests outside the classroom.

 

 

i would also ask you, if the TV contracts disappeared, would you still say these kids deserve to get paid?

 

there are a lot of kids that dont get booster money, and make it through just fine and are thrilled with their degree - why does terrelle pryor need to get free cars from fans?

 

its a broken system and i dont think giving kids more money and less school responsibilities is the way to increase the integrity as the general tone of the thread suggests.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

It actually seems that most of the people in this discussion are leaning towards the idea that the the student athletes are getting shortchanged a bit.

 

It is certainly not the only inequity in our world… no one ever said life was fair.

 

I want to address a few points at the front end of this conversation.

 

I think it would be useful to confine this discussion to NCAA Division I football and if necessary, basketball. These two are the huge, revenue generating sports… the engines of the NCAA. There's no point in including soccer or even baseball in the discussion. They are so different as revenue sports as to be irrelevant to this debate. And speaking of the NCAA let's not pretend (as some here have) that the NCAA can somehow be circumvented. Sure a few high schoolers go straight to the NBA. But no high schooler has ever gone straight to the NFL (although Cookie Gilchrist tried). People can cite the CFL or UFL or Arena League or semipro as much all they want but I would bet big money that every player in the CFL and UFL also played college football. And how many NFLers played solely Arena or semipro without ever playing college football? One or two players total?

 

Bottom line, with almost zero exceptions, if you want to play NFL football, you have to play NCAA football.

 

If we can agree with that, we can then have a real discussion.

 

Let's also acknowledge that NCAA Division I football players (and basketball players) bring big revenue to the schools for which they play. Not even factoring in the huge revenues from television rights and bowl games, a university can make $2-3 million each weekend just on paid attendance to a football game… not including the concessions, parking, merchandise sales, etc. The amount of money a university makes on one football game can easily exceed the amount of money it pays out in scholarships for an entire year.

 

So the question becomes, is the opportunity of a free education (tuition, room, board) sufficient compensation for:

 

a) The amount of revenue that these athletes bring to the institutions?

 

b) The amount of extra time these students spend doing athletics? Keep in mind that a student on an academic scholarship simply needs to maintain good grades to keep their scholarship. If NoSaint's numbers are accurate, a football player is spending an extra 730 hours or so doing football.

 

The next question is if the football or basketball player is being shortchanged, what is the best remedy for this situation?

 

I actually think PDaDdy's suggested "work around" is clean and simple although it would only remedy the situation for star players. His suggestion was that the NCAA could simply let the players buy, autograph, and sell their own jerseys. By generating their own incomes (public appearances, autograph sessions), they could hypothetically cut the boosters out of the equation.

 

Because it comes back to my original question: Why is there a double standard? Why do student athletes have to comply with a much more stringent set of rules (NCAA rules) than regular students?

 

NCAA Division I Football and Basketball players bring significant revenues to their universities and their reward for this is that they have much less freedom to make money than other students.

 

Isn't this a little messed up?

Edited June 30, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan

[NoSaint]

It actually seems that most of the people in this discussion are leaning towards the idea that the the student athletes are getting shortchanged a bit.

 

It is certainly not the only inequity in our world… no one ever said life was fair.

 

I want to address a few points at the front end of this conversation.

 

I think it would be useful to confine this discussion to NCAA Division I football and if necessary, basketball. These two are the huge, revenue generating sports… the engines of the NCAA. There's no point in including soccer or even baseball in the discussion. They are so different as revenue sports as to be irrelevant to this debate. And speaking of the NCAA let's not pretend (as some here have) that the NCAA can somehow be circumvented. Sure a few high schoolers go straight to the NBA. But no high schooler has ever gone straight to the NFL (although Cookie Gilchrist tried). People can cite the CFL or UFL or Arena League or semipro as much all they want but I would bet big money that every player in the CFL and UFL also played college football. And how many NFLers played solely Arena or semipro without ever playing college football? One or two players total?

 

Bottom line, with almost zero exceptions, if you want to play NFL football, you have to play NCAA football.

 

If we can agree with that, we can then have a real discussion.

 

Let's also acknowledge that NCAA Division I football players (and basketball players) bring big revenue to the schools for which they play. Not even factoring in the huge revenues from television rights and bowl games, a university can make $2-3 million each weekend just on paid attendance to a football game… not including the concessions, parking, merchandise sales, etc. The amount of money a university makes on one football game can easily exceed the amount of money it pays out in scholarships for an entire year.

 

So the question becomes, is the opportunity of a free education (tuition, room, board) sufficient compensation for:

 

a) The amount of revenue that these athletes bring to the institutions?

 

b) The amount of extra time these students spend doing athletics? Keep in mind that a student on an academic scholarship simply needs to maintain good grades to keep their scholarship. If NoSaint's numbers are accurate, a football player is spending an extra 730 hours or so doing football.

 

The next question is if the football or basketball player is being shortchanged, what is the best remedy for this situation?

 

I actually think PDaDdy's suggested "work around" is clean and simple although it would only remedy the situation for star players. His suggestion was that the NCAA could simply let the players buy, autograph, and sell their own jerseys. By generating their own incomes (public appearances, autograph sessions), they could hypothetically cut the boosters out of the equation.

 

Because it comes back to my original question: Why is there a double standard? Why do student athletes have to comply with a much more stringent set of rules (NCAA rules) than regular students?

 

NCAA Division I Football and Basketball players bring significant revenues to their universities and their reward for this is that they have much less freedom to make money than other students.

 

Isn't this a little messed up?

 

 

if they are providing the same hours, the same work, etc... as the football and basketball players why shouldnt the players on the other sports get paid also? because of the difference in TV contracts, they are participating in a hobby not a job? what about the fact that VERY FEW football teams actually turn a profit?

 

for the work around you propose -- how many people do you think you are addressing the pay to play problem for? 5 on each of the top 25 teams? Truly, unless you are a kid in line for a multi million dollar contract in the next couple years, you arent going to be making money off of your proposal anyway.

 

the system is totally broken and letting pryor trade his signature for tattoos, or boosters pay newtons dad does nothing to fix the problem that you are looking at. College sports are not a job, they are an extracurricular, and just because bowl games have started making a few schools money doesnt mean that you suddenly change that.

 

 

 

One of my fundamental points was that by enforcing the rules and actually making these athletes student athletes, you make an alternative league pluasible perhaps. yea, you got it right, no one has gone through the UFL in the first 2 seasons. Odds are cam, and pryor took home more at their schools than they would have signing a UFL deal. fix the system, and the things you are complaining about work themselves out. make the professional alternative actually pay more money and maybe some of these kids start crossing the line. right now the college system is so unbelievably broken that you are taking a too simplistic answer to this. there isnt a single level from players, coaches, to ncaa officials that have clean hands at this point. adding money in the players pockets doesnt create a system where rampant rule breaking doesnt occur. kids will want more money, coaches will find new special incentives, practices will still run longer than they should, and officials will still be pocketing money that they shouldnt to look the other way. id assume the conversation we are having is to fix the system, not to put a bandaid on a broken leg.

Edited June 30, 2011 by NoSaint

[justnzane]

That's fine but how feasible is a job when there is practice and/or games every day? How about team meetings and weight lifting? And that's not to mention that travel to and from games is a big time eater too. As a former 3 season a year, albeit D3, athlete. I still had to work beyond practices and classwork. It probably put in 70+ hours of work in a week between the three big responsibilities I had on average each year.

 

I would guesstimate that an NCAA Division I football player must commit about 30 hours per week solely to football during the season. If he's also supposed to attend class and study and perform other coursework (homework, meetings), how feasible is it to really have any kind of job? While training for decathlons, I was having about 5hours/day of workouts spread out into morning and afternoons. Compound that with every saturday being eaten up for meets. I put in at least 40 hours a week into track/XC. Figure academics was another 30 hours of work (math major was a B word) and 10 hours of work that needed to be done since I received no parental aid.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the players get a totally raw deal and that they are being completely exploited… but as I've stated three times now (and no one has answered)… why the double standard? All levels of college athletes are exploited, the difference is that the top 50 football and basketball programs are overwhelmingly lucrative. Those players should receive some form of profit sharing after the completion of the season, imo.

 

Here are some questions I'd like someone to answer for me:

 

1) (Again) why can a regular student do virtually anything to make money where a scholarship football player has so many restrictions placed upon them? They are trying to preserve the sanctity of amateur athletics, which even the IOC realizes is not possible and has allow professionals to play instead.

 

2) If a football player at say, Florida, is given a scholarship worth approximately $26,000 for one year, how much does that athlete generate in revenues for the University for that year? ($26K is actually high. http://www.sfa.ufl.e...-of-attendance/)

http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2009/06/15/daily7.html In 09 the program made 66 million in revenues. Divide by the 85 scholarships that is appx 775 grand in revenue. I imagine that at least 400 grand of that is profit, as I would have a hard time believing that staffing and maintainence is over 30 million

3) Do regular students generate this same revenue for the University? In terms of tuition, research, and grant raising, yes. Aside from student jobs, not a whole lot more, imo.

4) Should the fact that a football player devotes hundreds of extra hours per year towards football on top of academics be ignored? It isn't ignored as they do everything market each of these kids as much as possible. Many of the BCS players are giving good enough grades for having a pulse and showing up to class.

 

5) For a football player with aspirations of playing in the NFL, is there REALLY a legitimate path other than NCAA football in which to take?

No

 

I'm still open-minded in this discussion but I'd like to hear how these questions would be answered by someone who thinks that the NCAA rules are fair towards the football players.

 

 

I do think most players actually make the most of their educational experience. However, there are some mental midgets that you know didn't that make it to the NFL with single digit wonderlics. The best way that the NCAA could get the players some compensation is to institute some form of revenue sharing that levels the playing field a bit. However, this is not likely as the BCS schools are so resistant to change for the greater good (ie no playoff system, archaic bowl system of meaningless postseason games).

[San Jose Bills Fan]

if they are providing the same hours, the same work, etc... as the football and basketball players why shouldnt the players on the other sports get paid also? because of the difference in TV contracts, they are participating in a hobby not a job? what about the fact that VERY FEW football teams actually turn a profit?

 

for the work around you propose -- how many people do you think you are addressing the pay to play problem for? 5 on each of the top 25 teams? Truly, unless you are a kid in line for a multi million dollar contract in the next couple years, you arent going to be making money off of your proposal anyway.

 

the system is totally broken and letting pryor trade his signature for tattoos, or boosters pay newtons dad does nothing to fix the problem that you are looking at. College sports are not a job, they are an extracurricular, and just because bowl games have started making a few schools money doesnt mean that you suddenly change that.

 

 

 

One of my fundamental points was that by enforcing the rules and actually making these athletes student athletes, you make an alternative league pluasible perhaps. yea, you got it right, no one has gone through the UFL in the first 2 seasons. Odds are cam, and pryor took home more at their schools than they would have signing a UFL deal. fix the system, and the things you are complaining about work themselves out. make the professional alternative actually pay more money and maybe some of these kids start crossing the line. right now the college system is so unbelievably broken that you are taking a too simplistic answer to this.

No offense but I won't accept your assertion that few Division I football or basketball programs make a profit. From everything I've read, it's these revenue producing sports which support the athletic department budgets at most schools… thus the big Title 9 debate.

 

As to another question you raise, of course if a player whose scholarship value is $25,000 and plays for a program with football revenues in excess of $100 million per year, then it's natural to question whether that player is being exploited. This is why I believe that these athletes should be compensated more than athletes in non revenue-producing sports… because the universities are making money off of them. There should be some degree of equitableness between what revenues an athlete helps bring to a school and how that school compensates that athlete. The fencing team doesn't generate revenues.

 

And the point of saying that the NCAA has a virtual monopoly on aspiring NFL and NBA players is that for some of these kids, college sports IS A JOB because it's the only REALISTIC way that these athletes can make it to the pros. Of course I'd love to take the idealistic view of the free education that many of these kids do take advantage of but for at least an equal number if not more, college is simply the ONLY road to the pros.

 

It wasn't necessary for you to point out that PDaDdy's remedy only helps a small few. I had already pointed that out. It's more the idea of a person having the freedom to generate their own income streams which was my point. In other words, why the stupid rules? Being given this freedom would also be part of a more comprehensive solution… quit regulating these kids like they're your indentured servants for no good reason.

 

I of course agree with you that the system is broken. But I don't see the system changing much. I don't think your idea, using increased enforcement to drive athletes out of schools, thus making alternative leagues viable, is realistic.

 

To me, the FIRST STEP is a common sense one:

 

Stop with the stupid pointless rules which prohibit a player from selling their own autographs. This may be one of those situations where fewer rules are better… especially when those rules have no basis in rationality.

 

 

[NoSaint]

No offense but I won't accept your assertion that few Division I football or basketball programs make a profit. From everything I've read, it's these revenue producing sports which support the athletic department budgets at most schools… thus the big Title 9 debate.

 

As to another question you raise, of course if a player whose scholarship value is $25,000 and plays for a program with football revenues in excess of $100 million per year, then it's natural to question whether that player is being exploited. This is why I believe that these athletes should be compensated more than athletes in non revenue-producing sports… because the universities are making money off of them. There should be some degree of equitableness between what revenues an athlete helps bring to a school and how that school compensates that athlete. The fencing team doesn't generate revenues.

 

And the point of saying that the NCAA has a virtual monopoly on aspiring NFL and NBA players is that for some of these kids, college sports IS A JOB because it's the only REALISTIC way that these athletes can make it to the pros. Of course I'd love to take the idealistic view of the free education that many of these kids do take advantage of but for at least an equal number if not more, college is simply the ONLY road to the pros.

 

It wasn't necessary for you to point out that PDaDdy's remedy only helps a small few. I had already pointed that out. It's more the idea of a person having the freedom to generate their own income streams which was my point. In other words, why the stupid rules? Being given this freedom would also be part of a more comprehensive solution… quit regulating these kids like they're your indentured servants for no good reason.

 

I of course agree with you that the system is broken. But I don't see the system changing much. I don't think your idea, using increased enforcement to drive athletes out of schools, thus making alternative leagues viable, is realistic.

 

To me, the FIRST STEP is a common sense one:

 

Stop with the stupid pointless rules which prohibit a player from selling their own autographs. This may be one of those situations where fewer rules are better… especially when those rules have no basis in rationality.

 

 

i only dug for a little while but the best article i could find was 2-3 years old and while yes, the ohio state, texas, lsu and florida types of schools made INSANE money..... it was a 2007 article that i found that went furthest down the list through the top 25, and yes in fact, houston, a top 25 team that year LOST over 2 million dollars. I find it hard to believe that teams outside the top half of the SEC, big ten/12, and pac 10 are making the money you think. you go to your average conference usa game, or any other mid major school and you are not getting full stands, or $40 tickets, a lot less money for tv, less donations from boosters.....

 

and i cant say that its totally fair to simply say its a 20k payment for school, and as pdaddy did, compare it to the salary of a mcdonalds cook. yes, state schools are, but any private is bordering 50k these days.

 

 

as for the autograph thing - i hear you, thats one of the sillier rules. truly why cant mom and dad sell memorabilia that their son gives them or how would they even regulate that?

 

 

and yes, i think if you hold the teams, boosters, agents and ncaa accountable instead of "punishing" players who are often already gone - i think you see the payment for play fall away quickly. coach is going to report his violations if he is blackballed for lying. agents will think twice about touching college players if they get decertified when caught. if you get rid of the pay for play, how fast does an alternative league become viable for these kids that dont care about school and only dollars in pockets? it only takes a handful to jump ship and its a legitimate option. tell me the top ncaa players didnt walk away with more money than they would have made in the UFL.

 

here we go - a better article

 

http://www.baynews9.com/article/sports/2010/august/140944/College-Football-2010:-Study-shows-that-most-athletic-programs-losing-money

 

 

68 football programs were profitable, while 52 lost money.

 

basketball showing a similar breakdown.

 

 

with of course the top schools turning profits that are just insane, not everyones making the cash you think. when coupled with all the other revenue losing sports, only 14 athletic departments made money.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Well we both agree it's broken.

 

I understand athletic departments losing money but I was surprised to see that of the FBS schools, football by itself made a profit at 68 schools and a loss at 52 schools.

 

I would have thought that football was almost a guaranteed money maker.

 

 

I guess your idea has some merit… although systems become entrenched and change is sometimes difficult to force. And we're only talking about a few of the many factors in the current state of affairs.

 

One funny thing to consider is what would happen if these top high school recruits suddenly had an option other than college football… what the NCAA might then do to "compete" with this new developmental league. Maybe someday we'll find out.

 

This subject is becoming more interesting to me and I'm curious as to what books and studies exist on the subject. Thanks for a good discussion, NoSaint.

[NoSaint]

Well we both agree it's broken.

 

I understand athletic departments losing money but I was surprised to see that of the FBS schools, football by itself made a profit at 68 schools and a loss at 52 schools.

 

I would have thought that football was almost a guaranteed money maker.

 

 

I guess your idea has some merit… although systems become entrenched and change is sometimes difficult to force. And we're only talking about a few of the many factors in the current state of affairs.

 

One funny thing to consider is what would happen if these top high school recruits suddenly had an option other than college football… what the NCAA might then do to "compete" with this new developmental league. Maybe someday we'll find out.

 

This subject is becoming more interesting to me and I'm curious as to what books and studies exist on the subject. Thanks for a good discussion, NoSaint.

 

 

It's definitely an interesting topic and one that's hard to have a meaningful discussion on as I believe the NCAA is hugely dysfunctional and hides it pretty well. Ultimately they are their own governing agency, and the news channels that could uncover things are the same people that are busy fighting over rights to show the games. Always a pleasure to have a good talk though

[North Buffalo]

i only dug for a little while but the best article i could find was 2-3 years old and while yes, the ohio state, texas, lsu and florida types of schools made INSANE money..... it was a 2007 article that i found that went furthest down the list through the top 25, and yes in fact, houston, a top 25 team that year LOST over 2 million dollars. I find it hard to believe that teams outside the top half of the SEC, big ten/12, and pac 10 are making the money you think. you go to your average conference usa game, or any other mid major school and you are not getting full stands, or $40 tickets, a lot less money for tv, less donations from boosters.....

 

and i cant say that its totally fair to simply say its a 20k payment for school, and as pdaddy did, compare it to the salary of a mcdonalds cook. yes, state schools are, but any private is bordering 50k these days.

 

 

as for the autograph thing - i hear you, thats one of the sillier rules. truly why cant mom and dad sell memorabilia that their son gives them or how would they even regulate that?

 

 

and yes, i think if you hold the teams, boosters, agents and ncaa accountable instead of "punishing" players who are often already gone - i think you see the payment for play fall away quickly. coach is going to report his violations if he is blackballed for lying. agents will think twice about touching college players if they get decertified when caught. if you get rid of the pay for play, how fast does an alternative league become viable for these kids that dont care about school and only dollars in pockets? it only takes a handful to jump ship and its a legitimate option. tell me the top ncaa players didnt walk away with more money than they would have made in the UFL.

 

here we go - a better article

 

http://www.baynews9.com/article/sports/2010/august/140944/College-Football-2010:-Study-shows-that-most-athletic-programs-losing-money

 

 

68 football programs were profitable, while 52 lost money.

 

basketball showing a similar breakdown.

 

 

with of course the top schools turning profits that are just insane, not everyones making the cash you think. when coupled with all the other revenue losing sports, only 14 athletic departments made money.

 

The last book that I am aware that was detailed on this issue was called College Sports Inc, Written by Murray Sperber

 

From my understanding you are mixing up your accounting terms. Revenue generating vs. profitable. Many schools make up shortfalls in athletic programs especially football by increasing student fees. They hide their losses by attributing many of those expenses to the University itself and generally have no clue on what a profit loss statement is. Yes they are revenue generating, but with a few exceptions they spend more than they bring in.

 

That being said if there were not TV and merchandise contracts with the Universities, I agree this line of argument to pay the players would be a moot point. But as long as someone is making money off marketing the image of these players, I believe they have a right to compensation for it.

Edited June 30, 2011 by North Buffalo

[PDaDdy]

As to the hours - the ncaa does regulate how much you can work with the team. in season, its 20 hours. offseason workouts are limited to 8 hours. obviously, just like cash changing hands, this is also an issue that has to be addressed.

 

i would also ask you, if the TV contracts disappeared, would you still say these kids deserve to get paid?

 

 

its a broken system and i dont think giving kids more money and less school responsibilities is the way to increase the integrity as the general tone of the thread suggests.

 

 

The NCAA limits practice hours I would imagine. How many hours do they have to spend in the play book outside of practice. Nutrition, additional conditioning etc I would also say are not counted in these 20 hours? I don't know about you but going to school full time and a 20 hour a week job is a real B word and a half. I've done it. It sucks!

 

I don't think your scenario with the TV contracts dissapearing is a relevant one. They aren't going to go away and we all know it. The universities and the NCAA are making money hand over fist and SOME students get a full tuition ride. I wasn't even thinking about the fact, as one poster stated, that the cost to the student far exceeds the cost to the university. A $20,000 tuition free ride might only cost the university $10,000. Maybe less. If the universities gave the money to charity and ran college football as non profit organizations I would be 100% on board with your statements and beliefs. We however know this is not the case.

 

The system is indeed broken. I don't think anyone here is advocating less school responsibilities but we are suggesting that NCAA restrictions regarding how the individual can make money are BS. How does a guy putting in 20hrs of practice and has a full time course load find the time to get a part time job? I don't know about you but I believe being successful at college football requires a LOT of dedication and focus. Do they have time to flip burgers at BK making $7 an hour and maintain the dedication and focus to play in front of 100,000 people on Saturday and keep a good GPA?

 

These guys should be able to make their own money with fewer restrictions on how they do it not to mention be given even the smallest slice of the pie from the hundreds of millions of dollars made off of television rights, merchandise and ticket sales.

[NoSaint]

The NCAA limits practice hours I would imagine. How many hours do they have to spend in the play book outside of practice. Nutrition, additional conditioning etc I would also say are not counted in these 20 hours? I don't know about you but going to school full time and a 20 hour a week job is a real B word and a half. I've done it. It sucks!

 

I don't think your scenario with the TV contracts dissapearing is a relevant one. They aren't going to go away and we all know it. The universities and the NCAA are making money hand over fist and SOME students get a full tuition ride. I wasn't even thinking about the fact, as one poster stated, that the cost to the student far exceeds the cost to the university. A $20,000 tuition free ride might only cost the university $10,000. Maybe less. If the universities gave the money to charity and ran college football as non profit organizations I would be 100% on board with your statements and beliefs. We however know this is not the case.

 

The system is indeed broken. I don't think anyone here is advocating less school responsibilities but we are suggesting that NCAA restrictions regarding how the individual can make money are BS. How does a guy putting in 20hrs of practice and has a full time course load find the time to get a part time job? I don't know about you but I believe being successful at college football requires a LOT of dedication and focus. Do they have time to flip burgers at BK making $7 an hour and maintain the dedication and focus to play in front of 100,000 people on Saturday and keep a good GPA?

 

These guys should be able to make their own money with fewer restrictions on how they do it not to mention be given even the smallest slice of the pie from the hundreds of millions of dollars made off of television rights, merchandise and ticket sales.

 

Again I will reference that only half are profitable stand alone programs. And merely 14 are self sufficient departments. The non profitt charity you seek is the athletic department itself.

 

And the only restriction on cash to players is that they can't profit based on their membership on the team. I'm not wildly opposed to signings being legal but it doesn't fix anything.

 

The situation, though ridiculously broken, isn't totally reflective of the picture you are painting.

[Mr. WEO]

Anyone using the well they get to go to school for free argument just doesn't get it.

 

1- It doesn't cost the schools that much for the schooling (They may charge you 25k a year but it costs them less then that).

 

2- Most players aren't on full ride scholarships.

 

Anyone using the well you don't have to play for the NCAA argument is flawed

 

The NCAA holds a monopoly on college sports there is no viable alternative for kids to play. That hardly seems like free trade.

 

Why anyone would justify a monopoly profiting millions off the backs of young athletes without just compensation is beyond me.

So if an entity makes millions in profits off the backs of the young workers, but is not a monoploy--it's OK?

 

The only athletes we're really talking about are on full scholarship.

 

YE OLE has to side with the PDaddy on this one. For those who say, "Oh the free tuition and room and board" is all the compensation they need, I ask this: If a student is at USC or Ohio State on an ACADEMIC scholarship and has a free ride, are they also prohibited to use their entrepreneurial skills to make money? I have a strong hunch that if such a student on academic scholarship started a successful business out of their dorm room, it would be celebrated as The American Dream, as opposed to being punished, suspended, having their reputation tarnished, etc.

 

Nothing prevents an athlete form starting a business, as far as I know. That business cannot be related to or be based upon his position on the team.

 

How much do you give these students athletes? Why would they accept "spending money" when they could get more on the side?

[PDaDdy]

Again I will reference that only half are profitable stand alone programs. And merely 14 are self sufficient departments. The non profitt charity you seek is the athletic department itself.

 

And the only restriction on cash to players is that they can't profit based on their membership on the team. I'm not wildly opposed to signings being legal but it doesn't fix anything.

 

The situation, though ridiculously broken, isn't totally reflective of the picture you are painting.

 

I looked at the article you provided and it seems like more NCAA shenanigans. The don't release profits or expenses for their programs but expect us to believe that only a handful of schools make a profit? What they hell are they spending money on? Their workforce plays for peanuts or nothing at all, they get TV money, merchandise money, ticket revenue and alumni contributions.

 

Being a skeptic I don't believe a word of that article until I can see the whole picture and see what money is being counted where.