UConn James Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Anyone who thinks there will be substantial change even 50 years from now is delusional. I could see players in the big-time sports maybe getting a stipend. But dude, most sports run break-even or at a loss so a uni can comply with Title IX. If forced to pay beyond whatever percentage they give in scholarships, programs will be cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 'Free market' doesn't mean someone else is required to provide you with an avenue to best exploit your skills. It means if college players think they can get a better deal by starting their own minor league football system, they are free to try. to me, a free market in this case would allow a university or multiple universities to go outside the confines of ncaa rules to compensate a high school prospect at a competitive level in order to produce a competitive product and then not be blackballed from playing teams inside the "system". it doesn't require the players starting a new league. it requires the break up of a current monopoly...which i suspect we will soon see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Anyone who thinks there will be substantial change even 50 years from now is delusional. I could see players in the big-time sports maybe getting a stipend. But dude, most sports run break-even or at a loss so a uni can comply with Title IX. If forced to pay beyond whatever percentage they give in scholarships, programs will be cut. That's the real issue. Who gets paid? Only football players? Only players on teams that are verified as 'profitable'? Only guys that sell X number of jerseys? For all the talk about paying players, has anyone outlined a workable proposal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Frankly, they've done so much to destroy college sports that I would be happy to see everyone follow the Ivy League model. No scholarships and no admissions leeway for athletes -- period. Let the NFL create a minor league if they want, but getting higher education out of the sports business would be fine with me. Very idealistic notion that in a perfect world would be great but it will never happen. There is way too much emotion, tradition and now money (for a few) tied up in sports to drop programs. However, to your point one does have to wonder how long the increases in the cost of a college education can continue. Certainly one does have to question athletic programs as a part of this equation. Very few schools actually make money on their teams - especially if you look at it across the full offering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 That's the real issue. Who gets paid? Only football players? Only players on teams that are verified as 'profitable'? Only guys that sell X number of jerseys? For all the talk about paying players, has anyone outlined a workable proposal? let the market decide. schools pay for players and sports that they deem will be profitable or are worth the expense on the basis of prestige or reputation. make sports that can't recoup their costs into club sports like virtually every other university system in the world does. then we could honestly call the competitors student athletes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 let the market decide. schools pay for players and sports that they deem will be profitable or are worth the expense on the basis of prestige or reputation. make sports that can't recoup their costs into club sports like virtually every other university system in the world does. then we could honestly call the competitors student athletes. Except they are schools, not corporations, and their reason for existence is to educate people, not to run sports franchises. And on top of it, most of them are funded by the taxpayers. So let's just keep it at "they're all club sports from the perspective of the athlete, and if the athlete is good enough they can go on and play professionally". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 Except they are schools, not corporations, and their reason for existence is to educate people, not to run sports franchises. And on top of it, most of them are funded by the taxpayers. So let's just keep it at "they're all club sports from the perspective of the athlete, and if the athlete is good enough they can go on and play professionally". i agree. they should be schools and not corporations. but they're currently acting a lot like corporations when dealing through the ncaa for tv contracts, apparel contracts and coaching contracts. are there any professors making anywhere near what a top college head football coach makes? how bout university presidents? that alone proves the priority assignment. i'm fine with club sports only as a solution but it will never happen. for all the crying about the cost of college sports programs they'll never willingly give up the cash cows that are college football and march madness. if they're going to do it on this scale, and they are, why not do it honestly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 i agree. they should be schools and not corporations. but they're currently acting a lot like corporations when dealing through the ncaa for tv contracts, apparel contracts and coaching contracts. are there any professors making anywhere near what a top college head football coach makes? how bout university presidents? that alone proves the priority assignment. i'm fine with club sports only as a solution but it will never happen. for all the crying about the cost of college sports programs they'll never willingly give up the cash cows that are college football and march madness. if they're going to do it on this scale, and they are, why not do it honestly? I don't think allowing bidding wars for high school players is going to improve the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I'd say the answer is 'no'. Players are employees, not shareholders. At work you are not entitled to a share of the profits your employer makes as a result of your work, right? People's compensation is generally limited to previously agreed upon salary, commissions, benies, etc. Likewise, college football players have an agreed upon comp of school tuition, room/board and the opportunity to play organized football at a high level. Is that comp fair value for their services? That's another question, but the fact is, that's the system everyone has signed up for. As a comparison, if a graduate research student creates a cure for cancer during their chem lab, who owns the rights and resulting profits; the student or the university? At FSU, there's a split between the university, department, faculty, and student who came up with whatever. They have an office that deals with testing the market of whatever you create, and if you sign on with them, they'll take care of the leg work (you don't have much of an option). They were looking at one of the bioreactors i made, and i think to start off, as the student who designed it, i was in line for about 5% or so. That being said, i'd agree more with the "4 years of tuition" if the players could cash it in later on in life. Lets face it. being a "student" athlete is a farce for big division 1 programs. It'd be much more useful for the 99% that don't make it to the pros if they could then go back and actually get a real education, not one in basket weaving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 At FSU, there's a split between the university, department, faculty, and student who came up with whatever. They have an office that deals with testing the market of whatever you create, and if you sign on with them, they'll take care of the leg work (you don't have much of an option). They were looking at one of the bioreactors i made, and i think to start off, as the student who designed it, i was in line for about 5% or so. That being said, i'd agree more with the "4 years of tuition" if the players could cash it in later on in life. Lets face it. being a "student" athlete is a farce for big division 1 programs. It'd be much more useful for the 99% that don't make it to the pros if they could then go back and actually get a real education, not one in basket weaving. Oh, I agree with that. No question the schools are using these kids and for many the educational opportunity is wasted. But handing them stacks of cash at 19 isn't really a good long term solution for anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Dave Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 but they're currently acting a lot like corporations when dealing through the ncaa for tv contracts, apparel contracts and coaching contracts. are there any professors making anywhere near what a top college head football coach makes? how bout university presidents? Ah, one of the biggest misconceptions about the NCAA. Conferences negotiate TV contracts, not the NCAA. (The NCAA does negotiate TV/radio/internet rights deals for its 89 championships but not the regular season deals.) The schools negotiate apparel contracts, not the NCAA. The NCAA has zero to do with a school's decision of how much to pay a coach. 96 percent of the revenue generated by the NCAA, most of which comes from its deal with CBS and Turner to broadcast the DI men's basketball championship, is turned back to all of its member schools and used to run those 89 championships. Men's sports. Women's sports. Division I. FCS Football (formerly known as I-AA). Division II. Division III. Basketball to bowling to rifle to skiing. Golfers. Tennis players. Rowers. Gymnasts. The NCAA pays for the travel, lodging and per diem for all of those athletes (more than 400,000 of them) to compete in those 89 championships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 everyone signed up because there's no alternative in most sports. you're a free market guy right? this system is the farthest thing from a free market and the ncaa aims to keep it that way. re your chemistry analogy (and i worked as a grad student with a research assistantship in chemistry) if you're good enough, you can go right into industry. it's rare to find such a prodigy but it happens. probably not much more rare than an elite athlete of say, cam newton's qualifications. You are free to start a league. You are free to play in the arena or canadian league. Play ufl. What's especially funny is when you start adding up room, board etc... The school is providing more than many of those pro leagues. And that's without the booster issues. Last, it's not just a scholarship - it's acces to world class coaches, and facilities. Connections to the NFL pipeline. These schools give a lot more than free classes. Not to mention - what happened to playing a game because you like it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 You are free to start a league. You are free to play in the arena or canadian league. Play ufl. What's especially funny is when you start adding up room, board etc... The school is providing more than many of those pro leagues. And that's without the booster issues. Last, it's not just a scholarship - it's acces to world class coaches, and facilities. Connections to the NFL pipeline. These schools give a lot more than free classes. Not to mention - what happened to playing a game because you like it? It has already been pointed out multiple times that the majority do not get scholarships. So you are disingenuous, or an ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 Ah, one of the biggest misconceptions about the NCAA. Conferences negotiate TV contracts, not the NCAA. (The NCAA does negotiate TV/radio/internet rights deals for its 89 championships but not the regular season deals.) The schools negotiate apparel contracts, not the NCAA. The NCAA has zero to do with a school's decision of how much to pay a coach. 96 percent of the revenue generated by the NCAA, most of which comes from its deal with CBS and Turner to broadcast the DI men's basketball championship, is turned back to all of its member schools and used to run those 89 championships. Men's sports. Women's sports. Division I. FCS Football (formerly known as I-AA). Division II. Division III. Basketball to bowling to rifle to skiing. Golfers. Tennis players. Rowers. Gymnasts. The NCAA pays for the travel, lodging and per diem for all of those athletes (more than 400,000 of them) to compete in those 89 championships. so they don't negotiate...they enable negotiations. they're still a major engine of this fetid, exploitative machine that enriches a few at the expense of the many athletes who could financially do much better in a true open market. nosaint asks what happened to playing for the love of the game? agents, tv contracts, nike, adidas, budweiser, booster clubs and on and on. the game becomes a means to an end. the elite players see that as well as the big money interests. the passion can be diluted pretty early on. as the espn article suggests, the best solution would be for the universities to sell their minor league businesses to the major pro leagues. then sports at the college level could again be about the love of the game. we all know that's not bloody likely. it's interesting that the sports cited by indy are generally not participated in large numbers by low socioeconomic groups. while these sports are often played for the love of the game they are being subsidized by sports that are more frequently played by those groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordio Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 to me, a free market in this case would allow a university or multiple universities to go outside the confines of ncaa rules to compensate a high school prospect at a competitive level in order to produce a competitive product and then not be blackballed from playing teams inside the "system". it doesn't require the players starting a new league. it requires the break up of a current monopoly...which i suspect we will soon see. Sorry but your way off base here. Noone is putting a gun to their head telling them they have to play football/basketball etc.... They do it because it is their best option in life. For you to say they are not getting compensated, I just don't buy that. Tell the average 23-24 year old kid who just got their MBA & are now strapped with $200K in student loans that they will be paying off until they are 50 years old that these athletes are not being compensated. It is not the university's fault if said athlete chooses not to take advantage of being in a higher institution of learning for whatever time they are there for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 23, 2011 Author Share Posted September 23, 2011 Sorry but your way off base here. Noone is putting a gun to their head telling them they have to play football/basketball etc.... They do it because it is their best option in life. For you to say they are not getting compensated, I just don't buy that. Tell the average 23-24 year old kid who just got their MBA & are now strapped with $200K in student loans that they will be paying off until they are 50 years old that these athletes are not being compensated. It is not the university's fault if said athlete chooses not to take advantage of being in a higher institution of learning for whatever time they are there for. these elite athletes aren't average 23-24yo or 18-22 yo. they are extraordinary. even the starters on top program football or basketball teams that don't sniff the pros are in a very small group with superior abilities. is there value in this talent? there sure is for the colleges. is a 1 year contract at $20-40k fair compensation for a 1 in a million talent approaching his prime? i don't think so but reasonable people could come to different conclusions. keep in mind the limitations on extracting the value from the scholarships, as well. how many study hours outside of practice are really available? is the aptitude and preparation really there to absorb and retain college level, career marketable material even without the time constraints? if you haven't already, read the espn commentary and the original atlantic article . they make a more compelling case than i ever could. if those don't convince you then you're unlikely to ever be convinced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) That's the real issue. Who gets paid? Only football players? Only players on teams that are verified as 'profitable'? Only guys that sell X number of jerseys? For all the talk about paying players, has anyone outlined a workable proposal? What is that stat? 50% of football programs break even and like 10-20 athletic programs use the football profits to break even on sports in general? Paying players closes the doors on a lot of programs. If your mad, be mad at the Nfl rule keeping out players after highschool. Just because this extracurricular activity garners tv attention doesn't mean kids should get big bucks off it. Student first, athlete second. Realign the values instead of throwing them out. Instead of catering to the talented 5% think about the hundreds/thousands of athletes there for the right reasons Edited September 23, 2011 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 The NCAA is the most crooked organization in America. Old white guys getting paid millions off the backs of 18 to 22 year olds. But they get a college education for free!!! That is priceless!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 24, 2011 Author Share Posted September 24, 2011 Instead of catering to the talented 5% think about the hundreds/thousands of athletes there for the right reasons i say "tomatoe" you say "tomahtoe"....you say stop catering for the benefit of the true student athletes, i say stop exploiting for the benefit of the elite "student athletes". we could both be right and the solution would be dismantling big money college sports and continuing small money club sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janicks Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 I'd say the answer is 'no'. Players are employees, not shareholders. At work you are not entitled to a share of the profits your employer makes as a result of your work, right? People's compensation is generally limited to previously agreed upon salary, commissions, benies, etc. Likewise, college football players have an agreed upon comp of school tuition, room/board and the opportunity to play organized football at a high level. Is that comp fair value for their services? That's another question, but the fact is, that's the system everyone has signed up for. As a comparison, if a graduate research student creates a cure for cancer during their chem lab, who owns the rights and resulting profits; the student or the university? For what its worth, I think the answer is the student. There are lots of examples of students discovering something amazing during their graduate work, leaving the university, patenting something, or starting a business. For example, the google founders were graduate students and dropped out. I was a graduate student and I never signed anything saying that the university had rights to my ideas and/or products. When I was an employee at a corporation, the corporation did make me sign something that made it clear they owned all my ideas and output while I was employed with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts