Will paying college football and basketball players mean the end to college XC and track?

rojo wrote:

Basketball players fly all over the country to play Tuesday/Thursday games. The Ivy League is the only one who does it right with only Fri/Saturday games.

Yale had basketball games on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. this season.

Harvard and Columbia had games on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.

Dartmouth had games on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.

I haven't checked the other ivies, but you get the picture.

I think too many people are reading too much into the payment idea. I believe that the concept is to give ALL scholarship athletes some money, say $1000 a month above their scholarship money,for living expenses. Then make sure they are covered medically over a number of years after school on an injuries they might have sustained while playing college athletics.

The big programs will still stay big, but everyone should take care things that happen to athletes while they are "employed" or on scholarship for the school.

So, what you're saying is: throw 'em a bone.

1. Put names on the back of the jerseys in the bookstore. If your jersey gets bought, you get a cut (10-20%?). The idea of someone else making 100% profit from your likeness is crazy. At the very least, put it in a trust fund to be accessed at a later date.

2. Allow players in all sports to go pro whenever they want. If Google wanted to hire a 16 year old, they can do that. Why can't the Bears draft a high school junior if they want to take the risk? Un-American in my opinion.

Please explain how college athletes are already paid? Especially in all the Ivy league universities as well as other "Needs Based" schools where no scholarships of any kind are granted to any student, athlete or not. In addition, where there is no red-shirting allowed (Ivies only).Are you using the notion that a full or partial scholarship should be considered payment? If so, how do you compare that level of salary to your coach who is making hundreds of thousands or millions. And how is this payment fair when you get better and better each year and your payment stays the same, however, your coach's contract sky-rockets when you and your team mates do the work on the field/court.Or to the school who sells your jersey and your performance to pack stadium and pulls in 10 s of millions.Would love to hear your thoughts on how it is that they are already paid. Thanks.

Better informed than you wrote:

College athletes are already paid. Try to keep up.

BigBird wrote: This is just dumb. Most people can't even get into a good college or afford it. The only reason these athletes got in the first place is because they are good at their sport. It is a PRIVELAGE to be able to play a sport in college and get an education at the same time.

If they are going to be paid, then take away their scholarships (or get rid of athletic scholarships completely) and let them pay for their classes, tuition, housing, food, etc. themselves.

I do think however, they should be allowed to sign autographs for extra money or get paid for making an appearance and the like.

I didn't even bother reading the last two pages of posts because, generally speaking, BigBird's post should have been the end of the thread.

An athlete's scholarship is payment enough from the university and its athletic programs. That being said, I don't think an athlete should be prevented from privately cashing in on his success.

This is one of the dumbest post ever. You really think NCAA and pro leagues aren't colluding because there would have been a lawsuit? Legal system isn't set up to help young black men. And the collusion is obvious.

Also, the D-League is NOT worse basketball than college basketball. Have you ever watched either? I love college basketball but you'd have to be stupid (like you) to think it is higher quality basketball than the D-League.

All the talk about athletic departments losing money are missing a HUGE part of the picture. The point of sports like football and basketball aren't just to raise money directly, but also to help market the school.

Butler estimated their two tournament runs to be worth $500 million in free marketing.

Nobody on the east coast would have heard of Boise State or Gonzaga, but thanks to recent success, they are on the radar of many more students, some of which will contribute academically to the school.

Also, having a degree from a school people have heard of helps job seeking too.

I agree with everything in this thread

The Guru Matt James wrote:

All the talk about athletic departments losing money are missing a HUGE part of the picture. The point of sports like football and basketball aren't just to raise money directly, but also to help market the school.

Butler estimated their two tournament runs to be worth $500 million in free marketing.

Nobody on the east coast would have heard of Boise State or Gonzaga, but thanks to recent success, they are on the radar of many more students, some of which will contribute academically to the school...

Having a former career in accounting, this is something I've been saying for years...that when you see stats that X school made or lost $Y on their football or basketball program or athletics in general, that the accounting to get to that number is incredibly fuzzy. At least to anything I've ever seen it is. I'm entertained when a school publishes how much they "made" or "lost" on a team or athletics in general, but that are not numbers I trust at all.

Schools that look at their outlay towards athletics as part of their overall marketing budget are the ones that to me get it right. Not all schools need to do this kind of marketing. The schools noted above are excellent examples, they were not well known (IMO) until they started having athletic success that got them on network tv and the ESPN ticker and Sports Center. Given our culture, I would say that having a successful athletics program is one of the most efficient ways to get your name out nationally to the most number of people. Certain schools don't really need to do that, for example who hasn't heard of Harvard, Yale, and who wouldn't assume that all states have large universities.

I've gone so far as to say that outside the core academic departments really anything a college offers whether it be athletics or drama or music or a robust fraternity/sorority scene all should exist primarily as a way to market that school to potential customers. Many colleges may value athletics, especially for non-revenue producing teams, as part of their educational mission and I'm all in favor of that. But when it gets right down to it, spending money to fund an athletic department (or a drama program or a school newspaper...you name it) only makes sense financially if you can use it to attract students.

I think it will continue the arms race amongst the major college programs so that all the top football players will go to Alabama and LSU. All the top basketball players will go to UNC and Duke. I think what makes March Madness great is that Dayton is able to get to the Elite Eight. It's the parity which makes it exciting. It's easier to have in basketball where you only need a few great players to compete at the top. In football, the QB gets the publicity, but they need the best linemen, receivers and defensive players to compete at the top so it's harder for a small school to get lucky with a couple players and win a title.

The NCAA does advocate for the players by limiting practice time, length of playing seasons, and the recruiting process, etc. They may be profiting off the top players, but they're also promoting the top players which increases their future potential earnings.

Top coaches are likely overpaid as $5,000,000/year is enough to pay 100 highly productive people. Either the NCAA could use a salary cap, so the great coaches don't have a overwhelming incentive to leave the U of Dayton or any medium-size city which would help with parity, or a luxury tax (or the IRS could tax income over $1M/yr at 80% to provide this disincentive across all industries but that's another argument).

Like a quote from The Rookie, "You know what we get to do today Brooks? We get to play baseball!" Like non-revenue athletes know, it's fun to play sports. Athletes are getting compensated to do something fun. They get to enjoy going to work.

msuxc1 wrote:

Like a quote from The Rookie, "You know what we get to do today Brooks? We get to play baseball!" Like non-revenue athletes know, it's fun to play sports. Athletes are getting compensated to do something fun. They get to enjoy going to work.

It is also fun to be a university president or college coach and have generation after generation of young men spend ~30 hours a week "having fun," compensating them by not requiring them to pay tuition, and then raking in millions from their "fun."

In fact- given the choice between the two positions- I'd have a lot more "fun" doing the latter.

If athletes are paid employees they should be removed from the title 9 equation right?

So actually more scholarship for non-paid men sports? Or will women demand equal payout for their sports not making any money... Much like XC.

Could be funny seeing a slow XC gal pulling in cash.

The Animal Within wrote:

If athletes are paid employees they should be removed from the title 9 equation right?

So actually more scholarship for non-paid men sports? Or will women demand equal payout for their sports not making any money... Much like XC.

Could be funny seeing a slow XC gal pulling in cash.

That's why I think in lieu of paying the players, they should allow them to market themselves.

This lets a Johnny Manziel make lots of money and a xc gal make no money (unless she's hot).

In short, it let's the market function w/o creating a black market of under the table money.

I was having a similar discussion last night during the NCAA games about this.

1) If the players are treated as employees and unionized, it empowers the players (ages 18-220 too much with a special emphasis on "soft" powers. Say Johnny Blue Chip get's into an argument with the coach at practice. By the next day there's a misguided team strike that was mobilized over night on twitter or facebook. Half the student body is willing to sign the petition now, school newspapers get the down and dirty and by Wednesday afternoon the freedom of press, social media and a unionized set of players have just screwed up your entire institution big time. Moreover, now the season ticket holders all want refunds.

What if Johnny Blue Chip actually needed a good kick in the ass to begin with?

2) Some NCAA team, some where will expose the major loopholes in this process and exploit the absolute hell out of its athletic department. To the point where school spirits are completely devastated and sports budgets are completely exhausted.

3) NCAA games may not necessarily be starting at their scheduled times

4) Non-revenue sports will be done on the varsity level. No way around it. Either that or it'll be like $100 to go and watch your kids race at the home collegiate meets. So many perks come from athletic departments these days so it's hard to say it all in one post.

dayton wrote:

I was having a similar discussion last night during the NCAA games about this.

1) If the players are treated as employees and unionized, it empowers the players (ages 18-220 too much with a special emphasis on "soft" powers. Say Johnny Blue Chip get's into an argument with the coach at practice. By the next day there's a misguided team strike that was mobilized over night on twitter or facebook. Half the student body is willing to sign the petition now, school newspapers get the down and dirty and by Wednesday afternoon the freedom of press, social media and a unionized set of players have just screwed up your entire institution big time. Moreover, now the season ticket holders all want refunds.

What if Johnny Blue Chip actually needed a good kick in the ass to begin with?

Same thing happens in the real world workplace.

You hire a whack job. He/she files a lawsuit/OSHA complaint/whatever.

And yet the real world workplace functions. People still get paid.

The solution is not failing to pay any athlete simply because there might be a whack job or two among them.

I think the above is all pretty sensible but it doesn't quite make a fundamental point that [as far as I can tell from skimming the thread so far] hasn't been made. That fundamental point:

The issue is NOT whether or not universities pay some kind of stipend to scholarship athletes;

The issue is IN FACT whether we drop the bogus stipulation that college athletes be "amateurs".

If college athletes are allowed to accept money for being athletes, there are PLENTY of corporations and individuals who will offer it to them. The issue for the schools is that many/most/all of those corporations and individuals are already giving money to the schools themselves.

Do the big-time sports schools exactly want to pay stipends to scholarship athletes? No. Do they prefer paying them some kind of small stipend to letting the athletes negotiate directly with major revenue sources? YES!!!

Claim: if the whole amateurism thing is dropped, most of those outside dollars will go to the athletes in football and men's basketball, but some of them will go to athletes in other sports, definitely included T&F, probably including at least a few in XC, definitely including swimming [think Missy Frankling for starters], probably men's gymnastics [which is currently dying as an NCAA sport], maybe wrestling...