What if College Athletes Got Paid?

[Xville]

ESPN actually has an interesting question on their home page right now. The question is would it negatively your enjoyment of college sports if the athletes were paid? The voting is split pretty much right down the middle on their poll, and I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on the matter. I am not sure if this particular question has been brought up before on this board.

Now, I am not naive enough to believe that college athletes are not being paid at some colleges and universities...probably more than I even want to know. However, for me it would be different if it were just completely out in the open. I think that it would negatively impact my enjoyment of college sports..im not sure to the extent that it would, but i know it would effect it. I would have an extremely hard time rooting for my favorite college sports teams the same way that I do now.

Again, it is extremely naive but I like to believe that the reason most of the players are at the school and playing sports is because they love the school and the sport as much as I do and want it to succeed. I know there are those few that use it to become pros, and that is it and that is no problem with me...there are always going to be those people. However, the overwhelming majority of them are never going to be at that level.

I just really hate that this is where things are trending. If this occurs, and it just becomes a free market system, there is going to be a greater disconnect between the haves and have nots.

[X-band '01]

It's also in response to Mark Emmert's testimony at the Ed O'Bannon trial yesterday; it's not merely the Mothership trying to stir the pot.

[Milhouse]

I'm all for it.

Not excessive payments but enough so these kids can help themselves/their families if they need to.

[Xman95]

I'm all for it.

Not excessive payments but enough so these kids can help themselves/their families if they need to.

They already get paid. The tuition/room/board that scholarship athletes get is more than many people make with fulltime jobs.

[GoMuskies]

I wouldn't like college sports less just because the players got paid. It's the changes that would likely occur to college sports (further segregation between the haves and have nots) that I would dislike very, very much.

[LadyMuskie]

I wouldn't like college sports less just because the players got paid. It's the changes that would likely occur to college sports (further segregation between the haves and have nots) that I would dislike very, very much.

This is where I'm at as well. If we start paying them out in the open as policy, we might as well admit here and now that a small private school, with a small amount of alumni, like X has no chance of ever competing with the likes of UK or UNC.

Additionally, if they're going to be paid, then they better produce and be prepared for the boos and the greater demands of the fans and the school which is paying them. Like any other job in the world, the paycheck has to be earned. If you've already got players and coaches who can't handle so-called negative fans, wait until the fans have to pay more for seats and merchandise in order to give the players a paycheck. For example, if X players had been paid for that game in Dayton a few short months ago what would the reaction to that loss have been then? Look at how fans are at professional sporting events and tell me that the same won't happen if the college players are being paid. Yikes!

[drudy23]

I wouldn't like college sports less just because the players got paid. It's the changes that would likely occur to college sports (further segregation between the haves and have nots) that I would dislike very, very much.

This.

You're also just moving the needle of how much. There are many that get paid when they're not supposed to now. So, many that already get paid will get paid even more...and up and up and up. It will just create more greed and more ways to "outdo" what already is happening.

The big schools will just use this as another way to distance themselves from everyone else and further control the landscape.

[bleedXblue]

No one will ever convince me that the scholarship, room and board and other perks aren't enough.

I cant remember which athlete it was that was complaining about being hungry and not having enough food to eat. Are you f'ing kidding me? 3 meals a day isn't enough? The meal plans allow you to eat as much as you want.

Stop with the madness and start looking for ways to make college more affordable for everyone so we don't have kids leaving school with 50-100K debt.

That's the REAL issue they should be working on.

[xubrew]

I enjoy it less knowing that there are multimillionaire coaches. I'd actually enjoy it more if they made a mere half million bucks a year. I'm serious. If paying the players bothers people, then why doesn't paying the coaches waaaaayyy more than what an average university employee makes bother anyone??

Paying players a set stipend somewhere in the neighborhood of $2k and $5k a year wouldn't make me love it any less. For those that love the notion of them playing for the love of the school and love of the game, I don't think making a little cash would make them love the school or the game any less.

Students get paid more than the proposed stipend for working at the school newspaper, or radio station, or TV station, or theater department. I don't think anyone who enjoys those things enjoys it any less because they know those are paid positions.

I'm not a huge theater guy, but I know there are students who are on full theater scholarships, and even act and/or sing professionally on top of going to school. I don't think people enjoy the school plays put on by the theater department any less knowing that.

Athletics is the only extra curricular in existence where there seems to be this notion that giving them a little bit of money would make it less enjoyable for everyone. I just don't get it.

[Xville]

No one will ever convince me that the scholarship, room and board and other perks aren't enough.

I cant remember which athlete it was that was complaining about being hungry and not having enough food to eat. Are you f'ing kidding me? 3 meals a day isn't enough? The meal plans allow you to eat as much as you want.

Stop with the madness and start looking for ways to make college more affordable for everyone so we don't have kids leaving school with 50-100K debt.

That's the REAL issue they should be working on.

REPS REPS REPS...agreed

[xubrew]

No one will ever convince me that the scholarship, room and board and other perks aren't enough.

I cant remember which athlete it was that was complaining about being hungry and not having enough food to eat. Are you f'ing kidding me? 3 meals a day isn't enough? The meal plans allow you to eat as much as you want.

Stop with the madness and start looking for ways to make college more affordable for everyone so we don't have kids leaving school with 50-100K debt.

That's the REAL issue they should be working on.

What role do you think athletics plays in student loan debt?? I don't see the connection you're trying to make.

[Xville]

I enjoy it less knowing that there are multimillionaire coaches. I'd actually enjoy it more if they made a mere half million bucks a year. I'm serious. If paying the players bothers people, then why doesn't paying the coaches waaaaayyy more than what an average university employee makes bother anyone??

Paying players a set stipend somewhere in the neighborhood of $2k and $5k a year wouldn't make me love it any less. For those that love the notion of them playing for the love of the school and love of the game, I don't think making a little cash would make them love the school or the game any less.

Students get paid more than the proposed stipend for working at the school newspaper, or radio station, or TV station, or theater department. I don't think anyone who enjoys those things enjoys it any less because they know those are paid positions.

I'm not a huge theater guy, but I know there are students who are on full theater scholarships, and even act and/or sing professionally on top of going to school. I don't think people enjoy the school plays put on by the theater department any less knowing that.

Athletics is the only extra curricular in existence where there seems to be this notion that giving them a little bit of money would make it less enjoyable for everyone. I just don't get it.

Sorry but you can't compare Theater to college athletics and expect people to have the same feelings toward them in relation to them getting paid. That is ridiculous. For one, Xavier Theater isn't competing against UC theater and deciding who is the best at acting out Hamlet on stage. Second, as others have noted here, it isn't just the athletes getting paid in and of itself that is the problem, it is the domino effect of that.

Lastly, where is all of this extra money for the stipend going to come from? Most athletic budgets are already in the red...so who is going to pay for this stuff? How is a scholarship plus room and board not enough for these people? I'm sure all of those recent college grads that have over 100k in debt after college would have loved to have been "exploited" for 4 years in return of not having that debt hanging over their heads.

[Kahns Krazy]

If every college athlete received the same size cash stipend it would not bother me. If football players at OSU get more than the swim team at Middle Tennessee state, then I have a problem.

The theory of College athletics is that it's a level field. While we all know that there are outside factors that influence the levelness, that is not a reason to make it worse.

[Xville]

What role do you think athletics plays in student loan debt?? I don't see the connection you're trying to make.

not that hard to figure out...just because someone can put a ball into a hoop they get free tuition and free room and board while the average student has 100k in debt because they don't have the same physical gifts. It costs the school money to allow kids to go to school for free...that is a factor that raises tuition for the kid who doesn't have that physical ability.

[xubrew]

Sorry but you can't compare Theater to college athletics and expect people to have the same feelings toward them in relation to them getting paid. That is ridiculous. For one, Xavier Theater isn't competing against UC theater and deciding who is the best at acting out Hamlet on stage. Second, as others have noted here, it isn't just the athletes getting paid in and of itself that is the problem, it is the domino effect of that.

Lastly, where is all of this extra money for the stipend going to come from? Most athletic budgets are already in the red...so who is going to pay for this stuff? How is a scholarship plus room and board not enough for these people? I'm sure all of those recent college grads that have over 100k in debt after college would have loved to have been "exploited" for 4 years in return of not having that debt hanging over their heads.

They could start by paying coaches six figure salaries instead of seven figure salaries. That would be more than enough to cover it for all athletes.

If not, it could easily be supplemented. It would cost about $300 million per year for the NCAA to offer stipends of $5000 (top end of what's being proposed) to ALL full scholarship athletes in all sports. Instead of suing over the licensing for items such as video games and jerseys, they should sell it and permit those companies to use the names and likenesses with the understanding that they money they make will go toward paying the athletes. That, and the windfall of cash that they're getting from the new NCAA Tournament deal with CBS/Turner AND that they could be getting from a football playoff would be more than enough to cover the $300 million. The schools wouldn't have to pay a thing for it.

Don't tell me that schools can't afford it. That's nonsense. They can afford all the perks in the world for athletic department employees and coaches, but can't afford anything for the players. Yeah, right. Besides, even if they can't afford it, there is a way to implement it without the individual schools having to fund ANY of it.

[Fireball]

I'm in favor of college athletes being paid, but it's has to be very strictly capped.

You can't open up Pandora's Box by allowing schools to determine what to pay. You have to allow for a maximum stipend of say $1000 a month or something like that or you have basically killed any chance that smaller schools will compete with the larger school.

What I'm more in favor of than college athletes getting paid is making sure that reasonable expenses are allowed to be paid for by the school, like flights between home and school, flights and hotel rooms for parents to come visit their kids and see some games, all meals and snacks, all books, medical coverage past graduation...stuff like that.

[xubrew]

not that hard to figure out...just because someone can put a ball into a hoop they get free tuition and free room and board while the average student has 100k in debt because they don't have the same physical gifts. It costs the school money to allow kids to go to school for free...that is a factor that raises tuition for the kid who doesn't have that physical ability.

Basketball players aren't the only ones who receive scholarships. Most scholarships aren't athletic scholarships. Many students receive full scholarships and are not athletes.

I went to grad school for free, and received a stipend on top of that. I had an assistantship in student affairs. I generated no revenue for the university whatsoever, yet I went there for free and got paid. Theater students are allowed to get paid even if they're on full scholarship. So are art students. So are journalism majors. So are film students. Not all of them, but some of them. Athletics is the only extra curricular where students are not allowed to be paid on top of their scholarship. That's a fact.

[blobfan]

I wouldn't like college sports less just because the players got paid. It's the changes that would likely occur to college sports (further segregation between the haves and have nots) that I would dislike very, very much.

Ditto.

My primary issues with the current situation is the inequity in how the NCAA treats student athletes. They make rules that in reality don't stop corruption and end up harming the student when applied without thought. What other university department is treated this way? If you participate in theater productions with two different companies over the summer should you have to sit out the first show when you return? If you are a chem major on full scholarship should you be prevented from taking a paid summer internship at a pharmaceutical company? Should CCM be allowed to use Kathleen Battle's image in marketing without her consent?

Should accepting a full athletics scholarship require you to give up rights and opportunities that remain open to other students receiving the same scholarship?

[Xville]

Basketball players aren't the only ones who receive scholarships. Most scholarships aren't athletic scholarships. Many students receive full scholarships and are not athletes.

I went to grad school for free, and received a stipend on top of that. I had an assistantship in student affairs. I generated no revenue for the university whatsoever, yet I went there for free and got paid. Theater students are allowed to get paid even if they're on full scholarship. So are art students. So are journalism majors. So are film students. Not all of them, but some of them. Athletics is the only extra curricular where students are not allowed to be paid on top of their scholarship. That's a fact.

you asked the question what does athletics have to do with student loan debt, i gave you the answer. You can't just lump sports in with theater majors, film majors, art majors or whatever else. Those students are going there because that is what they want to do for a career, and that is what they are going to school for. Now if the basketball players want to major in basketball or whatever other sport, thats fine by me. However, don't come crying when you are part of the 99 percent that don't make it to the next level and now have a basketball degree and are flipping burgers at mcdonalds.

[Xville]

Ditto.

My primary issues with the current situation is the inequity in how the NCAA treats student athletes. They make rules that in reality don't stop corruption and end up harming the student when applied without thought. What other university department is treated this way? If you participate in theater productions with two different companies over the summer should you have to sit out the first show when you return? If you are a chem major on full scholarship should you be prevented from taking a paid summer internship at a pharmaceutical company? Should CCM be allowed to use Kathleen Battle's image in marketing without her consent?

Should accepting a full athletics scholarship require you to give up rights and opportunities that remain open to other students receiving the same scholarship?

maybe i am going crazy here but is there anyone else who thinks that comparing a chem major or a theater student etc to a student athlete and big time college sports asinine?

[bleedXblue]

What role do you think athletics plays in student loan debt?? I don't see the connection you're trying to make.

I wasn't trying to make a connection.

I'm simply saying that more time, effort and energy should be spent on what I believe is a much bigger issue.

[Juice]

Basketball players aren't the only ones who receive scholarships. Most scholarships aren't athletic scholarships. Many students receive full scholarships and are not athletes.

I went to grad school for free, and received a stipend on top of that. I had an assistantship in student affairs. I generated no revenue for the university whatsoever, yet I went there for free and got paid. Theater students are allowed to get paid even if they're on full scholarship. So are art students. So are journalism majors. So are film students. Not all of them, but some of them. Athletics is the only extra curricular where students are not allowed to be paid on top of their scholarship. That's a fact.

Amen. And those students are allowed to make money from endorsements, have other jobs, make money from their likeness, etc.

[Xville]

Amen. And those students are allowed to make money from endorsements, have other jobs, make money from their likeness, etc.

Wow....no one cares about the art major, film major or chem student or whoever else....however in ncaa sports, people do care and there is already a ton of corruption. if you add paychecks and endorsements and whatever else, you are adding more corruption to an already corrupt program. Bidding wars and crooked recruiting would be exponentially higher. Stop comparing big time college athletics to a student on a theater scholarship or whatever else...it is short-sighted and ignorant to compare the two..they aren't the same.

[bleedXblue]

Basketball players aren't the only ones who receive scholarships. Most scholarships aren't athletic scholarships. Many students receive full scholarships and are not athletes.

I went to grad school for free, and received a stipend on top of that. I had an assistantship in student affairs. I generated no revenue for the university whatsoever, yet I went there for free and got paid. Theater students are allowed to get paid even if they're on full scholarship. So are art students. So are journalism majors. So are film students. Not all of them, but some of them. Athletics is the only extra curricular where students are not allowed to be paid on top of their scholarship. That's a fact.

I want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

You're saying art students get paid? To do what? Film students get paid? For what?

I would really like to know more on this.

[blobfan]

Wow....no one cares about the art major, film major or chem student or whoever else....however in ncaa sports, people do care and there is already a ton of corruption. if you add paychecks and endorsements and whatever else, you are adding more corruption to an already corrupt program. Bidding wars and crooked recruiting would be exponentially higher. Stop comparing big time college athletics to a student on a theater scholarship or whatever else...it is short-sighted and ignorant to compare the two..they aren't the same.
We are blaming the students for the corruption? Focus on keeping the universities in check and stop punishing the kids. The unfairness lies in punishing ALL student athletes for the misbehavior of a relative few elite teams/schools/athletes. The purpose of comparisons to students in other majors is to attempt to put the restrictions into perspective. If the rule is patently absurd when applied to non-athletes, like punishing a kid for playing in 1 game in the wrong summer league, then perhaps it shouldn't be strictly applied to athletes. If it makes sense, like not permitting a university rep to contact a perspective student outside particular hours and only during certain times of the year, then let it stand.

And the majority of student athletes in D1 sports are not playing on 'big time' teams yet are held to the same rules. Most schools simply don't have the money in the system to create the kind of corruption the NCAA is pretending to regulate. If they spent more effort on an efficient clearinghouse for eligibility and a quick and efficient appeals process for student rules exceptions/infractions, we might not even be having this argument about providing stipends to student athletes.

[Juice]

Wow....no one cares about the art major, film major or chem student or whoever else....however in ncaa sports, people do care and there is already a ton of corruption. if you add paychecks and endorsements and whatever else, you are adding more corruption to an already corrupt program. Bidding wars and crooked recruiting would be exponentially higher. Stop comparing big time college athletics to a student on a theater scholarship or whatever else...it is short-sighted and ignorant to compare the two..they aren't the same.

Dear student,

We, the adults, are the cause of the problem but we pretend to know better than you. We are desperately trying to keep a system that exploits you, the ones with the skill that we desire. You may ask why can't the rules be changed. Here's the thing, the system is corrupt because we corrupted it and it's always been this way. We really have no other reason to keep the system the way it is. Oh yeah, we are making millions of dollars as "administrators" as you make no money off of your talent so we don't want to lose our hefty paychecks for doing absolutely nothing as others pay to see and watch you.

Take it or leave it.

Signed,
The NCAA, coaches, administrators, and white people who are angry that they had to pay for tuition because they were too stupid/too clumsy to get a scholarship

[ford]

Haven't posted in a long time, but this topic really bugs me. I see two key points of frustration:
1) just because these kids don't value the free education and extras they already receive doesn't make those things any less valuable. To me there is something inherently wrong with the values of these kids who are complaining, call it generational difference, maybe some cultural/racial/socioeconomic influences at play in explaining why the value of that scholarship (and thereby the degree) is being devalued. So it's frustrating that it feels like in giving into paying players you are agreeing with that values system rather than saying hey, a college degree is valuable and getting that degree, working hard for it to get a good paying job, working hard at it to make more money, etc is what should be valued and aspired to. Otherwise you perpetuate the cycle of setting kids up for having no future once their playing days are over and the universities focus should first be on education. This all in the absence of minor leagues for football which is a whole nother solution.

2) let the kids make money on endorsements!!! I'm in marketing so I'm biased, but this would take the financial burden off the school so they don't pass it through to ticket holders and other students. And it would let the free market dictate based not on the budget of the school but the budget and rabid ness of local fanbases and national marketers. Of a player is really good he can make millions (which is fine because he is prob gonna be a pro eventually anyway). If he's a lower profile player, he could still get $500 bucks here and there for doing local ads for Joes pizza or Bobs Cadillac dealer. Yes you will have rich boosters and bidding wars but at least it's based on free market money outside the schools budget. There is booster money disparity in the big programs today, but allowing businesses to pay endorsement money would flood new money into the market and equalize it a bit so the lower level schools still can offer an environment where there is some money to be made it you are good enough on the field to warrant it.

[Xavier]

not that hard to figure out...just because someone can put a ball into a hoop they get free tuition and free room and board while the average student has 100k in debt because they don't have the same physical gifts. It costs the school money to allow kids to go to school for free...that is a factor that raises tuition for the kid who doesn't have that physical ability.

Just because someone is smarter means they get free tuition and free room and board. So unfair, in your mind....right? I mean it costs the school money to allow kids to go to school for free...its a factor that raises tuition for kids who don't have the same academic ability.

[GoMuskies]

2) let the kids make money on endorsements!!!

This is still a huge problem for me. It's an even bigger advantage for Kentucky and North Carolina (etc.) in basketball and Alabama/Michigan/etc. in football. And you know that alums would be lining up to promise to pay star recruits for "endorsements".

[Juice]

Haven't posted in a long time, but this topic really bugs me. I see two key points of frustration:
1) just because these kids don't value the free education and extras they already receive doesn't make those things any less valuable. To me there is something inherently wrong with the values of these kids who are complaining, call it generational difference, maybe some cultural/racial/socioeconomic influences at play in explaining why the value of that scholarship (and thereby the degree) is being devalued. So it's frustrating that it feels like in giving into paying players you are agreeing with that values system rather than saying hey, a college degree is valuable and getting that degree, working hard for it to get a good paying job, working hard at it to make more money, etc is what should be valued and aspired to. Otherwise you perpetuate the cycle of setting kids up for having no future once their playing days are over and the universities focus should first be on education. This all in the absence of minor leagues for football which is a whole nother solution.

2) let the kids make money on endorsements!!! I'm in marketing so I'm biased, but this would take the financial burden off the school so they don't pass it through to ticket holders and other students. And it would let the free market dictate based not on the budget of the school but the budget and rabid ness of local fanbases and national marketers. Of a player is really good he can make millions (which is fine because he is prob gonna be a pro eventually anyway). If he's a lower profile player, he could still get $500 bucks here and there for doing local ads for Joes pizza or Bobs Cadillac dealer. Yes you will have rich boosters and bidding wars but at least it's based on free market money outside the schools budget. There is booster money disparity in the big programs today, but allowing businesses to pay endorsement money would flood new money into the market and equalize it a bit so the lower level schools still can offer an environment where there is some money to be made it you are good enough on the field to warrant it.

The schools don't value this education either, i.e. Michigan and UNC. They create fake classes, change grades, force players to practice more than study, etc. How could a "student-athlete" value the education if they are forced to take easy classes and just pass?

They simply try to keep players eligible so they can play and make more money for the school.

[ford]

This is still a huge problem for me. It's an even bigger advantage for Kentucky and North Carolina (etc.) in basketball and Alabama/Michigan/etc. in football. And you know that alums would be lining up to promise to pay star recruits for "endorsements".

That advantage already exists under the table. If you let everyone do it then at least a guy like Semaj can go get something as opposed to nothing and maybe he sticks around for another year and Xavier becomes a more successful program.

[Xville]

The schools don't value this education either, i.e. Michigan and UNC. They create fake classes, change grades, force players to practice more than study, etc. How could a "student-athlete" value the education if they are forced to take easy classes and just pass?

Oh come on force them? I really doubt these schools are forcing these kids to take easy classes...they may be suggesting it, but I really doubt they are forcing anything. I'm so sick of the whoa is me student athlete and I mean big time student athlete...the football or basketball player that is getting a free ride (who either wouldn't have been able to get into college, or if he had, may have had student loan debt like crazy, or at the very least would have had to pay out of his or parents pockets) saying how much they are exploited. You can exploit the school as well...you are already getting up to about 100k in free education with room and board, and you can use your popularity just because you are good at sports, to have a great advantage over anyone at nailing down a job in your particualr field of study if you are not good enough to go pro. As I said before, I am sure a lot of my buddies who had over 100k in student debt after 4 years of working their butts off would have gladly been exploited for 4 years in exchange of not having to pay back that money.

[bleedXblue]

Dear student,

We, the adults, are the cause of the problem but we pretend to know better than you. We are desperately trying to keep a system that exploits you, the ones with the skill that we desire. You may ask why can't the rules be changed. Here's the thing, the system is corrupt because we corrupted it and it's always been this way. We really have no other reason to keep the system the way it is. Oh yeah, we are making millions of dollars as "administrators" as you make no money off of your talent so we don't want to lose our hefty paychecks for doing absolutely nothing as others pay to see and watch you.

Take it or leave it.

Signed,
The NCAA, coaches, administrators, and white people who are angry that they had to pay for tuition because they were too stupid/too clumsy to get a scholarship

Nice. Bring race into this. Unbelievable.

[ford]

The schools don't value this education either, i.e. Michigan and UNC. They create fake classes, change grades, force players to practice more than study, etc. How could a "student-athlete" value the education if they are forced to take easy classes and just pass?

They simply try to keep players eligible so they can play and make more money for the school.


The players aren't forced to take easy classes. Period. Most athletes choose to get legit degrees, but it is hard with the time commitments of an athlete. Any corruption by the administrators shouldn't be excused.

[waggy]

Whoa is Ladymuskie.

Woe is the rest of you..

[Xville]

Dear student,

We, the adults, are the cause of the problem but we pretend to know better than you. We are desperately trying to keep a system that exploits you, the ones with the skill that we desire. You may ask why can't the rules be changed. Here's the thing, the system is corrupt because we corrupted it and it's always been this way. We really have no other reason to keep the system the way it is. Oh yeah, we are making millions of dollars as "administrators" as you make no money off of your talent so we don't want to lose our hefty paychecks for doing absolutely nothing as others pay to see and watch you.

Take it or leave it.

Signed,
The NCAA, coaches, administrators, and white people who are angry that they had to pay for tuition because they were too stupid/too clumsy to get a scholarship

nice race card...that's awesome. However, it is not the administrators nor coaches, nor the NCAA that made this system corrupt...it is the hangers on, the world wide wes's, the aau coaches, the parents with their hands out etc that have made college sports corrupt. The NCAA itself did not do it. They haven't fixed it, but it isn't an easy fix. I love how you believe that if you just give the players money, that everything is going to be perfect, and then those poor exploited student athletes won't then be asking for more money at some point. Then it will turn into a scenario like the minimum wage mcdonalds worker yelling at the ceo of the company about how its not fair that he makes all the money and they only make 5 dollars an hour and they should be making 20 dollars an hour to do something a toddler could do.

[xubrew]

I want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

You're saying art students get paid? To do what? Film students get paid? For what?

I would really like to know more on this.

Yes. A good friend of mine had a brother who was an art major. He was paid to work at the school's art gallery (basically doing what amounted to not a whole lot), and was allowed to enter his own pieces into galleries and exhibits and sell them. Not only are they allowed to do it, they're encourage to do it. Film students can get paid for their own projects as well. If they make a movie, they can show it and distribute it commercially. I knew a guy who had a job that amounted to maintaining the school's equipment and overseeing whoever it was that checked it out. Again, not really amounting to much of anything, but it is a chance to make some money.

[ford]

nice race card...that's awesome. However, it is not the administrators nor coaches, nor the NCAA that made this system corrupt...it is the hangers on, the world wide wes's, the aau coaches, the parents with their hands out etc that have made college sports corrupt. The NCAA itself did not do it. They haven't fixed it, but it isn't an easy fix. I love how you believe that if you just give the players money, that everything is going to be perfect, and then those poor exploited student athletes won't then be asking for more money at some point. Then it will turn into a scenario like the minimum wage mcdonalds worker yelling at the ceo of the company about how its not fair that he makes all the money and they only make 5 dollars an hour and they should be making 20 dollars an hour to do something a toddler could do.

This. Don't force the school to give handouts subsidized by the tuition and ticket payers. Let them earn their cash on the side with endorsements if they deserve it and are in demand.

[xubrew]

I wasn't trying to make a connection.

I'm simply saying that more time, effort and energy should be spent on what I believe is a much bigger issue.

I agree with that being a bigger issue, especially on a macro level. I just don't think athletics has anything to do with it one way or another, especially if it's done in a way in which the NCAA supplements the stipends.

[xubrew]

This. Don't force the school to give handouts subsidized by the tuition and ticket payers. Let them earn their cash on the side with endorsements if they deserve it and are in demand.

How about they just use the money they already have, and give less to the coaches?? Every school has the money. They don't need to raise tuition or ticket prices at all. They're just giving it to the coaches under the current model.

[xubrew]

Wow....no one cares about the art major, film major or chem student or whoever else....however in ncaa sports, people do care and there is already a ton of corruption. if you add paychecks and endorsements and whatever else, you are adding more corruption to an already corrupt program. Bidding wars and crooked recruiting would be exponentially higher. Stop comparing big time college athletics to a student on a theater scholarship or whatever else...it is short-sighted and ignorant to compare the two..they aren't the same.

So, because people care about athletes they shouldn't be able to go to school for free the same way art, flim and chemistry majors that no one cares about are allowed to?? is that what you're saying??

I'm not for adding paychecks and endorsements. I'm for adding stipends.

Most kids who go to school for free aren't athletes, yet athletes are the only group that people feel should not be able to make any money on top of their scholarship. I never understood why that was. Saying that it's because people care about athletes is....well....an interesting theory. If you work at a university, chances are your children can go there for free. Some places will even hire your kids to work in the same department you do performing mindless tasks such as answering the phone or sitting at an information desk on top of going to school for free.

[Xville]

How about they just use the money they already have, and give less to the coaches?? Every school has the money. They don't need to raise tuition or ticket prices at all. They're just giving it to the coaches under the current model.

i really don't know what the operating revenues are for most colleges and universities. However, what I do know is that a ton of athletic programs operate in the red. A lot of the ones that don't, already take money from the general operating fund. What you are asking is for schools to take money out of their general funds to pay some of their students..that doesn't seem absolutely ridiculous to you?

And yes I agree about the coaches...no reason they should be making some of the money that they do. However, lowering of salaries to coaches is not going to happen, it just isn't. It would be great in la la land, but in the real world it's just not possible.

[Xville]

So, because people care about athletes they shouldn't be able to go to school for free the same way art, flim and chemistry majors that no one cares about are allowed to?? is that what you're saying??

I'm not for adding paychecks and endorsements. I'm for adding stipends.

Most kids who go to school for free aren't athletes, yet athletes are the only group that people feel should not be able to make any money on top of their scholarship. I never understood why that was. Saying that it's because people care about athletes is....well....an interesting theory. If you work at a university, chances are your children can go there for free. Some places will even hire your kids to work in the same department you do performing mindless tasks such as answering the phone or sitting at an information desk on top of going to school for free.

What I meant is that there is no one that is going to corrupt a film, theater, or art student and offer to give them more money to attend their school etc. No one cares. There aren't recruiters, shoe people, hangers on etc persuading an art major on what school they need to go to. There are people that care in athletics...thats why you cant compare the two. They aren't the same thing

[xubrew]

[QUOTE=Xville;454682]i really don't know what the operating revenues are for most colleges and universities. However, what I do know is that a ton of athletic programs operate in the red. A lot of the ones that don't, already take money from the general operating fund. What you are asking is for schools to take money out of their general funds to pay some of their students..that doesn't seem absolutely ridiculous to you?


NOOO!!!!!!!!!!! That's not what I'm saying.

Again, there is a way for the NCAA to supplement it without costing the schools a thing!! That's what I'm in favor of. I've already explained that. Sell the licensing rights for jerseys, posters, t-shirts and...the big one....VIDEO GAMES, and use that money along with the money created from the CBS Turner contract to supplement the stipends for all full scholarship div1 athletes. They can afford it, and they should do it.

Maybe this is where you got confused, but on top of that, even if the NCAA DIDN'T do that, the schools could still afford it if they spent their money differently, IE not giving nearly as much to the football and basketball head coaches. There are other things that could be cut back on as well.....like new company cars every year, chartered plane rides when they could simply drive for two hours, new computers ever year, new flat screen TVs in the offices every year, and various other elaborate and unnecessary expenses for athletic department personnel.

[ford]

How about they just use the money they already have, and give less to the coaches?? Every school has the money. They don't need to raise tuition or ticket prices at all. They're just giving it to the coaches under the current model.

Because this way you let merit and market demand determine fair pay as opposed to mandating a blanket stipend where everyone gets the same (I.e. A handout). And I think the coaches could be treated the same way, but they are not students, they are employees of the university, and therefore are subject to the market of their job based on competitive employers and what they're willing to pay.

[xubrew]

Okay, if you don't want to pay players for playing, then fine. Don't pay them for playing. Pay them because they're on TV and in video games and their jerseys and t-shirts are being sold. Just pool all that money together and distribute it among those on full athletic aid.

[ford]

So, because people care about athletes they shouldn't be able to go to school for free the same way art, flim and chemistry majors that no one cares about are allowed to?? is that what you're saying??

I'm not for adding paychecks and endorsements. I'm for adding stipends.

Most kids who go to school for free aren't athletes, yet athletes are the only group that people feel should not be able to make any money on top of their scholarship. I never understood why that was. Saying that it's because people care about athletes is....well....an interesting theory. If you work at a university, chances are your children can go there for free. Some places will even hire your kids to work in the same department you do performing mindless tasks such as answering the phone or sitting at an information desk on top of going to school for free.


The point is athletes are the only students who CANT earn extra dollars using their talents, because it voids their amateur status! Just also them to do what all other students on scholarship for a talent can do.

[xubrew]

The point is athletes are the only students who CANT earn extra dollars using their talents, because it voids their amateur status! Just also them to do what all other students on scholarship for a talent can do.

Okay, then again, don't pay them simply for playing.

Pay them because they're on TV as part of a multi billion dollar TV deal, and because they're in video games, and because their jerseys are being sold, and because of other t-shirts, posters, etc. Use the licensing to pay them, and have them share it equally.

But, only pay them for those reasons, not because they're playing. They're doing that for free.

[xubrew]

Seriously, this is stupid.

The NCAA should settle the O'Bannon case like EA Sports has done. Then, moving forward, sell the rights to EA Sports so they can continue to make the games and use the likenesses and names. Then, take it further. Let the clothing and shoe companies use the likenesses and names as well. And, on top of that, take some of the billions from the TV contracts that the NCAA is making.

Use that to pay the players. They could cover the top end of the proposed stipend for all players at all div1 schools in all sports with that money alone. Not only do I not see why anyone should have a problem with that, I don't understand how anyone could not think of that as being the most fair and logical thing to do.

[ford]

Seriously, this is stupid.

The NCAA should settle the O'Bannon case like EA Sports has done. Then, moving forward, sell the rights to EA Sports so they can continue to make the games and use the likenesses and names. Then, take it further. Let the clothing and shoe companies use the likenesses and names as well. And, on top of that, take some of the billions from the TV contracts that the NCAA is making.

Use that to pay the players. They could cover the top end of the proposed stipend for all players at all div1 schools in all sports with that money alone. Not only do I not see why anyone should have a problem with that, I don't understand how anyone could not think of that as being the most fair and logical thing to do.

I think we just disagree on a capitalist free-market solution vs socialist.

[Juice]

The point is athletes are the only students who CANT earn extra dollars using their talents, because it voids their amateur status! Just also them to do what all other students on scholarship for a talent can do.

And they aren't allowed to do what others can do.

And who gives a shit about amateur status? It's a rule created by the ncaa to protect their own revenue. Read the testimony from Mark Emmert on amateur status. The dude is clueless and he's in charge of protecting the system.

[xubrew]

I think we just disagree on a capitalist free-market solution vs socialist.

I get what you're saying, but just think about this for a second in the world of athletics.....

Since none of the athletes are not allowed anything on top of their scholarships now, the free market solution is probably far too much of a stretch for the NCAA right now. It can't really be more of a socialist system than what it already is.

I believe most successful sports leagues in America have some kind of regulation. Revenue sharing for licensing, revenue sharing for TV deals (NFL, NBA, MLB, etc), salary caps, salary taxes (or whatever the hell teams have to pay if they're over the cap), etc. Competition is good, and if rich teams are able to completely crush the competition, it's bad for business. I guess that's the logic behind the regulations.

So, to bring an entire unregulated free market approach to the NCAA, which is the extreme inverse of a free market, may not be a realistic proposal....at least in terms of being something they'd actually consider possibly doing.

[bleedXblue]

Yes. A good friend of mine had a brother who was an art major. He was paid to work at the school's art gallery (basically doing what amounted to not a whole lot), and was allowed to enter his own pieces into galleries and exhibits and sell them. Not only are they allowed to do it, they're encourage to do it. Film students can get paid for their own projects as well. If they make a movie, they can show it and distribute it commercially. I knew a guy who had a job that amounted to maintaining the school's equipment and overseeing whoever it was that checked it out. Again, not really amounting to much of anything, but it is a chance to make some money.

College kids have jobs on campus everywhere. If the schools don't pay the students they would have to pay someone else to do the work. Not sure this analogy matches what's going on with the scholarship athlete.

[xubrew]

College kids have jobs on campus everywhere. If the schools don't pay the students they would have to pay someone else to do the work. Not sure this analogy matches what's going on with the scholarship athlete.

If the athletic department were allowed to hire athletes and pay them the same as a student worker would make then would you be against that??

My point is that athletes are the only group that I can think of that is not allowed to make money in their field on top of their scholarship. If there is another one, then tell me. If a film student sells a film commercially, or has a project or film entered into a festival, he's allowed to do that and keep that money on top of his scholarship. If a theater tries out for a professional role in either a movie or a play and gets it, they're not going to lose their scholarship or be unable to participate in university productions. If an art major is able to sell their pieces, they don't lose their scholarship.

People who say athletes shouldn't be paid often feel that way because they feel they're already on scholarship and that's enough. I'm just pointing out that there are many other students who are also on scholarship, and not only are they allowed to make money in their fields, they're encouraged to do so. That's my only point.

So, with that in mind, why not let them have the licensing money??

[RoseyMuskie]

Xavier players receive a stipend.

I was friends with a walk-on and was told that each member of the team received approximately $850 for the Christmas Break period (goes back a few years).

If I were to work 40 hours a week for my internship at that time during the break, I would have likely make right around the same amount of money after tax. And they are playing basketball.

This was X. Imagine OSU, UK, etc.

When it comes down to it, the players are doing just fine. I can't stand the garbage that "we were eating hot dogs" etc.

I have a respectable job, yet I still eat hot dogs, pbj, etc.

So my initial belief is that they shouldn't be paid. Because they already receive an ancillary income in addition to room, board, and tuition.

Now if support comes from reducing coaching salaries as Brew has suggested, I could live with that.

[xu82]

Well, this is awesome! I wonder how many pages it will take until we hash this out and get full agreement on a system that will work for everyone?

A couple quick thoughts:
1) Any payments would have to be nominal, transparent and on a level playing field. I get that some kids need money for toothpaste and a pizza. It won't be free agency with the player going to the highest bidder. Schools like Kentucky will still have to cheat.
2) Wasn't there a football player (WR from Colorado?) who was also an Olympic skier and they wouldn't let him collect on his skiing endorsements and play football? Am I remembering that correctly? That's just crazy! This whole thing is terribly broken and it could be quite a few pages before we fix it.

[xu82]

While I think many coaches make way too much money, I don't see a realistic method for controlling that. The concept is nice, but what does that look like, exactly?

[Juice]

Well, this is awesome! I wonder how many pages it will take until we hash this out and get full agreement on a system that will work for everyone?

A couple quick thoughts:
1) Any payments would have to be nominal, transparent and on a level playing field. I get that some kids need money for toothpaste and a pizza. It won't be free agency with the player going to the highest bidder. Schools like Kentucky will still have to cheat.
2) Wasn't there a football player (WR from Colorado?) who was also an Olympic skier and they wouldn't let him collect on his skiing endorsements and play football? Am I remembering that correctly? That's just crazy! This whole thing is terribly broken and it could be quite a few pages before we fix it.

The skier was Jeremy Bloom.

"Don't you dare make money in a sport that isn't even sanctioned by the NCAA!" - the NCAA

[NY44]

I hate slippery slope arguments, but one is very applicable here. Once the flood gates open and athletes are paid, it will escalate until the NCAA is completely destroyed and we just have another minor league sports league. Which can either be good or bad, depending on your view.

It's not going to be fair or just for every athlete to get the same amount of money. So if that is instituted it will result in under the table deals and gifts like what has happened time and again in the current system. If you open it up to an open market form, hundreds of schools and teams will immediately be taken out of contention and you will have a core group of schools that can afford to compete.

I personally believe that the free market is already at work in college athletics and that high profile athletes get their pay in some form or another. The only thing that will change is what side of the table its on.

[xubrew]

Xavier players receive a stipend.

I was friends with a walk-on and was told that each member of the team received approximately $850 for the Christmas Break period (goes back a few years).

If I were to work 40 hours a week for my internship at that time during the break, I would have likely make right around the same amount of money after tax. And they are playing basketball.

This was X. Imagine OSU, UK, etc.

When it comes down to it, the players are doing just fine. I can't stand the garbage that "we were eating hot dogs" etc.

I have a respectable job, yet I still eat hot dogs, pbj, etc.

So my initial belief is that they shouldn't be paid. Because they already receive an ancillary income in addition to room, board, and tuition.

Now if support comes from reducing coaching salaries as Brew has suggested, I could live with that.

Players get scholarship checks. If you live off campus and do not have a meal plan, you can receive a check from the school that is equivalent to the most expensive housing and meal plan the institution offers. $850 sounds about right.

[Kahns Krazy]

If the athletic department were allowed to hire athletes and pay them the same as a student worker would make then would you be against that??

My point is that athletes are the only group that I can think of that is not allowed to make money in their field on top of their scholarship. If there is another one, then tell me. If a film student sells a film commercially, or has a project or film entered into a festival, he's allowed to do that and keep that money on top of his scholarship. If a theater tries out for a professional role in either a movie or a play and gets it, they're not going to lose their scholarship or be unable to participate in university productions. If an art major is able to sell their pieces, they don't lose their scholarship.

People who say athletes shouldn't be paid often feel that way because they feel they're already on scholarship and that's enough. I'm just pointing out that there are many other students who are also on scholarship, and not only are they allowed to make money in their fields, they're encouraged to do so. That's my only point.

So, with that in mind, why not let them have the licensing money??

1) Your logic is flawed because in the world of student athletes, the "field" is not sports, it's criminal justice, or english or marketing or whatever their major is. NCAA sports are unique, and have unique rules. Participants voluntarily enter into the world of NCAA sports because of the benefits they provide.
2) My company forbids me from making money in my field beyond what they compensate me. It's called a non-compete, and it's a fact of life.
3) All of your money arguments are extrapolated from a tiny minority of players and coaches. What % of NCAA coaches make over $1 million? 1%? Less?

and finally:

4) If I want to watch a team full of image-licensed, ego filled individual players playing a game for the money first and the game second, then I will watch the NFL or the NBA. Why would I want to make another league of the same thing?

[xubrew]

I believe it's 70 out of the 125 FBS football coaches that have a base salary of over a million a year. That doesn't include bonuses. Still, that's more than half. I believe there are less than ten FBS programs that would not be able to pay the proposed stipend and still be able to pay their head coaches over six figures.

It's not as many in basketball, but it's still easily in the ten percent range of coaches who make more than a million bucks a year.

The schools can afford it. But the thing is, there is a way to do it without the schools having to even pay for it.

Don't pay the players for playing. Pay them because they're on TV, in video games, and their likenesses and names are being licensed and sold.

I don't now exactly how licensing fees work in other leagues. I believe in MLB, it is based on seniority. The longer a player has been in the league, the more they get. I can see adopting something similar, but just sharing it equally among all players in all sports who are on full aid.

[xubrew]

4) If I want to watch a team full of image-licensed, ego filled individual players playing a game for the money first and the game second, then I will watch the NFL or the NBA. Why would I want to make another league of the same thing?

This very accurately describes the NCAA league office. I'd rather see the players get it.

[bleedXblue]

This very accurately describes the NCAA league office. I'd rather see the players get it.

I know you're passionate about the subject, but I think you have no idea what paying athletes is going to do to the college sports.

It will create an even worse disparity between the have and have not's.

Who's really complaining about this?

I love watching college football and basketball. I don't want anything to change.

If they don't want to play and feel like their getting slighted, then don't play.

I do agree that the NCAA should not be able to profit from a players name or likeness. Jersey's, video games, etc.

[Juice]

I know you're passionate about the subject, but I think you have no idea what paying athletes is going to do to the college sports.

It will create an even worse disparity between the have and have not's.

Who's really complaining about this?

I love watching college football and basketball. I don't want anything to change.

If they don't want to play and feel like their getting slighted, then don't play.

I do agree that the NCAA should not be able to profit from a players name or likeness. Jersey's, video games, etc.

Who's complaining? Ummmm, the players.

[xubrew]

I know you're passionate about the subject, but I think you have no idea what paying athletes is going to do to the college sports.

It will create an even worse disparity between the have and have not's.

Who's really complaining about this?

I love watching college football and basketball. I don't want anything to change.

If they don't want to play and feel like their getting slighted, then don't play.

I do agree that the NCAA should not be able to profit from a players name or likeness. Jersey's, video games, etc.

Not necessarily. Not if it's a set amount that the schools themselves aren't even having to pay for. If it were a free market system where schools were able to pay them whatever salaries they see fit, then yes, it would create even worse disparity, but a system where every player gets a set amount that the schools aren't even responsible for providing, then it wouldn't create any additional disparity at all.

[bleedXblue]

Who's complaining? Ummmm, the players.

So we should just pay them b/c they're complaining? Great idea!

I bet if you took a survey of 1000 college athletes spread across multiple sports that vast majority are happy with the situation their in.

Again, no one is forcing them to do anything.

[bleedXblue]

Not necessarily. Not if it's a set amount that the schools themselves aren't even having to pay for. If it were a free market system where schools were able to pay them whatever salaries they see fit, then yes, it would create even worse disparity, but a system where every player gets a set amount that the schools aren't even responsible for providing, then it wouldn't create any additional disparity at all.

You don't think that's not going to cause issues?

The Alabama QB gets $1,000 and the Xavier swimmer who generates no revenue gets $1,000 ?

You're living in fantasy land.

[xubrew]

So we should just pay them b/c they're complaining? Great idea!

I bet if you took a survey of 1000 college athletes spread across multiple sports that vast majority are happy with the situation their in.

Again, no one is forcing them to do anything.

You're right. No one forces them to do anything. The thing is, no one really forces anyone to do anything. Unless you're incarcerated, the work you do is done on your own volition and I don't think anyone would argue you shouldn't be paid because if you didn't want to work then you wouldn't really have to. No one is forcing you to. I think there are some good arguments against paying the players, but the fact that no one is making them play isn't one of them. I'm pretty sure it would be against the law if someone were forcing them to play.

[bleedXblue]

You're right. No one forces them to do anything. The thing is, no one really forces anyone to do anything. Unless you're incarcerated, the work you do is done on your own volition and I don't think anyone would argue you shouldn't be paid because if you didn't want to work then you wouldn't really have to. No one is forcing you to. I think there are some good arguments against paying the players, but the fact that no one is making them play isn't one of them. I'm pretty sure it would be against the law if someone were forcing them to play.

Lets not forget the deal they all agreed to is to play and they are given a free education and room and board in return. And yet, they are still not happy.

[GoMuskies]

You're right. No one forces them to do anything. The thing is, no one really forces anyone to do anything. Unless you're incarcerated, the work you do is done on your own volition and I don't think anyone would argue you shouldn't be paid because if you didn't want to work then you wouldn't really have to. No one is forcing you to. I think there are some good arguments against paying the players, but the fact that no one is making them play isn't one of them. I'm pretty sure it would be against the law if someone were forcing them to play.

Of course, I wouldn't work if I wasn't getting paid. I've not heard of many folks deciding not to play college sports due to lack of pay. So the athletes must feel like they're getting something worthwhile out of college athletics.

[xubrew]

Lets not forget the deal they all agreed to is to play and they are given a free education and room and board in return. And yet, they are still not happy.

So, again, don't pay them for playing. Pay them because they're on TV and because of the licensing.

[xubrew]

Of course, I wouldn't work if I wasn't getting paid. I've not heard of many folks deciding not to play college sports due to lack of pay. So the athletes must feel like they're getting something worthwhile out of college athletics.

Players do this all the time if they are in a sport that gives them that option (baseball, golf, tennis, soccer, etc). Not all, but some.

To be fair, I don't think paying them between $2k and $5k a year would change that, but players do opt to play for money instead of a scholarship. Even in basketball, players leave early.

The reason I think they should get paid is because I think they deserve it, especially since there is a way to do it that wouldn't cost the schools a thing. Why should the NCAA get money from licensing, but not the players??

[GoMuskies]

Players do this all the time if they are in a sport that gives them that option (baseball, golf, tennis, soccer, etc). Not all, but some.

This is people deciding to go make money instead of not make money. Who can blame them? That's not exactly the same as opting out of sports as a whole. What I'm saying is that I literally would not practice the law if no one was paying me. Yet these colleges have no problem filling out rosters and fielding teams and getting players to commit to grueling practice, travel and competition schedules. So there must be something valuable in it for the players. Otherwise, they'd have had to cancel athletic programs due to lack of interest in participating long ago.

[bleedXblue]

[QUOTE=xubrew;454901]So, again, don't pay them for playing. Pay them because they're on TV and because of the licensing.[/

Their are so many holes in your argument.

What about the players who aren't on tv? What about the players who are on tv more than others? Again, this can't be and will never be an across the board solution where every athlete in every sport gets paid. The UNC basketball player is on ESPN 15 times a year. Akron might get 2-3 games a year with ratings 1/10 of what UNC gets. The value/worth isn't equitable. What seems to make perfect sense isn't easy to administer.

We haven't even gotten into the point about schools who've invested millions and millions of dollars over the years to make their programs strong and viable. It isn't simply the " players" and their talents generating the interest and therefore are deserving of getting a piece of the tv deal.

Look at Xavier, if they don't build Cintas are they in the Big East ? X took the huge gamble.

Lots of angles in this to consider.

Once you start paying it will change the sports forever........and not for the good IMHO.

[ford]

You don't think that's not going to cause issues?

The Alabama QB gets $1,000 and the Xavier swimmer who generates no revenue gets $1,000 ?

You're living in fantasy land.

Exactly. This is why a fixed stipend for everyone is unfair. It also won't do anything to level the playing field because it does not deter the black market of paying players. Just let the free private market decide who is worth endorsement money and who isn't and require disclosure over what they get paid for and how much.

[xubrew]

Their are so many holes in your argument.

What about the players who aren't on tv? What about the players who are on tv more than others? Again, this can't be and will never be an across the board solution where every athlete in every sport gets paid. The UNC basketball player is on ESPN 15 times a year. Akron might get 2-3 games a year with ratings 1/10 of what UNC gets. The value/worth isn't equitable. What seems to make perfect sense isn't easy to administer.

We haven't even gotten into the point about schools who've invested millions and millions of dollars over the years to make their programs strong and viable. It isn't simply the " players" and their talents generating the interest and therefore are deserving of getting a piece of the tv deal.

Look at Xavier, if they don't build Cintas are they in the Big East ? X took the huge gamble.

Lots of angles in this to consider.

Once you start paying it will change the sports forever........and not for the good IMHO.


Exactly. This is why a fixed stipend for everyone is unfair. It also won't do anything to level the playing field because it does not deter the black market of paying players. Just let the free private market decide who is worth endorsement money and who isn't and require disclosure over what they get paid for and how much.

So, a fix stipend for everyone is unfair, but a fixed scholarship for everyone is fair?? That doesn't make any sense at all.

You say that it's not fair. With that same logic, a fixed scholarship for everyone must not be fair either.

You talk about some players being on TV more than others. You know who isn't on TV, or in any video games, and never has jerseys sold or posters sold or merchandise of any kind sold?? The people at the NCAA who actually get the money.

Do you know how revenue from the NCAA Tournament television deal is currently split?? It's nothing at all like you describe. Half of what's paid out is roughly $1.8 million per team per game. That money goes to the conference. The other half is distributed among all the schools, and it's based on how many teams each school has, and how many scholarships they offer. Vanderbilt actually received more NCAA Tournament revenue than Villanova did this past year, and they weren't even in the tournament. The fact that Akron is on TV less than UNC, and gets lower ratings, doesn't really matter. I'm not talking about using the ACC and MAC deals anyway. I'm talking about using the NCAA Tournament money to do it. The amount of money that's paid out can be increased to include stipends for the players. The amount of money that can be paid out can be increased by selling the licensing.

So, yeah, schools have invested millions of dollars in programs. But, so what?? My suggestion doesn't involve schools paying players, so how much they invest is irrelevant to what I'm suggesting. However much money schools are or are not making, and are or are not spending is a non issue if they're not the ones that are going to be paying for the stipends anyway.

[bleedXblue]

So, a fix stipend for everyone is unfair, but a fixed scholarship for everyone is fair?? That doesn't make any sense at all.

You say that it's not fair. With that same logic, a fixed scholarship for everyone must not be fair either.

You talk about some players being on TV more than others. You know who isn't on TV, or in any video games, and never has jerseys sold or posters sold or merchandise of any kind sold?? The people at the NCAA who actually get the money.

Do you know how revenue from the NCAA Tournament television deal is currently split?? It's nothing at all like you describe. Half of what's paid out is roughly $1.8 million per team per game. That money goes to the conference. The other half is distributed among all the schools, and it's based on how many teams each school has, and how many scholarships they offer. Vanderbilt actually received more NCAA Tournament revenue than Villanova did this past year, and they weren't even in the tournament. The fact that Akron is on TV less than UNC, and gets lower ratings, doesn't really matter. I'm not talking about using the ACC and MAC deals anyway. I'm talking about using the NCAA Tournament money to do it. The amount of money that's paid out can be increased to include stipends for the players. The amount of money that can be paid out can be increased by selling the licensing.

So, yeah, schools have invested millions of dollars in programs. But, so what?? My suggestion doesn't involve schools paying players, so how much they invest is irrelevant to what I'm suggesting. However much money schools are or are not making, and are or are not spending is a non issue if they're not the ones that are going to be paying for the stipends anyway.

This is getting really good. You think the NCAA and said universities are just going to give up money that they currently receive from the tournament? And give it to the players? Why the hell would they do that? Because you think it should be that way?

I'm not sure what your argument about fixed scholarships even means? A Harvard degree is worth a hell of a lot more that one from Xavier.
An education from one school is not the same as another. It also can vary depending on the type of degree earned.

Again for one last time.......this is not an easy issue and it has so many ways that it can go wrong. I just don't know why anyone would want to change what is working really well for the sport, consumers and fans of college football and basketball. If the players think it's a bad deal, they can try to do something else I guess.

[Juice]

[QUOTE=xubrew;454901]So, again, don't pay them for playing. Pay them because they're on TV and because of the licensing.[/

Their are so many holes in your argument.

What about the players who aren't on tv? What about the players who are on tv more than others? Again, this can't be and will never be an across the board solution where every athlete in every sport gets paid. The UNC basketball player is on ESPN 15 times a year. Akron might get 2-3 games a year with ratings 1/10 of what UNC gets. The value/worth isn't equitable. What seems to make perfect sense isn't easy to administer.

We haven't even gotten into the point about schools who've invested millions and millions of dollars over the years to make their programs strong and viable. It isn't simply the " players" and their talents generating the interest and therefore are deserving of getting a piece of the tv deal.

Look at Xavier, if they don't build Cintas are they in the Big East ? X took the huge gamble.

Lots of angles in this to consider.

Once you start paying it will change the sports forever........and not for the good IMHO.

Your overall argument has been, "It will change things, and I like college sports the way they are."

That's a crap argument. You don't continue an unjust system just because that's way it's been done or because people fear change.

[xu82]

So, wait.... have we come to a consensus yet?
I'll check back in a thousand pages. (Or maybe sooner for amusement.)

[bleedXblue]

[QUOTE=bleedXblue;454910]

Your overall argument has been, "It will change things, and I like college sports the way they are."

That's a crap argument. You don't continue an unjust system just because that's way it's been done or because people fear change.

Wrong. Millions and millions of people like college sports just the way they are. Just look at the ratings and dollars companies spend to advertise their products.

Who's saying its unjust? The vast minority.

The majority thinks the scholarship is a fair return for 99 percent of the athletes.

[Juice]

[QUOTE=Juice;454926]

Wrong. Millions and millions of people like college sports just the way they are. Just look at the ratings and dollars companies spend to advertise their products.

Who's saying its unjust? The vast minority.

The majority thinks the scholarship is a fair return for 99 percent of the athletes.

So you'll stop watching college athletics if they start to get paid? And companies will stop advertising if they get paid? That's the deal breaker?

[xubrew]

This is getting really good. You think the NCAA and said universities are just going to give up money that they currently receive from the tournament? And give it to the players? Why the hell would they do that? Because you think it should be that way?

I'm not sure what your argument about fixed scholarships even means? A Harvard degree is worth a hell of a lot more that one from Xavier.
An education from one school is not the same as another. It also can vary depending on the type of degree earned.

Again for one last time.......this is not an easy issue and it has so many ways that it can go wrong. I just don't know why anyone would want to change what is working really well for the sport, consumers and fans of college football and basketball. If the players think it's a bad deal, they can try to do something else I guess.

The scholarships are fixed in that they can offer tuition, room and board. Nothing more. Duke cannot offer more than Campbell. If that isn't fixed I don't know what the hell is.

The universities won't have to give up any money, and the NCAA has already given up a lot of it by not renewing the deal with EA Sports. Instead of continuing to generate it off of licensing and exploring ways to generate even more of it that could be given to the players, they've just decided to stop.

You don't know why anyone would want to change what is working. What makes you think it's working?? What makes you think the NCAA is going to win the OBannon case, especially after EA Sports has already settled?? What makes you think the power conferences won't break off altogether as they've talked about doing if they're not allowed the autonomy to pay stipends? What makes you think other groups of players won't continue to push for unions and reform??

From where I sit, giving the players a stipend between $2000 and $5000 will actually to more to preserve what people love about college athletics than it will to destroy it. You keep saying that it's not an easy issue and that there are ways it can go wrong. Not doing it is actually causing things to go far more wrong.

[Juice]

Universities are getting real scared

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/06/27/indiana-university-bill-of-rights-for-athletes-fred-glass/11506377/

[XU-PA]

Universities are getting real scared

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/06/27/indiana-university-bill-of-rights-for-athletes-fred-glass/11506377/

"Every Indiana athlete will be provided certain NCAA-approved extras, including a personal iPad and a blazer for formal occasions."

Seemed funny, weird. A special red Indiana Blazer? For the ladies too?

[XfansinKy]

If it could be done fairly, I believe it would be helpful. I don't know how that's possible, so I hope Pandora's box stays closed. I guess it's already cracked open now though.

[xubrew]

The closer we get to August 7th, the more convinced I am that it's a done deal. In fact, I'm now completely convinced. The NCAA will vote to give the power conferences the autonomy they want. I'm pretty certain it's already in the bag. This will change college sports as we know it, and probably not in a way that most people will like.

One of the things the power conferences want to do is pay the players in some way, shape, or form. They'll probably implement a stipend. The other change will be that they will likely allow players to sign their own endorsement deals and make money off of their own likenesses.

This will ruin much of what I love about college athletics. The gap between the haves and have-nots will be so huge that the story lines that many of us love about the mid-major team who competes in a high major level will likely go away. Gonzaga, as good as they are now, may have trouble competing with schools like Washington and Washington State who will offer the players money and allow them to pursue endorsement deals.

What is beyond frustrating is that I really believe, as I said many many many times in this thread, that there was a way for the NCAA to get control of this, offer players stipends, and do it in a way that didn't cost the schools much money (if any at all). They could have looked to expand the licensing deals, and used that money to supplement the stipends. That would have given people the video games they love so much, as well as jerseys, t-shirts, and other merchandise they could have licensed, and it would have been a win-win for everyone. Doing it that way would have also given low resource schools a chance to remain reasonably competitive without having to spend or cut much of anything. Now, it's going to be virtually impossible. I hope people like European soccer where you see the same five or six teams at the top of the standings every year for twenty years straight. I think college athletics will soon look like that.

I never understood the mentality of those who didn't feel athletes deserved to be paid, largely because "Damnit!!! They get enough already!!!" But, whatever.

I get being against paying athletes if you don't think that the majority of schools can afford it.....but what I wanted to try and get people to understand is that literally every div1 school could have afforded it with a large supplement from the NCAA, which they could have generated via the licensing agreements and new TV deals.

I think the absolute worst case scenario, for everyone, is the one that's about to happen. It will now be on the schools to pay the players, and the only ones who can really afford to do it are the power conference schools. It's up to everyone else to keep up.

As far as forming the new "Division Four" (which in reality would be a new subdivision within div1 just for football, not an entirely new division), I don't think they'll do that now....but they still might. I just think they're going to implement their own rules on how players are allowed to be compensated, and invite everyone else to stay in their division and keep up with them if they can. The reason I feel this way is because I think they realized how nice it was to play seven and eight home football games a year, and you can't do that if you cut out the non power teams altogether.

Many have fought for years against the NCAA paying players, largely because they liked things the way they were and didn't want them to change. Ironically, I think it's pretty obvious that things are about to change in a very drastic way, and the one thing that could have stopped it was if the NCAA had opted to pay the players.

....and then there is the OBannon case, which is a whole other story, but it was a rather embarrassing defense for the NCAA. I don't see how there is any way on Earth they won that other than the 1984 supreme court ruling that states college athletics is appealing because it is amateur. Other than that, Obannon's team pretty much mopped the floor with them, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if part of the eventual ruling (I say eventual because I know the NCAA will appeal) will be that players are free to make money off of their own likenesses. I think NCAA may want to look to settle that before it gets to that point, but that's just me. They actually don't seem all that concerned about it.

This may be the last athletic year of college athletics as we know it. We'll still have it. It will still be great, but it won't be as great as it was before.

[Olsingledigit]

I read an article recently where the Big Ten commish indicated that they don't wish to fool with the basketball tournament. Too successful. So if they "split off" (they will make a deal with the NCAA for autonomy is my guess) they will likely try to do as little damage as possible to the basketball tournament. As for the O'Bannon case, if he wins, that will have a greater (and negative) impact on the status quo. I have said before that I believe there is an inherent conflict between the O'Bannon potential result and Title IX which will likely take an act of congress (literally) to rectify and that might not even do it.

[waggy]

Refresh my memory.. what's the inherent conflict?

I don't see what the big deal is with likenesses as far as gaming goes. College players don't stick around long enough for it to really matter imo.

[xubrew]

I read an article recently where the Big Ten commish indicated that they don't wish to fool with the basketball tournament. Too successful. So if they "split off" (they will make a deal with the NCAA for autonomy is my guess) they will likely try to do as little damage as possible to the basketball tournament. As for the O'Bannon case, if he wins, that will have a greater (and negative) impact on the status quo. I have said before that I believe there is an inherent conflict between the O'Bannon potential result and Title IX which will likely take an act of congress (literally) to rectify and that might not even do it.

They're not going to mess with the basketball tournament in regards to altering it or breaking off and having their own tournament. They're simply going to make it damn near impossible for anyone other than themselves to do well in it. A school that's willing and able to pay their players will have a distinct advantage over a school that doesn't. That's the problem. We'll still have the tournament, it's just that getting past the round of 32 may become somewhat of an oddity for teams outside the power conferences.

[BBC 08]

They're not going to mess with the basketball tournament in regards to altering it or breaking off and having their own tournament. They're simply going to make it damn near impossible for anyone other than themselves to do well in it. A school that's willing and able to pay their players will have a distinct advantage over a school that doesn't. That's the problem. We'll still have the tournament, it's just that getting past the round of 32 may become somewhat of an oddity for teams outside the power conferences.

How does this affect X and the BE since we would technically be outside of the power conferences?

[xubrew]

How does this affect X and the BE since we would technically be outside of the power conferences?

Your guess is as good as mine.

I'd say that the teams in the Big East, or any other league for that matter, will have to match whatever the power conferences are doing if they want to remain competitive.

[GoMuskies]

If Xavier has the opportunity to match (i.e. if the Big East is even allowed to follow what ever rules the 5 most prominent conferences put in place), we have absolutely no choice but to do so. Anything else would be program suicide and would essentially mean all the resources we have put into the program over the years (including building the Cintas) were a complete waste of money. Don't tell me about sunk costs and economic thinking: we're going to have to spend, spend, spend to keep up.

[xubrew]

If Xavier has the opportunity to match (i.e. if the Big East is even allowed to follow what ever rules the 5 most prominent conferences put in place), we have absolutely no choice but to do so. Anything else would be program suicide and would essentially mean all the resources we have put into the program over the years (including building the Cintas) were a complete waste of money. Don't tell me about sunk costs and economic thinking: we're going to have to spend, spend, spend to keep up.

I agree.

And I'm pretty pissed off about it because.....

Oh, it's not worth getting into again.

[LadyMuskie]

If the guys on the court are being paid to be there, the crowds are going to get vicious when they play like crap. The crowds get mean now when they play like crap. If you don't like hearing boos, you're going to want to stay home during off years. It's going to make attending games a whole new (and not better, IMO) experience.

[X-band '01]

It would be more semi-pro in nature; it would be hard to justify NOT booing the players in certain circumstances.

[GoMuskies]

It would be more semi-pro in nature; it would be hard to justify NOT booing the players in certain circumstances.

You make a good point. I might actually start out booing and make the players earn my cheers.

[xubrew]

I don't know how this is going to work.

Say the power conferences implement a $5000 dollar a year stipend for "cost of living," and redefine improper benefits which would allow players to accept certain gifts from boosters and fans.

Okay, now, say Xavier decides they want to do the same. Who would ultimately decide whether or not they can?? Is it the Big East?? Is it all the remaining schools that aren't in power conferences?? Would the board of directors have to approve that?? Would there be a new div1 board of directors for the non power conference teams, and would they decide?? Would it be Mark Emmert?? (probably not)

BBC 08 asked what this means for Xavier. I'm kinda curious to know myself.

This whole thing could have been avoided if idiocy didn't run so rampant within the NCAA.

[GoMuskies]

BBC 08 asked what this means for Xavier. I'm kinda curious to know myself.


Ultimately, I think it means that MHettel's dream would come true and we'd go independent.

[xubrew]

Ultimately, I think it means that MHettel's dream would come true and we'd go independent.

Oh, well then. Glad everything will work out for the best :/

[xubrew]

So, this is the proposal of how the Power Conferences will implement stipends. I'm pretty sure everyone will recognize the presenter. The question remains....what about everyone else who isn't in a power conference??

The vote is Thursday, BTW, and I don't think anyone is under the impression that they won't be given autonomy.

http://www.athleticbusiness.com/more-news/acc-unveils-stipend-proposal-for-power-5.html?topic=1,200&eid=224260212&bid=909108

[Xville]

To me, this is completely disgusting....there are a million things wrong with the college system as a whole, and football and basketball players getting more money on top of what they are already getting is the last thing in my book.

[Juice]

To me, this is completely disgusting....there are a million things wrong with the college system as a whole, and football and basketball players getting more money on top of what they are already getting is the last thing in my book.

Jesus.

You don't find it more disgusting that administrators and coaches are paid millions while these players who are the real producers see nothing? I find that 20 times more disgusting.

[xubrew]

To me, this is completely disgusting....there are a million things wrong with the college system as a whole, and football and basketball players getting more money on top of what they are already getting is the last thing in my book.

This attitude is what led to this problem.

Don't worry. There's a good chance the schools outside the power conferences that don't have autonomy will feel the way that you do, and won't allow for a cost of living stipend.

Had they passed the proposal for a $2000 stipend back in 2011, which is something every school could have afforded, then the power conferences probably wouldn't be seeking autonomy.

Had the NCAA seen that there was the potential to make a ton of money in licensing and realized they could have used that money to supplement a cost of living stipend, then we wouldn't be having this issue. Instead, they passed on opportunities that could have made money for the NCAA, the schools, and the players, and opted to go to court instead. That just boggles the mind.

Instead, we have this issue. The gap between the power conferences and non-power conferences will now likely be exacerbated to such a degree that no one else will be able to keep up with them. Right now, Xavier can beat out power conference schools for recruits. Well, if power conference schools can offer stipends and full costs of living and Xavier cannot, forget it. It's over. It's very possible, and even likely, that that is the direction we're heading in.

NICE GOING NCAA!!!!

[Xville]

Jesus.

You don't find it more disgusting that administrators and coaches are paid millions while these players who are the real producers see nothing? I find that 20 times more disgusting.

No I don't. These kids aren't being forced to go to college....you don't want to go to school for free and receive a free education with a chance at making the pros, fine then don't. No one is forcing their hand. Its hilarious when these kids or even adults say these kids are being exploited. Thats freaking hilarious...I would have gladly being exploited if I had that kind of physical talent to receive a free education with a chance at highlighting what I could do to make millions in the pros...and if I wasn't good enough, at least I still would have received a free education that other kids will be paying on, on loans until their mid-40s just because they didn't have the same physical gifts.

[Xville]

This attitude is what led to this problem.

Don't worry. There's a good chance the schools outside the power conferences that don't have autonomy will feel the way that you do, and won't allow for a cost of living stipend.

Had they passed the proposal for a $2000 stipend back in 2011, which is something every school could have afforded, then the power conferences probably wouldn't be seeking autonomy.

Had the NCAA seen that there was the potential to make a ton of money in licensing and realized they could have used that money to supplement a cost of living stipend, then we wouldn't be having this issue. Instead, they passed on opportunities that could have made money for the NCAA, the schools, and the players, and opted to go to court instead. That just boggles the mind.

Instead, we have this issue. The gap between the power conferences and non-power conferences will now likely be exacerbated to such a degree that no one else will be able to keep up with them. Right now, Xavier can beat out power conference schools for recruits. Well, if power conference schools can offer stipends and full costs of living and Xavier cannot, forget it. It's over. It's very possible, and even likely, that that is the direction we're heading in.

NICE GOING NCAA!!!!

oh so you really believe that every school offering a stipend would just fix this issue? I call bs...because once a stipend is enacted, things would be fine for a while, but then there would be rumblings again of "I'm not getting my fair share..I need more....these kids are being exploited" So then what? It is human nature to just always want more and more and more.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

What really needs to happen is for the NCAA to take over NCAA football and reap the profits from the bowls instead of the near criminal bowl committees. Then take this money and pool it with what they already get from Basketball and completely fund the "Olympic Sports" and the rest of the sports that don't make money.

Then they should look at exactly what is left and determine whether an adequate stipend can be paid across the board. The last thing you want in college sports is for a recruit to say no to School A because their stipend is only $2k and commit to School B because theirs is $3k.

The single biggest thing people who are in favor of paying athletes fail to understand is that basketball at the NCAA and football at the college level pay for the rest of all the sports. I know there is a third sport that makes money in there but the rest are all financial losers. Another big failure, people don't understand that much of what a coach receives is from boosters and side deals which are part of a school's overall financial package.

So, if you want basketball and football men to receive stipends you might have to do away with loser sports like Track-n-Field, Soccer, Tennis, etc. Are you all prepared to give that up?

[paulxu]

The US Navy exploited me for 4 years.
I did get a stipend though.

[xubrew]

oh so you really believe that every school offering a stipend would just fix this issue? I call bs...because once a stipend is enacted, things would be fine for a while, but then there would be rumblings again of "I'm not getting my fair share..I need more....these kids are being exploited" So then what? It is human nature to just always want more and more and more.

Just so we're clear, my issue is doing what's fair for the players AND keeping a reasonably competitive balance.

I think a set $2000 stipend as it was proposed would have DEFINITELY addressed both of those issues. I also think that the NCAA League Office (not the schools) could have worked to raise the necessary $300 million dollars a year it would cost to provide cost of living stipends to all div1 scholarship athletes. They're getting a huge windfall from the NCAA Tournament. That alone could have covered most of it. Other avenues to generate that money could have come from licensing (video games, jerseys, shirts, posters, autograph signings, etc).

Yes, I do think it would have fixed those issues, and it wouldn't have cost the schools much of anything. But, they didn't do it for reasons that can only be described as stupid and misguided.

You cannot sit there and argue that not paying a stipend was the way to go. They didn't approve the stipends, they didn't use the licensing and/or regulated access to the free market for licensing, and now this is what's happening. Even if for some reason you don't think a stipend would have prevented, NO ONE can argue that NOT paying the stipend did anything to prevent it.

[GoMuskies]

So, this is the proposal of how the Power Conferences will implement stipends. I'm pretty sure everyone will recognize the presenter. The question remains....what about everyone else who isn't in a power conference??

The vote is Thursday, BTW, and I don't think anyone is under the impression that they won't be given autonomy.

http://www.athleticbusiness.com/more-news/acc-unveils-stipend-proposal-for-power-5.html?topic=1,200&eid=224260212&bid=909108

They're going to make it need-based?!? That's just weird.

[xubrew]

What really needs to happen is for the NCAA to take over NCAA football and reap the profits from the bowls instead of the near criminal bowl committees. Then take this money and pool it with what they already get from Basketball and completely fund the "Olympic Sports" and the rest of the sports that don't make money.

Then they should look at exactly what is left and determine whether an adequate stipend can be paid across the board. The last thing you want in college sports is for a recruit to say no to School A because their stipend is only $2k and commit to School B because theirs is $3k.

The single biggest thing people who are in favor of paying athletes fail to understand is that basketball at the NCAA and football at the college level pay for the rest of all the sports. I know there is a third sport that makes money in there but the rest are all financial losers. Another big failure, people don't understand that much of what a coach receives is from boosters and side deals which are part of a school's overall financial package.

So, if you want basketball and football men to receive stipends you might have to do away with loser sports like Track-n-Field, Soccer, Tennis, etc. Are you all prepared to give that up?

People keep bringing this up, but fail to overlook all the gold plating that goes on (high salaries, new practice facilities, flat screens in every office, new computers every year, locker rooms that are nicer than five star hotels, more staff and personnel, etc.) It pays for a lot of things that can easily be done away with and have those resources go to the players instead.

There was a way to do it that would have provided stipends to everyone, even the non revenue sports, and it wouldn't have cost the schools much of anything. But....they didn't. And now, we have this.

[Xville]

Just so we're clear, my issue is doing what's fair for the players AND keeping a reasonably competitive balance.

I think a set $2000 stipend as it was proposed would have DEFINITELY addressed both of those issues. I also think that the NCAA League Office (not the schools) could have worked to raise the necessary $300 million dollars a year it would cost to provide cost of living stipends to all div1 scholarship athletes. They're getting a huge windfall from the NCAA Tournament. That alone could have covered most of it. Other avenues to generate that money could have come from licensing (video games, jerseys, shirts, posters, autograph signings, etc).

Yes, I do think it would have fixed those issues, and it wouldn't have cost the schools much of anything. But, they didn't do it for reasons that can only be described as stupid and misguided.

You cannot sit there and argue that not paying a stipend was the way to go. They didn't approve the stipends, they didn't use the licensing and/or regulated access to the free market for licensing, and now this is what's happening. Even if for some reason you don't think a stipend would have prevented, NO ONE can argue that NOT paying the stipend did anything to prevent it.

I don't think its fair that just because you excel at basketball or football over an olympic sport (or even baseball or soccer for that matter), you automatically get a full scholarship. That is something that should be fixed.

[xubrew]

They're going to make it need-based?!? That's just weird.

It sounds a lot like and end around to me. If it's "need based," then the schools get to decide how much is "needed."

[xubrew]

I don't think its fair that just because you excel at basketball or football over an olympic sport (or even baseball or soccer for that matter), you automatically get a full scholarship. That is something that should be fixed.

I agree. And a $300 million supplement from the NCAA off of licensing could have fixed it. That figure is what would be required to cover EVERYONE on aid, including the non revenue sports.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

People keep bringing this up, but fail to overlook all the gold plating that goes on (high salaries, new practice facilities, flat screens in every office, new computers every year, locker rooms that are nicer than five star hotels, more staff and personnel, etc.) It pays for a lot of things that can easily be done away with and have those resources go to the players instead.

There was a way to do it that would have provided stipends to everyone, even the non revenue sports, and it wouldn't have cost the schools much of anything. But....they didn't. And now, we have this.

Really just high coaching salaries and new facilities, the rest is immaterial in comparison. How do you tell the school to not renovate or build a new facility or hire a better coach for new money? It's a free market and they have to pay what the market says. I get some a opulent but some are really just renovating or rebuilding outdated facilities. I have been to both Football and Basketball games at ASU. Both of their facilties are terrible, I mean absolutely terrible.

If you are going to pay a stipend to players, you must absolutely pay the same amount to all full scholarship players in all sports and all genders. If they don't, it's going to break college sports. It must also be uniform across all schools as well.

[xubrew]

Really just high coaching salaries and new facilities, the rest is immaterial in comparison. How do you tell the school to not renovate or build a new facility or hire a better coach for new money? It's a free market and they have to pay what the market says. I get some a opulent but some are really just renovating or rebuilding outdated facilities. I have been to both Football and Basketball games at ASU. Both of their facilties are terrible, I mean absolutely terrible.

If you are going to pay a stipend to players, you must absolutely pay the same amount to all full scholarship players in all sports and all genders. If they don't, it's going to break college sports. It must also be uniform across all schools as well.

I don't really disagree with any of that.

I just think that as long as everyone is gold plating everything else, it would have been possible to give some of it to the players. The $2000 proposed in 2011 for all full scholarship players in all sports sounded reasonable to me. I think it would have been the fair thing to do, and I think it would have maintained the reasonable competitive balance I was talking about.

Generating revenue off of licensing, along with the windfall of the basketball tournament and giving that to all full scholarship players in all sports would have accomplished this as well.

And, there was an obvious way to generate an even larger amount of revenue. Just imagine how much a sixteen team FBS football playoff could have generated. That could have covered all the expenses by itself, and probably had tons left over. But, that would have been too awesome and too obvious, so I just gave up hoping for that.

The players at the power conference schools are going to get a piece of that free market, but of course it will be on a "needs basis." I think you'll find a striking correlation between how good a player is, and how much the school decides they end up needing. Chances are, no one else will, or at least not in the same way. That kind of kills the reasonable competitive balance that I was hoping would be maintained.

[Juice]

What really needs to happen is for the NCAA to take over NCAA football and reap the profits from the bowls instead of the near criminal bowl committees. Then take this money and pool it with what they already get from Basketball and completely fund the "Olympic Sports" and the rest of the sports that don't make money.

Then they should look at exactly what is left and determine whether an adequate stipend can be paid across the board. The last thing you want in college sports is for a recruit to say no to School A because their stipend is only $2k and commit to School B because theirs is $3k.

The single biggest thing people who are in favor of paying athletes fail to understand is that basketball at the NCAA and football at the college level pay for the rest of all the sports. I know there is a third sport that makes money in there but the rest are all financial losers. Another big failure, people don't understand that much of what a coach receives is from boosters and side deals which are part of a school's overall financial package.

So, if you want basketball and football men to receive stipends you might have to do away with loser sports like Track-n-Field, Soccer, Tennis, etc. Are you all prepared to give that up?

You know how else you could pay for the other sports? Not pay your president, AD, coaches, etc. millions of dollars while crying poor.

[Juice]

I don't think its fair that just because you excel at basketball or football over an olympic sport (or even baseball or soccer for that matter), you automatically get a full scholarship. That is something that should be fixed.

Fair? Nice viewpoint Marx.

Do you also think it's unfair that NFL players make more than MLS players?

[Xville]

Fair? Nice viewpoint Marx.

Do you also think it's unfair that NFL players make more than MLS players?

So you complain about how much presidents and ad's etc make and u call me marx? Hi pot meet kettle. However since you brought it up...the difference is that MLS and NFL are professionals in a free market system. Once you are a professional, I believe that you should be able to make as much money as you want within the guidelines of the law of course. .college athletes are amateurs going to school for free. Also, I'm not saying everyone should be paid the same..I'm saying they should all get scholarships...just because their sport makes money shouldn't make a difference...it's stupid in my opinion.

[Juice]

So you complain about how much presidents and ad's etc make and u call me marx? Hi pot meet kettle. However since you brought it up...the difference is that MLS and NFL are professionals in a free market system...college athletes are amateurs going to school for free. Also, I'm not saying everyone should be paid the same..I'm saying they should all get scholarships...just because their sport makes money shouldn't make a difference...it's stupid in my opinion.

No my point is that everyone complains that if you pay the football and basketball players that you somehow cannot pay for the other sports which are "financed" by those two big sports. Well there is an easy solution, take the money from the administrators who are vastly overpaid, and pay the money to the people who people pay to see.

[Xville]

No my point is that everyone complains that if you pay the football and basketball players that you somehow cannot pay for the other sports which are "financed" by those two big sports. Well there is an easy solution, take the money from the administrators who are vastly overpaid, and pay the money to the people who people pay to see.

Basketball and football players are already getting paid to the tune of about 20k or so on average a year. Sorry call me Marxist or whatever but it's ridiculous that some college Div 1 athletes are bitching about not getting enough when others aren't even on full scholarship. Whether someone pays money to see their sport shouldn't matter...if they play for the school and it's under the ncaa....they should have a full scholarship.

Also if you think administrators are overpaid and they should redistribute their money to the non revenue sports then you are also being Marxist whether you want to accept that or not

[Juice]

Basketball and football players are already getting paid to the tune of about 20k or so on average a year. Sorry call me Marxist or whatever but it's ridiculous that some college Div 1 athletes are bitching about not getting enough when others aren't even on full scholarship. Whether someone pays money to see their sport shouldn't matter...if they play for the school and it's under the ncaa....they should have a full scholarship.

Also if you think administrators are overpaid and they should redistribute their money to the non revenue sports then you are also being Marxist whether you want to accept that or not

No, not redistribute, that's your term. Pay each what they're worth.

Texas was ready to offer Saban a $100 million contract. But please tell me how Texas can't afford to pay everyone a stipend. That's on top of what they're paying Mack Brown to be an adviser.

[xubrew]

Basketball and football players are already getting paid to the tune of about 20k or so on average a year. Sorry call me Marxist or whatever but it's ridiculous that some college Div 1 athletes are bitching about not getting enough when others aren't even on full scholarship. Whether someone pays money to see their sport shouldn't matter...if they play for the school and it's under the ncaa....they should have a full scholarship.

Also if you think administrators are overpaid and they should redistribute their money to the non revenue sports then you are also being Marxist whether you want to accept that or not

I'm almost certain that all sports will be fully funded by the power conferences. Not only will softball and field hockey players get a full scholarship, they'll get some sort of stipend on top of that.

As for the non power conferences, they'll probably still be under the old model that so many people seem to love.

[Juice]

This is why athletic directors shouldn't be paid

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/8/6/5976943/steve-patterson-texas-ncaa-comments

Absolutely loved his comment that a college scholarship puts a student-athlete in the top third in income in the state of Texas.

[X-band '01]

Would you expect any less from an AD whose school has their own TV network?

[xubrew]

This is why athletic directors shouldn't be paid

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/8/6/5976943/steve-patterson-texas-ncaa-comments

Absolutely loved his comment that a college scholarship puts a student-athlete in the top third in income in the state of Texas.

He's blunt. He's an asshole. He oftentimes mistakes what the facts are. A lot of people hate what he said, particularly the "why should we care about smaller programs?" comment.

Well, here's the thing. Can anyone give him a reason to care about the smaller programs??

He, and a lot of other people, resent the "smaller programs" because they feel the smaller programs have prevented them from doing the things they want to do over the years, which is why we are where we are.

That's what we're up against. That's how they feel about programs outside the power conferences now.

[Xville]

He's blunt. He's an asshole. He oftentimes mistakes what the facts are. A lot of people hate what he said, particularly the "why should we care about smaller programs?" comment.

Well, here's the thing. Can anyone give him a reason to care about the smaller programs??

He, and a lot of other people, resent the "smaller programs" because they fell the smaller programs have prevented them from doing the things they want to do over the years, which is why we are where we are.

That's what we're up against. That's how they feel about programs outside the power conferences now.

F Texas and F their AD. Texas, along with their pompous attitude, is one of the main culprits as to why the latest whole realignment crap happened in the first place. They are the reason Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri and A&M all left the Big 12...they have been raping the rest of the teams in the Big 12 since the conference was created. They don't just look down upon the "smaller programs" outside the power conferences....they look down upon everyone.

[X-band '01]

It's also why Texas didn't join the Pac-12 when they had a chance; they weren't about to share equally with the other schools in that conference.

[Juice]

He's blunt. He's an asshole. He oftentimes mistakes what the facts are. A lot of people hate what he said, particularly the "why should we care about smaller programs?" comment.

Well, here's the thing. Can anyone give him a reason to care about the smaller programs??

He, and a lot of other people, resent the "smaller programs" because they feel the smaller programs have prevented them from doing the things they want to do over the years, which is why we are where we are.

That's what we're up against. That's how they feel about programs outside the power conferences now.

And that I agree with but then he defends the NCAA system saying that they shouldn't pay the players because they need to finance the smaller sports. Well why should we care about the small, non-revenue generating sports then? He can't have it both ways.

[waggy]

The NCAA only exists because of the big schools. They are the ones that bring in the audiences that bring the big TV contracts. So the amatuer model worked to create a somewhat level playing field. But if players start getting paid, then there is going to be line of demarcation. And it will fall along TV contract lines basically. The big schools aren't going to fund payment to student athletes all the way across the board down to the patriot league, et all. So some will get paid and some won't.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Texas is just awful. I say we give it back to Mexico and tell them sorry for making them a state after they failed as a Country.

[X-band '01]

I think one question that should be asked is what the value of a scholarship/room and board relative to the revenue that athletic department brings in every year. When colleges spend money on athletic facilities and coaches but don't completely address the issue of student-athlete well-being, of course the students are going to get upset.

And frankly this isn't an instance of where Congress needs to focus on "more important things" - especially since the education that the students are supposedly getting may not be up to snuff (see North Carolina).

[waggy]

I think one question that should be asked is what the value of a scholarship/room and board relative to the revenue that athletic department brings in every year.

Is there some established percentage this is supposed to meet? Do we have another quota on the way?

The students aren't children, they're adults. You can't force an education on an adult. The "stipend" will only further minimize the perceived value of an education.

[Juice]

Is there some established percentage this is supposed to meet? Do we have another quota on the way?

The students aren't children, they're adults. You can't force an education on an adult. The "stipend" will only further minimize the perceived value of an education.

People only treat them as "adults" when it's convenient for them. Are you old enough to play pro sports? No, you need to mature. Don't like the options between college and nothing else? Don't cry to me you're an adult.

And yes I understand that different organizations are setting different rules, but the same people who love the age restrictions also love the amateur aspect of college sports, the old keep em poor attitude.

[waggy]

People only treat them as "adults" when it's convenient for them. Are you old enough to play pro sports? No, you need to mature. Don't like the options between college and nothing else? Don't cry to me you're an adult.

And yes I understand that different organizations are setting different rules, but the same people who love the age restrictions also love the amateur aspect of college sports, the old keep em poor attitude.


No, they are legal adults. NO ONE IS BEHOLDEN TO THEM. If someone wants to give them something... money, cars, an education, whatever, then they do so as they wish and if they decide that person or persons offer some "equal" value. It's all negotiable. And people are free to say no or yes on either side of the aisle.

Is the man keeping me poor or is it because I have no value? I'd say it's the latter.

Talented people will get paid. Others will not. It's called life.

The real problem in my view is the de-emphasis of education by the schools themselves. In the name of winning they allowed persons into school that are not students. They killed their own model. I couldn't get in most schools because I hated school work. Actually any work really. But if I were a 6'-7" athlete that could shoot the rock, I bet I coulda got in a school then.

[Juice]

No, they are legal adults. NO ONE IS BEHOLDEN TO THEM. If someone wants to give them something... money, cars, an education, whatever, then they do so as they wish and if they decide that person or persons offer some "equal" value. It's all negotiable. And people are free to say no or yes on either side of the aisle.

Is the man keeping me poor or is it because I have no value? I'd say it's the latter.

Talented people will get paid. Others will not. It's called life.

The real problem in my view is the de-emphasis of education by the schools themselves. In the name of winning they allowed persons into school that are not students. They killed their own model. I couldn't get in most schools because I hated school work. Actually any work really. But if I were a 6'-7" athlete that could shoot the rock, I bet I coulda got in a school then.

/Looks at the TV contracts for the Big Ten Network, SEC Network, ESPN, ABC, NBC, etc.

/Looks at your argument

/Bangs face in with a hammer

[waggy]

/Looks at the TV contracts for the Big Ten Network, SEC Network, ESPN, ABC, NBC, etc.

/Looks at your argument

/Bangs face in with a hammer


The only constant in life is change? I'm sure it'll be fine and I'll survive it all. But it looks less and less like amateur sports. And that's not the students or athletes fault. It just is what it is I guess. I also think that paying players is potentially a huge can of worms for small schools and conferences.

I don't know if you've ever said, do you expect athletes of "non-revenue sports" to be paid too?

[Xville]

the sad part about all of this is that this is the beginning of the end of amateur sports or college sports as we know it today. If you really think that fully funding the sports and giving a stipend to players will appease them, then I have a lake out in the desert to sell you. Sure it may make them happy for a couple of years, but at some point, it is not going to be enough and they are going to want more and more. Just think back to when you first got out of college and you thought of a dollar amount that would make you happy...you then receive that dollar amount, then after a few years you think man if I could just get 20k more, I would be set. Then you get to that number and for a couple of years you are happy, then you want more and more. It is human nature to always want more, and a certain dollar amount to these guys is just never going to be enough.

Get ready for signing bonuses and salary caps in college sports because this is where all this is headed. I'm not trying to be a stick in the mud, but when this starts happening, my interest in college sports is going to be extremely minimal. Why bother or care? I'll just watch the NBA and the NFL...it will be the same stuff with just more talented players.

[paulxu]

Why bother or care?

Because I didn't graduate from Wizards University?

[Juice]

the sad part about all of this is that this is the beginning of the end of amateur sports or college sports as we know it today. If you really think that fully funding the sports and giving a stipend to players will appease them, then I have a lake out in the desert to sell you. Sure it may make them happy for a couple of years, but at some point, it is not going to be enough and they are going to want more and more. Just think back to when you first got out of college and you thought of a dollar amount that would make you happy...you then receive that dollar amount, then after a few years you think man if I could just get 20k more, I would be set. Then you get to that number and for a couple of years you are happy, then you want more and more. It is human nature to always want more, and a certain dollar amount to these guys is just never going to be enough.

Get ready for signing bonuses and salary caps in college sports because this is where all this is headed. I'm not trying to be a stick in the mud, but when this starts happening, my interest in college sports is going to be extremely minimal. Why bother or care? I'll just watch the NBA and the NFL...it will be the same stuff with just more talented players.

It's literally the same thing now. The pros are leagues with more talented players but you prefer to watch the college game because they're "paid" with a scholarship? Christ.

[Xville]

It's literally the same thing now. The pros are leagues with more talented players but you prefer to watch the college game because they're "paid" with a scholarship? Christ.
If you can't see the difference between scholarships that every Div 1 athlete playing basketball and football get (not considering the walkons), and what would become getting players by being the highest bidder with signing bonuses and contracts then I dunno how to explain it to you any further. That kind of stuff belongs in the pros, not in college. The creation of the big 10 network started all this crap and no one even watches that channel...yet we all pay for it

[Juice]

If you can't see the difference between scholarships that every Div 1 athlete playing basketball and football get (not considering the walkons), and what would become getting players by being the highest bidder with signing bonuses and contracts then I dunno how to explain it to you any further. That kind of stuff belongs in the pros, not in college. The creation of the big 10 network started all this crap and no one even watches that channel...yet we all pay for it

We should get rid of TV and watch games in person like in the old days!

[Juice]

"We have too many people in college that are only there for the opportunity to get to the next level. While creating the opportunity for kids to have a professional career and participate in the Olympics is a highly desirable byproduct of the college athletic experience, it isn't fundamentally why we're here." - Big 12 Commissioner
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11326800/big-12-commissioner-bob-bowlsby-unapologetic-power-five-vote

[X-band '01]

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

Because colleges are filled with too many kids looking to become a teacher/doctor/lawyer/accountant at the "next level."

[xubrew]

the sad part about all of this is that this is the beginning of the end of amateur sports or college sports as we know it today. If you really think that fully funding the sports and giving a stipend to players will appease them, then I have a lake out in the desert to sell you. Sure it may make them happy for a couple of years, but at some point, it is not going to be enough and they are going to want more and more. Just think back to when you first got out of college and you thought of a dollar amount that would make you happy...you then receive that dollar amount, then after a few years you think man if I could just get 20k more, I would be set. Then you get to that number and for a couple of years you are happy, then you want more and more. It is human nature to always want more, and a certain dollar amount to these guys is just never going to be enough.

Get ready for signing bonuses and salary caps in college sports because this is where all this is headed. I'm not trying to be a stick in the mud, but when this starts happening, my interest in college sports is going to be extremely minimal. Why bother or care? I'll just watch the NBA and the NFL...it will be the same stuff with just more talented players.


I think the beginning of the end started long before now.

Your argument, and the argument that many others make including many within the NCAA itself, is that paying athletes would just open up a huge can of worms. The reason I think that the NCAA was so stupid is because it's like a pilot saying "Well, we shouldn't pull the aircraft up to avoid hitting the mountains because you just don't know whether or not it'll be too big of a strain on the engines." So, they did nothing, and have seemingly metaphorically crashed into a mountain.

The NLRB ruled against the NCAA, they lost the O'Bannon Case, and not only lost but embarrassed themselves during the trial, and essentially the power conferences got their way. How many things had to happen before they realized that staying the course would not sustain anything, and would actually do the opposite of sustain it??

And....for what?? To avoid this "can of worms" that it was obvious they weren't going to be able to avoid in the first place?? For holding on to this great "amateur ideal"?? Well, that didn't work.

It's like they shook the coke bottle up, and didn't take the cap off to relieve the pressure....and now it has exploded, and I think they ended up breaking it a lot more than it otherwise would have been broken. It was the ultimate example of stubbornness.

For those who obsess over how great the amateur ideal is, I actually do watch a lot of leagues like the Patriot League, and the America East, and the Southland, A-Sun, Summit, Mountain West, Colonial, Big South, SoCon and the like. I strongly believe that all of those leagues are collectively far worse off now than they would have been had they agreed on a set stipend, and used licensing to help supplement it. But, they refused to do it, and the model that will likely be implemented will make it much harder for them to keep up.

I think the equivalency sports like soccer, softball, baseball, track, etc will also suffer a lot more. They already have a bigger gap between the haves and the have-nots. The teams that are fully funded outperform the teams that are not. Well, that gap is gonna get even bigger because the non-power schools will likely cut whatever little funding they already give them to put it towards men's basketball. Of course, in putting it toward men's basketball, it still won't be nearly enough to compete, but that's still probably what they'll do.

I valued competitive balance. I really did. I thought it was one of the things that made college basketball so great. A team like North Dakota State, in this remote area, could still get good players and put together a top forty caliber team that was better than a lot of power conference teams. I think that may be gone. The competitive balance is what will ultimately end up taking the biggest hit, and that's probably what I hate the most.

[waggy]

I really don't think the NCAA has now or has ever had any power over the big conferences. They can kick to NCAA to the curb any time they want. They were going to, and always will get it their way. In my view only a couple of things keep the big conferences around. Number 1 is the basketball tournament, and number 2 is simple collegial spirit. And really number 1 is just about fairness. They recognize that it's possible for a small school to put together 13 players and make a NC run.

I also don't buy that licensing would pay a stipend. I think the administrative costs would outstrip the value.

[Olsingledigit]

The Obanon case is more problematic because of its inherent conflict with Title IX. The judge in Obanon, a female, apparently did not take any Title IX consequences into account. So next will be the Title IX litigation. Since Obanon was really only about the very few top players who have a commercial value, any attempt to equate Title IX by saying female athletes in the aggregate should get the same amount of money as the male athletes in the aggregate INCLUDING the monies for licensing could cause a huge problem. And who gets left out of that fight? The male athlete who has no commercial value. It will at least be fun to watch how this all falls out. I am not as pessimistic as to what ultimately happens to college sports. I think they are more likely to survive this situation than the fact that brick and mortar schools might be disappearing in the next 20 years thanks to the internet.

[Pault]

I hate to admit it, but the doomsdayers on this thread are right...college sports as we have known it is GONE! Amatuer is amatuer, and pro is pro...the difference is becoming more muddled. The value of the education IS the athletes "pay!!" Its that simple, and that's been the understanding since scholarships began. I played D1 baseball, and received a miniscule scholarship "back in the day," and I was happy that all my hard work paid off! Actually, truth be known, I also paid for my own education to boot. My parents weren't saddled with that commitment for years on end. This is all about money, control and ego...all of which serve to create this mess. Project 20, 30 or longer years from now...what will we have? Frankly, it's quite likely there will be little difference between "amatuer" and "pro."

[Juice]

I hate to admit it, but the doomsdayers on this thread are right...college sports as we have known it is GONE! Amatuer is amatuer, and pro is pro...the difference is becoming more muddled. The value of the education IS the athletes "pay!!" Its that simple, and that's been the understanding since scholarships began. I played D1 baseball, and received a miniscule scholarship "back in the day," and I was happy that all my hard work paid off! Actually, truth be known, I also paid for my own education to boot. My parents weren't saddled with that commitment for years on end. This is all about money, control and ego...all of which serve to create this mess. Project 20, 30 or longer years from now...what will we have? Frankly, it's quite likely there will be little difference between "amatuer" and "pro."

So your argument is: 1) This is always how we've done it and 2) Everyone else can have money, control, ego but not the players.

Also, if you wanted a full scholarship you shouldn't have played baseball.

[xubrew]

.....The value of the education IS the athletes "pay!!" Its that simple, and that's been the understanding since scholarships began."

That was not the understanding when this all began.

http://www.riskmanagementmonitor.com/how-the-ncaa-has-used-the-term-student-athlete-to-avoid-paying-workers-comp/


We crafted the term student-athlete,” Walter Byers himself wrote, “and soon it was embedded in all NCAA rules and interpretations.” The term came into play in the 1950s, when the widow of Ray Dennison, who had died from a head injury received while playing football in Colorado for the Fort Lewis A&M Aggies, filed for workmen’s-compensation death benefits. Did his football scholarship make the fatal collision a “work-related” accident? Was he a school employee, like his peers who worked part-time as teaching assistants and bookstore cashiers? Or was he a fluke victim of extracurricular pursuits? Given the hundreds of incapacitating injuries to college athletes each year, the answers to these questions had enormous consequences. The Colorado Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the school’s contention that he was not eligible for benefits, since the college was “not in the football business.”

The term student-athlete was deliberately ambiguous. College players were not students at play (which might understate their athletic obligations), nor were they just athletes in college (which might imply they were professionals). That they were high-performance athletes meant they could be forgiven for not meeting the academic standards of their peers; that they were students meant they did not have to be compensated, ever, for anything more than the cost of their studies. Student-athlete became the NCAA’s signature term, repeated constantly in and out of courtrooms.

Using the “student-athlete” defense, colleges have compiled a string of victories in liability cases. On the afternoon of October 26, 1974, the Texas Christian University Horned Frogs were playing the Alabama Crimson Tide in Birmingham, Alabama. Kent Waldrep, a TCU running back, carried the ball on a “Red Right 28” sweep toward the Crimson Tide’s sideline, where he was met by a swarm of tacklers. When Waldrep regained consciousness, Bear Bryant, the storied Crimson Tide coach, was standing over his hospital bed. “It was like talking to God, if you’re a young football player,” Waldrep recalled.

Waldrep was paralyzed: he had lost all movement and feeling below his neck. After nine months of paying his medical bills, Texas Christian refused to pay any more, so the Waldrep family coped for years on dwindling charity.

Through the 1990s, from his wheelchair, Waldrep pressed a lawsuit for workers’ compensation. (He also, through heroic rehabilitation efforts, recovered feeling in his arms, and eventually learned to drive a specially rigged van. “I can brush my teeth,” he told me last year, “but I still need help to bathe and dress.”) His attorneys haggled with TCU and the state worker-compensation fund over what constituted employment. Clearly, TCU had provided football players with equipment for the job, as a typical employer would—but did the university pay wages, withhold income taxes on his financial aid, or control work conditions and performance? The appeals court finally rejected Waldrep’s claim in June of 2000, ruling that he was not an employee because he had not paid taxes on financial aid that he could have kept even if he quit football. (Waldrep told me school officials “said they recruited me as a student, not an athlete,” which he says was absurd.)

The long saga vindicated the power of the NCAA’s “student-athlete” formulation as a shield, and the organization continues to invoke it as both a legalistic defense and a noble ideal. Indeed, such is the term’s rhetorical power that it is increasingly used as a sort of reflexive mantra against charges of rabid hypocrisy.

[xubrew]

I don't understand why div3 sports aren't more popular. That model has been in existence for decades, and should be the destination for all those who believe div1 college athletes already get more than they deserve, and that it ruins the game. Thomas More and Mount Saint Joe's would love your support.

Everyone I know who is associated with the div3 level seems to be happy with where they are. Maybe it truly is a better world.

[GoMuskies]

I don't understand why div3 sports aren't more popular.

Because the athletes playing division 3 sports aren't very good.

[xubrew]

Because the athletes playing division 3 sports aren't very good.

I agree.

And that's one of the arguments. The talent level and quality of play is a huge factor in why div1 athletics is so popular, so the athletes themselves do contribute to the popularity level, which is why many people feel they deserve a piece of it.

[GoMuskies]

There's an argument for that. Of course, the division I athletes aren't so good that people would go see them if the universities weren't involved, either. If the Norwood Musketeers squared off against the Clifton Bearcats, it would draw flies, and no one would have heard of 99% of these kids.

[xubrew]

There's an argument for that. Of course, the division I athletes aren't so good that people would go see them if the universities weren't involved, either. If the Norwood Musketeers squared off against the Clifton Bearcats, it would draw flies, and no one would have heard of 99% of these kids.

Case and point, AAU ball.

I know we're on opposite ends of this argument, but if nothing else I hoped that I explained why I felt the way that I did. I did feel that paying stipends was the right thing to do, but on top of that I think it would have maintained a competitive balance and avoided a structure of autonomy where power conference schools can do what they want without any regard whatsoever for everyone else. I know that many feel that it was already like that, but it wasn't like that nearly to the degree that it is now. They now have the ability to set terms and make rules that the majority of non power conference schools simply won't be able to keep up with. I think there was a way to avoid that, and to maintain more of a competitive balance.

Let me ask you this, if they had approved the $2000 stipend back in 2011 and agreed to let athletes to profit off of their own likenesses (at least to a point), do you think the power conferences would have sought complete autonomy?? My opinion is that they would not have (and I'm not just basing that off of my own speculation), and we'd all be better off....at least for now.

[Juice]

There's an argument for that. Of course, the division I athletes aren't so good that people would go see them if the universities weren't involved, either. If the Norwood Musketeers squared off against the Clifton Bearcats, it would draw flies, and no one would have heard of 99% of these kids.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Would it be at the level as it is now? Most likely no but minor league baseball does pretty well in this country considering the number of teams, the towns they are in, the level of play etc. The Dayton Dragons were just sold for about $40 million dollars.

[GoMuskies]

And people have been trying minor league basketball forever without ever gaining any traction. Maybe the D-League is doing okay. Not sure.

Also, name all the minor league baseball players you know.

[GoMuskies]

Case and point, AAU ball.

I know we're on opposite ends of this argument, but if nothing else I hoped that I explained why I felt the day that I did. I did feel that paying stipends was the right thing to do, but on top of that I think it would have maintained a competitive balance and avoided a structure of autonomy where power conference schools can do what they want without any regard whatsoever for everyone else. I know that many feel that it was already like that, but it wasn't like that nearly to the degree that it is now. They now have the ability to set terms and make rules that the majority of non power conference schools simply won't be able to keep up with. I think there was a way to avoid that, and to maintain more of a competitive balance.

Let me ask you this, if they had approved the $2000 stipend back in 2011 and agreed to let athletes to profit off of their own likenesses (at least to a point), do you think the power conferences would have sought complete autonomy?? My opinion is that they would not have (and I'm not just basing that off of my own speculation), and we'd all be better off....at least for now.

I'm not sure we're on complete opposite ends of the spectrum. I could have (still could) get on board with some kind of stipend paid for by the NCAA going to every scholarship athlete at ever school. The profiting on their likeness still would be a problem to me because there's the kid at UNC trying to profit off his likeness, and then there's the kid at Xavier trying to profit off his likeness. Not the same thing.

[xubrew]

I'm not sure we're on complete opposite ends of the spectrum. I could have (still could) get on board with some kind of stipend paid for by the NCAA going to every scholarship athlete at ever school. The profiting on their likeness still would be a problem to me because there's the kid at UNC trying to profit off his likeness, and then there's the kid at Xavier trying to profit off his likeness. Not the same thing.

I realize it's not the same, which is why I'd be in favor of regulating it. I'm not entirely sure how it would have worked, but the basic idea would be to simply cap how much an athlete is allowed to make off of their likeness. ($10k, $15k, or whatever arbitrary number they came up with).

As crazy as it sounds, I actually thought doing that may help the little guys out. A key player could come off the bench at a major program, but not be the face of it. Or, they could go to an MVC type school, be the face of that program, be on a billboard in Carbondale, IL or Cedar Falls, IA, and get some money for their likeness.

Now, if there was no limit to the amount of money they could make on their likeness, then it's game over. The power conference guys win.

[xubrew]

But, at the end of the day, it is what it is now.

The power conferences will implement a stipend and/or salary (probably just a stipend), and they'll allow players to make money off of their likenesses. On top of that, none of those outside the power conferences will have a seat at the table and no say whatsoever in determining what the parameters of the new rules will be.

[Juice]

And people have been trying minor league basketball forever without ever gaining any traction. Maybe the D-League is doing okay. Not sure.

Also, name all the minor league baseball players you know.

I don't think you want me to name all of them because I actually do care about MLB prospects both for the Reds and the good ones with other teams.

I would side with Mark Cuban on the D League argument. I don't think the proper investment has been made in it.

[xubrew]

And people have been trying minor league basketball forever without ever gaining any traction. Maybe the D-League is doing okay. Not sure.

Also, name all the minor league baseball players you know.

I'm not the best person to ask. I actually know quite a few. But, I do see your point.

[waggy]

I don't think the proper investment has been made in it.


So this investment would come from the players?

[Juice]

So this investment would come from the players?

No, the NBA. But obviously the NBA doesn't need to because they just use the NCAA as their minor league system with the age restriction. The NBA does deserve blame for the situation NCAA basketball is in but obviously it's their league and can do whatever they want.

[paulxu]

If the Norwood Musketeers squared off against the Clifton Bearcats, it would draw flies,

Only in Clifton.


Also, name all the minor league baseball players you know.

Michael Jordan. 3/4ths of the Reds starting lineup.

[X-band '01]

ESPN.com - O'Bannon case appeal findings (http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/13777916/appeals-court-nixes-plan-play-student-athletes-ed-obannon-case-agrees-ncaa-violates-antitrust-laws)

The first part of the appeal is not terribly surprising - the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the initial ruling that the NCAA violated antitrust laws relating to student-athlete compensation. However, a plan that would have paid student-athletes up to $5,000/year in deferred compensation was overturned; the NCAA can still do so but they're no longer required to do so by the courts. This doesn't affect the cost of attendance stipends that the NCAA is currently paying out, though.

[SemajParlor]

Are people in 2015 still actually pushing for the "free education" argument?

[X-band '01]

Or a free watered-down education in the case of North Carolina.

[Juice]

Or a free watered-down education in the case of North Carolina.

in the case of pretty much every school*

[SemajParlor]

In all seriousness, what value does the NCAA provide? Why is the NCAA still a thing?

[paulxu]

It's the Learfield Sports of March Madness.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Free access should be what is stated and not free education. The student merely has access to it. Do any of you think paying athletes is going to be good for college sports?

If you do, look at athletic department budgets and decide for yourself. Sports that incur the biggest loss will be cut to pay athletes a salary of sports that either lose the least or make money.

With that in mind, do you really think smaller schools will be able to have those sports anymore?

[Xville]

Are people in 2015 still actually pushing for the "free education" argument?

I am. Do you know how freaking expensive college is nowadays? Without it, you are pretty much setting yourself up for "do you want fries with that?" for the rest of your life..unless of course you are a freaking genius and start Apple or Microsoft or you are one of the .1% that can make money playing with a ball. We are talking about two sports here mens basketball and football...many of those kids wouldn't even be able to go to college without their talent...they should be happy they have the talent and because of that, don't have to pay for school and can get a degree. Many of those same people are going to need that degree because only about 1% of them (i have no idea of the actual percentage) have the talent to make money playing a game.

I'm pretty tired of the "school makes so much money off of me where is my share argument" its tired and its pretty typical for the mindset of today's society. "well that's not fair" ----well life isn't fair. I wish I had that much talent so that i could be taken advantage of.

[Juice]

Free access should be what is stated and not free education. The student merely has access to it. Do any of you think paying athletes is going to be good for college sports?

If you do, look at athletic department budgets and decide for yourself. Sports that incur the biggest loss will be cut to pay athletes a salary of sports that either lose the least or make money.

With that in mind, do you really think smaller schools will be able to have those sports anymore?

No, but do you think not paying them is good for the college athletes that are the most important part of all this?

[Juice]

I am. Do you know how freaking expensive college is nowadays? Without it, you are pretty much setting yourself up for "do you want fries with that?" for the rest of your life..unless of course you are a freaking genius and start Apple or Microsoft or you are one of the .1% that can make money playing with a ball. We are talking about two sports here mens basketball and football...many of those kids wouldn't even be able to go to college without their talent...they should be happy they have the talent and because of that, don't have to pay for school and can get a degree. Many of those same people are going to need that degree because only about 1% of them (i have no idea of the actual percentage) have the talent to make money playing a game.

I'm pretty tired of the "school makes so much money off of me where is my share argument" its tired and its pretty typical for the mindset of today's society. "well that's not fair" ----well life isn't fair. I wish I had that much talent so that i could be taken advantage of.

You know you don't need athletic talent to get a free education? Why didn't you study your ass off and get a free ride?

Most people are just jealous because they wish they could do and get that of college athletes and use that as a justification why the system is "fair enough" when in fact it's still not a fair system.

[Xville]

You know you don't need athletic talent to get a free education? Why didn't you study your ass off and get a free ride?

Most people are just jealous because they wish they could do and get that of college athletes and use that as a justification why the system is "fair enough" when in fact it's still not a fair system.

Could have if I went to a different school...chose not to. Jealous that I don't have that kind of talent? absolutely...who wouldn't be? To me, the system is absolutely fair....you get to play with a ball and because you are really good at, you can go (to the school) here for free and take advantage of the system, in return the athletic department (not the school) is going to make money off of you. If you don't like it, no one is telling you that you have to go...this isn't jail....go play overseas if you are worried about making money at 18 years old.

Sounds fair to me.

[Xavier]

I am. Do you know how freaking expensive college is nowadays? Without it, you are pretty much setting yourself up for "do you want fries with that?" for the rest of your life..unless of course you are a freaking genius and start Apple or Microsoft .

Or you don't go to a school you can't afford.

[Xville]

Or you don't go to a school you can't afford.

True...and let's be honest with ourselves, a lot of where these athletes come from, there are very very few that are affordable. Sure there are some that come from middle class and above families, but there are also many that come from broken homes, low income families, and really crappy neighborhoods where the only way out is thru sports.

[xubrew]

Free access should be what is stated and not free education. The student merely has access to it. Do any of you think paying athletes is going to be good for college sports?

If you do, look at athletic department budgets and decide for yourself. Sports that incur the biggest loss will be cut to pay athletes a salary of sports that either lose the least or make money.

With that in mind, do you really think smaller schools will be able to have those sports anymore?

I think autonomy is bad for college sports.

I think a system where athletes are paid based off of cost of attendance, which the schools themselves are allowed to determine, is bad for college sports. Case and point, how it somehow costs $4000 more in addition to tuition at UC than it does in addition to tuition at Xavier. This will encourage schools to find ways to raise the cost of attendance so they can pay out bigger stipends. This is already occurring.

I also think that every school that voted down legislation that would have allowed student athletes to make the same set amount of money in addition to their scholarship over and over and over again are largely responsible for why things ended up the way that they did.

I have one thing to say to the schools that continuously bitched and moaned about how student athletes shouldn't be paid and that the stipend shouldn't happen, and that's this.....

"NICE GOING!!!!!"

Every school that was against it will likely end up doing it anyway so as to not be at a competitive disadvantage, and the amount they're going to end up paying out is more than what was originally proposed. It's like trying to cover up the fire with the living room rug and expecting the fire to go away.

....and I'm not just saying this in hindsight. If you dig up the old posts, and even look back at some of them in this thread before this whole mess happened, I said this would likely happen. I don't have to work that hard to convince everyone here that I'm not that smart, so if I could figure it out then everyone else should have as well. I love the smaller non-power schools. I actually follow them as intently, if not moreso, than the power conference teams. But, I can't defend them on this. Many of them played a huge role as to why this happened, and many of them are now much worse off than they would have been had they just agreed with the previous proposals to give players a set stipend.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

This is absolutely the worst reason to pay these students. The #1 thing should be free healthcare so kids who get hurt have access to school provided health services. Getting a salary at the detriment of other Olympic sports is absolutely the worst thing we can do. Juice, this would kill the NCAA sporting system and really college sports in general. There are already few wrestling and gymnastics programs with swimming shrinking. Baseball teams are also being shut down.

Fact is, the NCAA sports system is one of the best in the world. We have sports that kill it financially (Basketball/Football/Hockey which is barely so) and sports that operate at a loss. We still get to see those sports that operate at a loss and develop athletes in those sports AND students good at those sports get free education. Why do you want to ruin that????

Juice, do you hate soccer, swimming, golf, lacrosse, and ALL women's sports so much that you want to see them cease to exist at the collegiate level?


No, but do you think not paying them is good for the college athletes that are the most important part of all this?

[xubrew]

This is absolutely the worst reason to pay these students. The #1 thing should be free healthcare so kids who get hurt have access to school provided health services. Getting a salary at the detriment of other Olympic sports is absolutely the worst thing we can do. Juice, this would kill the NCAA sporting system and really college sports in general. There are already few wrestling and gymnastics programs with swimming shrinking. Baseball teams are also being shut down.

Fact is, the NCAA sports system is one of the best in the world. We have sports that kill it financially (Basketball/Football/Hockey which is barely so) and sports that operate at a loss. We still get to see those sports that operate at a loss and develop athletes in those sports AND students good at those sports get free education. Why do you want to ruin that????

Juice, do you hate soccer, swimming, golf, lacrosse, and ALL women's sports so much that you want to see them cease to exist at the collegiate level?

At the Power Five schools, all of those sports are getting the full cost of attendance stipend. They've announced that all scholarship athletes in all sports will get it. Schools can't just give it to football and men's basketball. In order to be in compliance with Title IX they need to give the same opportunities to women, and since football is such a large team, multiple women's teams will get the stipends.

The American, and I believe Conference USA, has said they will go ahead with it as well. Most schools, especially schools with football, will ultimately end up giving it to everyone who's on scholarship regardless of whether or not it's a revenue sport.


Thinking the schools cannot afford to do this is hilariously naïve. It really is. People don't understand how the accounting structure works in college athletics. They essentially half to spend the money they make in order to justify having it. If they don't, then they'll have to distribute it to other areas of the university. Basically having any sort of a surplus isn't allowed, which is why so many schools "don't make money off athletics." There is a school in a non-power conference that I'm aware of where most people in the athletic department showed up to work one day and realized they had been issued new apple computers, new laptops, new iPads, and new iPhones. New flat screen TVs were also put in to several of the lounges and coaches offices. No one asked for any of this stuff. Not only did they not need it, they didn't even request it. The previous computers, phones and tablets worked just fine. The reason?? It was near the end of the fiscal year and they needed to spend what was left of the budget. The old equipment, which works perfectly fine, is now just piled up. This school, like all of the rest of the 351 div1 programs, will claim that they don't make money off of athletics.

When you're buying new computers, new phones, new TVs, new cars, new exercise and training equipment virtually ever year when all of the current stuff you have works absolutely perfectly, it's ridiculous to claim you don't make money off of athletics, even though I guess you technically don't. There isn't a single div1 school that would have struggled to pay the $2000 stipend that was proposed back in 2011. Now, because they voted it down due to some falsely conceived ideal, they're actually going to have to end up paying players even more than they would have. Some WILL struggle with that.

The other trick that I like is that if you send yourself a bill, it counts as an expense. The most clever/ridiculous one I've ever heard of is a "Facilities Fee." There are athletic departments that actually charge themselves and pay themselves to use their own facilities as a way to spend money and technically claim there is no surplus. I really do admire the creativity on that one.

In a nutshell, what you don't use, you lose. So, you need to find a way to use it. That's why "Only ten schools (or whatever the number is) make money on athletics."

[X-band '01]

We're also talking about non-profit institutions here. What fascinates me is whether or not Grand Canyon (the only for-profit D-I school) will be competitive once they complete their transition after 2017.

[xubrew]

We're also talking about non-profit institutions here. What fascinates me is whether or not Grand Canyon (the only for-profit D-I school) will be competitive once they complete their transition after 2017.

I DEFINITELY think they will. At least by WAC standards. They'll have no problems paying the cost of living stipend, I can guarantee you that.

THUNDER DAN!!!!!!

[Xville]

At the Power Five schools, all of those sports are getting the full cost of attendance stipend. They've announced that all scholarship athletes in all sports will get it. Schools can't just give it to football and men's basketball. In order to be in compliance with Title IX they need to give the same opportunities to women, and since football is such a large team, multiple women's teams will get the stipends.

The American, and I believe Conference USA, has said they will go ahead with it as well. Most schools, especially schools with football, will ultimately end up giving it to everyone who's on scholarship regardless of whether or not it's a revenue sport.


Thinking the schools cannot afford to do this is hilariously naïve. It really is. People don't understand how the accounting structure works in college athletics. They essentially half to spend the money they make in order to justify having it. If they don't, then they'll have to distribute it to other areas of the university. Basically having any sort of a surplus isn't allowed, which is why so many schools "don't make money off athletics." There is a school in a non-power conference that I'm aware of where most people in the athletic department showed up to work one day and realized they had been issued new apple computers, new laptops, new iPads, and new iPhones. New flat screen TVs were also put in to several of the lounges and coaches offices. No one asked for any of this stuff. Not only did they not need it, they didn't even request it. The previous computers, phones and tablets worked just fine. The reason?? It was near the end of the fiscal year and they needed to spend what was left of the budget. The old equipment, which works perfectly fine, is now just piled up. This school, like all of the rest of the 351 div1 programs, will claim that they don't make money off of athletics.

When you're buying new computers, new phones, new TVs, new cars, new exercise and training equipment virtually ever year when all of the current stuff you have works absolutely perfectly, it's ridiculous to claim you don't make money off of athletics, even though I guess you technically don't. There isn't a single div1 school that would have struggled to pay the $2000 stipend that was proposed back in 2011. Now, because they voted it down due to some falsely conceived ideal, they're actually going to have to end up paying players even more than they would have. Some WILL struggle with that.

The other trick that I like is that if you send yourself a bill, it counts as an expense. The most clever/ridiculous one I've ever heard of is a "Facilities Fee." There are athletic departments that actually charge themselves and pay themselves to use their own facilities as a way to spend money and technically claim there is no surplus. I really do admire the creativity on that one.

In a nutshell, what you don't use, you lose. So, you need to find a way to use it. That's why "Only ten schools (or whatever the number is) make money on athletics."

Nevermind....all I'm gonna say is I don't care if the schools are making money..I don't think some do...though others like ohio state or Texas make a freaking ton. Regardless this doesn't change my opinion that college kids shouldn't be paid.

[xubrew]

Nevermind....all I'm gonna say is I don't care if the schools are making money..I don't think some do...though others like ohio state or Texas make a freaking ton. Regardless this doesn't change my opinion that college kids shouldn't be paid.

...and herein lies what is the ultimate irony. Because so many schools felt that way, college kids are now going to be paid even more than they would have had they not fought against the legislation to institute stipends. Go figure. It's way less regulated than it would have been, because now schools can pretty much determine for themselves what is needed. The more that's needed, the more they can pay, and the more they can pay, the easier it will be for them to get good players. That will greatly decrease any sort of competitive balance.

Like I said earlier, NICE GOING!!!!

College players shouldn't get a stipend because....well....they just shouldn't!! That was basically the extent of the NCAA's case. It's AMAZING that the court ruled against them with such a strong defense as that. Who saw that coming??

[Juice]

This is absolutely the worst reason to pay these students. The #1 thing should be free healthcare so kids who get hurt have access to school provided health services. Getting a salary at the detriment of other Olympic sports is absolutely the worst thing we can do. Juice, this would kill the NCAA sporting system and really college sports in general. There are already few wrestling and gymnastics programs with swimming shrinking. Baseball teams are also being shut down.

Fact is, the NCAA sports system is one of the best in the world. We have sports that kill it financially (Basketball/Football/Hockey which is barely so) and sports that operate at a loss. We still get to see those sports that operate at a loss and develop athletes in those sports AND students good at those sports get free education. Why do you want to ruin that????

Juice, do you hate soccer, swimming, golf, lacrosse, and ALL women's sports so much that you want to see them cease to exist at the collegiate level?

No I love those sports. I played soccer, tennis, and wrestling in high school. But why should basketball and football players have to fund those in less popular/revenue generating sports?

[Juice]

Could have if I went to a different school...chose not to. Jealous that I don't have that kind of talent? absolutely...who wouldn't be? To me, the system is absolutely fair....you get to play with a ball and because you are really good at, you can go (to the school) here for free and take advantage of the system, in return the athletic department (not the school) is going to make money off of you. If you don't like it, no one is telling you that you have to go...this isn't jail....go play overseas if you are worried about making money at 18 years old.

Sounds fair to me.

Name one other industry/job/field where we tell young kids that have the talent or intelligence to earn revenue to "move to Europe if you don't like it." College athletics is quite frankly anti-American and anti-capitalist. The system tells them that they're good enough but that it's tough shit and to just get f*cked for a few years until we say it's ok for them to earn money.

[Xville]

Name one other industry/job/field where we tell young kids that have the talent or intelligence to earn revenue to "move to Europe if you don't like it." College athletics is quite frankly anti-American and anti-capitalist. The system tells them that they're good enough but that it's tough shit and to just get f*cked for a few years until we say it's ok for them to earn money.

It's not an industry, job, or field....it's school. Your first priority should be to get a degree.

[Xville]

...and herein lies what is the ultimate irony. Because so many schools felt that way, college kids are now going to be paid even more than they would have had they not fought against the legislation to institute stipends. Go figure. It's way less regulated than it would have been, because now schools can pretty much determine for themselves what is needed. The more that's needed, the more they can pay, and the more they can pay, the easier it will be for them to get good players. That will greatly decrease any sort of competitive balance.

Like I said earlier, NICE GOING!!!!

College players shouldn't get a stipend because....well....they just shouldn't!! That was basically the extent of the NCAA's case. It's AMAZING that the court ruled against them with such a strong defense as that. Who saw that coming??

Are you that naïve to believe that giving them that stipend would have been the end of it? People always want more than they have...always. it would have worked for a year or two than boom..people would cry they aren't getting paid enough. It's happened throughout our entire history as a human race. This is a slippery slope we are embarking on here...it's a slope toward the eventual end of college athletics as we know it.

[Xville]

No I love those sports. I played soccer, tennis, and wrestling in high school. But why should basketball and football players have to fund those in less popular/revenue generating sports?

Because one, if they don't, those sports would cease to exist.

[muskiefan82]

At the Power Five schools, all of those sports are getting the full cost of attendance stipend. They've announced that all scholarship athletes in all sports will get it. Schools can't just give it to football and men's basketball. In order to be in compliance with Title IX they need to give the same opportunities to women, and since football is such a large team, multiple women's teams will get the stipends.

The American, and I believe Conference USA, has said they will go ahead with it as well. Most schools, especially schools with football, will ultimately end up giving it to everyone who's on scholarship regardless of whether or not it's a revenue sport.


Thinking the schools cannot afford to do this is hilariously naïve. It really is. People don't understand how the accounting structure works in college athletics. They essentially half to spend the money they make in order to justify having it. If they don't, then they'll have to distribute it to other areas of the university. Basically having any sort of a surplus isn't allowed, which is why so many schools "don't make money off athletics." There is a school in a non-power conference that I'm aware of where most people in the athletic department showed up to work one day and realized they had been issued new apple computers, new laptops, new iPads, and new iPhones. New flat screen TVs were also put in to several of the lounges and coaches offices. No one asked for any of this stuff. Not only did they not need it, they didn't even request it. The previous computers, phones and tablets worked just fine. The reason?? It was near the end of the fiscal year and they needed to spend what was left of the budget. The old equipment, which works perfectly fine, is now just piled up. This school, like all of the rest of the 351 div1 programs, will claim that they don't make money off of athletics.

When you're buying new computers, new phones, new TVs, new cars, new exercise and training equipment virtually ever year when all of the current stuff you have works absolutely perfectly, it's ridiculous to claim you don't make money off of athletics, even though I guess you technically don't. There isn't a single div1 school that would have struggled to pay the $2000 stipend that was proposed back in 2011. Now, because they voted it down due to some falsely conceived ideal, they're actually going to have to end up paying players even more than they would have. Some WILL struggle with that.

The other trick that I like is that if you send yourself a bill, it counts as an expense. The most clever/ridiculous one I've ever heard of is a "Facilities Fee." There are athletic departments that actually charge themselves and pay themselves to use their own facilities as a way to spend money and technically claim there is no surplus. I really do admire the creativity on that one.

In a nutshell, what you don't use, you lose. So, you need to find a way to use it. That's why "Only ten schools (or whatever the number is) make money on athletics."
This is also how our government works if that gives you an idea how messed up it is. There is no benefit to being financially responsible. If you don't spend it, it's gone and you will get less next year

[Juice]

Are you that naïve to believe that giving them that stipend would have been the end of it? People always want more than they have...always. it would have worked for a year or two than boom..people would cry they aren't getting paid enough. It's happened throughout our entire history as a human race. This is a slippery slope we are embarking on here...it's a slope toward the eventual end of college athletics as we know it.

They may want but they've certainly also earned it.

[Juice]

Because one, if they don't, those sports would cease to exist.

They would cease to exist at universities, not in general. The best players in the world and in America don't even go to college for those sports (except wrestling which most schools have already cut).

[xubrew]

Are you that naïve to believe that giving them that stipend would have been the end of it? People always want more than they have...always. it would have worked for a year or two than boom..people would cry they aren't getting paid enough. It's happened throughout our entire history as a human race. This is a slippery slope we are embarking on here...it's a slope toward the eventual end of college athletics as we know it.

The end of what?? The end of autonomy?? YES!! I think it would have been. I don't think they would have sought it. I also don't think we'd have a system in place where schools decide for themselves the amount of money that is required for the overall cost of living. We now have two sets of rules because the power conferences can make up their own for themselves. We also have schools basically deciding how much money they're going to pay the athletes instead of that amount being set and uniform for everyone. Those two things would have been prevented. Can you explain why you don't think they would have been??

"Well, we can't pay them because eventually they'll end up just wanting more." Not even the NCAA tried to argue that because they understood that not giving them what's fair on the grounds that they'll want more than what's fair is a comedically weak defense that would get laughed out of court. My issue isn't that they're getting paid. It's that every school will now basically be offering different dollar amounts.

"Well, they shouldn't get paid because they're there to get a degree." Again, try explaining in court that giving them a stipend somehow becomes an obstacle to them getting a degree.

[muskiekt]

It's not an industry, job, or field....it's school. Your first priority should be to get a degree.

And for many student athletes that is their first priority, not all of course but for the vast majority they are using their athletic abilities to help fund their education. I understand the argument against players being paid and I agree to a point, but I disagree that it isn't a job. I believe that college athletes should get a stipend, no matter what sport they play or how much scholarship money they receive. If the amount of the stipend varied from sport to sport I'd be okay with that as long as it was the same amount at every institution. I'd ask anyone who is opposed to student athletes receiving additional money if they worked while they were in school? If you did, did every cent you earned go directly to paying for school and none of it was used for fun money or basic essentials? A lot of the kids you and others are against giving stipends or cost of attendance money to don't come from families that can afford to send them money.

Back in the day if you were on an athletic scholarship you weren't allowed to work during the school year, so what ever money you were able to earn during the summer had to get you through the school year unless mom and pops had the funds to send you money during the year. It wasn't until 1998 that the NCAA passed Proposition 62 allowing student athletes to work year round as long as the amount they made didn't exceed $2k more than the amount of the scholarship they were receiving and this was a step in the right direction. However, most kids that play sports in college also play those same sports through the summer to stay fit and sharp, or they are spending many hours training for their upcoming season. Playing a college sport is a job in itself, it demands your time and you are receiving funds to represent the university. Like you and many others argue their first priority should be to get a degree and for the vast majority who know they will never make a living off the sport they play that is their top priority. And because of that they go to classes, then go to hours of practices and then they have hours of study. There is very little time left to work and make a little extra money.

I understand the thinking, these kids are getting full rides and that should be enough for them and they don't need anymore than that to play a sport, receive a free education and get a degree. Yes that is fantastic and it's the reason most student athletes use their athletic talents to help pay for school. There is no denying that is a huge plus and they are very fortunate that their god given talents and years of hard work allowed for that. I think where people are missing the point in all of this is that it's not about giving them another perk, it's about allowing them to do their job for the university and still be able to afford other essentials and things that regular students are able to afford or have the time to work to afford. I agree with Brew that the boat was missed when it could have been a $2K stipend across the board for every institution, now it allows for Universities to determine what their cost of attendance is and that makes it an uneven playing field. That's where the gripe should be, not that they're receiving money but the variance from University to University.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Because they can, there is quid pro quo here already with education and there is a sense of equality between the athletes.


No I love those sports. I played soccer, tennis, and wrestling in high school. But why should basketball and football players have to fund those in less popular/revenue generating sports?

[ArizonaXUGrad]

And to that Juice I introduce you to Jordan Morris. That kid plays at Stanford, has scored for the UNMNT, and has a bright future as a pro. soccer player.

Do you eliminate those sports because you want to pay a little bit of cash to some basketball players and football players? I think you are missing the biggest point in all of this....women's sports disappear entirely. Their opportunities go up in a puff of smoke because football players want some cash in their pocket.


They would cease to exist at universities, not in general. The best players in the world and in America don't even go to college for those sports (except wrestling which most schools have already cut).

[ArizonaXUGrad]

What we currently have is a system where a minority of schools make vast amounts of profits off of student athletes and live high on their effort. You also have a majority of schools that might make some profit or none at all and are operating on a year to year basis.

The high profit/high revenue sports at that majority make enough to fund the department and the loss/low revenue sports. There are a lot of kids who otherwise would not be able to afford school and play in those sports and are good enough to earn a four year scholarship. The kids who play at those high revenue sports fund those kids.

If you want reform, it should never be in the form of funneling money away from Olympic sports to put cash in the pockets of basketball/football players pockets. It should be for University provided healthcare for all scholarship athletes.

Capitalism already exists in sports, that basketball player can already go to the NDBL or the USBL and play on a professional team for a year right here in the USA. If they want higher competition, they can go to Europe.

The NCAA is broken with exorbitant salaries and ridiculous rules. Player pay just isn't a problem that needs to be fixed.

[xubrew]

No money is being funneled away from the Olympic sports. The ones that are on scholarship are going to be getting the same stipend as the basketball and football players.

No women's sports are going to be cut because of this either. They can't be because a balance must remain in order to be in compliance with Title IX. That was NEVER the proposal. The $2000 stipend that was proposed back in 2011, which was originally $5000, but cut down, was going to be supplemented in part by the NCAA. That's out the window now. The money amount that's being paid out is going to be higher, and it won't be supplemented by the NCAA.

I don't like the competitive imbalance that this will create. There was a way to avoid the competitive imbalance, and lessen the costs on the university's part, but they voted it down. And, let me once again say "NICE GOING!!!" There have already been 100+ schools that have laid out a plan as to what the cost of living stipend will be and who will get it. Not one school has cutting sports included in their plan, much less a women's team. You're arguing against it because of something that isn't going to happen, at least not at a higher rate than programs were being cut before.

[D-West & PO-Z]

And to that Juice I introduce you to Jordan Morris. That kid plays at Stanford, has scored for the UNMNT, and has a bright future as a pro. soccer player.

Do you eliminate those sports because you want to pay a little bit of cash to some basketball players and football players? I think you are missing the biggest point in all of this....women's sports disappear entirely. Their opportunities go up in a puff of smoke because football players want some cash in their pocket.

Good article you might want to read that relates to exactly what brew said that you have not addressed. Athletic departments are essentially lying when they say they arent making money.

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/college-sports-program-accounting-scam

"If we're going to have a rational debate--and make rational decisions--about the increasingly up-for-grabs future of the college sports economy, we need a better, more honest method of accounting, the better to understand how money actually moves through the system."

[D-West & PO-Z]

"In the process, it just happens to make football look less lucrative than it really is, but just because the fake price may have a good purpose, it doesn't make those expenses any less phony. Just as being short and shoving my hand into a great coat doesn't make me Napoleon, you shouldn't assume football hurts a university financially just because the accounting dresses up football profits in cost costumes. In her informative book Saturday Millionaires, sports business writer Kristi Dosh provides an excellent example of this by detailing all of the various ways that Ohio State imposes fictional costs on its athletic department (rather than real, cash-based expenditures), with the seeming goal of moving profit from sports (mostly football) to the general coffers of the school."

"Among the expenses the school charges its athletic department are $8.5 million for "overhead," "physical plant assessment," "cost containment" and "university fundraising," and another $1 million for "library renovations." (There's also $15.7 million in scholarship costs, but you can read about the fictionalization of scholarship costs elsewhere.)

Thing is, all of the above white lies--sweet bookkeeping nothings that universities tell their athletic departments for management and profit-repurposing reasons--become real lies, and damaging, once outsiders get a hold of them."

[LA Muskie]

Name one other industry/job/field where we tell young kids that have the talent or intelligence to earn revenue to "move to Europe if you don't like it." College athletics is quite frankly anti-American and anti-capitalist. The system tells them that they're good enough but that it's tough shit and to just get f*cked for a few years until we say it's ok for them to earn money.
Here's the thing: there is no real market for minor league basketball. The closest we have is the D-League. And kids are welcome to skip school and play in that league (or go to Europe) if they want. The lack of a viable (or at least profitable) minor league tells me that college basketball is about far more than just the talent of the players. It's about the name on the front of the jerseys and the alumni/fan network that supports them. College basketball is a billion dollar business. Minor league basketball is basically a break even (if that) business.

Same goes for football -- for which their is no real minor league at all, and only barely a foreign alternative.

If a market existed for these college kids to get paid for their talents at this level, the league would exist and they could play in it in lieu of playing for an education. For the vast majority of those kids, the market doesn't exist (a very small subset could probably play in the NBA/NFL right out of high school, but the leagues won't let them -- which has nothing to do with the NCAA or its institutions). So while I appreciate that the colleges make a lot of money on their $$$ sports, it appears to be the college name and associated goodwill that drives that profit.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Well done LA, for those that mentioned Title IX. Remember when it first came out, yes it added sports for women but it also shut down sports for men. In this case when you force schools to pay kids salaries, do you really think the majority of schools that don't make money hand over fist will be able to take their same budget and merely thin out expenses to the point where they can keep all their sports? Or, do you see a lot of schools being forced to cut absolute loser revenue sports for both men and women?

Fact is, the schools just killing it in revenue still have only one soccer team/swim team/track team/etc. When you take smaller schools or big schools that don't make as much revenue, they will have to pay the kids the same as well. The result will be the same revenue dollars coming in for basketball and football but a portion that must now go to existing scholarship athletes in the form of salaries. The result of all of this would be a net decrease in the scholarship athlete opportunities across D1 sports. The real question you should be asking is if that is the end result you want.

If you look at it through the eyes of the massive revenue universities like OSU/UM/KU/UK/etc you are completely missing the boat. You have to look at through the eyes of the small schools like Charlotte/Temple/and hell even Alabama Birmingham where football is just eking by. If you pay kids even just $5k/year for the 120 d1 football school at 85 players per team that is $425k now removed from the AD's budget just for them. Really it's another $425k for each associated female spot for $850k total. Toss in basketball and it moves up to $955k, soccer and it's up to $1,185k.

The questions isn't whether Ohio State can afford it, the real question is whether a Western Michigan or similar can afford it.


Here's the thing: there is no real market for minor league basketball. The closest we have is the D-League. And kids are welcome to skip school and play in that league (or go to Europe) if they want. The lack of a viable (or at least profitable) minor league tells me that college basketball is about far more than just the talent of the players. It's about the name on the front of the jerseys and the alumni/fan network that supports them. College basketball is a billion dollar business. Minor league basketball is basically a break even (if that) business.

Same goes for football -- for which their is no real minor league at all, and only barely a foreign alternative.

If a market existed for these college kids to get paid for their talents at this level, the league would exist and they could play in it in lieu of playing for an education. For the vast majority of those kids, the market doesn't exist (a very small subset could probably play in the NBA/NFL right out of high school, but the leagues won't let them -- which has nothing to do with the NCAA or its institutions). So while I appreciate that the colleges make a lot of money on their $$$ sports, it appears to be the college name and associated goodwill that drives that profit.

[xubrew]

UAB, Temple, Western Michigan, and all other non power FBS school will pay the stipends to all the scholarship athletes without cutting any of the non revenue sports. Each school is getting in the neighborhood of $1 million additional dollars per year via the college football playoff. That's enough to pay the stipends for football, men's soccer, women's soccer, baseball, volleyball, softball, track, etc. None of those schools are cutting anything. You keep bringing up something that isn't going to happen.

But, let's suppose you're right. I think autonomy is bad for college sports, and colleges getting to decide what the stipend will be on an individual basis is bad for college sports, especially since some schools will be able to pay more than others, and those schools will (not coincidentally) decide that the cost of living is higher, and therefore the stipend is higher. If the whole fear is not wanting to cost the schools more money so non-revenue sports don't get shut down, then why were so many people AGAINST a proposal where it was the NCAA that would play a big role in supplementing what was to ultimately be a SMALLER stipend?? In other words, people came out against something that would have cost the schools LESS, and resulted in the dollar amount being THE SAME. Because they did that, we have the mess that we have now.

...so for the fourth time, to those who did this...

NICE GOING!!!!!

As it stands, you still need 14 sports to be div1, and at least six of those teams have to be men's teams, which means it's more likely that the non revenue women's teams will be retained. You still need to be within the balance of Title IX. Very few programs are going to be cut as a result of this. If that's what you're afraid of, then you can relax. Now, if it's the fact that an unequal playing field just got a hell of a lot less equal, then I can understand being upset...especially since it could have been avoided, but wasn't.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Seriously, do you understand math?

85 football players
13 basketball players
Men and Women
@5k per year
This equals = $980,000 already.

That is at the lower $5k total discussed earlier and we have yet to add another of the other sports you mention. I get XU is a liberal arts school but that math is pretty basic. If you just double that to $10k you are at $1.96M already for just Football/women's 85 schollys/basketball.

I would love to have AD budgets for smaller schools to see if they can maintain even just the $5k stipend. It's nice to say they won't cut them, but the same argument was made for Title IX. The end result were sports that were cut.


UAB, Temple, Western Michigan, and all other non power FBS school will pay the stipends to all the scholarship athletes without cutting any of the non revenue sports. Each school is getting in the neighborhood of $1 million additional dollars per year via the college football playoff. That's enough to pay the stipends for football, men's soccer, women's soccer, baseball, volleyball, softball, track, etc. None of those schools are cutting anything. You keep bringing up something that isn't going to happen.

But, let's suppose you're right. I think autonomy is bad for college sports, and colleges getting to decide what the stipend will be on an individual basis is bad for college sports, especially since some schools will be able to pay more than others, and those schools will (not coincidentally) decide that the cost of living is higher, and therefore the stipend is higher. If the whole fear is not wanting to cost the schools more money so non-revenue sports don't get shut down, then why were so many people AGAINST a proposal where it was the NCAA that would play a big role in supplementing what was to ultimately be a SMALLER stipend?? In other words, people came out against something that would have cost the schools LESS, and resulted in the dollar amount being THE SAME. Because they did that, we have the mess that we have now.

...so for the fourth time, to those who did this...

NICE GOING!!!!!

As it stands, you still need 14 sports to be div1, and at least six of those teams have to be men's teams, which means it's more likely that the non revenue women's teams will be retained. You still need to be within the balance of Title IX. Very few programs are going to be cut as a result of this. If that's what you're afraid of, then you can relax. Now, if it's the fact that an unequal playing field just got a hell of a lot less equal, then I can understand being upset...especially since it could have been avoided, but wasn't.

[XUFan09]

So a little under $2 million? That's, what, 50 students at full tuition at a private school? I know most don't pay full tuition, but even when you account for what they actually pay on average, it's not a large number of students. And that's not even accounting for the ways that athletics departments make money themselves or the myriad of ways that universities make money in general.

[Juice]

Here's the thing: there is no real market for minor league basketball. The closest we have is the D-League. And kids are welcome to skip school and play in that league (or go to Europe) if they want. The lack of a viable (or at least profitable) minor league tells me that college basketball is about far more than just the talent of the players. It's about the name on the front of the jerseys and the alumni/fan network that supports them. College basketball is a billion dollar business. Minor league basketball is basically a break even (if that) business.

Same goes for football -- for which their is no real minor league at all, and only barely a foreign alternative.

If a market existed for these college kids to get paid for their talents at this level, the league would exist and they could play in it in lieu of playing for an education. For the vast majority of those kids, the market doesn't exist (a very small subset could probably play in the NBA/NFL right out of high school, but the leagues won't let them -- which has nothing to do with the NCAA or its institutions). So while I appreciate that the colleges make a lot of money on their $$$ sports, it appears to be the college name and associated goodwill that drives that profit.

If it's about the name on the jersey, why don't schools just put a bunch of white nobodies on the court who will play without stipends or scholarships? They can really exploit players that way.

[xubrew]

Seriously, do you understand math?

85 football players
13 basketball players
Men and Women
@5k per year
This equals = $980,000 already.

That is at the lower $5k total discussed earlier and we have yet to add another of the other sports you mention. I get XU is a liberal arts school but that math is pretty basic. If you just double that to $10k you are at $1.96M already for just Football/women's 85 schollys/basketball.

I would love to have AD budgets for smaller schools to see if they can maintain even just the $5k stipend. It's nice to say they won't cut them, but the same argument was made for Title IX. The end result were sports that were cut.

My math is fine. How's yours?? What are the math skills of the people who voted against the $2000 stipend?? $2000 is less than $5000, so that didn't really work out now did it??

In addition to understanding math, I understand that there is a new source of income for the very schools you're using as an example. I've mentioned it several times, but you either aren't reading my posts (which I can't really blame you for that) or you're just ignoring it because it's not helping your argument.

Most of the stipends are less than $5k. In fact I've only seen a couple that are more than 5k. The football playoff money that those schools are now getting is more than a million a year. Let's say we have 300 scholarship athletes receiving the full stipend (which is a high end number for the MAC, SBC, CUSA or AAC, but we'll just suppose it's 300. If they're receiving $5000 a year, which again is high end dollar amount (at least for now), then that comes out to $1.5 million. But, they're getting about $1.1 million for the new college playoff that they weren't getting before. So, we're talking about an increase of about $400k. That really isn't a whole lot. The 40 walk on football players that pay full tuition will more than cover that. So should the new increase in payouts from the NCAA Basketball Tournament that all the schools split. (Remember, half hte money is shared amongst all of the 351 schools, and the other half is split amongst the conferenced based on how many games teams from the conferences play in). Schools aren't planning on cutting programs.

The schools that don't play FBS football don't have as many scholarship athletes, so it doesn't cost them as much to pay the stipends.

...and it's funny you bring up Title IX. In this case, it will help assure that programs don't get cut.

...and, to make the point again, even if you're right then why were schools against the stipends BEFORE this happened?? Had stipends not been voted down, then we wouldn't have autonomy, we wouldn't different schools being able to offer different amounts, and we'd have a set uniform stipend that would have come out to less for everyone than what it's going to be now.

[XUFan09]

I actually love that someone is talking about "math" in this situation while failing to acknowledge how funky the math is for university budgets. The overarching requirement of a non-profit institution is quite obvious: You can't have profits at the end of a fiscal year. So, universities have to do absurd things like an athletics department charging itself a facilities fee in order to "spend" all that money.

The money is there at institutions of higher education. It's not always apporptioned sensibly (see the 70% of college courses taught by adjunct professors while administrative positions multiply). Still, the money is there.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I actually love that someone is talking about "math" in this situation while failing to acknowledge how funky the math is for university budgets. The overarching requirement of a non-profit institution is quite obvious: You can't have profits at the end of a fiscal year. So, universities have to do absurd things like an athletics department charging itself a facilities fee in order to "spend" all that money.

The money is there at institutions of higher education. It's not always apporptioned sensibly (see the 70% of college courses taught by adjunct professors while administrative positions multiply). Still, the money is there.

Yeah and they charge themselves for the scholarships they are giving out and they essentially make up the number, it isnt really reflective of the market value price of the scholarship. And that money they are charging themselves for scholarships never leaves the university. Those scholarships also arent taking away from admitting other paying students to the school.


ArizonaXUGrad: If you havent yet read that article I linked, please do. These schools, almost all of them not just the big ones, make lots of money on athletics that they then hide and move around to different departments and then report there was no profit, or losses. It is quite the scheme to bring on sympathy for the poor old college athletics departments.


1771

This picture is awesome with the caption underneath:
"The beautiful stuggle of the noble college football program"

[xubrew]

I spend a lot of time on buses, at airports, and in general just waiting around. The internet is a good way to pass the time when feeling irritable. But, sometimes when I go back and reread what I've written, I realize that I come off sounding like a complete asshole.

So, disregarding the part of my posts where I sounded that way, to me this is the central issue....


...and, to make the point again, even if you're right then why were schools against the stipends BEFORE this happened?? Had stipends not been voted down, then we wouldn't have autonomy, we wouldn't different schools being able to offer different amounts, and we'd have a set uniform stipend that would have come out to less for everyone than what it's going to be now.

I don't want programs to get cut because it's horrible when that happens, but I really don't think that many of them will. Having said that, autonomy being structured the way that it is, and the cost of living stipend being implemented the way that it was makes it much more likely that a few non-revenue sports programs will get the axe, which is another reason this is so frustrating to me. This could have been avoided. I really believe that. But, it wasn't, and the irony is that those who are fighting against the stipend on the grounds that it violated some sort of ethic they had kept voting down legislation that would have prevented it coming to this. Yes, athletes would have been paid (which I don't think is a bad thing in and of itself, but realize some people do for whatever reason), but the structure of it would have been much more manageable and much more fair to athletes and the schools, especially those that play non-revenue sports and/or are part of a smaller athletic department.

[waggy]

Brew do you know which schools voted for the flat rate stipend and which ones did not?

[xubrew]

Brew do you know which schools voted for the flat rate stipend and which ones did not?

I don't know of any list that exists saying which schools voted which ways. I'm sure there's one somewhere, but I have no idea how to get it. It was several years ago, and there are 350 schools. I can tell you that the Board of Directors was strongly in favor of it, which meant that 5/8ths of the schools had to vote against it to overturn it (roughly 230 or so). And, I think it's rather obvious that the current Power Five/previous BCS was largely in favor of it since it triggered them seeking autonomy once they didn't get it.

I have a general idea, but I can't tell you for certain how Lehigh (or whoever) specifically voted and show it to you on a list. There were a lot of schools from outside the BCS that spoke out against it in the press, so it's not too hard to figure out how those school's vote went.

[waggy]

And, I think it's rather obvious that the current Power Five/previous BCS was largely in favor of it since it triggered them seeking autonomy once they didn't get it.




Maybe I don't understand what you're saying here, but why would the BCS programs vote for a set stipend when autonomy is preferrable?

[xubrew]

Maybe I don't understand what you're saying here, but why would the BCS programs vote for a set stipend when autonomy is preferrable?

This was four years ago before autonomy was even being discussed. There had been rumblings of them leaving the NCAA or forming another subdivision within the NCAA, but not an actual proposal or discussion of autonomy. I do think it was clear they planned to take some sort of action id the legislation they wanted to pass kept getting voted down. And, it did.

[waggy]

Maybe they voted it down themselves.

[xubrew]

Considering the Board of Directors approved it, and 11 of the 18 members were from the 11 FBS conferences, it's not likely they'd approve something that their conference membership was against. I think a few in the Big Ten were against it, but I think it's pretty obvious that the vast majority of the BCS schools wanted the stipend.

I personally think, with what I think is good reason, that about 99% of the BCS voted for it, and about 90% of the rest of the FBS voted for it, and about 90% of everyone else voted against it.

[waggy]

Even if was largely supported by the FBS, it still doesn't mean it makes sense for the bottom half of all of D1 which primarily just play basketball. You say "good going" but I can see if it doesn't make sense for them.

[xubrew]

Even if was largely supported by the FBS, it still doesn't mean it makes sense for the bottom half of all of D1 which primarily just play basketball. You say "good going" but I can see if it doesn't make sense for them.

I think it would have been in their best interest to not give the power schools and conferences a reason to form a separate division within the NCAA, or just break off entirely. It seemed to me to have a last straw feel to it. Now, they didn't break off or form another division, so I guess it could be worse, but it is now much easier to make rules for themselves that I think give them a bigger competitive advantage than what they already had. A set stipend for all schools would not have given them that, but would have still made them happy. Now, the dollar amounts are higher, and they have a lot more power. And yeah, I kind of blame the smaller schools.

[waggy]

But the vast majority of smaller schools couldn't vote for any stipend. Now they have the flexibility to work within their budget. In some cases that might mean nothing, and in others a very small amount.

[LA Muskie]

If it's about the name on the jersey, why don't schools just put a bunch of white nobodies on the court who will play without stipends or scholarships? They can really exploit players that way.

The slippery slope argument is always a fun one isn't it? Obviously the schools need to put a quality product on the field. But what is the market value of the players themselves? For the vast majority of them it's less than than the D-League, which pays very little and in which most college basketball players could not even play.

Obviously certain programs -- Kentucky and Duke being most obvious -- are in a different class because most (if not all) of their players are NBA -- or, at minimum well-paid foreign league -- quality.

[xubrew]

But the vast majority of smaller schools couldn't vote for any stipend. Now they have the flexibility to work within their budget. In some cases that might mean nothing, and in others a very small amount.

They couldn't vote for any stipend?? I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean they didn't have the option of voting for one, or that it made no sense for voting for one?? The $2000 stipend wouldn't have been mandatory had it passed. Merely optional. Just like the stipends now. Most of the small schools are adding them, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say they couldn't vote for them before.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just trying to understand what it is that you mean.

[waggy]

My point is why would conferences vote for stipends if they can't afford them?


Most of the small schools are adding them.

Is this listed somewhere?

[xubrew]

My point is why would conferences vote for stipends if they can't afford them?



Is this listed somewhere?

Good question. Here's the answer. Most actually can afford it, which is why they're doing it. But even the ones that can't should have considered voting for it because voting it down led to what we have now, and what we have now is far more out of balance than what they voted down.

Notice how much more it costs to live and go to the school that's from Xavier's campus....

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/13549583/ncaa-coaches-believe-cost-attendance-allowance-recruiting-advantage

[MADXSTER]

I'm surprised the NCAA wouldn't come out with a max payout. Otherwise payouts will really get out of hand.

[xubrew]

I'm surprised the NCAA wouldn't come out with a max payout. Otherwise payouts will really get out of hand.

Yes, it will. That's one of the reasons this sucks so badly.

The NCAA tried to do that. They wanted a set limit of $2000. But, it was voted down because there were so many schools that wanted the set limit to remain at $0. Now, it's kind of out of their hands. The power schools have the autonomy to make the rules, and everyone else is free to keep up if they want to and are able to. There's nothing in place that will stop them from some day saying players are allowed to make MORE than the cost of attendance. They have autonomy.

[waggy]

Good question. Here's the answer. Most actually can afford it, which is why they're doing it. But even the ones that can't should have considered voting for it because voting it down led to what we have now, and what we have now is far more out of balance than what they voted down.

Notice how much more it costs to live and go to the school that's from Xavier's campus....

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/13549583/ncaa-coaches-believe-cost-attendance-allowance-recruiting-advantage

There seems to be a number of unknowns..

- The list is incomplete.
- The list doesn't say if they are paying just bball or all student athletes. For example is UC paying every athlete?
- We don't know which conferences voted which way (unless I missed it).
- We don't know how the vote question was posed (again unless I missed it), which could've had important details.

For the record, I'd much prefer a capped stipend. I'd just like to know which conferences voted which way. Without knowing that, you can't pin this situation on the small conferences.

Because the bottomline for me is this: If the FBS conferences/programs wanted a capped stipend, we'd have one.

[xubrew]

There seems to be a number of unknowns..

- The list is incomplete.
- The list doesn't say if they are paying just bball or all student athletes. For example is UC paying every athlete?
- We don't know which conferences voted which way (unless I missed it).
- We don't know how the vote question was posed (again unless I missed it), which could've had important details.

For the record, I'd much prefer a capped stipend. I'd just like to know which conferences voted which way. Without knowing that, you can't pin this situation on the small conferences.

Because the bottomline for me is this: If the FBS conferences/programs wanted a capped stipend, we'd have one.

We can't say for certain who Rush Limbaugh voted for in the last election either. I mean, we just don't know for sure.

At least entertain this possibility. The conferences who were heavily represented on the Board when the stipend was passed, and then basically threatened to leave the NCAA altogether if they couldn't get the legislation they wanted, probably voted for the stipend. If they voted for it, then virtually everyone else had to vote against it in order for it to be overturned.

But, yeah, we don't know for sure. Just like we don't know for sure how Evangelical Christians voted on gay marriage prior to the Supreme Court ruling, or how NRA members would vote for laws pertaining to more gun control.

[OH.X.MI]

- The list doesn't say if they are paying just bball or all student athletes. For example is UC paying every athlete?

Ya that's a very interesting question. I wonder if Title IX would require a school to make "equal payments" to male and female athletes even if payments aren't given to every sport.

[LA Muskie]

Ya that's a very interesting question. I wonder if Title IX would require a school to make "equal payments" to male and female athletes even if payments aren't given to every sport.

Of course it would. It's a student athlete benefit. If 100 men's scholarship athletes get $5k stipends (approximating football and basketball) then 100 women's scholarship athletes must get $5k stipends.

[XUFan09]

Because the bottomline for me is this: If the FBS conferences/programs wanted a capped stipend, we'd have one.

If that's your underlying premise, it's shaky. The FBS schools wield disproportionate influence on the direction of the NCAA, but when an issue comes down to an actual vote, they still only represent 128 of the 351* members of Division 1. With that minority status, they can't just get whatever they want. They could have voted unanimously (unlikely) and got votes from 45 non-FBS schools and still came up short of a majority.



* One or two are not yet full-voting members, I believe, but that doesn't change much in the overall ratio.

[waggy]

We can't say for certain who Rush Limbaugh voted for in the last election either. I mean, we just don't know for sure.

At least entertain this possibility. The conferences who were heavily represented on the Board when the stipend was passed, and then basically threatened to leave the NCAA altogether if they couldn't get the legislation they wanted, probably voted for the stipend. If they voted for it, then virtually everyone else had to vote against it in order for it to be overturned.

But, yeah, we don't know for sure. Just like we don't know for sure how Evangelical Christians voted on gay marriage prior to the Supreme Court ruling, or how NRA members would vote for laws pertaining to more gun control.


This seems a little over the top. I think it's a legitimate question as to who voted what and what the exact parameters were.

[waggy]

If that's your underlying premise, it's shaky. The FBS schools wield disproportionate influence on the direction of the NCAA, but when an issue comes down to an actual vote, they still only represent 128 of the 351* members of Division 1. With that minority status, they can't just get whatever they want. They could have voted unanimously (unlikely) and got votes from 45 non-FBS schools and still came up short of a majority.



* One or two are not yet full-voting members, I believe, but that doesn't change much in the overall ratio.


Yeah I screwed this up. For some reason I was thinking that FBS was roughly half the conferences. Maybe that's all D1(?), but not even sure about that.

[xubrew]

This seems a little over the top. I think it's a legitimate question as to who voted what and what the exact parameters were.

I can't figure out if you're being contrary just for the sake of being contrary or if you're actually not sure why I think it's obvious where the nay votes came from. I say that as a person who has done the former many times for the sake of passing the time. But, in case you're being the latter, let me try explaining it like this....

The board of directors approved the $2000 stipend, which meant that it could only be overturned by a 5/8ths majority. There were 355 schools that voted (I guess there are three or four schools classified as div1 that don't play div1 basketball). The result was that it was overturned.

Now, chances are the schools that were stomping their feet, and talking about forming their own subdivision (div4) and/or leaving altogether, were the ones that voted FOR the stipend. I don't think you're that far out on a limb when you assume that.

It would have taken about 230 votes against the stipend to basically veto the board. If the power schools and most of the rest of the FBS voted for it, then you're not out on a limb to assume that those voting against it were the smaller schools and conferences. A very high percentage of them would have had to in order to get the 5/8ths majority to overturn it. Several of them were also very outspoken against it claiming they either couldn't afford it (which is strange considering that they can somehow afford it now), or that it violated some ethic they had about amateur athletics.

[waggy]

Now, chances are the schools that were stomping their feet, and talking about forming their own subdivision (div4) and/or leaving altogether, were the ones that voted FOR the stipend. I don't think you're that far out on a limb when you assume that.



Probably. Maybe.

Look again at list you posted. Schools are all over the map. And you expect them to come together on this issue? And just a quick review of some of the reports have most schools paying well over $2K. So maybe some schools (the footstompers as you call them) rejected it because $2K wasn't enough.

I don't like the current free for all one bit. My first preference would be no stipend at all. Next would be an across the board uniform stipend. But I don't think a uniform stipend is possible given the huge disparity in programs. One thing that would be preferable to what we currently have is a uniform stipends inter-conference. This would benefit conference members, and I can see this possibly gaining some traction. You heard it here first.

[xubrew]

Probably. Maybe.

Look again at list you posted. Schools are all over the map. And you expect them to come together on this issue? And just a quick review of some of the reports have most schools paying well over $2K. So maybe some schools (the footstompers as you call them) rejected it because $2K wasn't enough.

I don't like the current free for all one bit. My first preference would be no stipend at all. Next would be an across the board uniform stipend. But I don't think a uniform stipend is possible given the huge disparity in programs. One thing that would be preferable to what we currently have is a uniform stipends inter-conference. This would benefit conference members, and I can see this possibly gaining some traction. You heard it here first.

I just don't think it makes any sense to think the power schools voted against it on the grounds that $2k wasn't enough. If $2k wasn't enough, then $0 was a lot less than enough. I also think that getting it through the first time would have made it easier for them to raise it later on. Had the amount been $200, I think it would have been voted down. Had it been $6000, I think it would have been voted down. I think a lot of the schools just felt it was violating some sort of ethic, so it didn't matter how much or how little the dollar amount was.

I also don't think the vast majority of schools ever thought the power schools would leave or move to do their own thing, which was a huge miscalculation. I think they should have worried about this, but didn't. As of now, the stipends are based on what an individual university's financial office deems the overall cost of living to be in addition to the scholarship. If they decide a student needs $3000 because of additional meals, or parking, or additional supplies such as a computer, or whatever, then the stipend is $3000. If that value is deemed to be $4000, then the stipend is $4000. That's why schools are all over the map.

I think what you're going to start seeing more and more of, and are actually already seeing, is schools coming up with ridiculous ways to increase the supposed cost of living, so they can raise the level of the stipend. So, yes, we have a current free for all. I also think that within the next few years we're going to see the Power Five pass a rule stating that you can pay athletes more than the cost of living. Which, they can do, since they're autonomous now.

The schools are not paying more than $2k because they didn't feel $2k was enough back in 2011. They're doing it because if they want to stay competitive they don't have a choice. The power schools voted for it. I really think it's far fetched to think otherwise. 11 of the 18 people on the Board of Directors were from the 11 FBS conferences. They approved the $2000 stipend. They would not have done this if the schools in their conferences didn't want them to.

[SemajParlor]

I'm pretty tired of the "school makes so much money off of me where is my share argument" its tired and its pretty typical for the mindset of today's society. "well that's not fair" ----well life isn't fair. I wish I had that much talent so that i could be taken advantage of.

I don't like how people dismiss the work it takes to become a D1 athlete.

[xubrew]

I don't think there's anything particularly out of whack about having a stronger appreciation for something that's not about money. Obviously, people who do volunteer work, or community service or mentoring, or coaching in youth leagues, or whatever, aren't doing it for the money. Having said that, I also think the people who champion the "ideal" of amateurism don't understand just how much revenue is generated from div1 athletics. If you were a volunteer coach for a youth league, and you later found out that the league organizers were making tens of millions of dollars and then made statements like "We're not paying anyone. It's not about the money." then chances are you'd feel differently about that league. If you volunteer to do community service, and then learned that the agency was rolling in money raised from donations and keeping well over $90 percent of it for themselves, you'd probably look for another community service opportunity.

I know college athletics aren't entirely the same thing, but it generates the same kinds of feelings. People say "It's not about money," yet many of those same people collect seven figure salaries. "We can't afford it," and you know for a fact that they can.

I don't know how this type of rule could ever be put in place, but if we could arrange for it to be a requirement that a percentage of the revenue generated off of athletics be given to the general university fund, I'd be much happier. When I say revenue, I mean just that. Revenue. Not surplus because as it was explained above, surpluses are easily avoided by athletic departments finding ridiculous ways to spend all the money they have and then claim they don't make any.

I'll go further than that. Coaching salaries are exempt from Title IX, and I don't think they should be. If these are non-profit academic institutions that receive federal funding, then Title IX should guarantee equal opportunities and equal resources. How is it that coaching salaries do not fall into that category?? The last time I counted, there are over 70 FBS football coaches, and over 100 div1 men's basketball coaches that make a base salary (not including bonuses) of over $1 million a year. You can count the number of women's coaches who make that much on one hand. That's a little disproportionate, don't you think. If you really are against it being about the money, then you'd probably agree with me when I say that men's coaches shouldn't be making that much. A mere six figures instead of seven figures would still make them the highest paid 'educators' on campus, which is what coaches technically are. And, it would also free up a whole lot of money that could go to the school, to the other programs, and hell, maybe to stipends.

I understand that some fans appreciate this ideal of amateurism. But, I also think they don't understand the ways revenue is generated, and then used, in college athletics. If they did, they'd probably...well...NOT appreciate it.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

This thread sucks. Yes people, I get how athletic departments are non-profit and being a former government auditor (and one that audited non-profits) I know all the tricks to reduce and eliminate profitability.

In order to objectively approach this issue you must look at it from the small school, but not so small that they don't have a football team perspective. To keep looking at it through the eyes of USC/OSU/Michigan/etc is to do the topic a complete disservice. Those schools make insane amounts of money off of sports and should never have a problem continuing to do so. The other smaller schools are the ones that must be examined to ensure that any type of additional expense can be shouldered by the department and still allow them to remain competitive.

Quick google, 2013-14 scholarship limits for D1 schools by gender.
Men's 224 * $5k = $1.120k
Women's 250 * $5k = $1.250k
Total $2.370k represents the max

I then head over to USA Today for total revenue by athletic department and scan from the bottom to the first FBS football teams and I hit...Ball State total revenue $23.5M. That is just total revenue not including help from the state. Do you really think Ball State at $24M'ish of revenue can absorb a new expense line that represents 10% of total revenue? Do you think they can do it to the extent of keeping other sports? Do you think they can absorb that cost and have any hope of expanding and improving their athletic program?

There is a good reason why smaller schools most likely voted 'no' and will continue to do so.

[xubrew]

This thread sucks. Yes people, I get how athletic departments are non-profit and being a former government auditor (and one that audited non-profits) I know all the tricks to reduce and eliminate profitability.

In order to objectively approach this issue you must look at it from the small school, but not so small that they don't have a football team perspective. To keep looking at it through the eyes of USC/OSU/Michigan/etc is to do the topic a complete disservice. Those schools make insane amounts of money off of sports and should never have a problem continuing to do so. The other smaller schools are the ones that must be examined to ensure that any type of additional expense can be shouldered by the department and still allow them to remain competitive.

Quick google, 2013-14 scholarship limits for D1 schools by gender.
Men's 224 * $5k = $1.120k
Women's 250 * $5k = $1.250k
Total $2.370k represents the max

I then head over to USA Today for total revenue by athletic department and scan from the bottom to the first FBS football teams and I hit...Ball State total revenue $23.5M. That is just total revenue not including help from the state. Do you really think Ball State at $24M'ish of revenue can absorb a new expense line that represents 10% of total revenue? Do you think they can do it to the extent of keeping other sports? Do you think they can absorb that cost and have any hope of expanding and improving their athletic program?

There is a good reason why smaller schools most likely voted 'no' and will continue to do so.

Yes, I do think schools like that can afford it, because...

a) Many have actually decided to pay it
b) For the I-don't-know-how-may-ith-time THE NON-POWER FBS CONFERENCES ARE GETTING OVER A MILLION BUCKS A YEAR IN FOOTBALL PLAYOFF REVENUE THAT THEY WEREN'T GETTING BEFORE!! You keep ignoring that.
c) they're not cutting sports. What FBS school outside the power five has announced that they will cut sports because of the stipend??

There is something else that you don't seem to understand, or if you do understand it you've just decided to ignore. What the schools voted "NO" to was something that would have ultimately cost them a lot less money than what they're now having to spend. It was a $2000 stipend that the NCAA would have helped supplement. So, it really wouldn't have even cost the schools $2000 per student. So, even if it was their concern, they ultimately ended up needing to spend more of their own money in order to remain competitive.

Those schools will not continue to vote "No" for one very obvious reason. There won't be any more votes. It's over. The power five now has autonomy and doesn't need their approval anymore. They're now in a position to where they have to match whatever the power five does in order to remain competitive, which a lot of them are now trying to do, and are doing, despite "not being able to afford it" four years ago.

[LA Muskie]

I honestly don't care how much money the schools make vis-a-vis the benefits the student athletes get. That was the bargain each side made -- and it has been the bargain that has existed practically since college athletics were born.

No one is forcing college-aged athletes to attend school and forego a professional career at the age of 18. Even for football and (to a lesser extent) basketball, whose professional leagues render you ineligible until you are 20 (NFL) or 19 (NBA) years of age. If you don't want to go to school and play for a degree (or at least some degree of education) then you can test the professional waters.

Because I apply the capitalist/market-driven model on both sides, I also don't begrudge student athletes fighting for a bigger piece of the pie -- or for the schools paying it, if they choose to do so.

[LA Muskie]

XUBrew, I agree with just about everything you have said so far. I think the non-FBS schools probably made a strategic mistake in not accepting the $2k stipend when they could have.

That said, I think the slippery slope likely would have materialized anyway. Once that bridge was crossed, it is almost inevitable that at some point the FBS schools would have wanted to pay more. And it's not just because they can. It's because they WANT, have always WANTED, and will always WANT the competitive advantages attendant to being FBS schools.

Separately, if the federal District Court and 9th Circuit decisions are instructional (and I think they are), a fixed stipend -- in any amount -- would have violated antitrust laws. Heck, the one main thing over which the 9th Circuit quarreled with the District Court's decision was setting an artificial $5k limit.

[D-West & PO-Z]

This thread sucks. Yes people, I get how athletic departments are non-profit and being a former government auditor (and one that audited non-profits) I know all the tricks to reduce and eliminate profitability.

In order to objectively approach this issue you must look at it from the small school, but not so small that they don't have a football team perspective. To keep looking at it through the eyes of USC/OSU/Michigan/etc is to do the topic a complete disservice. Those schools make insane amounts of money off of sports and should never have a problem continuing to do so. The other smaller schools are the ones that must be examined to ensure that any type of additional expense can be shouldered by the department and still allow them to remain competitive.

Quick google, 2013-14 scholarship limits for D1 schools by gender.
Men's 224 * $5k = $1.120k
Women's 250 * $5k = $1.250k
Total $2.370k represents the max

I then head over to USA Today for total revenue by athletic department and scan from the bottom to the first FBS football teams and I hit...Ball State total revenue $23.5M. That is just total revenue not including help from the state. Do you really think Ball State at $24M'ish of revenue can absorb a new expense line that represents 10% of total revenue? Do you think they can do it to the extent of keeping other sports? Do you think they can absorb that cost and have any hope of expanding and improving their athletic program?

There is a good reason why smaller schools most likely voted 'no' and will continue to do so.

You seem to be missing the point, it isnt only the USC, OSU, and Michigan's making money and hiding it, it is also the "smaller schools" too. And as XUBrew said many are already paying the stipends.

[SemajParlor]

That was the bargain each side made -- and it has been the bargain that has existed practically since college athletics were born.

No one is forcing college-aged athletes to attend school and forego a professional career at the age of 18. Even for football and (to a lesser extent) basketball, whose professional leagues render you ineligible until you are 20 (NFL) or 19 (NBA) years of age. If you don't want to go to school and play for a degree (or at least some degree of education) then you can test the professional waters.

.

I agree with this on paper - However you can say this about any law or rule that some view as unjust, though. This is why many people are calling for change...

[LA Muskie]

I agree with this on paper - However you can say this about any law or rule that some view as unjust, though. This is why many people are calling for change...
This is true, but only to a very small extent. We have minimum wage laws. You need to pay an employee at least the minimum wage. Beyond that, you can make millions -- or billions -- off their labors and not pay them a dime more. At least legally. They can always refuse to put up with it anymore. At which point, at least theoretically, market forces intervene.

I haven't run the numbers, but I would imagine the value of their education and the related benefits far exceeds any conceivable minimum wage. If that's the case, then I don't think it's something that can or should be legislated. That would leave individual or collective action -- although the latter was rejected by a regional office of the Dept. of Labor this year when Northwestern University football players attempted to form a union.

[Xville]

I'm excited for the time when people think it is unjust that high school athletes aren't getting paid. I'm sure that will be next. All I know is I want residual checks.....my high school took advantage of me!

[SemajParlor]

This is true, but only to a very small extent. We have minimum wage laws. You need to pay an employee at least the minimum wage. Beyond that, you can make millions -- or billions -- off their labors and not pay them a dime more. At least legally. They can always refuse to put up with it anymore. At which point, at least theoretically, market forces intervene.

I haven't run the numbers, but I would imagine the value of their education and the related benefits far exceeds any conceivable minimum wage. If that's the case, then I don't think it's something that can or should be legislated. That would leave individual or collective action -- although the latter was rejected by a regional office of the Dept. of Labor this year when Northwestern University football players attempted to form a union.

Fair point - I actually agree with a lot of what you say here. I was going to make the same point about minimum wage laws. The call to increase min wages in many areas is a good example of how the employer - employee relationship, even when legal and somewhat mutually beneficial can and arguably should be legitimately challenged.

[SemajParlor]

I'm excited for the time when people think it is unjust that high school athletes aren't getting paid. I'm sure that will be next. All I know is I want residual checks.....my high school took advantage of me!

Actually, I'm sure it won't be.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I'm excited for the time when people think it is unjust that high school athletes aren't getting paid. I'm sure that will be next. All I know is I want residual checks.....my high school took advantage of me!

This is dumb. Just shows a total lack of understanding of what is being discussed.

[94GRAD]

I'm excited for the time when people think it is unjust that high school athletes aren't getting paid. I'm sure that will be next. All I know is I want residual checks.....my high school took advantage of me!


This is dumb. Just shows a total lack of understanding of what is being discussed.

I think the total lack of understanding is that he is being facetious.