Unionization of the NCAA

[The Oi]

But again, Jigo, I don't understand how hoping to achieve parity for the sport overshadows the ethical dilemma of the players not getting paid?

If the sport suffers, then so be it. But having guys play for miniscule amounts of money while an organization makes billions is exploitative, don't you think?

Great points.

But...

First things first...let's be straight (or at least more fair) about the numbers. The amount of money these guys are "receiving" is really more equivalent to the cost of yearly tuition +room and board + fees per semester not covered by scholarship * the number of years they're at the school. In addition to that, their travel, meals, medical care and near everything else that would be lumped into benefits or business expenses if they were employees of a standard company are free.

Now their "salary" (scholarship) is, of course, scaled to what the cost of education is at each university they play for. Their salary at Florida Gulf Coast is significantly lower than it would be at Harvard for example, because Harvard is a more expensive school. There's also the element that there's some level of value to playing for one coach or one program over another from a prospect stock standpoint. That's not easily calculable from a dollars and cents standpoint as it's more comparable to an advanced stat than a PPG, APG, RPG type of statistic. But the reality is that if the exact same quality of player plays at a mid-major that gets zero television coverage were to play at Kentucky or Duke and be televised and scouted every game of his career, there'd be a significant bump in his draft position if only due to the amount of exposure he received during his career. Additionally, he'd likely be competing against better teams and playing in a better system which would help to eliminate those questions that bump a guys draft stock down like, "he didn't play against many tough teams," "he scored in a system notorious for padding one player's stats at the cost of everyone else's," etc etc.

Bottom line...there's one easily calculable value to what these guys are receiving (money) and one that's a little more difficult to calculate but that's certainly there (opportunity). And these two elements vary from school to school.

So I just think we should be straight on what's REALLY being afforded to these guys rather than categorically writing off what they're receiving as the equivalent of a minimum wage salary and nothing else. Because that's just not true.


Now, for the kids that aren't going to be NBA or NFL basketball players, there's also a level of value to attending one school over another from a career standpoint. If you're a star on the Harvard basketball team and without your sports skillset, you'd have gone to a good school like Penn State...you're at an automatic advantage over the PSU guy just by virtue of where you were educated. You're done playing basketball after your fourth year, but now you're coming out of school as a student-athlete that went to Harvard. That's a BIG opportunity for someone who otherwise, might not have qualified for a school of that caliber. And you don't have to use Harvard as an example, as even with athletes they're still supremely picky with their student body. You can scale that down all the way to kids who would get into a school like OSU when otherwise they'd have been relegated to no college at all or a community college.

Not that you are, but let's not pretend that these guys aren't being "paid" the equivalent of let's say somewhere between a $20k-$60k salary per year + benefits depending on the school.

Now with all that said...

YES. There is a clear argument to be made that these kids are being exploited. There's a clear level of value that each kid contributes from both an individual and team level. And some kids provide more value to their team than other kids do. Some programs provide more value than other programs do. Some schools provide more value than other schools do.

Was John Wall more valuable to KU than Josh Harrellson? Absolutely. If one were to pay them salaries, should Wall have been paid more? Of course.

Bottom line...did John Wall provide more value and sell more tickets and merch for Kentucky than Kentucky would have made if he'd have been replaced with Mark Krebs? Of course. Would Kentucky have sold as many tickets or merchandise if Cousins was replaced with Harrellson and all the other key contributors replaced by below average players? No. And even if they did, it would have been related moreso to the history of the program and expectation of future success than the current performance of the team.

So are college phenoms like John Wall and Derrick Rose and Anthony Davis being taken advantage of by not receiving a salary for the year or two they're in college? Sure. They're not receiving the money they would if they were in the NBA at that time and they're providing irreplaceable value for the time they're at the school.

But we should have some perspective. So to answer your next question...

But does that give them the right to exploit the players? As of now, NCAA players are being told, you cannot take a negotiable salary because the association and the school need the profits. But again, is that really necessary?

What would be helpful here would be to analyze the revenue generated by a school's sports programs as compared to the expenses associated with the sports program. So to put this back on you, if for every $1m that Kentucky basketball generated in revenue while John Wall was there, they spent $999k...would you still say John Wall should have been paid $2m per year, Cousins $1.5m per year, etc, etc?

If the margins are razor thin in sports and schools are generally operating at a loss in other departments...is it right to tell that school that they need to go in the red year after year?

Basically...if a school could demonstrate to you that it would need to lose money year over year in order to pay it's players accordingly, would you still say they should have to do so?

Here's Texas as an example
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...longhorns-athletics-revenue-expenses/5062161/

UT athletics produced $166m in revenue and had $147m in expenses in 2013. I can't tell if this factors in scholarships, but I'm assuming not considering that a scholarship is more of an opportunity cost than an actual cost. If you figure the amount of tuition, board, fee money lost by offering players scholarships, you'd have to figure they gave up somewhere between $10-$50k per athlete based on the total cost numbers for UT below.

http://bealonghorn.utexas.edu/whyut/basics/finances

Now here comes some really scientific math :chuckles:

So you figure, above the $147m in expenses, they probably gave up pretty close to an additional $10m-$20m in tuition, room and board and fees across all of their athletics programs.

If you were to have to offer salary above and beyond the scholarships, a monster like UT athletics would probably have operated a significant loss. The football team alone would have eaten into that revenue in a major way.

And then project those numbers to much smaller schools and imagine the immense cost they'd have to take on to pay their players. Could ANY of these mid-major schools EVER afford a top tier player?

So bear with me, knowing that my math here is obviously very unscientific, and just consider my overall point... If you knew for a fact that paying athletes to their true value would cause a university to drop SIGNIFICANTLY into the red, would you still think they should do it? Would you still believe that the players were being UNNECESSARILY taken advantage of?

I also disagree with the notion that a basketball minor league would be bad for college basketball. For someone like me, it would make it actually watchable. I'd enjoy seeing highly competitive and highly skilled players play in a league, rather than average joes fumbling around the court. I don't really care for college ball unless I'm watching it to scout a player for the NBA.

I agree regarding only watching college bball to scout a Wiggins or Parker or other elite prospect that could realistically be had by the Cavaliers. Because otherwise, aside from the tourney...I really don't watch it. But I'm not certain I understand what you mean by a basketball minor league. Do you mean that you'd be converting the NCAA into a minor league with salaries commensurate to those in the NBA and the value of the player to the franchise? Or are you saying that the UK's and OSU's of the world would be the NBA with salaries commensurate to the NBA and the mid-majors would be the NBDL with salaries commensurate to the NBDL?

In any case...those schools already are essentially the minor leagues EXCEPT it's far more exciting for fans and much better for revenue because they get to play against and compete with those teams on a regular basis. Minor league teams only play NBA teams in lame exhibition games every once in a while with nothing at stake.

Again, if you force these smaller schools to have to pay their athletes, not only will they go way into the red but they'll never be able to afford even the quality of players they're currently giving scholarships to play there.

But then again...maybe the Ivy League schools with massive endowments suddenly become competitive...

I think so, yes. Again, if that player is worth $2m to that franchise, why is he not being paid? For team parity?

That and the immense cost to already very expensive ventures that are often producing razor thin "profits" that I mentioned above.

If that's the case then his form a draft, union, and a collective bargaining agreement to parse these players among the teams.

Well, that's what they're trying to do. We'll see if they're successful, but I personally hope not.

 

[Maximus]

Honest question: what's wrong with that? On a basic level? "Jimmy, we'll pay you $2M to play at OSU? C'mon.." Is that really a bad thing?

At that point they're professional athletes. They might as well not even be attached to the universities anymore. All of the sports should just have a minor league pro system, like baseball. IF they don't want a free education and want to be a pro and get paid, go the minor league route. If you want to be an amateur, get free education, room and board, and get showcased for the pros, then go to college.

It's just a slippery slope once you open this door of playing players. Next thing you know high school players will want to be paid too. There needs to be a line drawn between amateur and professionals...i like the way it is.

Paying kids unlimited sums would devastate college athletics. Teams with the most money would win. Tuition, which is already going up at a geometric rate, would go even higher as schools look to offset revenue they now have to share with players. Smaller schools would probably fold a lot of programs rather than be winless and losing money.

 

[Clevelandfan15]

At that point they're professional athletes. They might as well not even be attached to the universities anymore. All of the sports should just have a minor league pro system, like baseball. IF they don't want a free education and want to be a pro and get paid, go the minor league route. If you want to be an amateur, get free education, room and board, and get showcased for the pros, then go to college.

It's just a slippery slope once you open this door of playing players. Next thing you know high school players will want to be paid too. There needs to be a line drawn between amateur and professionals...i like the way it is.

Paying kids unlimited sums would devastate college athletics. Teams with the most money would win. Tuition, which is already going up at a geometric rate, would go even higher as schools look to offset revenue they now have to share with players. Smaller schools would probably fold a lot of programs rather than be winless and losing money.

You are right and make great points. You are looking at it from a competition/amateur standpoint however, I keep coming back to the ethical issues. Ethically speaking, I would say college athletics are already devastated. The commercialization of college sports by these universities has changed the game. I think that is what makes this such an issue. In theory, the commercialization of these sports are turning student-athletes into entertainers and they are being exploited in numerous of ways. Mainly by not being fairly compensated, which is unethical.

The question we have to ourselves is if its okay to continue to exploit student-athletes the way they are now. I don't think its okay and college athletics can't stay the way it is. Change is coming and it is inevitable in my opinion.

 

[The Oi]

Y
The question we have to ourselves is if its okay to continue to exploit student-athletes the way they are now. I don't think its okay and college athletics can't stay the way it is. Change is coming and it is inevitable in my opinion.

But what if most or all of the schools simply can't afford to pay the players?

How would you fix that?

 

[Maximus]

You are right and make great points. You are looking at it from a competition/amateur standpoint however, I keep coming back to the ethical issues. Ethically speaking, I would say college athletics are already devastated. The commercialization of college sports by these universities has changed the game. I think that is what makes this such an issue. In theory, the commercialization of these sports are turning student-athletes into entertainers and they are being exploited in numerous of ways. Mainly by not being fairly compensated, which is unethical.

The question we have to ourselves is if its okay to continue to exploit student-athletes the way they are now. I don't think its okay and college athletics can't stay the way it is. Change is coming and it is inevitable in my opinion.

To send a kid to some of these colleges is $200K-$250K. Ask any kid or parent that has that much in loan debt whether or not college athletes are being fairly compensated. Forbes magazine recently valued a football scholarship at over $2M for player on a top 25 who would have not pursued a degree if it weren't for the scholarship.

Only 10% of D1 schools athletic departments make money. Starting to pay the scholarship athletes is going to hurt the 99% that don't have scholarships.

Something else to think about for the players that want to be paid instead of receiving scholarships. Their $250K scholarship was tax free. Once they start earning a salary they will need to pay taxes. I see paying players helping out only the most elite players in the country...the majority would probably have been better off with a scholarship. Holdouts should make for fun too...and, of course, when players start asking for trades. :chuckles:

 

[gourimoko]

To send a kid to some of these colleges is $200K-$250K. Ask any kid or parent that has that much in loan debt whether or not college athletes are being fairly compensated. Forbes magazine recently valued a football scholarship at over $2M for player on a top 25 who would have not pursued a degree if it weren't for the scholarship.

Only 10% of D1 schools athletic departments make money. Starting to pay the scholarship athletes is going to hurt the 99% that don't have scholarships.

Something else to think about for the players that want to be paid instead of receiving scholarships. Their $250K scholarship was tax free. Once they start earning a salary they will need to pay taxes. I see paying players helping out only the most elite players in the country...the majority would probably have been better off with a scholarship. Holdouts should make for fun too...and, of course, when players start asking for trades. :chuckles:

I don't think most players who enter professional sports actually cared what college they went to; at least, with respect to academics. I think it was almost entirely driven by what sports program was available at a particular school.

I think that if you started with a league-based system, even if franchised out to schools as pro-sports teams are to cities, you could find a more equitable solution than simply not paying the players.

 

[bob2the2nd]

To send a kid to some of these colleges is $200K-$250K. Ask any kid or parent that has that much in loan debt whether or not college athletes are being fairly compensated. Forbes magazine recently valued a football scholarship at over $2M for player on a top 25 who would have not pursued a degree if it weren't for the scholarship.

Only 10% of D1 schools athletic departments make money. Starting to pay the scholarship athletes is going to hurt the 99% that don't have scholarships.

Something else to think about for the players that want to be paid instead of receiving scholarships. Their $250K scholarship was tax free. Once they start earning a salary they will need to pay taxes. I see paying players helping out only the most elite players in the country...the majority would probably have been better off with a scholarship. Holdouts should make for fun too...and, of course, when players start asking for trades. :chuckles:

the other thing you missed here max is Football is a HUGE cash loss for almost all colleges (Except for the major names). Those colleges rely on the smaller sports and their tuition/athletic fees just to keep the football team going. I have huge problems with players getting paid or being able to sell their name or however it breaks down. Maybe if every single athlete is getting a slice of the pie and its all even, then thats something.

also someone here pointed out the daily show clip of the kid from UCONN saying he was hungry because he didnt have any food.. ABSOLUTE, BULLSHIT. jon stewart should have called his ass out. the kid at the very least is getting a stipend from the university plus a full out meal plan. If he is hungry he has exhausted his meal plan, exhausted his stipend, both, or more likely is totally full of shit. College athletes may not get everything they want but they are well paid.

also its really important to point out right now that 99% of college athletes will in no way ever make money off of the sport they play in college.

 

[MJA1080]

I think a system where you pay players would require a cap on positions to avoid any issues. A QB could only make X amount of dollars per semester. Not sure of how helpful this would be, but maybe take the averages of the jersey sales per position and figure a percentage of that to be the max a QB could be offered.

When people are talking about how this would hurt universities I think the salary figures in our head are much higher. I don't think any of these guys should make anywhere to pro money, but is 20-30k a year realistic? That's not a bad start and could help out a lot of families of these athletes.

 

[The Voice]

Making top high school basketball players go to college for a year really was a tipping point for this imo.

Guys like Anthony Davis, Andrew Wiggins etc are not student athletes. They are more like employees.

Either make guys go for 3 years like with football or let them start making money right away if they want.

I can understand extra benefits, but as a student paying my own way, I don't exactly have a ton of sympathy for those complaining while getting free tuition.

If they really want to get paid, they do have an alternative to go overseas and play for money.

 

[The Voice]

I think a system where you pay players would require a cap on positions to avoid any issues. A QB could only make X amount of dollars per semester. Not sure of how helpful this would be, but maybe take the averages of the jersey sales per position and figure a percentage of that to be the max a QB could be offered.

When people are talking about how this would hurt universities I think the salary figures in our head are much higher. I don't think any of these guys should make anywhere to pro money, but is 20-30k a year realistic? That's not a bad start and could help out a lot of families of these athletes.

You do realize that only big schools make money in football right? I mean most mid majors like the MAC schools lose money.

 

[The Oi]

If they really want to get paid, they do have an alternative to go overseas and play for money.

YES

The real solution to this problem is that these players absolutely have a choice if they want to make money right away. They can skip college and if they're good enough to have been a contributor for a college program, they're probably good enough to play for a professional European team or Aussie team or Chinese team etc and (a) get paid and (b) gain invaluable experience playing basketball against players of similar talent levels to the NCAA. Then if they want to come to the NBA once they feel their skills are developed and their draft stock is at it's peak...come on back.

There's nothing forcing these players to stay in the United States to play if they don't like the system as is.


(1) Cut out the one and done rule and let them hit the pros whenever they want. That was always a stupid rule.
(2) Tell them to shove off and play outside of the US.

Now nobody's forcing these guys to play for free if they're good enough not to.

 

[Ohio]

Fuck the NCAA nigga
Let a young nigga get paid nigga

HOV's thoughts

 

[The Oi]

So do we all agree that there's far more downsides than upsides to paying these kids a salary?

I spent a lot of time on those posts...

 

[Maximus]

So do we all agree that there's far more downsides than upsides to paying these kids a salary?

I spent a lot of time on those posts...

Yes. We'll done. I'm locking this one up!

 

[The Oi]

Thanks pal. You were always my third least favorite poster.