Tunsil Admits Taking Money From Coach
Laremy Tunsil asked if he took money from a coach. "I'd have to say yeah."
— Hugh Kellenberger (@HKellenbergerCL) April 29, 2016
April 29th, 2016 at 11:16 AM ^
Fine.....................Give them a few tousand a month, but make them pay for their education.
April 29th, 2016 at 11:40 AM ^
What if that player's fair market value, including all of the revenue he generates for his school, is well in excess of even the value of a scholarship? Plenty of private sector companies will pay for employee's tuition as a benefit, plus a salary (and health benefits! and maybe 401k matching!) on top of that, and I doubt you are bitching about it. You are just screaming to under-compensate the players relative to their fair market value because... reasons.
is that it will need to be closely regulated. Every contract will need to be approved and there will be some limitations.That will be messy and would still be rife with cheating. There are still going to be plenty of boosters who are willing to pay recruits to come to their schooll, whether there is a legitimate reason to give them money or not. Either that or we're just going to allow coaches to connect recruits with bagmen who are offering cash for essentially nothing. I know some are in favor of that, but I don't like what it would entail.
It's hard to see how this wouldn't also include agents. We can't expect kids to negotiate contracts on their own. Then we're going to see the typical issues between agents and coaches about how players are used. Here the agents would have far more leverage than in pro sports. Their clients are all free agents to start, can transfer at nearly any time or leave early for the NFL.
Those are the scenarios we're looking at if we change the rule. It's not going to just be players getting paid to appear in advertising and getting a share of jersey sales. Jersey sales are another messy issue. The schools can decide which jerseys to promote and the coaches get to decide who gets the lucrative numbers. How much would #1, #2 and now #4 be worth at Michigan? That would seem to lead to lot of problems within teams.
April 29th, 2016 at 11:44 AM ^
Why does it have to be "closely regulated"? Why shouldn't a player be allowed to accept gifts, and make decisions based off of that? You selected your job based on who offered you the most money, but god forbid a football player with marketable skills worth millions makes the same decision for the same reasons. And again, so what if they hire an agent? They are already making a decision in deciding what school to attend that will effect their future earnings to the tune of multiple millions of dollars, but if they are allowed to seek professional advice on that decision, clearly the world will end.
use of their name or image is anything different than just just letting them take unlimited gifts. I suggested that should be able to hire agents in that situation. it's unreasonable if they couldn't. But agents will do more than just make deals for players. They'll have a lot of influence in other areas.
I think that would be bad for college football. Just because changes might be good for players doesn't mean they would be good for the sport. Right now the problem with college football is that the players have too little say in their welfare. There's a lack of balance now and that could go the other way too. Imagine the NFL with no draft and no salary caps. It would exciting for some, but probably poor for the long term popularity of the league.
April 28th, 2016 at 11:03 PM ^
The out of state players at Michigan already get compensated about 250,000 dollars from tuition, books, coaching, training, meals, housing etc. They're making it out alright.
Now, let's say because you are a brilliant engineer, you are hired for your skills to be the Chief Engineer at Ferrari. Your compensation includes a free Ferrari for yourself.
Now, just because you a) didn't want one or b) could never afford one, isn't the value of what you received still the free market cost of that car?
Also, I know out of state student athletes that came to Michigan without a scholarship. Not every sport gives full scholarships. Don't be stupid.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
April 29th, 2016 at 10:14 AM ^
You're off to a good start, but let's hone that analogy a bit.
Let's say that every car manufacturer in the world decided that they would ONLY compensate their engineers in the form of giving them a free car, and they all colluded to provide no salary whatsoever. And that these companies further colluded to fire any engineer who attempted to sell their free car, or allow others to drive it in exchange for money, or have someone else pay for gas or maintenance, or who accepted money from fans of the car brand, such as Ferrari racing fans. Further, those manufacturers set strict rules about where else those engineers could work in their off time (of which they had little, since they were working for the car manufacturers for 50+ hours per week), such that it was impossible for those engineers to provide for their families, even though they are performing a difficult task with an enormous level of skill.
There, now you have a more apt analogy.
April 29th, 2016 at 10:50 AM ^
The debate, to me, is really how much more beyond the lifetime value of attending college for free is entitled to the athlete. And that debate starts with defining the value of the free education. You can clearly assign known costs as value, but the tricky part is what future earning does that enable? That's highly variable based on discipline.
So if SDW is lamenting about how the student athlete wouldn't be coming here without a scholarship, the lost education financial benefits are a component of debate, as well.
It's a very complex and nuanced issue, to say the least, that goes far beyond throwing around the term straw man and calling people stupid.
That's all.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
April 29th, 2016 at 11:46 AM ^
You are already receiving health insurance, possibly 401k matching, training in your profession, and office supplies from your job. Why should they have to pay you on top of that? You seem to be making out alright.
April 28th, 2016 at 11:03 PM ^
Other paying students should have had a marketable/profitable skill then
April 28th, 2016 at 11:07 PM ^
If players really wanted to get paid they could play AFL or CFL. Only 20 some ADs turn a profit so it wouldn't really work. Michigan isn't like every college athletic department.
April 28th, 2016 at 11:33 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
This is because they have to pay for other non-revenue generating sports.
April 28th, 2016 at 11:23 PM ^
You want to profit off your marketable skill then don't do it under the guise of student-athlete. Pool investors and start a league if you want to make profit off of your football skills.
You start paying players then you will have a significant drop in Division 1-A football programs. You make NCAA football into NFL-lite then you will have a boring corporate product. Oddly enough many in this community opposed David Brandon's reforms but if you start paying players then you will see many more Brandon type athletic directors.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
April 28th, 2016 at 11:07 PM ^
Cmon, you and I know that some athletes like Desmond Howard, Charles Woodson, bring far more revenue in jersey sales and endorsements to a University than tuition money, so the little tuition money is no compensation for services rendered.
Personally I'm LMFAO because its Ole Miss and Hugh Freeze. We have been talking on this blog about them cheating for years. There needs to be a revenue sharing plan for athletes in all seriousness.
April 28th, 2016 at 11:39 PM ^
Michigan Football pulls in quite a bit of money. Add onto that the free advertising that Michigan gets for the University itself by being able to sell a good football team along with good academics. The 85th scholarship player on the team brings in more revenue than the costs of his education (i.e. 128 credit hours of general studies, dorm housing, training table meals).
Any scholarship player has value as they provide
1. Depth
2. Scout team looks
3. Future starting talent because they are underclassmen
You know who benefits from the system more? Coaches, Atheltic Directors, Conference Commissioners, NCAA administrators, Bowl administrators, and so on.
Why do you think all of these people are paid salaries over six figures? What, exactly, did Citrus Bowl administrators do to justify earning that money?
I'm not going to argue relative salaries for the administrators because i think I'm probably on your side there. ADs do a lot, I imagine no one is complaining about Jim Hackett and his salary. Harbaugh? Yeah, he's worth it, as are the assistant coaches. They get paid to train the players and having the best available coaches and facilities go along with all the academic support and scholarships the players get.
But none of that is actually my point. My point is that Michigan could find a lot of guys to play that role of depth, scout, future talent because they're Michigan and therefore, those guys benifit more from the football team/university than the the other way around. There's only a handful of guys you could say are not falling into that category.
Maybe a better example is the starting QB at Alabama. Usually he's more of a game manager, not a star. Wins a ton of games, but they could probably find a number of other qbs who could do that job and win a lot of games. So that QB benefits greatly in terms of marketing by being the QB at Alabama because he's a star who is not really a star. This year that guy is ranked the #18 qb in the draft and he won the national championship. If he was in Nike comercials, it would be because of his affiliation as the starting QB at Bama, not because he's a star. Should Bama get a cut of the deal? Put another way, if he was the starting QB at TCU this year (#17 according to Mel), he might not get the same recognition in terms of selling his image.
April 28th, 2016 at 11:11 PM ^
Also, football players in particular are extremely undervalued. How would sharing the huge pile of money with players be a slap in my face? The money has to go somewhere.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
April 28th, 2016 at 11:20 PM ^
Other paying students don't generate millions in revenue for being "good" like football players do. The better and more popular the player, the more $$$.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
April 28th, 2016 at 11:29 PM ^
Michigan's athletic department was in the red this year. Yeah it generates a lot of money but all of it is spent on athletics. You could argue that it creates an avenue of donor access to the school but it does not directly add revenue into the general fund. Not every school was fortunate enough to run slightly in the red this year. I just read an article this week that reported EMU students have to pay close to $1000 a year just to support their football program.
April 28th, 2016 at 11:36 PM ^
April 29th, 2016 at 12:32 AM ^
April 28th, 2016 at 11:35 PM ^
There's tons of players like Bushell Beatty or Shallman who haven't contributed anything alongside guys like Peppers or Butt. Should they also be paid millions of dollars? I think athletes should be able to appear in commercials and whatnot. I think there's a lot of issues with outright paying players such as title 9 and the programs who can't afford it like Washington State or Purdue.
April 29th, 2016 at 12:49 AM ^
The
C'mon guys. This is easy. It isn't socialism or communism or any other everyone-gets-the-same-size-piece-of-the-pie-ism.
Stars get more cuz they sell more jerseys, photos etc.
I never said the schools athletic dept had to pay them. Boosters, endorsements, and other options available for pay.
In almost any other endeavor there's no rules against kids making money. A kid on a scholarship in computer sciences uses what he learns at UM to make an app. He isn't banned from making money by the NCAA. It's a stupid rule and leads to stupid things like this.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Have you heard of scout teams?
even if JBB and Shallman never play a meaningful snap they provided meaningful depth (aka we wouldn't be down to 180 lb ROTC cadets who played some linebacker in high school) and scout team looks (so our first string guys don't have to waste time learning how to execute the opponent's schemes and plays to practice against)
I don't think anyone is advocating that Jabril Peppers should make Jim Harbaugh money. I thought most people would be okay with paying out a stipend to at least give everyone a stipend in lieu of a part time job since football is essentially their job. I think that would be no different than getting an acadmic full ride and getting paid to work as a tutor or in a research lab for 20 hrs/wk.
April 29th, 2016 at 12:44 AM ^
In a free market the players at least can negotiate side deals with advertisers for the value of their name/identity. And they should be able to negotiate a piece of the huuuuge pie the schools get every year.
Anyone who pretends its a good and proper system right now is delusional. You are just a fat cat (so to speak) telling yourself you are happy with the status quo. But the status quo is communist. How or why do we permit it? Because we are afraid of change? How American is that?
That said, rules are rules and you dont get to cheat just bc they are dumb rules. A few bucks for an electric bill aint all that. But who believes this was the only payment? Thats the problem. Its not a $300 electric bill -- its ONE $300 bill out of undoubtedly many.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
...sports are ALWAYS a weird mix of 'capitalist' and 'socialist' rules.
The NFL is very socialist. Huge revenue sharing (i.e, re-distribution), worst performers get the best draft selection slots, private use stadiums built with tax dollars for billionaire owners, etc., etc.
NBA has salary caps.
MLB has salary a floor.
NCAA has all sorts of rules to limit competition and level the playing field, including a rules that limits 'compensation' to the scholarship.
Sports leagues do not work very well without substantial socialist features. The only real debate is over which socialist features should be used.
Moreover, not everything in the world is or should be allocated on strict free market principles.
Universities don't allocate scare slots in the entering classes on free market principles. They don't put the seats up for bid to the highest academically qualified bidders. They instead allocate the seats to the best/most hihgly qualified students regardless of ability to pay and then subsidize those who can't pay the full tuition price. That is socialist, not free market capitalist, allocation of a scarce resource.
True. But the original post alleging 'communism' seemed more to complain about what is really socialism, right?
April 29th, 2016 at 11:02 AM ^
because, while they redistribute wealth among the property owners, they also allow individuals to seek their market value.
I'd say college sports is communism. The "government" decides what someone will get, and it's the same for everyone. They even dictate what food their citizens can receive without it being an "improper benefit." That's far beyond socialistic redistribution. That's state control of all private transactions.
The fallacy with your argument: In the NFL and NBA and MLB etc., the players collectively bargained for the pay plans. They were freely negotiated and the players, using whatever leverage they had (or didn't have), agreed to take the terms of the deal. That IS the free market.
NCAA completely the opposite -- players have never ever had a say in their "pay" (scholarship + $500 gift bag at bowl + nothing else). NU (YTNU) players tried to organize and look how far that's gotten them.
Look, I am NOT a union guy. Not saying I'm in favor of unionizing CFB players. I'm just saying, they have never ever had a say in the matter. If the top college player said he was going to hold out if he didn't get a gamecheck... he's be watching. (Well, that, or the bag men would just drop it off at Mama's house.) Point is, there is NO free market in CFB -- completely the opposite of the pro sports.
So you just basically proved my point. SCOOOOOOOOORE!
Try again.
The reason or the way that socialist policies came about in the NFL, MLD, NBA, etc. is irrelevant. The fact that players unions agreed to socialist rules does not convert the socialist rules into free market capitalist rules.
Moreover, owners (as a unit) and unions (such as all NFL players collectively) reaching a collective bargaining agreement is not free market capitalism. A particular owner bargaining with a single player, with neither subject to limits of a union contract, is unfettered free market capitalism.
It may be a problem that NCAA football players 'never had a say' in structuring the system (as players' unions have, to a degree, in the NFL, MLB, etc). But that is not an issue of capitalism versus socialism.
There is 'no free market' in college athletics (at least regarding players and teams selling and buying labor). But there is no free market in the major pro leagues either. It is a highly regulated labor allocation system (salary caps, minimum salaries, re-distribution, drafts, etc. etc.).
The non-free market rules in the pro league athletes are more favorable for the players than the non-free market rules in college football. But neither the pro leagues' or CFB 'labor' is allocated in anything close to free market capitalist systems.
Sports leagues need a healthy dose of socialist policies to make them competitive. Otherwise they become imbalanced and not very entertaining.
The key is to adopt socialst rules that will promote competitive balance, but at the same time be fair to the players, member teams, etc.
I agree that the current NCAA system is not always fair to the players.
April 28th, 2016 at 11:45 PM ^
Given the size of the money cannon that the Michigan fanbase has, that if paying players became legal it would be a very good thing for Michigan.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Games are supposed to be fair. Everyone starts out with the same amount of money in Monopoly. That's not communism. The NFL has a salary cap to try to make it fair. Otherwise the rich team always wins (Yankees) and people stop caring. That's why Alabama and Ole Miss paying players is cheating and ruins it. Small schools theorhetically have a chance to beat the big schools. It is what makes college football great. It's admirable that we want the rule to change so that we can pay players legally, but it defeats the point.
April 28th, 2016 at 10:47 PM ^
April 28th, 2016 at 10:49 PM ^
One of Alabama's assistant coaches is getting fired over recruiting violations.
April 28th, 2016 at 10:50 PM ^
April 28th, 2016 at 10:52 PM ^
Missed it when the Tunsil hack exploded.
April 28th, 2016 at 10:51 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
April 28th, 2016 at 11:02 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
April 28th, 2016 at 10:52 PM ^
you mean there are players in the sec taking money? why I never ....
April 28th, 2016 at 10:52 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad