Monocle Outlays Reaching Dangerous Levels

All discussions involving monocles begin and end with Colonel Klink:

Between you, Gassaway, and Big Ten Geeks, there was more rational thought on this matter than has appeared in traditional media in the last 20 years.  Thank you.

"and that goes for every team sporting a coach making too much money relative to revenues (in case you are wondering: this is all of them)"

i'm not sure you can say this in light of added value and supply and demand.  it really is a coaches game

that said, i agree that if they wanted to pay athletes the money could probably be found, and some would probably come from coaches' salaries

is greater than it necessarily has to be.  I read in the Canham book that the athletic department pays out of state tuition for all scholarship athletes.  If it wanted to could pay in-state for those who lived in Michigan, but chooses to do so to help benefit the University. 

I keep seeing the 27 number being thrown around for how many teams we have, but on MGoBlue there are only 25 sports. Which two am I missing?

If we assume for a second that the NCAA won't cling to it's ideal of the amateur student athlete until its dying breath, I think the biggest problem becomes defining which schools (and which teams of those schools) would pay players.  Only schools with revenue-producing athletic departments?  Only revenue-producing teams? 

How much does a team have to make before it has to pay players? One dollar? 

Also, who is going to police the finances of schools?  Further, will all players for all Big Ten teams (for example) be paid the same? Or will players get a cut of their school's profit, so that you might make $20,000/yr at Michigan and $5,000 at Indiana? 

I don't mean to sugest that these questions are unanswerable, but they are difficult. 

Brian-You've alluded to Paul Finebaum a couple of times in the past few weeks. After spending 11 long years in Birmingham the mere mention of that muck rakers name places me perilously close to restless bowel syndrone. I now live in Columbus so please have mercy on me.

if all student athletes were to get a "salary" of the minimum wage multiplied by the max number of hours that the NCAA allows for games and practice (not conditioning, films, training table, tutoring, etc) which is currenlty 20 hours, i think i would be cool with that.  the wage could be raised by a percentage for every year the player stays.

so if a freshman football player makes $7.25 x 20 hours / week x approx 20 weeks practice and games, that would be $2900 a year.  lets say there are 20 freshman, that would be $58,000 for them, and the wage raises by 10% per academic year (63.8k for20 soph, 69.6k for 20 juniors, 75,4k for 20 seniors).  this means that the whole football team would make $267,100 for the entire year or about 1% of michigan's annual seat licenses at $250 each for 110,000.

i don't know how many athletes there are at michigan, but they would all get the same amount. i guess you could also localize the wage for local cost of living, but that is too much for this post.

i know this isn't much across the entire academic year, $85 a week, but its better than nothing and it keeps a level playing field across all sports and universities.

I really hate when people cast this in terms of race.  Football and basketball bring in money because of their large fanbases.  Lacross not so much because of its relatively small fanbase.  Race doesn't play a factor in why this comes about, and in my view, it should not factor in to the discussion. 

If you want to talk about what the revenue athletes get in exchange for generating a bazillion $$ for the university, they get a lifetime advantage in the job market.  If a kid plays for Michigan football, he can get in the door of just about any job in the state of Michigan (assuming he meets the qualifications).  Once in an interview, with any Michigan alum or fan, that kid has a huge advantage.  Who wouldn't want to shoot the shit with a member of Bo's teams?  It is an instant advantage in job searching, and it lasts a life time.  For many of these kids - from underprivileged minority backgrounds - they go from someone who might be at an instant DISadvantage in a job search relative to comparable applicants to having an instant advantage. 

This lifetime benefit does NOT exist for the "non-revenue sport" athletes such as wrestling or golf. 

So yes, revenue sport players generate more benefit for the school, but they also get benefits that other athletes do not get.

Keep in mind that some of the money these schools are making goes to the corrupt bowls like the Fiesta Bowl.  It's insane that people that contribute almost nothing like these bowls do get such a huge slice of the income generated by the athletes.

Does the current NCAA scholarship rules allow for any kind of stipend as a part of scholarship packages?  I know plenty of academic scholarships that feature that, and some modest spending cash will take care of the athletes who are content with the usual college student beers and pizzas without having to pick up a part-time job on top of their athletic and academic full time jobs.

I think it does play a role in perceptions and cannot be so lightly dismissed. Football and basketball players tend to get plucked out of much more impoverished settings to play in the first place, which impacts in many ways,

but I don't think you're necessarily right about jobs and future outside sport. Just the other day someone was quoting some MSU football players to the effect that they wished they had studied something. M players may do better because they also absorb some schooling, because other grads do well, etc. This issue, too, has nuances, and--yeah--you may get a job at a car dealership in Starkville, some patronizing pats on the back, because you went to Mississippi State, but 99% of players are not stars, even at the best schools/on the best teams.

---

Intended as reply to Michgoblue, two doors down.

The rich major Bowl organizers should put some of their profits into scholarship for deserving students who may not be able to afford college.

HC wages seem to be increasing exponentially but many colleges are willing to pay $$$ for the best coach and a top program that may result.  I like that Brady Hoke considered the Michigan job his dream job and did not care about the $$$. When I read that during the coaching search I was pulling for him to be our coach.

I'm not sure if we should pay players for playing. The smaller schools who do not generate income from their football program would be at a disadvantage. I could see this expanding from one basic low wage to increased compensation for the team starters and the size of the school you are playing for.

How many of us who went to school at UM would actually pay to play for Michigan, if we had anywhere near the talent to be on the team. I know, I would have! My childhood dream was to play on the UM football team. But unfortunate I did not have the speed or talent. But it was always fun playing High school football dreaming about playing for Michigan!

I've been an agnostic about paying players for a long time, but the ESPN doc about the Fab Five has somewhat changed my mind.  As I believe Brian pointed out, the most compelling part of the doc comes when Chris Webber faces the press corps after losing to UNC in the championship game. 

Maybe it was seemingly five-mile walk Chris Webber had to make from the court to the locker room, while phtographers snapped hundreds of pictures inches away from his face that changed my mind.  Maybe it was the assistant coach telling Webber in the locker room that he "had to" go face the questions from the press.  Maybe it was the relentless, "Chris, I hate to do this to you, but can you try to describe your infinite sadness a little better than you did for the previous ten questioners?"  I just don't think you can force an athlete to go through those three things and still call them an amateur.

The problem isn't that players are playing for free. that's what they do in high school. The problem is they are getting compensation (scholarship) that not all of them really want. But they should. They should really, really want a degree in a good major and if they don't understand this, their school has taught them literally nothing.

Since the cohort of players who can make a reasonable claim to being "exploited" is vanishingly small (players who won't get huge pro contracts in 1-2 years if they want to in revenue producing sports at schools with self-supporting athletic departments), is this really a problem that needs solving? Especially since the cost of paying players will fall primarily on athletes (and tuition-paying students) at not-powerhouse schools or in non-revenue sports. Even the most "exploited" college athletes still get a much better opportunity than they would in a world without college sports, so it doesn't seem worth the likely harms of cutting off that opportunity to many students to pay revenue-sport players (since paying players would likely lead to the elimination of non-revenue sports at most schools). It seems we'd like to extend the opportunity for free college to as many athletes as possible (increased scholies, per Brian's suggestion) - but paying players will have the opposite effect.

The people really raking in cash from college sports are the TV networks and the bowl games - my suggestion would be that they (contractually, as part of their NCAA deals) set aside part of their profits to a fund, managed by the NCAA, that provides need-based stipends / supplementary scholarships to student athletes and their families.

There is a much easier way to do this than what you guys are proposing.

Just get them drafted out of high school, with an agreement with the NCAA that those players can still play in NCAA while being under a contract with an NFL team.

The team pays the player whatever they want(same as a minor league contract). The colleges get them ready for NFL and players can leave after junior year or whatever.

I personally would not go along with this plan if I am a university president. But it is the most sensible way to go in paying the players.

The problem is that there are several catagories of athlete in the mix. For the guys that ultimately have any degree of success in the pros, the system works. Yes they might be exploited for a few years, during which time the wide exposure that money brings helps them showcase their talent. They get their payday. I think of it as a poorly paid surgical intern who has to do a lot of scut work but knows that there will be a pay off at the end.

The second catagory is the athlete with no reasonable hope of making money or a career from the sport and recognizes the deal. By doing this sport which (hopefully) I enjoy, the university will pay me back with an educational opportunity. I would put many of the revenue back ups and role players and the non revenue athletes in this catagory. There are many success stories in this group.

The next two groups are more problematic. First is the player that ultimately won't get a pro payday but doesn't realize it or hasn't thought beyond college and either fails to take advantage of the educational aspect of a scholarship or is not equipped to. This is where Whitlock has a good point. Many of these guys are grist for the mill and are not necessarily churned out any better on the other side. The NCAA and the individual schools need to do a better job than "just trying to keep them eligible". Either more rigorous admissions (which would deprive them of the opportunity) or more appropriate and realistic academic programs that they can use when their educational days are over.

The last catagory is probably a subcatagory. The player with pro potential whose payday is derailed by a college injury, like Prothro. If this player has taken advantage of the education, at least he has options. If not, he truly has been exploited.

For many reasons others have pointed out, significant payment to athletes is problematic. Schools with money vs schools without. Revenue sports vs non-revenue sports. Star players vs role players.

I don't have the answers. I do believe the system works for many. The stars who ultimately go pro and the others who are able to use the educational opportunities of their scholarship. In my opinion, there are many however that are failed by the current system.