Come On Down

June 17th, 2013 at 10:27 AM ^

I like the idea of increasing scholarships to the full cost of attendance and allowing college athletes to pursue endorsement deals. I don't think that either one of these things would damage the "amateur" model.

restive neb

June 17th, 2013 at 12:55 PM ^

Allowing football players to get paid for endorsements would certainly damage the system and the amateur model.  I'm sure that as soon as they could be paid for endorsing products, most of the Oregon team would become paid spokesmen for Nike.  It would be an end-around in which a university still could not pay the players, but major program boosters could.  The universities with the richest boosters would have the ability to attract the most talented high school players because they would be paying out the highest "endorsement" deals.  While it may not be the wrong thing for the players in the short term, it would ruin competitive college football in the long term, as the richest programs have an even easier, unregulated path.  While the playing field is not currently level, allowing players to be paid for endorsements would flip it on edge.

justingoblue

June 17th, 2013 at 1:23 PM ^

but if Nike was really interested in making Oregon the premier program in college football, why don't they have the most highly paid coaching staff right now? All of the coaches get endorsement deals, so why doesn't Nike bankroll a fifteen million dollar coaching staff at Oregon?

I think the big distinction is that Nike isn't interested in Oregon being anything special; Phil Knight is the one with that interest. A quick search doesn't show that Nike has given anything significant to Oregon beyond a standard apparel deal and a few apparel exclusives that seem normal given their proximity.

Knight isn't going to be able to go to a shareholder meeting and justify pouring excessive amounts of money into endorsement deals for a twenty-five member class. Also, I doubt Clowney or Manziel would get any less interest from Nike because they play for South Carolina or TAMU.

restive neb

June 17th, 2013 at 2:39 PM ^

While your critique of my post with regard to the specific example of Nike is fair and accurate, the basic problem is still there.  Publicly traded companies are not likely to operate that way, but there are plenty of privately held companies owned by program boosters that would suddenly have 85 new endorsement deals as soon as they were allowed.

umjgheitma

June 17th, 2013 at 10:34 AM ^

that all the schools in the 6 power conferences would be able to financially support such changes. Plus asking 16-17 year olds to choose agents seems like a recipe for the greaseballs of the world to pounce on the naivete of the young. Does the full insurance not exist currently? I feel disability might not but I was unaware the students had a deductible to pay for their injuries...

ChosenOne

June 17th, 2013 at 11:06 AM ^

From what I hear, whatever the parent's insurance doesn't cover the school does. So essentially they shouldn't be paying anything. I didn't read the article but this is what I've heard from athletes at a smaller D1 school.

Jon06

June 17th, 2013 at 11:57 AM ^

Your worry is that their current exploitation will make way for much worse exploitation because agents will somehow manage to take more than 100% of the increase in their benefits, right? Not even Terrelle Pryor is stupid enough to agree to something like that. Agents are usually licensed by the leagues they work with anyway, so it wouldn't be very hard to require minimally acceptable agreements.

Section 1

June 17th, 2013 at 11:16 AM ^

"With sports playing an increasingly vital role in the finances of some major-conference universities, and with the courts questioning long-held beliefs about what amateur athletes deserve, the collegiate landscape is shifting in an unavoidable reality—change is coming." 

Which universities is the author referring to? Where do "sports" play an increasingly vital role in the finances of major-conference universities?

Not Michigan. Our Athletic Department operates independently, and is self-sustaining. The University general fund gets a little bit out of athletics, insofar as grants in aid for football players are all paid at out-of-state rates. But it is a financial technicality for the university.

Ditto Ohio State, and (I think; I don't much care about Pennsylvania) PSU. Michigan State's athletic department operates independently; it is neither a drag on university finances nor a windfall for the general fund.

Even in the vaunted big-money SEC, sports may play a vital role in university -- and even statewide -- culture, but they are not a vital feature of university finances.

I think that the article's self-styled thesis fails.

It might actually be better, if college football weren't so financially successful. So successful that federal bureaucrats felt as though they could tax football and basketball to pay for Title IX sports. And then increase the pressure to keep up revenues to keep up the support of non-revenue sports.

We don't need more professionalism of college football; we need a lot less professionalism.

Jon06

June 17th, 2013 at 11:53 AM ^

Presumably the author has stuff like this in mind: http://ferrall.radio.cbssports.com/2013/05/15/nick-saban-underpaid-base…

The only justification for the amount of money spent on college athletics is the old "athletics is the front porch of the university" thing. The bizarre thing is that presidents allow ADs to plow the profits right back into athletics facilities and salaries instead of requiring a fixed percentage of the rising revenues to flow into the University's general fund.

danimal1968

June 17th, 2013 at 2:09 PM ^

1.  Not only does UM's athletic department pay out of state tuition for all athletes, in most years it has contributed upwards of $1 million out of its surplus back to the university general fund.

2.  Title IX was not enacted by federal bureaucrats but rather by elected members of Congress.  And it was enacted at a time when the money generated by football and basketball was a far cry from what it is today.

 

justingoblue

June 17th, 2013 at 2:30 PM ^

it's partially true either way you want to word it. The text of what was voted on in both houses and signed by the president is this:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, except that:

and then lists a whole bunch of exceptions and specifically includes some other entities. All of the aspects of the law we know today were formed by federal bureaucrats, to use the wording above. The three pronged test, the inclusion of revenue sports, ect., was formed and can be changed without specific congressional approval. In fact, I believe the Secretary of Education could change the current standards without even presidential approval.

remdog

June 17th, 2013 at 11:43 AM ^

The sooner the entire idea of "amateurish" is abolished the better.  It's impossible to enforce and leads to abuse of athletes.  It tramples on their basic rights.

Remember the Jamal Crawford fiasco?  What a circus!  The poor kid signed up to play college ball but couldn't play because it was unclear whether accepting some financial help from a family friend during high school violated NCAA rules.  How can the NCAA police such things?  What gives it the right anyway?  It's legal and moral for somebody to give somebody else some financial help (or even a gift) if he/she needs it.  It is immoral for the NCAA to play God and screw with people's personal lives.

Gameboy

June 17th, 2013 at 1:10 PM ^

Perhaps, but as an alum, I do not want paid athletes to represent my alma mater. I want Michigan students to represent the school on the field, not someone who is only at Michigan because Adidas pays him to be there. There is nothing stopping Adidas of the world to start their own feeder league, if that is what they desire. Having the Michigan in the front should mean something.

You give me a game between highly talented paid developmental players against a game between legit non paid students, I am going to choose the students everytime.

Don

June 17th, 2013 at 11:50 AM ^

Aside from the obvious misspelling...

"At U. Michigan, Chrisler Arena and the build out of the Big House also cost over $250 million, and though the athletic department pays $2 million a year (look in that budget) to service that debt, tell me how you can finance $250m with $2m a year."

HipsterCat

June 17th, 2013 at 12:55 PM ^

"Q: How much will the project cost?

The project budget is estimated at $226 million; those costs will be funded through private donations and Athletic Department resources, primarily the revenues generated by the new seating....

Out of the total project cost of $226 million, we plan to cover $36 million from Athletic Department reserves and issue debt for the remaining $190 million. Our annual debt service is estimated to be about $12.4 million, with annual incremental revenues conservatively estimated at $12.8 million. " -http://www.umich.edu/stadium/faq/

 

LSAClassOf2000

June 17th, 2013 at 1:36 PM ^

"Let's assume that membership is restricted to institutions in the Power 6 conferences (Atlantic Coast, Big 12, Big East, Big 10, Pac-12, and Southeastern). "

This would cover roughly half of the schools that field Division I football teams, of course, but I suppose my question on this would surround the disparities even among these power conferences in revenue generation and thus the comparative ability of each school to contribute to any fund which would cover items like health insurance or educational assistance. 

According to this (LINK), for example, only 23 division I athletic departments made money last year - all of them would fall in this theoretical superdivision, but the distribution of these schools is uneven at the conference level. Eight are in the SEC, six are in the Big Ten and four are in the Big XII. It very quickly goes downhill from there to schools like Rutgers, for example, that ran a substantial deficit which it made up from school funds and student fees. 

I don't know how many departments could easily contribute the amount that it might take to implement the author's idea. 

French West Indian

June 17th, 2013 at 1:36 PM ^

The thing that all these pundits don't seem to understand is that colleges & universities have no interest in running professional sports teams.  It is simply way to difficult to achieve any kind of profitability once you are paying the players (and how long before they start becoming free agents?).  And then there would inevitably be union issues & strikes, lockouts, tax issues, etc. 

There is really nothing wrong with amatuer athletics.  In fact, most of the alleged problems with the "exploitation" of college athletes is a direct problem of the professional sports model in the US which, despite being a free market country, offers virtually no professional employment opportunities for 18-21 year old football & basketball players.  If the NFL & NBA offered these kids a chance to get paid then there would be absolutely no way that any young athlete could choose to play for a university and have any claim on being exploited.

Tater

June 17th, 2013 at 5:33 PM ^

I still think the same as I always did: let athletes get money from wherever they can, and give them royalties off of their likenesses.  I like this plan overall, but 

I also think that either a breakaway division or an breakaway organization is already a fait accopmli, and am fully in favor, as I have been for a couple of years.  I don't think schools like EMU, UDM, or any in smaller divisions should have a say in what the "big boys" do with the revenues they create, nor do they deserve a share.

I was hoping for a model with four superconferences and a four-team playoff which would have been a de facto eight-team playoff.  Now that it looks like there will be five conferences invited, a five team playoff of conference champions only would be a de facto ten-team playoff  if all five conferences had a championship game.  If one doesn't, then it could be the #5 seed and play into the "grid" against the #4 seed.  

Since this would be waaaaay too easy, they won't do it that way.