brad

April 26th, 2019 at 11:27 AM ^

85 guys x $100,000 per year for tuition, housing, cost of living, etc = $8.5million to cover the entire team scholarships.  So Dabo will earn more than his entire team combined.  He certainly deserves a lot, but this much?  You be the judge.

Wolverine In Iowa 68

April 26th, 2019 at 12:20 PM ^

If you're going to "pay the players" you have to pay them all.  Not just football and basketball, you have to pay the non-revenue players too.  That means softball, lacrosse, water polo, golf, badminton, ping pong, equestrian.....every player in every sport at every school, no matter how big.

Small colleges will have to drop their sports programs if that goes into effect.  Think about on a large scale.

BTB grad

April 26th, 2019 at 12:37 PM ^

It's not a matter of those benefits having no material value; it's the fact that they're not at all getting the total value of the tuition that's being paid for them. Their schedules are way too stacked for them to reasonably major in high-earning majors (engineering, business, economics, etc) and they don't even have the time to completely immerse themselves in the curriculum they're taking. And then they're not joining the student orgs. participating in the extracurriculars, and meeting/building friendships (non-athlete friendships) that every other normal student does. Yes, the sticker price on the tuition being paid for them is $60k-$160k (depending on state residency) but the value they actually receive is wayyy less than that.

Some Call Me.... Tim

April 26th, 2019 at 1:29 PM ^

This is a bad take. Why would they hire a football player who likely doesn't really understand the concepts from their major over a regular student who was able to spend more time understanding it and joining clubs/orgs surrounding that major?  That company would be spending a salary's worth of money for a glorified mascot.  ESPECIALLY in today's job market, where you're expected to have like 2 years of experience once you just get out of school

Mr Miggle

April 26th, 2019 at 5:43 PM ^

I think Brutus has a point. 

Former football players do have access to a network of alums and boosters. That's got to be a good thing for them.

It may not have much effect for jobs that have a lot of technical requirements, but there are a lot of decent jobs that don't. Jobs with a sales element like insurance agent, car salesman, stockbroker, fitness trainer can be good fits. Having a recognizable name is good for business.

Would boosters that own those businesses give preferential treatment to their school's ex-players? I think that happens all over. They get opportunities, that doesn't mean they would keep jobs if they aren't good employees.

 

evenyoubrutus

April 26th, 2019 at 6:38 PM ^

Yes that is exactly my point. I've met a couple of players by sheer happenstance who were in that exact position. I actually helped a certain player who played for Rich Rod with his resume (which was part of my job at the time.) After he tried out with some NFL teams, he started working at an insurance agency for - you guessed it, another former player. It hit me then, that these guys have way more job opportunities simply because of their association with the university and the football program. 

bluebyyou

April 27th, 2019 at 12:56 PM ^

I think you meant wayyy more than that.

You are forgetting, in the value received category, the cost of coaching, both on the field and S&C, facilities costs, food, etc.  There have been studies done on the costs beyond scholarships, and the numbers range from 100-200k PER ANNUM.

Crootin

April 26th, 2019 at 12:15 PM ^

This is like the argument for paying artists/developers with "exposure" not money.  

Free networking?

Free medical care for INJURIES SUFFERED ON THE JOB you mean?

Scholarships?  You mean for being good at something (sports) while academic students also get these for being good at school.  (And not generating millions of dollars for the University mind you).

Better meals than you choose to buy?  Yeah, we should feed athletes generating millions McDonalds and cup o noodle!

 

evenyoubrutus

April 26th, 2019 at 11:27 AM ^

Quick Google search reveals that Clemson has 572 scholarship athletes enrolled. That works out to around $16,000 per student athlete per year. Not that great but I suppose it's better than nothing. 

BUT, once Dabo retires or moves on, and Clemson goes back to being a middle of the road program, they'd probably have to cut that number dramatically, since Dabo is a once in a lifetime type of coach. I hope he would agree to do the job for free since this is dependent on that.

GotBlueOnMyMind

April 26th, 2019 at 11:59 AM ^

I posted this in the other Dabo thread, but since that’ll likely get deleted, I’ll post again (because I know my input is so important to all of you):

There needs to be a clarification in the discussion regarding paying players. Are we talking about allowing the players to make money from their image/name, or are we talking about the university paying players? I do not think there are many left opposed to the first. However, the second is highly problematic under the current understanding of Title IX. If the universities start paying, you will see a massive decrease in the number of non-revenue sports programs nationwide. Give that those athletes are more likely to actually be at school to “play school,” that seems like a bad result.

crg

April 26th, 2019 at 12:30 PM ^

The minute players can get paid for likeness is when you'll see all the money funnel in that would have paid under the table.  Bama's backup will suddenly get multiple thousands for their signed jerseys (purchased by boosters and the like) despite none our their actual fan knowing their names.  Doesn't solve the problem.

RGard

April 26th, 2019 at 1:43 PM ^

Not if it involves increasing tuition for the non-athlete students.  There's already $1.56 trillion in student debt out there. 

The money has to come from somewhere. 

Professors, coaches and administrators won't accept pay cuts to fund paying the athletes. The regents won't accept cancelling building a new facility to finance paying the players.  The TV networks are only going to pay what the afford and won't pay more just to fund paying the players.

If you agree with the above, what is the new revenue stream the schools will tap to pay the players?

rs207200

April 26th, 2019 at 11:07 AM ^

Beat me to it! Copy pasted from other thread...

+++++

First, $9.3 million per year is crazy! For comparison, in 2012 Urban Meyer agreed to coach at Ohio State for 6 years for $24M total. 

You can pay a coach $100M but you “can’t afford” to pay the players $50,000 a year. 

What happens when Saban retires? On one hand, why leave a situation like Clemson. On the other hand, who wouldn’t want to coach at their alma mater?

JPC

April 26th, 2019 at 12:09 PM ^

You can't just pay a few athletes. How many varsity athletes do you think Clemson has? Probably at least 500.

So sure, go ahead and "pay the players" that super reasonable $50,000 a year. It only adds up to $25,000,000 when you have to pay everyone. 

But yes, for sure "pay the players". 

Perkis-Size Me

April 26th, 2019 at 12:46 PM ^

The problem with your idea of "pay the players $50,000 a year" is that you can't pay just the football and basketball players. Otherwise the baseball team, the women's soccer team, the men's lacrosse team, the women's water polo team, everyone who busts their ass in practice 6-7 days a week and still manages a full classload like the football and basketball players do, they're all going to come kick down the door to the AD's office and wonder why the hell they're not being paid for their time, too. And I wouldn't blame them. 

At this point, I think the best option is to let the players work with individual businesses to create their own revenue. Like if Shea got offered to go down to Suburban Chevrolet of Ann Arbor, film a few commercials of him endorsing their cars and driving around in them for a $10,000.00 payday, why not let him? It lets him build his brand, keeps the school out of having to pay him, and then you can also send the message to the non-revenue sports teams that they have the opportunity to go and do this, too. Yes, I know that businesses would rather have football players endorse them than the women's water polo team, but its a better solution than the alternative. At least now, you're giving the other sports teams a chance. 

If you go with the option of the school having to pay the players, you're going to run into situations where schools are forced to choose what sports to cut. Or whether to cut their athletics programs all together. Not everyone has the same size checkbook that a Michigan, OSU, Alabama, Texas, ND or USC might have. If you tell Northwestern, or Indiana, or Vanderbilt, or Oregon State that they have to start paying their players, at what point do those schools say its not financially viable to keep their teams running anymore?