Death to Indiana State!

Submitted by pasadenablue on

It begins...

 

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10121476/power-conferences-seeking-more-autonomy-ncaa

 

NEW YORK -- The five power conferences of college sports want more flexibility in providing financial support to athletes.

A major reason they lack that freedom in the first place is other NCAA members have feared widening the wealthiest programs' competitive advantage.

Now NCAA president Mark Emmert and the leaders of those behemoth leagues must convince schools with fewer resources that giving the power conferences greater autonomy is in the best interest of college athletics.

 

For those confused about the thread title, I refer you to this: http://mgoblog.com/content/why-small-schools-are-overriding-fcoa

tbeindit

December 11th, 2013 at 10:31 PM ^

Maybe, maybe not.  It's hard to know exactly how things would go down if you opened up some sort of payment for players.  It's hard to imagine schools like Michigan making much more money, but it certainly isn't impossible in this system.  Some people argue that the divide is already there, but if you can add Michigan's recruiting prestige with the ability to get paid as well, it's hard not to imagine even more of a boost in performance on the recruiting trail, on the field, and eventually in the bankroll.

Of course, there are a bunch of schools that could afford it, but a very small minority could afford paying players with the status quo.  Things would change, but if you use those numbers, most of the BCS schools couldn't even pay for those without cutting stuff.  This would make your theory correct, but for the small percentage that could afford it, I think it would only serve to make them a lot more money than before.

This involves a lot of predictions, but we don't exactly know how things will separate out and when you're giving teams on an uneven playing field even more of an advantage, I think it's hard to predict what will happen.

ak47

December 12th, 2013 at 10:32 AM ^

No world exists where a recruit is seriously considering indiana state and michigan and the only decididing factor is a larger living stipend.  The gap already exists and this wouldn't widen it any further, the schools who should be most worried about this are schools like purdue, or wake forest, they don't bring in that much money athletically and now could be at a bigger disadvantage compared to other bcs teams.

Marley Nowell

December 11th, 2013 at 9:54 PM ^

No one would be talking about (or even heard of) Indiana State and schools of their ilk without their athletic program.  I would like to see athletes at least get the full room and board they deserve but these smaller schools will fight it to the death to stay mildly relevant.

Tater

December 11th, 2013 at 10:52 PM ^

I would still rather see the NCAA stop stealing opportunity from players and allow them to make all of the money they want from outside sources.  Let the free market dictate what they make.  The schools wouldn't have to pay players, thus making Title IX and employment law unapplicable.  

Everybody would win, which is exactly why it won't happen.

WolvinLA2

December 11th, 2013 at 11:38 PM ^

When people use words like "free market" it makes it sound good, but pumping money to college athletes from all kinds of sources just screams corruption to me.  

Does Terry Richardson deserve the same scholarship that Gardner does?  Absolutely.  When they leave college and go pro, they'll get what they deserve.  Until then, they're still amateurs.

Yes, I believe this.  No, I don't care that the athletic department makes money off of them, and I don't care that coaches make a bunch of money.  Coaches are professionals.  Athletic directors are professionals.  They have agents and can be hired and fired at a moment's notice.  College athletes are not professionals.  If they are good enough to become professionals, then they can make a bunch of money.  But not before.  

WolvinLA2

December 12th, 2013 at 12:34 AM ^

I understand that, but I'm voicing my opinion.  

I wish there weren't restrictions on the NFL in terms of age.  I wish a kid of any age could enter the NFL draft, and I wish they had a baseball-style minor league that guys could play in who had no interest in college.  I understand the system is broken.  I just wish instead of fucking up college sports, the powers that be just created somewhere else for these kids to go.  

My real opinion is that the reason Denard Robinson was crazy popular was because of Michigan, not the other way around.  As a Jacksonville Jaguar, no one gives a shit about Denard Robinson (except us).  I think Denard owes Michigan a lot more than Michigan owes Denard, and I bet you he would agree with that.  

It's not the players that fill the seats or sell the jerseys, as much as many suggest, because jerseys sell and seats fill regardless of who the players are.  They get a lot - a free degree and living expenses covered for 4 to 5 years, not bad.  If that's not enough, go play in the NFL.  If you aren't good enough to play in the NFL, then you got a hell of a bargain.  

chally

December 12th, 2013 at 8:06 AM ^

I also agree with this. What the "free market" would pay these kids is very much the product of the University's brand. If Denard Robinson had gone to Indiana State and Tate Forcier had stuck around for four years, Tate would be the valuable one. If Russell Bellomy had the game of his life against Nebraska and Devin Gardner stayed at WR, their market values would be drastically different, despite having the same innate talents.

To put it another way, I have never once tuned into a football game to watch good football players. I tune in to watch whatever team Miichigan fields, whether national champions or Big Ten cellar dwellers.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

December 12th, 2013 at 8:46 AM ^

I wish there weren't restrictions on the NFL in terms of age.  I wish a kid of any age could enter the NFL draft,

I don't.  Is there a job posting in the world higher than Mackinac Island poop sweeper that doesn't require a set of minimum skills and attributes?  Must have bachelor's degree, etc.  The point is not to ensure that every qualified person gets a shot at the job, the point is to ensure that everyone who applies for the job is qualified. 

Surely there are high school prodigies who could do a lot of the jobs adults do, but companies don't want to weed through the piles of unqualified applicants to find the ones that can.  The NFL and NBA are vilified for feeling the same way; I don't see a difference between their age requirements and companies asking for X years of experience in a field.

I agree with pretty much every other word you've written on the subject but those.

Steve in PA

December 12th, 2013 at 9:05 AM ^

 

On some level it is subsidized by someone else, usually taxpayers.  In pro sports, taxpayers are paying for stadiums and infrastructure that the vast majority will never use.  In college, they are paying money to the universities either through direct payment or indirect payment by allowing the universities to operate as non profits and not pay taxes.*

There was recently a thread on here about the university buying more property and the downside of taking more Ann Arbor property off the tax rolls.

If you want to discuss the "free market" value of sports and athletes then you would be discussing the money left to pay athletes after all of the taxes and expenses that other corporations, companies, and individuals have to pay.

*I have read that th Kraft Family owns the stadium the Patriots play in but I'm not sure of the details.

 

 

 

 

 

jmblue

December 12th, 2013 at 11:09 AM ^

Wow, that is nuts.  Turner Field was built for the Olympics and reconfigured for baseball the next year.  You would think a stadium built in 1997 would have the luxury boxes and club seats and whatnot.  

Aren't the Falcons also thinking of leaving the Georgia Dome?  Atlanta taxpayers are getting taken for a ride.

 

 

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

December 12th, 2013 at 1:45 PM ^

It's not the luxury boxes (although I'm sure the new stadium will have more) - the Braves have found that the vast, vast majority of their ticket buyers are from the northern suburbs.  So that's where the new stadium will go, in an effort to "improve access" to their fanbase.  It's fair to say that getting downtown and back is a pain for most of those customers.  If it results in an extra 3,000 tickets sold per game, it might just be worth it.  It'll be the Cobb County taxpayers getting taken for a ride as that's the government entity promising the support (Atlanta being in Fulton County.)

jmblue

December 12th, 2013 at 3:33 PM ^

But can't that be said for a lot of teams?  Most put their stadiums in downtown locations even though they almost invariably have suburban fanbases.  There seems to be some perceived benefit in putting a team downtown even if it's far away from the fans.  Maybe it's just PR, I don't know.

 

tpilews

December 12th, 2013 at 1:17 AM ^

How much money are they already receiving from the Athletic Department? 

When I was in school, most of the full-ride scholarship athletes that lived off campus were receiving checks for $1200. Split $1000 rent 5 ways and you've got a grand to live off of every month. Seems like plenty to me. 

How much do you think you could realistically pay players?

WolvinLA2

December 12th, 2013 at 2:03 AM ^

The only thing people who really understand the process propose is what Tater is saying above - that it's not the school who pays the players, but third parties who want to use their likeness or endorsements or something like that. So that the Pryor, Manziell, AJ Green type stuff is legal.

Anyone who proposes the schools actually pay these kids any significant amount of money doesn't understand how much money most athletic departments make, or what would have to be cut to make that happen.

tenerson

December 12th, 2013 at 1:54 AM ^

It's unfathomable to me that 5 years of free schooling is no longer considered compensation. I suppose though, they aren't there to play school. 

TheLastHarbaugh

December 12th, 2013 at 2:19 AM ^

My argument has always been that they don't receive the same level and quality of education as a normal student. And they are basically working more than a full time job, year round.

What I mean by, "they don't get the same level of quality of education" is this, they often don't get to choose their major or even what courses to take. They get shuffled into general studies or other fairly worthless majors even when they want to do other things.

I know for a fact that Brent Petway wanted to do something more with his education and they told him no. The same with Lester Abram, who was quite jaded by his whole Michigan experience from an education standpoint.

Imagine if you were offered a full ride to Michigan but Michigan got to choose which classes you took and what your career path would be. I don't know about you, but I would not take that deal. 

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

December 12th, 2013 at 6:52 AM ^

That's not really outlandishly different than requirements for a lot of full ride scholars, just on a larger scale.  As an NROTC student I had to take two semesters of calculus, two semesters of calc-based physics, one semester of computer science, and eight of naval science, which add up to well over a full year of requirements.  This on top of my school's English and non-Western requirements, the latter of which was a token sop to diversity education and far less onerous than at many schools.  I got to choose my major all the same, but there's that little issue too of post-graduation service requirement, which precludes a masters degree for at least four years.

Vote_Crisler_1937

December 12th, 2013 at 9:21 AM ^

At NU we absolutely picked our own majors. Kids who wanted to go pre med or engineering were discouraged from doing so by crass coach comments and Academic Services saying things like, "you might lose some playing time if you don't make all the practices and somebody else steps up" but nobody would block you from doing it. Jeff Backes (NTJB) was a multi-year starter on defense and special teams and is now a surgeon. I have to think if schools are actually telling kids no and not just a forceful "are you SUURE?" That they are committing some sort of violation. That being said, most of us loved our sport far more than school and were all too happy to comply in order to spend more time doing what we really wanted. But there were those few kids who did medicine, engineering, and a few more with 3 majors and a minor who did a masters degree their 5th year.

ChasingRabbits

December 12th, 2013 at 9:43 AM ^

What is the value of  the level of exposure that the top kids are getting by playing football/basketball at the University of michigan?  How much would it cost Devin Gardner to buy an hours worth of airtime on ESPN, ABC, BTN every saturday all fall so he could advertise his "wares" to the people who might be interested in his services at the next level? Articles in the paper 2-3 times a week? special sports center stories....  ?

Any advertising or PR people want to chime in here. 

 

 

aiglick

December 12th, 2013 at 10:48 AM ^

Mathematically speaking? A sh*t ton.

Yeah athletes who could make a lot of money due to their value to the team also get a lot of exposure they would not get in a minor league system. When I followed baseball I barely knew anything about the minor league players and what little I did was due to broadcasters making remarks. These college players are already well known and have a reputation and you can bet it not only makes them more noticeable to teams but also gives them a fan base to start from with their pro career.

I just think both sides have great arguments but just think the players do get a lot with the status quo.

IPFW_Wolverines

December 12th, 2013 at 2:30 PM ^

Then compare that to the average student in school who will likely leave with a mountain of debt, have had none of the perks athlete's get, yet are still having money made off of them by the university.

For some reason though, we should all feel sorry for full ride scholarship athletes....

akearney50

December 12th, 2013 at 10:31 AM ^

If institutions pay student-athletes you will see much more of this happening:

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/business/Experts-Temple-Cut-Sports-Because-Football-Not-Producing-Enough-Revenue-235324641.html

The resources just aren't there for over 90% of Division I athletic departments. The effect will be discontinuing athletic programs. This leads to taking away opportunites for student-athletes which is contradictory to the initial purpose.

Crash

December 12th, 2013 at 11:10 AM ^

The only idea that makes any sense to me is the minor league system.  Send these elite kids who are not college material to the minor leagues to try for a spot on an NFL team.

 

People don't fill the big house every week during the fall to see player X or player Y.  They come to see their school represented well against another quality team.  If every team in the big ten had to sacrifice the few players that were destined for the NFL, the competition would still be the same.