This is Jalen's opinion and suggestion about paying college athletes. For your consideration and discussion. Good to see one of our most public ambassadors out there contributing.
Jalen has this to say about about paying college athletes
While I still disagree with paying players, Jalen seems to have come up with a pretty sensible proposal.
I don't think a $2000 stipend for student athletes per semester is unreasonable. Some need the money for basics and when you can't have a job or a family that can front you money, it makes sense. Its really no different than when I got scholarships/grants in college and used the excess for living expenses.
I was able to hold a job while playing sports..
You are also able to work in the summers.. The Michigan football team I know did when Sir Charles and Steele worked for my dad.. Glenn Steele for 3-4 years
Did you play a sport at Michigan or some other D-I school? And did you have a job during the school year or just in the summer? The part-time job argument Jalen is making applies to the school year, not the summer, I think.
Are you kidding me? You obviously didn't play D-1 Football or basketball, even moreso basketball. Those guys barely have any free time as it is, and that free time should go to relaxing because they need it.
However, paying every student athelete $2000 regardless of sport will force some schools to eliminate some varsity sports. In addition, the $2000 is a big incentive not to add varsity programs, such as men's lacrosse at Michigan. Paying atheletes a stipend for each term would create more problems then it would solve, as opposed to, for example, increasing scholarship and grant aid to student-atheletes. These kinds of financial incentives come with more strings attached then a stipend. One condition could be that the student-athelete has to stay in on-campus housing and eat a set number of meals per week with the team or in a campus cafeteria, which does not sound unreasonable.
I agree here, but only because of how messed up the system is now anyway. Right now Illinois really wants to add hockey as a varsity sport, but they need to double the scholarships for Title IX. Add on top of that 2,000 per scholarship and that's far more expensive.
Let alone schools like Cal who are actually cutting teams right now.
Not that it matters.
The theory seems to presume that all universities operate like Texas, or Ohio State, or Michigan. With vast revenues from two, three, four or more revenue-producing teams, and that are awash in money. Or that at worst all schools are microcosms of Duke/basketball, or Georgetown/basketball, or North Dakota/hockey. Or Johns Hopkins/Lacrosse, or Tennesse women's basketball.
The theory doesn't account for Title IX, and it doesn't account for all of the thousands of athletes in non-revenue sports, at revenue-negative athetic departments. It widens the gulf between 'Have' schools and 'Have-not' schools.
I'll let Jalen break the news to the athletic directors at Ohio Weslyean, Bemidji State, and, yes, Cal-Berkely, that they need to carve out of their budgets the extra cash to pay all of their scholarship athletes $2000 a year, or $2000 a term, for all the iTunes they could be getting if only they could get a job, and not have to play a varsity sport.
Jalen Rose was a good student. He was in LSA (not Kines) and was Academic All-Big Ten his last year here, and he went back to get his degree (albeit from the University of Maryland, but still.) I wouldn't assume he didn't write this.
This is just adding $2,000 to their scholarship. There are academic scholarships that do this. It makes sense to me.
I think that's about all people who want to pay athletes are looking for. You don't need to make them rich, but helping them with a small stipend in exchange for being the public face of the university makes sense.
As an aside has anyone else noticed how articulate and sucessful in politics, journalism, business, etc. the Fab Five has become? You know, for all the stereotypes about them.
As for the content, makes sense to me at Michigan and peer schools, but a lot of athletic departments outsie of power six conferences already hemmorage money. I don't know if they could afford this.
I am 100% in favor of stipends. I can see people googling semantics to check the spelling, but it is not the same thing, to my way of thinking. Among other things, a stipend could be applied equally among all athletes. Free education, travel, and opportunities aside, being forced to live like a pauper invites too many temptations along for the ride.
I think where Jalen loses me is in the arbitrary amount of the stipend.
I think the better thing would be to lift the wage restrictions on athletes, and let them be compensated for their worth to a business when they are permitted to have jobs. That wouldn't cost the school anything extra, and it would reward the athletes who produce huge revenues to the school without harming non-revenue athletes.
My point is that for some places, they are worth that much. Also, it's not like the schools are paying them. I have no problem if Denard is selling Nike's at 100k (well, I guess it would have to be Adidas, but whatever). Apparently they made huge money off of all the shots with his Adidas shoes untied, why shouldn't he be able to see that.
I don't think it would lead to a competitive advantage, either. There would be local businesses too, but there are local businesses at every college. The other argument is asking what the difference is between Jalen or Webber getting paid whatever they can over the summer (I'm not sure what team rules are for jobs at other times) and any other student.
I do not agree with this idea. Unless they are required to pay it back later. I would be in favor of a 0% interest loan. They still benefit more financially than someone who has to work part to time to pay for college. Most people paying their way still have some loans to take out.
That's actually one of the better ideas I've ever heard, very interesting. Would you want to limit it like Jalen said, or could John Wall or someone take ten or fifteen thousand?
That's an interesting question. I think you might want to limit it because someone might possibly overvalue their own pro potential and take a larger loan. Thinking they will easily pay it back after making millions in the pros, only to not make it in the league, or something. I would think a cap near a few thousand would be just fine for anyone.
I think this might be the best temporary (ie realistic) solution now that I think about it more. It doesn't solve the philosophical problem that I think is inherent in the system, but it solves the problem of athletes needing pocket change while they are not able to hold jobs, and would probably mitigate dealings with agents and the like.
I don't think students are ever not going to pull a Reggie Bush, but getting them some extra money would probably cut down on the amount that do. This would also be able to be instituted far more easily than most other schemes, IMO.
to put his proposal into perspective I tried to figure out how much this would cost.
If a school used every scholarship in every sport (206.9 mens, 174 womens according to the a couple of references that I found) allowed then this would be 761k per semeser or 1.5 mil for a year total.
I know that a lot of schools don't have all sports nor do they currently run a surplus, but that number isn't that large...
Read my post from earlier in the thread. Please tell me where I have been hypocritical or stupid.
If you don't have sympathy for an athlete who generates huge money for a university (e.g. Jalen) not being able to afford a pizza, who exactly do you have sympathy for? They work their asses off, they're successful in their fields, and the money they make goes to everyone else (including other student's scholarships). Regardless of what you think about paying athletes, that was just an asshole statement.
I'd also like to show solidarity with BlueDragon and ask where, exactly, I was hypocritical or stupid. Given your general comments, I would say this is the pot calling the kettle black, at best.
What about sympathy for a person like me who works their ass off in the class room but post graduation am still left with a massive pile of debt?
I'm about eighteen months behind you.
My point was that I don't generate revenue like Jalen did. He made millions for everyone else, something which I (and I'm assuming you) could not do at 18, and got peanuts in return.
Then don't listen, and go away. The board would be much better for it. Your dickish comments towards people trying to have an actual conversation are beyond annoying: if negging was back, my guess is that you would be in the red in about five minutes.
King of Belch/The Barking Sphincter will never go away. He'll just come back with a new name and the same old tricks. When you know it's all an act, which was proven when someone found his posts on another board about trying to stir up trouble here, it's at least more entertaining than some of the trolls we've had around here.
Thanks for a little perspective Shirtless. 99% of this board is awesome.
The problem is it wouldn't solve anything. I guess it's reasonable, given that as a ROTC student I was paid a $400 monthly stipend by the time I was a senior (so not quite as much as $2000/semester, but it helps because the time commitments are similar.) But I just don't see where the middle ground is between fair compensation for the fact that they don't really have time for a job (and I still think "fair compensation" is the scholarship), and assuaging the greed that's inevitable with certain players and all agents.
Would it stop the agents, the boosters, the hangers-on? No, absolutely not. Those people don't do it out of legitimate concerns for the welfare of the athlete. They do it for their own self-gratification, to raise their own power and influence. Which means they'll just keep finding ways to funnel money to players, just, more of it.
While I do disagree about legitimate compensation, I think you're missing the point in your second paragraph.
I believe that status compromising dealings would definitely be cut down because there would be less of an incentive to deal with some of these people. If an athlete can buy a nice bottle of booze for him and his girlfriend, or can afford to leave town a couple weekends a year, there is much less he has to gain from taking substantial sums of money from shadier characters. It doesn't have to do with concern, in my mind at least.
I'll preface this by saying that I'm still in favor of paying students a small stipend. Providing them with this small amount I think would go a long way in showing appreciation for all the funds they provide to instutitions and athletic departments.
That being said, we need to remember that this is Michigan, where we have more money than the The Situation has tanning memberships. If we looked outside of the Big Ten, and looked at say, the MAC. This could have a very detrimental effect on how they run their departments and which varsity teams they could support. I'll admit I've done absolutely zero research as of yet on the smaller D1 programs but I'd be willing to bet that this expense might devastate an athletic department such as EMU. If I recall correctly, even Colorado's athletic department was completely upside down as of recent...
So if you had a highly marketable skill (i.e. doctor, lawyer, successful banker or CEO), you would be fine getting food, clothing, housing, and medical for your work?
So your argument is that because they're young without medical knowledge they shouldn't be free to make money?
Is this not significantly different from residency? hone your craft while making beans/nothing during that period.
My brother's a resident and he's making $40K a year. For a single guy going to school full-time, that is not a bad salary.
The counterpoint would be to look at a John Wall type. If you want to put it as a medical analogy, he's already doing groundbreaking research. College wasn't about honing his craft, it was about sitting out a year before going to the NBA.
I'm pretty much in agreement. At worst, student athletes have to live like the rest of the student population. Even that's debateable. So Jalen Rose had a piece of shit car? Welcome to life as a student. Most people have a shitty car or no car. And unlike Rose, they will might have loans to pay off while making significantly less than $2 Million per year. A player can't afford a pizza? Then how the hell did he afford a pizza when he was in high school and the university wasn't paying for room and board?
But I guess I'm not vehemently opposed to small stipends from a purely selfish standpoint. It would probably present an advantage for schools like Michigan.
I absolutely love the idea of an athletic-based loan. Just have it so the atheletes can "elect" to partake in the loan for whatever reasonable amount they want (obviously, the more they take out the more they pay back). If there's money in the loan fund afterwards, it's just funneled back into other things.
This idea is the most plausible idea so far, but it would have to be regulated. Otherwise big universities with big boosters could offer bigger loans to come play there. Also, it would have to be available to all scholarship athletes and not be determined by which sport you play. And then that gets into trouble because no bank is going to see a worthwhile return on investment with field hockey. Not to mention in every sport that the majority don't make money off their athletics.
It would probably get done through the school itself, or maybe a list of "acceptable" lending institutions.
I'd agree that you don't want a basketball player taking money out of Tony Soprano Loans, Inc.
Somehow this seems ridiculous to me. These student athletes have the most expensive parts of college paid for and they can't figure out how to earn a few thousand dollars during the summer (when many of us are trying to earn spending money plus for the next semester)? Yes, I know it's difficult but is it really any more of a burden than the decades worth of loans the average student faces after they graduate, even after having worked during the summer and sometimes school year?
And let's face it, very few of these student athletes reach "face of the university" status. The university does gain a lot from their collective efforts but on an individual basis, I'm betting most of the athletes get far more with a free education and related perks.
Hey all this is my first post ever so please be kind....
I was a student trainer at Michigan and previously worked at other D1 schools (both major and mid-major schools). I am vehemently OPPOSED to paying student-athletes just because I've seen how things are run in atheltic departments. Football and basketball players should never complain about not being feed. They have "training table" in which they are fed steak, shrimp, etc. I've eaten with them a few times so I know firsthand what they are fed. As opposed to a mid major school who tries to save money. For example, I've worked for a volleyball team that was not allowed to buy soft drinks for lunch/dinner since the coach wanted to save money on a road trip. So they can go on a future Europe trip (we never went because we did not raise enough money)!
My point is that there is a huge disparity between the lives of basketball/football players and the 'other' student-athletes. All athletes work and practice just as hard as football and basketball players do. So obviously a stipend would have to be equal for all athletes. But I agree with previous posts that this is impossible for some smaller mid major schools to implement. $2000/athlete may not seem a lot to the Michigan atheltic department but for may departments it is their whole budget!!
Congrats on your first post, I remember mine was a little nerve-racking too.
Which idea (or all three) do you oppose? So far there has been Jalen's idea of a stipend, my idea of allowing them to earn unrestricted amounts in the offseason working jobs they can get because of their celebrity, or GVBlue_is_still_blue's idea of giving institutional loans?
I have a girlfriend who is a scholarship non-revenue athlete in a smaller conference, I can tell you she doesn't have the same benefits as M football players do. The flipside of that is that she doesn't produce for her school like a star football player does for M.
I think working for urestricted amounts due to their celebrity may be unfair for the student-athletes who are not really celebrities. I mean take your girlfriend for example. If her and say Dee Hart applied for the same job and both got it. Would it be fair if the employer paid Dee more because he was a more famous athlete and he "needed" the money more?
I am more in favor of a low % interest loan which will be optional to all student-athletes. Because honestly from what I've seen, only the people who need it should be taking out loans. If there is no interest, every student-athlete will be utilizing the loan. From the departments I worked at, most athletes can get by without an extra loan but of course there will be exceptions like Jalen Rose. The loan will get paid back after graduation and there should be a max amount loaned each year or semester.
Well I doubt they'd be applying for the same jobs. She might get a job helping out at a softball camp (I don't even think that's allowed) where Dee might sign an endorsement deal with Nike. The fairness argument doesn't stand up, IMO, because that's how the world always works. Someone who can make more money for a shoe company or a car dealership will always get hired over someone who won't.
Welcome aboard BlueCali22. Thanks for the insider information on how atheletes really live.
I think having the option of low-cost loans from the school would be another way to help handle the situation. I lived off-campus for the second half of my undergrad, and a few of my friends wound up taking short-term $1000 or $2000 loans to help pay for rent and buy gas and other amenities from time to time. As long as there's some accounting that the players have to do with the money once it's disbursed, I think that another layer of financial aid for student-atheletes is a reasonable proposal.
Thank you, BlueDragon, for your utterly useless analysis. Just kidding of course.
I think a loan program is the most likely solution out of everything proposed. I just hate how segregated athletes are in terms of what they can/cannot do. I see people like Denard and MM (who said he agreed with the Fab Five attitudes, BTW) working so hard and making so much money for other people, and then can't make any themselves. I'm not saying the school should pay them, but they should have ways to get money.
Hey there justingoblue! In the grand scheme of things, I'm just some guy analyzing these complex issues in his spare time, so yes, my analysis is somewhat useless :-)
One more reason I like the loan program: It ties in well to the existing loan infrastructure that has grown around the American college experience. Heck, these loans could even be obtained from the federal government (with FAFSA, of course). Low-interest rate Stafford loans are currently available for students with mitigating income or educational circumstances. What's to stop athletic departments from petitioning the Department of Education to modify interest rates in special cases or to create an entirely new category of low-interest loans for student atheletes? It seems like the most reasonable course of action that doesn't involve re-laying the bureaucratic groundwork of financial aid or intercollegiate athletics.
I just want to see them lift restrictions on offseason earnings. You think a lot of these guys would be gone ASAP if they could feed their families and buy a halfway decent car while staying in school? It wouldn't keep everyone around, but I think it would further the interests of the NCAA regarding student-athletes.
You hit on exactly what I was thinking for the loans though. I get a lot more money than tuition for living off campus. IU is very generous with living expenses, so I can afford to live a good life (until, gulp, the repayment starts). These guys should get a similar deal, and the infrastructure is already there to accommodate that. Plus, if I'm Bank of America or CitiBank or whatever, does a big time football program loan program look like a good deal? Hell yes it does. Even the guys who don't go pro often go on to very successful careers (cough, DB, Gerald Ford, cough).
I think the genie's out of the bottle, unfortunately, on making money and/or supporting one's family while in college. Leaving early for the draft has come and gone in college basketball, and the system survived. Leaving early in football is a significant factor in that field too, but by and large, the system we have at present is workable, if extremely corrupt.
To me, one of the beauties of the NCAA system is that all the student-atheletes are, well, students. They don't pull in 6-figure incomes and theoretically, at least, they play for the love of the game. I just see lifting off-season restrictions on earning money as opening a giant can of worms for shenanegins with boosters. Remember Troy Smith getting paid $500 for a bogus job? Imagine what could happen with less regulation of the current system.
I doubt someone like Troy Smith would take a $500 job. It'd be mini-NFL deals as far as endorsements I think, for someone of that stature.
The second thing you say, wasn't Mark Zuckerburg a brilliant student before he had to leave, or Bill Gates, or anyone else who makes a bunch of money (or lays the groundwork for making a lot of money) in college? I just think it's very odd that if, for who knows what reason, Adidas wanted to pay me six figures my professors and advisors would praise me, where if someone who actually deserved it (i.e. a big time athlete) did the same, they would be harshly punished.
I doubt someone like Troy Smith would take a $500 job. It'd be mini-NFL deals as far as endorsements I think, for someone of that stature.
That's precisely my point. How are athletic departments going to account for, let alone regulate, hundreds of thousands of dollars in endorsement deals being doled out to their players? Not to mention the issues with student-athletes' privacy. Who's to say that a few years after college endorsements become legal, a group of starters for some SEC school sue their University to remove whatever feeble regulation the NCAA builds in to keep an eye on the proceedings?
The amateur status of the NCAA would be compromised as well, forfeiting their tax-exempt status. Not to mention that athletic departments would have to pay for many more people at desks keeping records of all these endorsement deals, trying to keep them straight, all while many ADs around the country hemorrhage money on a regular basis. The current system may seem arbitrary and unfair, but it is the only way to maintain amateur intercollegiate athletics as we know it.
Your comparisons to some of the great technological innovators is interesting, but remember that Gates and Zuckerberg both dropped out of college before making their millions. Zuckerberg was actually in very hot water with the administration at Stanford before he left. These entrepreneurs didn't need an endorsement or benefit system because that's not how the market operates. There is a whole industry dedicated to funding tech entrepreneurs that supports people like Zuckerberg and Gates. It is true that the industry grew up around the pioneering innovators, but the market provided the tools for these people to succeed, and by and large, that system functions as well.
I'm not recommending schools paying them. I'm saying that they should remove the restrictions that are put on athletes earning money in the offseason, just like they were no limits on Gates or Zuckerburg earning money when they could.
I hate to admit that the tax system is good for anything, but I'd think the IRS would have a good handle on straight slush payments. At least as good of one as they have now. Basically this would level the playing field without allowing a competitive advantage for the M/OSU/UT/USC's of the world, because there would be opportunities for them to earn money off of their notierity.
I didn't say that schools would be paying them, I said that they would have to keep tabs on endorsement deals. Athletic departments would have to spend a lot more money on internal bureaucracy just to keep track of these things and I feel that it would add a burden that many ADs could not bear.
I think the low-interest loans are probably the best option for at least the students, but it's hard to justify giving out educational loans for student-athletes who must also support their families. I see your point about leveling the playing field somewhat between the big-time programs, but I feel that adding more money to an already corrupt system is going to create a lot more problems than it will solve. Bottom line, there isn't really an easy solution to this issue, but it does make for some good polemic.
I'm not getting why they need to keep tabs. If it were all legal (for legally legitimate work), there would be no need to monitor.
I hear you about the loans, and I also think it is the easiest fix; just not necessarily an actual solution to what I see as a problem.
The schools would have to keep track of endorsement deals because someone would have to keep track of the money going to the athletes, preferrably with records that are accessible with FOIA. On paper there would be no need to monitor the "legal endorsements" of these athletes by the ADs, but how would anyone keep track of improper benefits being tacked on, for, say, the big starter's 5 best friends on the team who aren't quite famous enough to get their own shoe deals? I don't know as much about tax policy as you probably do, but it seems to me that opening up collegiate athletics to pro-style deals would create a whole new ballgame in terms of improper benefits being funneled to players.
I still don't think AD's would need to be involved: let the players file their taxes and that's it. As far as giving deals to players who don't have the chachet to deserve them, I would counter that Nike or Under Armour can't do that, the market being what it is.
I would picture a couple huge paydays: Denard would be making bank. I also think Jack Kennedy and Jordan Kovacs would get a few thousand dollars a year through selling one of those companies the rights to their photos for ads, or promoting for a car dealership (Jack Kennedy singing, anyone?) or something. It would take a lot of the sleaze out by simply bringing it into the open, and making it actually productive, as opposed to (alleged) rigged slot machines as a source of income. It would also probably price most of the shady people out: why would Webber accept money from a booster under the table when he could sign autographs at Nike Town?
As far as tax policy, they would just have to file like every other student. A few might be in a higher tax bracket, but it's all essentially the same.
You sound like you know the tax policy inside and out. I bet that probably comes with the territory in urban planning. I just feel deep moral unease in allowing such close contact between the athletic apparel (and other) industries and impressionable student-athletes. I realize that players can get legal counsel before signing any sort of endorsement deals, but I guess you and I view endorsements in different ways. I see it as more of the foxes guarding the hen-house, as it were, in terms of keeping improper benefits out of amateur athletics.
See, I just think that other people that young are capable of doing this, so why not the moneymakers?
Good talk though. I'm out of plans for the night now, my usual evening on Wednesday is movie night with 5-6 friends and the female. The friends bailed, so now I'm trying to decide if we should go out and eat, or sit at home and watch a movie or what. Hmm...
As long as it isn't an NCAA violation, the sky is the limit. As long as you make good decisions.
Maybe I'll donate to her school and then give her some presents, videotape the whole exchange and send it to her AD. Solid evening plans.
You had me at "videotape the whole exchange." That almost sounds like something from a NCAA 101 video: Improper Benefits PSA For First-Year Athletes.
I thought this was already the case?? When I was a GSI at Michigan, I was making close to 2k a month before taxes. And I had tuition, and health/dental insurance fully paid for. I was out of state as well, so the total investment was around 60k a year (35k tuition + 20k stipend + 5k insurance) and I wasn't even bringing in money for the university like the athletes are. I always figured that athletes had the same deal. This is an eye-opener. Paying a small stipend will be pocket change to the university.
I am still in favor of throwing out most of the rulebook and letting athletes get their money from boosters, and think schools paying players would create a Title IX nightmare, but I like that Jalen writes like a professional and states a very solid, well-reasoned opinion.
Also, wherever the money comes from, the athletes who bring in money for the school really do deserve to be paid.
This is reasonable. I don't think it'd be enough to keep the Ed Martin types away from athletes, though, and it might be too costly for schools to implement. But it's a better proposal than most I've seen.
Academic scholarships sometimes come with stipends. Just sayin'.