Jalen has this to say about about paying college athletes
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.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jalen-rose/paid-college-athletes-a-r_b_83…
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 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'.