pay them...but if they don't perform, like a real job, the school can let them go. If they overperform....RAISES
...says Denzel Valentine of Big Ten Tourney favorite MSU, which is 5-7 in its last 12 games. Cumong, man.
pay them...but if they don't perform, like a real job, the school can let them go. If they overperform....RAISES
Basically, athletes at all schools are going to have to be given the same amount or any illusion of fairness will be gone.
There is no way that this will stand for long. In a related case, the Ivy league schools (along with a number of private eastern schools associated with them such as MIT) were sued by students over their price-fixing scholarship offers (non-student athletes) a little over 20 years ago. Representatives from each school got together and in order to avoid competition between the offers of each school, they "normalized" the scholarship offer that each school was to give a prospective students. This was clearly price-fixing and they ultimately had no choice but to settle out of court.
Similarly, if there is an arrangement within the NCAA that sets the amount to be paid to a student athlete across the country's universities, I just can't see it lasting long at all. A case in which there is a fundamental difference between price fixing at $0 (under the guise of amateurism) and any other set amount.
Ultimately, this will result to competition in cash for the high-profile high school athletes. This new free agency would transform college athletics far beyond what Delany is proposing.
Honestly, I'd rather get rid of D1 football and basketball before we pay players.
These are pro teams once the players get paid. They're no longer part of the student body, they are not student-athlete peers: they will be university employees that happen to take classes.
I'd much rather participate in intercollegiate sports like the Ivy Leagues than have professional athletes charading as a student athlete.
The players are already used to generate revenue. Now (some) of them just don't get near what they bring in.
Some is a generous term. At Michigan, right now, I would say there is exactly one (maaayyyybe two) that get what they bring in. Denard and Burke. Denard solely on jersey sales and I guess free advertising since he's all over the WWL all the time. Burke arguably brings in more because he was a main forced in filling seats that were unfilled before.
Other than those two, the coaches, their continued success and programs traditions are what keeps the seats full and the TVs on.
Wow. I don't earn nearly what I bring in for my employer. Too bad my employer has to pay for my equipment, my computer, the building I work in, and the salaries of few thousand other people. Otherwise, I'd be rolling in dough.
...that you are being exploited too, and I think it's hard to argue that Denard got a fair percentage of the money that he made the university and/or EA Sports, a company to whom something very close to his likeness was sold without his permission.
but does that really matter? I mean, so what if someone doesn't get back what they generate? I think back to when I was an intern and resident at the hospital and I provided much more than I was getting back in salary. I was doing the same work any doctor would (more in terms of actual hours worked) and got paid less than one tenth of the salary. Not only that, but I had to pay my own tuition, meals, housing etc.
I guess I just have a hard time viewing the roughly 250,000 dollars worth of education, housing, meals etc these players get as being less than they deserve (or "nothing" as some say). If they're good enough they'll move on to the NFL and a life of riches. If they aren't, they'll have a degree they can fall back on (that they didn't pay a dime for). I think they do pretty well for what they actually provide to society.
To go back to my original point, I don't think it is mandatory for people to "get" what they "bring in". If that were the model used, no company could make a profit. I think the college experience for athlete's should be looked at as an internship where you are essentially fine tuning your craft and putting it on display in hopes of getting picked up in the future. No intenrs ever make near the money they bring in for companies and they are fine with that because the hopeful end result is a career that proves more financially rewarding.
Your internship contributes directly to your future profession, whereas a player's time on a team likely doesn't (since most don't play pro football). Also, you're not likely to be injured during your internship in such a way that you cannot practice medicine ever again...And I'm not arguing that the players get nothing. I don't think that at all. I just don't think they get a fair share of the money that they generate.
They generate an incredible amount of revenue, they are entitled to more of it than they are getting at the moment. At least the football and basketball players.
There will come a day when college athletes are paid, maybe not by the universities, but at least in endorsements. Which is always the more ridiculous ban, theres no reason someone shouldn't be able to sell their image if they are popular enough.
Let them earn money through endorsements and not the school? Allow individuals to pay them that aren't associated with school? This seems to be a catch22 as others point out and maybe this is the middle ground? Man am I bummed by all of this.
They're getting a free bachelor's degree and potentially a free year of grad school. That's F-R-E-E, as in no PLUS loans at 8.5% interest or Stafford loans at 6.7% interest. They also get fairly generous monthly stipends for living expenses, and access to a special fund for unexpected expenses - which can include anything from orthodontia to paying for their travel if there's a family emergency. Yeah, they're really getting ripped off.
And, actually, they have the potential to get two degrees paid for. If they enroll early and take a few summer classes, they can get their bachelor's and master's in the 5.5 years they are here. I believe that's what Zoltan did.
Not all take advantage of this, but it is there. I heard Ron English speak recently and he says one of the first things they do when they get an athlete into their program is to lay out the athlete's path to earning a master's.
I ask because I have no idea. Do grad students get paid a lot of money by the university? I mean, I have heard here that the revenue universities get from sports pales in comparison to the money they receive from grants, so in that vein I am wondering what portion of that grant omney is returned to the students whose work is, at least in part, responsible for getting them?
The premise that since a person brings a lot of money to a business means they are entitled to most of that money is ridiculous. That is what we have in professional sorts and look at the mess they are in now. I have a friend who is a CEO of a pretty large company and who is responsible for bring millions of doallrs per year for that company. His pay doesn't come close to reflecting the amount of money he brings in. He does get bonuses, but his pay is still multiple times less than that which he brings in to the company.
Let's be completely honest: is someone who was admitted exclusively to play basketball, works on basketball for fourty+ hours a week, and matriculates with absolutely no intention of graduating really a "part of the student body" in a meaningful sense just because he isn't getting paid (beyond his scholarship).
trey burke is not being compensated with an "education." he is being compensated with an opportunity to earn $$$$$$ by proving himself to have NBA talent while playing for a big name program.
So by him playing basketball for Michigan he is signaling that he is able to play in the NBA. Just as a student does well and signals to prospective employers that they're capable to be employed.
but for many elite college players in revenue sports, there is no emphasis on the student part of being athlete. These players gets compensated by being given the opportunity to PLAY for their schools. The education has lost its importance in the equation.
Let's be real here. There are athletes that care about getting educations. Take Denard for instance. He is obviously not just screwing around with football. He's about to graduate with a sociology degree. I believe more athletes need to take the path of Denard.
to be the first in his family to graduate from a 4-year college. But the share of money from jerseys sold, endorsements, etc. that he could have made would take yeaaaaarrrrrrsssss to get with a job one could obtain with an undergraduate degree in almost any field.
Probably true, but Denard is the extreme outlier.
Even take someone like Tim Hardaway Jr. One of the leaders of the bball teams. How much do you think he has made the school? I don't know if I can quantify it, but I struggle seeing it as being more than the education he's earned and the ability to play for Michigan, which is like 3 years of free, elite training in the most advanced and comfiest of facilities.
Denard and Burke are in a group of anywhere from what, 50-100 (??) kids who have individually earned the school boat loads of money. You don't want to blow up the whole collegiate model to compensate this small number of kids every year. But at the same time, it feels dirty to ignore that these guys aren't getting any piece of the pie and justify it with an education that say Burke probably won't utilize and furthermore say it's okay because they are outliers.
Leaving the TV issue aside (and admitting it's what's blown this case up), the thing that most bothers me is that EA and the NCAA can continue to profit off players likenesses even after they leave school, ie, that they are forced to sign their rights to profit from their own personal characteristics away in perpetuity. I
Need too: of course. Will: no. For every Denard there are 10 Chris Webbers pissed off that the B1G made 950 Million and they still have to wait until they're eligible to be drafted. Do you really think Clowney would stay if he didn't have to after watching Lattimore's injury? I wouldn't if i'm going to be a top 5 pick. Aside from the fact that not every school would honor his scholly if he did get seriously hurt and couldnt play. Not all coaches would
Well, some would just abandon what would amount to semi-pro teams, perhaps myself, I dunno, but the whole "student-athlete" concept has been a farce for quite a while. I haven't taken any classes with football/basketball players AFAIK, and while I'm busy with midterms, 8th semester football players are dropping out to focus on the combine. I know there are exceptions, but in general they don't take the education too seriously, nor are they cut out for it. Plus SEC teams are likely already paying them.
Delaney's just bluffing anyway. Yeah, U Chicago and a few elites like Stanford can get by just fine without football, but colleges like UMich benefit too much for the time being to suddenly stop being competitive in sports. The visibility of the football team no doubt draws thousands of applications and at Michigan anyway, the athlete scholarships are a windfall. I think it sadly might also devastate donations to go the D3 route. Sure, most revenue goes to ADs and a few coaches and their pet projects, but we're still talking tens of millions that gets funneled to the general fund.
Now aside from Michigan and most (all?) of the conference teams, I can see headway being made to de-emphasize sports. Not only does the opposite occur at places like VCU (the students subsidize athletics), but the higher ed bubble may burst soon anyway. How these programs that are deeply in the red will start paying athletes I have no idea. If it becomes 20 teams dominating every year cause they literally buy all the best talent, it may as well be the NFL at that point and I probably will lose interest.
You mean like if the same best group of a few teams from the SEC wins the National Championship every year?
Even if I agree with what he says, I will still be petty and disagree. Jim Delany is an idiot. But anyways, I'm concerned that the O'Bannon lawsuit will win and lead to Pandora's box being completely blown open with the little integrity that's left in college athletics being lost. The current system is not the greatest, especially with the athlete's getting exploited through video games and apparell. I'm sure the Universities wouldn't go bankrupt if they paid athletes 2% of the revenue generated...but if O'Bannon wins, more problems will occur than be solved.
Would better players get compensated more?
Would their be salary caps and max contracts now?
Would they still get scholarships?
College athletics then becomes semi-pro athletic teams with a multitude of complications from money that will ruin the heart of the game. Idk...don't mind me, I'm all over the place.
Interesting point, if it's a percentage of what is made off of them too players would go to schools where they make more money off of a fan base that is willing to buy no matter the individual players.
The day players get paid is the day I never watch or attend a college sporting event again.
I won't buy anything if the workers who made it got more than $3.00 per hour. I don't want them to be corrupted by money.
A poor kid in Bangladesh could support his whole family with that money. Go easy Mr. Moneybags. If you want a poor family to stay in the pure noble savage range, you can't pay them more than 50 cents an hour. What would Delaney do? WWDD
You'll still tune in or buy tickets for those poor exploited athletes, and are probably wearing a pair of jeans made for far less than that $3 per hour.
If you really feel that strongly it's wrong, yet you still partake in it, you're part of the problem.
Absolutely agree, and so did Bo:
"Because you can go into professional football, you can go anywhere you want to play after you leave here. You will never play for a Team again. You'll play for a contract. You'll play for this. You'll play for that. You'll play for everything except the team, and think what a great thing it is to be a part of something that is, The Team."
That's a great quote, but I don't see how the lawsuit's proposal of revenue sharing with the athletes has any effect on the team concept. In the NFL, sure, you play for an individual contract - get paid more than anybody at your position.
Revenue sharing is different, and if you don't think the student athletes who generate all of this money by playing on TV are being exploited, then you ignoring the issue.
I don't think they're being exploited because of what they get in return: at a school like Michigan, it's a $165,000 education, plus living expenses. For those who expect to go to the NFL, they're getting additional compensation: massive exposure, year round training and medical care. I don't why these things are so undervalued in this argument. If they need more money so that they can live more comfortably, that's one thing. But if athletes are expecting their compensation to be commensurate with revenue, then we're not in college anymore. We're in the pros. The education part of the equation becomes moot.
And the few stars who do will want a bigger cut. And then you have the NFL model Bo was talking about. So it's pretty much spot on.
I agree with the sentiment. The thing is, they already get paid, just not much. They get a stipend, which I'd like to see increased considerably in a perfect world. It would have to be the same for all players though, or you ruin the "heart" of the game. That's the real issue.
The only way to be "fair" to the players is to ensure all D1 players get an equal amount, which forces a socialist sytem into place in which schools like Michigan are penalized for having made money through their AD. I'd love to find a way to make it work, but I can't see how.
It's a catch 22.
But I still contend that the players have little affect on revenue. Michigan stadium sells out whether the team is good or not, whether we have great players or not. People, in general, watch games because of the teams playing not because of the players. I understand you obviously need players to have a game, but the point is that they are not a major factor driving revenue.
This is also true for the big TV contracts. Whether it is the BTN or ESPN, they do not make their money off big ratings. They make their money by charging satellite and cable providers per subscriber. You can take AMC or TNT or whatever channel off cable, but if you take BTN or ESPN off people stop dropping you as a provider. My point being, the sports channels make money because most of us won't live without our one game a week, not because we tune in to the channel in huge numbers all the time. Even Heisman trophy winners don't drive huge ratings.
So whats my point, These guys are likely paid more than appropriately by their scholarships and the exposure they get that can generate them future income. The latter part of that equation is more than overlooked by most. Anyone think Tom Brady gets drafted if he was at a smaller school? Probably not.
I support the idea of expanded stipends, but most other changes could be problems. Just my opinion.
...every time I happen to click past a D-Fenders game on TV (for reasons unclear, Time Warner here has added the local L.A. Time-Warner sports channel to our channel roster so we can watch high school and minor leagues sports from 2000 miles away). Here's the best team in the D-League, with a young roster that would be the envy of most colleges, with familiar coaches (Reggie Theus, Phil Hubbard), with a link with one of the biggest names in professional sports...
And there's that blank wall on the other side of the court. They're playing in a practice facility that doesn't even have 300 seats. We get more than that for our high school here, and it's a tiny public school in an unincorporated, sort of identity-less community.
It's the name on the shirt that's driving NCAA revenues, it's the tradition, the fan community, the link to the school. Take that away and you've got a couple of hundred people watching and every once in a while you get one of your games shown on tape delay on NBATV.
Forcing everyone into a year of college is absurd and I have nothing against a professional alternative available straight out of high school, like we have in other sports. But I don't it see it pulling the sort of revenues that will drive big player salaries, and it leaves me wondering what Ed O'Bannon's likeness would really be worth if it weren't for his connection to UCLA.
Delaney is an enormously hypocritical ahole.
I am now buying a second amp and a kick-ass tweeter, and I am paying some very pricey A/V guys to install this equipment with like 6"-diameter cable connecting everything, and I am inventing a new kind of megaphone that has its own internal volumizing booster, and I am doing all of this in order to call bullshit louder than I just called bullshit on that other thing, because: are you fucking kidding me? (-fjm)
Ask Henry Rollins...
So the University of Chicago was right all along. Those beautiful bastards.
... Look where that's gotten them. That school has absolutely no brand recognition and no prestige whatsoever. Who would ever go there?
You mean, other than for a great education?
Does he seriously need the /s? I mean, come on...
Milton Friedman disagrees.
To wit, "The University of Chicago Economics department, considered one of the world's foremost economics departments, has fielded more Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel laureates and John Bates Clark medalists in economics than any other university."