generating revenue on a scale that few could as 18-22 year olds.
FWIW. Michigan doesn't seem inclined to get re-involved.
generating revenue on a scale that few could as 18-22 year olds.
I agree. In a lot of schools, these kids are pushed through the system just so they can play and generate revenue for the school. Paul Barrett's Bllomberg article on the UNC scandal is one of the best arguments that big time college sports programs exploit these kids for their athletic talents.
Check it out here: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-27/in-fake-classes-scandal-unc-fails-its-athletes-whistle-blower
What good is a degree from UNC if the players can barely read? I would bet this happens at more schools than just UNC. Hopefully not Michigan...
They don't get a 4 year ride. They get recurring 1-year scholarships. Some schools do offer 4-year scholarships, but the majority don't and they're all still contingent on a variety of things. And their scholarship isn't the same as a general student body scholarship because you flat out don't have the time to try and do the same things as a normal student.
Plus with all of the madatory and "voluntary" hours they have to put in, it leaves little to no time for actual education. A system where they got deferred scholarships would be better. Spend a year on the team, get a year of tuition to use when you're ready. Or if you want to do both at the same time, you can do that too. That way, for all the athletes that think they're going pro, but ultimately fail, they could still get their education when their pro careers flame out, and they're more willing and serious about getting an education.
And they should absolutely be getting a slice of jersey sales and TV revenue. There is more than enough to go around.
I was in the marching band, should I get paid as much TV revenue as the 3rd string player that never sees the field? because I got way more TV time than he did
Do people here think that you don't need able bodies to hold an actual football practice? A football team isn't a collection of "a bunch of guys who don't do anything" + Denard Robinson.
But sometimes it did LOOK that way!
i was trying to comment more on the value an individual brings to the school and organization than commenting on how valuable scout team players are. Many more people contribute to the gameday experience and atmoshpere than just the football players playing the game. The student trainers, band, cheerleaders, dance team all contribute as well and dont reap any of the profits either.
All you need to run a practice are the 22 players for an offense and defense soooooooo
Yeah, the point is that their value is on a different planet than yours. You can strip away all of the pep squad and once everyone forgets to be outraged in two years the end result is the same. The band is not even in the same neighborhood as the scout team. Form a union, go on strike, and see if the system even has a hiccup. I'd take a dog catching frisbees over those absurd halftime shows you guys trot out.
Do you think 110,000 people and tv trucks would show up during the football teams off week to watch the marching band perform?
The reality is there is not more than enough to go around. Most ADs operate in the red, and for schools that don't, money is spent keeping facilities up to par, renovating stadiums and keeping top coaching and training staff. What of that should we sacrifice to pay the players?
That is the harsh reality - most schools operate in the red, and athletic programs are subsidized by the student population who pay an athletic or activities fee. The more you provide athletes in the way of benefits, the greater the load that will be shifted onto the backs of students who are already up to their ears in debt.
If unionization ultimately succeeds, and if there are significant dollar benefits that go with it, you will start seeing more and more programs dropping sports programs. At this point in time, with CTE, various suits against the NCAA and now this, the landscape for college sports as we know it could change drastically and not for the better.
I think ticket / activity fees are already maxed, so when labor cost go up and you cannot raise prices - you cut costs.
This means elimination of scholarships.
Teams will become "amateur clubs" like they were 60 years ago. Everyone is a walk-on.
Which means only students that can afford college can go.
Poor kids will be relegated to the semi-pros, semi-pro football will become a reality.
Is this any different than hockey? Kids that want to go to college play college hockey. Those that don't play in the minors at 18.
This is probably how it should work, getting rid of all the phoney classes and cheating for kids that don't belong in college anyway.
It would go in that direction for the subsidized sports.
Kids can choose schools where they can pick their own major, they can stop playing the sport if they dont want the injury risks, there isnt anyone stopping kids from sigining up for challenging classes or difficult majors.
oh sorry forgot these athletes are special and dont have the same freedom as the rest of the 18 year olds who are able to choose their own classes and life decisions and accept the risks those choices entail
Sure, they can choose classes, but they don't have the TIME that all other students have to actually take on the workloads that many of these classes entail. They often spend 40-60 weeks dedicated to athletics. Especially football players - I'm sure you remember the chapter from Three and Out describing Denard's standard day. While I'm aware that some athletes can handle it, it's acknowledged that they are generally rare, which is why they are always lauded. Not everyone is capable of working 100 hours a week between football and school.
Regardless, the point is now student athletes will have more power. If the market and schools can afford to compensate these players more, they will be compensated more. If not, the status quo will remain. Unionization should allow the market to determine whether compensation for student athletes has been artifically depressed or not - time will tell.
There really are only as few valuable degrees if we using the economics as the measure you seem to imply in your post as what makes a degree valuable.
We should also be real frank here, many of these kids are not at these schools to learn, but t hone their football skills in order to play in the NFL. A certain percentage of these kids are terribly unprepared for college and thus must be placed in "bad degree" tracks.
Truthfully, many of these kids would never have a shot at a college degree if not for college football. This isn't made-up progaganda, but fact.
The system needs to be reformed, but the issue is so much more complex than people are letting on.
regarding negotiations is that they are negotiations. Everyone is giddy at the thought of players getting paid. There will be another side to that coin, along with a host of unintended consequences.
Do not law enforcement officers understand the risk associated with the job they perform? You can suffer the same afflictions in high school athletics. What are you gonna do? Sue the school district because your child was hurt in a contact sport. The logic exhibited in your response is lacking in merit.
or the lack thereof, was one of the issues cited as a reason to establish a union to represent the players' side of things. Maybe you unwittingly agree with them after all.
It's not free labor, they pay them in the form of education, meals, $1,200 month stipend, etc. Nobody is telling these kids that they can't go to college unless they play football, they can take the normal route and get student loans and be a normal student. That's what grinds my gears about the whole thing.
I don't know what's right for the players, I think I'm just scared of the greatest game being changed for the worse, forever. But who knows, maybe it turns out to not have much of an effect or makes things better. Only time will tell.
I agree with this sentiment. Factor in coaching time, travel, training, tutors and equipment and the expenses go into the 100s of thousands per athlete. The vast majority of D-1 athletes are getting a great deal out of a scholarship. Besides, most athletic departments are barely breaking even if at all. There are a few athletes on every major team that the school probably takes advantage of with jersey sales, etc. No system is perfect. To me though, more than 95% of D-1 athletes are getting a great deal.
Those student loans take forever to pay off and the stipends these kids receive are larger than most kids make working part time.
Spare me the "athletic departments are barely breaking even" mantra. Athletic departments spend all the money they have available every year because they have to. They aren't in it to make a profit. Its only after that that they cry broke.
most of that money goes to support the non-revenue generating sports, to pay salaries for staff, maintain facilities, advertising etc. its not like they are burning all the money earned and saying they are broke its that most schools have to help finance the athletic departments budgets and few are self sustaining like Michigan/OSU/Texas etc etc.
I have a bigger problem with the NCAA, the organization as a whole. March Madness is the perfect example . Amateur athletics is big business. CBS and the NCAA know it. I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with the current system if there wasn't so much money involved. Everyone else besides the players are profiting.
My point was on the majority of D-1 programs such as the mid majors. WIth the the top 10-20 athletic departments, there are different motives in play.
Travel, trainers, equipment, etc. are more or less the cost of doing business or overhead. Traveling for games is not vacation, it's a business trip. Trainers are there to maintain the athletic departments investment, similar to a mechanic with a car. At some (nike) schools the equipment is a valuable perk for the athletes, but it's primary purpose is advertising. Adidas pays almost $10M/yr in cash and equipment for 900 walking billboards.
My opinions aren't popular, but they come from first hand experience of being a D-1 athlete and having friends that played different sports at different schools. Michigan is a consensus top 30 school. My love for the university is probably unhealthy. I know for a fact that the majority of the schools athletes are not getting the same quality of education as the general student body. Therefore comparing the value of their scholarship to the scholarship of a general student is like comparing apples to oranges.
The amount of time an athlete is expected to put towards their sport vs their classes is evidence enough that their sport is their job.
So if they are already paying them, what's wrong with paying them more? If they are getting $1200/month, what's wrong with bumping that up to $2000/month? Or even $5000/month?
You want to bump their stipend by 3 grand a month each? Great, that's 3 million bucks a year, just for football. Where is that money coming from? Or more specifically, what are we not spending 3 mil a year on to make that possible?
The money comes from the skyrocketing TV deals.
Look, no one said it would be easy. Doesn't mean it shouldn't happen though. Because don't forget, all of these schools and teams were doing just fine prior to the skyrocketing TV contracts and the extra money coming in from brand new networks.
For instance, a decade ago Michigan football was making around $20-25M a year, it made $46.8M in 2010-2011 and in 2011-12, they made $85M. That's astronomical growth and They will certainly be over $100M a year within a few years if they aren't there already. So there is plenty of money to go around. Maybe instead of growing support staffs and $250M renovations to buildings that don't really need to be renovated we give some of that to players.
And I bet that to a man, if you asked the players on the football team "would you rather have an extra $3k a month or a renovated practice facility" they would all choose the $3k.
I hear you, man. Maybe we can cut down on the opulent facilities and maybe even cap the coaches salaries. There's no reason college basketball and football coaches should be the highest paid government employees in the state, which they are in several schools around the country.
I know you used Michigan because that's the team we all cheer for, put pull those same numbers for Western Michigan or even Iowa State. Now how much extra money is flying around? It's very different. What about programs like Georgetown or Villanova that have D1 basketball but not football to bring in a bunch of money? You can't make a rule that works for Michigan. It has to work for everyone, otherwise you have a situation where Michigan players get 5k a month and Iowa St players get 1200 a month and now players are going to the school that pays the most.
And to the guy who suggested capping coaches' salaries - don't expect to pull a guy like Mattison from the NFL ever again. In fact, the NCAA would lose every good coach to the NFL.
I agree with you on 98% of this whole issue, but....there ain't but so many jobs in the NFL. I'm all for a cap, one that's percentage-of-revenue based just like in the NBA and NFL. That would keep coaching salaries from rising at a faster rate than revenue as well as let schools offer something commensurate with their earning power.
That's fair, but I disagree. If you want to overpay to poach someone you value a whole lot, or keep a super hot coach from heading to the league, you should be able to do it.
Coaches aren't subject to the cap in professional leagues.
What you are saying is that you want to go from a system where coaches are free to make as much as they can and the players are capped in their compensation to a system where the coaches are capped in their compensation and the players are free to make as much as they can.
That doesn't seem any more fair than the current system.
The players' cap in those leagues is percentage of revenue, which is what I meant but admittedly tied the two concepts together too loosely.
I don't actually want to go to a system where the players are free to make as much as they can. Shouldn't have been implied by that post. I want to go to a system where both are capped in their compensation.
Perhaps the football/basketball/hockey players look at all the Taj Mahals being constructed for non-revenue generating sports and ask, why is the revenue stream to which I made a significant contribution going these temples of amatuer sport instead of to, oh, me?
That's not selfish. If college football is ruined through all of this, there won't be money to pay players, so everyone loses. If the workers at a company make demands to improve their conditions, and those changes lead to the company going under, who wins?
How will it? I don't know. How could it? A number of ways. First off, fans deciding the idea of watching paid football players isn't as interesting, and decide to watch the NFL instead. Or the majority of teams not being able to afford to hang in this new environment. Unfortunately, the likely losers in this will be softball players and swimmers, etc. Schools will end up cutting those money-drain sports to keep their football program afloat.
Everyone says "think about the athletes" which really means, "think about the football and basketball players." All the other athletes are going to be on the short end of the stick.
The other athletes are already on the short end of the stick. Nothing will change that. And the athletes already get "paid" through a variety of stipends and benefits. Having them get more benefits won't change a single thing. People will still love their university, will still cheer for their teams and players, and life will largely continue as normal.
Well, that's some logic. "Non-revenue programs are already getting cut left and right, so more of that is certainly fine. We can continue to screw them even more so that football players can feel more properly appreciated."
Thank you. Exactly.
How did anything work 30 years ago when athletic departments were generating a lot less income? Everyone connected with the athletic departments have made out like bandits in the last 30 years except for the athletes, or if you prefere the football and basketball players.
Its not even 30 years ago. If you go back just 10-15 years ago, they had revenue of like 25% or less of what they do now. I'd bet that the 1997 team had revenue that's about 20% of what the 2014 team will have.
enough to spend money on them / write their programs a check?
is for the families, and most of all, the children, of the ticket-takers at Michigan Stadium and elsewhere, then you are right, you are truly selfless.
What does the color of one's skin have to do with anything?
White males are the ones responsible for Unionism and indeed, the rights you enjoy.That they are also responsible for racism and abuse of workers there is no doubt. But you and every UM grad ought to be learned enough to see the injustice of blanket statements like the type you just made.
Keep on keepin on!
The wording selected may lead to an excess of static over signal in the stream this comment generates.