Basically positing what if college players got the same deal as pros' CBA, which seems unlikely to happen. Maybe this is only useful as a gauge of each program's revenue, in which case, it must be said that Dave Brandon is good at that part.
M FB players worth 470,000
Texas sure isn't getting alotta bang for their buck
Edit: please ignore me.
Im going with the Delany ideology. Honestly The University of Michigan is an academic institutuion. I can name thousands of players from Ohio, Penn st, Notre Dame, or any other major University that didnt go pro, but benefeted from their association with said school. I live in columbus and honestly every former buckeye is beloved. If you need a job after school just bust out your proof you played at Ohio and bam your just about in anywhere with more leverage than most. So go ahead and do the IMG thing, semi pro and we will see it sink quickly as the kids who do participate realize that NFL money isnt guranteed and there opportunity to play and develop themselves in college was wasted. Eventually these kids will see that the opportunity of an education and the weight attending a school like michigan holds in the professional world. Delany is spot on and knows that they hold the cards.
pro athletes and college is mistaken. Colege revenue is generated (mainly) by the love of the school, the alumni base, school rivalries, and the atmosphere at college games, which is unique in sports. None of those factors have one thing to do with the players.
I'm not arguing against compensation, as I'm for giving more to players for spending money so there is less temptation to take outside cash, and certain star players that sell uniforms should get some cut of that to be held in a fund until after they leave. But that's where it stops for me. And the idea of players that get treated like kings on campus and aftwrwards, while they receive the equivalent of 50k a year in free education, medical, room and board, food and travel for being there, having a union is ludicrous.
Really? They just harvest the love in the stadium and sell that? You don't think it's TV revenue, ticket sales, and merchandise that's generating the revenue? But you're right that it has nothing to do with the players. That's why Texas A&M doesn't make plenty of money selling Manziel jerseys. Doesn't happen. Nope.
Seems to me like they already make about 40k a year. It's called a scholarship. I'm guessing 90% don't go pro, get your free ride and stop worrying about being paid. People paying off student loans would chew their arm off for that deal.
NORMAL people dont put 115, 000 in the stands and make the university MILLIONS. Simple concept really. I vote for a simple stipend boost the amenities. No need for hard cash. Just don't compare D1 athletes to normal students...they are investments and on a whole different level in terms of what they bring to the university from a financial standpoint.
Yes, because Stephen Ross did not donate millions upon millions of dollars to the University recenty. Plenty of "normal" grads bring a lot of return for the university. However, yes, we don't bring in Engineering, Business, LSA, Pre-Medical degress, etc. for the same reason we hand out scholarships to football or basketball players. The skills and experience they bring to the University is quite different. As you say, there definitely deserves to be a more equitable distribution of the money their play brings in. However, as to the previous poster's point, football players at Holfstra, Montana, and Delaware, etc. bring in significantly less money into their universities. Plenty of schools or their independent athletic programs do not rake in nearly as much money as Michigan and the programs are still handing out significant scholarships. Although I generally agree with your overall point, I think a bigger focus of the criticism should be on how these academic institutions and fan-bases treat the players. If the idea is going to be a free education, the focus should be placed on this being an academic experience and not as an athletic experience. Often, this is where the process fails as players are steered into remedial courses or professors craft special class requirements around the athletes schedules. And to be fair, many athletes don't really look upon their time at the school as an academic experience but rather an extension of their previous success. Nonetheless, if the point is the compensation comes through academics, the NCAA and universities should put their money where their mouths are (obviously not going to happen). Clearly there is a difference between an engineering student on scholarship versus a football player on scholarship; he/she is encouraged to excel academically in order to bring greater returns for the unversity, whether scholarly or through tangible reinvestments (of returns in the professional field: financially or prestige-wise), whereas the foobtall player/athlete is encouraged to succeed earlier to bring more immediate returns to the University. The criticism should be the University (and all others) are acting in its own interest at the cost to athletes: an engineering degree is more stable long-term than an athlete's general interest degree without any focus on a career path. However, similar things could be said about the general LSA student population. In sum, you're both correct, but far more complex picture.
It is not an easy topic and surely one that fans and the schools cannot be one-sided on based on the well articulated post you just wrote!....its tough, i feel that outright paying the players opens up a pandora's box of future problems with certain schools ($EC) that would pay their plays nearly as much as pro's...so i don't agree with that idea as a quick fix, but i definitely agree that the players should have an increased living stipend, how much and how to work it out correctly so it is as fair as possible is a whole other topic and one that will have some gray area
This was too long and I didn't read (and this is long so its okay if you don't)...but you can't fight the argument that S-As don't bring in money and profile for the university. You also can't fight that they are "normal" students.
You CAN fight whether you think they should get paid...no good answer there, but the way that you started your novel, completely off base.
I was just in another thread where they were joking about Will Campbell jumping on the hood of a car. A "normal" kid doesn't make national news for being a college student and doing something dumb.
Also, without athletics...Michigan is not an attractive University for the a lot of the people involved with the University (student, faculty, staff, etc.) It's a FACT that football alone brings universities money, students, etc. So maybe Michigan isn't an institution for Mr. Ross to invest in if it doesn't have athletics. Or maybe it is, but how many Michigan's are there? Michigan...Northwestern....Stanford...Vanderbilt...I mean it's only a handful. There are FAR more universities that wouldn't be recognized at all without athletics.
Why do you think there is such a rush for these shit teams to add D1 football? It's not to be competitive and they lose a SHIT ton of money every year. But it helps the profile of the University. It helps them attract students, it helps them secure donors, it helps with publicity.
Don't limit the impact of Boise St. football or Gonzaga/VCU basketball...Look at what happened to FGCU after ONE March Maddness run. The science department didn't do that for the University, 15 guys and a few coaches with an orange ball did.
with your argument, Mr. Yost...yes sports team do add to a universitie's profile, but schools like UM, Standord, Vandy and NW would all be doing just fine with their massive endowments without sports and would not skip a beat...UM is a public research facility thats main goals are to promote academics and build future leaders in all it's fields....athletics do play a big role to alums and students alike, we all enjoy tailgaiting and sports to bring us together as a community...but to suggest that these schools somewhat need sports is just not true, we need these schools to produce new medicines and better ways and means of living a good life
Many schools don't need big time cfb or bball. The one's that do to keep afloat are probably not that great of schools to begin with.
someone mentioned Baylor and RGIII doing so much for that school.
well guess what Baylor is a fine academic school that has done just fine its entire history. Just like John Hopkins, Ric, Wash U St louis, Tulane, Fordham..etc..etc None of these schools have revenue sports to speak of. There are 100s more.
Chicago's a good case study: (1) you can compare the periods before and after athletics were de-emphasized, and (2) there's a useful comparison with Northwestern, a similar school that chose the other path.
It's not at all clear to me that it's hurt the school, financially or otherwise. For every Pat Ryan that loves him some football, there's a Crown or a Prtizker that couldn't care less.
They've even found ways to fund a full athletic program. Non-scholarship, of course, but pretty much everything's available to students that want to play.
What sport did you play? How good of a player were you? And where did you play? This will help me in determining how valid your opinion is.
Even if you played at a major program, but were a cross-country runner or something or even if you played a revenue sport but rode the bench for 4-5 years, of course you feel like you weren't taken advantage of -- YOU WEREN'T.
Manziel, to use an example, is plastered all over every single sports media outlet and media outlets that aren't sporting related. He's one of the biggest superstars in American sports. Of course he's going to feel like his cut of the pie should be bigger.
Schools making direct payments to the players is never going to work. If you allow players to make money on the free market -- whether it's through an endorsement deal or signing autographs or whatever -- you solve most of the problems. The chance is there for everyone. If the market deems you to be worth more than what your scholarship is, then fine get your cut. Most everyone else will be left unchanged. You get rid of the Cam Newton, Reggie Bush problems. The players who think they're worth more get compensated and the players who aren't still have their scholarships. If you don't like it at that point, you have no one to blame but yourself. It's capitalism and it works.
As far as the whole "they're 'student-athletes' and we don't want them concentrating on this sort of stuff, focus on your studies" argument, cut me a break. I just listened to Teddy Bridgewater do an interview on the Dan Patrick show -- if he has time for that in the middle of the season and school year, there's time to pretend to sip some Gatorade or whatever in the offseason.
If you allow players to make money on the free market -- whether it's through an endorsement deal or signing autographs or whatever -- you solve most of the problems.
That's not how the capitalism I was part of worked. We weren't free to profit on the side from our relationship with our employer--we were required to refuse (and report) any offers of non-nominal gifts from customers or business partners, we couldn't endorse products if the endorsement even implicitly involved our corporate position or relationship. Get paid to write an article in a journal with your corporate title on there? Money goes to the company. Get offered a speaking fee for a lecture? Same.
If we wanted to make money on the free market, we had to first sever our corporate ties and be on the free market. But the moment a player does that, he isn't worth squat.
So players are employees? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of your point? If you want to apply an employer-employee relationship with athletes, you're opening up a bigger pandoras box. You wanna give them workers comp now too?
Ya you had a fiduciary duty to act in the corporations best interests, do you want to apply that same duty to athletes? If you were producing stuff in a corporate journal and constantly bringing in recognition to the corporation, you would either get a bump up in pay from the company or ask for one. If refused, you could go get paid elsewhere. Players don't have that opportunity. Shit if the coach who recruits the player up and leaves, they can't play elsewhere without wasting a year of their lives, how is that fair?
Your company had these rules in place because they didn't want competition -- they don't want their bottom line hurt. If you make that analgous to college athletic departments, is that what you really want them to be about? Isn't that what your type bemoans -- the entitlement, the money, the lack of care for the institution that the athletics are supposed to serve?
The player/employee equivalence is implied in the position that players should be paid their market-clearing value. I'm pointing out that even if you grant that equivalence, which would seem to mean giving up the entire argument from the start, you still don't get players free to profit from their relationship with the school by accepting endorsements and booster payouts.
A lot of your argument is a straw man. I'm not arguing that playes aren't wronged in any way by the current system--of course players should have more freedom to move when their situation materially changes, like a coaching change (although I note that that's apparently a minority position around here, given the reaction to Carr when he told his players to take some time to think it through but if they really wanted to move he'd sign their papers). And they are already free to go play professionally in the CFL, if they want.
Do you pay starters the same as nonstarters? Stars the same as role-players? What about benchwarmers? Do they even get paid? Do players renegotiate their deals each season, based on prior performance? How does it all work under your plan? (I don't mean this combatively - I'm really interested in the answers.)
I think this is a thorny issue - and i liked a suggestion by John U. Bacon (on some interview with some ___-wing magazine) that football just set up a minor league so the system evolves like baseball/hockey. You want to get paid? Go play in a meaningful NFL Developmental League where your focus can be 100% football and you can get paid for your efforts. You want to represent a school and all the perqs that come with that (like a free education and the networking benefits)? Great.
I've stated repeatedly I don't think players should get paid from the school's but notions of amatuerism should get lifted. If Pepsi wants to pay Tebow, let them.
I'm not sure I see the practical distinction. Nike, not Oregon, will pay Oregon players. Aon, not Northwestern, will pay NW players. OSU players can all get no-show jobs and perqs from Victoria's Secret. Money that would have gone from those firms and their executives to the schools will now go to the players; the net effect is the same as the schools paying them directly.
Why would they get no-show jobs? Think of it as signing an endorsement deal -- model in an Express catalog or something. Or shit, even if they got a no-show job, who cares? It's not like we don't have alums and boosters to offer the same to our players. And it's not going to go to each player -- ideally, if the firm is smart, they're paying the players that are worth it. Back up long snapper isn't getting a 500K paycheck.
I'm just not clear why you're opposed to schools paying players, but in favor of this. Maybe I'm being obtuse but I don't see the difference. Is it that the schools would be required to give everyone the same paycheck (that's sort of implied by the last two sentences)? I'm not sure that's necessarily the case--you could let the schools pay whatever they thought a particular player is worth.
Where is the school going to get the money from? Not to mention you run into federal laws and regulations. I just think this a neater more equitable system. You solve the problem of the 1% or so who actually are more valuable than their scholarships indicate their worth -- no more Reggie Bush bringing down sanctions on CURRENT USC players -- and very little else changes in my mind.
This makes sense-you get around Title IX if the money goes through the school's corporate benefactor instead of the school itself.
It's a plan. D1 athletics will lose me if it goes this route, but it's a plan.
I mean not necessairly. It doesn't have to be the school's corporate benefactor. I don't know that Pepsi and Michigan have any special relationship. If Denard or Tebow or Young or whoever was deemed popular enough that paying them would be a good marketing move by Pepsi, I don't see who it hurts.
Why didn't D1 athletics lose you when it started monetizing itself? Do you still watch the TOSTITOS Fiesta Bowl. I just don't get the logical inconsistencies.
Unlike you I'm pretty sure the endorsement field will be dominated by booster-types like Knight and Wexner and Ryan, and not arms-length transactions.
D1 athletics has been losing me steadily. When it becomes clear that the national championship is being played between Nike and Colonial Bancorp I suspect I will lose my allegiance altogether.
There's still my D3 allegiances and that's where I'd probably turn. I'm not so vain as to imagine I'd be missed.
"You solve the problem of the 1% or so who actually are more valuable than their scholarships indicate their worth.."
That option is already there. Manziel, or anyone else who thinks that endorsements are worth more than their scholarship, can drop the scholarship and take the endorsement money tomorrow.
What you can't have is players getting bought by boosters through "endorsement deals" and then playing NCAA football. That would destroy the game.
The players have to choose, just like players in any market: do they want to take endorsement money, or do they want to play NCAA sports?
Thanks for the quick response. There's been a ton of verbiage on the blog on this topic, so I haven't (and won't) read it all. There's just too much, and a bunch of it is shrill. (Not yours.) A few quick follow-up questions:
What if a company that gets no fair return on their investment (say a certain glass company in OH) wants to pay TPeezy? Or T. Boone Pickens wants to pay some kid $1M to pay at OK State?
Is it just the fair market value for endorsements? Or can individuals sponsor players at their favored university? Also, can they use Michigan gear while advertising? Can they use their affiliation with Michigan in any other way?
"What if a company that gets no fair return on their investment (say a certain glass company in OH) wants to pay TPeezy? Or T. Boone Pickens wants to pay some kid $1M to pay at OK State?"
If I'm understanding what you're asking, I'm guessing they're going to have to decide whether or not to continue that relationship. Maybe there's a procedural safeguard into that contract that if the company doesn't realize X% of net return from this, contract is void. Not really sure how these contracts work.
"Is it just the fair market value for endorsements? Or can individuals sponsor players at their favored university? Also, can they use Michigan gear while advertising? Can they use their affiliation with Michigan in any other way?"
I'd be fine limiting to FMV for endorsements. I think it'd be a little bit easier/less shady to police these sorts of relationships. I would say no to the Michigan gear front/affiliation. I usually don't see pro-players use their affiliations and I'm assuming this is because they'd be violating their liscencing agreements with other entities. Though if say Addidas wanted to do a seperate spot for a certain player and Michigan got a cut and didn't mind, I see no reason why not.
I'm not sure i agree with you, but thanks for considering the issues and for the thoughtful responses.
College football would not miss one single beat, and that minor league would be the equivalent, on TV, to the Arena league--meaning no one would watch. Another point that reinforces mine that college football success has NOTHING to do with individual players, and everything to do with those things that are unuique about it--the colleges themselves, their traditions, their names, their rivalries. Johnny Manziel, the best possible example of a star colege player, IMO did not bring a single new fan to their stadium at A&M. They were sold out before him and will sell out after him. And even if you disagree with my last statement, the number of players that I can be wrong about numbers less than 10. All the rest bring nothing extra in money to the universities.
Just a thought on individual players.
What sport did you play? How good of a player were you? And where did you play? This will help me in determining how valid your opinion is.
...but you don't agree with my argument because you didn't GET my argument.
Schools like Michigan and the ones you mentioned are of course fine. Look at the Ivy's, they seem to be doing fine without a Michigan level football program.
You've pointed out exceptions. But what is UCF without football? It's a commuter school in Orlando. But does their enrollment grow? Are people attracted to the school? Is anyone outside of the state invested?
Now it's a school on the verge of bursting into the mainstream. Jordan's kids went there. They beat S. Carolina this weekend or upset L'ville and they'll be taken more seriously in athletics.
They don't call athletics "the front porch of the University" for no reason. It's the first thing people see, period.
I'm currently an athletics adminstrator at a school where our UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT wants to add lacrosse to boost enrollment since we don't have football. She feels like it'll help us reach into the NE United States and get that demographic (rich kids who give once they graduate).
Financially, it would be suicide for us to add Men's Lacrosse, that's basically adding D2 level football. But you can see why she wants to be attractive to those types of kids, you can see why she feels it would help the profile of the entire University.
is stating is that athletics essentially help out with the school's profile, which I am not arguing since it obviously does to a lot of people for multiple reasons...but if a school needs to depend on a sports team to increase the need for more students then they are already doing something terribly wrong...UCF is a terrible academic school, they bounce in and out of accredidation with their law school and they are basically a big community college...but many other schools who are constantly big time players in bball and fball hardly get any money back into their endowment from athletics...i am simply stating schools do not need sports, nor will they ever need them to survive, unless they are already doing something terribly wrong
As some of the above posters mentioned, there are plenty of schools that do fine without large athletic programs. However, you are right that having a successful football or basketball program (other athletic programs can qualify depending on area; see Hockey at North Dakota or BC or baseball in some southern programs etc.) does significantly boost camraderie and school spirit along with providing an identity which is something alums and prospective students love. I remember when I did a program in DC and we had a bunch of UC students (from Berkeley, Santa Cruz, etc.) students with us; I remember several of their students being incredibly envious of the Michigan having a football program and wishing they had chosen a school with a football program or a more successful one (Berkeley students because apparently its students and alums aren't into the program like Michigan students and alums are). This identity/camraderie does provide a unique interest that cannot be denied. I wasn't trying to argue the athletes shouldn't receive increased compensation for their services. As I noted, their input into the University brings more immediate returns than a general population student and the athletes' return on investment comes with significantly more risk or less stability. I just wanted to depict the complexity of this picture. For example, Michigan football players are worth on average $470,000, but is Joey Kerridge or a random walk-on worth the same as Devin Gardner or Taylor Lewan? We need some intelligent people to sit down and figure out, hopefully, the best system to compensate players. Sorry for length.
D1 would have to be split in half, and then I would think as a money proposition it would have to shrink further, say to ~30-40 teams.
Do you think the seats would be filled if these kids didnt wear the winged helmet. Can anyone honestly believe these kids deserve more? They make a choice to do this. These kids arent bullied into this. Its like joining the army, you have a choice. Im not sold on anything. Im also glad that the EA sports lawsuit will result in these kids getting a whopping 150 bucks a piece while they get to watch the layers swim in the dough. Good life lesson learned by those who are entitled.
These players arent who makes the school millions. The platform the school provides gives the players a chance themselves to make millions. The winged helmet and the maize n blue is a brand. Just because they slap a 16 on a jersey doesnt mean that the player is making them millions. Lets slap a 16 on a semi pro jersey and see how that goes. The NCAA and the BIG are at a serious advanteage here. The lawsuits will only make money for the lawyers and will not change anything. The shcools will shut it down before they pay for play. These kids gotta learn the world isnt fair and I cant wait until they do. Let me ask everyone a question. If I wen tto Grand Rapids communiy and got a degree and applied for a job at the same place as a Michigan grad and both get hired for the same position do I deserve the same salary as the Uof M grad? No I dont. The world isnt fair. I would realize that I have to earn it and work harder.
You are most certainly correct about the attorneys loving these lawsuits. Will make a nice chunk of change on payment of attorneys' fees. Someone in an earlier post linked an SI article in which the lead attorney mentioned how they were going to try and ensure payment is dispersed to all eligible parties. I do hope that will happen.
people paying off students loans suck at football.
It's ridiculous to say that there is nothing wrong with players only getting compensated ~10% of their value in a form of compensation that they can't directly use, and don't even necessarily want.
Most players would gladly pay their way through school if they were paid what they deserve.
Are the non-revenue generating sports' athletes going to get paid their net value to the university too (ie they would have to pay to play)? If you are going to pay revenue generating sports' athletes, and still keep your other sports you will have non-athletes paying into a general university fund that will also be used to pay athletes (which I guess already sort of happens at the majority of colleges where the athletics department loses money).
i only suck at football when i am being compared to"real" football players
A scholarship in what, exactly? Humanities? General education? You might be a bit jaded by the number of athletes at Michigan or Stanford who are studying civil engineering or something like that, but for every one of those there are dozens of Julius Pepper-type kids who are getting handed free A's so that they can play football and to pretend like a $40k degree is fair when you are worth 10 times that is insulting.
Out of state tuition and fees plus books, food, room and board is about $55,000. When you then add in training table/nutrition, athletic facilities/trainers, academic tutoring and advising, complimentary tickets, road per diem meal allowances, and bowl swag, I am guessing that cost comes close to $100,000.
Well, "tickertape," how much money are those "people who are paying off student loans" bringing in to their respective universities every year?
The bottom line is that players should be allowed to take money on the free market. It's really an easy "tweak." All they have to do is burn 95% of "NCAA regulations" and fire 95%of the "enforcement" and "compliance" staffs.
I went through Michigan with a full ride for academics and also worked 10 to 20 hours a week for General Motors. A fair number of folks in college get some or all of their college paid for with scholarships and cash a paycheck beyond that. A fair number of engineering grad students are in the same boat, tuition waiver and some kind of grant or hook up with a company that results in a stipend. I see no reason that a football player shouldn't be able to do the same. Just because a small percentage of them will go on to become wealthly in the pros is no reason to deny them money. By that logic we should go stick it harder to the Business School types since they might end up with Stephen J Ross kinds of money.
In terms of wealth on hand, I had a significantly better deal in that I went to class and cashed a check for my work. A football player goes to class, has 20 hours of official practice with the coaching staff, more voluntary practice or film study with their teammates, which is supposed to average out to around 44.8 hours per week, and they don't even get a stipend for walking around money. Heck if they chose to stay in school rather than go pro early, their wallets take a hit because they have to buy injury insurance with their own money like Lewan did.
There are a lot of services FBS programs could offer their students beside just handing them the cash (and half a million per head doesn't seem defensible) such as a living stipdent, program provided insurance for career ending injuries, a free grad degree as well as 4 years of undergrad, a trust fund of some sort, etc. Right now though players do get screwed considering the revenue stream they bring in.
Actually they do get a stipend for living expenses. Very few choose to take out injury insurance and none of them are forced to do so. Players like Lewan have every oportunity to go pro after 3 years but he chose to come back and pay for the insurance policy. No big bad NCAA or NFL forced him to do that. If you want to remove age/years since HS requirements from NBA and NFL drafts, that would be one fair approach. A professional minor league system would also be a fair option.
it's funny that you are calling money that school pays to themselves compensation for the players. what if your employer paid your salary to the company and your received none of it, what you call it compensation for you?
That's a totally dumb analogy and you know it. People pay for an education, they don't get paid to have one.
They'd be getting paid because they generate millions playing not football, not because of their education
...but what is "more dumb" is thinking any of this about education.
That is the first mistake that so many people make in this conversation. And I wish people would stop using the stupid "they get a free education" argument.
ITS NOT ABOUT EDUCATION! It never was...never will be. Trust me, from someone who is in college athletics each and every day. As much as that feels like a valid argument, it's not. I had 60k in loans...so I know what it's like to NOT have a free education. Many people have more than I did. I get it.
However, this isn't about education or being a student or anything academic. THIS ABOUT FOOTBALL AND MEN'S BASKETBALL. Nothing else.
Formulate your own opinion and/or solution, but keep that in mind. You can't make this about academics because it never was or will be about academics.
then what about the what....99% of student athletes that will never go pro in their specific sport? You people are lumping all SA's into the same category and they aren't. Most of these people will never play pro sports but if they took their free education (that you don't want to admit is worth anything) they could at least come oput of this with a decent life.
This isn't about going pro...who said anything about going pro?
I'm pretty sure the people saying S-As should be paid aren't changing their minds based on whether or not a player goes pro.
I'm pretty sure if Johnny Manziel quits football after college and starts a reality show...those people will still say he should've been compensated for his time at Texas A&M.
Next note: When did I admit that education is not worth anything? Can you read? Are you even replying to me? I never said that. EVER. An education is worth a LOT. I'd argue that it's worth more than just the dollar number than is attached to it...so where the hell did that come from?
All I said was that this isn't about academics...it's about FOOTBALL and MEN'S BASKETBALL. Period. It's not even about college sports. It's not about rowing or gymnastics or even Baseball. It's about the two sports that I mentioned.
Is that right? Maybe not. But that's how it is...so don't think otherwise. Start with that simple fact and build your opinion from there.
Like I said below, if you think it was about something else then you probably also thought conference realignment was about location and/or competitve excellence. We all know it wasn't and we scratch our heads on why Rutgers is in the B1G over many other schools. Why TCU and Boise were in the Big East, etc.
YOU PEOPLE need to take your personal emotions out of it. It's perfectly okay to disagree with it. I thought it was dumb as hell that Boise was in the Big East. But at some point you have to take the facts and go from there. Fact is, this isn't about academics. Never was.
It's about more than just football and basketball. Title IX says so. You are somewhat on the right track when you say it is not about academics. But, Title IX is tied to federally funded academic institutions. The structure is in place to offer a free education to all scholarship athletes in competitive sports regardless of the level of interest from the public.
The problem is creating a model that will not completely undo Title IX. There are just over 28,000 undergraduate students at UM. There are around 1,000 student-athletes. The university and athletic department already spends about $100,000 per athlete per year. $100,000,000 per year!!! How do you equally distribute funds in a pay for play situation when budgets at most institutions cannot accommodate? The problem that can arise from paying athletes based on their perceived value is that athletes from non-revenue sports can make a claim that institutions are not doing enough to increase the popularity of their sport and allow them the same opportunities.
You're basing your predictions off the current model of the NCAA and the current model of college sports.
None of this would EVER happen in the current model...even if it was just football.
UL-Monroe can't afford it and Alabama ain't sharing. At least not with them they aren't.
Well thats why the players attend right? Its the overall scope. They get an amazing education, the stigma of being a Michigan man and being beloved in the state. Football is just as much a part of the education as the education itself. The lessons these kids learn about life if they have the right staff are unmatched. If they graduate like Denard, Devin, Jordan they will not only have a degree, but they can also show to employers that they were hard workers in the classroom and on the football field. Let the one percent go to a minor league and regret it later when they are uneducated and throw away the free opportunity they had. The University Of Michigan Is much larger than one individual. Remember the school gives them the platform. Without the school they are nothing more than an up and coming entertainer.
...I just said it has nothing to do with academics.
Anyone who thinks it is probably thought conference realignment was about location or competitve excellence.
They get way more than 40K per year. Crap, at Michigan, that wouldn't even cover OOS tuition. Note Table I in the link below where players in major conferences have up to160K per year spent on athletic spending.
If players don't like their free ride, I would suggest that they enroll on their own dime in the college of engineering instead.
I think that when the kid gets the scholly they should have the option of taking it in cash form and then take out a student loan, or use it for its intended purpose. This way they have their money, and they are responsible for their education just like all of the non SA's.
I know the amout as of now would vary from school to school, but those are details that can be worked out. The way I am thinking about it is SA's get a reuced or standard tuition for all SA's. This way all institutions of higher learning will be on the same level.
Rather than the university GIVE them 5k for spending money...why don't they simply pull out a supplimentary student loan? If they go pro, then they can pay it in full...if not then they'll have a minimal payment when they gradutate.
The value of the football program doesn't primarily rest in the players, and people would find that out quickly if players had a professional/semiprofessional avenue into the game. Move many of the best players into some sort of minor league and there would still be 80.000-100,000 people in Austin and Tuscaloosa and Lincoln and Ann Arbor on Saturday, while the minor league games would command all the interest of the Shrine Bowl or the East/West Game.
The schools get that revenue in large part based on the accumulated capital of a tradition, a loyal fanbase, loyal alumni. I cheer for the uniform and not any particular player and I'm sure I'm not anywhere near alone in that.
That is what most of these "studies" miss. You don't calculate the "value" of the players by dividing revenue by number of players. You need to calculate it based on replacement value.
You replace every player on the team with less talented players and Michigan is still going to draw similar revenues. You can put every 5* players around the country out of the game and NCAA revenue is not going to fluctuate.
These kids are just cogs in the machine. They are readily replaceable (and we do, every 4 years!). Their value is far lower than what revenue says.
You replace every player on the team with less talented players and Michigan is still going to draw similar revenues.
Do you really think that's true? If you replaced Michigan's team with less talented players, you'd end up with Indiana or Purdue. Fans would still support the team for a few years, but it wouldn't take long for the stadium to start to look empty. If not for Denard, it might have started happening in 2010.
These kids are just cogs in the machine.
I don't think you meant it this way, but this comes across as terribly callous. If you think of Denard Robinson, or Taylor Lewan, or Jack Miller as a cog in a machine, I feel sorry for you.
Three separate companies have been able to make money charging people for content on the Internet to track high school students deciding what college to go to. If you could do a Kickstarter to pay money to Jabrill Peppers to come to Michigan, how much do you think you could raise just in direct payments from MGoBlog readers alone?
The NCAA is essentially a monopoly for football players aged 18-21 who want to play in the NFL, and they've artificially limited the amount a player can be paid to the value of a scholarship. That doesn't mean those players are actually worth no more than the price of a scholarship.
You can put every 5* players around the country out of the game and NCAA revenue is not going to fluctuate.
Really? That's basically what's happened to college basketball, and here's what's happened to the ratings. That's only for the NCAA finals. I can't find numbers for the regular season, but I would guess the drop off has been even steeper. If you reduce the quality of the game, people won't care as much.
Before anyone tries to put words in my mouth, let me clarify a few things:
- The article posted in the OP is ridiculous. I don't think Michigan football players should be paid $470,000 each.
- A lot of what makes me care about people like Denard and Lewan and Miller is that they're representing a school, not a pro sports franchise that will move to San Antonio and start wearing teal if they think it will make them more money.
- Most NCAA football players' true market value is not much more than the value of the scholarship they're getting, and many of those players are better served by getting a college education rather than $200,000 in cash, which they would blow on motorcycles and hookers. On the flipside, I don't feel too sad for NFL players who make millions because they didn't get paid enough in college.
If you see this as an easy issue either way, I don't think you're thinking about it seriously enough.
What if it's not about the players' worth. What if it's about the worth of the sport that they play?
Johnny Football's worth ain't shit compared to college football's worth. But why is college football worth so much?
THAT is the issue. Not trying to separate Denard Robinson from Justice Hayes.
This is an argument that will never get settled because of professional sports. Think about it, the more the NBA, NFL, etc are worth...the more players get paid. Arena Football isn't worth what the NFL is worth...players get paid less. Certainly there are other factors, but the correlation is relevant.
So I repeat, people need to stop trying to seperate the few stars from college football from the random scholarship player that no one knows about. That isn't what the issue is about. It's about the value of college football, the value of March Madness...and why they are so valuable. Then it's about what makes them so valuable.
Don't make this about eduation...don't make it about a handful of players.
argument. I I looked at your link and have no idea what your point was. Maybe you would like to clarify.
I linked to that page because of the graph of NCAA tournament ratings that appears about 2/3 of the way down the page. Sorry that wasn't clear.
My point was that ratings for the NCAA championship game dropped pretty significantly in the mid-90s. Prior to then, they were getting around 30 million viewers. Then, right after a peak that coincided with the Fab Five, they dropped steadily, and now hover in the low 20-million range. That's almost exactly the time frame when top players started leaving early or skipping college altogether in large numbers.
I think those statistics probably understate the decline. March Madness is the one time per year when people care about college basketball. For more casual fans, regular season college basketball barely registers, and I think that's a big change since the 1980s. But I don't have the statistics to back that up.
I don't think you can attribute the decline in basketball ratings to a general decline in TV viewership. Again, I don't have access to a full database of bowl game ratings, but the 1989 Fiesta Bowl, the de facto national championship game between Notre Dame and West Virginia, got a Nielsen rating of 17.0. That's pretty much in line with the ratings that BCS championship games get now. (See here, and again scroll down to see the list of TV ratings.)
of disagreement. It's pretty clear that the NCAA ratings went up and down based on the appeal of the individual games. 1979 is #1 because of Magic vs Bird. The numbers spiked up because of the fab five (and Michigan). The real decline to my eyes started in 2000.
I don't think the BCS championship game is a fair comparison either. BCS bowl ratings have gone down quite a lot in that time. The exception is the championship game, which is now marketed and scheduled much differently than it was.
You're right, the sample sizes are just too small to know for any given year whether a decline is due to random fluctuation or a real trend. The graph I cited was for the NCAA championship game, so I think the BCS championship game is the best comparison.
I'd really like to see a full set of data in basketball vs. football over the last 20-30 years, but I can't find it with basic Googling.
If you replaced Michigan's team with less talented players, you'd end up with Indiana or Purdue.
Indiana and Purdue would also have less-talented players. I don't see any reason to think the relative status of the teams would change, except that the better academic schools would probably see a boost because the players in the college game would be the ones that cared enough about academics to go that route.
One of the arguments against paying players is that it is the institution people cheer for, not the team. But if Michigan were consistently not good, would they still enjoy the same support?
On an open market, players would be able to go to whichever school paid them the most, so some teams would be getting that talent, and the remainder would lag behind. So if signing Jabrill Peppers is the difference between going 7-5 vs. 11-1, and consequently enjoying a $20 million increase in revenue, should he enjoy some of that money?
You could extend it by analogy to the NFL. Most fans don't cheer for the Chiefs because they have analyzed their players, coaching staff, and style of play and are particularly fond of it. They cheer for the Chiefs because they like in Missouri or Kansas, just the same way that most fans of Michigan are students, alumni, or live in Michigan The success of the program will affect how fervent that support is, and the success is, in large part, dependent on the players.
That said, I haven't seen a solution offered which I thing would not result in the destruction of college football as we know it.
I think this is the best comment that has been made so far during this debate. I also don't appreciate it when people say that the players are more valuable then other students. Trust me if Michigan and other top schools fail to get enough top students then their rankings go down, the value of the institution goes down, and the amount in tuition they can demand goes down. Everybody plays a role in the Michigan community and no part of it should be belittled. I also believe this to be the case in corporations. The CEO and ExCom are definitely important but everybody that is part of the organization is essential in their own ways. It takes more than leadership to have a well functioning organization. Everybody is important.
I'm sorry, but you are not as important as football players.
If a player won the heisman, that alone would increase our applications substantially.
If you got a 4.0, nobody but your mom would notice.
Football isnt for everyone, just like engineering, law, business etc.... Everyone has to find their niche in life. If your good at football you then are an entertainer and many football majors go into a football related major which leads to broadcasting, coaching, training etc... I personally wouldnt say that an engineering major with a 4.0 would be irrelevant considering he would be a first round pick with just about any major engineering firm in the country if he graduates from Michigan. I woudlnt give two shits if my mom was the only one who cared.
Obviously that's not how athletic departments operate. If you include all revenue (~$128.8 million) and all student-athletes (~700) and assume 47% fair market value across all sports, each athlete is worth $85,000 per year.
If you add up tuition, room and board, meals, cost of travel etc. I would guess you would see a number awfully close to that figure spent on each athlete.
Yes, football brings in the most revenue but if athletic departments compensate them, and only them, with their fair market value, most of the other sports will be discontinued.
And that's not to mention the non-scholarship football players, graduate assistants, and others who contribute to the team's ability to function and play. Where's their share of the pie? And what percentage to agents and lawyers who would be necessary to negotiate any deals?
To be fair to the study, they probably think they've accounted for that by allotting the same percentage of revenue to the college players that the pros commanded in their agreement with the NFL owners. Everybody else's share of the pie would be the other 53%.
It's a dubious assumption--look at the pay scales in the minor and developmental leagues in other sports. College football commands revenue because it's college football and people have loyalty to the schools. Take the schools out of the equation and you've got all the earnings power of the D-League or the Pioneer League.
I could be wrong about this too, but it seems odd in this article to do what is essentially a revenue per employee calculation with just one subset of the "employees", if you will. I wonder what it would look like if you took the operating revenue of the department and divided it by the whole body of athletes (and then to be absolutely fair, the athletes and actual paid staff). I have to think the figure would be interesting, especially because the resulting figure would be seen as a measure of productivity in other environments. Again, I could be misapplying it though.
meals and cost of travel ar already included in the breakdown.
1. Most college teams are publicly owned/financed. The tax payers took the financial risk and built the franchises, certainly that value is not going to be divvied among a bunch of teenagers.
2. We are talking about players who by definition are teenagers (read: 'high risk') and will only be part of the organization for 3-4 years. A high risk blended with no time for ROI... this means using a system of value sharing in the pros as the starting point for contract values in the setting of collegiate sports IS ASININE
Sound business logic and clear thinking.
I have no problem with players not getting a cut of the pie, as most of the "profits" go on to fund all the non-revenue sports at Michigan.
I do have a problem with people profiting from the sale of an individual players likeness. Video game merchandising, posters, signed photos,and jersey sale profits should go to that player alone. I'm surprised it took so long for EA to be challenged on that. I wonder how long it will take for a player to sue his university for selling his face or name on merchandise. Maybe Manziel will blaze that trail.
Okay, let some enterprising person start a developmental league and pay the kids. Forget college, just play the game and collect your salary. It would never work because the value of the product lies with the institutions and the platform they provide. Maybe 1% of the kids add genuine star power and generate revenue. The others wouldn't be missed if someone else was wearing the uniform.
Not only that, but so much of the value of the player also derives from the institution. Johnny Manziel: famous if he went to Idaho? Denard: on the cover of NCAA 14 if he had chosen to stay home and play for FIU?
Look at how Baylor benefited from RG3 or how Michigan benefited from the Fab Five.
I wouldn't disagree. Just think it needs pointing out that quite a bit of a player's marketability comes from the uniform he wears. It's a two-way street. Rich Guy Car Dealer in Birmingham, Alabama might be falling all over himself if he could get the chance to put a Bama football player in his ad, but put that exact same player in school at South Alabama and he's got no power at all.
The players (all of them, even scout players) probably come pretty close to this in the full ride they get. UM out of state room and board is what $60k a year. Add in all the benefits (equipment, tutoring, clothes, meal stipeds, travel..etc) and football players get a little under $400k in four years. every last one of them.
Plus football in large part just funds the other non-revenus sports as the athletic department at UM is self funding (one of the few in the country). Take it away the the Univ loses its largest recruiting tool to students but it will still be there. It'd be like any other private school in the country. A lesser Ivy if you will. ie just fine.
Finally, take out the 150 kids a year that are 5star recruits (really these are the only types that could go pro from HS) and college football wouldn't even notice. Arena league and the minor league texas rattlers team in waco might get a small bump in ticket sales. We all tuned in to watch Novak and Stu douglas right? Lester Abram and Dominic Ingerson in basketball. We'd do the same to watch 3 and 4 start UM football players. Heck, this would be the big tens best chance to pass the SEC.
I agree with Delany. I say remove the age restriction and let the kids have a choice. Go pro or go to school. Get some chump change now (which is what 18yr old prospects would get given the 5star bust rate) or go to a school for a free ride, 100,000 fans a week, education, espn promotting you, and STILL a shot at the pros in 3 years once you develop.
My friends with Ph.D.s will be wanting their bigger checks too. They brought in more to their university as a result of their research than the football players did, and they did their work at B1G school.
Hell, they both teach at another B1G school now and one of their labs created a new catalyst that could be worth up to 7 figures if sold to a major corporation. The best part is that most of the work on the catalyst was done by an undergrad that was screwing up the research and sort of hit on it accidently. You know what that undergrad gets? Nothing. Outside of the chance to work in a multi-million dollar lab, her name on the paper, and an amazing educational opportunity.
We should start a UofM PhD blog. We can have in depth interviews with PhD candidates hoping to get a Michigan offer, look ahead at upcoming experiments, and even UFR past research. With all of the traffic and advertising, we could make tens, if not hundreds of dollars!
What you just wrote had absolutely nothing to do with the content of my post.
The researchers and professors at schools bring in more money than the athletic teams.
The undergrads do not directly receive compensation for their additions to the research.
Professors = Coaches/AD
Undergrads = Athletes
In both groups, the individuals doing the majority of the physical labor are being compensated in forms other than money. The complaints from the media are only about the athletes getting a pay day, yet the the undergrads doing research bring in more money for the school than the athletes.
If you don't believe that, just look up the yearly budgets for research and sports at major universities that participate in both research and Div I sports. The research budget is going to be a larger amount.
In addition to what doctor wolverine said, Michigan is free to increase the compensation of PhD candidates. In athletics they have committed, via the NCAA, to explicit limits on compensation. Big difference, IMO.
but great article I saw that I think you guys would enjoy: lauramctaggart.wordpress.com Scroll down. It's called "Open letter to a college player who thinks they should be paid".
Are we all prepared to pay the women's rugby team 400k a year?
Lets not forget Title IX. The feminists would sue immediately.
Allow all athletes to sign endorsement deals.
Collegiate athletics does not allow remuneration for anything other than attending classes. I could be a billionaire from Tuscaloosa and offer a kid $1 million to endorse hog shit once they were enrolled at Alabama. I guarantee that everyone on this blog would have a meltdown over the new ways in which "cheating" would occur once those flood gates were opened.
How would you limit the types of endorsement deals? How would you deal with Knight at Nike and his ties to Oregon, or Wexner at Limited Brands and his ties to Ohio State, or Plank at Under Armour and his ties to Maryland? You've just given them a legal avenue to providing benefits upon the condition of enrolling at their school...
If you feel like you're being exploited by the NCAA, there is a simple solution: DON'T PLAY COLLEGE FOOTBALL. No one is holding a gun to these guys' heads. Apply to colleges as a "normal" person and go down a different career path. Football is not the only way to make money.
I understand that the counter-argument to this is that most of these guys couldn't go to Michigan without football, whether it be because of grades or money. To me, that only strengthens my argument. Michigan provides them a platform to escape their troubled backgrounds. As Brian has pointed out in the past, a vast majority of Michigan football players go on to be productive members of society even without pro ball.
The issue is that universities collude to constrain players' compensation below what the market would provide.
Have at it. See what you're worth if you don't associate yourself with a school.
DES MOINES – The Iowa Barnstormers will hold their annual open tryout on Sunday, October 20 at Soccer City in Palatine, Ill., the team announced today. The tryout in the Chicago suburb is open to any athlete at least 18 years of age.
Denard and Lewan could have done this 4 years ago. Something tells me it worked out better to go to UM and get everything paid for for 4 years. By everything I mean school, room, board, travel..etc
Note, nobody paid me when I wanted a late night pizza or had to pay rent in AA back in 2001. I had to get the money on my own or use my schollys just live football players. They get more than enough in schollys to "get by" in school. Get by means ramen some nights, just like the rest of us.
You're a fucking a moron. Do you really think someone the size of BWC and Lewan is going to get by on Ramen for a night and expect to perform at a high level the next day in a game or practice? And no one limited you in getting money off your talents.
Nobody is saying they can't go play arena ball. go play there and you can come up with food and housing using your $30,000 (if that) from the arena league. try making the pros that way.
Michigan will be just fine. Just like Wash U St. Louis is just fine and hundreds of other schools. U of Chicago..etc
If you're really interested in having a genuine debate and not just trying to score cheap points, I think you should look into the implications of your argument a little further. I never said that the AFL or any other semipro league offers superior compensation. I just pointed out that universities use a cartel in the form of the NCAA to limit compensation.
Here's a UofC economist and attorney explaining it: http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2011/04/the-ncaa-as-a-powerful-cartel-becker.html
There already exists an open market for the talents of an 18-year-old football player. Their value on that market is so low that virtually without exception the better players choose to take on the restrictions that come with being a college football player.
The NFL's age limit at least gives the pro forma appearance of a restriction, and maybe it's a problem. But there are at least 50 leagues out there where a player can go play after high school and at least one (the CFL) has some prestige and a revenue stream that would support a decent salary for these guys, if it's really what they're worth on an open market.
But apparently what they're getting now in the NCAA is a better deal.
Their value on the semipro market is low because semipro leagues are filling a low cost, low quality niche, given the current equilibrium enforced by NFL age restrictions and the NCAA cartel. I don't question that a four year scholarship to M is a better deal than playing in the AFL. That doesn't mean that top CFB players are receiving market clearing wages. It's basically indisputable that if the NCAA didn't limit compensation that players would receive a higer level of compensation than they do now from schools like UM, PSU, Alabama, etc. Just because there are market options (AFL, USFL, etc) does not mean the entire market is free. An entire segment of the market has formed a cartel.
Kurt Warner won super bowls and was MVP. came from arena league. There are other avenues.
Sounds like you whole argument is based on the NFL age limit. Well lets drop that and see what changes...
I'm guessing not much. Maybe 10 guys will get a sniff at the NFL out of HS per year. The rest will go to low cost, low quality niche market that is semi-pro
Go to big time unviersities with built in fans that number in the millions with which to market your talents (at little cost of your own). And then go to the NFL.
Compensation limitations at the high end aren't unusual in sport; they're often necessary to preserve some semblance of competitive balance on the field, without which the sport would lose its appeal and with it the revenue stream that would have supported those high salaries in the first place.
If the depression of wages by the cartel was significant, en masse, we'd see defections into the professional market, at least to the CFL which isn't operating on the low-cost, low-quality model. Or the players would be jumping at Delaney's IMG model.
Rules limiting third-party payments aren't unusual either, and I suspect it's those rules that are seen as limiting player income more than limitations on benefits provided by the schools themselves. I wasn't free to sell my company's promotional products for my own profit, or to accept large gifts from customers or business partners, or to give a public speech presenting myself as an employee/officer of the company and pocket the proceeds. And nobody ever criticized those rules on the grounds that they kept us from earning a market-clearing wage. The company rightfully put limits on the extent to which we could personally profit from our relationship with the company.
And the players are typically unionized and negotiate a cba. I think you're being too dismissive of the power of this cartel, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Maybe read that article by Becker and Posner and see if you still feel the same way.
I'm all for players unionizing, and setting up a professional league as an alternative that would try to operate on a higher level than the semipro leagues now. I don't think the players will get much out of i (unike professional leagues, I don't think a strike would go well for them)t, but I supposet it would be a good alternative for those players who don't come to play school. Good for the players, and good for the schools--maybe it would help limit some of the more ridiculous academic shenanigans.
I think the existence of the NCAA as cartel creates significant barriers to entry. In that context, your recommendation is basically a nonstarter. You're saying players have other options without acknowledging that these options are undermined by the existence of a cartel.
I disagree with even bringing up age restrictions. Those are in place in football because of the glaring disparity in size and speed from high school to the pros. It is a safety issue, and to a much lesser extent, a quality of product concern, not a means to limit compensation.
Stop with this high horse bullshit, normal students that bring in money to the university WHILE they are still students do get paid. If you are a science student on a full ride, guess what, you can make extra money on the side working in a research lab, how crazy is that? However if you're a football player you aren't afforded that oppurtunity. I'm not advocating for paying athletes hundreds of thousands of dollars, but how about actually raising what they are given to meet the cost of living, because no college student ever just goes from class to practice to dorm and to expect a football player to do that is absurd. And we should allow them to make money off what the market says they are worth, if people want to pay manziel for his signature why not let them? Same thing with sponsorship deals, thats not a salary from the school, no reason it shouldn't be allowed.
Hey all for this. But if they do accept money the scholly goes away and they must pay for play. You invest to market yourself on the national landscape. I think they should stipulate this in the letter of intent. If you want to accept an endorse before or after signing your letter you lose your scholly and must be able to afford your own way and remain academically eligible otherwise move on to the semi pros.
There is an argument often ignored, although it was briefly mentioned above. The players provide some value, no doubt. But their value is absolutely tied to them being at Michigan.
Take the same group and make them the North Walla Walla Mudhens in some semi-pro league, and nobody (or virtually nobody) is going to show up. The Big House, Winged Victory, The Maize and Blue- all of these things add value.
The fact is, there ARE plenty of semi-pro football teams around, but nobody knows about them because nobody cares.
So, when the football program brings in X amount of dollars, it is overly simplistic (read: just flat out wrong) to say that that is due to the players alone.
Sure, but this logic can be applied to the labor market in general. For instance, some of the revenue generated by apple is the result of employee value and some is the result of the apple brand. It's almost impossible to parcel that out correctly, but that's why we have a competitive labor market to figure it out for us. It seems obvious that some players are paid below their market value. Otherwise, the NCAA wouldn't have to enforce restrictions on player restriction. Hell, you wouldn't even need the restrictions in the first place.
this is completely false.
and again, nobody is stopping HS grads:
DES MOINES – The Iowa Barnstormers will hold their annual open tryout on Sunday, October 20 at Soccer City in Palatine, Ill., the team announced today. The tryout in the Chicago suburb is open to any athlete at least 18 years of age.
Try and make the NFL on your own. Get paid from day 1... just be cafeul what you wish for.
If it was completely false you would have a better argument than the existence of semipro leagues.
but the NFL is very far from a free market. Aside from the draft, age restriction and salary cap, they also have a rookie salary cap. New players are paid less than market value and are tied to four year contracts.
Absolutely. I wasn't trying to imply that the nfl was a free market. There are two critical differences though: 1) the nfl players have a union and negotiate a cba and 2) congress gave the nfl an antitrust exception.
I agree this logic is not unique to football. In fact, my argument is that many in favor of paying athletes specifically ignore this well established logic when arguing "Michigan football makes 100 million dollars-- that is generated on the backs of the student athletes".
It is true they are integral to this. It is also true (as we both agree) that the "Michigan Brand" is also integral. You say it is almost impossible to parcel that out correctly. I agree that we can not know this exactly, but if we look at the financial success (or lack thereof) of semi-pro football, there is a strong argument that the Brand is responsible for a large percentage of that value.
So lets say players add some moderate value (but certainly not 100 million dollars). Their compensation is about $50,000 per year (tuition, room, board), AND they are being trained in their future profession (whether that be the NFL, or something they use their degree for).
That is not a free market, but that is a scenario that is VERY common in society. Medical residents, legal associates, various paid and unpaid internships- all these exist and underpay people because in return they are getting training for their future. And none (with maybe the exception of legal associates) can be called a free market (having been a medical resident, I can assure you of that one).
So I do not see a great moral imperative to pay the players (although I am in favor of providing an increased stipend for living expenses). Especially when there are so many negative aspects to paying them. (which I will hold for another post if you want to discuss that)
Im A little short on time so I'll be brief. I think your post was thoughtful, but I still disagree substantially. I think the semi pro thing is a red herring because the ncaa's existence distorts the market. I also don't think legal associates or internships are analogous because they don't occur to explicit collusion. Medical residents is an interesting example although healthcare is a unique market. In the end, I don't find examples of other market distortions persuasive evidence that we should tolerate this particular distortion.
What if? Then a lot of other student-athletes would lose their opportunity to participate in college athletics while getting an education. Extrapolate this over the country and you are talking tens of thousand that will miss these opportunities.
barring the "scholarship" argument, which imho isn't the point of the article. If the NCAA dissolves (at least probable at this point) this is a metric which could predict where future 5* 'croots choose to play. (I'm curious to see what the Mathlete says about this).
I found it interesting Penn State is 2nd in the B1G, ahead of Ohio.
The one thing that every single publication (and person even) seems to ignore is the free marketing that the players get. Michigan is basically acting like a sports agent and pimping out their players to a national audience and giving them the best facilities in the world to help them get better. Now agents, as you well know, get a % of the money their players make. If we're going to go down the path of paying the players then when the players get their first NFL contract the school should get a % of that since the school has spent tons of money promoting them and giving them a national audience to showcase their skills. These guys get at least 400k worth out of their careers at UM between the scholarship and facilities on top of the stipend they actually already get.
Oh, and if they are bitching saying they can't afford food then maybe they shouldn't be renting an apartment they can't afford or buying a car they can't afford. They have all their food already paid for AND they get a stipend. Either 1) stop wasting it or 2) be like all the other students and get a loan.
So tired of this sh!t...
are based on the league's aggregate revenues, not those of the most profitable teams. This article didn't tell us much about that, but it's clear that the disparity is much greater than in any pro sport with revenue sharing. Despite getting equal shares of TV revenue, half of the Big Ten is taking in well less than 50% of Michigan's revenue. Based on valuations of the programs http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324391104578225802183417888.html it's clear that revenues drop pretty far after the top 25 schools listed. That's not taking into account mid-majors, who obviously would be getting priced out of any such plan.
They already get a monthly stipend if they live off campus.
As many have pointed out, the players are already being paid a considerable amount. The lovely lady in that picture and I spent years paying back our college loans, and we both had hefty academic scholarships. So then the argument becomes that the players should be getting paid more, including cash instead of just their current benefits. Unfortunately, there is no way to do this that cannot instantly be corrupted. None. The problem is not that the players aren't getting enough money--it's that the NCAA and colleges and TV networks are getting too much. And you can't fix that by giving more money to the players. There just is no way to allow cash payments or "endorsement deals" or anything else without it turning into a cess pool. There is already too much money involved--throwing more at it will only make things worse.
And as far as saying it's not fair for the NFL (or NBA) to have age restrictions, I don't see the problem there, either. I couldn't become a teacher without getting a college degree and state certification first. Was it "unfair" that they put that restriction on me?
I think people are over valuing the player contribution to their University and under estimating the value of the University. These players especially the Denards, Johnny Football and Tebows are the Cast of the Jersey Shore while MTV is the Universities. Without MTV, the cast can't make it in showbiz which is why the Network profits and the cast gets paid very little. The cast thinks they are worth more than they are and they fail at every other acting gig they get. The same happens to these college stars. They are being loved because of who they play for and who is showcasing their talents, not because of them. I dedicated just as much time to watch Nick Sheridan as I did to watch Denard.
Now sure some will go and make it to the NFL, but it was the NCAA that trained, developed, coached and prepared them for that career. They didn't pay for training, they didn't pay for meals and supplement, they didn't pay for equipment. The University provides the kids with everything to succeed in the sport that they love. The value for that I'm sure is a lot more than $400K. The ones that are really talented enough to suceed in Football, like Lewan, will get paid and play for a long time. The ones that are talented college players like Denard will get their chance and get a nice initial contract because what they did in college and what the university provided for them.
And like others have said, if you do like it go play to Canada or Europe. Sign up for the AFL or the DLeague. There are other options, but we all know that the University provides the best option for the kids. If not read up on Jeremy Tyler and tell me who was better set up to succeed in basketball him or a Manny Harris even though Tyler was a much higher rated player.
When you're young, the players on the field are the only ones you've known. They are the program. When you get up in years, you've seen maybe 30 or 40 starting quarterbacks and they start to run together in your memory--the constant is the uniform.
Some of the positions here seem well thought through, but I'll bet if we just looked at the "it's obvious" posts there'd be a difference in average age between the two sides.