OT - Question about college coaches and athlete compensation

Submitted by white_pony_rocks on

I was having a discussion with my friend after we saw that that Billy Donovan had gotten a contract extension worth 2.2 million per year.  I was arguing that coaches and students are similar in the fact that both get "scholarships" since both can take classes free of charge. She argued that the students are getting degrees not just free classes but I don't agree with that point, since students aren't guaranteed degrees, just that the classes are free.  So if students and coaches both get access to free classes but coaches are getting paid millions of dollars, the NCAA and universities can't really point to the scholarship as a fair form of compensation to the students.  But the main question I have for the board is was I correct in my assertation that coaches can take classes for free?  I'm not one to be too prideful to admit I'm wrong plus I'm interested as this may change my point of view on the whole athlete compensation thing (but probably not).  Thanks guys.

MGoRobo

March 30th, 2014 at 10:25 AM ^

Even if your logic were sound, coaches are not full-time students. Gotta get up to 12 credits for that. Within your framework that is the difference.

Muttley

March 30th, 2014 at 10:29 AM ^

IMO, removing the barriers erected to keep players from profiting from their individual popularity would do the most to align value generated and compensation.

bluesalt

March 30th, 2014 at 10:27 AM ^

Many schools have a policy that lets their employees take 1-2 classes per semester for free. However, many degree programs at the same school, both undergraduate and graduate, may not designed for part-time students, so actually getting a degree is not expected. I'm all for mocking the NCAA's argument about scholarships, but I don't think this is a fair comparison.

Alton

March 30th, 2014 at 10:30 AM ^

It's not like there is a universal law that university employees are allowed to take classes tuition free.  I am sure that it is true at many universities, but not by any means all of them.  I know that some schools allow the immediate families of employees to attend tuition-free as well.

Obviously, a coach could get something like that written into his or her contract without much difficulty at all.

Farnn

March 30th, 2014 at 12:35 PM ^

I've been wondering lately, is there anything keeping schools from paying players after they graduate?  If Michigan just decided to say "Hey Denard, thank you for all youy gave to this program, here take this $250,000 as a gift" could the NCAA do anything?

Clarence Beeks

March 30th, 2014 at 2:50 PM ^

Perhaps a better example you could have gone with is whether an NCAA athlete can have a future employer pay for their education and whether that employer can lump sum compensate (ie a signing bonus) the student prior to graduation. We know that this is well settled with professional sports teams, but it's really a different situation if it is an employer trying to hire and compensate them (and for the student to benefit financially) based upon their academic performance (rather than their athletic performance). If the answer is no then a very good argument can be made that the NCAA is fundamentally interfering with the student's ability to gain employment after graduation and is placing the student at a post-graduation employment disadvantage (because they wouldn't be able to take the same jobs, on the same terms, as their classmate peers).

Blue Mike

March 30th, 2014 at 3:16 PM ^

your argument sounds like a good one for your employer to make when trimming your salary to that of the college intern last summer. after all, in sure your employer offers continuing education assistance, so your compensation and the intern's should be the same.