Should college athletes be paid?
If so/not, why?
I understand that this topic has been briefly discussed in comments within certain threads, but I think it is worthy of its own thread.
As recently as yesterday morning, I assumed that just about everyone was in agreement that college athletes should not be paid. However, after an exchange with an intelligent MGoBlog user who advocated paying college athletes, and watching ESPN's "First Take" this morning, during which one commentator also advocated paying college athletes, I began to think that this was a more open issue than I realized.
My personal view is, rather emphatically, no. There are already outlets for watching paid athletes in the forms of NFL, NBA, etc. . . Additionally, there are administrative logistics that would be difficult to manage - for example, do we pay all student-athletes, or just the ones in revenue sports? If only the latter, why? How much should they be paid? A flat rate for all in revenue sports, or a graduated scale based on "productivity"? How would these determinations be made?
Moreover, while the "student-athlete" moniker is already arguably a sham, paying college athletes would ruin it altogether. And if it's possible that some things are too sacred to be used strictly for money (commodification) purposes, I think education in general, and higher education in particular, is one of them. The current system already commodifies higher education to an extent, but paying college athletes would completely bury any conception of higher education strictly qua education.
This is an intelligent forum - I'm interested in your views. Cheers.
December 24th, 2010 at 1:19 PM ^
economy, if that's what you're advocating. I just don't think paying athletes is economical. I have no problem asking a swim team that doesn't bring in revenue to buy time at a local pool.
December 24th, 2010 at 1:23 PM ^
I think it's economical for Big 10, SEC, and PAC 10 type teams in football and basketball. Otherwise, there's no reason to have athletic departments that rely on taxpayers, the endowment, football revenue, or normal students tuition to support.
December 24th, 2010 at 1:46 PM ^
enough about the impact on student tuition and taxpayer dollars to really comment on that. Interesting point, in that really every sector of American society affects another. Based on cold economics, I can see it not being profitable to have most sports, and to those who don't value sport in and of itself, it's really of no worth.
I guess the romantic in me likes to see the swim team kid get a chance to do something great, even if it takes pennies i didn't know about out of my pocket.
But I'd like to see him do it from a team van.
December 24th, 2010 at 2:21 PM ^
The complete death of college athletics. Interesting one to make on a college football blog. Because a one conference 15 team League doesn't seem very sustainable. But we could go back to Ivy League level or lower for athletics. But what would we blog about then?
December 24th, 2010 at 3:49 PM ^
I'm pretty confident the Big 10, SEC, and at least 30 other teams could easily fund a football program on big-time BCS levels. Northwestern might not bring in much revenue, but shared TV dollars put them in the black. Those are the same teams that have legitimate shots at bowl games, conference titles, and national titles. Everyone seems to want better scheduling, but that requires eliminating the MAC and the Sun Belt from FCS-level competition and not allowing games against them to count.
I do think most sports and most schools should go down to an Ivy League level of actual students wanting to compete instead of what amounts to hired guns filling seats and scoring touchdowns.
Again, justify EMU having a football team at the FCS level. It loses money, doesn't draw fans, and doesn't seem to contribute to the school's mission of educating students. Tuition keeps going up, state support for schools keeps decreasing, and yet the student fees and government support pay $1.5 million of the team's $3 million revenue--which accounts for about 1/3 of the team's expenses. Those expenses are $1.2 million greater than revenue--which is also probably paid for out of the school's (student and taxpayer) pockets. They should be squeezed out to help their students and to draw less money from taxpayers.
December 24th, 2010 at 4:41 PM ^
"I'm pretty confident the Big 10, SEC, and at least 30 other teams could easily fund a football program on big-time BCS levels."
I know this seems like a common and acceptable belief, but I would suggest you run the numbers on the expenses for running a top notch football program. And by the way, who would they all play, and would that change the dynamics of the affordability of a program. Just things to consider.
December 24th, 2010 at 1:22 PM ^
as well. If we can afford for them to take the van to Lansing for competitions, we should send them. It's a great experience for them, character building, life shaping, and I really believe it contributes to the foundation of well-rounded individuals.
I have no problem with revenue bringing sports supporting non revenue sports because I think it shouldn't be about the money. Not saying that it isn't...
December 24th, 2010 at 1:29 PM ^
I just want to put these numbers out there to add data to the argument.
$7.15 * 50 hours/week * 52 weeks/year = $18,590
In-state cost to go to Michigan (lower division) = $24,167
Out-of-state cost to go to Michigan (lower division) = $48,331
Even if you save the $3000 off the in-state $24k that is for books/supplies/personal (I'm not sure if student athlete would get money for this, though I think they did get some for books), they still get over $20k per year, which is more than they would get working 50 hours a week at minimum wage for 52 weeks a year.
December 24th, 2010 at 3:29 PM ^
And that's just tuition... you're leaving out room/board/food/book money/free clothes and on and on.
December 24th, 2010 at 3:44 PM ^
That's interesting, but you're forgetting that money saved is better than money earned. You get 100% of your tuition reimbursement for the scholarship, but your income is taxed if you have a job.
Also, I dont' seem to be able to reply to the right post.
December 24th, 2010 at 12:10 PM ^
They should not be paid. I still think if college athletes were paid from the schools they would still take money or benefits from agents or other sources.
December 24th, 2010 at 12:14 PM ^
Its called a full-ride scholarship. To reiterate what was said above, too; they are free to move off-campus for cheaper pastures and pocket the difference. I actually do that right now, except that my grants and scholarships only amount to tuition, so the money I pocket to live off of is actually student loan (Which is a strong motivation for me to live as cheaply as possible and give what's left back. I guess technically that means that my college education is free, but my living expenses, unforatunely, are not).
December 24th, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^
|
Total Budget |
||||||||||
|
Michigan Residents (In-State) |
||||||||||
|
LOWER DIVISION |
$11,837 |
$9,192 |
$1,048 |
$2,090 |
$24,167 |
|||||
|
UPPER DIVISION (Juniors/Seniors) |
$13,343 |
$9,192 |
$1,048 |
$2,090 |
$25,673 |
|||||
| GRADUATE STUDENTS |
$17,973 |
$12,114 |
$1,192 |
$4,142 |
$35,421 |
|||||
|
Nonresidents (Out-of-State) |
||||||||||
|
LOWER DIVISION |
$36,001 |
$9,192 |
$1,048 |
$2,090 |
$48,331 |
|||||
|
UPPER DIVISION (Juniors/Seniors) |
$38,529 |
$9,192 |
$1,048 |
$2,090 |
$50,859 |
|||||
| GRADUATE STUDENTS |
$36,133 |
$12,114 |
$1,192 |
$4,142 |
$53,581 |
|||||
December 24th, 2010 at 12:22 PM ^
The "Personal & Miscellaneous" category looks to be the stipend that so many people are asking for.
December 24th, 2010 at 12:24 PM ^
All of their flights are paid for to games and back, as well as the plush hotel rooms they get to stay in. Their meal plans are paid for, and at most schools, they eat at their an athlete only cafeteria where their meals are predetermined to fit their diet. And at some schools, they have athletic dorms, and those dorms are more like an upper-class condominium.
Also, I knew a person on the Notre Dame swim team, and they took a team vacation to Hawaii and trained in Hawaii for two weeks. The entire thing was paid for by the University.
December 24th, 2010 at 3:57 PM ^
The school paying for flights is just normal. It's not a perk. The same with hotel rooms; a hotel room is actually less comfortable than being in your own home for most people. I would rather spend an evening in my apartment and sleep in my own bed than spend an evening on an airplane and sleep in some hotel, so they aren't even being compensated for the full loss from having to travel.
Meal plans are definitely a perk, but there are reasons that most people don't stay with the University cafeterias for four years, and it's not just the matter of location.
Athletic dorms would be a perk. If they get lodging better than the average student, then that should be considered.
The Hawaii perk is nice, but I doubt that's anywhere near routine. Hawaii doesn't play that many teams each year, and the time zone excuse isn't nearly as good for even the West Coast.
December 24th, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^
They get a free education, plus free room and board. Granted, that's way more than most students get. But there is a catch:
Football and basketball players can't hold paying jobs (due to the NCAA's fear of payola). Much of the summer is devoted to football. These players tend to come from modest backgrounds. They don't have the opportunity to earn basic pocket-money during the school year. That's why they end up selling jerseys, etc. They need money to spend on the things students normally spend money on: clothes, dates, music, beer, etc.
I see no reason why they shouldn't receive a modest stipend -- say, $250 a month or somesuch. Maybe that would take away the temptation for many players.
December 24th, 2010 at 4:38 PM ^
I believe they can hold jobs during the off seasons (that was changed within the past ten years), but the reality is, most of them don't have a ton of time. In fact for most college athletes, their sport is their job.
December 24th, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^
per year with books and meals and all. I know 25-yr olds that have 80-110K in debt from going to college that they are paying through the nose for every month.
They athletes have no idea how good they have it. Now I realize that less than 1% of all college athletes make a living playing their sport, but paying student athletes is a horrible idea.
If you pay them 50, 100, 150 a month, then what happens next year, or the year after that? The $$ will rise and before long it's the true minor leagues and these kids are getting a salary to go to college.
December 24th, 2010 at 12:23 PM ^
that immediately thought of SMU after read that?
December 24th, 2010 at 12:34 PM ^
The education and room/board money has already been discussed. The 'stipend' that some of you are mentioning is just one area that would be ripe for abuse.
Looking in from the outside, there has been millions of student-athletes who have gone through college receiving the scholarship and have not felt it necessary to go beyond the rules to make it through 4/5 years at a school. As well, I'd rather the athlete spend his time concentrating on his studies and then his sport, instead of worrying about the 'bling".
December 24th, 2010 at 12:39 PM ^
And soon they would have a union and agents and a guaranteed 4-year contract after high school.
There is never enough for those driven by greed.
Look at major league sports where some players, ( players, mind you ) feel underpaid at millions of dollars a season.
It would be a slippery slope.
December 24th, 2010 at 12:40 PM ^
Only a few schools could realistically afford to pay their athletes. How would a team like Eastern Michigan deal with this kind of stuff? Unless you want to go back to the days where there are only 4 or 5 never-changing elite football programs, you can't pay the athletes.
December 24th, 2010 at 12:48 PM ^
Why would a stipend be "ripe for abuse"? It's a small, set amount. It can be used for whatever.
December 24th, 2010 at 1:01 PM ^
.......about schools being able to afford the extra dough. And, are you gonna pay all scholarship athletes at the schools? Title IX would have something to say about it.
December 24th, 2010 at 12:56 PM ^
College athletes (in most of the big sports at least) get free tuition and a stipend to pay off expenses. They don't need cash. I know they don't really have time for jobs, but it's not that hard to get a Bridge card (or equivalent in other states). I know plenty of college students that have obtained them even though they're not really "in need". If you pay the football players, you've got to pay the rest of the athletes. That's alot of money and it's hard enough as it is for an athletic department to be self-sustaining.
I know the university makes a ton of money off these football and basketball players. However, most of that money is reinsterted into the system - facilites, coaches, travel, equipment, etc. Athletic Departments make money, but they also redistribute it better than say, an owner of a pro team.
December 24th, 2010 at 1:17 PM ^
IMHO you cannot pay football players without paying all other athletes. To be fair, and keep recruiting fair, the pay would have to be the same at all schools, and all sports. I am not sure that there are many schools that can afford that. Even if you give them a small fee of say $200 per month times 85 players on the FB team, that is $17,000 per month. Not sure how many scholarship kids are on the basketball teams but I would tend to think around 14 or so. Then enter in the 25 or so on the baseball and softball teams, now go to volleyball, gymnastics, and all of the other sports and you are talking about a pretty healthy chunk of cash to hand out every month. How about the band, I am sure the university gets a small royalty when their fight song is downloaded to a computer or a cell phone. How about Med students. There is a lot of research being done by med students that are paying their way through school. The school is being paid for their work, why shouldn't their efforts be rewarded. Let's not lose sight of the fact that the education these kids are recieving cannot be taken away from them by anyone. If they do it right they can write their own ticket as can any other student in college.
December 24th, 2010 at 1:22 PM ^
1. Athletes are supposed to follow the rules they agree to when they sign their schollies. As long as those rules are in place, I do not condone athletes recieving illegal benefits.
2. That being said, I think the rules are grossly unfair and unneeded. I think they should throw out 99 percent of the NCAA rulebook and allow athletes to get their money and benefits any way they can. The "rich get richer" argument is moot, because the rich already get richer. Making it legal would actually be an equalizer for schools that follow the rules but have to compete with the OSU's, SEC's, and USC's of the world.
For those who contend that "athletes get a free education and that should be enough," I say let the market determine what is "enough."
So, let Joe Cashwad who owns ten auto dealerships pay as many players as he wants to. Let places that want to give free food, goods, or entertainment to players do it. And if a school really wants to open the "can of worms" that an employer/employee relationship would open, let schools pay the athletes, too.
The athletes deserve a piece of the pie. However, most civilization is built on an agreement to obey the law (or customs if the society is primitive) and consequences for those who don't. So, until the rules are changed, athletes should not accept illegal benefits, even if they do deserve them.
Sometimes, life isn't fair, but ethical behavior is still preferred.
December 24th, 2010 at 1:45 PM ^
I disagree with allowing the market to determine the values. At that point, I think you have entirely removed the student part of being a student-athlete. If we are going in this direction, then I think college athletics should be ended and a true minor league system setup.
I know this won't happen.
December 24th, 2010 at 2:15 PM ^
I disagree for reasons noted in the thread content. But I applaud your independence of thought; it's views like yours that I tried to solicit in the thread.
December 24th, 2010 at 2:27 PM ^
But you want to open up the wild west of recruiting and retaining athletes. And you want programs to have an equalizer with programs that cheat, after all your railing on OSU and MSU? Not sure how you can promote that and still call yourself a Michigan fan.
December 24th, 2010 at 1:31 PM ^
They are getting a free education, among other things. That itself is a nice payment.
December 24th, 2010 at 1:31 PM ^
It would take away the reason I like college football more than the NFL. NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
December 24th, 2010 at 1:33 PM ^
they're making it work..
Ask Pryor and Newton.
December 24th, 2010 at 1:46 PM ^
I think there a couple of factors that student athletes face, particularly those that wouldn't normally be able to afford a college education without an athletic scholarship, that do warrant some sort of additional compensation, not necessarily in the form of a monetary stipend.
1. Student Athletes have additional demands on their time that are not present for the normal college student.
2. I believe, colleges have the ability to revoke scholarships on a year-by-year basis
3. Because student athletes have additional demands on their time (ie Training, Practice, Film Study, etc...) that are related to their sport it impacts their ability to choose a major that could maximize their future income potential so they can dedicate the time to their sport.
Things that could remedy the situation:
1. Restructure the way athletic scholarships are administered. I don't really have a clear strategy on how this should be handled, but something needs to be done about coaches that cut upper-classmen to sign under-classmen (looking at you SEC).
2. Defer some sort of compensation in the form of a 529 account so that athletes have an opportunity to continue different areas of study in areas they may not have been able to do while they were competing after their athletic eligibility is up.
I don't think the focus of the NCAA should be on making allowances so that an athlete can go on an extra date here or there, or go to a movie, but should be about providing an education that may or may not have been attainable for a person due to their extraordinary athletic ability and ability to represent a give university/college well.
If a college athlete can't understand the future earnings potential of a college degree in a marketable skill and the odds that are stacked against success in sport at any professional level, that is on them and their support system (family, friends, teachers, etc...).
December 24th, 2010 at 1:50 PM ^
I think every college student should be paid a stipend of $500/week, as long as they can keep up a 2.0
December 24th, 2010 at 2:30 PM ^
If they can find a job that will pay them $500 a week (plus housing, meals, tuition, trips, etc), I say they take it. Have you even thought how many jobs don't pay that much??
December 24th, 2010 at 1:56 PM ^
The Hazards of Football. Watch this clip of Jahvid Best. Gymnastics, basketball, volleyball, baseball, track and field don't have the hazards that football does.
Eliminate participation from Nefarious entities. No one likes unscrupulous sports agents and recruiting handlers from being involved in the process. Paying the players somethingwould address the vast majority of the amateurism issues we see.
Re: education == enough compensation. Scholarships are not guaranteed for four years so, athletes are not guaranteed an education.
The Harbaugh criticism. The degrees that most of these guys are being steered toward are not pre-med, pre-law, business, engineering, education (ever seen a football player student teach), and so on.
Re: NCAA's tax-exempt status. Who cares if the NCAA has to pay taxes? Not me.
Re: Not all programs can afford it. Again, who cares? Even within the FBS division there are two classes of programs (AQ conferences and non-AQ conferences). All of the AQ programs can afford to pay their players, say, $2500/season.
Re: what about the non-revenue sports? [Screw] 'em, for two reasons. First, they have no claim to profit sharing, they're a financial burden. Second, in the United States you can be a professional athlete in baseball, hockey, tennis, golf, down-hill skiing, free-style snow boarding, and on and on and on, straight out of high school. Football and Basketball are uniquely excluded from this group... why? I have theories that are unpleasant, so I'll bite my tongue.
The top-20 most profitable programs average $35M/yr... profit. There are approximately 72 teams in the AQ conferences (6 x 12-ish), drop the average profit down to $15M and you have $1B+ in cold hard tax-exempt cash being generated by football players. So, instead of breaking 'em off a piece we vilify them for getting a tattoo and selling THEIR OWN PROPERTY. Yep, that makes sense.
December 24th, 2010 at 2:46 PM ^
If you pay someone something, people will still want MORE and go where they get paid more than the other guy. Stipends fix nothing in that regard.
<br>
<br>As for screw the other sports...tell that to the Federal Government, and Title IV. Get the law changed, and then this opinion has any value whatsoever (Good luck!)
<br>
<br>As for why those sports have people go to college, it's because the industry (owners and players) have determined college seasoning is necessary to play on their level. There still hasn't been a high school football player (your main concern) ready to play in the pros. And while there has been the rare basketball talent that has shown can make the leap, the League has decided that their level of play was hurt by it that they wanted to see more before they took risks on everyone else. And for those that don't like it, there is a minor league, or Europe, and the leap can be made from there (while getting paid). Setting standards to join an industry isn't just sports. Go out and pass the bar, and see if they let you practice law without a degree. Or try doing surgery on someone without going to medical school.
<br>
<br>Is it a sweet deal for those two Leagues that they don't have to pay for their farm system? Sure. It's also a sweet deal for the players that get more in compensation than the vast majority of minor league contracts, travel in style rather than a bus, have their work time regulated, and get adulation rather than anonymity in some nowhere town. And oh, if they wash out of this minor league they can get a free education rather than working at a gas station for the rest of their life.
December 24th, 2010 at 3:11 PM ^
There will always be assholes but, I will have less sympathy for "rule breakers" when there is a reasonable profit sharing system in place. Right now the answer is, in essence, "no because it'd be hard to figure out."
Re: Title IX. This is a straw-man argument. I didn't say pull their scholly's, I said they have no claim to profit sharing. I'm right about that. If you'd like to argue that so-called non-revenue sports have a claim to profit sharing, I'm game.
Re: industry standards. Agreed. The gripe is that other athletes have an opportunity capitalize on their abilities even on semi-pro levels whereas basketball and football players are not. Your answer is (for basketball) if you don't like it, get out of the country. OK; I disagree and think that's BS, but I'll move on because it's an opinion based argument. Football players have no such alternative. Hence my opinion that football players (due to the levels of profit they generate) deserve cash money and no one else.
Re: free education. I've already addressed this. Until players are guaranteed 4-year shcolarships, they aren't guanateed an education. Also, I'd argue that general studies degree does not constitute an education in the vast majority of athletes cases.
December 24th, 2010 at 4:35 PM ^
Title IX isn't a straw man argument. It's a very real and concrete barrier to paying players for their "value." It makes no allowances for the revenue that football brings in and counts every dollar spent on football the same as a dollar spent on women's rowing. Therefore it would obviously do the same for every dollar spent on paying a football player.
December 24th, 2010 at 10:26 PM ^
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance...
Title IX does not belong in this discussion. Paying football players is borne out of the fact that money is being made off of them in ways and quantities that other sports are incapable of generating. There's no discrimination here.
Also, I'm not sure, but I don't think Title IX is a dollar for dollar thing. My understanding is that compliance means scholarship for scholarship, I could be mistaken though. There is no-way that the collective budgets for womens sports programs offset the collective budgets of men's sports. Hell, take all non-football sports combined and I'd wager that they don't offset what is spent on football...
Football programs are self-supporting entities that make is possible for the other sports to exist at all... they should be exempt from Title IX given this very real fact.
December 26th, 2010 at 4:02 PM ^
December 24th, 2010 at 3:37 PM ^
MCaliber, so many of your points are flawed.
Are scholarships guaranteed for 4 years by NCAA? No. But almost every school has their own policy in which they are guaranteed.
Mark Moundros is in the school of Ed and students teaches. FWIW.
The degrees you talk about are not worthless. Many non-athletes earn them. An education is an education. Given what I ended up doing, I could have got one of these "worthless" degrees and it would have made no difference on my life.
You do care if the NCAA has to play taxes. Say goodbye to bowls, tournaments, etc if the NCAA has to pay taxes. They're the ones footing the bills for all these events.
Who cares is schools can afford it? Um, you realize that the schools that can afford it are probably less than 10, right? Few AD run in the black as it is. You add something like that and teams start dropping like flies - and not just EMUs. Then (seriously) who do we schedule to come in so we can fill our stadium and make football profitable? Fewer teams means home games become even more valuable and more of a commodity.
The fact that you say "screw non-revenue sports" says all I need to know about you as a sports fan. If I had to choose between football and all the other non-revenue sports, I'll take the rest.
December 24th, 2010 at 4:16 PM ^
The NCAA's policy is that 4-year scholarships are against the rules. That's the point, it can't be refuted.
There are always exceptions to examples. I new engineering majors in the football program when I was in school. A huge portion of football players are in general degree programs.
General degree programs are fine, but you have to know what you're doing and have very specific and articulated educational goals in mind. I will leave the "...education is education..." point alone except to say that I disagree.
The NCAA does not run bowl games. The NCAA does not run a football tournament. Bear in mind that I'm talking specifically about football here. Even if taxed the NCAA's ability to administer tournaments would not be impaired.
FOOTBALL PROGRAMS ARE PROFITABLE. Your point at athletic departments have fiscal problems is indicative of many things, among them, that they probably participate in too many sports. Who would we schedule? How 'bout other BCS programs.
Yes, I only really like football and basketball during March madness; Tar and feather me. I give a fuck if you respect me "as a sports fan." Having said that, I only said that non-revenue sports have no legitimate claim to profit sharing.
Good on you if you like rowing and men's gymnastics, it is a free country.
December 24th, 2010 at 6:34 PM ^
I'll leave all but two of your other points alone since they are pretty debatable. And if you only care about football and basketball post-season, then you're seriously missing out on world class athletics, including hockey, volleyball, baseball, and yes rowing and gymnastics. That's fine, but it makes you pretty biased in this whole discussion.
Yes, NCAA prohibits 4 year scholarships. Most (unless you're in the SEC) schools operate under the practice that if you come to the school on a full ride you get that scholarship for four years. Case in point: Ben Cronin.
Who would we schedule? How 'bout other BCS programs.
How's that going now? It's a fricken Christmas miracle when one BCS school schedules another for a home and home. Why? Because it's more profitable for us to have EMU come in for two games than it is to have Georgia come in for one.
December 24th, 2010 at 10:15 PM ^
I don't understand how my not liking wrestling makes my opinion skewed, but whatever.
Here's the thing about Ben Cronin, Michigan isn't allowed to overtly advertise how it will honor its commitment to him. The NCAA says doing so is against the rules. So, until such a time that the NCAA says that every recruit that signs an LOI is guaranteed a four-year scholarship (unless they get expelled from school), don't talk to me about how an education is enough compensation. A one-year scholarship does not equal an education...I really don't know how else to explain this.
The comment you quoted was in response to you concern about who would be scheduled if we couldn't schedule cupcakes. No cupcakes means more home and homes which means what, 1 maybe 2 less home games a year. Oh, woe is Michigan Football. Instead of $35M in profit they'll only make $30M. How ever will the team survive? Gimme a break.
In fact I haven't said anything about forbidding small fish to exist. There's already a de-facto ruling class (AQ conferences) and a sub-class (non-AQ conferences) with D1A football. The AQ schools would be allowed to pay their players because they can afford it, the non-AQ schools would not because they can not. Non-AQ schools still exist and are still available to be scheduled as tomato cans... nothing needs to change there.
Yes, I've just created another division. That's probably appropriate because we already think of MAC, WAC, Sun Belt, Conference USA, MWC, and so on as not really being D1A anyway. I've just come right out and said it.
December 24th, 2010 at 4:35 PM ^
It only discusses revenue. I can bring in millions and millions of dollars, but how much does it cost to run a major football program like Texas.
Consider the costs to maintain a football facility, to constantly upgrade your existing facilities year after year after year. How much does it cost to outfit 85 scholarship players for an entire season. This includes jerseys, helmets, pads, etc. Also, consider the laundry fees for that alone, the salaries of the equipment staff, etc.
Then we start getting to travel. Do you think travel is cheap? That can be quite expensive. Lets also consider the UConn situation where they school buys tickets to the bowl game and is responsible for selling them. That gets expensive. Oh yeah, and that marching band - how does someone pay for their travel for football contests?
Then lets talk about medical costs. Yep, the doctors and hospitals are NOT working for free. Insurance companies are not for free. The average MRI costs $1250 or so (not that I've had many the past few years). Think about every injury, every knick, scratch and ding that someone is evaluating. Do you think those knee braces are free? I've rarely heard about the medical costs for athletics alone, but at 85 scholarship kids and more not on scholarship, those costs add up very quickly. And we all know the rising costs of medical care. And again, they don't get this stuff for free! Profits are either non-profits that have balanced budgets or operate for profit.
Oh, coaches salaries. Think about the Michigan coaching staff. How much does Rich Rod make a year. I'm being lazy and not looking up the exact costs, but they are quite high. At a major program, you probably have at least one coach making over a million, and then depending on the school, some assistant coaches making serious six figures (especially like a former coach in waiting at Texas). That also should include strength and conditioning staff, support staff, NCAA compliance staff, much of which is focused on football and basketball.
Again, a good read for Intercollegiate athletics and the costs to run a program is detailed in a book by former UofM president James Duderstadt. Oh ... that's right, forgot one more thing - ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS! Yes, that costs the athletic department money too. At Michigan, it is the cost of an entire OUT-OF-STATE TUITION, for each athlete (85 each year or so), for four years. It's also the out of state tuition fee, even for instate athletes. Duderstadt makes a strong point of this when calling out another Big Ten school which I believe was Wisconsin in it's creative accounting by not including this in their expenses).
Finally, why does the athletic department always seem to reach out to alumni when they need to build something new? Why naming rights to various parts of the stadium. dontations speak to how profitable the athletics really are.
BTW - I know your theories about the non-revenue sports (NO - IT"S NOT RACISM), but those sports actually contribute to the mission of intercollegiate athletics far more than football and basketball too often only serve as a means of entertainment. DISCLOSURE: I did compete briefly at Michigan in a non-revenue sport, and have many friends who compete in non-revenue athletics and work just as hard as football and basketball players (and can suffer very debilitating injuries as a result) and they only get scholarships from the U as well.
December 24th, 2010 at 2:03 PM ^
If the athlete would not have been able to pay for school before awarded an athletic scholarship then that scholarship athlete should get some sort of extra living stipend.
December 24th, 2010 at 6:40 PM ^
Why? Nobody is forcing that person to go to school. If they decide they need to spend money outside of tuition, room, board, etc then they have two options:
Save up their summer job money to use as spending money.
Don't go to school and get a job.
Nobody is forcing these student-athletes to compete. They know what they're getting into. If Terrelle Pryor decides he just can't live without his tatts, then maybe he should get a job and pay for them legally.