So you want to pay players
This has to be 2nd behind college football playoff in terms of college sports topics beat to death. What I rarely here is a plan. I am against it because it applies to so few kids. Sure C. Webber probably made more for the university than the education was worth, but that's the exception. Do you think Rob Pelinka made out in the deal or Michigan? So my question to people that want the players paid. What is the plan?
When you consider the the education, housing, food, health care, clothes etc...I'm guessing we are talking about $100,000 to 150,000 per player depending on the school when they are done. Most of the money football and basketball generates goes so support the other sports. This is pretty complicated but try and answer of few basics.
Where does the money come from? It's a zero sum game for most schools so if you pay the players it comes from someone else.
How much do you distribute and how do you determine who gets it? Does D. Robinson get more than Isiah Bell or the same? What are we talking about in terms of dollar amounts?
I've always understood the argument when it comes to a Tim Tebow or Denard Robinson, but I just never saw a practical solution to keep it fair when I think about the other 95% of teams and players. Sure Denard is selling jerseys and making Mich money but what about Temple's entire team?
Give me your best plan.
Don't pay them, they already get $100k+
There is no workable plan. Any proposal would have to pay all scholarship athletes equally, from both genders (or else there'd be lawsuits aplenty). Given that most athletic departments are losing money as it is, to introduce this new expense would probably cause some football programs to go under.
The status quo, for all its many flaws and injustices, can't really be changed.
A huge can of worms would be opened if schools started to pay players a stipend, and it would eventually devolve into huge sums of money going out between competing schools. Giving them money (besides tuition, which isn't a negligible amount to say the very least) would end in disaster for the schools and the NCAA.
they already get a small stipend
I think it's possible in some sports. I think that football players, at least, should get some form of additional compensation given the long term physical effects. What good is a college degree if you're exhibiting signs of dementia by the time you're 35?
If it was up to me, I'd pay players based on the position they play, not on skill or whatever. There are stats that show certain positions greatly increase the chance of long term medical problems; linemen, for instance, are more likely to have joint problems than wide receivers, running backs are likely to have every sort of damage imaginable, punters and kickers might have ingrown toenails or something, etc. Figure out what each injury is worth, then pay players a percentage based on the probability they'll suffer that injury. Make it uniform across schools, and no problem.
If you pay football players, you have to pay everyone else. To do otherwise pretty much guarantees class-action suits.
I agree that it's totally unworkable, but I do think football players or players in other high impact sports deserve some sort of extra compensation.
How about tatoos? Maybe a free rental car? A teacher's aid to do all your schoolwork perhaps?
March 14th, 2011 at 10:41 AM ^
I don't believe they "deserve" anything. Even disregarding the practical application of just paying one sport's athletes, I don't principally agree with it. They can play football for a free education (and the ridiculous amounts of extra benefits received) or not play football.
On top of that, I don't believe there is really any evidence that a typically college football player suffers long-term debilitating mental effects from their playing days. Currently, most of the empirical evidence centers on those who went on to have substantial professional careers.
OK - Title IV - now what?
...
Title IV of the CRA allows the Attorney General to sue school districts who were resistant to comply within reason with the court's remedies in Brown vs. Board of Education. What the hell are you talking about?
I assume he meant Title IX.
Signs of dementia by 35? Are we talking about the same thing here? Those studies were on pro football players who spent years in the NFL. College football, while admittedly physical, is no where near the level of the NFL. Most kids don't even see the field until they are upper classmen. Concerns about compensation for long term physical injury are in regards to the NFL, not college football.
umm.....they do get a stipend if they live off of campus. about 600 a month..
The money comes from the small intestine of baby unicorns. As far as how it should be divided, well I think a round robin of Connect 4 with the winner taking all would be the only fair way. Hope my answer helped.
Snark attempt - FAIL. Try again.
It's called being bored on a Sunday. If I were trying to be a dick, I can do way better than that. Thanks for the critique though. With your avatar and screen name I would think you would appreciate a sense of humor.
And boom goes the dynamite.
I laughed at it.
To the point, I have been and always will be against paying college athletes. As someone without any mentionable athletic ability, I'm going to be paying student loans for a very long time, so all sympathy is out the door on that front. You rarely hear this argument from the women's golf team or other non revenue sports. It's always the stars trying to defend their actions. While they do make a ton of money for their schools, it's what they signed up for. If getting paid is what these young athletes want, maybe we should look at the nba and nfl lifting age restrictions and not trying to restructure AMATEUR athletics.
No joke, I've heard from someone that's played him that Denard is in fact very good at connect for.
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
hahaha. Dangit. I am ashamed.
It's MGoBloggers that should be paid.
What would sports be without an MGoBlog community of ever-insightful analysts?
March 14th, 2011 at 12:20 PM ^
The secret love-child of ESPN and RCMB conceived while MLive watches?
they already get a free ride to some of the best colleges in the nation they may help the university get money but in the long run the university's education will give the kid a chance to make a bunch of money
.....just to be mean, we pay all the SEC teams in Swiss francs.
would be to allow the free market to work. But that would require blowing up the NCAA monopoly and that ain't going to happen. So for now, the coaches will continue to get millions while players get suspended for selling their own stuff or taking any "gifts."
Many professions are like this, where people work for next to nothing for awhile before they start to cash in. Consider the medical profession. Aspiring doctors have to go to undergrad, then med school, where they're required to work long hours in hospitals for no compensation, and then they have a residency, where for 3-4 years they're paid a piddling wage for working incredibly long hours. By the time they can actually practice medicine on their own, they're often about 30 and have enormous debt.
College athletes do at least get a free education. That's no trifling thing. They can get a degree (often from schools that are difficult to get into) and walk away with no debt. For most of them it's a great deal. It's just for a small number of superstars, like Denard Robinson, that it's not as good.
Doctors hold their patients lives in their hands. That's why there are such strict requirements- the stakes are too high. We're talking about sports. Nobody is going to die if some 7 foot 18 year old doesn't have his footwork figured out.
See, that's the funny thing. If people knew just how overworked/sleep-deprived the average medical resident is, it'd scare the crap out of them. If you're in the hospital, do whatever you can to avoid being treated by a resident.
I'll keep that in mind.
Dude, let me tell you - you may think you're functioning okay now, but when you are finished with your residency and working more normal hours, you'll be amazed at how much more effectively you can do your job when you're not massively sleep-deprived all the time. You shouldn't be going above 60 hours. There is all kinds of research showing that productivity drops off sharply beyond that point.
I am not familiar with the studies showing 60 hours to be a reasonable cutoff mark for efficient productivity, but I see you point and believe it. However, in medicine the transfer of care of a patient to another physician is also a huge risk factor in patient safety. There are other studies showing that the gain in patient safety by having a well rested staff is offset by the loss in patient safety that occurs due to increased transfers of care. Decreased work hours do not improve patient safety, they improve medical students'/residents' sleep schedules.
Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest: I am a second year medical student. While I like the thought of better sleep schedules, many of my peers and I worry about the decreased training time, because lengths of residencies will not be increasing anytime soon with the current fiscal state of Medicare. (Medicare funds residency programs)
I understand your sentiment jmblue, but then how do you propose we train new physicians? Unfortunately, this dilema is often resolved by having more junior members see a more indigent patient population. I am a second year med student and have seen mostly uninsured patients because according to my resident, they are more open to being examined by medical students/junior residents. He is right.
mejunglechop points out that there are strict requirements for doctors because patient health/survival are at stake. No one is arguing that there should be very high standards of training for physicians, but the original point by jmblue was that since other professions like doctors make very little during training (actually they acumulate a lot of debt) then athletes should not be paid during their training years.
So when you say that there are strict requirements because the stakes are too high, in response to jmblue's comparison, you are basically saying "because the stakes are high, we should pay doctors a relatively low salary during their training years." I don't think that is what you meant, because the question is not about how high the stakes are, it is about whether or not people should be paid well during their training period.
But aspiring doctors are free to take "gifts" or sell their stuff. It's obviously a very different situation in other respects as well. But you do make a valid point. Most professions have barriers to entry which infringe on individual liberties and are arguably unfair in this respect.
The NCAA situation is unique since it is a monopoly which places numerous restrictions on young athletes who would otherwise be able to more profitably market their skills in a free market. Whether this monopoly unfairly exploits some athletes while enriching others and whether it should be allowed to exist is a good question.
I enjoy college sports in it's current state and I'm not anxious to see major changes but it is valid to question the current the ethics of the status quo which seems extremely unfair to many athletes subject to arbitrary NCAA rules.
They are free to take gifts and such, but in most industries it's considered borderline unethical to take handouts from companies that you may be doing business with. I don't want doctors getting into prescribing subpar drugs just because that company is giving them free stuff.
Someone else mentioned the right answer, IME, in setting up a different path for athletes that want to develop their skills/size while still making money outside of the education systems. College athletics just shouldn't be about getting paid, period.
on point. If a student-athlete has a rich uncle that floats him a few bucks, what is wrong with that? Dont tell me it never happens. There should be a check-balance.
As jmblue pointed out, schools can't really afford to do it for everybody (and there is no interest in paying women's volleyball players) so it just isn't going to happen. The only way I see to put money in player's pockets is to simply remove the restrictions in place for them to cash in on their image. Let Tebow or Denard do commercials. Let agents give the kid spending money or gifts in exchange for the hope/chance that they will get to represent them later on. Maybe even let boosters toss a few bucks their way.
These areas are already difficult/impossible to police for the NCAA and lead to inconsistent rulings (Newton/Auburn get nothing while Bush/USC get hammered, Jeremy Bloom has to quit college football while Weinke and others play pro ball and remain eligible, etc.). Freeing up some or all of those restrictions would be the most effective ways to get money into player's hands without changing the competitive balance other than to create a level playing field where the cheaters who happen to get away with it don't get rewarded.
I don't know if they can allow superstars to cash in. That would seem to open a can of worms. Certain schools, with connections in the advertising field, could make recruiting promises to get around the amateurism rules.
I don't think any schools have a monopoly on the "willingness to give money if it helps the team" front. At this point all that money (at least the legitimate kind) is just directed toward coaching salaries and facilities to attract student athletes.
My point is there would be no amateurism rules to get around. Players would be free to profit in accordance with their own market value. It would definitely change the nature of college athletics (at least in the public sphere) but I don't think much would be different on the ground except that schools/players who play by the rules would now have a legitimate shot to compete with those who don't. I think you would get less of the Cam Newton situations if guys like Tebow or Denard could pitch Pepsi and make a few bucks no matter what school they choose to attend. On the flip side, I doubt you would see a bunch of SEC boosters offering big bucks to get their back-up linemen into a Weight Watchers ad.
I doubt it would ever happen and it would certainly change the nature of college football, but it may seem like a more attractive option if the circus of constant NCAA scrutiny/investigations continues to damage the sport's image and that of various schools/programs in a random and haphazard way.
I can't take credit for this plan, but I also can't give the credit because I have forgotten where I heard it. But it is by far the best plan I've ever heard.
Establish a "Loan-type" system. Involve the schools, banks, players, etc. The players can then individually can go to the bank and work their deal. The players always say all they want money for is expenses, and food, and to enjoy the college experience... Well then let them do that. If you are a big time recruit and think you will make the NBA/NFL then you should have no problem repaying 20-30k (between 5-7k per year) once you turn pro.
I know there would be loop holes, and I by no means am a lawyer who could tell you the logistics of exact figures (interest rates, per year limits, etc.) but I think this would then put the responsibility on the Student- Athlete to cut their own deal and then live up to it.
I believe they call this predatory lending and it ended when the recession started. Imagine that.
there would have to be a collective bargaining argreement with many large TV deals and get fox involved, along with a very low salary cap that they can spend a year so teams like Tennessee cant spend all their money on players. Along with that the players would have to have contracts which they would have to abide by and those contracts would differ on if they are a starter or a bench warmer. The contracts wouldnt be allowed to exceed 400k and if the player decides to leave early for the NFL they have to pay back all their dues for their contracts. And with being paid say 100k a year over 4 years they wont get full scholarships so it wont be like they are getting a free education along with 100k a year.
They want paid they don't get a scholarship! You pay your way thru school, get student loans like everyone else and then lets pay them according to play.....
Lets see how many athletes vote on that... you can get paid based on your pay but you will not be on scholarship and must take out a student loan if you cannot pay your way.
Scholarship athletes don't need to be paid. They get free food, free room and board, all kinds of apparel, some health care, and oh yeah, an education. The only stuff they need outside of all that is a cell phone plan, because you can't tell me they can't go anywhere on campus and drink all the free drinks they want at bars and parties. And I have a hard time believing that these kids can't scrounge up enough money for a cell phone plan.
And even if you don't give them some money, you can't tell me that the greedy kids aren't still going to be looking for a little bit of extra dough. Greedy people are greedy, and that's not going to change.