Big Ten considers pay proposal for student athletes
I think this would be great for players and also help the conference get better athletes in all sports.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6564134
CHICAGO -- Big Ten officials discussed a proposal that would pay athletes to help cover living expenses on top of their scholarships during the league's spring meetings this week.
Big Ten spring meetings wrap-up
The 2011 Big Ten spring meetings are in the books. ESPN.com's Brian Bennett and Adam Rittenberg take a look back at some nuggets coming out of the Palmer House. Blog
The idea, which is backed by current NCAA president Mark Emmert and was favored by late NCAA president Myles Brand, is to bridge the gap between what athletic scholarships pay and other expenses like transportation and clothing. That difference has been estimated at between $2,000 to $5,000 per player.
Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said league athletic directors and officials have seriously discussed whether they should use some of their growing TV revenue to pay athletes more.
"Forty years ago, you had a scholarship plus $15 a month laundry money," Delany said. "Today, you have the same scholarship, but not with the $15 laundry money.
"How do we get back more toward the collegiate model and a regulatory system that is based more on student-athlete welfare than it is on a level playing field, where everything is about a cost issue and whether or not everybody can afford to do everything everybody else can do?" Delany asked.
Delany stressed that the Big Ten was merely at the discussion stage, but he added the league is interested in talking to other conferences to see if they also favor such a plan. He acknowledged many schools and conferences across the country couldn't afford to cover those additional expenses, which could run about $300,000 a year just for football and men's basketball players alone.
But some Big Ten officials say if they can help out their athletes, then the concept of using the same rules for all teams should be abandoned. Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith said the stakes are simply higher for schools like his than for those in the MAC or Sun Belt.
"The reality is, if there's cost of attendance and you can't afford it, don't do it," Smith said. "The teams you're trying to beat can't do it either. Don't do it because Ohio State's doing it. That's one of the things schools at that level get trapped into thinking."
Especially talking about football/basketball players, it's nowhere near enough from a purely economic point of view. How much revenue does M football bring in? What's payroll (scholarship cost)?
You can argue that the value system of college athletics is correct, but to say they absolutely don't deserve more is beyond ridiculous. Also, FYI, the cost of attendance is what I'm allowed to take out in loans and/or scholarships. This is just bringing athletes in line with the rest of the student body, but on a scholarship basis (and there are cost of attendance academic scholarships at schools across the country).
Paying players is a bad idea.
Schools paying players in an unregulated (i.e. competitive) way is an extraordinarily bad idea.
Why? well...
1. Bidding wars between schools and conferences- you may think paying $2000 per player is fair, but when Alabama starts paying $3K, USC $5K, and in 5 years we are paying $10K per player, will it still be a good idea.
2. Bidding wars among players- if we are paying players for the value they bring to the university, it is pretty clear that not all players bring the same value, so why should they be paid the same? Certainly the star players will hold out for a higher payout.
3. An open door for boosters- The NCAA (imperfectly) keeps boosters from paying players under the table. But no one can (or would) stop alumni from donating to the school. And if that $5 million allows the university to increase their payments to players... well, good luck proving that one.
4. I have no idea about the wealth of Michigan alumni, but as a state school, I would not want to bet on our ability to compete with private universities in keeping up with paying players. I am not saying that Harvard is going to become a football powerhouse, but I would bet that this would give a school like Notre Dame a huge competitive advantage.
5. Now that athletes will be paid, I think we will see more of the Bobby Petrino approach of withdrawing scholarships from players who do not perform. After all, that is what happens in the pros- if you dont perform, you get cut. Since we are dispensing with the fiction that these are students, and especially with the increased investment that the schools will be putting into each player, more schoold will cease to guarantee 4 year scholarships.
6. An end to any ability to police illegal payments to athletes. It is hard enough (as we have seen) to make a case when the athletes are not allowed to receive any money. If there is some amount of money that they are allowed to have, good luck proving that any given item was purchased with "illegal" money.
This is just off the top of my head, but it is an awful idea even without getting into the whole morass of what is fair to the players.
You know the schools already give money directly to players for room and board, right? There's nothing to stop them from living with a booster and pocketing the money each month now or just having the booster buy a large home near campus for the best players. NCAA enforcement is an honor system, that's why people only get in trouble when the media uncovers something or a player blabs.
The Big 10 pretty obviously was interested in informally talking to other conferences to see what they wanted to do before telling the NCAA what the schools wanted to do collectively. The idea would be that the BCS schools would agree to a hard number for every player and the lower tier schools would deempasize sports some, which is probably a good thing for the lower tier schools. They already can't compete and this might be the impetus to separate the top FBS schools from everyone else.
True, players get money for room and board, but this is a regulated amount. Players are limited in how much they receive and it does not provide a competitive advantage to one school or player over another. I think your examples about boosters paying for houses or putting players up in their own houses ARE specifically prohibited by the NCAA to prevent such abuses. I think a better argument would be if a local player chooses to live at home and pocket the room and board allowance. I am not sure how the NCAA handles this, and I suppose there is potential for abuse, although I think this would affect few enough players to be overlooked.
I think the mistake the Big 10 is making is viewing the BCS as made up of just upper and lower tiers. I think this type of unregulated system is going to create large disparities even among the "haves".
I confess I am opposed to any payments to players (beyond the status quo) but I understand that there are arguments on both sides. But opening up a free market is a step beyond that.
Nothing is even close to being decided, so I will watch and wait, but what has been said makes me nervous. If the "top tier" programs want to offer more support to student athletes and separate from mid-majors et al, they still need to do it in a unified way, rather than by individual teams or even individual conferences.
The NCAA would regulate the amount in the same way it regulates room and board. It would be a unified stance between the Big 5 or 6 conferences. The Big 10 can't really split off on its own and hope to maintain its exposure, and thus its revenue.
Frankly, the mid-majors need to think about why they're in FBS football. It costs them millions of dollars in student fees and state money whereas the AQ teams are basically cost/revenue neutral due to their TV deals.
The mid-majors are in FBS football for the good of the sport as a whole. I fully understand the economic ramifications but removing the mid-majors from major college football would be to the long term detriment of the sport as a whole. This isn't the NFL, at least not yet, hopefully.
Okay, but the good of FBS football probably shouldn't be the EMU regent's concern when they decide whether or not to allocate almost 10% of their budget to subsidize athletic revenue.
The EMU Regents have to make that decision based on the facts before them, not on your perception of what those facts are. Ultimately that lands on them, and I doubt it is as simple as you have put forth.
I'm sure there are, but I can't for the life of me figure out why a school like EMU plays FBS football other than the fact that they played it the year before. That's why I wrote a diary about it a couple weeks ago. I thought something would jump out at me, but nothing did.
I don't know if it helps to sell kids on EMU or not, but to offset the negative economics of FBS football, they need some serious benefit.
Also, please be careful. I neither said nor implied that the EMU regents should be concerned with the good of the FBS.
"The mid-majors are in FBS football for the good of the sport as a whole."
I interpreted that sentence to mean you thought the mid-majors were in FBS for the greater good, which had to mean that's what the administration wanted. No offense intended.
You're losing me. When I say they are in for the good of the sport as a whole - meaning broad participation is generally good - that has nothing to do with the good of the FBS.
Agreed.
In my opinion, the biggest problem with collegiate athletics is that the media and so many different organizations profit off of the work put in by these students. The money made by the universities primarily goes back out in scholarship money and things. I think if anything, we need to be curbing the profit of third parties, not extending endowment to students. Then again, as you said, it's a fiction that these are students. Sad, really.
I guess I'm just a hopeless idealist.
The $20+ million each Big 10 teams get each season doesn't go to scholarships. The TV revenue explosion has coincided with massive increases in coaches salaries for all sports and a facilities arms race. That's where the money is going.
I still contend that all the NCAA needs to do is allow players to get money from whatever outside sources they can get it from, as long as it isn't from gamblers. Paying players is going to be a Title IX nightmare. All they have to do is stop being assholes to the players about money. It's less work for the NCAA and the players get what they deserve above the table.
Also, it levels the table for schools like Michigan that don't pay players and takes away the built-in advantage of schools like TSIO, USC, and anyone in the SEC. And it gets rid of a lot of "compliance" people.
How does this level the table? Schools like U$C, OSU and the SEC schools would have even more of a competitive advantage because they have crazed fanbases with boosters who would offer recruits and players lots of money to come there.
I don't think the "holier-than-thou" attitude applies.
Michigan almost always plays by the rules. If the rules change, so will Michigan. I don't think our fanbase would be any less eager than OSU's, USC's, or the SEC's to win/to overcompensate athletes and treat them like kings/queens.
That said, I strongly disagree with Tater's position.
will have the best football programs in the country by this logic.
Once their alumni open their chequebooks - its a free for all.
"I remember the stand at Thermopylae
the Greek Guard made one day;
I remember the legions that Caesar used
To shatter the Gallic sway;
And I remember across those years
Two banners that crowned the crest,
When Yale was king of the conquered East,
And Michigan ruled the West.
At night in my humble den I dream
Of the glories that used to be-
Of Hannibal taking the Alpine Trail,
Of Drake on the open sea;
And then I wander the ancient ways
To a dream I love the best,
When Yale was king of the conquered East,
And Michigan ruled the West."
-Grantland Rice
This makes no sense to me at all. They are already getting their education and room/board paid for. They get meal plans and training table meals. I bet none of them even take out any student loans. If they need some extra cash why can't they just take out a small loan each semester like the rest of us do? These college athletes need to realize how lucky they are to graduate with next to no debt.
This is an exceptionally good point, and a perspective I hadn't considered before. They could also get a job for spare cash. I know people who can handle a full course load, a job, and daily rehearsals, so I know most athletes can handle it.
As I said above, I am not in favor of paying players, but I do think we have to recognize that for all their advantages, there are some drawbacks.
These players are going to class (just humor me here) as well as spending both official and unofficial time at practice and in the training room, and so it would surprise me if they had the time available to get a job in addition to this. And I would bet that getting a loan would be difficult- the vast majority of players will never go pro, so I doubt many reputable places would give loans based on future earnings, or if they did, it would be at such exhorbitant rates of interest that it would be a bad idea for a 19 or 20 year old to get into such transactions. Also, I would bet there are addiitonal hurdles with the NCAA clearing such loans to make sure that they were not sweetheart deals given by boosters.
I don't like the solution of paying the players, but I do think that there is a problem.
"it would be at such exhorbitant rates of interest that it would be a bad idea for a 19 or 20 year old to get into such transactions."
Yeah... it's not like normal students have to get loans with high interest rates...
/goes back to his 65k loan bills...
Federal education loans give excellent interest rates. A student getting a personal loan? I am sure they would be at an outrageous interest rate. Actually, I am surprised that students can get personal loans these days-- what collateral do they have?
I will grant you that the athletes are no worse off than students for personal loans. But my other comments stand.
Perhaps I am off base but a couple thoughts come to mind.
1. Summer job when they are not busy with football per say. Heck during the season it sounds like they shouldn't even have time to spend money so perhaps summer earning would hold them over for the most part.
2. I would be in favor of some sort of special loan program with say a $3600/year cap. These loans would be just like a student loan in that interest and payments would be deferred until after graduation. Either they would go pro and have no issues paying it off or they would get a degree and a job and then work on paying their off 15K to 20K in student loan debt upon graduation. This is assuming they borrowed the max for 5 years. I would love to only owe 15K to 20K for my degree.
3. In Stonum's case, the above would not be available. He lost that right with the second strike. Perhaps a little more incentive to keep clean.
Federally subsidized loans are really easy to get and you can borrow for the cost of attendance, which is what the Big 10 is looking into subsidizing.
Jobs aren't really possible. The NCAA really restricts them, and, if I remember correctly, the average FBS football player puts something like 70 hours/week into school and their athletic obligations. That's more than the vast majority of us work each week.
This is way overdue. Makes you feel for the poor kids at OSU that had to sell their pants to make ends meet :(
They weren't the students' pants. They were just "borrowing" them from Michigan.
This is a really feel-good story for athletes until half the wrestling and men's track teams in the nation are cut because the smaller schools can't afford the expense and nobody ever starts a lacrosse team again.
It will make some more comfortable and deny others their opportunity. That's indisputable.
Don't you think the big conferences could just separate themselves and have their own division on top of D-1? That's what I got from the article.
Haven't they already? I mean, with BCS AQ conferences and all, it is kind of their own little Boys' Club. Why go through and make them a whole seperate entity? And how would that save them any money?
It would save the MAC, WAC and Sun Belt, ect. conferences the expense of competing with M/OSU/Texas et. all. I think that's what ZL is getting at.
But aren't those cupcake games, where they do compete against the likes of us, one of their primary sources of income for their athletic departments? Losing those games would all but kill those programs, especially the ones who are just now able to stay afloat.
We pay UMass and uh...the other team nobody wants to mention, and they're down a division. It would be business as usual for EMU or Toledo.
But isn't a lot of peoples' argument that D-1AA wins should not count towards Bowl eligibility? When the schedule comes out, people scoff at THAT school, and we all know how that goes sometimes. Something would have to give, as scheduling would become hell if you have approximately 60 schools (half of D-1A) trying to schedule against eachother to make their SOS as high as possible. Just pointing out some issues with it, and IMO it would cause more issues than it would resolve.
I'm thinking this would be more of a de-facto split between the big six conferences and the rest. Not one mandated by the NCAA with factors like bowl eligibility included. This is just more a statement that the B1G is going up another half step, leaving the MAC behind, for example.
Reasonable points. But this also would hurt the smaller schools in auto-AQ conferences, too, IME. Some of the schools do not have the money/following to warrant this, and it would definitely hurt them. I COULD see this as a possibility when NCAA inevitably moves towards a few SUPERCONFERENCES where some smaller schools would be forced out anyway (to be real, who wants Vandy?). But given the current model, I think it would force too great a disparity and for all intents and purposes create a D-1A with probably 30 teas with a legitimate chance and the rest would create their own lower tier.
Now that I think about it, aside from location, Vandy might be a perfect fit for the Big Ten.
I think all it would do is enhance life for the moneymakers (at least in football and basketball), who are all in big conferences. Unless you're going to argue that the MAC will have less of a chance at the MNC, I don't see the difference between the way things are now, and the schools that can afford it going to full CoA.
As to the superconferences, we basically have three already (B1G, Pac, SEC) with six teams as outliers (I'd argue for Texas, Oklahoma, FSU, Miami, Pitt and WVU), also include ND as the one independent, and nobody else with a shot at sustained success. This would help the student-athletes at those schools, and would only hurt the other schools in terms of competitive balance, which I think is already a moot point given the inherent differences between M and EMU or OSU and BGSU.
I think we agree on the basic point, but where you see it as a positive, I see it as a negative. I think the diparity is there, and I don't see a need to exacerbate it. In any sport, parity and competitiveness are considered a positive, and I have to agree with that notion. That being said, I am not against this idea (OP), but rather believe that it is a dangerous path to take, and should be done responsibly with the best for all parties considered.
On this point, I think I'm with Brian. He's written several times that as revenue continues to skyrocket, it's going to get harder to pretend that AQ Athletic Departments are non-profit entities. This could be a preemptive strike or just a general feelling that a school like Michigan with over a $100 million dollar budget should give a slightly larger slice to its revenue generators.
They'd also save some amount by not splitting NCAA B-Ball tourney revenues and BCS money with anyone else. That's a number that is probably much larger than the $X,000 payment they'd give the athletes.
It isn't the budget that matters, it is what is left at the end of the day. Revenue minus expenses equals income. Do you ascribe any value to the education that is being provided? That impacts the bottom line a bit too...quite a bit.
Wouldn't be just the mid-major conferences that have trouble. Look at Cal, which just went through a huge fundraising panic to save their otherwise-doomed baseball and track teams, and I think men's gymnastics too. And that's Cal, which ought to be swimming in McDuck-sized piles of gold. The TCUs and USFs and Vanderbilts of the world, Mississippi State, Minnesota, Iowa State, what have you, are going to find themselves trying and possibly miserably failing to compete in this brave new world and non-revenue men's sports are gonna be the first to go.
Cal, for example, is going to be fine now that they're getting $10+ million more per year in TV revenue before the PAC-12 network starts. The schools who will struggle will be old Big 12 North schools and the Big East. I don't know what the answer is, maybe pay the coaches a little less. That, and new facilities, are what have driven athletic expenses in the last 20 years.
How would you maintain fairness in the system.
Cost of living in NY/ LA/Chicago is way more than cost of living in Columbus/ Madison/ Urbana. Does that mean that players in the city colleges will receive more money than their college town counterparts?
This won't end well.
Worst Idea I have heard of in a while. If you don't want to play, then don't play.
For many kids, at Michigan at least, the cost of OOS tuition alone is about 40K. Throw living expenses on top of that and you will end up paying between 50 and 60 K per year, but that is not enough. How about all the coaching you get? No value to that, right? Even if it gives you the skills to play in the NBA or NFL? How about the academic center that many football players utilitze heavily - last I heard, private tutors weren't free. If not for athletic ability many of these kids (and yeah, there are some bright student athletes out there) are not getting in on academics.
My point is that there is already a quid pro quo built into the system. Sure you work hard, but you get something in exchange for that hard work. Now let's coddle the athletes some more. How does this eliminate the handshakes with $100 bills? It doesn't.
Lots of people put in long days. Try getting a degree in EE or computer engineering and tell me when your day starts and when it ends.
This is getting old. If you don't want to play, then don't. Go to some third rate school and then flip burgers. In exchange for the hard work, you get an education, become part of a great network, and share the limelight on one of the big stages of America. If that isn't enough, then go get a real job.
Awful Idea now those who cheat will have more cover
Providing meticulous records are kept, and the amount is as small as possible. This could slightly lessen the impact of shady booster types.
is that money is money. If I make $2500 a month, I would still like an extra $1000 in my pocket. Paying the player will not stop them accepting money from boosters. This really doesn't solve the problem of bribery in college football, but I do think it's a good idea if it is regulated by the NCAA. I would like to see something where the universities are allowed to give up to "x" amount of money and no more. This would avoid the bidding war previously mentioned.
I like the idea, but it seems to be a reaction to the OSU scandal. The reason for bringing it up is bad, but I guess good things can come from bad motives.
The concept of paying players is ridiculously stupid.