The Wall Street Journal advocates paying athletes
Title says it all
Highlights the absuridty of facilities, salaries, etc. - all the places money goes except to those who create the value. Frankly, some of this logic would apply to college in general. Good read.
October 5th, 2017 at 9:02 AM ^
First, Google the article title if you want to read it. WSJ can usually be circumvented. I clicked through the Reddit link and got by the paywall.
He does throw out a couple token solutions near the end. "Just pay them" was one. The other was to open an account. Nothing new.
As Jim Harbaugh would say, I feel this ground has been thoroughly plowed.
October 5th, 2017 at 9:10 AM ^
"Just pay them" strikes as one of those things that's easy to say and probably feels good to say. When it gets down to the who, what, how, and when, though, I've yet to read a comprehensive suggestion.
My view is that paying student athletes is a much more complex issue than most are willing to acknowledge. I'd be happy to consider a relatively comprehensive blueprint for paying student athletes beyond scholarships and stipends, but I have yet to see one.
So, as you say, same old shit. (Yep, I decoded "****" - I have a friend at Bletchley Park.)
October 5th, 2017 at 11:17 AM ^
It's been a couple of days since I read the article, but IIRC, they didn't talk about how to implement payments, and I remember thinking, "Why not let the market decide, similar to Olympic athletes? " Their amateur status use to be destroyed if they accepted any money until we figured out that other governments were paying athletes. A poster below asks do you pay Rashan Gary and Alex Malzone the same? Why not let Rashan Gary and Alex Malzone go out into the free market and earn some money? I'll bet there would be female athletes that could make some money, especially for local ads, or maybe even a whole team? The whole system seems like plantation owners or gladiator owners bragging about what they give their slaves. Sure the Roman Colosseum was a great "facility", but the people came to watch the action. (I know, I know, the people weren't charged admission, but the Emperor had to put on a good show to keep people from uprising).
October 5th, 2017 at 8:26 AM ^
They have perverted the one thing they were tasked to protect and that is protect the student athlete. The NCAA should act as an escrow account to hold a determined amount of money for each year the player stays in school. The longer he stays in school the more he will get. This way it rewards those players who stay in school. But what do I know. I'm just a fictional cereal cartoon on crack.
October 5th, 2017 at 9:37 AM ^
October 5th, 2017 at 8:33 AM ^
October 5th, 2017 at 8:37 AM ^
When I see things like Amazon paying UM 2.5 million dollars for the series, I can't help but think that some of that could go to the athletes. Who the series is about.
Also, I think that the whole "they're paid in their education" thing is a farce. First of all, it is difficult to fully maximize one's abilities as a student while also working a full time job. Secondly, you can say that a Michigan education is worth $50,000 a year all you want, but that simply isn't true. A Michigan education costs $50,000 a year if you're out of state, but that isn't necessarily the true worth of it. Was my education only worth $14,000 since I happened to live in the state of Michigan?
As an example, I could hand you a rock I found and say "this rock costs $100 usually but I'll give it to you for free," but that doesn't make it worth that. And yes, I know that an education at UM is worth more than a rock, don't @ me for making an analogy.
October 5th, 2017 at 9:15 AM ^
it is worth more than $50k. Otherwise they would be going somewhere else. That's how economics works. Their estimation of its value could be wrong, but the mere fact people are willing to pay that much means the education is worth that much, at least to some.
October 5th, 2017 at 9:51 AM ^
But they can't take full opportunity of the education. Because of their schedule there are a multitud of classes they can not take and frankly any majors that require large amounts of lab time are impossible. It is also nearly impossible for them to engage in other student activities to help build up professional networks like many students do. They also more or less have to stay for spring and summer semesters in order to graduate in 4 years eliminating the ability to gain valuable experience through research or internships.
And like many other people have pointed out being on scholarship shouldn't eliminate the ability to make money off your own likeness and popularity. So even if the schools can't pay them directly its absurd they can't make money for signatures, commercials, endorsements, etc.
October 5th, 2017 at 10:02 AM ^
But imagine...recruiting is no longer recruiting, is a contract negotiation. Ace would have to change the name of his Friday Recruitin' to something else clever. And would the coaches even be involved? Or would they just give a list of names to the boosters, and then they go buy the best players? Sounds too much like baseball in the late 90's, which sucked for everyone except the Yankees.
October 5th, 2017 at 9:37 AM ^
It's not that you made an analogy, it's that your analogy isn't apt. Your analogy implies that the rock is (a) really almost worthless and (b) given for free.
That's not analogous to giving a student athlete a scholarship on either point. As for (a), the free tuition a scholarship athlete receives is of great value. First, whether the dollars are in-state or out-of-state, applicants are lined up waist-deep to get into Michigan. There are sufficient applicants willing to pay full-freight to say that the market value of the tuition is at least $17K/$55K. For your analogy to work, the rock would really need to have a market value of $100 (but then your point falls apart).
As for (b), part of the deal for a full-ride athlete is that they need to apply themselves at their sport. It's a great deal for most, because they love doing the sport, and many would do it even if there was no scholarship. So for your analogy to work, the recipient of the $100 rock would have to give something in return.
(Oh shit, did I just get into a beef with Chuck Norris?!?)
October 5th, 2017 at 10:10 AM ^
You're right. Let me adjust my analogy.
Let's say that at your job, you do $800 worth of work a week. Instead of paying you in money, you employer gives you a coupon for a $400 spa day once a week at a high class spa/massage parlour. You have so much work to do that you don't really have time for a full spa day, only a half day or so.
The spa day is super expensive, but it's super high demand. People are lining up to spend $400 for this spa day, and you're getting one for the work that you do! You should be grateful! There are people who would kill to have this spa day, and you have it! You are so lucky.
In this analogy, while the spa day (education) is worth $400 to a lot of people, it isn't worth that much to everyone (I would never spend that much money on a spa day), and it's also "worth" much less than the work that you do, and wouldn't you rather just have money?
And I know that you can say that you should take another job, where you're paid in money instead of in spa days, but that doesn't make the job good or right or fair.
(moving away from the analogy now) A lot of people who play college football have no other choice. It's either play football and hope to make it to the NFL, or wind up on the street or in prison. Their school system is terrible and they may very well have undiagnosed learning disabilities, so they're completely unprepared to take full advantage of their education, and they exist in a system where being eligible is infinitely more important to their coaches, counselors, and peers than actually learning. All the while, they're told how grateful they should be, as if the University is doing them a favor by making millions of dollars off of TV and apparel contracts that wouldn't exist without them, the players.
October 5th, 2017 at 11:06 AM ^
If the problem is that many student athletes are coming to school because it's the only way to pursue the NFL, there's an easy solution. Just have a minor league level system analogous to Junior Hockey. The NFL might not like it, but that solves the problem. And the athletes can get paid as they see fit.
The solution to the underlying problem is more difficult. If schools are failing a number of kids and leaving them unprepared for life (and many are), I have zero shits to give about whether or not those kids are athletes. It's a separate problem, and a really important one to solve. I've got clear views on how to do that, but that would get political right, quick, and in a hurry.
October 5th, 2017 at 8:36 AM ^
Well, of course Wall Street favors this.
October 5th, 2017 at 8:37 AM ^
How do we spread out the wealth? Is there a flat rate given to each university, or do schools who create more revenue have more to pay their players? Also, is the payment performance based or does everyone get the same? What about Title IX and women sports? Also, on the performance aspect, does someone like Rashan Gary get paid the same as Alex Malzone? One is a player who has been a contributor on the field since he got here, the other has been burried on a depth chart and is benefiting greatly from that free education he is getting (seems as if he is doing a great job of 'playing school').
I am not opposed to paying players, and I think they should be allowed to market their likeness or create an escrow account where money goes into for the players when they graduate/leave the university. I also am for their being funds available for any athlete, so they choose, to be allowed to come back to school to finish a degree/pursue a graduate degree. I am just saying, that the whole way of doing it isn't as black and white as people want to make it.
October 5th, 2017 at 8:56 AM ^
Olympic model. The schools don't pay the players, but the NCAA doesn't prevent others from paying the players for whatever they want to pay them for.
Look at the UCF kicker, who had to choose between his scholarship and the money he was making off of his Youtube videos. Any other non-scholarship UCF student can make money off of Youtube, but the kicker for the football team can't? That is illogical at best.
October 5th, 2017 at 9:43 AM ^
This opens up a whole new can of worms. Equal status for all athletes of all sports, men and womens?
It would also mean that bigger universities can offer more, so the better athletes would follow the money. This is already the case as we have seen this week in Louisville, or take a look in the Bama football parking lot. But it will be multiplied 10 fold if the NCAA legalizes paying players.
With more money going to the athletes instead of the institutions, the smaller universites would have to cancel or drastically reduce some sports programs, as they would have a lower budget in general.
The only real winners in this, will be the lawyers.
October 5th, 2017 at 9:44 AM ^
October 5th, 2017 at 10:09 AM ^
and egg debate. Winnign brings cash...so does a good coach recruiting good players bring in more money? Or More money brings in better coach/players? WMU football made absurd (for them) $$ last year. JMU (FCS Natl Champs) had record donations. VCU, after making a MBB Final Four run had their highest alumni donation/participation ever that season. Only thing that would change most likely would be boldening an imaginary line between the P5 haves and have nots.
October 5th, 2017 at 10:19 AM ^
valid problems that would need to be solved, Qmatic and Squeezebox. But doing nothing about the monetary issue is not a viable option at this stage. David P has a good idea with the Olympic model, and there are other options. With every other sport, and career period, in the world, an 18 year old with talent can make the money they deserve based on that talent. Great athletes in baseball and hockey can sign huge contracts out of high school and go play in the minors - hell, some of the international players are signed to minor league deals when they are 16-17. Soccer worldwide, the same thing.
Mixing monetary solutions for the players, while trying to create equity and intertwining them with NCAA rules is not going to be easy - especially when you consider how poorly the NCAA has managed the student/athlete issues to date, with the biggest concern around their own bank accounts. But it is coming, and has to be done.
October 5th, 2017 at 1:56 PM ^
Football I agree with you. There isn't an alternative for football players other then going to college before they hope to make the NFL.
Basketball is a different story. While a basketball player cannot go straight from high school to the NBA, there are professional basketball leagues all over the world that a kid out of school can trty to play. Most basketball players who graduate high school opt for college instead of professional basketball. However, it has been done and recently. I forget the name but the player went to China to play professional basketball out of high school and then was drafted in the first round of the NBA the following year.
October 5th, 2017 at 2:38 PM ^
are right. But with some of these hoops players at the lower socio-economic level (a lot) - how can they really be prepared to handle going to play overseas at age 17-18? And why should they have to?
October 5th, 2017 at 8:37 AM ^
October 5th, 2017 at 9:52 AM ^
At first I liked this idea, and it might be OK regardless if subject to scrutiny and controlled environments. The problems you'd have to address (mostly solveable, I think) would be:
-
Autographs would have to be monitored. Otherwise Ashley Schaeffer is paying star player $50,000 for an autograph - i.e., it is just a vehicle for the bagmen.
-
Ads, too, would have to be monitored. Otherwise Ashley Schaeffer is paying star player $50,000 to appear in a local car dealership ad - i.e., it is just a vehicle for the bagmen.
- Finally, you'd have to sort out whether athletes could appear in Michigan gear or reference their position with the team in the ads. There are licensing issues, since the "Michigan brand" is Michigan's property and Michigan has rights to that brand.
I think that each of the above is solveable, if the powers that be wanted to solve them.
October 5th, 2017 at 9:54 AM ^
Why does that have to be solved? If someone is willing to pay 50k for an autograph who cares. There isn't a level playing field, allowing players to be paid will not change the playing field in terms of which teams dominate. So really your only problem is you think the kid is getting too much money.
October 5th, 2017 at 10:15 AM ^
his point is "too much money" if I'm understanding him correctly. It's that the legal means will be used illegally. If you allow players to make money like this, then what's to stop people from shelling out $250k to get Najee Harris...or more. Then you create a larger divide between haves and have nots..because have's will just give a kid a stack of cash for an "autograph" that have nots cant afford.
October 5th, 2017 at 10:55 AM ^
That's a bingo! Am I saying that right?
Oh. Bingo!!
How fun.
October 5th, 2017 at 12:53 PM ^
Ashley Schaffer could afford 50,000 dollar autographs when he was selling BMWs. Now that he has a Kia dealership, I don't see him having that kind of money.
October 5th, 2017 at 8:41 AM ^
Can't get enough number crunchers.
October 5th, 2017 at 9:43 AM ^
Make Sports Analytics Great Again
October 5th, 2017 at 8:43 AM ^
The resources surrounding college athletics have exploded the last 30 years with Cable and the Internet enabling the "talent" thrown at college athletics to get monetized at a level that NEVER could have been envisioned by those NCAA wizards who crafted amateur athletic rules . The talent should be getting ever larger slices of the pie as it does in music, film, pro sports, etc. Has to happen.
October 5th, 2017 at 9:49 AM ^
So start a pro league for 18-21 year olds and capitalize on a talent pool that the NFL ignores.
October 5th, 2017 at 8:57 AM ^
Allowing adults to get paid for skills the market is willing to pay them for? What a strange idea.
October 5th, 2017 at 8:58 AM ^
Um, why are you linking to a story that is 2 months old?
October 5th, 2017 at 8:59 AM ^
There will never be a solution to the problem of cheating, which is usually the impetus I've seen to the paying players discussion. As long as there are college athletics, there will be people willing to pay, cheat, lie, etc to give themselves or their team an unfair advantage. Even if the schools start to pay athletes, why would that stop a "bagman" from paying them a little (or a lot) extra to come to their school? Cheaters gonna cheat.
October 5th, 2017 at 9:43 AM ^
Cheating is a seperate issue, but they are usually conflated.
The real problem is that universities are massively profiting off of athletes that have no ability to negotiate compensation. This might breed situations where cheating thrives but like you said, there will almost certainly still be some cheating even if atheletes are paid.
October 5th, 2017 at 10:02 AM ^
I think there should be an amateur football draft and a minor league system like they have in the other major sports. Major colleges can keep their programs, but they would be affiliated with an NFL team. Your roster would consist of paid players who are under contract with an NFL team and fill out the roster with student athletes or walk ons or even Joe HS football star who wants to try to make an NFL roster. You could even have the conferences essentially be class divisions, A, AA, AAA and allow players under contract to move up or down through the system without all NCAA transfer regulations. I know this will never happen because schools and the NCAA make way to much money on college football, but I think it's the only way to be "fair" to the athletes.
October 5th, 2017 at 10:27 AM ^
I am personaly open to possibilities like this.
I think the interesting part here is that push to pay college athletes is not due to the sucess of the professional leagues, but rather the explosion of revenue at the college level. It seems odd to shift the financial burden away from the universities to the professional league, since there is clearly a lot of money at the college level. That being said, I enjoy hearing about possible solutions to paying athletes.
October 5th, 2017 at 10:29 AM ^
What we really need is a juniors system like hockey. High School football is fun, and so is college football. But as Cardale Jones so eloquently put it once, "We don't come to play school". The brutal honesty in that statement is astonishing, but once you get passed the awkward phrasing you'll see the nuance. Most college football players are there to play football, not to attend classes and get a degree.
October 5th, 2017 at 1:37 PM ^
To say that Universities massively profit isn't very accurate. Do they have a lot of cash flow? Yes. Do they have a few very well paid employee's? Again, yes. But, as departments, the median school loses 11.6 million dollars a year.
October 5th, 2017 at 2:11 PM ^
Mismanagement of the AD budget isn't the football players' fault.
October 5th, 2017 at 9:55 AM ^
Yeah stopping cheating isn't the impetus of the rule change. Its fairness.
October 5th, 2017 at 9:22 AM ^
October 5th, 2017 at 10:02 AM ^
October 5th, 2017 at 10:06 AM ^
October 5th, 2017 at 10:22 AM ^
They get those on every recruiting trip.
October 5th, 2017 at 10:16 AM ^
I've yet to see an argument for paying players that passes Title IX scrutiny. We can moan all we want, but the law is basically specifically written to keep this from happening. The only realistic option is to allow players to profit off their own likeness, which is an NCAA amateurism thing but I don't think has Title IX implications. EVen then, this would affect less than 1% of student-athletes.
October 5th, 2017 at 10:26 AM ^
Would probably let the players have monetized youtube channels.
And would the Universities still be allowed to use a player's likeness? If I recall part of the myriad of forms you sign when starting college is an agreement that the university can use your likeness as the wish.
October 5th, 2017 at 10:18 AM ^
October 5th, 2017 at 10:26 AM ^
At the end of the day it's not really anyones business. As long as they are students and satisfy all of those requirements then the colleges should be able to do what they want with their money. Title IX issues are ridiculous, if you want to make money, do something that generates money, just like in the rest of the country.
This WILL change so much, though. You'll almost assuredly see a pay league and a no-pay league. The pay league will probably feel a lot more like nfl-lite than the CFB we all love and adore. Some of what we love about this sport is going to disappear.