Wisconsin Chancellor Rebecca Blank testifies that, if athletes were to get paid, the school might stop playing sports
Apologies if this should be marked off-topic. (not sure if anything not DIRECTLY related to Michigan is OT)
https://twitter.com/darrenrovell/status/1042099673081806848
September 18th, 2018 at 1:50 PM ^
I don't think prices would be impacted at all. A common figure that is provided is $25,000 per season per scholarship player. That's $2.125M.
And it's highly unlikely they would 'pass on' that amount to the fans. They would just cut back on superfluous spending (Texas just spent $10M on a friggin locker room; a locker room!!!)
September 18th, 2018 at 1:55 PM ^
That covers the football scholarships. Now what about all the other sports? Have you forgotten about Title 9?
September 18th, 2018 at 2:14 PM ^
Title IX is a red herring NCAA members hide behind to pay nobody.
Michigan doesn't have to pay KBA what they pay Beilein and they wouldn't need to compensate women athletes the same way they compensate revenue sports men.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:17 PM ^
Are you sure? I'm not a lawyer. I would have thought that all athletes would have to be compensated equally, like they are now via the value of their scholarships.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:20 PM ^
You're right... That's why it's more likely the NCAA will let athletes receive endorsements without losing their eligibility.
September 18th, 2018 at 5:22 PM ^
You're right that he's right. We have seen it specifically with the requirements that male and female athletes get the same amount of meal money.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:34 PM ^
The courts have already heard Title IX arguments on employee athletic salaries and ruled higher revenue sport employees can make more money without violating Title IX.
Didn't go all the way to the Supreme Court so I suppose there still could be some question out there (also not a lawyer).
So you probably have to call them employees.
September 18th, 2018 at 4:06 PM ^
Can you cite that decision? This is not an "oh yeah?! show me" request, this is me never having heard of it and wanting to.
September 18th, 2018 at 4:15 PM ^
Stanley vs. University of Southern California is the decision I've seen referenced.
September 18th, 2018 at 10:22 PM ^
Gotcha, thanks beaucoup. Read the decision.... not sure it would help much with football players, though, because it seems the main reason USC got off the hook is because their men's coach was substantially more qualified with a much more extensive resume than the women's coach who was suing. If the university wanted to pay men and women players differently, the courts would probably have to rehash that all over again.
As well, Title IX still requires a roughly equal amount of money to be spent on men's and women's programs (proportionate to the student body, so generally more for women), so paying football players would still require either an expansion of women's programs or a reduction for men. We pretty much know which one schools will choose.
September 18th, 2018 at 5:03 PM ^
Not only would you have to call them employees, but you would have to look at why the court ruled as it did.
I don't think I'm going out on a limb in saying it was individual coaches were entitled to be paid their market value. There was no formula based on the sport and the revenue it generates. Surely that would apply to other employees as well. How could you justify paying all football players the same?
September 18th, 2018 at 1:55 PM ^
" And it's highly unlikely they would 'pass on' that amount to the fans. They would just cut back on superfluous spending (Texas just spent $10M on a friggin locker room; a locker room!!!) "
You demonstrate an incredibly naive view about the world...
September 18th, 2018 at 2:07 PM ^
I don't think it's fair to call this naive. Michigan isn't a for-profit institution. The money they earn is money they spend. So they HAVE to find ways to spend this money and they do so via million dollar locker rooms, performance centers, coaching salaries, support staff, etc. They instead would spend some of it to pay the players.
Personally, I think you're naive if you don't think Michigan doesn't already try to maximize every dollar. If they could charge an extra $50 per ticket, they would. But their analysis has determined that if they were to charge more, their total revenue would decline. Whether they pay the players or not has no bearing on what they charge the fans.
Fans have a set price in which they're willing to spend to go to a game. That price level/elasticity is not impacted at all by how much money the schools earns/spends.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:11 PM ^
They don't have to spend that money, and they certainly don't have to spend it on water slides for the football players. Excess revenue could be added to the endowment and used to find additional scholarships and financial aid.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:17 PM ^
Remember when Michigan bragged about how much money they give back to the University General Fund?
They don't do that any more, and they haven't for a decade or more. They spend every dime, whether they need to spend it or not. Even when they can't spend it all, they put it into something called (I think) the "athletic building fund," paying for future improvements that haven't even been approved yet.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:24 PM ^
Yes, but that's also a joke.
UM's endowment is $10.9B - the annual return on that (assuming a very conservative 5%) is $545M. There is plenty of money to pay for almost all students accepted to go to school for free, but yet that is not the way the system works.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:09 PM ^
Actually, they wouldn't be able to pass along the incremental expenses to the ticket buying fans. Many programs are suffering attendance issues. Generally speaking, athletic departments have already maximized the ticket prices, so it wouldn't be passed along.
What would get cut back are coaches salaries, extra expenses (trips to Europe or wherever Harbaugh takes the team each summer), locker room upgrades, etc.
I started buying alumni season tickets in 1994, and tickets were typically $35 per game, regardless of the competition. I think Wisconsin and PSU are $150 this year. Athletic departments are no longer leaving the dollars on the table.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:49 PM ^
The school/AD doesn't pay a dime for the football team to travel overseas. That is all paid for buy two donors. (Harbaugh said their names this summer, but I forget, and I'm too lazy to look it up...)
September 18th, 2018 at 1:56 PM ^
Sure...why not ....but how do you enforce? No way not to have shenanigans once you open the proverbial "pandora's box." Come to my school and you'll get $50 per autograph....or come work at the dealership and we'll let you drive this $75,000 car, etc, etc....the haves and have nots will quickly come to the surface.
I get it no easy solution.....
September 18th, 2018 at 2:12 PM ^
You make a poor assumption that the rules are actually being enforced now. How much money did Cam Newton get? $250k (technically, the NCAA decided it was his father that got the money, so Cam was able to stay eligible.)
There is no enforcement. The bag man concept exists where there is a black market for paying players. If a player is worth $250k, fine, let that player get the money. The dollars will flow to where the value is.
Michigan would do much better in an environment where we were able to pay players legally, as opposed to the current situation where we aren't going to partake in black market payments.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:31 PM ^
paying players won't eliminate bagmen though.
Make it illegal...as in if you pay college players you will be charged with a felony and receive mandatory jail time...or a hefty fine. It'll stop a few people.
Agree Michigan would do very well if they were allowed to pay players.
Problem is that even allowing players to profit off their likeness creates a more uneven playing field. Kids will go where they will be most marketable. Back qb at Bama might be worth more money than starting at TCU. Kids start making college choices based on where they will get the most cash seems counterproductive. Imagine how pissed people would be around here if recruits chose OSU over Michigan because they had more profitable marketing opportunities?
September 18th, 2018 at 2:53 PM ^
I admit I don't know this, but are you sure that they don't do this now? I mean kids spurn Michigan for Alabama, fully knowing that they might get buried in a four-deep. Still they are going there to maximize their chance of winning a National Championship. OTOH, Rashan Gary is coming to Michigan for the academics.
People will always make decisions to maximize their own lot. "Wold Peace" may or may not feature in there.
September 18th, 2018 at 4:00 PM ^
If the player is paid for use of his name/likeness then he will make money whether he goes to Michigan or another school. It's only the color of the jersey that will change. He wouldn't have to go to Alabama for the extra financial perks.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:13 PM ^
Co-sign this and only this answer. Why anyone thinks the solution would be a salary or have anything to do with Title IX is beyond me.
The only change would be allowing the secret payments that are already happening everywhere to not be against NCAA rules. Literally nothing else needs to be changed from the schools’ or athletes’ perspectives.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:19 PM ^
Legalizing the bag man could work.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:20 PM ^
I don't understand why this is never talked about as a solution.
September 18th, 2018 at 4:05 PM ^
I agree 100%. Except they are not kids. They are adults, & they are being restricted severely as to what kinds of things they can do for money. Not illegal things... Perfectly normal, capitalistic things. It's fucking insane.
I don't care if they charge $20 for an autograph, or $2,000 for an OMG shirtless photo. Let them be in charge of themselves.
September 18th, 2018 at 5:44 PM ^
Paying them for their likeness brings back the bagmen. "Hey kid, come play for SEC State & Big John's Carstop will pay you $10,000 for a 30 second commercial. Dante's Strip Club will pay $20,000 on top of that."
If Wisconsin drops sports it would have a minimal effect on the bottom line. $150M less coming in, $150M less paid out. Just fewer employees.
September 18th, 2018 at 7:50 PM ^
My answer is for the NFL and NBA to allow talented athletes to go pro out of high school. If the kids are talented enough to make money right away, then go for it. Otherwise they can get a free education, room and board, and free sports training and hold off for 2-3 years. Of course we'd have to convince the NFL and NBA to do that...
September 18th, 2018 at 1:45 PM ^
Ridiculous. Let’s see the river card because I’m calling this bluff.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:20 PM ^
How is this ridiculous? I feel like this is the first time someone is actually being honest about the finances of this whole situation. I'm all for paying players but consider the facts:
- Nearly all Athletic Departments are in the red
- Football and Basketball are the only real revenue/profit generating sports
- On the whole, the budgets of all other sports operate in substantial Net Losses
With those facts it's a simple equation: by paying players, athletic departments would have to make that revenue up by eliminating other expenses (i.e. non revenue sports), or borrow more $$$ from the academic/student side (i.e. tuition). It's all the other sports that benefit most from not paying football and basketball players.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:22 PM ^
Everyone likes to blame coaches, facilities, or some indistinct AD caricature for taking advantage of players not getting paid. But NFL teams spend plenty of cash on player salaries, stadiums, and coaches. They don't have men's lacrosse, and women's volleyball though
September 18th, 2018 at 3:09 PM ^
Want to bet that Wisconsin is still fielding division 1 sports teams in 10 years?
September 18th, 2018 at 3:18 PM ^
The problem is that you've bought into all of the other nonsense that they've sold you, so naturally this makes sense.
Athletic departments are intentionally in the red. It's a bookkeeping fiction, mostly made up of the paper value of the scholarship. It allows them to justify taking in ever-larger amounts of money, requesting endless donations, etc.
Title IX is also a red herring. There is absolutely nothing in there that would require that women's cross country get paid as much as a football player. For example -- they could offer to split gate revenue with the players. At UConn, it might be more lucrative to be a women's basketball player than a football player. At Wisconsin, the reverse is likely true. Neither situation is illegal, because neither of those is discriminatory.
September 18th, 2018 at 4:57 PM ^
First off, a proportion of Tuition should absolutely be counted as an expense. Secondly, even if you remove tuition, non-revenue programs are still in the red.
- In 2014, all tuition & grants only made up 24% of total expenses
- I mean, how many fans are throwing cash at the UM swim program? Is it really that controversial to say that these types of sports lose money?
Put it another way. Where do you think the Millions from not paying players go exactly?
- There aren't Owners taking profits like the NFL. Power 5 AD's only make like $500k on avg... but maybe they're hiding it all in the Cayman islands?
- While the NCAA & Bowl committees are a different story completely, those bandits only syphon off less than 10% of revenues. 90% still goes to the respective Athletic Dept.
Intentional or not, the main issue is that academic institutions throw millions upon millions to prop up sports that the student body could care less about. These figures are startling: "Nearly 130 athletic departments rely on subsidies for over half their revenue." - Scroll down to the table
Again, I'm 100% behind paying players. I would just make it so an athlete's pay is more in line with the actual profit/value that their sport provides.
September 18th, 2018 at 5:54 PM ^
In that case won't it be better if those ADs leave the field? Most of their expenses are due to Football/Basketball. They also generate most of the revenue as well. What to do?
September 18th, 2018 at 1:48 PM ^
I might grow 2 more feet and play center in the NBA.
But planning on that happening is not reasonable.
September 18th, 2018 at 1:53 PM ^
Most schools in Division 1 do not have the money to pay players. Even if they were to be paid it would never be enough and they would want more. And then you would have to pay other athletes as well like those in gymnastics, softball, and swimming.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:01 PM ^
Why - where in title IXdoes it say if your sport is not a revenue sport you should get income too?
Continuing scholarships for non-revenue sports gives equal opportunity to play while earnings a degree.
I guess the question becomes for most schools: can you continue to offer the non-revenue sports scholarships if you have to pay revenue sports athletes?
September 18th, 2018 at 2:29 PM ^
I think the answer there would be no...no, they cannot afford the scholarships anymore.
September 18th, 2018 at 1:53 PM ^
She's full of shit. Their alumni would burn the damn campus down if they tried to get rid of sports, especially football.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:03 PM ^
That would be a lot of melted cheese and crispy badgers
September 18th, 2018 at 2:12 PM ^
ihavethestrangestboner.jpg
September 18th, 2018 at 1:54 PM ^
I find it crazy that Kyler Murray can receive a signing bonus for millions of dollars in the MLB and still play CFB.
What would the CFB landscape be like if teams were able to draft players out of high school, sign them, the NFL can decide to bring them up, and the kid can choose whether or not he wants to finish out college or move up.
Obviously a lot more would be involved here, but it seems like the NFL could be ran like the NHL in terms of drafting. Would it provide the possibility of having NFL farm teams?
Idk just a thought.
September 18th, 2018 at 1:58 PM ^
I wholeheartedly agree that athletes should be paid or receive some sort of compensation for their time playing at a University.
However, has anyone come up with a viable proposal that doesn't hurt G5 schools or lower? Some of those schools wouldn't be able to pay as much as Michigan or Bama. Would it be possible for the NCAA to receive money from each school weighted based on their revenue and then evenly disperse that money to athletes?
What about athletes from non-revenue generating sports? Baseball? Wrestling? etc. High School students would potentially drop opportunities in those sports to pursue football or basketball at a low level school and get paid.
Anyone have a link to a thought out plan or article? Thanks!
September 18th, 2018 at 2:26 PM ^
Not exactly what you are looking for (more than one proposal)
September 18th, 2018 at 3:43 PM ^
Thanks for the link Chi!
September 18th, 2018 at 1:58 PM ^
Insert image of Rebecca Black - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfVsfOSbJY0
Saw the thread title and thought of that "Friday" song. Read her comments and realized it was even dumber
September 18th, 2018 at 2:14 PM ^
This is straight where my head went as well.