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 2:42 PM ^
Downvoted out of habit.
September 18th, 2018 at 1:59 PM ^
Are people aware that these athletes are getting a six-figure college education, free meals for a good portion of their season, great medical care, AND a potential degree to earn money after college, not to mention some getting a shot in the NFL?
You pay college players to solve your perceived problem, and you’ve essentially tried to fight off dogs by calling a wolf.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:35 PM ^
I hate this argument.
Yes, in the abstract that looks like a good deal--and for lots of college players, it is. For some, however, it's less than the market will bear--much, much less in some cases. It's impossible to discuss this subject matter intelligently without acknowledging that as a basic premise.
September 18th, 2018 at 3:00 PM ^
Nobody is making them play football. They can choose to play football, receive the coaching and training that comes with it, and have an opportunity to play professionally or choose not to play college football and not have that opportunity.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:42 PM ^
As a grad student teacher, I received all that, and, in addition, I received a salary for the classes I taught. I wasn't expected to remain an amateur professor because...purity, or something. College athletes should, at the minimum, be able to earn the stipend a student prof gets, given the income they generate for universities, the publicity, etc.
September 18th, 2018 at 3:20 PM ^
As someone who also went through grad school, that analogy is not appropriate in my experience. Stipends received from teaching and/or research duties are typically (just barely) enough to cover living expenses during the tenure as a grad student. Also, those duties typically are considered part of the responsibilities of grad school and not an extra-curricular activity.
September 18th, 2018 at 4:43 PM ^
Yeah, but you're being paid to teach. And grad students are paid close to the rate adjuncts are--which I know because that's what I do right now. Plenty of people out there only earn enough from their jobs to cover living expenses (again, this guy right here), so I don't get your point there. Grad teachers are paid because they generate revenue for the university through the classes they teach, not because they're grad students. At Michigan, I was paid through the EDWP my second year. My first year I was a Rackham fellow, which was a different income source.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:01 PM ^
Well... you have to consider the idea that some schools will do that. When athletic scholarships started to become common, the University of Chicago and the Ivy League schools decided to stop paying to play at the highest level.
I can certainly see that some schools will say "this is no longer part of our mission" if the move from scholarships to salaries is made...even if it means leaving money on the table, as the University of Chicago clearly did back in the late 1930s.
I kind of doubt that the University of Wisconsin would be one of those schools, but I guess that's up to their Regents or Trustees or whatever.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:03 PM ^
I can't take it! I understand that college athletics require a lot of time (practices, games, etc.), but they are being paid. They get an education for free or pennies on the dollar. I have no problem with letting players do autograph sessions, etc. outside of the university to make money, but don't tell me that the universities need to give them more financial help.
I chose to go into teaching knowing that I would never make six figures and they chose to put in the required time to play college athletics. If they aren't feeling "appreciated," they aren't required to keep playing the sport.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:17 PM ^
This argument was somewhat valid into the 80's and 90's when Bo was making $200k a year to coach and tickets were $35/game. the entire system wasn't designed to maximize profits.
The world has changed. Fans are getting stuck for seat licenses, tickets are $150/game, there are more commercials than angry bloggers care to count. And coaches are getting paid $7M a year or more. It is a professional sport with one exception, the players share of the massively larger pie has shrunk considerably.
It is irrelevant if you are a teacher, or an engineer, or an investment banker... they should be getting more of the value that they are creating, especially considering the physical risks that they endure. Grant Newsome spent 38 days in the hospital and nearly lost his leg. I have no issue with players getting more of the pie.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:28 PM ^
I would also add that the 'education' they get for free isn't worth much. THey're often pushed into dumb, easy classes so they don't have too much homework or distractions. Its not worth it to be fed a sub-standard education just so they can be ready to play Bowling Green on Saturday. And then after four years they're gone and the university couldn't give a shit about them.
The only reason an athletic scholarship is a deal now is because a college education is so overpriced to begin with. Otherwise, they're not getting the same product.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:37 PM ^
why? Name a bank that has tellers say they should be paid more because this bank makes 3bn instead of 2bn? Employees (which they are not) aren't entitled to a percentage of profits. How many companies actually give out raises proportionate with the increased revenue, year over year?
September 18th, 2018 at 2:59 PM ^
Oh Boy! No, I haven't put money in a bank so I could just look at a teller or based on the teller's skill. The money coming to football programs are proportional to the talent of the players and effort of the coaches. Every company that pays out a bonus, sets a few benchmarks the employees need to meet to earn their bonus. I am sure if a teller brought in million dollars in new business, that teller would at least get a $5 thank you coffee card for it.
September 18th, 2018 at 3:01 PM ^
" Employees aren't entitled to a percentage of profits"
They fucking should be though!
September 18th, 2018 at 4:51 PM ^
Exactly, should we tell canzior about the horrible CEO-to-average worker pay ratios we have in this country? Productivity has increased for decades and CEO and executive pay has also exploded. Your average joe doesn't see any of it though. Maybe they deserve a slightly larger share of the profits?
September 18th, 2018 at 4:59 PM ^
double..
September 18th, 2018 at 2:04 PM ^
U of Wisconsin will also consider banning internships.
- Rebecca Blank
September 18th, 2018 at 2:08 PM ^
Maybe she means Division 1 sports? I doubt Wisconsin would get rid of sports entirely. I think it would be quite cool if Wisconsin said enough of this, and self-selected down to D3.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:09 PM ^
Hard to take this seriously when head coaches are millionaires and assistants make more than a University President. Perhaps a redistribution of spending is needed to make this work in Madison, but I seriously doubt they (or any other major program) would stop.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:10 PM ^
Great. Then we can get their linemen!
September 18th, 2018 at 2:12 PM ^
well bye.gif
September 18th, 2018 at 2:14 PM ^
You hear presidents say this periodically and nothing comes of it because, for all their bluster, they don't really care all that much about athletes either way. But railing against them plays into that weird base of people who are jealous there are people better at, and get paid more for, what they view as a "game" than whatever serious job they think they have.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:17 PM ^
i call bullshit
September 18th, 2018 at 2:20 PM ^
Paul Chryst's salary: $3.75 million
Number of seats at Camp Randall: 80,321
A $50k salary for 100 players could be covered by a $1M drop in Chryst's salary (which he would take in a heartbeat to pay his players) and a $50 increase in season tickets (<$8/game).
Pay the damn players.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:25 PM ^
I hate when people in the field of education use rigorous as a positive description of what they do. It's not as bad describing a program I guess, but that's not the same thing as challenging at all.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:30 PM ^
“Changing the amateur nature of that will fundamentally change whether this fits into our educational mission & cause us to reevaluate whether these are programs we want to run.”
The president of the UW system made $525,000 in 2015. The UW-Madison AD makes between $1.1 and $1.8M (I found conflicting figures.). The UW-M head football coach makes $3.2M. The UW-M head basketball coach made $3.3M in 2015.
When the AD and coaches make more, way more than the president, the “educational mission” is already compromised. Add to this examples like the recent Ohio State football mess, the multiple athletic team messes at MSU. And however many more such examples there are at Power 5 programs around the country.
Seems to me, going the route of the Univ. of Chicago is more in keeping with “educational mission” than not paying the players.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:37 PM ^
What a load of bullshit. This is the same argument used by the ultra-wealthy and the media when any candidate even hints that maybe we should tax them a little more. 'Oh no, if we're taxed at a slightly higher percentage, then we just won't work anymore'.
There's money to go around. As someone mentioned maybe they should get their own house in order because there are plenty of coaches and administrators making tons of money/
BTW I know shes the the head honcho but she gets $500K/year and a free house to live in. Every college seems to have a number of officials like this and yet college costs keep going up.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:38 PM ^
I have long maintained that the day that we start paying Michigan players is the day I cancel my season tickets.
I am totally with the Wisconsin Chancellor, and I hope that more Big Ten Presidents get on board.
I like major league baseball, and golf. I am otherwise completely uninterested in professional sports. They can do what they want; it's a free country. But they won't get my money or my tv-viewing eyeballs.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:41 PM ^
Would UW stop playing sports...no. This woman is spewing a hot take that is fitting for this blog so I render this not OT!
But, I don't think college athletes should get paid by the NCAA or the Universities beyond maybe a small stipend. I do think that they should be able to make money off their likeness. The NCAA does not own a players image or signature. If someone is willing to give a player money for doing an ad or being in a video game or signing some memorabilia, that player should certainly be able to capitalize financially on that opportunity.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:42 PM ^
This might hurt recruiting. All your OL are belong to us.
September 18th, 2018 at 2:49 PM ^
WWRD?
*What Would Rutgers Do?
September 18th, 2018 at 4:07 PM ^
Lose by 70 regardless.
September 18th, 2018 at 3:06 PM ^
Ok so I was a former scholarship player at a mid major FCS division program, so my view may differ than that of say the manziels ,Tebow’s, Barkley’s and other college megastars. But I was plenty happy to graduate with a 120k+ education nearly debt free. Also players are given those scholarships which have real dollars attributed to them but how can one quantify the effect of earning power due to alumni network exposure. Let’s not ignore that a lot of these players if they take care of business in the classroom get hired at some really great well paying jobs which if they were simply one of 50 nondescript applicants they might not be selected, however being a student athlete at the ceo’s Alma mater got them the proverbial shoe in. Without a stage the players likeness is not valuable cold hard facts....this generation is me me me without taking into account the lost art of paying your dues. That being said bring back NCAA football and set the easports payments into a trust 401k style and disburse upon graduation, so I can get my game back.
September 18th, 2018 at 3:18 PM ^
To note, the US is pretty much the only country in which its university athletes compete at a level which could warrant payment.
It's a system that totally perplexes my UK friends.
September 18th, 2018 at 3:29 PM ^
gawd, the sanctimony of these assholes never ceases to amaze me.
honestly, if she really gave one goddamned shit about "student athletes" she'd kill d1 athletics right now. that's an option, you know. go full-on university of chicago and do it. turn the stadium into a rec center for the intramural program, kill all the scholarships, pull out of the tv contract.
done, and literally nobody outside of the state of wisconsin would give them a second thought.
September 18th, 2018 at 3:33 PM ^
EXACTLY Matty Blue.... I truly don't understand the "good for her" comments. She's a hypocrite if $.01 of their athletic department revenue funds their "educational mission". SPOILER - UW, like every other FBS school, has no problem accepting athletic department revenues.
September 18th, 2018 at 4:36 PM ^
Wait a minute!
The choice is (1) pay players some sort of salary (presumably with a collective bargaining agreement to boot), or (2) cancel out the entire athletic department...?!?
No more scholarships, no more competitions? No more playing for the fun of it at a high level, and getting a rather amazing scholarship with a life changing experience?
How much is the MGoBlog membership going to pay, toward Michigan football player salaries? Is it in fact true, that most of the MGoMembership watches the games on television? What % of MGoBoyze are paying for PSD's and season tickets? What % are Victors Club members? What is the average age of MGoBoard posters?
September 18th, 2018 at 5:03 PM ^
the implication in her comment is that paying football players will somehow stain the entire concept of "student athlete," to the point of suggesting that, if it does happen, the sainted university of wisconsin athletic department might just have to leave big-time football.
pro tip - if a d1 college administrator uses the phrase "student athlete" they are, without exception, defending their choice (and it is a choice) to stuff their face in the trough. go ahead, find me an exception to that. i'll wait.
as has been said elsewhere in the thread - if wisconsin really cares about the hooey of "student athletes," they don't have to go full-on univ of chicago. they can go yale...which leads me to pro tip number 2 - wisconsin is NOT YALE.
i don't know what i think about paying players. i go back and forth. but the "we have to protect the student athlete" argument is 100% shite, and you know it.
the less said about the gibberish in your last "paragraph" the better.
September 18th, 2018 at 5:09 PM ^
No more scholarships, no more competitions? No more playing for the fun of it at a high level, and getting a rather amazing scholarship with a life changing experience?
That's what D2 and D3 are for.... Any University accepting large sums of TV $ cannot bitch about athletes wanting a piece of the pie without being extremely hypocritical. Revenues among D1 schools don't need to increase to pay the players or allow them to accept endorsement deals.
September 18th, 2018 at 5:50 PM ^
Nonsense.
Nobody of any repute who has ever been a coach, or an administrator at a high level in collegiate athletics has ever been in favor of paying players.
The people who want to play college players are sportswriters and bloggers and others whose jobs depend upon access to, and favor with, college athletes. Everybody who doesn't have to pay for college athletics and who doesn't have to balance an athletic department budget wants to pay college athletes.
And really; screw tv. TV, as Brian is now very rightly pointing out, is just messing up game days for the people who pay for games in Michigan Stadium, and who are the financial lifeblood of the Athletic Department.
What we need, is a better/clearer way to exert pressure on AD's and conferences, to say no to TV demands.
September 19th, 2018 at 6:13 AM ^
"Nobody of any repute who has ever been a coach, or an administrator at a high level in collegiate athletics has ever been in favor of paying players."
thus proving that if you write enough gibberish, something correct might fall out. purely at random, apparently. it is true that most coaches and administrators are not in favor of paying players, but not for the reasons you seem to suggest (which are, it should be noted, completely unclear).
they are against it because paying the players would give them less power and control over those players. it's in their best interest to maintain the power structure as it exists. obviously.
September 18th, 2018 at 3:48 PM ^
Could someone explain to me how taking millions from FOX and ESPN and allowing them to dictate when you play is in line with the spirit of amateurism?
September 18th, 2018 at 3:49 PM ^
I'll bet she is no amateur at cashing BTN checks
September 18th, 2018 at 3:58 PM ^
"If we have to make slightly less money off sports, we'll set the rest of the money on fire too. That'll show them!"
September 18th, 2018 at 4:04 PM ^
As demonstrated yesterday, schools like UM (and Wisconsin, to a slightly lesser extent) are already swimming in money from all the TV timeouts, $6 hot dogs and $4.50 bottles of water. There is more than enough money precisely because these schools long ago discarded its "amateur nature."
Time to stop funneling the excess cash into million dollar strength & conditioning coaches and hundred million dollar-plus palatial sports complexes, and give more to the people who are actually earning it.
September 18th, 2018 at 4:48 PM ^
How was that flatly untrue assertion "demonstrated yesterday"?
A small number of collegiate athletic departments operate in the black at all. Most operate on a shoestring that is only made possible by generous donors.
The U-M Athletic Department is not swimming in money. They are begging me for more money on a monthly, if not weekly, basis.
I have a real question in my mind about coaching salaries. But the market dictates that. It's a true, free market in an ultra-competitive environment. If somebody wanted to put an NCAA cap on coaching salaries, it would be fine with me. But I don't see that happening.
I am glad that in the late 1920's, there was no one with strong influence who was saying, "We need to stop building these massive 75,000 -100,000 seat stadiums."
btw; I've been going to Michigan games for 50 years. I started VERY young. In all of that time, and after a monumental amount of time in Blue Lot tailgates, I don't think I have ever purchased a single item of food inside Michigan Stadium. Some water on hot days in September; some coffee on cold days in November. A few beers when no one has been looking. "Food" is what tailgating is for.
September 18th, 2018 at 5:27 PM ^
"But the market dictates that. It's a true, free market in an ultra-competitive environment."
Hmm... I wonder what else would be a "true, free market in an ultra-competitive environment" if only greedy administrators like Rebecca Blank would get out of the way??
September 18th, 2018 at 6:23 PM ^
Those student-athletes in the Big Ten are where they are, and doing what they are doing, by virtue of decades of hard work and tradition of generations of student-athletes before them, and some really grand support from their state and federal governments over more than 100 years. They are some of the luckiest people on the planet, to be attending Big Ten universities on athletic scholarships. What is an 18 year-old Jalen Rose doing if there are no basketball scholarships? Playing ball in an NBA developmental league in Gary, or Fort Wayne.
September 18th, 2018 at 6:35 PM ^
And, your point is???
None of this clarifies why you think free market is so great for coaches and not for athletes
September 18th, 2018 at 6:43 PM ^
Oh, I don't think it is so great for coaches. It is bewildering to me, what coaches get paid. But the reason that they get paid so much is clear enough. Head coaches are paid to produce super-competitive teams that serve as "front porches" (a U-M marketing term) for multi-billion dollar universities, and at a more micro level, as revenue generators for athletic departments that must support Title IX-mandated budgets.
The difference between a 6-6 coach and a 12-0 coach at Michigan is not equivalent to $5 million; it is an almost unquantifiable multiple of that.
But if you are interested in an NCAA-wide cap on coaching salaries, I'm all ears. It won't bother me a bit to engage in that conversation.