HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

NCAA-O'Bannon Case: using athlete images w/o compensation (#508, dismissal denied)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-12-2011, 03:40 PM
  #1
Moo
Moooooooooooooooo!
 
Moo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Valrico, FL
Posts: 29,026
vCash: 500
NCAA-O'Bannon Case: using athlete images w/o compensation (#508, dismissal denied)

http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-ne...000-ar-257198/

Quote:
WASHINGTON The average fair market value of top-tier college football and men's basketball players is more than $100,000 each, and the athletes are entitled to at least a portion of that, a report from an advocacy group argues.

Instead of getting what they're worth, the players receive athletic scholarships that don't cover the full cost of attending school, leaving many of them living below the poverty line, says the report, "The Price of Poverty in Big Time College Sport."

A national college athletes' advocacy group and a sports management professor calculate in the report that if college sports shared their revenues the way pro sports do, the average Football Bowl Subdivision player would be worth $121,000 per year, while the average basketball player at that level would be worth $265,000.

The Associated Press obtained a copy of the report ahead of its official release, scheduled for Tuesday.
Now, of course, this deals with just the big-time sports of football and men's hoops. But it makes you wonder about other sports, too, and the colleges that thrive on the other sports -- which specifically for this board, would be the hockey schools. You know if it happens with the big-time sports, it will eventually trickle down.

Moo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 04:25 PM
  #2
Mathradio
Go Roy Munson!
 
Mathradio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 9,475
vCash: 500
Hope they would at least give them athletic scholarships that cover the full cost!

Mathradio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 07:36 PM
  #3
Fehr Time*
The Don of Hockey
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,787
vCash: 500
Exploitation at its best. Players should be paid according to market standards and how much revenue they generate for the said school.

Fehr Time* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 07:50 PM
  #4
lightsout
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fehr Time View Post
Exploitation at its best. Players should be paid according to market standards and how much revenue they generate for the said school.
Laws such as Title IX prohibit this. If college athletes were to eventually be paid, then the women on the crew team would earn as much as the men on the football team. And there's something about tax payer money going to athletes beyond that of their tuition that would cause an enormous uproar (much more than it already does) in an economy even remotely similar to the current one. If anything, I could see a drop in state aid before the athletes get paid. I'm a huge fan of Penn State, the most expensive state school in the country which also has one of the highest sports revenues. They also implemented a new "donation fee" per seat for football season ticket holders that is to be paid annually or the ticket holder loses their season ticket privileges. It is absolutely disgusting what they're doing, as these fees range from $100-$2000 per seat. Remember, this is paid annually. Pennsylvania also had/has a budget crisis that threatened available aid to state universities. I believe it may have been settled recently though. I expect to see severe budget cuts eventually for most state colleges and universities as these money pits have gotten completely out of hand.

lightsout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 07:59 PM
  #5
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Absolutely it's exploitation. What the players receive in return pales in comparison to the millions the schools pocket. Sure, they'll talk about how the sports programs are self-supporting and help the other sports programs, but all of this ignores a fundamental issue. The universities have traded in their academic charters and are running sports entertainment businesses. To add insult to injury, the fact that they are IN THIS NICHE makes it impossible for athletes to follow a minor league/farm option for NFL or NBA tracks, which in fact might be lucrative businesses where they could earn a fair pay that would give them more money and a better future than their educations.

The entire thing is rather disgusting, to be honest.

  Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 08:04 PM
  #6
Fehr Time*
The Don of Hockey
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightsout View Post
Laws such as Title IX prohibit this. If college athletes were to eventually be paid, then the women on the crew team would earn as much as the men on the football team. And there's something about tax payer money going to athletes beyond that of their tuition that would cause an enormous uproar (much more than it already does) in an economy even remotely similar to the current one. If anything, I could see a drop in state aid before the athletes get paid. I'm a huge fan of Penn State, the most expensive state school in the country which also has one of the highest sports revenues. They also implemented a new "donation fee" per seat for football season ticket holders that is to be paid annually or the ticket holder loses their season ticket privileges. It is absolutely disgusting what they're doing, as these fees range from $100-$2000 per seat. Remember, this is paid annually. Pennsylvania also had/has a budget crisis that threatened available aid to state universities. I believe it may have been settled recently though. I expect to see severe budget cuts eventually for most state colleges and universities as these money pits have gotten completely out of hand.
Well, as we all know, they will likely charge as much as people are willing to pay, or in this case 'donate' (gag).

The Law is troublesome, it gives the schools a perfectly built in excuse to maintain the status quo when it comes to not paying athletes, even if it was actually intended to promote gender equality. I, like many, am just tired of the BS in regards to college sports and how 'amateur' everything is when it comes to athletes. It is big business and the athletes that help make it what it is should get a cut. End the hypocrisy.


Last edited by Fehr Time*: 09-12-2011 at 08:19 PM.
Fehr Time* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 08:19 PM
  #7
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,465
vCash: 500
100,000, is not nearly what some of them are worth. How much does Notre Dame make from it's football team? I'd think at a million per year the players would be underpaid.

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 08:28 PM
  #8
Fehr Time*
The Don of Hockey
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Absolutely it's exploitation. What the players receive in return pales in comparison to the millions the schools pocket. Sure, they'll talk about how the sports programs are self-supporting and help the other sports programs, but all of this ignores a fundamental issue. The universities have traded in their academic charters and are running sports entertainment businesses. To add insult to injury, the fact that they are IN THIS NICHE makes it impossible for athletes to follow a minor league/farm option for NFL or NBA tracks, which in fact might be lucrative businesses where they could earn a fair pay that would give them more money and a better future than their educations.

The entire thing is rather disgusting, to be honest.
It is truly amazing how draconian some of these regulations are that govern the movements of these athletes. The galling thing is how much some of the coaches make at many of these schools that 'do not have the money' to pay the athletes.

Fehr Time* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 08:47 PM
  #9
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
As an old fart, I have to say college football and basketball was never more entertaining than during the height of the "recruitment scandal" era, where players were, in effect, getting paid.

SMU football...UNLV basketball...Hurricanes/Seminoles football...that was just AWESOME stuff...

  Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 09:00 PM
  #10
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockeyhopeful View Post
100,000, is not nearly what some of them are worth. How much does Notre Dame make from it's football team? I'd think at a million per year the players would be underpaid.

University of Michigan just finished some major construction on the Big House to add friggin' luxury suites, and then they pack 100K+ people into that building. They get their cut of the NCAA TV money as well, and probably the Bowl monies. It's got to be an obscene amount of money.

  Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 09:12 PM
  #11
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fehr Time View Post
Exploitation at its best. Players should be paid according to market standards and how much revenue they generate for the said school.
Sounds good. Athletes can pay the schools additional in order to play at schools like Toledo, Akron, Bowling Green, Ohio U, Northern Illinois, all three directional Michigan schools, Cleveland State, Kent State, and pretty much any school that's lower than Division 1-AA at the college football level.

It's easy to point to one of about 10 schools and suggest that they're making huge amounts of money on the backs of student-athletes, it's quite another to realize how many athletic departments absolutely hemorrhage red ink...or even recognize that such realities exist.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 09:18 PM
  #12
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Sounds good. Athletes can pay the schools additional in order to play at schools like Toledo, Akron, Bowling Green, Ohio U, Northern Illinois, all three directional Michigan schools, Cleveland State, Kent State, and pretty much any school that's lower than Division 1-AA at the college football level.

It's easy to point to one of about 10 schools and suggest that they're making huge amounts of money on the backs of student-athletes, it's quite another to realize how many athletic departments absolutely hemorrhage red ink...or even recognize that such realities exist.

I think you're missing the point, Mayor Bee. Perhaps universities shouldn't be in the 'business' of sports. If they can't make money when the labor is free to the program, subsidized by your tax dollars and off the kids who have to pay tuition, maybe they need better business schools too.

The point is that there is a value attached to an athlete which can be directly measured by the amount of revenue that program generates. Schools get to keep that money while, so using this reports example, annual tuition plus board would run $15-20K, but each athlete is valuated at $100,000. I think the school is getting the better deal.

Now, if they didn't take that niche up and the NBA and NFL had to run their own development leagues, those same athletes could be working for $60-100K, which realistically would leave enough money for them to pay for a college education if they really wanted one.

  Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 10:59 PM
  #13
Ludwig Fell Down
Registered User
 
Ludwig Fell Down's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South Shore, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,617
vCash: 500
I don't see this as exploitation in general, although the byzantine NCAA rules and some resulting infractions can be completely draconian.

The athletes are getting a free college education. Room and board for a D1 football or basketball player is far in excess of what the typical college student receives, as well as the training and tutoring.

I do think these students should get a stipend. It amazes me when the NCAA cracks down on students who are bought a pizza or a bagel by a coach. They have actually ruled in cases like this as infractions. I think the big bucks from the major sports should be spread around to all scholarship athletes so that they can have a bit of spending money because their schedules are crazy.

Ludwig Fell Down is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 11:20 PM
  #14
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I think you're missing the point, Mayor Bee. Perhaps universities shouldn't be in the 'business' of sports. If they can't make money when the labor is free to the program, subsidized by your tax dollars and off the kids who have to pay tuition, maybe they need better business schools too.

The point is that there is a value attached to an athlete which can be directly measured by the amount of revenue that program generates. Schools get to keep that money while, so using this reports example, annual tuition plus board would run $15-20K, but each athlete is valuated at $100,000. I think the school is getting the better deal.

Now, if they didn't take that niche up and the NBA and NFL had to run their own development leagues, those same athletes could be working for $60-100K, which realistically would leave enough money for them to pay for a college education if they really wanted one.
I've been saying for years that if schools really want to pay athletes, it should be on the following terms.
1) Create a leaguewide revenue-sharing program that covers all sports and all schools within a conference.
2) Distribute revenues down to the athletes, after deductions for program expenses are taken out.
3) Remove all athlete-specific services, such as athletic dorms, free training tables and weight room sessions, practice facilities, and especially academic services. No more cutting the line for class registration or free tutoring services.
4) Eliminate all athletic scholarships. Let them pay for school out of pocket with whatever may be left...and it sure won't be very much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludwig Fell Down View Post
I don't see this as exploitation in general, although the byzantine NCAA rules and some resulting infractions can be completely draconian.

The athletes are getting a free college education. Room and board for a D1 football or basketball player is far in excess of what the typical college student receives, as well as the training and tutoring.

I do think these students should get a stipend. It amazes me when the NCAA cracks down on students who are bought a pizza or a bagel by a coach. They have actually ruled in cases like this as infractions. I think the big bucks from the major sports should be spread around to all scholarship athletes so that they can have a bit of spending money because their schedules are crazy.
They do get a stipend; in fact, it's a decent-sized one. Problem is that enough athletes want to live off-campus and eat takeout or at restaurants constantly, so the money gets blown through pretty quickly.

I don't feel a heck of a lot of sympathy for someone who is able to enter a college based primarily on athletic ability, have an opportunity at a completely free college education, be able to leave without having accumulated one single dollar worth of student loan debt, and already have a leg up on the rest of the job market (assuming they don't go pro) because the name is familiar to an employer. I've had to cycle off and on quarters for a few years now because my "crazy (work) schedule" minus my expenses doesn't allow me to pay tuition consistently, so I get to be several years behind students for whom that's not a worry.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 11:48 PM
  #15
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
You'd think the Euro BBall pro leagues would see an opening here. Steal a couple of quality college coaches, and start offering high school kids a chance to earn while they learn the game.

  Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2011, 04:49 PM
  #16
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Absolutely it's exploitation. What the players receive in return pales in comparison to the millions the schools pocket.

The entire thing is rather disgusting, to be honest.
The schools pocket nothing. The "business" isn't "college football" or "men's college basketball." The business is "college athletics." Each school has a minimum of 14 sports.

62 football programs turned a profit last season.
65 men's basketball programs turned a profit.

Those programs represent 1.9% of Division I college athletics. There are 6438 Division I NCAA programs. And football and men's basketball is what pays for them.

If you pay football players, you'd see that number of programs slashed. That means, you're taking away other kids chances of going to school solely to give players (the ones in a sport with a professional league, most the other NCAA sports don't have one) cash?

Which student-athletes follow the rules the best, carry the highest GPAs, and define what college sports should be about the most? The ones from the sports that don't make money. Football and men's hoop is their funding.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludwig Fell Down View Post
The athletes are getting a free college education. Room and board for a D1 football or basketball player is far in excess of what the typical college student receives, as well as the training and tutoring.

I do think these students should get a stipend. It amazes me when the NCAA cracks down on students who are bought a pizza or a bagel by a coach. They have actually ruled in cases like this as infractions. I think the big bucks from the major sports should be spread around to all scholarship athletes so that they can have a bit of spending money because their schedules are crazy.
Within NCAA rules, it is (you can give student athletes bagels, fruit and nuts at any time. But pizza can be a once-a-week "occasional meal" provided on campus). And the coaches can feed their players at training table when the team is in session.

Realistically, college kids aren't starving to death. The only ones in any kind of financial pinch is those who have families/kids.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
I've been saying for years that if schools really want to pay athletes, it should be on the following terms.
1) Create a leaguewide revenue-sharing program that covers all sports and all schools within a conference.
2) Distribute revenues down to the athletes, after deductions for program expenses are taken out.
3) Remove all athlete-specific services, such as athletic dorms, free training tables and weight room sessions, practice facilities, and especially academic services. No more cutting the line for class registration or free tutoring services.
4) Eliminate all athletic scholarships. Let them pay for school out of pocket with whatever may be left...and it sure won't be very much.
Thanks for firing me.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2011, 01:53 AM
  #17
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
"Rules that prohibit valuable players from accepting benefits above and beyond their scholarships set athletic programs and their players up for failure," they say, citing the case of former USC receiver R. Jay Soward, who told Sports Illustrated last year that he took money from NFL agent Josh Luchs because his scholarship didn't cover his food and rent costs.
Odd they'd cite R. Jay Soward as an example in this article. He had all the talent in the world, was a 1st round NFL pick out of UCLA, and then managed to get himself bounced from the league after only one season with a poor work ethic and substance abuse issues. 1st round picks gone after a single season are very rare in the NFL.

R. Jay had issues, but I doubt the lack of a college stipend was a major contributor.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2011, 06:45 AM
  #18
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
The schools pocket nothing. The "business" isn't "college football" or "men's college basketball." The business is "college athletics." Each school has a minimum of 14 sports.
Aren't you overlooking the obvious? What business are schools supposed to be in? So the sport that makes money can be used to exploit those student athletes so that other student athletes can also get a free ride?

How many needy kids with superb academic credentials get scholarships to these outstanding beacons of higher learning? But hey, if you can run or throw a ball or swim--- need notwithstanding, by the way, you can get a full scholarship.
Quote:
62 football programs turned a profit last season.
65 men's basketball programs turned a profit.
How did they do that?

Quote:
Those programs represent 1.9% of Division I college athletics. There are 6438 Division I NCAA programs. And football and men's basketball is what pays for them.
That doesn't mean this is the right thing for schools to be doing, KefVu. I'd be more impressed if they gave out more academic scholarships.

Quote:
If you pay football players, you'd see that number of programs slashed. That means, you're taking away other kids chances of going to school solely to give players (the ones in a sport with a professional league, most the other NCAA sports don't have one) cash?
So be it.


Quote:
Which student-athletes follow the rules the best, carry the highest GPAs, and define what college sports should be about the most? The ones from the sports that don't make money. Football and men's hoop is their funding.
This makes no sense. In today's world of having to be athletic, musical, and capable of taking 10 AP courses while scoring in the top percentile on a standardized test to get into elite schools (and all those things are mainly available at the upper end of the socioeconomic spectrum), Einstein would never have been accepted to Princeton.

MIT or CalTech for Tesla perhaps, but yah....


Why is it exactly that kids who can achieve at a higher level in a sport are somehow deserving of a structure that accommodates them and pays for their schooling? Shouldn't colleges and universities seek the students who are most likely to excel in the classroom, and then their chosen field of study?

  Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2011, 09:23 AM
  #19
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,671
vCash: 500
I have little experience with NCAA Divison 1 basketball but I know a little bit from direct experience in coaching about football. Suffice it to say that for many of the schools this is a huge business where the athletes are basically commodities. But for me this is still a complicated issue.

There are lots of examples of kids who have essentially been exploited by their schools and end up with almost nothing in the end because it is easy to be a student athlete in many US schools and walk away without any sort of education. But the system also provides an exceptional opportunity to many kids who otherwise would have had little chance of going to college.

Full-ride scholarships to some of these schools can be worth a lot of money, two hundred thousand dollars or more in some cases. For this the schools demand a great deal from these athletes.

Here is an article about a local highschool grad who got a very good taste of the US recruitment system. He was certainly one of Canadas best highschool athletes. I would venture to say that his case is not unusual, though perhaps the final outcome is.

http://www.therecord.com/sports/high...ts-for-western

Here in Canada the system is very different. Being a top athlete gets you a small amount of financial aid. Otherwise you are pretty much like every other student on campus.

Fourier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2011, 03:22 AM
  #20
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Aren't you overlooking the obvious? What business are schools supposed to be in? So the sport that makes money can be used to exploit those student athletes so that other student athletes can also get a free ride?
And PAYING student-athletes to play re-focuses things towards academics?

I really don't see how helping lots of kids who couldn't afford college earn degrees via athletics is a bad thing. And while I sound extremely noble and idealistic with that statement, the reality is that the "big time programs" / "football or basketball factories" comprise less than 2% of college teams.

Yeah, there's IS the business side of college athletics, but there isn't "for-profit" like a pro-sports team. It's to cover the cost of operations and provide OTHER student-athletes with an education. Like I said, 98% of college athletic programs offer at a loss. Remove the business side of it, and there's simply no more college sports.

As an institution, yes, the focus is on academics. But

A) athletics is essentially free advertising. A business marketing professor valued the publicity George Mason got out of its Final Four run in men's basketball at $50 million (TWICE their athletic fund).

B) The increase in applications when George Mason made the Final Four was 20% higher than before the run. That allowed the University to be more selective and increase the required SAT scores for acceptance by 10 points. The number of Alumni who registered their information with GMU increase 25%. Their endowment increased, their professors salaries increased. Everything at George Mason got better because of their men's basketball program.

C) College itself is a "business." They buy billboards, have corporate sponsorships, soft drink contracts, bookstore contracts, merchandise contracts. They try to build better campus buildings, make snazzier brochures, they send recruiters all over the country, they have polls and rankings to say their better (just like their athletic departments do!).

Aren't they exploiting kids for their tuition money? No, because they're providing something to the kid, the kid is making a consumer choice to pay X and work for a degree. Aren't college athletes making a choice to play college athletics? Only, they don't have to give THEIR MONEY. They have to pay with their willingness to adhere to NCAA rules, team rules, and their willingness to compete.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
How many needy kids with superb academic credentials get scholarships to these outstanding beacons of higher learning? But hey, if you can run or throw a ball or swim--- need notwithstanding, by the way, you can get a full scholarship.

How did they do that?
I don't know. I'd assume plenty of intellectually gifted people get scholarships. The Universities don't publish this information (or if they do, it's not neatly compiled somewhere by NCAA Division I schools). Plus there's all kinds of foundations who offer scholarships independent of Universities.

Then again, the scholarship recipients outside athletics don't provide free advertising for the University like athletes do.
Of the Top 75 "National Universities" in the US, 55 have Division I athletics and 42 play FBS football.


I'm really mad at myself because I misread your question, typed up an AWESOME response to what I thought you were asking, then realized I just wasted a lot of time.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
That doesn't mean this is the right thing for schools to be doing, KefVu. I'd be more impressed if they gave out more academic scholarships.
My long-windedness shows I'm willing to discuss this intellectually and not revert to "show me the last time 100,000 people came together on a Saturday to watch a college Chem Lab" as an argument.

But the fact of the matter is, the argument that "Colleges should spend on Academics and not Athletics" just isn't valid. It's correct: Colleges SHOULDN'T spend money on athletics instead of academics.

But you can't have the argument that "college football is a big business and schools are profiting from it*" and at the same time say "colleges are spending money on athletics and not academics."
(*not necessarily YOU making that exact argument, I've seen it all over.)

If colleges had money and spent it on football instead of academics, then football wouldn't be a business it would be the philanthropic hobby of a University.
If football is a big business, then the cost of athletics is the operating expense accounted for before profits and therefore the colleges aren't spending their money on football over academics.

A school can't cut athletics and simply add the athletics budget into its academic budget. Because the revenue from sports isn't going to find the University if the sports didn't exist. Fans aren't buying tickets, and Nike and ESPN aren't forking over $40 million to Texas without the football team.

The expense to the University for athletic scholarships aren't necessarily "Real dollars" but "opportunity cost dollars." The University is forgoing tuition from a paying student to let a student-athlete attend free in return for the free advertising and the quality of experience for the rest of the student body. The money from "big time athletics" simply pays for the operating cost of those student-athletes apart from tuition.


As simply as I can put it:
Football/Men's Hoops fund Athletics (not for profit) >> Athletics raises awareness of the University (advertising in TV, web, newspapers at no cost to the University) >> Awareness leads to more applications & donations and a higher University endowment >> College with more money offers builds more facilities (to house and educate), pays professors more, offers more scholarships.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
So be it.
Do colleges NEED athletics? Of course not. But they cost of dropping them is extreme.

The money flowing into a University is not just from applicants and tuition. It's from donations and endowments.

People with a positive experience of attending a school donate their money. And if athletics are part of that positive experience now, those people's willingness to donate drops. The annual giving to the University of Evansville dropped dramatically after they cut football (not just athletics, the University. A study showed it cost the University more than twice the operating expense of football annually). And that's just one sport.

And let's not forget that college athletes graduate at a higher rate than the average student; and some former players who give to the university are former athletes who might be stupid rich from the pros. Ndamukong Suh gave $600,000 to endow an engineering scholarship at Nebraska after he signed in the pros.

In other words, "dropping sports pisses off a lot of alumni and colleges don't want that"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Why is it exactly that kids who can achieve at a higher level in a sport are somehow deserving of a structure that accommodates them and pays for their schooling? Shouldn't colleges and universities seek the students who are most likely to excel in the classroom, and then their chosen field of study?
Yes. But again, investing in an awesome student with a full ride free tuition doesn't lead to the advertising for the university like athletics does. National TV networks aren't giving schools three-hour commercials on Saturdays. But they'll PAY to broadcast a football game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Odd they'd cite R. Jay Soward as an example in this article. He had all the talent in the world, was a 1st round NFL pick out of UCLA, and then managed to get himself bounced from the league after only one season with a poor work ethic and substance abuse issues. 1st round picks gone after a single season are very rare in the NFL.

R. Jay had issues, but I doubt the lack of a college stipend was a major contributor.
Plus "Rent" and "Food" is basically all a school can give to a student athlete besides some clothes, shoes and the education.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2011, 07:08 AM
  #21
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,392
vCash: 500
What a kettle of fish Moo. This is a complex situation, and one that is extremely delicate.

TaketheCannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2011, 07:50 AM
  #22
TCNorthstars
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Traverse City, MI
Posts: 885
vCash: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockeyhopeful View Post
100,000, is not nearly what some of them are worth. How much does Notre Dame make from it's football team? I'd think at a million per year the players would be underpaid.
There are over 100 football players on the team at Notre Dame. Notre Dame cetainly doesn't make a profit of over $100 million dollars.

The NFL league minimum for a 10th year pro is $910,000 and you want to pay college players $1 million a piece?

TCNorthstars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2011, 09:33 AM
  #23
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leek View Post
What a kettle of fish Moo. This is a complex situation, and one that is extremely delicate.
I agree completely!

I think there are two improtant subtopics:

1) The role of the Athletic Depatrment as it relates to the business and academic aspects of running a university.

2) How the individual athlete is viewed by the school or program.

One thing I will say is that in some ways this is a school by school issue.

By way of information here is the Athletic Budget for the University of Michigan.

http://www.regents.umich.edu/meeting...11-06-X-13.pdf

In contrast, my own school, which has around 30,000 students has an athletic budget of about $3-4M per year. The total operating budget for the school is about $600M.

Fourier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2011, 10:06 AM
  #24
rafterman
Registered User
 
rafterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Flyover country
Posts: 541
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockeyhopeful View Post
100,000, is not nearly what some of them are worth. How much does Notre Dame make from it's football team? I'd think at a million per year the players would be underpaid.
Hence the second word in the story - average...

rafterman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2011, 04:49 AM
  #25
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCNorthstars View Post
There are over 100 football players on the team at Notre Dame. Notre Dame cetainly doesn't make a profit of over $100 million dollars.

The NFL league minimum for a 10th year pro is $910,000 and you want to pay college players $1 million a piece?
Well, there's only 85 scholarships for FBS. 63 for FCS (although some FCS teams are non-scholarships), but no one is suggesting paying $1 million per player. That's ridiculous. There's like 20 schools with revenues over $85 million.

Title IX is a US Federal Law that regulates opportunity and expenditure equality along gender lines. If you paid 85 football players, by law, you have to pay 85 women's athletes. (And no one has revenues over $170 million)

You know how contraction won't happen, and the DH rule won't leave baseball and all kinds of other things won't change because they simply are unrealistic and just can't happen? Paying college athletes is one of them.

The NCAA, the schools, no one wants to do it.

There's TWO arguments made for "paying football/men's basketball players"

#1 - It's unfair student-athletes don't get paid for the revenue they bring in to the university

It's also unfair that doctors, firefighters, police officers who save lives get paid less than athletes in pro sports and celebrities who are famous only for being in a sex tape. But that's just the way it goes in life.
Student-athletes have to give up certain things to get a scholarship. No one's forcing them to do so. MLB players come out of semi-pro, independent leagues. Non-college attending players could form a league if they wanted.

#2 - All the scandals of kids taking money/benefits... if we just paid them a little, that would stop.

THIS is the worst argument I've ever heard about anything ever. That sounds like hyperbole, but it's really not all that different than handing Hitler the Sudetenland if he promises not to invade anywhere else.

The reason boosters offer benefits is because they love their program, and they want the best players. If you say FB, MBB, WBB, and 85 other women's athletes each get $25,000; first you'd be losing about 4000 sports teams, and then you'd discover that the boosters STILL love their programs and STILL want to get the best players and STILL offer things to student-athletes and student-athletes STILL would accept them.

I don't know how much money you make, but if someone offers you something for free (cash, dinner, drinks, shoes, tattoos, whatever) with NO STRINGS attached, you're probably going to take it. Why not? It's free.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
I agree completely!

I think there are two improtant subtopics:

1) The role of the Athletic Depatrment as it relates to the business and academic aspects of running a university.

2) How the individual athlete is viewed by the school or program.

One thing I will say is that in some ways this is a school by school issue.

By way of information here is the Athletic Budget for the University of Michigan.

http://www.regents.umich.edu/meeting...11-06-X-13.pdf

In contrast, my own school, which has around 30,000 students has an athletic budget of about $3-4M per year. The total operating budget for the school is about $600M.
Here's the big reason why I first laughed at the stupid of media people opining college students should be paid, and now get fired up that this idea has gained traction among the readers of the articles:

The programs that make money are only 1.9% of D-I athletics. But the percentage of ATHLETES who are making their programs money and "getting screwed" out of their cut is a mere sliver of football and men's basketball players.

The examples in these articles are Tim Tebow, AJ Green, Colt McCoy, Andrew Luck, etc. Their jerseys are on sale with no name on the back.

NIKE offers 122 personalized NCAA jerseys for sale.
Add in Adidas, UnderArmour, Russell and anyone else, and there's probably no more than 300 players with jerseys for sale (Oh, but of those total jerseys, some are different styles of the same player).

Well, there's about 24,000 NCAA Division I football players.

So, 0.0125% of NCAA football players are getting screwed. It's even less for men's basketball.

No offensive tackles, guards, centers, tight ends, kickers or punters ever have their jerseys for sale. It's the stud college players... the guys who are PROBABLY GETTING NFL SIGNING BONUSES.


And when you break it down, what's really selling the jersey? Is it the player's talent? Or is it the school/position?

If you're a Florida QB your jersey is going to be way more likely to be sold than if you're a QB at Florida Atlantic. Who was a better QB, Rex Grossman or Joe Flacco? Grossman's jerseys sold at Florida, and how many Flacco Delaware jerseys were sold?


But the NCAA can't make rules on jerseys, because they don't apply to everyone. The whole point of NCAA rules is to limit teams from "buying players" either directly (SMU paying its players in the 80s) or indirectly.

They capped the number of pages in media guides (you're allowed to send them to recruits).
They capped the amount of money kids can make in on-campus jobs ($2000), so that teams are finding their kids money and indirectly buying them.
They capped the amount of meals, per diem, and occasional meals each team can give.
They capped the number of coaches you have (so the same number of people can recruit)
They capped everything they can (with the exception of facilities and support staff you hire, which is impossible).

You can't allow benefits like "a cut of jersey sales" because schools would simply guarantee jersey sales to a student-athletes and find a booster to buy them in bulk.

The NCAA rules on what you can or cannot take have to be as close as they can be for all sports across the board. (and Title IX would say you can't allow a cut of jersey sales to football guys and not to women's athletes).

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:09 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.