• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

CA about to blow up NCAA?

College sports have never been better for student athletes. Freshmen can play, grad transfers occur without sitting out a year, scholarships include cost of attendance and stipends, women’s sports are strongly supported. A few more tweaks should occur, but blowing up the whole system is a terrible idea that will negatively affect thousands of student athletes.
 
Wrong. Athletes get clothes, lots of clothes (athletic clothes, shoes, polos, blazers, casual clothes, dress pants, etc), and they don’t come out of their stipend. They also have their laundry done for them, and it doesn’t come out of their stipend. Did you ever meet Sarge Tinga? Every school now has multiple Sarges.

You really shouldn’t write authoritatively about things you don’t know. It really weakens you arguments.

:thumbsup:
 
College sports have never been better for student athletes. Freshmen can play, grad transfers occur without sitting out a year, scholarships include cost of attendance and stipends, women’s sports are strongly supported. A few more tweaks should occur, but blowing up the whole system is a terrible idea that will negatively affect thousands of student athletes.

Freshman have been able to play for over 40 years. Never have so few made so much money for others and not gotten their fair share. Never has there been more money and those who create the profit don't get anything like an honorable piece.

A scholarship and a stipend is grotesquely unfair.
 
when thereff is on your side you know you're wrong
 
Freshman have been able to play for over 40 years. Never have so few made so much money for others and not gotten their fair share. Never has there been more money and those who create the profit don't get anything like an honorable piece.

A scholarship and a stipend is grotesquely unfair.

Title IX says colleges can't give additional compensation just to football and men's basketball players. An equitable number of women scholarship athletes would have to get the same.

If you are talking a grad student level stipend of around $25k, that would cost schools about $5 million per year. (85 football+13 mens BB=98. That number of women would also need to be compensated the same. So about 200 stipends.)
 
when thereff is on your side you know you're wrong

This certainly gives me pause. But it's good to have multiple former student-athletes thoughts aligning with mine. Plus, being on the opposite side of RJ's poorly formed arguments is also reassuring. Similar to how Welch's must feel after his decades long fight against their company.
 
Freshman have been able to play for over 40 years. Never have so few made so much money for others and not gotten their fair share. Never has there been more money and those who create the profit don't get anything like an honorable piece.

A scholarship and a stipend is grotesquely unfair.

I'm okay with paying players, but the Obamaesque "fair share", "market rate", and "grotesquely unfair" statements are ridiculous. If the "market" for college athletes was so unfair, then there wouldn't be millions of high school kids (and their parents) every single year focusing on athletics over their academics to get into college. And probably every single one of us would seriously consider quitting our jobs, right now, to go back to school on a D-1 full football or basketball scholarship. The supply side of the "market" for college athletes far outweighs the demand. And you could eliminate the current stipend and laundry and other fringe benefits and that supply market wouldn't drop one noticeable bit. People would still be lining up to do it all day every day, and it is completely voluntary. So you can think that college athletes should be paid for whatever reason, but the market arguments simply do not work because reality says otherwise.
 
This certainly gives me pause. But it's good to have multiple former student-athletes thoughts aligning with mine. Plus, being on the opposite side of RJ's poorly formed arguments is also reassuring. Similar to how Welch's must feel after his decades long fight against their company.

well that’s a fair point as well
 
I'm okay with paying players, but the Obamaesque "fair share", "market rate", and "grotesquely unfair" statements are ridiculous. If the "market" for college athletes was so unfair, then there wouldn't be millions of high school kids (and their parents) every single year focusing on athletics over their academics to get into college. And probably every single one of us would seriously consider quitting our jobs, right now, to go back to school on a D-1 full football or basketball scholarship. The supply side of the "market" for college athletes far outweighs the demand. And you could eliminate the current stipend and laundry and other fringe benefits and that supply market wouldn't drop one noticeable bit. People would still be lining up to do it all day every day, and it is completely voluntary. So you can think that college athletes should be paid for whatever reason, but the market arguments simply do not work because reality says otherwise.

That's called CAPITALISM not "Obamabaesuqe".
 
Obviously this will take some work, but how's this for outlines for football and basketball players:

Football:

There are 130 teams in D1

Each team will have about $2.2M to spend -about $25,000 per player average with a max of $36,000/year and a minimum of $18,000 per year. Players will get half the money during their playing career and the other half upon graduation.

Something in the 40-50% of this will be funded by a coalition of TV networks, the NFL, the NCAA and sneaker companies. This not much from each. The fund will be mostly used to help non-P5 schools pay. The exactl percentages would have to be worked out.

Basketball:

Each P6 school will have a budget of about $400,000. There will be a maximum of $48,000 and minimum of $24,000. Like I mentioned above, players will get half while in school and half as a lump sum upon graduation.

P6 schools can easily come up this amount of money.

Non-P6 will have about $300,00 or maybe a little less. At least 50% will be subsidized by the NCAA, sneaker companies, TV contracts. It's not that much money per participant.

Every stakeholder gets something. It doesn't break the bank, nor does it create an arms race that doesn't already exist.
 
I'm okay with paying players, but the Obamaesque "fair share", "market rate", and "grotesquely unfair" statements are ridiculous. If the "market" for college athletes was so unfair, then there wouldn't be millions of high school kids (and their parents) every single year focusing on athletics over their academics to get into college. And probably every single one of us would seriously consider quitting our jobs, right now, to go back to school on a D-1 full football or basketball scholarship. The supply side of the "market" for college athletes far outweighs the demand. And you could eliminate the current stipend and laundry and other fringe benefits and that supply market wouldn't drop one noticeable bit. People would still be lining up to do it all day every day, and it is completely voluntary. So you can think that college athletes should be paid for whatever reason, but the market arguments simply do not work because reality says otherwise.

Since this is true, then the NCAA does not need to constrict the market, right? They could allow paying players and the market will not change from the status quo, right?
 
Should elite HS football players in Texas that draw crowds bigger than many small colleges be paid?
 
Title IX says colleges can't give additional compensation just to football and men's basketball players. An equitable number of women scholarship athletes would have to get the same.

If you are talking a grad student level stipend of around $25k, that would cost schools about $5 million per year. (85 football+13 mens BB=98. That number of women would also need to be compensated the same. So about 200 stipends.)

Can you post the Title IX decision for compensation above scholarships?

Also if the payment came from an outside fund, would that be a Title IX issue?
 
Last edited:
Please explain how they're paid legally under the current amateur athletics system (not by recruiting bagmen).

that's the whole issue. the NCAA has created a thriving black market in athlete services. black markets only exist when the official system contains significant market failures, in this case, because the compensation officially offered is far less than the market value of the services, at least for some athletes. people love to argue about how athletes are getting such generous packages, and that is not wrong, but if the official package were equal to the market value the black market simply would not exist. therefore the talking point that "athletes are already getting plenty" is demonstrably false, at least in an economic sense.

in my view the Title IX and other issues inherent in schools paying athletes directly may be too hard to overcome (these are distortions in the market artificially imposed by society, often for very good reasons). however I can't conceive of any rational argument against allowing athletes to hire whatever business advisors they choose to help look out for their best interests, including agents. To me that is a basic free association right and I don't see how the NCAA and the public school members, at least, get away with restricting their students' rights in such a way.

likewise I don't see a rational argument against allowing athletes to receive benefits from outside the school based on their image, or from a part time job, or whatever. If Don Flow wants to give our whole football team phantom jobs in his customer service department, fine. He has to explain that to his board and he has to pay payroll taxes and social security on the money, and the players have to withhold taxes, so if everyone involved agrees to the deal I don't see the justification for the NCAA to say it can't happen. The only argument I hear on that boils down to a fear that the big money schools with the big money boosters will pay athletes and get a huge competitive advantage against smaller schools (i.e., WFU) who don't have as many big money boosters. If that's your argument, I got news for you - WFU is already not remotely competitive with the Alabamas and tOSUs and so forth under the current system, and never will be. We all know those boosters are already paying players under the table. Instead of allowing a black market with the associated harms to exist, just bring it into the open and allow athletes to get paid by whoever is willing to throw money at them.

People used the exact same arguments about the amateurism requirement in the Olympics. They were bullshit in the Olympic context and they are bullshit here, too.
 
that's the whole issue. the NCAA has created a thriving black market in athlete services. black markets only exist when the official system contains significant market failures, in this case, because the compensation officially offered is far less than the market value of the services, at least for some athletes. people love to argue about how athletes are getting such generous packages, and that is not wrong, but if the official package were equal to the market value the black market simply would not exist. therefore the talking point that "athletes are already getting plenty" is demonstrably false, at least in an economic sense.

in my view the Title IX and other issues inherent in schools paying athletes directly may be too hard to overcome (these are distortions in the market artificially imposed by society, often for very good reasons). however I can't conceive of any rational argument against allowing athletes to hire whatever business advisors they choose to help look out for their best interests, including agents. To me that is a basic free association right and I don't see how the NCAA and the public school members, at least, get away with restricting their students' rights in such a way.

likewise I don't see a rational argument against allowing athletes to receive benefits from outside the school based on their image, or from a part time job, or whatever. If Don Flow wants to give our whole football team phantom jobs in his customer service department, fine. He has to explain that to his board and he has to pay payroll taxes and social security on the money, and the players have to withhold taxes, so if everyone involved agrees to the deal I don't see the justification for the NCAA to say it can't happen. The only argument I hear on that boils down to a fear that the big money schools with the big money boosters will pay athletes and get a huge competitive advantage against smaller schools (i.e., WFU) who don't have as many big money boosters. If that's your argument, I got news for you - WFU is already not remotely competitive with the Alabamas and tOSUs and so forth under the current system, and never will be. We all know those boosters are already paying players under the table. Instead of allowing a black market with the associated harms to exist, just bring it into the open and allow athletes to get paid by whoever is willing to throw money at them.

People used the exact same arguments about the amateurism requirement in the Olympics. They were bullshit in the Olympic context and they are bullshit here, too.

Suggesting that black markets only exist when the official system contains significant market failure flaws is incorrect. There are black markets in essentially all systems - they are absolutely universal. In addition, I think the black markets affecting high school athletes are pretty minimal; affecting fewer than 200 high school students annually. Finally, I think the black markets would greatly decrease if the top players were allowed to go directly to pro leagues.

In the next few years we'll have a much better idea of how much college scholarships are worth to the top basketball players, as the very top will be able to choose the college route or the developmental league for a $125,000 salary plus endorsements.
 
Good post by 923 re the black market. Allowing players to be paid puts the under the table money above the table.
 
that's the whole issue. the NCAA has created a thriving black market in athlete services. black markets only exist when the official system contains significant market failures, in this case, because the compensation officially offered is far less than the market value of the services, at least for some athletes. people love to argue about how athletes are getting such generous packages, and that is not wrong, but if the official package were equal to the market value the black market simply would not exist. therefore the talking point that "athletes are already getting plenty" is demonstrably false, at least in an economic sense.

in my view the Title IX and other issues inherent in schools paying athletes directly may be too hard to overcome (these are distortions in the market artificially imposed by society, often for very good reasons). however I can't conceive of any rational argument against allowing athletes to hire whatever business advisors they choose to help look out for their best interests, including agents. To me that is a basic free association right and I don't see how the NCAA and the public school members, at least, get away with restricting their students' rights in such a way.

likewise I don't see a rational argument against allowing athletes to receive benefits from outside the school based on their image, or from a part time job, or whatever. If Don Flow wants to give our whole football team phantom jobs in his customer service department, fine. He has to explain that to his board and he has to pay payroll taxes and social security on the money, and the players have to withhold taxes, so if everyone involved agrees to the deal I don't see the justification for the NCAA to say it can't happen. The only argument I hear on that boils down to a fear that the big money schools with the big money boosters will pay athletes and get a huge competitive advantage against smaller schools (i.e., WFU) who don't have as many big money boosters. If that's your argument, I got news for you - WFU is already not remotely competitive with the Alabamas and tOSUs and so forth under the current system, and never will be. We all know those boosters are already paying players under the table. Instead of allowing a black market with the associated harms to exist, just bring it into the open and allow athletes to get paid by whoever is willing to throw money at them.

People used the exact same arguments about the amateurism requirement in the Olympics. They were bullshit in the Olympic context and they are bullshit here, too.

The problem with concept of paying athletes is that the financial circumstances/rules are completely different among the 130 FBS football programs and 350+ basketball programs. The Bowling Green football program is not making millions, and no one is interested in paying their players for their likenesses or to endorse their products. Same is true for all, but a handful of the college basketball programs. Yes, Zion Williamson and Trevor Lawrence are grossly under-compensated for the revenue that they create for their school and for the NCAA. Rondale Watson and Zach Dziengelewski (reserve OL for Bowling Green) not so much. The idea that every athlete should receive the same amount is almost as unfair as not paying them at all. Can you imagine any pro sports league paying each player the same amount regardless of their contribution? The idea of the same stipend for the star QB and for the 3rd team nose tackle who is lucky to have a scholly is total BS too.

If/when the free market opens on college football and basketball (and Title IX does create major roadblocks for that - how much profit does the WF women's basketball team generate? Less than zero; should the women be forced to pay money into the system if the program runs at a loss?), only a small fraction of schools are going to be able to play in that sandbox, and eventually, the star players from the most prominent programs will get the most (as they should) if players are going to paid what the market determines as fair. Could be wrong, but I see this as the end of WF sports attempting to compete at that level. WF does not and will never generate revenue (or have the same ability to generate sponsorships for its athletes) as the biggest schools with a national following. Mag League may be on its way.

By the way, basketball has an easier solution to this than football.

The NBA is on the verge (estimated to be 2022) of opening up the draft to HS graduates. Once that happens, HS athletes with ability generate revenue from endorsements and for simply playing basketball can elect to go straight to the pros (like baseball). Those that don't will have made the election to play under the rules that govern NCAA athletes. Football players don't have that option which further contributes to the argument that they should be paid when they are essentially forced to play in college before they can turn professional.
 
Last edited:
WF pays its AD and head coaches in revenue sports millions of dollars. We have a really nice training facility and new practice fields. We get millions of dollars in conference revenue. We have some money.

But even if paying athletes a more fair wage meant the end of Wake football and basketball as we know it, I'd be OK with that. I don't want to exploit others for my entertainment.
 
Back
Top