Conference Expansion: Stanford, California and SMU Join the ACC

[Rafi]

The negative consequences are just the ill will of people in charge. It’s hostage taking.

Do you really think this? If so, do you see Clawson as the hostage taker? Currie? And who are the hostages? All student-athletes, just scholarship players, just those in football and men’s bball? Was Nick Anderson not a hostage at first and then he became one when he got a scholarship?

And my biggest question, if you really believe this, how in the world can you justify watching college sports?

 

[PhDeac]

I hate when posters pretend not to understand the simplest statements just so they can make a weird gotcha. Rafi you seem like a good person, but you go off the deep end protecting the status quo of college athletics.

Saying that we can't pay football players because it will endanger Title IX is treating women's sports as a hostage in order to create artificial consequences that are only bad actors threatening to act badly because they don't get their way.

It's like your boss saying, "I can't pay you this week or I have to shoot this puppy. You like puppies don't you?"

 

[Rafi]

I hate when posters pretend not to understand the simplest statements just so they can make a weird gotcha. Rafi you seem like a good person, but you go off the deep end protecting the status quo of college athletics.

I didn’t do that. I thought you were referring to players as a hostage situation. Someone earlier in the thread referred to them as slave labor, and I thought you were making a similar comparison. It seems others took your statement the same way I did.

I see college sports as a really unique and cool set up for almost all student athletes - hundreds of thousands of students per year. I worry that making student athletes into salaried employees will cause the whole system to collapse and eliminate a really fun experience for a huge number of student athletes. Maybe I’m wrong.

 

[PhDeac]

I didn’t do that. I thought you were referring to players as a hostage situation. Someone earlier in the thread referred to them as slave labor, and I thought you were making a similar comparison. It seems others took your statement the same way I did.

I see college sports as a really unique and cool set up for almost all student athletes - hundreds of thousands of students per year. I worry that making student athletes into salaried employees will cause the whole system to collapse and eliminate a really fun experience for a huge number of student athletes. Maybe I’m wrong.

I can't help that you and others misinterpreted my response to your post.

You: "negative consequences, such as eliminating title IX, women’s sports, and intercollegiate sports in general."
Me: "negative consequences are just the ill will of people in charge. It’s hostage taking."

Mathematically:
You: negative consequences = eliminating title IX, women’s sports, and intercollegiate sports in general
Me: negative consequences = ill will of people in charge, hostage taking
Therefore: eliminating title IX, women’s sports, and intercollegiate sports in general = ill will of people in charge, hostage taking

In other words, paying players doesn't have to destroy college athletics. That will only happen if the powers that be WANT to destroy college athletics in the process. If the SEC doubles their TV revenue that’s plenty of money to pay all athletes a reasonable equivalent of work study or a grad stipend.

 

[Deacfreak07]

As far as the comment earlier that players don’t unionize because of diverse interests and experiences, I just see a lot more agreement when we end up with the super leagues. When there are just 50 teams all with massive TV deals and similar enough focus on athletics, it seems like we’re headed that way. Before you point out NW and Vandy still being around remember that I’m pretty sure both programs were out in front of previous efforts to unionize.

 

[TheReff]

I still think the free education is such a plus, since I paid full freight for my daughter to attend Wake. Maybe a small stipend for all usual expenses and I feel good about the student athlete.
But, I am old school and believe in the work ethic.

Won’t be so free if the NIL money making athlete has to start paying taxes on the amount of his schollie monies. Making too much money from NIL might preclude him/her from getting that free schollie.

 

[Tobacco Road]

At least we have the reff looking out for the best interest of the athletes. The ol’, “if they make more money they won’t make as much money” defense of letting the OWGs hoard all the money at the expense of the players people show up to watch.

 

[awakegirl]

I still think the free education is such a plus, since I paid full freight for my daughter to attend Wake. Maybe a small stipend for all usual expenses and I feel good about the student athlete.
But, I am old school and believe in the work ethic.

Of course a scholarship is enormous, but it’s not equitable. It also means a lot more for the future then it does in the present. It’s probably easy for your daughter or my kids to have some appreciation for you paying for college because they’re not worried about if their mom is getting evicted this month. Many student athletes I knew were sending home their Pell grants to their mom, brother, cousin, etc. To me, the issue again really is why a university should be making a windfall off kids.

Also, a scholarship is great, but if you’re one and done or two and done because you need to make money for your family, it doesn’t mean too much because you never end up with a degree.

Finally, there are very few people who have the work ethic of college athletes. I pride myself on being a worker and think it’s one of my better qualities. They said, I don’t know that I would have had it in me to do academics, tutoring, practice, etc in college. Waking up at 5 AM everyday while your classmates are nursing a hangover is some unreal work ethic.

 

[WFU03]

Of course a scholarship is enormous, but it’s not equitable. It also means a lot more for the future then it does in the present. It’s probably easy for your daughter or my kids to have some appreciation for you paying for college because they’re not worried about if their mom is getting evicted this month. Many student athletes I knew were sending home their Pell grants to their mom, brother, cousin, etc. To me, the issue again really is why a university should be making a windfall off kids.

Also, a scholarship is great, but if you’re one and done or two and done because you need to make money for your family, it doesn’t mean too much because you never end up with a degree.

Finally, there are very few people who have the work ethic of college athletes. I pride myself on being a worker and think it’s one of my better qualities. They said, I don’t know that I would have had it in me to do academics, tutoring, practice, etc in college. Waking up at 5 AM everyday while your classmates are nursing a hangover is some unreal work ethic.

This is an underrated point. I was an RA in college and I remember having a conversation with one of the upperclassmen football players on my hall about his schedule. It was nothing short of insane. The hour or so I saw him on the hall every day was about the only unscheduled time he had in his day. The rest was either working on getting better at football or working on making sure he could learn as efficiently as possible.

 

[Wild bill]

I know plenty of high schools in Texas where football generates a good deal of money. Not sure I have heard of any efforts to get players paid, but someone has to have had the idea.

This made me think of child labor laws.

 

[Wild bill]

It's never taken "guts" to not pay labor.

I've always found it curious that in discussions of paying athletes there is rarely any mention of the value of the education they receive thanks to their scholarships.

 

[guitardeac]

Of course a scholarship is enormous, but it’s not equitable. It also means a lot more for the future then it does in the present. It’s probably easy for your daughter or my kids to have some appreciation for you paying for college because they’re not worried about if their mom is getting evicted this month. Many student athletes I knew were sending home their Pell grants to their mom, brother, cousin, etc. To me, the issue again really is why a university should be making a windfall off kids.

Also, a scholarship is great, but if you’re one and done or two and done because you need to make money for your family, it doesn’t mean too much because you never end up with a degree.

Finally, there are very few people who have the work ethic of college athletes. I pride myself on being a worker and think it’s one of my better qualities. They said, I don’t know that I would have had it in me to do academics, tutoring, practice, etc in college. Waking up at 5 AM everyday while your classmates are nursing a hangover is some unreal work ethic.

For sure. But how many college students would gladly accept that rigorous schedule or even more rigorous schedule in exchange for a full scholarship - and expect nothing more that that?

 

[Sco Deac]

To me, the issue again really is why a university should be making a windfall off kids.

This is an underlying assumption that clouds this discussion. Athletic departments generally operate financially independent of a university's general operating budget. The money generated by athletics (media rights, ticket sales, concession agreements, donations, ect.) are used to fund the operating costs of the athletic department. The fact is most athletic departments operate around break-even or at a loss. Very few athletic departments are paying back into a university's general coffers. Thus, where is this mythical windfall?

A separate discussion could be had on do athletic departments spend money responsibly? Are coaching salaries too high? Do athletes need the facilities that many schools are building? Of course, those discussions get into what does it take to be competitive on the recruiting trail and in the arena.

If we want to pay all athletes a fixed stipend, I could hear out that notion, but I want to hear recognition that the money will come at the expense of something else on which that money is currently spent.

 

[Deacfreak07]

This is an underlying assumption that clouds this discussion. Athletic departments generally operate financially independent of a university's general operating budget. The money generated by athletics (media rights, ticket sales, concession agreements, donations, ect.) are used to fund the operating costs of the athletic department. The fact is most athletic departments operate around break-even or at a loss. Very few athletic departments are paying back into a university's general coffers. Thus, where is this mythical windfall?

A separate discussion could be had on do athletic departments spend money responsibly? Are coaching salaries too high? Do athletes need the facilities that many schools are building? Of course, those discussions get into what does it take to be competitive on the recruiting trail and in the arena.

If we want to pay all athletes a fixed stipend, I could hear out that notion, but I want to hear recognition that the money will come at the expense of something else on which that money is currently spent.

College football literally invents things to spend money on instead of labor. They are putting in laser tag and shit for locker rooms.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

This is an underlying assumption that clouds this discussion. Athletic departments generally operate financially independent of a university's general operating budget. The money generated by athletics (media rights, ticket sales, concession agreements, donations, ect.) are used to fund the operating costs of the athletic department. The fact is most athletic departments operate around break-even or at a loss. Very few athletic departments are paying back into a university's general coffers. Thus, where is this mythical windfall?

A separate discussion could be had on do athletic departments spend money responsibly? Are coaching salaries too high? Do athletes need the facilities that many schools are building? Of course, those discussions get into what does it take to be competitive on the recruiting trail and in the arena.

If we want to pay all athletes a fixed stipend, I could hear out that notion, but I want to hear recognition that the money will come at the expense of something else on which that money is currently spent.

Again, you are missing the point. That is why the SEC and BIG are pushing for the larger media deals. That gives them not only the current money to cover existing AD costs across all sports, but also the additional money to pay the football players when they are either forced to or choose to (to effectively kill the competition). They are setting themselves up for the structure that is coming soon.

I'm not sure why the Yale player needs to get paid just because the Bama player deserves to get paid. I can go help in my neighbor's garden for free because I love to garden and my neighbor isn't paying me other than free tomatoes because he isn't making any money on his garden, and I'm cool with that as it is better to me than not gardening at all. But if I'm going to tend the fields at Metrolina Greenhouses who are pulling in millions, you can be damn sure I'm getting paid for my time out there.

 

[macktheknife]

Who creates the brand of a college. Is the Duke brand a function of athletic prowess or its academic reputation over time. Because the people that grew that brand are currently getting screwed. You can say athletics operates on its own budget. All revenues belong to The University. We've had discussions on how much money do you need to run an Atheletics program. If a school gets a $50 Million windfall, at some point there is going to be major pushback from untenured, underpaid, research PhDs who are teaching a QB making more money. Clawson sees this. It's why he set up funds at Wake outside of football.

 

[deacdiggler]

I've always found it curious that in discussions of paying athletes there is rarely any mention of the value of the education they receive thanks to their scholarships.

are you kidding? this is what the NCAA has hung its hat on for the last 40 years! For most athletes, this is a decent trade off, but for the elite players who drive championships and revenue, they are getting shafted. Better to get paid in cash and pay their own tuition with plenty of cash left over.

 

[macktheknife]

You know. Some of this is going to be fun to watch. In the SEC and Big? Somebody is going to take the losses. We got $100 million a year but our team has been 5 and 7 for five years. Vandy and Rutgers can only play so many homecomings.

 

[PhDeac]

I've always found it curious that in discussions of paying athletes there is rarely any mention of the value of the education they receive thanks to their scholarships.

It’s no coincidence that the push to pay athletes has increased as the value of a bachelors degree has decreased and income and wealth inequality have increased.

 

[The Mangler]

are you kidding? this is what the NCAA has hung its hat on for the last 40 years! For most athletes, this is a decent trade off, but for the elite players who drive championships and revenue, they are getting shafted. Better to get paid in cash and pay their own tuition with plenty of cash left over.

We live in a capitalist society. If there is an opportunity to make money it doesn’t usually get left on the table. So if it’s the players that are generating all of the value that universities have been pocketing why hasn’t some entrepreneur come along and started a league for basketball and football that is between the college level and the upper professional levels. Surely they could pay the players and have a lot of profit for themselves. To the degree that these leagues do exist why aren’t players going to them en masse?

The value is generated because the athletes are playing for universities that have excellent brands. People watch college athletics even though it’s not at the same skill level as the professionals. Many prefer watching it vs the professional game. If the top players weren’t playing college ball the colleges would be just fine financially.