• 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!

Fallout from paying playaer in revenue sports

awaken

awaken

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2011
Messages
7,681
Reaction score
940
Location
Down Yonder
NCAA stubbornly sticks to exploitive system by hiding behind non-revenue athletes
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaa-s...ege-sports-are-not-equal-215042288-ncaab.html

Why is it just assumed that elite, revenue-generating football and basketball players should automatically concede their market value to prop up smaller sports? Why are all players the same when no school pays the football coach and the field hockey coach the same amount?

"Most universities don't have the resources to move to that kind of model," Emmert said, "So they'll probably be playing Division III style."

Exactly. That's where this is heading one day
 
I am all for adjustments to account for the revenue a sport brings in but would that comply with Title IX? I don't know.
 
"I came up as a wrestler and I can tell you I worked just as hard as any football player in the country, as any basketball player, in fact I would say I worked harder than those guys," Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said.

"The fact is we have student-athletes in all sorts of sports that, if you apply any form of value to their labor, you cannot pay football players and not pay gymnasts just because the football player has the blessing of an adoring public," Bowlsby continued. "That's the only difference. There are a lot of student athletes that are worthy."
Click to expand...
Wow this quote is really something. As Big 12 commissioner, I'm going to guess Bowlsby gets paid at least 2,000% more than the median income in this country. Does he think his pay is based on how much harder he works than everyone else? I'm always amazed at how willing people are to knowingly spew complete BS arguments to defend their institutions.
 
"the blessing of an adoring public" = markets
 
As far as I know, the following facts are true and undisputed with regard to your typical university participating in big-time athletics:
1. Football and maybe men's basketball bring in the great majority of the revenue
2. As noted, this is due to the market value of those sports and those athletes
3. Football and men's basketball bring in a far greater amount of revenue than is needed to support their own programs
4. That excess revenue is used to support and maintain the remaining sports in the ahtletic department
5. Even with the excess revenue from the major sports, many athletic departments operate in the red and require support from the general university funds - others may turn a narrow profit - I am not sure how many athletic departments actually make money?

Given all of this, if you use the excess revenue from football and basketball to compensate those players in line with their market value, where does the money come from to support the other programs?

I realize a lot of the expenses that are creating the cash flow problem come from the bloat of big time sports - Taj Mahal-like facilities, ridiculous coaches' salaries, etc. - but I am just trying to understand what is being proposed or considered. I don't think we are suddenly going to stop paying coaches millions of dollars or stop building expensive facilities. So how will it all work? Are schools just supposed to come up with the money to support the other sports? We all know that means that many of those sports will go away or become club sports or something.

- Well, I actually read the article and it appears that is exactly what they are proposing - screw the minor sports. If they can't pull their own weight, who needs 'em? Let them become club sports or compete regionally. Let the football and basketball players keep their money - eat what you kill, so to speak. That may be the future but I think it sucks. I guess I am just old-fashioned.
 
Last edited:
The flawed assumption here is that all football/men's basketball programs make money and all other programs lose money.

While that is generally true, it is not always true. Alabama football makes a lot more money than the Mississippi State or Vandy football progams; do Bama players get paid more? Can you imagine that recruiting advantage? Many non-BCS football programs lose money; so, does Akron and Bowling Green not pay their players? Does the BCS break-off from the non-BCS programs that are either not-profitable or less profitable. So, who does Bama play in their non-conference games? Paid players, employees, versus amateurs, college students? That sounds manifestly unfair and dangerous. Do superstar players get paid more than career back-ups? If players are going to get paid based on their revenue generating ability, why should Jamies Winston get paid the same as an FSU back-up OL whose presence brings in no revenue to the program?

Do the player receive bonuses for reaching the BCS playoff or a bowl game, which creates more revenue? Win the game and make it rain! $$$$$$$$$$

If the idea is to share more revenue among all football and basketball programs so that all FBS/D1 football and basketball players get paid, does Bama and Texas have to share their ticket/merchandise/media rights revenue with other less wealthy FBS programs or does the SEC share their football revenue with the Sun Belt? Good luck with that.

What about the UCONN women's basketball program? They sell-out all of their home games and reap more cash from their media rights deal than more than half of the D-1 men's teams. If you are going to pay men's players from less profitable men's basketball programs, how do the UCONN women not get paid? If you pay the UCONN women, would WF or the other 98% of the women's programs that lose money have to pay their players?

Similarly, the Minnesota and Wisconsin hockey programs, among others, reap profits as do several SEC baseball programs, why should the athletes in those programs not get paid, while a money losing program like UGA basketball get paid?

The question is easier when the discussion is limited to whether Bama football players and Kentucky basketball players should be paid given the revenue that those programs produce. The argument ignores that there are more than 350 men's basketball programs and 120 football programs and many of those lose money or break even. If the remedy is to break out the super revenue/profit generators, then the number of programs resembles something like a professional sports league (30-40 super teams). What happens to the NCAA tournament? Without an NCAA tourney, suddenly men's basketball programs lose the largest generator of cash.
 
Last edited:
Hatch has an oped in today's Wall Street Journal. I love the way Wellman and Hatch are such national leaders. Now if only they could do their own damn jobs.
 
For the vast majority of athletes, regardless of sport, the value of an athletics scholarship (if taken full advantage of) far exceeds the professional market value of their athletic skills and capabilities. The value of school pride enables this system...if I were an athlete I would be very wary of rocking that boat, especially if I was a non-elite player at a non-elite program.
 
I thought the best point in the article was that there's really no financial reason that non-revenue sports needs to be part of the main conference. It would be much more cost effective to develop more localized regional leagues for field hockey, tennis, etc. It doesn't really make sense for teams to travel from Notre Dame to Miami to play a game with 50 fans in attendance.

I still don't know how to feel about this whole thing. Obviously the sports create a massive amount of cash, and it seems grossly unfair to see AD's and coaches making bank, while in pro sports the players make more than the coaches and GM's. On the other hand, I think the reason people watch college sports is because of the NCAA team brands. There is very little demand to watch these guys play outside of the fact that they're playing for the UConn Huskies, for example. The level of play is higher in the NBDL, but nobody wants to watch that because nobody cares about the NBDL brands. And all these players choose to play college sports because the NCAA is already offering them the best compensation available. If the players have so much value on their own, why isn't there anybody else competing for their services?
 
I'm glad to know that basketball and football athletes generate so much extra revenue that people can stop giving to the Deacon Club.
 
Don't understand what is so difficult about treating all athletes the same, all scholarship recipients the same for that matter (athlete or not). Just also allow them to earn income on their likeness. The reality of that idea must be pretty complicated because nobody of consequence seems to entertain it.
 
I think the NCAA is thinking too small and within the box. They need to be thinking about how to take advantage of the fact that they are free minor league for the NFL and NBA. They need to think about how to position themselves to get $$$ from the NFL and NBA for the service they provide. Neither pro league has a viable minor league and probably could not create one to compete with college sports. Now how to they get from here to there? With the inevitable changes that are coming, there are ways to be the predator and not the prey.

Re the disparity of talent among teams under a paid player scenario: there is already a disparity of talent. Wake's not signing any 4* or 5* Alabama recruits today. I don't think the talent disparity would change much from what it is today. Also, further limiting football scholarships would force more parity.
 
Pilchard brings up a lot of great issues, issues that need to be discussed nationally in order to come up with a more equitable system that reflects the market economy we enjoy in this country. The big problem is that the NCAA, CBS, ESPN, FOX, etc have no desire whatsoever to come up with a system that addresses these issues. None. So they ignore or deflect.

awaken nails it. The NCAA doesn't get much for being a minor league.
 
If the idea is pay for performance, what happens to the players when they lose? Should they not be paid or should they be fired, like in the real world. Look at our basketball team. Who is worthy of keeping on the team for such a lousy season?
 
I mentioned this in another thread on the subject, but my idea for a solution is basically two things: 1) the professional leagues have to eliminate any restrictions on who they will allow to be drafted (meaning any kid no matter what age can be eligible for the NBA or NFL drafts) and 2) allow collegiate athletes to maintain their amateur status but be able to engage in endorsement deals. To the first point, I believe the professional leagues can see how the tide is moving at the collegiate level, so their source of free scouting could be very seriously affected in the near future and may realize it will be in their best interest to remove the subjective restrictions they have on entrance to their leagues. Then in conjunction with the second point, young athletes would have two options for being compensated for their talents: either look to obtain endorsement deals while in college or go directly into the professional game. The vast majority of athletes that neither of those things would apply to in my opinion would still be adequately compensated with their scholarships. If you are not talented enough to either be paid to endorse products or play professionally, the education and degree you would receive are worth more than you'd ever receive on the open market to just be an athlete.
 
DEACS76 said:
If the idea is pay for performance, what happens to the players when they lose? Should they not be paid or should they be fired, like in the real world. Look at our basketball team. Who is worthy of keeping on the team for such a lousy season?
Click to expand...

Athletic scholarships are renewed on an annual basis. So, that door is already open and will open much wider if payment actually occurs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top