Posted by potter444 on 6/9/2011 6:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by slid64er on 6/9/2011 2:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by potter444 on 6/9/2011 11:55:00 AM (view original):NCAA athletics are not a business. The athletic department is part of a non-profit educational institution. You want to call athletics big business, go ahead, but it pales in comparison to the cash flow on the educational side by several mutiples. Besides, only 14 FBS athletic departments out of 120 were profitable last year. If you add paying athletes to this, that number goes down even further. As a whole, athletic departments are a gigantic money suck.
Posted by maddog63 on 6/9/2011 10:49:00 AM (view original):Great point. Let's not these young whipper snappers have a piece of the football money because they would just blow it on.....Wait this just in.....
One other thought on this subject then I am going to dismiss this thread from my mind...
Professional sports are filled with young men (I say men only because mens pro sports are where the money is) in their early 20's who are overwhelmed by sudden wealth, constant adulation and scrutiny, as well as huge responsibilities. Some crumble under the weight of it, others end up ******* away their new found wealth. We all constantly hear about the former pro athlete who is homeless and selling off his super bowl ring, got caught running some kind of scam or arrested for robbery.. Does anyone honestly believe that providing mass amounts of money to these same athletes at an even younger age is a good idea? I mean... really?
Listen, the world wouldn't fall apart if a business wanted to have a college athlete get paid for a commerical, sponsoring a product or doing public appearances and getting paid for some autographs. I find it funny that people treat this as some moral issue rather than questioning the underlying rules. Major college football and basketball are businesses. The players are labor.
You are talking about making exceptions for less than 1% of NCAA athletes. Given the already pitiful financial state of athletic departments, I don't believe rules should be in place to enrich so few athletes just because some feel that they are worth more than their scholarship. It is this kind of enabling behavior that give athletes like Pryor a sense of entitlement and screws it up for the 99% of athletes who are thankful and grateful for the opportunity a school has given them.
The last argument I always find interesting. Hey, the athlete is receiving a scholarship, room and board and should be thankful. To me, this shows that the real debate is about the form and manner of receiving compensation---not whether you agree that they should be compensated?
If you think a scholarship, room and board is the proper compensation for all NCAA athletes regardless of sport, talent level or school, what is the proper fixed compensation for all coaches and Athletic Directors regardless of sport, talent level or school? Of course, including the experience and ability to show case their talents. So trying to understand this logic, what is the same compensation package that fairly compensatres the field hockey coach at Penn State, the head basketball coach at UCLA and the head football coach at LSU?
You cannot reasonably ignore the obvious. If you are a woman swimmer, a scholie is probably a great deal for the services (if any) you provide. School gives money to you to particpate in an activity that loses money for the school and, possibly, the tax payers. For BCS football or basketball programs, it's a weak argument in comparison to the revenues those two sports generate and what the market dictates.
The fact that an Athletic Department may use (or misuse) those funds to pay high salaries to coaches or ADs, or fund non-income generating sports, doesn't change the analysis. If you were an employee in a company and you generated 90% of the businesses profit but received the same compensation as the employees that generated 10% of the profit (or, worse, consistently lost money for the company), you would probably quit or form a Union. Unless, of course, there was a monopoly and that system applied to all the companies in your field.
Take salaries or stipends out of the debate. If Coca-Cola wants to pay the collegiate Cam Newton to do commericals, why not? If a kid wants to openly hire an agent or a corporate sponsor out of high school and the agent or corporate sponsor wants to openly fund him through college, go for it. Get it out in the open, declare the money and provide education on the business-side of sports/money management.
There are huge monetary incentives from all angles in the major NCAA sports. If Coach K can make millions and do commercials for AmEx, why can't his players?
The hypocrisy of the system is ridicluous. And so is the naive ideal that its not a business and, rather, it is an educational endeavor. Do you really think the University of Alabama gives a sh#t if it's players are going to class and getting a solid education? Christ, Harbaugh talked about how Michigan tried to unsucessfuly steer him, and successfuly steer other players, into easy majors so as to not to interefere with their jobs---playing football.
The system needs to be scrapped and find new ways. Get rid of the one-and-done in BBall. Let players apply for the NFL draft without consequences out of high school (or while in college) and let the NFL decide if they want to take on project. But stop the mock (or foolish) indignation when a player sells an autograph for a few bucks because it doesn't comply with an archaic rule.
Again, tail wagging the dog.
If you were that employee making 90% of the profit, you would leave and find another job. The student athlete can do the same.
If corporations/businesses/individuals want to sponsor or pay players, let them get together and form their own league. The NCAA has been doing this for over a century and has always been about amateur athletics. The money has changed, but it's always been about amateur intercollegiate athletics. If you want a professional league, go for it. But it's not on the NCAA to set up that league for you. Find the right financial backers and have at it. Good luck finding any kind of ROI for your investors when you consider salaries, coaches, trainers, transportation, equipment, securing fields, advertising, etc. Good luck finding players who will think the salaries you can offer is a better value proposition than a full ride at a D1 school.
Coach K can make millions because he is an employee of the school. The student athlete is not. They know this when they sign a scholarship offer. Again, if you want to pay the players, find the backers and start a pro league.
I don't think it's hypocritical. The athletic department is being paid now and the athletes are being paid in future revenues for their degree to the tune of $400+k of NPV when you consider the cost of education. Again, if they want to get paid now, someone should found a pro league who will take them and they can be paid their market value.
The current system works just fine for 99% of student athletes. Allowing the 1% to dictate policy is idiotic. The NCAA is providing a great platform for amateur intercollegiate athletics. The tail wagging the dog never works.
6/9/2011 6:19 PM (edited)