Paying D-1 Athletes

How do you set salaries?

This... And if you're name is Eric P. Cartman, respected owner in the Slave Trade, I salute you for understanding the finer points of Stu-dent Ath-o-leets...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/w2nQP1ohLZQ

or they could be emeka okafor and get a 4.0 in finance and graduate in 3 years, go full pro :) i think the free scholarship and private chefs and facilities they get (esp at uconn) is worth it that they should be able to make it and know by sophomore year if they can make it or need to get serious about a post college career.

a lot of the money made by the popular sports, football and basketball to pay for sports no one cares about like women's field hockey or rowing, which are pretty expensive when you add up scholarships, travel, coaches, equipment, special advisors, tutors. So your going to pay the people who are already sucking up money? I mean give the football players a cut of the revenue, alright if they get above a 2.5 and take real classes.

You bring up a good point with the tutors/travel/coaches/equipment... I just think it's really weird that video games can use the likenesses of college players, make millions of dollars, and the players can't get even a tiny tiny piece of it.

However... 4 free years of college. Yes please!

HIGHLY DISAGREE, i will argue this to the death. its an f-ing privilege not a right to play college sports, and if they dont want to do it then dont do it. US is the only country that offers college sports like this, and what a privilege it is.

College football (and bball for some schools) is the only sport that is profitable. Its the students' OWN fault if they waste their scholarship on a bs degree (bullsh*t not bach-science).

Exploitation or not ,NCAA ownership can make as much $ off these athletes as they want as the current system stands. If a scholarship isnt enough incentive to a prospective athlete THEN DONT TAKE THE SCHOLARSHIP. The experience, free education, food, stipend etc should be enough. Plus... who's seen the movie "He Got Game" - we all know how it goes on behind closed doors for college football/basketball/baseball? players..

http://sportsologist.com/college-athletics-by-the-number/

Lays it all out pretty simply. ~$76k to play a sport in college and get a degree? Not a bad deal if you ask me. If they want more money they should go pro.

Umm, I can see the argument for profit sharing or, theoretically, paying revenue generating (football, basketball) players, but how do you justify paying ALL NCAA athletes. That's totally illogical. At Virginia Tech, football pays for the entire athletic program. How could you justify paying a VT soccer player whose presence is actually a financial drain? That's totally illogical.

BTW, let me add that it doesn't make sense for the universities to pay the football/basketball players. Most schools earn no net income off their revenue generating programs. It makes much more sense for the networks--ESPN/ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.--and for the NCAA (which earns huge money on video games, licensing, etc.) to profit share into a pot for the football and basketball players. The idea that you would pay a college lacrosse player or a college softball player is mind numbing to me!

Let me also add that athletic programs are non-profit, tax-exempt entities. The NCAA ought to set up a rule that no coach can earn, say, 10% more than the median income of the top 10 paid university presidents. Nick Saban is pulling freaking $5 MILLION per year at Alabama. $5 MILLION!!! At a tax-exempt, not-for profit organization! The inequity of it is breathtaking. Keep in mind that this is NOT capitalism. Athletic departments collect tons of tax-exempt donations. The argument is null and void that Saban is simply collecting what the free market will bear. In reality, Nick Saban's income--and Frank Beamer's, Mike London's, etc.--is actually tax payer subsidized.

Actually, the vast majority of student athletes at all levels do go to class.

VTech, as long as there is an exception for Joe Paterno (He is a Division I god - He is tied for (and after this weekend will be the sole) Winningest Coach in D1 Football, He is the Winningest coach in the FBS, He has a 74.5% winning percentage during the regular season and has a 64.5% winning percentage in bowl games, having won 24, which is also a record, out of the 37 he has played in. And just to talk about legacy, since he started as head coach of Penn State in 1966, Division 1-A football saw 883 coaching changes between '66 and 2011 - that's a statistical anomaly that speaks highly of the staying power of Joe Paterno. I could go on with facts about Paterno, but that's beside the point). I mean, as much as I'd want to pay Urban Meyer a few million a year to coach Penn State, some of the coaches salaries out there are absurd, particularly for nothing accomplished. If, however, those multimillion dollar salaries has a portion that was automatically used to help offer a stipend to players, that would be different.

End of the day, the 4 'mega conferences' should breakaway and let the NCAA flounder and eventually drown. Then you might see some actual reform re: academics, discipline, etc.

I can see the case for providing a generous flat stipend for NCAA athletes, something on the order of maybe $2k-$3k per month on top of tuition, room and board, etc. That way they can afford a car, an occasional weekend or spring break trip with college buddies, beer, a girlfriend, decent clothing, etc. Athletes at Michigan in the major sports aren't allowed to work - they have school, and they have practice, and they have games. I assume it's that way at most big name institutions. The flat nature of the stipend prevents a player from picking one school over another because of more money, and prevents the rock star from making more than the bench warmer. To me, that then eliminates the "professional" aspects of paying college players, but still lets them share in some of the revenue they generate.

3k is way too high. I got a 500 dollar stipend in UG and it was plenty to go out and have a decent time on. You have to remember we're talking about college life, not what you would consider going out after a few years of work.

maybe, but the dollar amount isn't really the point. I got by on less than $500/mo too. It's certainly more than they need to scrape by, but they wouldn't be getting rich either ($24k-$36k). There's nothing wrong with giving a little extra that the smart ones can start stashing away for retirement, and the more frivolous ones can pretend to be ballers flying down to Miami for weekend trips :) Whatever the amount though, I think there's a reasonable case to be made for a flat stipend that has nothing to do with ability or which uni you choose to attend.

djfii, as long as we're talking about stipends for football and basketball players I agree at least in principle. But for ALL NCAA athletes? That's totally absurd. The soccer team is getting a favor by getting free college.

These shit bags get ungodly treatment and the vast majority of them do not go pro and do not wind up generating enough revenue to pay for the upfront costs that the minor leagues, (oops...I mean colleges/universities) invest in them. It is only the top 1% of players whose success pays for the treatment 99% of "student" athletes enjoy (where have we heard this principle recently?). Anyone looking to make "the business argument" needs to actually think like a business man and not some liberal idiot community organizer.

Additionally, anyone who has spent a year at an SEC, ACC or Big 12 school knows that NCAA football/basketball players cost these schools well over 6 figures per head when you account some of the frills Short The World mentioned (and a shit load of others that I don't feel like getting into right now). Even a third string quarterback at a state school gets 100x the treatment/lifestyle of a Fulbright/Rhodes scholar in a top academic program.

As Andy Louis rightfully said, being an athlete is a PRIVILEGE. Not a right.

Everyone of these kids gets a free education and is treated like royalty, while enjoying legal cart blanche that doesn't even extend to Kennedy cousins. If they are too fucking stupid to use this opportunity to make something out of themselves, then fuck them.

Oh and btw, fuck the commie NBA players union, Bryant Gumbel, Billy Hunter, Kevin Garnett and every other dickless piece of shit living like royalty and calling themselves a fucking slave.

I stand with David Stern. I stand on NCAA student athletes and I will vote Eric P. Cartman in 2012.

Fuck all of your mothers, mother fuckers.

And why should they? The soccer team doesn't contribute to the financial pie--they are a drain. As are all other programs except bball and football. Why pay an NCAA baseball player the same as a revenue generating football team member? If a soccer player or baseball player gets ANYTHING at all in terms of scholarship then it's by pure grace because it's undeserved, at least in a market system.

Midas, I agree that the schools themselves ought not compensate the revenue generating players anymore than they already do. College scholarships, food, board, trainers, tutors, etc. are plenty plus most schools actually lose money on their football and basketball programs.

That said, it says something about a system where the head of the NCAA can earn more than $600,000 per year while he has made it impossible for athletes to receive any cash compensation. Would the NCAA president accept non-cash assets in lieu of his salary? NCAA rules have arbitrarily created a system where the networks, the administrators, coaches, commentators, video game manufacturers, NCAA, and about 25 or so schools can earn ungodly sums of money while offering something--a college scholarship--that really doesn't "cost" the institution anything. Think about it--except for the variable cost of electricity and water, does it really cost you anything to have a friend crash in an extra room in your house? Would you ascribe a $100 loss on your tax returns as the value that you gave to your buddy to sleep in your extra bedroom? These organizations and people earn huge sums of money and in return offer something that is of no actual sacrifice--it's a pretty imbalanced contract.

If anyone should be compensating the athletes it's the tv networks, the NCAA and the coaches who earn disproportionate windfalls.

See my above posts. I don't think schools should be paying athletes because most don't earn a profit. But the networks, universities (that turn profits) and NCAA should contribute to a pot out of their profits given the obscenity of the profits they earn off the labor of others.

Individual athletes don't contribute to the profits, it's the overall quality of competition. The overall quality of high major D-IA football players creates quality programming and profits. People don't tune in to college football to watch individual players. Most tune in to watch their teams compete. VT, PSU, Miami, FSU's fanbase does not tune in for any individual alone.

As someone with an athlete as a roommate that plays a sport that provides absolutely no income to the university and receives a full ride, I find this whole idea ridiculous. This roommate receives a $1500 monthly stipend for room and board as they live off campus... ~$450 a month in rent leaves $1,000+ to spend on food and whatever they want... I live a great college life spending significantly less. The idea that this roommate might be entitled to even more for discretionary spending is absurd.

The argument that athletes don't have the opportunity to work also irritates me. Yes, they do not have time to work, but no non-athlete student has the opportunity to work enough to pay for their entire tuition while at school - nowhere close. Of course not all athletes receive a full-ride, but even the chance to earn a 20% scholarship allows athletes to earn more than most non-athlete undergraduates are capable of making by working and going to class.

I agree, Golfer. There's zero reason generic NCAA athletes should be receiving additional stipends. But football and bball players ought to share in the revenue that they generate for the tv networks, the NCAA, EA Sports and the obscenely paid coaches. The quality of college football and basketball generates enormous profits that make a few people very wealthy.

Take a step back and remind ourselves we live in a capitalist society. If we truly believe in laissez faire, then student athletes are being inhibited by unnecessary regulation from capitalizing on their inherent market value.

While the colleges themselves should not be mandated to pay student athletes, why shouldn't they be allowed to be sponsored, sell their own image, or leverage their own image in the marketplace? If a finance major is allowed to apply to Wall Street on the basis that "I went to this school" or a music major can be signed to a recording deal, why can't an athlete enjoy the same privileges?

If colleges truly believed that athletics should be amateur only, then amateurism needs to be enforced across the board. Not just limited to athletes, but to coaching staff as well. All profits from licensing deals, video games, everything goes 100% to university general funds for student scholarships. No profits from athletics should be allowed to pay for administration salaries.

Maybe this may give you all a perspective....

I grew up poor, and got in to a great college, but I have to pay a tuition that I finance on my own because my learning disability is reflected in the GPA at which I lack to get a free tuition. I have grown up with Asthma, which is a genetic gift and not a choice, which prohibited me to play sports at a very high level (scholarship worthy).

Part of my tuition, goes to "Athletics"; this "Athletics" fee goes towards the major sports of my school. These athletes in these sports get pampered with scooters, nice lounges, tutoring, finer meals, etc. (which they don't even perform to expectations). While what do regular students at my school get? Nothing close to this luxury.

My point? This kind of stuff pisses me off, although I agree with freeloader, that it where we do live in a Capitalist Society, we should live to that quota and have these athletes "capitalize on their inherent market value". However, this should NOT come from my tuition that pays for their damn luxuries to begin with, but from sponsors and stadium seating revenue. I believe this money would be allocated better to invest in the educational brand of the school, since alumni would probably get pissed off that their school's educational growth rate slows down compared to athletics (reflects poorly on the pedigree of the degree).

Personally, I hate athletes with perks like this. They get everything they want because of the gifts they were privileged with, barely an 1/8th of these athletes put in the hard work. I'm just happy I beat them all out in my last IB internship interviews.

When I worked in the public sector, higher ed was one of my "areas of expertise." The VAST majority of these athletes and programs do not make millions of dollars. There's a variety of reasons for that...half the stadium is filled with student seats given away for free. Advert and media revenue is only a factor is a small handful of schools that don't have a pro sports media market and can actually create and sell their own networks. Conferences distribute revenue among member schools to keep the conferences engaging and competitive. Private donor money is not NEARLY what people think it is at most of these Div 1 shcools. At the same time schools are paying massive conference and NCAA fees to get their school on ESPN. They are throwing hundreds of millions into new stadiums, recruiting lounges, players lounges etc. I find the fact that public universities are subsidizing minor leagues for basketball and football ridiculous. I don't know how you look someone in the eye and say basketball and football are "public goods" right before you raise their tuition or ask their lecturers for a wage giveback.

I don't really care that colleges have competitive sports teams, and that athletes get scholarships. I think this is a good thing because it gives people opportunity where they never would have had a chance in life before. They get out of their tiny home towns, see new places, live in an academic environment where they have a chance to make something of themselves. But turning that noble goal into a publicly subsidized farm system for pro sports is not good for anyone. The level to which this has been taken to is the problem. NCAA is one of the biggest "brands" in sports. Its on video games, clothing, cable channels - totally taxpayer theft that public schools are paying dues to that organization and the college conferences aligned with them. If anything they should pull out and refuse the NCAA rights to use their mascot, school logos and players names. Take some of the money out of the business and get back to the real reason we have college athletics in the first place - to give otherwise stuck kids a chance.

Would also submit to anyone who hasn't read the actual details of the proposal, the request is for the grants to be funded through television revenues.

In case people aren't aware of the TV terms: Pac 12 - $250M per year ($3B over 12 years) Big 10 - $232M per year SEC - $205M per year Big 12 - $155M per year ACC - $155M per year

At a large state school, there are around 1000 athletes, so the burden per school is ~$2M in additional grants. Seems like the TV revenues should be more than sufficient to cover those costs.

No, you're missing what I'm saying. The NFL is a high calibre sport because of revenue sharing among big market and small market teams. Teams in KC and Wisconsin are competitive with teams in NY and DC. Yes, the Redskins may produce more revenue for the NFL than the Chiefs but parity makes for a better quality sport and makes for high tv revenues. So the NFL equally shares tv revenue.

In the same way that Florida State doesn't actually generate much football profit, its very existence intertwined with the high net income earners like Texas, Oklahoma, Penn State, Nebraska, Michigan, Notre Dame, etc. makes for a valuable revenue generating tv program. The sport could not thrive without low earners like Wake Forest and Stanford even though they are less important to the game. Prohibiting the MLB style of paying athletes has helped maintain some semblance of parity in college football.

So what I'm saying is that the TV revenue ought to be revenue shared with the football (and bball) players equally throughout the nation whose teams' existence allows ESPN/ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. to profit handsomely. As I said, the schools--mostly--earn very little. But it's the NCAA and broadcasters who profit off of basically free labor. THAT revenue ought to be shared, from Boise, ID to Happy Valley, PA.

Completely against paying D1 athletes. How about we pay them and take away their free living/eating/schooling expenses and then have them pay tuition. They would probably be worse off.

College teams usually only need 1 player to be good. Therefore all of the players should not be paid.

See: Kansas State in 08 (Beasley) Texas in 07 (Durant) Davidson in 08 (Curry) etc.

The best way to go about this is to allow athletes to profit off their success (i.e., Pryor). Why is the NCAA stepping in and suspending players for selling their personal possessions? If Pryor or any other college athlete wants to sell his autographed jersey, let him.

since all of these guys will be too muscular for the office, you better pay them something while they are in school.

CPH, Thanks for the clip. SB for you man!

There's no possible way to pay college athletes. Yes they generate revenue for the school, but that money has to be spread out to keep every other sport afloat...What about the schools that dont have big football/basketball teams? Where their other sports are the big ones? Should their athletes just not get paid based on the fact that they arent the top 2 sports? Cant forget about title IX either (which is still bullshit)

I'll bet anyone here that Duke University and race will be brought up in this convo. Loser has to pay winner a SB. If you're down for this, quote me.

<span class=keyword_link><a href=/resources/skills/finance/buy-side>Buyside</a></span>:

I'll bet anyone here that Duke University and race will be brought up in this convo. Loser has to pay winner a SB. If you're down for this, quote me.

you're on

ITs Racist, I love Duke.

Pay the man.

^ lol

well done

bears, it's still a free market because these are private institutions (athletic departments are private) that arrange the revenue sharing. It doesn't at all violate the principles of free market. A free market is when non-government persons or institutions freely enter into contractual agreements for mutual benefit.

So you'd say the NFL is a failed, socialist revenue sharing machine?

Yeah, because it would make for unfair recruiting. In the NFL you have a salary cap so every team has an equal payroll. Same principle. It's like I'm arguing with a brick wall.