John Oliver on the NCAA and compensation for athletes
Adding to the ongoing discussion on this board about compensation for athletes, here is John Oliver's intelligent and witty take on it.
He won't. He's under contract with HBO. They aren't going to just let him go, Harbaugh-style
Good bit as usual. The only problem is that sound bite of Napier saying he 'goes hungry' some nights. Napier had UConn's student athlete financial aid that includes all meals to any on campus dining facility should he so choose. The fact that Napier said he starves sometimes is laughable and an insult to people who, you know, actually don't have easily available food anytime they want it. Would have prefered Oliver left that part out because obfuscates the actual points of properly compensating athletes.
As an aside, the fact that he took on an issue that I have seen discussed at length before (mostly here), makes me see his show in a different light a bit. True, it's only 20 mintues for a complex issue (logicistcally at least), but saying things like "no one is saying that you have to pay them millions, or that you have to pay them the same, or that you have to pay everybody", is kind of a ridiculous statement on his part. That is what people are saying. And that is why it's not as easy as "just let players have a cut of their jersey sales". Kind of glosses over all the possible legal and revenue issues involved with paying athletes.
March 16th, 2015 at 10:17 AM ^
All I'm trying to say is don't be too quick to judge him on this, his statement probably raises eyebrows, but I'd wager it's more likely it was true than false.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Some amount of spending money is factored into the scholarship amount they receive, just like with any student who is on some sort of financial aid package. UM allows about $2,200 for the academic year. Over the 9 months that is roughly $60 a week. If 7 dudes on the team live in a house and get cheaper rent per man than allotted by their scholarship, they save a little cash there too. They also get a mountain of free swag, so save on clothing costs compared to the average student.
And I find it hard to fathom how the parents who presumably fed and clothed them a year prior (I personally know of no student athletes who were working their way through high school) are now completely incapable of providing even a few bucks here and there to cover emergency meals or the occasional outfit or night out.
The other side of the argument is along the lines of protecting the sanctity of college sports. It's just as hollow and ridiculous as other instances that line of reasoning shows up.
players you're fundamentally changing the amateur nature of college athletics. You're turning the NCAA into a farm system for the NFL and NBA.
Part of the fan appeal of college athletics is the fact that the players aren't being paid. Bo said it best, they're playing for The Team, not for money.
I don't think anybody is arguing for a free-market system with an all-out bidding war for these athlete's services. The proposals are just adressing equity issues. Essentially, why should athletes toil in relative poverty (yes I get that they get a free "education" and room and board) while just about every single other non-athlete associated with big-time college atletics is pulling down six or seven figure salaries?
March 16th, 2015 at 10:11 AM ^
Because the NCAA isn't a farm system for the NFL and NBA now?
Things were different in Bo's days. Guys now are playing for the money, just not their own money. Not saying it should just be some massive bidding war, but change is inevitable. Primarily because the NCAA's massive profits along with the way they've approached college athletics (i.e., anything that results in more money gets approved) undermines all of their arguments.
March 16th, 2015 at 10:36 AM ^
March 16th, 2015 at 11:18 AM ^
I think the player's should be paid. I just think that there's going to be a significant impact when that change is made.
March 16th, 2015 at 12:16 PM ^
It also ends up being a whole lot more money than any of these kids would get in the D-League or Arena Football.
The reason there is money involved at all is because of the schools and the emotional connection fans/students/alums have with them. 99% of college athletes would receive jack shit if the schools were out of the picture and they just got their "market value".
So let's just say, for instance, that the NCAA authorized that schools could pay athletes up to $1,500/month to supplement scholarships, etc. Would that "kill the whole enterprise"?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I guess I would say probably not. EMU would not be required to pay their athletes anything let's say. If the schools were authorized to do so the Power 5 schools would all almost certainly elect to do so. Schools that could not afford to do so would not attract the top talent, who would presumably want to get paid. Bowling Green would be left recruiting lower tier players, most of whom did not possess power 5 offers. How would that be any different than what is going on already?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
what the other side it arguing maybe you need to get your news from a different source. If your new outlet is only telling one side of the story it is not news, it is propaganda.
See below for some comments on what the other side is arguing.
people like you who are incapable of understanding the opponent's viewpoints. The other side's argument may not have much merit, but there is some merit. Their argument isn't "just because". It's this sort of thinking that is completely derailing our political system right now.
Yes, I believe players should be paid. But, the whole damn point of the NCAA model is this idea of a "student-athete". Now, this obviously is a laughable concept today given the amount of $$$$ in the college football/basketball business, the hilariously outdated rules and regulations, and the arbitrary punishments handed out by the NCAA while simultaneously turning a blind eye towards countless shady things. But let's not just bullrush a change without being very careful about potential remifications, especially if we want to keep considering these guys "student-athletes". We need to redefine the term, I think. But I don't think we should just get rid of it entirely. Plus, you have to consider the effects the new rules would have on the many other sports who are net revenue-losing. It's not as obvious of a change as some make it out to be.
March 16th, 2015 at 10:24 AM ^
As for the non-revenue sports why is it the responsibility of the revenue athletes to subsidize them? It's great that the AD's and presidents claim support for non-revenue sports but why do I suspect they would not be willing to kick in some of their salary to support them if the revenue support subsidy (provided by the student athletes) went away
March 16th, 2015 at 11:24 AM ^
First off, I think anyone who receives a scholarship and free room and board is getting paid. If I received free housing and food as part of my compensation it would still be compensation. Also, I understand that there are some other expenses that can be paid but i'm not an expert. If it was decided to allow a bit more of that money get to athletes I wouldn't be too upset.
Still here's why I think that letting "the market pay these skilled adults what they're worth" is harder to determine than you might think. No one buys a ticket to watch Marcus Mariotta or Melvin Gordon or whoever simply show of their skills by themselves. They pay to see them perform in a certain environment with a certain set of traditions with and against other players. Most of those other players -- the ones who will never make the NFL -- aren't getting that bad a deal in terms of the benefit they get from a free education plus other expenses.
One could argue that the players who will never go pro are still part of larger enterprise that generates a lot of money, but again I think that's not just because of the players' skills. I don't think that minor league baseball or hockey generates much money and those players have similar skills as college athletes. I think there's something -- perhaps false and hypocritical -- about college athletics (at least for football and basketball) that generates excitement that simply wouldn't be there if it were changed too radically.
Also, it's very existence depends on some degree of competition. If Ohio State paid all of its football players and Indiana only a few how much more would be the competitive balance be destroyed, which would ultimately make the sport less popular since even fewer people would come to watch them play.
LOL
*as he's showing footage of Alabama's facilities and locker rooms*
"I never thought I'd say this, but: Alabama, stop showing off your ostentatious wealth."
#soybeanwind
March 16th, 2015 at 12:27 PM ^
... it's incredibly complex, and I think Oliver did a very reasonable job in presenting a number of those complex pieces. but yeah, my favorite part (aside from Jalen's points on coaching revenue vs. student income issues) was definitely the #soybeanwind
and we'll have to stop calling them student athletes. They won't be coming to play school.
When it finally does happen, college football will change in a big way. Players living in mansions and driving around campus in 100k cars. Coaches getting fired for not being nice to their highly recruited and compensated star players.
While Michigan has the money to pay their players, I wonder how we will fare in that environment. Will we be wiling to compete with the schools like OSU and Alabama that already don't give a rat's ass about the rules or academics?
did you watch the video and learn that the term student-athlete was specifically invented as a work arounf for workman's comp claims?
I DVR the show and watch it on Monday nights so I didn't want to spoil it for myself (I'm a big fan).
I've seen a lot of people get their panties in a bunch when student athletes were referred to as football players. Me, I don't care either way.
In fact, I don't really have a strong position on the issue one way or the other.
March 16th, 2015 at 10:02 AM ^
Debate aside, I really don't like John Oliver.
March 16th, 2015 at 10:14 AM ^
I do, but from what I've seen of the show, it's just him talking for 20 minutes straight every time. Gets a little old.
March 16th, 2015 at 10:39 AM ^
March 16th, 2015 at 10:25 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
March 16th, 2015 at 11:29 AM ^
do you not like John Oliver? That just doesn't make any sense to me.
March 16th, 2015 at 11:44 AM ^
He is left-of-center. I don't like Jon Stewart because he is shill for Democrats. The same for Oliver.I can't stand satirists who take sides. It weakens their humor.
Give me H.L. Mencken. Attacked all and far more intelligent than either Oliver or Stewart.
March 16th, 2015 at 12:01 PM ^
because I don't think he's funny. You'll have a hard time finding someone that is critical of both sides in today's political environment.
And Mencken had his issues too.
Because both parties are congealed blobs of ridiculousness.
will not get an argument from me on that point.
His "Notes on Democracy" is brilliant.
You should also do more than just find quotes. Like read one of his books.
I should, but from what little I know about him, I don't know how brilliant he really is. "Everyone is stupid and everything sucks" (except him?) isn't a remarkable thing to say. His prose may be good, but the substance isn't appealing. My uncle works pretty high up the chain for LA's water and sewage systems and he commented that people are really good at complaining and talking about what's wrong and much worse at offering up solutions.
"But Mencken also shows that he is more than a cynic, contrary to his reputation. What shines through this treatise is a deep attachment to liberty and a search for some way to protect it from the attack of the mob." I'd sure hope so. OK. Democracy has problems, but it sure has been better than oligarchies, dicatorships, etc., so what do you replace it with? Does he just stick with notes on the system he hates? Or are there also notes on what he thinks would be better? If not, I don't feel I have much to learn from him.
March 16th, 2015 at 12:51 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I don't think you have any idea about what you're talking about.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
He's got some good quotes but Mencken's been dead for almost 60 years. I read his quotes and I feel like I should be wearing a monocle and exclaiming, "Capital, my good man!"
We shouldn't listen to him either. Or Newton, Voltaire, Socrates,Aristotle, Plato, Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, Malcolm X, etc, etc.
All of our beliefs today are based on the thoughts and theories of people who lived years, decades, centuries, and millenia ago. You, I, and everyone else here are the sum of history.
It's kind of asinine to group a man who was essentially a witty journalist with those individuals you just listed.