Conference Reactions to Big 10 Paying Player's Proposal
There was a lengthy discussion on the merits of adding a cost of living stipend to players' scholarships yesterday in response to Jim Delany's statements during the Big 10 meetings. ESPN posted this article today that included reactions from several conferences.
There are a couple of interesting takeaways here. First, the idea would be an increase in the room and board payments athletes already get to cover the published, federally mandated, cost of attendance. This is really the only way to frame the argument, in my opinion, for the schools that doesn't look like schools are out and out paying players. Also, all of the major conference commissioners were in favor (Big East wasn't represented).
From CUSA Commish:
"Universities justify spending tens of millions of dollars on coaches' compensation, with a seemingly insatiable appetite for more growth. At the same time, a small fraction of that amount is spent on all scholarships for all student-athletes," Banowsky said. "Unless the student-athletes in the revenue-producing sports get more of the pie, the model will eventually break down. It seems it is only a matter of time."
While I would not describe myself as in favor of "paying" players, I would like to see their scholarship package more accurately reflect the reasonable expense of attending a university. These kids don't have the hours left in the day for a paying job, but they still have the same expenses as any other college student. I am not suggesting that they receive high pay, but I think it would be reasonable to give them a small stipend, just so they can get the occasional burger out or whatever, like any other student.
That's fine by me. Just as long as this same sentiment is held for all student athletes. It doesn't matter if you play football, basketball, softball, run track, or row for the crew team. you dedicate just as much of your time to the sport, and as a result, the university.
The hard part, IMO, is in the equivalency sports (hockey, softball, track, basically all of the mens sports except football and basketball), for example, in hockey 30 players share 18 scholarships. Does this make the 18 scholarships bigger or does it give 30 athletes a stipend?
I agree with you about the need to treat all of the sports equally, and that is where my suggestion would get tricky. First of all, the NCAA would have to establish a maximum stipend, otherwise wealthy programs like Texas or Michigan could simply offer a better stipend than smaller athletic programs. Then, all athletes at the university would have to get the same stipend, or schools would be in the uncomfortable position of declaring that football is a bigger deal than women's badminton. (Despite the fact that the athletic programs at Texas and Michigan get their income from football and men's basketball, not women's badminton.) A program like Michigan would then be on the hook for providing that same stipend to all of the many varsity programs at the university, which would cause the bill to add up in a hurry. Even though I don't have an issue with the students getting a little spending money, it would be pretty difficult to implement even a plan as modest as the one that I described . . .
What you're missing is that this is tied to cost of attendance. There's no question in my mind that revenue sports athletes are exploited (you can read my comments on several threads to that effect) but this is about changing the philosophy of what the scholarship is supposed to offer. This is simply the B1G going from, "you have the bare essentials" to "we'll put you in line with our premium academic scholarships" and what any student can borrow in federal loans.
CoA is a university decision, and isn't about to get exploited for marginal gains on the football field.
The argument is that football players(and basketball players) are being exploited for the millions major universities make on licensing, tv contracts, etc. (Which is debatable...What is an education worth? Remember that every school is not Michigan. You look at someone trading 4 years for a MSU education...you've got an argument there.) This is not the case for women's crew. Not to mention what the title 9 implications would do to club sports seeking varsity status like LAX.
While I agree that bleeding heart title 9ers will keep this model from ever being adopted, and even if a plan like this is adopted, the SEC is still going to act like the SEC...It would make it closer to fair. It would be farther from hypocrisy, and the kids who aren't breaking the rules would be punished less for their integrity.
It doesn't matter if you play football, basketball, softball, run track, or row for the crew team. you dedicate just as much of your time to the sport, and as a result, the university.
Actually, it does matter. Football and basketball make money. Hockey sometimes does. The others lose money. It makes no sense to pay athletes in sports that really aren't economically justifiable in the first place. In non-revenue sports, athletes are frankly very lucky to even get a scholarship. I mean really, what justification is there to give someone a $200,000 college education to play a sport no one besides his parents will watch?
Doesn't hockey regularly make money (like every year) at UM and a good number of the big northern schools?
what the SEC does every year..only this would be legal
what the SEC does every year..only this would be legal
The idea of paying college athletes is hard to call. They are getting a WORLD CLASS education (depending on the school, Michigan, ND, Stanford for example) for FREE.
However, that's not going to pay for their basic essentials with all their time supposedly dedicated to sports or as is the custom in Ohio... selling memorbilia.
Poor argument. Big time college sports is a multi-billion dollar business. Most schools don't make money but many third parties do benefit. I don't care if they're getting an education, if I generated that much money for others I'd want my fair share too.
I agree with the system in general, but with a set stipend per scholarship regardless of who it is assigned to or how it is divied up - because outside of football and basketball, I think most other sports expect to split scholarships amongst the players on the team. So if a scholarship has a COL stipend of $5k per semester (probably too high, but just a number), then that should be equal across the board. If there are two swimmers sharing a scholarship, then each receives $2500. That way, you "recognize" the value of revenue-generating teams but don't shortchange other athletes needlessly.
Operate on a free market the way God and the founding fathers intended. But seriously, it's the simplest idea although you might see other sports/less talented players left out of the process, which is the drawback. You think guys like say Tebow and Bradford couldn't have signed endorsement deals that paid them a nice chunk of change while in college? Even lesser "stars" could probably get commercial deals or something to show up to local events, birthday parties, etc. I'm so sick of the facade of "student-athlete". If we really want that term to have any meaning let's drop the TV deals and stop liscencing school logos to Nike, Addidas, UA, etc. Hell, their faces and names are plastered all over ESPN all day as it is. When I, or anyone for that matter, buys a 16 Michigan jersey you bet your ass I'm buying it because of Denard and not because I just so happen to like the number. What's so bad about using your celebrity for your advantage? I seriously have yet to hear a good answer. So a car dealer wants to give a kid a free a car hoping that if he makes it big later he buys cars from them in the future? Who gets hurt? It's not like a free car was getting taken away from me. In sum, the NCAA and college sports are an evil, evil addictive racket. For some reason, I keep coming back.
/rant
The only good reason is that they're supposed to be amateurs. Back when the Olympics pretended to only have amateurs, they could have their living expenses paid for while they trained, but couldn't make a salary.
Ultimately, it would also probably be bad for the game if athletes could take whatever they could get. I think the MLB has basically ruined itself by guaranteeing that the highest revenue teams are the only ones that can sustain success.
Similarly, the teams with boosters like Bobby Lowder or with companies willing to support the school would get the best players year in and year out. Everyone else would basically be unable to compete.
A free market system where state And federally funded universities prop up athletic cartels.
<br>
<br>/rant
It's tough because if you give the stipends in scholarships to the football players but not a player for a sport that doesn't make money at a school then it seems like you are paying players for the success they bring you monetarily while not giving out anything for those who may do well in their sport but don't bring in the same kind of money for the university.
Makes sense but something about that still seems very shady.
I dont know what the solution is.
<br>
<br>But what seems clear is that the current system of telling players that everyone but them is entitled to a piece of what the market is willing to pay for their services isn't going to last forever.
<br>
<br>Also, high school recruiting has moved into the public eye so much in recent years. I'm afraid that all it would take to destroy the current college system is for a Vince McMahon-type to start a small 6 team league and offer all the players on the Rivals 250 $150k a year or so to come play for hime. It would be a difficult offer for a 17/18 year old to refuse with no classes to worry about and the ability to concentrate solely on football while you await your NFL draft eligibility.
with today's "concept" that anyone (or anything) that makes money should divide it up ... regardless of the reason (ie - for the greater good - which is BS !)
Paying college players isn't the answer ... and as soon as "they" start paying them, there will be a movement to unionize the college players and then we'll all be staring down the barrel of a college work stoppage (just like the NFL). We fill the stands because it is one hell of a great time ... tailgating, laughing, cussing, cheering. There is nothing like a Saturday at Michigan Stadium (and other traditional football places).
It is really no one's business whatsoever that they make money on the "insanity" of us fans. Really for every 1 or 2 schools that make money on football there are twice as many schools losing money at the "gate". Only TV money allows these schools to keep their football programs. In reality the media makes tons more than even the Universities - why isn't there an outcry for them to give up some of their $$$$ ???
And what do these schools do with their money ? Look at what U of M has done over the last 3 - 4 years .... new facilities for the athletes and the fans. It is re-invested in the product that we are all buying.
It would be beyond stupid to go any further with this concept. Of course this is the same group that came up with Leaders & Legends .... good grief !
Go Blue !
Outside of allowing them to work during the offseason, I would be more supportive of a ticket surcharge ($1/ticket) that would go into a pool for stipends. Same with merchandising and media revenues...write a % of gross into the contract. Allow a maximum allowance to all the players at a school from that pool so that small schools could also compete.
Maybe a combination of the two? Allow them to work during the offseason, but provide a stipend during the season. Remember, they are still housed and fed at the University's expense already.