Debate regarding payment of players with Jay Bilas and Oliver Luck
FIRE, a fantastic group defending freedom of speech on campus has a debate tonight between Oliver Luck and Jay Bilas regarding compensation for student athletes. Meant to post earlier but it just started streaming on their website.
https://www.thefire.org/watch-live-on-tuesday-espns-jay-bilas-and-ncaas…
October 20th, 2015 at 8:25 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 20th, 2015 at 8:30 PM ^
Why is this such a black or white issue? The two sides can meet in the middle most likely.
October 20th, 2015 at 8:35 PM ^
Agree @ State Street. Odd that so many don't see a middle ground. Many forget that there are also millions who would die to make a couple hundred dollar investment to make 10s of millions like several Power 5 football and basketball programs.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 20th, 2015 at 8:45 PM ^
It's not as much as the NCAA's fault, but a fault in our society. Inner city schools are very underfunded, shockingly underfunded. Inner city school's also are usually heavily black. Inner city schools produce a lot of talented revenue sport athletes. Due to these school's being underfunded, these inner city athletes are very underprepared for college academic rigor. On top of having to adjust to an academic education that they are unprepared for from a start, they have to balance 43.3 hours a week of athletic commitments, travel, and constant media attention. As a result, these kids are often pushed into easy majors that if not utilized correctly, are not going to lead you to a relevent job. on top of all that, less than 5 percent of revenue athletes will go pro. So can you say these underpriveledged black athletes really gain anything out of all of this other than memories? That's why some of this NCAA issue is a black white issue.
October 20th, 2015 at 8:49 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 20th, 2015 at 9:06 PM ^
October 20th, 2015 at 11:06 PM ^
No offense, but literally none of that has anything to do with whether or not players should be paid. You don't get paid in this country for being poor. This argument is actually one of my biggest pet peeves about this entire topic. Name me one company in the entire country that makes large profits and whose lowest level workers are not underprivileged, underpaid, and uneducated. That's like saying that McDonald's workers should be paid millions because the product they create is worth billions and they come from underprivileged areas.
October 20th, 2015 at 11:32 PM ^
that answer... ill go with google, just because naming all the energy companies paying great wages might apparently offend your sensibilities. May healthcare companies come to mind as well.
October 21st, 2015 at 11:03 AM ^
October 21st, 2015 at 1:49 PM ^
I used to work in Silicon Valley.
I used to pretty regularly have conversations with folks that worked on cleaning crews - both at Intel where I worked and numerous other places around the Bay area.
There are plenty of folks working at Google who are undocumented and making minimum wage or less.
October 21st, 2015 at 9:52 AM ^
You do get paid for being poor. If you're poor enough. *points to income taxes rebates for lowest earners*
October 21st, 2015 at 6:09 PM ^
October 20th, 2015 at 9:49 PM ^
October 20th, 2015 at 8:33 PM ^
That's fine, then don't sign $100 million contracts with Nike or bring in $6 million per home game. The NCAA and member schools opened the floodgates when they got greedy and began bringing in every cent the market would offer. They made it about money.
October 20th, 2015 at 9:34 PM ^
But most athletic departments aren't actually profitable. Football and men's basketball usually make a profit, but they have to support a ton of money-losing sports, and Title IX ensures that most of those sports can't be cut.
Financially, college athletics is already hitting a crisis point even without directly paying athletes, as the cost of football tickets at many schools is beginning to turn fans off.
October 20th, 2015 at 10:53 PM ^
How many non-power 5 football programs make money? Do most of the MAC football programs make money?
October 21st, 2015 at 9:25 AM ^
Yes, but why aren't most athletic departments not profitable? Mainly because they have no incentive to be profitable as they are part of large public not-for-profit universities. Therefore, as an athletic director you can take all of your revenue and dump it back into facilities and coaches and other things and report a loss.
Not trying to minimize the real expenses athletic departments incur, but the fact that most departments don't turn a profit is due to accounting practices and deliberate decisions by the AD.
October 21st, 2015 at 9:58 AM ^
Also could buy smaller scoreboards, fly less on private jets and not spend $10-50 mil a year on salaries of employees/coaches. Not to mention many of the facilities at the big name programs whew.
In Sisters of the poor cannot afford it maybe they shouldn't be at the highest level and can go to FCS.
Imagine, paying the players a $15 wage for games they travel to and mandatory practices. Then they can pay taxes on it and learn life lessons. The smart ones could even put it into IRA/401k and learn about investing. I think they could use it to teach life lessons to some players who may be clueless about money.
October 21st, 2015 at 1:50 PM ^
Football and men's basketball usually make a profit
This isn't even true. Almost half the schools in FBS LOST money on football. About 2/3 lose money on basketball.
October 20th, 2015 at 8:37 PM ^
October 20th, 2015 at 8:52 PM ^
For a school like Michigan, it wouldn't be as much of an issue to pay athletes. But there are very few Michigan's. Their are about ten athletic programs that can self sustain themselves as is. Everyone else has to take government subsidies to not end up in the red. You add a free market into that, many programs would have to remove sports and thus take away scholorship opportunities from other athletes. Example. Michigan has an athletic budget of about $125 million. Detroit Mercy (bad example, but still a D1 school) has an athletic budget of $13 million.
What should happen, is that we should alow atheltes to profit off of their name and let them except sponsorships and sell their own autographs. This allows the market value to take hold without effecting scholorship opportunites of other student-athletes.
October 20th, 2015 at 9:34 PM ^
October 20th, 2015 at 10:14 PM ^
as long as you are ok with alabama bagmen paying $10k for player autographs.
October 21st, 2015 at 10:27 AM ^
The argument that many athletic departments aren't profitable (among Power 5 conference members) is bunk.
These ADs include accounting charges and give backs to the university (beyond the cost of scholarships) that make the ADs look unprofitable. this is in part to provide cover for the claim that they can't afford to pay athletes.
And if they can't afford to play the game at the highest level, then drop down to a more appropriate level. No one will miss football Saturdays with Rutgers, Purdue, Iowa State, Washington State, et. al.
If there were only 30-40 teams in the Power conferences, the sport of college football would be materially better for it.
October 21st, 2015 at 5:34 PM ^
The assertion that AD's deliberately lose money is totally unsubstantiated. You can't argue for paying players based on a fallacy.
And it is much better to tell the athletes to play at a different level (that is, after all, what the market would dictate) rather than forcing colleges to pay more than market rates fo footballl and basketball players.
No one forces players to play for colleges. They choose to do so, because they feel the benefits outweigh the opportunity costs.
October 20th, 2015 at 9:23 PM ^
Seems like around here it changes every day.
Adults when it comes to getting paid, kids when it comes to paying the bill.
October 20th, 2015 at 9:52 PM ^
I just don't think the money is there to do it, especially when the law probably would require all student-athletes to be paid, not just those in football and men's basketball.
Incidentally, genuinely free markets are rare in North American sports. The NFL, NBA, NHL and MLS all have salary caps and MLB has a luxury tax. The NCAA salary cap, so to speak, is tuition and room and board (for X number of players per sport).
October 20th, 2015 at 11:37 PM ^
The NFL is not a bunch of individual entities competiting against themselves. It is a singular entertainment entity competing against other entertainment.
The major leagues are very much in free market competition vs each other and other outlets for entertainment dollars.
October 20th, 2015 at 8:53 PM ^
Students athletes have financial obligations outside of their tuition free scholarships, so pay them! To not pay them is an absolute market failure.
October 20th, 2015 at 8:54 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 20th, 2015 at 9:12 PM ^
Just allow student-athletes to make money off of their likeness... problem solved.
We already know this happens.
Paying players outright will break college sports for 95% of schools, and we might as well not bother encouraging women to go into sports b/c nothing will fund their shit nemore.
October 20th, 2015 at 9:12 PM ^
October 20th, 2015 at 9:24 PM ^
I've evolved bceause I realize how much money there is in college sports, how much is asked of the athletes, and the inherent unfairness of denying them a piece of that money to maintain amatuerism when everything around them is professional. The facilities are professional, the coverage is professional, the coaches are professional, the ticket prices are professional, the sponsorships are professional, but the athletes must maintain amatuerism.
Coupled with the fact that the biggest rule breakers aren't punished and everyone knows what goes on, why not pay them? Why can they only be payed in parties and strippers when some of them may just want to put money away for after college? Let them earn endorsements, pay them a salary based on what they make for the school.
October 20th, 2015 at 9:27 PM ^
October 21st, 2015 at 5:40 PM ^
Their fellow students are professionals, either, and yet they are surrounded by professional profesors, professional faciltities, professional fundraising, professional administrators. Everyone around them is professional, and yet students must remain unpaid. Just pay them.
That's the exact analogy to the "athletes are surrounded by professional stuff so should be paid" argument. And it sounds as silly as your argument.
October 22nd, 2015 at 8:19 PM ^
grumbler if you think that's an analogy your education has failed you severely. I suggest you sue whatever schools let you graduate.
October 20th, 2015 at 9:18 PM ^
Bilas straight owned him in the closing arguments.
October 20th, 2015 at 9:33 PM ^
since they seem to be willing to do it with the current conditions in place. If there was a shortage of kids who want athletic scholarships, you know someone could make an argument "Man we need an extra incentive here" but that does not appear to be the case.
While no-one says "no" to extra money, it has always felt to me like the idea of paying players has come primarily from the third parties most inclined to profit: (1) wealthy boosters/officials who wish to pay players to be able to lure the best talent to their teams (2) agents who inevitably pocket a significant % of the pay and are eager to build up relationships with collegiate athletes in order to be able to negotiate their first pro contracts
And when people refer to the "system" being broken, they seem to primarily refer to instances of such third parties breaking the rules in order to pay athletes. Cam Newton probably was paid, but he would probably have played without getting paid too. He was probably paid because there's dudes willing to pay to a lot of money to get a competitive edge.
It seems to me that it's really the selfish interests of those parties which lead the push for payments and the supposed compassion for the athletes is just a facade.
October 20th, 2015 at 9:51 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 21st, 2015 at 1:24 PM ^
per se here. Clearly there is a pay-off of some sort already or people wouldn't do it. I see a moral case for payment or even a minimum level of payment when people are *forced* to perform duties and do not have alternative options and require pay to get by.
I do not see this scenario here at all. Nobody is in any way coerced to play college ball on scholarship and the financial situation of a collegiate athlete on a full ride isn't lavish but it's acceptable.
And in addition to playing a sport they presumably enjoy it also involves many perks and positives that they're eager to take advantage of.
I don't doubt that if you ask them if they want to get paid, they'd say yes. Sure, who wouldn't? But most of them agree to play knowing they won't get paid for it beyond the scholarship. And they do so with the alternative of finding a job and/or paying for college (like the rest of us) on the table. Clearly, for most of them a football scholarship seems more appealing.
October 21st, 2015 at 1:54 PM ^
Outside of coercion, I'd say that is exactly what it means.
Just because people are willing to do work for a certain amount doesn't mean it's good for wsociety to allow it, but allownig free exercise is always morally ok.
October 21st, 2015 at 3:27 AM ^
Maybe just allow the chudds who would take the scholarship to play and drop the restrictions on top atheletes turning pro after high school? The issue I have is not per se that players don't get paid. It's that the NCAA and the conferences have conspired to block access to the professional ranks for exceptional athletes who could compete with the pros, and need the money.
October 21st, 2015 at 1:56 PM ^
The NCAA and conferences have nothing at all to do with the age restrictions in the NBA and NFL.
Those restrictions are job protection measures put in place under collective bargaining between the leagues and the players unions. They are done at the desire of players union to reduce competition.
The NCAA didn't make 'em, and the NCAA can't do anything about them.
October 21st, 2015 at 5:44 PM ^
Many sports l;eagues will pay players right out of high school: the CFL, non-NFL football leagues, non-NBA basketball leagues, European leagues, etc. The market is already there. NFL or NBA resrictions are just another part of the market, but have nothing to do with the NCAA "conspiracy."
The fake moon landing conspiracy? Maybe.
October 22nd, 2015 at 8:21 PM ^
1690, you are cray cray!!!
October 20th, 2015 at 10:06 PM ^
It's 90 minutes or so, but if you want to jump right into the debate...
October 20th, 2015 at 10:16 PM ^