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.
Jolly good time it twas watching old Mencken on HBO last night. Captial indeed! Where's Buzz Killington these days?
March 16th, 2015 at 10:30 AM ^
I'm glad he brought up what I've been saying for years: Fine, if college sports are "pure," and paying people disturbs the "sanctity" of it all, stop paying coaches millions, get rid of the TV contracts, stop selling jerseys, make all the tickets cheap, etc etc. Either it's a big money business or it isn't. If it is, pay the athletes a fair compensation. If it's not, there are a LOT of people that need to start refusing their paychecks.
March 16th, 2015 at 10:59 AM ^
March 16th, 2015 at 11:46 AM ^
How in the world would an EMU, NJIT, or the hundreds of other schools who lose money pay their players?
The answer, of course, is that wouldn't. Football and men's basketball would see massive reductions/drops to non-scholarship levels. Thousands of kids would lose a chance at scholarships.
That is why this issue is exceedingly difficult to resolve. Yes, the NCAA is a greedy, hypocritical,, and corrupt institution. Yes, athletes at the profitable schools should be paid. That is beyond dispute.
However, as noted, there are costs to this. Costs that will hurt more people than paying players will help. 85 scholarship opportunities gone at 60-70 schools vis a vis paying players at 35-40.
You may say that "If they cannot afford to pay their players than they should drop" and that's fine. But you are also saying that you don't much care about the kids who lose the chance at scholarships.
Citing John Oliver on a issue such as this is a mistake. He very clearly has little idea of what he is talking about. He is simply repeating the talking points. He doesn't even mention Title IX and how that would impact the paying of players.
So? You talk as though EMU and NJIT are entitled to major football and basketball programs. That's absurd, they're both commuter schools with little in the way of student engagement. Why should their concerns be central to this narrative? If Alabama and Ohio State and, yes, Michigan are exploiting kids, who gives two flying shits about how changing that would impact EMU football?
The vast majority of programs are like EMU and NJIT in football and basketball. It has nothing to do with them being entitled, but rather the impact of paying players will have on these programs. These already struggling programs will either cease operations or drop down to non-scholarship levels because they can't afford to pay their players.That means far less scholarship opportunities for high school football.
What you, John Oliver, and the rest are forgetting is that the world of division one football and basketball is much bigger than the Power 5 programs.
There are 120 FBS football programs and 351 basketball programs. All but a small minority lose money. Pay players will only worsen their financial situations.You can argue that a program that cannot pay it's players warrants being shuttered. But with that comes repercussions for thousands upon thousands of high school players all across the country. Kinds who in many circumstances would have to take out a loan to be able to afford to attend a four year university.
Then there is the issue of Title IX. That's another hurdle you and Oliver do not account for.
March 16th, 2015 at 12:16 PM ^
The rich and typically from high-status colleges media is so out of touch on this. Discounting the value of (1) admission to a selective school (2) free tuition, room, board is absurd. Ask the average American family what they're freaked out about, 99% of them will respond: How the heck am I going to pay for college for my kids.
You got three kids you're looking at $300,000 to $800,000. But it's not just the cash, it's something that will pay them from age 21 at graduation and for the REST OF THEIR LIFE.
American magic. If fools want to squander their time on campus, blow off classes, smoke weed, chase skirts that's their choice. The ones that seize and capitalize on the opportunity will reap rewards until they die.
March 16th, 2015 at 12:21 PM ^
Parents also worry about their kids getting into school. There is immense value for many student athletes because they are very often getting admitted to a school they otherwise would not have.
Not sure what the free market value of getting admitted to various schools would be, but it is just another bonus people like to gloss over.
March 16th, 2015 at 12:35 PM ^
Agree. To be fair, most of the football powerhouses tend to be less selective public schools. But market value for admission alone to the Ivies, Stanford and Duke is easily $500,000.
Northwestern: $300,000?
Michigan and Notre Dame: $200,000?
March 16th, 2015 at 12:41 PM ^
Michigan for in-state tuition is closer to $100-$110K. Still not peanuts. ND is a private school and that $200K price tag you're estimating is not too far off from the truth.
March 16th, 2015 at 12:52 PM ^
I think he's saying that the going rate for an acceptance letter to Stanford would be half a million dollars, Northwestern $300k, ect. I completely agree and there are plenty of stories out there of million dollar checks buying an acceptance letter at prestigious schools. I also completely agree that in the big picture, money isn't there to pay athletes a lot more than cost of attendance.
The part I don't get/accept is thinking those truths necessitate a ban on outside compensation. I get that EMU football has no money; I don't get why a Ypsilanti business can't pay its offense to come to a company dinner or why M-Den paying Peppers to do an autograph signing is something so awful that a court should uphold a rule against it.
Univ. of Michigan in-state is $27-31k per year, x4 or 5 years to finish.
Selective private colleges are $55-65k per year, x4 or 5 to finish.
Putting my daughter through college means that I'm not buying a boat anytime soon.
/first world problems
New boat? More like no vacations, no new cars, limiting new clothes, limiting restaurants, staying in smaller cheaper house, praying to God I don't lose my job or suffer any drop in income, etc., etc.
It's hard out there for an average family. College costs are no joke.
In-laws are helping out with a big chunk of tuition (which was surprising since they've done jack-shit for us in the past, even though they're probably sitting on at least a million in the bank). And we live close enough to A2 for my daughter to live at home, so no room & board costs.
My nephew (husband's brother's kid) is a senior and getting ready to go to college, but there are no funds to pay the costs. His parents were reckless with their money, and then got a divorce, so they will be contributing nothing. Now grandparents are pooling money and my husband and I will probably put in a bit, too, as well as a great-uncle. One of his two choices is an in-state school so I'm hoping that's the one he chooses - we'll all be able to cobble together four years of tuition if that's the case. The harsh reality is most families don't have an extra $20,000 (for a state school, $50,000 for private) a year just lying around. I don't know if he's looked into loans, but it seems like one should avoid that at all costs.
of thinking as well in regards to loans. I don't want to saddle my kids with a mortgage worth of debt right out of gate. If she graduates 100k in debt, she'll never move out of my house.
My daughter has expressed some interest (she's in 10th grade) in going to an out of state school, but we threw cold water on it pretty quickly. Unless she gets into an IVY, the cost difference between Michigan v's Northwestern or Stanford just isn't worth it in my eyes.
Good for you being willing to help out with tuition for your nephew. Hopefully he'll be smart and choose the in-state option.
Obvious answer: don't have kids.
March 16th, 2015 at 12:21 PM ^
I always found it odd when people cry about the kids' practice and game schedule i.e. "They have to WORK for that scholarship!"
How do you think most Americans pay tuition? Somebody WORKED and EARNED that $100,000-$240,000 it cost to send Suzie to college. Playing a sport and all the perks that come with being a big man on campus is a little more fun than slaving away in a cubicle for a decade to save enough to pay for your daughter's college bills.
The issue is not having to work, it's the compensation compared to the money generated for the school.
Consider the number of Mike Hart jerseys Michigan sold while I was in school or Denard Robinson jerseys when he was in school. I'm willing to bet those proceeds alone totaled more than the cost of their scholarships. Then add in TV money, ticket sales, other apparel... AND if they get hurt the school can basically tell them to go fuck themselves health care cost wise as soon as they're not in school. Which could be immediately if the coach is particularly heartless (cough, Saban).
Speaking of coaches, they can get stupid rich. Because they're totally driving the profits, you guys! Players are just cogs in the machine!
Those jerseys sold in the numbers they did because those guys played at Michigan. I bet Darron Thomas sold a ton of jerseys at Oregon. I bet he doesn't sell any now that he's with the Portland Thunder in the Arena League. And the second he left they started putting another guy's number on those UO jerseys and they kept selling. And I'd bet the value of his contract now is less than the scholarship package he received at UO.
Nobody gives a shit about second tier sports outside of the NCAA system. Mike Hart at Michigan sold jerseys. Mike Hart without a world famous university with legions of fans has zero market value, especially coming out of high school. College athletes (even the ones who aren't great players like Hart) get more than they would in terms of market value than they would in any minor league system. And they do so in far, far greater numbers (the number of guys getting a shot in an XFL, USFL, Arena League would not include 100+ teams with rosters double the size).
March 16th, 2015 at 12:25 PM ^
Isn't whether the students should benefit from the millions being generated by the NCAA FB system, but why Milllions are being generated in the first place and who IS benefitting from this?
March 16th, 2015 at 12:34 PM ^
Millions are being generated because people love their schools and want to see them win. So they buy tickets to games, often at high prices when mandatory donations and other factors are added to the equation. Some folks even just give the school gobs of money (Ross at UM, for example). That love also causes fans with more average incomes to demand to see all of their teams games on TV. Cable companies have exploited that in a manner that charges everybody else at an inflated rate for college sports content (such that your grandma who doesn't give a shit about sports is paying just as much for ESPN Ocho as a diehard fan who has to have it or he'll miss his alma mater's non-conference lacrosse schedule).
As for who is benefitting, construction companies and developers who build all the shiny new buildings schools are putting up, athletes in non-revenue sports who get lots of shiny stuff (revenue sport athletes benefit from the facilities and perks, but you could argue they've earned it), and coaches who now command more money because they are seen as the determining factor in how successful this enormous financial enterprise will be.
From the point of view of the universities, it does not cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars per student. The 100 plus football and basketball students admitted does not mean that the university loses 100 or so paying students in their class. Thus, "tuition" is not lost, or given, or paid to these students. People talk as if the university is paying something. They are not. The marginal cost of adding a student here or there into a class is almost nothing.
The only cost to the university is the academic support staff, which given the millions of dollars generated is nothing. Just because average tuition is X does not mean that it costs the university X. The university is giving something to these tiny number of students that adds almost nothing to the cost of running the university. It's giving something away that it already has in abundance, which is essentially a seat in a classroom.
People need to stop thinking like consumers and think like owners. From the consumer side, yes it looks like they are getting something very valuable. From the owner side, they are "paying" with something that costs them very little.
Very true, but all those nice facilities, training table, equipment (not everything is just comped by adidas), transportation to games, etc. are significant expenses to the university (or more likely the athletic department since they are separate entities). Yes it is still probably fairly small but when you have as many programs as Michigan has it adds up. Plus then you have the Title IX issues, etc.
I think the smartest thing the NCAA could do is basically stop capping the limit on the "external" income to student athletes. Devin Gardner gets to be on a billboard for Cottage Inn. Denard Robinson gets to be a spokesman for adidas. Jordan Kovacs sells new Chevys. That allows the market to actually work in favor of the athletes that make the most money for the university, while the school is giving up nothing. It makes the NCAA look less like jerks while maintaining the same control they have over their athletes and not having to pay them at all, besides with scholarships.
TV companies use player likenesses to sell their product. Commercials feature guys like Winston and Manziel. When that is happening and the guys can't profit from it then it is total bullshit.
If a player can't sell his likeness/name, fine, but you can't sell it to ESPN and pocket the cash.
March 16th, 2015 at 11:22 PM ^
A huge downside to letting the guys be on billboards and the like is that it would not be good for letting the teams have a somewhat level playing field. Basically, that would just make it legal for boosters to pay the players (legally) to appear in ads and they'd probably pay above market rate as a way of helping their team. Recruits are going to choose schools based on which teams are so popular that being on the team guarantees you'll be paid well to be on a billboard. Basically it makes it legal for boosters to pay the players.
I would much rather just say every football and basketball player gets $10k a semester or something like that, but I'm not sure how legal that would be with title 9.
March 16th, 2015 at 11:39 PM ^
If it's not legal to pay only the guys in revenue sports, then I guess the next option would be to pay all scholarship athletes but obviously to make the numbers work out everyone would probably get paid less.
March 16th, 2015 at 11:16 PM ^
FWIW I think the athletes should get paid. Even if it's just a stipend for a few thousand a semester or something like that, it would be a big start.
With that said, Jalen's appearance in this was kind of weird, for lack of a better word. I mean he purports to be a Michigan fan. He's announced games on ESPN. He went to see the team play at the Final Four. If the system is really so disgusting in his opinion and the guys are only being exploited, how can he be a Michigan basketball fan? If he thinks that video game spoof is really representative of his time at Michigan, how can he participate in the system as an announcer and fan?