In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 761
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Easiest way to solve it to me as well.
So some big donors will just legally get to back up the Brinks truck for whoever they want to send to their schools under the guise of an "endorsement" deal? Totally uneven playing field and completely unfair to other, less-famous players on the team, many of whom will take the same risks, put in the same time, but get nothing at all (yet probably need it the most). Everyone has to get the same amount of money or it'll be chaos.
Giving an 18 year old kid hundreds of thousands of dollars is usually a great idea, too!
Well, I mean, that’s what it is. I doodoo and then listen to Katy Perry.
Oh no, Kentucky basketball and Alabama football are going to get all the recruits!
I know you're being facetious here, but if you think it's bad now, it'll be 1000x worse with that setup. Outside of having a Boone Pickens coming out of nowhere, there will be no mobility in college sports, and a lot of programs will probably just shut down.
I think it will be, "If you want to play semi-pro, go play in the SEC. If you want to play actual college athletics, go play in the Big Ten."
I'm fine with that.
How will it be worse? There'd still be a limit to how many players each school can have. So the schools with the most money will get the best players? That's so different.
I don't know why adults seemingly have a problem with kids getting money. If you're mad you had to pay for school and they didn't, you should have had a special skill that separated you from the rest of the students.
It's certainly different. Plenty of elite players go to schools outside of the top schools as it stands. Alabama may get the #1 rated class, but they don't get a 25 man class of 20 5 star players. It widens the gap to a staggering level. It would line players up essentially in a hierarchy of which programs have the most money and best coaches. Certainly the programs with the most money under the current landscape generally have the best teams, but this style all but eliminates all but a handful of schools from ever having a shot at the title or at being truly competitive.
I have a problem with it because there is no way to do it without significantly altering the competitive balance of the sports. It would take pretty much all enjoyment out of college sports for fans of teams outside the top few in any sport who have the ability to outspend everyone.
I honestly don't understand the argument for paying players. Aside from the logistical hell it creates of how it would work, nobody is forcing them to join the NCAA. Last I checked it was voluntary membership and you could go off on your own and find another avenue to the pros. While the argument is always that they're being exploited and that a free education isn't comparable with their worth (which I'd argue is only the case for a small sect of athletes in any department), they're certainly being better compensated than they would be in any pro league's minor league system.
I wouldn't have a problem with all D1 scholarship football/basketball players getting like 100 bucks a week. 100 bucks a week for 85 scholarship players would be $255,000 a year for a football program. Not cheap but reasonable for most BCS schools.
This post was edited by WMTerp12 13 months ago
This is where I fall on the argument. When you talk about this, everyone forgets that 85 guys on a roster are getting a package that amounts to close to 100k a year. Every one of those guys is getting that, from superstar to the third string FB who never sees the field. So while I appreciate the fact that the stars bring in a lot of money, how often does some five star kid turn into a bench warmer? Are you going to start pulling schollies for guys who don't cut it to make room for the next big thing?
I don't really have a problem with giving everyone on scholarship a standard stipend for all sports that's standardized across the NCAA, but to make it doable for smaller schools across the board it's going to be like $200 a month, which really won't solve the issue of paying players what they're 'worth.'
I tend to agree. The only thing I'll say is that most of these guys come from families who can't give much help to them and it is pretty much impossible to have a job and play major college football. There is a $500 expense reimbursement policy that is funded by NCAA Tournament TV money for some of the kids who are struggling (you must be pell grant eligible to get this), but that only covers certain expenses. I think the correct thing would be for the NCAA to expand that fund and maybe ease up on the requirements for qualification.
The main issue with the "paying players what they are worth" is that many/most players don't value the educational opportunity so they think they are getting nothing. It isn't a good argument, but I get it.
My problem with the "they get a scholarship package" argument is simply the fact that this is a form of compensation that many of the athletes are not prepared to use, for various reasons. Moreover, many of them don't want to use it. There have been multiple stories over the years about kids not having cash for food, clothes, etc. If you give them the choice of the best facilities or whatever else the money is being spent on, they'd all rather have the cash.
I'm not smart enough to figure out the system. I just see billions of dollars and the players getting none of it.
I assume most major athletics programs include at least a standard meal plan as part of the scholarship. If you walk around campus at any major athletics program, it's pretty easy to see who the athletes are by the ridiculous amounts of team Nike/Under Armour/Adidas/etc. gear they wear, so it's not like they're in rags.
The people who are really struggling under this arrangement are those at small schools, benchwarmers, and nonrevenue athletes. Under a sponsorship model, they'll get almost nothing, and all the money will go to the guys who will sign multi-million dollar endorsement deals as soon as they finish their junior season.
Given that, if you're going to pay players, you need to pay everyone equally. Since there are probably at least 100,000 D1 athletes (I couldn't find a number, but there are 400,000+ total NCAA athletes, so I figure putting 25% of them in D1 is a reasonable estimate), paying each one $5,000/year (which, in the long term, is totally insignificant to someone) would cost a half-billion dollars. Establish a fund for athletes who are living in poverty, fine. Ease up the rules that say a coach can't buy his player a pizza after his dad dies. But it's insane to think that there's enough money to put these kids on a legit salary when a lot of major athletic departments are already in the red. And are we really deluding ourselves into thinking that college kids will spend the money responsibly and not on alcohol, XBoxes, iPhones, and strippers?
The only sponsorship thing I can see that might work is just allowing players to have their names on jerseys and all that, and get a cut of sales. However, the logistics of that would be insane, there are tons of ways to exploit it, and the amount of money that players would see anyway would probably be tiny.
They might be the ones "struggling", but they have no right to that money either. All of the parties you named there basically generate zero revenue and they are the least entitled to it. It is their decision to play college sports and a sacrifice they have to make. The same may be true for football players at BCS schools, but the schools are getting shares of the enormous TV contracts designed just for THEIR sport. There is no scenario where paying non-rev athletes makes sense. The olympic model is the only one that works for them.
Which seems to be like it would be a political non-starter.
Wanted to respond to a couple points, but wasn't sure if I could split up the quotes so I did it like this
a) Yes, there's a meal plan. But I doubt any college student eats all of their food from a meal plan. Yes, they have training table for one meal a day (I think that's what it is), but elite level athletes shouldn't be eating like normal college students the rest of the time.
b) Why? In what standard of life is everyone paid equally?
Because you're not taking into account politics here. Schools aren't going to give up federal dollars under this scenario and I have a hard time imagining Congress being cool with revenue sport athletes getting paid out the wazoo while everyone else in the department gets jack shit ,or under any scenario that involves the school having to foot the bill, getting their sport cut.
Maybe. People don't watch Alabama football to see Eddie Lacy or AJ McCarron or whoever. With few exceptions (maybe one player per year), the school brand drives viewership and revenue much more than individual players do. The school is much more valuable to the player, particularly in terms of playing time, exposure, coaching/development, than vice versa. Yeah, if you recruit a bunch of donks for years and years, you'll lose money, but one particular person doesn't drive that.
Another part of the argument people make (and, in my mind, the more valid one) is that the time, energy, and risk that athletes put in is incommensurate with their compensation. This doesn't really change from player to player, so it'd be unfair to pay them differently.
I've never said the schools should pay the players. They shouldn't restrict what the player makes otherwise. If a music major on a full scholarship who is in the school's marching band wants to make money, he can and nobody complains.
I think I saw a couple years when the AJ Green selling his jersey controversy was out there that Georgia made about 4-5$ pure profit from a jersey sold. So going 50/50 with an athlete you would have to move a ton of product to make some decent money. So basically we are talking about the elite of the elite that could make even make 100-200K or so from jersey sales. Thats good money but not life altering money and I think this is where people dramaticaly over-value college athletes. The NCAA is over 100 years old it has a intrinsic value that is almost impossible to calculate. How many people actually show up at a stadium on a saturday afternoon to support the individual player or the color of the jersey and what that represents. I have no way to prove it but you probably have a higher % of people in college rooting for laundry then in the NFL on sundays. I just feel like the fraction of student athletes that could earn serious money with there likeness is so small that there isnt need for a dramatic shift in college athletics.
I think someone already said it, but I think the solution to this problem is to have some kind of minor league system for football and basketball. The kids that don't give a damn about school go there to play, the ones that do want an education can still get an athletic scholarship to whatever school will give them one, and you keep the two systems separate. This may also mitigate the problem of boosters and coaches paying for players. Why would you take a couple hundred bucks from Coach Cal, but still have to suffer through Chemistry 101 and Pre-Algebra when the Baltimore Chessies are going to pay you a real salary and let you play basketball all day, every day. As we all know, a lot of these kids aren't going to school because they want to get a degree, they're going to school to play sports.
a) I agree, but you solve that by expanding the meal plan for athletes. Allow them to have access to a special cafeteria and nutritionists. No chance a college athlete takes his check and hops over to Whole Foods for some spinach and grass-fed beef.
b) It has nothing to do with "standards of life." The argument typically goes something like "College athletes put in too much time, take too much physical risk, and neglect their studies too much for the sake of their sport. Therefore, we need to adequately compensate them." If that's the case, I don't see how it's possible to argue that one athlete deserves more money than another, since these problems should effect them all equally.
No one would ever go to a minor league football or basketball game. Part of the beauty of the system the way it's set up is that people's passions are tied to their alma maters./local teams like they are to their professional teams. How is the attendance at an avg AA or AAA baseball game? Or how did one of the number of football leagues competing against the NFL do? There is an infrastructure in place that generates billions of dollars, allows hundreds of thousands of kids to go to school who otherwise wouldn't and create economic benefits for the local communities. Yeah, like that's going away.
If the kids are too stupid to take advantage of a $50,000 a year schollie, all the tutoring and extra help they can handle, and the lifelong network of alums and former players, than what makes you think they'll be anymore successful in a minor league professional system where they'd be chewed up and spit out while possibly making more then they would under a college scholarship?
I'd venture a guess that quality of life (even without any compensation) as a major college athlete is about 100000x better than quality of life as a minor leaguer.
Using basketball as an example....
According to a 2007 report by National Public Radio, the average NBA D-League salary ranges from $12,000 to $24,000 a season. The report also stated that while NBA players are paid $100 a day for expenses when they are traveling to and from road games, NBA D-League players are paid only $30.00.
And these guys were some of the best college basketball players out there.
Just found this shit on CBS. Thought it fits in this thread.
"Football and men's basketball players at top sports schools are being denied at least $6.2 billion between 2011 and 2015 under National Collegiate Athletic Association rules that prohibit them from being paid, according to a new study."
This post was edited by 2013Terp 13 months ago
Wow. This is NOT roomy!
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports