In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 783
Online now 861 Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)
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.
That can be said about almost any non executive job in any industry. The work of virtually any employee or contractor can be used without giving them a percentage of future company earnings based off that work.
Profit sharing is a perk anywhere else in business, yet for some reason it's considered an inalienable right to people who support college athletes getting paid above and beyond education, living, and athletic expenses?
What other industries operate as a cartel? Collegiate athletics departments are profit-making entities who have banded together to suppress wages. I'm not saying there should be "profit-sharing", I'm saying there should be some semblance of a free market.
How much do the players truly generate though? This isn't the pros where the entire brand is the best players and players can be there for a substantial period time. Players are there for such a short period time they are basically interchangeable parts and thus their value is minimal. The appeal of college sports is very much tied to a fans connection the school, mostly that they went there. The most popular teams tend to be the flagship universities in the states with a large number of alumni. Yes the ones with more on field success are more popular, but for the most part that is built on generations and because of frequent player change it is hard to say at the micro level how much success can be attributed to individual players.
I think if you out a true value on all, but the truly exceptional players (which is less than a dozen nationwide) is less than the monetary value of full scholarship and cost of attendance.
Winning drives revenue and fan loyalty. Not in every case obviously, but there's a pretty direct correlation - just as there is a pretty direct correlation between winning and the quality of athletes the school recruits. It's preposterous to say otherwise.
Don't forget also: you can pay college athletes and you can have Title IX, but you cannot have both.
It is the business walk of the biggest, baddest bear in the national park happening upon an abandoned picnic.
Getting paid for services rendered and revenue generated takes different forms. I see a case of Morris Peterson. When he got his numbered retired he said that for as much he gave and contributed to the program he got much more back in return. So what did he get? He got out of flint, he got a college education, he got the experiences that entails, and he grew the hell up. If these athletes are being taken advantaged of then why do many give back (time, money,...etc) to the universities and athletic programs once they leave? How do you value that? The fact is you cannot not.
This post was edited by ErnieMcCracken 13 months ago
A 4 year full ride can be ~$100k depending on the school, that's more than market value for the majority of players.
And I agree with jkrterp that the schools and their built in alumni/tradition are generating a great deal of the money.
If you took the best high school players who aren't quite pro ready and built a league with them from scratch you know what you have -- the NBDL, which absolutely no one cares about from a fan perspective.
I think the best solution would be defined stipends for certain benefits -- family travel, food, entertainment. Do the math and give them a certain amount so their parents can commute comfortably to games, so they can go on the town a bit. No one should be buying new cars or fur coats, but enough to help ease the stress of a busy schedule.
This post was edited by oral_terpitude 13 months ago
If they aren't worth more, why is there the need to collude to ensure that they don't get the opportunity to earn a higher income?
Because the schools think open bidding would cause chaos and ultimately harm the quality of the product?
The one year rule with the NBA has really brought this all to a head. They should let kids chance it out of HS if they want to.
Ding ding ding. As part of my MBA, I'm doing a product development project for a company, and pretty much signed over the rights for whatever my team comes up with. If they decide to patent it, I pretty much just get $500 and a pat on the back, even if it turns out to be a multi-million dollar idea (it probably won't be). It sucks, but I agreed to the terms for the sake of my own personal development.
The idea that only the NCAA (or any "cartel") pays employees below "fair market value" is ridiculous. It happens at literally every company in the world.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by dexterstjacques 13 months ago
Well, I mean, that’s what it is. I doodoo and then listen to Katy Perry.
As long as you contend that a scholarship athlete at a university is earning zero, your argument is completely invalid.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports