59bear;842293502 said:
Lost in all the dust stirred up by various legal actions allegedly on behalf of "exploited" athletes is the real possibility that college athletics may well be history at a lot of schools.
71Bear;842293515 said:
The financial model is completely out of whack. In the NFL, excluding the injury compensation piece, a model has been brokered that benefits everyone. In college, the financial model benefits only one segment of the equation - coaches and administrators. Athletes are left with scraps.
Darby;842293522 said:
A special admit and full ride to a Cal or Stanford is worth well into the six figures. That is hardly "scraps" for a 18 year old.
93gobears;842293516 said:
I have yet to form an opinion on this matter, but the lawsuit is filed by Winston & Strawn. A heavy hitter corporate law firm out of Chicago.
Link.
going4roses;842293589 said:
gready NCAA ...no college football video game in 20yrs grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
geez can we raise the price of game 10-15 each and that goes 100% to the college players like a check when u [U]leave school[/U] for the amount of yrs u played and maybe lil extra to those that can stay the full 4 yrs
beeasyed;842293599 said:
and that'll only intensify the problem. you'd be adding yet another incentive to leave school as soon as possible.
part of the issue is that they don't have enough money WHILE they're in school (leading some players to sell memorabilia, autographs, etc.). if you're advocating stipends or payments for athletes, i would suggest that they're distributed in reasonable amounts every semester contingent on good academic standing.
59bear;842293603 said:
I think you overestimate the value of a job in the NFL when you assume a player is better off economically as an undrafted free agent than staying in school for a degree. Undrafted free agents are at the bottom of the NFL salary pyramid. The average life span of an NFL career is something like 2-3 years, probably less for those not drafted. And whatever they sign for, only a small number of NFL contracts are guaranteed to any extent, most not at all.
slider643;842293543 said:
It's worth way more than that if you NPV future earnings delta (assuming the athlete graduates and uses his degree).
Personally, I wouldn't support the new structure and I doubt there are many fan bases outside the SEC who would support professional athletes representing their school.
RighteousGoldenBear;842293612 said:
Agree. Free-agents make more $$$ right out of college than the average college graduate. However, based on average NFL career, that income quickly drops off, at which point, someone with a college education, in the right field, starts making more than a player no longer in the NFL. This is my gut feel, could be wrong. I hope all of our Bears go on to be successful in whatever they do and leverage the Cal degree to the max.
:gobears:
gobears725;842293683 said:
When I break it all down. If it were a job, a scholarship valued at 35,000 per year breaks down to roughly about 12 dollars an hour.
GB54;842293694 said:
Except it's not taxed and it's not full time
59bear;842293695 said:
Your model may work if the player involved makes a team. Unhappily, the vast majority of free agent signees get cut. So now, our hero is driving a beer truck or working as a security guard in a mall. He can go back to school and work on that degree but on his own dime, having forfeited the scholarship. To me, leaving early only makes sense if there is a reasonable chance of being drafted. If you're likely to be a free agent, stay a year (most early outs are juniors by eligibility), get the degree and then take your flyer on free agency.
CALiforniALUM;842293656 said:
How is holding up CAL and Stanfurd as the example at all useful to really understanding the true value of the educational opportunity? Most athletes at other schools don't get such a great deal. One could argue that most of Cal and Furds athletes also don't take advantage of it. To me this all hinges on the NBA. They need to figure out another non scholastic pathway for players or make a rule that players must stay in school through at least their junior year.
59bear;842293761 said:
Academic failure, real or imagined, puts an entirely different slant on things. Someone headed out the door anyway might as make a grab for the brass ring. I know it's a different world than when I attended but, for me, upper division classes weren't appreciably more challenging than lower division.
heartofthebear;842293585 said:
It's high time for legal and structural reform but those changes will not do damage to college football nearly as much as NFL $$ has. As of now, Universities have virtually no leverage against the salaries promised to their players by the NFL. Even an undrafted free agent can do better economically in the NFL than they can with a college degree, and that includes Cal in most cases. It's a miracle every time a player stays to complete his degree.
Most big time college football programs are using their schools as a cover to run de-facto minor league football programs. In these cases, where many players don't even have a high school education, the schools should be required to pay their players.
So it's very simple, act like a school and require educational performance or act like a non-school and pay your players. The NCAA could establish standards to evaluate this very easily if they wanted to. But they are too busy counting their ESPN dollars to give a rat's ass about it.
And the APR and graduation rate standard is no standerd at all since the school's themselves vary widely and the work required to advance academically.
59bear;842293502 said:
Lost in all the dust stirred up by various legal actions allegedly on behalf of "exploited" athletes is the real possibility that college athletics may well be history at a lot of schools. It's one thing to leverage a sweetening of the scholarship pot to more adequately fund the full cost of attendance. OTOH, a successful suit to have athletes declared employees (unionized or not) would likely lead many, perhaps most, schools to simply drop athletics. There is no question that huge sums of money are involved; that relatively little finds its way directly to the athletes; that coaches, administrators, NCAA execs and the media represent the 1% in this economic sub-set. But with so few schools actually turning a profit on athletic programs, where is the incentive to take on a huge obligation (workers' comp, benefits, etc.) represented by "employed" athletes?
slider643;842293765 said:
I think you're mixing up your posters. I didn't say anything about a Cal or furd degree. I'm just saying the earnings NPV of a college graduate vs someone without a degree is substantial.
59bear;842293502 said:
Lost in all the dust stirred up by various legal actions allegedly on behalf of "exploited" athletes is the real possibility that college athletics may well be history at a lot of schools. It's one thing to leverage a sweetening of the scholarship pot to more adequately fund the full cost of attendance. OTOH, a successful suit to have athletes declared employees (unionized or not) would likely lead many, perhaps most, schools to simply drop athletics. There is no question that huge sums of money are involved; that relatively little finds its way directly to the athletes; that coaches, administrators, NCAA execs and the media represent the 1% in this economic sub-set. But with so few schools actually turning a profit on athletic programs, where is the incentive to take on a huge obligation (workers' comp, benefits, etc.) represented by "employed" athletes?
KevBear;842293861 said:
College football players are being exploited. Let's not bullshit that with air quotes.
The value of a scholarship is a fraction of what NCAA players would receive under the kind of salary model the NFL and NBA employ. The belief that the overall margin is made up by the players having access to educational opportunities they wouldn't otherwise have is farcical.
I suspect that most people who do not support a model that treats players like professionals do so for reasons that are completely separate from a rational analysis of labor rights. It's that they simply don't like the idea of college players getting paid, the same way I don't like mushrooms, fancy sports shoes, or people who misuse the word "literally." It just turns them off.
They don't like it because 'this is the way it's always been.' Players have always been "amateur student-athletes" and the traditional reward of the student athlete system should be good enough for football players now, just as it was since time immemorial. "They're getting a free ride at Cal for playing a lousy game and they're not happy? Are you kidding me?"
They also don't like it because labor agitation is generally not popular in this country, and it gets a hell of a lot worse when professional sports are thrown into the mix. They already can't stand the "outrageous salaries" that professional athletes make, so a new group of athletes claiming they're being exploited by pointing to pros leagues is not going to generate any sympathy, even if the players' claims are rationally valid.
Finally, they don't like it because they feel threatened by it. College football is really beloved by a lot of people who can't imagine what the game will be like if college players become pros. It could have unforeseen repercussions that fundamentally alter the game. I won't deny that. Besides which, there's a kind of sacred association the alums make with players out of the sentiment that hey're all part of the same community, that they're family through the university that is jeopardized by turning them into pros. I get that, I really do.
Even though they're irrational, a large part of me sympathizes with the above sentiments. But "because I'd prefer it otherwise" is not a valid reason to deny someone a claim they're entitled to.
GB54;842293694 said:
Except it's not taxed and it's not full time
72CalBear;842293805 said:
Agree 100%. We seem to still hang onto the "student-athlete" notion that our basketball and football players are coming to Cal for degrees. So if the scholarships are "payment," then let them succeed economically since it is why they are here! We keep holding up APRs and grad rates as some sort of measurement of "success" when in fact our players are really semi-pros. I would feel alot better about Cal football if we all came to grips with this academic illusion about our players. Student-athletes in these two sports are long gone.. they come here to be showcased for the pros.
