Good blog post about where the money goes and effects of NBA age limit

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-hallman/final-four-players_b_5092368.html

No, it isn't such a good blog.post as it limits its commentary to two very narrow dimensions: compensation for one of the sports most elite and successful coaches at one of the oldest and most venerable and well supported programs vs. the allegedly 'poor' victims who are dragged off the streets and forced into involuntary hardwood servitude. Seriously? An intellectually honest discussion of the topic would have to be NCAA wide, and cover all sports. It would have to acknowledge that intercollegiate athletics runs at a deficit in most places, and has to be supported by a combination of school and alumni resources. It would have to acknowledge that in the majority of programs the economic pie doesn't increase just because players in major sports are somehow provided greater stipends, pay or whatever -- that $$$ would have to come from somewhere, and that might well be women's sports and club teams. The players in the article don't have to go to Kentucky, they could go to Cal (and one this year had that choice). They pick the big, venerable name, because it gives them a chance to showcase their skills before a guaranteed national audience and move them up the draft, where the big money is. It's a bargain they make, and not one forced upon them. They are hardly victims, unless you have the mindset to find victims everywhere you look.

Try paying $200,000 for your child's college education before you say student athletes are getting screwed. If they choose not to take advantage of the academic opportunity that is on them. By the way, for the majority of them their athletic skills have zero value in the professional market place (despite the b.s. their AAU coaches are filling their heads with).

bearister;842301036 said:

---

Try paying $200,000 for your child's college education before you say student athletes are getting screwed. If they choose not to take advantage of the academic opportunity that is on them. By the way, for the majority of them their athletic skills have zero value in the professional market place (despite the b.s. Their AAU coaches are filling their heads with).

---

I'd say that's a slam dunk post!

DrDanger;842301037 said:

---

I'd say that's a slam dunk post!

---

...Thanks, and for getting $200K in equivalent value for their services you would think they would practice shooting free throws once in a while. I could knock them down better than most of them by the time I was in 6th grade.

bearister;842301040 said:

---

...Thanks, and for getting $200K in equivalent value for their services you would think they would practice shooting free throws once in a while. I could knock them down better than most of them by the time I was in 6th grade.

---

On that subject, do the NCAA men shoot as well as the women?

Go Bears!

bearister;842301036 said:

---

Try paying $200,000 for your child's college education before you say student athletes are getting screwed. If they choose not to take advantage of the academic opportunity that is on them. By the way, for the majority of them their athletic skills have zero value in the professional market place (despite the b.s. their AAU coaches are filling their heads with).

---

I am still trying to figure out why the players compensation is capped (and so particular) and the coaches compensation is uncapped. Maybe you can explain. If it were not for the cap, the players athletic skills would have a lot of value.

Sluggo

sluggo_Cal;842301065 said:

---

I am still trying to figure out why the players compensation is capped (and so particular) and the coaches compensation is uncapped. Maybe you can explain. If it were not for the cap, the players athletic skills would have a lot of value.

Sluggo

---

How many players do you think are worth the $200K?

For the same reason that the CEOs of major corporations are compensated at obscene multiples of the rank and file of their organizations are paid....the perception (probably erroneous) that they are nearly indispensable to the success of the organization. In college sports, while it's clear the athletes do the winning, the theory is the megabucks coach brings in the requisite athletes and can do with regularity as necessary.

if players are compensated on a free market basis, I doubt most schools would be able to able to keep their star players. they would all change employment to the schools like texas, alabama, usc

if the Cal Football Company tried to retain their star players then it's costs would increase, and the Cal Football Company would go bankrupt

If the Cal Football Company decided not to try to retain their star players because they could not afford the high salaries, then the Cal Football Company would be uncompetitive, lose revenues and would go bankrupt

sluggo_Cal;842301065 said:

---

I am still trying to figure out why the players compensation is capped (and so particular) and the coaches compensation is uncapped. Maybe you can explain. If it were not for the cap, the players athletic skills would have a lot of value.

Sluggo

---

bearister;842301036 said:

---

Try paying $200,000 for your child's college education before you say student athletes are getting screwed. If they choose not to take advantage of the academic opportunity that is on them. By the way, for the majority of them their athletic skills have zero value in the professional market place (despite the b.s. their AAU coaches are filling their heads with).

---

A very simplistic response to an issue that is not so straightforward.

The reality is that $200K education is paying many of them in a currency that they can not use. It's really not as simple as saying "if they can't take advantage of the academic opportunity it's on them". If you believe the North Carolina reports (which I do), they are letting in kids that can barely read at a middle school level to some schools that are some of the more difficult to get into academically.

Providing them "payment" with that education is not "on them". It's a pretty clear case of exploitation.

Sure a college education costs a lot of money. It's not the same value to everyone, however and in fact there are many people that it's not valuable to at all or necessary to have successful careers. The value of a college degree overall is become less and less these days and less employers care about it. They want to see what you can do, they don't care about the degree. And really, that's for college graduates that went there for academic reasons and were capable of taking it seriously.

We are talking (mostly) about kids that would not have even gone to college otherwise and would be unable to meet & maintain the basic requirements to stay in school, if the schools didn't exploit the system to get them in, funnel them into specific majors that were created just to keep athletes eligible, and provide "tutoring" that is basically just other people giving them the answers to their homework.

So, yeah I'm going to call bullshit on that being "on them" (them being the athletes). It's a criminal act to provide "payment" by conning people that don't know better to take something that is not actually of value to them.This is one thing schools and the NCAA are worried about with the potential upcoming lawsuits and why you see them word things carefully to try to avoid any talk of athletes being "employees". And it's why you've seen North Carolina come down so hard on Mary Willingham. The Universities are clearly complicit in exploiting these kids for monetary gain from their athletic teams knowing full well that they shouldn't be there academically and can't use what they are "giving" them.

TheSwede;842301144 said:

---

A very simplistic response to an issue that is not so straightforward.

The reality is that $200K education is paying many of them in a currency that they can not use. It's really not as simple as saying "if they can't take advantage of the academic opportunity it's on them". If you believe the North Carolina reports (which I do), they are letting in kids that can barely read at a middle school level to some schools that are some of the more difficult to get into academically.

Providing them "payment" with that education is not "on them". It's a pretty clear case of exploitation.

Sure a college education costs a lot of money. It's not the same value to everyone, however and in fact there are many people that it's not valuable to at all or necessary to have successful careers. The value of a college degree overall is become less and less these days and less employers care about it. They want to see what you can do, they don't care about the degree. And really, that's for college graduates that went there for academic reasons and were capable of taking it seriously.

We are talking (mostly) about kids that would not have even gone to college otherwise and would be unable to meet & maintain the basic requirements to stay in school, if the schools didn't exploit the system to get them in, funnel them into specific majors that were created just to keep athletes eligible, and provide "tutoring" that is basically just other people giving them the answers to their homework.

So, yeah I'm going to call bullshit on that being "on them" (them being the athletes). It's a criminal act to provide "payment" by conning people that don't know better to take something that is not actually of value to them.This is one thing schools and the NCAA are worried about with the potential upcoming lawsuits and why you see them word things carefully to try to avoid any talk of athletes being "employees". And it's why you've seen North Carolina come down so hard on Mary Willingham. The Universities are clearly complicit in exploiting these kids for monetary gain from their athletic teams knowing full well that they shouldn't be there academically and can't use what they are "giving" them.

---

The only alternative is just to terminate basketball and football at the college level.

I posted an additional point on the FB board...

...schools are providing more than just the scholarship

They are also providing a national marketing campaign for their players + professional level sports skills and training development

that's got value to anyone who is aspiring for a professional sports career

TheSwede;842301144 said:

---

A very simplistic response to an issue that is not so straightforward.

The reality is that $200K education is paying many of them in a currency that they can not use. It's really not as simple as saying "if they can't take advantage of the academic opportunity it's on them". If you believe the North Carolina reports (which I do), they are letting in kids that can barely read at a middle school level to some schools that are some of the more difficult to get into academically.

Providing them "payment" with that education is not "on them". It's a pretty clear case of exploitation.

Sure a college education costs a lot of money. It's not the same value to everyone, however and in fact there are many people that it's not valuable to at all or necessary to have successful careers. The value of a college degree overall is become less and less these days and less employers care about it. They want to see what you can do, they don't care about the degree. And really, that's for college graduates that went there for academic reasons and were capable of taking it seriously.

We are talking (mostly) about kids that would not have even gone to college otherwise and would be unable to meet & maintain the basic requirements to stay in school, if the schools didn't exploit the system to get them in, funnel them into specific majors that were created just to keep athletes eligible, and provide "tutoring" that is basically just other people giving them the answers to their homework.

So, yeah I'm going to call bullshit on that being "on them" (them being the athletes). It's a criminal act to provide "payment" by conning people that don't know better to take something that is not actually of value to them.This is one thing schools and the NCAA are worried about with the potential upcoming lawsuits and why you see them word things carefully to try to avoid any talk of athletes being "employees". And it's why you've seen North Carolina come down so hard on Mary Willingham. The Universities are clearly complicit in exploiting these kids for monetary gain from their athletic teams knowing full well that they shouldn't be there academically and can't use what they are "giving" them.

---

Sluggo, I don't believe for a minute you are trying to 'figure out' why college players have scholarships and stipends while the coaching staff is paid. You have heard about the NCAA and its long history of enforcing amateur status, as opposed to pay for play. Even Johnny Football got a thorough examination on allegations of pay for signing jerseys. If you seriously want to 'figure out' something, cipher on the relationship among athletic department budgets, Title IX and club sport costs (including coaching) private fund raising for so called 'revenue sports' and the value of an education for student athletes. Are you seriously trying to defend professional status for college athletes? If so, the logical result in the real world is Ivy League (no athletic scholarships for anyone) in all but perhaps one mega conference. I wouldn't want Cal in that business, and would support its continuance in the NCAA as opposed to ascendance into the NBA/NFL/MBL minor leagues. However, with likely reduced revenue, my daughter wouldn't be able to play water polo except on a purely Club basis and your son might not even have a soccer teams to consider.

TheSwede;842301144 said:

---

A very simplistic response to an issue that is not so straightforward.

The reality is that $200K education is paying many of them in a currency that they can not use. It's really not as simple as saying "if they can't take advantage of the academic opportunity it's on them". If you believe the North Carolina reports (which I do), they are letting in kids that can barely read at a middle school level to some schools that are some of the more difficult to get into academically.

---

Completely agree that a lot of players in the money sports aren't seeing any value from their '$200k education'. The question is what to do about it - and in a way that helps both the athletes and institutions. In many cases, I don't believe that schools are really benefiting from the big money. The NCAA as a whole isn't really benefiting - they really do spend a lot of the money on administration, enforcement and pass a lot along to the smaller conferences to do the same. Coaches are benefiting, definitely. Administrators are benefiting, but how many are really that highly paid? Construction companies are benefiting, big time. And non-rev sports athletes are benefiting - and the question there is whether they really have a moral right to their scholarships which are seemingly paid for by a lot of undereducated and underprivileged kids risking having brain damage for life. Then, in terms of benefits, it seems fans see the biggest utility, as it's entertainment and occupies and fills up time well beyond a few Saturdays a year.

And there is some benefit to a athlete no interested in school, even without the education. For pro prospects, there definitely is. Look at what Jr hockey or minor league baseball players make? Usually scraps. All in front of tiny crowds. Is there a better system (like the MLB model)? Probably - but how do we get from here to there? And if there is a way go to the MLB model (especially w/ football), will it even be popular on the CFB level anymore?

TV money is also a bubble - who know if it will last past 10-20 years. For now there may be ways to remove FB and BB from the standard NCAA amateurism in new leagues, and leave all non rev sports as NCAA type... but what happens when the TV money dries up and we are back to only a small number of schools breaking even on athletics.

And I really hope there aren't photos floating around of certain Cal FB players' coursework from the holmoe era.

TheSwede;842301144 said:

---

A very simplistic response to an issue that is not so straightforward.......

---

Is there tutoring available through BearInsider so that I can try to get a better grade from you on my next paper?
-Cullen Bohannon

Deutsch;842301155 said:

---

Sluggo, I don't believe for a minute you are trying to 'figure out' why college players have scholarships and stipends while the coaching staff is paid. You have heard about the NCAA and its long history of enforcing amateur status, as opposed to pay for play. Even Johnny Football got a thorough examination on allegations of pay for signing jerseys. If you seriously want to 'figure out' something, cipher on the relationship among athletic department budgets, Title IX and club sport costs (including coaching) private fund raising for so called 'revenue sports' and the value of an education for student athletes. Are you seriously trying to defend professional status for college athletes? If so, the logical result in the real world is Ivy League (no athletic scholarships for anyone) in all but perhaps one mega conference. I wouldn't want Cal in that business, and would support its continuance in the NCAA as opposed to ascendance into the NBA/NFL/MBL minor leagues. However, with likely reduced revenue, my daughter wouldn't be able to play water polo except on a purely Club basis and your son might not even have a soccer teams to consider.

---

Deutsch, you are right that I have an opinion, but I am open-minded. I understand the history of amateurism, to some extent, and I don't believe in it. It is a nineteenth century English ideal. Quoting wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_sports), "The middle and upper class men who dominated the sporting establishment not only had a theoretical preference for amateurism, they also had a self-interest in blocking the professionalization of sport, which threatened to make it feasible for the working classes to compete against themselves with success." Why buy into this?

If we agree that there should be some compensation, which is what a scholarship is, why should it be limited to a particular dollar figure? And if the sports are "amateur," why are there million dollar salaries given to coaches and administrators? It seems to me that the NCAA exists to favor coaches and administrators over athletes.

I don't think basketball and football players should have their compensation restricted to subsidize other sports, just like EECS is not forced to subsidize English. Title IX would not be an issue if the sports were professionalized. Or Title IX can be changed. I agree that today the players could not be paid, but this could be arranged tomorrow. I look forward to this day.

Sluggo

bearister;842301104 said:

---

How many players do you think are worth the $200K?

---

There are many definitions of worth, but in the simple capitalistic definition, all of them. That is, Cal could play all walk-ons. They choose to give some scholarships because in the screwed up market for players, they believe they are worth it. Now I believe Jabari Bird would be worth a lot more than 200k, but the powers that be want to keep that money for themselves. Perhaps in an open market many players would be worth less. It is hard to know without such a market existing.

Sluggo

HoopDreams;842301134 said:

---

if players are compensated on a free market basis, I doubt most schools would be able to able to keep their star players. they would all change employment to the schools like texas, alabama, usc

if the Cal Football Company tried to retain their star players then it's costs would increase, and the Cal Football Company would go bankrupt

If the Cal Football Company decided not to try to retain their star players because they could not afford the high salaries, then the Cal Football Company would be uncompetitive, lose revenues and would go bankrupt

---

Why would they go bankrupt? Like with other open ventures, there would be budgets based on expected revenues. It is true that Cal has less support then some other schools, so it might be competitively disadvantageous, but I think it would be more fair.

Sluggo

yeah, 'bankrupt' was just a term I was using to state it in commercial terms (just like I used the term Cal Football Company). I didn't mean it literally.

what is more likely to happen, is there would be a lot of adjustments made over time as the economics changed the college sport equation. It could turn into college sports in Europe and Asia (there isn't much college sports there, and it is certainly no where as 'big' as it is in the US), it may be dropped by some schools, or schools go the ivy league route, or it may put the "BCS" conferences in a 'league' of their own.

For Cal, it could tip the delicate balance to those who think college sports is not aligned with the academic mission of the university.

Who knows.

sluggo_Cal;842301225 said:

---

Why would they go bankrupt? Like with other open ventures, there would be budgets based on expected revenues. It is true that Cal has less support then some other schools, so it might be competitively disadvantageous, but I think it would be more fair.

Sluggo

---

manus;842301148 said:

---

The only alternative is just to terminate basketball and football at the college level.

---

Its certainly not "the only alternative". The problem is that there really aren't many people with a desire to look at ways to "fix" things. Everybody has their own agendas.

As some here have pointed out, one problem with paying athletes is creating a completely unlevel playing field. The Texas and Ohio States of the world would simply pay for all the best players.

And while I'm not advocating that solution, the main argument against it is being made by those of us who know our schools wouldn't remain competitive, or administrators of those schools/conferences who have a financial stake. It would certainly change the landscape, but the sport would survive it. The non big revenue schools would just be relegated to second tier mid major status.

There's lots of politics and elitism at play preventing meaningful looks at solutions too. You want to really make their education worth something? Why not allow Athletes to have majors that are basically trade school training like you get at places like ITT?

Of course prestigious academic institutions don't want to be associated with trade school educations, so would fight it tooth and nail. And you'd have to offer it to more than just athletes, at public universities. But if you are interested in some real solutions, why shouldn't these athletes that can never use a 4 year degree be allowed to get trained as an electrician or a mechanic, something that they actually could get a job with after they fail to become a pro athlete?

I don't know. Thats kind of just a thought, but i dont think there are a lot of people looking at really fixing things, just looking out for their own interests.

Let's not play the naive card. Players sign their LOI because they feel it is best deal on table in front of them.

Sure, money is made for schools from TV, league, ticket sales, etc... but much of the overflow is used to fund other non revenue sports, so for the most part, all the $$ coming in are distributed to the sports that cannot create enough revenue to be self sufficient entities without subsidies. (do we not remember Cal baseball program from a few years back and intent to drop the program?)

This does not mean no changes to current system is not valid, but to cast a gloomy picture of the "oh, pity the student athlete"... is ludicrous in my opinion.