A
OK...the financials for college football are beyond stupid.
- Thread starter Tulsa Tom
- Start date
I'm sorry you can't stomach it. I think there are plenty of overpaid people too. College professors make too much money for the effort they exhibit, IMO. Six figures to teach subjects like history, mathematics, etc. for a few hours a day? Every conceivable holiday off, summers off, nice retirement plan. Many use the same lesson plans year after year and repeat the process with no updates needed. They have no standard of measurement to eliminate the good ones from the poor ones. Then the kid graduates with $100k in debt?
But that is what the market pays. So be it. If I have a problem with it, I can go back to school and become one. Your version of fairness has been tried in many other parts of the world and it usually serves its purpose....everyone ends up equal - equally miserable.
Multiple problems arise if you try to pay players or make them employees.
Do you only pay scholarship players? One could argue they are already getting paid $25,000-$30,000 per year now before stipends are added.
What do you do with walk-ons? Do you tell them since they aren't being paid, they aren't employees and therefore can't participate.
As others have mentioned, what about Title IX? You sure as heck aren't going to pay football players and not pay volleyball players too. That goes down the line. Many schools would have to drop multiple or all sports because they couldn't compete. What about Division II schools? There goes their budgets.
What about a guy who gets a scholarship but is a bust? Do you stop paying him or does he still get paid? What about the walk-on who flew past him on the depth chart? And do you pay the recruit based on his high school star rating? And then he doesn't pan out so you tell him he has to take a pay cut?
I hope they don't do a knee-jerk reaction based on football and basketball, and end up ruining other sports or college sports in general for a lot of kids. For many this is their only way to get a college education.
Do you only pay scholarship players? One could argue they are already getting paid $25,000-$30,000 per year now before stipends are added.
What do you do with walk-ons? Do you tell them since they aren't being paid, they aren't employees and therefore can't participate.
As others have mentioned, what about Title IX? You sure as heck aren't going to pay football players and not pay volleyball players too. That goes down the line. Many schools would have to drop multiple or all sports because they couldn't compete. What about Division II schools? There goes their budgets.
What about a guy who gets a scholarship but is a bust? Do you stop paying him or does he still get paid? What about the walk-on who flew past him on the depth chart? And do you pay the recruit based on his high school star rating? And then he doesn't pan out so you tell him he has to take a pay cut?
I hope they don't do a knee-jerk reaction based on football and basketball, and end up ruining other sports or college sports in general for a lot of kids. For many this is their only way to get a college education.
I am all for the market to be at work...all for it. So let the players be in the market!
What I have problem with is people who act like they are pro-free market when they are nothing but that. If there ever was a system that mirrored communism it is the NCAA. (Yes, the Boz was right.) The NCAA (gov't) owns the means of production. Everyone is then supposedly treated equally (all athletes) regardless of their value to society (university). However, there a very few fat cats (coaches and ADs) at the top who get super-rich (see the Soviet Union, China, North Korea) while everyone else is supposed to be in for the good of the society (university).
The current set-up was expressly put into place by Byers and the NCAA top dogs so that AD's and coaches would get the vast majority of the profits. He said it straight in his autobiography! It is anything but a free market system.
I think college athletes and college football players in particular are very well compensated for what they do. They get a free education, which can be worth a lot of $ if they decide to study a major with good career opportunities. They get to live in the nicest dorms, eat the best food, get spoon fed all of their class work and have tutors that do practically all of their homework. They also get a ton of notoriety on social media and around the college town and the best looking girls on campus. Life isn't exactly hard for college football players, if they don't think what they are getting is enough compensation they don't have to take the scholarship, no one is making them play college football.
I don't necessary disagree with your point, but this part is wrong. Tenured faculty are involved with research, mentoring and advising, and teaching among other things. It may look like they only work a few hours because that's all they spend in the classroom, but every professor I've been close to work 10-14 hour days, at least 5 days a week. Probably depends on where you went to school, but any reputable professor at any reputable university does a boatload of research. And lesson plans do change; I have the receipts for new books to prove it. I don't think adjusting their pay would dramatically lower loans.
(Have several teachers in my family, and I feel like I need to defend their profession often.)
What if we just changed a few words...
"I think at $300,000 college coaches would be very well compensated for what they do. That is twice what the average prof makes...and this is an educational institution. They get to live in the nicest homes, eat the best food...often for free...get a free car to drive, etc.. They also get a ton of notoriety on social media and around the college town and the best looking girls on campus. Life isn't exactly hard for college coaches even at $300k, if they don't think what they are getting is enough compensation then don't take the job. No one is making them coach college football."
Say this about a coach and conniptions are the result.
I'm sorry you think college coaches make too much money, but that's capitalism Tom. Nick Saban makes an astronomical salary because he is extremely skilled at what he does. Very few people have the kind of skill set he does when it comes to coaching college football therefore places like the University of Alabama are willing to pay him 7.1 million dollars a year if it increases their chances of winning championships. If you were to set a $300k cap on college coaches salaries, all the talented coaches would leave for higher paying jobs in the NFL or other leagues that are willing to pay more money and the overall product of college football would decline. Fact of the matter is these schools need these coaches a hell of a lot more than these coaches need college football.
Point well taken. I will be the first to say I do not know all the ins and outs of being a college professor.
I do you feel like some people under estimate the challenges that come with coaching at a high-level. It is one profession where your odds of being fired with national exposure are extremely high. There is intense pressure and they literally work around the clock if they want to excel. Very, very few excel to a high-level.
I don't feel like that was the point of Tom's post. It appears he's arguing that the arguments we use to justify not paying the athletes would never apply to coaches. College Football is a business in practice but not in definition. Many athletes now realize this, thus the Northwestern lawsuit. If this is Capitalism, it is the version that existed before the Industrial Revolution. I love College Football, but I don't think it will survive in it's current form much longer. There's way to much hypocrisy.
All the crying about how much coaches are paid is typical crap. Cutting the salaries of the coaches is not going to fix or change anything other than make you feel better by "stickin' it to the rich guy". It won't help anyone else one bit. The coaches are paid the way they are because schools feel it's worth it. It's easier to replace a school president than it is a winning football coach, and that's just the way it is. Is it getting crazy? Yes, it is.
As far as players, as others have said you simply cannot pay them in a way that would work. You will have issues with smaller schools, Title IX, etc. Most schools run a deficit anyway. The fact is that no one is making these kids play football and go to school. If they want to make money, they can choose to go get a job. They get free education, room and board, and a stipend for a set amount of time. (I'm also in the camp that thinks they should be able to go pro draft after high school. Let them make their own dumb mistakes).
The only way paying players would work is with licensing, and even then it would be hard. In this scenerio, a player who's jersey gets sold would get a piece of sales, athletes would be able to be in advertising and would be paid for it, video games, posters, etc. would all result in players being used getting money for it. But the only way that would work is if the payment is for a set amount and the NCAA is the one doing the paying, not the school or the company using the player. The company or school using the players likeness or selling player-specific merchandise or pictures/posters would pay the NCAA for the right to use it first (they already do this), then the NCAA would dish out the set amount of money to the player. The school still makes money on the merchandise, too, but not as much (unless they raise the prices).
I dunno if that makes sense. But if you want to pay players, understand that a) it will never be enough and b) college football as we know it would be over with. Done.
As far as players, as others have said you simply cannot pay them in a way that would work. You will have issues with smaller schools, Title IX, etc. Most schools run a deficit anyway. The fact is that no one is making these kids play football and go to school. If they want to make money, they can choose to go get a job. They get free education, room and board, and a stipend for a set amount of time. (I'm also in the camp that thinks they should be able to go pro draft after high school. Let them make their own dumb mistakes).
The only way paying players would work is with licensing, and even then it would be hard. In this scenerio, a player who's jersey gets sold would get a piece of sales, athletes would be able to be in advertising and would be paid for it, video games, posters, etc. would all result in players being used getting money for it. But the only way that would work is if the payment is for a set amount and the NCAA is the one doing the paying, not the school or the company using the player. The company or school using the players likeness or selling player-specific merchandise or pictures/posters would pay the NCAA for the right to use it first (they already do this), then the NCAA would dish out the set amount of money to the player. The school still makes money on the merchandise, too, but not as much (unless they raise the prices).
I dunno if that makes sense. But if you want to pay players, understand that a) it will never be enough and b) college football as we know it would be over with. Done.
Why are you so anti-people getting paid what the market might bear? The idea that you put a cap on people and say, "I think they get enough" is frankly anti-free market. For example, can you imagine how much money Tommie Frazier made for the university...and how little financial remuneration he received in return?
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
The market bears that coaches get paid what they do. Why are you so anti-that? You are chasing your tail, and have offered no feasible solution. You running for office by chance?
Last edited by a moderator:
Why are you choosing to ignore all the points made about how it can't work? Because you can't. Here's the deal: the teams are part of the university. They aren't their own enterprise. If they ere this could be a different animal. The school is the business, not the team.
the players are there voluntarily and not under contract whether you like it or not.
answer all that's been brought up for a change if you want to change minds.
the players are there voluntarily and not under contract whether you like it or not.
answer all that's been brought up for a change if you want to change minds.
OK...here are three answers to the most common objections.
1. Title IX fallacy. Title IX says nothing about compensation but only equal opportunity to play. As sports attorney Jeffrey Kessler has said, ""Title IX says nothing about the issue of compensation. Title IX talks about giving equal opportunities to participate in athletics, which this case wouldn't change one way or another. You'd have the same opportunities, except in those two sports (football and men's basketball) the schools would be free to treat the athletes more fairly given the revenue being generated. It's really no different now than the head football coach at Alabama, I'm sure, makes more money in salary than all of the female coaches at Alabama put together. That's not a Title IX violation."
Once again, if Title IX dealt in compensation issues per sport you wouldn't see the ginormous coaching salary differential.
2. Pay differential between players. Is it really that hard to determine who gets paid what? They do it in every professional sport from single A baseball, to the lowest levels of pro soccer, to even semi-pro football. They do it among all the coaches in an athletic department.
3. Jealousy of letting college players participate in the free market. I can't do anything about that.
1. Title IX fallacy. Title IX says nothing about compensation but only equal opportunity to play. As sports attorney Jeffrey Kessler has said, ""Title IX says nothing about the issue of compensation. Title IX talks about giving equal opportunities to participate in athletics, which this case wouldn't change one way or another. You'd have the same opportunities, except in those two sports (football and men's basketball) the schools would be free to treat the athletes more fairly given the revenue being generated. It's really no different now than the head football coach at Alabama, I'm sure, makes more money in salary than all of the female coaches at Alabama put together. That's not a Title IX violation."
Once again, if Title IX dealt in compensation issues per sport you wouldn't see the ginormous coaching salary differential.
2. Pay differential between players. Is it really that hard to determine who gets paid what? They do it in every professional sport from single A baseball, to the lowest levels of pro soccer, to even semi-pro football. They do it among all the coaches in an athletic department.
3. Jealousy of letting college players participate in the free market. I can't do anything about that.
sorry if i may have missed this, but, ndsu has accepted "Cost of Attendance". pretty certain i heard correctly and the $$$ will be paid by donors. gotta be a game changer at the FCS level. i also heard a discussion on a Fargo radio station where they discussed the possibility of joining the Big 12. wrestling program did join.
back to COA-if you are on a full schollie, you will receive $3400. if you are on 1/2 schollie, you would receive $1700. in other words, it will be proportionate to amount of schollie you receive.
just read an article from UNI. they are reporting that SDSU will pay around $6000.
back to COA-if you are on a full schollie, you will receive $3400. if you are on 1/2 schollie, you would receive $1700. in other words, it will be proportionate to amount of schollie you receive.
just read an article from UNI. they are reporting that SDSU will pay around $6000.
Last edited:
I understand the concern that paying some athletes may legally necessitate paying all athletes and that doing so could bankrupt athletic departments and unprofitable teams/programs.
An alternate, free market solution would be to allow the athletes to pursue their own endorsements. Yes, the stars (particularly football and men's bball) would generate the most money. Yes, it would lead to greater commercialization of college sports. But let's not pretend that the star athletes aren't already being used by the universities for promotional purposes. They do radio spots, they do ESPN, they do media days, they do in-house promotional content, and they're less directly used as a promotional tool for Nike, Addidas, etc. when they do these interviews wearing the exclusive logo of these brands on university gear.
If Sid Dillion will pay the volleyball team to sell Hyundais, if Asics will pay a wrestler to tweet about their equipment, what's the justification in telling the athletes that they can't make this money if the demand is there? It wouldn't cost the athletic departments a dime.
This will probably be the path that gets taken in the future. It will be the happy medium that lets American capitalistic principles co-exist with a closed system that says that, until now, has said that things like your own autograph are not your own to do with as you see fit.
Last edited:
Tom, read the attached article, if you think that there wouldn't be Title IX suits you are delusional.
http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/06/09/how-title-ix-relates-to-paying-players/
Oh...there would be lawsuits. But as the O'Bannon case has proven, those suits would probably come up empty. The reason...these payments would not be considered scholarships.
P.S. that article is old. It not only comes before O'Bannon but also before the NCAA allowing COA monies.
P.S. that article is old. It not only comes before O'Bannon but also before the NCAA allowing COA monies.
Poor poor athletes. I would have given my left one to have an athletic scholarship in college. Hell I would have given my left one to walk on and maybe get a chance to run down the field just once covering a kick. Hindsight, compared to life, practice was fun. Cost of attendance is fine, but anything beyond that is BS and will completely kill college football.
Tom, if you run a google search, you will find dozens of articles that indicate that O'Bannon in all probability could not be applied just to football and mens basketball. E.g. Willamette Sports Law Journal, Spring 2015:
"Implementing O'Bannon's approved payment methods and limiting compensation to men's basketball and football players, however, likely constitutes a form of illegal gender-based discrimination in violation of Title IX."
Do you really think that any federal judge is going to rule that it is okay to pay male college football and basketball players, but not women's basketball players and volleyball players, based upon the profitability of their sport? I know that you love to argue a point to the bitter end, but that position is laughable.
And the "sports attorney" that you quoted has filed class action lawsuits trying to get to the very position that you advocate, what do you think that he would say? What he really meant was, "I know that I'm trying an end-run on Title IX that probably won't work, but I sure hope that I can find a way to win this case so I can retire early, fat and happy."
Last edited:
How the hell do you judge what "the market" is for a freaking high school senior or backup lineman? The idea of paying per value for an individual college player is ridiculous. IF he's worth so much, let him take the risk and put his name in the draft to go pro. That's what its all about anyway. IF you are good enough to go pro you'll get paid. IF not you get a degree. Sounds fair to me.
Title IX deals with financial assistance through scholarships. COA is being tied to scholarships at most universities...thus Title IX comes into play. What some are proposing happens outside of scholarships...and maybe even outside the university as in the case of NDSU where they are raising money for their COA outside of university funds. As it is written now, Title IX would not apply to these funds.
For example law professor Marc Edelman of City University of New York wrote, "If NCAA members are already willing to pay more to male coaches if they generate more revenues, then what is really stopping them from adopting the same business practices with respect to male athletes." The answer is that nothing is stopping them except their own greed.
For example law professor Marc Edelman of City University of New York wrote, "If NCAA members are already willing to pay more to male coaches if they generate more revenues, then what is really stopping them from adopting the same business practices with respect to male athletes." The answer is that nothing is stopping them except their own greed.
How do they judge the market for baseball players on single A teams? How do they judge the market for semi-pro football players? How do they judge the market for the lowest level of professional soccer players?
And how many years do those guys languish in the minors? How many guys never make it out of A or AA and have nothing to show for it when its done. You argument is ludicrous and you're just trolling and you know it. You would have to draft high schoolers and then turn it in to a bidding war based on your idea of market value. Ludicrous.
You have no idea what professors do or how much they work. You are completely clueless.
Which is similar to what I posted above. This is the only way it would work. But the NCAA would have to charge licensing and pay the players from the NCAA. Otherwise a school would pay a player a million dollars to be on a poster. But yes I believe athletes should be allowed to get paid for advertising.
I said this same thing above, it was ignored of course. Tom picks and chooses which of the many arguments he wants to argue against, as if the proponents of paying players will get to pick and choose which obstacles they will have to overcome. They won't be able to outside of Tom's fantasy land.
Good point about evaluating high school kids. If it were really "free market", there would still be many kids who wouldn't get paid because they would do it for scholarship only. The superstars would bank--role players wouldn't because the market will make them expendable. That equals a lot loss underprivledged kids with an education.
I still go back to this point: The football team is not the business. The school is the corporation. So this is not a "semi-pro" team, or a double A team, etc. The football team is one part of the University, which is the corporation/business. So the football team can't just start paying players or judge them on their ability and pay them accordingly as a market would dictate. There's so much more to it than that.
If you read back, I said that was an outsiders perception. My point is it's dangerous anytime somebody from the outside points at somebody else and says they earn too much money without walking in their shoes. My point was towards Tom saying coaches make too much without understanding what is entailed. I picked on college professors just because were talking about college athletics – I could of picked from 100 other things that I don't understand as well. No offense intended.
Obviously, there are competitive advantage concerns. If athletes can be on local TV spots, or sell their autographs on the free market it would hurt the "small market" teams ability to draw and retain top talent. It seems pretty clear that the autographs of incoming blue chippers would suddenly be worth a lot of money, if you catch my drift.
I suppose the question is whether in a capitalist society, is it morally sound for the NCAA to shut the door on athletes monetizing their likeness or services when there is buyer willing to pay for it? Most here probably stand on the side of amateurism and competitive balance. Yet, many of these athletes inherently possess something of significant value that they are not allowed to sell. For the vast majority of athletes, the value of their likeness or endorsement will only decrease after they graduate. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, its safe to say that many athletes have lost a lot of money due to the cartel behavior of the NCAA. And I'd be willing to bet that many supporters of amateurism have to throw their economic ideologies out the window to feel comfortable with the NCAA and amateurism in general.
The best and fairest solution is to give players a set percentage of any profit realized by their athletic team.
I hear you but then that gives the teams who make the most a HUGE advantage over those who do not make as much. Given the choice of making a percentage of $20 million versus a team making $2 million, I don't care who the coach is, I'm playing for the team making the most money if they want me.
The figures above are just examples, I know universities are making a lot more money than this.
but they are following the capital market formula. They are currently paying players a scholarship and room and board. Since they are willing to accept that and play, that is their market value. Until they refuse, then it is not their market value.
Seriously, it's as simple as that. This is not slavery.
Seriously, it's as simple as that. This is not slavery.
Unlike other sports like baseball and hockey, there is no high school draft or minor league system for football players coming out of high school, so the only option is to play college ball. Bubba Starling's market value as a baseball player was a $7.5 million signing bonus and a $2.5 million/year salary, his market value as a football player was a scholarship or about $30,000 per year.
You might want a refresher in free market systems. I don't think capitalism is when the overseeing authorities (NCAA/Gov't) control the means of production. That's a communist system or at best a Reconstruction/Jim Crow system. According to your theory blacks in the reconstruction south who had the gov't impose rules such as sunset laws to enforce a labor cartel and then laws that took away their right to vote and have a seat at the table were just fine. They were just being paid what the market would bear
In the same way the NCAA has created a cartel that imposes rules on what players can make...and they too have disenfranchised them by refusing them a seat at the table. To say this is a free market value is ludicrous.
Similar threads
