The Grand Issue with the NCAA


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby kamikaze7 » Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:10 am

Marlow wrote:
kamikaze7 wrote:First off you are mistaken if you think the NBC contract is exists because of how the players perform.

I would like to contradict your contradiction. The Notre Dame contract exists because of the EXPECTATION of a successful ND campaign. Hope springs eternal in the Irish breast. Every year they rate highly in the recruiting wars, and the ND faithful are thinking THIS is the year of our resurrection. If ND football truly fell into the wasteheap of history, the contract would be severely devalued. But, as you DO point out, that is unlikely to happen, given the nature of their Booster Nation.


I think you missed my point: There is no way that Notre Dame deserves that lucrative NBC contract based on player performance. If the performance of the players was the key factor in determining who gets lucrative contracts that Notre Dame would never be in the top 10 contracts. They did not get that huge contract because hope springs eternal as you claim.

I am not challenging the fact that a few bad seasons could put the contract in jeopardy. I am challenging the idea that player performance is what got them the contract. Notre dame did not have to be very good to get the contract and they do not have to be really good to keep the contract.
kamikaze7
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:05 pm

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby kamikaze7 » Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:14 am

If it were up to me then schools would use any extra football cash to alleviate the pain of tuition costs which are busy draining bank accounts and forcing students to drop out of good schools. But we live in a capitalist society so..........

The most ludicrous salaries are paid not to coaches but to bowl executives:

According to USA today :

Thirteen bowl executives make more than $240,000 annually, including three bowl officials who make more than $500,000 a year, according to salary figures obtained by the Sports Business Journal.

Outback Bowl president/CEO Jim McVay heads the list, earning $808,032 a year, followed by Allstate Sugar Bowl CEO Paul Hoolahan ($645,386) and Chick-fil-A Bowl president/CEO Gary Stokan ($504,444).


And this is for perhaps a month of work ?
kamikaze7
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:05 pm

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby kamikaze7 » Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:23 am

18.99s wrote:
kamikaze7 wrote:I read the time magazine article 2 weeks ago. It suggested paying football and basketball players amounts as high as $30,000 a year. I had to laugh because there are so many things wrong with that thought process.

For starters, if you think the graduation rate among athletes is bad now, wait until they are being paid $30,000 a year. With such payments, a significant number of them will completely loose focus of the real reason they are in college.


If they're going to be paid a salary like that, the scholarships would have to be handled differently. Give each player 5 years tuition and room & board, but let them choose how and when to use it (subject to a time limit like 10 years). So they can start studying entirely after their 4 years of playing are done, or study part-time or full-time while playing in order to graduate sooner. That probably would result in higher graduation rates than the current system, at least among those who don't go to the NFL or NBA.


Student athletes are guaranteed a scholarship for only one year. Whether it gets renewed for 4 years depends on performance. That is true for academic scholarships as well. I seriously doubt that schools can afford 5 year scholarships especially for sports that do not generate income.
kamikaze7
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:05 pm

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby Marlow » Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:56 am

kamikaze7 wrote:Student athletes are guaranteed a scholarship for only one year. Whether it gets renewed for 4 years depends on performance. That is true for academic scholarships as well.

??!! There are many academic scholarships that cover all "4 years". We often have students graduate with $200,000 (or more!) academic scholarships in hand.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21076
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby gm » Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:56 am

kamikaze7 wrote:The most ludicrous salaries are paid not to coaches but to bowl executives:

According to USA today :

Thirteen bowl executives make more than $240,000 annually, including three bowl officials who make more than $500,000 a year, according to salary figures obtained by the Sports Business Journal.

Outback Bowl president/CEO Jim McVay heads the list, earning $808,032 a year, followed by Allstate Sugar Bowl CEO Paul Hoolahan ($645,386) and Chick-fil-A Bowl president/CEO Gary Stokan ($504,444).


And this is for perhaps a month of work ?


I gather you have never been in charge of putting on a major event...
gm
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby 18.99s » Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:14 pm

kamikaze7 wrote:
18.99s wrote:If they're going to be paid a salary like that, the scholarships would have to be handled differently. Give each player 5 years tuition and room & board, but let them choose how and when to use it (subject to a time limit like 10 years). So they can start studying entirely after their 4 years of playing are done, or study part-time or full-time while playing in order to graduate sooner. That probably would result in higher graduation rates than the current system, at least among those who don't go to the NFL or NBA.


Student athletes are guaranteed a scholarship for only one year. Whether it gets renewed for 4 years depends on performance. That is true for academic scholarships as well.


Whatever. So give 1 year of scholarship for each season on the team, with an extra year for those who've played 4 seasons. That doesn't change my point, which is to award the scholarships as a separate benefit which can be used after their playing days are done, instead of an obligation that must be enforced while they're playing.

I seriously doubt that schools can afford 5 year scholarships especially for sports that do not generate income.

I'm talking about doing this only for the money sports -- football and men's basketball. And only for a subset of colleges, definitely less than 50 and maybe only 30. There would be a separate division just for the elite 30 or 40 teams in those sports, with membership criteria to include certain levels of profitability (and absolutely no subsidies from student fees or other university funds), and other sports at the same schools would remain in the regular NCAA Division 1 with the same old rules against paying the players.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby kamikaze7 » Fri Sep 20, 2013 9:18 am

Marlow wrote:
kamikaze7 wrote:Student athletes are guaranteed a scholarship for only one year. Whether it gets renewed for 4 years depends on performance. That is true for academic scholarships as well.

??!! There are many academic scholarships that cover all "4 years". We often have students graduate with $200,000 (or more!) academic scholarships in hand.


Of course there are exceptions. But I think most academic scholarships are renewed only if a student keeps the required grades.
I had an academic scholarship that was renewed on a semester by semester basis contingent on getting the required grades. I think its insane to give anyone guaranteed scholarships when they are failing and there may be other deserving students.
I am curious to find out from you exactly which schools offer academic scholarships and the student is not required to maintain their scholarship.
Last edited by kamikaze7 on Fri Sep 20, 2013 9:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
kamikaze7
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:05 pm

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby kamikaze7 » Fri Sep 20, 2013 9:20 am

gm wrote:
kamikaze7 wrote:The most ludicrous salaries are paid not to coaches but to bowl executives:

According to USA today :

Thirteen bowl executives make more than $240,000 annually, including three bowl officials who make more than $500,000 a year, according to salary figures obtained by the Sports Business Journal.

Outback Bowl president/CEO Jim McVay heads the list, earning $808,032 a year, followed by Allstate Sugar Bowl CEO Paul Hoolahan ($645,386) and Chick-fil-A Bowl president/CEO Gary Stokan ($504,444).


And this is for perhaps a month of work ?


I gather you have never been in charge of putting on a major event...


I just dont see how organizing one game and the events around it is worth a salary of $800,000. People who organize entire seasons make way less than that. To me it seems like it happens because these people can set their own salaries.

If I had sway in a company that is sponsoring a bowl event, most of them money generated would be donated towards the general scholarship fund for the schools involved.
Last edited by kamikaze7 on Fri Sep 20, 2013 10:15 am, edited 3 times in total.
kamikaze7
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:05 pm

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby kamikaze7 » Fri Sep 20, 2013 9:34 am

18.99s wrote:
Whatever. So give 1 year of scholarship for each season on the team, with an extra year for those who've played 4 seasons. That doesn't change my point, which is to award the scholarships as a separate benefit which can be used after their playing days are done, instead of an obligation that must be enforced while they're playing.

Less than 10% of football programs actually make money. Kindly explain where the money for the 5th year of scholarships will come from. As it is right now, most football programs are taking subsidies. According to the link below, student tuition actually subsidises football programs. Will students be asked to fork over even more tuition for the athletes 5th year ?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co ... s/2142443/

Also, giving deferred benefits is not as easy as you make it seem. There is only so much space available on residential halls. A school would have to house the current football team plus those who have acrued benefits, whose total number will be in the hundreds.
And giving real money so that students can rent off campus housing is not financially viable. Its easy to give a benefit like free room and board but a real financial benefit is not viable for most schools, amid budget cuts.
Finally, by definition, an NCAA athlete must be one who is attending classes NOW. Not later as you are suggesting but NOW. An NCAA athlete must be one who is enrolled at the school and is actively taking classes. They cannot defer the classes to a later time. If they do then they are by definition professional athletes and thus not eligible for NCAA. What this means is that deferring tuition assistance as you are suggesting is not an option. The free tuition benefit must be used while they are playing.



I'm talking about doing this only for the money sports -- football and men's basketball. And only for a subset of colleges, definitely less than 50 and maybe only 30. There would be a separate division just for the elite 30 or 40 teams in those sports, with membership criteria to include certain levels of profitability (and absolutely no subsidies from student fees or other university funds), and other sports at the same schools would remain in the regular NCAA Division 1 with the same old rules against paying the players.


If you do this for only 30 schools then you havent really solve the issue have you ?

Secondly if you restrict such benefits to football and mens basketball then you open yourself to lawsuits based on gender discrimination. Remember that title IX is very open to interpratation. A judge could easily side with the lawsuit which is why schools are wary of giving certain benefits only to football or basketball.
kamikaze7
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:05 pm

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby lonewolf » Fri Sep 20, 2013 9:59 am

The problem with paying amatuer athletes, deserved or not, is so complex you can just forget it. .. It has about the same degree of difficulty as the Syrian crisis.. or global warming.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8811
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby 18.99s » Fri Sep 20, 2013 10:27 am

kamikaze7 wrote:Less than 10% of football programs actually make money.

So restrict the elite league to the 10% that make money (or less).

Kindly explain where the money for the 5th year of scholarships will come from.

The same place it's coming from now. They ALREADY have several players on scholarship for 5 years.

A school would have to house the current football team plus those who have acrued benefits, whose total number will be in the hundreds.

There would be no additional burden on student housing. Players who aren't studying would have to live off campus and pay rent from their salary, just like what minor league athletes in various sports already do.

And giving real money so that students can rent off campus housing is not financially viable. Its easy to give a benefit like free room and board but a real financial benefit is not viable for most schools, amid budget cuts.

If they're not making enough money to pay players at least $25,000/year, they can't afford to be in the elite division I'm talking about. There are already about 40 colleges that pay their head football coach over $2 million/year. If each got a pay cut of $1.5 million, that's enough money to pay 50 players $30,000 each.

Finally, by definition, an NCAA athlete must be one who is attending classes NOW. Not later as you are suggesting but NOW. An NCAA athlete must be one who is enrolled at the school and is actively taking classes. They cannot defer the classes to a later time. If they do then they are by definition professional athletes and thus not eligible for NCAA. What this means is that deferring tuition assistance as you are suggesting is not an option. The free tuition benefit must be used while they are playing.

You're talking about the existing rules. Obviously the rules would have to change if they did what I was proposing.

If you do this for only 30 schools then you havent really solve the issue have you ?

It solves most of it. The players who want money and are worth it can find a spot in the elite division, while the rest either aren't good enough or don't care enough about making money while playing.

Secondly if you restrict such benefits to football and mens basketball then you open yourself to lawsuits based on gender discrimination. Remember that title IX is very open to interpratation. A judge could easily side with the lawsuit which is why schools are wary of giving certain benefits only to football or basketball.

So set up the team as a separate entity that isn't part of the school, but is only contracted with the school for using the school's stadiums/arenas and scholarships. There already have been minor league pro teams in basketball and soccer that use college campuses as their home field; that didn't make the college have to pay their female NCAA players.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby Dutra5 » Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:06 pm

lonewolf wrote:The problem with paying amatuer athletes, deserved or not, is so complex you can just forget it. .. It has about the same degree of difficulty as the Syrian crisis.. or global warming.


My guess is it would spend so much time in court it would never get off the ground.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby kamikaze7 » Sat Sep 21, 2013 6:02 pm

@18.99
Long story short, your solution is to end college football as we know it and turn it into a professional league that is open only to the 20 or so schools that make money.
According to you, Players will no longer be student athletes. They will no longer be expected to attend classes while they play.
Finally, your system calls for a separate entity that is not related to the school but exists only to play football.
In essence you want to create a minor leg for the NFL with the difference being that players can only play for 4 years.
If this is what your idea is then there is nothing original about it. Someone on this thread has already mentioned that there should be minor leagues in football.
None of your ideas have anything to do with college football. You should have just said it in one sentence. "Replace college football with a minor league".
However the idea that schools, whose focus is supposed to be academics will create a minor league with players who don't attend school but are real professionals and play for teams that exist only to play football is a non-starter. Good luck with that one.
kamikaze7
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:05 pm

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby j-a-m » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:46 am

Great article by Sally Jenkins, linked on the front page.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby Daisy » Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:25 am

kamikaze7 wrote:However the idea that schools, whose focus is supposed to be academics

Which why I'm in favour of blowing up the whole NCAA money machine. They are a distraction from the mission of these institutions. If they want to support student athletes, fine. If they want to make money, do it as an independent entity.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby Marlow » Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:57 am

Daisy wrote:If they want to support student athletes, fine. If they want to make money, do it as an independent entity.

How would the baby NOT be thrown out with the bath? They are inextricably intertwined.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21076
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby Daisy » Mon Sep 23, 2013 9:08 am

Marlow wrote:
Daisy wrote:If they want to support student athletes, fine. If they want to make money, do it as an independent entity.

How would the baby NOT be thrown out with the bath? They are inextricably intertwined.

Which baby are you talking about? $$$$$ for sports administrators, donation/bribes to endowment funds, athlete development or athlete exploitation. I guess it depends on your perspective which baby you want to save.

The ridiculousness of the NCAA is seen when they are out there rapping the knuckles of the CalTech sports program. And by the way, they get along just fine without a football program.
Last edited by Daisy on Mon Sep 23, 2013 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby DrJay » Mon Sep 23, 2013 10:54 am

gm wrote:I gather you have never been in charge of putting on a major event...

I met Dave Johnson, Penn Relays Director, at the OT last year. Asked him how many weeks of work the Relays are for him each year. He said, "About 56, with 14 of them in April."
DrJay
 
Posts: 5481
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Woodland Park, CO

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby gh » Tue Sep 24, 2013 5:06 pm

and he's thrilled that his workload has gone down so much since he left T&FN :mrgreen:
gh
 
Posts: 46295
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby Gleason » Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:12 pm

lonewolf wrote:The problem with paying amatuer athletes, deserved or not, is so complex you can just forget it. .. It has about the same degree of difficulty as the Syrian crisis.. or global warming.

I agree, but here is one possible solution. "Student athletes" have no medical insurance after they complete their eligibility, so why not use some profit from NCAA video games for football and basketball to provide medical insurance in those sports?

These video games use the "likeness" of famous athletes but not their names. For example when Robert Griffin III played quarterback for Baylor, the video games had an African American quarterback at Baylor who was an excellent runner. Any university mentioned in the video game would receive medical insurance for players who played in that year.

I was a student when public universities were free in the 1960s, so now athletic scholarships are a form of payment. Remember when Tianna Madison waited until January 9, 2006 to accept $60,000 pay for her World Championship win in the Long Jump? She had been a freshman at Tennesee if my memory is accurate, so she gave up three years of an athletic scholarship to turn pro.
Gleason
 
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:20 pm
Location: Campbell CA

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby Don Babbitt » Mon Oct 21, 2013 4:40 am

This is all very interesting discussion, but I think the big issue with "pay for play: is Title IX. The numbers will have to equal out, and all the revenue sports are on the men's side of the equation. How will this get balanced?
Don Babbitt
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:26 am

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby Gleason » Mon Oct 21, 2013 3:06 pm

Don Babbitt wrote:This is all very interesting discussion, but I think the big issue with "pay for play: is Title IX. The numbers will have to equal out, and all the revenue sports are on the men's side of the equation. How will this get balanced?

Fair point. The money would be sport specific, so any sport that generates profit from a video game would have money for medical insurance. For example, if "NCAA Women's Basketball" were a video game that generated profit, some of that profit could go to medical insurance for women who had completed their eligibility and had injuries related to playing NCAA basketball.
Title IX doesn't require that all scholarship athletes have full equality - such as appearing on national TV.
Gleason
 
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:20 pm
Location: Campbell CA

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby Gebrucilassie » Thu Oct 31, 2013 8:57 am

I have long been against paying College football players. I know it is old and cliched, but not having to pay for school while "interviewing" for a future job should be more than enough. Ask the average student saddled with years of student debt if they believe football players are being exploited. Without the opportunity of playing college football most would NEVER see a playing field on Sundays.
Gebrucilassie
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:57 pm

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby TN1965 » Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:13 am

TN1965
 
Posts: 1182
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:38 pm

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby KevinM » Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:24 pm

TN1965 wrote:Here is some "food for thought"... :)

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--how ... 51785.html


That's a fantastic story - thanks for posting.
KevinM
 
Posts: 2641
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby KevinM » Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:33 pm

Gebrucilassie wrote:I have long been against paying College football players. I know it is old and cliched, but not having to pay for school while "interviewing" for a future job should be more than enough. Ask the average student saddled with years of student debt if they believe football players are being exploited. Without the opportunity of playing college football most would NEVER see a playing field on Sundays.


This is the drumbeat of those who want the status quo to remain simply because it is comfortable and familiar. Would you also say that kids on full academic scholarships should not be allowed to have paid internships or even part-time jobs? And set aside the NFL thing - that's really beside the point, given how many guys it actually impacts. The reality is that college sports have exploded financially thanks to TV deals. I am completely open to the argument that college is no place for a for-profit sports industry, but if every sector related to athletics has seen an increase in compensation with the exception of the athletes, something is wrong with the picture.
KevinM
 
Posts: 2641
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby Gleason » Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:36 pm

This is the drumbeat of those who want the status quo to remain simply because it is comfortable and familiar. Would you also say that kids on full academic scholarships should not be allowed to have paid internships or even part-time jobs? And set aside the NFL thing - that's really beside the point, given how many guys it actually impacts. The reality is that college sports have exploded financially thanks to TV deals. I am completely open to the argument that college is no place for a for-profit sports industry, but if every sector related to athletics has seen an increase in compensation with the exception of the athletes, something is wrong with the picture.[/quote]
Do you favor the beginning step of using profit from video games to provide medical insurance for former athletes?
Gleason
 
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:20 pm
Location: Campbell CA

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bushop, georgebi, MSNbot Media and 15 guests