Time To Pay Student-Athletes / N.Y. Post

http://nypost.com/2014/06/05/its-time-to-pay-student-athletes/
Click to expand...

Paying players is not an answer or solution to the corruption and hypocrisy that is college thletics but merely a PR Band-Aid to allow the NCAA and universities to keep printing money.The "D4" schools will gladly pay players a pittance to keep the money train rolling; meanwhile in the long run it is going to be the death knell for non-revenue sports and non-"D4" institutions.
 
http://nypost.com/2014/06/05/its-time-to-pay-student-athletes/
Click to expand...


1% of D1 college basketball players make the NBA. The other 99% are given the opportunity to get a $200,000 or so (in most cases) education for free. Some take advantage of that, others don’t. For example, Bryce Cotton and Shabazz Napier carried their teams and still managed to graduate this year. I think the entire senior roster at Villanova graduated this year. Harrison, Pointer, Greene, Branch will likely get their degrees next year. Others, like Jakarr Sampson, chose to drop out-his call, it’s his life. But he wasn’t taken advantage of by SJU or the NCAA system.
 
http://nypost.com/2014/06/05/its-time-to-pay-student-athletes/
Click to expand...


1% of D1 college basketball players make the NBA. The other 99% are given the opportunity to get a $200,000 or so (in most cases) education for free. Some take advantage of that, others don’t. For example, Bryce Cotton and Shabazz Napier carried their teams and still managed to graduate this year. I think the entire senior roster at Villanova graduated this year. Harrison, Pointer, Greene, Branch will likely get their degrees next year. Others, like Jakarr Sampson, chose to drop out-his call, it’s his life. But he wasn’t taken advantage of by SJU or the NCAA system.[/qu

Very true in some cases, overly simplistic and extremely naive in others. Would be more true if the only athletes recruited were those capable of doing college work and if so, they were given a fair opportunity to get that degree. However, it is well documented that many schools recruit based solely on athletic ability and the priority in those schools is the sport, not academics. I have posted before, I had the great privilege of hearing Al McGuire speak at a coaches conference and he introduced the idea of educating athletes starting from a point equal with their academic abilities utilizing students as tutors. In conjunction with that, extending scholarship years to allow those who needed time to catch up to a college level academically the opportunity to get a legitimate degree. He might as well have been talking to a wall for all the interest it generated.
Click to expand...
 
http://nypost.com/2014/06/05/its-time-to-pay-student-athletes/
Click to expand...


1% of D1 college basketball players make the NBA. The other 99% are given the opportunity to get a $200,000 or so (in most cases) education for free. Some take advantage of that, others don’t. For example, Bryce Cotton and Shabazz Napier carried their teams and still managed to graduate this year. I think the entire senior roster at Villanova graduated this year. Harrison, Pointer, Greene, Branch will likely get their degrees next year. Others, like Jakarr Sampson, chose to drop out-his call, it’s his life. But he wasn’t taken advantage of by SJU or the NCAA system.


Very true in some cases, overly simplistic and extremely naive in others. Would be more true if the only athletes recruited were those capable of doing college work and if so, they were given a fair opportunity to get that degree. However, it is well documented that many schools recruit based solely on athletic ability and the priority in those schools is the sport, not academics. I have posted before, I had the great privilege of hearing Al McGuire speak at a coaches conference and he introduced the idea of educating athletes starting from a point equal with their academic abilities utilizing students as tutors. In conjunction with that, extending scholarship years to allow those who needed time to catch up to a college level academically the opportunity to get a legitimate degree. He might as well have been talking to a wall for all the interest it generated.
Click to expand...





So not only did McGuire support the concept of athletic scholarships (which I am all for), he wanted to give them extra years to get a degree??? Give me a break.........

In a world where most college students are graduating with tens of thousands of dollars in debt, these student athletes are walking away/graduating for free!!! That should be payment enough....
Click to expand...
 
Imo its ridiculous and unfair on so many levels. Paying players would make this worse. Sure schools with unlimited state dollars can afford to pay all the kids. But it will stratify across the board immensely and many schools will have to cut programs and sports because every school has different levels of income they generate and costs.

SJU barely makes money on this stuff. Our overhead is a lot more than many others because we rent the home of the Knicks and Rangers. So if we aren't making money, how can we compete with a school like UK in the south that has their own huge arena on dirt cheap real estate and has influx of state money to fund whatever they like. This is the case for tons of the BCS schools.

And if we are paying players, what happens if they don't perform well? Can we boot them for lack of performance? I think it is a slippery slope that will open up a huge divide between the haves and have-nots. In addition, the kids are being compensated already.

I would agree with a fixed small stipend for expenses similar to the stipend SJU had for living expenses. To start adding salaries for amateurs and to keep it fair across the board and affordable to ALL D1 schools is imo not possible.
 
The "pay the players" argument is a divergence from what REALLY should be happening, which is that student-athletes should be allowed to have complete financial freedom and freedom of representation.

Players should be allowed to take endorsement deals from companies, make money from autograph signings, and be allowed to profit off of selling their own gear. They should also be allowed to sign with an agent while in school. It's complete nonsense that players arent allowed either of these freedoms while the schools and coaches can pimp themselves out to everyone under the sun.

Allowing players the freedom to sign and accept endorsements will also ensure that market value is being provided to the athletes that really bring in the money for the schools. The fact is, womens volleyball players should not be making the same money as mens basketball, football and in some cases womens basketball players. By allowing students to test the free market, they can get their value.

If the Sly Foxx wanted to pay D'Angelo Harrison $500 to appear in a billboard near the queens campus, he should be allowed to take that money and that opportunity. Same goes for Johnny Manziel when hes offered 50k for an autograph signing, or Ohio State football players that are offered money for their championship rings/apparel. They should all be allowed to independently profit off of their talents and accomplishments.
 
The "pay the players" argument is a divergence from what REALLY should be happening, which is that student-athletes should be allowed to have complete financial freedom and freedom of representation.

Players should be allowed to take endorsement deals from companies, make money from autograph signings, and be allowed to profit off of selling their own gear. They should also be allowed to sign with an agent while in school. It's complete nonsense that players arent allowed either of these freedoms while the schools and coaches can pimp themselves out to everyone under the sun.

Allowing players the freedom to sign and accept endorsements will also ensure that market value is being provided to the athletes that really bring in the money for the schools. The fact is, womens volleyball players should not be making the same money as mens basketball, football and in some cases womens basketball players. By allowing students to test the free market, they can get their value.

If the Sly Foxx wanted to pay D'Angelo Harrison $500 to appear in a billboard near the queens campus, he should be allowed to take that money and that opportunity. Same goes for Johnny Manziel when hes offered 50k for an autograph signing, or Ohio State football players that are offered money for their championship rings/apparel. They should all be allowed to independently profit off of their talents and accomplishments.
Click to expand...
I agree players deserve more compensation than they are getting now but if we allow what you are proposing it will widen the gap between the haves and have nots. it will harm competitive balance as all the best players will go to the schools with the most fan support and richest boosters. I know you can say that happens now but it would get worse especially in basketball where some smaller schools do pick off some top recruits,. While the Sly Foxx may be willing to pay Dlo $500 other boosters say at UNLV might be willing to pay him $50,000.
 
I'm in the minority opinion on this board apparently. Athletes in the glamor, money making sports (basketball and football) are often student-athletes only in the sense that they wear a uniform that has a school name on it - a uniform that helps generate tens of millions of dollars for competitive programs, and way beyond that brands a school, attracting tens of thousands of applications each year. Could you imagine how attractive Ohio State would be to students without athletic branding? Georgetown alums from the 80s and before jokingly thank Patrick Ewing for increasing the value of their degree by his contribution to making the school very competitive to ultra selective admission policies. Of course Patrick Ewing himself made a bundle of money in the NBA, and did some of his successor star centers. Names that will long be associated with the program are merely recognizable - Michael Jackson, for one. The hypocrisy of the argument is that athletes who often do not have the academic credentials to get into almost any decent school are given the "opportunity" to practice 12 months a year, in the case of basketball, play from November through March, and expect to compete in the classroom - a total joke. The fill arenas, generate huge TV contracts, and get room and board along with "free tuition" - a tuition provided at little cost to the university. Consider that in college basketball, the rule and not the exception is that the players often already have more than one kid - consider another burden to carry along with an academic load, if they are even paying attention. So, many enter ill-equipped for college, leave with no degree, or a degree but little education, and the best career option of playing basketball abroad.

The system stinks. Players are the real gems in this system. Most of us could have coached Kentucky to an NCAA berth at minimum, but a coaching staff of Wooden, Knight, and any other all-time top echelon coach couldn't get a bunch of HS bench players past the UCONN women. The players are the super, essential talents, and they end up with the smallest piece of the pie. Either end the sham of college sports, or compensate these guys with some type of equitable plan, even if all D1 players get equal treatment from a pool of dollars.
 
Here is my opinion on what the NCAA, or its successor entity should consider:

1. Pay the student athlete a weekly stipend during that sport season equivalent to what someone would make at minimum wage job working 20 hours. The stipend would provide "walking around money" (WAM). Before someone replies that the athlete already receive a free education understand that many of the D1 football and basketball players are from families that would already qualify for substantial financial aid to attend the school without being indebted to work non stop in an activity where they don't get paid but in some case makes the school millions of dollars. I'm not talking about paying the football and basketball players substantial sums, but merely what they could make if they were receiving financial aid and also working. Note many non athletes do receive free tuition and receive a sum equal to the WAM I am proposing through full merit scholarship and a job during the school year to earn WAM which the athlete cannot obtain.

2. The number of scholarships a school can offer for a sport should be tied into a formula that incentivizes the school to graduate its student athletes through financial and scholarship increases/ reductions. Some schools take academics for their student athletes seriously; others don't. Schools like UNC should be penalized.

3. A school should be required to provide free tuition to an student athlete who has been on scholarship for 3 or more after their NCAA eligibility has ended. In most cases if student athlete completes his/her athletic career and lacks credits for their degree then they must pay for their courses despite the fact that the reason they lacked credits to graduate was the result of their athletic commitment to the school. If the student later matures and decides they squandered their opportunity they should be able to complete their degree requirements without paying tuition to the school they provided services to.
 
Here is my opinion on what the NCAA, or its successor entity should consider:

1. Pay the student athlete a weekly stipend during that sport season equivalent to what someone would make at minimum wage job working 20 hours. The stipend would provide "walking around money" (WAM). Before someone replies that the athlete already receive a free education understand that many of the D1 football and basketball players are from families that would already qualify for substantial financial aid to attend the school without being indebted to work non stop in an activity where they don't get paid but in some case makes the school millions of dollars. I'm not talking about paying the football and basketball players substantial sums, but merely what they could make if they were receiving financial aid and also working. Note many non athletes do receive free tuition and receive a sum equal to the WAM I am proposing through full merit scholarship and a job during the school year to earn WAM which the athlete cannot obtain.

2. The number of scholarships a school can offer for a sport should be tied into a formula that incentivizes the school to graduate its student athletes through financial and scholarship increases/ reductions. Some schools take academics for their student athletes seriously; others don't. Schools like UNC should be penalized.

3. A school should be required to provide free tuition to an student athlete who has been on scholarship for 3 or more after their NCAA eligibility has ended. In most cases if student athlete completes his/her athletic career and lacks credits for their degree then they must pay for their courses despite the fact that the reason they lacked credits to graduate was the result of their athletic commitment to the school. If the student later matures and decides they squandered their opportunity they should be able to complete their degree requirements without paying tuition to the school they provided services to.
Click to expand...

I could not agree more with #3. And it should be good for life.
 
http://nypost.com/2014/06/05/its-time-to-pay-student-athletes/
Click to expand...


1% of D1 college basketball players make the NBA. The other 99% are given the opportunity to get a $200,000 or so (in most cases) education for free. Some take advantage of that, others don’t. For example, Bryce Cotton and Shabazz Napier carried their teams and still managed to graduate this year. I think the entire senior roster at Villanova graduated this year. Harrison, Pointer, Greene, Branch will likely get their degrees next year. Others, like Jakarr Sampson, chose to drop out-his call, it’s his life. But he wasn’t taken advantage of by SJU or the NCAA system.


Very true in some cases, overly simplistic and extremely naive in others. Would be more true if the only athletes recruited were those capable of doing college work and if so, they were given a fair opportunity to get that degree. However, it is well documented that many schools recruit based solely on athletic ability and the priority in those schools is the sport, not academics. I have posted before, I had the great privilege of hearing Al McGuire speak at a coaches conference and he introduced the idea of educating athletes starting from a point equal with their academic abilities utilizing students as tutors. In conjunction with that, extending scholarship years to allow those who needed time to catch up to a college level academically the opportunity to get a legitimate degree. He might as well have been talking to a wall for all the interest it generated.
Click to expand...





So not only did McGuire support the concept of athletic scholarships (which I am all for), he wanted to give them extra years to get a degree??? Give me a break.........

In a world where most college students are graduating with tens of thousands of dollars in debt, these student athletes are walking away/graduating for free!!! That should be payment enough....
Click to expand...

You miss the point entirely. Your position is valid if:
A. Only athletes qualified to do college work academically can be recruited and
B. Schools are forced to make the time and resources available to student athletes to graduate in a normal time frame

I would respectfully submit that neither will EVER happen. One last note, McGuire's idea was much more aimed at the first point above which at the end of the day is the crux of the problem. Many D1 athletes who come into school with the proper academic foundation can graduate in a reasonably normal time. But I guess from your perspective it is better to just keep exploiting kids who don't have a ghost of a chance of doing college level work.
Click to expand...
 
You his the target Jerseyshore; there are two revenue sources for college sports programs; football and men's basketball and that's it. If they begin paying these athletes - approx. 90 to 100 men, then the NCAA and college administrators will have to do cartwheels to fund the other programs, and at the same time, maintain equilibrium in student athletes - male/female versus enrolled students. Adding to the degree of difficulty is the decreasing numbers of males entering colleges. It is now approaching the 55-45 percentile differential.
 
......If they begin paying these athletes - ... then the NCAA and college administrators will have to do cartwheels to fund the other programs, and at the same time, maintain equilibrium in student .....
Click to expand...

Joseph

Paying the players a stipend will not break a school.

Do the math.

There are 22 weeks from November to April.

If the players receive a stipend equal to what part time jobs pay other students (i.e. $10) and there are 26 men and women basketball players then that expense is a measly $114,000 about the cost of 2 students to attend that school.
 
I would agree Otis if your numbers are valid...100 athletes times about 1500 a month for 8 months is about 1.2 million which compared to what revenue these schools earn via sports is minimal.
What I've been hearing and reading is different. Revenue sharing. Pay equity with other club sports in Europe. etc. These approaches will inflate your estimates quite a bit. My fear is that this foot in the door will soon escalate into real money.

If we found a way to make all parties agree long term on a fair stipend, and make it a "cash in hand" payment, and prohibit anyone else - re: agents, "family friends", camp followers, etc. - take any piece of it, then I am with you.
 
You his the target Jerseyshore; there are two revenue sources for college sports programs; football and men's basketball and that's it. If they begin paying these athletes - approx. 90 to 100 men, then the NCAA and college administrators will have to do cartwheels to fund the other programs, and at the same time, maintain equilibrium in student athletes - male/female versus enrolled students. Adding to the degree of difficulty is the decreasing numbers of males entering colleges. It is now approaching the 55-45 percentile differential.
Click to expand...

You know Joseph, I respect the fact that there other D1 athletes playing other sports, but the reality is that they aren't generating revenue for the school, while basketball player in particular generate tens of million in a low cost sport. Football is also revenue generating, but the costs are considerable too. Nobody would pay a dime to see Calipari coach a team of low level D1 athletes, yet he gets paid millions while his players only hope to make money at the next level. The players are the show, and most end up with little to show for their collegiate efforts.
 
As a young and naive senior in Jamaica, Queens in '96 I tried to tackle this issue. I was motivated by the college stars of my time: Tim Duncan, Peyton Manning, and Grant Hill, three players beloved for staying all four years. They were from upper or middle class families that insured them against loss should they not reach their pro dreams. 18 years later, I still don't know why we don't do this. An independant underwriter can access the probability of a pro career and can quote a premium that a university can pay to give the athlete the peace of mind to get an education and play without the fear of compromising their future
 
As a young and naive senior in Jamaica, Queens in '96 I tried to tackle td1his issue. I was motivated by the college stars of my time: Tim Duncan, Peyton Manning, and Grant Hill, three players beloved for staying all four years. They were from upper or middle class families that insured them against loss should they not reach their pro dreams. 18 years later, I still don't know why we don't do this. An independant underwriter can access the probability of a pro career and can quote a premium that a university can pay to give the athlete the peace of mind to get an education and play without the fear of compromising their future
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that a policy of this nature would come with very high premiums, especially for upper echelon players. Don't pro sports teams often insure contracts with Lloyds of London against the potential for catastrophic loss due to injury. Although not a direct correlation, could you imagine a Billy Joel not being able to profit off of the enormous revenue he was creating for his school simply because he was a student writing songs as a member of the school band. In 2013, the notion of student-athlete is highly questionable in the glamour money making sports, since the primary reason for the very best athletes to play for a school is to audition for professional teams. The NCAA basketball tournament, March madness, alone has been accurately called the best sporting event on earth. It's just a sham that schools hide behind some veil of contrived ethics to profit mightily while the players are merely given an opportunity for an education. Imagine a top school saying to a coach, well, hmm, we will give you free tuition for your children and yourself, and in return you coach our team, perhaps with a modest stipend. It's a really cheap sport to run when all you have to do is pay the coach and reap the benefit of ticket sales, TV revenue, and all the trimmings that go along with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top