Will college athletes strike?

vherub

vherub

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
College basketball and college football programs bring in a huge amount of money for numerous entities, and almost all of that money is due to the labor of its unpaid workforce.
Athletes often receive a full academic scholarship, that gives them an education they could otherwise not afford or be accepted into.
But they also do not receive worker's compensation, nor are medical costs always paid for by the college and their wages as scholarship is usually far below a fair market value. The idea of the scholar athlete is more shield to prevent the ncaa from lawsuit than an ideal for amateur competition.

There is a rising discourse on how or if college athletes should be paid or receive payments when their likeness is sold through videogames, videos and so on. But it seems to me the power is very much on the athlete's side.
If a team decided upon reaching the Elite 8, you know what, we are done here, no more free ride, all your brackets are truly busted. Or a team decided to come out for the Sugar Bowl and just take a collective knee. What then?
Maybe Reggie Bush could start up a fund for those athletes that lost their scholarships by striking, I am sure he and quite a few players would be happy to see the ncaa brought to task.
 
I get so wound up when people talk about paying college atheletes. Many get scholarships, many in big programs get full ride scholarships... for playing football. Give me a break! There are so many students out there struggling to make ends meet who will actually go out and do something useful in the real world when they graduate and leave college with thousands of dollars of debt.
 
I know this is a common topic but I didn't know there was such unrest about this subject -- college athletes I know are incredibly thankful for their scholarships and other such benefits. A full ride to pursue both your passion and a top education is an unbelievable gift.

Whether they "deserve" more money based on pure labor I guess is irrelevant, since we're talking about whether they are legally entitled to a cut of all that money. In which case I definitely don't have the expertise to comment on the subject ;)
 
Better idea, cut funding for college sports. Let those lunkheads get there on academics alone.
 
Why don't they just find a job somewhere? Plenty of places to play basketball where they'll pay you. Same with football. I'd like to point out that grad students also make below market value relative to the amount of work they do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='vherub']There is a rising discourse on how or if college athletes should be paid or receive payments when their likeness is sold[/QUOTE]

Really? Slow news day more like it.
 
I used to share some of the opinions you guys have. Those spoiled athletes, and people are whining about how they need more? GTFO...until I became really good friends with a few of the athletes on different teams at my University. Football players had to be back in town in the summer for practice, games before the school year started. If they were bowl eligible, their winter break was spent practicing for the bowl game. Spring practices kept them busy that season. For road games, they fly out Thursday, get back late Saturday night, then have Sunday AM meetings. Oh yah...they also have to take classes, and workout to always get bigger, faster, stronger.

I used to bitch about how I felt overwhelmed during a rough quarter. Those guys had it magnitudes worse, not to mention, if any of them screw up, it can become regional or national news. My views have completely changed because I've seen firsthand how much work these guys put in while going to school.

Even the men and women on the bball team that I knew had it rough. Thursday/Saturday were game nights, and on every other week, they were out of town from Wednesday-Saturday night. Clearly professors make concessions to accomodate the crazy schedules, but the few friends of mine who went on to play professionally deserve everything they got. Those who merely got their education and went on to sell insurance, busted their ass to represent the school and make the school a ton of money, so they could have a job any of us could with a bachelors.

With the exception of a few degrees, true student athletes worked far harder to get through college than most of us did/do. They do deserve more, IMO, especially sports that are represented by their likeness in videogames and merchandise.
 
I've had the opposite view, I've seen a few of them in classes, most of the players didn't show up or didn't care. I'm all for them getting their money, my opinion is that they don't need to be students, just make them employees of the school where they can go to classes if they want to. If they choose to use their money on classes, so be it. If not, keep them out of the classroom and stop pretending they're student athletes.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I used to share some of the opinions you guys have. Those spoiled athletes, and people are whining about how they need more? GTFO...until I became really good friends with a few of the athletes on different teams at my University. Football players had to be back in town in the summer for practice, games before the school year started. If they were bowl eligible, their winter break was spent practicing for the bowl game. Spring practices kept them busy that season. For road games, they fly out Thursday, get back late Saturday night, then have Sunday AM meetings. Oh yah...they also have to take classes, and workout to always get bigger, faster, stronger.

I used to bitch about how I felt overwhelmed during a rough quarter. Those guys had it magnitudes worse, not to mention, if any of them screw up, it can become regional or national news. My views have completely changed because I've seen firsthand how much work these guys put in while going to school.

Even the men and women on the bball team that I knew had it rough. Thursday/Saturday were game nights, and on every other week, they were out of town from Wednesday-Saturday night. Clearly professors make concessions to accomodate the crazy schedules, but the few friends of mine who went on to play professionally deserve everything they got. Those who merely got their education and went on to sell insurance, busted their ass to represent the school and make the school a ton of money, so they could have a job any of us could with a bachelors.

With the exception of a few degrees, true student athletes worked far harder to get through college than most of us did/do. They do deserve more, IMO, especially sports that are represented by their likeness in videogames and merchandise.[/QUOTE]

LMAO

Sounds more like you were just a spoiled rich punk who had mommy and daddy pay for everything, and were surprised that some folks actually have to bust their ass for a good education. Yeah that's what hard work looks like son, if you want to make a living in the real world you better get used to it. My bad, your rich daddy will probably bail you out.
 
They would be stupid to strike. You can't put a price on the exposure they get from playing college athletics for getting drafted by professional teams. And basketball doesn't make that much money for most schools either.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']I get so wound up when people talk about paying college atheletes. Many get scholarships, many in big programs get full ride scholarships... for playing football. Give me a break! There are so many students out there struggling to make ends meet who will actually go out and do something useful in the real world when they graduate and leave college with thousands of dollars of debt.[/QUOTE]

This. Seriously, THIS. It gets me so pissed off that I have to pay $25,000 a year to go to school, yet the fucking idiot in my English 100 class gets a full ride because he can dribble a ball. As far as I'm concerned, they shouldn't even get what they have now, let alone more.
 
I witnessed the full gamut of people going through college, from the people there seeking to better themselves to people that were just there. Being a student athlete is an outside variable. My opinion of the student athlete is the same as any other student: nobody should get paid to go to college.

I think the money to be made in college sports in general is absurd. Honestly, I believe a college football coach making the combined annual salary of 10 or 20 fully tenured professors is borderline, if not outright, obscene.
 
Another newsflash, in a lot of states, the highest paid state employees are- you guessed it- college football coaches.
 
I don't believe they should get paid; however, I think a lot of people posting in this thread are being a bit ignorant as well as blinded by their nerd rage.

General Comment: OMG THEY THROW A BALL AROUND THEY SHOULDN'T EVEN GET A SCHOLARSHIP DUR DUR DUR

That ball getting thrown around happens to be a source of revenue for the school in a lot of cases. Think about it: ticket sales, merchandise, television revenue sharing. That [football or basketball] is what generally pays for the other sports to get played. So if you do something a little less popular like say, crew, enjoy your boats.

When that student athlete happens to win some games, alumni that make more money in one year than you could ever hope to make in the next twenty decide to donate large amounts of money back to the school.

Also, whether you like it or not, cutting edge research in oyster sperm or rust development will never bring as much attention and name recognition to a university as a National Championship in football or basketball will. That national recognition will drive many more students to seek enrollment at a school. Do you really think the number of people outside of Idaho who really gave a shit about Boise State University stayed the same after they upset Oklahoma in that epic bowl game?

If you don't like sports, congratulations. But that's not a reason to just act as if they are useless. Big time college sports are a great thing for universities, and most of those student athletes will likely do a shit load more for a university than any of you who are bitching and moaning about them ever will.
 
[quote name='blindinglights']That ball getting thrown around happens to be a source of revenue for the school in a lot of very few cases.[/QUOTE]

Larger schools do indeed turn a profit on their sports programs. The schools you see people wearing shirts for all across the country - Duke, Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, etc. Maybe as many as a few dozen.

The bulk take a loss, and use creative accounting to pretend they break even on athletics. They'll categorize every "Whatever State University" shot glass, sweatshirt, auto decal, pencil sharpener, stuffed mascot, etc. as revenue on the athletic side. Which is an impossible argument, as it implies that schools would sell no trinkets or merchandise in the absence of an athletic program. But it helps us pretend that college athletics aren't a massive resource drain.

Schools do that in the hope of attracting students, growing the school, and eventually becoming one of the profitable ones. It's a fool's errand, and my former employer has eviscerated the academic portion of the school (my former dept went from 8 criminal justice professors three years ago to 3 now, one of whom have been in the retirement pipeline for 4 years) and, in these economic times, has shamelessly increased funding to athletics to the tune of nearly $10M.

Arguments that it benefits the school financially are true for only the vast minority of NCAA members; it is a resource sink otherwise. Arguments that it helps athletes get education opportunities they would otherwise not get is indeed accurate, as if you take away the athletics, the bulk of student athletes wouldn't get pass the basic assessment tests that determine if someone is intellectually fit for higher education in the first place.
 
[quote name='ced']nobody should get paid to go to college.[/QUOTE]

Tuition Reimbursement? I paid most of my way through my first degree with tuition reimbursement from UPS...
 
[quote name='camoor']LMAO

Sounds more like you were just a spoiled rich punk who had mommy and daddy pay for everything, and were surprised that some folks actually have to bust their ass for a good education. Yeah that's what hard work looks like son, if you want to make a living in the real world you better get used to it. My bad, your rich daddy will probably bail you out.[/QUOTE]

Haahaa, you mad, chubby.

I paid for my education, and worked throughout it. Didn't know I needed to have tax records to have an opinion on student athletes.

Now I'm employed by a motion capture company that works with major motion picture companies, and game devs (other industries too, but those are of the most interest to me personally). Apparently I worked hard enough to land a decent job. We're hiring for warehouse staff if you can lift 20 pounds and be on your feet for up to 4 hours a day. Do you need an address to send over your resume?
 
[quote name='blindinglights']I don't believe they should get paid; however, I think a lot of people posting in this thread are being a bit ignorant as well as blinded by their nerd rage.

General Comment: OMG THEY THROW A BALL AROUND THEY SHOULDN'T EVEN GET A SCHOLARSHIP DUR DUR DUR

That ball getting thrown around happens to be a source of revenue for the school in a lot of cases. Think about it: ticket sales, merchandise, television revenue sharing. That [football or basketball] is what generally pays for the other sports to get played. So if you do something a little less popular like say, crew, enjoy your boats.

When that student athlete happens to win some games, alumni that make more money in one year than you could ever hope to make in the next twenty decide to donate large amounts of money back to the school.

Also, whether you like it or not, cutting edge research in oyster sperm or rust development will never bring as much attention and name recognition to a university as a National Championship in football or basketball will. That national recognition will drive many more students to seek enrollment at a school. Do you really think the number of people outside of Idaho who really gave a shit about Boise State University stayed the same after they upset Oklahoma in that epic bowl game?

If you don't like sports, congratulations. But that's not a reason to just act as if they are useless. Big time college sports are a great thing for universities, and most of those student athletes will likely do a shit load more for a university than any of you who are bitching and moaning about them ever will.[/QUOTE]

Whew, somebody that gets it. The marketing angle for general students is huge. It builds up loyalty to your school, which down the line makes you more inclined to donate to the school, or support it in other ways. I get that a videogame forum isn't the "jockyist" of groups, but the nerd rage, as you put it, is astounding.

Edit: One thing that my dad mentioned, that I thought was a great idea, is for scholarship athletes to be required to pay back their scholarship if they leave early and don't get a degree. Maybe give them like a 2-3 year grace period after they leave school to wrap up coursework, but at least that makes them invest in the school, that invested in them by providing the scholarship. Seems like a good idea to me.
 
Myke, it appears that you are right on the athletic departments as a whole taking a loss (only 22 of them are self sustaining). I would make the comment though that the growth of the university's enrollment that comes as a result of building a good football or basketball program should be considered despite the fact that there is no real way to measure it. While I don't believe there's any way to conclusively prove it, evidence does suggest that the "Flutie Effect" exists to a certain degree.

Anyway, upon looking at some articles I came across some numbers and I have an interesting question to ask (not directly to you, but in general)

Look at these figures (found from this article):

University of Florida numbers from 09-10 school year:

Code: 
Men’s Sports
  	        Revenue 	Expense 	Profit
Football 	$63,951,571.00 	$19,707,442.00 	$44,244,129.00
Basketball 	$9,464,520.00 	$6,866,541.00 	$2,597,979.00
Baseball 	$541,073.00 	$1,678,780.00 	-$1,137,707.00
Tennis 		$9,867.00 	$507,705.00 	-$497,838.00
Golf 	        $14,400.00 	$375,499.00 	-$361,099.00
TOTAL 						$44,845,464.00

Coed Sports
Swimming 	$3,000.00 	$1,403,826.00 	-$1,400,826.00
Track 		$69,854.00 	$2,263,392.00 	-$2,193,538.00
TOTAL 						-$3,594,364.00

Women’s Sports
Golf 		$4,932.00 	$314,413.00 	-$309,481.00
Basketball 	$45,361.00 	$2,182,324.00 	-$2,136,963.00
Tennis 		$0.00 		$516,992.00 	-$516,992.00
Soccer  	$0.00 		$757,538.00 	-$757,538.00
Volleyball 	$78,418.00 	$1,008,438.00 	-$930,020.00
Softball 	$39,655.00 	$908,338.00 	-$868,683.00
Gymnastics 	$236,819.00 	$1,063,242.00 	-$826,423.00
Lacrosse 	$0.00 		$600,624.00 	-$600,624.00
TOTAL 						-$6,946,724.00


Michigan State numbers:

Code: 
Men’s Sports
  		Revenue  	Expenses 	Profit
Football 	$14,406,957.00 	$9,609,426.00 	$4,797,531.00
Basketball 	$4,053,960.00 	$5,230,048.00 	-$1,176,088.00
Hockey 		$1,156,130.00 	$1,786,114.00 	-$629,984.00
Baseball 	$0.00 		$721,677.00 	-$721,677.00
Track	 	$0.00 		$611,860.00 	-$611,860.00
Wrestling 	$0.00 		$609,573.00 	-$609,573.00
Soccer 		$0.00 		$506,016.00 	-$506,016.00
Swimming 	$0.00 		$457,172.00 	-$457,172.00
Tennis 		$0.00 		$276,024.00 	-$276,024.00
Golf 		$0.00 		$225,653.00 	-$225,653.00
TOTAL 						-$416,516.00

Women’s Sports
  		Revenue 	Expense  	Profit
Basketball 	$163,639.00 	$1,938,843.00 	-$1,775,204.00
Crew 		$0.00 		$1,145,040.00 	-$1,145,040.00
Volleyball 	$0.00 		$928,579.00 	-$928,579.00
Track 		$0.00 		$882,337.00 	-$882,337.00
Softball 	$0.00 		$867,019.00 	-$867,019.00
Field Hockey 	$0.00 		$819,930.00 	-$819,930.00
Gymnastics 	$0.00 		$706,399.00 	-$706,399.00
Soccer 		$0.00 		$639,370.00 	-$639,370.00
Swimming 	$0.00 		$635,605.00 	-$635,605.00
Tennis 		$0.00 		$427,447.00 	-$427,447.00
Golf 		$0.00 		$249,918.00 	-$249,918.00
TOTAL 						-$9,076,848.00

Why do you always hear:

Football and basketball players don't deserve this and don't deserve that. None of those assholes deserve scholarships.

Instead of this:

Man, fuck golf fuck tennis and fuck all those useless womens sports. They're dragging this university down.


I think it's kind of ironic that the college sports that are the most likely to actually turn a profit (as opposed to being a total money pit like lacrosse, for example) are the ones who take all the heat.
 
Regarding football and basketball taking the heat, they're the most visible thus the most vulnerable. It's hard to criticize Bumfuck State University's lacrosse team if I don't know they have one; however their football games are hyped on ESPN all week long leading into Saturday. So that's my best guess there.

I'd like to see more about what is regarded as revenue for such sports. $63M for football? How does that break down in terms of tv/ad revenue trickling down from NCAA, what is ticket sales, etc.?

There are two levels of problems here from my perspective. One is the creative accounting that masks that sports are largely parasitic to universities. Another is that the NCAA is an astonishingly profitable business that masquerades as a nonprofit, and a huge portion of their profitability is rooted in the main component (athletes) are free labor.

My disdain for college sports is rooted more at the way NCAA has monetized college sports in a way that they were not in the past, and have done so in a way that is exploitative not just of the athletes, but deprives colleges of valuable resources and clouds their ability to focus on an educational mission.

As for the "Flutie Effect," I'm curious if it has been studied - certainly someone has tried. At any rate, shouldn't we be afraid that school selection is based off of athletic performance and national standing, and not the fit of the college, the excellence of the department/major, etc? We wouldn't heap praise upon a person for selecting University of X over University of Y because one has a contract with Sodexho and therefore Pepsi products, and the other a contract with Aramark and thus Coke products. We would call them fools, and rightly so. I don't see selection due to athletics as something to be proud of.
 
My bitch is over the likeness. It is completely insane to me that if I play a college sport, the NCAA has the right in perpetuity to sell my fucking face to EA sports. No public school student should have that right stripped.
 
Myke, just because it isn't payment in cash doesn't mean the athletes are working for free. Scholarships, team meals, workout facilities, lenient rules compared to other students, free marketing to potential employers (pro sports teams that will pay them a fortune), access to nutritionists and other health professionals, easy pussy, etc...

Compare that to sharing a dorm room with a kid who might become a serial killer, eating ramen for four years, drinking skunk beer because it's all you can afford, lack of easy pussy and that whole paying for your education until you're 35 thing.

I know who I'd rather be.

As far as the selling your likeness bit is concerned, it's even more free advertising to potential pro teams and as an athlete in a school large enough to be included in such games, you're a public figure so fuck you any ways. You knew what you were getting into and nobody is being taken advantage of because it's part of the way it all works.
 
[quote name='nasum']As far as the selling your likeness bit is concerned, it's even more free advertising to potential pro teams and as an athlete in a school large enough to be included in such games[/quote]
"I need to scout the OLB from Toledo. Someone load up NCAA 12."

Not quite, dude.
you're a public figure so fuck you any ways.
Click to expand...
There are personality rights. That's why you see the disclaimers on movies.
You knew what you were getting into and nobody is being taken advantage of because it's part of the way it all works.
Click to expand...
A great argument for everything fucking awful about capitalism. Bravo.

Another thing. Why exactly is there a need for the athletes to not accept gifts or payments? What purpose does that serve again?
Myke, just because it isn't payment in cash doesn't mean the athletes are working for free. Scholarships, team meals, workout facilities, lenient rules compared to other students, free marketing to potential employers (pro sports teams that will pay them a fortune), access to nutritionists and other health professionals, easy pussy, etc...
Click to expand...
Or you could, you know, allow them to make money on their skill like everyone else on the planet. I certainly don't remember business interns being forced to take internships without pay. Why is that?
 
they're not forced to take internships without pay, however there are internships that don't pay.

Of course the game isn't used for scouting purposes you knob. It's a marketability question. Does this person's name get mentioned? Is it in bold print somewhere? So on and so forth. Exposure is good exposure at this point. Movie disclaimers are for accidental similarity, when Leonardo DiCaprio did his take on Howard Hughes, he was doing his take on Howard Hughes. Guess what? Howard Hughes was marketed at that point!

At least it isn't pay to play in the NCAA. Shit, let's start paying those pop warner kids!
 
Another difference is that preferential treatment can be given to non-athletes in the sense that they can legally get internships or special benefits that the rest of the student population doesn't have access to, and student-athletes, by NCAA rule are prevented from benefiting from. Now clearly many schools break the rules outright, or at least bend them and try to cover it up (Ohio State, Miami, etc), but athletes have tons of rules they need to stay within that the rest of the student body doesn't need to consider.

There are benefits and disadvantages to both lifestyles. If you're the 3rd string linebacker, you're probably not ever going to wind up in the NFL, you're getting a scholarship to play, but the public figure/future pro-profits argument is irrelevant. You are getting your scholarship while still having to practice like a starter/star, and still living by the restrictions and regulations of the NCAA.
 
A lot of teams actually try to give high GPA guys for the last spot on the team (who usually never get any playing time) to boost the team GPA and graduation rate.
 
[quote name='camoor']LMAO

Sounds more like you were just a spoiled rich punk who had mommy and daddy pay for everything, and were surprised that some folks actually have to bust their ass for a good education. Yeah that's what hard work looks like son, if you want to make a living in the real world you better get used to it. My bad, your rich daddy will probably bail you out.[/QUOTE]

This is very true. The majority of students are working at least part time to help pay for school, rent etc. Many of my students work full time. Athletes aren't the only ones trying to juggle work and studies.

That said, I do think there are probably too many restriction on athletes being able to take jobs to supplement income due to all the concerns of boosters paying them big bucks to do nothing. So there's probably a lot more leeway that could be given in areas like that. And of course we can always discuss whether the stipend athletes are given is enough etc. But I don't support paying them big salaries on top of their scholarships.

As myke noted, colleges shouldn't have to be the minor leagues for the NBA and NFL. They should run their own minor leagues like baseball does, and take kids straight out of high school into those. Let college athletics go back to being true amateur competition by real student athletes, rather than huge money semi-professional leagues.
 
[quote name='ced']....the same as any other student: nobody should get paid to go to college.
[/QUOTE]

Disagree with that. If graduate schools didn't provide tuition remission and stipends for people to get master's and doctoral degrees, we'd have a huge shortfall in those professions.

Your talking 5-8 years in most fields post college to get a terminal degree and starting salaries (and salary ceilings even) in most fields don't make it worth it to even think about taking six figure student loan debt to cover all that.

Unlike say med school or MBA programs where grads are expected to pay their way with loans and make big bucks when the finish to pay them back.

On top of that, the stipends are for doing research with faculty and teaching (or being a teaching assistant) which are invaluable parts of the grad school learning experience for those in research and/or teaching focused programs and wanting to go on to do research and/or teaching.
 
[quote name='nasum']they're not forced to take internships without pay, however there are internships that don't pay.[/quote]
So why shouldn't a school decide it wants to offer paid "internships" to student athletes?
Of course the game isn't used for scouting purposes you knob. It's a marketability question. Does this person's name get mentioned?
Click to expand...
Umm, no. No it doesn't.
Is it in bold print somewhere? So on and so forth.
Click to expand...
No. No it's not.
Exposure is good exposure at this point. Movie disclaimers are for accidental similarity, when Leonardo DiCaprio did his take on Howard Hughes, he was doing his take on Howard Hughes. Guess what? Howard Hughes was marketed at that point!
Click to expand...
You're arguing that a video game with likeness and no names is going to further college football players' careers. That's... kind of dumb to hang your hat on.
At least it isn't pay to play in the NCAA. Shit, let's start paying those pop warner kids!
Click to expand...
I see tons of righteous indignation and lots of misdirection. I see nothing that answers:

1. Why not pay the players? Clearly the schools are already doing everything in their power to do so in violation of the rules.

2. Who is harmed by someone buying an autograph of a player for $20?
 
[quote name='speedracer']
1. Why not pay the players? Clearly the schools are already doing everything in their power to do so in violation of the rules.

2. Who is harmed by someone buying an autograph of a player for $20?[/QUOTE]

There's no moral qualms with that stuff IMO.

It's all about fairness and whether the playing field is level on college sports. You open that type of stuff up and it makes it easier for boosters of big time programs to slip players money and bias recruiting in their favor.

Not saying I agree that's cause to not have any more money going to players, that's just the rational behind most of the current rules about that stuff.

They could be loosened. At least at the top levels of college football and basketball they're could be more money shared with the NCAA to fund monitoring and investigating rules violations to off set any added risk of them happening.

At the end of the day, as long as athletes are getting full scholarships, free food, free housing and some small amount of spending money for doing things, traveling home (which they are) then I don't see the big fuss. I mean we can quibble over whether whatever the spending money part is I suppose.

But at the end of the day, free tuition, food and housing is a pretty good deal for playing a sport and working out/practicing, when other kids are working full or part time or going into big debt to cover that stuff.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
But at the end of the day, free tuition, food and housing is a pretty good deal for playing a sport and working out/practicing, when other kids are working full or part time or going into big debt to cover that stuff.[/QUOTE]

I think the magnitude of benefits may vary. I'm not certain, but the guys I knew didn't get free off-campus housing. I think the dorms were covered, and as far as free meals go, eh, sorta. It was the training table, which wasn't a three meals a day, bottomless banquet. If I remember right, they got tuition, books, access to tutoriing, training table, then the cash stipend covered things like rent/utilities, and food. I wasn't on scholarship academically or other, so I'm not sure on how those work, or if they are the same, but in my limited experience, these players were compensated, but a vast majority of the compensation was in free tuition.

The reality of the thing is that the lower exposure sports would demand a cash increase too, and that would not be feasible for universities to pay out. Additionally, women's sports are usually (there are exceptions, UCONN, TENN, others) low attendance, loss leaders. They are there because Title IX requires it, but they suck money out of most athletic departments from a business stand-point. A percentage of revenue cash increase was be rejected because the compensation among sports and genders would be so disproportionate.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I don't see selection due to athletics as something to be proud of.[/QUOTE]

This. If you're going to a school for a football/basketball team, you're doing it wrong. The primary purpose of going to college is to get an education.
 
[quote name='docvinh']This. If you're going to a school for a football/basketball team, you're doing it wrong. The primary purpose of going to college is to get an education.[/QUOTE]

I'm not as strong on that opinion.

I primarily choose my undergrad school as I grew up rooting for the sports teams etc. At the same time though, I pretty much had to go instate as it's all my parents had saved up to afford (and I didn't have grades to get scholarships right out of high school) and my state only had one good university anyway.

Bigger point though, is most (but not all) of the big time college sports universities are very good to solid academically as they tend to be the major research universities in their states.

So it's not really an either or situation. You can go to one of the best schools in your state, and have the sporting events.

Another point I'd make is despite all the rankings mumbo jumbo, I don't really think there's much difference in quality of education from one university to another at the undergraduate level. You're mostly getting textbook readings and lectures based on the book everywhere. And at top level research schools you'll have a lot more classes taught by grad students and adjuncts rather than the top-level professors that are making the school more prestigious in academic perception rankings anyway.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I think the magnitude of benefits may vary. I'm not certain, but the guys I knew didn't get free off-campus housing. I think the dorms were covered, and as far as free meals go, eh, sorta. It was the training table, which wasn't a three meals a day, bottomless banquet. If I remember right, they got tuition, books, access to tutoriing, training table, then the cash stipend covered things like rent/utilities, and food. [/QUOTE]

I'm sure it varies by school or conference etc. As well as buy sport.

I know at my alma mater the football team got training tables meals 3 times a day (or could eat in the dining halls for free if they had classes and couldn't make it to training tables for lunch or whatever). Stipends were to cover extra food etc.

Off campus housing they just got some money for--basically how ever much they'd get to cover their dorm on campus, they could get that prorated amount to put toward off campus housing rent each month.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'd like to see more about what is regarded as revenue for such sports. $63M for football? How does that break down in terms of tv/ad revenue trickling down from NCAA, what is ticket sales, etc.?[/QUOTE]


I believe the SEC television revenue sharing payout is close to $20 million per school. Then take into account sponsorship deals with Nike, Under Armor, or whichever sports brand. Throw in an 88,000 seat stadium that sells out regularly (average SEC ticket price is ~$60) plus concessions and merchandise sales there, over the course of six or more home games. It's not very difficult to see how it can pile up money rather quickly.




[quote name='mykevermin']As for the "Flutie Effect," I'm curious if it has been studied - certainly someone has tried.[/quote]

I searched and found this article, that claims a study did prove it to be true:

'Flutie Effect' is real, study shows
NCAA title can boost applications 8 percent

RICHMOND, Va. -- Turns out there's some basis for the long-held belief among college admissions officials that the better their schools' teams do in high-profile sporting events, the more applications they'll see.

Until recently, evidence about the "Flutie Effect" -- coined when applications to Boston College jumped about 30 percent in the two years after quarterback Doug Flutie's Hail Mary pass beat Miami in 1984 -- had been mostly anecdotal.

So two researchers set out to quantify it, concluding after a broad study that winning the NCAA football or men's basketball title means a bump of about 8 percent, with smaller increases the reward for more modest success.

"Certainly college administrators have known about this for a while, but I think this study helps to pin down what the average effects are," said Jaren Pope, an assistant professor in applied economics at Virginia Tech who conducted the study with his brother Devin, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.

The brothers compared information on freshman classes at 330 NCAA Division I schools with how the schools' teams fared from 1983 through 2002.

Among their conclusions in a paper to be published this year in Southern Economic Journal:

# Schools that make it to the Sweet 16 in the men's basketball tournament see an average 3 percent boost in applications the following year. The champion is likely to see a 7 to 8 percent increase, but just making the 65-team field will net schools an average 1 percent bump.

# Similarly, applications go up 7 to 8 percent at schools that win the national football title, and schools that finish in the top 20 have a 2.5 percent gain.

There has been wide debate over the legitimacy of the Flutie Effect, especially when it comes to whether schools should pour money into athletics programs with the hope of reaping the benefits of a winning team.

Pope said that's certainly not what he is suggesting.

For George Mason University, just outside Washington, the positive effects of its unlikely Final Four appearance two years ago were wide-reaching.

In addition to increases in fundraising, attendance at games and other benefits, freshman applications increased 22 percent the year after the team made its magical run. The percentage of out-of-state freshmen jumped from 17 percent to 25 percent, and admissions inquiries rose 350 percent, said Robert Baker, director of George Mason's Center for Sport Management who conducted a study called "The Business of Being Cinderella."

"You will certainly have critics who say it would have happened anyway, but I think the general consensus is that it happened faster because of this and that it allowed this university to reach new heights more quickly," Baker said.

Gonzaga was virtually unknown in most parts of the country until it broke into the national tournament in the mid-'90s. The Bulldogs have been in the tournament every year since 1999, and during that time enrollment has grown from just over 4,500 to nearly 7,000, said Dale Goodwin, a university spokesman.

Inquiries have jumped from about 20,000 per year to 50,000, and Gonzaga attracts students from Eastern states where it doesn't recruit.

"There's no other way they would have heard about Gonzaga," Goodwin said.

The study found that private schools saw even larger increases than public universities.

Drake made it to the tournament for the first time since 1971 this year only to lose to Western Kentucky on a last-second 3-pointer in overtime. The shot is destined for the highlight reels, meaning the 5,000-student Des Moines, Iowa, school will get even more publicity than its one-and-out counterparts.

Tom Delahunt, Drake's vice president for admissions and financial aid, said the school already is at capacity, enrolling its largest class in 30 years last year. He still expects increased interest next year.

"We'll see an increase in high school sophomores and juniors that are now putting Drake on their list where they wouldn't have before, and they'll come and visit," Delahunt said. "We know if we can get them to come visit we have a better chance for them to enroll."

Pope and others admit that the windfall is short-lived, usually lasting only a few years after a team's tournament run. Experts say that's all the time that's needed.

"If the effect is one to three years, that's exactly in the zone where students are paying attention to what's going on," said Steven Goodman, an educational consultant in Washington, D.C. "Not that many 9-year-olds are thinking about college admissions, but there are plenty of 15-year-olds who are following the NCAA Tournament."

Experts agree that any bump caused by a tournament appearance can't sustain a school, but it gives them valuable national exposure that most couldn't buy. Out of thousands of schools in the country, Goodman said most students apply to seven to 10.

"No one student can know everything about every college, so universities vie for the attention of students, and sports is one of the many ways that schools do that," he said.
Click to expand...




[quote name='mykevermin']At any rate, shouldn't we be afraid that school selection is based off of athletic performance and national standing, and not the fit of the college, the excellence of the department/major, etc? We wouldn't heap praise upon a person for selecting University of X over University of Y because one has a contract with Sodexho and therefore Pepsi products, and the other a contract with Aramark and thus Coke products. We would call them fools, and rightly so. I don't see selection due to athletics as something to be proud of.[/QUOTE]


I think the athletics help mold a strong community among the students, which many people value just as much as the quality of the education. If a person doesn't follow or like sports, it's easy to see why he or she wouldn't recognize this, but that doesn't change the fact that they're widely popular. Look at brochures for a college and you will see that they focus just as much on community activities as they do on academic accomplishments. A university is far more than just a place that teaches various courses.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']There's no moral qualms with that stuff IMO.

It's all about fairness and whether the playing field is level on college sports. You open that type of stuff up and it makes it easier for boosters of big time programs to slip players money and bias recruiting in their favor.[/quote]
But there's no fairness doctrine in any other aspect of college. Legacies tilt the board in their favor. Big donors drop huge coin on buildings and endowments. Where's the level playing field? Texas schools spend ridiculous amounts of money on who has the biggest rock wall... I mean shit man. I don't have to tell you.

So why do we all suddenly turn crazy on student athletes? They have a marketable skill that people would pay above and beyond a scholarship for. Why nail them to the cross of fairness? What does it get us? Less scandal in college sports? Could there even be more than there is now?
But at the end of the day, free tuition, food and housing is a pretty good deal for playing a sport and working out/practicing, when other kids are working full or part time or going into big debt to cover that stuff.
Click to expand...
Then why on earth are people paying them more under the table at every single major college in America?

Because they are worth more. Plain and simple. And that's the messed up part about it. The NCAA, the whole disgusting thing exists on this margin, the difference between the actual value of the player and the value of the scholarship. Look around. Sure there's colleges losing money on sports. But who's making money on this deal.. OMFG. It's the people that make the rules! I'm shocked! Lie to yourselves all you want but the NCAA reaches into the pocket of each and every one of these kids whose value goes beyond the marginal value of the scholarship. And they are gigantic scumbags of the highest order. They themselves openly break every rule they have and then come down like the fist of an angry god on some unlucky program when it looks like they might get busted up for being the monopoly they are. Just ask USC and Ohio St. Boy, that Ohio St. got one hell of a sweet deal when you think about it. Hell, it looks like what they did was WAY worse than what USC did and Ohio St. had virtually nothing happen to it. USC got their house burned down and they're prohibited from rebuilding years later. I'm sure it didn't have anything to do with Ohio St.'s AD being on the NCAA management and infractions council.

We can't stop the CEOs from raping our faces off but somehow we're vindicated by stopping college athletes from profiting from their fame, however brief.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Given that kind of ranting, you've certainly seen the frontline episode I linked above, yes?

If not, it's worth it for that and the brief talk about Ai Weiwei.
 
In terms of football revenue vs. expenses, I saw this break down of current Big 12 schools for the 2009-10 year. It doesn't get into where the money comes from, just revenue vs. expenses.

b3big12bigmoney061011.jpg


Most of the BCS level football programs make a profit on football. As someone else noted, part of the problem is all the non-revenue Olympic sports that lose money, Title IX requiring an equal number of sports for females (that all lose money other than a few top women's basketball programs). Those put a lot of schools athletic budgets in the red--other than the ones making millions in profit on football and or men's basketball that can easily cover it.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Haahaa, you mad, chubby.

I paid for my education, and worked throughout it. Didn't know I needed to have tax records to have an opinion on student athletes.

Now I'm employed by a motion capture company that works with major motion picture companies, and game devs (other industries too, but those are of the most interest to me personally). Apparently I worked hard enough to land a decent job. We're hiring for warehouse staff if you can lift 20 pounds and be on your feet for up to 4 hours a day. Do you need an address to send over your resume?[/QUOTE]

Cool that completely vidicates your post.

What's the address?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Given that kind of ranting, you've certainly seen the frontline episode I linked above, yes?[/quote]
No, but I'm guessing I'm going to like it. I'll check it out tonight.
If not, it's worth it for that and the brief talk about Ai Weiwei.
Click to expand...
I love that guy. Every interview I've seen with him is good. Thanks for the heads up.
 
speedy,

I don't get the righteous indignation. Are college athletes being exploited if they're in a noteworthy program that has a higher chance of getting drafted? No. What they get as a benefit far outweighs the notion that they are being exploited. If you're so concerned about minor leagues for NBA and NFL, you'll need to create a new thread about their player's unions and how invested they are into not having a minor league.
What's wrong with a $20 autograph? It's just kinda shitty that we as a society find someone's nigh illegible scribbling of their name worth $20.

It all balances out. The guys play their football to rake in the cash so that the girls can wear those lovely shorts while playing volleyball. This makes the world a good place.
 
I think a big issue is the NFL won't let in players until they're 3 years removed from high school.

And since there aren't really good international leagues that pay a lot like there is with basketball, football players really have no option to sell their labor for fair value during those 3 years.

Though I'll admit I'm not sure what the Canadian league rules on age are, nor their salary structure etc.


And aside from that there's the problem of the NFL and NBA benefiting from having a free minor league they can use to evaluate players. I'd have a lot less issues with it all if the NBA and NFL where funding college sports. At least at the top levels (FBS for football, Division 1 for basketball).
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I think a big issue is the NFL won't let in players until they're 3 years removed from high school.

And since there aren't really good international leagues that pay a lot like there is with basketball, football players really have no option to sell their labor for fair value during those 3 years.

Though I'll admit I'm not sure what the Canadian league rules on age are, nor their salary structure etc.


And aside from that there's the problem of the NFL and NBA benefiting from having a free minor league they can use to evaluate players. I'd have a lot less issues with it all if the NBA and NFL where funding college sports. At least at the top levels (FBS for football, Division 1 for basketball).[/QUOTE]

Yah, and on top of that, in very few cases would an 18 year old be physically mature enough to take the contact from a 30 year old pro-football player. You would have more severe injuries, maybe even deaths during football games. It serves two goals, player safety, and #2 (or probably #1 from the NFL's standpoint) it ensures that the player has received 2 full years of college football coaching and gametime to improve their skills. The abuse a pro-football player's body takes would make most of us shit our pants and quit. They are cripples by 35.

The decline of the NBA has been the international players and highschool/ one and dones. They bring incredible athleticism, but very little skill. They are unproven because all they've done is dominate 16-18 year olds. Put them on the floor with a guy bigger, taller, faster, and more skilled, and they look their age and skill level quickly. For every Lebron and Dwight Howard, there were dozens of Kwame Brown's and Darko Milicic's.
 
Sure. But the NFL should be paying for it's own minor league system for the 18-22 year olds to play in. Not having colleges do it for them and spending state money in many cases--only the top programs are self sufficient.

As for the NBA--agreed on the high school/one and dones. But not on the international players. Most of them--especially the guards--are more skilled. International basketball is europe is much more focused on team play, fundamentals like passing and shooting than in the US where it's more isolation and dunks from the street ball culture etc. Sure there are some busts like Darko. But there are plenty of people like Ginobli, Parker, Galinari (sp?) etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top