Should we pay NCAA players?

[DG_ThenNowForever]

No, I'm not ignoring your points. I just disagree with them.

As long as I'm looking up mission statements, here's the NCAA's "core purpose":

THE NCAA's CORE PURPOSE IS TO govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount.

And here are current NCAA broadcasting contracts:

SEC

ESPN/15 years/$2.25 billion/Ends 2023-24

CBS/15 years/$825 million/Ends 2023-24

Big Ten

Big Ten Network/25 years/$2.8 billion/2031-32

ABC/ESPN/10 years/$1 billion/2016

CBS/10 years/$20 million/2018-19*

*For basketball

ACC

ABC/ESPN/12 years/$1.86 billion/2022-23

Raycom Sports/10 years/$300 million/2010-11

Big 12

ABC/ESPN/Eight years/$480 million/2015-16

Fox Sports Net/Four years/$78 million/2011-12

Pac-10

ABC/ESPN/Five years/$125 million/2011-12

Fox Sports Net/Five years/$97 million/2011-12

ABC/ESPN/Six years/$52.5 million/2011-12*

*For basketball

Big East

ABC/ESPN/Six years/$200 million/2013

Mountain West

Comcast/CBS College Sports/The Mtm/Seven years/$82 million/2013-14

Conference USA

CBS College Sports/Six years/UNKNOWN/2016

ESPN/Six years/$22 million through 2010-11

What about that wide disparity in value is "fair, safe or equitable"?

[dfwabel]

This brings me back to one of my original posts in this thread: either you think the NCAA football is a professional sports organization or you don't. I do, and I don't think it's fair that everyone is profiting except for people risking their current health and future livelihood week after week.

NCAA is not nor has it ever been or portrayed itself to be a professional league. You may not like the way ot operates, but that does not mean it has to change what it has always been.

Analogy: You're a chef. You have a choice between working at an Italian restaurant or a Chinese restaurant. You want to work at the Chinese one but want the pay and benefits of the Italian one. Does that mean the Italian restaurant has to change to a Chinese restaurant to satisfy your preferences? No.

Players know when they go to college what they are getting, and they have the option to play professionally somewhere else if they don't like the situation there.

Since 1984, (NCAA vs. University of Oklahoma and University of Georgia), the SCOTUS affirmed that the NCAA violated antitrust laws through price fixing and restrain of trade through a single TV contract. The fact that they may qualify as a "trade or business" hasn't been in that much dispute since then. The billions they receive from CBS and Turner further illustrate that issue two decades later. If you would like to consider if antitrust laws, like the Sherman and Clayton Acts apply, ask youself the following three questions:

1. Is the primary purpose of the amateur association commercial or noncommercial?

2. If the primary purpose is noncommercial, do certain aspects of the association's activities constitute commercial economic enterprises (e.g. media telecasts, sales of goods or services, and facility rentals0?

3. Does the association enjoy a dominant position in the marketplace designed to drive all competition from the marketplace by using undue influence derived from its dominant position?

This is just for the NCAA, there is a different series of prongs for athletic departments, as IMO, they no longer serve the institution's central academic mission.

[HedleyLamarr]

This brings me back to one of my original posts in this thread: either you think the NCAA football is a professional sports organization or you don't. I do, and I don't think it's fair that everyone is profiting except for people risking their current health and future livelihood week after week.

How do you personally define "profiting"? If you're strictly referring to a paycheck, then no, the players aren't profiting.

If you're referring to anything gained, then yes, the players are indeed "profiting" when you take into account:

-Players are getting fully-paid scholarships (and by extension, no 5- or 6-figure student debts)

-Players are getting free room and board

-Players are getting free job-training and free exposure for prospective future employers

-Players are given first-choice in getting any courses they wish to enter

-Players are given free trips to anywhere in the country, or even international travel in some cases, and given per diems for said trips

-Players are given the opportunities for a free education (since roughly 90% of college athletes won't be pro athletes)

In many cases, these athletic scholarships are given to the lesser-privileged, who otherwise wouldn't be given scholastic opportunities given by general academic scholarships. They're being given opportunities that, in a normal world, they wouldn't be granted.

Also, I'm also steadfastly against paying 18-22 year old kids to play football, especially when many athletic departments are already losing money. (I'm even more against paying athletes if it comes from taxpayer money.) Maybe 10-15% of FBS schools' athletic departments annually turn a profit. Maybe half of the schools in BCS conferences make a profit if you include just football and basketball.

Having an athletic scholarship is akin to getting an unpaid internship. There's a selection process you go through, and in exchange for getting a paycheck, you put in a ton of hours in hopes of turning that into a big payday once you do become a professional.

[dfwabel]

No, I'm not ignoring your points. I just disagree with them.

As long as I'm looking up mission statements, here's the NCAA's "core purpose":

THE NCAA's CORE PURPOSE IS TO govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount.

What about that wide disparity in value is "fair, safe or equitable"?

The money from the contract is one part, but since the majority of athletic departments are considered auxiliary corporations or foundations (with their own fundraising arm), they have much more financial autonomy than their academic counterparts. An institution's Board of Directors/Regents is more likely to have greater financial say in the Agricultural Department than they do in the Athletic Department, even though student fees finance athletics. Some of those are due to state laws in how auxiliaries are formed, others are formed to swerve the IRS for now as it is still often considered as related business income the the institution. Something which is now totally false. Football ticket sales, especially if a student has to pay an "athletics fee" plus for football or basketball season tickets are not related income to the institution. This is a separate business, unrelated to institution, like university golf course.

[slightly shotgunned]

I definitely think the players should be able to make money off endorsements and have jobs at the school. I also think schools should be able to sell jerseys with names on them (with players receiving a cut of the profit), because let's be honest, the nameless retail jerseys suck. However, I'd stop short of actual salaries based on being a member of a sports team. Like others have said, it creates a mess of who gets how much, etc. and also is simply not feasible for a lot of schools.

Exclusive TV contracts, BCS invitations, exercise equipment rooms, ability to produce a wide variety of licensed merchandise, ability to recruit on a national scale, ability to bend academic requirements for particular players, and so on. Those are all things that vary widely among schools, yet we still manage to have a system that most college fans seem to like.

NCAA football is fundamentally unfair. I don't see how player salaries would imbalance scales anymore than they already are.

You're basing all this on the opinion that they are employees when the fact is that they are students.

No, I'm saying it wouldn't be a bad thing if players were employees. I'd be okay with that.

That's what professional leagues are for. If a players goes to college, they are making a choice to be a student over an employee. If they want to be an employee instead of a student, they can play professionally somewhere. No ones taking away their free will.

Schools take away their ability to make any money at all for fear that they'll be overpaid. That takes away their free will. To my knowledge no other student on campus is forbidden to take a part-time, or a full-time job if they're paying for school with a scholastic scholarship.

Read back where we've all mostly said we don't have any issue with them working, selling merchandise or getting a stipen that allows them to maintain a student living. You don't blow up the whole thing when some smaller changes can be made.

That small change opens up a need for the system to be regulated and monitored a lot better than the current system would allow for. The reason these things are not allowed is the fear of certain players being overcompensated for their time or their merchandise. It's just not a simple solution. Who monitors the schools athlete's and how? Where does the money for said monitoring come from? Can players be employed by boosters? What are the minimum amount of responsibilities a student-athlete should have at an acceptable job? What is an acceptable amount of compensation to maintain a student living?

[BBTV]

"Acceptable amount"? What is the acceptable amount an NFL player is allowed? The answer is a portion of the 50% (or however much) the players are entitled to as a result of their collectively-bargained agreement. This shouldn't be much different. Some kids aren't going to get anything other than an opportunity for an education. Others are going to get paid. Base it on shared conference revenue - a portion of TV rights, merch, etc. Easier said than done, but figure it out, agree upon a number, and that's what your conference's players get.

[infrared41]

I definitely think the players should be able to make money off endorsements and have jobs at the school. I also think schools should be able to sell jerseys with names on them (with players receiving a cut of the profit), because let's be honest, the nameless retail jerseys suck.

I disagree. I'd much rather all retail jerseys be sold "nameless." It has nothing to do with the topic, I just like nameless jerseys better.

The NCAA SHOULD be seen as an amateur association. It should be seen as "good ol' inter-collegiate fun." People shouldn't get so wrapped up in kids playing a game to the point where the tv deals are on par with the pro leagues. Ideally I'd like to be able to say that no, you don't pay NCAA athletes because they should be students first and athletes second.

Again, I'm not happy about that, because I think it speaks volumes about our society that we allowed inter-collegiate athletics to get to this point, but that's the reality we're stuck with. So we might as well adapt and try to make it as fair for the athletes as possible.

None of this is new. I get what you're saying, but we're waxing nostalgic for something that, in truth, has never existed. Collegiate athletics have been "big-time" for a very, very long time. Wasn't the NCAA created to combat many of the same problems we're seeing today? It should also be noted that the NCAA was created during the Roosevelt administration; Teddy's, not FDR's. My point being that big-time college sports have never been just "good ol' inter-collegiate fun."

For what it's worth, I do agree that people shouldn't get so wrapped up in college kids playing a game. It's one of the reasons that I don't care if we ever get a football playoff. "Crowning a true national champion" isn't all that important to me. For my money, it shouldn't be that important to anyone. It's just college football. But that's a different discussion. I only bring it up to help illustrate your point.

[The_Admiral]

What about that wide disparity in value is "fair, safe or equitable"?

Hey, you don't like it, go to Canada.

[slightly shotgunned]

"Acceptable amount"? What is the acceptable amount an NFL player is allowed? The answer is a portion of the 50% (or however much) the players are entitled to as a result of their collectively-bargained agreement. This shouldn't be much different. Some kids aren't going to get anything other than an opportunity for an education. Others are going to get paid. Base it on shared conference revenue - a portion of TV rights, merch, etc. Easier said than done, but figure it out, agree upon a number, and that's what your conference's players get.

Simply, we're not talking the NFL or the NBA or any other professional league. Not even I want college players to make that kind of money and there is no way the NCAA is going to give up half of its net worth to pay student- athletes on top of giving them a free education, housing, etc.

I don't remember who said it (and I'm at work right now, so I don't have time to search it), but someone said that the scholarship was akin to an unpaid internship. That makes a lot of sense to me. Going with that, an "acceptable amount" (maybe reasonable would have been a better word here?) would be the maximum amount of money an employee could earn in their respective part-time job. For example, a student-athlete dishwasher probably isn't going to work a 40 hour week or make $15 an hour, so what is a reasonable amount of money that they could make at a job like that? What's to stop a booster or an agent from hiring the kid to play their respective sport if they have the means to do so?

[NJTank]

Here's an idea allow college athleetes to do enorsements and trade off their name.

[Lee.]

Or give the kid on the cover of NCAA 13 a cut of the loot being raked in off of his image.

[McCall]

Being compensated for a player's personal image being used, OK.

Allowed to sale personal items, OK.

Allowed to hold job, OK.

Stipen to help out with student living, OK.

Aside from that, everything else they're getting right now is pretty nice for what they do. They play a game. Plenty of people walk-on without a scholarship just for the chance to play, asking for nothing else in return. They get some of the best coaching, access to the best facilities, free education and free room and board, and exposure to the best possible employers (pro leagues). Seems like a pretty fair trade-off. Most of the players aren't gonna go pro in sports anyway, so you can't really determine who should get what. They're kids.

[omnivore]

Yes.

[IceCap]

What about that wide disparity in value is "fair, safe or equitable"?

Hey, you don't like it, go to Canada.

It's more of an amateur environment and we have a playoff system. What's not to love? Go Mustangs!

The NCAA SHOULD be seen as an amateur association. It should be seen as "good ol' inter-collegiate fun." People shouldn't get so wrapped up in kids playing a game to the point where the tv deals are on par with the pro leagues. Ideally I'd like to be able to say that no, you don't pay NCAA athletes because they should be students first and athletes second.

Again, I'm not happy about that, because I think it speaks volumes about our society that we allowed inter-collegiate athletics to get to this point, but that's the reality we're stuck with. So we might as well adapt and try to make it as fair for the athletes as possible.

None of this is new. I get what you're saying, but we're waxing nostalgic for something that, in truth, has never existed. Collegiate athletics have been "big-time" for a very, very long time. Wasn't the NCAA created to combat many of the same problems we're seeing today? It should also be noted that the NCAA was created during the Roosevelt administration; Teddy's, not FDR's. My point being that big-time college sports have never been just "good ol' inter-collegiate fun."

For what it's worth, I do agree that people shouldn't get so wrapped up in college kids playing a game. It's one of the reasons that I don't care if we ever get a football playoff. "Crowning a true national champion" isn't all that important to me. For my money, it shouldn't be that important to anyone. It's just college football. But that's a different discussion. I only bring it up to help illustrate your point.

Ah, thanks. I'm still relatively new to NCAA football fandom. I just assumed that at one point it wasn't the over-the-top business it is now. Sad to hear it wasn't.

So I'll rephrase my original statement. It's a shame that the NCAA has never been good old inter-collegiate fun.

[Epiphanic]

Or give the kid on the cover of NCAA 13 a cut of the loot being raked in off of his image.

I assume that he does. However, the athlete that graces the cover of the NCAA series is not a student for the year he's on the cover. Players have graduated and/or gone on to the NFL.

[NJTank]

Or give the kid on the cover of NCAA 13 a cut of the loot being raked in off of his image.

And give the kid whose jersey you are selling a cut too.

[dfwabel]

Or give the kid on the cover of NCAA 13 a cut of the loot being raked in off of his image.

And give the kid whose jersey you are selling a cut too.

A bump because of the talk of changes to the BCS for additional revenue, plus NCAA President Mark Emmert said this before the new year.

From the story:

At Moe?s Sport Shops in Ann Arbor, Mich., three different number jerseys are being sold with the Sugar Bowl logo on it: 1, 28 and 16.

The number one is traditionally sold by many schools. In Michigan?s case, it?s a number that has meaning because it was the number worn by Michigan greats like Anthony Carter, Derrick Alexander and Braylon Edwards. The number 28 is being sold because it is the number of Fitzgerald Toussaint, Michigan?s starting running back. And 16 is the number of Michigan?s starting quarterback, Denard Robinson.

?Some people like to buy the ?1? because of the tradition, but about 80 percent of people so far have come in and bought ?16,?? said Dustin DeSnyder, the manager at Moe?s.

Although Robinson?s name is not on the back of the jersey, it?s clear fans are buying it because he?s the most marketable player on the team. Yet Robinson sees no money from those sales, as NCAA president Mark Emmert says it should be

?They didn?t come to college because there was financial gain involved,? Emmert told CNBC. ?They came because they wanted to come to school and to participate in sports. If they choose to become pros after that, that?s all well and good, but this is not about creating new opportunities for them to monetize their position.?While Emmert is clear on his position, his predecessor, the late Myles Brand, was not. Back in the summer of 2007, Brand told me he thought it was worth looking into whether players should get financially rewarded for schools and apparel companies selling specific numbers related to star players on the team. Nothing formal was ever supported.

[pcgd]

I don't think we should let the schools advertise or sell the individual player likenesses. No jerseys, no billboards, nothing. If it features the entire team (schedule posters) fine, but individual players no.

That's solve that issue. To me that is the biggest BS in the NCAA and really the only part I don't like in terms of "paying" NCAA players.

Also I've never been clear if they are allowed to have jobs. If they aren't they should be allowed to have jobs that pay real wages, not inflated wages or "no-show" jobs.