Big Ten presidents, chancellors release statement on O'Bannon trial

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
61,974
Reaction score
18,168
Points
113
ROSEMONT, Ill. — While testifying last week in the O’Bannon trial in Oakland, Calif., Big Ten Commissioner James E. Delany spoke to the importance of the inextricable link between academics and athletics as part of the collegiate model, and to the value of establishing a 21st century system to meet the educational needs of current and future student-athletes.

During his testimony, Delany conveyed sentiments long supported by the conference and its member institutions. Today, the presidents and chancellors of the Big Ten schools issue the following statement signed by the leaders of each institution:

“As another NCAA season concludes with baseball and softball championships, college athletics is under fire. While football players at Northwestern fight for collective bargaining, former athletes are suing to be compensated for the use of their images.

Football and men’s basketball are at issue. Compensating the student-athletes who compete in these sports will skew the overall academic endeavor – for all students, not just those wearing a school’s colors.

The best solutions rest not with the courts, but with us – presidents of the very universities that promote and respect the values of intercollegiate competition. Writing on behalf of all presidents of the Big Ten Conference, we must address the conflicts that have led us to a moment where the conversation about college sports is about compensation rather than academics.

The tradition and spirit of intercollegiate athletics is unique to our nation. Students play as part of their overall academic experience, not for a paycheck or end-of-season bonus. Many also compete in hopes of a professional career, just as our biology majors serve internships and musical theater students perform in summer stock. These opportunities – sports, marching band, campus newspaper, and more – are facets of the larger college experience and prepare students for life. And that, in its purest form, is the mission of higher education.

The reality of intercollegiate athletics is that only a miniscule number of students go on to professional sports careers. In the sports that generate the greatest revenue and attention, football sees 13 percent of Big Ten players drafted by the NFL and basketball sees six percent from our conference drafted for NBA play.

For those student-athletes who are drafted, their professional careers average fewer than five years. They still have several decades and, potentially, several careers ahead of them in which to succeed. And their college experience – their overall academic experience – should be what carries them forward.

This is why we propose working within the NCAA to provide greater academic security and success for our student-athletes:

We must guarantee the four-year scholarships that we offer. If a student-athlete is no longer able to compete, for whatever reason, there should be zero impact on our commitment as universities to deliver an undergraduate education. We want our students to graduate.

If a student-athlete leaves for a pro career before graduating, the guarantee of a scholarship remains firm. Whether a professional career materializes, and regardless of its length, we will honor a student’s scholarship when his or her playing days are over. Again, we want students to graduate.

We must review our rules and provide improved, consistent medical insurance for student-athletes. We have an obligation to protect their health and well-being in return for the physical demands placed upon them.

We must do whatever it takes to ensure that student-athlete scholarships cover the full cost of a college education, as defined by the federal government. That definition is intended to cover what it actually costs to attend college.

Across the Big Ten, and in every major athletic conference, football and men’s basketball are the principal revenue sports. That money supports the men and women competing in all other sports. No one is demanding paychecks for our gymnasts or wrestlers. And yet it is those athletes – in swimming, track, lacrosse, and other so-called Olympic sports – who will suffer the most under a pay-to-play system.

The revenue creates more opportunities for more students to attend college and all that provides, and to improve the athletic experiences through improved facilities, coaching, training and support.

If universities are mandated to instead use those dollars to pay football and basketball players, it will be at the expense of all other teams. We would be forced to eliminate or reduce those programs. Paying only some athletes will create inequities that are intolerable and potentially illegal in the face of Title IX.

The amateur model is not broken, but it does require adjusting for the 21st century. Whether we pay student-athletes is not the true issue here. Rather, it is how we as universities provide a safe, rewarding and equitable environment for our student-athletes as they pursue their education.

We believe that the intercollegiate athletics experience and the educational mission are inextricably linked. Professionalizing specific sports or specific participants will bring about intended as well as likely unintended consequences in undermining the educational foundation of these programs, on Big Ten campuses and others throughout the country

Higher education provides young people with options in life to thrive in the future. For a tiny minority, that future will be a professional sports career and all of its rewards. For all graduates – athletes and non-athletes – it is the overall academic experience that is a lifetime source of compensation in the form of a well-rounded education.

Signed:

Sally Mason, chair, Big Ten Council of Presidents/Chancellors and president, University of Iowa

Phyllis Wise, chancellor, University of Illinois

Michael McRobbie, president, Indiana University

Wallace Loh, president, University of Maryland

Mary Sue Coleman, president, University of Michigan

Lou Anna K. Simon, president, Michigan State University

Eric Kaler, president, University of Minnesota

Harvey Perlman, chancellor, University of Nebraska

Morton Schapiro, president, Northwestern University

Joseph A. Alutto, interim president, Ohio State University

Eric J. Barron, president, Penn State University

Mitch Daniels, president, Purdue University

Robert L. Barchi, president, Rutgers University

Rebecca Blank, chancellor, University of Wisconsin
 

Empty words from people who have abdicated their responsibility to tame the beast for far too long. They all happily took the money without question. Some of them have had their salaries increased directly due to sports revenue.
 

Empty words from people who have abdicated their responsibility to tame the beast for far too long. They all happily took the money without question. Some of them have had their salaries increased directly due to sports revenue.

Can you explain how thats a negative?
 

Can you explain how thats a negative?

Because then peer schools feel the need to match salaries. "Be competitive for top talent!" or whatever the bogus phrase is to justify exorbitant salaries. So administrative costs go up across the board, raising tuition.
 

Because then peer schools feel the need to match salaries. "Be competitive for top talent!" or whatever the bogus phrase is to justify exorbitant salaries. So administrative costs go up across the board, raising tuition.

I'm not finding the connection. It's a reach at best with the rational you're giving.

Compensation for performance is a good thing with boundaries in my opinion.
 


I'm not finding the connection. It's a reach at best with the rational you're giving.

Compensation for performance is a good thing with boundaries in my opinion.

No, it happens. If Alabama's AD or President gets $1 million due to athletics, then LSU is going to raise the salaries of their president and AD to compete with Alabama. They will do this by raising tuition if they don't have the money sitting around.

That's not a good thing.
 


No, it happens. If Alabama's AD or President gets $1 million due to athletics, then LSU is going to raise the salaries of their president and AD to compete with Alabama. They will do this by raising tuition if they don't have the money sitting around.

That's not a good thing.

Soooo.... Let's just say this first, this is a frivolous conversation, however I'm intrigued by your reasoning....

If a university leader gets compensated for making more money for that university it's bad because they might get paid more for being better at it than another leader? Forget that the leader likely is being compensated far less than his assumed marginal contribution, you feel that the raising cost in sporting leaders is to blame for the raising cost in college tuition.

I'll repeat, I'm failing to make the connection. You must think that these university folks have never opened an economics text book in their lives....
 

Soooo.... Let's just say this first, this is a frivolous conversation, however I'm intrigued by your reasoning....

If a university leader gets compensated for making more money for that university it's bad because they might get paid more for being better at it than another leader? Forget that the leader likely is being compensated far less than his assumed marginal contribution, you feel that the raising cost in sporting leaders is to blame for the raising cost in college tuition.

I'll repeat, I'm failing to make the connection. You must think that these university folks have never opened an economics text book in their lives....

It's called administrative bloat. Athletics is small factor in it. ADs and college presidents make too much money. Colleges make too much money in general from sports, see the Michigan tweet thread in the football forum.
 



It's called administrative bloat. Athletics is small factor in it. ADs and college presidents make too much money. Colleges make too much money in general from sports, see the Michigan tweet thread in the football forum.

Ok, no one is disagreeing about Administrative bloat, but we aren't talking about that. Lets go back to the original statement. You said that Presidents got their salaries increased due to increased revenues from sports. I asked how that was a bad thing to be compensated for making more revenue for the athletic department, to which I still don't understand where that's a bad idea or how that's a correlating factor to administrative bloat. If a particular individual is better than another at something, yes, they should be compensated for the difference in ability at an equitable and sensical rate.

Your statement about Colleges making too much money from sports isn't resonating with me either... Why would they not want to maximize their revenue streams? Wouldn't that help keep tuition down if used properly, one of your concerns from a previous post?

I haven't read the Michigan tweet thread, I'll read it and maybe I'll feel different. But I think you're reaching here saying that Presidents getting more money for generating more revenue leads to higher tuition costs.
 

Ok, no one is disagreeing about Administrative bloat, but we aren't talking about that. Lets go back to the original statement. You said that Presidents got their salaries increased due to increased revenues from sports. I asked how that was a bad thing to be compensated for making more revenue for the athletic department of which I still don't understand where thats a bad idea or how thats a correlating factor to administrative bloat. If a particular individual is better than another at something, yes, they should be compensated for the difference in ability at an equitable and sensical rate.

Your statement about Colleges making too much money from sports isn't resonating with me either... Why would they not want to maximize their revenue streams? Wouldn't that help keep tuitions down if used properly, one of your concerns from a previous post?

I haven't read the Michigan tweet thread, I'll read it and maybe I'll feel different. But I think you're reaching here saying that Presidents getting more money for generating more revenue leads to higher tuition costs.

Well, as a non-profit they should not be trying to maximize revenue without regard to everything else. That is a fatal problem, which has led to player lawsuits. But that is another matter.

I figured my point was clear. Say Wisconsin raises the compensation of administrators tomorrow by 15%, which comes from athletic performance. The AD is probably pays himself from the athletic budget so that presumably doesn't touch the students. However, the president's raise comes from the general fund. So that impacts the students a little. Moreover, Minnesota and peer universities will feel obligated to pay their administrators the same or close to Wisconsin's. That raise will come solely from the general fund and would not have occurred absent Wisconsin's athletic success. This isn't far-fetched by any means. It happens all the time (incidentally, transparency is great for people who want raises).

If you don't buy it or understand it, then at least I can say I tried. :)
 

Well, as a non-profit they should not be trying to maximize revenue without regard to everything else. That is a fatal problem, which has led to player lawsuits. But that is another matter.

I figured my point was clear. Say Wisconsin raises the compensation of administrators tomorrow by 15%, which comes from athletic performance. The AD is probably pays himself from the athletic budget so that presumably doesn't touch the students. However, the president's raise comes from the general fund. So that impacts the students a little. Moreover, Minnesota and peer universities will feel obligated to pay their administrators the same or close to Wisconsin's. That raise will come solely from the general fund and would not have occurred absent Wisconsin's athletic success. This isn't far-fetched by any means. It happens all the time (incidentally, transparency is great for people who want raises).

If you don't buy it or understand it, then at least I can say I tried. :)

Your employer doesn't pay you anywhere close to what you think you're worth. Most of us understand why he doesn't. Why don't you?
 

Alright then....

Well, as a non-profit they should not be trying to maximize revenue without regard to everything else. That is a fatal problem, which has led to player lawsuits. But that is another matter.
Now where did this idea of maximizing revenue without regard to everything else come from? No one said or even implied that, not you not me. Scaled compensation for scaled production is what we are talking about.
I figured my point was clear.
It was clear, in my eyes it's flawed, and I asked you to explain it. Which I guess you are trying to do, but you keep changing the conversation to make up for your original flawed point. Which was, to remind you, that paying someone more for doing a better job at making money is a bad idea.

Say Wisconsin raises the compensation of administrators tomorrow by 15%, which comes from athletic performance.
Again changing the conversation to something completely unrelated and is just stupid in an effort to make your point.

The AD is probably pays himself from the athletic budget so that presumably doesn't touch the students. However, the president's raise comes from the general fund. So that impacts the students a little. Moreover, Minnesota and peer universities will feel obligated to pay their administrators the same or close to Wisconsin's. That raise will come solely from the general fund and would not have occurred absent Wisconsin's athletic success. This isn't far-fetched by any means. It happens all the time (incidentally, transparency is great for people who want raises).
I wont pick this hypothetical apart, but will just reiterate that this is a completely different conversation.
If you don't buy it or understand it, then at least I can say I tried. :)

Classic message board snarkiness. Whatever.:clap:


Bottom line, I'm not going to say I tried to explain it to you, I'm going to say you failed to convince me on how paying someone more for doing a good job is a bad thing. station19 put it much more eloquently than I ever could and I'll just leave it there.
 






Top Bottom