Well, well, wlll - Miami booster/gifts

[Gopherocious]

Wow - not only is that kid's article offensive to everyone's intelligence (since when can't college football players go to parties, drink, and throw themselves at women?), but it is just plain wrong.

The NCAA is not hypocritical. First of all, the NCAA makes next-to-nothing from football. Virtually the entire operating budget of the NCAA comes from the TV contract for March Madness. The NCAA, in terms of football, is there at the behest of the member schools to provide policing and regulation. If you want to call someone "hypocritical", direct it at the schools themselves. Second, the money schools make from football is, for the most part, used to defray expenses from other sports, and, in rare cases, is actually a small profit which, indirectly, helps keep the tuition lower for the general student population.

And as far as all the nonsense about ESPN and sports media in general, so what? What does that have to do with amateurism? Are we supposed to start paying Little Leaguers in the LLWS because ESPN makes money off of them? What about the kids in the National Spelling Bee? Are they entitled to a salary too? The fact that ESPN cares about you is the reason that you're able to get a free education. I don't see any kids at Augsburg or Hamline happy that ESPN doesn't care about them. So, ESPN is capitalizing on a market opportunity, and they're supposed to share the profits with you? Give me a break.

Here's a newsflash: NO ONE IS FORCING ANYONE TO PLAY COLLEGE FOOTBALL. Period. Anyone who wants to bypass the hundreds of thousands dollars' worth of free education they will receive those 4-5 years (far more than almost anyone could reasonably expect to earn by going straight into the workforce out of HS) is free to start a minor league that will compete with the NFL. More power to them. Let us know how that turns out for you.

Bingo! These guys can come pay my student loans and tell me that a football scholarship isn't worth anything. If it's all about money, go ahead and play in the UFL or CFL.

 

[MaxyJR1]

Doug Gottlieb filled in on "The Herd" this morning and he shot this idea that Bates shares to pieces. It was a good listen. The guy he had on, whose name I didn't catch but he was involved with the Jimmy Johnson "U". Some Reverend. He talked about slavery and football programs being plantations. Gottlieb called him on it and said that these athletes get into college with lessor standards, and get a free education and free tutors. ($56,000-$60,000 a year)

Link to interview with Pryor's attorney.

Interview with Former Cane's Booster Luterh Campbell

 

[Unregistered User]

He talked about slavery and football programs being plantations.

I'm pretty sure the football players are free to leave whenever they want.

 

[SonOfTheVarsity]

College guys like booze and women. It's no secret. It's the truth. Couple that with a longstanding atmosphere that Hurricane football players are treated like rock stars, and it magnifies.

... And then you end up with the 7th Floor Crew.

 

[MaxyJR1]

Maybe it is time to go back to the freshmen ineligible rule.

 

[RodentRampage]

Voluntary slavery rather peculiar concept. You have players pushing themselves and competing with each other to make a team and to make it to the field. It is obviously something they want. The value of the scholarship is more than what most of them could make right out of high school, and that's only considering the cost of tuition, room and board and books, not the long-term value of higher earnings from having a college degree.

And what of those D-III players? They get hit as hard, but they pay their own way. If people didn't want to play football, football would dry up.

 

[GophersInIowa]

The NCAA says players put in 20 hours a week. Anybody who has spent any time around a college program knows that 60 is a better number. Then add 12 to 15 hours a week of class on top of that. Seventy-five hours a week, in exchange for a stipend mathematically designed to make your ends almost meet.

There are a lot of people who work a ton of hours for large businesses that make millions of dollars just to make their "ends almost meet". College athletes aren't the only ones.

The only 'amateurs' involved are the guys doing all the work.

Yes because no one else has to work hard. I know most coaches show up about 20 minutes before practice starts everyday.

Is it because athletes should be treated like other students, lest they not appreciate the 'college experience?' Other kids get to sell their belongings, don't they? They get to go to parties and drink and throw themselves at women, don't they? They get to have jobs and earn their worth, don't they? And other kids don't spend 60 hours a week having their bodies broken or their spring mornings running themselves to death in the dew in the dark.

Of course he leaves out the fact that most other students leave college with thousands of dollars in student loans that they will be paying off for many years. Most D1 athletes have zero.

 

[AO54]

Wow - not only is that kid's article offensive to everyone's intelligence (since when can't college football players go to parties, drink, and throw themselves at women?), but it is just plain wrong.

The NCAA is not hypocritical. First of all, the NCAA makes next-to-nothing from football. Virtually the entire operating budget of the NCAA comes from the TV contract for March Madness. The NCAA, in terms of football, is there at the behest of the member schools to provide policing and regulation. If you want to call someone "hypocritical", direct it at the schools themselves. Second, the money schools make from football is, for the most part, used to defray expenses from other sports, and, in rare cases, is actually a small profit which, indirectly, helps keep the tuition lower for the general student population.

And as far as all the nonsense about ESPN and sports media in general, so what? What does that have to do with amateurism? Are we supposed to start paying Little Leaguers in the LLWS because ESPN makes money off of them? What about the kids in the National Spelling Bee? Are they entitled to a salary too? The fact that ESPN cares about you is the reason that you're able to get a free education. I don't see any kids at Augsburg or Hamline happy that ESPN doesn't care about them. So, ESPN is capitalizing on a market opportunity, and they're supposed to share the profits with you? Give me a break.

Here's a newsflash: NO ONE IS FORCING ANYONE TO PLAY COLLEGE FOOTBALL. Period. Anyone who wants to bypass the hundreds of thousands dollars' worth of free education they will receive those 4-5 years (far more than almost anyone could reasonably expect to earn by going straight into the workforce out of HS) is free to start a minor league that will compete with the NFL. More power to them. Let us know how that turns out for you.

I'm just going to choose you to reply to rather than try to dispute all of you status-quo guys at once.

I agree that it doesn't make much sense to criticize the NCAA administration. The schools make the real decisions as a group, it's not just Emmert making decisions by himself. The original criticism is probably best directed at all of us for continuing to support Title IX. Without Title IX, we certainly would have had a market to start another college athletics association that could have paid players what they're worth. You might be able to start a minor league and pay the players what they're worth, but with college being a near necessity these days, your minor league can't really compete with the colleges--it can only maybe be some sort of in-between years like Hockey has.

I'm not sure what kind of money there is in Little League, but I'm guessing it's nowhere near that of College Football, and they probably don't spend a lot of the money given to them on things unrelated to their baseball program. Minnesota made $15Million in profit last year from football, which they spent on other students and administrators who didn't earn the money.

 

[dpodoll68]

I lol'ed at this:

http://sportscrack.com/tees_ineligibowltatsvstutes.html

 

[josh087]

I'm not sure what kind of money there is in Little League, but I'm guessing it's nowhere near that of College Football, and they probably don't spend a lot of the money given to them on things unrelated to their baseball program.

The amount ESPN makes is irrelevant in this discussion since it is based on the principles of the issue. Bates is arguing that ESPN is one of the entities taking advantage of the players - and because they make any money at all - players should be paid. Whether they make $.10 or $10,000,000 is irrelevant.

According to Bates' argument, High School Football teams should take all of their gate receipts and divide a portion of the proceeds to the players. They are amateurs, after all. Better yet, a child in a 2nd Grade musical should get a portion of those ticket sales.

 

[RodentRampage]

The amount ESPN makes is irrelevant in this discussion since it is based on the principles of the issue. Bates is arguing that ESPN is one of the entities taking advantage of the players - and because they make any money at all - players should be paid. Whether they make $.10 or $10,000,000 is irrelevant.

According to Bates' argument, High School Football teams should take all of their gate receipts and divide a portion of the proceeds to the players. They are amateurs, after all. Better yet, a child in a 2nd Grade musical should get a portion of those ticket sales.

Good point - don't high school players work? Don't D-III players work? If the D-I players should be paid for their work - in addition to the compensation they get from free college, why shouldn't these players get paid too? If I work for a highly profitable company, that doesn't mean I get paid more than if I work for one that is less profitable.

And minor leagues can indeed work, just look at baseball. The reason we don't have them in football is that the NFL is quite content with using college as it's minor league system.

 

[AO54]

The amount ESPN makes is irrelevant in this discussion since it is based on the principles of the issue. Bates is arguing that ESPN is one of the entities taking advantage of the players - and because they make any money at all - players should be paid. Whether they make $.10 or $10,000,000 is irrelevant.

According to Bates' argument, High School Football teams should take all of their gate receipts and divide a portion of the proceeds to the players. They are amateurs, after all. Better yet, a child in a 2nd Grade musical should get a portion of those ticket sales.

I'm not Bates, i'm not going to follow his argument exclusively. It doesn't matter how much money ESPN makes--it's how much money the little league association or the high school football team makes. How many 2nd grade musicals are profitable? I doubt they come close to even paying for the director. Minnesota football on the other hand makes a lot of money that goes to entities that had nothing to do with the football product----espn had a part in the product, the coaches and players had a part in that product--the rowing team didn't.

 

[RodentRampage]

I'm not Bates, i'm not going to follow his argument exclusively. It doesn't matter how much money ESPN makes--it's how much money the little league association or the high school football team makes. How many 2nd grade musicals are profitable? I doubt they come close to even paying for the director. Minnesota football on the other hand makes a lot of money that goes to entities that had nothing to do with the football product----espn had a part in the product, the coaches and players had a part in that product--the rowing team didn't.

So, if you work for a company that doesn't make money, you don't get paid? That's a peculiar way of paying people, no salary unless the company makes a profit. It's the university's product, not solely the football team. The football team is not an independent business. The rowing team is part of the university, and therefore part of the product.

 

[disco]

Good point - don't high school players work? Don't D-III players work? If the D-I players should be paid for their work - in addition to the compensation they get from free college, why shouldn't these players get paid too? If I work for a highly profitable company, that doesn't mean I get paid more than if I work for one that is less profitable.

And minor leagues can indeed work, just look at baseball. The reason we don't have them in football is that the NFL is quite content with using college as it's minor league system.

The difference with high school, is that the players are pretty much all minors, under legal guardianship. They're also paying to play the game. I don't think high school ball outside of Texas makes any money for anyone.

Also, high school players are allowed to have jobs in addition to playing sports or other activities. NCAA athletes are not.

Speaking of which, is the prohibition on having a job only limited to scholarship athletes, or can the kid running D-3 cross country not work either?

 

[AO54]

-

 

[AO54]

So, if you work for a company that doesn't make money, you don't get paid? That's a peculiar way of paying people, no salary unless the company makes a profit. It's the university's product, not solely the football team. The football team is not an independent business. The rowing team is part of the university, and therefore part of the product.

How did we move from 2nd grade musical to a company? There are varying degrees of businesses and organizations. Some are small theater productions with very little income and volunteer workers, and some are football programs with $15Million in profit. I don't know about you, but I don't consider the rowing team to be part of the reason I'm buying a ticket or watching the gophs on TV. How are they possibly part of the product?

 

[Gopherocious]

Speaking of which, is the prohibition on having a job only limited to scholarship athletes, or can the kid running D-3 cross country not work either?

FWIW, I know plenty of D-2 kids that have jobs when they are not in-season

 

[RailBaronYarr]

Minnesota made $15Million in profit last year from football, which they spent on other students and administrators who didn't earn the money.

Excuse me, what? Other administrators, faculty, and staff that didn't earn the money? They didn't earn their money giving the education to the football players? Doing research that attracts businesses to partner with them to keep the U relevant and afloat? The students... the ones who attend athletic events that they pay to go see? Heaven forbid that (assuming all $15M went to other students) that $300 went to each of the 50,000 people attending the same university the athletes attend to help keep costs down (so that, you know, the same university can be seen in a better light academically as well as athletically).

The reality is that people looking to pay college athletes are forgetting that they are STUDENT-athletes. Student first, meaning that (in theory and what SHOULD be practice) their academics come first and they play football to represent the state and university on the side. As someone said, many athletes are allowed in to the university with academic backgrounds that would disqualify any other HS student, and THEN given a free ride PLUS free tutors.

Athletes make the decision to come to college and get a free education in the hopes that their talent and exposure is enough to get them a job in the professional world (in football, the NFL). If they are not talented enough athletically, they can (and should) rely on the FREE education, room, board, books, and tutoring given to them to land a different career.

Should we feel so bad for doctors, pharmacists, etc who have to pay a full year of graduate tuition their last year to work 40-50 hours a week (plus 1 course to do internship review)?? NO!! They made the choice to go down an education and career path that has an XX% chance of netting them a job with an $XXXk salary.

Again, people making the comparison saying how many hours per week are devoted to sports and claiming a student-athlete can't have a job to afford all the conveniences and day-to-day expenses are forgetting that a scholarship is worth $20-25k+ per year. A student NOT in sports would have to work 48 hours a week @ $10/hour (a pretty standard entry-level or on-campus job pay, maybe even a bit high), every week of the year PLUS school to cover $25k. Are we comparable now? Do you think that even the most dedicated athlete works on AVERAGE over the whole year 48 hours/week? Doubtful.

 

[AO54]

Excuse me, what? Other administrators, faculty, and staff that didn't earn the money? They didn't earn their money giving the education to the football players? Doing research that attracts businesses to partner with them to keep the U relevant and afloat? The students... the ones who attend athletic events that they pay to go see? Heaven forbid that (assuming all $15M went to other students) that $300 went to each of the 50,000 people attending the same university the athletes attend to help keep costs down (so that, you know, the same university can be seen in a better light academically as well as athletically).

The reality is that people looking to pay college athletes are forgetting that they are STUDENT-athletes. Student first, meaning that (in theory and what SHOULD be practice) their academics come first and they play football to represent the state and university on the side. As someone said, many athletes are allowed in to the university with academic backgrounds that would disqualify any other HS student, and THEN given a free ride PLUS free tutors.

Athletes make the decision to come to college and get a free education in the hopes that their talent and exposure is enough to get them a job in the professional world (in football, the NFL). If they are not talented enough athletically, they can (and should) rely on the FREE education, room, board, books, and tutoring given to them to land a different career.

Should we feel so bad for doctors, pharmacists, etc who have to pay a full year of graduate tuition their last year to work 40-50 hours a week (plus 1 course to do internship review)?? NO!! They made the choice to go down an education and career path that has an XX% chance of netting them a job with an $XXXk salary.

Again, people making the comparison saying how many hours per week are devoted to sports and claiming a student-athlete can't have a job to afford all the conveniences and day-to-day expenses are forgetting that a scholarship is worth $20-25k+ per year. A student NOT in sports would have to work 48 hours a week @ $10/hour (a pretty standard entry-level or on-campus job pay, maybe even a bit high), every week of the year PLUS school to cover $25k. Are we comparable now? Do you think that even the most dedicated athlete works on AVERAGE over the whole year 48 hours/week? Doubtful.

I was talking about the athletic administrators unrelated to the football program, the scholarships that pay for the faculty have already been figured into the expense side of things before they got to the $15 Million of profit.

You might call them student-athletes, but the only real student-athletes exist at the D3 level. The D1 players are paid with their scholarship and room/board.---Nothing is free. They're just not paid what they are worth. It doesn't matter how long of hours they work, the work that they do is valuable. I feel like we're back in the 1920s complaining that Babe Ruth makes more than the president. If you don't think football players are worth more than the work of a graduate student, stop paying for the tickets and stop paying for the big ten network.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

I was talking about the athletic administrators unrelated to the football program, the scholarships that pay for the faculty have already been figured into the expense side of things before they got to the $15 Million of profit.

You might call them student-athletes, but the only real student-athletes exist at the D3 level. The D1 players are paid with their scholarship and room/board.---Nothing is free. They're just not paid what they are worth. It doesn't matter how long of hours they work, the work that they do is valuable. I feel like we're back in the 1920s complaining that Babe Ruth makes more than the president. If you don't think football players are worth more than the work of a graduate student, stop paying for the tickets and stop paying for the big ten network.

Now we're getting in to a philosophical question about what someone is "worth." A teacher is not underpaid. A doctor is not overpaid. A student-athlete is not "underpaid." Why? Because it's a free market and as long as someone will do a job for a certain salary with a given amount of experience in a given location that is what it's worth. The salary teachers get levels out based on the supply of teachers versus the demand in jobs. Same with doctors, engineers, and yes, college athletes. The student athlete recognizes (whether they plan on going "pro" in the sport or their academic field) that they will do a certain amount of work for their university in exchange for free education, books, tutors, room, and food as well as the exposure to be recognized and possibly drafted by a pro team. Don't forget they are also getting something in return by having their skills honed, access to free top-notch workout facilities, and any diet supplements to help with their strength and conditioning. Not to mention a much easier access to a network of alums and local/national businesses after graduation.

If they are "worth" so much more, then they are MORE than welcome to find another football league that pays better.

I COULD have joined the military after graduation and received free training, education, and optional free on-base housing. In exchange for a contract of service. I could have even done a military academy. Instead, I chose to go a route where I paid for my tuition. Aspiring college athletes have the exact same option.

Also, I actually looked in to the operating finances at the U. Our athletic department as a whole does not support itself. It still requires funding from the University at-large (to the tune of $1.7M here). If you're talking about the football team having a profit of $15M and it going to fund other athlete's scholarships and other sports' coaches, faculty, staff, then I guess I say "boo-hoo." While many of us may not agree on how many and what sports should be supported by the U, I can guarantee you that helping fund other sports scholarships and coaches is more in the vision than paying the football players more than their scholarship.

The reality? Paying players will only further this problem of student athletes expecting special treatment, cash, etc for being a player. It will also cause universities that have many alums with deep pockets to fund their team to win. The disparity between the "haves" and "have-nots" will become MUCH greater.

 

[Mulligan]

While many of us may not agree on how many and what sports should be supported by the U, I can guarantee you that helping fund other sports scholarships and coaches is more in the vision than paying the football players more than their scholarship.

The reality? Paying players will only further this problem of student athletes expecting special treatment, cash, etc for being a player. It will also cause universities that have many alums with deep pockets to fund their team to win. The disparity between the "haves" and "have-nots" will become MUCH greater.

Thanks. Couldn't agree more, especially with your last points.

 

[AO54]

Now we're getting in to a philosophical question about what someone is "worth." A teacher is not underpaid. A doctor is not overpaid. A student-athlete is not "underpaid." Why? Because it's a free market and as long as someone will do a job for a certain salary with a given amount of experience in a given location that is what it's worth. The salary teachers get levels out based on the supply of teachers versus the demand in jobs. Same with doctors, engineers, and yes, college athletes. The student athlete recognizes (whether they plan on going "pro" in the sport or their academic field) that they will do a certain amount of work for their university in exchange for free education, books, tutors, room, and food as well as the exposure to be recognized and possibly drafted by a pro team. Don't forget they are also getting something in return by having their skills honed, access to free top-notch workout facilities, and any diet supplements to help with their strength and conditioning. Not to mention a much easier access to a network of alums and local/national businesses after graduation.

If they are "worth" so much more, then they are MORE than welcome to find another football league that pays better.

I COULD have joined the military after graduation and received free training, education, and optional free on-base housing. In exchange for a contract of service. I could have even done a military academy. Instead, I chose to go a route where I paid for my tuition. Aspiring college athletes have the exact same option.

Also, I actually looked in to the operating finances at the U. Our athletic department as a whole does not support itself. It still requires funding from the University at-large (to the tune of $1.7M here). If you're talking about the football team having a profit of $15M and it going to fund other athlete's scholarships and other sports' coaches, faculty, staff, then I guess I say "boo-hoo." While many of us may not agree on how many and what sports should be supported by the U, I can guarantee you that helping fund other sports scholarships and coaches is more in the vision than paying the football players more than their scholarship.

The reality? Paying players will only further this problem of student athletes expecting special treatment, cash, etc for being a player. It will also cause universities that have many alums with deep pockets to fund their team to win. The disparity between the "haves" and "have-nots" will become MUCH greater.

It's hardly a philosophical question. And we do not have a free market in college athletics. We don't have a free market in education or healthcare either to use your examples, but lets focus on college athletics. If we had a free market in college athletics the conferences or individual schools could decide to allow any compensation to their student athletes rather than just the tuition and room/board. Government has taken out the free market with Title IX. You're not allowed by law to start another college football league that pays its football players more than its volleyball players. It's that simple.

I'm sure helping fund other sports with the football profit is in the vision of the big wigs at the U, but that doesn't make it right. Why aren't you upset that the Vikings don't support a rowing team? We already have great disparities between the "haves" and the "have-nots". We have several versions of the Yankees in college football, but it hasn't ruined the game. It's just life. Some people are more valuable than others, and some are willing to spend more to have a better chance of winning.

 

[Ron Johnson Super Fan]

You're not allowed by law to start another college football league that pays its football players more than its volleyball players. It's that simple.

Pretty sure schools could start their own college football league and compensate players however they wanted. They just wouldn't be allowed to be members of the NCAA.

 

[Arbogast]

Speaking of Miami, did anybody else see that Shalala got the dreaded "vote of confidence"? I think it's up on ESPN. She's as good as gone.

 

[disco]

Pretty sure schools could start their own college football league and compensate players however they wanted. They just wouldn't be allowed to be members of the NCAA.

I don't know about that. What's to say that a bunch of schools couldn't break off from the NCAA in football, and then have their other sports be under the NCAA umbrella. It's been discussed. In fact, it's been talked about a lot recently as to the reason that the NCAA WON'T dole out another death penalty - they're afraid that might happen.

There are a number of college sports that aren't NCAA sanctioned. The one that comes to mind first would be rodeo. Men's bowling is another (women's bowling is an NCAA sport). Boxing is another one after the NCAA dropped it in 1960. Judo is another one.