Paying College Players and Unionization

FTFY

9e2ea1d4-6094-417f-83ed-c7ada612908a.jpg
Click to expand...

Race(RIP) has done it again!
 
Is Tequilla's point that teams that pay the most money will get the best players? Should we cap coaches' salaries at tuition, room, board, books, and fees, because it is unfair that Alabama's alumni can afford to pay more than Utah State's alumni? Just tell Saban if he's good enough to turn pro, turn pro, otherwise stay in college and like it?

How much in bonuses did Harrison's shot earn his coaches and AD? How much more will he earn for them if UK wins its next two games?

Pay the players money commensurate with the money they bring in. Just like you do with the coaches.

There are a lot of people in the world that are jealous that athletes are rich. That is really sad.
 
I'm not jealous whatsoever in what athletes make. You could argue that many of them are underpaid as it is. LBJ makes $20M a year in the NBA. How many actors make $20M per movie? Are they better at their craft than LBJ?

There's a lot that I have a problem with when it comes to college players getting paid obscene amounts of money. I question what the limits are when it comes to what kids are making a year ... particularly when the kids are receiving an education as part of the gig. Take your average out-of-state UW student-athlete. Costs of out-of-state tuition + housing comes close to $50k. When you throw on top of that training table, exclusive use of facilities, free tutoring, free personal training, and professional development training, you could easily argue that each player is getting over $100k per year. That's nothing to sneeze at.

In comparison, an undrafted free agent in the NFL makes about $400k their first year.

Does it make sense to reimburse athletes at a reasonable hourly rate of compensation that would be consistent with what your average student would make for their services while required to be at practice, etc.? I think that that is fair. Something in the neighborhood of $15-$20 per hour (adjusted for inflation depending on the locale) would make sense to me at 20 hours per week. That comes out to about $15-20k per year per student-athlete. When you consider what else that they have going on, perks, etc., that's definitely enough for them to be able to live comfortably.

If you allow for players to be paid in a non-standard way at the college level, how do you determine what players get paid? Do seniors get more than freshman? Starters? All based on what alumni, boosters, and Athletic Departments are willing to pay? There's a lot of challenges in coming up with the right system.

If you start trickling down pay to the college level, how long before you start encountering the question at the high school level?

And, if you set the system up such that players are able share into the revenues of the TV packages, gate receipts, etc., then how do you get around Title IX? If football/basketball players are going to go down that road and argue that they deserve a greater slice of the pie, they'll quickly go away from talking about their collective rights and instead be entering into an argument about Title IX that I would be shocked if they found a way to win.

Pay the top of the profession the most money. That's fine. Everybody that has the mindset works hard to be able to achieve that after years of working at and mastering their craft (whatever craft that is). But most college athletes will never attain those high levels of performance and command those salaries. Instead, most kids are receiving a total package of well over $100k in terms of value of what they are being offered as compensation for playing a sport while in college. It's far from a trivial amount. And an amount far from what will gain significant sympathy when thought of in those terms given that the vast majority of the population doesn't make that kind of money ... yet these kids are walking into those kinds of situations at 18-22 years old. And for those that do not end up playing professionally, they'll instantly be taking a "pay cut" when it comes to a standard of living once they are out of the University setting and responsible for all that they do.

I guess my problem through all of this is that I don't buy the argument that the players are making when they say that they aren't being compensated for what they do. That's BS. What they really are saying is that they aren't getting the Benjamins immediately and instead have to put in extra work so that they can down the line collect. That's just a really hard line for me to support.
 
We have recently won National Titles in men's crew, and women's cross country, volleyball, and softball. We have not won a Rose Bowl in 13 years. Yet the football coach makes more than the coaches in the other four sports combined, because the football program brings in the money. We have not made a final four in 60 years, yet I have no problem with Romar getting paid more than McLaughlin, because while McLaughlin may bring the wins, Romar brings more dollars.

Pay the players that bring in the money, money. Tenured professors get paid more than research assistants.

Title IX is about scholarships. It is not about athletic department employees.

Whether or not you think $100,000 is significant is irrelevant. Is it commensurate to the money the players are bringing in?

Pay Saban his scholarship package worth $100,000, since it is "nothing to sneeze at."

You're bothered that young athletes might get rich. We get that. That does not make it right. Who cares if they take a pay cut when they turn 22? Should actors/musicians/tennis players not be allowed to get rich as teen agers because they might take a pay cut when they are past their prime?

 
Last edited:
Ravenna,

What do you think scholarships are? Who do you think funds them?

Even if you assume that you cut every male sport out of the college spectrum except for football and basketball, you'll have to fund 100 scholarships for women sports. As I pointed out, for the UW, each scholarship is worth at least $50k as a starting point.

If college sports were so profitable, then you'd find more and more Athletic Departments churning out profits instead of losses. But the profitable schools are the exception and far from the rule.

I agree with you that coaches probably make too much ... and some of that money could be funneled back into the students.

Your example of paying Saban $100k per year is an absolute joke. Saban is arguably one of the best in the world at his profession. Now, you can argue what the top of his profession should get paid, but it's certainly more than $100k per year.

 
Apparently you missed the point.

Coaches do not make too much. Coaches make money commensurate with the money they bring in. Calipari is compensated handsomely to bring in money for UK, and he working hard and he's doing a pretty good job.

Paying Saban $100,000 is indeed a joke (kudos!), just as saying Jameis Winston was only worth $50 or $100,000 this year is a joke. Who do you think was more important to Auburn's title, Newton, Fairly, or Chizik? (Hint, it was not the guy with the multi million dollar salary)

The money is there, whether you want to believe it or not.

Don't tell Justin Beiber "You may be generating tens of millions of dollars from your talent, but it would be unfair for you to take a paycut when you turn 22, so take $100,000 worth of schooling benefits and feel fairly compensated." And do not tell athletes that are the center of a multi billion dollar business that, either.

 
The title IX thing is a little overblown in how people think it will stop unionization and pay-outs from happening. Here's a good article explaining how title ix is about education and the opportunity to play sports, whereas the pay-outs are all about whether the male football players are workers or not.
title ix should not confuse the issue of unions.

Second point is that of course paying the players will slow down the coaching salary escalator. I see it as a finite amount of money in the pot, with hundreds to thousands of new straws looking for a taste. Not that salaries will necessarily go down, but likely that they would plateau. If you're only allowed to pay half of your employees for producing x results (national titles, rose bowls, etc), like in CFB, then you'll give that group all of the money. Though the amounts of agreed compensation probably won't be very high, and then probably won't change the dynamics of coaching salaries all that much.
 
I'm not jealous whatsoever in what athletes make. You could argue that many of them are underpaid as it is. LBJ makes $20M a year in the NBA. How many actors make $20M per movie? Are they better at their craft than LBJ?

There's a lot that I have a problem with when it comes to college players getting paid obscene amounts of money. I question what the limits are when it comes to what kids are making a year ... particularly when the kids are receiving an education as part of the gig. Take your average out-of-state UW student-athlete. Costs of out-of-state tuition + housing comes close to $50k. When you throw on top of that training table, exclusive use of facilities, free tutoring, free personal training, and professional development training, you could easily argue that each player is getting over $100k per year. That's nothing to sneeze at.

In comparison, an undrafted free agent in the NFL makes about $400k their first year.

Does it make sense to reimburse athletes at a reasonable hourly rate of compensation that would be consistent with what your average student would make for their services while required to be at practice, etc.? I think that that is fair. Something in the neighborhood of $15-$20 per hour (adjusted for inflation depending on the locale) would make sense to me at 20 hours per week. That comes out to about $15-20k per year per student-athlete. When you consider what else that they have going on, perks, etc., that's definitely enough for them to be able to live comfortably.

If you allow for players to be paid in a non-standard way at the college level, how do you determine what players get paid? Do seniors get more than freshman? Starters? All based on what alumni, boosters, and Athletic Departments are willing to pay? There's a lot of challenges in coming up with the right system.

If you start trickling down pay to the college level, how long before you start encountering the question at the high school level?

And, if you set the system up such that players are able share into the revenues of the TV packages, gate receipts, etc., then how do you get around Title IX? If football/basketball players are going to go down that road and argue that they deserve a greater slice of the pie, they'll quickly go away from talking about their collective rights and instead be entering into an argument about Title IX that I would be shocked if they found a way to win.

Pay the top of the profession the most money. That's fine. Everybody that has the mindset works hard to be able to achieve that after years of working at and mastering their craft (whatever craft that is). But most college athletes will never attain those high levels of performance and command those salaries. Instead, most kids are receiving a total package of well over $100k in terms of value of what they are being offered as compensation for playing a sport while in college. It's far from a trivial amount. And an amount far from what will gain significant sympathy when thought of in those terms given that the vast majority of the population doesn't make that kind of money ... yet these kids are walking into those kinds of situations at 18-22 years old. And for those that do not end up playing professionally, they'll instantly be taking a "pay cut" when it comes to a standard of living once they are out of the University setting and responsible for all that they do.

I guess my problem through all of this is that I don't buy the argument that the players are making when they say that they aren't being compensated for what they do. That's BS. What they really are saying is that they aren't getting the Benjamins immediately and instead have to put in extra work so that they can down the line collect. That's just a really hard line for me to support.
Click to expand...

TL, DR, but I'm sure I disagree. Only you would try to power through a complete threadjacking. Friday can't get here soon enough. My sources are telling me you're about to follow Little Jimmy(RIP) into the dark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top