NCAA pushes $2K increase for athletes

Home ▸ Archive ▸ College Sports ▸ NCAA pushes $2K increase for athletes
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Oct 25, 2011 2:13 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;944479 wrote:What isn't paid for?

When I tutored student-athletes at an SEC school they got FREE tuition, FREE room and board, FREE cafeteria facilities, FREE athletic facilities, and FREE travel to their homes at the beginning of the semester and end of the semester, plus FREE tickets for their families. That doesn't count all of the athletic gear swag they got.

What else do you want?

You rail on this topic over and over again and make less sense each time. How are these people deprived?

You didn't even mention the monthly stipend if they get them.
Oct 25, 2011 2:13am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Oct 25, 2011 2:29 AM
lhslep134;944481 wrote:You didn't even mention the monthly stipend if they get them.
They get them, my wife played a club sport (volleyball) and still got a road trip per diem on visiting trips - which she used on the rare occasions that food wasn't provided by the host. If a football player is smart, he can make money off of his schollie.
Oct 25, 2011 2:29am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Oct 25, 2011 4:46 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;944479 wrote:What isn't paid for?

When I tutored student-athletes at an SEC school they got FREE tuition, FREE room and board, FREE cafeteria facilities, FREE athletic facilities, and FREE travel to their homes at the beginning of the semester and end of the semester, plus FREE tickets for their families. That doesn't count all of the athletic gear swag they got.

What else do you want?

You rail on this topic over and over again and make less sense each time. How are these people deprived?
It isn't about being "deprived" as much as these individuals are not even close to compensated for what they would be in an unregulated market for college football even taking into account what they get for "free" as you say (as opposed to being compensated for services rendered).

In fact, the average FBS football player is worth $121,000 per year if the NCAA engaged in revenue sharing like the NFL. Yet, 85% of scholarship athletes live below the poverty line. No one is even suggesting they get paid what their true fair market value is and yet you claim it is "absurd" to suggest they might be compensated $2,000 more. http://www.ncpanow.org/research?id=0024
Oct 25, 2011 4:46am
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Oct 25, 2011 6:17 AM
Al Bundy;944407 wrote:No one is forcing these kids to have all of their expenses taken care of for 4-5 years. If they don't want to have free tutition, books, room & board, unlimited tutoring, access to top facilities, trainers, and medical staff, I am sure that there are many people who would gladly be "used" like that.
I agree. The system is flawed, sometimes ridiculous, but the "used" argument is weak. Forewarned is forearmed.
Oct 25, 2011 6:17am
HitsRus's avatar

HitsRus

Senior Member

9,206 posts
Oct 25, 2011 7:22 AM
You rail on this topic over and over again and make less sense each time. How are these people deprived?

http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/professional/duke-coach-mike-krzyzewski-challenges-ncaa-to-do-something-for-student-athletes

I make less sense? All I do is post link after link from legitimate people and sources. But what I get in return is hear say( I tutored an SEC athlete), vapid generalizations( if you give a kid $2K he'll take 10)... and judgemental comments (he'll just use the money to buy rims for his car)).. All I'm doing is advocating for the student athlete to be able to get pocket change without the risk of over the top penalties, and a stop for the complete waste of money trying to enforce picayune regulations.
Oct 25, 2011 7:22am
A

Al Bundy

Senior Member

4,180 posts
Oct 25, 2011 7:29 AM
BoatShoes;944506 wrote:It isn't about being "deprived" as much as these individuals are not even close to compensated for what they would be in an unregulated market for college football even taking into account what they get for "free" as you say (as opposed to being compensated for services rendered).

In fact, the average FBS football player is worth $121,000 per year if the NCAA engaged in revenue sharing like the NFL. Yet, 85% of scholarship athletes live below the poverty line. No one is even suggesting they get paid what their true fair market value is and yet you claim it is "absurd" to suggest they might be compensated $2,000 more. http://www.ncpanow.org/research?id=0024
If people could make money by promoting the individual stars, why hasn't anyone started a pro league for 18-21 year olds? I still think that, for the most part, people root for the uniform more than they do the individual athlete.
Oct 25, 2011 7:29am
se-alum's avatar

se-alum

The Biggest Boss

13,948 posts
Oct 25, 2011 8:13 AM
Al Bundy;944539 wrote:If people could make money by promoting the individual stars, why hasn't anyone started a pro league for 18-21 year olds? I still think that, for the most part, people root for the uniform more than they do the individual athlete.
Absolutely they do. People watch OSU, because they are OSU. I've never purchased an athlete specific piece of OSU garb.
Oct 25, 2011 8:13am
HitsRus's avatar

HitsRus

Senior Member

9,206 posts
Oct 25, 2011 8:27 AM
How are these people deprived?
The monthly stipend doesn't cover evrything that a kid needs to live. Now if your a middle class family that doesn't have to pay for college, maybe mom and dad can cover your car insurance and ship you a few hundred here and there . But that is not the same thing for kids of less advantaged families. Some of those families depend on junior to work to provide some income for the family.....but since junior is away at school living like a "king or queen"....mom is a little short.

It would not hurt anyone if the NCAA would loosen up some of the income restrictions a bit to help good kids stay honest.
Oct 25, 2011 8:27am
A

Al Bundy

Senior Member

4,180 posts
Oct 25, 2011 8:35 AM
HitsRus;944576 wrote:The monthly stipend doesn't cover evrything that a kid needs to live. Now if your a middle class family that doesn't have to pay for college, maybe mom and dad can cover your car insurance and ship you a few hundred here and there . But that is not the same thing for kids of less advantaged families. Some of those families depend on junior to work to provide some income for the family.....but since junior is away at school living like a "king or queen"....mom is a little short.

It would not hurt anyone if the NCAA would loosen up some of the income restrictions a bit to help good kids stay honest.
Since when did a car become some right to a kid that can live on campus for free?
Oct 25, 2011 8:35am
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Oct 25, 2011 8:38 AM
OSU athletes get $1500 a month to cover rent/food/expenses/books/etc. $1500 is plenty to cover anything you could possibly need, considering its Columbus OH and even the most expensive apartments on campus top out at $750 a month.
Oct 25, 2011 8:38am
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Oct 25, 2011 8:40 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;944492 wrote:If a football player is smart, he can make money off of his schollie.
+1

Give me $1500 a month in college, throw in free tuition, free tutoring, free health care, and I'll come out of college with significantly more money than I had coming in.
Oct 25, 2011 8:40am
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Oct 25, 2011 9:04 AM
HitsRus;944576 wrote:but since junior is away at school living like a "king or queen"....mom is a little short.
Why would it be the college's responsibility to take care of a college kid's family?

You have some good points, but given that you launched this whole crusade when guys got in trouble for selling shit to get tattoos, the woe-is-the-athlete line just isn't going to get much sympathy. There are cases where guys legitimately took money to take care of mom. And there are cases where guys portray themselves as spoiled, selfish brats who feel they are above the rules and entitled. People feel bad for the first type. People don't like the second type, especially when they come back with bogus justifications (or lies) like the rules are stupid, it was their own stuff, they are slaves, or they were just trying to feed mom (with tattoos and nice cars).
Oct 25, 2011 9:04am
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Oct 25, 2011 10:45 AM
So a group of college athletes appears to pushing the issue.

http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news;_ylt=AvR_6t_MoSAs5VN5czcNsLI5nYcB?slug=ap-ncaa-athletesrights

I guess if you are the guy who wants paid, it won't matter. But all the talk about a football player's value (some article put the number at like $120K) completely fails to consider what else the money making sports pay for. I wouldn't care if all other sports (especially women's sports) went away and college football was a paid trade, but colleges are never EVER going to do that and shouldn't.
In a written statement, NCAA spokesman Bob Williams said the NCAA “redirects nearly all of its revenue to support student-athletes.”
“Of its approximately $775 million in annual revenues, the NCAA invests 96 percent, or 96 cents of every dollar, in student-athletes through direct distributions to individual campuses and conferences; the funding and administration of national championships; and other direct support, such as the Student Assistance and Academic Enhancement funds in Division I. “
Oct 25, 2011 10:45am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Oct 25, 2011 1:10 PM
Al Bundy;944539 wrote:If people could make money by promoting the individual stars, why hasn't anyone started a pro league for 18-21 year olds? I still think that, for the most part, people root for the uniform more than they do the individual athlete.
Because the NFL gets a free farm system and doesn't have to pay a dime. MLB teams often lose money grooming prospects that they bet on when they're 18-21 whereas the NFL lets college football bear that burden. Furthermore, the NFL players union has put in place rules protecting its members against competition from 18-21 year olds. And, if you haven't noticed, the market for professional football leagues in the U.S. is not a freely competitive market with easy access to market.
Oct 25, 2011 1:10pm
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Oct 25, 2011 1:14 PM
sleeper;944591 wrote:+1

Give me $1500 a month in college, throw in free tuition, free tutoring, free health care, and I'll come out of college with significantly more money than I had coming in.
Even if that's true that doesn't mean you aren't getting fairly compensated for your market value or services rendered. If I'm working for a private employer as a salesmen and he compensates me with free tuition, free tutoring, health insurance and $1500 a month; if I'm smart perhaps I could "make it work." But, if the value I'm generating is north of $200,000.00 I am still getting a raw deal.
Oct 25, 2011 1:14pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Oct 25, 2011 1:29 PM
BoatShoes;944802 wrote:Even if that's true that doesn't mean you aren't getting fairly compensated for your market value or services rendered. If I'm working for a private employer as a salesmen and he compensates me with free tuition, free tutoring, health insurance and $1500 a month; if I'm smart perhaps I could "make it work." But, if the value I'm generating is north of $200,000.00 I am still getting a raw deal.
Ok, so you'd advise getting rid of all sports/programs that don't generate any revenue for the University?

Also, regardless of their true market value for services rendered, there's a ton of demand for the current package being offered by the schools. If a super star athlete feels they are not getting their true worth out of playing football for the school, then they wouldn't play, leaving another student to take their place. This is how economics works, try taking a class called Econ 101.
Oct 25, 2011 1:29pm
2kool4skool's avatar

2kool4skool

Senior Member

1,804 posts
Oct 25, 2011 3:20 PM
Al Bundy;944447 wrote:Some programs people watch for the individual, and some they watch for the program. OSU sells the same number of tickets with or without TP. I know that isn't true everywhere, but the top level programs have a product that is bigger than any individual athlete.
se-alum;944563 wrote:Absolutely they do. People watch OSU, because they are OSU. I've never purchased an athlete specific piece of OSU garb.
If the athletes didn't matter, then wouldn't a simple solution to this whole OSU mess be to only recruit 4.0 students and upstanding citizens for the football team? Somehow I doubt we'd have so many "diehard" OSU fans if they were fielding an Ivy League team every season.

The NCAA needs top football players every bit as much as top football players need the NCAA. It's a reciprocal relationship.
Oct 25, 2011 3:20pm
Pick6's avatar

Pick6

A USA American

14,946 posts
Oct 25, 2011 3:28 PM
I'd like to see this "appraisal" that makes the average football player worth $121k.

Has OSU lost a ton of revenue because of Terrelle Pryor leaving for the NFL and Braxton Miller taking his spot? I doubt it. These big time programs make money because of their name, not their players.
Oct 25, 2011 3:28pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Oct 25, 2011 3:33 PM
Pick6;944960 wrote:I'd like to see this "appraisal" that makes the average football player worth $121k.
The ONLY way worth is measured in the labor market is what someone is willing to pay. If a D-1 athlete believes a "free" education is not adequate to what he is providing a university, he is free to go to work in any capacity at any company willing to hire him at whatever wage he can negotiate.
Oct 25, 2011 3:33pm
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Oct 25, 2011 3:41 PM
sleeper;944821 wrote:Ok, so you'd advise getting rid of all sports/programs that don't generate any revenue for the University?

Also, regardless of their true market value for services rendered, there's a ton of demand for the current package being offered by the schools. If a super star athlete feels they are not getting their true worth out of playing football for the school, then they wouldn't play, leaving another student to take their place. This is how economics works, try taking a class called Econ 101.
Lol no it is not. There are plenty of workers who feel they are not getting justifiably compensated. A 6'8 250lb Defensive End with talent readily desired by the NFL would certainly choose 3-4 years of being marginalized and undercompensated for a chance at a much higher income potential in the NFL. Or, perhaps they will negotiate a payment on the side skirting the rules. However, that doesn't mean that they indeed are getting a raw deal. And, as is evidenced by the rampant corruption in college football...many of these individuals are aware of their opportunity to benefit economically from their status as blue chip athletes and do just that. No where in an introductory economic course would you learn that a person aware of his economic value would readily and willingly relinquish a chance to earn a return on that value when there is no other market actor that is readily willing and able to compensate him for that value.

Adolphus Washington cannot go to the NAIA and get paid the $100k plus his services are worth to tOSU. The market is not freely competitive. But, because he's not going to be getting paid what he would be getting paid in a freely competitive market that doesn't mean he's going to choose to go to Community College and allow a lesser talented athlete to take his spot and audition for the most profitable sports league in the U.S.A.
Oct 25, 2011 3:41pm
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Oct 25, 2011 3:43 PM
Pick6;944960 wrote:I'd like to see this "appraisal" that makes the average football player worth $121k.

Has OSU lost a ton of revenue because of Terrelle Pryor leaving for the NFL and Braxton Miller taking his spot? I doubt it. These big time programs make money because of their name, not their players.
I linked the research piece earlier if you'd care to read. It's based upon if the NCAA engaged in similar types of revenue sharing like the NFL.
Oct 25, 2011 3:43pm
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Oct 25, 2011 3:46 PM
queencitybuckeye;944963 wrote:The ONLY way worth is measured in the labor market is what someone is willing to pay. If a D-1 athlete believes a "free" education is not adequate to what he is providing a university, he is free to go to work in any capacity at any company willing to hire him at whatever wage he can negotiate.
See this analysis is wrong. The market for college football athletes is not freely competitive. The "wage" he can earn is controlled and is not up to market forces. If the American Bar Association regulated the price that all lawyers could be paid regardless of the value that they contribute to their respective firm, it would be silly to say that attorney is free to go to a bar and negotiate his wage to be a bartender if he doesn't think he's getting fairly compensated for his legal skills.
Oct 25, 2011 3:46pm
Pick6's avatar

Pick6

A USA American

14,946 posts
Oct 25, 2011 3:47 PM
BoatShoes;944977 wrote:I linked the research piece earlier if you'd care to read. It's based upon if the NCAA engaged in similar types of revenue sharing like the NFL.
If you are talking about this: http://www.ncpanow.org/research?id=0024 It doesnt have a breakdown of anything. I can pull numbers out of my ass, but with no sources for proof, it doesnt make me credible.
Oct 25, 2011 3:47pm
A

Al Bundy

Senior Member

4,180 posts
Oct 25, 2011 4:38 PM
BoatShoes;944984 wrote:See this analysis is wrong. The market for college football athletes is not freely competitive. The "wage" he can earn is controlled and is not up to market forces. If the American Bar Association regulated the price that all lawyers could be paid regardless of the value that they contribute to their respective firm, it would be silly to say that attorney is free to go to a bar and negotiate his wage to be a bartender if he doesn't think he's getting fairly compensated for his legal skills.
If there were a market, another party would set up a pro league for 18-21 year olds. No one feels that it is worth taking the chance.
Oct 25, 2011 4:38pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Oct 25, 2011 4:42 PM
The party keeping the best players from earning "market" value is not the NCAA, it's the NFLPA.
Oct 25, 2011 4:42pm