This is exactly correct. If a kid is good enough make money playing basketball then they're free to go that route. With the cost of college these days, the players are getting paid. A G league player makes around $35,000 a season. That's about the same for a year of college.
JBo the activist
- Thread starter Franisdaman
- Start date
This is exactly correct. If a kid is good enough make money playing basketball then they're free to go that route. With the cost of college these days, the players are getting paid. A G league player makes around $35,000 a season. That's about the same for a year of college.
Say good bye to Iowa Baseball and a few other athletic programs. Spoke with some college athletic administrators about this. Why they agree that most schools profit off of football and basketball programs the rest of the programs are usually in the red. To increase the budget to pay athletes would cause the axe to fall on many programs that typically fall in the red or are expensive to operate. This would also increase a budget for staff. Universities rarely make money off the sports. Any profit usually gets put in a fund to improve infrastructure.
Since when is capitalism considered activism? Turns out I have been an activist my whole life. ;-)
These palyers were not forced to play an NCAA sport under the current rules. Every D1 athlete I've known got hella perks. Things could be tweaked but flat-out paying them is not going to solve any problems and will create problems for non-revenue sports.
Agreed. If you want to make money playing ball, then go the Tyler Cook route. And bail on a sweet deal that any other college athlete, or student, would beg to have.
Best of luck to TC. Hope he makes more than the D league. But I'm afraid that'll be overseas.
Let's say it's 800 players. Pay them their scholarships (already in the budget) then pay them another 10,000. That's 8,000,000. 10,000 for a college kid already getting room and board is some pretty dang good margin. 8,000,000 sounds like a lot but that's basically the equivalent of the salaries of most MBB and FB head coaches combined at most schools. It's easily there for the programs that want to pay it.
I think profiting off of Name, Image, and Likeness makes a lot more sense but the idea that it's impossible for most P5 schools to pay their players is absurd.
Actually it's not accurate to say that most basketball programs make "millions" for a university. It completely ignores operating costs.
Here's some facts.
(1) In 2014, 23 of the 68 (2/5) NCAA Tourney teams either didn't make a profit or lost money.
(2) About HALF of the FBS tier schools cover their operating costs in basketball. The other half lose money. That number is probably lower for lower tier schools.
And i know football rakes in the money, but by the time the money is spread out across the athletics programs, there is little left.
(3) In 2014, ONLY 24 schools generated more revenue than they spent.
- "the overwhelming majority of colleges and universities in the NCAA across all three divisions subsidize part or all of athletics."
(2) https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...s-arent-as-profitable-as-you-think-2017-03-16
(3) http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources...partments-make-more-they-spend-still-minority
Last edited:
So the point is, yea you can pay players. Kentucky and Duke ball players will get paid, living like stars, but Rutgers players wouldn't make anything. There's literally no money to pay them. Football players could get paid, but then you'd have to cut baseball or mens track and field. I don't think anyone really wants that.
One alternative is cutting coaches salaries. Pay Kirk a million less and spread that out amongst the players. But capping coaching salaries would NEVER pass an antitrust suit. Allowing payment for name's and likeness is a superior alternative.
One alternative is cutting coaches salaries. Pay Kirk a million less and spread that out amongst the players. But capping coaching salaries would NEVER pass an antitrust suit. Allowing payment for name's and likeness is a superior alternative.
Last edited:
A
anon_qczsdwtnv6esw
Guest
Here's my take on this.
1. Until 'these activists' figure out how to fairly pay every athlete, it will never happen. An athlete playing basketball or football doesn't deserve more pay just because they are one of the popular sports. And these athletes will NEVER agree on a fair wage!
2. I have no problem with a student athlete getting paid to do a signing or something. But they are not allowed to wear Hawkeye gear during the signing or sign anything with Iowa Hawkeye's on it. Basically, they are signing autographs with NO affiliation to the school whatsoever. Then they should be able to be paid.
3. My observation is that its always the 'middle of the road' athletes that complain most about this. Someone like Zion doesn't have to worry about this.....cause he will eventually get paid. Its certain athletes realizing that they are reaching the end of their years of 'playing a game' and approaching their years of 'getting a job' and they now want to cry that they cant get paid while they play a game.
1. Until 'these activists' figure out how to fairly pay every athlete, it will never happen. An athlete playing basketball or football doesn't deserve more pay just because they are one of the popular sports. And these athletes will NEVER agree on a fair wage!
2. I have no problem with a student athlete getting paid to do a signing or something. But they are not allowed to wear Hawkeye gear during the signing or sign anything with Iowa Hawkeye's on it. Basically, they are signing autographs with NO affiliation to the school whatsoever. Then they should be able to be paid.
3. My observation is that its always the 'middle of the road' athletes that complain most about this. Someone like Zion doesn't have to worry about this.....cause he will eventually get paid. Its certain athletes realizing that they are reaching the end of their years of 'playing a game' and approaching their years of 'getting a job' and they now want to cry that they cant get paid while they play a game.
A
anon_qczsdwtnv6esw
Guest
But a scholarship and a spending stipend currently isn't enough....so how much would be enough? Cook was smart to leave. Its his best chance to earn a decent wage doing something he loves.
Playing basketball is not a right. Going to college is not a right. Getting a scholarship for athletics or academics is not a right. Getting paid to play with a ball is not a right.
If that is what you want, pursue it in the place (league) designed to pay you. If you feel oh so oppressed going to college, getting everything handed to you, getting free everything, getting female attention and so forth, then you have other problems that folks can't help you with.
Such an entitled, whiny generation. Me, me, me. That's not fair. Where is mine? Give it to me. He has that, why don't I? It's so unfair. My feelings are hurt. Whiners.
If that is what you want, pursue it in the place (league) designed to pay you. If you feel oh so oppressed going to college, getting everything handed to you, getting free everything, getting female attention and so forth, then you have other problems that folks can't help you with.
Such an entitled, whiny generation. Me, me, me. That's not fair. Where is mine? Give it to me. He has that, why don't I? It's so unfair. My feelings are hurt. Whiners.
I believe this has more to due with school budgets and being a non profit than actual money.
When the team brings in more money they either have to spend more or redistribute it in some way. The goal is not for the University to profit in the same sense other businesses do.
Someone with more knowledge might be able to provide more insight on this.
Honestly, how much do people think full ride scholarships in football and basketball are worth? It's a lot more than most believe.
Kentucky estimated their basketball scholarships are worth $250k per player.
Not much time, but just had to put in 2 cents that probably already has been mentioned already.
1) Everyone in college Knew the deal when they signed up. No one forced them to sign up.
2) What % of college scholarship athletes are actually bringing money into the school. Sure they all kind of are, but if JBo were not here would Iowa brought in millions less?
3) When players like JBo were 17 was there any pro teams beating down his door to offer him compensation that would come close to what he receives in benefits and perks from Iowa. Let alone a 4-5 year commitment. What if he sucked and never saw the floor, would we still pay him?
4) is it possible that his free education, 24/7 use of facilities, training tables, top flight coaching, weight lifting coaches, etc. a possible reason he has reached a high level of success? Sure let’s dump on the institutions that have invested BILLIONS to make that happen.
5) I work for a smallish company that nets 10’s of millions a year. Should all businesses just share that extra money that was made and invest in nothing? Or should Wells Fargo share the Billions that they profited.
6) I can get on board with letting them earn money with their name or whatnot, but it would be such a slippery slope I can’t even imagine how that it would work. It would change athletics that’s for sure. Could be for the better, who knows.
Welcome to the real world!
1) Everyone in college Knew the deal when they signed up. No one forced them to sign up.
2) What % of college scholarship athletes are actually bringing money into the school. Sure they all kind of are, but if JBo were not here would Iowa brought in millions less?
3) When players like JBo were 17 was there any pro teams beating down his door to offer him compensation that would come close to what he receives in benefits and perks from Iowa. Let alone a 4-5 year commitment. What if he sucked and never saw the floor, would we still pay him?
4) is it possible that his free education, 24/7 use of facilities, training tables, top flight coaching, weight lifting coaches, etc. a possible reason he has reached a high level of success? Sure let’s dump on the institutions that have invested BILLIONS to make that happen.
5) I work for a smallish company that nets 10’s of millions a year. Should all businesses just share that extra money that was made and invest in nothing? Or should Wells Fargo share the Billions that they profited.
6) I can get on board with letting them earn money with their name or whatnot, but it would be such a slippery slope I can’t even imagine how that it would work. It would change athletics that’s for sure. Could be for the better, who knows.
Welcome to the real world!
Tyler Cook is a good example to use. When attending Iowa he received roughly $45,000 a year, on average (out of state tuition, room, board, books, tutoring). This does not include the free healthcare. How much will he earn in the D (or is it G) League? Probably a wash, it just comes down to how you want to classify the money, in a check or in an education the dollars are the same just a difference in how they are spent.
This is part of why the one and done has become the thing that it is. The player can earn $40,000+ for the year before being NBA eligible or they can stay home and train for free. There is a value to the scholarship, it just isn't cash and everybody likes cash, it is just hard to get paid to play basketball at 18 years old when the main venue locks you out. No different than my son that would like to be an investment banker (and has the intelligence) but at 18 years old there is no one holding the door open for him. The difference is he is paying to get the education/experience he needs while a basketball player is getting $40,000+ a year for the education/experience.
I disagree with the payments of any kind but it would actually be better for the non-revenue athletes in many cases. Look at Missy Franklin. She could have signed multiple six figure sponsorships coming out of high school but didn't because she wanted that college education. Two years later the sponsorships were too good to pass up so she "turned pro". Had she been able to take sponsorships while in school she would have benefited all around, top education, top training and a big paycheck but she is the exception. She also would have been pulling down much more than JBO.
This is part of why the one and done has become the thing that it is. The player can earn $40,000+ for the year before being NBA eligible or they can stay home and train for free. There is a value to the scholarship, it just isn't cash and everybody likes cash, it is just hard to get paid to play basketball at 18 years old when the main venue locks you out. No different than my son that would like to be an investment banker (and has the intelligence) but at 18 years old there is no one holding the door open for him. The difference is he is paying to get the education/experience he needs while a basketball player is getting $40,000+ a year for the education/experience.
I disagree with the payments of any kind but it would actually be better for the non-revenue athletes in many cases. Look at Missy Franklin. She could have signed multiple six figure sponsorships coming out of high school but didn't because she wanted that college education. Two years later the sponsorships were too good to pass up so she "turned pro". Had she been able to take sponsorships while in school she would have benefited all around, top education, top training and a big paycheck but she is the exception. She also would have been pulling down much more than JBO.
That has to be per year, not 4-5 years. I've seen higher estimates depending on what all you include.
Like you said, I'm not an expert, but I thinks more complicated than simply school's trying to balance a budget. The NCAA says the "overwhelming majority" of schools need to subsidize their athletics department from other sources in order to meet operating costs. If athletic departments were making more money than they were spending, there would be no need to subsidize the department. You could spread the wealth to other athletics programs via the athletic funds.
Of course, schools wouldn't have to subsidize if they cut some of their programs. They have extra cash and are choosing to float the cash over to the athletics department to sustain baseball and soccer teams. But that reinforces the point: if they needed to start paying players on top of their team's operating costs, schools would have to send their extra cash over to the salaries rather than sustaining other athletic programs. Inter-league competition means Iowa has an incentive to cut a different men's program in order to pay their football players more than other schools. Paying players inherently results in less athletic opportunities overall, ultimately bastardizing the whole college-athlete thing.
I see lot's of schools are supposedly in the red, but they can find millions to pay coaches that aren't particularly good at winning sometimes.
The schools may not be making a profit off the current system, but the coaches and administrators sure the heck are. Gary Barta gets > $500k (for what?). Kirk makes how many million?
In some ways, schools run athletics like a non-profit. They are not incentivized to return money to anyone, so anything they take in will go back to administration and coaching salaries, facilities, etc. Saying most athletic depts don't make money is really kind of a given. There is no profit motive for the department as a whole (especially if they can use that as an excuse to get more money from student fees). (The people working in it certainly get paid though. How many schools with athletic programs in the red were able to find several million for a football coach?)
I don't know what the answer is, but I feel like we have lost the old ideal of the amateur athlete (and it isn't coming back.). With so much money floating around, the current system puts all the power in the hands of the administrators and coaches. In a free market system, the players (at least for revenue sports) would certainly be getting more.
If you want amateur football, go watch FCS, Div 2, Div 3. Big time football is basically a professional sport with the amount of money floating around it (but the player's are stuck like baseball players were before free agency in the 50's and 60's and the owners had all the power.)
Yes, they get a lot for their scholarship. Do they get what they could in a free market? Or are we all socialists here?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Sounds like college athletics. Everybody gets the same. (At least the players.)
We've got athletic directors, administrators and some coaches with (sometimes) very low ability and a lot of needs, I guess.
The schools may not be making a profit off the current system, but the coaches and administrators sure the heck are. Gary Barta gets > $500k (for what?). Kirk makes how many million?
In some ways, schools run athletics like a non-profit. They are not incentivized to return money to anyone, so anything they take in will go back to administration and coaching salaries, facilities, etc. Saying most athletic depts don't make money is really kind of a given. There is no profit motive for the department as a whole (especially if they can use that as an excuse to get more money from student fees). (The people working in it certainly get paid though. How many schools with athletic programs in the red were able to find several million for a football coach?)
I don't know what the answer is, but I feel like we have lost the old ideal of the amateur athlete (and it isn't coming back.). With so much money floating around, the current system puts all the power in the hands of the administrators and coaches. In a free market system, the players (at least for revenue sports) would certainly be getting more.
If you want amateur football, go watch FCS, Div 2, Div 3. Big time football is basically a professional sport with the amount of money floating around it (but the player's are stuck like baseball players were before free agency in the 50's and 60's and the owners had all the power.)
Yes, they get a lot for their scholarship. Do they get what they could in a free market? Or are we all socialists here?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Sounds like college athletics. Everybody gets the same. (At least the players.)
We've got athletic directors, administrators and some coaches with (sometimes) very low ability and a lot of needs, I guess.
I agree with this.
98.75% of the kids are fine with free tuition, room and board as “payment”.
Paying players and still giving them scholarships would not be as simple as it might sound. There are some schools who simply could not do both. There would a ton of law suits and really muck up the system. It would take years to sort everything out. I would be in favor of leaving the situation as it is right now. The players are not professionals like pro sports.
Paying football players & basketball players would create quite the mess. Do you only end up paying men? What about the women? Where do you draw the line on who, from what sport, gets paid?
Universities rely on all revenues in order to support the many men & women programs that generate little to no revenue.
My thoughts on this are if you don't want the scholarship offer, simply don't accept it.
Iowa has probably spent 100 million dollars in the last 10 years on facilities. If you ask the players I’m sure they’d be fine with Iowa spending 25 million and throwing the other 75 to them.
i honestly have no idea.
also, how tacky would it be if players started charging kids for autographs after games>
damn it! i get 0 likes combined on my first 2 posts & you get 11 likes on this?
this is an outrage!
Huge slippery slope of bad if they decide to pay players. Dont ever do it. Never
damn it! i get 0 likes combined on my first 2 posts & you get 11 likes on this?
this is an outrage!
make that 13.....
Well there it is-shut up if you disagree, no more discussion. Too bad bud but you don't get to decide that.
I think they should pay the fans with free beer. Certainly wouldn't cost much.
If you want Carver to take on a maniacal and loud tangent, give the people what they want!
And, some nudity. Jk
If you want Carver to take on a maniacal and loud tangent, give the people what they want!
And, some nudity. Jk
If they want to earn money for playing then play semi-pro or go overseas; free tuition is an ample benefit in the role of student athlete. At a minimum I could go along with a stipend during the season when they don't have a chance to work a part-time job. I do agree that if the university is benefitting from jersey sales in the player's likeness then they should get a percentage of the profit from the sales. The real problem is how you would deal with the non-revenue sports. It is a complicated issue that will take time to resolve if it is even considered.
I’m all for removing scholarships and letting their “pay” pay for it. Unfortunately, most players won’t make enough to cover their tuition...then what?
It's working fine the way it is, if they started paying them I think it would turn out awful.
Last edited:
There is no valid reason why college athletes should not be able to profit off their likeness via advertisements, appearances, and the like. Seems like a pretty simple compromise to me.
Usually, the first 2 years at Iowa students that are on a football scholarship stay in the dorms, it used to be Hillcrest though I don't know if it still is. After their sophomore year, a lot of them move out and room together.
The reason why I am bringing that up is as part of their scholarship the room and board at the dorms was deemed to be worth $1,200(this was 5 years or so ago though, the University has most likely raised the cost of room & board, hence they will get more money) and when the players move out they are given that room & board cost as money at the beginning of every month for rent, this is because room & board is calculated as part of the scholarship. The leftover money from rent is pocketed and allowed be spent on anything the players want to do. In other words, no player on a scholarship should have much difficulty with money and all this complaining about pay the players is nothing but a pure cash grab.
That idiotic UConn player a few years ago bitching to the media about how he was starving and forced his coach to buy him food was BS. He was sporting multiple $1,000+ tattoos, liked to show off his gold grillz on his teeth and was driving a brand new car yet somehow he was starving to death.
The reason why I am bringing that up is as part of their scholarship the room and board at the dorms was deemed to be worth $1,200(this was 5 years or so ago though, the University has most likely raised the cost of room & board, hence they will get more money) and when the players move out they are given that room & board cost as money at the beginning of every month for rent, this is because room & board is calculated as part of the scholarship. The leftover money from rent is pocketed and allowed be spent on anything the players want to do. In other words, no player on a scholarship should have much difficulty with money and all this complaining about pay the players is nothing but a pure cash grab.
That idiotic UConn player a few years ago bitching to the media about how he was starving and forced his coach to buy him food was BS. He was sporting multiple $1,000+ tattoos, liked to show off his gold grillz on his teeth and was driving a brand new car yet somehow he was starving to death.
There are very few places in America where people are thrilled to have a 1%er boss who makes millions and employees who take home no salary. College sports though.
@ISUBryce I think this is where the argument loses steam. There is pay or a salary as you say and that is the scholarship.
Let's say that a football player is putting in 40 hours a week for 40 weeks a year on just football. This is probably pretty close given the off season and such. That is 1,600 hours of work per year for $40,000 (at Iowa) which equates to $25/hour. Not a huge salary but much more than most 20 year olds working a full time job. Hell I think the median income in the U.S. is like $60,000 for a family so football players are not terribly oppressed. Should McDonalds have to pay their work force based on their net sales? That is what you are asking schools to do.
On the endorsement piece, again the school needs to have some control over this just like an employer does today. Use Illinois as an example. The state just legalized weed. If a player was approached to lend his likeness to a new strain of weed and become the spokesperson for it should the school have to allow that? I know my employer puts some pretty strict parameters on things like endorsements and a weed endorsement would probably end my employment.
Let's say that a football player is putting in 40 hours a week for 40 weeks a year on just football. This is probably pretty close given the off season and such. That is 1,600 hours of work per year for $40,000 (at Iowa) which equates to $25/hour. Not a huge salary but much more than most 20 year olds working a full time job. Hell I think the median income in the U.S. is like $60,000 for a family so football players are not terribly oppressed. Should McDonalds have to pay their work force based on their net sales? That is what you are asking schools to do.
On the endorsement piece, again the school needs to have some control over this just like an employer does today. Use Illinois as an example. The state just legalized weed. If a player was approached to lend his likeness to a new strain of weed and become the spokesperson for it should the school have to allow that? I know my employer puts some pretty strict parameters on things like endorsements and a weed endorsement would probably end my employment.
