Members of the Northwestern Football Team have taken the initial steps toward being represented by a formal labor union, allowing them the opportunity to seek collective bargaining rights.
From the ESPN.com story:
"Right now the NCAA is like a dictatorship. No one represents us in negotiations. The only way things are going to change is if players have a union."
The NFLPA's Board of Player Representatives passed a resolution supporting the players' union movement, Pro Football Talk has reported: "Resolved, that the NFLPA pledges its support to the National Collegiate Players Association (NCPA) and its pursuit of basic rights and protections for future NFLPA members."
In regards to the logistics of the arrangement:
The formal entity that would represent the players, if certified by the NLRB, is called the College Athletes Players Association. It was created by Huma, Colter and Luke Bonner, a former UMass basketball player and brother of NBA player Matt Bonner, with technical support from the United Steelworkers, who will not receive union dues from players, said Huma, who is registered as CAPA's president.
"When Ramogi first reached out to us years ago, we were like an overwhelming part of the population in that we figured athletes were lucky because they're getting an education," United Steelworkers president Leo Gerard said Tuesday. "But then we looked into it and realized it's a myth. Many don't get a true education and their scholarships aren't guaranteed."
Even more interesting are what they are initially seeking:
The group has pressed for better concussion and other medical protections, and for scholarships to cover the full cost of attendance.
Having already successfully advocated for the creation of multiyear scholarships, it now would like those scholarships to be guaranteed even if a player is no longer able to continue for injury or medical reasons. The group has also called for a trust fund that players could tap into after their NCAA eligibility expires to finish schooling or be rewarded for finishing schooling.
It will be interesting to see how this progresses on a national level in the coming months. Given the outcome of the O'Bannon Suit against the NCAA, things are a changin'.
Comments
Those NorthWestern kids are smart. They'll get it started. Interested to see how the NFL weighs in on this, considering they have the most clout and the most to benefit by college football players continuing to play football for their farm system. Let's hope they don't "lock out". I can stand losing the NFL, Baseball, Hockey, and basketball to lockouts, but college football would be too much.
This whole "we're not compensated enough" argument is a sham, and its mind numbing that the media (led by ESPN, who has an incentive to want these players to be able to capitalize on their own names, so that they, as a network, can tap into the lucrative marketing playhouse that is awaiting them in college sports) has bitten hard on it.
These kids (and I'm specifically talking about football and basketball here, the ones driving this push) already get a free education (UNC being the obvious exception), free room and board, free textbooks, free food, a monthly stipend, they get new clothing basically whenever they want, they have free access to special workout facilities, and they get unlimited access to tutors to help them with their academic endeavors for their duration at the school. For many, they leave with a degree from an institution they would not have been able to attend without football, which will prop them up for better jobs in their careers (assuming they don't go to the majors) while graduating debt-free. If you're an out-of-state student (of which most of the athletes pushing for this are) the all-inclusive benefits offered to them total in the hundreds of thousands, and they don't pay a dime. All the while they are essentially at a compensated intern-level position in the field they hope to continue their careers within as the school prepares them for their multi-million dollar jobs after they leave.
And yet, somehow this isn't good enough for them. I'm sorry, I just have an EXTREMELY difficult time being on the athlete's side on this argument while knowing just the full totality of the package that they get with a full ride scholarship at a major institution.
Here here. I agree. +1.
A perfect example of the "rich" getting greedy.
Just read a piece about Knowshon Moreno. While not every kid has a story as scary as his, most of these kids are not rich.
Hatred of the rich will bring nothing good to bearers of the hate. Someone should have raised you better.
But they will be in three years or less.
Nevertheless, no reason to downvote.
Or insult their parents' parenting skills.
Keep thinking that insulting someone's skills as a parent is an insult. Thats just stupid talk. If you're parents sucked and screwed you over recognize it and overcome it. My wife's socialist mother who is around my kids all the time thinks just like your kind of people and we have to remind our children that socialism hurts people, judging people by what they say not by what they do hurts people, and that there is nothing tawdry about hard work creating value which is exchanged for money. There are exceptions to these rules, but these rules underpin our society for people who are not morally emotionally and/or intellectually challenged.
If you let your kids think evil people are rich, you are a terrible parent. I get that many on this board don't think that way and thats fine. Care less if you downvote me or not.
Rich people work hard.
Rich people put investment to work.
Rich people create jobs, something that is very hard to do.
Rich people solve problems in ways that most people don't, won't, or can't.
We can get into distinctions between born into rich, worked for rich, etc. Money isn't the measure of the man or woman, but the alternative is that we regress into a dark ages. When money flows to you it flows usually because you've done something for other people. Too many rich these days want government to put its hand in everyone's pocket. I'm not talking about them. They're scum and I've worked for quite a few of them. When money flows without regard for value exchanged you end up with a highly disfunctional society where people will get hurt, just a matter of time.
Rich people rock, get over it, and get on with it.
Insulting someone's parenting skills is an insult, regardless of whether they are actually good parents. Cut and dry. Similar to if you walked up to a mentally handicapped kid and called him stupid.
What is this "socialist" crap you're talking about? Saying that someone who dislikes when rich get greedy suddenly turns them into a socialist? There is absolutely no reason to start arguments on this board about politics at all.
And what the hell do you mean by "your kind of people"? If you're trying to toss that "socialist" tag at me, good try. I'm a libertarian through and through. The only reason I spoke up was because your insult was out of place on this site. I come to this site because it is a mostly civil place to read and discuss news about something I enjoy. I don't want to see personal attacks launched at other members, let that stay on the rest of the web.
Also, I just want to point out that most of your "absolutes" that you listed off about rich people don't really apply to most professional athletes.
Well Said.
Agreed
I've always felt that you should get two options:
1. Free education
2. You pay for everything, but you can market yourself.
Then the Manziels of the world would sign plastic helmets and pay their way with that. While the less popular athletes would just take their education. I bet you 99.999% of CFB players would choose option 1 because while some players would make much more if they could sell themselves most kids wouldn't be able to make anywhere near an in state tuition payment.
If you read what they are actually asking for, it's not outrageous. Medical protection so when they get injured playing the sport that the school is paying them for and that the school is making loads of money from, the school protects them from bills and expenses. The opportunity to go to and finish grad school under scholarship. These kids are given scholarships for 4-5 years. As one of them stated, if they are redshirted, they get an opportunity to complete 1 year of grad school. After that, the expense is on them. If they play as true freshmen, they are often not able to have that opportunity. So when thinking that these are STUDENT athletes, that concept makes perfect sense. One restriction these guys have is that they can't have a job while in school. This means even in the off-season, they can't make any money. Being able to work and make just a little bit of money would help in many ways. I believe that once these guys move off-campus, rent is on them. They aren't given that money that would have been spent on their on-campus room in cash. It's forfeited for the ability to have their own place. There are many expenses that these scholarships don't cover and yes, many of them are expenses that the players choose to have, but they are not unreasonable expenses and so what they are asking for is not unreasonable either.
I don't know what may have changed since 1991, but when I had to have surgery following an injury that occurred at practice, my parents' insurance company was tapped first and the whatever they didn't pay was covered by Virginia Tech. Neither me nor my parents had to pay a dime.
Fair enough, but should your parents' insurance be hit or should you be covered by insurance provided by the University?
I'm someone whose family can't afford insurance. My only insurance is through my school. When I get injured I am boned.
I am so trying not to hijack this into healthcare reform.
Sufficient to say that you are not the only one in this predicament, and the recent reforms have/will not fix that issue.
Alright, I get what you're saying, but...
1- They already are covered by medical insurance just by being a student at the school, just like every student that attends the school. No, the insurance isn't free, but its dirt freakin cheap. If they have an injury DIRECTLY resulting from playing for the school, then yes, the school should cover all expenses, but if its from something else, then hell no, they should cover the costs just like every other person on the planet.
2 - They are given a scholarship to cover all costs while they are a university representative on the field of play. If they choose to continue their academic careers after their eligibility is over and they are no longer a representative, why on earth should the school keep paying for them? These kids no longer bring in any benefit to the school based on WHY they are there, so why should the school continue to pay their way? If they want to continue without paying, get an academic scholarship, or cover the costs on their own. It should not be up to the school to hold their hands long after they have used up their benefit TO the school.
3 - Yes, rent should be on them if and when they move off campus. Every athlete is allowed to stay on campus as long as they want (or at least they should be) in rooms provided by the university rent free. If you choose to move out of those facilities, it darn well should be on your own dime, and the school should have absolutely no hand in helping you to pay for it.
Sorry, these just sound as if these athletes think that the school should foot the bill even when they step outside the limitations that are in place for them to have a true free ride for the duration of their collegiate career. If you want to be different, and venture outside these guidelines, have at it, but do it on your own dime.
Which gets me to the last point.
4 - Athletes shouldn't be allowed to get other part time jobs in school. Sorry, just because you choose to venture outside the guidelines the NCAA has in place for you to have a free education to graduate debt free from an institution you have no business being associated with is not justification enough to allow you to get a job, which not only negatively impacts the preparation for the intern-level job you are supposed to be undertaking while a student that the university compensates you for, it also impacts your abilities to be a student, and also introduces numerous possibilities for various violations to occur with boosters giving incredibly inflated paychecks for little to no work done.
These kids have it VERY good in college right now, and the mindset that they don't have it good enough because they don't like the rules in place are just head shakingly stupid.
Tell that to the student athletes that:
1) Are now the only adult in their household and support siblings financially
2) Have a family to support of their own
3) Cannot afford the basic amenities/costs of school because they are playing the sport but are not on scholarship but are still banned from having a job per NCAA guidelines as an athlete of more than I think 10 hours a week.
Are 1 or 2 the norm, no. Should they have the ability to petition for an exception yes. Case #3 are the norm though in many athletic programs all across the country, especially in sports other than football and basketball.
The biggest aspect of this case is medical protection not just now but into the future. We are seeing the current negotiations between players, former players and the NFL over dementia, Alzheimer's, PTSD, concussion, and other debilitating injuries that effect these folks for the rest of their lives. Only about 3% of college football players go on to the NFL, but many of them suffer from the same effects later in life as these NFL athletes and they have no recourse of compensation from the NCAA. This union would allow the athletes legal representation acknowledged by the federal government. This union would also be used in cases like Grambling State, where they are dealing with mold growing in their locker rooms and on their equipment, staph infections running rampant in their medical treatment and other such issues.
I wholeheartedly agree with you on your points, however I am just not sure where you draw the line with this case. As there are risks to playing a violent sport and these injuries can occur at any age. In fact I would venture to say that alot of these concussions are occurring in high school and are often unmonitored like they are in the NFL and NCAA. I can personally tell you that I violated concussion rules while playing football in high school. So for that reason alone, I do not think this case will get the traction it needs in order to be successful.
If the NFL was willing to settle, then the NCAA could easily be brought to bear in some limited capacity. I do not disagree regarding high school and as we have seen (Friday Nightmare Tykes) even elementary school, but they will likely find some way to make the NCAA hold at least some responsibility.
While I disagree with points 1-3, you pose legitimate arguments. Not be disrespectful, but argument 4 is flat out wrong.
The whole point of college is to train for a profession. On-the-job experience is the best thing you can add to your resume. By preventing an athlete from getting a legitimate internship, you are directly countering the entire purpose of a college career, and could be costing the student athlete tens of thousands of dollars (that is not an exaggeration - look at the difference in starting salaries between students with internship experience vs. without - there's a big difference between a $45k starting salary and a $65k starting salary).
Another scenario: What if a player has kids, siblings or a family to support? Do they have to live off the athlete's stipend too? Are they supposed to just coast until the athlete graduates with a degree and gets a job?
Yet another scenario: If a player can maintain success in the classroom and on the football field, why not give him the opportunity to undertake a more responsibility? That's what happens in all other aspects of academic and professional life - if you succeed in one situation, you are give the option to take on more responsibility.
This is absolutely a complication, and IMO the only legitimate reason for limiting athletes on the free market. The NCAA is a mess, they need rewrite the rule book, simplify it, add measurable, consistent punishment procedures, and AFTER doing all that, the should search for legitimate ways to allow athletes to explore the free market.
They do have it good, but why should they settle for good? Coaches, fans, and players won't settle for anything but the best on the field, why should the players settle in their professional life?
Another question - If I'm on an academic scholarship for Computer Science, and I write an app in my free time, the institution who funded my education isn't going to limit my income, why would it be different for athletes?
I'm of the belief that it's wrong for a governing body to limit an individual's earning power. If I'm a college tennis player, why can't I run a tennis camp for kids during the off season? If I'm a computer science major who runs track, why can't I create and charge for an iphone app? I understand the complications with boosters and preventing a competitive advantage, but the NCAA needs to find a way to allow athletes to enter the free market.
***DISCLAIMER: much of my argument surrounds the fact that student athlete in question actually goes to school with the intent of getting an education.
Sorry, but I had to downvote this. I respect your opinion and can see your arguments for a few of the points, but strongly disagree on point 4 and really have issue with this statement:
" free education to graduate debt free from an institution you have no business being associated with"
Seems to me you are taking the approach of lumping this entire argument into the context of athletes of "big revenue" sports, and then taking it a step further by implying that all of those athletes do not possess the ability to get into a school on their own merit, with or without athletic prowess. Seems to be a good deal condescending to a lot of athletes, not just the SIGNIFICANT percentage of NCAA scholarship athletes that will receive zero compensation from their sport of choice while in college and even less compensation from their sport of choice as a profession after graduation.
Playing NCAA level sports might be an "intern level" position for a select few that have the extraordinary talent to play at the next level. But its not if want to work in finance, or marketing, or HR or literally any other field after your college playing days are over. What is the problem with the being able to get experience or earn money legitimately while a scholarship athlete? God forbid some kid's lack of performance on the field doesn't line the coffers of the NCAA with quite as many dollars just because they have the skills to also become gainfully employed.
Agreed whole-heartedly, EXCEPT - I am all for an increase to actually make it a full ride. They don't currently get a stipend. When I was in college, I had to get a job to pay for things like rent, groceries, etc. My parents couldn't help me out as much as they wanted to, as I had two younger siblings on their way up and $$ was tight. My only options were taking more loans or working. Athletes already have a full-time job; working is not an option. I would be all for a raise in the stipend so they could afford a shitty apartment and groceries. I feel like this would remove a ton of corruption from the sport, with players not feeling like they HAD to take improper benefits just to squeek by.
Also, the idea that they can lose the scholarship for underperforming on the field (or even worse - as the result of a career-ending injury!) is bullshit. These kids are basing a major life decision around this, and coaches like Saban can yank a scholly to make room for an over-signed class is absurd and patently unfair. The athletes do need some sort of recourse in this regard.
I believe this is another thing they want is a guaranteed scholarship and not a scholarship that is renewed yearly. Players rarely (if ever) have their scholarship pulled for injury considering it no longer counts against the total number of scholarship players a school can have. But a commitment from the school that they are going to have their school paid for while they are there.
It just sucks that they have no real recourse and coaches can pretty-much do what they want to make the schollie #s work. This is their future.
Or better yet, when that scholarship is pulled and that player says, "fine, I'll go play for these guys instead because they will give me a scholarship" the player then has to forfeit a year of eligibility. Talk about adding insult to injury.
As a Div 1 athlete myself I would like to tell you that about 60% of these statements above are very false.
Yes we get a "Free Education" but the NCAA makes about $6 billion annually just on Basketball alone. Off of our talent and our names. What did they do for me. Nothing at all, the school paid for my education not the NCAA. I think many people don't understand the point. We don't want the school to pay us we want the NCAA to pay us since they're the ones making money. Yes schools make $ off of tickets and merchandise but that $ goes to the school to upgrade and pay for other sports that don't do well financially.
My idea/thought process is just look at NCAA alone they make so much money but yet the athlete can't even get $50 for signing an autograph but "Our Jersey" sells for $80 on NCAA.com a supposedly non profit organization
Here's some numbers to back that up.
"The typical college football player will owe $3,222 when he's finished with school, not counting loans."
"A scholarship doesn't equal cash in a player's pocket. Even with any type of scholarship, college athletes are typically dead broke. But how much do the top NCAA executives make? About $1 million per year."
"Recently, the NCAA and CBS signed a $10.8 billion television agreement over 14 years. The NCAA is also considered a non-profit company." haha a Non profit company where is that money going to?
Expenses. Meaning lining someone's pocket, usually.
I don't know enough on this, but at the very least the NCAA should be plugging that money back into the schools so that they can plug it back into the sports that are making (or not making) the money.
This is an interesting issue and I think the big issue is just what you said, the NCAA is making BILLIONS off of this and the kids producing the product are getting nothing. Let's not even get started with the Bowls and what their president's are making...
Just curious, how do you breakdown the $3,222 typically owed? You bring up good points about separating the NCAA from the school itself.
I got it from a Forbes article, so my guess is that he is pretty close to being 100% right. But being an ex-athlete myself I can say that I was about 5-10k in debt when I graduated. so that's probably a generous #.
My issue with this whole thing is yes, the NCAA execs make far more than the student athletes. But student athletes are still far, far more compensated than the average student ever is? 5k in debt? I consider myself lucky to have gotten out of college with three times that much debt. I was flat out broke during college too, and I worked my butt off to get the degree that I got, and I didn't have personal tutors helping me along the way.
I'm sorry, but the "plight of the student athlete" is lost on me. You don't want to be "taken advantage of?" Then don't play the game. Get a degree from college how most people do it, get a job, and work to pay back the debt you will accrue. But if you're lucky enough to have the talent and athleticism so that someone will offer to put you through college at reduced costs, and help you do it? I have a hard time seeing your complaints.
I get your point but look at what the NCAA as a whole makes vs what we receive for our talent on the field. Yes we get an education and hopefully land a job after.
I'm not saying they should get paid massive contracts or even 10k I'm just saying 2-3k in the athlete's pocket wouldn't hurt when they bring in so much.
I'd rather see that money kicked back to the school for academics/sports/etc.
Sure, a guy like Johnny Football brings in a ton of money to the school, but does everyone on the football team bring in that money? Do they all deserve equal compensation for voluntarily playing a game? And if not, do you pay the star players some money, but not the backups? One could argue that the players who really bring in the money, the "star" players, will get easily compensated by moving on to the professional level, where 500k a year "isn't very much money." At that point, I think their 5k of debt suddenly becomes insignificant.
Now, I understand there are a lot of issues with this thinking- but I don't think you can necessarily say that we should just pay every athlete. I'd rather see them be allowed to sell and market their own names/likeness, etc. Or I'd rather them stop the whole pretense of "student athletes" for big-time sports (football, basketball). Just say it's a minor league. You either go into the minor leagues because you want to make it big in professional sports, and you get a salary just like any other working person, or you use your athletic ability to get an education at a reduced cost, but you won't be paid for doing so.
I agree here 100% but then its not fair for the NCAA to punish/take away an athlete's eligibility over a 50$ autograph when they make 1000 times that in 5 minutes. They either need to say go ahead if someone wants to pay for a college athlete's autograph I have no problem with that because I just made 100,000 off of his whole season. But to take punish them is a
I just don't like the student athlete argument of the "NCAA is making millions of off me, so I want my cut."
Sure the NCAA makes money off of football and basketball. They also take a bath with all of the other sports. If you want the NCAA to pay you for supposedly making them money on the football field, does that in turn give the NCAA a license to recoup losses from students that row crew or play tennis?
I think most athlete's aren't happy because: we can't work a summer job or internship without it being called an improper benefit and losing our eligibility, we are not allowed to get $ from someone if they want an autograph.
Whats $50 to them when they make soo much off of the players. It just doesn't seem fair/right to tell a kid hey I know you're the next KD or Lebron but you can't make any $ or sign any autographs or even work a summer job because I'll call it a improper benefit and ruin your career.
Student athletes are allowed to work summer jobs, with much less restrictions than full-time jobs during the school year. During the school year, you are limited to 10 hours per week, but you could theoretically work a full-time internship during the summer, provided that you can show you didn't get it because of your status as an athlete.
But now a days 90% of internships are unpaid. And 10 hours a week at 8 dollars an hour after taxes you could make 50 60 dollars a week. That's nothing to write home about
Actually, 10 hr/wk at $8/hr would be $80/wk, considering that with that income they'd be well below the personal exemption amount of about $5500. And even if they went over, the first tax bracket is up to $9k (post-deductions and exemptions), at 10%. If they somehow make more than 14k, their tax rate on any additional dollars is 15% up to $36k. There will be some state taxes, but those are a good bit less than federal, and there's also some SS and Medicare deductions, but overall it's nowhere near 25% unless you're making a bit above the poverty line.
I know $80/wk isn't much, but that's about $350 per month, which amounts to $1400 per semester. That is about in line with the stipends that they always ask for.
Also, can you provide a source to your 90% value? That just seems very high.
Teamwork online.com and tell me how many internships are paid. I also had an internship with the Cleveland Browns and it was unpaid. Most internships are for class credit.
Then don't work at one of those that is unpaid.
I worked in the summer once as an unarmed security guard and 2 other summers as a member of the mobile turbine gang rebuilding steam turbines for nuclear power plants. Paid pretty decent too. Think I didn't learn anything those summers?
Apprentice to the Browns is pretty cool and probably a heck of an experience. That's your pay.
You picks and you chooses, yer pay varies with it. There are always trade offs.
That shouldn't count, that's for one field.
The vast majority of engineering internships are paid, and fairly well I might add. It all depends on the field.
I have seen articles that say that it's about a 50/50 split between paid and unpaid internships which is a bit more believable. And obviously different industries are going to have different splits, just because they have different opportunities available for people who haven't graduated.
The NCAA doesn't take a bath in any sport. The universities that are members of the NCAA take a bath in some of these sports but even these sports are starting to gain traction. See Texas sponsorship of its baseball field, making baseball a revenue generating sport there. Its all in how its managed, what the NCAA negotiates for television contracts for any sport plays a large roll in whether it breaks even as a sport. Those programs with todays conference and single school television networks are making it possible for every sport to be near or actually profitable.
You can't pick Texas and hold it up as an example of the rest.
Football isn't even profitable for most colleges. For most or all Div 1 schools it is but, below that it gets iffy.
I found some NCAA financial information. Article is here:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/02/ncaa-financial-s...
Some key points in the article:
The NCAA had nearly $872 million in total revenue in fiscal 2012, according to the financial statement, and nearly $801 million in total expenses. In 2011, it had nearly $846 million in revenue and $778 million in expenses.
Of the 2012 revenue, nearly $709 million came from television and marketing rights fees and nearly $102 million from NCAA championships and National Invitation Tournament events.
The 2012 expenses include:
1. Nearly $504 million that was distributed to Division I member schools and conferences, up from $480 million in 2011.
2. More than $115 million on association-wide programs, down from more than $128 million in 2011. Association-wide program expenses include those for NCAA governance committees, the statement says.
3. More than $38.3 million in management and general spending, up from $35.7 million in 2011. On a percentage basis, that means management and general spending grew by 7.3% while the distribution to Division I increased by 5%.
It seems the rest goes into an endowment. Here is some info on that:
The endowment fund has been designated as a quasi-endowment, which means the money is intended to be retained and invested, but unlike a permanent endowment, its principal can be spent. It was established in 2004 by the NCAA Executive Committee, a group of college presidents that oversees association-wide matters, primarily to protect against an event that could impact what is overwhelmingly the NCAA's greatest revenue source: the Division I men's basketball tournament.
The fund began with $45 million, and the original goal for its growth was $500 million. The goal has been lowered to $380 million, Keith Martin, the NCAA's managing director of finance and operations, told USA TODAY Sports in an interview last year.
The fund has retained any investment earnings and been augmented with a portion of the NCAA's annual operating surpluses. In fiscal 2010, however, the NCAA began putting more of its annual operating surpluses toward supplemental distributions to the membership and less toward the quasi-endowment.
OK, I'm not picking sides as I don't have all the facts. So above are some recent facts on the NCAA financials. It doesn't seem there is a lot of money in the endowment. If annually there was somewhere near $50M left over and you put a portion towards medical and scholarships for all Div 1, Div 2, Div 3, etc, athletes, what would they get? I don't think its much...
Other points we need some info on: Are the salaries for the NCAA organization truly over the top vs what the service they provide? Can someone find that out for us? It is a non-profit, right?
To me if this case goes the way of a minimum mandate to the players not based on a percent of what is left after expenses, then the cost to do what is being done now will go up and we all will have to pay more. seems a death spiral. This could bankrupt and end college sports....
Agreed. The current system is definitely flawed, but paying athletes isn't the answer.
I am a grad student, and I will graduate this summer (I hope) with about $30,000 of student loan debt. The research I and other grad students do is essentially a full time job (most of us work much more than 40 hours a week). For those fortunate enough to get an assitanceship, they get their tuition paid and a small monthly stipend to cover room and board costs. Those who don't must find external funding or foot the bill themselves.
The compensation is pittance compared to what I would make if I left school and took a job in industry, but I don't because I want the knowledge, experience, and professional benefits of having a Master's degree. And the money we bring to the school through research grant awards is considerable. Last year, Virginia Tech brought in a cool $271 Million in award money for research (almost 4x the Athletic Department Revenue), largely from the work of graduate students. So yeah, I don't really sympathize with the "plight of the student athlete" either.
Having said that, I do think the NCAA is pretty terrible.
Fair enough but the NCAA can't punish an athlete for getting $ for signing an autograph when they have 0% to do with what the athlete does on the court,field, ice or track.
It's the NCAA being greedy and saying were the only ones allowed to make money and the minute you challenge us we will just take your athletic eligibility away.
Like I said, I'm not a big supporter of the NCAA.
And I'm really not opposed to a student athlete profiting from autographs and such. My only problem there is, you'd be opening the door for boosters to essentially buy players. There'd be nothing to stop a booster from saying "Hey, I'll pay you $50,000 for an autographed jersey if you come to my school."
I get your point but do you really think a booster would pay 50k just for a kid to go to school and play sports?
I think there is no real right or wrong answer with this topic.
If you ask any collegiate athlete if they feel like they deserved to be paid a stipend (1-3k a year) for their help in bringing in billions of dollars to the NCAA and millions of dollars for their school they would say yes. Especially since the NCAA and schools "market" and use their names to earn that $
USC - Reggie Bush. Allowed to live in a mansion rent free to attend USC.
Yeah, I think a booster would do just that. I mean look at SMU. Hundreds of thousands of dollars went through that "slush fund," and that was in the 80's. Eric Dickerson would've gone to Texas A&M, had he not received a brand new car payed for with booster money.
And yeah, if you ask anyone if they would like more money for whatever they're doing, I'm sure they would all say yes. I understand the argument, and like I said, the system in place is far from perfect, but I'm convinced paying athletes will cause a lot more problems than it will solve.
Yes they are, but just because the rest of us don't have the life that a student athlete does, it doesn't mean that we have to bring their lifestyle down to our level.
There's no plight, unfair challenge, need for a paycheck for the student athlete - it's about maximizing your opportunities. If you can offer a service that society needs and will pay for, you should be able to pursue that opportunity.
From one former college athlete to another: Well said, sir! +1
Have you all considered the non-scholarship players? They have the same time constraints and responsibilities as those with a "free education", yet they finish their careers in debt from student loans unless their family paid for it.
I'm speaking from personal experience when I say that it's hard to make money to be able to pay for the miscellaneous expenses of a college student. You're already devoting 50+ hours a week in season and 40+ in the off season for the team.
If you were working that hard would you not want some sort of medical benefits or financial compensation?
How much of this problem would be fixed by removing the job prohibition from non-scholarship players? Let them get summer or weekend jobs. I know I had to work my way through Tech to live while getting my engineering degree. My scholarship paid tuition only. I had to earn enough money to cover rent, food, insurance, car payments, etc.
The universities, Congress, and the NCAA have allowed any number of things to fall through the cracks. There is usually a reason why this happens when it happens. But lets look at some of these fall through the crack issues. Take Logan as a recent example.
So who had Logan's back when he was targeted by the UCLA LB? The network certainly did not. Nor were they aligned to. They want to see controversy. Blood. A former first round prospect taken down and knocked out. Nothing sells better to the waifish and ignorant masses in our country. Did VT bring this up to a league? Did they bring this up to the NCAA? What was the reply? Was there a reprimand, a clarification of what constitutes legal hit? Who specifically is in charge of ensuring these kids can walk in 20 years? Can talk and chew gum in 20 years, remember their name, don't develop ALS, etc., etc. What kind of protocol was followed regarding the concussion? Was a baseline MRI taken? There have been recent lawsuits filed regarding concussions, specific abuses, etc. Likely these will be settled with a silence commitment, but a more honest and accountable system would attempt to ensure the athlete's safety is looked after by someone who has a pocketbook and is accountable.
Some complain about media rights taken from our school if we leave the ACC. I believe these kids have their media rights sold to EA and other companies as a part of playing for the NCAA. How much does the NCAA and member institutions get for those media rights? If they aren't capturing the full value, then why not? If they did who gets that revenue.
Some numbers for you. Football players bring in $280k a year by their pro rata association with the football team. The university has expenses of about $180k a year, including scholarships. These are round numbers and there are some offsetting streams not accounted for that might be about $14k or so. The scholarship funds appear to be 5% of revenues. Maybe as much as 15% as it is apportioned and hard to tell if football is pro rata or skewed higher or lower. Call it what you will but when your most critical element is 5% to maybe 15% of costs, they are being taken advantage of. Unions will be able to mass size in order to stand up to the universities and the NCAA and allow these kids to capture a much higher % of the spend. Additionally there will be far more transparency about how much academic assistance and all the other stuff these kids actually get. These numbers are for VT and the ACC, so I didn't cherry pick some extraordinary figure.
I hate to say it because I'm associated with more conservative positions than democrat, but at the end of the day I'm philosophically a libertarian, and the universities and NCAA with Congress's assistance have been f-ing over these kids. Not a fan of unions but these kids need representation by a group that is comparable in size and scope to the NCAA and its member institutions.
I'm not so much worried about the "rich" student athletes or the ones that become rich in the NFL as I am about the average student athlete or the one with a hard scrabble existence, who has a hard time getting living expenses, getting a ride to school, getting that degree finished if his talent doesn't cut it, etc., etc.
IMHO, way past time these kids had someone representing their interests.
Well put
The NCAA may declare each and every one of Northwestern's players to be ineligible to play college football anymore if they're not careful. If they declare themselves employees, then their compensation has to be the total value of all scholarships, books, room and board received... and they would have to be issued a W-2 and pay taxes. They would, in short, be being paid to play football, making them professionals. Ergo, they cannot play NCAA football anymore.
But the NCAA can make 6 Billion dollars off of so called "amateur" athletes. The only difference between lets say NBA and College Basketball is.. the players get paid in the NBA.
Companies make billions off unpaid interns every year. At least with being a college athlete you're compensated (in most cases) very well for what you provide.
And you ARE getting paid in college basketball. Your payment is going right back to the university to cover all your expenses while you are there, including the payments to get an education at an institution that, in more times than not, you have absolutely no business being associated with, which, for the 97% who don't end up a professional athlete, allows you to graduate debt free holding a diploma from a school you only attended because of your athletic ability, while having far more career opportunities open up because of that diploma from the more prestigious school.
In the NBA, your only compensation is a paycheck. In college basketball, the compensation might not necessarily be as high dollar-wise, but, should you choose to make good on everything offered to you, can be far more all-encompassing and rewarding long-term.
I beg to differ buddy, "debt free with a diploma from a University that "athletes" have no business being associated with". If we have no reason to be associated with so called schools why are they recruiting us to play there? mhm mayeb because they make Millions compared to what it costs them to put us through school.
Profits from Sports
With that Link above Louisville made $16,800,234 in revenue just off of Men's basketball, but you're telling me that those "student athlete's" got compensated enough. seems fair (sarcastica)
How do I have far more career opportunities opened up because of my diploma from a University.
Wake up buddy a diploma doesn't mean as much now as it did awhile ago. Its who you know and your body of work, not what school you graduated from. Yes I know some company's like to hire athlete's because we work well under pressure can handle a difficult schedule and still can perform but its because we did it for 4 years while being a STUDENT athlete.
Because, if you pay attention to any of the studies coming out industry-wide based on this whole UNC thing, if you're a student athlete at a major school, especially in football or basketball, there is a very high chance you're only there based on athletic prowess, not academic capabilities.
And as for Louisville. Hey, great. Men's basketball made a lot of money. The non-revs of that Athletic Department need funding, and if they have no revenue streams, they have to be supported somehow. If you want to go down this path of directly compensating revenue generating athletes for what they do, well then bend over and kiss non-revs everywhere goodbye because there will be absolutely no way of financially supporting those sports, especially when a vast majority of Athletic Departments across the board can barely break even on an annual basis as is.
And another thing, I appreciate the term "buddy" that you're casually throwing around in a thinly veiled insult. If you want to get into a verbal pissing contest, may I direct you to TechSideLine. That site thrives on it.
Yeah the Non-revs need money but I bet they are not going to be dishing out all the money in the world when it doesn't make any $ in the first place. They give just enough money to keep it afloat and have a program.
And that's UNC's fault, they let the kids with low SAT scores and kids who couldn't read... but all student athlete's have to meet NCAA standards and pass through Clearinghouse which looks at SAT scores and other factors to determine if the kid is suitable for college. So in return the NCAA was looking out for themselves and nothing else.
I wasn't starting a pissing match until you insulted student athlete's everywhere with this comment " in more times than not, you have absolutely no business being associated with, which, for the 97% who don't end up a professional athlete" So with that comment you're saying that I shouldn't try to improve my education and just become a thug gang banging hood rat??
so you tight ropped a massive veiled insult at about 70-80% of the hard working student athletes that follow the rules,stay out of trouble, maintain a good GPA and make $ for the schools all to be told by YOU a non collegiate athlete that we don't deserve to be there.
stay classy
San Diego
Maybe you need to take a minute and chill out. You're the one making sweeping negative statements about athletes. He has every right to be offended.
I think that's a pretty big stretch. Billions off of interns? Even our paid interns are viewed more as a a way to help them out then to crank up our profits.
No, they do. Interns, both paid and unpaid, do invaluable hours of crap everyday grunt work so that the regular employees don't have to, which allows them to put in far more valuable time to their jobs and the businesses get more efficient work out of them, which, when you total it all up industry-wide, likely brings in billions over what they spend on the interns. Its a trickle-up effect that really saves companies a lot of money long-term.
I get the concept of it but the practice isn't quite that profitable. Interns screw things up and take man hours to supervise them and fix mistakes that happen along the way. If you net that all out you aren't in the billions.
Either way, it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of this debate.
When I was an intern, I'd come back the next summer to do work and be told that the work I did the prior year was never even used. And they paid me to do that. So I can't imagine unpaid interns really helping make anybody that much money.
Still better than #LOLUVa
Unions are for employees...
....and the NCAA and Bowl Games are non profit organizations.
But the NCAA makes billions of dollars off of so called "Amateurs"
"Under NCAA Bylaw 12.3, a student-athlete (any individual who currently participates in or who may be eligible in the future to participate in intercollegiate sport) may not agree verbally or in writing to be represented by an athlete agent in the present or in the future for the purpose of marketing the student-athlete's ability or reputation. If the student-athlete enters into such an agreement, the student-athlete is ineligible for intercollegiate competition."
But the NCAA can represent them and make billions of dollars with 0% return to athletes.
But the NCAA makes billions of dollars off of so called "Amateurs"
So what?
Should the NCAA make less? Should they make zero? For every 1 whose likeness generates revenue, how many do not but still receive all the benefits their free-ride provides?
Your problem seems to be other people's money.
If you don't like that the NCAA and the University is making all this cash that helps support a lot of non-rev athletics, you should be arguing for the NCAA and the University to stop using specific athlete's likenesses for generating revenues.
Instead, you are arguing that athletes should be getting better compensation on top of the incredible packages they already enjoy, relative to the average student.
And you ignore that whole camel's nose under the tent-flap aspect of all this: Once you start paying student athletes, you can be sure that every year will come calls to increase the stipend.
Very little good can come from paying student athletes, and a whole heap of bad will almost certainly occur if we start.
Technically the NCAA should make zero....they should bring in enough to cover costs and hold an operational reserve as a non profit organization.
The calls are already happening to try to increase stipends and the smaller schools are consistently voting it down, its also what is leading to talks of the power 5 conferences breaking off to form a higher level of NCAA sports.
My bigger problem here is the discrepancy between SCHOLARSHIP Athletes and Non Scholarship Athletes. All of these conversations have been lumping them into one pool but the rules from the NCAA generally apply to both regardless of financial package and the Incredible Packages you refer to only apply to one group. Non scholarship athletes make up a large portion of the total athlete pool in the NCAA and many of these athletes have to scrape by to make it through school. This kind of stipend would go a long way to helping these athletes as they progress through their athletic careers.
Technically I agree... I was speaking of revenues, not profits.
All things being equal, I think the NCAA is a ridiculously bloated and mostly irrelevant entity. It is the UN of College athletics, big on talk, big on relatively toothless "sanctions", and in the end, a bunch of self-absorbed bureaucrats whose only marketable asset is Finding Ways To Waste Time While Looking Important.
I agree with your point to, I have no problem with the NCAA making money off of me being a basketball player but when they profit from my name or my athletic performance and I get nothing, I have a problem with that.
It's exactly like what bar1990 said - If I'm on an academic scholarship for Computer Science, and I write an app in my free time, the institution who funded my education isn't going to limit my income, why would it be different for athletes?
We don't have to be athlete's but we do it because we love it, we are competitive in an athletic way
But the fact is that I'd go out on a limb and say that only 10% of all student athlete's have 100% full scholarships. And not every big basketball or football team is fully funded with the (89 for football and 8 for basketball) or whatever full scholarships. Also schools don't give out a lot of full rides because they need to divvy up the $ to stay relevent/good at a sport.
But the 90% of athlete's that get 3k or less the NCAA tells them hey you can't work and make $ to pay for everyday things or else its called an improper benefit. The NCAA needs to do one thing or the other not both. Like I stated earlier if they let us work summer jobs and get paid I'm sure that would help.
I get what you are saying.
I'm all for allowing student athletes who aren't on a free-ride to find part-time jobs.
I most definitely am not for student athletes, amateurs, being paid to play.
I like the tradition and (relative) purity of amateur athletics in the U.S.
So when the NCAA rules that the entire Northwestern team are no longer eligible to play football does that mean that the BiG will have to forfeit their portion of the revenue to Northwestern? Do all the teams that have NW scheduled get an automatic win from the forfeiture?
No, it will mean that Northwestern will just get new players on scholarship and lose another seven to ten games for lack of talent. Coaching staff would essentially have to start over.
They would likely have to get a special dispensation from the NCAA to go above the 25 scholarship limit though and the NCAA would probably grant it.
If this happens than I say we should drop ecu and play Penn state or whoever nw plays
The NCAA responds
OK - Get Ready for the next Hollywood Blockbuster "The Replacements II - College Scrubs"
Student Athletes- mhm so were not employees but we provide the services for you to make billions of $.. I honestly could see a huge uproar in the next 2-3 years and college sports could be going out the door.
I honestly could see a huge uproar in the next 2-3 years and college sports could be going out the door.
So it doesn't occur to you that those scholarships could simply be revoked and given to students eager to represent their Institutions on the field and, oh yeah, BONUS, get their education for free?
Well unless those students possessed the same level of talent and ability...I would find it hard to believe that financially it would make sense for institutions to continue providing those scholarships.
I would love the chance to suit up and play for VT, but I highly doubt anyone is going to pay to see me do it. And when you get down to it, thats what this is all about. Are you good enough that someone will pay to see you perform your craft?
And if the answer is yes, then I think everyone has the right to use what leverage they have to protect themselves now and in the future (be it from injury, cost of medical care, financial opportunities, etc)
So the product on the field sucks for a season or two. I can live with that, instead of the perpetual threat that the union decides they won't suit up next season or worse, mid-season, unless they get a few more concessions.
My problem isn't with athletes looking for more protection in case of injury. I think something like a guaranteed insurance policy would be a fair compromise to consider.
But you'll note that this union being floated is specifically not ruling out looking for far more benefits than simply health oriented ones.
Again, camel under the tent-flap. Things are never good enough, fair enough, safe enough. If this was simply about health, there wouldn't be any agitation for a Union, which is just a beast that must always be fed more.
For the sake of argument, if this new batch of students that are being offered these scholarships prove to be an entertaining (and revenue generating) venture, what would in turn stop them from eventually making the same demands?
Nothing. But the NCAA would likely proceed with deeming them ineligible as well if that is indeed what they do to the first group. The problem that is in the NCAAs favor is the ticking clock on players eligibility.The NCAA could tie this up in court for years. Same thing they dis to that kid from Colorado they deemed ineligible for taking endorsement money for his pro skiing career while playing football at CU. Kid gave up tj e case after awhile.
Thats my point. The NCAA would just keep naming kids ineligible until their was no one left to play? Until they got sued by ESPN for breach of contract by ruining their billion dollar TV deals by denuding the product?
The point being, that if they wanted to strip kids of their eligibility and give those scholarships to other students to play...if those students were ultimately worth watching they would be absolute morons for not leveraging their current situation for a better one.
I briefly touched on this in the Tweeting Recruits thread. This actually could be another huge issue with constitutional rights. There is no case law yet, just opinions but there is a lot more material out there studying this than about Social Media. The crux is that even though the NCAA says they are not employees does not mean student-athletes are not employees.
http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/262...
This basically says that students pass the common law test set by the National Labor Relations Act to be considered an employee, and as such are entitled to form unions. For the "if there is no case then there is no issue crowd" I am only stating that this is something being debated in the legal profession and therefore a potential issue for NCAA. You can find a lot of material online debating this.
Does this mean a court will find for the student? No, but a lot of professional lawyers specializing in this field believe the case has merit and are writing opinions for it.
Just because the NCAA says it, does not make it so. There are other laws that supersede NCAA bylaws.
Personally I have stated before that I do not agree with student athletes getting paid merchandising as the O'Bannon case states. Why? because I believe the universities are providing amateurs a venue to display their talents and offer free training to reach their goal of being a professional athlete. If students athletes are to be paid for the money the university/ncaa makes on during this time then the university/ncaa should be able to amortize the salary paid to the athlete when they are now a professional.
I do agree that student athletes should be paid more money on the stipend. I feel it is not enough. But I think the benefits as listed with people above is not complete. Student-Athletes, beyond what is stated above, get access to nutrition coaches and food, personal areas dedicated only to them on-campus for recreation, fitness, studying, etc. Exposure (marketing and pr) on a national venue to future employers, and in the case of major sports national television exposure. Do you know how much money I would need to spend to run just a 30 sec national advertisement on ESPN, CBS or the like for my company? and that's just 30 seconds. try 2 hours every Saturday during the fall. Plus print, online blogs, radio, etc The cost of that is staggering.
However, arguing that as an athlete I have 5k in debt after graduating is a complete losing battle when people like me had 60k after my degrees. You as an athlete do not realize how lucky you are if you think 5k is a lot.
The universities depend on money made from your likeness to give you all these things freely. The NCAA making 6 billion is in my opinion, like JCTaughtMe, fairly ridiculous. As others have said this is a non-profit organization and while i know that running the NCAA is extremely expensive I find it hard to believe it takes 6 billion when they cannot even get a kid through the clearinghouse in under 6 months to a year. That's unbelievable to me. Clearinghouse should be automatic qualification with a qualitative panel review for all that don't pass to evaluate the other things that come to play. This should all happen in under a month and when in doubt should fall in favor of the student athlete. But this is another topic.
Anyway, the NCAA is in for an extremely rough ride if more student athletes start to pursue their rights. While I feel the NCAA has a strong argument in the O'Bannon case i feel that the athletes have a strong case in regards to First and Fourth amendment rulings.
Hopefully this doesn't start another tirade on constitutionality again, which is not my intent. Simply stating that the NU kids have a point. One that others specializing in the field agree with.
Two things in what you said that I might contest. The school being able to recoup monies from the player. After the fact would be tough to see happen. The school already benefited financially and in some cases continues to benefit financially from thei r relationship with the player. I compare it to free agency in most sports. The team a player leaves does not recover funds from a player if he signs with a new team at the end of their contract. Trying to separate the financial value of tv time and other media access would also be extremely difficult as the school, conference and NCAA all also benefit directly from said exposure.
I am not saying that schools should be paid money from players professional salary. I am saying if players want merchandising revenue then schools should a seek return on the investment they put in to that player's development. The player didn't coach themselves for 4 - 5 years and make them a better player capable of playing in the NFL and NBA. (NBA kids that can go directly to the league is a unique case) Universities should be able to seek monetary benefits from that free coaching one way or the other.
Regarding, TV exposure. Again I am not saying that they should monetize this but you can't say that playing on a national stage and getting that level of exposure doesn't give you a distinct advantage when draft day comes and the level of salary you can negotiate for. That is a value provided to players freely by universities, conference and the NCAA. One that has not been mentioned in the comments on this thread so far.
What level would that end at though? PeeWee football for getting kids on Friday Night Tykes? High schools where kids don't technically pay coaches? I would argue that the television side is a value provided by ESPN and other television networks. The school is being compensated from a third party and benefits more so the better the athlete does. See BCS bowl payouts. The school is actually contractually obligated to provide a team of players so without the student athlete the school would be in breach.
this is exactly the point. Schools benefit from this and can provide athletes things like indoor practice fields, audacious locker rooms, etc. Schools get A LOT of monetary benefit from it.
But I think it's shortsighted to say players don't benefit. Look at how player salaries have ballooned since 1990. At this point college football started to make a monumental shift whereby it became a national sport where remote engineering schools set in rural VA could become a national recognized brand. The added exposure to college football only served to increase the value of the NFL, because now fans have been watching their favorite player for years beforehand. And with that change the salaries players could negotiate also increased dramatically.
Compare the highest paid NFL player in 1990, Randall Cunningham had a 5 year extension for 15 million
In 2013, Aaron Rodgers, 110 million for 5 years
As a rookie Bradford signed a 6 year, 76 million dollar deal. With 50 million guaranteed.
As a rookie in 1990 Jeff George signed a 6 year, 15 million dollar deal. this was the highest salary ever paid for a rookie at the time.
Players are given an enormous benefit with television exposure. A venue the university provides freely precisely because it is getting revenue. If players start tapping into that then schools should start to tap into these 80 million dollar deals as well.
Not every player gets a deal like that but all salaries have gone up and it's directly due to exposure.
Fernly I just want to say you are one smart dude/chick (I assume dude from some of the GIFs I've seen you post). I am truly proud you are a Hokie. Have a leg for being so great!
thanks dude. flattery always gets some legs, here's some from over here in China
That's great news for the 1-3% of players that go on to play their respective professional sport, what happens for the other 97% that don't become professional athletes and deal with medical problems the rest of their lives? (Don't know what percent of this pool has said injuries so I won't speculate)
Anyway I think we both agree that right now its a legal rabbit hole and will be interesting to watch it play out.
The 97% you're talking about aren't vying to be or will not be a professional athlete. They will therefore use their free degree to pursue alternate professional careers. Most student athletes have a fairly good sense of whether or not they can go pro, or at least try to.
Likewise, just as that top 1 - 3% will have the most gripe about not receiving money from television rights and merchandising, the bottom 97% constitute very little revenue in terms of merchandising and television draw for the university. We all love the wrestling team but how much money do you think VT is making off of them? Therefore the free education, opportunity for some to break the glass ceiling (Cody Grimm, Danny Coale, etc) into professional sports and all the other benefits given to student athletes is more than commensurate.
I do agree with you on medical issues however and think that all student athletes should be covered on university insurance for up to 5 years after school for ailments and medical attention related to playing sports for their school, unless they turn pro. But that is very different from merchandising and money from television rights.
Is the $6 Billion figure revenue or profit? I think it's revenue (just basketball revenue if I'm remembering the original post correctly), so it doesn't mean that the NCAA has $6 Billion sitting in a bank somewhere. One page I looked at a couple days ago broke down how NCAA Revenue was used (2012 numbers). 60% went back to the member institutions (It broke down heavily in D1's favor with 53% going to D1 schools, 4% to D2, and 3% to D3). 13% was listed as distributed to championships, which I assume means that it is used to fund championship tournaments, 19% went to a category called "programs and national office services" which I'm unsure exactly what it is, but I'm assuming it would be other projects like PR, get kids health initiatives, and the like, 4% went to central services which was defined as building operations and salaries and 4% went to other services which included the eligibility center.
One of the more interesting items for me was that if you divide the 2012 revenue ($10.6 Billion) by the number of student athletes (420,000) you end up with a little over $25,000 in revenue per student which is pretty close to the average cost of attendance listed below, and this is before you take out the 40% that isn't sent back to the schools. I wasn't able to find a number of just D1 athletes since I think it would be a little more useful to look at just the $5.6 Billion of revenue sent back to D1 Schools per athlete. D1 (FBS and FCS) schools are 24.5% of NCAA member institutions though and if you assume that student athletes are spread evenly across Divisions (I would guess that D1 schools are more likely to offer more programs and thus actually a higher percentage of student athletes than the 24.5%) then there would be 102,900 D1 student athletes and a little less than $55,000 in revenue returned to D1 Schools by the NCAA per student athlete. If this number is anywhere near correct (and I think its probably a little high), then schools aren't exactly making a killing off of student athletes. I think the oft repeated number is that all but 20-25 programs actually lose money on athletics each year.
For comparison's sake, in 2012 the average Total cost of attending a 4 year college was :
$17,131-------------in-state public
$29,657-------------out-of-state
38,589--------------private
The source website also suggested adding an additional $4,000 for " textbooks, supplies, transportation and other expenses."
I don't really come down on either side one way or another, I don't think that student athletes, or at least those on scholarship are being taken advantage of in most situations as far as the benefits they receive for participating in college sports, but I also think there are instances where the NCAA rules can be counter productive and the ISTP in me hates red tape in general.
Edit: The numbers I found are very different than the numbers that smittyvt32949 found above, I'm guessing that my numbers include revenue for each school as part of the total NCAA Revenue while his only had revenue that comes directly to the NCAA, since the page I found had about half of the Revenue coming from Ticket Sales
Bingo! If this goes to court and a minimum mandate is the ruling to all college student athletes then the costs will spiral and college sports are done as we know them. I think we all better be careful what you wish for. An old adage:
"What can make you, can also break you."
I didn't look up the figure. Was just referencing back to the figure JCtaughtMe stated.
But this is good research and I agree.
I can't believe there hasn't been a "Chicago way" joke made here yet, being that Northwestern kids are doing this.
I wonder how this would work for schools throughout the nation with many states being "Right to Work" states which outlaws unions.
right to work doesnt outlaw the union, you just arent obligated to join if you work at a union shop.
I think in the state it does. I'm not entirely sure but I'm from North Carolina and my mom is a teacher there and they are not allowed to organize and create a union because it is a right to work state
They still have the right to form a union but with right to work the state also has the right to terminate their employment.
In other words, form a union in a right to work state and you are asking to be fired without penalty. Whereas in a union state, you will get fired for not joining the union and forced to join even if you want nothing to do with it.
Pretty much
Part of the reason I despise most unions. They were needed in older times before a lot of the labor laws were written. My family has had nothing but bad experiences with unions screwing over their own members to put the union first.
I tend to agree with this as well. In economies of scale unions can be absolute killers.
This is an metaphor from far, far away but in Australia there is a huge issue with unions blocking economic growth. The unions were formed to get labor rights (or as they call it labour rights, silly ozzies) but since the late 80's have stood in the way of many economic growth measures to the point where the national economy, and everyone else living in the country, has suffered tremendously. Because Australia's population is the same size as 2 New York Cities this can be a death wish because there is only so much economy to begin with.
For college sports, if athletes form a union for rights, then it can, and will, very quickly can escalate into pay for play scenarios that would be the death of amateur college football as we know it. May as well just build a minor league then. And this would kill all sports not just football.
I do believe student athletes meet the criteria of employees but I also believe that the amateurism of sports in a collegiate setting must be protected. Therefore I think there are two solutions. Unions go nowhere because it's a recipe for mutual destruction. or Union's go somewhere and universities/NCAA fights it all the way to Supreme Court.
Or the NCAA can look at the facts and $ they bring in and say hey maybe we should provide some sort of medical coverage <--- for all athletes and a small stipend<---for non full ride athletes. Instead of wasting money to fight a Union that doesn't even exist.
I agree with limitations. More stipend, yes. Medical coverage during and after graduation, yes. Paying athletes, no. merchandising revenue, no.
I stated my case in my other posts on this thread though, so no need to do again.
Except the problem is that the athletes are saying they aren't getting compensated.
They ARE getting compensated. In most cases, they're getting compensated VERY well, and regardless of whether or not they end up in the majors, they finish college with a BIG leg up on their academic peers. When you calculate the compounded interest on student debt they'd have to pay after graduating if they didn't have scholarships, you're very likely looking at multiple hundreds of thousands in a leg up they have on their peers from the minute they graduate. Thats a HUGE compensation for being a representative of their school.
Dude. I am in total agreement. See my other posts on this thread.
Rabbit hole is closing in on ya.
How so? VtechAlum is saying the exact same thing I am.
Just referring to how we both seem to be getting pulled back in comment by comment to saying the same things in a circle, nothing negative or condescending meant by the comment.
yeah, figured it out about 2 minutes after I replied. doh!
Longer threads always seem to have 5 variations of the same debate going on. haha
Because you guys are saying scholarship athletes are getting compensated with free education. Well not every athlete is on a full ride, just because schools can give out full ride's doesn't mean every athlete has one. CFB can give out 85 scholarships, with a max of 125 players on the team. So 68% of Football players on a roster has some $. The other 32% are just normal student's who participate in athletics.
But those 32% can't have jobs during the season, why can't the NCAA help those 32% since they're technically employed by the NCAA and have to follow rules the NCAA puts forth or else eligibility is stripped
That's not what I am saying. Or at least not ALL that I am saying.
I completely agree with you. Stipends are way too low. It should be much more, especially for non-revenue sports. I also agree about medical insurance, more so than stipends actually.
I am on board for all of this. I actually have no issue with players being allowed by the NCAA to have a job if they actually need it to support/survive if that were to change. Right now though, the Northwestern filing only includes Scholarship Athletes in football and Men's basketball for membership in the proposed Union so it does nothing to help non-scholarship players at least initially. I actually think this is a big mistake on the part of the players filing this motion, as including the non-scholarship kids would benefit them in front of the courts IMO.
agreed. non-revenue sport athletes makes this a whole new ball game. of course they can class action it and call for anyone to sign up.
I think part of the issue that most people see with this is that the people who are making the most fuss that athletes should be paid are either media types (former players, etc, now on ESPN sort of thing), or the top-level players whose names are being used by the NCAA to make money for the NCAA. Except those players are the ones who deserve the least amount of support, because they are the ones who will be making hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions of dollars, every year once they go into the professional leagues.
The ones who do deserve larger stipends/better health benefits, are the ones who the NCAA is not benefiting from use of their names/likeness.
So when people hear the argument "Oh, Johnny Football should be paid to play in college..." etc., they're upset because a guy like him will be a millionaire in a few months. So it turns them off completely to any sort of increase in benefits provided to any student athlete, not just the top few with professional aspirations.
Ok I hear you but why do you think Jameis Winston, or lets say the more high profile guys in football are being very very quiet right now. It's because they're getting a free education and are fine with it.
You have Northwestern's QB Kain Colter who was a 3 star recruit backing the union deal. Its the walk-on or starting FB that's on 2000k that wants a little stipend to help. That's all I'm saying, don't give a stipend to the full ride athlete's they don't need it.
How hard could it be for the NCAA to come up with something like a (financial aid) package for lower scholarships or non scholarship athletes.
more stipend! more stipend! more stipend!
yes, I agree. A larger stipend would solve a lot of issues.
The funny thing to me, is that at the crux of this is the argument that players voluntarily participate in sports and are promised an education in return; certain institutions-cough-UNC-cough-have failed to provide an education and therefore breached this contract.
This will be fun.
To paraphrase the great Chrissy Hynde-"I say Hey, Ho, way to go Chapel Hill."
Thank you so much UNC for giving all these lawsuits a new legal ground.
I saw this on TSL as well. It's definitely an interesting curve ball but I think there would have to be a major collapse at a lot of schools with proof for this argument to impact the current state of things. I personally believe that universities, save for 1 or 2 bad apples, are in fact actually educating athletes as they should be. And the NCAA, for better or worse, has been given the tools to find, investigate and correct (through penalization) universities that fail to do so.
But it seems we have some current and former athletes on TKP so would be interested to hear whether they believe they are getting/got a "real" education or a just shine job.
There are 2 sides of the coin on this.
If you believe the original study, a majority of the athletes in revenue sports (that is football and mens and womens basketball) cannot read above an 8th grade level. I don't remember off the top of my head, but I seem to recall that number being about 60% industry-wide, and from my own experiences in dealing with athletes while I was a student, we are no exception from that rule.
So where do you draw the line? Without the ability to effectively read, these specific athletes wouldn't be able to get into the schools they play for, and because of that, the schools offer them free 1-on-1 tutoring to help them through their studies along the way. If the athletes choose to abuse these resources and have the tutors do the work for them, is that a failure on the school's end to not give them a good education (at a school where these athletes were already at a disadvantage coming in) or is it a failure on the athlete for not taking their opportunity seriously? At a certain point, you can't force a kid to learn.
Now, what happened at UNC is disgraceful. To give out grades for classes that didn't exist is beyond acceptable and they deserve every negative comment said about them. But unless you can show with proof that this kind of blatant gaming of the system was happening everywhere and not just isolated to Chapel Hill, then I'm not sure how relevant it would be in this legal case.
yep. agreed
I agree with this, yes its a tough situation. But then again the tutor should laugh at the athlete and say you're crazy if you think i'm going to do your work. And yes UNC deserves every inch of what they're going to get its terrible and unreal. But I read an article and it states you don't know if only athletes were in these classes and the NCAA isn't stating the numbers but I'm sure they have them but what good would it do for them to release to people exactly what amount were not athletes. Because then UNC could say see its not only an athletic problem, granted it was definitely driven with athlete's in mind.
UNC as a whole decided it was ok to let this happen, its not all on the athletes themselves. Because again the NCAA and Collegiate sports is money driven, so why suspend your all star point guard and lose out on 9.5 million dollars, which is what the payout was for this past years Final Four.
Yeah, wanted to follow up in regards to yesterday. My whole "to a school you have no business being in" referred to this 60% industry-wide that can't read past an 8th grade level. For these players, they truly are at a school thats most likely well above what they could have hoped to enter had they not had the athletic skills they did in high school. From my own personal experience in group projects at Tech, I saw these problems first hand.
With that said, yes, you'd like to think that the tutors would do that. Unfortunately, thats not always the case. I know a few people who were athletic tutors while at Tech, and had to quit because athletes in the rev sports would come in with the expectation that the tutor would do the work for them.
"As a graduate student at UNC-Greensboro, Willingham researched the reading levels of 183 UNC-Chapel Hill athletes who played football or basketball from 2004 to 2012. She found that 60% read between fourth- and eighth-grade levels. Between 8% and 10% read below a third-grade level."
This is just at 1 school UNC not all NCAA schools, but yes regardless this is a problem and there is no need for these kids that take advantage of athletic benefits to be rewarded what so ever.
This is the cherry to my PIE. hence why I got a little chippy yesterday with the "Not belonging" comment. The NCAA does a great job with making sure athletes have what they need to succeed on and off the field. We are provided with a lot of help, our own academic-athletic advisers who help us schedule our classes around our ridiculous practice and weight training times. We have the ability to go to tutors and seek help.
But so do regular students, they have tutors and academic advisers and mentoring. You don't hear about Steve Perry the non athlete that is a marketing major cheating on his test or giving out answers for an online quiz. Because who cares, if he wants to cheat go ahead, that's on him but the NCAA hold student athlete's to high standards and when you don't follow them, you will get caught and it will become relevant in the media outlets.
Another problem I see is that people don't understand what is incorporated in the student athlete's day. You only hear about the bad things, rarely do you hear about the 8 basketball players that received a 3.0 or higher. Or the 69 football players that have a 3.0 or higher. Being a student athlete is a job, its more than 40 hours a week and then add school on top of it. I'm not saying ohh poor athlete's, no we chose to do that, we knew what it was going to be like.
Its not really the piece of "cake" that many people might think. Wake up at 5am for weights at 530 maybe 6, have breakfast at 715am, in class from 745 or 8 till noon. Grab a quick snack then head to our "NCAA Mandatory" 8 hours a week study hall. Then go to practice at 2 or 3, finish at 5. Go to rehab/trainers room for random injuries or just to chill. Go to your night class which usually are from 6-9. Once that is all done go back to Study Hall for an hour until 10. Then we get to go home and play "NCAA College Football" and get in bed by 11 or 12 and wake up at 5am all over again.
With that being said yes cheating happens and all it takes is 1 or 2 bad apples to make the rest of us athletes look bad. I don't think medical help or a monthly stipend would be a huge deal for the NCAA to grant. They can make rules as to how you get it. Because what happens when Kevin Ware is walking down the street and then bamm he re-breaks that leg. That's going to be a hefty bill as we all heard about, but its not right to say oops you're not associated with our school anymore, so the bill is on you. He broke it while you the school and NCAA made money off of his teams/his play. But now that he isn't playing anymore its all on him. I'm not saying they should pay for the whole thing but at least help a little.
Moral of my rant/post is most of you would be surprised with what 80-90% of athletes would do with that extra stipend. Maybe help our family, or hey maybe even go out and be the "Antone Exum" and help less fortunate people. And again yes there will be some kids that just blow it all away, but for the majority it would help.
great post.
two things I would like comment on:
I disagree. A lot of people care. Other students in the same class who are affected on the bell curve. professor's. advisers. parents. the universities code of conduct. Cheating is a big issue no matter who does it. Unfortunately for athletes they are public shamed rather than privately punished.
absolutely agree. NCAA will have a problem with this. athletes are employees IMO
But athletes are a different story. The thing is, when you sign that Letter of Intent to play, you also sign on with the full understanding that now you're in the public eye. You are now the embodiment of the name brand of that school, because you are seen on tv sets across the region or nation on gamedays. People know you for something outside of your studies because you signed on to be a representative. You have to take the good with the bad. If you excel in the classroom, you'll get rewarded with an All-Academic honor from your school or conference. You may even be up for an award. But if you screw up, and get caught cheating, well... you're going to have to deal with that as well.
If this mythical 'Steve' does well in school, he may get a pat on the back from his parents. Nobody else is going to care. If he screws up, once again, nobody will care. Why? Because he's irrelevant in the grand scheme to the school. He did not sign up to be a face of the school. He isn't taking benefits from the school for his services. He was a faceless number before he got there, he's a faceless number while he's there, and he'll be a faceless number after he leaves.
Exactly, athlete's are always going to be looked at in a different way because of what they do. They represent a school and a team and the NCAA. But most athlete's that are on scholarship probably wouldn't want to risk their "free education" just to cheat for this one test. I have no respect for those kids at all especially knowing/ being a port of all the benefits I received as an athlete.
All it took was for 1 school to allow it to happen and the mess isn't going to go away.
Plugged it before, plugging it again. My blog on college athletes being compensated:
http://wetalkinboutblogging.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/moneymen/
... and as usual the Lawyers Win!
Nice try, not going to work. Best case is that it shames the NCAA into changes much like the Jerry Tarkanian case did.