Crazy to think coaches are getting over 300k because a "college amateur athlete" made a 3 pointer. But that players gets $0.. yeah he gets an education valued at 80k after 4 years, but come on 100k in a game/quarter or 80k after 4 years.
Enjoy, sorry to bring this topic up again but it always will be a thorn.
Head coach John Calipari gets a $150,000 bonus. (Thats on top of his $5.2 million in base compensation for this season, the $100,000 bonus he got for Kentucky being the Sweet 16 and the additional $100,000 bonus he got for them being the Elite Eight.) so right there that's 350k bonus in 1 year wow.
For Kenny Payne (who is making $350,000 this season), thats $58,334.
For John Robic ($300,000), thats $50,000.
For Orlando Antigua ($275,000), thats $45,834.
Comments
The value you are putting on the education, which most of the UK players forego to go pro anyway is no where near the total package of their benefits received especially at UK where so many are one and done to make millions.
No College Athlete is forced to accept a scholarship. They choose to be an amateur knowing exactly what the benefits and the costs are.
The cost of being a student-athlete? You don't receive portions of the profits your program generates. The benefits? Free college education, free food, free world-class training facilities, free world-class trainers... not to mention the free national exposure to create your brand. These athletes aren't slaving away for nothing, they are getting plenty of benefits in return for their participation in the sport programs.
College Athletes do get compensated for their work. Now that we acknowledge that, the only real question is if they are entitled to be compensated above and beyond what they are already getting.
Let's look at professional athletes. Lebron James gets compensated for his work, but he doesn't get a percentage of the revenue that he generates for the Miami Heat. If the Miami Heat end up making millions in profits because they signed Lebron, should Lebron be entitled to extra money above and beyond what he agreed too? Hell no. He agreed to work for "x" amount of money... he is only entitled to "x" amount of money. Lebron also doesn't have to give money back to his employer if he plays poorly. Similarly, College Athletes sign their college scholarships knowing that they aren't due any extra money if they win extra games...and their scholarship won't be retroactively revoked if they lose games and cost the university money.
So no, these college players aren't entitled to any extra money above and beyond their current compensation. They sign a contract saying "I will be an amateur athlete in exchange for free room and board, a free education, free training, etc..."
If they don't like those parameters............................ don't be a college athlete.
Good gravy, that's an excellent point about Lebron.
Except Lebron gets endorsements. 7 year 93 million dollar deal with nike. Gets 4 million from McDonald's ect ect. No wonder why kids leave early. If I was an amazing athlete I would say f college. I'm waiting my best athletic years for nothing. Free food where's that at??? World class trainers yes at top schools but bit at a lot if schools.
I'm just saying there's a reason why it's a big deal and it's only going to grow with more news like this.
Well that's a seperate question. I think that college athletes should be able to get endorsements. If I received an academic scholarship from Virginia Tech, would I be prevented from making money endorsing a product? Course not.
So why shouldn't athletes? The only reason is because the NCAA wants to suck money off of the athletes. If the NCAA was an organization whose primary purpose was to watch out for the welfare of it's students (instead of the business interests of it's members) then it would allow students to make money off of their image.
Preventing schools from paying athletes at least ensures that the student/college relationship is still intact, rather than having it evolve into a employee/employer relationship. Preventing athletes from making money off of their own face (or autograph) does nothing but make it harder for these athletes to stay in school.
This times 1000000 I am done. You get it the NCAA is a money driven program and it's a little crazy. New topic for me spring ball. This years coverage of spring better pick up soon. I'm pumped for the first scrimmage this Saturday
The only way I would be okay with athletes making money off of endorsements is if the revenue was shared across all athletes or maybe all athletes of that specific sport.
The issue with allowing students to get endorsements becomes the ability of boosters to provide funds to entice a player to their school or to stay in school by way of giving endorsement contracts.
I don't have a problem of an equal distribution of all endorsement money's to all players across Division I from any endorsement deal to remove the ability to essentially "bribe" a student athlete to one school or another but that would never fly with the star players. Where do you set the limits? How do you control the marketplace to avoid major corruption?
As for the Ed O'Bannon case regarding the continued use of their likenesses after graduation, I fully support the players contention that they did not implicitly convey to the NCAA the use of their likeness in perpetuity by taking a scholarship and they should be compensated for the use. Think how much Christian Laettner would be owed for his buzzer beater shot?
If the owner of a local car dealership wants to pay the star quarterback to "endorse" his cars... I don't see why that shouldn't be allowed. Same way that the owner of a local car dealership should be allowed to pay any student to endorse their cars.
I know I'm in the minority here, but I have absolutely no problem with boosters giving money to kids. It's their money, they can do with it what they like. The only reason the NCAA doesn't allow it is because they don't want to start down the road where these athletes start getting paid. Not because they are actually worried about amateur status.
Because whats stopping anyone from having that local booster making that monetary promise early on during the recruiting process as an extra perk for the recruit to come to that school? And whats to stop that local businessman from making that endorsement something in the 7 figures?
Thats why its not allowed. Its a very slippery slope that would be very, very quickly abused
who would make a 7 figure offer to a kid out of high school to go to so called college. a fool that's who.
Bullshit. You can't tell me someone in Texas, California, or Florida wouldn't have loved to make a $1m/yr under the table offer to someone like Jameis Winston to come play for their school. Hell, Phil Knight alone would have made his head spin with an offer.
Nike would drop 7 figures on Manziel or Winston in a heartbeat. Maybe not out of high school but during college, in this case their 2nd year. And see my other post on why this would ruin college athletics.
Problem would be all the say top 100 kids would sign with someone coming out of high school and have adjustments every year based on performance. More time on the field, more money. Starter, money. 2nd team all conference, money, 1rst team, money. MVP, money. national award (maxwell, heisman, etc), money. and on and on....
college sports ruined.
Whats to stop the local businessman from promising them an endorsement deal after they graduate/go pro now? Would you be more inclined to agree if a player had to have played a season (have to be a true or redshirt sophomore) before they can receive endorsement deals?
As for whats stopping the local businessman from making the deal 7 figures, I would go with economics. If a businessman is routinely giving out 7 figure endorsement deals to college athletes, he wouldn't stay in business very long. Even the richest businessmen have limited resources so unless that athlete is providing 7 figures worth of value to the business, they would quickly go out of business.
I am not concerned about Amateur status. I am more concerned with it being a huge advantage in terms of recruiting and quasi level playing field. If the star quarterback is regularly getting an endorsement deal at Texas from the car dealership for $25K a year, than how long until every quarterback recruit wants to go to Texas not for how they have performed on the field but because of their income potential. How soon would this be the only consideration for every program in the country? How soon until you have every player going to Oregon because the Nike founder throws a standard $100K endorsement behind every scholarship? or the same from UnderArmour at Maryland? Harvard becomes the top football program in the country?
I have no problem with someone wanting to pay the starting quarterback at Texas money to endorse a product. None. That just seems like good business sense to me.
That would never happen. The third string Center isn't going to be making money, only the star players.
Students pick colleges to go to all the time based on potential future income. If I study at MIT instead of ODU, I'm going to be in a much better position to get a paid internship inbetween my sophomore and junior years.
Yes, but TV rights deals would funnel all the best players to the conference with the best deal.
And sure, some homer recruits would still pick VT but not ones that have chance to make that much money. So we're talking about 2nd and 3rd stringers only. All the best kids that would normally consider VT would try to go SEC, BIG10 and others before ACC schools.
Then you have the rest of the recruits that will break down their choices based on expected revenue, choosing only to go to VT because they could get into a school where they could earn more money.
As soon as you open that door, the 3rd string center will be making money, because that will become a recruiting sell at the large schools. Boosters will line up to contribute to these 'endorsements' to ensure their programs reign in the top talent year to year because there is a gentleman's agreement that their local businesses will be able to pay more to every player in endorsements.
If we go down this path, that is the future of college sports. Thats why the NCAA is so adamant against endorsements. Because if you let that dam crack even in the slightest, there WILL be people who burst it wide open, and there WILL be schools that abuse the hell out of it, and there WON'T be a way to reign it back under control.
Agreed. Endorsements or any type of pay-for-play scenario is a terrible idea. This would ruin college sports faster than unions or anything else.
So you're putting your entertainment over the finances of a 18 year old and his family?
Did I get paid for the research work I did in university? What about my family?
I feel for any struggling family but if you need to really make money for your family then go get a job. If you want to try to get a big payday because you have the skills to possibly go pro then play for a school that is going to freely train and coach you, provide you with individually accessed weight training, conditioning and nutrition, Provide for you a free venue to market your skills on national television... and on top of all that, free education and a stipend.
yes, you have a family. You also have a choice. My parents are not rich. I am still paying student loans because I paid for 99% of my education myself. But that was my choice.
There are plenty of students who have academic scholarships AND do paid research for the school, but I digress...
Regardless, my previous post was meant to be tongue and cheek. Fans (in general) are quick to point out how the schools take advantage of athletes, or Nike takes advantage of the athlete, or the conference, or the NCAA, or whatever, but conveniently ignore that as fans we create the demand that fuels all of this 'taking advantage.'
We live in a capitalist society. In college athletics, all entities involved (the schools, the conferences, the fans, etc.) are playing by the rules of the free market, except for athletes. Athletes are prevented from entering the market. This is the problem. Yes, I realize that the students 'agree' to give up their right to the free market, but if the NCAA did their job, and wasn't a bureaucratic mess, then student athletes could make some legitimate side money.
In conclusion, the current system is fucked, and athletes are always the ones who get who are stuck holding the shortest stick.
You cannot do paid research for academic credit here. You have to pick whether you want to be "paid" in money or in credits. If you choose money the academic scholarship does not apply to that research and it is just a job outside of school that happens to be for the school.
This is true, I was interpreting this at the undergraduate level, however, athletes are very limited in the job market. For the most part, they do not have the opportunity to be on scholarship for one thing (sports) and work a job for pay.
Incorrect. Athletes are not prevented from entering the market. I'm in the design practice could I have gotten a job as an architect during school? No way. I hadn't finished my degree. I could get only get an internship, mostly unpaid. Only after receiving my degree could I get a paid job in my profession. Why? because I got the education to be, or in an athlete's case the training and coaching to be. The athlete gets the added benefit of paid, albeit with just a small stipend, on the job experience every Saturday (and Whit willing more Thursday nights!) during the season. This is incredibly valuable.
hyperbole. Scholarship athletes hold the largest stick on campus of any student. Any. The monetary and indirect economic value they receive is greater than any single student type. No one receives anything close to them, including full ride scholarship students.
Non-scholarship athletes do have a rough road but again this is by choice. During my last 2 years at VT I worked 4 jobs (full time and part time) at the same time and was a full time student. HRA of dorm, Cook at Hokie House, Driver at Blacksburg Limosine and I did research papers with an think tank. All by necessity because I was an out-of-state student that needed to pay for school not covered by scholarship and have a little extra money to live on. I know other students that were the same with me. No way athletes have a shorter stick than this.
The unpaid internship is a result of the market. Almost all engineering internships are paid, due to demand. The open market has determined that an engineering intern is worth $10-$20/hr. The same professional market has determined that architects are not valuable enough to pay without a degree. If Nike feels that there is demand for a commercial with a star college athlete, that athlete should be able to fill that demand, and be compensated accordingly. Just as if an engineering firm feels that there is a demand for an intern, they will hire an engineering student and compensate him accordingly.
NOTE: not intended to sound like snarky engineer, just offering comparison
You're missing my point. I'm not arguing that student athletes have a poor/lesser quality of life (anyone who does is asinine). Additionally, I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to paying student athletes to play their respective sport.
I'm suggesting that a student athlete's earning power is capped by the NCAA and that it is unethical to prevent a student from pursuing other ventures.
As mentioned in my post below, athletes cannot enter the open market as a self employed entity AT ALL. As an architect, or a grad student, you could tutor high school/undergrad students for pay. If Mark Leal organized a pee-wee football camp for pay, Virginia Tech would be docked scholarships.
Point 1: You are still comparing endorsements to jobs. The two are vastly different. Endorsement deals are not jobs whereby you are an employee. And why can't the NCAA and school prevent you from endorsements or jobs for that matter? You are on scholarship. They can set the terms of your scholarship as they see fit. I was on scholarship. I had to keep my grades above a certain level, maintain a driver's license in a certain state, write an annual paper to the scholarship review board and do 150 hours of community service every school year. These were all stipulations of me voluntarily agreeing to accept that scholarship. Likewise players voluntarily accept the conditions of their scholarship.
But if you really want players to get paid endorsement. Then why shouldn't schools get their cut of those endorsements? They're providing the platform in which the athlete can get those deals. They should get a commission.
And if you really truly want to get free market then schools should monetize the value of on-the job training and free nationally televised marketing of your skills and take their cut on top of those commissions to recoup their costs. For a starter that plays a 2 - 3 hour game that's tens of millions of dollars of ad time every game.
No offense taken on the engineer/architect comparison. It's a cold hard fact. I actually got a few paid internships in my day but it's comparable to money from a stipend so a wash in my book.
on 2nd point, I think we both agree with the side jobs. As we noted below, I am cool if they are given that choice but suffer the consequences if fail to perform. But again the giver of the scholarship has every right to stipulate whatever they want as part of that offering. It's the athletes freedom of choice to accept it.
I was using the term endorsement wrong, I was not suggesting that players should get paid to wear or own Nike clothes, but that they should able to be an "actor" in a Nike Commercial.
Understood, I just think the terms in this case are unreasonably unfair.
Absolutely, but schools already profit off the athlete since they can sell their likeness to Nike, EA, etc. I believe that universities should have a handful of 'approved sponsors' (Nike, EA Sports, etc.). These approved sponsors are entities that the school already has an existing deal with. The scholarship terms should stipulate that a player may work for pay as long as their 'employer' or business does not threaten the school's brands. So:
A VT athlete cannot act in an adidas commercial, just like Tiger Woods can't.
Technically, EA violated their agreements with the NCAA in the cases that they built the teams and players to appear like the actual teams. That's one of the reasons EA settled their case with O'Bannon and others out of court so they didn't have to testify to doing this. The only thing EA had the right to do was create the teams using the school logos/information, not the students.
As Rob said correctly, the likeness of players was never "sold" to anyone.
The problem with being paid as an actor is how to control booster contributions to solicit players? This is why they control players working any side job, because even if it was the local furniture warehouse they could be offering players money to play at VT under the ruse of "acting" in a TV spot. Then scale that up to Oregon and Nike's relationship. Just can't work, and for someone that is such a big proponent of free market economics I'm surprised you suggest that only a "handful of approved sponsors" be allowed. That's straight up market regulation. It just doesn't work this way and opens up way to many holes to be abused and necessity for huge regulatory bodies larger than the current NCAA to keep in check.
The scholarships aren't unreasonably fair at all. They are what they are. Take it or leave it. if you don't want to wait for money then go play in Canada or Europe. I don't believe their professional leagues have any predetermined limits on age (though I could be wrong about that) and no affiliation with the NCAA. Play for a few years and make your money then enter into the NFL draft. Nobody is stopping you.
I suppose EA was a bad example for likeness, but the bookstore sells certain number uniforms each season, usually matching the better players on the team. Surely this qualifies as a 'Likeness'.
I do realize the challenges, but I believe it's the NCAA's job to navigate these challenges.
The "handful of approved sponsors" was not meant to suggest that there are 3 companies the athlete can work for; it was meant to prevent the athlete from working with a rival sponsor (See my tiger woods/adidas reference).
Why can't the university sell jerseys with certain numbers on them? The player doesn't own that number, nor do they own the jersey. Those are the school's intellectual property. The student athlete has zero rights to them. A number is an association not a likeness.
Regarding the NCAA: a) why would it be their job to control this? and b) why would you want that? They completely failed the slam dunk in Miami and you want them to somehow control a regulatory body over pay-for-play scenarios. The first thing they would do is set up a new clearinghouse to review all this and players would be stuck in limbo waiting for approval of their "acting" jobs or whatever.
Again, free market. The players would need to sign an endorsement contract with Nike, or whoever, to pay them money so as to restrict them from "acting" in commercials for other brands. They are cannot be automatically included into the school's existing contract. Otherwise there would be nothing to control this, and then we are back to endorsements of brands.
Ha, we're clearly not going to convince the other of our views.
I just don't understand why players shouldn't be allowed to market themselves. There is no parallel in any other industry in America. No one except for college athletes are prevented from using their fame to profit.
I agree that (generally) the student athlete route is the best available option for an individual hoping to play a professional sport. However, I think people should avoid settling for good, and try to optimize their situation. Just because we can't think of a good solution does mean there isn't one. I hope one day a regulatory body finds a way to allow players to experiment on the open market with minimal 'corruption' from 'boosters.'
haha. yes, agree to disagree. It's a good dialogue though. +1
I understand what you're saying, but the reasoning is clearly to avoid boosters from influencing kids to play for their school. There's a reason for it and I think it's a good one. So maybe you can ask a different question, do you know any other industry whereby it's economic structure can be subverted by outside contributions to pay someone to "work" for your own company and not others? Key point being the subversion.
But yes, not saying it's perfect and if open to change. I just don't think that allowing this would be a good thing.
Anyway, thanks for the debate
There are plenty of ways that they could accomplish it:
For scholarship athletes, not endorsing competing products/preapproval of endorsement deals could be a condition of their scholarship, but that method wouldn't work for walkons.
The simplest solution would be to make it a team rule with immediate dismissal and loss of scholarship (where applicable) as the penalty for violating it.
Wasn't saying it couldn't be done. Was pointing out that under his free market scenario whereby he feels the contracts are unreasonable as they are it logically didn't make sense. Under that scenario these additional restrictions on scholarships would be even more unreasonable.
I wouldn't say its unreasonable though. A lot of private businesses don't allow their employees to work for competing companies. (To be clear I'm not saying that athletes are employees, but there are still some parallels) I've picked up a second job over the last year or so and one of the conditions of my employment is that I can't work for a competing company because its considered a conflict of interest. Similarly if a player is endorsing competing products of the teams official sponsors then their interests conflict with those of the team. If I'm remembering correctly, the current contract VT has with Nike already specifies that our athletes have to wear Nike gear at all practices, games, and public appearances, so the teams current Nike contract already extends to control the players actions.
yep, totally agree. Not personally saying it's unreasonable. I was just replying to bar1990's comments.
Well eventually it'll get to the point where the starting center will be getting an endorsement deal since he would be a starting center anywhere else once the gravy train gets rolling. It'll start with top recruits and then start branching out once the fanbase grows larger due to winning more games due to having much deeper talent.
This isn't future potential income we are talking about because of an internship you might get, it would be while you are there income and there would be no way to standardize it. It absolutely would happen if it meant getting the top 85 players to come to Oregon to buy them a National title if it was up to Phil Knight. Phil Knight might throw a million or more to the stars but he would damn sure top the ceiling of most schools to ensure Oregon doesn't have to "compete" for talent. He wouldn't consider a kid a third string center. He would consider him 1A, 1B, and 1C until they proved out on the depth chart.
As long as we are at it, does this mean that as long as a kid is enrolled at a school he is still eligible to play for pay? Do they have to leave at four years now, why not have him stay for a fifth or sixth if he can get paid more at school than if he will be borderline to make the NFL?
I know of plenty of students who get paid to work while they are in school, often times that opportunity exists only because they attend a prestigious university. The argument is if the NCAA should have the right to prevent student athletes to make money based off their likeness. In my mind, regardless of the on-the-field ramifications the answer is no.
Would allowing students to get paid from third parties change college football? Absolutely. Does that justify preventing athletes from making a living as they see fit? No.
The school prevents me from making money off of my research projects. Do you see a difference with that? If the NCAA can't prevent it then surely the school could.
And endorsements are wildly different than getting a job at the Hokie House to cover the bills. If you mean should the NCAA prevent athletes from getting these type of jobs like every other student then I am definitely in agreement with you.
But if you started your own lawn mowing business in Blacksburg, the university wouldn't care.
If you were a CS grad student, and you fixed people's computers for pay, the university wouldn't care.
If you ran your own children's summer camp over the summer, for pay, the university wouldn't care.
If an athlete did either of these things, at least 6 wins would be vacated.
Agreed. Side jobs for extra money would help and I'm not opposed to this. however, if allowed to do this then athletes must be prepared for their scholarship to be pulled if their side work impacts their play and they are not performing at the level required.
100% agree, just suggesting that student athletes should be given this choice.
The catch here being that the athlete is free to pursue a living as they see fit but due to their personal choices that living will not be at a university playing athletics. Nothing is preventing them from getting endorsements and playing football elsewhere. They agreed to a contract. If they don't want to abide by the stated requirements of the contract than they should expect to be fired. The NCAA is not preventing these athletes from going pro immediately, that is the professional league in the United States. Most of these kids could go elsewhere in the world and find work, but it might not pay as well long term so this is the basic intrinsic value of the "exposure" of college football in terms of future potential earnings. They can choose to work their "internship" to become prepared to be a "professional" or they can try to make it without the support structure of the NCAA platform.
I agree. Except the NCAA goes a step further and says not only will they not get a salary for playing sports (I agree with the NCAA on that point) but they also can't get a salary for being famous... which is completely bogus. Wiggins was famous and could have signed a shoe deal WELL before he got into Kansas. The NCAA has no legitimate claim to helping him reach his fame. They have no reason to be able to stop him from signing endorsements.
Hell, Jameis Winston was nicknamed "Famous Jameis" before he arrived at Florida State. Why shouldn't he have been allowed to sign a shoe deal before enrolling? What reasoning (other than it might impact our enjoyment of CFB) is there to prevent it?
The only reason is because the NCAA wants to have a monopoly on these player's income potential during their college years. Which isn't something I want to defend.
I'm questioning if the contract should have those stipulations to begin with. Just because it's in the contract doesn't mean I have to agree with it. What if the contract said the players weren't allowed to have violent rap songs on their itunes playlists? Just because something is in the contract doesn't mean it's worth defending.
Incorrect. The NCAA creates and manages a platform that provides invaluable on-the-job training and national advertising of their skills every week. Compare this to minor league baseball. The NCAA is helping college athletes reach greater heights of fame than ever before whereby a converted TE called Logan Thomas becomes a nationally recognized name. While the minor league baseball kids are relatively unknown.
Without the the provision of this structure (even as phucked as it is) athletes would not be receiving the level of rookie contracts they do now. I posted before, on a previous thread, the direct correlation of expanded TV rights of college football and the huge increases in rookie salaries. Without the NCAA providing a platform that garners said national tv rights deals rookie salaries would still be much, much lower.
So despite missing out on a shoe deal for several years Wiggins and Famous Jameis are receiving more value than any other student, and more value than any other student athlete before them in previous years. This is how the free market is attached to student athletes. Just because they don't sign a shoe deal now does not mean they won't later. And the shoe deal they sign now, no matter how famous Jameis is, would be substantially less than when he goes pro. So the intrinsic value of that contract is actually higher after he goes pro.
Never understood this argument. Why shouldn't the school and the NCAA reap the most benefit from this? They are risking their program and with it their economic income by selecting you as a recruit. Then by playing you as a starter you get all the value that comes with coaching, on-the-job training, national marketing of job skills, education plus everything else. The university and the NCAA should be getting everything else.
I'm from the architecture world. When a company gets a project and successfully completes it do the individual employees get individual rewards? Nope. They get a salary. The company reaps the biggest reward. Same goes for student athletes and the university/NCAA.
In the case of the student athlete I always prefer the artist-gallery comparison. VT is the gallery that is risking their reputation and economic well being by displaying an athlete's on-field art. If the athlete does well people will pay big money for their art and both sides get paid. If the artist does poorly then the gallery takes a huge hit.
Either of these players could have signed their shoe deals then if that was really the path they wanted to take. They made the conscious decision not to because they knew that if they signed the deals they would not be able to take advantage of the advertising platform that is available from the NCAA. No one stopped them from signing the deals and using the funds from the deals to hire the best personal coaching staff around to prepare them for the draft. Wiggins at a minimum could have gone to Europe without a second thought as well. Neither of these athletes chose to do that because they recognized the value of being able to showcase their talent against the next level of opponent.
You are right, you don't have to agree to it, you can try to go professional without the support of the NCAA platform. Your hypothetical on rap songs doesn't really wash because its an extreme example and not something that is likely in any contract. A more reasonable example might have been, what if an athlete films a violent rap song and then makes it public? I would expect that many schools would consider a video of that nature to be a violation of the personal conduct policy and might suspend or strip the scholarship from said player if that was the case. I think that the contract should have the stipulations barring endorsements for all the reasons I have previously mentioned plus several others from other commenters.
I also feel that the NCAA is way to lenient on those schools that are proven to violate these conditions. Miami should have probably received the death penalty for all the things that went on there with Nevin Shapiro. The NCAA botched it and didn't give them a slap on the wrist. The rules are only as good as they are enforced.
What if the owner of a local car dealership wants to give a Cadillac CTS to an 18 year old kid with the expectation that said kid plays for car dealership owner's favorite team?
On the surface, it seems like a far cry from simply paying a student to endorse a product. In your opinion does that distinction need to be made? I guess there's not a ton of parity across D1 football as it is, but it would seem to me that allowing boosters to pay players would destroy even the pretense of it.
I completely agree with you about amateur athletes not getting paid more for success. But College players getting endorsements would absolutely ruin college athletics.
Endorsements would graduate towards exposure. Conference's with the best TV rights contracts, in this case the SEC, will get every top player in the nation because they all want to make the most money.
The car salesman example you mentioned earlier would only suit for local endorsements but given that college athletics is a national sport it is more apt to consider Nike, Under Armor, Addidas, etc vying for 5 star players. And if you play in SEC you get x money because you have greater exposure hence more ad value to the corporation. While if you play in ACC you would get MUCH less.
No way this would end well.
If you're good enough to go pro early, you're usually good enough to go to a "top school." That's not always the case, but generally you don't hear about a student from an FCS level or even mid-major school leaving school to go pro early.
where did roethlisberger go? Did he leave early?
According to Wikipedia he went to Miami (OH) and left after his r-JR year. I was mainly responding to the part about the world class trainers only being at the top schools and was using leaving early as a measure of athletes who might be able to play at a pro level earlier. They tend to play at the better schools, as I said its not always so but in general that's the case.
it's posts like this that make me wish I could give multiple turkey legs.
Lebron can pursue his true value in the open market; a "revenue sports" athlete doesn't have that option. His only realistic options are to either accept the scholarship or forfeit his playing career effectively. Doesn't seem like a fair choice to me.
Most kids aren't even college ready when they graduate high school, let alone NFL ready. They can go to other leagues and get paid. It's just he'll get mostly 3rd rate, maybe 2nd rate (if they're lucky) coaching and development. It's kind of like an internship, you get paid way under market value but you get access to the tools you need to develop your career later on.
I can probably agree with that, but who's to say for sure? And what about our hypothetical freak converted TE hokie that is possibly ready after his true freshman campaign? All I'm saying is if you won't allow kids to generate income as student athletes then allow them to be eligible for (domestic) pro leagues at the designated age requirement. If I graduate high school at 23 because all I ever knew how to do in life was run block, I should be able to go straight to the league if teams want me.
Nothing prevents these athletes from going pro at the designated age requirement. Nothing requires them to go to college either. They can go play semi pro ball or CFL ball. They can pay a strength and conditioning coach to get them ready. They can work with a George Whitfield for years preparing to go pro. The pro leagues set their requirements. The NCAA just benefits from it. Even MLB has a catch. If you get drafted out of high school and opt for college, you cant enter the draft again until after your junior year of college.
Example: See Bryce Harper getting his GED to start his clock.
Harper went to a JUCO from which you can get drafted after every season. Baseball is different in that aspect. You only have to stay in college for three years if you go to a four year institution.
Harper got his GED to skip his senior year of high school was more my point on that which allowed him to go to the JUCO which started his clock to be drafted. If he hadn't gone that route he would have been a year behind where he is now.
Based on the argument which I believe to be about a player's entitlement to earn income as student athletes; I would say that if you can afford to pay a S&C coach, then you should probably just go to college.
Why would you if you truly believe that the sport is your true future? As for being able to afford it you are getting back to my point on the additional benefits of a college scholarship. If you cant afford a S&C coach to develop you to be pro capable than having that coach provided at no cost in college is a highly beneficial aspect of the scholarship.
It is...but having the opportunity to get drafted right out of high school as it used to be in the NBA is better.
Better for the players maybe but from the NBA perspective they are forced to eat several developmental years on a lot of players before they actually reach their potential at a very high rate of compensation. Additionally the product even now on the floor from the NBA is significantly diluted. The kids capable of making that jump legitimately to NBA superstar status from high school are maybe one or two a decade. The hit or miss on that is extremely high. I agree more with Mark Cuban on this aspect, that they need to make the D League a much more viable option to develop talent at a much smaller salary risk. NBA contracts are fully guaranteed so the money is a big aspect here for the NBA if the kid is a bust.
Quoted for truth. Before Stern put the clamp on HS draftees after '05, that number was starting to increase yearly and you could see how the league was getting weaker.
and I believe the new NBA Commish, Adam Silver has already come out and said he wants to see it changed to at least two years again (20 years of age). Wont be able to do anything for a few years because of the labor agreement in place but it could happen next time around.
http://www.sportsworldnews.com/articles/9558/20140216/nba-commissioner-a...
Whoa whoa, no he can't. Lebron is far more valuable then he is getting paid. The amount of money he brings to Miami in terms of jersey sales, ticket sales, tv ratings, in-game His salary is held artificially low by the CBA that the players union signed.
Few people are clamoring that Lebron is being exploited because of the difference in his value and his salary because they think his salary is adequate, even if it's not what he's really worth. Fans see the difference in an elite college player's value and his compensation and think it's inadequate, so they say that the players are exploited. In my mind, the principal concept is the same. Both players are getting compensated, even if they may not be getting their true value.
That isn't the NCAA's fault though. The NBA and NFL shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against people based on their age when they hire/draft them. I don't even understand the logic involved.
But if that rule has been upheld by the court, that doesn't mean that universities should be forced to pay for the injustices of professional sports by being forced to pay students
Funny thing Lebron does get a profit from Jersey sales, so yeah he technically does make money off of the Heat. And that so called X amount is on top of 42 Million a year from endorsements and that's on top of no In state taxes.
LeBron gets that money because he's LeBron, not because he's a member of the Heat. He was getting the same jersey money in Cleveland.
Meanwhile, the Heat get much more national exposure in the form of ESPN games because they have LeBron. Also more paraphernalia sales -- without player names or numbers -- because of LeBron. Didn't you notice how that bandwagon got 30x heavier once he took his talents to South Beach?
Also those kids are getting free marketing and job advertisement for when they want to move to professional league. the mount of time for games on national television is in 100's of million for me to buy. Can you imagine if you were an engineer or architect or whatever and got an hour of free nationally televised marketing of your job skills?
No. I'm all for an increased stipend but college players reap a huge amount of extra money that is indirectly given to them freely.
It's easy to say they get a huge amount of money for one three pointer. But that's their bonus for multiple years of recruiting and player development, an entire year of gameplanning, and overall excellent coaching ability to become one of the best teams in the country. So no, the coaches don't get bonuses just for one kid making a bucket. And, as mentioned above, no one is forcing those kids to take a scholarship. Every time I hear people whine that the poor, little college athletes are being taken advantage of, I just shake my head. Yes, it's a ton of hard work, but just about any athlete will tell you that the experience alone was worth it. On top of that, they get a free education and all sorts of excellent resources to help them succeed. The morons at Northwestern who thought unionizing and trying to get more money for themselves was a good idea, and those who think like them, are just going to end up screwing themselves and their classmates in non-revenue sports.
With what Coach Cal goes though, teaching a new set of high school star freshman to work together selflessly as a true team EVERY YEAR, I believe he's earned that salary.
Fun fact: 7 of the 8 UK players that played against Michigan last night were Freshman.
He doesn't get $300k for a three pointer. He gets $300k for coaching players for years and coaching for a season that culminates in a Final Four or NCG appearance. I'm pretty sure the schools get paid a progressively higher set amount of money for each level they make it and he gets a portion for getting them there.
Well said. The author of the article clearly had an agenda, that wasn't even thinly veiled: "Look how this kid is getting screwed over." What an ignorant presentation. Yea, the kid hit a clutch shot to win the game. He probably still feels like the king of the world, and he should enjoy that. But one player does not win or lose a game singlehandedly. The whole team played well enough to put him in that position. The coaching staff recruited and developed a team for years to make it this far. As stated above, these kids are getting compensated. We can discuss at length whether the current status should be revised (and it may need revising) but this "player is the victim" stuff is getting ridiculous.
If a high-profile high school basketball player is interested in making money immediately after high school and doesn't want to go to college because they don't value the free education/training/coaches/food/facilities, why don't they play for a pro team overseas?
See Brandon Jennings, that's exactly what he did and ended up a first round draft pick and is a starting pg in the NBA.
Thank's for pulling a real player example. I knew it was possible, I just didn't know who had done that off the top of my head.
There's pro money $$$ to be made for amateur basketball players immediately after high school. Why aren't they going for it?!
A large majority of the top players out of high school continue to be "exploited" by the NCAA. This is a huge head scratcher.
Whereas in football, there is nowhere for a top football player to go for three years except the NCAA.
Meanwhile, the NFL is inexplicably excused from this debate, and doesn't have to subsidize a minor league system like MLB and the NBA.
This is exactly my train of thought every time this debate comes up, except it's a lot clearer and more succinct when you say it. Couldn't agree more.
The draw of NCAA basketball is being able to build a brand, be on national tv, playing in front of friends and family, stay in the US (no new languages), and have coaches who have worked with NBA players.
Pros of playing overseas: make money right away, no limits on training, no schoolwork, no NCAA regulations, make money right away.
Did I say make money twice for going overseas? I did? I totally agree with you, those players had a choice if they really wanted the money they'd play overseas. They weighed the pros and cons and went with college ball. Do I agree with everything the NCAA does? No I don't, but don't complain about not getting a salary when you had the chance. Football is a different story
Do they really have a choice tho? First of all, how realistic is "the option" for a high school basketball player to seek opportunities overseas? Is that really an option for a 17-18 year old kid (especially coming from underserved communities having limited exposure)? How does a 17 year old figure out how to market themselves overseas? So far I'm only aware of Brandon Jennings pulling this off. I think it's unfair sometimes because I often forget how tough it was to decide which college to attend coming out of high school, but still we expect these kids to have it all figured out. In a perfect world we're all blessed with good family (support systems), many of these kids don't have anything. Not to mention increasing pressure from family environment to become immediate income earners.
Football players have even less options outside of the NCAA. And if having a degree is not compulsory or even advantageous to getting a professional athletics job then why should they be forced to attend at all? Many don't care to take advantage of the education anyway; if you've seen some of these majors you'll know what I mean. College should be saved for students who are interested in learning something. Let's not pretend that these mandates are to serve the athletes and not the institutions. All people are not the same and everyone does not value free education unfortunately.
The value proposition an athletic scholarship serves a lacrosse player is MUCH more than it does a blue chip football recruit. The lacrosse guy is less likely to approach his sport as the primary source for future income so the opportunity to gain free education is more valuable to him. Lebron, straight out of high school, signed a Nike endorsement deal that was worth more than any of us will ever make in our lifetime; shinny degrees included. Had he gone to college and compromised his body suffering a serious injury everything changes for him. If the athlete truly values education they can still acquire their degree after turning pro as many have continued to take classes (or even post playing career).
Personally, I believe there should be NO requirement for ANYONE to attend college unless your future profession is dependent on having a degree. But...should you DECIDE to attend if you aren't draft ready or value the education, then the NCAA may have the right to sanction you as it sees fit.
Just my thoughts...
If I recall correctly, CFL minimum age is 18. Same with Arena. There are a handful of other professional/semi-professional leagues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_leagues_of_American_and_Canadian_fo...
Brandon Jenning's did this.
I agree, but if the NFL/NBA believes it's in their best interest to only admit players of a certain age, who can stop them? They are a private entity.
I mentioned Brandon Jennings as the only example I am aware of, but how realistic is it for kids with limited resources? Most high school / AAU / 7v7 coaches are limited to domestic relationships (college coaches) so it becomes extremely difficult to shop their athletes overseas.
With regards to football, I am comfortable with the age requirements, but the requirement to wait 3 years post high school steers kids towards the NCAA. The CFL and Arena leagues are relatively new and don't develop a player in a way that translates well to the NFL. However, for that reason at this juncture, I can see the athletic benefits to attending college for football athletes; so that's fair.
No kid is forced to go to college. The NCAA doesn't control the requirements of the NBA or NFL. They benefit from it being the most opportune chance available to high school athletes. The access that you reference to college coaching staffs versus playing overseas is because the colleges are spending money time and other resources to send their coaches to look at these kids. If the kid thinks he is capable of playing in Europe like Jennings, all he has to do is hire an agent. And in today's environment of National AAU tournaments and academy basketball being on ESPN plenty of these athletes have the means to pursue this route if they truly are that talented.
As for the age restrictions, those leagues chose them based on financial concerns as well as physical development concerns at the player level. Are there afew exceptions that could be ready outside these rules? Sure there are a handful a decade. Even with the one and dones I would seriously question their readiness for the NBA as a whole. Do some of them turn into great pros? Yes but most take several years. Look at the last ten drafts and see how many kids had amazing rookie years after one year of college. Very small number.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5423136
This article basically says you can talk to an agent, but he can't do anything for you. You would be compromising your eligibility just to find out if teams abroad are interested.
Well if you're at the point of negotiations then why would you care about the NCAA since you're about to get paid to play?
The negotiation is just for the representation which is helpful if you'd just like to test your marketability abroad.
If you have decided college is not for you than your college eligibility is no longer an issue. Your agent will then work to get you the best available deal because it impacts their compensation.
Most of the kids that have the talent to play at this level will already have contacts with many of the foreign teams. Those leagues send scouts to AAU tourneys just like NBA teams as well as the junior national team tournaments.
It sounds to me like most student-athletes might be better off utilizing their student-athlete experience as an apprenticeship to be a coach rather than a professional athlete.
If the UK staff ever deserved a bonus it was this year. The jump those players have made from game one to today dwarfs the improvements our receivers made last season (maybe I exaggerate for effect... but still).
I'd love to see a consulting firm value a major athletic program and it's employees. I'd wager that:
I wouldn't say overcompensated for most, I would say more fairly compensated. No way you can convince me that Mike Vick was only worth $80K to us.
Good gracious, you even quoted it.
LOL...my fault, I was in the ZONE!!
Here is the Forbes evaluation of value of Football programs
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2011/12/22/college-footballs-most...
Here is a great writeup on the value of a basketball scholarship (does not include a value of Media Exposure due to calculation difficulty)
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2011-03-29-...
Preach it!
Marcus Vick wuz Robbed!
I was up late last night, because I got a call after I went to bed due to the online systems of our company breaking. Mind you, this is a BIG bank I work at, and our team supports the frontline website which deals with investor trading and stockbroking. Had this issue persisted, there's a very good chance we lose more money today than the biggest athletes will see over their entire careers. But, we fixed it. We fixed it well. And if the thing doesn't break again, some executive is likely to see an enormous bonus at the end of the year for running a website that routinely rates out extremely well from year to year.
Do I deserve a part of that bonus because we were the ones actually doing the work? No. I signed a contract to be a low level employee making the salary I do, and the expectation is, when something like this happens, I fix it. The execute has FAR more on their plate than I do at any given time, which is why they deserve the bonus, for being the face of that compartment of the company to deal with the good times and the bad. Should this have gone poorly, I'm sure someone would have remembered it was my team in charge of it all, but the heads that would have rolled would have been at the executive level.
So to turn this to basketball. If UK played bad this season, and lets say they don't make the Tourney, are all those kids in danger of losing their scholarships? No. Are fans going to go after the players themselves saying it was their fault things went wrong? If there was ONE clear scapegoat (Sean Glennon), perhaps, but at the end of the day, when it comes to college sports, the blame ALWAYS falls on the coaching staff. Those assistant coaches, who just got those bonuses, would be first on the chopping block should anything go wrong. Next would be Coach Cal. You take the good with the bad. You make the Final Four, which would be exceeding your annual goal, you get a bonus, if you don't make the Tournament, you get fired. When these kids start having their scholarships in jeopardy based upon their quality of play, THEN we can have this "its not fair the coaches are compensated and they're not" because the players already have it pretty damn good by having absolutely zero real tangible consequences for doing poorly other than just not winning games.
Actually I feel the players assume a pretty significant amount of culpability in certain situations. Do they lose their scholarships over poor play? No. But when a head coach or professional athlete is fired before the end of their agreement, part of their contract is guaranteed. So I would compare that to scholarship offer, except the student receives $80K for 4 years with the avg life time earnings of $2,268,000 as opposed to the latter possibly being the signing bonus.
You keep trying to make this argument that all they receive from this is tuition. The true extent of their benefits is more in the $800k- $1m range. While only a small percentage (although at UK its an enormous percentage) go on to the NBA many of the athletes at least in basketball go on to successful careers overseas making six figures or more annually. Would these same athletes that in many cases barely qualified to get into a university have ever had an opportunity at even that level of pay? Many successful college graduates never make six figures in a year in their entire careers. These guys have that chance day one out the door because of the training, healthcare, and other benefits that developed their skills while at a university.
Athletes get FAR more than just tuition.
The full coverage of their scholarship includes, but is not limited to, tuition, room and board, food, clothing, textbooks, academic tutoring, private gym membership with personal trainer, and transportation to and from every event regardless of location or how short of notice, not to mention the private on the job training in the field in which they hope to make a career. This isn't just an $20k a year kind of compensation, this is an all inclusive package that could very well run in the 6 figures per year. Oh, and these athletes don't have to pay a penny towards these expenses, as well as not having to file ANY of the above when tax season rolls around.
The argument that these kids don't get compensated for their time as athletes is one of the single biggest farces out there right now. They are compensated. They're compensated REALLY DAMN WELL for someone their age.
I'm not arguing that it's just tuition costs that the scholarship offers. But trust me, from personal experience, the perks are not as prestigious as you might think. Yes there are a lot of shinny cool things around you, but you're working for every bit of it. Doing homework on the bus home from games will cost you the additional study time, so yes, tutors become a necessary expense. A shiny new stadium or practice facility might be attractive to the athlete but it doesn't benefit the athlete nearly as much as it does the institution.
Not to mention that many of the resources that actually matter, are also afforded to general students if you seek it out. We're just streamlined for effective time management.
Am I supposed to feel sorry for you that you're graduating debt free while offered all these amazing perks that you don't have to pay for and the only thing they ask you to do in return is work for it?
I mean, I don't intend to sound like a jerk, but if you're expecting to get a lot of nice things and to not have any responsibilities associated with that, I don't know what to tell ya.
LOL...no I don't expect any sympathy. I actually didn't play a revenue sport and elected to leave and focus on my education instead because there was no future in my sport domestically; whereas my financial future would be more correlated to my academic performance. Once I left athletics I didn't feel there was much of a difference in terms of resources afforded to me with the only separation being tuition costs. That was my point.
Also trying to make the point clear that these guys are not being "over compensated". I felt sorry for the football guys that had NO money for anything. They were so much more relevant to the university, meanwhile I was getting all the same perks while I was an athlete and again pretty much the same at a tuition cost when I wasn't.
There are also college students out there who work their asses off doing school work, and having a job (or two, or three) just to be able to pay for their education and be able to graduate debt free. Many do that and still can't graduate debt free. I worked most of my way through my undergrad and graduate years, had grants that took care of some costs, but I still have loans that I'll be paying off for many years. I won't even be able to get a job that makes remotely what some college athletes will when they graduate, yet I worked my ass off to get through college.
I would have loved to been able to say that I worked my ass off, had everything paid for, and am able to graduate into a job that pays me for having worked my ass off, without having to worry about debt.
There aren't many people that can graduate from High School with the necessary skills to be considered viable for any high paying positions in the real world. Most people have to go to college and do internships for that. Shouldn't athletes have to go through the same processes as the rest of us without expecting higher or better compensation than we can get ourselves?
That's pretty much my point.
The athletes that are incessantly whining about how life isn't fair don't realize just how tough their non-athlete peers have it nowadays. MANY graduate with 6 figures of student debt that will take them decades to pay off after they are done. Many of these same kids are taking jobs on the side to help offset these costs, but it still isn't enough. They are working their asses off to make ends meet, and in the vast majority of the cases, it still isn't enough.
Athletes, on the other hand, are compensated enormously for the services they provide. Not only do they get to graduate debt-free, but they get special hands-on coaching and training for their desired field without having to spend a dime. The only thing the school asks of them is to keep their grades up. But apparently, that's just not good enough.
IMO, the problem isn't that college athlete's aren't being compensated enough by their 'employer' (schools/NCAA), it's that they are prevented from pursuing opportunities on the open market. Athlete's should not be paid, but should be able to explore other legitimate routes for revenue, including endorsements, advertising and other entrepreneurial ventures.
They can get jobs like every other student. They just can't be unfairly compensated. If they work at McDonald's, they had better get paid the same minimum wage as every other student. It's when they get jobs that pay them more than anyone else can get paid that it becomes a problem.
This isn't actually true. The NCAA severely limits their ability to have another job
During season athlete's are not allowed to have a job at all. And during the summer we can only work a total of 20 hours a week. funny joke huh?
So they can be employees but they can't start their own ventures?
I coached tennis over summers and charged $50/hour for private lessons. I ran tennis camps in the mornings charging $100/kid/week. These are fairly reasonable price for private lessons from a player at my level (teaching professionals would charge far more). Do you think the NCAA would allow one of their tennis players to do this? Doubt it.
Half of this comment just makes me want to face palm. Where is the private gym membership?? NCAA Violation right there.. Every athlete is given a budget by the school for clothes/workout gear and it is provided by the sponsor such as nike ect. That's in the contract so the school pays pennies on the price that we would if we bought it in the stores.. yes the good schools like VT Oregon Bama all get swagged out mostly but what about UCF or lets say USF or even Rutgers. Those kids don't get shit..
I really think if half of you followed an athlete around during his season you would change your minds a little bit. Enjoy waking up at 5am and not getting home till 11 or 12pm if lucky. I'm not saying pay them 100k or even 20k. That is crazy yes, but the countless hours they put in for the school inside THE CLASSROOM and on the field are ridiculous. In the end I think 1 bad apple in the classroom ruins it for every college athlete regardless.
So you're saying that any student can walk in off the street to the state-of-the-art training facilities VT has? I think not. That's an athletes-only gym.
Its an athletic gym yes but not private. I have brought plenty of non athlete's into the gym. There's this thing called the Rec Center at most schools as well, where people can go and try to impress the ladies and not get in the way.
The equipment in the athletic gym is the exact same as the Rec but more of it and we get to blast whatever music we want.
Maybe it's not "private" by strictest definition, but when I paid student fees, I was told I had access to McComas and War gyms. That's fine, I've got no problem with that, but the athletes definitely get access to a more exclusive gym with (as you say) more equipment and trainers. The general student population doesn't get that. If athletes can bring their friends in, that's great, but you still have to have a personal connection to gain access. That to me is effectively a private gym and is something that regular students aren't entitled to.
Point taken.. and I agree regular students are not entitled to the gym.. But its those athletes that are bringing in large sums of money.. would you rather them A- workout in the rec with no Gentry's or B- get Gentry-sized in the athletic gym?
I'm not for paying athlete's in college but I think the time has come that athlete's should be able to promote themselves and get endorsements. SO what if they make a little side $ (signing autographs, being on cereal boxes, underwear model, or even the next Exumtaur. we all know the NCAA has more $ than it knows what to do with.
The NCAA doesn't have more money than it knows what to do with. It gives all excess revenue after operating costs back to the schools. Only the individual school's football programs have more money than they know what to do with. However, they do know what to do with it: give it to the women's soccer team so they can travel to the conference tournament.
I think you would be surprised with the amount. But on the other point.. yes its great that women's teams are getting more support and stuff but at the end of the day its about $. Football basketball baseball will always be top dogs regarding $$ and budgeting.
Actually it was laid out in a previous thread. The NCAA total profits are funneled back to the schools at something like $40-60k per FBS scholarship football athlete.
That's if every school is fully funded/ given the full amount of football scholarships. So for a lot of your smaller conference teams there is less money to be given out. Which means not every athlete is debt fee like most of you believe in fantasy world.
No one is saying that every athlete graduates debt free! Some don't even get any scholarship, some get partial. The only sport that actually generates money in most schools is football and maybe basketball. Those athletes get all the extra fancy stuff and full rides.
We're talking about paying football and basketball players because they generate revenue for the school, not about the cross country runner on a partial scholarship.
And for pretty much every single athletic department out there, the money the football program makes on a yearly basis gets immediately funneled back into the athletic department to help fund the athletic programs that don't make a penny for the university.
Without football, there is no wrestling, golf, softball, baseball (at least not at VT), track, cross country, volleyball, field hockey, soccer, or even cheerleading/dance team. Football pays for it all. Yes, schools invest A LOT of money into football, because they know that football drives their revenue, and anything they can do to help that program make more money long term will help the overall stability of the athletic department as a whole. And even with that being done, most athletic departments nationwide are still operating at a financial loss annually.
If you start paying players, kiss the non-revs goodbye. Athletic departments just won't be able to afford all the extra costs.
In which case, kiss football goodbye because of Title IX.
I have no problem with our guys having the equipment they need to train. I just want those benefits factored into the equation when considering the overall compensation they're receiving for what they're doing.
Yeah I agree, I think we're getting further away from athlete's getting paid idea. That's dumb and I was an athlete. I think its more of they can't get endorsements, the minute you talk to an agent to even see if there is interest by by NCAA eligibility.
The NCAA is suppose to look out for the best interest of the athlete when in the athlete's eyes its more of a dictator
I mean come on now, we all know Johny Football made money while playing for A&M, its clear and evident, but the NCAA can't do anything now because he is no longer a NCAA athlete.
well, they did suspend him for the first series of the rice game or something like that.
haha yes they did oh man sure was a close one. I'm sure he got 10k for signing some stuff before the game as well. No big deal. The NCAA knew better than to suspend him for the entire year. Not only would it hurt them but also ESPN, SEC, A&M and CBS
How do the bonuses for the UK coaches compare to those that Coach Buzz and his staff can/will get if the Hokies progress in the NCAA (hopefully) tournament?
They are old enough to go fight for this country at 18 so they are also old enough to make a decision on whether or not they want to accept the terms of a scholarship offer to play college sports. If you don't like it then go play overseas like Brandon Jennings or play in the D-League like Mark Cuban said. They are both acceptable alternatives and the NBA coaches will still be watching. For football you can go play in Canada or in the UFL. You're going to college because it's the place coaches are most likely to watch, so you're investing in your talents by not going straight to a professional league.
Hate to be that guy, but I can't take it anymore. Apostrophes are not for pluralization.
Grammer Nazi!
No, please, BE that guy.
MIKE LONDON GETS RAISE AND CONTRACT EXTENSION!
http://www.streakingthelawn.com/2014/4/1/5569586/virginia-head-coach-mik...
April fHools.