1. if you took all the Div 1 football and men's basketball players and compared their family incomes with those of the families for (as I stated) the country club/prep school type Olympic Sports - golf .. tennis ... swimming ... lacrosse ... field hockey ... soccer (probably?) ...... ????? ..... I would be almost certain - I would bet a big pile of money --- that the football/bball group would have lower family incomes on average .....

I don't think that's a startling assumption or any invidious stereotype ....... I think it's a fairly commonplace and somewhat obvious observation .......


2. Joe Halfback may be an enormously lucky individual to have the God given talent to be able to play football at this level ...... but why should Nick Saban or Bubba Cunningham or Jimmy Fiveiron be entitled to unduly profit off Joe's good fortune by rigging the market (the NCAA amateurism system) for Joe's talents so that the coaches and administrators and other students - instead of Joe - reap most of the profits to be made off Joe's talents ? ...... the money is there to be had by somebody - it's not like they're taking this money and feeding the poor ..........


---------------------------------------------
--- GOHEELS86 wrote:

Wow! You're assuming that most fball and bball players come from lower income families than athletes from non-revenue sports? What would make you think that? I believe most fball/bball players you are referring to would be offended by the stereotype.

Be that as it may it sounds like your solution is to pay the fball and bball players what they would make "absent the NCAA's insistence on 'amateruism'". Then ask for the parents of the non-revenue student athletes, who clearly come from higher income families, to put up the money to fund these sports. I guess not offering these sports at all is another option.

I don't feel bad for Joe Halfback. He's being given an opportunity that most people would kill for. It's unfortunate if he comes from a "low income" family. But he's being given an opportunity to turn that around he would not have had otherwise. This should not be minamized or belittled.

The drub everyone says is that these guys are making so much money for the school that they deserve more compensation. I'm saying that comes at a cost that will affect others. It's not money the schools are putting into their coffers. I'll let people make up their minds themsevles if it's worth it or not.

I don't want to take away opportunities for other student athletes to attend college and compete in order to pay Joe Halfback to play college football.

Lots of people are poor. The ones getting the free ride to a college degree are not the ones that are top of mind among poor people and rightfully so.

so Nick Saban is perfectly entitled to make $5 million a year off these kids courtesy of the NCAA 'amateurism' system because there are other poor people who are even worse off than these young athletes ?


---------------------------------------------
--- carolinarolls wrote:

Lots of people are poor. The ones getting the free ride to a college degree are not the ones that are top of mind among poor people and rightfully so.

---------------------------------------------

Nick Saban is allowed to earn whatever people are willing to pay him. So are you. So am I. So are all the "kids".

---------------------------------------------
--- BethelRegiment wrote:

so Nick Saban is perfectly entitled to make $5 million a year off these kids courtesy of the NCAA 'amateurism' system because there are other poor people who are even worse off than these young athletes ?


---------------------------------------------
--- carolinarolls wrote:

Lots of people are poor. The ones getting the free ride to a college degree are not the ones that are top of mind among poor people and rightfully so.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

and 'Bama is willing and able to pay N Saban as much as they do - in no small part because the NCAA system has relieved the university of having to pay their athletes in any remotely fair fashion .....

it's not like the money isn't there ..... all this is a question of who gets it and how much do they get .............


---------------------------------------------
--- carolinarolls wrote:

Mick saban is allowed to earn whatever people are willing to pay him. So are you. So am I. So are all the "kids".

---------------------------------------------
--- BethelRegiment wrote:

so Nick Saban is perfectly entitled to make $5 million a year off these kids courtesy of the NCAA 'amateurism' system because there are other poor people who are even worse off than these young athletes ?


---------------------------------------------
--- carolinarolls wrote:

Lots of people are poor. The ones getting the free ride to a college degree are not the ones that are top of mind among poor people and rightfully so.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

14% seems like a high number for Kensucky basketball players.

"relived the university of having to pay"

you ever pay college tuition? Books, Fees, Room, Board, etc?

It's not free. It never has been. It never will be.

They trade services that they offer for services that the athletes offer and strike a deal. We (the U) get revenue, publicity, and brand recognition, you get an education, publicity and opportunity to build your brand.

If they don't like the deal they can go find a better one somewhere else. It's a free country. But you know what? This is the deal they want. This is the deal their family wants for them. This is the absolute BEST thing going for a HS senior. There is no better way to legally transform yourself from an insolvent dependent to a solvent contributor to society than to go this route.

And yet some people want more. It's always about what the other guy has. What the other guy makes.

Guess what. The other guy worked his ****** ass off for a long time to get there.

Roy Williams sold calendars to make ends meet as a Dean Smith asst.

Saban. Nick Saban. The guy you brought up did not come from affluence. Small town guy, played ball, earned a scholly to Kent State, graduated, started as a grad asistant for his HC in the late 80's and then began a three decade rollercoaster climb to this 5 million dollar salary you speak of as if it was so un-earned and unfair.

Go there. Do that. Then get back to us on how much its unfair what you earn because "kids" in college aren't earning 6-figure incomes along with all the other perks already given.

Disgraceful. You entitled people and your nerve and wreckless conclusions are enough to make a person vomit.



---------------------------------------------
--- BethelRegiment wrote:

and 'Bama is willing and able to pay N Saban as much as they do - in no small part because the NCAA system has relieved the university of having to pay their athletes in any remotely fair fashion .....

it's not like the money isn't there ..... all this is a question of who gets it and how much do they get .............


---------------------------------------------
--- carolinarolls wrote:

Mick saban is allowed to earn whatever people are willing to pay him. So are you. So am I. So are all the "kids".

---------------------------------------------
--- BethelRegiment wrote:

so Nick Saban is perfectly entitled to make $5 million a year off these kids courtesy of the NCAA 'amateurism' system because there are other poor people who are even worse off than these young athletes ?


---------------------------------------------
--- carolinarolls wrote:

Lots of people are poor. The ones getting the free ride to a college degree are not the ones that are top of mind among poor people and rightfully so.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

1) I specifically did NOT say "relieved the university of having pay anything" ....

I said "relieved the university of having to them in any remotely fair fashion" ........

it's obvious the players get a scholarship and that has some value ...... the question is whether the 'scholarship' alone is remotely fair today given the tremendous influx of revenue and profit in college sports in the last 20 years ........


2) there is no "strike a deal" to it ..... that's the point ......

the NCAA functions as a monopoly to dictate the price ("athletic scholarship") that universities can compensate their athletes ......... the only deal out there is "take it or leave it" ........

there is no better deal out there for post high school athletics in the United States because the NCAA operates a virtually iron-clad monopoly on post high school football and at least for one year - post high school basketball .......


3) what N Saban or Roy Williams had to do to get where they are is interesting but not really relevant in explaining why they make millions $$$$ and the players get a $25,000 scholarship .......

I'm sure there are NFL and NBA coaches who struggled to get where they are -- that doesn't mean their NFL/NBA coaching salaries are 100 - 200 times the salaries of NFL/NBA players ........



the NCAA "amateurism system" was not something handed to Knute Rockne on Mt. Sinai ......... perhaps in the more modest circumstances of the past, there was some better justification for the strict 'amateur' status dictated by the NCAA's monopoly ...... surely, given the rampant commercialization of college sports and the phenomenal incomes enjoyed by the adults in college sports today --- it's reasonable to question whether this 'amateurism' model continues to make sense ........


---------------------------------------------
--- carolinarolls wrote:

"relived the university of having to pay"

you ever pay college tuition? Books, Fees, Room, Board, etc?

It's not free. It never has been. It never will be.

They trade services that they offer for services that the athletes offer and strike a deal. We (the U) get revenue, publicity, and brand recognition, you get an education, publicity and opportunity to build your brand.

If they don't like the deal they can go find a better one somewhere else. It's a free country. But you know what? This is the deal they want. This is the deal their family wants for them. This is the absolute BEST thing going for a HS senior. There is no better way to legally transform yourself from an insolvent dependent to a solvent contributor to society than to go this route.

And yet some people want more. It's always about what the other guy has. What the other guy makes.

Guess what. The other guy worked his ****** ass off for a long time to get there.

Roy Williams sold calendars to make ends meet as a Dean Smith asst.

Saban. Nick Saban. The guy you brought up did not come from affluence. Small town guy, played ball, earned a scholly to Kent State, graduated, started as a grad asistant for his HC in the late 80's and then began a three decade rollercoaster climb to this 5 million dollar salary you speak of as if it was so un-earned and unfair.

Go there. Do that. Then get back to us on how much its unfair what you earn because "kids" in college aren't earning 6-figure incomes along with all the other perks already given.

Disgraceful. You entitled people and your nerve and wreckless conclusions are enough to make a person vomit.

... And I just threw up

??????

this isn't exactly a new idea ........

the President of the NCAA himself is pushing to get a stipend paid to the athletes ......."full cost" scholarship ........

is this news to you ? ..... where have you been ?

to quote Taylor Branch (UNC '61):....... "There is no virtue in forcing someone else to be an amateur."

You speak as if the athletes only receive a full scholarship, worth 10s of thousands of dollars? Those over-compensated coaches, at least for the major programs, give these kids from "low-income families" a chance as well. The chance to work hard and showcase their talents and maybe, just maybe make it big. How many people in this world would take that offer? For four years or less, you can attend an institution of higher learning for free, and take your shot to make it big. To raise your current, and future family, out of the poverty zone. To live a life that so many dream of, and try for, but never attain. And you get to take that shot, essentially, for free. Put a pricetag on that...cause I'd take that deal. Every. Single. Time.

You never know how someone spends his/her money. this applies to any and everyone.

According to this my two kids that are still in school live in poverty also.

---------------------------------------------
--- amadeus wrote:

I make no excuses for athletes taking gifts and perks when they know that it is wrong. But what is worse, selfish athletes jeapordizing the integrity of the program that they committed to or schools that accept, keep eligible and graduate many of the "money" sport athletes and fail to educate them for the sake of winning? Many of which will continue a life of poverty once their college careers are over.

aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-foot...ncpa-texas-duke

---------------------------------------------

1) however, you calculate the total value of an 'athletic scholarship' plus all the other intangible benefits of being a Div 1 athletes - the amount is still considerably less than what the athletes would be paid absent the NCAA 'amateurism' regime ...... you can see my rough calculations above or look at this article or any other reasonable set of numbers - while the precise $$$ might be different - the conclusion is inescapable .....

just think about it - the whole purpose of the NCAA enforcement program is to prevent schools from paying these athletes what they would readily pay them if it weren't for the NCAA rules ..... there was a lot of debate about what exactly happened with Cam Newton and his dad and Miss St or Auburn - but nobody really questioned the validity of the $180,000 as amount that someone might be willing to pay for Cam ...... people took it for granted that $180,000 was a perfectly believable amount .........


2) so instead of paying Steve Spurrier $3.7 million and the players $0 cash on top of their scholarship ....... what if Spurrier got $2 million and each of the 85 players on the team got $20,000 .......

the players would get all the opportunity you cite to make it to the NFL .... the same free education ..... and all the other intangible benefits of college sports ...... plus they would get a $20,000 cash income to help out their family ... live a little better ... or perhaps save for their future ........ and at $2 million - the Spurrier family could still manage somehow I would think ........

that seems a he11 of lot more fair than simply enriching the Spurrier family by another million or so ........

again, it's not like the money is not there ..... it's just a question of whose bank account it goes into ........

---------------------------------------------
--- HeelsFTW28 wrote:

You speak as if the athletes only receive a full scholarship, worth 10s of thousands of dollars? Those over-compensated coaches, at least for the major programs, give these kids from "low-income families" a chance as well. The chance to work hard and showcase their talents and maybe, just maybe make it big. How many people in this world would take that offer? For four years or less, you can attend an institution of higher learning for free, and take your shot to make it big. To raise your current, and future family, out of the poverty zone. To live a life that so many dream of, and try for, but never attain. And you get to take that shot, essentially, for free. Put a pricetag on that...cause I'd take that deal. Every. Single. Time.

---------------------------------------------

1. I won't argue with you on this point because it may get ugly since you are making assumptions based on social stereotypes. You seem to believe many college football/basketball players come from low income families. I believe that some do, but they are exceptions when compared to all football/basketball players.

2. I think coaches are compensate far too much. However, I'm not sure how it's much difference between them and some salaries chief executives of charities like Unicef, United Way, and the Salvation Army are paid. Or CEOs of not profit hostpitals and insurance companies.

My point has always been 2 prong. College football/basketball players are not being exploited and are more than fairly compensated for do something they love while having the opportunity to get a college education. Secondly, if they are to be compensated more it would affect the opportunities that others have now that they wouldn't otherwise have.

Instead of paying the players the NCAA needs to figure a way to let them work while in school to make extra money. Of course the risk there is abuse. But maybe it's time to figure a way to give it another go.


---------------------------------------------
--- BethelRegiment wrote:

1. if you took all the Div 1 football and men's basketball players and compared their family incomes with those of the families for (as I stated) the country club/prep school type Olympic Sports - golf .. tennis ... swimming ... lacrosse ... field hockey ... soccer (probably?) ...... ????? ..... I would be almost certain - I would bet a big pile of money --- that the football/bball group would have lower family incomes on average .....

I don't think that's a startling assumption or any invidious stereotype ....... I think it's a fairly commonplace and somewhat obvious observation .......


2. Joe Halfback may be an enormously lucky individual to have the God given talent to be able to play football at this level ...... but why should Nick Saban or Bubba Cunningham or Jimmy Fiveiron be entitled to unduly profit off Joe's good fortune by rigging the market (the NCAA amateurism system) for Joe's talents so that the coaches and administrators and other students - instead of Joe - reap most of the profits to be made off Joe's talents ? ...... the money is there to be had by somebody - it's not like they're taking this money and feeding the poor ..........


---------------------------------------------
--- GOHEELS86 wrote:

Wow! You're assuming that most fball and bball players come from lower income families than athletes from non-revenue sports? What would make you think that? I believe most fball/bball players you are referring to would be offended by the stereotype.

Be that as it may it sounds like your solution is to pay the fball and bball players what they would make "absent the NCAA's insistence on 'amateruism'". Then ask for the parents of the non-revenue student athletes, who clearly come from higher income families, to put up the money to fund these sports. I guess not offering these sports at all is another option.

I don't feel bad for Joe Halfback. He's being given an opportunity that most people would kill for. It's unfortunate if he comes from a "low income" family. But he's being given an opportunity to turn that around he would not have had otherwise. This should not be minamized or belittled.

The drub everyone says is that these guys are making so much money for the school that they deserve more compensation. I'm saying that comes at a cost that will affect others. It's not money the schools are putting into their coffers. I'll let people make up their minds themsevles if it's worth it or not.

I don't want to take away opportunities for other student athletes to attend college and compete in order to pay Joe Halfback to play college football.

---------------------------------------------

1. I'm sure the members of the football and bball teams come from a wide variety of family backgrounds ..... I just don't see how it is particularly controversial or insightful to imagine that the kids who grow up playing sports that are commonly associated with country clubs or private prep schools - golf, tennis, lacrosse, etc. etc. are more likely to come from higher income families ...... that just seems totally obvious ..... I don't mean that in any invidious way - it seems a rather mundane, somewhat obvious observation .....


2. If you want to compare the coach's salaries to the CEO of other non-profits let's do that ..... I'm not sure that's completely relevant ... but I'll play along .....

R Williams and L Fedora each make roughly $2.5 million .... combined they run about a $70 million business .... I'm not sure what the split would be - let's just say $35 million each for now ..... together they oversee fewer than 100 employees and about 100 players .....

the CEO of UNC Health System - the Hospital and the Medical School .... makes around $1 million ..... he oversees an organization with a budget in the $1.5 billion ballpark and includes maybe 5,000 employees ....... (rough guesses) ......

the Chancellor of UNC ... paid about $600,000 ..... he has a $2.5 billion budget and maybe 10,000 employees under him .....

if you want to look at some university employees with a comparable scope of responsibility to the football or bball program you might look at some of the school deans -- these people may make in the $250,000 - $400,000 range --- a lot less than $2.5 million .....


a comparison I would make is to compare L Fedora - $2.5 million vs. one of his players - $25,000 scholarship .... a factor of 100 times difference .......... can you name an NFL coach that is paid 100 times what any of the players are paid ? ..... can you name an NFL coach who is even the highest paid individual on the team's payroll ? .... look at an NFL payroll and compare the aggregate salaries of the players vs. the coaching staff ..... see where an NFL team puts its money ....... compare that to UNC where L Fedora's salary alone = the value of all the scholarships for the entire team added together ......

the highest paid NFL coaches are at roughly $6 million - about 15 times $400,000 for the lowest paid rookies .... so 15 times from the highest to the lowest ....... versus - L Fedora at 100 times the average UNC player ......... something seem out of kilter here ?


and your personal opinion regarding the 'fairness' of the athlete's compensation -- while this is certainly the place to share it, nevertheless, all it is is your opinion ......

and while we're all interested to learn your opinion -- I will simply counter that by citing the simple existence of the whole NCAA rules/enforcement regime as proof positive that the colleges themselves know that the 'athletic scholarship' is considerably less than the real value of these players to their teams .... (if an 'athletic scholarship' was truly all these players were worth to their teams/universities then that would simply happen spontaneously - you wouldn't need any rules to enforce it) ........ and where is it then written in Scripture or the U.S. Constitution or Robert's Rules of Order that the players should be the only ones who are systematically underpaid in college sports ..... why don't we have rules and a whole enforcement staff to dictate what the coaches get paid ? ........

and finally, while it may be a good thing for UNC to provide tennis scholarships and golf scholarships, etc ..... it's not clear to me why Harrison Barnes and Gio Barnard should be the ones paying for them ........ so again, why not impose some type of NCAA cartel rules capping coach's salaries and let Roy Williams and L Fedora chip in for the golf team too .........


---------------------------------------------
--- GOHEELS86 wrote:

1. I won't argue with you on this point because it may get ugly since you are making assumptions based on social stereotypes. You seem to believe many college football/basketball players come from low income families. I believe that some do, but they are exceptions when compared to all football/basketball players.

2. I think coaches are compensate far too much. However, I'm not sure how it's much difference between them and some salaries chief executives of charities like Unicef, United Way, and the Salvation Army are paid. Or CEOs of not profit hostpitals and insurance companies.

My point has always been 2 prong. College football/basketball players are not being exploited and are more than fairly compensated for do something they love while having the opportunity to get a college education. Secondly, if they are to be compensated more it would affect the opportunities that others have now that they wouldn't otherwise have.

Instead of paying the players the NCAA needs to figure a way to let them work while in school to make extra money. Of course the risk there is abuse. But maybe it's time to figure a way to give it another go.

Count me in Goheels and Carolinarolls

FIFY

My point was directed at college athletes from low income homes that go to college and are graduated but in reality did not satisfactorily complete their coursework. Those are the ones I was referring to as continuing a life of poverty simply because they didn't acquire the skills necessary to be successful in the real world.

---------------------------------------------
--- GunslingerHeel wrote:

According to this my two kids that are still in school live in poverty also.

---------------------------------------------
--- amadeus wrote:

I make no excuses for athletes taking gifts and perks when they know that it is wrong. But what is worse, selfish athletes jeapordizing the integrity of the program that they committed to or schools that accept, keep eligible and graduate many of the "money" sport athletes and fail to educate them for the sake of winning? Many of which will continue a life of poverty once their college careers are over.

aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-foot...ncpa-texas-duke

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

There are over 6000 college student athletes and almost all of them will turn pro in something other than sports. And I submit most of these will contribute more to society than the ones that become pros in sports.

Put more controls on coaches salaries. Find a way to let athletes work while in school without leading to abuses. I would focus on these before I decide to pay players anything. IMO, they are paid quite handsomely. Most graduates who spend 5-10 years paying off student loans would agree.

---------------------------------------------
--- GOHEELS86 wrote:

There are over 6000 college student athletes and almost all of them will turn pro in something other than sports. And I submit most of these will contribute more to society than the ones that become pros in sports.
------------------------

I imagine most of us might think the average school teacher or nurse "contributes more to society" than Josh Hamilton just hitting home runs ........ but people aren't paid simply on what they "contribute to society" ...... there are lots of people who are capable of being school teachers and nurses ...... very, very, very, very few people who can hit major league pitching for 40+ home runs a year ...... hence, Josh Hamilton makes $10s millions? a year ....... and school teachers and nurses make $10s of thousands a year ........ remember - demand AND supply --> price ......




GOHEELS86 wrote:

Put more controls on coaches salaries. Find a way to let athletes work while in school without leading to abuses. I would focus on these before I decide to pay players anything. IMO, they are paid quite handsomely.

-----------------------

again, your personal opinion about what athletes or people in other occupations are "worth" and $10.95 will buy you a one month subscription IC - well worth that small price .........

"paid quite handsomely" compared to what ? ........ there can no doubt they are NOT 'paid quite handsomely' compared to the value they bring to football program/university ......... just consider the lengths the NCAA must go to in order to impose its whole rules/enforcement regime and that tells you that the real value of college football/bball players is much higher than the NCAA defined 'athletic scholarship' they are allowed .......

if the NCAA were to abandon its 'amateur' standard tomorrow ...... and you were the only coach to hold out and insist that an 'athletic scholarship' was a 'quite handsome' amount and all you were willing to give any player ....... I have no doubt that you would be able to fill an 85 man roster - lots of kids would love just to get a football scholarship --- but it would be the 85 kids that no one else wanted ....... and your team could become one of those teams that everyone else plays for homecoming .......




GOHEELS86 wrote:

Most graduates who spend 5-10 years paying off student loans would agree.

----------------------

when "most graduates" have the special talent it takes to return a punt 75 yards for the game winning TD with 10 seconds to go - then the economics facing "most graduates" will be relevant to a discussion of the compensation of college football/bball players ...... until then, comparison between football/bball players to average students is just one of a number of easily refuted fallacies that pop up in these discussions .......




in the words of Robt. Barro ... BusinessWeek ... "The Best Little Monopoly in America" ...... December 2002:

"........ Nevertheless, the athletic association has managed to convince most people that the evildoers are the schools that violate the rules by attempting to pay athletes rather than the cartel enforcers who keep the student-athletes from getting paid. So given this great balancing act, the NCAA is the clear choice for best monopoly in America."

GOHEELS86 -- no shame necessarily in belonging to the club of "most people" ........

---------------------------------------------
--- hams42 wrote:

Meh...

define poverty? During school my income was a couple thousand bucks tops from summer jobs I worked. Same for most of the kids I knew.

And we had to buy books, clothes, etc. without parental debit cards.

They get scholarships most of us got loans, it's all the same.

That being said, I wasn't worth 100k+ to unc.

---------------------------------------------

+1

Go look in any college dorm. I will say in 100% of them you will find Ramen Noodles. Everyone is poor in college no duh...the only ones that aren't is the ones where mommy and daddy are footing the bill and that is the 14%.

THIS!!!!

---------------------------------------------
--- carolinarolls wrote:

"relived the university of having to pay"

you ever pay college tuition? Books, Fees, Room, Board, etc?

It's not free. It never has been. It never will be.

They trade services that they offer for services that the athletes offer and strike a deal. We (the U) get revenue, publicity, and brand recognition, you get an education, publicity and opportunity to build your brand.

If they don't like the deal they can go find a better one somewhere else. It's a free country. But you know what? This is the deal they want. This is the deal their family wants for them. This is the absolute BEST thing going for a HS senior. There is no better way to legally transform yourself from an insolvent dependent to a solvent contributor to society than to go this route.

And yet some people want more. It's always about what the other guy has. What the other guy makes.

Guess what. The other guy worked his ****** ass off for a long time to get there.

Roy Williams sold calendars to make ends meet as a Dean Smith asst.

Saban. Nick Saban. The guy you brought up did not come from affluence. Small town guy, played ball, earned a scholly to Kent State, graduated, started as a grad asistant for his HC in the late 80's and then began a three decade rollercoaster climb to this 5 million dollar salary you speak of as if it was so un-earned and unfair.

Go there. Do that. Then get back to us on how much its unfair what you earn because "kids" in college aren't earning 6-figure incomes along with all the other perks already given.

there's no question that an 'athletic scholarship' has value to it - it pays for a place to live .... meals .... tuition to attend the university .... books, etc. ...... if you had to pay for all this, you'd be somewhere in the $25,000 range +/- at UNC, eg. .......

and there's no question that just the opportunity to participate on Div 1 sports team has value and a great experience ..... the players get public exposure ..... and good coaching ..... weight training ..... many things that would be valuable towards gaining a spot in the NFL or pursuing athletics as a career in some other fashion ....... or even perhaps in a future career outside sports ........

but what carolinarolls and GOHEELs86 are ignoring by stopping there and saying 'they get a scholarship and all that other stuff ... that's enough' ...... what that ignores - the economic fallacy imbedded in this line of thinking - is that it ignores the value that the players in turn are creating for the athletic department and the university ......

and I don't think there's any real question that the value brought to the deal by the players is worth much more than the NCAA mandated athletic scholarship (along whatever other intangible benefits we've cited above) ......... the article in the OP cites a figure in the $500,000 range(?) ......... but without making a whole lot of debatable assumptions in an attempt to put a figure on all this, I would simply cite that the proof of this is no more complicated than the fact that the NCAA has to impose all its rules on 'extra benefits' to artificially suppress what the schools would freely pay the players absent the NCAA rules forbidding it .........

so they're/your right --> an 'athletic scholarship' is a very valuable thing ..... but 'valuable' compared to what ? ......... not so valuable compared to the value the player contributes to the team ....... and thus not so valuable compared to what the colleges would be ready and willing to pay if they didn't rig the market otherwise via the NCAA ..........

Understand why we are labeled as way left.

Yes players make money for the university and athletics department, They also benefit from the profits they help generate through facilities, equipment, etc. It's not like there is somebody pocketing all of the money from the revenue created. Everything that is made goes back to creating a better environment and experience for the athletes. Part of that may be to pay a coach. That coach gets paid to win which enhances the athletes experience.

I'll tell you what we'll do then:

jsf5259 - you can be coach and AD at XYZ Univ. .... you will maintain a strict 'amateurism' policy .... but XYZ U can have the fanciest facilities ... you can outdo Michigan and have 3 indoor practice facilities ...... the greatest training table .... and the highest paid coach in the Milky Way galaxy .......

and I'll be the coach and AD at ABC Univ. .... and I'll take 15% of my $60 million athletic budget (~ to UNC's) = $9 million ..... and use it to pay a $100,000 salary to each of the 85 4 and 5 star recruits on my team ....... and if any of them wants a teak paneled locker, they'll have the cash to buy themselves one .......



btw ---- the big $$$$ coaches make the big $$$$ because they are great recruiters ....... you can have Mack Brown's charm / Lane Kiffin's used car sales sliminess and Roy William's work ethic ---- and you'll still just end up with everybody I don't want ...... because I'll go in there with the university's checkbook .......


I may hire jsf5259 to work for me .....

"jsf - buddy ..... the company has budgeted a 10% bonus for everybody this year .... but I've decided to pocket your bonus myself, because if I'm happier - then it's going to be a happier work environment for all my employees ........and while we're on the subject of your money - we're going to be docking your paycheck $100 for the next six months - your carpet is getting a little worn - and I think it would spiff up the place to get your some new carpet ...... well, I hope this makes you happy - I try to do what I can for my people."

---------------------------------------------
--- jsf5259 wrote:

Yes players make money for the university and athletics department, They also benefit from the profits they help generate through facilities, equipment, etc. It's not like there is somebody pocketing all of the money from the revenue created. Everything that is made goes back to creating a better environment and experience for the athletes. Part of that may be to pay a coach. That coach gets paid to win which enhances the athletes experience.

---------------------------------------------

Josh Hamilton makes the money he makes because he can do what most people can't? Can he teach kids geometry or how to read?

He makes the money he makes because he's in the ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS! He's an entertainer; no different than Brad Pitt or Steven Tyler. It has nothing to do with supply/demand economics and it is of little value to society, comparatively speaking.

Obviously we disagree on the value of a college education and how these guys should be compensated. No big deal.

---------------------------------------------
--- BethelRegiment wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- GOHEELS86 wrote:

There are over 6000 college student athletes and almost all of them will turn pro in something other than sports. And I submit most of these will contribute more to society than the ones that become pros in sports.
------------------------

I imagine most of us might think the average school teacher or nurse "contributes more to society" than Josh Hamilton just hitting home runs ........ but people aren't paid simply on what they "contribute to society" ...... there are lots of people who are capable of being school teachers and nurses ...... very, very, very, very few people who can hit major league pitching for 40+ home runs a year ...... hence, Josh Hamilton makes $10s millions? a year ....... and school teachers and nurses make $10s of thousands a year ........ remember - demand AND supply --> price ......




GOHEELS86 wrote:

Put more controls on coaches salaries. Find a way to let athletes work while in school without leading to abuses. I would focus on these before I decide to pay players anything. IMO, they are paid quite handsomely.

-----------------------

again, your personal opinion about what athletes or people in other occupations are "worth" and $10.95 will buy you a one month subscription IC - well worth that small price .........

"paid quite handsomely" compared to what ? ........ there can no doubt they are NOT 'paid quite handsomely' compared to the value they bring to football program/university ......... just consider the lengths the NCAA must go to in order to impose its whole rules/enforcement regime and that tells you that the real value of college football/bball players is much higher than the NCAA defined 'athletic scholarship' they are allowed .......

if the NCAA were to abandon its 'amateur' standard tomorrow ...... and you were the only coach to hold out and insist that an 'athletic scholarship' was a 'quite handsome' amount and all you were willing to give any player ....... I have no doubt that you would be able to fill an 85 man roster - lots of kids would love just to get a football scholarship --- but it would be the 85 kids that no one else wanted ....... and your team could become one of those teams that everyone else plays for homecoming .......




GOHEELS86 wrote:

Most graduates who spend 5-10 years paying off student loans would agree.

----------------------

when "most graduates" have the special talent it takes to return a punt 75 yards for the game winning TD with 10 seconds to go - then the economics facing "most graduates" will be relevant to a discussion of the compensation of college football/bball players ...... until then, comparison between football/bball players to average students is just one of a number of easily refuted fallacies that pop up in these discussions .......




in the words of Robt. Barro ... BusinessWeek ... "The Best Little Monopoly in America" ...... December 2002:

"........ Nevertheless, the athletic association has managed to convince most people that the evildoers are the schools that violate the rules by attempting to pay athletes rather than the cartel enforcers who keep the student-athletes from getting paid. So given this great balancing act, the NCAA is the clear choice for best monopoly in America."

GOHEELS86 -- no shame necessarily in belonging to the club of "most people" ........

---------------------------------------------

The example you used to support your argument is terrible for many reasons. It would be an understatement to say you are over-exaggerating to make a point. I only need one law to disprove the validity of your idea ever happening and that is Title IX. You can't pay the football players and not pay female athletes the exact same amount. There are many other reasons your idea would never work or happen.

---------------------------------------------
--- BethelRegiment wrote:

I'll tell you what we'll do then:

jsf5259 - you can be coach and AD at XYZ Univ. .... you will maintain a strict 'amateurism' policy .... but XYZ U can have the fanciest facilities ... you can outdo Michigan and have 3 indoor practice facilities ...... the greatest training table .... and the highest paid coach in the Milky Way galaxy .......

and I'll be the coach and AD at ABC Univ. .... and I'll take 15% of my $60 million athletic budget (~ to UNC's) = $9 million ..... and use it to pay a $100,000 salary to each of the 85 4 and 5 star recruits on my team ....... and if any of them wants a teak paneled locker, they'll have the cash to buy themselves one .......



btw ---- the big $$$$ coaches make the big $$$$ because they are great recruiters ....... you can have Mack Brown's charm / Lane Kiffin's used car sales sliminess and Roy William's work ethic ---- and you'll still just end up with everybody I don't want ...... because I'll go in there with the university's checkbook .......


I may hire jsf5259 to work for me .....

"jsf - buddy ..... the company has budgeted a 10% bonus for everybody this year .... but I've decided to pocket your bonus myself, because if I'm happier - then it's going to be a happier work environment for all my employees ........ well, I hope this makes you happy - I try to do what I can for my people."

-------------------------------------

well which is it --

the athletes would truly prefer to have indoor practice facilities and teak lockers rather than the cash ....... or

Title IX ?

decide on one and we'll discuss it ........


btw -- the President of the NCAA is on board in favor of getting some modest stipend to the athletes ..... the notion of a 'full cost scholarship' ........

---------------------------------------------
--- jsf5259 wrote:

The example you used to support your argument is terrible for many reasons. It would be an understatement to say you are over-exaggerating to make a point. I only need one law to disprove the validity of your idea ever happening and that is Title IX. You can't pay the football players and not pay female athletes the exact same amount. There are many other reasons your idea would never work or happen.

Not saying the NCAA is always right but since when have they ever cared about what "the athletes would truly prefer." Also, in your example you mentioned paying about players 100k a piece. I am not sure about your financial status or upbringing but 100k is far more than what a "modest stipend" would be.
---------------------------------------------
--- BethelRegiment wrote:

well which is it --

the athletes would truly prefer to have indoor practice facilities and teak lockers rather than the cash ....... or

Title IX ?

decide on one and we'll discuss it ........


btw -- the President of the NCAA is on board in favor of getting some modest stipend to the athletes ..... the notion of a 'full cost scholarship' ........

---------------------------------------------
--- jsf5259 wrote:

The example you used to support your argument is terrible for many reasons. It would be an understatement to say you are over-exaggerating to make a point. I only need one law to disprove the validity of your idea ever happening and that is Title IX. You can't pay the football players and not pay female athletes the exact same amount. There are many other reasons your idea would never work or happen.

---------------------------------------------

Josh Hamilton makes the money he makes because he is at the apex of the sports entertainment business ..... he is an MVP caliber player in major league baseball ........ there are lots and lots and lots of people in the entertainment business who barely scratch out a living - they will be playing at your local bar Saturday night ..... and there are lots and lots of people who are paid relatively little to play professional baseball - you can come see them at the NewBridge Ballpark in Greensboro most any night in the Summer ........

there are slews and slews and bunches and gobs of people who can teach school -- UNC ... UNC-G ... EZU ... UNC-W, etc. graduate several thousand people every May who are hired as school teachers ........ it's not a rare skill ...... high demand - there is great need for school teachers - the State of NC employees 10,000s .... but large supply -- there are 10,000s of trained and licensed teachers out there ..... all of this means - teachers make a sort of average income for Americans .......

whereas, hitting 40+ homers a year off major league pitching is a rare skill ..... high demand - major league baseball fans all over the country - 162 games a year ........ very, very, very, very, very, very low supply --- you can count the Josh Hamiltons out there at any given point in time on the fingers of one hand ........ high demand --- very very very very low supply == very very very high price .... ............

1/2 carat diamonds - fairly common - ~ $1,000 ...... 6 carat diamonds - very, very, very rare - maybe $1.5 million .....


they are never going to pay college athletes like pro athletes .... at least I would assume so in my lifetime ...... I understand that ....... doesn't mean they shouldn't in a more righteous world ....... and it doesn't mean given all the money circulating around college sports that the NCAA/colleges can't make some modest steps to more fairly compensate the players ...... and it doesn't mean you have come remotely close to offering a credible (non fallacious) defense of the NCAA 'amateurism' system - you haven't -- sorry ..........

you are right - it's not a big deal .... just killing time on IC ...... should be watching, instead of listening to the Falcons ....

---------------------------------------------
--- GOHEELS86 wrote:

Josh Hamilton makes the money he makes because he can do what most people can't? Can he teach kids geometry or how to read?

He makes the money he makes because he's in the ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS! He's an entertainer; no different than Brad Pitt or Steven Tyler. It has nothing to do with supply/demand economics and it is of little value to society, comparatively speaking.

Obviously we disagree on the value of a college education and how these guys should be compensated. No big deal.

$100,000 was nothing more than a simple, extreme example that very clearly demonstrated the absurdity of your claim that the players are somehow better off (ie, they would prefer) with fancier lockers and multi-millionaire coaches than simply getting some cash compensation directly for themselves .......

---------------------------------------------
--- jsf5259 wrote:

Not saying the NCAA is always right but since when have they ever cared about what "the athletes would truly prefer." Also, in your example you mentioned paying about players 100k a piece. I am not sure about your financial status or upbringing but 100k is far more than what a "modest stipend" would be.

Nowhere in my argument did I state that athletes would prefer fancier facilities over compensation. I am not going to jump to make assumptions of what other athletes want. I know in my own experience that having my schooling payed for was more than enough for me. I will say that giving 18 year olds who have no experience handling money compensation can get them into trouble because many will spend more than what they make because they aren't used to having things.

---------------------------------------------
--- BethelRegiment wrote:

$100,000 was nothing more than a simple, extreme example that very clearly demonstrated the lucidity of your claim that the players are somehow better off (ie, they would prefer) with fancier lockers and multi-millionaire coaches than simply getting some cash compensation directly for themselves .......

---------------------------------------------
--- jsf5259 wrote:

Not saying the NCAA is always right but since when have they ever cared about what "the athletes would truly prefer." Also, in your example you mentioned paying about players 100k a piece. I am not sure about your financial status or upbringing but 100k is far more than what a "modest stipend" would be.

---------------------------------------------

here is exactly what you said:

"Yes players make money for the university and athletics department, They also benefit from the profits they help generate through facilities, equipment, etc. It's not like there is somebody pocketing all of the money from the revenue created. Everything that is made goes back to creating a better environment and experience for the athletes. Part of that may be to pay a coach. That coach gets paid to win which enhances the athletes experience."


how would anyone interpret that other than you're trying to claim the players are better off with fancier facilities ('a better environment') and higher paid coaches, etc ........ than simply getting the money themselves - which is what you are arguing against .........


and while we're on the subject ---- if you want a more clear demonstration of the absurdity of the whole NCAA 'amateurism' system .... you ought to 'google' - Oregon football locker room - look for a video tour of the Oregon football locker room ...... what a ridiculous waste of money ....... but since Univ. of Oregon can't simply give this money directly to the players, they built this over-the-top two story locker room to 'impress' recruits ....... I'm sure 99% of the players would happy to have a used gray metal locker like they had in high school and the cash ...... rather than this monstrosity ........ this is the result you guys are defending .....



---------------------------------------------
--- jsf5259 wrote:

Nowhere in my argument did I state that athletes would prefer fancier facilities over compensation. I am not going to jump to make assumptions of what other athletes want. I know in my own experience that having my schooling payed for was more than enough for me. I will say that giving 18 year olds who have no experience handling money compensation can get them into trouble because many will spend more than what they make because they aren't used to having things.

A lot of people, well reasonable ones would interpret what I said for exactly what it is. While the cash is not going directly into the players pockets there are benefits of being a scholarship athlete other than monetary ones. There is no point in arguing with you though because you jump to extremes and misinterpret everything I have said.

---------------------------------------------
--- BethelRegiment wrote:

here is exactly what you said:

"Yes players make money for the university and athletics department, They also benefit from the profits they help generate through facilities, equipment, etc. It's not like there is somebody pocketing all of the money from the revenue created. Everything that is made goes back to creating a better environment and experience for the athletes. Part of that may be to pay a coach. That coach gets paid to win which enhances the athletes experience."


how would anyone interpret that other than you're trying to claim the players are better off with fancier facilities ('a better environment') and higher paid coaches, etc ........ than simply getting the money themselves - which is what you are arguing against .........


and while we're on the subject ---- if you want a more clear demonstration of the absurdity of the whole NCAA 'amateurism' system .... you ought to 'google' - Oregon football locker room - look for a video tour of the Oregon football locker room ...... what a ridiculous, waste of money ....... but since Univ. of Oregon can't simply give this money directly to the players, they built this over-the-top two story locker room to 'impress' recruits ....... I'm sure 99% of the players would happy to have a used gray metal locker like they had in high school and the cash ...... rather than this monstrosity ........ this is the result you guys are defending .....



---------------------------------------------

I'm sure the players benefit in some way from having better facilities ........ ie, the benefit of custom-made teak lockers > 0 ......... that's not a terribly profound insight .......

but the real question and the question we've been 'debating' on here is whether the benefit of better facilities/higher paid coaches, etc. is more valuable to the players than simply giving them that same amount of money as direct cash compensation ...... I have little doubt that the players would much prefer just to have the money -- than have money spent for them on a bigger, nicer indoor practice facility or whatever ......



---------------------------------------------
--- jsf5259 wrote:

A lot of people, well reasonable ones would interpret what I said for exactly what it is. While the cash is not going directly into the players pockets there are benefits of being a scholarship athlete other than monetary ones. There is no point in arguing with you though because you jump to extremes and misinterpret everything I have said.

dude all college students fall in that catagory

Still Nonsense.



---------------------------------------------
--- amadeus wrote:

How is it nonsense? I graduated from UNC and met several football players with whom I maintain contact. These guys didn't go pro and knew that pro football wasn't a viable option for their futures. These guys also came from hardworking middle class families. However, I went to high school with a football player whose best subject was "putting in tobacco". I'm from Pitt County which was a hotbed for tobacco production in the 80's. This friend missed the maximum days possible and took the absolute easiest classes offered which isn't saying much. I took all advanced level classes and we weren't even in the same part of the building. This guy got accepted to Duke University on a football scholarship. I couldn't believe it. Needless to say he didn't graduate. I don't even think he finished his sophomore year. His family didn't even own a car and worked solely on the farms as laborers. They lived in an unpainted, extremely old rented wooden shack. I can guarantee you that he lived a life of poverty while in college and continued a life of poverty after leaving college. This isn't something that I've heard, this is something that I know.

---------------------------------------------
--- raphael62610 wrote:

Absolute Nonsense------The majority of college students would fall in this category------Garbage assumptions.




---------------------------------------------
--- amadeus wrote:

I make no excuses for athletes taking gifts and perks when they know that it is wrong. But what is worse, selfish athletes jeapordizing the integrity of the program that they committed to or schools that accept, keep eligible and graduate many of the "money" sport athletes and fail to educate them for the sake of winning? Many of which will continue a life of poverty once their college careers are over.

aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-foot...ncpa-texas-duke

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Still nonsense ?

yes, comparing college football/bball players to the rest of the 'non-athlete' student body in the context of a discussion on the compensation of college athletes is total nonsense ...... you got that right ..........

the fact that Bryn Renner and Bobbie Sophomore are both students is simply irrelevant in a discussion of the fairness of the current NCAA 'amateur' system for football and bball athletes ......... the notion of paying someone like Bryn Renner some financial compensation on top of his scholarship is based solely on his value as QB for the football team ...... it has nothing whatsoever to do with his status as a student ......... and conversely, there is nothing that Bobbie Sophomore (the 'average' student) can do to earn millions $$$$$ in income for the athletic department or any other aspect of the University - and therefore there is no reason for the University to give him a scholarship or any other payment ..............

this whole notion of - "well nobody paid me to go to school ... I would love just have a scholarship .... they should be happy with what they get .... all students are poor" - is a purely fallacious argument .........

---------------------------------------------
--- raphael62610 wrote:

Still Nonsense.



---------------------------------------------
--- amadeus wrote:

How is it nonsense? I graduated from UNC and met several football players with whom I maintain contact. These guys didn't go pro and knew that pro football wasn't a viable option for their futures. These guys also came from hardworking middle class families. However, I went to high school with a football player whose best subject was "putting in tobacco". I'm from Pitt County which was a hotbed for tobacco production in the 80's. This friend missed the maximum days possible and took the absolute easiest classes offered which isn't saying much. I took all advanced level classes and we weren't even in the same part of the building. This guy got accepted to Duke University on a football scholarship. I couldn't believe it. Needless to say he didn't graduate. I don't even think he finished his sophomore year. His family didn't even own a car and worked solely on the farms as laborers. They lived in an unpainted, extremely old rented wooden shack. I can guarantee you that he lived a life of poverty while in college and continued a life of poverty after leaving college. This isn't something that I've heard, this is something that I know.

---------------------------------------------
--- raphael62610 wrote:

Absolute Nonsense------The majority of college students would fall in this category------Garbage assumptions.