NCAA Amateurism to Go Back Under Courtroom Spotlight in Jenkins Trial

[mouser]

I continue to think people get the "paying athletes" focus backward.

98% of football players won't make the pros
98.8% of basketball players won't be drafted--some additional % will play professionally though
98.7% of hockey players won't make the pros
99% of soccer players won't make the pros
99% of women's basketball players won't make the pros
89% of baseball players won't play professionally--note a large % of these won't make the MLB though

The pressure and outrage directed at the schools shouldn't be about paying the players. It should be about making sure the student athletes are getting a real education with enough time to study and learn. Not some junk degrees and classes whose primary purpose is keeping the players academically eligible for sports.

 

[sandysan]

I continue to think people get the "paying athletes" focus backward.

98% of football players won't make the pros
98.8% of basketball players won't be drafted--some additional % will play professionally though
98.7% of hockey players won't make the pros
99% of soccer players won't make the pros
99% of women's basketball players won't make the pros
89% of baseball players won't play professionally--note a large % of these won't make the MLB though

The pressure and outrage directed at the schools shouldn't be about paying the players. It should be about making sure the student athletes are getting a real education with enough time to study and learn. Not some junk degrees and classes whose primary purpose is keeping the players academically eligible for sports.

why does the university care that some athlete with a degree in turf sciences is viewed as deficient by his peers in the turf management field ?

And the fact that the overwhelming majority of players WON'T go pro, doesnt this suggest even more that the schools should be paying these players as they cash their billion dollar TV deal checks ? Hell I'd be down with payments in kind. You come to state X university, play 4 years of football then we cover your 4 years of education in whatever field you like. you drop out ? sucks to be you. You use the exposure we provide to go striaght to the nfl, that's great! good luck ! Then the schools would be paying for the majority of the athletes and the exceptional ones wouldnt need whatever the ncaa could pay.

But this kills the canard of the " student athlete" that the NCAA will go down with before changing. it has to be student-athlete, it will never be athelete then student because then the NCAA has to admit its in the atheltics business, not the academic business.

 

[SCBlueLiner]

My personal opinion is that a significant contributor to that rising cost is the ease at which student loans are available these days compared to yesteryear.

Remove or reduce the easy student loans and most schools would be more highly incentivized to find ways to keep their tuition costs down. Currently the schools have a simpler route of sending prospective students who can’t afford the rising tuition to the financial aid councilors to setup a loan.

Nailed it. Combination of that and the never ending building boom on college campuses to keep up with other colleges who are competing for students. College today is a far cry from when I went to school in the 90's. I still live in a college town so I am in tune with what the vibe is on campus.

When I was in school we were happy to have heat in the dorms, no A/C, and your television worked as well as your antennae. Today the dorms HAVE TO HAVE full HVAC, cable, wifi, common area amenities, big rooms, the fancier the dorm the better, workout facilities, etc. Other buildings are the same way. Used to be we would pile in an auditorium style lecture hall. That hall better be fully integrated now, wired, and wifi enabled, and the school better give out iPads to every student. But guess what? Nothing comes free. The tuition is going to reflect all these costs, then the student body screams bloody murder about tuition costs. Read a college student newspaper sometime, you will pull your hair out with the sense of entitlement that is on college campuses these days.

 

[Fugu]

I continue to think people get the "paying athletes" focus backward.

98% of football players won't make the pros
98.8% of basketball players won't be drafted--some additional % will play professionally though
98.7% of hockey players won't make the pros
99% of soccer players won't make the pros
99% of women's basketball players won't make the pros
89% of baseball players won't play professionally--note a large % of these won't make the MLB though

The pressure and outrage directed at the schools shouldn't be about paying the players. It should be about making sure the student athletes are getting a real education with enough time to study and learn. Not some junk degrees and classes whose primary purpose is keeping the players academically eligible for sports.

You actually are making the point that many of these sports kids simply do not belong in big universities. If you really want them to get jobs, make them take courses that will be marketable. Problem is though that many cannot handle it. I'm not saying it as put down either, but that is what universities should be doing. 55 hours/week for football players per season? No, that's just ridiculous for students.

 

[Fugu]

...

To your tuition point, dont confuse private with public colleges. You aren't hitting $60k at any public university. Alabama's instate tuition is $10k, Texas is $9k.

Private Universities will charge much higher tuitions regardless of athletics cost. They do so for exclusivity and because they can. Harvard costing $63k a year, Northwestern costing $50k a year and MIT costing $50k are because they are Harvard, Northwestern and MIT. They charge that because the demand to attend is sky high and not affected by price.

I said we paid nearly $60K per year for two kids in public universities -- public Ivy types and In-state rates. Tuition is just the start though. They need food, housing, books, phones, computers, etc. One of my kids was accepted to MIT, and yes, tuition there was much higher, but UMich charges about that rate for out-of-state students. My son is working on a grad degree now in Computer Science at UCLA, which at $32 K per year was cheaper than Michigan's $48K per year. Cash. After taxes.

Let those numbers sink in though. While hockey fans typically are better educated and more highly compensated, the American family average income is what now? $50-60K per year? I'm not sure your education is supposed to lead to 20 years of debt.

 

[sandysan]

Nailed it. Combination of that and the never ending building boom on college campuses to keep up with other colleges who are competing for students. College today is a far cry from when I went to school in the 90's. I still live in a college town so I am in tune with what the vibe is on campus.

When I was in school we were happy to have heat in the dorms, no A/C, and your television worked as well as your antennae. Today the dorms HAVE TO HAVE full HVAC, cable, wifi, common area amenities, big rooms, the fancier the dorm the better, workout facilities, etc. Other buildings are the same way. Used to be we would pile in an auditorium style lecture hall. That hall better be fully integrated now, wired, and wifi enabled, and the school better give out iPads to every student. But guess what? Nothing comes free. The tuition is going to reflect all these costs, then the student body screams bloody murder about tuition costs. Read a college student newspaper sometime, you will pull your hair out with the sense of entitlement that is on college campuses these days.

I've seen student housing, for the most part the newer buildings are more " apartment-like" and the older ones are dumps. cinder blocked walled dumps. jail-like dumps in terms of their amenities.

Having wifi on campus, isnt a luxury, its a necessity for students and for faculty. And I've BEEN at big 12 campuses, the notion that there are NOT pooly designed/poorly functioning buildings on campus is laughable.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

no one is stopping these kids from getting paid.

they are choosing to go into a system where they are not paid for their play. nothing is stopping them from going and playing professionally in Europe for a year then enter the NBA draft. Worked just fine for Greek Freak

That works for basketball.

Football? Where are they going to play?

 

[sandysan]

That works for basketball.

Football? Where are they going to play?

He hate me v2.0?

 

[KevFu]

Sigh.

1. BCS Conference get a lot of revenue from TV rights, which they pass on to the schools. 278 Division I programs are not “making millions” off the student athletes. Period.

2. Athletics isn’t “taking money away” from academics. Athletics is pretty much free of subsidy at the huge programs you think of as college sports. It’s the smaller schools with subsidies, and that’s basically part of the “Marketing/Advertising Budget” because of the coverage D-I schools get.

Big Z Man 1990
3. you’re only seeing the tip of the iceberg. There’s 87 NCAA sports that AREN’T men’s basketball and football. The argument for paying ATHLETES is silly when you do the math on “Total number of ATHLETES” vs the Revenue brought in. If you applied the NHL’s CBA to NCAA Division I, the players cut comes out to $24,000 per player. Which is about the average scholarship cost.

4. The NCAA can’t pay the athletes directly, the NCAA’s revenue all goes out the instant it comes in. The Billion Dollar March Madness contract (Which is 98% of their revenue, ticket sales are the other 2%) is used to for hosting/travel expenses for the 88 championships the NCAA runs, and then it’s parceled out to its membership.

Nulles,
5. the problem with allowing the endorsements is that (while it would be totally fair to the athletes) the boosters would basically say “Sure, my company will give EVERY athlete at OUR SCHOOL a sponsorship contract!” which pollutes recruiting and makes that an unfair and unlevel playing field.

Sandysan
6. All the student-athletes who don’t go pro show you how ridiculous the argument is that colleges are “making millions on the talent of these star players.” Mouser just gave you the percentages for six sports. There’s EIGHTY THREE OTHER SPORTS.

The “millions and millions” of dollars fund those sports. And funds the dozens of support staff that make life nice for the student-athletes. The people who do their laundry, tape their ankles, register them for classes, reimburse them for books, get people to come to their games, host their games, video stream their games, etc, etc.

 

[Fugu]

@KevFu

Why do some schools save slots for athletes? If they have a fixed number of spaces, say 2400 or so at Stanford, and athletes get 400 or so of these (for example), and class sizes are limited (25, iirc) -- how does this not affect the academic side?

I'm not sure if you ever told me why American universities fell into this trap in the first place however.

 

[sandysan]

Sigh.


Sandysan
6. All the student-athletes who don’t go pro show you how ridiculous the argument is that colleges are “making millions on the talent of these star players.” Mouser just gave you the percentages for six sports. There’s EIGHTY THREE OTHER SPORTS.

The “millions and millions” of dollars fund those sports. And funds the dozens of support staff that make life nice for the student-athletes. The people who do their laundry, tape their ankles, register them for classes, reimburse them for books, get people to come to their games, host their games, video stream their games, etc, etc.

No one said that the colleges are " making millions of the talent of these players", the AD's are. Most athletic programs, the overwhelming majority of them are money losers are most college campuses.

in the last several decades, revenues for collegiate athletics has increased largely due to TV deals. You know what else has increased ? AD spending ( at nearly the same rate). If the athletic departments were taking some of that revenue and piping it back into the academic side, that would be great. But they don't. they horde it, hire more staff, pay to top coaches unimaginable salaries ( again at state schools many states have limits on compensation, you know how saban gets 7 million ? because he's not an alabama state employee, that's how).

Texas A and M ( I think) brought in the most reveneues last year and used it to upgrade their facilities. Arkansas which sucked so bad that they fired their coach ( whom they will continue to pay) is going to fund another improvemnent of the stadium in fayetteville to the tune of about a hundred million dollars.

How much you think they put back into UA's general fund. I can guarandamn tee its not 100 million.

AD's act as their own fifedoms, they generate revenue that they spend immediately to improve their athletic departments. the non students have near ZERO access to these facilities. you know what the students do get ? increasing athletic fees so that the scoreboard is " biigger than their competitors". AD's are essentially degenerate gamblers, when things go well they ALWAYS double down, when things go bad they know that someone else will cover their losses. They, from personal experience, do NOT help on the academic side.

oh and on the arkansas side, you know what else they did ? They paid the university back the money that they siphoned off from student fees so that they could say that they didn't cost the university a red cent. they also, magnanimously, decided that " even" was about as good as they were willing to let the university get.

 

[joelef]

Again NOBODY wants amateurism. The NCAA is ONLY considered "amateur" because you cant play palyers . That's it.

 

[joelef]

This is not the NCAA fault. This is the pro sports leagues fault for using EDUCATIONAL INSISTITUTIONS as there own minor league system.

 

[sandysan]

This is not the NCAA fault. This is the pro sports leagues fault for using EDUCATIONAL INSISTITUTIONS as there own minor league system.

the pro sports leagues in football have very little say in player development at the collegiate level, hell the players can't be drafted like they are in hockey.

There is, certainly, a relationship between the NCAA and MLB/NFL/NBA but this isnt a minor league for them.

 

[wildthing202]

This is not the NCAA fault. This is the pro sports leagues fault for using EDUCATIONAL INSISTITUTIONS as there own minor league system.

More like the NCAA got established before the pros did. The NFL and NBA came around after their college sports were established and popular and the NHL and MLB were around before their college versions were established or got popular.

It's easier to establish a minor league system when there is no competition. The NFL is not going to keep throwing away money on trying to establish a minor league after all of their previous failures.

 

[mouser]

You actually are making the point that many of these sports kids simply do not belong in big universities. If you really want them to get jobs, make them take courses that will be marketable. Problem is though that many cannot handle it. I'm not saying it as put down either, but that is what universities should be doing. 55 hours/week for football players per season? No, that's just ridiculous for students.

I think you're agreeing with most of the points I was trying to make in my posts in this thread.

 

[Fugu]

I think you're agreeing with most of the points I was trying to make in my posts in this thread.

Except that first bit about what percent won't get into the pro leagues. It's irrelevant if you accept that our universities shouldn't run sports businesses.

 

[mouser]

Except that first bit about what percent won't get into the pro leagues. It's irrelevant if you accept that our universities shouldn't run sports businesses.

The point I was trying to make with that is the schools aren't preparing most of these players for a career in professional sports. There should be a stronger obligation placed on the schools to prepare those student athletes for a career with real degrees and education as best as possible.

 

[Fugu]

The point I was trying to make with that is the schools aren't preparing most of these players for a career in professional sports. There should be a stronger obligation placed on the schools to prepare those student athletes for a career with real degrees and education as best as possible.

I agree. Thanks.

 

[golfortennis]

You actually are making the point that many of these sports kids simply do not belong in big universities. If you really want them to get jobs, make them take courses that will be marketable. Problem is though that many cannot handle it. I'm not saying it as put down either, but that is what universities should be doing. 55 hours/week for football players per season? No, that's just ridiculous for students.

So I get into the discussion with my buddy who grew up in Kentucky quite often. Counting D2,3, NAIA, etc, there are 33,000 "college" basketball players in the US. Why? There are 400 NBA jobs. There are other leagues elsewhere, but those countries also have basketball development, so add players to that total. There are fewer than 5,000 players in baseball's minor leagues, and just under 1,000 MLB jobs. It's ridiculous. But as is being mentioned elsewhere, there is no need for rationalizing with colleges.

I've always said, why does being able to grab 13 rebounds a night mean you have to sit through a calculus class?

 

[golfortennis]

The point I was trying to make with that is the schools aren't preparing most of these players for a career in professional sports. There should be a stronger obligation placed on the schools to prepare those student athletes for a career with real degrees and education as best as possible.

The flipside though is that someone whose vocation is to be an athlete, should be able to work on that without needing to go through some other charade.

 

[mouser]

The flipside though is that someone whose vocation is to be an athlete, should be able to work on that without needing to go through some other charade.

Whose obligation is it to provide that “perfect career path” to them? Certainly not the schools.

A related issue that comes up is young athletes greatly overestimate their likelihood of making the big leagues. Unless you’re the top 1% going into school odds are heavily against you making the pros. And even then a lot of the blue chip top tier guys fail.

Nice article with some figures on the unrealistically optimistic expectations of college athletes.

College athletes greatly overestimate their chances of playing professionally

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

The point I was trying to make with that is the schools aren't preparing most of these players for a career in professional sports. There should be a stronger obligation placed on the schools to prepare those student athletes for a career with real degrees and education as best as possible.

what more can they do?

they provide them tutors, virtual classrooms on the road, their own guidance counselors, and a coaching staff that is on them to keep their grades up so they stay eligible.

you can't force a kid to go into a major they dont want. short of doing that I dont see how the schools can help them.

In addition, your notion of "real degrees" is pretty short sighted and false. Communications covers a broad spectrum and allows for people to get into many different fields. Additionally, a communications degree is one that can get you into many business positions at almost any corporation. The idea you need a business degree to get into business is a fallacy.

"Turf management", as you mock it is one of the most lucrative fields of study. Grounds crews at private golf courses, stadiums, etc make a lot of money. As do most of the landscaping company owners. As someone that lives in a state that is known for it, turf farming is huge money.

 

[sandysan]

what more can they do?

they provide them tutors, virtual classrooms on the road, their own guidance counselors, and a coaching staff that is on them to keep their grades up so they stay eligible.

you can't force a kid to go into a major they dont want. short of doing that I dont see how the schools can help them.

In addition, your notion of "real degrees" is pretty short sighted and false. Communications covers a broad spectrum and allows for people to get into many different fields. Additionally, a communications degree is one that can get you into many business positions at almost any corporation. The idea you need a business degree to get into business is a fallacy.

"Turf management", as you mock it is one of the most lucrative fields of study. Grounds crews at private golf courses, stadiums, etc make a lot of money. As do most of the landscaping company owners. As someone that lives in a state that is known for it, turf farming is huge money.

universities are not vocational schools. They do not ( or should not) simply train students on how to make whatever widget employers demand even if making them is lucrative. It used to mean that someone with a university degree could actually read, think infer and deduce.

There are lots of things that can be lucrative careers that are not academically rigorous, and that is absolutely fine. I am sure that at the cutting edge of " turf research" that the research is extremely competitive and fast paced.

or you could enroll in no work classes like the one they had at UNC. I'm sure employers LOVE those types of classes

 

[BrindAmours Army]

One in eight Division 1 athletic programs break even. Tax dollars should go to something actually useful, like education. Not throwing balls around because it gives people something to drink to.