How To Reform College Sports: Best-Selling Author John U. Bacon Makes His Case

Fourier

Registered User
Dec 29, 2006
25,445
19,581
Waterloo Ontario
I think the essence of the problem is that the entire enterprise is being run under the umbrella of not-for-profit educational institutions.

Yes, there is indeed a massive amount of money being made (revenue side) in these operations. Imagine if they actually had to function like normal business (for profit) since that's in fact is what they are. I don't mind that people like certain forms of entertainment and make that connection between their school brand/sport, etc., but let's cease with the hypocrisy that these are somehow charitable or educational causes. Any operation that can pay a coach $700K per year should not be allowed to claim a not-for-profit status!

There's already a working model available-- the other development leagues. I think you may not be understanding what I'm proposing. The athletes are just that-- athletes, employed by the school's side business. This would have no integration with the academic departments.

I actually do share most of your distaste for the way the big dollar sports are run. No question money corrupts. But I doubt that having the NFL and NBA set up feeder leagues would do much to change this. For example, popularity of college football predates the NFL by a lot. While the dollars involved might be significantly bigger today I would say that college sports have been a significant part of many of the US's schools identity for an awful long time. More to the point though, I don't think the side business model would be of any interest to either the schools or the athletes. Despite the high profile counterexamples, the vast majority of student athletes are at school for an education.

My question to you is why we as a society put a higher value on athletes insofar as entry and support into university settings than we do on academically inclined students? Why create a separate system to create opportunities for those with elite athletic skills-- and not academic ability? Sure, the athletic programs may be able to pay for themselves for some schools, but the abuses are great. Football coaches with six and seven figure salaries? Really? The kids are taken advantage of as well, with no protection or voice in the process. It's just so wrong fundamentally that even saying other athletes might benefit shouldn't be sufficient to excuse the system.


To me it is all a matter of degree. I think that there should be legitimate admission standards for athletes but I could live with top athletes getting preferred status over marginally better academic applicants. It adds to the diversity of a student body and that has benefits. I am actually quite in favour of using a broad set of criteria for program admission.

I also think that it would be pretty hard to make the case that many students are rejected from their school of choice because their spot was taken by a student athlete even if the student athlete may be admitted with lower grades than the non-athlete applicants the school admits. I really do wonder if you cancelled the athletics programs if those slots would automatically open up. Stanford could easily add 200 students to its student body. They simply choose not to do so.

Despite what I wrote in my previous post I am also far from a fan of the type of academic dishonesty that can happen with regards to student athletes. MY sense is that the schools have a responsibility to provide the athletes with an opportunity to get a quality education, and that a student who cannot cut it should be dropped from the program. We all know that this does not happen. especially in the case of some high profile athletes. But I think it is the case that the vast majority of student athletes do get this chance and do take advantage of it.
 
Last edited:

cutchemist42

Registered User
Apr 7, 2011
6,705
220
Winnipeg
I'd be lying to you if I said that my decision to go to Michigan was in no way influenced by my lifelong football fandom. But it was also by far the best school I got into, both academically and on the gridiron. College is sold as being as much about the experience as the diploma. Part of the appeal of a school like Michigan is the lifestyle element and that includes the 115k fans watching the Wolverines play Ohio State. So I'd imagine that there are kids out there who would decide to get that experience at LSU rather than go to Tulane, sure. It's the same logic that causes a kid to choose an inferior campus university instead of a commuter school with a better academic reputation... they really want the community aspect.

As to funding of higher education... I don't want to go too political or OT, but how is it that Oxbridge and the Sorbonne, etc. manage to remain elite charging tuition fees capped at a fraction of what top American schools demand? Hell, Oxbridge was completely free as recently as a decade ago.

ETA: Anecdotally, a friend of a friend who did his undergrad at MSU ended up attending Appalachian State for grad school... they were already on his list because they offered the program he wanted, but the Michigan upset was definitely a deciding factor for him.

Yeah it is politically, but I find it absurd the amount of waste the American government allows to occur in the education system and how little it supports it. Education is an area I don't think government should skimp on and help people afford it.

If the USA provided better funding to universities, you guys wouldn't need to appeal to emotions in saying the NCAA allows poor kids to attend university. Poor kids are already going to university with no athletic skills in the rest of the world. I mean if I were American, I'd be looking at UBC/UT/McGill.etc because they are still cheaper for international students then out-of-state expenses.

All in all, this problem sucks because of the NFL/NBA setting an arbitrary number to keep player costs down. I really dont think the corruption would exist as badly if Alabama and other schools were existing as a pro-development team first.
 

Brodie

the dream of the 90s is alive in Detroit
Mar 19, 2009
15,399
359
Chicago
What was that Ohio State ad right after they won the national title? "I went to Ohio State, but not because of the football...okay, maybe just a little because of the football." It absolutely exists.

Also, I believe Michigan's football success preceded it becoming a globally elite university.

Ohio State is a great example... it'd be impossible to separate the strength of their football brand from the level of dominance they exert in Ohio politically.

Oh, not you too. You two are seriously going to tell me you picked UMich because of the football program? Like if it didn't exist, you would have passed up on U of M and looked for a better sports program?

:facepalm:

I can't say I'd have passed on U of M, because the cost and academics made them superior to my second choice school. Football wasn't going to pick the college for me, no, but it contributed to my decision... I may have applied to MSU, for example, if I didn't already consider it a rival school.

Not to get on a side tangent but i cant stand that argyment. Theres good paying skill trades jobs that arent being filled instead people are willing to go into deep debt for the "experience". What a farce.

I agree with this. If I hadn't gotten into Big State U, my choices would have been between a small, private out of state liberal arts college (wooo experience) or a bigger more commuter oriented in-state school (booo experience). I like to think I'd have made the right choice. But then I also went into debt to go do half a master's in England so maybe not.
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
There is a danger in evaluating courses/programs based on your own perspective when you ignore the target audience and when you rely only on course description. From my perspective I could say that there is an extremely high probability that the math courses you took as an engineer were mickey-mouse. In fact most engineering courses are very easy compared with the courses I took even in my first year. And guess what, I'd have just as much reason to make that claim about your degree as you do about this one. You see I teach mathematics to engineers, so as you say I know what a math course looks like. Experience over 30 years also tells me about 5-10% of an engineering class would survive the first year math course I regularly teach to mathematics students. So what does that say about your engineering degree?

In fact the answer is that it says very little. The reality is that I respect engineering degrees for their breadth and for the practical value. Engineering degrees are mostly generalist degrees with a technical slant. I don't expect engineers to be competent in abstract mathematics nor in theoretical physics since it is not what the program is about.

You also have no way to compare the nature of the program you linked to with the Stanford program. The Calculus courses in the Stanford program are regular Stanford classes targeted at students without high school calculus classes. But the courses listed cover the same material that a first year Stanford Engineer would.

No one is going to argue that many student athletes have questionable academic plans. But let's at least have some facts in place before we piant everyone with the same brush.

I think I have to quibble with you here. My daughter is an engineering major at U of Michigan. She had AP Calc in high school, and went directly into the Engineering program (UM btw has one of the more highly regarded Engineering schools in the country). She was taking the 'honors' math track-- Calc II and then Differential Equations. I forget what's next in the sequence. These are not blow off math courses, and the only kids in them are math, science and engineering majors. Or someone wanting to go in an Applied Math/Econ route, for example.

You also forget that engineering majors have to take some 'engineering' courses that are physics/mathy courses in disguise-- like Thermodynamics. A course that weeds out probably half the students that survive the math prerequisites. A bit like Organic Chemistry weeding out the pre-meds. (Oh wait! Some engineering majors require Organic Chem as well!)

It's probably the toughest undergrad track to take since you have to take math, physics, chemistry, computer science and what we call generic engineering course. Any study you can find will show that engineering students have to spend more time than any other undergrad track on study time outside the classroom. ;)



Yeah it is politically, but I find it absurd the amount of waste the American government allows to occur in the education system and how little it supports it. Education is an area I don't think government should skimp on and help people afford it.

If the USA provided better funding to universities, you guys wouldn't need to appeal to emotions in saying the NCAA allows poor kids to attend university. Poor kids are already going to university with no athletic skills in the rest of the world. I mean if I were American, I'd be looking at UBC/UT/McGill.etc because they are still cheaper for international students then out-of-state expenses.

All in all, this problem sucks because of the NFL/NBA setting an arbitrary number to keep player costs down. I really dont think the corruption would exist as badly if Alabama and other schools were existing as a pro-development team first.

Even this is a bit of red herring. Very poor kids can qualify for a lot of assistance that can make college almost free. If they actually gain acceptance to a Harvard or Stanford, they don't have to pay a single dime. And the cut-off isn't the poverty line either, but a scale that slides upwards. Only families with six figure incomes can expect to pay the full amount at the elite schools.
 

EvilCoop

What year is it?
Nov 29, 2011
10,192
0
The Black Lodge
so you choose to go to college because they have no football team? this is whats wrong with education in america.

The thing is that no one tells you anything. The High School Counselors are paid off by for-profit colleges half the time and so you have to dismiss them as irrelevant and so the only advice you do get is from the science teacher who went to MSU and who taunts you about being a Walmart Wolverine.

Fortunately, knowing what I know now (and that includes making the football culture a negative aspect of the experience) I will still have chose to go to Michigan. It's the only elite school I could have gone to which was even remotely affordable (If you can call $56,000 over 4 years affordable).

I don't like the theoretical approach the Polsci Department takes, but Chicago is that times 2, so it doesn't really matter (History is my preferred Major of the two I'm taking anyway).
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
I don't like the theoretical approach the Polsci Department takes, but Chicago is that times 2, so it doesn't really matter (History is my preferred Major of the two I'm taking anyway).


It's an easier choice to make for kids in states that have the Public Ivies, an affordable state school vs something private. The private schools' offering isn't going to be 2-3x as great, and expected salaries for say engineering grads will be similar (or determined more by the field and your own grades). If you're in a state without an elite school, then the case might be made for the higher price. UMich actually has about 40% out-of-state admittance right now, the highest ever for them. They charge $42K per year, which is MIT's going rate right now!
 

EvilCoop

What year is it?
Nov 29, 2011
10,192
0
The Black Lodge
It's an easier choice to make for kids in states that have the Public Ivies, an affordable state school vs something private. The private schools' offering isn't going to be 2-3x as great, and expected salaries for say engineering grads will be similar (or determined more by the field and your own grades). If you're in a state without an elite school, then the case might be made for the higher price. UMich actually has about 40% out-of-state admittance right now, the highest ever for them. They charge $42K per year, which is MIT's going rate right now!

Yeah, I went through a bit of an educational protectionist phase where I was like "If you don't like the out of state cost, go to UMass or SUNY." I now realize how difficult that topic now is. :laugh:

The out of staters complain a significant amount about the cost though.
 

Brodie

the dream of the 90s is alive in Detroit
Mar 19, 2009
15,399
359
Chicago
out of staters at UM shouldn't complain since most of them had, like, Tufts as their safety school and would have spent more for less had they ended up there.
 

Hoser

Registered User
Aug 7, 2005
1,846
403
You have completely missed the purpose of this degree. It is not a traditional engineering degree. It is not intended to be an engineering degree.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/ughb/cgi-bin/handbook/index.php/Architectural_Design_Program

Relevant quote: This undergraduate major grants a degree of Bachelor of Science in Engineering with a specialization in Architectural Design.

It's very clearly "intended to be an engineering degree", at least it's very clearly masquerading as one.

Take a look at this page at tell me that this was intended as a bird program for athletes.

I didn't say it's a "bird program for athletes", but the first year is clearly designed for part-time students. Did you just not look at the course track I linked? The freshman year, the entire academic YEAR, is three intro math courses. And you just said,

... there is an extremely high probability that the math courses you took as an engineer were mickey-mouse.

Three mickey-mouse math courses sounds awfully easy on a student-athlete. ;)

That fact that it is not ABET certified does not in any way mean that it is a dead-end as far as career opportunities are concerned.

Absolutely it does mean it's a dead-end in structural and building services engineering. You couldn't even register with the professional association here as a member-in-training with this degree. You'd have to go back and get another bachelor's degree in a 'real' engineering program. You'd probably get credit for a few of the courses in the Stanford program, so it might only take you another three years of full-time studies to get that other undergrad degree that would directly lead into practice as an engineer.

Especially in the architecture field a four year bachelor degree typically does not lead to a license.

I'm well aware of that but this undergrad degree doesn't lead directly to a two-year graduate degree program in architecture either. No more so than any other bachelor's degree.
 

EvilCoop

What year is it?
Nov 29, 2011
10,192
0
The Black Lodge
out of staters at UM shouldn't complain since most of them had, like, Tufts as their safety school and would have spent more for less had they ended up there.

Indeed, I heard a few students from Scandinavia complain about the cost and I'm wondering why they didn't go to their country's elite school which costs all of about $50 a term.
 

PCSPounder

Stadium Groupie
Apr 12, 2012
2,852
564
The Outskirts of Nutria Nanny
Wouldn't happen since the NFL and NBA can't sell talent..

Very true of the NFL. The NBA... as European clubs gain a higher profile, this becomes more of a possibility. There were already minor league teams in the US making money by selling on a player here or there, though most couldn't sustain that way.

Anyways, the academy system has been in decline in Europe for a number of years.

How so? England is all academy... they used to have an apprenticeship system. People rave about Ajax, Barcelona, Real Madrid and several others. Naturally, the big money clubs can send out a lot of players on loan... but the academies are still functional even at places like Sunderland.
 
Last edited:

PCSPounder

Stadium Groupie
Apr 12, 2012
2,852
564
The Outskirts of Nutria Nanny
The pro leagues won't do anything, because the NCAA serves that role at zero expense. The "growing problem" college sports is facing is called "The BCS." That's where all the problems lie. And everyone's solution seems to empower the BCS to be more pro-like and relegate the rest of the NCAA to JV status. The whole reason I'm arguing in this thread is because THAT is unacceptable to me. It's backwards, illogical and morally reprehensible.

It's not everyone's solution. It's the realization that the BCS schools have the power... and, in reality, it's a percentage of the BCS schools that have the power.

Simple truth: if the NCAA tries to rein in the BCS, the BCS schools leave the NCAA and form their own organization. In doing that, they take nearly all the football money (which is most of what's out there) with them, and they probably do serious damage to the basketball tournament (the one thing about college basketball anyone cares about anymore outside North Carolina, Indiana, Kentucky, Kansas, and maybe a few stragglers in old guard East Coast cities). There's an incentive to keep the "little" football schools around, but less so (students are starting to ignore those games, and to a slightly smaller degree, so are the other paying customers). Of course, the basketball tournament draws some of its strength from "the little schools that can," and that's not something BCS schools (many of whom have their own trouble drawing for basketball) really want to do. So the threat to leave is what motivates others to help do their bidding.

Still, between a growing segment in academia finding issues with football (concussions, cheating), a growing segment of taxpayers upset with same, the stresses on cable companies to fight the TV rights bubble (there's no playoff baseball in Boise until Fox shows it)... there's a backlash. That's going to happen. It's not going to kill the golden goose, it probably takes a generation to take hold, but only the small % of BCS schools that really have the clout will continue in a healthy state by my reckoning. Greed will do what greed does.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
I think the essence of the problem is that the entire enterprise is being run under the umbrella of not-for-profit educational institutions.
Yes, there is indeed a massive amount of money being made (revenue side) in these operations. Imagine if they actually had to function like normal business (for profit) since that's in fact is what they are.

This is the very core of my argument. If forced to behave as for-profit business:
-- Your opinion (the popular media opinion) is that athletic departments would have to compensate football and basketball players, and that would be fair and just because you believe those kids deserve it.

-- My opinion is that if they operated as for-profit, all the programs that DON'T make money are getting drastically cut, and that would be devastating for well over 130,000 athletes and 6000 athletic teams.

Float your "separate of athletics from institutions of higher education" proposal to the Women In Sports Foundation. I'm curious as to their response.

Let me ask you this: Would you be in favor of paying all the NCAA football players if it meant NCAA hockey was totally eliminated? (I'm not saying that would definitely happen, but it's a fair question: what's more important, fair compensation for two sports versus opportunity for all sports?)

because of the money they get to keep off the backs of the basketball and football players.
The kids, on the other hand, have no other options really (in terms of development) so they slave away for the schools, have no voice or rights realistically speaking.

Again, the money isn't being made off the kids' backs. It's being made off the fans and TV networks. The kids at San Jose State have the exact same lack of voice and rights as the kids at Ohio State. But no money is being made off of them. (Their athletic department has $8 million in actual revenue and $20 million in expenses. Their university picks up the rest because they want to stay FBS).

like six figure salaries for coaches and staff. There are a lot of other people getting very rich off the sweat of these youngsters, including the networks.

My only interest in the actual figures is to let the market set them. Nothing more, nothing less.

Let's combine these two. First, Your use of "a lot" and "very rich" make that statement laughable.

Secondly, you're ignoring that coaches' high compensation is the product of the very concept you want for the athletes:
"let the market" set it.

The market for both coaches and athletes have been set. Because the fans care enough to fund it, college coaches can get good compensation. But those numbers you have no interest in ARE the market for the players.

Every basketball player in high school has the ability to sell their services to basketball leagues in Europe, South America and Asia. But those leagues are offering less than the value of a college scholarship, or about the same with no expenses covered.

You're right in saying the kids don't really have other options. The kids have no choice because the only people offering them anything for their talent is the NCAA's schools.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
It's not everyone's solution. It's the realization that the BCS schools have the power... and, in reality, it's a percentage of the BCS schools that have the power.

Simple truth: if the NCAA tries to rein in the BCS, the BCS schools leave the NCAA and form their own organization. In doing that, they take nearly all the football money (which is most of what's out there) with them, and they probably do serious damage to the basketball tournament (the one thing about college basketball anyone cares about anymore outside North Carolina, Indiana, Kentucky, Kansas, and maybe a few stragglers in old guard East Coast cities). There's an incentive to keep the "little" football schools around, but less so (students are starting to ignore those games, and to a slightly smaller degree, so are the other paying customers). Of course, the basketball tournament draws some of its strength from "the little schools that can," and that's not something BCS schools (many of whom have their own trouble drawing for basketball) really want to do. So the threat to leave is what motivates others to help do their bidding.

Still, between a growing segment in academia finding issues with football (concussions, cheating), a growing segment of taxpayers upset with same, the stresses on cable companies to fight the TV rights bubble (there's no playoff baseball in Boise until Fox shows it)... there's a backlash. That's going to happen. It's not going to kill the golden goose, it probably takes a generation to take hold, but only the small % of BCS schools that really have the clout will continue in a healthy state by my reckoning. Greed will do what greed does.

I agree with you completely. The NCAA is between a rock and a hard place with most of these issues, and that's why I am arguing here. It's about HOW to reform, not "do they need reform?"

EVERYONE knows these issues need reform. This is why the Big Ten is "out in front" of the reform. They are trying to dictate the reforms in a way that keeps the capitalism flowing for them.

The Big Ten's agenda is "we should pay the athletes what's fair" because it's an opportunity to cut competition. Because the BCS schools can afford to pay their football/MBB players AND fund competitive teams in non-revenue sports, they want to force everyone else in Division I to do so.

Because they know paying men's basketball players will hamper the ability of schools like Butler, Gonzaga, VCU, George Mason, Wichita State and all the other "non-big time football schools" to make millions in revenue from TV contracts and NCAA men's basketball appearances, because it undercuts their funding.

It paves the way for more BCS schools to win championships in non-revenue sports if these programs lose money from their budgets:
-- UCSB, UMBC, Creighton, Northridge are top 10 in men's soccer
-- Pacific, UCSB, Long Beach, Pepperdine are top 10 in men's water polo
-- Portland, Santa Clara, Denver, UCF, BYU are top 25 in women's soccer
-- Hawaii, San Diego, Colorado State, BYU are top 25 in volleyball.
-- Fullerton, Rice, Cal Poly, Mercer, Campbell, Austin Peay, South Alabama, Irvine were top 25 in baseball.

The Big Ten & BCS want all those programs to not be able to compete on their level in ALL-SPORTS, and paying football and men's basketball players will crush their funding.


The NCAA's biggest obstacle to fair and just reform is the BCS. Crush it, and almost all the problems go away. But the BCS has the power to reject reform and relegate the NCAA to JV status, and that would be soul crushing for 270+ schools and all their athletes.
 

Brodie

the dream of the 90s is alive in Detroit
Mar 19, 2009
15,399
359
Chicago
The battle is lost on that score... just look at how football attendance is declining at the non-BCS schools. Go to a MAC football game and count how many of the fans in the (half-empty) stands are wearing Michigan and Ohio State hats and shirts... they're just there to kill three hours before the "real" games start. The rest of the student body are at home watching whatever ACC game is on ESPN at noon
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
How about...
For every scholarship athlete that does NOT graduate in a reasonable time (5-6 years?), that program loses a scholarship.
Recruiting would change to a heavier leaning academic focus.:sarcasm:

The problem with that is the penalty is counter-intuitive to the mission. The whole point of college athletics is to provide education opportunities through athletics. Taking away a scholarship provides one less educational opportunity.

It's not unlike all the other suggestions of separating forcing the big time football schools to act MORE like a pro league (paying players) because they behave too much like a pro league (by generating revenue).

The better penalty would be "if your kids don't graduate, we raise the athletic eligibility requirements on your next scholarship athletes, so you HAVE to bring in better students -- and you have to keep educating the kid who isn't academically eligible for you."

Cant believe im saying saying this but the europeans have it right. Have each NFL and NBA team have an academy system.

This was discussed earlier in the thread, actually. And it's another illustration of why college athletics isn't this snarling evil beast.

Just compare the two development systems (academy vs NCAA) in men's soccer AT THE PLAYERS' EXIT:

-- 80% of NCAA Division I men's soccer players earn degrees. If they don't get signed professionally, they start their post-athletic lives with a college degree.

-- 0% of players earn degrees from the Academy program. If they don't get signed professionally, they have to pay for college on their own dime.


This is also the reason the number of foreign players in NCAA sports is SKYROCKETING. The European players recognize that the NCAA is a far better deal.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
The battle is lost on that score... just look at how football attendance is declining at the non-BCS schools. Go to a MAC football game and count how many of the fans in the (half-empty) stands are wearing Michigan and Ohio State hats and shirts... they're just there to kill three hours before the "real" games start. The rest of the student body are at home watching whatever ACC game is on ESPN at noon

And that's why the college athlete's talent is worth so little on the open market... because if you put an elite running back at a non-BCS school (like when Chris Johnson was at ECU, or Matt Forte at Tulane), the attendance is still paltry.

Since you brought up the MAC, when Ben Roethlisberger was at Miami Ohio, the RedHawks were 81st in attendance. That's the best their team and attendance ever was.

The players themselves don't bring that much to the table. It's the brand people are paying to see.
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
In an effort to link this back to hockey in some way, I know that the NCAA route is not the primary choice for hockey players trying to get to the NHL. The highest probability for them still appears to be the Canadian junior leagues, then the AHL. If I recall, when Paul Kelley left the NHLPA, he was working on trying to promote the NCAA option-- the offer of free education being one selling point.

So why isn't the offer of a college degree something that grabs a large core of the best junior talent available in North America?

Also-- if I have time (hint: someone else can beat me to this) but how has the NCAA-track player done in terms of getting into the NHL from say the 1980s to present day?
 

knorthern knight

Registered User
Mar 18, 2011
4,120
0
GTA
The NBA has a development league. Actually, the NFL had a development league in Europe for several years. If they could afford a league in Europe, they can afford one in the USA. Not only that; it would also kneecap any future WFL wannabee. Oh, and don't forget that the CFL also functions as a development league for the NFL.
 

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,285
12,586
South Mountain
So why isn't the offer of a college degree something that grabs a large core of the best junior talent available in North America?

There's a nasty dilemma with major junior players. Since the NCAA considers major juniors as being paid and ineligible, most players have to make a decision whether or not to play in the CHL before knowing if they could get a scholarship.

Curious what the USHL to college rate is.
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
There's a nasty dilemma with major junior players. Since the NCAA considers major juniors as being paid and ineligible, most players have to make a decision whether or not to play in the CHL before knowing if they could get a scholarship.

Curious what the USHL to college rate is.


So if given a halfway viable option for further development, a lot of athletes could make a go of it without the "free" education. :)
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
This is the very core of my argument. If forced to behave as for-profit business:
-- Your opinion (the popular media opinion) is that athletic departments would have to compensate football and basketball players, and that would be fair and just because you believe those kids deserve it.

Sure they deserve it. They're the product. Without the elite level (the best football available in the world before you get to the NFL) players locked into the system, would you get multimillion dollar contracts from NATIONAL broadcasters? I think the level of the play has something to do with it.

-- My opinion is that if they operated as for-profit, all the programs that DON'T make money are getting drastically cut, and that would be devastating for well over 130,000 athletes and 6000 athletic teams.

I would cut every single athletic program that rewards a small percentage of students out completely from academic settings. :)

I would support schools having facilities that ALL students could use for sporting activities.

Float your "separate of athletics from institutions of higher education" proposal to the Women In Sports Foundation. I'm curious as to their response.

I'm an equal opportunity extremist in this regard as well. Kill it all. :D

Let me ask you this: Would you be in favor of paying all the NCAA football players if it meant NCAA hockey was totally eliminated? (I'm not saying that would definitely happen, but it's a fair question: what's more important, fair compensation for two sports versus opportunity for all sports?)

Well, see, they wouldn't really be NCAA players any longer if my view of it was implemented. They would be employees of house brands, but they would not be students. The schools could set this up for whichever sports they pleased to do so. Let's just drop the farce that these some of these kids belong in universities at all. Admissions should use identical criteria for all students; and everyone has to take the same exams under the same conditions (for accredited, degree-granting programs) that aren't an embarrassment to the university. :)


Again, the money isn't being made off the kids' backs. It's being made off the fans and TV networks. The kids at San Jose State have the exact same lack of voice and rights as the kids at Ohio State. But no money is being made off of them. (Their athletic department has $8 million in actual revenue and $20 million in expenses. Their university picks up the rest because they want to stay FBS).

Without the elite athletes in the big, money-making sports, there would be much less money. So again, yes, they ARE making money off the kids' backs. And their images.



Let's combine these two. First, Your use of "a lot" and "very rich" make that statement laughable.

Secondly, you're ignoring that coaches' high compensation is the product of the very concept you want for the athletes:
"let the market" set it.

Not at all. The schools' general funds are subsidizing the system. The infrastructure is there to offer the "education" to the athletes. The schools don't pay taxes on that revenue either, do they?

I don't mind that the best coaches can make that kind of money, but I don't like the hypocrisy of the system, the tax-exempt status (which I guess cheats the rest of society of that money going to taxes). If they can run efficiently and pay the best coaches $5 MM, so be it.

The market for both coaches and athletes have been set. Because the fans care enough to fund it, college coaches can get good compensation. But those numbers you have no interest in ARE the market for the players.

Every basketball player in high school has the ability to sell their services to basketball leagues in Europe, South America and Asia. But those leagues are offering less than the value of a college scholarship, or about the same with no expenses covered.

Oh please. The market is an artificial one with all sorts of barriers and subsidies. Please!

Yes, 18 yr olds playing basketball in Detroit, Louisiana, or Carmel, IN, have a wonderful grasp of their options in a FOREIGN country, and know that the NBA scouts would be there to watch them play. Never mind the language and cultural issues. KevFu, this is one of your most ridiculous proposals/solutions ever on this board.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
In an effort to link this back to hockey in some way, I know that the NCAA route is not the primary choice for hockey players trying to get to the NHL. The highest probability for them still appears to be the Canadian junior leagues, then the AHL. If I recall, when Paul Kelley left the NHLPA, he was working on trying to promote the NCAA option-- the offer of free education being one selling point.

So why isn't the offer of a college degree something that grabs a large core of the best junior talent available in North America?

Also-- if I have time (hint: someone else can beat me to this) but how has the NCAA-track player done in terms of getting into the NHL from say the 1980s to present day?

Because those players are choosing a path with the goal of going to the pros. The vast majority of college athletes are not.

So if given a halfway viable option for further development, a lot of athletes could make a go of it without the "free" education. :)

Yes, in baseball as well. Every high schooler is totally, 100% free to sell their services to the highest bidder (in any profession. Athletically, musically, academically, what have you).

The problem is that that the vast majority of athletes who go on to play NCAA sports simply have no takers because of supply and demand. The market value for college athletes is NOT what BCS schools generate in revenue, their market value is what they could get to play professionally.

The NCAA takes all the players with out professional offers. The revenue generated is off the brand; not off the talent.
 

EvilCoop

What year is it?
Nov 29, 2011
10,192
0
The Black Lodge
Because those players are choosing a path with the goal of going to the pros. The vast majority of college athletes are not.



Yes, in baseball as well. Every high schooler is totally, 100% free to sell their services to the highest bidder (in any profession. Athletically, musically, academically, what have you).

The problem is that that the vast majority of athletes who go on to play NCAA sports simply have no takers because of supply and demand. The market value for college athletes is NOT what BCS schools generate in revenue, their market value is what they could get to play professionally.

The NCAA takes all the players with out professional offers. The revenue generated is off the brand; not off the talent.

Except that isn't true, FGCU's new-found success has nothing to do with the brand, which is worth peanuts, and has everything to do with the players.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->