ACC’s record revenue surpasses $300 million

[ClydeBrick]

So we have to stay communist so no feelings get hurt? What's the problem with the SMU bagmen? At least if the restrictions were removed we'd know.

Communist? No one is talking about letting the athletes become owners of the athletic associations and there is an economic exchange between the player and the educational institution - the player has to take advantage of the offer. Feelings get hurt? If collegiate sports disappeared tomorrow, I would find something else to entertain myself as ultimately collegiate sport is about entertainment. The touchy-feely BS about sport existing to build character ends when money enters the equation.


The problem with bagmen? I guess you think that money should breed success in sport, not the other way around.

Even the professional sports leagues acknowledge that having unrestricted spending on player salaries is something that would ruin their sport's ability to make money. Who would follow baseball if the Yankees just bought every decent player? Even Yankee fans would stop caring if the World Series win was assured on opening day. Why would you think that colleges would somehow overcome this problem?

Since you are on this site, I assume that you support GT sports. How do you think that paying players a market-based wage or allowing for what you call "the Olympic model" will affect GT's ability to attract athletes? Will GT do better or worse? Of course we would know about the money if we removed the restrictions. The money is hardly hidden in the current system.

If an unrestricted player-payment system is somehow introduced to college football, I believe that the P-5 would need to become the P-32 - as in 32 teams. All other programs would have to adapt to all their sports becoming "non-revenue" as they would no longer be able to compete at the same level. You want to play softball, tennis, golf, rugby, row, or run track? Pay your own way - otherwise go to class. Then, the educational institutions left in the P-32 would just need to sign a contract with an NFL team. Boom, minor league football.

Hey maybe that is not such a bad idea, cutting the student athletic fee would save non-athlete students (and their parents) lots of money.

 

[Skeptic]

And once again, you choose to ignore the fact that your issue is with the NFL . No one is forcing players to play for college. Nothing changes that fact. The players are free to sit and wait for the three years.

At the risk of teaching both ways, a la Lyndon Johnson, seems to me the problem with this logic is it revisits the professional baseball contract that lasted for a hundred years. Once a player signed, that team owned him for life, though nobody said he had to sign it. The consequences were obvious though.

 

[Animal02]

There is no collusion. You need to go back and examine the history of why the NCAA rules are in place. Back when Bobby Dodd was the coach at Tech, the players were allowed to work during the summer, they were allowed to sell their allotment of tickets (and at Tech, that wasn't an insignificant sum), there were no scholarship limits, there was no real oversight on the academics side. All of these rules were put into place because institutions were abusing the system to gain a competitive advantage. As @AE 87 stated, it's about the branding for the university.

I believe there are things that need to change in the system. Like I said before, parts of the system is broken badly. This includes the continuation insurance for injurys sustained during playing. However, this cuts both ways too. There's a certain risk the student-athlete shoulders to play. That risk involves potential long-term damage to their body. I don't claim to have all the answers, but it surely isn't to treat student-athletes like employees of the university. If that ever comes to pass, I think there will be a very strong shift towards non-athletic scholarship football, like the Ivy League.

In a nutshell, the NFL does not want the burden of maintaining a minor league like MLB does. The costs associated with it would be prohibited. There would not be the attendance nor TV revenue to support such a league, as well as the player injuries etc that they would be liable for. The only reason there is an "value" to a college player is because the NFL grew into the business that it is. This attempt to saddle universities with the costs of running a minor league system is naive and foolish.

 

[LawTalkin Jacket]

My issue is with competing colleges (in the market for the best players) colluding with one another to place an artificial cap on compensation to players. In the absence of a collectively bargained agreement between the schools and representatives for the players, the caps are probably illegal.

not to mention that the NCAA has a tacit agreement with NBA and NFL to go along with whatever rules the pro leagues like - that is collusion and illegal restraint of trade. Why would NCAA cooperate with NFL 3 year rule in football, but at the same time be ok with the NBA 1 year rule in basketball? Someone, somewhere has evidence that the NCAA is taking steps to work with the pro leagues and coordinate the various rules which is an anti-trust violation because the kids are not allowed to make a living at their chosen profession in this country unless they play for free for some amount of time. This would be OK if it were collectively bargained via a union, but as we all know, it is not.

 

[AE 87]

not to mention that the NCAA has a tacit agreement with NBA and NFL to go along with whatever rules the pro leagues like - that is collusion and illegal restraint of trade. Why would NCAA cooperate with NFL 3 year rule in football, but at the same time be ok with the NBA 1 year rule in basketball? Someone, somewhere has evidence that the NCAA is taking steps to work with the pro leagues and coordinate the various rules which is an anti-trust violation because the kids are not allowed to make a living at their chosen profession in this country unless they play for free for some amount of time. This would be OK if it were collectively bargained via a union, but as we all know, it is not.

Yeah, and practically speaking, most jobs can be learned on the job. Yet, there seems to be a wink and a nod agreement by many to not hire anyone without a college degree. It's a conspiracy to put young people in debt and give jobs to pointy heads with little skill.

 

[deeeznutz]

not to mention that the NCAA has a tacit agreement with NBA and NFL to go along with whatever rules the pro leagues like - that is collusion and illegal restraint of trade. Why would NCAA cooperate with NFL 3 year rule in football, but at the same time be ok with the NBA 1 year rule in basketball? Someone, somewhere has evidence that the NCAA is taking steps to work with the pro leagues and coordinate the various rules which is an anti-trust violation because the kids are not allowed to make a living at their chosen profession in this country unless they play for free for some amount of time. This would be OK if it were collectively bargained via a union, but as we all know, it is not.

The NCAA "cooperates" with those rules because they have absolutely zero say in the rules those organizations set. The NCAA is not the group who decides who is draft eligible.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

The only reason there is an "value" to a college player is because the NFL grew into the business that it is.

Not sure about this. Pro football was a joke in its early days and most people were far more interested in college football. During those days there were lots of stories of colleges bringing in ringers and paying them, or coming up with big bucks to get the star quarterback out of high school. So even when the pro game was an after thought college athletes had a monetary value. That does not negate the rest of your argument however.

 

[Skeptic]

Yeah, and practically speaking, most jobs can be learned on the job. Yet, there seems to be a wink and a nod agreement by many to not hire anyone without a college degree. It's a conspiracy to put young people in debt and give jobs to pointy heads with little skill.

I don't see the conspiracy you see, but it does seem evident that the days of a HS diploma preparing you to get out and learn a job, skilled, trade or white collar, are gone. (Think of all those WWII vets who entered the work place and wound up running companies.) Worse it is moving toward graduate degrees. Maybe there is a conspiracy, at that.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Why can't a guy go play in the arena league for 3 years and get paid?

 

[mmbt0ne]

In a nutshell, the NFL does not want the burden of maintaining a minor league like MLB does. The costs associated with it would be prohibited.

Among all the ridiculous arguments in this thread, crying poverty for the NFL has to be the best one.

Somehow the NBA, which brings in barely half as much revenue, can subsidize a developmental league and the WNBA but NFL can't afford to run it's own minor league system? Puh-lease.

 

[Animal02]

Among all the ridiculous arguments in this thread, crying poverty for the NFL has to be the best one.

Somehow the NBA, which brings in barely half as much revenue, can subsidize a developmental league and the WNBA but NFL can't afford to run it's own minor league system? Puh-lease.

What is ridiculous is comparing a 12 man roster team with minimal equipment costs, liability, and with an almost unlimited number of games that can be played with the costs associated with a 50+ member team with substantial equipment, liability and transportation costs as well as a limited number of games that can be played. You really want to keep with that comparison?

 

[JorgeJonas]

not to mention that the NCAA has a tacit agreement with NBA and NFL to go along with whatever rules the pro leagues like - that is collusion and illegal restraint of trade. Why would NCAA cooperate with NFL 3 year rule in football, but at the same time be ok with the NBA 1 year rule in basketball? Someone, somewhere has evidence that the NCAA is taking steps to work with the pro leagues and coordinate the various rules which is an anti-trust violation because the kids are not allowed to make a living at their chosen profession in this country unless they play for free for some amount of time. This would be OK if it were collectively bargained via a union, but as we all know, it is not.

I'm not sure there's an agreement in place between the NCAA and professional sports leagues, but the balance of your comment is correct. If the schools haven't colluded to limit the players' income, it does seem like quite the coincidence that all 128 FBS schools offer the same compensation, regardless of talent, and have rules sanctioning an institution for breaking them. Whatever, change is coming sooner rather than later.

 

[mmbt0ne]

What is ridiculous is comparing a 12 man roster team with minimal equipment costs, liability, and with an almost unlimited number of games that can be played with the costs associated with a 50+ member team with substantial equipment, liability and transportation costs as well as a limited number of games that can be played. You really want to keep with that comparison?

Yes, I would actually because there are easily available public numbers. Apparently for $302M the ACC was able to finance well over 1,500 scholarships, and field hundreds of teams across a variety of sports playing thousands of games.

If we want to limit it to just football, it cost the ACC schools $178M for the 2011 season (http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2011/02/24/acc-football-not-cash-cow-like-sec-and-big-ten/)

Pay each player on a 65-man minor league roster $30k/year (a very hefty minor league salary) and that number goes to $202M.

But sure, a $9B/yr organization can't afford a minor league.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Yes, I would actually because there are easily available public numbers. Apparently for $302M the ACC was able to finance well over 1,500 scholarships, and field hundreds of teams across a variety of sports playing thousands of games.

If we want to limit it to just football, it cost the ACC schools $178M for the 2011 season (http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2011/02/24/acc-football-not-cash-cow-like-sec-and-big-ten/)

Pay each player on a 65-man minor league roster $30k/year (a very hefty minor league salary) and that number goes to $202M.

But sure, a $9B/yr organization can't afford a minor league.

Oh, they can afford it alright, no question about that. The point is they don't have to because the NCAA is carrying their water for them.

Slightly off topic but somewhat analogous to this was a review I heard on NPR a few years ago of a book a guy had written about baseball. He had some staggering numbers showing how major league baseball is subsidized from little league to farm systems to major league ball parks. It was amazing the profit margins that were created as a result. But if people love the game enough they will love the system, even as they blindly take their hard earned money and stuff it in the pockets of billionaires.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Where is there any collusion between the NFL and NCAA?? NCAA receives ZERO money from the NFL....there is none.

Colleges have one primary mission...education. Sports are ancillary to that plain and simple, regardless of any revenue sports may generate. To suggest that the NCAA should be required to act as a de facto minor league to the NFL is pure garbage. Take your request to the NFL. That is where it belongs.

 

[mmbt0ne]

Oh, they can afford it alright, no question about that. The point is they don't have to because the NCAA is carrying their water for them.

Slightly off topic but somewhat analogous to this was a review I heard on NPR a few years ago of a book a guy had written about baseball. He had some staggering numbers showing how major league baseball is subsidized from little league to farm systems to major league ball parks. It was amazing the profit margins that were created as a result. But if people love the game enough they will love the system, even as they blindly take their hard earned money and stuff it in the pockets of billionaires.

Right. I mean, I get why they don't want to. But in no way are the costs prohibitive. You could run a minor league for 5 years on what every new stadium costs.

As for the whole "they already get paid via scholarships" and "if they're employees, tax the scholarship" arguments, I wonder if people would make the same point about students getting scholarships alongside paid GRA positions?

Because when GT offered me a full ride and paid research position I didn't have pay taxes on the scholarship portion of that.
Also, I was able to get different offers from different schools and pick the one that was best for me.

Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of students do that same math every single year and somehow it hasn't torn down the fabric of higher education.

Meanwhile we have rules in place that say "oh, if you take THIS scholarship you actually aren't allowed to work for more than $2k/yr, for anyone" because it's supposedly too hard to track people. Schools have Co-Op and Internship offices that service thousands of students per year but AAs can't monitor whether or not an athlete is cheating the system. Again, seems dubious at best.

Oh, and that rule doesn't just apply to scholarship athletes, non-scholarship athletes are capped on how much they're allowed to make as well.

Again, THE NCAA WON'T LET PEOPLE WORK EVEN THEY AREN'T GETTING A SCHOLARSHIP.

No one puts these kind of restrictions on a CS major who got a full ride, so if you want to argue that it's all about education then how about treating athletes the same way the other 99% of scholarship students get treated.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I'm not completely opposed to cost of living stipends for athletes similar to what is offered in GRAs. The slippery slope I worry about is the amount these stipends might end up at. Tying player stipends to GRA cost of living stipends, rules that they not exceed a college's GRA amount, might be the easy answer to this.

What I oppose is the idea that players deserve salaries and benefits for playing.

 

[AE 87]

Right. I mean, I get why they don't want to. But in no way are the costs prohibitive. You could run a minor league for 5 years on what every new stadium costs.

As for the whole "they already get paid via scholarships" and "if they're employees, tax the scholarship" arguments, I wonder if people would make the same point about students getting scholarships alongside paid GRA positions?

Because when GT offered me a full ride and paid research position I didn't have pay taxes on the scholarship portion of that.
Also, I was able to get different offers from different schools and pick the one that was best for me.

Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of students do that same math every single year and somehow it hasn't torn down the fabric of higher education.

Meanwhile we have rules in place that say "oh, if you take THIS scholarship you actually aren't allowed to work for more than $2k/yr, for anyone" because it's supposedly too hard to track people. Schools have Co-Op and Internship offices that service thousands of students per year but AAs can't monitor whether or not an athlete is cheating the system. Again, seems dubious at best.

Oh, and that rule doesn't just apply to scholarship athletes, non-scholarship athletes are capped on how much they're allowed to make as well.

Again, THE NCAA WON'T LET PEOPLE WORK EVEN THEY AREN'T GETTING A SCHOLARSHIP.

No one puts these kind of restrictions on a CS major who got a full ride, so if you want to argue that it's all about education then how about treating athletes the same way the other 99% of scholarship students get treated.

It seems that there are two basic issues raised here. Correct me if I've misunderstood.

1) should scholarships be considered payment for work, classifying recipients as employees

2) should athletes be allowed to pursue outside employment

On (1), it seems to me you've misunderstood the other side.

As your points show, scholarships are not currently considered taxable income for athletes or anyone else. For this reason, athletes are not considered employees. They are students who have agreed to participate on a sports team in exchange for the scholarship.

However, if you frame their participation as employment for which the scholarship is payment then you risk redefining scholarships more generally as well. The problem only arises when you frame the question as one of exploited employees.

On (2), I think that these rules arose in response to abuse. It seems to me that these kinds of rules, including scholarship limits, also serve a similar role as salary caps in pro sports, competitiveness.

I think both are worth discussing, but I see the issues as more complex than your post suggests.

 

[JorgeJonas]

It seems that there are two basic issues raised here. Correct me if I've misunderstood.

1) should scholarships be considered payment for work, classifying recipients as employees

2) should athletes be allowed to pursue outside employment

On (1), it seems to me you've misunderstood the other side.

As your points show, scholarships are not currently considered taxable income for athletes or anyone else. For this reason, athletes are not considered employees. They are students who have agreed to participate on a sports team in exchange for the scholarship.

However, if you frame their participation as employment for which the scholarship is payment then you risk redefining scholarships more generally as well. The problem only arises when you frame the question as one of exploited employees.

On (2), I think that these rules arose in response to abuse. It seems to me that these kinds of rules, including scholarship limits, also serve a similar role as salary caps in pro sports, competitiveness.

I think both are worth discussing, but I see the issues as more complex than your post suggests.

The second issue is really not what is driving the "athletes getting paid" bus; it's the first. And the issue here is whether the NCAA has illegally capped payments to athletes (a restraint of trade). It's my opinion that they have, but the analysis is not complete there (though that's where, for the most part, people stop). The next issue is whether those restraints are more pro-competitive than they are anti-competitive (what that means depends on the judge. Yay for lawyers!)

It's my expectation that the athletes will pass the first prong, and it is my hope that they pass the second prong of the test. The interesting aspect of this whole discussion is that the second prong of the test is where the majority of the disagreement lies. We've seen some comments alluding to that part, but for the most part, everyone is talking about whether or not the scholarships are their salary or not, which misses the point. If a cartel (my own loaded word, so feel free to use your own) colludes to cap compensation, then there is a restraint of trade. The issue will be whether that promotes competition (in the market for athletes, not on the field) or decreases it.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

The crux of your argument Jorge is the stipulation players are employees. A court may rule that is the case eventually. Will be a ridiculous ruling if it occurs but those happen more and more frequently nowadays.