Proposal for Paying Players

[dparker]

I doubt this proposal is on anyone's actual radar but it's something to discuss during a slow time.

http://rajivsethi.blogspot.com/2016/01/college-sports-and-deadweight-loss.html

Since most kids won't play in the NFL I like the idea of linking their pay to graduation and especially like linking it to the school system they come from. I think this correctly lines up everyone incentives. The player benefits by getting a degree and the schools are properly incentivized to prepare them for more than athletics.

[scottycameron]

I doubt this proposal is on anyone's actual radar but it's something to discuss during a slow time.

http://rajivsethi.blogspot.com/2016/01/college-sports-and-deadweight-loss.html

Since most kids won't play in the NFL I like the idea of linking their pay to graduation and especially like linking it to the school system they come from. I think this correctly lines up everyone incentives. The player benefits by getting a degree and the schools are properly incentivized to prepare them for more than athletics.

How are they going to buy tattoos with that crap?

[AlmostPositive]

If you're paying them you should be able to fire them if they don't meet expectations.

[Schultzy]

I don't want my taxpayer $ going to pay college athletes. The inventory of players to fill scholarships is huge already, and it will do nothing to curb impermissible benefits.

If it's so bad playing college sports they wouldn't be fighting so hard for the scholarships but I do think they should be able to work wherever they want in the offseason.

[Martianlander]

If you're paying them you should be able to fire them if they don't meet expectations.

+1. I believe it has also been noted before, if you pay them and they become employees (or technically extra labor), you have to give them a 1099 form, and they have to pay taxes, which opens up a whole new can of worms.

[Liverpooldawg]

They already are well paid. Ask anyone who has a kid in college not on scholarship how well they are payed.

[Reason2succeed]

If you're paying them you should be able to fire them if they don't meet expectations.

Haven't you heard? The coach can cut a player whenever they want to and their scholarship goes with it. What else do you want?

I am all for paying athletes but I don't really agree in deferring their income. I don't quite understand why people feel so strongly about bringing incentives out of the underworld to above board. We all know that many D-1 football players receive impermissible benefits but for some reason we are okay with a system where everyone is breaking the rules. Paying players within the rules allows players to operate in honesty which is an ethic that the SEC claims to represent.

The problem with the system we have now is highlighted in the Will Redmond situation. Thank God he made it to the NFL because if he hadn't then he would have been the sole loser in a situation which theoretically benefited MSU more than him. He could have gone to any other school and likely received the same thing. The reason we assume he got the alleged deal is to get him to come to State. However, State loses very little in his punishment (the loss of one player when we have many others) on the other hand he misses valuable playing time that he can never recoup which could have cost him a shot at his ultimate goal, the NFL.

In response to players getting our tax dollars, my property tax dollars pay for NRG Stadium in Houston whether I like it or not. Surely the multi-billion dollar NFL and their multimillionaire owners could pay for their own stadiums...but they don't. We do. Does that stop you from watching the NFL?***

[Reason2succeed]

Oh yeah, and just to rub salt in the wound the NFL is tax exempt and doesn't pay the federal income tax you pay personally. How this makes sense, I don't know.

[Political Hack]

Haven't you heard? The coach can cut a player whenever they want to and their scholarship goes with it. What else do you want?

I am all for paying athletes but I don't really agree in deferring their income. I don't quite understand why people feel so strongly about bringing incentives out of the underworld to above board. We all know that many D-1 football players receive impermissible benefits but for some reason we are okay with a system where everyone is breaking the rules. Paying players within the rules allows players to operate in honesty which is an ethic that the SEC claims to represent.

The problem with the system we have now is highlighted in the Will Redmond situation. Thank God he made it to the NFL because if he hadn't then he would have been the sole loser in a situation which theoretically benefited MSU more than him. He could have gone to any other school and likely received the same thing. The reason we assume he got the alleged deal is to get him to come to State. However, State loses very little in his punishment (the loss of one player when we have many others) on the other hand he misses valuable playing time that he can never recoup which could have cost him a shot at his ultimate goal, the NFL.

In response to players getting our tax dollars, my property tax dollars pay for NRG Stadium in Houston whether I like it or not. Surely the multi-billion dollar NFL and their multimillionaire owners could pay for their own stadiums...but they don't. We do. Does that stop you from watching the NFL?***

Read the allegations. Will was firmly committed WAY BEFORE there were any allegations of a car being bought/discounted/undervalued or whatever buzz word they thought would stick. Long story short, he wasn't bought. In fact he walked away from much much more than most will ever realize to go to school where he wanted to go.

[dparker]

I don't think this proposal is anything about using tax dollars. The way that I read it is that instead of investing athletic dividends into things that don't matter (exotic building materials, etc.) use that money for players. And to get around the paying of amateur issue, only pay them (besides stipend/scholorship) after they graduate and are no longer amateur athletes. Pulling directly from their conclusion


This would provide both resources and incentives to improve academic preparation as well as athletic development at schools. Those talented few who make it to the highest competitive levels in college sports would clearly benefit, since their compensation would be in cash rather than exotic building materials. But the benefits would extend to entire communities, and link academic and athletic performance in a manner both healthy and enduring. It's admittedly a more paternalistic approach than pure cash payments, but surely less paternalistic than the status quo.

[Schultzy]

So there is enough money going into "exotic building materials" to pay student athletes...no. It will be sold this way but it will soon morph into taxpayer $.

People are already deciding the deal is good enough and are lining up to participate.

[Schultzy]

I am all for paying athletes but I don't really agree in deferring their income. I don't quite understand why people feel so strongly about bringing incentives out of the underworld to above board. We all know that many D-1 football players receive impermissible benefits but for some reason we are okay with a system where everyone is breaking the rules. Paying players within the rules allows players to operate in honesty which is an ethic that the SEC claims to represent.

*

You cannot pay enough in stipends to make programs stop paying impermissible benefits.

[Reason2succeed]

Read the allegations. Will was firmly committed WAY BEFORE there were any allegations of a car being bought/discounted/undervalued or whatever buzz word they thought would stick. Long story short, he wasn't bought. In fact he walked away from much much more than most will ever realize to go to school where he wanted to go.

I wasn't arguing that. I agree.

[Homedawg]

You cannot pay enough in stipends to make programs stop paying impermissible benefits.

This^ anyone who thinks otherwise, believes the rebels put together all of those classes out of hard work, and relationship building, and is a complete utter moron. That's all.

[Reason2succeed]

So there is enough money going into "exotic building materials" to pay student athletes...no. It will be sold this way but it will soon morph into taxpayer $.

People are already deciding the deal is good enough and are lining up to participate.

They are lining up to participate because it is the only way to the NFL. The NCAA's rules and the NFL's rules have created a funnel (which I am appreciative of because I value education) that forces players to go to college.

If there was a minor league system like there is in baseball then NCAA football would be screwed. As many players as the minor league would accept would sign with them out of high school.

[NYDawg]

As usual, the incentive structures line up perfectly in ivory tower economics because there are some huge assumptions about how people will act. In the real world, people target benchmarks and find the easiest path to achieving them...falsifying entrance exams, funneling athletes into majors where graduation is virtually assured, etc. In short, EXACTLY what we already see, only with a direct financial incentive for school systems to go along with it. And if anyone actually thinks any money that went back to the players' schools would go into improving the quality of their academic programs, I've got some swamp land for sale on the cheap.

[RocketDawg]

I don't like the idea of paying athletes. For one thing, they already get paid ... the get full tuition, room and board, and I assume probably free books. Even at MSU that's worth probably $20K a year. At a place like Vanderbilt it's worth maybe $60K ... might even be more. And (some of you may not like this) about 90% of them major in something totally useless just so they'll be called student athletes. And even then, they seem to have a hard time going to class ... just not interested. Crap, some of them wouldn't even be accepted into a college if not for their physical abilities ... certainly not because of educational accomplishments. College is a time of sacrifice for all of us.

I majored in aerospace engineering when I was there. That curriculum is hard as hell. I had to pay full tuition, pay for a dorm room, and pay for food. Nothing was given to me even though I worked my butt off, and even did some projects where the University made some money. It's just a time of sacrifice, as I said. I took either 19 or 20 semester hours each semester, and many were 1-hour labs that in reality required about 12 hours per week. I was a co-op student, but the school didn't pay me for that.

Primarily what the University provided for me, with a lot of hard work and long payless hours on my part, was a degree for which I was able to get a well-paying job. For that I am grateful. The five years I spent at MSU were some of the most enjoyable of my life ... but I wouldn't want to go through that again. :) Well ... I did go to grad school at another school, but that's different altogether. Athletes should likewise be grateful, and a select few of those should be VERY grateful because it enabled them to become millionaires overnight upon completing their athletic eligibility, or even before.

They don't need a paycheck while playing a sport for the University. They get plenty already ... much more than other students. Sure, they (especially members of the Big 3 sports) bring in money to the school ... but they volunteered to do so ... nobody twisted their collective arms.

Rant over. :)

[Schultzy]

They are lining up to participate because it is the only way to the NFL. The NCAA's rules and the NFL's rules have created a funnel (which I am appreciative of because I value education) that forces players to go to college.

If there was a minor league system like there is in baseball then NCAA football would be screwed. As many players as the minor league would accept would sign with them out of high school.

If a minor league system were feasible for football it would already exist.

And if a developmental league were to ever exist the college game would still be popular because of the emotional ties people have to their universities.

[Reason2succeed]

What amazes me is how people who are free market capitalist in every other arena of life suddenly see the value in communism when it comes to what high school football players can do with their talent.

Brian Bosworth agreed with me. "On more than one occasion Bosworth referred to the NCAA as the "National Communists Against Athletes." He wore a T-shirt bearing that slogan during the 1987 Orange Bowl game following the 1986 season."-wiki

[Reason2succeed]

If a minor league system were feasible for football it would already exist.

And if a developmental league were to ever exist the college game would still be popular because of the emotional ties people have to their universities.

The NFL has repeatedly blocked the development of other leagues by making rules or outright buying them out. There are still developmental leagues that are trying to develop but they have a hard time competing with college which have a 100 year head start and more importantly DON'T HAVE TO PAY PLAYERS.

[Political Hack]

I wasn't arguing that. I agree.

I know. Just pointing out for others that may not know that in no way whatsoever was there a quid pro quo.

[Schultzy]

What amazes me is how people who are free market capitalist in every other arena of life suddenly see the value in communism when it comes to what high school football players can do with their talent.

Brian Bosworth agreed with me. "On more than one occasion Bosworth referred to the NCAA as the "National Communists Against Athletes." He wore a T-shirt bearing that slogan during the 1987 Orange Bowl game following the 1986 season."-wiki

In communist anywhere you are forced to do this or that (and for whatever fee, including nothing, they decide). In this situation here in college football you can choose of your own free will to participate or not.

[Reason2succeed]

In communist anywhere you are forced to do this or that (and for whatever fee, including nothing, they decide). In this situation here in college football you can choose of your own free will to participate or not.

A 17 year old guitarist can start a rock band and make millions.
A 17 year old ice skater can skate for a Disney show and make money.
A 17 year old painter can sale their paintings to the highest bidder.
A 17 year old pitcher can sign a multi-million dollar deal with a MLB club.
But a 17 year RB has to go play for 3 years in college and take no money other than educational expense or else he can be suspended and will lose playing time that cannot be regained.

How is this representative of free market capitalism (fair)?

[Schultzy]

I agree people should be able to go pro whenever they choose and am a right to work guy but that's not a Constitutional Law that's a rule made by a corporation and they should have the right to make their own rules.

But this reminds me of this similar argument , never gets old. "Go play intramurals brother! "
http://youtu.be/je-gpy6Y_UA

[ckDOG]

A 17 year old guitarist can start a rock band and make millions.
A 17 year old ice skater can skate for a Disney show and make money.
A 17 year old painter can sale their paintings to the highest bidder.
A 17 year old pitcher can sign a multi-million dollar deal with a MLB club.
But a 17 year RB has to go play for 3 years in college and take no money other than educational expense or else he can be suspended and will lose playing time that cannot be regained.

How is this representative of free market capitalism (fair)?

Because the NFL has developed a set of rules they feel is best for the investment. When they feel they need to, they will change the rules. In the meantime, feel free to organize a competing league to the NFL that will take allow that 17 year old to play. Let the free market take its course. Until then, boo hoo.

[TimberBeast]

A 17 year old guitarist can start a rock band and make millions.
A 17 year old ice skater can skate for a Disney show and make money.
A 17 year old painter can sale their paintings to the highest bidder.
A 17 year old pitcher can sign a multi-million dollar deal with a MLB club.
But a 17 year RB has to go play for 3 years in college and take no money other than educational expense or else he can be suspended and will lose playing time that cannot be regained.

How is this representative of free market capitalism (fair)?

Put down the football and pick up a guitar or put on some ice skates. No one is forcing them to play football, that's what they choose to do, and with that comes the system in which they must participate. I don't think you have any idea what communism means. You start playing college football players you start killing college football, end of story. But these days where taking the easy way out and getting everything handed to you that's likely where it will end up.

[smootness]

Oh yeah, and just to rub salt in the wound the NFL is tax exempt and doesn't pay the federal income tax you pay personally. How this makes sense, I don't know.

That's the NFL's administrative body, not the 32 NFL teams. They are in no way tax-exempt.

Also, the NFL office dropped its tax-exempt status last year voluntarily.

[smootness]

I doubt this proposal is on anyone's actual radar but it's something to discuss during a slow time.

http://rajivsethi.blogspot.com/2016/01/college-sports-and-deadweight-loss.html

Since most kids won't play in the NFL I like the idea of linking their pay to graduation and especially like linking it to the school system they come from. I think this correctly lines up everyone incentives. The player benefits by getting a degree and the schools are properly incentivized to prepare them for more than athletics.

Where is this money coming from? Who is paying schools?

[dawgoneyall]

I doubt this proposal is on anyone's actual radar but it's something to discuss during a slow time.

http://rajivsethi.blogspot.com/2016/01/college-sports-and-deadweight-loss.html

Since most kids won't play in the NFL I like the idea of linking their pay to graduation and especially like linking it to the school system they come from. I think this correctly lines up everyone incentives. The player benefits by getting a degree and the schools are properly incentivized to prepare them for more than athletics.

The star on the football team would receive the same as the bench warmer on the volleyball team. That is the law.

[Reason2succeed]

Because the NFL has developed a set of rules they feel is best for the investment. When they feel they need to, they will change the rules. In the meantime, feel free to organize a competing league to the NFL that will take allow that 17 year old to play. Let the free market take its course. Until then, boo hoo.

Actually I'm not the one crying about it. There are other people on the board who voiced their displeasure when guys decide to leave college early to try out for the NFL draft. They are mad because a guy gets tired of giving away his talent and would rather go ahead and take his shot at the NFL.

Football in particular has a tremendous amount of risk of injury, pain, and long-term effects. Guys want to get paid while they're in their prime.

[ckDOG]

They are lining up to participate because it is the only way to the NFL. The NCAA's rules and the NFL's rules have created a funnel (which I am appreciative of because I value education) that forces players to go to college.

If there was a minor league system like there is in baseball then NCAA football would be screwed. As many players as the minor league would accept would sign with them out of high school.

I don't know. Probably a better deal for the elite talent with access to signing bonuses and what not, but you are going to have to get a hefty hefty bump in minor league football salaries vs the baseball equivalent for it to be a good deal for the players. Tuition, room, and board for the college football player vs the crap salary that minor league baseball players get (especially in those early years)? College system is sounding pretty good for the masses.

[AlmostPositive]

I can just about guarantee you that Title IX concerns would make paying players more complicated than you could easily imagine.

How much are you going to pay SEC softball players? They work hard, they have skill...it's just that 99.5% of sports fans will never pay a nickel to see them. You think identity politics bean counters won't be hollering for equal pay for them? The whole thing will collapse on itself if Title IX rules the day.

[BulldogBear]

The star on the football team would receive the same as the bench warmer on the volleyball team. That is the law.
That is why this is a can of worms we don't want to open

[BulldogBear]

I can just about guarantee you that Title IX concerns would make paying players more complicated than you could easily imagine.

How much are you going to pay SEC softball players? They work hard, they have skill...it's just that 99.5% of sports fans will never pay a nickel to see them. You think identity politics bean counters won't be hollering for equal pay for them? The whole thing will collapse on itself if Title IX rules the day.


And again, that is why this is a can of worms we don't want to open

[Joe Schmedlap]

O
They are lining up to participate because it is the only way to the NFL. The NCAA's rules and the NFL's rules have created a funnel (which I am appreciative of because I value education) that forces players to go to college.

If there was a minor league system like there is in baseball then NCAA football would be screwed. As many players as the minor league would accept would sign with them out of high school.

If there was a minor league football system, NCAA football would not be screwed any more than college baseball is. The quality of the game would drop somewhat, yet there would be a return to the "student athlete" that the NCAA pretends is in existence now.

[dparker]

Where is this money coming from? Who is paying schools?

From the article:

The amount of money generated by college sports is staggering: broadcast rights alone are worth over a billion dollars annually, and this doesn't include tickets sales for live events, revenue from merchandise, or fees from licensing.

I hear what you (and others) are saying but I look around at things like the TAMU football facilities (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M--3Tq-RuFo)) , Coaching salaries, and even our own Jumbotron; there is a lot of money floating around that in a different paradigm could go to the players and schools that produce them. Not NFL salaries but certainly something in line with what they earn for the school.

I also understand what NYDawg and RocketDawg are saying about classes. I'm a EE who paid may way through but these fluff classes that have popped up is a product of the students not being prepared enough for college but the schools still really wanting them because of athletics. It's not always this way, remember Westerfield was an engineer.

Again, not saying this proposal is perfect but with things being slow it's something to discuss.

[Dawgowar]

Simple fact - no way you can reward one group of athletes over the other. A metric for labor = to pay will have to be established for ALL schools to follow. It will require Academics be verified in order to make the athlete eligible to receive compensation. Also makes them employees.

Nowhere in this new payment plan will inducements, the primary culprit, be endorsed. Any UNM folks bringing this argument up should be aware paying athletes is agreeable in theory, but schools gaining unfair advantages via fiscal inducement or academic cheating is NOT the same issue.

Nor will providing vehicles, houses for entire families, skilled oral practitioners of head bobbing and suctions, backpacks of monopoly money prior to qualifying for salaried athletic scholarships, illegal contacts, alternative admissions testing - allegedly, be allowed under the new plan. No, pay for play would help some issues but boosters gonna boost beyond the rules and we all know it.

Come up with a pay scheme that works for qualified athletes, tie academic performance to maintaining the pay, and you solve one problem. The need for equity will still have schools cheating to offer more than allowed. We all know it. Recruiting will not change one damn bit.

[dparker]

I can just about guarantee you that Title IX concerns would make paying players more complicated than you could easily imagine.

Just asking, but doesn't Title IX only apply to student athlete (meaning still in school)? What jurisdiction would it have after they have graduated if that is how compensation is set up?

[Johnson85]

I don't quite understand why people feel so strongly about bringing incentives out of the underworld to above board.

Envy. Since nobody was willing to pay them to play sports at all, it's just damn greedy for other people to want to be able to accept the money that people voluntarily want to give them.

[dparker]

Simple fact - no way you can reward one group of athletes over the other. A metric for labor = to pay will have to be established for ALL schools to follow. It will require Academics be verified in order to make the athlete eligible to receive compensation. Also makes them employees.

Nowhere in this new payment plan will inducements, the primary culprit, be endorsed. Any UNM folks bringing this argument up should be aware paying athletes is agreeable in theory, but schools gaining unfair advantages via fiscal inducement or academic cheating is NOT the same issue.

Nor will providing vehicles, houses for entire families, skilled oral practitioners of head bobbing and suctions, backpacks of monopoly money prior to qualifying for salaried athletic scholarships, illegal contacts, alternative admissions testing - allegedly, be allowed under the new plan. No, pay for play would help some issues but boosters gonna boost beyond the rules and we all know it.

Come up with a pay scheme that works for qualified athletes, tie academic performance to maintaining the pay, and you solve one problem. The need for equity will still have schools cheating to offer more than allowed. We all know it. Recruiting will not change one damn bit.

Agreed. I would add however that the effectiveness of illegal incentives will decrease somewhat. If you're already pulling in a 'living' salary your much less likely to have your hand out for more in fear of losing what you have. But you are right that it would in no way eliminate all illegal inducements but by that standard we wouldn't have a lot of laws since they don't stop people from still breaking them. I know hyperbole much. :)

I think you hit on the bigger issue of equitable pay across school/conference. Probably need something like a salary cap that is tied to a percentage of revenue.

[AlmostPositive]

Just asking, but doesn't Title IX only apply to student athlete (meaning still in school)? What jurisdiction would it have after they have graduated if that is how compensation is set up?

The title IX mentality is to equalize participation/benefit in college sports by gender. Whem it's just a matter of scholarships, a field hockey player gets the same benefit as a football player. Try paying a male quarterback three times what a female volleyball player makes and see what happens. Exactly when you pay them is just a detail.

[Schultzy]

Envy. Since nobody was willing to pay them to play sports at all, it's just damn greedy for other people to want to be able to accept the money that people voluntarily want to give them.

No.

It's a University not a pro sports franchise. If college sports generating money is too big a bridge for you to cross then do not participate.

The rules prohibiting college athletes from working are stupid bc programs will just find other ways to funnel money to players but creating payrolls for all student athletes across the board won't be sustainable.

Why not payroll the engineering students who generate millions for the university? The Business students who generate millions in gifts as well? The med and law school students who generate billions around the country to their respective universities.

You are going down a very slippery slope here.

[Reason2succeed]

No one has a problem with college sports generating money. We have a problem with rules that don't allow the people who put their long term health on the line for that money to get anywhere near their fair share.

I've never heard of an engineer or a softball player getting paid $180,000 to go to Auburn instead of Mississippi State. Like it or not that situation reveals market value.

We should never ignore problems of inequity just because that's the way we've always done it or because it keeps people comfortable who are only indirectly affected by it. The athletes are the ones who we should hear from and year after year we see players who believe that their talents have value.

Deep down we all knows it's true but we just don't want to mess up our own fantasy of amateur athletics. Wake up and realize that ship has already sailed. The only thing that needs to be done is for it to be taken out of the shadows into the light. Not because it is going to stop cheating or any other reason other than that it is the right thing to do.

[Schultzy]

Who is the decider of what is fair? Or what a fair share is or when this payment is justified? Which players get a buck eighty and which get a box of popcorn?

Is it based on performance? Starts? Hits? RBI? Dangerousness of the sport? Hours practiced? Money generated from the sport played?

Inequity!? You have ambitions of equity in this universe but nirvana is not for this world. Stop coveting other persons situations and take what has been given you and make the most of it.

It's been said many times...A society that values freedom over equality will end up with a good deal of both, a society that values equality over freedom will end up with neither.



That 180,00 came directly out of someone's pocket out of their own free will.

[Johnson85]

No.

It's a University not a pro sports franchise. If college sports generating money is too big a bridge for you to cross then do not participate.

The rules prohibiting college athletes from working are stupid bc programs will just find other ways to funnel money to players but creating payrolls for all student athletes across the board won't be sustainable.

Why not payroll the engineering students who generate millions for the university? The Business students who generate millions in gifts as well? The med and law school students who generate billions around the country to their respective universities.

You are going down a very slippery slope here.

Well this is a mish mash. If an engineering student can create millions for the university, he can negotiate for pay. Same for the business students who "generate millions in gifts" (are you talking about students with parents that give money? Or are there students who are out actively raising money and being successful enough to generate millions? Regardless, the same is true of them; they are allowed to negotiate with the school for a share of the money they create and/or to leave for a different school offering a better deal.

So why should the students who can provably generate lots of money for the school not be allowed some meaningful ability to negotiate, above the table? The only arguments I've ever seen made come down to envy or simply disregard of the costs borne by the student athlete.

[Johnson85]

Who is the decider of what is fair? Or what a fair share is or when this payment is justified? Which players get a buck eighty and which get a box of popcorn?

...

That 180,00 came directly out of someone's pocket out of their own free will.

Well you answered your own question.

[dawgoneyall]

Probably need something like a salary cap that is tied to a percentage of revenue.

Can't have that either. Title 9 and such.

Most schools simply can't afford paying all the players on schollies. Organized college sports would go away eventually.

[Schultzy]

Well you answered your own question.

So what's your problem with the current system?