I hate it when Doyel makes me agree with him

Yes, because clearly those games would be just as heavily watched and obsessed over if you took 22 dudes from SportsJournalists.com and threw Alabama jerseys on them. It's the jerseys!

It's all connected. Not team is popular in a vacuum. The team is successful because of the players. That's true now, with players like Ingram, and it was true fifty years ago, with players like Joe Namath. They're popular because they're good. When Alabama had shitty players under Shula, they weren't bringing in $10 million dollars for making it to the BCS Championship. They weren't getting huge ratings because not as many people want to watch bad football, regardless of the jerseys or the "tradition" (which, again, wouldn't exist with the players).

So no, it's not irrelevant or minimal.

 

I've responded on these threads every time they come up, because there's (understandably) just so much misinformation. Before making a career change two years ago (teaching elementary school) I spent 15+ years as a financial aid director & enrollment manager. I worked at everything from a major FBS school to a D-III. Yes, this is a discussion (re: paying athletes) that has been had at many levels. Without wanting to come down on either side....or put anyone on the defensive (I have no dog in this fight) here's a couple of points to help the discussion:

1. Overwhelmingly, the "the poor kid can't afford to buy a pizza, pay for his laundry, go on a date etc.etc." argument, is completely bogus. The truly "needy" athlete (low EFC calculation, after filling out his or her FAFSA) is full pell grant eligible.....above and beyond their scholarship. That's $5,500 this year, of pocket cash...compliments of you and I. $2750 a semester.....about $900 a month. I could have "made do" on that.

2. There's no way that paying only "revenue producing" athletes would hold up in court. Not for 30 seconds. It's all or none, male & female....and the legal precedent (no, I don't remember the exact case right now) has been set.

3. It's not a Title IX issue. It's a Title IV financial aid issue. As simply as I can put it (trust me, I'd have to go on for pages to completely illustrate these points), paying athletes would have to be serviced one of two ways. Since you're giving money in exchange for doing something (playing a sport), it fits the legal definition of "work." (I know...sounds basic...) So...

First option (again, WAY oversimplified) is to pay them like you would any other "employee." Of course, this open up all the associated "cans o' worms". Liability, possible "labor organizing", 50 different sets of state labor laws.....not happening.

Second option, to keep it the way it is right now (with scholarships). Pay them through the Financial Aid office....which, of course, means the US Dept. of Education would now be able to reach in and begin regulating things (the same way the regulate work study dollars)......if not directly, then certainly indirectly.

I understand all the arguments folks are making re: whether this is the "right" thing to do. However, taking it out of the world of the theoretical.....it simply won't be done...because it can't be done.

If anyone has any questions, I'll try and clarify. Again, just adding some extra info....not trying to stir the pot.

 

Thanks for a good informative post. What rule, if any, would be violated by my proposal from one page back? Don't pay the players anything, but allow them all (male, female, DI, DII, DIII, etc.) the same right non-players have to take endorsement deals that come along?

 

Then, uh, it would be two handfuls.

 

From strictly the standpoint of what I was talking about (ie: the school paying the athlete), nothing, I suppose. What you're suggesting, however, is something completely different. What I do know, is that the schools wouldn't allow their name, logo, mascot, nickname, colors....or anything else they hold licensing rights over...to be utilized for something like that. Kind of lessens the appeal, I'd think.

Plus....doesn't this throw the entire (admittedly already thin / somewhat ludicrous) idea of "amateur student athlete" out the window? Again, not defending the system. Just can't see where this would be any more palatable to the schools.

 

School won't allow logo, etc., but they don't have trademark rights over name and position. ("Hi, I'm Quarterack Joe Blow"). Most of the ads would be local in nature and, in towns where college sports matter, everyone the ad was trying to reach would know who Joe Blow was anyway.
And I think the idea of "amateur student athlete" died well before this. And I'm not so sure about not being palatable to the schools. I don't expect this to keep the A+ talent from going pro, but it might make the difference between some B- guys staying an extra year or not.

 

It's not the "main" argument. It's the whole argument. You couldn't legally do it, even if you walked away from the NCAA. You can't make the case, DD, unless you want to start taxing the revenue-generating sports for their profits, which, if you did that, would deflate the revenue balloon completely.

 

He brought money to the University.
He paid.
Everybody forgets this. A university is a huge business. Those who pay their way put hundreds of millions into the coffers of universities. HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS.

 

That isn't where the money is coming from.

Alabama only gets 2/13 of that BCS bowl money. Vanderbilt gets 1/13, as do all the other SEC teams.

Contributions from boosters (30%) and ticket sales (30%) each account for twice as much revenue as what the NCAA and bowls dish out (15%).

And the TV pie is even smaller --- only 7%.

Of course, you could argue that because these players are "good", that's why the schools get contributions and sell tickets and sign big TV contracts.

Fine . . . so are you willing to pay Mark Ingram more than the second-string long snapper at Nevada?

You either believe in paying these players what they are worth . . . or you don't. You cannot argue "just pay them something because they bring in money . . . BUT it has to be the same for all players." That is an inconsistent argument.

 

A student coming from out-of-state doesn't cost the university $50,000 more. They charge $50,000 more because they can, and because that student and his family didn't pay in-state taxes.

 

Actually, the football player recruited from out of state does cost the university $50,000 more.
The athletic department writes a check to the University for the full cost of tuition, R&B, fees.
So the defensive back recruited from California indeed is getting an education worth $150 K.

 

This is nonsense. Schools with superstars go to better more lucrative bowls, they become a more marketable TV commodity, they pack bigger crowds, and perhaps most importantly, they sell a lot more of the school's merchandise. All of which translates to a fatter bottom line.

Do you have any clue how more money Michigan made off the Fab 5, as a result of kids all over the world suddenly wanting Michigan jerseys? Or how many UNC jersey sales Michael Jordan has meant to UNC over the years? You don't think Manning helped sell a lot more Tennessee shit? The idea that there was "no added value" to the University from having those guys, instead of some joe schmoe replacement, is utterly laughable.