F the NCAA

[pdub]

I hate the logos on the court and on the jerseys.

But in theory that money goes to the program and university which I dont have much issue with as it benefits thousands of future student athletes.

[PhDhawk]

I was merely illustrating value vs. cost, not trying to analogize the two situations--it is just the first thing that came to my head.

I am also not merely talking about financial gain. The larger point is that we have a collective group of like minded people (the schools) thinking they get to decide the value of something for each individual and they largely think the same. There's just a large part of the world where someone's bachelor degree isn't worth the heavy paper it is printed on. The fact that a bachelor's degree has proven to be valuable for me is something that was largely decided through my own privilege. There are millions like me, but millions not like me.

Who a college degree is right for and who it's not right for is a different conversation.

In both cases, if you went to college and paid for it yourself or with student loans, you're looking at ~$200,000 dollars on average.

If a student athlete goes to college for 4-5 years and then goes on to become a lawyer, or goes on to be a landscaper, doesn't change the fact that by going to college for free he dodged having to pay $200,000.

See above post: is the deal really "come play basketball for us, we will save you $200,000 in student debt?" The alternatives avoid that road altogether. I think it again is trying to mark the cost of education as the value of a degree.

And, again, there is some value in a degree, but why should that preclude anything on top? Who decides that and why that amount is enough?

See my post below.

How do you quantify experience, connections, etc.

If basketball is your career, that doesn't just mean as a player. Jeremy Case has a good job, I don't think he'd have that without playing college ball. How does that factor in?

[TDub]

I mean,

1. Anyone who thinks professional athletes dont get paid enough...is.....insane.

2. A rookie does 1 thing well. Play basketball. Hoepfully he continues to do that against other professional level athletes. A million plus seems a reasonable salary for that gamble.

3. The owners and management have to do lots of things good, including funding the whole enterprise, marketing, hiring, working with coty and state officials, working with the league, building arenas, negotiating leases, and personnel decisions.

3. It tells me this N.I.L discussion never ends until its pro sports. Youre not happy with rookie salaries....youre never gonna be happy with college "pay" levels, whatever that ends up being

[CrimsonNBlue]

Again, this all comes down to perspective. You're looking at this through the narrow perspective of earning money.

To me, there's so much more outside of monetary gain, that's offered by colleges/Universities, and you need to largely ignore them for your argument to work.

That's fine, and for the sake of arguendo, I will acknowledge value beyond financial gain.

I do think, though, that if these billion dollar schools are going to recruit and contract with players to represent them, compete in extracurriculars for them (and make money for them), the attendance costs, room & board are the bare minimum requirements, not the sharing of profits. I'd feel the same if there was money in debate team.

I dunno.

My research during grad school resulted in a 4 year $2 million dollar grant. I don't feel cheated that I only got paid a stipend that was about equal with the poverty line. I got a job at Yale Med School from it, it helped me get an NIH fellowship, I got several publications, I went to meetings in Sorrento Italy, Quebec City, and Cold Spring Harbor to present my research. I wouldn't be a professor now, if it weren't for that.

From most standpoints I got ripped off, I got <5% of the funding I generated. But, I don't feel that way. When I look at our players, many who were mediocre, who have jobs as coaches, analysts, scouts, etc. It's hard for me to buy in that they were exploited or didn't get anything out of it.

Well I won't cry for you either, even though I also get pissy about how grad students are treated. But, isn't that <5% still on top of your attendance fees covered and living stipend that is paid monthly (even though it was outrageously low)? The players' cut of the pie they help generate would likely also end up being a small fraction.

[PhDhawk]

I hate the logos on the court and on the jerseys.

But in theory that money goes to the program and university which I dont have much issue with as it benefits thousands of future student athletes.

Which, to me, is another difference than pro sports.

And, yes, coaches, administrators, etc. are overpaid....that's an issue. But I feel differently about profits going into an Athletic Department at a college than I do having all that money going to Steve Ballmer.

[CrimsonNBlue]

Who a college degree is right for and who it's not right for is a different conversation.

In both cases, if you went to college and paid for it yourself or with student loans, you're looking at ~$200,000 dollars on average.

If a student athlete goes to college for 4-5 years and then goes on to become a lawyer, or goes on to be a landscaper, doesn't change the fact that by going to college for free he dodged having to pay $200,000.

See above post: is the deal really "come play basketball for us, we will save you $200,000 in student debt?" The alternatives avoid that road altogether. I think it again is trying to mark the cost of education as the value of a degree.

And, again, there is some value in a degree, but why should that preclude anything on top? Who decides that and why that amount is enough?

See my post below.

How do you quantify experience, connections, etc.

If basketball is your career, that doesn't just mean as a player. Jeremy Case has a good job, I don't think he'd have that without playing college ball. How does that factor in?

That would come in about any industry, difference is here is that money, and a lot of it, is being generated but one side has no seat at the negotiation table. That's where I see this line being drawn, and it is being drawn by the people with the money.

[CrimsonNBlue]

I mean,

1. Anyone who thinks professional athletes dont get paid enough...is.....insane.

2. A rookie does 1 thing well. Play basketball. Hoepfully he continues to do that against other professional level athletes. A million plus seems a reasonable salary for that gamble.

3. The owners and management have to do lots of things good, including funding the whole enterprise, marketing, hiring, working with coty and state officials, working with the league, building arenas, negotiating leases, and personnel decisions.

3. It tells me this N.I.L discussion never ends until its pro sports. Youre not happy with rookie salaries....youre never gonna be happy with college "pay" levels, whatever that ends up being

1. No one said that.

2. Agree.

3. Agree.

4. Not necessarily true.

In other words, we again probably don't disagree, you're just entirely missing the point.

[TDub]

I mean,

1. Anyone who thinks professional athletes dont get paid enough...is.....insane.

2. A rookie does 1 thing well. Play basketball. Hoepfully he continues to do that against other professional level athletes. A million plus seems a reasonable salary for that gamble.

3. The owners and management have to do lots of things good, including funding the whole enterprise, marketing, hiring, working with coty and state officials, working with the league, building arenas, negotiating leases, and personnel decisions.

3. It tells me this N.I.L discussion never ends until its pro sports. Youre not happy with rookie salaries....youre never gonna be happy with college "pay" levels, whatever that ends up being

1. No one said that.

2. Agree.

3. Agree.

4. Not necessarily true.

In other words, we again probably don't disagree, you're just entirely missing the point.

You literally said the rookie payscale is bullshit. I dont think I misinterpreted that.

[PhDhawk]

That's fine, and for the sake of arguendo, I will acknowledge value beyond financial gain.

I do think, though, that if these billion dollar schools are going to recruit and contract with players to represent them, compete in extracurriculars for them (and make money for them), the attendance costs, room & board are the bare minimum requirements, not the sharing of profits. I'd feel the same if there was money in debate team.

I dunno.

My research during grad school resulted in a 4 year $2 million dollar grant. I don't feel cheated that I only got paid a stipend that was about equal with the poverty line. I got a job at Yale Med School from it, it helped me get an NIH fellowship, I got several publications, I went to meetings in Sorrento Italy, Quebec City, and Cold Spring Harbor to present my research. I wouldn't be a professor now, if it weren't for that.

From most standpoints I got ripped off, I got <5% of the funding I generated. But, I don't feel that way. When I look at our players, many who were mediocre, who have jobs as coaches, analysts, scouts, etc. It's hard for me to buy in that they were exploited or didn't get anything out of it.

Well I won't cry for you either, even though I also get pissy about how grad students are treated. But, isn't that <5% still on top of your attendance fees covered and living stipend that is paid monthly (even though it was outrageously low)? The players' cut of the pie they help generate would likely also end up being a small fraction.

I wouldn't fight against players getting a larger piece of the pie. But I think how the pie should be divided is fundamentally different for college athletics than it is for professional sports teams.

I'm in favor of larger stipends, fewer and more reasonable restrictions to NIL, I'd like to see the NCAA or preferably its replacement enforce the intent of its rules...I just think the the SC's ruling went way too far.

[pdub]

Tdubs 2nd 3rd point is 98 percent probable. Only a matter of time unless you define the value and ethos of the uniqueness of college sports.

[CrimsonNBlue]

I hate the logos on the court and on the jerseys.

But in theory that money goes to the program and university which I dont have much issue with as it benefits thousands of future student athletes.

Which, to me, is another difference than pro sports.

And, yes, coaches, administrators, etc. are overpaid....that's an issue. But I feel differently about profits going into an Athletic Department at a college than I do having all that money going to Steve Ballmer.

There's definitely value in KU basically providing free agent, management, and marketing services. That costs NBA players millions.

[CrimsonNBlue]

I mean,

1. Anyone who thinks professional athletes dont get paid enough...is.....insane.

2. A rookie does 1 thing well. Play basketball. Hoepfully he continues to do that against other professional level athletes. A million plus seems a reasonable salary for that gamble.

3. The owners and management have to do lots of things good, including funding the whole enterprise, marketing, hiring, working with coty and state officials, working with the league, building arenas, negotiating leases, and personnel decisions.

3. It tells me this N.I.L discussion never ends until its pro sports. Youre not happy with rookie salaries....youre never gonna be happy with college "pay" levels, whatever that ends up being

1. No one said that.

2. Agree.

3. Agree.

4. Not necessarily true.

In other words, we again probably don't disagree, you're just entirely missing the point.

You literally said the rookie payscale is bullshit. I dont think I misinterpreted that.

In the context of the CBA.

I am, at a baseline, against artificial employee pay restrictions, in pretty much all levels and industries.

I understand they exist, I don't like them.

[PhDhawk]

See above post: is the deal really "come play basketball for us, we will save you $200,000 in student debt?" The alternatives avoid that road altogether. I think it again is trying to mark the cost of education as the value of a degree.

And, again, there is some value in a degree, but why should that preclude anything on top? Who decides that and why that amount is enough?

See my post below.

How do you quantify experience, connections, etc.

If basketball is your career, that doesn't just mean as a player. Jeremy Case has a good job, I don't think he'd have that without playing college ball. How does that factor in?

That would come in about any industry, difference is here is that money, and a lot of it, is being generated but one side has no seat at the negotiation table. That's where I see this line being drawn, and it is being drawn by the people with the money.

I'm in favor of players having a bigger voice and their interests being a higher priority than in the past.

I don't want bidding wars, I don't want college free agency, I don't want colleges to follow the pro sports model, I want them to do their own thing, I don't think it should ONLY focus on money, I think that the benefits of college are largely ignored, I think the opportunities provided to college students aren't emphasized enough, I've never cared much about amateurism, but college sports being about college athletes (emphasis on college) is very important to me.

[ousdahl]

I hate the logos on the court and on the jerseys.

But in theory that money goes to the program and university which I dont have much issue with as it benefits thousands of future student athletes.

You know how you could really benefit student athletes?!

[TDub]

Tdubs 2nd 3rd point is 98 percent probable. Only a matter of time unless you define the value and ethos of the uniqueness of college sports.

I have lots of 3rd points....i cant count past 3. So i just add another 3. I love Larry Bird. And Lamp.

[TDub]

I hate the logos on the court and on the jerseys.

But in theory that money goes to the program and university which I dont have much issue with as it benefits thousands of future student athletes.

You know how you could really benefit student athletes?!

All of them? Or just a few?

[CrimsonNBlue]

I dunno.

My research during grad school resulted in a 4 year $2 million dollar grant. I don't feel cheated that I only got paid a stipend that was about equal with the poverty line. I got a job at Yale Med School from it, it helped me get an NIH fellowship, I got several publications, I went to meetings in Sorrento Italy, Quebec City, and Cold Spring Harbor to present my research. I wouldn't be a professor now, if it weren't for that.

From most standpoints I got ripped off, I got <5% of the funding I generated. But, I don't feel that way. When I look at our players, many who were mediocre, who have jobs as coaches, analysts, scouts, etc. It's hard for me to buy in that they were exploited or didn't get anything out of it.

Well I won't cry for you either, even though I also get pissy about how grad students are treated. But, isn't that <5% still on top of your attendance fees covered and living stipend that is paid monthly (even though it was outrageously low)? The players' cut of the pie they help generate would likely also end up being a small fraction.

I wouldn't fight against players getting a larger piece of the pie. But I think how the pie should be divided is fundamentally different for college athletics than it is for professional sports teams.

I'm in favor of larger stipends, fewer and more reasonable restrictions to NIL, I'd like to see the NCAA or preferably its replacement enforce the intent of its rules...I just think the the SC's ruling went way too far.

Those are good places to start, and really could wipe out any real remaining fairness argument.

[CrimsonNBlue]

See my post below.

How do you quantify experience, connections, etc.

If basketball is your career, that doesn't just mean as a player. Jeremy Case has a good job, I don't think he'd have that without playing college ball. How does that factor in?

That would come in about any industry, difference is here is that money, and a lot of it, is being generated but one side has no seat at the negotiation table. That's where I see this line being drawn, and it is being drawn by the people with the money.

I'm in favor of players having a bigger voice and their interests being a higher priority than in the past.

I don't want bidding wars, I don't want college free agency, I don't want colleges to follow the pro sports model, I want them to do their own thing, I don't think it should ONLY focus on money, I think that the benefits of college are largely ignored, I think the opportunities provided to college students aren't emphasized enough, I've never cared much about amateurism, but college sports being about college athletes (emphasis on college) is very important to me.

There should be enough smart people to keep all the good things while doing something about the ridiculous NIL ban and evening out the power imbalance.

Colleges are the most powerful brand that most of these athletes will ever be a part of. I definitely refuse to believe that there isn't a sensible path forward that satisfies all sides.

[Deleted User 863]

Tdubs 2nd 3rd point is 98 percent probable. Only a matter of time unless you define the value and ethos of the uniqueness of college sports.

I have lots of 3rd points....i cant count past 3. So i just add another 3. I love Larry Bird. And Lamp.

[ousdahl]

I hate the logos on the court and on the jerseys.

But in theory that money goes to the program and university which I dont have much issue with as it benefits thousands of future student athletes.

You know how you could really benefit student athletes?!

All of them? Or just a few?

well when you out it that way, I couldn’t give two shits whether anyone associated with mizzou receives anything of benefit ever again.