2016 NCAA Tournament Game Discussion

[Shaolin Swat]

What a racket the whole system is. $8.8B and no payment for the players is a disgrace.

Spare me the 'free education' bullshit too.

The free education thing doesn't really fly with me because of the circumstances surrounding the scholarships. If a kid does everything right in the classroom but does not meet expectations on the court/field, they can still lose their scholarship at any point. IMO if someone wants to argue that scholarships are a fair way to pay players, then schools should have to guarantee the scholarship for 4 years, provided the student-athlete is in good academic standing. For the amount of money that these kids generate, they absolutely should receive money or at the very least, be able to make money off their likeness.

[RhowdyRam02]

What a racket the whole system is. $8.8B and no payment for the players is a disgrace.

Spare me the 'free education' bullshit too.

For thus of us preparing to pay for our kids college education, "free education" ain't no BS. Average out of state tuition for a public university is about $24,000...add room and board, plus books and that's another $9000. So for the sake of discussion, let's just say that it costs $33,000 per year for a full ride. Multiply that by 4 years and that's $132,000...and if it takes 5-years, then the tab is $165,000.

I'll write you a check for $165,000 and you tell me if that's BS.

Players seem to have enough money for Beats by Dre headphones (approx. $200), cell phone, and many tattoos ($75 to $150/hour). Players have no extra money to pay for a pizza or movie??? That's where the BS is. You want extra spending money? Go get a job during the summer while taking summer classes.

And here's PMMM spouting the standard NCAA line. You can cite the sticker price for standard students, but of course that doesn't make sense because most students don't pay sticker price after scholarships and grants. The more relevant number, which the NCAA and schools have no intention of letting people find out is how much does each scholarship actually cost the school. That's the real value of what the student athletes receive and it is significantly less then all of the numbers PMMM used.

Also the just get a job line is a total joke. The NCAA severely restricts what type of jobs and hours student athletes can work, the student athletes still have duties for their teams in addition to the course work, and they aren't able to use their best skills for compensation. If a student gets a music scholarship they aren't in any way restricted from using their talent to make money outside of the university, but athletes, in the NCAA's quest to make them the same as all students, aren't allowed the same opportunities. They can't get paid for training other players, can't get paid to play outside of the university setting, can't even get paid to endorse products or sign autographs.

The whole system exploits athletes and I celebrate every single victory they get in battles against the NCAA.

[NYGFan_Section208]

Agree, RR02. The 'value of the scholarship' is HIGHLY debatable. Am putting 2 through URI now at OOS rates...and I don't think what I'm paying and what it actually costs the state/school are anywhere near each other.

[RhowdyRam02]

It's certainly nowhere close in your case. It doesn't cost the university more for your two children then for in state students. Again, actual cost vs. sticker price. The NCAA wants you to focus on the sticker price when the actual cost is what matters.

[PlayMikeMotenMore]

What a racket the whole system is. $8.8B and no payment for the players is a disgrace.

Spare me the 'free education' bullshit too.

For thus of us preparing to pay for our kids college education, "free education" ain't no BS. Average out of state tuition for a public university is about $24,000...add room and board, plus books and that's another $9000. So for the sake of discussion, let's just say that it costs $33,000 per year for a full ride. Multiply that by 4 years and that's $132,000...and if it takes 5-years, then the tab is $165,000.

I'll write you a check for $165,000 and you tell me if that's BS.

Players seem to have enough money for Beats by Dre headphones (approx. $200), cell phone, and many tattoos ($75 to $150/hour). Players have no extra money to pay for a pizza or movie??? That's where the BS is. You want extra spending money? Go get a job during the summer while taking summer classes.

And here's PMMM spouting the standard NCAA line. You can cite the sticker price for standard students, but of course that doesn't make sense because most students don't pay sticker price after scholarships and grants. The more relevant number, which the NCAA and schools have no intention of letting people find out is how much does each scholarship actually cost the school. That's the real value of what the student athletes receive and it is significantly less then all of the numbers PMMM used.

Also the just get a job line is a total joke. The NCAA severely restricts what type of jobs and hours student athletes can work, the student athletes still have duties for their teams in addition to the course work, and they aren't able to use their best skills for compensation. If a student gets a music scholarship they aren't in any way restricted from using their talent to make money outside of the university, but athletes, in the NCAA's quest to make them the same as all students, aren't allowed the same opportunities. They can't get paid for training other players, can't get paid to play outside of the university setting, can't even get paid to endorse products or sign autographs.

The whole system exploits athletes and I celebrate every single victory they get in battles against the NCAA.

1) The exact figure is irrelevant. Fine...tell me the price tag you want to place on a 4-5 year out of state college education? It's between $100-$200,000 for public institutions and far more for private. We can agree on that.

2) Most students have LOANS to pay back...which is far more than any scholarship or grant.

3) I, yes believe it...I was an actual Division One student-athlete who trained and worked in the summer. There is so much down time during summer school that I can't imagine what I would've done had I not had a job. Spare me the NCAA restricts what jobs you can do. Excuses are for losers.

4) A student-athlete has access to all the resources a university has to offer. Talk about opportunity!! You get to use the facilities, weight room, best coaches, athletic training, etc. to prepare yourself for pro basketball career...if that's what your goal is. If you're more focused on life beyond basketball, you have tutors, advisors, and professors to guide you along. You want to paid for signing autographs? Be my guest...join the D-League or play in Europe. If you believe that's better training for a vocation as a pro basketball player, then that's certainly an avenue of choice.

5) Yes, a scholarship is a 1-year renewable contract. But how many times do coaches pull the scholarships? You only hear about the times that does occur...how about the 99% of the time it doesn't. When has it happened at URI?

5) Being a member of the basketball team provides exposure on TV, arenas, scouts, pro coaches, professional marketing firms, etc. It's like getting your resume in front of thousands to millions of people every time you step on the court. Gee, those poor student athletes. They're really being taken advantage of.

If athletes want to claim that they're victims, then they'll continue to be victims. Otherwise, they should take advantage of all that they're given for being able to put a ball thru a hoop, hit a baseball, catch a pass, or whatever it is they do. I'm grateful for my 4-years competing that I was able to experience.

[adam914]

Did you play a sport that generated much, if any, revenue for the school you attended?

[NYGFan_Section208]

For a revenue-generating sport (and face it, revenue-generating sports are as much, if not more, 'business' than sport)...the value that these kids provide to universities...far outweighs the cost to the university of what they are providing the kid. You can try to downplay these 'poor kids' by listing everything they 'get' from the arrangement, however, it is far from an equal partnership. I

"==> If athletes want to claim that they're victims, then they'll continue to be victims. Otherwise, they should take advantage of all that they're given for being able to put a ball thru a hoop, hit a baseball, catch a pass, or whatever it is they do."

I think they pretty much do take advantage of what they are given - but what they are given, is far less than what the university gets...When a school makes money off a player's jersey and that player can't afford one and risks penalties if someone gives him one...that just doesn't seem right.

[bressler3south]

Life's a bitch. I've got three kids in college, one attends a small private school in New Hampshire, costs $44,000 a year. The two others attend state schools. I'm beyond when it comes to this stuff.
I'm thankful to read what PMMM had to write in his last sentence.
I also believe that if the NCAA is making billions -- less operational costs -- on the backs of the athletes and with the acknowledgment that the athletes benefit from the business model set-up by the NCAA, then it should at the very least set up trust funds (incentives or something similar) for student/athletes. At the very least, offer graduate-degree tuition, etc.,
All-in-all, if anyone wants to send me a quarter of a million to help me eliminate my insomnia, I'm open to it.
Life is killing me.

and it ain't

[theblueram]

It's a slippery slope on this one. So an individual college athlete signs an endorsement with a shoe company because he/she is a pro prospect. Wouldn't this make it difficult for a school to sign an "exclusive" agreement with another shoe company for all the other athletes at a school? And who would have rights over the message the endorsing company wants to create? The school may have to make a contract if endorsements happen that school logos, apparel, etc etc can't be used without the written approval of the school. Seems like a legal nightmare.

[Seawrightspostgame]

NBA players wear whatever shoe they endorse regardless of the team brand.

[PlayMikeMotenMore]

Did you play a sport that generated much, if any, revenue for the school you attended?

Who benefitted more from his 3-years in college...Davidson or Steph Curry?

[PlayMikeMotenMore]

My reply goes to the statement "Spare me the 'free education' bullshit too."

If that's such BS, tell me how somebody on full ride digs into their own pocket to pay for their education? The fact is their EDUCATION is paid for. Period. End of sentence.

Whether student-athletes should get paid is another discussion and argument (one that I would argue against). But you cannot deny that their education is completely paid for.

[adam914]

Did you play a sport that generated much, if any, revenue for the school you attended?

Who benefitted more from his 3-years in college...Davidson or Steph Curry?

That's not exactly an answer to my very simple question. Actually, I guess in a way it is. The answer is obviously no, so I don't think your situation can be used as a valid comparison to a Division I football or basketball player.

[bressler3south]

Did you play a sport that generated much, if any, revenue for the school you attended?

Who benefitted more from his 3-years in college...Davidson or Steph Curry?

That's not exactly an answer to my very simple question. Actually, I guess in a way it is. The answer is obviously no, so I don't think your situation can be used as a valid comparison to a Division I football or basketball player.

Why not? Does the 13th man on basketball scholarship at URI or the 4th-string right tackle for Ohio State generate revenue for the school?
However, the 1st heavyweight wrestler at Iowa probably does.
The latest revenue stats for schools' athletics show that very few "big time" football/basketball schools actually make a profit.
Their umbrella organization does, though.....

[rhodysurf]

In my mind college athletes are already paid with a free education.

However, I do believe that they should be free to profit off their likeness and do endorsements etc, though the implementation is a bit tricky.

[RhowdyRam02]

1) The exact figure is irrelevant. Fine...tell me the price tag you want to place on a 4-5 year out of state college education? It's between $100-$200,000 for public institutions and far more for private. We can agree on that.

2) Most students have LOANS to pay back...which is far more than any scholarship or grant.

3) I, yes believe it...I was an actual Division One student-athlete who trained and worked in the summer. There is so much down time during summer school that I can't imagine what I would've done had I not had a job. Spare me the NCAA restricts what jobs you can do. Excuses are for losers.

4) A student-athlete has access to all the resources a university has to offer. Talk about opportunity!! You get to use the facilities, weight room, best coaches, athletic training, etc. to prepare yourself for pro basketball career...if that's what your goal is. If you're more focused on life beyond basketball, you have tutors, advisors, and professors to guide you along. You want to paid for signing autographs? Be my guest...join the D-League or play in Europe. If you believe that's better training for a vocation as a pro basketball player, then that's certainly an avenue of choice.

5) Yes, a scholarship is a 1-year renewable contract. But how many times do coaches pull the scholarships? You only hear about the times that does occur...how about the 99% of the time it doesn't. When has it happened at URI?

5) Being a member of the basketball team provides exposure on TV, arenas, scouts, pro coaches, professional marketing firms, etc. It's like getting your resume in front of thousands to millions of people every time you step on the court. Gee, those poor student athletes. They're really being taken advantage of.

If athletes want to claim that they're victims, then they'll continue to be victims. Otherwise, they should take advantage of all that they're given for being able to put a ball thru a hoop, hit a baseball, catch a pass, or whatever it is they do. I'm grateful for my 4-years competing that I was able to experience.

1. How much would the university save if the men's basketball team didn't exist? Could they get rid of one professor? One dean? One member of staff not directly affiliated with the athletic department? Of course not. How much would they save on food in the dining halls? Almost nothing. Would they be able to take one residence hall offline? No. Would the book store stock even one fewer book? Probably not. The cost to educate the basketball team is nothing. But by saying you pay them in scholarships everyone else that goes to college and has to pay says look at the great deal they're getting. They're getting something that costs the college nothing to offer. If it costs the college nothing, the student athletes aren't getting paid.

2. So what? This isn't about every student, this is about student athletes specifically. When the Student Senates on college campuses bring in $8.8 billion we can argue about what they should make.

3. I'll get to this one in a separate reply.

4. Of course Europe and the D League aren't better options, the league and colleges have set it up so it isn't. We've seen how difficult it is to go from the D League to the NBA and expecting an 18 year old to move to a different continent with language barriers to pursue a career is a joke. Also, one of the main reasons colleges can offer all that great stuff is because they don't have to pay their workers.

[RhowdyRam02]

Did you play a sport that generated much, if any, revenue for the school you attended?

Who benefitted more from his 3-years in college...Davidson or Steph Curry?

Tremendous answer here. Just by not answering his direct question we know you didn't play a revenue sport. So you literally took advantage of the revenue producing athletes, no wonder you like the current system.

And the answer is Davidson by a mile. They received all that tournament money, all the free advertising when he played there and when he's talked about now, the notoriety the school received got them more applicants, which allowed them to be more selective, which made them look more prestigious, and the notoriety from the tournament run he spearheaded helped them eventually move to a better conference and make even more money.

Curry got a scholarship, which cost the school next to nothing to give, and didn't graduate so the scholarship was literally worthless to him. Great system!

[adam914]

Why not? Does the 13th man on basketball scholarship at URI or the 4th-string right tackle for Ohio State generate revenue for the school?
However, the 1st heavyweight wrestler at Iowa probably does.
The latest revenue stats for schools' athletics show that very few "big time" football/basketball schools actually make a profit.
Their umbrella organization does, though.....

If the Iowa wrestling program is generating revenue for their school then they also deserve a piece of that. That's my whole point, I believe that if a school is profiting off of what the students are doing in their sport, then they deserve a piece of that. How much is certainly up for debate and I won't pretend to have a perfect answer for that. But yeah the sport doesnt matter. If some random school makes money off their badminton team then those kids deserve a piece of that to.

[rhodysurf]

Why not? Does the 13th man on basketball scholarship at URI or the 4th-string right tackle for Ohio State generate revenue for the school?
However, the 1st heavyweight wrestler at Iowa probably does.
The latest revenue stats for schools' athletics show that very few "big time" football/basketball schools actually make a profit.
Their umbrella organization does, though.....

If the Iowa wrestling program is generating revenue for their school then they also deserve a piece of that. That's my whole point, I believe that if a school is profiting off of what the students are doing in their sport, then they deserve a piece of that. How much is certainly up for debate and I won't pretend to have a perfect answer for that. But yeah the sport doesnt matter. If some random school makes money off their badminton team then those kids deserve a piece of that to.

What about if they only received additional money when the amount they have generated exceeds the cost of their tuition, housing, and dining that has been waived? I could see that working.

[adam914]

Why not? Does the 13th man on basketball scholarship at URI or the 4th-string right tackle for Ohio State generate revenue for the school?
However, the 1st heavyweight wrestler at Iowa probably does.
The latest revenue stats for schools' athletics show that very few "big time" football/basketball schools actually make a profit.
Their umbrella organization does, though.....

If the Iowa wrestling program is generating revenue for their school then they also deserve a piece of that. That's my whole point, I believe that if a school is profiting off of what the students are doing in their sport, then they deserve a piece of that. How much is certainly up for debate and I won't pretend to have a perfect answer for that. But yeah the sport doesnt matter. If some random school makes money off their badminton team then those kids deserve a piece of that to.

What about if they only received additional money when the amount they have generated exceeds the cost of their tuition, housing, and dining that has been waived? I could see that working.

Yeah that's not a bad idea, I mean for sure things like that would need to be taken into consideration and someone way smarter then me could probably figure all that out. It would have to take into account like operating expenses and stuff to. It certainly wouldn't be an easy thing to figure out, but I don't think that should be an excuse for continuing to screw athletes over either.

[josephski]

Why not? Does the 13th man on basketball scholarship at URI or the 4th-string right tackle for Ohio State generate revenue for the school?
However, the 1st heavyweight wrestler at Iowa probably does.
The latest revenue stats for schools' athletics show that very few "big time" football/basketball schools actually make a profit.
Their umbrella organization does, though.....

If the Iowa wrestling program is generating revenue for their school then they also deserve a piece of that. That's my whole point, I believe that if a school is profiting off of what the students are doing in their sport, then they deserve a piece of that. How much is certainly up for debate and I won't pretend to have a perfect answer for that. But yeah the sport doesnt matter. If some random school makes money off their badminton team then those kids deserve a piece of that to.

I'm sure you realize this but revenue and profit are two different things. There are a lot of d1 basketball programs who aren't making a profit and I'd assume URI falls into that category.

If only schools who are profiting off a sport are allowed to pay their athletes then it will be impossible for mid majors to ever compete with bigger schools.

[adam914]

Why not? Does the 13th man on basketball scholarship at URI or the 4th-string right tackle for Ohio State generate revenue for the school?
However, the 1st heavyweight wrestler at Iowa probably does.
The latest revenue stats for schools' athletics show that very few "big time" football/basketball schools actually make a profit.
Their umbrella organization does, though.....

If the Iowa wrestling program is generating revenue for their school then they also deserve a piece of that. That's my whole point, I believe that if a school is profiting off of what the students are doing in their sport, then they deserve a piece of that. How much is certainly up for debate and I won't pretend to have a perfect answer for that. But yeah the sport doesnt matter. If some random school makes money off their badminton team then those kids deserve a piece of that to.

I'm sure you realize this but revenue and profit are two different things. There are a lot of d1 basketball programs who aren't making a profit and I'd assume URI falls into that category.

If only schools who are profiting off a sport are allowed to pay their athletes then it will be impossible for mid majors to ever compete with bigger schools.

Would it really make it that much harder then it is now though? I mean sure maybe some, but there are still only 12/13 spots on each team. If there are so few programs actually turning a profit then not everybody can go play for those teams. Kids would be faced with a lot of the same decisions they are now. Do you want to make a little bit of money now and be 5th off the bench for Kentucky or do you want to forego the chance at a little extra cash now to have the chance to start/star somewhere else where you could better your situation for after school.

[PlayMikeMotenMore]

Whether I played a "revenue producing" sport is irrelevant. But I'll answer your question with a yes. Feel better? If you want me to play by your logic then your question should be about "profit producing" sport. I mean, we're all (I think) adults on here. I think we know that college athletic department budgets are essentially looked at as like businesses.

If that's the case, then you shouldn't be asking about a sports program as revenue-producing but rather profit-producing. That's what really what you're arguing. Because at most (not all) schools, the basketball team and football teams lose money just like the tennis team, baseball team, and soccer team.

So since URI loses money on basketball, then I think we should all agree that URI should drop the program...and all the other athletic programs too. Either that, until their revenues exceed their expenses, URI basketball and football players should have their scholarships removed.

That's essentially what you're saying..."revenue" student-athletes should be treated better than "non-revenue" student athletes. Instead, you should label them all "non-profitable" student athletes (because it's not about revenue) and do away with their scholarships.

Nice. (You'd also be the first person to complain about the USA's lack of track & field and swimming medals at the Olympics after you did away with all the Olympic sports. See how that would go over if our colleges didn't allow for participation in those sports.)

[josephski]

Would it really make it that much harder then it is now though? I mean sure maybe some, but there are still only 12/13 spots on each team. If there are so few programs actually turning a profit then not everybody can go play for those teams. Kids would be faced with a lot of the same decisions they are now. Do you want to make a little bit of money now and be 5th off the bench for Kentucky or do you want to forego the chance at a little extra cash now to have the chance to start/star somewhere else where you could better your situation for after school.

That's a good point and I think it would come down to just how much money a player would be paid by the school. If the profitable schools could all pay players $15,000+ a year then I think you would see all the top 100 recruits going to those profitable programs.

I also think that if players want to be paid at schools that aren't making a profit then it needs to be taken from the current operating budget. So right now if URI could legally pay their players then it would sense to take something like $150,000 away from the total coaches salaries and use that to pay the players.

[adam914]

Whether I played a "revenue producing" sport is irrelevant. But I'll answer your question with a yes. Feel better? If you want me to play by your logic then your question should be about "profit producing" sport. I mean, we're all (I think) adults on here. I think we know that college athletic department budgets are essentially looked at as like businesses.

If that's the case, then you shouldn't be asking about a sports program as revenue-producing but rather profit-producing. That's what really what you're arguing. Because at most (not all) schools, the basketball team and football teams lose money just like the tennis team, baseball team, and soccer team.

So since URI loses money on basketball, then I think we should all agree that URI should drop the program...and all the other athletic programs too. Either that, until their revenues exceed their expenses, URI basketball and football players should have their scholarships removed.

That's essentially what you're saying..."revenue" student-athletes should be treated better than "non-revenue" student athletes. Instead, you should label them all "non-profitable" student athletes (because it's not about revenue) and do away with their scholarships.

Nice. (You'd also be the first person to complain about the USA's lack of track & field and swimming medals at the Olympics after you did away with all the Olympic sports. See how that would go over if our colleges didn't allow for participation in those sports.)

You are correct that I used the wrong terminology and should have said profit, instead of revenue. The rest of your post is just you making stuff up to change your argument into something that has nothing to do with what I actually said. I said nothing about doing away with scholarships or dropping any sports.

[bressler3south]

NCAA, AAU, whatever. They're all pimps.
Funny, this is another discussion that took place a couple of years ago.
Imagine, college pay for play -- whose accountants are going to be used when divvying-up the spoils?
You know, it's all nonsense. It's like watching the old time "Fat Men's Club" at a smorgasbord.

[ramster]

Does revenue or profit matter?

If you want to pay the players then pay them - with no limitations.
Why should there be limitations?
Players would simply go to the highest bidder.
Free agency
Kansas, UCLA, UNC........whoever offers the most to come play for their school
Could have on line bidding, like auction off the players
Could also do for 5th year players and anyone who wants to transfer

I think the biggest issue is the NCAA/NBA or whoever makes the rule that a kid has to play this one year of college - one and done. Makes kids go play overseas for a year, or go to college for a year - stupid - go straight to the NBA - I would think it is not legal to keep a kid from playing in the NBA because of his age -
The kid can go to War at 18 but can't lay in the NBA until 19?
Can't drink until 21 but can go fight for his (our) country at 18?

But honestly if you are going to pay players then it should not be that they all get the same exact amount - the best should get the highest pay. And is the 13th guy on the bench who plays 3 minutes a year going to get the same as the All American player?

For me,
Get rid of the Age limit for the NBA.
Let kids who want to go to college go to college
Let the NBA Development league be the minor league just like Baseball does with their A, AA, AAA Farm System
I'm tired of the one and done stuff and all the recruiting noise to battle over kids who will play for one year.
No way this One and Done is around 5 years from now - it's stupid and probably illegal for a good lawyer to fight

[rjsuperfly66]

Well then you could also argue that it's illegal to offer an "entry-level position" that requires 2 years of experience/certifications and pays $40K a year but businesses do it anyway. The NBA is a business and I'm sure as long as there is not discrimination, they can impose whatever stipulations they want. If they want kids to get experience that exceeds HS basketball (which is essentially what the one and done allows for and has helped eliminate some risk to NBA GM's), they can and should be able to do that. I agree it's stupid that we hear about all these top players coming to school for one year, but not all of them work out and that has protected NBA teams from the exposed players. Before the year, Chieck Diallo was a consensus Top 5 pick in this draft, if he left school this year, at best he would have been late 1st round. Diamond Stone would have been borderline Top 5, instead he's late 1st round. Granted, some of them are not egregious, but some of them could be. At one point Andrew Harrison was a Top 5 recruit, he went 44th overall 2 years later. Dakari Johnson was #7 recruit, went 48th overall 2 years later. Kasey Hill was a top 10 recruit, not even on a draft radar. These are the types of kids that can screw you over and they came out right from high school, a high-potential kid who could dominate in HS but ends up playing kids that are his "equals" and doesn't stand out.

[ramster]

The rules are not even consists t for men and women between the NCAA men and women for going pro.

They are for sure doing what they want.

It's the fairness that I question

[PlayMikeMotenMore]

Fine, I'll compromise. Let's pay the student-athletes, ALL of them, beyond their full-ride. My rules...

1) They all get paid the same amount.
2) They only get paid upon graduation.
3) They pay taxes on what they get paid.

How's that for a start? Or plan B...

NCAA partners with Fidelity Investments and when a student-athlete graduates from college, they've got the beginnings of an IRA account with some money stashed in their Fidelity account. Is that fair?

[ramster]

So the 5 star player gets the same money as the zero star?
If you are going to pay them then pay them what they are individually worth in the marketplace.

And players in the P5 conferences should get paid much more than players in the lesser known conferences.

[adam914]

Fine, I'll compromise. Let's pay the student-athletes, ALL of them, beyond their full-ride. My rules...

1) They all get paid the same amount.
2) They only get paid upon graduation.
3) They pay taxes on what they get paid.

How's that for a start? Or plan B...

NCAA partners with Fidelity Investments and when a student-athlete graduates from college, they've got the beginnings of an IRA account with some money stashed in their Fidelity account. Is that fair?

Ok, but then we're also going to decide how you get to use the money you make. I have decided that your salary must go into an account that you can't touch until you are 80. You'll have to find a way to scrape by until then without any income. Sound fair?

[Running Ram]

Fine, I'll compromise. Let's pay the student-athletes, ALL of them, beyond their full-ride. My rules...

1) They all get paid the same amount.
2) They only get paid upon graduation.
3) They pay taxes on what they get paid.

How's that for a start? Or plan B...

NCAA partners with Fidelity Investments and when a student-athlete graduates from college, they've got the beginnings of an IRA account with some money stashed in their Fidelity account. Is that fair?

Ok, but then we're also going to decide how you get to use the money you make. I have decided that your salary must go into an account that you can't touch until you are 80. You'll have to find a way to scrape by until then without any income. Sound fair?

Right.

The athletes create the product and they can't even earn money part time doing something unrelated to the team, ie. part time job, so every other student not making money for a big business and expanding their institution's brand gets to order late night take out, but not the athletes. Don't get me wrong, scholarships are great, but these kids are making sacrifices beyond their team obligations in order to maintain these scholarships.

[rjsuperfly66]

So the 5 star player gets the same money as the zero star?
If you are going to pay them then pay them what they are individually worth in the marketplace.

And players in the P5 conferences should get paid much more than players in the lesser known conferences.

If you do that you are essentially killing college basketball as we know it. "Why am I going to star at Tenple making $10K a year when I can go go Syracuse as a role player and make $25K a year?" Right now the gap between top P5 teams and the rest are manageable. Teams from the Big East, AAC, and A10 at least have a chance with proper recruiting and talent development. You start having unfair payment plans (especially P5 vs others vs bottom) and BC suddenly becomes more attractive than PC or URI.

[adam914]

If you do that you are essentially killing college basketball as we know it. "Why am I going to star at Tenple making $10K a year when I can go go Syracuse as a role player and make $25K a year?" Right now the gap between top P5 teams and the rest are manageable. Teams from the Big East, AAC, and A10 at least have a chance with proper recruiting and talent development. You start having unfair payment plans (especially P5 vs others vs bottom) and BC suddenly becomes more attractive than PC or URI.

You definitely aren't wrong about this, it would become a problem. How big of one is kind of unknown, but it would without a doubt happen at times. However is the alternative just to keep screwing over these kids and letting other people get rich off of their talents and names? It's an honest question, if there is something fair in between that and what you state that would be fantastic. I just don't know if there is.

[ramster]

So the 5 star player gets the same money as the zero star?
If you are going to pay them then pay them what they are individually worth in the marketplace.

And players in the P5 conferences should get paid much more than players in the lesser known conferences.

If you do that you are essentially killing college basketball as we know it. "Why am I going to star at Tenple making $10K a year when I can go go Syracuse as a role player and make $25K a year?" Right now the gap between top P5 teams and the rest are manageable. Teams from the Big East, AAC, and A10 at least have a chance with proper recruiting and talent development. You start having unfair payment plans (especially P5 vs others vs bottom) and BC suddenly becomes more attractive than PC or URI.

Of course you are killing basketball as we know it. Bingo.

Just leave it alone the way it is. But let kids play in the NBA at whatever age they want as long as they are 16 to satisfy child labor laws. It's stupid that a kid can get a job at McDonalds at 16, he can sell hot dogs at the Knicks game at 16 BUT he can't play for the Knicks until he is 19. At some point there is a law suit coming. This one and done can't be around much longer.

[NYGFan_Section208]

I'm thinking one and done will always be around...kids that could go pro right after high school...would. I think there's always likely to be a next tier that would still be one and done.

[rambone 78]

66 is dead on. If you have a 2 tier pay system where P5 players get more, then it's all over for schools like URI. Recruiting would be left to 2 stars and the like.....

I'm sure the PF schools would love that arrangement. It would however kill the NCAA tournament as we know it for sure.

If that were to get passed, Dan I think might be kicking himself for not going to Rutgers.

[bressler3south]

So the 5 star player gets the same money as the zero star?
If you are going to pay them then pay them what they are individually worth in the marketplace.

And players in the P5 conferences should get paid much more than players in the lesser known conferences.

If you do that you are essentially killing college basketball as we know it. "Why am I going to star at Tenple making $10K a year when I can go go Syracuse as a role player and make $25K a year?" Right now the gap between top P5 teams and the rest are manageable. Teams from the Big East, AAC, and A10 at least have a chance with proper recruiting and talent development. You start having unfair payment plans (especially P5 vs others vs bottom) and BC suddenly becomes more attractive than PC or URI.

Of course you are killing basketball as we know it. Bingo.

Just leave it alone the way it is. But let kids play in the NBA at whatever age they want as long as they are 16 to satisfy child labor laws. It's stupid that a kid can get a job at McDonalds at 16, he can sell hot dogs at the Knicks game at 16 BUT he can't play for the Knicks until he is 19. At some point there is a law suit coming. This one and done can't be around much longer.

There are guys on the Knicks' roster who shouldn't be playing for the Knicks. And I don't know if they'd make the Penn Station McDonald's roster, either.

[TruePoint]

I don't think I could disagree more with someone than I do with ramster on this. Basically everything he has said on this topic I feel 180 degrees opposite. I do think kids should get something for playing because they are the product that others are selling to create revenue. They should share in that revenue. However, this also isn't a truly "professional" system - nobody could do this as a career, you get four years max then you're out and it's tied to your academics in terms of graduation and eligibility and everything. A stipend where kids are paid directly by the NCAA from a fund that is made up partially from sport-wide revenues (like the NCAA tournament TV deals) and contributions from all members tied to their revenues (almost like a tax on earnings of individual programs) makes the most sense to me. The funds should be basically evenly distributed, although I could go along with maybe upperclassmen getting more than freshmen or whatever. This way you are being fair to the kids without torpedoing the whole sport.

As far as the one and done rule, that is an NBA rule, not a college one. And as an NBA fan, I wish they'd increase the restriction by two more years. It would improve both the college and the pro game. The NBA is being diluted by all the guys on rosters that do not belong there yet.

[ramster]

I don't think I could disagree more with someone than I do with ramster on this. Basically everything he has said on this topic I feel 180 degrees opposite. I do think kids should get something for playing because they are the product that others are selling to create revenue. They should share in that revenue. However, this also isn't a truly "professional" system - nobody could do this as a career, you get four years max then you're out and it's tied to your academics in terms of graduation and eligibility and everything. A stipend where kids are paid directly by the NCAA from a fund that is made up partially from sport-wide revenues (like the NCAA tournament TV deals) and contributions from all members tied to their revenues (almost like a tax on earnings of individual programs) makes the most sense to me. The funds should be basically evenly distributed, although I could go along with maybe upperclassmen getting more than freshmen or whatever. This way you are being fair to the kids without torpedoing the whole sport.

As far as the one and done rule, that is an NBA rule, not a college one. And as an NBA fan, I wish they'd increase the restriction by two more years. It would improve both the college and the pro game. The NBA is being diluted by all the guys on rosters that do not belong there yet.

Just to be clear TP,
I do not think College Players should get a stipend of any kind.
They get the scholarship,just like the kids on the rowing, tennis, baseball, track, golf, football, etc do.

The basketball players get far more publicity than any others if they play well and their teams advance in the NCAA tournament.

For all the talk on sports talk shows and in the press of possibly the Final 4 teams choosing not to play this year due to them not getting paid then screw them.

My points show how still unfair it can be and how unmanageable the gw hole,thing can become if you choose to pay them.

So I can not disagree with YOU more about paying college players to do,what they got the scholarship,for in the first place. Don't want college then go Professional.

You will never make these guys happy with just simple stipends.

It's all changing right before our eyes anyway.

d-league is now televised, advertised,promoted like never before. The NBA is greedy and they will get their way. Players will not have to wait until they are 19 forever.

But again, I am NOT for paying kids more than the Scholarships at all, ever.

[rjsuperfly66]

Just leave it alone the way it is. But let kids play in the NBA at whatever age they want as long as they are 16 to satisfy child labor laws. It's stupid that a kid can get a job at McDonalds at 16, he can sell hot dogs at the Knicks game at 16 BUT he can't play for the Knicks until he is 19. At some point there is a law suit coming. This one and done can't be around much longer.

The NBA is a business though, in theory they can do whatever they want. It is not a monopoly that stunts earnings potential with unfair stipulations. If a kid does not want to go to college, he doesn't have to. He can go to the D-League and not have to worry about school, and if he is any good, he can go to Europe and make significant cash plus perks. The only form of discrimination you can aruge is age discrimination, and I don't think it's really a valid argument unless they became a 25 and older league or there were no other options.

Heck, I went to school and got 2 four year degrees. The degree on got in accounting, I really had no desire to get involved with halfway through my senior year, so I passed on many accounting jobs. That left my business degree. The only jobs I could only gain traction with, were all jobs that many people didn't need to go to school for. They were entry level in the truest sense of the word. Could I kick and scream and sue because of it? Those "entry-level" finance jobs that required multiple years experience that I couldn't even get call-backs on because I didn't have the experience? No. I sucked it up and did the work at an over-qualified rate for a while, and finally now are things starting to balance out.

Now that's a different argument that should kids get paid and how much. How much should Ben Simmons be paid for? LSU was everywhere. But they didn't make the tournament, and he basically flunked out of school. How do you determine worth? Kris Dunn was a marquee marketing tool for PC. But how many more seats per game did he alone fill? How do you know? Do you survey every person who comes into the Dunk? "Why are you here tonight?" "Oh you answered Kris Dunn, he gets another $1."

[Seawrightspostgame]

I think it has to look like something TP mentioned above. Then you tweak it as issues become clear.

The scholarships players get are costing absolutely zero to the school. Adding 13 kids to campuses doesn't require much if anything at all. 25k a year in payments? the kid would cost 25k a year. It wouldnt be in addition to the scholarship.

Has the 1 and done rule been challenged?

[rjsuperfly66]

I believe it was challenged in regards to the NFL, this was the response from an article I read on the topic:

"In 2004, the Second Circuit, addressing whether age and amateur experience requirements are permissible for National Football League draft prospects, found that a players association could limit draft eligibility in a collective bargaining agreement. [3] The court held that: “ecause the NFL players have unionized and have selected the NFLPA as its exclusive bargaining representative, labor law prohibits [the player] from negotiating directly the terms and conditions of his employment with any NFL club. . . . The terms and conditions of [the player’s] employment are instead committed to the collective bargaining table and are reserved to the NFL and the players union’s selected representative to negotiate.”

The piece talks about how the NBA and colleges benefit and how the players are at the disadvantage.

http://lawweb2009.law.villanova.edu/sportslaw/?p=1821

[PlayMikeMotenMore]

I don't think I could disagree more with someone than I do with ramster on this. Basically everything he has said on this topic I feel 180 degrees opposite. I do think kids should get something for playing because they are the product that others are selling to create revenue. They should share in that revenue. However, this also isn't a truly "professional" system - nobody could do this as a career, you get four years max then you're out and it's tied to your academics in terms of graduation and eligibility and everything. A stipend where kids are paid directly by the NCAA from a fund that is made up partially from sport-wide revenues (like the NCAA tournament TV deals) and contributions from all members tied to their revenues (almost like a tax on earnings of individual programs) makes the most sense to me. The funds should be basically evenly distributed, although I could go along with maybe upperclassmen getting more than freshmen or whatever. This way you are being fair to the kids without torpedoing the whole sport.

As far as the one and done rule, that is an NBA rule, not a college one. And as an NBA fan, I wish they'd increase the restriction by two more years. It would improve both the college and the pro game. The NBA is being diluted by all the guys on rosters that do not belong there yet.

Just to be clear TP,
I do not think College Players should get a stipend of any kind.
They get the scholarship,just like the kids on the rowing, tennis, baseball, track, golf, football, etc do.

The basketball players get far more publicity than any others if they play well and their teams advance in the NCAA tournament.

For all the talk on sports talk shows and in the press of possibly the Final 4 teams choosing not to play this year due to them not getting paid then screw them.

My points show how still unfair it can be and how unmanageable the gw hole,thing can become if you choose to pay them.

So I can not disagree with YOU more about paying college players to do,what they got the scholarship,for in the first place. Don't want college then go Professional.

You will never make these guys happy with just simple stipends.

It's all changing right before our eyes anyway.

d-league is now televised, advertised,promoted like never before. The NBA is greedy and they will get their way. Players will not have to wait until they are 19 forever.

But again, I am NOT for paying kids more than the Scholarships at all, ever.

Ramster, I am with you 100%. A kid wants basketball to be his vocation. Fine. Go to the NBA, go to the D-League, go to Europe, go to Brazil. Go get paid. The NCAA shouldn't pay these kids...you pay 'em dime, they'll want a buck. You pay 'em a buck then they'll want $100. It'll never stop.

However, I don't want to read Bunky's column in 2025 about the poor kid, out of the game at 28 because of a bum knee and he's got no degree and no job...and what is he going to do with the rest of his life.

We all make choices. A kid chooses to play college basketball then the kid has to abide by the NCAA rules. Kid doesn't like the rules? Then nobody's forcing him to go to college. Find somewhere else to play and good luck with your life. Otherwise, be thankful for and take advantage of the full ride college scholarship. That's your ticket to life.

[Ramblinrose]

Bunky is still going to be writing 9 years from now?
Sad part is some of these kids arrive at college with few life skills. A friend of mine tutored some URI players as a grad student in the 1980s.
Her job was to help them academically. But she helped them with basic skills like endorsing a check, opening a bank account, figuring out where academic buildings were (some were upperclassmen by then).
Basketball came easy to them. And they had coaches and trainers to keep an eye on their needs.
But she feared for how these kids would fare after basketball. Most of them never imagined a life without it.
And I think it's like that for kids at many D--1 hoop or football programs.

[Blue Man]

Here's my problem with the paying athletes discussion. Who to pay and what to pay them is a debate that can go back and forth forever.

My biggest problem here is that athletes aren't allowed to make a dime off their own likeness. Jersey sales, autographs, etc, etc...

If you were a music major and made a CD, you could sell it and people could buy it and you could make that money.

Why in the hell if someone is a central figure in a tax-exempt industry generating billions of dollars, can they not make a couple hundred off of their own name...that said company is also making money off of?