I was watching "Meet the Press" last Sunday and on it they had a debate about paying college athletes. On the show they had the President of the NCAA Mark Emmert, United States Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, who played basketball at Harvard, and former Obama Aide Reggie Love, who played football and basketball at Duke. Each of these guys made points about why or why not college players should be paid, they did a much better job than I ever could. I encourage you to look up the segment and watch it. This however is my blog where I spout my views so I'm going say why I feel college players should be paid but also why there are a few stumbling blocks in the way of that happening. I probably should do more research but I'm not going to, this is a blog not a term paper, here we go.
The biggest reason I feel players should be paid is that the University's make money off of them and don't have to give much back in return. But Derek they get a scholarship and have their tuition and room paid for. Yeah your right a kid that helps you earn millions of dollars from TV deals, apparel sales, and sold tickets is compensated with a $9,000 a semester tuition and then housing and meals which is another $9,000 a semester, so we'll say $36,000 a year. Let's compare that to the Iowa football team that made $50.6 million in 2011-2012. Football teams are allowed 85 scholarships which rough math equals $3.06 million in tuition and boarding per year. Now there is other things including travel, coaches pay, facilities, recruiting and other fees but that's a $47.54 million difference. The kids play for "free" and the college gets 47 million, and that's Iowa the team that was 18th in revenue in 2012. I also just looked up a James Morris #44 Hawkeyes jersey, it sells for $59.95 on the internet, not a single cent goes to James Morris, even though it's not his name on the back we all know who's jersey that is. Once again the money from that sale goes to the university.
Last June the Big Ten Network gave each of the 12 members of the conference $284 million from TV contracts and NCAA tournament revenue. Now I know they have studio shows, camera crews and whatever else but they gave the schools 284 EACH after they took their chunk that's 3,408 million dollars in profit. That's probably b/c they don't have to pay the people who make their shows watchable. If you don't have to pay the help you just get to keep all the money for yourselves. All the programming is basically free for the network b/c the field hands get a scholarship that gives them a "free" education.
Let's visit that term "free" education. That thing isn't free, you have to work your ass off to earn it. You have to go to class, go to practice, workout in the off-season, not be allowed a job b/c a booster may give you an unfair wage. If something happens to you, your athletic scholarship can be taken away at the end of the year, b/c a scholarship is only a one year deal. Let's say your a kid from a poor family, you work your ass off get a football scholarship. You start as a freshman, first game of the year your ruin your knee, football career over. Now some schools will honor that scholarship but some won't, and boom you got 1 year of education then you're out the door. Back home with a wrecked knee, no money, and 1 year of college. But Derek that's the risk they take, your right that is the risk and for some that was the only way out, but if they had made some money with say a 1 year contract they at least could land on their feet.
Now the hard question, how much should they make? That is where things get sketchy. I would propose say full tuition and board x2, so $36,000 a year in "salary." That is just the jumping off point. Who should make the money is another question. I think if they are a revenue maker for the school those athletes should be paid, and by revenue I mean if the sport makes a profit, after scholarships, coaches, travel, and equipment. Most sports that doesn't happen in college, in fact most schools football and basketball fund the rest of the university. Now a few may make money off of other sports say hockey at North Dakota or whatever, but mostly we're talking football and basketball. Those are the revenue generators for almost all the major colleges sports. Mark Emmert made a valid point on "Meet the Press" if we pay these athletes then they become employees of the university, and what university is going to make an employee go to calculus. That I don't have a counter for b/c I don't want to sound dumb and haven't done enough research to counter his argument. I will say if you put stipulations about earning potential and grades in the rules, BUT then that leads to buying grades and whatever else, I never said this isn't a slippery slope.
Somebody on Sunday told me, "Where does it stop? Do you pay high school kids? Do you pay D2 or D3 kids?" The answer is it stops at basketball and football at Division 1 schools. D2 and D3 don't offer scholarships, and frankly there isn't a lot of generated revenue. High School kids don't draw a lot of revenue either, somebody told me what about kids who make it to state, I'm pretty sure most state tournaments break about even. The answer to any where does it end question is simple, it ends somewhere right now, so if you change it a little for it to end at D-! schools that's where it ends.
So here is my proposal: For the 5 major conferences ACC, Big 12, Big 10, SEC, and Pac-12. You offer 85 scholarships for football and 13 for basketball (both of which are the current allotments) with full tuition and board as well as $36,000 in salary per scholarship player provided they maintain a GPA of 2.0. If you have another sport that generates revenue from ticket sales and TV deals then you can pay those athletes as well, we don't want boosters giving money for these funds. Also if a player has jersey sales they should get 10 percent of the profits. Also each contracted player shall be given full medical coverage for 10 years after graduation (must graduate) if they don't go professional in sports. Well that's my proposal I'm sure it has holes and flaws but that is just what I came up with off the cuff. The rest of the conferences well those schools don't generate as much money, and if they think it's an unfair advantage guess what guys it's already unfair b/c Alabama plays on CBS every 3 Saturday's and your lucky to be on CBS College Sports Network once a year. Your already behind b/c big schools can offer more.
This is just the beginning of this debate there are numerous lawsuits filed against the NCAA currently by former and current "student" athletes. I think these kids should be paid, they sacrifice a lot for a sliver of hope of making millions in the pro's. Less than 1% of college athletes make it to the pro level, and I think some of the millions should be spread out. I embrace this debate with anyone as long as they have an open mind and are willing to make valid points not just resort to name calling and telling people that's the way it is. That's it for this post follow me on twitter @derekbredeson.
No comments:
Post a Comment