Miller: Athletes are ALREADY Getting Paid

[HawkeyeWalker]

Sorry, but the whole NCAA Div-1 already *is* a big business. Just like the pro's.

A scholarship, for reasons I've stated, doesn't even come close to the value (money!) the kids put back into the school, coach's pockets, athletic director's pockets, support staff jobs, peripheral vendors, on-line school garb, on and on and on. Not even close.

My paycheck doesn't come close to the millions I make for my company. .

The profit arguement seems to be your biggest issue. So what about the 1000s of other college athletes in sports other than fb who have full rides...whose sports are cost centers.

Stipend...small one. That's it.

Agree to disagree I guess.

 

[HawkeyeWalker]

Sorry, but the whole NCAA Div-1 already *is* a big business. Just like the pro's.

A scholarship, for reasons I've stated, doesn't even come close to the value (money!) the kids put back into the school, coach's pockets, athletic director's pockets, support staff jobs, peripheral vendors, on-line school garb, on and on and on. Not even close.

Mostly all of you sound like socialists. And I always thought Jon was a conservative. So why is it okay to pay everyone the same when their value is completely different? Johnny Football can't make cash off autographs while his school sells Johnny Football T-shirts, yet he gets the same scholly as bench warmers. That's cool with everyone here though, right?

Are all of you in favor of this model planning on moving to Mother Russia soon? Come on and defend capitalism everyone. Here will come the gang trying to tell me how they can go do something else to make money.

So in this model you propose, where the top 1% of college athletes profit , where do you make the cutoff for who guys paid and who doesn't.?

 

[Seth53]

So in this model you propose, where the top 1% of college athletes profit , where do you make the cutoff for who guys paid and who doesn't.?

I never said to not pay the non-revenue producers.

Everybody gets paid. Title IX is happy.

You just pay the revenue producers more, and, let them test the free market for other avenues of income generation if warranted (signing autographs).

The old days of indenture servitude in exchange for room, board, books and tuition just doesn't cut it anymore. Maybe n 1950....not in 2013.

 

[Billso]

I never said to not pay the non-revenue producers.

Everybody gets paid. Title IX is happy.

Paid how much?

You just pay the revenue producers more,

Bzzzt. Wrong answer. Instant Title IX lawsuit, which you will quickly lose, and that's *after* generating massive negative publicity and pushback from female athletes and every equal rights group in the country. By the way, I happen to share your anger (and Dan Gable's) at the negative effect of Title IX on many smaller sports, but anger doesn't change the law. The solution is legislation and that would be a tough political nut to crack.

and, let them test the free market for other avenues of income generation if warranted (signing autographs).

This is the one part of your theory that has some rationale, I think: that because this income is not paid by the school, it shouldn't violate the letter of Title IX. And that may even be true. But there are two problems. One, the revenue is enabled only by the athlete's platform as a school athlete, and therefore would be argued to fall under Title IX. Any competent lawyer will fight hard along these lines both legally and in the court of public opinion, and it'd be a long hard expensive multi-year slog the schools have no appetite for. Two, those "other avenues" would simply be third-party payoffs by another name, essentially legalizing sleaze and buying recruits. Sure, some people argue that this would be "nothing new" at places like Auburn and USC, but letting the agents and boosters run wild everywhere would be 10x worse.

The old days of indenture servitude in exchange for room, board, books and tuition just doesn't cut it anymore. Maybe n 1950....not in 2013.

$200,000-$500,000 value is not "indentured servitude". You might try reading the original article. Hyperbole doesn't enhance your argument, it just makes you look dopey, which I know you're not.

 

[Seth53]

Anything that has a swing of $200K to $500K in value probably isn't being priced even remotely accurately.

My daughter is a JR at Iowa....her 4 years isn't going to cost even remotely close to $200K....that I can accurately tell you!

As far as the "how much"....I haven't really taken time to delve into the "how" it'll work....but I have a pretty clear picture on "why" it should be implemented. The "Why" makes sense to me. The "how" belongs to people who know the business far better than I.

Smart people would figure it out. After all....

...They've figured out how to merge conferences with no geographical sense, start a Big-10 channel, market college merchandise, charge excise tax on season tickets, modify the drinking environments to the detriment of a good time, institute a money making playoff, positively spin quarter of a billion dollar renovation at same places, justify paying coaches 5+ million a year, funnel off the best part of the college season (bowl games) to outside ventures which charge schools back for unsold tickets, keep the stands full....all under the guise of "amateur athletics" and "student athletes." Yessirreee.....they have successfully milked the cash cow in favor of the schools and leagues for years.....they can figure out how to pay folks and keep T-IX happy and political requirements met.

And yes, the ultimate change will be to abolish/modify T-IX. I think it'll happen....or at least...reach the supreme court.

 

[Billso]

Anything that has a swing of $200K to $500K in value probably isn't being priced even remotely accurately.

My daughter is a JR at Iowa....her 4 years isn't going to cost even remotely close to $200K....that I can accurately tell you!

Psst... hey Seth... your daughter is an Iowa resident. You might want to actually read the OP before commenting.

 

[Seth53]

She wasn't her first year.