fightingsioux4life Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 So what is interesting in this whole debate is where was this argument 10 years ago or the many years before that? Only when Universities started signing these monster TV deals and making boatloads of money from displaying their college athletic teams did students atheletes feel they needed a cut. Where were the complaints years ago from student athelets who were struggling financially to pay for ":other costs" at school? These students are not employees of the University. They don;t have stock in the University. They are now owed anymore money simply because the University is brining in more money due to athletics. I think college athletics has gotten more complex and time consuming over the years. TV contracts are also much larger than they used to be. So as the appetite for more and more money gets bigger, so do the demands on the athletes who are responsible for generating it in the first place. In the so-called "real world", this would be called indentured servitude or even sharecropping. So why is it acceptable in college athletics? SMH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Is it really that greedy that these athletes would like to be compensated at their market value? If I wanted to go to college at Notre Dame it would cost me $46,263 per year. The way I look at it, 85 young men between the ages of let's say 18-23 years old are already earning a salary $46,263 per year. They don't have to pay income tax on that salary either. I think they are being compensated well above the market value of most 18-23 year olds. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Again, the students are not employees of the University. They aren't buying stock in the program so when the school succeeds financially, they do as well. They are given a free education. More than enough compensation considering how much college tuition is these days. I get your point that the student atheletes are the ones playing on the teams that generate this revenue, but that is my point. The team is generating the revenue, not the player. Buckeye Stadium will sellout next year and many years down the road regardless of the players they have playing for them. The school makes money off the team, so they should be obligated to compensate the team for revenue produced. Not individual players. Based on the schedules these athletes are subjected to day after day, week after week, I don't think "free" is a good description for it. And the idea that all these athletes are somehow "replaceable parts" is simply not true. Most of these athletes were recruited by multiple schools and are considered the cream of the crop in their particular sport. The team wouldn't be generating jack squat without these elite players. The team is made up of the players, so yes, the players are the ones generating the revenue. Maybe it's time for the NFL to start their own developmental league and stop using colleges to develop their future stars. That would definitely change things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I just don't think there's the will to do so. When autonomy was passed, only either 27 or 37 schools wrote back against the idea. That's of over 330 schools. I think FCS schools that don't want the stipend will use conferences to limit its use rather than FCS as a whole. The schools from the bottom or non-playoff conferences don't care; they're not going to win the NC anyway(Ivy, SWAC, MEAC, PL, PFL). The top conferences will be in favor of stipends because if they are opposed, it will only hasten their best schools leaving for FBS(MVFC, BSky, CAA, SC, SLC). And the middle conferences aren't enough to swing any vote(OVC, BSouth). But I've been wrong before and I'll likely be wrong many times in the future. I will say that if FGIA are disallowed by the FCS, you're going to see another mass movement of top FCS schools moving to the FBS. And NDSU will be at the front of the group. We've spent the last decade becoming an G5 school in all but name; being restricted to regular GIA levels would be a giant step backwards. Just my opinion. You are right that if conferences restrict the stipend, some of them are likely to lose some members to FBS. I agree that NDSU would be at the front of that group. But if they allow stipends, they are likely to lose members as well. FCS is not financially healthy right now. If you're a school that is struggling, and now you have to add stipends for your football program (plus the Title IX offsets) just to stay competitive, football might go on the chopping block. I'm certainly not an MVFC expert, but what happens at Indiana State if the conference allows stipends for football? Even a perennial good program like UNI has twice played two FBS games per year to make ends meet. Does UNI really want to add to their scholarship costs right now? In the Big Sky, I've heard Portland State is having serious problems and has considered dropping football. I don't know the politics of the MVFC, or the Big Sky, but I have to believe that there are more FCS schools that have serious reservations about stipends for football than those that want to pursue them. Having said that, the media reports thus far make it sound like it's inevitable at the FCS level, so you'll probably end up being right. All I know is that UND needs to prepare to fully fund stipends for football, whatever that ends up looking like. It will be painful to do so, but it has to be done. If that means cutting sports, then that is what has to be done. Football has to be healthy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Maybe it's time for the NFL to start their own developmental league and stop using colleges to develop their future stars. That would definitely change things. Unless you there is a large financial incentive to do so, it will never happen. People have emotional ties to colleges, it is why it works so well right now. Once those players are out of college, the emotional tie is severed and you have a product that isn't top of the line and people aren't invested. Tough sell across the board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlsiouxfan Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 If I wanted to go to college at Notre Dame it would cost me $46,263 per year. The way I look at it, 85 young men between the ages of let's say 18-23 years old are already earning a salary $46,263 per year. They don't have to pay income tax on that salary either. I think they are being compensated well above the market value of most 18-23 year olds. Most studies I've seen put the market value of the average FBS football player at between $178K-$435K. The average value of a basketball player is slightly higher. Right now for a larger share of those players than we'd like to admit, that difference is being entirely made up by the black market. Essentially boosters funneling dollars and improper benefits to these athletes. It's a system that is just asking for trouble as the universities have no control over these actions and it can result in steep penalties for the university and other student athletes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Unless you there is a large financial incentive to do so, it will never happen. People have emotional ties to colleges, it is why it works so well right now. Once those players are out of college, the emotional tie is severed and you have a product that isn't top of the line and people aren't invested. Tough sell across the board. Then how do you explain the NBA starting the NBDL? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Most studies I've seen put the market value of the average FBS football player at between $178K-$435K. The average value of a basketball player is slightly higher. Right now for a larger share of those players than we'd like to admit, that difference is being entirely made up by the black market. Essentially boosters funneling dollars and improper benefits to these athletes. It's a system that is just asking for trouble as the universities have no control over these actions and it can result in steep penalties for the university and other student athletes. If you really believe this stipend is going to eliminate boosters providing improper benefits to student-athletes at the big schools, I think you are going to be disappointed with the end result of this. We will just have to agree to disagree and that is fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I have a question that I honestly don't know the answer to. If someone is on a full scholarship, let's use men's basketball as an example because there are no partials for that, does the scholarship include housing & a meal plan at a residence hall? If it does, which I assume to be true, how is the scholarship money handled if the student-athlete chooses to live off campus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Then how do you explain the NBA starting the NBDL? Is it profitable? Last I heard it wasn't and that was after being around for 10+ years. The NBA wanted a way to further develop players and did what they thought was best. Also think about the cost factor: You're comparing paying 10-12 players/team plus a few coaches for a game that can be played in smaller arenas (which most large metros have) versus paying around 60 players plus quite a few more coaches and the options for a venue to hold a game are limited and likely large. Takes a lot fewer butts in the seat to pay for the first one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VMeister Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 If it does, which I assume to be true, how is the scholarship money handled if the student-athlete chooses to live off campus? They get the cost of the housing and meal plan paid to them each month throughout the year. Then they're on their own. Unless FCS or the Big Sky votes to not allow this, we've got to do FCOA for all revenue sports. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodak651 Posted January 27, 2015 Author Share Posted January 27, 2015 Is it profitable? Last I heard it wasn't and that was after being around for 10+ years. The NBA wanted a way to further develop players and did what they thought was best. Also think about the cost factor: You're comparing paying 10-12 players/team plus a few coaches for a game that can be played in smaller arenas (which most large metros have) versus paying around 60 players plus quite a few more coaches and the options for a venue to hold a game are limited and likely large. Takes a lot fewer butts in the seat to pay for the first one. The NFL could share teams. The Wild share their ECHL team with someone.. not sure how it works exactly, but the NFL minor leagues could have something like a ten team league. That's a topic for a different day though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Unless FCS or the Big Sky votes to not allow this, we've got to do FCOA for all revenue sports. It won't be cheap, but it's the only way to not be on the wrong side of the gap. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 This is my biggest concern. I really don't want a FB program that finishes 4-7 most years, with an occassional 6-5. We need to seriously commit to the program or it will become a financial drain because of poor attendance. Attendance is the absolute highest priority for any stipend plan to work. The athletic department will have to operate on the financial assumption that all football games will operate at or near sellout levels. No excuses, get it done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfhockey Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 I bet Ralph would wrote a dear bob letter to kelley And dear Brian letter. They clearly aren't businessmen and should be fired Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxjoy Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 They clearly aren't businessmen Shocker. Higher education is a completely different animal than the regular business world (but really, what is the official job description of "businessman" anyway?). I don't work in accounting, I don't know a thing about accounting, and so I don't believe that I can tell an accountant how to do their job. Same with farming and a lot of other fields/professions. Just a personal philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnboyND7 Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Shocker. Higher education is a completely different animal than the regular business world (but really, what is the official job description of "businessman" anyway?). I don't work in accounting, I don't know a thing about accounting, and so I don't believe that I can tell an accountant how to do their job. Same with farming and a lot of other fields/professions. Just a personal philosophy. Assets=liabilities+equity I think we are ready for our cpa exam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Just give em all a new car & free beer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bison73 Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 So if the hockey team gets stipends would this classify them as paid professionals and no longer amateur? I'm wondering if this could open the door to potential exhibition games vs chl teams. No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodak651 Posted January 30, 2015 Author Share Posted January 30, 2015 No. I'm curious - is this you trolling or an educated guess? Does the CHL classify their payments as stipends? And anyone know how much they actually get paid (CHL players)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cberkas Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I'm curious - is this you trolling or an educated guess? Does the CHL classify their payments as stipends? And anyone know how much they actually get paid (CHL players)? This might give you an idea on how much players are paid in the CHL. https://sports.vice.com/article/child-labor-lawsuits-and-how-junior-hockey-exploits-its-players-for-profit/?utm_source=vicesportstwitter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bison73 Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I'm curious - is this you trolling or an educated guess? Does the CHL classify their payments as stipends? And anyone know how much they actually get paid (CHL players)? Not trolling at all. The NCAA wouldnt allow the stipend if it would have meant those who received it would be considered professional. That would have opened up a can of worms the NCAA didnt want. Nor would the NFL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Not trolling at all. The NCAA wouldnt allow the stipend if it would have meant those who received it would be considered professional. That would have opened up a can of worms the NCAA didnt want. Nor would the NFL. They are getting paid above the cost of tuition. The NCAA is allowing it because they have lost control of the large schools and this is what they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 It's only the NCAA that has this obsession of this concept of what an "amateur" is. And they make up their own rules for it as they go along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodakhoops Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 Article on cost of attendance in the paper today. Faison said UND is paying full cost for 18 men's hockey and 18 women's sports scholarship. Im guessing 13 are going to WBB since I'm assuming it brings in the most money of the women's sports. Smart move to do that. He also said UND isn't looking beyond that because other Big Sky teams aren't. I think He should ask Bubba, Jones, Brew, Pyror, etc who they recruit against more theBig Sky or NDSU, Sdsu, Usd, Omaha, etc. If those schools do it for football and basketball UND needs to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.