It's Game Day! Now How About Paying the Players?

How much is a college football player worth?


College football has returned to the airwaves and with it the debate over paying student-athletes. Though the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) brought in nearly $1 billion dollars in revenue last year, the organization continues to resist compensating student-athletes because they argue it would undermine the ideals of amateurism. But "the term 'student athlete' is actually a fiction," says Ellen Staurowsky, a sport management professor at Drexel University. "It was created to obscure the fact that the NCAA knew that it had created a pay-for-play system."

Staurowsky argues that the NCAA's construct of amateurism changes to fit the needs of the organization. "The NCAA has three different divisions and there are different definitions of amateurism for each one," she says.  

Public opinion seems to be shifting in favor of a pay-for-play system. A 2014 Reason-Rupe poll found that 64 percent of Americans think student-atheletes should receive money if a college or company sells gear containing their likeness or jersey number. And 50 percent of Americans said college basketball players should get some of the $700 million in television rights revenue from the NCAA March Madness tournament. 

"Higher education is the sponsor of this enormous entertainment industry and it's building that industry on the backs of an unrecognized labor force," says Staurowsky. But if we are going to consider paying student-athletes, how do we determine their worth in a fair market?

Staurowsky, along with Ramogi Huma—a former football player at UCLA and president of the National College Players Association—looked to the pros for a model. 

"There was no real discussion about what the potential market value of a college football and men's basketball player might be," says Staurowsky. "It seemed reasonable that we would go to the professional associations where there's a revenue sharing mechanism in place. So we looked at the NFL and we looked at the NBA to begin to have a starting point." 

By looking at those models and considering the NCAA's new rule-change allowing student athletes to receive a scholarship covering the full cost of attendance, Staurowsky estimates that collegiate football players' worth is in the neighborhood of $110,000 a year across all schools. "If we begin to really look at the expanse of money that is out there, the question isn't so much whether or not the industry can afford to pay athletes," Staurowsky says. "It's just a matter of when there will be a recognition of the vast of amount of profit that is being generated in all of these other sectors and for people to understand that there really is money out there to do it."

While the NCAA may have the money to pay its student-athletes, however, it has been slow to make any meaningful changes. This inaction has led to a multitude of lawsuits that threaten the power structure of the organization, along with the Northwestern University football program's historic bid to unionize. 

Though the National Labor Relations Board rejected Northwestern's union bid in mid-August, the threat of unionization pushed the NCAA to make major policy reforms to raise scholarships to cover the full cost of attendance.  

Staurosky admits there can be issues with unionization, but she says it is important to put an outside group in place that can advocate on behalf of student-athletes.

"We know that this is a starting point in the conversation," says Staurowsky. "But we also know that our estimate is far more representative of the kind of inequities that exist in the system than simply just accepting that the scholarship is the only measure."

This story originally ran on September 11, 2015.

Approximately 7 minutes. 

Produced by Alexis Garcia. Camera by Todd Krainin and Meredith Bragg. Music by Silent Partner.

Go to Reason TV for downloadable versions of this video. Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for daily content like this.

NEXT: The Many Resurrections of Sherlock Holmes

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. First...sort of.

  2. Let me re-post this link, to show that it isn't just the controversial Oath Keepers organization, in the Kim Davis case, which wants people to have a trial by jury before the judge can give them an indefinite prison sentence for "civil contempt."

    I found this report by an Australian law-reform commission recommending that civil contempt be abolished completely, so that all contempt prosecutions should be criminal. (they also want to allow room for private prosecutions so that the local prosecutor can't veto a prosecution)

    (see pp. 85-87, 92-95)

    reply to this

    1. reply to this *please!*

    2. What's so "controversial" about the Oath Keepers? Are you Elizabeth Nolan Brown posting under a new name or something?

      1. Controversial because they advocate the use of violence against the U.S. government.

        1. According to certain New York prosecutors, harsh words and unobliging sentiments directed at public officials is violence against government. We're all guilty by proxy at the very least.

          1. They went a bit beyond this:

            "Stewart Rhodes reached out personally to Davis's legal counsel to offer protection to Kim, to ensure that she will not be illegally detained again."

            [From Rhodes' statement]: "We must stand against this. And so we will protect her and prevent it from happening again."

            But see this update:

            "UPDATE: Due to Kim Davis's Legal team, on her behalf, declining our offer of protection we are standing down. Please see this article for more information."


        2. Lol. Some organization advocating the defense of individuals against an organization that extorts and uses violence against individuals on a daily basis...

          Sounds to me you wouldn't be too happy about letting individuals choose their own form of security through competitive agencies that aren't violent, and would rather folks be forced to fund a violent coercive monopoly instead.

      2. Stewart Rhodes was on a panel for an Arizona liberty event, along with a former sheriff and the state senate president. He took the opportunity to get drunk and call for the lynching of John McCain. And then we were effectively banned from holding our events at a prime downtown location. Thanks Stew! Every time I see the word "controversial" attached to the Oath Keepers, I look for Rhodes' name and ... oh, look at UGC's comment below. Or the recent Reason article stating, " [Black Open Carry march organizer] Andrews has a long litany of complaints about Rhodes' management of the Oath Keepers".

  3. While the NCAA may have the money to pay its student-athletes

    Leaving aside that the NCAA doesn't have student athletes of its own, ~$1B divided by ~460,000 players is $2170 per player. Of course that's gross revenue. Profits were ~80M last year, which if paid entirely to players would be a princely $175 per.

    1. 460,000 players of what? There are two revenue sports in college athletics. Everything other than football and basketball is subsidized by football and basketball revenue.

      1. Which of course will not be subsidized any more if that money is instead going to College players.

  4. How much is a college football player worth?

    A living educating wage!

      1. ^^ You must be worth this much to play college football

  5. On the one hand, no one is forcing these young people to play for NCAA schools. On the other given that so much of the NCAA members are government institutions whose decisions are covered by taxpayers it's hard to say with a straight face we're talking about something that is the result of a free and voluntary market.

  6. How much is a college football player worth?

    Whatever Nick Saban says he is worth!

    SEC! SEC! SEC!

    1. You misspelled "Savior"

      /former Michigan State season-ticket holder

  7. Well British Labour just went full retard, overwhelmingly elects Jeremy Corbyn its new leader of opposition

    Jeremy Corbyn has been elected leader of the British Labour party, in a stunning first-round victory that dwarfed even the mandate for Tony Blair in 1994.

    Corbyn won with nearly 59.5% of first-preference votes, beating rivals Andy Burnham, who trailed on 19%, and Yvette Cooper who received 17%. The "Blairite" candidate Liz Kendall came last on 4.5%.

    Minutes after his victory, Corbyn said the message is that people are "fed up with the injustice and the inequality" of Britain."

    The media and many of us, simply didn't understand the views of young people in our country. They were turned off by the way politics was being conducted. We have to and must change that. The fightback gathers speed and gathers pace," he said.

    Yes, young people are all about 67 year socialist relic that hardcore sympathizes with the IRA and Hamas.

    He also likes the idea of nationalizing the railways and other public utilities, massive increases in taxes, increasing efforts to get tax "evaders" and unilateral nuclear disarmament.

    1. The fucking idiot Limeys are going to have to go full commie before they produce a generation that gets fed up enough to change things. Jesus Christ, the people running the country today saw the USSR first hand and still they do this?

      Fucking idiots.

      1. At least they waited (more or less) until Maggie Thatcher was stone cold and in the ground before they started tearing up her return to sanity. Back to industrial action and the sick man of Europe soon enough. How does the Decade of Discontent grip you?

        1. The good news for the Brits is that even if they elect a socialist PM they'll still look health when compared to the rest of the EU.

    2. He also likes the idea of nationalizing the railways and other public utilities, massive increases in taxes, increasing efforts to get tax "evaders" and unilateral nuclear disarmament.

      So... they want to be the US?

    3. The left has gone completely insane all throughout the west.

  8. This is the first post of the day?

    Good grief. I think I will pour a vodka, lean the lazy boy back and start watching bad re-runs.

  9. Pay them a wage like the students working at the universities. and let them use their name .ESPN makes a ton of these kids too.All these shows taliking about this and that player and ads.There is a lot of money there,not just what the NCAA gets.ESPN \ ABC,FOX,CBS,ect.Then ther's the sports games and shoes and shirts and on and on.It's more then a billion.This way the ones that won't do the NFL thing will recieve something and the stars,who's name are marketed will reap their share..I rember Chris Webber saying he saw a MU shrit with his number for 80bucks and he had to have a guy loan him 5 for gas money,He went pro that year

    1. "I rember Chris Webber saying he saw a MU shrit with his number for 80bucks and he had to have a guy loan him 5 for gas money"

      When he saw that did he call time out?

      1. Hehehe. I'll never get tired of that. My friend and I heckled Webber pretty hard at Staples Center. Kept calling time out, etc. He looked pissed.

  10. I'm not sure many on the left that support paying the college players from the proceeds they take in are really thinking about this: as the professor quoted in the story says we'd be talking about football and men's basketball programs for the most part, so we'd have these two mens sports paying their players, women's sports programs in college rarely make money, so they'd be paid little to nothing. You'd think they'd be worried about Title IX type issues.

    1. Nah, they wouldn't be worried. They would be trying to force the women to be paid equally or to divey the men's money up with the women or trying to shut down the men's programs or...whatever. They would take a giant shit on college sports is what they would do one way or another.

      Fundamental transformation, bitches!

      1. It's one thing if the schools are saying 'we don't do any of these sports for money, they are educational endeavors like the debate club or what not, see, we don't even pay the players.' Then I think for those that take taxpayer dollars it's fair to say 'well, you have to spend that money fairly equally between men and women then' (after all, women are half of taxpayers).

        But when you've got people saying 'no, no, just admit you do at least some of this for money, and pay the players involved in making that money' then that's, well, a different ballgame. Only these men's programs, for the most part, make the money, so the reasoning only supports paying them from the big pot they're helping grow. What they don't realize is that this would create the Mother of all inequalities between men and women college athletes.

        But of course, meddlers often don't think about what any non-immediate results of their meddling.

    2. we'd be talking about football and men's basketball programs for the most part

      And even then, not at every school.

  11. We can't let the market set the price for players for a number of reasons. Keeping track of which race of players get paid more, which less, etc. would be excruciating and divisive. Also, once you classify players as employees, there are local laws that would impact how you get rid of them--cut them from the team. You say so and so got cut becasue his time in the forty was low, but does that hold up under the strict scrutiny or the rational basis test? How do we know it isn't because he's [insert protected class].

    Also, if players play or practice for more than 30 hours a week, you have to offer them health insurance--but the health insurance you offer them can't be too good. Covering your employees for too much carries an onerous tax--a 40% Cadillac plan excise tax--if the insurance is too awesome. I bet the care college football players get would get hit with that tax. There's also the question of whether women are adequately represented. There's no way Title IX justice warriors are going to let a college pay its football players--and not pay the women on the field hockey team the same pay...

    And that's just warming up. I can see why colleges would be reluctant to pay their football players--apart from saving the they'd have to pay them in salary. The interesting question is why so many of the rest of us who aren't college football players put up with all that shitty employment regulation.

    1. Then get out of the college sports game.

      It's a business just like any other, and if the argument is "they don't want to pay for the same types of expenses every other business" then they shouldn't be in that business.

      No one is forcing colleges to have a football team.

      1. Is anyone being forced to play football?

        1. Is anyone being forced to play football?

          No but they are forced to go through the NCAA to make it to the NFL.

          1. No they aren't.

            San Francisco brought in Jarryd Hayne from an Australian rugby team.

            1. You must be 3 years removed from High school to eligible for the NFL draft. That's a rule in place to protect NCAA football.

              Sure they can bring in pros from other leagues/sports, but the rules are such that high school kids have to wait 3 year (with very few non-NCAA options) esentially forcing most players to go through the NCAA

    2. The medical these guys get exceeds any Cadillac plan you can think of.

      1. You bet.

        And who wants to see those costs hit with a 40% excise tax?

        And if they're paid like other university employees, does that mean other university employees will be entitled to the same Cadillac coverage the football players get, too?

  12. Moonbeam's CA gas rationing plan can't even get Dem backing:
    "SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) ? With little time and opposition from oil interests, Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative Democrats were forced on Wednesday to retreat from their ambitious proposal to address climate change by dropping a key mandate to cut California's petroleum use by 50 percent"

    1. So, CA hasn't become progressive nirvana yet? Other than reality, what's holding them back?

    2. Amid the political setback, they vowed to intensify their fight to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through other means

      Like shutting TFU?

    3. "I'd say oil has won the skirmish, but they've lost the bigger battle," Brown said. "Because I'm more determined than ever to make our regulatory regime work for the people of California"

      "And determination trumps beats the laws of physics *every time*!"

      1. our regulatory regime work for the people

        It's amazing a politician can say this and not be laughed out of town.

        1. Not in CA, it isn't.
          Every company selling goods in CA pays sales taxes to "The State Board of Equalization".

    4. Whoa. Moonbeam wants to ration hydrocarbon energy sources just as it is getting cheaper than ever? Holy shit.

      Barry 'Undermyplan' Obumbles couldn't do it, why does this fucking idiot think he can? I really wish someone would whip his ass. He deserves it as least as much as Reid did.

  13. How much do the members of the Chess Club get paid?

    1. +1 e4 c5

    2. They get to be in the chess club. What is better than that?

      1. Getting to play football with a great bunch of guys?

        1. The chess nerds will need to bulk up if they want to go pro.

  14. how much is a SJW worth? could they afford to settle their account?

  15. My freshman roommate was on the football team (NCAA D1), so I hung out with quite a few guys who were on the team. They were not wanting for much. (Although I don't know which things they received were within or outside of NCAA rules).
    But the one that does upset me is this one guy who was promised a full-ride scholarship, participated in all the spring/summer training and then when the semester started they abruptly yanked his scholarship (I don't know why). Effectively leaving him homeless thousands of miles away from home. We let him sleep on our floor while he sorted out a way to get home. I'm sure that's not the only instance of something like this, and those are the guys I feel more sympathy for. At least they could have given him a damn bus ticket home.

    1. Big time college coaches generally speaking are some of the biggest slimebags you'll see.

  16. Here's a novel idea: privatize the thing, untie it from "education" where it has no business being in the first place, pay the players, and let them do college on their own time if they wish.

    1. This.

      Or let it be a kind of apprenticeship.

    2. Yeah, and that's really the whole issue. If they want to play professionaly, they are basically forced into this system whuch does not alliw them to negotiate for the schools "right" to make millions off of them. For many of them the schools take on merchandising their numbers and whatever else is potentially hundreds of times more than what they would have paid in tuition.

      1. If you can negotiate for a scholarship great. If you can get more awesome.

    3. I think a large pushback comes from other collegiate sports that are subsidised to to a very large extent by the profits made off of the football team including but not limited to women's sports..

      1. "Collegiate sports" should not even exist. Do sports on your own time (and your own dime). Get charitable support if you need it. It really is that simple.

        Obviously the big pushback is history. People like their college sports for some reason.

        1. "Rah, rah, RASS!"

    4. Exactly!

      NCAA football is just a free minor league system for the NFL. It's the Equivalent of the NBADL, and Minor league baseball.

      Let the NFL setup their own minor league system the same as other sports leagues instead of getting it for free on the backs of "student-athletes".

      Furthermore, the bullshit rules around profiting off their likeness, and violations for taking money from outside entities and endorsement deals etc all while they make huge profits off those same things lay waste to the whole concept that it isn't a business first and foremost whose main goal is keeping labor costs down to as little as possible.

      1. In Australia (& I think in most of the European soccer leagues), the major sports run junior competitions. You can start playing the same age as here but, to make it to the pros, you would work your way up through the junior ranks rather than going through the school-college system.

        There are high school and college sports, but few pros go that route. Basically, if you're pro-potential, your local club will keep you around and you'll be paid to play from your late teens.

        1. Shit, Messi was paid to play from like 9 years old.

    5. Most of these "student-athletes," at least in the big-time sports, are just fucking off for 2-4 years on the hopes that they'll hit the professional lottery jackpot. Separating the sports from the schools and making them a minor league, which is their de facto status anyway, would probably even open up some scholarship money for people that are actually there to receive their proper progressive indoctrination.

  17. OSU is no longer selling jerseys with players names on them. They are only selling jerseys with 2 numbers on them this year. 1 for Number One and 15 for 2015 champs. Not to be confused with the jersey numbers for Braxton Miller and Ezekial Elliot. Cause that is definately not what those numbers represent.

    1. Oklahoma State are planning to be champs? I like their moxie.

      1. I guess I should have said THEE OSU! Cause I know how much everyone loves that:)

        1. If I was an announcer, I would always refer to them as "An Ohio State University". Just to watch the veins in OSU fan's heads pulsate.

          1. Fans would not care. University would

      2. Ah yes. It's time to renew the border war.

        Fuck Michigan!!!

        Go Bucks!!!

  18. I would be in favor of a small trust fund for each player UPON graduation.

    HOWEVER, a school like Alabama - of which I am a fan - spends lots of money outside of the tuition/room and board on these kids. They get the very best in academic assistance in the form of personalized tutors and vast array of counseling resources. The medical care they get is probably better than the care to which most Senators have access. The amount of remuneration they receive is a couple of multiples larger than the face value of the scholarship.

    I would say that the four year total for a Bama football player is in the neighborhood of 500K in expenses that directly benefit the player.

    1. Except that you know, that 500K in expenses is like being paid in company scrip that can only be spent at the company store. Nowhere near the same as being paid legal tender that you can use to do with as you please.

      Furthermore, you're whole argument also assumes that most college football players would rather be college students then say, minor league football players making a living if they had a choice in the matter. I don't believe that is true.

      Many student-athletes of the major sports are only going to college because they get a free ride to play football and don't care much about the education -- or are we going to pretend that all those bullshit majors that many "student-athletes" major in are because they value academics so much??

      1. There are two questions here. What is the real compensation? How should the extra-scholarship funds be dispensed?

        I think I answered question one for major universities. There are complexities that come in when you have to look at all D1 schools not just the top schools in the Power 5 conferences (cause they all work basically the same way). I think it is instructive to first come to grips as the real compensation up front.

        As for the second I did offer a modest proposal, a small trust fund that is distributed to the athletes upon graduation.

        I have no issues - outside of the fact that I love CFB as a spectator as it is right now - with the NFL starting a minor leagues.

        1. Both of your questions can easily be taken care of by a real labor market.

          A Labor market with schools competing for talent by offering whatever they are willing to give to the the recruits they value would answer both your questions.

          There is no legitimate reason to limit compensation artificially other than to protect schools from having a bidding war and raising their labor costs and cutting into their profits. It's price controls pure and simple. There is no legitimate justification for it.

          Let schools offer compensation packages and let the athletes decide which ones to accept based on what they value. The same way every other employer compensates their labor.

          Easy peasy

          1. Easy peasy

            simple. except the schools aren't competing with each other. they are cooperating with each other under agreed upon rules in order to compete for eyeballs in the wider and lucrative entertainment market. the football programs are more like McDonald's franchises than Fedex vs UPS.

            the school or team that paid the most and got an all star lineup couldn't earn a dime without an opponent willing to take the field. The Longhorn Network was a great deal for UofTexas only. so Aggie and Missou and Nebraska said fuck off. and when Texas went looking for something better than the denuded Big 12 the Pac 10 told Texas to fuck right off.

          2. fucking associations. how do they work?

      2. Also most of my first post was not an argument, just a statement of facts. That is the way it is for certain universities.

        1. Maybe I misread you, but when I see people saying:

          "I would be ok with a small trust fund..."

          followed by

          "look at all they are currently getting that no one is acknowledging"

          I assumes one is making the case that student-athletes shouldn't be paid like every other worker in a market. It seems to be a "these folks don't appreciate all they are getting" argument

          Apologies if I misunderstood, but that is the language of people arguing that student-athletes don't deserve to be paid because they are replacing their values over what the athlete values.

          Just because schools charge 25K a year tuition doesn't mean that is what it's worth to everyone -- especially to their student athletes and especially when a student athlete takes a scholarship because they are just looking to keep playing their sport and try to make the pros.

          1. Well I said they should be paid and then outlined the actual compensation.

            There already exists a labor market of sorts but some of the benefits and costs are hidden. Schools do vie for services and students choose among competing offers. The issue - in my mind - is that the NCAA is making money from the labor of these kids in excess of even the benefits enjoyed by Alabama players.

            Like I said I would be in favor of a trust fund that kicks in at graduation over some other sort of league outside of the college system. I favor that solution cause I selfishly love CFB...and I put my money where my mouth is. A minor league system might lose my business. The spectacle of a big time SEC game at a place like BDS or Tiger Stadium or Between The Hedges is something to behold.

            1. There already exists a labor market of sorts but some of the benefits and costs are hidden.

              Of long as you get paid with company scrip rather than real market.
              And with all sorts of restrictions and what you can do.

              That's not a market. Again you are placing you're values above what the athletes want.

              If an SEC school is offering me spectacle and a smaller program is offering me cash -- im taking the cash. But that's just me. And it should be my choice to make

  19. I still prefer D III ball. No scholarships. The starting nose tackle was in my fraternity. One of the linebackers played drums in the jazz band. A couple kids on my dorm hall my freshman year played. We'd bring our whole fraternity down, sit in the front row, and cheer for the kid who was in chemistry with us, or Poli Sci, or Econ, or...whatever.

    Going to homecoming in a month - never miss it. D1? It's not even fun any more.

    1. As a Kansas fan, I get the best of both worlds. All the size and pizzazz of a D1 program but the football quality of DIII.

    2. D-III is true amateurism (which the NCAA loves to pay lip service to). Students who are there for an education and who would also like to play sports too. That's what the NCAA should be.

      I'd even be OK with offering some sort of tuition assistance, but that's it.

      There's no reason for D-I to even exists other than to be a profit center for the schools that can only service based on restrictive labor rules.

      Let private clubs/leagues be feeders to pro sports.

      1. huh.

        "Let private clubs/leagues be feeders to pro sports."

        That's a really interesting point that i haven't seen before, re: College sports.

        But here's the problem - how do you 'police' DIII to ensure its not just an athlete mill? If you allow tuition help, you'd have to make sure there was no more athlete grade inflation/...BS courses/majors... outside tutors, etc. to turn simpletons into qualified college students.

        no matter what, having great sports teams is a big draw for school applications, so they're going to do everything they can within reason to attract the best players. How can you limit this, and would you really want to? - enforce screening/audits of athlete test scores etc?

        1. The grade inflation is mostly a problem because athletes are enrolled in bullshit classes. When I was there, something like half of Cal's football team was sociology majors, and and a lot of the rest were "general studies" majors, whatever the fuck that means. Require the athletes, and all students for that matter, to take actual academic classes.

          1. "Require the athletes, and all students for that matter, to take actual academic classes.'

            This is exactly the point that i was asking about.

            How do you "police" that sort of thing? Who decides the standard for "actual academic"?

            If you say certain courses/majors at state schools fail to meet the cut... what about non-athletes at small community colleges? they get their diploma annulled?

            I'm just saying that the "requirement" you describes seems awful hard to actually enforce.

            *note = at Vanderbilt, most of the Football players were graded on a "football scale". If they showed up for class more than a few times, they would pass. Although there were some classes that offered no leniency. I was threatened with ass-kicking if i failed to help on guy cheat on his physics exam. I told him he should have taken geology.

            what i'm saying is i actually like the idea of the "true amateur" athlete, but i just don't see how you get there without policing schools.

            1. "what about non-athletes at small community colleges? they get their diploma annulled?"

              Yes. If you did not receive a rigorous college level education, you shouldn't have a piece of paper that says you did.

              1. Well all you're doing is confirming the "problem" i'm pointing out... which is that you'd need to have some arbitrary standards imposed and enforced. And in general... that sort of thing is *better left to the market* than a regulatory system.

                The way the market does it now is more by 'brand recognition'.

                I'd be interested in seeing how this sort of thing could be applied... which i think, to work well, would have something like "points" applied to courses depending on their level of academic rigor/work-requirements... and then a minimum number of cumulative "points" required to get a certified Diploma.

                i.e. a student from a less rigorous school might still get a diploma, but barely...while students at high-end academic schools routinely exceed the basic requirements.

                The problem no matter what would be how this sort of thing be validated/audited. It would always be better if it were a self-enforcing mechanism.

        2. My first job was at a DIII school and it was pretty well known that some "academic" scholarships were reserved for key football, lacrosse, and basketball players.

            1. No field hockey team (all male school).

        3. But here's the problem - how do you 'police' DIII to ensure its not just an athlete mill?

          I don't know you need to. If a school wants to be athlete mill at the risk of their academic rep, then so be it.

          Furthermore, if there are private clubs/minor leagues that pay, players who just to want to get paid to play and don't care to go to college won't choose D-III rather than a paying club.

          Tuition help doesn't have to be scholarship based necessarily either. It could be just room and board, or loan packages etc.

          1. "if there are private clubs/minor leagues that pay, players who just to want to get paid to play and don't care to go to college won't choose D-III rather than a paying club.'

            This is the idea that i like best = draw the best talent into paying careers pre-NFL/NBA/MLB, etc.

            And regulate *that*. But leave schools alone. If the profit incentive is in the private leagues, then the schools should have less problems trying to monkey around academic requirements, etc.

            The problem would be how do you get rid of a behemoth like the NCAA?

        4. no matter what, having great sports teams is a big draw for school applications, so they're going to do everything they can within reason to attract the best players. How can you limit this, and would you really want to?

          I don't really think limiting them is a priority to me. But in my ideal world, colleges would be competing with paying clubs/leagues. Their pool of "athletes" to choose from would be people who want an education first and also wouldn't like to play some sports.

          At the end of the day it's a college, not a sports team. The level of play at college sports will go down from what it is today, but so what? Some schools will still be better than others. And fans who are fans of their school for school pride or whatever can still be prooud of their teams if they win college championships.

          The only difference from what we see today is that they will be true student -athletes, and people who don't care about getting a college degree aren't forced into attending college classes the don't want while being compensated with "educations" they aren't interested in, while administrators and coaches are making millions (via huge salaries and endorsements) off of artificially cheap labor.

          If they want to make money off sports, close up your college and be just a sports club.

          1. The more i think about this... wouldn't the result be something more like the British tiering of Football leagues?

            where "Pro" (e.g. NFL, NBA, MLB, etc) would be like the Premier leagues?... and the remainder would be "club" play? i.e. smaller franchises in networks of voluntary competitive leagues that change depending on participants & competitive viability...

            1. The more i think about this... wouldn't the result be something more like the British tiering of Football leagues?


  20. This story originally ran on September 11, 2015 yesterday.

    Getting desperate, eh REASON?

    1. That's just silly, Almanian. *Nobody* says "on yesterday".

  21. Remember that city employee in Alabama who assaulted the little old man from India who was in the U.S. visiting his son? Well it looks like there was at least one badge bunny on his jury, because it ended in a mistrial:

    1. Ooh, take a look at this:

      "Parker told jurors he did not use a 'leg sweep' to ground Patel, saying when he shifted his weight to take Patel down, he lost his balance and both men fell to the ground."

      1. "Taking Patel down" was excessive force in the first place.

        1. Sure, but it makes the cop look a bit less compentent, a bit less "new professionalism"-y.

          1. "compentent"

            Hmmm...Joe's Law strikes again!

  22. What's the big deal? USC has been paying its players for decades.

  23. "It was created to obscure the fact that the NCAA knew that it had created a pay-for-play system."

    Public opinion seems to be shifting in favor of a pay-for-play system. A 2014 Reason-Rupe poll found that 64 percent of Americans think student-atheletes should receive money. . .

    This article has "three different . . . definitions of 'pay-for-play'.

  24. We have to call in the SJWs on this one. Not only are these rapey male rape mongers allowed to attend our universities and play a violent rapey sport, but now they're going to get paid for all of this raping patriarchy? CALL IN THE OUTRAGE MACHINE!!!!

  25. BTW, since there is no coercion at work here, I can tell you what college ball players are 'worth': Exactly what they are getting now.
    To claim otherwise is to claim you, as a third party, know more about the transaction than the two parties currently involved in the trade.
    IOWs, this bullshit has no place in a site supposedly dedicated to free markets.

    1. I agree *if* college sports operate as a free market. I am not sure about that.

      1. Rhywun|9.12.15 @ 1:05PM|#
        "I agree *if* college sports operate as a free market. I am not sure about that."

        I see no coercion, so that while it may be distorted, it remains as free as most any modern market.

        1. I guess my question is, is there any public money going into it? Given the way colleges operate, I would think there would almost have to be.

  26. I don't really have a horse in this race, but I don't see this as clearly as Mr Garcia does.

    First, I don't see how an honest person can say these student athletes aren't being paid. On this exact same site, I people defend unpaid internships because those interns are getting paid- experience, training and often benefits from the company. How exactly is that different from a college that pays rather significant funds as well as giving opportunities for advancement for an 18 year old? I know that when I was that young, I couldn't have imagined a salary close to the value of the goods and services these kids are getting.

    So the argument seems to boil down to "Yeah but Universities/NCAA are making much more money." Well, yeah. And Newspapers are making a bunch of money off of unpaid interns. And Walmart makes a shit ton of money off of low-paid store-clerks. Are libertarians really going to make the "exploited workers" argument to insist that there is some moral imperative for an employer to pay employees more?

    1. As far as I can tell, this seems to be a large private coalition of private/public entities collaborating to offer a service. Whether Student Athletes feel like it is a good exchange of value to work in that system is frankly none of my concern. No one is forcing them. No one is requiring them to do this. Indeed, it seems to me that any "Force" is being advocated by the advocates of Student pay. They are the ones trying to organize Unions, or force profit sharing from the Universities.

      I know that there is some complexity here in that Universities often get money from the government. But unless taxpayer money is going to these specific programs, (and all that I read indicates that in fact, CFB and CBB are cash cows that supplement Universities, not taking tax money) I don't see it as justification for forcing a largely private enterprise to the whims of the public. We all get bennefits from the government in some form or the other. That doesn't mean they own us.

  27. I had this conversation with a D1 head football coach not too long ago. A lot of the football players are snatched up out of extremely poor neighborhoods, and have zero family support. They can receive full tuition, room, and board, and that's it. Keep in mind that some of these guys are expected to keep on 50 lbs of extra muscle for a sport like football. That's easy to do during the season because they have training table, and can eat as much delicious food as they want. But in the off season, the "board" part of the scholarship doesn't even begin to cover it. The coach was telling me that a lot of his players go to bed hungry, and there's nothing he can do about it. If he slips them some extra food, the program gets sanctioned by the NCAA.

    Oh, and these scholarship players ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE JOBS to help put food in their mouths.

    Fuck the NCAA.

    1. If he slips them some extra food, the program gets sanctioned by the NCAA

      WTF? Does a food nazi follow these guys around all of the time and monitor their food intake? 'This one is not starving' ... call to food police ...

      1. There are NCAA compliance officers. So in a way, yes, food nazis.

        1. They actually follow these kids around in the off season and if someone buys them a meal, they do what? This sounds pretty insane if true.

          1. If one scholarship player takes a free meal, it puts the entire program in jeopardy. It's as entirely insane as it sounds.

            So, if you're gonna break the rules, go big or go home. At least USC pays its players with duffel bags of cash instead of Big Macs.

            1. I'm not certain what the alternative is, though. If they don't restrict "In Kind" payments, then you are going to get a lopsided system where a handful of universities pay ridiculous amounts of money to get all-star teams that dominate for years.

              I'm not a college guy, so if that happens, I won't really care. But from a College Football perspective, I would think that this is a bad thing. The NFL has done everything it can to try and ensure as competitive an atmosphere as possible- with salary caps and free agency, their goal is to make it so that most teams have a shot at winning. As a business this is a good idea, as it makes sure you have fans from all over the country rather than in the few dominant markets.

              The same is true for College Sports. They want every college fan to be a fan of the business, not just fans of a handful of powerful organizations.

              1. Even with the most minor of changes, the system would be better than it is now.

              2. their goal is to make it so that most teams have a shot at winning

                At the opposite end of this spectrum is soccer (in countries other than the US and Canada). The same handful of teams win every league each year. Yet there is no lack of money or fans for all the other teams. I don't see that the NFL is gaining anything by pursuing their strategy.

                1. My understanding of Soccer leagues is that they manage competitiveness by regularly re-ranking teams into different tiers. That ensures that teams consistently playing at a certain level will end up playing with teams at that level, and if they start to play at a higher level, they get upgraded to the next level where teams match that skill. Is this untrue?

                  In the NFL, there are relatively fewer teams, so I'm not certain such a system will work.

                  1. Yes, but there is still a huge gulf in quality especially in the top league. For example, the bottom 15 teams in the English Premiere League have virtually no chance of winning the league and everyone knows it. And the top 5 or 6 remain constant over many years, just shuffling around a bit.

                    And yet the fans of those bottom 15 teams and the 70-odd professional teams below them - and the hundreds of semi-professional and amateur teams below them - are every bit as passionate.

                    In American football terms, this would mean what we call "college football" being instead the 2nd tier of a football league system.

        2. There was a dust up here when some non football athletes were given hot dogs at a tail gate before a football game. The NCAA is very fucked up.

    2. So I agree that this is pretty shitty, but I don't see how this necessarily improves with paying players.

      Some poor kids will get paid, and others won't. So you will still have a bunch of poor kids facing the exact same problem that you mention- it will just be the kids who aren't marquis players.

      By the looks of it, just profit sharing with players isn't the problem here. The NFL does similar things with its players, of course. They do this to protect profits, but they also do it because they want to keep the system competitive with one or two players not being forever dominant.

      Again, I am not against paying players. I just see a lot of reasoning that doesn't seem very libertarian and arguments that won't necessarily fix the problem.

  28. Fuck the NCAA.

    I think we can all agree on that much, at least.

  29. Not sure if has been posted here yet or not, but sounds like the UK Labour Party has went full on commie:

    Labour Party goes hard left

    1. They and everyone else. Apparently The Great Leap Forward was just some shit that happened to other people.

    2. Jeremy Corbyn's manifesto

      - A new national investment bank to encourage growth and reduce the deficit

      (ahh, more government taxing and reduce the gap between government spending and taxation.... NURSE!! MOAR LEECHES!! THE PATIENT AILS!!)

      - Public ownership of the railway and energy sector

      (because the costs will obviously go down when bureaucrats are in charge of capital intensive industry)

      - Reduce the welfare bill through growth and investment

      (I can only assume that's "Government Subsidized 'Growth and Investment')

      - Housebuilding programme and rent controls

      (it will work swimmingly once laws of supply/demand are repealed)

      - Integrate social care with the NHS

      (pathologize 'social ills'?)

      - A new national education service providing universal childcare, abolishing student fees, restoring grants and funding adult skills

      (UNIVERSAL FREE STUFF!! My imagination fails at what "adult skills" are supposed to be, other than a boondoggle...)

      - crap zero hours contracts and a national living wage for all, regardless of age

      (effectively, socialism-lite. Not surprised its at the bottom ...because all that "investment" into greater "efficiency" and reduced waste is surely going to go well when everyone's already on the dole)

      1. I'm going to take issue with you Gilmore, he sounds positively mainstream. My take:

        - A new national investment bank to encourage growth and reduce the deficit

        More Federal Reserve!

        - Public ownership of the railway and energy sector

        We already have this in 'Murrica.

        - Reduce the welfare bill through growth and investment

        So, Bill Clinton in the 90s?

        - Housebuilding programme and rent controls

        Welcome to every major Blue City in America.

        - Integrate social care with the NHS

        Left without comment.

        - A new national education service providing universal childcare, abolishing student fees, restoring grants and funding adult skills

        Universal preschool, free community college.

        - crap zero hours contracts and a national living wage for all, regardless of age

        Seattle, we hardly knew ye.

        This guy could be mayor of pretty much any city in America, and no one would notice.

        1. We already have this in 'Murrica'

          Well, good luck telling anyone in the UK that we already have anything besides complete anarchy and dog eat dog capitalism, because they won't believe you. I tried to tell one of them that we have socialized medicine and that it's totally fucked compared to what it was before and all I can get is this retard posting more links to prove that NHS is the bestest healthcare in all the world and that Murika fuck yeah healthcare, the 'pay or die' system as he calls it, is the worst on earth and always has been.

        2. Maybe i read these things differently, having worked in the UK, and know that their version of these same very Moderate Dem-lingo issues are far more significant at face value.

          - you say we already have "public ownership of railways and energy sector in the US"

          Funny, I seem to recall railway, and lots of energy sector stocks in open-market trading in the US... While we might have 'regulation' of these industries, there's no widespread "public ownership" beyond token utility and Amtrak examples.

          And the brits DO genuinely mean complete and total nationalizsation of industry when they say things like this.

          i.e. you seem to be translating these policy demands into US Democrat rather than UK Labor

          1. I guess this maybe explains why they think our healthcare system is some type of totally unregulated free for all 'pay or die' system. Because it's not single payer?

            1. More or less.

              My own experience with british attitudes with NHS is that

              a) most don't really have any frame of reference to compare it to, and (if/when they come to work in the US) find the American system far too complicated and bizarre...

              b) many dislike NHS level/manner of care, but think of the abstract idea of 'deprivation of care' to be a horrid possibility (or having to pay for care at all)

              c) have little experience with the idea of giving patients "Choices"... and think having to pay for choices is probably a scam... the "pay or die" idea is a myth, but they think that people unable to pay top-dollar get shittier treatment than NHS patients, which isn't actually always the case. their shit care is pretty much the same as our medicaid.

          2. True that when the UK talks about "the energy sector" they're talking about nationalization of all oil/gas/everything.

            I'm really talking about your local power company which, even if it's a "private company", it's a government-granted monopoly utterly controlled by the state.

            And of course, railway is nearly in the same boat.

      2. If you try talking to the Europeans about the USA, they seem to immediately get all defensive and angry.

        I've been told by several people I know in Europe that most everyone over there thinks that all of us Americans are dangerous unhinged gun wielding maniacs who will mow down anyone in our way for another dollar and that our greatest pleasure is watching women and children starve and die in the streets. I am seriously not making this up.

        1. And Americans think Europeans are all happy, socialist paradises with total racial and gender and sexual-orientation-equality, huge paid vacations for everyone and perfectly functioning municipal bureaucracies.

          1. Well, Gilmore, I actually have friends who have family over there and visit a lot who try to paint exactly that picture, everyone is happy, carefree, totally taken care of, it's utopia. So maybe that's why Americans think that, because they're being told that by their leftist acquaintances.

            1. "everyone is happy, carefree, totally taken care of, it's utopia'

              yes. I was dating a girl ~ 2005 in NY, whose French expatriate friends asserted without the slightest reservation that "Racism and racial strife is a completely American phenomena and nothing like it existed in Europe"

              When i pointed out that there were mobs at that very moment burning down parts of Paris, they looked at me like I was crazy and said, "but those are *economic* problems!!""...

              ...then proceeded to assert that Muslims were not a race, but a religion, and didn't belong in france in the first place, because Secularism....

    3. My gawd, the comments on that article by the Limeys... it's so totally foreign to me that I don't know... they truly believe in this magical socialism free ponies and unicorns stuff. Soon enough, their ponies will be eaten by the invading Muslim hordes. I'm staying on this side of the pond.

    4. Real change, not that plastic "hopey, changed stuff" so beloved of spin doctors, politicians and commentators.

      Whoa... is that a jab at Obama?

      1. That's how I read it.

    5. Its notable that this critic is clearly coming from the more "moderate left" ...

      (*understanding the spectrum of UK politics being already far more left-oriented compared to the US)

      ...and that he's bemoaning the lack of more viable competition with the Tories.

      e.g. "Sole responsibility for protecting the country from the excesses of Conservatism has now been handed to moderate elements within the Conservative Party."

      Its like the Clintonian Dems panicking about Bernie's appeal.

      1. I asked someone there if anyone in Europe is actually right of Mao and it brought on a full on foaming at the mouth raging anti-Murika attack. They really hate us. But they didn't deny that there is no one in Europe right of Mao, they just attacked America as being something like a bigger Somalia. Libertarian paradise I guess, for real.

  30. Money is evil, that's why the government wants to take so much of yours.

    1. They just want to spend it more wisely for you, as your betters it's their responsibility, for your own good.

  31. I jsut dont see the big deal in a bunch of grown men, in tights, running around chasing some stupid ball.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.