Paying college players

[TC4THREE]

The inequality in other industries is most driven by the market. The inequality in college sports is driven by the rules.

It's also market driven. If these players were worth what you seem to think they are worth, there would be a successful minor league alternative for them that would pay them in excess of what their college scholarship package is worth. The fact that there isn't should tell you that the value in college athletics is largely in the brands these players represent and not the individuals. If people just wanted to watch the best non-NBA players available, they would watch whatever the NBA minor league system is called now because the players there are much better on average than college players. The fact that nobody watches that but the NCAA can make millions off of NCAA basketball should tell you quite a bit about the value of the brands and the NCAA platform as opposed to individual players.

 

[Purdue85]

The inequality in other industries is most driven by the market. The inequality in college sports is driven by the rules.

that's correct. Players are amateurs. Amateurs, by definition, are not paid to play. That's an internationally recognized concept.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

Correct. Nor should they be. It's irrelevant to introduce a coach's salary into the discussion of paying players. Players are student/athletes. Coaches are not. Coaches are contracted employees. Players are not.

Trying to argue for paying players by citing an 'arms race' or a 'disparity' is irrelevant. Either you're for paying players or you're not. A coach's salary isn't the issue.

I understand the difference, but I don’t understand the ultimate rationale.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

It's also market driven. If these players were worth what you seem to think they are worth, there would be a successful minor league alternative for them that would pay them in excess of what their college scholarship package is worth. The fact that there should tell you that the value in college athletics is largely in the brands these players represent and not the individuals. If people just wanted to watch the best non-NBA players available, they would watch whatever the NBA minor league system is called now because the players there are much better on average than college players. The fact that nobody watches that but the NCAA can make millions off of NCAA basketball should tell you quite a bit about the value of the brands and the NCAA platform as opposed to individual players.

I think that it’s ultimately about athletic departments controlling costs.

 

[Purdue85]

I work for a company that is all about a brand as well, but I am paid for my contribution is support of that brand based on market demand for my services.

that's your profession. Not so for student/athletes. They have yet to embark upon a profession.

 

[TC4THREE]

I work for a company that is all about a brand as well, but I am paid for my contribution is support of that brand based on market demand for my services.

And college players are compensated for their services too.

Also, I'd be willing to bet that the owner(s) of your company make a bunch of money off of your labor as well. That's the entire idea. They give you a platform where your labor provides value above and beyond what it costs them to employ you. That's not exploitation.

 

[Purdue85]

I understand the difference, but I don’t understand the ultimate rationale.

Rationale of what? Of professional coaches being paid a salary, while amateur athletes are not?

 

[BoilerDaddy]

Rationale of what? Of professional coaches being paid a salary, while amateur athletes are not?

Essentially, holding up amateurism as some noble ideal when other people are getting rich off of it. Logically, it feels inconsistent to me. I am not saying that my arguments are bullet proof or anything, but to me it seems like a system that prevents the top athletes from being compensated what the market would pay them if not for the rules in place. I am not saying that I would prefer athletes to be paid, but it goes against my free market tendencies.

 

[Purdue85]

Essentially, holding up amateurism as some noble ideal when other people are getting rich off of it. Logically, it feels inconsistent to me. I am not saying that my arguments are bullet proof or anything, but to me it seems like a system that prevents the top athletes from being compensated what the market would pay them if not for the rules in place. I am not saying that I would prefer athletes to be paid, but it goes against my free market tendencies.

wow. Who's "getting rich off it"? Brohm? He's working his @ss off. I'm guessing you didn't interview for the job. I didn't. Don't want it! Bobinski? Ditto! (Have you seen how people here treat administrators? Ha!)

Back to the point: The purpose of the scholarship is that the athletic participation is a vehicle to a college education. That's not their profession.

Georgetown University puts the value of a college education at $2.8 MILLION. Now, that's just the value of an education, maybe it's safe to say, the average. I'm not a betting man, but I'd guess it's pretty good odds the value of a Purdue education is much higher.

What are all the other perks worth?

People seem to have gotten the concept turned on it's head. Players are playing as a means to an education. Period. That's not the purpose. Sure, maybe some have their priorities screwed up, but most are not going to be going into professional athletics. It's a pretty simple concept, and one that's stood the test of time.

 

[Purdue85]

Essentially, holding up amateurism as some noble ideal when other people are getting rich off of it. Logically, it feels inconsistent to me. I am not saying that my arguments are bullet proof or anything, but to me it seems like a system that prevents the top athletes from being compensated what the market would pay them if not for the rules in place. I am not saying that I would prefer athletes to be paid, but it goes against my free market tendencies.

I'll follow up with one more thought that immediately comes to mind.

I agree with you: I'm a free market capitalist to the core. But, college athletics doesn't fit that business model. In college athletics it's essential to eliminate as much of the corruption as possible. With the recent bombshells in college BB, that should provide all the evidence necessary why amateur players aren't paid!

 

[BoilerDaddy]

I'll follow up with one more thought that immediately comes to mind.

I agree with you: I'm a free market capitalist to the core. But, college athletics doesn't fit that business model. In college athletics it's essential to eliminate as much of the corruption as possible. With the recent bombshells in college BB, that should provide all the evidence necessary why amateur players aren't paid!

Does the current system minimize corruption or encourage it? To me, it encourages all kinds of third parties to get involved with compensating players, whether bag men, shoe companies, or street agents.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

wow. Who's "getting rich off it"? Brohm? He's working his @ss off. I'm guessing you didn't interview for the job. I didn't. Don't want it! Bobinski? Ditto! (Have you seen how people here treat administrators? Ha!)

Back to the point: The purpose of the scholarship is that the athletic participation is a vehicle to a college education. That's not their profession.

Georgetown University puts the value of a college education at $2.8 MILLION. Now, that's just the value of an education, maybe it's safe to say, the average. I'm not a betting man, but I'd guess it's pretty good odds the value of a Purdue education is much higher.

What are all the other perks worth?

People seem to have gotten the concept turned on it's head. Players are playing as a means to an education. Period. That's not the purpose. Sure, maybe some have their priorities screwed up, but most are not going to be going into professional athletics. It's a pretty simple concept, and one that's stood the test of time.

The market does not charge $2.8 million for a college education. A solid degree costs between $80k and $250k, normally.

 

[Mandeville LA]

Lot of good thoughts. Let me know when you guys figure it out.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

Lot of good thoughts. Let me know when you guys figure it out.

Haha. I never will. I really don’t like the implications of paying players.

 

[snowsquirrel11]

The inequality in other industries is most driven by the market. The inequality in college sports is driven by the rules.

Does it matter what drives it?

 

[Inspector100]

Lot of good thoughts. Let me know when you guys figure it out.

Just prepared another bowl of popcorn. Now, where is that beer I just opened?

 

[Purdue85]

The market does not charge $2.8 million for a college education. A solid degree costs between $80k and $250k, normally.

No, you didn't read what I wrote.

That's the VALUE of a college degree. You think the value of your college degree stopped the day you picked up that piece of parchment with the fancy writing?!

 

[AZBoilerFan]

The market does not charge $2.8 million for a college education. A solid degree costs between $80k and $250k, normally.

BD, what they mean is that a degree from that school will generate that person, on average, 2.8 million over the course of their lives. They are getting a free education for which others pay.

 

[Purdue85]

Does the current system minimize corruption or encourage it? To me, it encourages all kinds of third parties to get involved with compensating players, whether bag men, shoe companies, or street agents.

Well, if you want more corruption, introduce more MONEY!

 

[Purdue85]

Haha. I never will. I really don’t like the implications of paying players.

Good! That's a good starting point!

 

[Purdue85]

BD, what they mean is that a degree from that school will generate that person, on average, 2.8 million over the course of their lives. They are getting a free education for which others pay.

AZ gets it.

And even that $2.8M doesn't include everything.

What's the value of their playing package? The travel? The hotels, meals, touring? The life experiences?

And, something impossible to put a dollar amount on, the ego that's fed by adoring fans?

 

[BoilerDaddy]

No, you didn't read what I wrote.

That's the VALUE of a college degree. You think the value of your college degree stopped the day you picked up that piece of parchment with the fancy writing?!

That’s not how capitalism works. The life time earnings is not relevant. Nobody pays $2.8 million for a college education. That’s like saying that the value of a bond is the sum of it’s yields over its lifetime as opposed to the market price today. The value is what it is selling for today.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

BD, what they mean is that a degree from that school will generate that person, on average, 2.8 million over the course of their lives. They are getting a free education for which others pay.

I totally understand it and it’s not relevant to what the value of a scholarship is.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

Good! That's a good starting point!

At this point I am just going to agree to disagree. I really don’t care that much one way or another, but just think that the current system is a bit irrational.

 

[Purdue85]

I totally understand it and it’s not relevant to what the value of a scholarship is.

Well, if we're engaging in a discussion/debate about some "inequality", the value of said education (i.e., the entire reason said student/athlete is in college) is absolutely relevant!

 

[Purdue85]

At this point I am just going to agree to disagree. I really don’t care that much one way or another, but just think that the current system is a bit irrational.

Okay, but it seems you're pretty passionate for one that doesn't care one way or another.

And, in the debate of paying players, introducing even more money, into a system being corrupted by illegal payments, also seems quite irrational.

I get where you're coming from, but the solution of paying players sounds more like a "feel good" proposal than one with merit.

 

[BoilerBiker]

People seem to have gotten the concept turned on it's head. Players are playing as a means to an education. Period. That's not the purpose. Sure, maybe some have their priorities screwed up, but most are not going to be going into professional athletics. It's a pretty simple concept, and one that's stood the test of time.

im not in the pay for play camp,
but i think that is primarily only true for the non revenue sports. I think a majority of guys going into power 5 conference football and basketball have aspirations of playing pro. especially basketball when i think of some of our former guys like keifer, ware, mcknight, dillon who could even play a few years of pro ball overseas.

I really don’t care that much one way or another, but just think that the current system is a bit irrational.

I think i may be in a similar boat.
while the pay disparity may even reflect that of other industries/corporate america, having coaches make multiple times the money of professors and administration, just seems counter to the preached message of student before athlete, academics before athletics.

 

[BoilerDeac]

As usual people can't read and misunderstand my words.....my point being not all kids get the opportunity to play sports on scholarship to advance their skillset or dreams.

I never mentioned or meant they weren't deserving or didn't work hard to achieve the opportunity, I am sure they all did and kudos to them.

So go pick a fight elsewhere Deac.......

Lmao picking a fight? Which of my words were fighting words? Just because we have different opinions doesn’t mean I was trying to instigate anything.

 

[westegg86]

Players should get a 401k.

 

[TC4THREE]

Players should get a 401k.

I don't think there are any rules that disallow a player from having one.

 

[AZBoilerFan]

I need to find something to do. The NFL is 20 years from expiring (Major CTE trouble) and I am not exagerrating. I was counting on College Hoops if I live that long. I really can't stand the NBA and if NCAA Fooball is gone.....

 

[32zone]

At this point I am just going to agree to disagree. I really don’t care that much one way or another, but just think that the current system is a bit irrational.

If the players think they are not being compensated fairly then they are free to sign a professional contract overseas (basketball) or not play at all and pay for their education like everyone else.

 

[BoilerJS]

True, but athletes are prohibited from being paid the going rate. Why doesn’t the going rate apply to them as well?

They don't have to play college ball, play professionally. The market there dictates what they will earn.
By going to college they get: room, board, stipend, tuition, perks, tutors and a ton of exposure.

 

[70boiler]

Editing this to shorten a bit

...If...players were worth what (is claimed), there would be a successful minor league alternative... (T)hat there isn't tell(s),,, the value in college athletics is... in the brands... If people just wanted to watch the best non-NBA players available, they would watch ... the NBA minor league ...(T)hat nobody watches... tell (s)... about the value of the brands and the NCAA platform as opposed to individual players.

This speaks volumes.

 

[Boilersss]

Where does the money come from to pay players? Last year the football team only had a 1.7 million dollar profit. That 1.7 million is needed for all the non profit sports at Purdue. If you want to cut Brohm's salary to pay athletes, it will result in him leaving. Everything is fine with how it is now. No need for any changes other than revoking the one and done rule in college basketball.

 

[70boiler]

...No need for any changes other than revoking the one and done rule in college basketball.

Isn't that an NBA rule?

 

[Boilersss]

Isn't that an NBA rule?

Yes it is.

 

[70boiler]

Isn't that an NBA rule?

A possible fix I mentioned before-
NCAA scholarship contracts could include an early leaving penalty where athlete must pay decreasing percentage (50/35/15%) of professional sport contracts, including bonuses, to scholarship granting school for each year early in leaving college system.

 

[70boiler]

In other words, don't go to college if you really don't want to be there.

 

[Wolegib]

two points.

When I attended Purdue, I ate a lot of popcorn. the popcorn was free. there was some guy doing research on making almost every kernel pop. and he would put the popcorn in a trash can outside his lab in the life science building. I found out later that guy with the glasses was actually Orville Redenbacher. he used Purdue research facilities to make his popping corn. As somebody who ate his pop corn, I feel I was part of his experiments. Should I be entitled to receive a monetary stipend from him because I contributed to his Purdue research?

I also worked for a biology professor who was doing research on limb regeneration. She did research on chickens in their embryo stage and newts. Her research was geared at paving the way for potential human tissue regrowth. Should I receive monetary compensation for her efforts?

My mother in law worked for a cancer research lab at Purdue. Should she be entitled to receive the grants their research received?