Memphis targeting Tubby Smith

[NickZepp]

I'm all for paying players. I say, take away scholarships and free room and board and trainers and so on.

Pay them a contract.

And from the money from the contract, they can pay for their own room and board, tuition, books, gym membership, and so on. They can pay taxes from it to.

Tuition is only running $10,000 for residents for 30 hours and $23,000 for non-residents per 30 hours. Plus rent, plus food, plus books for 4 years.

Let's see which life the kids end up choosing.

Getting rid of scholarships is a way to go but problem is it's not set up well for schools getting less money.

 

[WTSooner]

I don't see where the $8.8 billion was first brought up, but somebody clearly doesn't understand the difference between revenues and net income.

 

[garyeb2]

College players are minor leaguers. Minor league players don't make all that much in any sport. They are being compensated about right. If they want to be payed like big leaguers, treat them like big league players. Draft them, trade them, and if they don't work out, cut them.

 

[Max Power]

College players are minor leaguers. Minor league players don't make all that much in any sport. They are being compensated about right. If they want to be payed like big leaguers, treat them like big league players. Draft them, trade them, and if they don't work out, cut them.

Show me a minor league with Billion Dollar TV contracts

 

[SoonerBounce13]

somebody in this thread has an ax to grind for some reason.

If a kid doesn't like the benefits that he sees from playing college athletics, nothing is stopping him/her from leaving. You make this out to be some type of sweat shop

 

[SilliSooner]

most basketball programs nation wide LOSE money ... that 8.8 bill is split between 347schools and makes up almost the entire budget of the NCAA ...

Whoa, where'd that $ 8.8 billion figure come from? CBS and TNT signed a 14 year contract paying $ 771 million per year. Somebody who read an $ 8.8 billion figure and decided it was for one year is stretching pretty strong.

All this calculating that Max Power was doing trying to show how much each school is earning off each player is a huge exaggeration. The CBS and TNT TV income doesn't cover the coaches and assistant coaches salaries at most schools. Yes, schools have other revenue streams but still the cost per student athlete per school is pretty high when you consider tuition, books, R & B, tutors, and travel. Even at the low tuition schools it approaches 60-80K per year per student athlete. I don't believe the non TV sources of revenue are enough to greatly increase athlete compensation without even more schools having to shutter programs.

 

[sheepdogs1]

Now Tubby gets to coach against the school which gave him his first job as a head coach (speaking of Tulsa).

 

[sperry]

The thing that cracks me up is that most of the people who don't want the college athletes to be able to demand their fair market value would scream the virtues of capitalism until they were blue in the face in any other venue.

 

[SilliSooner]

The thing that cracks me up is that most of the people who don't want the college athletes to be able to demand their fair market value would scream the virtues of capitalism until they were blue in the face in any other venue.

I'm a capitalist but also a realist:

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/dec/22/jim-moran/moran-says-only-20-colleges-make-profit-sports/

From the above article:

Only two sports were profitable at FBS schools, according to the report. Football programs netted a median profit of slightly more than $3 million and men’s basketball netted a median $340,000. But the profits at most schools quickly vanished after paying for a long list of other intercollegiate teams, all of which lose money. The median loss among of athletic departments was $11.6 million.

Here are some other findings from the NCAA report:

Median revenues generated by athletic departments increased by 3.2 percent from 2012 to 2013, while expenses went up 10.6 percent;
Of the 20 schools that made money, the median profit was $8.4 million;
Of the 103 schools that lost money, the median deficit was $14.9 million;
The highest total revenues generated by an athletic department was $169.7 million;
The highest total expenses by an athletic department was $146.8 million.

According to the report, all athletic departments outside of the FBS operate in the red. In other words, only 20 of the 1,083 college sports programs in the nation are profitable.

 

[WTSooner]

The thing that cracks me up is that most of the people who don't want the college athletes to be able to demand their fair market value would scream the virtues of capitalism until they were blue in the face in any other venue.

It has to do entirely with the fact that college athletes are supposed to be AMATEUR athletes, IMO. That, and I consider their scholarship compensation enough. Most of those guys wouldn't sniff college if not for athletics. Most won't be sports professionally, thus they are getting a free college education which should help them land employment that they might not otherwise have a shot at.

 

[SilliSooner]

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/18/news/companies/basketball_profits/

 

[skyvue]

All the fuss over money make pro sports less appealing today than ever. Salaries, hold-outs, free agents -- that's all that gets discussed. Why anyone would wish to bring that culture to collegiate athletics, I cannot fathom.

 

[SilliSooner]

Even with the $ 2 million average per school the NCAA got from the CBS contract most schools will still lose money. It takes huge amounts of donations for most schools to stay afloat.

For instance, OSU's athletic revenues included for one year $ 54 million in donations. Even with the donations, mostly from Boone Pickens, the athletic department barely made money. If you start paying athletes at substantial sums above their scholarships do you think donations will come in at the same rates?

Football, men's and women's basketball, gymnastics, swimming, tennis, golf, track and field, wrestling, lacrosse, soccer, baseball and softball means 300 kids or more might be on scholarship at the bigger schools. At schools like Duke where the tuition, books room and board exceed $ 55K, the athlete cost alone can be over $ 16 million.

Bob King, when he was financial athletic director under Steve Owens used to say the athletic department paid the tuition money to whatever school department the student declared as a major at the instate or out of state rate, depending.

If you paid money to the athletes whose sport were generating profits and didn't pay the same money to kids in the non revenue generating sports you'd tear the whole college system apart. And for 95% of the schools they'd go out of business if they had to pay the same money as Alabama or Ohio State.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

The thing that cracks me up is that most of the people who don't want the college athletes to be able to demand their fair market value would scream the virtues of capitalism until they were blue in the face in any other venue.

thisv post is ironic

 

[StatGeek]

The thing that cracks me up is that most of the people who don't want the college athletes to be able to demand their fair market value would scream the virtues of capitalism until they were blue in the face in any other venue.

What a dump and unfounded post. Please try harder.

On a related note: What cracks me up is that most of the people who want college athletes to "demand fair market value" would scream the virtues of socialism until they were blue in the face if it were an actual business.

See how dumb that was, congrats.

If a basketball player wants to get paid there are endless options available to them. The simple fact is that collegiate basketball provides 99.9999% of the players FAR more benefits than their basketball skills demand. The other 0.0001% still overwhelming choose college basketball over professional leagues because of the exposure, these players like Ben Simmons understand that they can make more money for a given year professionally but the net result may be a negative in terms of NBA draft position/contract. I hope my two boys can be "exploited" by OU or Stanford.

 

[sheepdogs1]

All the fuss over money make pro sports less appealing today than ever. Salaries, hold-outs, free agents -- that's all that gets discussed. Why anyone would wish to bring that culture to collegiate athletics, I cannot fathom.

And then the next step will be high school athletics, with pee wee football soon to follow. It's amazing how many people are for bastardizing everything humanly possible!

 

[sperry]

What a dump and unfounded post. Please try harder.

On a related note: What cracks me up is that most of the people who want college athletes to "demand fair market value" would scream the virtues of socialism until they were blue in the face if it were an actual business.

See how dumb that was, congrats.

If a basketball player wants to get paid there are endless options available to them. The simple fact is that collegiate basketball provides 99.9999% of the players FAR more benefits than their basketball skills demand. The other 0.0001% still overwhelming choose college basketball over professional leagues because of the exposure, these players like Ben Simmons understand that they can make more money for a given year professionally but the net result may be a negative in terms of NBA draft position/contract. I hope my two boys can be "exploited" by OU or Stanford.

Would you do your job for a fraction of market value?

 

[hoopsaustin]

Would you do your job for a fraction of market value?

They don't have a job..... it's college

If they wanna job they are free to do that or go play overseas..

Your poor bleeding heart

 

[bgrch1350]

They don't have a job..... it's college

If they wanna job they are free to do that or go play overseas..

Your poor bleeding heart

Don't scholarship kids get free medical?

 

[chuckb]

Most of these arguments about money in collegiate athletics seem to pretend that collegiate athletics isn't already a multi-billion dollar business already. People have a problem with the athletes who earn the money receiving any of it but have no problem with the coaches, the university athletic departments, the NCAA, the conferences, and ESPN getting their millions.

There would be no money for any of those people or institutions without the contribution the athletes make to the game. But, for some reason, so many find it objectionable for the athletes to see any of it. Often the justification is that allowing them to get some of the money they earn would "taint" collegiate athletics. It shouldn't be about money. That's denial. It's already about money.

If we're really going to argue free markets vs regulatory interference, we need to recognize that, if we really care about free markets, the NCAA would remove restrictions on players' ability to earn and let them earn what they can. If you don't want to do that, that's fine, but let's not pretend that the NCAA, as it functions now, acts in a manner consistent with capitalist free market principles. It's quite the opposite.