LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Mar 31, 2021 11:32:07 GMT -5
Then you will have to see a salary cap too, which would equalize things for the non blue bloods. And then title IX would require that the women's team is compensated with the exact same salary which would eat into the men's salary. DELETED - INAPPROPRIATE HERE. That is easily the most Editeded up thing ever posted here. Do you really believe that young men are going to pretend they are women just to get paid a little extra and enjoy a little better success? You think they will go through all the therapy and even surgery on a whim to chase 4 years of college glory? Has their been one documented case of such abuse of transgender protections? Sorry, you are a valued member of this board, but that is just a) stupid, b) cruel to actual transgender athletes who deserve an opportunity to compete in the division most appropriate for them and c) dumb to think a cis male would abuse the system to "act" female and gain advantage. Please retract this bizarre and utterly unfounded suggestion. crickets from professorhoya on this one. not sure it's worth engaging in any debates with a person who says things like that.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 31, 2021 12:00:27 GMT -5
That is easily the most Editeded up thing ever posted here. Do you really believe that young men are going to pretend they are women just to get paid a little extra and enjoy a little better success? You think they will go through all the therapy and even surgery on a whim to chase 4 years of college glory? Has their been one documented case of such abuse of transgender protections? Sorry, you are a valued member of this board, but that is just a) stupid, b) cruel to actual transgender athletes who deserve an opportunity to compete in the division most appropriate for them and c) dumb to think a cis male would abuse the system to "act" female and gain advantage. Please retract this bizarre and utterly unfounded suggestion. crickets from professorhoya on this one. not sure it's worth engaging in any debates with a person who says things like that. What's wrong. You okay? MODERATOR NOTE: what was wrong was the last sentence in your post that does not belong on this message board and has been deleted.
|
|
hoyaguy
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,842
|
Post by hoyaguy on Mar 31, 2021 12:08:07 GMT -5
I don’t know if anyone covered this but I don’t really mind paying the players on the surface. However the game is so sloped with all the power being in Blue bloods and high majors (except for this year ofc) who spend millions a year while mid majors and lows can’t. Unless there is a salary cap that is really really low then it would completely kill any real reason for a great prospect to go to a lower than high major team because they can pay him more to just give them another reason to accept their offer, it wouldn’t shock me if they didn’t cap it since the NCAA would take the chance to make sure the brand names stay and get stronger for their sake
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,833
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 31, 2021 12:08:49 GMT -5
Where would his success be without the players though? We've already discussed this. Nobody cares about the G League. It's an inferior league to the NBA. same with Triple AAA baseball or minor league hockey or XFL. These are all pay pro leagues the big difference between these inferior leagues and the NCAA is the school/alumni loyalty. As long as there is some level of parity, you could have lesser players (which the NCAA has anyway since NBA players are miles better) and the NCAA game would still be popular because of that school/alumni loyalty and connection. By your definition it's inferior but the folks shelling out multi million dollar tv contracts don't think it's inferior right? Seems to me the market determines what's superior or inferior...
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 31, 2021 12:16:25 GMT -5
I don’t know if anyone covered this but I don’t really mind paying the players on the surface. However the game is so sloped with all the power being in Blue bloods and high majors (except for this year ofc) who spend millions a year while mid majors and lows can’t. Unless there is a salary cap that is really really low then it would completely kill any real reason for a great prospect to go to a lower than high major team because they can pay him more to just give them another reason to accept their offer, it wouldn’t shock me if they didn’t cap it since the NCAA would take the chance to make sure the brand names stay and get stronger for their sake Any pay system actually would favor us, because now it would put us on an equal playing field since we could pay. Two, if there's a cap that helps us too because right now there is no cap, and the reality is some schools are paying. I think the pay would be the same across the board for all athletes though. The only variability would be maybe in the likeness area. If a 5 star wanted to make more than that base rate they would probably be encouraged to go G league select ($200K plus education and expenses)
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,730
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Mar 31, 2021 12:20:37 GMT -5
Any pay system actually would favor us, because now it would put us on an equal playing field since we could pay. Not happening. I haven't met any alumni who think the University is getting into that game.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 31, 2021 12:21:48 GMT -5
Any pay system actually would favor us, because now it would put us on an equal playing field since we could pay. Not happening. I haven't met any alumni who think the University is getting into that game. We're talking about if the NCAA goes to a pay system for the players.
|
|
kbones17
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,186
|
Post by kbones17 on Mar 31, 2021 12:46:57 GMT -5
Not happening. I haven't met any alumni who think the University is getting into that game. We're talking about if the NCAA goes to a pay system for the players. Any pay system (nominal pay not based ability) won’t solve the problem and those who are paying under the table will continue to do so. Not saying it shouldn’t be done, but it won’t suddenly magically make it an even playing field.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2021 12:56:16 GMT -5
That is easily the most Editeded up thing ever posted here. Do you really believe that young men are going to pretend they are women just to get paid a little extra and enjoy a little better success? You think they will go through all the therapy and even surgery on a whim to chase 4 years of college glory? Has their been one documented case of such abuse of transgender protections? Sorry, you are a valued member of this board, but that is just a) stupid, b) cruel to actual transgender athletes who deserve an opportunity to compete in the division most appropriate for them and c) dumb to think a cis male would abuse the system to "act" female and gain advantage. Please retract this bizarre and utterly unfounded suggestion. crickets from professorhoya on this one. not sure it's worth engaging in any debates with a person who says things like that. Apparently you can say whatever the Edited you want on this board as long as you don't Editeding curse. What a load of . See^
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 31, 2021 13:02:24 GMT -5
With regard to coaches, I definitely think it's fair to say they often get a huge part of the pie. In fact, TV deals like the Big East has with Fox Sports 1 are a major, if not the major reason, why schools like Marquette, Georgetown, etc. can afford higher priced coaches. But, it's really an apples to oranges thing.
There is only one coach. That coach is basically the CEO of the program. The coach is a personification of everything the program is, aspires to be, and accordingly, the coach brings a lot of value to a program. This is evident for a lot of coaches out there - Coach K, Bill Self, Jay Wright, Mark Few, even Calipari - they are more than simply an X's and O's coach, they represent a lineage of excellence, and achieving that is rare. I know I have made this point in the past, but finding a good, high quality coach is REALLY HARD. There just aren't that many, which is why when a school like Texas runs off someone like Rick Barnes, it is kind of insanity. This is why they make so much money. Great coaches are way more rare than great players.
That said, are there wildly overpaid college coaches? Of course. There are definitely guys who make millions and stink. They usually are eventually fired after a little while, but there are mediocre guys who somehow stick around for years and bounce among a variety of schools (paging Leitao).
My point being is that you simply cannot compare coaches, who truly are singular individuals responsible for way more than players, to a single player.
Again, for the record, I am NOT saying players should not get paid. I just think the coaching comparison is not really apt. In a true free market/demand system, (a) good coaches would still make a ton, (b) guys like Zion Williamson would make a lot, and (c) everyone else would get mediocre to de minimus amounts of money, that likely would be well under the value of their scholarships.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2021 13:07:13 GMT -5
Universities are already in the pay system for college sports. The universities get paid a ton off the student athlete and yet, they give the student athlete no compensation! Anybody that says the student gets a degree or an education should know that the student athlete is getting way underpaid if the degree/education should be the compensation. Most kids don't even get their degree and even if they did achieve getting their degree, they are still waaaaay underpaid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2021 13:12:10 GMT -5
With regard to coaches, I definitely think it's fair to say they often get a huge part of the pie. In fact, TV deals like the Big East has with Fox Sports 1 are a major, if not the major reason, why schools like Marquette, Georgetown, etc. can afford higher priced coaches. But, it's really an apples to oranges thing. There is only one coach. That coach is basically the CEO of the program. The coach is a personification of everything the program is, aspires to be, and accordingly, the coach brings a lot of value to a program. This is evident for a lot of coaches out there - Coach K, Bill Self, Jay Wright, Mark Few, even Calipari - they are more than simply an X's and O's coach, they represent a lineage of excellence, and achieving that is rare. I know I have made this point in the past, but finding a good, high quality coach is REALLY HARD. There just aren't that many, which is why when a school like Texas runs off someone like Rick Barnes, it is kind of insanity. This is why they make so much money. Great coaches are way more rare than great players. That said, are there wildly overpaid college coaches? Of course. There are definitely guys who make millions and stink. They usually are eventually fired after a little while, but there are mediocre guys who somehow stick around for years and bounce among a variety of schools (paging Leitao). My point being is that you simply cannot compare coaches, who truly are singular individuals responsible for way more than players, to a single player. Again, for the record, I am NOT saying players should not get paid. I just think the coaching comparison is not really apt. In a true free market/demand system, (a) good coaches would still make a ton, (b) guys like Zion Williamson would make a lot, and (c) everyone else would get mediocre to de minimus amounts of money, that likely would be well under the value of their scholarships. You guys are saying it's fair to compare the NCAA to the Gleague but asking why having a built in fan base is used as an excuse to not pay players when coaches benefit from the same system is an apples to oranges comparison? Do you think these guys coached their way to sustained success, or did they do it on the back of their players? Mike Woodson just got hired for 3 million. Avery Johnson got 3 million per over 6 years. Multi million dollar deals are being handed out all the time to coaches with no real record of sustained success at this level. Multi million dollar deals are the norm at HM schools. That's the market.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2021 13:21:26 GMT -5
Universities are already in the pay system for college sports. The universities get paid a ton off the student athlete and yet, they give the student athlete no compensation! Anybody that says the student gets a degree or an education should know that the student athlete is getting way underpaid if the degree/education should be the compensation. Most kids don't even get their degree and even if they did achieve getting their degree, they are still waaaaay underpaid. Schools care so much about educating these kids that as soon as they're not of value to them on the field they encourage them to transfer to another school.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2021 13:32:56 GMT -5
Universities are already in the pay system for college sports. The universities get paid a ton off the student athlete and yet, they give the student athlete no compensation! Anybody that says the student gets a degree or an education should know that the student athlete is getting way underpaid if the degree/education should be the compensation. Most kids don't even get their degree and even if they did achieve getting their degree, they are still waaaaay underpaid. Schools care so much about educating these kids that as soon as they're not of value to them on the field they encourage them to transfer to another school. Very very very good point!
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 31, 2021 14:06:49 GMT -5
Universities are already in the pay system for college sports. The universities get paid a ton off the student athlete and yet, they give the student athlete no compensation! Anybody that says the student gets a degree or an education should know that the student athlete is getting way underpaid if the degree/education should be the compensation. Most kids don't even get their degree and even if they did achieve getting their degree, they are still waaaaay underpaid. There are 357 Division I programs, and at 13 scholarships a piece, that's 4,641 athletes in men's basketball alone. How much do you think they should be paid? A few years ago, schools got back about $600 million in revenue from the NCAA tournament. Obviously, programs have a lot of costs, let's say you're left with $300 million. Split equally among the athletes, that's $64,641.24 a player, and that ignores the fact that much of the $600 million that goes back to schools goes to non-revenue sports and women's sports, so the actual amount leftover from the $600 million is probably way less than I am projecting. As I see it, you need to do one of a few things if you're going to pay players: (1) Give all Division I basketball players a stipend/flat rate. This simply is not going to be a lot of money, for the reasons described above. (2) Allow a free market, which would basically turn it into professionals sports. The very top/rich programs would get all the good players, mid majors would be eviscerated, and a few guys would get a lot of money and everyone else (most of the 4,641 or so athletes) would get almost nothing. Schools like Texas would happily dole out money for recruits, but Georgetown would never do that, and a lot of other programs would not either. (3) Some hybrid of the above, such as giving a stipend, but letting guys make individual deals, etc. No matter how it's done, it's an extremely difficult problem to deal with, and very difficult to "solve" in any meaningful way. But, I think a lot of people who say players are underpaid think there is more money than there is. And, I think it's silly to say scholarships should count for nothing. No, it's not compensation, but it sure is value. It is up to the player to decide if he or she is going to use that. As far as "most kids don't even get their degree," there should be NCAA stats on that. I would be shocked, however, if a majority do not get their degree. Sure, 5 stars and NBA-bound guys don't but that's a tiny minority of the player pool. (EDIT: I found an NCAA report, and 84% of men's basketball players graduate.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2021 14:12:08 GMT -5
Universities are already in the pay system for college sports. The universities get paid a ton off the student athlete and yet, they give the student athlete no compensation! Anybody that says the student gets a degree or an education should know that the student athlete is getting way underpaid if the degree/education should be the compensation. Most kids don't even get their degree and even if they did achieve getting their degree, they are still waaaaay underpaid. There are 357 Division I programs, and at 13 scholarships a piece, that's 4,641 athletes in men's basketball alone. How much do you think they should be paid? A few years ago, schools got back about $600 million in revenue from the NCAA tournament. Obviously, programs have a lot of costs, let's say you're left with $300 million. Split equally among the athletes, that's $64,641.24 a player, and that ignores the fact that much of the $600 million that goes back to schools goes to non-revenue sports and women's sports, so the actual amount leftover from the $600 million is probably way less than I am projecting. As I see it, you need to do one of a few things if you're going to pay players: (1) Give all Division I basketball players a stipend/flat rate. This simply is not going to be a lot of money, for the reasons described above. (2) Allow a free market, which would basically turn it into professionals sports. The very top/rich programs would get all the good players, mid majors would be eviscerated, and a few guys would get a lot of money and everyone else (most of the 4,641 or so athletes) would get almost nothing. Schools like Texas would happily dole out money for recruits, but Georgetown would never do that, and a lot of other programs would not either. (3) Some hybrid of the above, such as giving a stipend, but letting guys make individual deals, etc. No matter how it's done, it's an extremely difficult problem to deal with, and very difficult to "solve" in any meaningful way. But, I think a lot of people who say players are underpaid think there is more money than there is. And, I think it's silly to say scholarships should count for nothing. No, it's not compensation, but it sure is value. It is up to the player to decide if he or she is going to use that. As far as "most kids don't even get their degree," there should be NCAA stats on that. I would be shocked, however, if a majority do not get their degree. Sure, 5 stars and NBA-bound guys don't but that's a tiny minority of the player pool. What cost are you talking about? Are you talking about cost to run a team??
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 31, 2021 14:14:15 GMT -5
What cost are you talking about? Are you talking about cost to run a team?? The revenue that schools like Georgetown get not only pay for the cost of basketball, but also all the other sports programs they have that bring in no or very little revenue. So, it's not just costs of the team. And, they need to pay for women's sports too. In a fictional world where basketball (and football) programs could keep all the money they bring in, I would agree with you that there would be a lot of money to go around. But, that's not how it works in reality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2021 14:16:33 GMT -5
What cost are you talking about? Are you talking about cost to run a team?? The revenue that schools like Georgetown get not only pay for the cost of basketball, but also all the other sports programs they have that bring in no or very little revenue. So, it's not just costs of the team. And, they need to pay for women's sports too. In a fictional world where basketball (and football) programs could keep all the money they bring in, I would agree with you that there would be a lot of money to go around. But, that's not how it works in reality. No you can't do it like that. That wouldn't be fair to the programs that bring in the money such as the basketball program/team. You think the volleyball team should be on par with the basketball team in regards to how we access cost and revenue? No, we shouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 31, 2021 14:16:42 GMT -5
Universities are already in the pay system for college sports. The universities get paid a ton off the student athlete and yet, they give the student athlete no compensation! Anybody that says the student gets a degree or an education should know that the student athlete is getting way underpaid if the degree/education should be the compensation. Most kids don't even get their degree and even if they did achieve getting their degree, they are still waaaaay underpaid. There are 357 Division I programs, and at 13 scholarships a piece, that's 4,641 athletes in men's basketball alone. How much do you think they should be paid? A few years ago, schools got back about $600 million in revenue from the NCAA tournament. Obviously, programs have a lot of costs, let's say you're left with $300 million. Split equally among the athletes, that's $64,641.24 a player, and that ignores the fact that much of the $600 million that goes back to schools goes to non-revenue sports and women's sports, so the actual amount leftover from the $600 million is probably way less than I am projecting. As I see it, you need to do one of a few things if you're going to pay players: (1) Give all Division I basketball players a stipend/flat rate. This simply is not going to be a lot of money, for the reasons described above. (2) Allow a free market, which would basically turn it into professionals sports. The very top/rich programs would get all the good players, mid majors would be eviscerated, and a few guys would get a lot of money and everyone else (most of the 4,641 or so athletes) would get almost nothing. Schools like Texas would happily dole out money for recruits, but Georgetown would never do that, and a lot of other programs would not either. (3) Some hybrid of the above, such as giving a stipend, but letting guys make individual deals, etc. No matter how it's done, it's an extremely difficult problem to deal with, and very difficult to "solve" in any meaningful way. But, I think a lot of people who say players are underpaid think there is more money than there is. And, I think it's silly to say scholarships should count for nothing. No, it's not compensation, but it sure is value. It is up to the player to decide if he or she is going to use that. As far as "most kids don't even get their degree," there should be NCAA stats on that. I would be shocked, however, if a majority do not get their degree. Sure, 5 stars and NBA-bound guys don't but that's a tiny minority of the player pool. 87% of Division I men's basketball players graduated within four years (as of 2020). So, the vast majority of players get their degree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2021 14:18:04 GMT -5
What cost are you talking about? Are you talking about cost to run a team?? The revenue that schools like Georgetown get not only pay for the cost of basketball, but also all the other sports programs they have that bring in no or very little revenue. So, it's not just costs of the team. And, they need to pay for women's sports too. In a fictional world where basketball (and football) programs could keep all the money they bring in, I would agree with you that there would be a lot of money to go around. But, that's not how it works in reality. How do LM, D2, and DIII schools pay for these sports?
|
|